Sandip Bhattacharya wrote:
Yes, I know Microsoft has had a really bad reputation behind them, and it is highly unlikely that they can ever get better other than with a federal axe. But if we are careful enough to watch where we are treading in the dotNet swamp, cant we remain dry?
I would like to add some information about dotNet here, which I feel should explain the background before people start hardening their views about dotNet without understanding the real issues here.
The non-free software companies have serious differences with our philosophy, and we will never get far with their lip service. These look like a series of serious attempts to use up *our* very valuable and limited resources to promote non-free software indirectly. It would be better to settle these issues now, and the only real way to get together honestly is when their agreement with our basic philosophy of software freedom becomes visible. What follows below, is only an elaboration of "Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue"[1]
The bottomline is that, *in my opinion*, there should not be any problem in talking about C#, dotNet, Mono with regards to FSF sponsored events, as long as the discussion/talks/workshops stick to:
- Mono
- standard class libraries
- Mono specific libraries like Gtk#, Gecko#, etc.
- XML class library from xml-rpc.net (MIT licence)
What does NOT qualify:
- ASP.Net implementation - mono or whatever
- Windows forms - mono or whatever
- Any other proprietary/closed libraries - microsoft/mono whatever.
- VB#
Most unfortunately, it is very difficult to draw lines like you have drawn when an event is in progress or in mailing lists. A user may raise genuine questions about DotNet, and the bonafide answers would lie under what you list as "what does NOT qualify", and we will know about it only after the discussion is completed. Either we allow a full discussion or not allow it at all: that alone is workable.
The issue needs to be carefully stated, and understood to avoid any confusion. We will go into DotNet a little later. Now, Microsoft has released Windows Services For Unix 3.5, along with many GNU applications under the GPL. Many of these applications are "optimised" to work with SFU 3.5 The source code for many GLPed applications is available at http://www.interopsystems.com/tools/warehouse.htm Could we therefore invite Microsoft to speak on these GNU Project tools, that have been "optimised" for SFU 3.5? We should not, simply because all these are specially meant for non-free systems, and they being "open standard" or GPLed does not matter at all. It is simply not relevant for us. How would you check out if the "optimised" tools work well? By trying it on a non-free Windows system. Any talk on the tools in the warehouse, would sooner or latter lead to full fledged discussions about non-free software, that is licensed in the most restrictive manner. Such discussions don't, won't and can't help us. DotNet is no different.
Writing applications that provide for interoperability is something that is forced on us. Ideally, the authors themselves may take care to see that the tools they develop, and any output from it can be shared across different operating systems. Non-free software companies especially try to make interoperability as difficult as possible, which is especially unfair and unethical. The lack of source code and information about architecture, makes interoperability very difficult. A suitable law that clearly compels non-free software to disclose source code along with binaries is required. Monopolies are bad, and any device that helps monopolistion should be handled with suitable legislation. [Mono? sounds familiar??]
The problem with Microsoft like non-free companies, is their very serious disagreement with free software philosophy.
<quote> One reason we wanted to sell to computer companies rather than consumers was software piracy. We wanted to get paid for our work, and when companies bundled our software with their computers, they included our royalty in the price.... I wrote a widely disseminated "Open Letter to Hobbyists" asking the early users of personal computers to stop stealing our software so that we could make money that would let us build more software. "Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software", I wrote. But my argument didn't convince many hobbyists to pay for our work. They seemed to like it, and they used it, but they seemed to prefer to "borrow" it from each other." </quote>
That is Bill Gates, in "The Road Ahead" p.46. Their EULAs implement that basic philosophy with as many restrictions as possible, as one of their predominant goals is making more money. (The orginal reason was that more money would let them build more software, but it is for the reader to judge how far it has turned true :) We believe in sharing and co-operation but they simply don't agree there. Now, their basic philosophy has not changed, and their agents are more hard on those views.
The non-free companies operate through their agents, including MSAs and others. MSAs can easily join mailing lists that discuss free software, as entry is free for all. Most of the MSA postings qualify as spam but many user group mailing lists are liberal and as MSAs are students none may take this seriously and complain.
ILUGC <www.chennailug.org> promotes Free Software, here in Chennai, through Install Festivals, Demo Days, regular monthly meets, active mailing list, with support from serveral IITians and others who passionately enjoy using free software. ILUGC provides very valuable support to free software users. All that must be bad news for non-free software loving MSAs, and I could share my little experience with the issues involved here.
Some may be wondering what the MSAs post to mailing lists that discuss free software! Well, one friend at ilugc has archived the postings of that MSA!! >> http://www.antrix.net/stuff/sriram.mbox.gz
A few samples: http://www.aero.iitm.ernet.in/pipermail/ilugc/2004-April/009257.html http://www.aero.iitm.ernet.in/pipermail/ilugc/2004-April/009228.html http://www.aero.iitm.ernet.in/pipermail/ilugc/2004-April/009230.html http://www.aero.iitm.ernet.in/pipermail/ilugc/2004-April/009326.html
[honestly calls himself an Evil Microsoft Spy ! Please avoid wasting time on this, unless you are a sysadmin: there are many, many long posts and threads! ]
It takes time and effort to write replies, and sometimes I do that: http://www.aero.iitm.ernet.in/pipermail/ilugc/2004-April/009307.html
Well the archives are peppered with MSA postings, usually thick around the time ILUGC plans Install Fests and Gnu/Linux Demo Day meets at various schools and colleges in Chennai. Since many at ILUGC give a good amount of importance for free software philosophy, MSA is normally silenced. Recently, the MSA rants got too irksome for me, that I excused myself from the mailing list for some time.
The MSAs pose the danger of both wasting time and promoting non-free software on the mailing lists, and since they are paid for this dirty work, they brush aside any rebukes and happily continue with the rants. If MSAs start posting to FSF India mailing lists, may be, firm action could follow against their principal.
If they would like to work with us, join us whole heartedly, then it should start with an affirmation and acceptance of our philosophy. It may call for more advocacy and probably viable migration programs for companies may help them to genuinely join hands with us in developing software. HTH.
-Ramanraj
[1] RMS, quoted from "Selling Free Software" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html