Microsoft joins group working to 'cure' open-source licensing issues

EXTEND

MS likes the GPL. It's the BSD license that bothers them - all their competitors are using BSD licensed code and projects.

EXTINGUISH

MS likes the GPL
this is why Steve "Developers" Ballmer called them parasites and claimed it was a "viral" license.
Because MS really likes the GPL
Dipshit

Microsoft pls release Xenix source thnks

I am sure there is nothing sinister behind this...

Attached: ms-austin-powers.webm (1.94 MB, 720x480)

EMBRACE
Remember that Linux will become part of Windows.
archive.fo/2hqVM
techrepublic.com/article/windows-10-will-let-everyone-run-linux-inside-windows-following-fall-creators-update/

Holy shit Ballmer knocked it out of the park there guy should have been an actor.

so random

I fucking hate Microsoft so god damn much. They never changed and are just as hostile to software freedom as they were in earlier years. They've proven so by letting their shill John Gossman speak at SCALE 16.

In 2007, Microsoft was very openly and publicly anti-GPLv3, claiming it was an attempt "to tear down the bridge between proprietary and open source technology that Microsoft has worked to build with the industry and customers."
The GPL (especially v3.0 and Affero) are the only licenses that guarantee the users freedom, which is exactly why Microsoft hates them.

Attached: spin2.gif (1 MB, 428x356)

Linux going full retard incorprating systemd-project directly into kernel when?

Attached: kkckc.png (146.08 KB, 223x416)

september 11 2001
a jewish holiday

But that's wrong, it runs everything but linux. It's GNU/kWindows.

/kWindows
what? You mean NT?

Microsoft, Red Hat, Facebook, Google and IBM
This is GNU/Linux

Attached: 5a6fdd50dca4d24251d7aa9dc83899b8b52a5a7dd2ba743ae44ba28d9a83877e.jpg (111.52 KB, 650x650)

for consisteny with /kFreeBSD

That was years ago, before MS funded a bunch of trannies and faggots to infiltrate and ruin prominent GPL'd products.

But we only do this because the OS and kernel of BSD is just called BSD. The kernel of Windows has an actual name

DER JUDEN!!!

Trannies and faggots are a minority and haven't actually affected anything. This is just more FUD by shills like you who want to steer people away from GPL projects.

Was the incorporation of those CoCs and influx of incompetent commits around the same time Microsoft began joining in and contributing to open-source?

implying this isn't the next step in their plan
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

DER JUDEN!!!
Singular: der Jude/die Jüdin
Plural: die Juden

Hello fellow memer! How do you do?

Attached: hello-fellow-memer.png (48.02 KB, 581x422)

I don't really get it. What exactly is going on?

Microsofts primary business model is cloud computing and software as a service model targeted as businesses. Linux makes up the majority of the Internets backbone. Microsoft adopted Linux for Azure Cloud (which is basically just Windows NT with Linux Subsystems for Linux) for support reasons. There's really nothing to get. Except a bunch of confused LARPers

So this is what billions of Dollars looks like.

No, I mean the whole "cure open-source licensing issues".

GPL is the disease for corporations.

Here's what rms has to say quoting from gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html:
<[…]
<Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association.
<[…]
Here's what Bruce Perens has to say perens.com/2017/09/26/on-usage-of-the-phrase-open-source/
<[…]
<It is unfortunate that for some time the Open Source Initiative deprecated Richard Stallman and Free Software, and that some people still consider Open Source and Free Software to be different things today. I never meant it to be that way. Open Source was meant to be a way of promoting the concept of Free Software to business people, who I have always hoped would thus come to appreciate Richard and his Free Software campaign. And many have. Open Source licenses and Free Software licenses are effectively the same thing.
Some in the very early Open Source movement considered Open Source a rebranding of Free Software to avoid triggering corporate feels, but promote the almost exact thing, then when they had been pulled in reveal the last minute "It's actually Free Software!". But the other side wanted Open Source to be about programmers coding for free the hard parts of the system, while selling the core part under a proprietary shrinkwrapper license. That side, unfortunately won. So when we trash talk Open Source on this site, it's not Bruce Perens and his side, but people who are for tivoization and has no problem using the proprietary site GitHub.

Microsoft loves Linux
web.archive.org/web/20010615205548/http://suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html
GPL is cancer
Open Source people when will they ever learn.

All versions of the GNU General Public License GPLv1, GPLv2, LGPLv2, LGPLv2.1, GPLv3, LGPLv3 and AGPLv3 state that if you violate the license, you lose your rights to distribute it. While the terms of what consitute violations differ from version to version, but the result is still the same, no more distribution. For corporations that benefit from (((proprietary software))), (((Tivoization))) and (((SaaSS))), this brings problems. On the one hand they'd like to screw you over so hard it's rape. On the other hand they want to keep the right to distibute well developed Free Software. If they play fast and loose with licensing, they can end up in deep shit if copyright holders take them to court. That would mean that they would have to spend months, maybe years developing their own alternatives just because they didn't pay enough attention. That Microsoft can spy on everyone who run Windows 10 on their computers, but can't even follow a (relatively simple) software license free of jargon and obscure references to copyright law, should be telling.

How much free work have you been doing for Sony and Apple lately, BSDcuck?

not getting paid to post crap like freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html
WEW LAD!

Attached: 375.jpg (380.06 KB, 1069x1081)

Microsoft makes open source software, and they want to wring money out of companies using their software without conforming to the license. Dual licensing and noncompliance settlement letters can be a lucrative industry.

The GPL was designed to keep research results from transitioning to proprietary products. This step is often assumed to be the last step in the traditional technology transfer pipeline and it is usually difficult enough under the best of circumstances; the GPL was intended to make it impossible.
Lol, so basically cuck out for the proprietary devs. I also notice that nowhere in this article does it mention the users.

The GPL can present a real problem for those wishing to commercialize and profit from software. For example, the GPL adds to the difficulty a graduate student will have in directly forming a company to commercialize his research results, or the difficulty a student will have in joining a company on the assumption that a promising research project will be commercialized.
This is also a blatant lie. Dual licensing exists.

Lol, so basically cuck out for the proprietary devs. I also notice that nowhere in this article does it mention the users.
Or that that research was paid for by the public, but somehow a small elite should siphon off the benefits.

This is also a blatant lie. Dual licensing exists.
The GPL does not forbid commercial use, that is part of Freedom 0. It forbids proprietary use because that would violate the 4 freedoms of the user.

Due in part to its complexity, in many parts of the world today the legalities of the GPL are being ignored in regard to Linux and related software. The long-term ramifications of this are unclear.
This is also FUD. Not a single citation to back this up. I can't believe BSDfags have to be this dishonest to push their shit.

why are there only 4 freedoms? Why not 5 or 8 or unlimited?

There are 4 essential freedoms needed for a piece of software to be considered free.

Says who?

Attached: 1428274972969.jpg (59.98 KB, 240x240)

what none of you have mentioned so far, and probably do not know, is that Microsoft and SUSE are partner companies and MS involvement with SUSE is to iron out some of the problems that linux has in interfacing with windows. MS actually does a lot for the open source community and those who publish under the various open source licences etc. It is part the reason why you can now use Samba as a windows domain controller with Active Directory properly

you mad bro?

mad about wat?

German

Attached: images-2.jpg (5.19 KB, 228x221)