Aracılığıyla paylaş

Thank You For The Feedback

  • Makale

Most of the time I try to respond to the comments that come into my blog. There has been a rush of comments since the linking of my posting to a few news articles.

 1) Thank you for the comments - I know many of you are skeptical about this process, and a few are even outright hostile. I will be going through all of the postings in detail and pulling out the themes and ideas throughout the feedback.

2) I will continue to have an ongoing dialogue with a few key community members and these comments will inform those discussions. I will make sure your voices are heard as we go through our decision making.

One thing that jumped out at me about many of these postings is the sense that a lack of trust in our motivations is a key factor for you all. I am unclear as to why then it is a problem for us to clarify something so that motivations are not an issue. Unless I have been really not paying attention, we have been incredibly direct in how we have talked about OSS issues ever since May 2001. At the time we were clear with our concerns as well as our aspirations, and we were clear about our approach to source code licensing. Ever since that point we have done nothing except consistently deliver on those plans and become increasingly more open and willing to receive community feedback. I don't expect a cookie from anyone for doing the right thing - but it would seem to counter balance some of the concerns raised in the comments to my previous postings.

Starting in 2001 - we launched Shared Source with 6 separate offerings (some reference only, some full modification/redist terms). Since then we have grown to having >600 source releases servicing well over 2 million developers. CodePlex has taken that to even greater heights. In Dec. 2003, we stated unequivocally that our IP portfolio was open for licensing to anyone, and that academics (for example) had royalty free access to them. We also put in place an unprecedented IP indemnification policy for our customers and partners. We have had a steady increase in our amount of community interaction and transparency through the >6K bloggers at Microsoft, sites like Channel 9 and Port 25. There are technical collaborations in place with hundreds of commercial companies including OSS providers like JBOSS, SugarCRM, XenSource, Zend, and now Novell. We have stepped up in the standards and specification arena with the availability of our Open Specification Promise and its application to 38 web services specifications, virtualization technology, and SenderID. There were significant concerns about ODF/Open XML compatibility and we launched an open source project called the Open XML Translator that has received broad recognition and acclaim as a quality community program. And just this week we announced the creation of a new Alliance meant to facilitate better communication and testing to draw a community of vendors together to work on interoperability issues. Additionally, we have been spinning off advanced technologies from our research labs into new startups and small enterprises to create opportunities for others through innovation (known as IP Ventures). All of these offerings are global in nature and receive sustained commitment from us.

But, for all of that - we are still going to be building and selling our products. We will be competitive in the marketplace. We will continue to build our technologies to be high value solutions for our customers. We will also value the IP generated in that process. The real question becomes, how do you balance that IP strategy so that it is good for the community, overall industry growth, etc. while also providing a reasonable return on investment. I am at TechEd ITForum this week, and to walk the show floor it is pretty obvious that all vendors are in this exact same boat, no matter what kind of software they produce.

Again, please keep the input coming. I will be working on the covenant issue until we arrive at some sort of resolution.

Comments

  • Anonymous
    November 15, 2006
    It is interesting that you start this list with the SharedSource initiative.  This was a transparent misdirection campaign, attempting to co-opt the idea of open source without actually engaging in it. The OpenXML translator is a one-way tool that doesn't even add itself to the normal office interface for format support. That you cooperate with open source projects where you see business opportunities is only rational, but you continue to engage in these deceptive measures.  It is no wonder that those who believe open source is the future of the mainstay of software have no trust for your organization.

  • Anonymous
    November 15, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 15, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 16, 2006
    Shared Source is not Open Source, and is therefore not possible to be a part of Microsoft's Open Source efforts. (Also, I would appreciate if you would approve the longer of the two separate comments I tried to post yesterday.)

