Let's face it. Microsoft would kill all free and open source software if it could. But it can't. So it's pretending to like it (even to the point of hiring "open source ambassadors"). It's biding its time until it can gain enough influence on FOSS to either kill or co-opt it into something it can exploit to forward its own aim: maximising shareholder value. Think I'm wrong?

If you haven't seen it, here's a description of some of MSFT's efforts at undermining to date:

I should clarify: the reason MSFT would kill is because it's the unexpected force that's quietly knocking it from its global monopoly perch. Without , MSFT could've continued exploiting its monopoly for much longer without innovating, thereby more successfully doing what it exists to do: maximise shareholder value (albeit at the expense of everyone else).

@lightweight There's certainly some of that, mostly at the top of the Microsoft pyramid. But there may be more to it.
Now I'm not trying to defend them but here's a little nuancing theory to think about: ...1/3

Microsoft, like any such corporation having thousands of employees should, according to probabilistic circumstances, contain some who are honest and have good values and manage to reach decently high in the hierarchy until they realize they're not working in the place of their dreams. These people have 3 options: ...2/3

1. reveal truths to the public and get fired
2. share their values with their boss or coworkers and probably get fired
3. be more subtle by hiding their values under arguments their boss will like so their ideas can be applied in the end.

as history shows, none of these give truly positive results but they can limit damage.

@ChameleonScales 1/2 I think there's a combination of a slowly forming plan within MSFT to mould communities into entities MSFT can effectively mine for $0 R&D (using the "weak" licenses to allow proprietrisation of formerly open code), and...

@ChameleonScales 2/2/ a few people who sincerely advocate for , but there's a disconnect: these people aren't principled advocates (the ones I've dealt with, in any case) they just like the model. They're picking the safe route that doesn't conflict with MSFT's almost exclusively proprietary software output.

@ChameleonScales and a 3/2 :) - I think MSFT is trying to redefine "OSS" to mean weak FOSS licenses only, excluding copyleft licenses (traditionally copyleft is included under the term OSS). It's MSFT's tried and true EmbraceExtentendExtinguish playbook all over again. I'm not the only one who sees this...

@ChameleonScales I actually think that the model is inherently incompatible with the public (listed) megacorporate model and its single directive: maximise shareholder value. They simply cannot co-exist, because a megacorporate's goal is to achieve monopolies to exploit, and copyleft's goal is to make monopolies impossible.

@lightweight For the incompatibility, most definitely. For the EEE, it sure looks a lot like it but we don't know for sure yet, until someone from inside leaks it.

@ChameleonScales yup... odds are it''ll happen eventually... or the board will replace Nadella with a Ballmer disciple to remove any doubt (and that's a clear an present danger in any event). ;)

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

This Mastodon instance is provided gratis by the NZ Open Source Society for the benefit of everyone interested in their own freedom and sharing with others. Hosting is generously provided by Catalyst Cloud right here in Aotearoa New Zealand.