Print - Microsoft Lobbies Governments to Reject Open Source Software

Microsoft is waging a major lobbying effort to prevent the United States and other international governments from choosing open source software (OSS) solutions, especially Linux. Observers believe that Microsoft launched its campaign in response to several South American and Central American governments that recently began looking into requiring OSS solutions; the campaign has popped up all around the globe, including South America, and in numerous US government and military agencies. The company has even lobbied the new Office of Homeland Security, asking it not to fund OSS research.

The crux of Microsoft's argument against so-called free software is the GNU General Public License (GPL) under which much of this software is licensed. According to the GPL's terms, software code is freely available and any changes made to that code must also be made freely available. Microsoft says that these requirements can be dangerous for commercial software companies that create proprietary software and don't reveal the underlying code to customers. Because GPL won't let Microsoft and other companies mix and match open-source and proprietary solutions, they have no incentive to sell OSS solutions. And if developers inadvertently combine open-source code with Microsoft's proprietary code, the company would be legally required to surrender the rights to the software code of its own programs.

"The GPL, in my view, is bad in all its dimensions," said Jim Allchin, group vice president of Microsoft's Platforms Group. But OSS advocates say the company's complaints are simply a smoke screen to hide its fear of Linux and other free solutions. More important, Microsoft's efforts thus far have been unsuccessful. Despite the software giant's heavy lobbying, the US National Security Agency (NSA) recently released its own super-secure Linux version. And in cash-strapped developing and third-world countries, Linux and other open-source solutions are particularly viable. Microsoft might be dominant in today's computing landscape, but the potential market for PCs and supporting software is much larger when you factor in the masses in China, India, South Africa, Central America, South America, and other areas.

Ah, but the National Security Agency isn't touting open source, the GPL or Linux any more. After the release of SE Linux, the NSA has dropped its support for any future cyber security products based on the open source method. NSA officials say their cyber security enhancements made for SE Linux have not only benefited the NSA, but because of the terms of the GPL have also strengthened the security architecture of computers often used by malicious cyber terrorists around the world. "We didn’t fully understand the consequences of releasing software under the GPL," said Dick Schafer, a deputy director of the NSA. Director Schafer also noted that the demands placed on the abolition of intellectual property rights protections due to the GPL created so many problems for the NSA that “we won't be doing anything like that again.”

Great, another perl of wisdom from the god father, aka, Jim Allchin, the same half witt who claimed that by unleashing the OEM's from exclusive contracts, and thus, allow the OEMs to install alternative operating systems, could "confuse customers". Well, I thank my luck stars that we have such an inspirational guru of spin at the helm of Microsoft to protect us, the unwashed consumers from our own "uneducated mistakes". It appears they're making the same move now. Forget all the studies. Listen to Microsoft, I'm sure they've got the best interests of the US tax payer in mind. Anyway, I better get back to my un-American, cancerous activities, like viewing GPL source code and user GNU software. SHOCK! HORROR!

Let's see now. We're supposed to believe that the NSA is so dumb they can't understand the simple and plainly written GNU Public License? That after they released their Linux code that's when they slapped themselves on the forehead and said "Oh my god, we're helping terrorists!" Right. Pull the other one. The GPL was intended to prevent companies like MS from taking open code and locking it up for their own benefit. If MS used GPL code in their products they would *NOT* have to surrender the rights to their products. They would have to make the source code available. The GPL protects rights, it doesn't destroy them. Hasn't MS learned yet that lies and FUD backfire on them?

What's the problem now, I thought Microsoft was a proponent, per Bill Gates, for "Innovation" or is that just another one of their smoke screens for "No Competition"?

Duh, FreeBSD folks. Doesn't have the same GPL license issues, and even MS has done some .NET framework porting for it.

For all the information that Microsoft claims to be bad for business you would think that the government would wake up and realize their "real" intentions to derail open source in turn increasing their market share. We as a country need to stop worrying about how much can be provided to us rather what we can provide to the world! Note: Being an Application Manager, developer, and Architect I would realize when I developed code against a GPL license and/or a Copyright. Sincerely, David Tenney

I hope Microsoft is providing cheese to go with all of their whining about how bad OSS is. In the news letter from which I got the article, the next item was "MDAC CRITICAL SECURITY HOTFIX"... Too funny. At least the OSS community isn't so hypocritical about their efforts. Microsoft should pay attention to the Theory of Evolution. Only the most benenficial mutations survive. And Microsoft's OS's have been mutating like a cancerous tumour on our computers' hard drives. If they would concentrate on making their software as secure, versatile and efficiently written as OSS products usually are, instead of blowing a stack of money on more hot air, then they would be respected as the OSS developers are for their work. Just a thought.

The simple solutions to put a dent in the impact of open source on Microsoft's bottom line are: 1. Improve Security. I'm tired of having to patch our hundreds of systems 8-10 times a month! Even with automated solutions, the cost is enormous. The arguments that Microsoft systems are targeted because they have predominant market share are weak. If you implement secure solutions from the ground up, hackers have fewer footholds to grab. True, open source products have security problems which must be patched, but at least you start off with a free/low cost product to offset the cost of maintaining security! 2. Reduce the cost of the products it produces. Some of the prices charged for it's products are an outrage... Office in particular. How can you justify the price for desktop O/S's and office suites, when we are in a down economy, overall demand is weak, and the feature sets just aren't being improved much anymore?!? All things being equal, Red Hat and OpenOffice/StarOffice are both about one major revision away from eroding MS's market shares for desktop O/S's and office suites. I'm in a mostly Microsoft shop, and we are about 2 years and/or 2 major Microsoft problems (e.g., another Melissa outbreak, another revision in Microsoft licensing, etc.) from a major "rip and replace" of Microsoft. Of course, Microsoft is lobbying to kill Open Source... that's the only possible way to stop it (the only major competitor for the desktop market left).

Microsofts claims are incorrect. Yes it is true that the GPL says that any derived works from the GPL'd code must be released under the GPL License. What the GPL does not say is that if developers create code that works with Microsoft's code, then Microsoft must release their code. This is obsurd and would be illegal anyways. There are plenty of propritory products that interact with GPL'd software. Oracle and Lotus have Linux versions of their Groupware suits, IBM has a list of propritory applications that work on Linux. One version of the GLP, called LGLP, allows the linking of propritory code into LGLP'd code. Some GLP projects have "propritory versions" that come with different licenses and don't come with the limitations the GLP places on the code. MySQL is a classic example of this. The QT tool set and KDE are another example. Microsoft is misleading the world and may be even outright lying.