This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2008/06/20/insider-authority/.
Posted in Formats, Free/Libre Software, FUD, GPL, Microsoft, Novell, Open XML, OpenDocument at 10:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Microsoft wants FOSS authority
“Move over, Perens and Stallman.Former Softies Know the GPLv3 better than you do.” (Sarcasm)
For background, you are advised to read the following very recent posts:
Whispers from Former Microsoft Employees Inside the Open Source WorldHow Microsoft’s OSS Insiders Can Plant the Seeds of Intellectual MonopoliesMicrosoft Ruins “Open Source” from the InsideThe Open Source ‘Census’ Lost Its Credibility
It increasingly seems like Microsoft gains great influence inside the open source universe. It does not work for the better and Michael Tiemann (shown on the right) expressed his concerns about OpenLogic just a few days ago.
Dana Blankenhorn, just like Glyn Moody, draws his conclusion about GPLv3 (as posted in his blog) based on the word of a former Microsoft employee: Black Duck. Blankenhorn pessimistically concludes with the headline: “GPL divide still lives, one year on”. Didn’t we hear a similar tune in ACT’s response to Boycott Novell just a few days ago? ACT is a Microsoft pressure group that viciously battled GPLv3. It bothered to speak back to this Web site. How come?
=> ↺ “GPL divide still lives, one year on” | Microsoft pressure group
Moving on (or back again) to OpenLogic, here are some interesting insights from Don Marti.
But people don’t run popularity contest applications on production machines. So, as much commentary as the OMG WTF M$ WANTS YOUR INSTALLED SOFTWARE LIST thread has gotten, it looks like a waste of the company’s money.
Elsewhere, over at Groklaw, PJ is referring to this article which we mentioned yesterday. About GPL exclusion from the OOXML OSP she writes: “They [Microsoft] do not intend to provide assurance to GPL programmers. “A broad audience of developers” isn’t everyone. That would be their number one competition, of course, since GNU/Linux comes with the GPL license. And the GPL is by far the dominant FOSS license. So I guess one must ask, how do you define “broad”, Microsoft? And why is it acceptable to disenfranchise anyone from being able to use a standard?”
=> ↺ this article | GPL exclusion from the OOXML OSP
This hopefully demonstrates just how GPL-hostile Microsoft really is. Speaking of Microsoft, we are still studying what on earth is happening in oiic-formation-discuss. We wrote about some findings yesterday and reached a dead end pretty much. Latest reports from a reader of ours who investigates this:
http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_g0w5wj
Year Started:1995
ok so this company was started in 1995. by Olivia Edwards
[...]
http://msnmoney.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/ED...
Because both Cisco and Microsoft are key strategic partners of
TransNet, and we have successful practices with both, including an
established and loyal base of customers in both markets,
[...]
http://www.secinfo.com/dRsft.aa.htm
well cant get any link...
this is a old battle with gary edward.
http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20071109070012244
nothing turned up on Olivia Edwards - atleast on the internet.
What we found a few hours ago is the following interesting response to Marbux though. He was told off for sort of ‘bullying’ in the ODF mailing lists, causing unnecessary disruption to some who complained.
=> ↺ for sort of ‘bullying’ | ↺ the ODF mailing lists
Let me make his point shorter for him: he doesn't want this project to
go forward so fast. He'd like it to slow down. Why ever might that be?
"1. An immediate moratorium be declared on further decisions in regard
to the work product of this formation group while the chair conducts a
discussion of short-term steps to improve the situation.;"
Etc. Set up committees. Discuss process. Anything to slow this down.
There is, I hope, an outside limit to how much he will be allowed to
disrupt and block progress, because that is how I view it.
I suggest that there be some rule about threats of lawsuits being
grounds for exclusion from the discussion. I'd like a rule folks are not
allowed to insult and demean other people either, but that's probably
too much to hope for.
Some of us have been around this track before.
Make sure you are subscribed or engaged in one form or another if you want to see some chaos. There are already some eyeballs on this.
We received some jaw-dropping information a few hours ago, but the extent to which is can be shared needs to be discussed. Stay tuned. █
=> ↺
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).