-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Killing With Kindness

,----[ Quote ]
| All of this [Microsoft] "openness" has two objectives: in the short term, it
| could convince the European Union regulators to back off their
| anti-competitive investigations of Microsoft. Long term, if played with
| enough sincerity, customers might actually believe what I am sure is the
| coming retcon from Microsoft: that they've always been an open source company
| at heart--in fact, they are the model for all other open source companies.
| Nutty? Just you wait.
|
| No matter how the message is delivered--whether you prefer BN, LT, or some
| other outlet, I believe we can agree that there is strong evidence of a slow
| collaborative effort from Redmond to co-opt "open source" as a concept. If
| that can actually be accomplished, one of Linux' biggest advantages could be
| rendered moot--if not in truth, then at least in marketing. And in business,
| sometimes marketing is all you need.
`----

http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story...20-26-OP-MS-NV

Sourcefire Says No to Barracuda's Takeover Bid

,----[ Quote ]
| Open-source security software maker Sourcefire has rejected a US$186 million
| unsolicited takeover offer from Barracuda Networks.
`----

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...eover_bid.html


Related:

Is Microsoft Hijacking Open Source?

,----[ Quote ]
| What really worries me is what looks like an emerging pattern in Microsoft's
| behaviour. The EU agreement is perhaps the first fruit of this, but I predict
| it will not be the last. What is happening is that Microsoft is effectively
| being allowed to define the meaning of “open source” as it wishes, not as
| everyone else understands the term. For example, in the pledge quoted above,
| an open source project is “not commercially distributed by its
| participants” - and this is a distinction also made by Kroes and her FAQ. * * *
|
| In this context, the recent approval of two Microsoft licences as
| officially “open source” is only going to make things worse. Although I felt
| this was the right decision – to have ad hoc rules just because it's
| Microsoft would damage the open source process - I also believe it's going to
| prove a problem. After all, it means that Microsoft can rightfully point to
| its OSI-approved licences as proof that open source and Microsoft no longer
| stand in opposition to each other. This alone is likely to perplex people who
| thought they understood what open source meant. * * *
|
| [...]
|
| What we are seeing here are a series of major assaults on different but
| related fields – open source, open file formats and open standards. All are
| directed to one goal: the hijacking of the very concept of openness. If we
| are to stop this inner corrosion, we must point out whenever we see wilful
| misuse and lazy misunderstandings of the term, and we must strive to make the *
| real state of affairs quite clear. If we don't, then core concepts like “open
| source” will be massaged, kneaded and pummelled into uselessness. * *
`----

http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1003745

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIQPtzU4xAY3RXLo4RAkK0AJ9jFakJirbbq5pwXVNzUf mUTFL03gCfS4TQ
eSMjpLXVyZxvxqj1iRsmd8M=
=Afso
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----