Shared Source vs. Open Source: Panel Discussion
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Audience member:
I have a question for Craig. You spoke of the
software ecosystem, and as Tim and Mitchell pointed out, in the
traditional software market, you're a cash cow and [in] the business of
most of those of us in the room, you have an overwhelmingly dominant
position. And as Microsoft goes forward in trying times, it's
difficult to maintain annual growth and revenue of 15 or 20 percent.
And we all know that exponential growth has its limits. In the
interest of the software ecosystem — and I'm speaking now of the
traditional market — is it time for Microsoft to declare not
zero population growth but zero revenue growth?
Craig:
Well, I don't think so. [laughter] I mean, our
fiduciary responsibility to shareholders pretty much would preclude
that. Our job in our publicly held company is to in fact provide
return to the shareholder. That is the end job.
Audience member:
Do you also have a responsibility to the ecosystem?
Craig:
Well, absolutely. Sure. I mean Microsoft tries to
be a good corporate citizen. I personally spend a lot of my time
involved in a lot of issues, including critical infrastructure
protection for this country. Okay? And many other things that have
little to do with the direct business of Microsoft. And so people at
a personal level and at a corporate level really do try to step up
and deal with some of these issues that people think are an issue of
corporate responsibility.
Tim:
Next question.
Mark Vercallo:
Yes. I'm Mark Vercallo with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
[applause] I'm just a sysadmin [laughter, whoops, approving
applause]. One of the issues that concerns me is that we're in a more
monolithic society. We have a monolithic press. We have a monolithic
government of cookie-cutter politicians. The oil companies, the gas
companies, the electricity companies, have us under their thumb. And
the only thing that seems free anymore is the free software, the free
Internet, the free speech community. Now, in that battle, the way I
see it is that your community has taken a hostage in one of the
members of our community and that Dmitry is still in jail at
this time. And I want to know how Microsoft feels about the
enforcement of the DMCA, whether or
not that you are going to continue to take hostages in our community
for free speech, free expression, and putting people in jail for open
source and speaking their — using code as a form of free speech.
[applause]
Craig:
I suggest you address your question to Adobe.
[applause]
Audience member [off-mike, shouting]:
Did Microsoft lobby for the DMCA?
Craig:
We talk to people all the time. [groans of disbelief]
Right now the DMCA is what it is. It's the law of the land. All right? So we and you and anybody else has a right to go try to get it changed if you don't like it. But it is the law of the land.
Tim:
So, Craig, let me ask a question. Does Microsoft
like it?
Craig:
There's aspects of it we like and there's aspects
we don't like. We're like you.
Tim:
Well actually there's very little I like about
it. [laughter and applause]
Dave:
Your business depends on copyright, Tim. Right?
Tim:
Right. But I figure the DMCA breaks the rules in
that it basically — it goes too far against fair use.
Craig:
Write your congressman.
Tim:
Well, I've spoken to him —
Dave:
No, he has spoken out, no question about that.
Audience member:
My name is Robert Lydie. I'm speaking not
so much from my current work background as by formal training as a
biologist. We've been talking a lot about ecosystems. But one of the
things that we have, as biologists, learn[ed] about ecosystems is that the
width of the ecosystem has something to do with its vitality. When
you get narrow ecosystems, what are called the monocultures, which we
do fine with in farming occupations, you have to do things to keep
these systems viable. You have to start [using] pesticides. You have to do
other things. If we've got a force that's all the same type of tree
and we get parasites, a red worm goes through and destroys it. What's
the vision that Microsoft and the other commercial firms that are
such a thin culture, a monoculture? How are you going to protect
yourself form these red worms?
Dave:
We want a healthy ecosystem. And actually, in all
seriousness, metaphors aside — and those are wonderful tie-ins
— it's very, very important to our business as well as your
businesses to have a healthy ecosystem.
Audience member:
Buy breadth. Have Linux. [laughter]
Dave:
There ya go.
Brett Glass:
Okay, my name's Brett Glass. I'm known as a writer for Boardwatch magazine, among other
things, and somewhat of a rabble rouser in the community. In the
interest of brokering peace between the camps here, I'd just like to
ask a question. During his talk, Michael said that Microsoft shouldn't
engage in a winner-take-all strategy. The problem I see here, though,
is that the GPL is also a winner-take-all strategy. As a matter of
fact, if you remember — I'm sure most people here have read the
GNU Manifesto --
Richard Stallman said that one of the effects of the GNU
Project was to eliminate competition in the realm of operating
system.
Now, this is sort of scary, in light of what our previous questioner just said. The GPL also has the potential to destroy, or at least weaken, the ecosystem by creating a monoculture. So I guess the question is: Why should we be going to the other extreme? Why advocate the GPL, rather than some sort of fairer regime that allows room for both, such as the Apache license, for example. Why not offer something to both camps, rather than going to one extreme to the other? [applause]
|
Shared Source vs. Open Source Related Links |
Tim:
Well, I would have to say this is probably a
loaded hot potato and I'm not afraid of those. I have to say I've
spoken out quite clearly: I think that the university licenses are
the best balance between freedom and the ability to make money. I
think that is a choice that many projects have made. At the same
time, I really respect and support the right of Microsoft to put out
software under a proprietary license, and I really respect the right
of people who want to use the GPL to put out software on [garbled]. I
think the very fundamental right, you know, of freedom
zero, for me, is to offer the fruit of your work on the terms that
work for you.
Craig:
It's all about choice.
Tim:
Yeah [applause], and I think that that's really
what's absolutely critical here, and I think the fact is, let there be
competition in the marketplace. I mean that's the answer. I mean let
people use whatever license they choose, and if their customers don't
like it, they will have other choices. And I think because of
technological changes, we are entering an era of greater choice. The
fact is, Microsoft's past history is past, and we really are entering
a new era, and it's a result not just of open source but of profound technological changes, and I think the future is open and we can make that future be what we want it to be. [applause]
And we probably need to end on that. If you want to ask Craig more questions, go to the free software event in October. [laughter]
[applause]
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.
-
A bit harsh maybe?
2002-10-08 23:06:25 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I'm all for solid criticism but I think much of the debate was just panel members attacking microsoft with monopoly points of argument. Very little of the debate exposed what the shared source licensing is[/will be] doing for the developer community(/ies).
The audience seemed to be too biased towards the free/os panel representatives, and I think that (despite Tim's interjections) that Stutz and Mundie didn't have a fair say.
--
p00ya DAMN @ SPAM hotmail BLOWS dot com
The idea that Microsoft wants a 'healthy ecosystem' but also must press for double digit growth and the ever enlargin Microsoft bottom line at all costs reveals the truth.
The question put to Craig about good VS bad software patents and the DMCA really illustrates the overriding philosophy at MS: 'ethics be damned, whatever we can get away with to put money in our pockets'
The idea that MS is holding up IP as somehow sacred and yet the GPL is unamerican/cancer is stupid. As Michael pointed out the Microsoft licenses all have 'derived works' clauses and are many times more restrictive than the GPL.
Look at how they see themselves VS Apple when they duplicated all of Apple's IP and now are insisting that people license a patent on software API's !!! Incredibly hypocritical.
Craig really came off as hostile and hypocritical in my opinion. David Stutz seems to be trying to inject some ethics and good common sense in Microsoft, but it appears to little to late. Just wait when Microsoft really starts feeling the penny pinch from Open Source ... from Craigs comments it seems evident they'll bring all these ridiculous software patents to bear...