OT: An dicussion of software ethnics (was: Re: Go-oo vs. OOo - Opinions?)

William Immendorf will.immendorf at gmail.com
Sun Jul 18 19:13:15 PDT 2010

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:17 PM, DJ Lucas <dj at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
(note that this message is very off topic, but I'll send it anyway,
just to give out my own two cents.)
> William, I am sorry.  I had meant to reply directly to you on this...not
> sure what happened there.  Thought I had sent it, but it's not in my
> sent items.  Anyway, as Matt pointed out, I don't use the mono
> additions.  Code for Go-oo is dual licensed under both LGPL and CDDL.
> As far as format goes, Microsoft has pretty much lost that war in most
> of Europe (the world? Probably anywhere but here in the US), and already
> supports the OpenDoc format in Office 2007 SP2+.  As inconvenient as it
> is (which really isn't much), I personally must remain compatible with
> people sending me documents, as well as sending back to them, and I'd
> imagine this goes for anybody who uses their machines for anything more
> than hobby.
Uh, DJ, MS's support for ODF is purposely broken, by using their own
macros for spreadsheets, so it's not really compatible with other ODF
applications (like OpenOffice). And as long as those documents your
are getting are not .doc or .docx files (the FSF has a campaign
against sending .doc files via email), I'm fine with that.
> For the mono thing, let the mono developers deal with that bucket of
> worms.  I just don't really see much of a need for it on my systems, and
> probably not many here do.  I really don't like using Mono as an
> argument against an otherwise good project.  Yes, it's a little bit
> messy (the licensing) and while I'm not a lawyer, I've read the licenses
> and don't see anything that can affect end users directly, at least as
> far as money goes, only the project itself.  Last time I looked into it,
> you do have the option of building only the unprotected parts of Mono if
> you so desire.
Yes, like you, I ignore Mono, as, like I said before, it's a big
patent trap. It's not used by that many applications, and for the
applications that use it, there are plenty of better replacements.
> Concerning your distrust of Novell, I don't get where it comes from, but
> again, you have different experiences to draw from.  Probably a little
> too personal, but I've worked with them in the past and have no ill will
> towards them.  Additionally, IMO, they did the open source community
> _fairly_ well concerning the SCO issues in the past, granted they were
> protecting their own interests, and it cost them a pretty penny to do
> so, but they've certainly added a lot to the pot under clearly free
> licenses as well.  Plus they get to stay in business and make money from
> the services side of Open Source as well.  Great example of give and
> take IMO.
The period when they were friendly to Linux was BEFORE they signed the
deal with Microsoft, and after that deal, Novell seemes to be
promiting Mono over it's Linux distro, OpenSUSE (which I really wish
should seperate from Novell fully, it's a nice distro except for the
fact that it's Mono infested...). And the deal with MS was enough to
distrust Novell. Also, DJ, remember that Open Source is NOT the same
as free software (Open Source is a bit looser than Free software in
it's definitions, and since I'm a FSF member, I promote Free Software,
not Open Source.)
> 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.
Anyone knows Microsoft last thing they want to do is to surrender and
join the free software community. They've wanted to stop
Linux/OpenOffice adoption through a variety of means, they are dirty
thieves, stealing work from other companies and claiming it as their
own, and they want to embrace, extend and extinguish about everything
that gets in their way of being a monopoly. They have a history of
anti-competitive behavior, they hate GPLv3 a lot (and I love GPLv3 a
lot), and they want to own every single computer in the world.
Luckily, Linux usage is increasing in desktops, and Linux is winning
by a lot in phones and servers, due to the fact that Linux is very
reliable. And Microsoft is loosing a lot of money each year. If I'm
correct, than Microsoft will go belly up (and the free software
community will rejoice, including me.)

William Immendorf
The ultimate in free computing.
Messages in plain text, please, no HTML.
GPG key ID: 1697BE98
If it's not signed, it's not from me.


"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list