"Messaging that discusses possible Linux patent violations, pings the OSS (open-source software) development process for lacking accountability, attempts to call out the 'viral' aspect of the GPL (General Public License), and the like are only marginally effective in driving unfavorable opinions...and in some cases backfire," the memo states.
Microsoft representatives declined to comment Wednesday on the memo, but its authenticity was confirmed by a person familiar it.
The memo, which was posted this week on Opensource.org, summarizes a project at Microsoft called "Attitudes Towards Shared Source and Open Source Research."
As part of the project, the company conducted a telephone survey of developers and other IT workers in the United States, Brazil, France, Germany, Sweden and Japan. The total size of the telephone survey was not noted, but the memo states that outside the United States "individual country and audience sample sizes are extremely small."
Among the survey's conclusions:
• "Familiarity and favorability for OSS and Linux was high across geographies and audiences."
• "Messages that criticize OSS, Linux and the GPL are NOT effective."
• "Overall respondents felt the most compelling reason to support OSS was that it 'offers a low total cost of ownership (TCO)'."
The open-source movement--exemplified by the Linux operating system and the GPL that governs it--features collaborative programming by all comers. In the case of Linux, participants include several companies that distribute Linux and also larger corporations such IBM and Intel, as well as volunteers all over the world.
With so many developers cooperating on the same project--the argument goes--the software improves faster than with proprietary programming typified by Microsoft. In addition, Linux is essentially free, although companies such as Red Hat sell a version at a modest price with the goal of earning additional revenue through installation and maintenance contracts.
According to the memo, the survey was conducted between July and September of 2001, about the same time that Microsoft executives turned up the rhetorical heat on Linux.
In May 2001, Senior Vice President Craig Mundie presented a paper in which he argued that releasing source code into the public domain is "unhealthy" and causes security risks. "As history has shown, while this type of model may have a place, it isn't successful in building a mass market and making powerful, easy-to-use software broadly accessible to consumers."
Ballmer, during an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times on June 1, said that "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches."
Later that month, Gates said in an interview that "if you say to people, 'Do you understand the GPL?' (then) they're pretty stunned when the Pac-Man-like nature of it is described to them."
The GPL requires that anyone be allowed to redistribute software covered by it; patent licensees such as Microsoft won't necessarily grant such rights.
Bruce Perens, co-founder of the Open Source Initiative, said Wednesday that he had no knowledge of the memo but that it "sounds like what you would expect from them."
More recently, Microsoft has appeared to soften its public stance.
"We've have initiated a shared source program. We're learning, if you will, from the Linux world," Ballmer said in October.
News.com's Stephen Shankland contributed to this report.
Ballmer states:
"We've have initiated a shared source program. We're learning, if you will, from the Linux world,"
Unfortunately, they aren't learning.
Unlike Open Source, you are not allowed to redistribute Microsoft's software.
Unlike Open Source, Microsoft does not show you the source code to Windows XP, nor to SQL Server, nor to IIS or Exchange. They only show you the source code to systems in which they are clearly lagging in terms of market share and technology.
Unlike Open Source, you are not allowed to install Microsoft's software on as many computers as you want.
Unlike Open Source, you are not allowed to include Microsoft's software into your software.
Unlike Open Source, Microsoft do not make their software transparent and accessable to all.
Unlike Open Source, Microsoft's software has patents, which they may decide to use against you in future if you actually do decide to review any of the code behind their 'Shared Source' programs.
'Shared Source' provides nothing of the freedom and rights to users that Open Source does. 'Shared Source' seems to be an attempt at making a smoke-screen to obfuscate the differences between the Open Source community and Microsoft, leading to as much confusion and doubt as possible. If successful, this helps Microsoft.
Finally, nothing will inform you more about the differences between an Open Source licence (like the GPL) and Microsoft's 'Shared Source' licence, than reading both of them and making up your own mind. "The GNU Public Licence" is easy to find: Google lists over 62,000 full references to it. Google has only 16 refences to the "Microsoft Shared Source Licence", none of which are the licence itself, making it extremely difficult to read, digest and understand exactly what Microsoft is giving, and what they are taking away.