[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

[school-discuss] Re: [IIEP] The View From Microsoft: Sharing Is Good Sometimes, but Not Always

torsdag 23 september 2004, 11:58, skrev Lucinda Ramos:
> The View From Microsoft (...) By MAGGIE WILDEROTTER
> At Microsoft we believe strongly in sharing access to software code
> within an intellectual commons, and in permitting commercial use of
> the products of that commons.

This is the reason I work with free software that permits commercial
use, and don't spend much time on software that forbids commercial use
as these exaples clearly shows:

-- Microsoft Shared Source License Version 1.0:
   You may not distribute this software in source or object
   form for commercial purposes under any circumstances.

-- General Public License version 2, June 1991:
   You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
   and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange
   for a fee.

Access to the code is not the same as a right to participate, as the
Kristen Nygaard (1926-2002)[1] clearly shows in his groundbreaking
work with Participatory Design[2]. System developers are also people
that needs income to live. This classical article[3] written by
Jonathan Grudin explains it: The Development of Interactive Systems:
Bridging the Gaps Between Developers and Users.

[1] http://www.ifi.uio.no/aktuelt/arkiv/2002/08/obituary.html
[2] http://www.cpsr.org/program/workplace/PD.html
[3] http://www.ics.uci.edu/~grudin/Papers/IEEE91/IEEE91.html

Participation for me also gives you the right to invent, share and
earn money of what you do. The licences from Microsoft prevents you
from earning money on your work, and we know what their
predispositions are. For my part I want to put my money where my moth
is. Thats why I wrote this short guide on how to contribute[4] to
Skolelinux/Debian Edu:


Our interest is to help people so that they can help them self, with
no need for mediators. It's similar to what Norwegians did when the
found the oil 40 years ago. The governmental contracts presuppose
transference of knowledge to the local businesses i Norway, companies
that are huge international industry today. To decide over your own
natural resources, and have the knowledge workers that get the best of
it, is a nation building opportunity.

It's a huge discussion how the partly governmental owned Statoil in
Norway acting in Africa today, with some exploitation
tendencies. Statoil have already got a corruption penalty for their
involvement in Iran. In my view Statoil has an obligation in other
countries to help the workers and the local businesses to do the same
as this company was given as possibilities in Norway many years

The Norwegian companies should give other nations the same
possibilities as Statoil was given - by the Norwegian government.
That is to help businesses and contries to help them self with the
technological posibilities. Not with exploitation, but with sharing of
knowledge and posibilities.


-- Source: Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing

-- The Open Innovation Paradigm

-- The National Science Foundation (NSF): Faster, Better, Cheaper:
   Open-Source Practices May Help Improve Software Engineering

- Knut Yrvin
Project manager (cel: +47 908 95 765) Skolelinux Norway and OpenOffice
translation to Norwegian. Office 1: SLX Debian Labs Forskningsparken,
Gaustadalle 21, 0349 OSLO, NORWAY. Office 2: IT-Staff Akershus County
Council, Schweigaards gate 4, 0185 OSLO, NORWAY