  • Anonymous
    November 16, 2006
    Here's a post that provides a possible way out of your impossible dilemma of trying to restrict "commercial" use without violating the spirit of all that we in the community hold dear. http://www.licquia.org/archives/2006/11/15/what-do-we-want-from-microsoft/ It would be a radical approach from Microsoft, I admit, but in practice not so different than what you're trying to achieve. The essence of the idea is that instead of allowing only noncommercial use, you allow only nonproprietary use. The radical part would be to accept the community's definition of what's proprietary. Specifically, Microsoft could grant a permanent and binding covenant not to sue anyone at all for creating, using or distributing software under a license that - essentially - meets the Open Source Definition. The main reason this is less radical than it sounds is that almost all big commercial open source companies distribute some software under licenses which by this definition are proprietary. You could still go after Sun (note that even now Java and Solaris will still be distributed under proprietary licenses as well as the open ones), IBM, Novell, Oracle, Linspire, even Canonical (proprietary drivers will be in the next release by default). The only big open source company that I'm not sure about is Red Hat. So how much is meeting the community's needs really worth to you? Enough to eat a little humble pie and accept the Open Source Definition as part of your covenant? Enough to - possibly - give up a potential attempt to go after a license from Red Hat that they wouldn't give you anyway? Stuart.

  • Anonymous
    November 16, 2006
    Jason, a very common view is that, once again, Microsft is spreading FUD regarding patent violations in Linux. If you have a serious patent claim then the way to deal with it is not to make a vague non-specific patent agreement with 1 company representing say <5% of the installed base. What you would do is say to the major players: 'You are infringing patent 123456. Either buy a license or stop contravening our patent and pay us damages'. Can you explain why this deal is not $100M of FUD?

  • Anonymous
    November 16, 2006
    Jason, I hope that you will address the possibility that MS will come forward with any infringement claims, instead of dangling litigation threats over the heads of potential Linux users.  That would be a major step forward. It would be great if MS could say that they are competing with Linux based on product quality, usability, interoperability, etc.  MS products do have their advantages, after all.

  • Anonymous
    November 16, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 17, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 17, 2006
    Well, Microsoft folks have often said that they are extremely proud of their programmers and they can complete with anyone.   Great; go do that!   All you need to do in order to garner trust is have do deeds that are in fact trustworthy.  Why not start with a perpetual, non-revocable covenant not to sue anyone for creating, using, or distributing software which is licensed under a license which meets the Open Source Definition?     For dual-licensed code, if it is being distributed under the non-OSD license, the covenant wouldn't apply to those distributing it relying on the terms of the non-OSD license.  Otherwise, it would grant a safe harbor to all OSS developers, not just the isolated hobbyist.

  • Anonymous
    November 17, 2006
    How can you be surprised that we don't trust Microsoft?  Steve Ballmer claims that Linux infringes on MS intellectual property, but doesn't give any specific details that would let us take out the supposedly infringing code and replace it with a "clean" version.  Besides, Microsoft has recently entered the deal with Novell where they've agreed not to sue for patent infringements, and Ballmer strongly implies that other Linux companies should make similar deals if they don't want to be sued.  It's very hard for me to believe that this is just very unlucky timing, especially combined with the lockout tactics and other things that Microsoft has used in the past (remember the Halloween documents?).  So how should we be expected to trust?

  • Anonymous
    November 17, 2006
    As usual, you try to spin the situation by avoiding the core issues raised. You spend time pointing out all the code that has been placed in the Shared Source initiative, but do not address that it is anything but open source, while being a deliberate effort to sound similar.  Were the timing different on the popularity of Open Source in the industry, and were Microsoft not a longstanding practicer of duplicitous naming, it would be hard to call.  But given both these things, the name is a clear attempt to cash in on market recognition for the term without actually engaging in it. That your company has figured out that giving people access to the implementation of some code is a net benefit is good for you and your customers.  That it took you 2 decades to figure this out while still refusing to learn the lesson about truly opening interfaces makes it the empty gesture that it is. That the translation quality of OpenXML to OpenDocument is so poor, in fact quite a lot poorer than existing code that does the same thing from OpenOffice is telling. http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/07/lost-in-translation.html Combined with the fact that Office will not offer first level support for the document with File->Save operation, this is a fig-leaf.   Lastly, of course, there is no way to ensure that the OpenXML portion of the code is complete, as OpenXML is to this day incompletely specified.  To boot, OpenXML is claimed to be littered with patent mines, so it is unclear what one could safely do with this format, even were it properly open. It is astounding that you can, with a straight face, claim that nothing is deceptive about recent actions of your employer, when your employer has taken such steps as to create a "covenent" specifically to circumvent and damage the GPL and claimed this as a safeguard of the rights of the users of this same license-covered software.  A promise not to sue with no binding power that protects no one in any useful situation?  These are deceptive actions, whether you yourself are capable of recognizing them.

