Microsoft asked for references to free software to be removed from a document presented at last week's UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conference, the software giant admitted on Friday.
The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is unhappy that the document was changed and claims that even though it was on the panel discussing the document, it was not made aware of Microsoft's changes.
The document, known as the Vienna Conclusions, discusses issues around IT and creativity. The original draft of the document discussed how the free software model is changing the way people do business.
"Increasingly, revenue is generated not by selling content and digital works, as they can be freely distributed at almost no cost, but by offering services on top of them. The success of the free software model is one example," stated the original document, according to the FSFE.
But the final version of the document contains no reference to free software. "Increasingly, revenue is generated by offering services on top of contents," states the final version of the document.
Thomas Lutz, the manager of public affairs at Microsoft Austria, asked for this section to be deleted as "it contains only a one-sided perspective on the ICT industry."
"The rationale for this is, that the aim of free software is not to enable a healthy business on software but rather to make it even impossible to make any income on software as a commercial product," he added.
Lutz' comments were posted on a conference blog, but Georg Greve, the president of FSFE, who was involved in drafting that section of the document, claims that no-one on his panel was aware of the blog until last week.
Greve criticised Lutz' comments as "Microsoft propaganda".
"This is so obviously stupid and nonsensical that it seems pointless to comment on it: Just another monopolist trying to uphold their monopoly by preventing freedom of markets — which is what Free Software really aims at," he said, on his blog.
But on Friday Lutz denied that the panel was unaware of these changes and confirmed that his blog postings are accurate.
"The Vienna Conclusions document was created through a democratic feedback process as requested by the committee and stated on the committee blog. Each and every participant of the conference was invited to publish contributions, share feedback and offer changes which facilitated discussion and an open exchange of positions," he told ZDNet UK. "All of our change requests were approved by the committee."
This is not the only change to the document that Microsoft brought about. In a later section of the same document, Lutz asked that a reference to the open source operating system Linux be removed as "this is only one particular — anti-commercial — specificity of the open source landscape."
Microsoft appears to have been stepping up its fight against Linux recently, with comments about open source 'dorks' and claims that Africa does not need free software.
Talkback
Microsoft is anti-competitive. Unfortunately, their business model of buying out competition doesn't work with Linux and open source, therefore if "commerical" is defined as "Microsoft's business", the statement is true. Obviously, there are companies very able to make money from "selling" free software and services. There are no real restrictions to this; in fact, there are greater opportunities with open source than there are with closed source. Can you resell Windows XP packaged to your specifications without a contract from Microsoft?
Microsofts implementation of democracy:
http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/microsofts_implementation_of_democracy
Typical. Yet more underhanded dirty tricks from the criminal monopolist.
But isn't the Vienna Conclusions document now, after the deletion, *really* one-sided perspective in that regard?
It is dirty tricks like these that sometimes make me wish there was something like a Rote Armee Fraction that would take care of bastards like Lutz.
But then again, that would be like one-upping MS in badness, and two wrongs still don't make a right.
Better then to use some Gandhi-isms: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you and then you win.
I think we might be giving MS too much credit here.
Perhaps this is just more evidence of them desperately trying to keep any mention of Linux or Free Software away from people's attention. When you consider their recent XML 'standard' has Microsoft Office as its prefix as do most of their forays, or Microsoft Windows etc. is this just a bad attempt at brain-washing? Certainly they give their products the full title every time when in an interview even though they know time is short and abbreviations are readily available.
Expect to see more of these blatant insults to our intelligence as the Open Source business model wipes out the old monopolies and we witness the final years of Microsoft.
This is why F/OSS should never pull punches. Microsoft has no hesitation to hit the people they see as their opponents with everything they have. Until F/OSS, Microsoft uses their money to buy out anyone who competed. Can't buy out F/OSS, so they fight dirty at every opportunity.
Getting this paper doctored is a dirty, nasty trick. It is also exactly what to expect. Never miss an opportunity to do it right back in their face!
Fear tactics: as long as Linux was a kitten, the aging lion MS wasn't concerned. But the kitten in the bush is beginning to feel its hormones - a clash is imminent. As for Ms and government-run agencies: collusion between business and government has a name, one Europe should be bitterly familiar with. Fascism.
Another reason to completely wipe MS products, such as Office, off of my pc. I'm installing OpenOffice now as I type this. My next move will be to Linux. Good riddance Microsoft!!
So, Anti commercial means "is better value than my product"?
By that criteria, HP should just sue dell for anti-competitive behaviour (ie, pricing their equivlient systems cheaper than HP do), Coke could sue Pepsi (and vice versa) and SCO could sue everyone - well, everyone *else* they aren't already suing :)
OMG!! now this is bloody ridiculous,
someone should bomb the microst headquarters
'Greve criticised Lutz' comments as "Microsoft propaganda". '
Damn straight.
Microsoft is feeling the pinch. It brings out the realilty in the Microsoft camp who feel threatened by the increasing acceptance of Oopen Source software.
Instead of going the anti-open source way, they could hv directed some of their efforts to improve their own software. But no, they r real nuts.
Any piece of software with genuine added-value will continue to sell whatever the economic model.
The real problem with M$ is that their software is rapidly drifting from the "must have" to merely "nice to have" with regards to open source competitors. And that must keep them awake at night.
On the othe hand they are no fools. I bet they are actively overhauling their business model to incorporate open-source, while at the same time fighting a fierce rear-gard battle in order to buy time.
