Go-oo vs. OOo - Opinions?
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sun Jul 18 18:55:50 PDT 2010
DJ Lucas wrote:
> For Microsoft, yeah, I understand the hesitation. They have a bad track
> record, look up their use of MIT Krb5 and lack of action for a very good
> example, yet I've never been bitten by them myself, and have actually
> had good experiences WRT working for them. But for an alternate vantage
> point, take a look at their input on Samba4 (which kind-of completes the
> abused part of their MIT agreement, only a decade late)...that wouldn't
> be happening near as fast if not for Microsoft and that is GPLv3.
> Again, however, that is something that helps to keep Microsoft viable as
> well, so the give and take model does work to some extent, even with
> Microsoft and their spotty history. They too are beginning to realize
> the importance of interoperability and being able to see the potential
> for profit by working with, not against.
DJ, I'm not so sure. The corporate culture at MS is is Extend, Emprace,
Extinguish. They used to have another saying, DOS isn't done until
Lotus won't run.
They also have a long history of stealing other people's work and
incorporating it as their own. I can remember this going on in the '80s
-- and recently. They been found guilty of illegally using their
monopoly position to close off the market from other competitors.
Mono is patent encumbered. Whether software patents will remain in
effect is an open question, but they certainly can make things expensive.
The bottom lines is that I don't trust anything they do unless they
release it under GPL3. Right now, I wouldn't touch mono.
More information about the blfs-dev