Microsoft Trying To Convince VCs That Open Source = Fraud
from the hmmm... dept
Venture capitalist Tim Oren has posted an excerpt from an email sent to a venture capitalist mailing advertising a seminar, put on by Microsoft, about the dangers of open source technology. By itself, that's no surprise, but the language in the email is fairly over the top, claiming that some potential acquiring companies "view open source as being no different than fraud on the books." That's probably true if the "acquiring companies" are Microsoft and SCO. Otherwise, most companies look at it from the reasonable standpoint: does the technology do the job it needs to do? Anyway, does this sort of stuff actually convince any company or any VC that they shouldn't go with open source technology if it does the job? If so, would you really want to invest in or buy such a company so easily swayed by such arguments?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
Remember RBC invested 30 million in SCO, why?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
Unfortunately, the answer is, "maybe". CEOs and VCs are, for the most part, herd animals. Bucking business trends is dangerous; you'd better be right if you do. Following even stupid ones is much safer. So, the angle for MS here is to create enough buzz to convince your average grazer that 'everyone else' thinks the GPL is poison.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
The GPL is poison. It should be avoided if your business model is to protect your value add with Copyright or Patent.
But if the GPL is nasty-toxic, that does not mean OPEN SOURCE is bad. Apple has used BSD licensed code w/o any problem. And the BSD license allows companies to add value and protect that value via IP laws.
The group of people who have defined 'anything shipped on a GNU/Linux fork is LINUX' and OPEN SOURCE == Linux (not Linux is but one part of Open Source) is the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Here we go again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not put on by Microsoft, but evil none-the-less...
"we're bringing together top legal experts from Microsoft and Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault (boldface in original - ed.) with two preeminent personality (sic) in the open source community for a dynamic 90-minute audio/Web seminar ..."
How Microsoft or Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault have anything to do with speaking for the open source community is beyond me? That is like asking Hitler to speak about life and times in Russia or the US before and during WWII. I half expected to see SCO there too, why stop when you could have a trifecta of evil closed source advocates speaking about being a member of an open source community, but apparently adding SCO would somehow discredit the presentation too much.
And how GPL fits into this I have no idea, since Open Source makes up a large number of licenses, including the BSD license, which I much prefer over GPL (you can look at the FAQ on openinfreno.sourceforge.net for my reasons why...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not put on by Microsoft, but evil none-the-les
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not put on by Microsoft, but evil none-the-les
Thanks for the verification Tim. Given that Microsoft is involved, I am sure the rant on Open Source won't be a rant on BSD, but on GPL, like you said. I don't think Microsoft has any problem with BSD, because it allows them to steal (oh, I mean, package,) BSD licensed software within their proprietary software without anyone getting too upset. They seem to only care about GPL, which they cannot use.
But none-the-less, it sounded like Mike thought it was put on by Microsoft and about GPL. I would love to see the transcripts of this though...it would be quite comical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not put on by Microsoft, but evil none-the-les
As for GPL or other stuff, I don't think I made any reference to whether it was GPL at all...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not put on by Microsoft, but evil none-the-les
Why did you single out Microsoft?
When in the 2.0.36 Linux kernel there is a file that says 'we took this from FreeBSD, removed the copyright and put on a GPL'? (theft) Or when the ATA code was lifted from FreeBSD? Or the Bruce Perens-associated 'whoops' code-audit-discovery-of-the-removal-of BSD copyright/licencing terms?
Or the use of BSD code CORRECTLY in GPL products - it is a one-way code "packaging"?
Why single out "microsoft"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not put on by Microsoft, but evil none-the-les
You are right, I was the one who confused your comments with other poster's comments. My bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not put on by Microsoft, but evil none-the-les
Alternatives, you crack me up some times...I singled out Microsoft because they were a good, well known, and recent in everyone's mind (i.e. gzip library found in W2K source) example. There are many examples, including Linksys's use of busybox without releasing code, or Linux's "stealing" of BSD code (though I didn't see the BSD folks go squirly over it at the time.)
I prefer BSD myself over GPL, because I believe (unlike SCO,) that derivative works are what make us grow as a species (everything we make can be said to be a derivative work of everything else,) and I personally do not agree with enforcing those who use my code to create derivative works to use a license that I prefer to use myself. So long as they acknowledge me, I am fine. But likewise, I have no ill will to those who choose to GPL code instead (though I prefer they lgpl their libraries so that I can use them in my work too.)
But then again, mistakes do happen, and IP is often a really hard thing to get a handle on, especially with the large number of competing licenses. However, last time I checked the GPL folks weren't setting up an obviously biased presentation on the risks of the BSD license while saying they were members of the BSD community. Microsoft obviously is being two-faced about this, saying they are a member of the open source community while at the same time ranting on the evils of open source, whether it be GPL or BSD (because I can guarantee they don't care about the difference, except that maybe they can use one in their code while they can't use the other.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Check that Guarantee
They DO care, and I offer up these as examples:
1) Hotmail
2) C# as a BSD port - FreeBSD is a reference port.
3) Testimony in the last US Gov. VS Microsoft trial.
This is "an issue" because you have people like Bruce Perens who says he's an "Open Source Advocate" - yet *ONLY* talkes about GNU/Linux. He won't mention BSD as part of his talk. When Linux and the GPL is considered PART of Open Source and not Linux == Open Source will talks like this loose thier 'power'.
Bruce Perens and his ilk made thier bed and others are being forced to lie in it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]