  • Anonymous
    November 17, 2006
    When a company like Microsoft takes open source software we helped write, sells it to its customers for profit, and then turns around and stabs us in the back and threatens to sue us, like your funny CEO does ... and then you start wondering why we're not trusting Microsoft? What a pathetic joke Microsoft is. No wonder all the cool kids are going to Google.

  • Anonymous
    November 17, 2006
    I read on Osnews: http://osnews.com/story.php/16515/Steve-Ballmer-Linux-Uses-Our-Intellectual-Property that Steve Ballmer is making claims that Linux infringes Microsoft's "IP".  Firstly, I think of The SCO Group's CEO's claims in 2003 about that same topic.  Then I think of a whole list of every other incident I can recall, of a powerful entity making such claims, all the way back to Aesop's fable about the wolf accusing the lamb of insulting him then of muddying the water he was drinking - the lamb pointed out that was impossible because the wolf was upstream - then finally eating the lamb anyway. Then I think of The SCO Group's parlous financial state when it made those claims in 2003, and I begin to wonder if there is in fact something seriously wrong with Microsoft's financial stability.  I know just enough about financial management and economics to start to wonder. I begin to seriously wonder how long Microsoft Corp. will be for this world.

  • Anonymous
    November 18, 2006
    Hi Jason, Could you comment on, or direct us to details of the "patented intellectual property" in Linux that Mr Ballmer talks about?  User 'MFS' and others have already asked about this but you don't appear to have tried to respond to this question at all.  Going by your intro, quite out of character! A response from Microsoft on this point is important.  Mr Ballmer makes it sound like Linux-using companies such as ours are the offenders, when in fact it is Microsoft who has left any "balance sheet liability" undisclosed.  Accusations should always be backed by facts. Many thanks, K. Lo, London based consultant.

  • Anonymous
    November 20, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 20, 2006
    Something that looms large in Microsofts efforts to monetize its IP is the question of IP upon which Microsoft itself infringes. The likelihood is that there are patent issues (valid or not) on both sides, but I see three areas in which Microsoft and OSS differ;

  1. Microsofts code is proprietary (hidden), OSSs is open.
  2. Microsoft has billions in the bank, and busloads of lawyers.
  3. Microsoft threatens litigation, OSS strives for freedom from litigation. not exactly fair, is it ?

  • Anonymous
    November 20, 2006
    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov06/11-20Statement.mspx "Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents." wow. that's an impressive agreement. you just gave novell 300million dollars to... disagree????

  • Anonymous
    November 21, 2006
    commercial <> proprietary oh.. and one more thing; I see in recent talks, that Microsoft executives have given, the language used is "commercial vs. open source" software. This is a clever bit of mind manipulation, suggesting that OSS cannot be commercial. Bill Gates went to far as to say that the intentions of FOSS developers was to ensure that nobody could make money with it, but that's completely untrue. Just ask IBM, or RedHat, or even Novell, not to mention the legion of consultants who use FOSS daily. The accurate comparison is "proprietary" vs. "open source" and to suggest otherwise is deceptive, manipulative and underhanded. I encourage anyone who see this doublespeak to correct it every time.

  • Anonymous
    November 22, 2006
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    November 22, 2006
    D Patrick, I've got a comment on that interview from Gates up on http://robilad.livejournal.com/3085.html

  • Anonymous
    November 24, 2006
    joshua, you mentioned a post of rob weir at http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/07/lost-in-translation.html, and d patrick, is that what you referred to as "designed to be substandard"? two interesting bits of information for you: a) rob drew his conclusions about the planned scope of the translator project from a specification of its prototype. b) i placed a comment at robs article explaining that a week ago, but he did not approve it. d patrick, what "existing (fully functional) translation software" do you mean? i am not aware of any software that can translate directly from ODF to OOXML and back. jason, i agree that mr ballmers comments on IP are less than helpful if you want to convince the world that you are trying to play fair with FOSS. please comment on this.