Slashdot Log In
Red Hat CEO Talked Patents with MS
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Fri Jun 29, 2007 06:26 AM
from the sleeping-with-the-enemy dept.
from the sleeping-with-the-enemy dept.
c3ph45 writes "Before the Novel-Microsoft deal, Red Hat was in talks with Microsoft over patents. Thankfully, the deal fell apart before Novel made their infamous partnership with Microsoft. As has been reported before, Red Hat doesn't plan to enter into any patent agreements with Microsoft, but it leaves open the question: What if both Red Hat and Novell had entered into such deals? One large vendor doing so has caused enough disruption. How would the community have coped with two of the largest vendors doing so?"
Related Stories
[+]
Red Hat Rejects Microsoft Deals 287 comments
Kurtz'sKompund passed us an article detailing another loss in Microsoft's licensing push: Red Hat has summarily rejected Redmond's offer of an alliance. The article also touches on Ubuntu's rejection of the same offer, which we discussed this past weekend. ZDNet reports on comments from Mark Shuttleworth and the Red Hat organization, with Shuttleworth stating "Allegations of 'infringement of unspecified patents' carry no weight whatsoever. We don't think they have any legal merit, and they are no incentive for us to work with Microsoft on any of the wonderful things we could do together." Red Hat was even more blunt, stating the organization refused to pay an "innovation tax" to Microsoft. "Red Hat said there would be no such deal. Referring to previous statements distancing itself from Microsoft, the company insisted: 'Red Hat's standpoint has not changed.' The company referenced a statement written when Microsoft revealed it was partnering with Novell, saying that its position remained unaltered. Red Hat director of corporate communications Leigh Day added: 'We continue to believe that open source and the innovation it represents should not be subject to an unsubstantiated tax that lacks transparency.' Many open-source followers argue that Red Hat, as the largest Linux vendor, would have a lot to lose from partnering with Microsoft."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Mass hysteria (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mass hysteria (Score:5, Interesting)
I think we are very quickly approaching the point where something has to break. Either the government steps up and admits that it doesn't give a shit, or people in general start to notice what is going on and there are major problems.
(I know patents and copyrights are not the same thing, but they are symptoms of the same problem. Bear with me here.)
The RIAA has started suing everyone and their grandmother (literally) and the general populace is starting to realize how unfair it is, and that the tactics the RIAA is using are -allowed- by the government.
Patents are starting to prevent cool devices from existing, and threatening the ones we already have. (Blackberry.) There have been quite a few reports lately about 'x device will have to be disconnected because someone else hass a patent' etc. Discomfort enough people with money, and something is going to happen.
Copyright is even starting to overstep its bounds and artists everywhere are finding themselves restricted instead of encouraged. Yes, they are still encouraged to innovate, but let's face it: Most art improves on other art, rather than being wholly original. Patents are starting to restrict them as well. Imagine if someone patented cel-shading or any other style. With our current system, that could be done.
Things keep getting worse instead of better, and someone -will- step up and do something about it soon.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson [wikiquote.org]
We've been a lot longer than 20 years without 'such a rebellion'.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that Gen-X has certainly felt one brewing. Fight Club, anyone?
Re:Mass hysteria (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they go back to their lives, following the rules, working a job they hate to earn money they don't want to buy stuff they don't need.
Call me cynical but I can't see that changing any time soon.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mass hysteria (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
NRA (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with the NRA is that they say they need guns to fight off tyranny but essentially define tyranny as not having guns.
There is no problem with the NRA. As for tyranny and firearms, almost if not every population that was tyrannized was disarmed first. This is true even for the 1980s and 1990s. For instance Iran, after the Iranian revolution the Ayatllahs left people alone at first. The Revolutionary Guard then sponsered a program wherein for every firearm a person brought in they were given
Re: (Score:2)
This Gen-X'er certainly feels one brewing. And I *thought* a large chunk of my peers shared some of that... but I'm starting to doubt it. I dunno... as Gen-X'ers reach an age where they start getting elected to public office, etc., we'll see how many of us really believe in ideals like Freedom and Liberty.
I have to say, I'll be *very* disappointed if my "generation" isn't heavily involved in a pro-Liberty, pro-Freedom shift in thin
Re: (Score:2)
One large vendor doing so has caused enough disruption.
What disruption? The only "disruption" I suffered was all the time I spent reading a bunch of blogs going crazy about the Novell deal was the end of the world.... then I went back to work.
Re: (Score:2)
The great thing about this story is that we get to do all that even though nothing happened!