In other words, they can't afford to speak honestly yet.
Well, Microsoft Inc have been a wee bit annoyed with the european regulators lately. Imagine, accusing them of unfair trade practises! Obviously the law must be wrong when it does not favor MS. Look at the multimedia player decision - MS must have been grinning with that decision because they can tell the customers "look, your governments are telling you we aren't allowed to give you this stuff". Sounds like the customers are losing out - but anyone with more than half a brain cell knows that if you let MS have its way, man will you be paying for their crappy media player in the future. They've driven so many competitors out of business with those tactics - and look - the same stinking trick still works 15 years later!
Anyway, not content with having laws to protect the consumers, MS is playing hard to control the legislators and make laws which favor themselves. If you think religions interfering with politics is bad, just imagine MS interfering with politics. You don't have to imagine too much - other large corporations do the same.
IIf the UN is to be accepted as a reliable source of infomation, they must ensure that the are not hi jacked by the restrictive ideas of multination companies, especially those from the USA.
"This is so obviously stupid and nonsensical that it seems pointless to comment on it: Just another monopolist trying to uphold their monopoly by preventing freedom of markets — which is what Free Software really aims at,"
The U.N is an anachronism, it is led by a criminal, who should be in jail, and anything coming from the U.N. can
not be trusted or relied upon.
M$ is an anachronism. It is a monopolist. led by a greedy individual who has no interest in what is good for mankind, interested only in himself. ALL information
coming from Redmond cannot be trusted or relied upon, FUD, FUD,FUD!
So, not wanting to be ripped off is now considered anti-commercial? Well so be it. I am anti-commercial. I spent about $400 to "upgrade" to perfectly working Windows 98 computers to XP. I had to do this because a commercial piece of software would not longer be supported on Windows 98. What does the program do now that it did not do before? NOT A THING!!!! I also wanted to use a XP cd that came with a computer that I PURCHASED on a different computer. I had this extra Widnows license laying arounf simply because I decided to use Linux on that purchased computer. Of course, Micro$oft would not acivate this XP installation (even though it was never on any other computer).
After a bunch of frustration, I decided to buy SuSE Professional. I paid about $85, and I was able to intall that on about 5 computers (legally). These computers do what I need them to do, so with Linux, a got a better value. In addition, I do not cringe whenever I get ready to download my email. I spend abosulutely $0 on antivirus software as well. With Microsoft, I even have to pay for first time technical support.
Let Micro$oft bitch and moan about how Linux is anti-commercial. I guess I would too if I held a monopoly over the computing industry and suddenly found that I now have to compete. Microsoft makes its money on forced consumption and endless "upgrade" cycles. I get better value and service using Linux, and I will not go back to Micro$oft unless I am somehow forced to.
In other words, they can't afford to speak honestly yet.
The truth is they could not speak honestley if there very existance hung on it they are so tied up in lies con jobs and ripoffs
still trying to put the Linux and the opensource down again, well what ever they will do I'm sure Linux will be much better product then their shamk shit
"Anyone who wishes so should be free to share the outcomes of his or her creative
efforts for no pay, but no one should be forced to do so or accept this as the dominant
model. At the same time, success and market power should not be used to dominate
and restrict the free exchange of ideas."
this is another quote from the report.
David, Clay, Georg etc: Do you use Micros**t products?
Put your money where your mouths are. Quit using Micros**t products.
Mac.
Unix.
Linux.
ANYTHING!
I'm so fed up with Microsoft's illegal practices and get the world to sue Microsoft for all the evil it has done.
Microsoft should be charged for acts against humanity. As it is forcing people to do what it wants.
*Microsoft as in the people who heads it. Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, etc.
I wish Microsoft would just shut up and stop stating the obvious (i.e. Microsoft hate free software because they can't make enough money out of it). They are not doing themselves any good by trying to trash competitors operating systems, when they can't even do their own job properly. They either need to understand that not everybody wants (or can) use windows.
Just because some of their competitors offer free software, it does not mean that it is necessarily and worse (or indeed better) than any product Microsoft can produce. In addition, many Linux distrubution cost about the same as Windows, and have proper support that doesn't involve installing a patch and reseting the computer.
What is democracy if a single commercially motivated organization can have so much influance that easily?
Are we bough and payed for already of have we simply elected the wrong people (parties) to represent us?
Whow - a new legal isuue has been born - anticommercial - sounds like a crime to be so ....
Lets see how long it will take to make it a law "anticommercial"
No surprise that this comes from MS and even more tolerated and procured from the US Gov
Neil Ashe:
I'm a Computer Technician -- I have no choice but to support the Microsoft monopoly given my current position. Had I the choice (which I don't) Linux would run every computer I touch (which is several thousand). Realistically, however, when Microsoft is the default preload on any major vendor's computer system, I have difficulty convincing the higher-ups to switch to something "free" when they already perceive Windows to be free. I avoid Microsoft products everywhere I can; I do not feel good about supporting an abusive, criminal monopoly. Unfortunately, the truth is that Microsoft is where the majority of the market is right now, and that means most software gets directed there. So I use Microsoft Windows for what it's good at: games. I use Linux and Open Source for everything else.
How can microsoft call open source a socialist movement. It's time for the microsoft dictatorship to fall and the Open Source free enterprise model to take over.
MS = BS
Wow, I should patent, trademark, and copywrite the statement then I could make billions selling bumper stickers.
Open Source is Open Market!
(OOooo , another good one;)