[Fsf-friends] Re: DotNet
Ramanraj K
ramanraj@md4.vsnl.net.in
Fri Nov 5 07:18:05 IST 2004
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:
> 1. Mono
> 2. standard class libraries
> 3. Mono specific libraries like Gtk#, Gecko#, etc.
> 4. XML class library from xml-rpc.net (MIT licence)
>
> What does NOT qualify:
> 1. ASP.Net implementation - mono or whatever
> 2. Windows forms - mono or whatever
> 3. Any other proprietary/closed libraries - microsoft/mono whatever.
> 4. 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
More information about the Fsf-friends
mailing list