Slow news day? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slow news day? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
distros contributions (Score:3, Interesting)
The code that for example novell puts in the kernel is covered by the GPL 2, but how will that work out with the patent deal they made? Will a switch (if)to GPL 3 of the kernel change this? GPL 3 speaks more of patents than GPL 2.
Nothing to worry about there (Score:2, Insightful)
Novell etc are hurting their human-to-human relationships with the community and (to the extent that the deals they do violate GPLv2 and GPLv3) they hurt their ability to continue to legally distribute GNU/Linux, but the contributions they've made are irrevocably made under whatever license they distributed their contributions under - these contributions don't become invalid
Re: (Score:2)
The switch can't happen unless all contributors accept it, since they usually hold the copyright to their contributions. Novell can simply say "no, we won't permit that", and the kernel either stays GPLv2, or the Novell contributions must be ripped out.
so wtf? (FTFA) (Score:5, Interesting)
his company is now in negotiations with Microsoft over signing
such a patent agreement.
"I can't answer the question," he said.
Re: (Score:2)
unless a response of "You must be fskin' joking" was interpreted as a refusal to answer the question.
Re:so wtf? (FTFA) (Score:4, Insightful)
Red Hat's management would be negligent if they didn't discuss potential patent infringments with the competition. That doesn't mean they're talking about a Novell-style deal, though. I suspect MS appreoached them and said "we think you're infinging our patents, what are you going to do about it". RH probably replied with "...and you're infringing these patents held by OIN". That leads to a discussion between the two parties. Discussion != agreement. Why he can't just come out and say that, I don't know.
Parent
Re:so wtf? (FTFA) (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:so wtf? (FTFA) (Score:5, Interesting)
But that shouldn't be surprising. Red Hat said, after all, that - they never said "no deals with Microsoft about patents." And rightly so - the problem with the Novell-Microsoft deal is exactly that it is a vague 'innovation tax', mentions no actual patents, and is therefore completely nontransparent. Other deals regarding patents could be different.
A patent deal in which, say, Red Hat license specific WMA-related patents in order to ship WMA-playing software legally is 'reasonable' - at least assuming that that particular software is not GPL (or, if it is, if the patent license applies to all users of the software, not just Red Hat customers). I say 'reasonable' using scare quotes because this is reasonable only under the current highly-problematic US patent system. But, given that system, if Red Hat want to ship certain products, they must reach agreements concerning their patent holders. A sad fact of life.
(Note: I have no idea if WMA is patented, or not. This is just an example for illustration purposes.)
Parent
Good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
*ducks* *runs*
Re: (Score:2)
Fairy Tale (Score:2)
More specificly, the part where one of the heros accidently drops one of the pieces & the evil supervillan almost gets it right before the cool guy that everyone thinks is next to useless swoops in out of nowhere & saves the day.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually think MS is using all of this to go after Google...
Can't Cope, Clown'll Eat Me (Score:5, Funny)
This isn't a particularly well-angled question, in my opinion. The answers are too obvious. The community would cope by...
* Printing up obscure if arguably quasi-witty T-shirts with phrases on them like "PATENTS == MURDER" or "LESSIG SIGNED MY TITS" or "THE BORG HAVE THE RED BOX!"
* Posting foaming diatribes to hot-spots of cultural influence like the ass-end of a deeply nested thread on Slashdot or, worse, on a crappy, template-raped personal weblog and then spammed via Digg.
* Ruining a potentially good date by trying to lecture the poor girl about the GPL.
* Catharsis through extra masturbation.
* News: Red Hat and Microsoft strike a deal. Not-news: Some geek writes a snarky headline about it on Fark. Take THAT, Redmond!
* Lego re-enactments of famous scenes from movies re-written to reflect the patent deal situation, uploaded to YouTube. "Luke, I am your patent holder." "Noo-o-o-o-o-ooo-oo!"
* LOL i haz ur intellec2al properdy portpholeo!!11!!11
Oh yeah, baby -- it'd be like the Million Man March all over again.
attack of the strawman .troll .. (Score:2)
Totally ignore the main points of the article and address totally bogus strawman [fallacyfiles.org] fallacy.
was: Re:Can't Cope, Clown'll Eat Me
Attack of the Non-Entertaining Troll (Score:2)
you were never funny .. (Score:2)
Matrix XP [youtube.com]
Microsoft iPod [youtube.com]
Southpark Matrix - Parody [youtube.com]
Ghost in the shell- Matrix Parody [youtube.com]
Exclusive Matrix Parody [youtube.com]
Were Too! (Score:2)
Microsoft wants to build a Linux Licensing busines (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux (and all the free software it supports) is a compelling technology that underpins huge new markets. Microsoft wants to tax these markets. It has been accumulating patents, and lobbying for software patents in Europe, and investing in Intellectual Ventures, to create the necessary tools. It has decided the time is right to move. Its strategy is to divide and conquer the Linux community, by making deals with the commercial vendors. The deals don't need to be patent deals, they just need to allow Microsoft to pump some money into the companies in question, so they become slaved to Microsoft's policies. This is a standard operating procedure for MSFT.
