Voice of the Masses: Should Microsoft be allowed to join the Linux Foundation?
It might sound like a flock of pigs are flying through an especially cold day in hell, but it’s true: Microsoft has joined the Linux Foundation. And as a Platinum member!
Now, given Microsoft’s uneasy (to say the least) relationship with GNU/Linux and Free Software in the past, and ongoing patent issues, it makes us wonder: should the company even be allowed to join the Linux Foundation?
Let us know your opinions in the comments below. Do you think Microsoft has changed sufficiently to become a trustworthy member of the Foundation? Should the company be barred from getting involved at all? Or do you think our feelings and opinions shouldn’t be a part of this, and if Microsoft plays by the rules, there’s no problem?
Related Posts
About The Author
Mike Saunders
Mike stores his data by printing out hex dumps and laminating the sheets. He's the author of The Haynes Linux Manual and the creator of MikeOS, an operating system hand-built from assembly language.
It’s easy to be suspicious of the motives of large institutions but is actually the behaviour of the people within them that actually count.
Microsoft’s change of posture whilst driven by practical necessity is still an indication of a change of attitude at the top. Open Source values will drive up the quality of their output, and their engineering contribution to open source projects however motivated should be welcomed.
That depends on what the change in attitude has been. If it is simply a case of, “Oh well, FUD and litigation haven’t worked, so let’s go back to EEE.” Then I don’t really see that as a good thing.
As long as the code for Linux, and every target tech the new changes are meant to integrate with, remain full fat GPL, we should be fine.
Emphasis on the all othwr tech bit. I see some rock roads not far ahead….
Personally, I believe Microsoft advocates will mention pieces of Software created by Microsoft where they collaborate with Free and Open Software’s goals and principles. But as long as this does not cover the majority of their products I would reject their membership efforts. They are plain monetary at their root anyways.
Sure, why not? It’s not us that “allows”, after all. We can’t stop them.
Better question: does that devalue the foundation? A: probably, but thanks to you folks I know that it’s value is questionable anyway?
*its
Damnit.
Join yes. However, what would concern me is the level of influence they have within it. Not knowing the conditions of membership for the Linux Foundation, I would balk if they had somehow ‘bought’ a specific control or additional weight to their opinion just by virtue of who they are. However I have faith that the other members of the Linux Foundation will hold the line.
Not as long as they’re still patent-trolling Android.
the purpose of the creation of the foundation was to allow linus to continue his work without dealing with the influence of
money, so even though I still do not trust MS, I think this is a good thing. MS are only involved because they recognise the importance of linux in the cloud, and linux is now important for them to make money.
Why not? We know that Microsoft has worked against the Free Software community in the past, but surely this shows that they no longer wish to destroy us, and instead respect Linux and FOSS as a part of the ecosystem.
In all of my naivety and ignorance:
Members are there to do “Promotion, protection, and standardization of Linux by providing unified resources and services needed for open source to successfully compete with closed platforms.” So closed platforms manufacturers are there to compete against themselves?!?
Should company X become a member? I say yes. Why not? It doesn’t matter. When you kick out all of the non corporate member directors you effectively remove the moral point from the question and you get just another trade association with misleading name.
I believe Microsoft are only doing it for Microsoft’s benefit. They must have their systems working well with networks, which means working with Linux. As to whether Microsoft has changed will depend on how they coexist with Linux. Will they stop the way other manufacturers coexist with Linux? We will know when I can, at last, update my TomTom or Garmin Satnavs on Linux.
True. MS are self serving regardless of the picture they paint or who is at the helm.
But in true community spirit if they would like to join the club, they’re
mostwelcome, just behave!Cant help thinking though, if MS could push Linux out of a service and fulfill that themselves would they do it? What do you think?
I can see a new competing kernel in the pipe. And being in the club may smooth their path forward.
I think the should be allowed to join but, due to their historical hostility to Linux and Open Software in general, there should be a probationary period during which their behaviour and attitude to the communities must be exemplary. Also, during this period they should be forced to reveal ALL of the alleged patent infringements they feel the Linux and FOSS communities are guilty of – in my opinion, a hugely important point.
Of course they should be allowed to join the Linux foundation! The last thing we want to do is be building walls between ‘us’ and ‘them’.
As Herbert Clark Hoover, 31st President of the United States, once said “Peace is not made at the Council table or by treaties, but in the hearts of men.”
Let us welcome them!
Of course they should be allowed to join. Their customers want linux so they are offering it and contributing to linux.
No one complains when Red Hat submits code and makes a profitable business from linux.
I can see no reason why they, or anyone else should be prevented from joining. Perhaps them joining may be the catalyst to change past or even current ways.
Utopian view maybe, but I don’t believe exclusion will bring any benefits.