The real targets are the large Linux users - big business. These firms will be asked politely but with force to pay a MS tax on Linux, in the name of "interoperability" and "intellectual property". The carrot will be interoperability with Microsoft's stacks, the stick will be that wallet of "infringements".
Above all, Microsoft wants to make life hard for IBM: its fear and loathing of IBM underpins its strategy in the Linux space.
There are two big problems with Microsoft's strategy:
One, it has moved too soon and too aggressively, probably scared by the GPLv3, and has created serious anger with those large firms it's supposed to be gaining as "Linux customers".
Second, it is playing games with an industry - the patent industry - that is more evil even than Microsoft. By feeding the trolls, it's sowing the seeds of its own departure from the software business.
Three, it is forcing IBM to move to action against Microsoft. The Open Invention Network (OIN) can be seen as a direct counter to Intellectual Ventures, which although highly secretive about its investors, most likely runs on MSFT cash.
Red Hat will, IMO, eventually make a deal with Microsoft, as will Canonical. The deal won't mention patents at all, but it will come to the same: cash flowing from Microsoft to Linux vendors, in sufficient quantities that they will be forced to play nice with Microsoft's plans.
Re:Microsoft wants to build a Linux Licensing busi (Score:3, Interesting)
Not sure about Canonical doing this, look at bug #1 in their buglist:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1 [launchpad.net]
Re:Microsoft wants to build a Linux Licensing busi (Score:2)
Is this really all that much of an incentive? I'm putting together a very-big-assed RHEL thingy that has no requirement to interoperate with any MS stacks (other than http, and that's hardly proprietary).
Debian is power (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If irregular releases really distressed people, Microsoft would have regular releases. I would argue that most people prefer the rock solid stability of
One word (Score:2, Flamebait)
One word,
Ubuntu
a modest proposal .. (Score:3, Interesting)
Novel is not totally evil yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Without the patent deal, if you by mistake include patented stuff, you will anger the authors of free software AND risk being sued to death by Microsoft. With the deal, MS can't touch you. You only have to find a way to please the authors of any GPL'd code you may have distributed. History has shown that if it only was an honest mistake, they tend to have small demands. Just remove the offending code and everyone will most likely be happy.
One good thing out of this patent shenanigans... (Score:3, Interesting)
(PS- I call shenanigans!)
You know (Score:2, Interesting)
I like linux, I've been using it for the past 5 years as my only os, but that doesn't mean I run around with blinders on thinking all is fine and dandy. Would linux contin
Talking is his job (Score:3, Insightful)
red hat's official statement (Score:5, Insightful)
"Red Hat has only recently been able to see some of the terms of the original Microsoft/Novell deal, due to the belated and redacted SEC filings that were made. Based on what we have seen, the deal is not interesting to us. Red Hat continues to believe that open source and the innovation it represents should not be subject to an unsubstantiated tax that lacks transparency."
My own thoughts, that are not necessarily those of my employer:
CEOs have to be very careful about what they say in public, especially in this day and age in the US business world. Sometimes a "no comment" is the only safe answer. Personally, I do not believe Red Hat would ever make a Novell-style deal. I can't even begin to express how angry and disappointed I would be with Red Hat, and Mr. Szulik, if such a deal were to ever happen. But I don't stay up at night worrying about it, because I trust Red Hat's CEO and top management to do the right thing.
Disruption? (Score:2)
What is this disruption you refer to? Its it something new from the FUD that has been circulation for years, fodder for /. or idiotic articles in Computerworld?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how times change.
(Well, I just read that link again, and it still gives me some hope; it really does look like a well thought out plan, and not the usual PR fluff you'd expect.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Red Hat is a publicly traded company whose primary stockholders and customers are corporate enterprise groups. They don't sell to "hobbyists". Based on their customer profile, who do you think they care most about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So?
If you want to be Richard Stallman about it, this is exactly the difference between "free software" -- an ethical prerogative -- and "open source" -- a business convenience. We knew all along that Red Hat et al. were from the open-source faction.
In practical terms, Red Hat makes money off its software, and uses that money to pay many prolific Linux developers. Same with m
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)