Could Microsoft Buy Red Hat? 572
An anonymous reader writes "Various news sources including ZDnet are today reporting that Microsoft is considering buying out Red Hat, speculating that 'Microsoft could see Red Hat's acquisition as a nice way to undermine IBM, but might not consider that a sufficient reason to do it,' adding that Red Hat is however '...a company that wants to be Microsoft and, like Microsoft, makes its living packaging and selling other people's ideas.'" That description seems to miss the key point that Red Hat releases the software they package and sell as Free software, and that both companies pay coders to create and improve software in the first place.
Selling ideas? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GPL? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Informative)
Ever Hear Of Xenix? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ever Hear Of Xenix? (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft sold Xenix off to SCO (and others) [unicom.com].
Paul Murphy blows smoke once again (Score:5, Informative)
GrokLaw readers will recognize Paul Murphy as the SYS-CON writer who likes to defend SCO [groklaw.net]. The statement from the ZDNet blog that should raise a red flag is this:
Anyone who isn't an idiot knows that F/OSS business are supposed to sell support with their Free licenses, not the other way around. The only rebellion I see against traditional software vendors like Microsoft, not RedHat. This guy is just spreading FUD.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:2, Informative)
Now that's just retarded. Don't you think that the $2 billion would be included in the cost of Sun?
Nobody is going to sell $2 billion cash for anything less than $2 billion.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Buying RH would open MS to GPL violation claims (Score:2, Informative)
"While it might be difficult to prove, this would open Microsoft up to accusations of assimilating GPL code in to Windows."
Or the other way around, along the lines of what SCO accused IBM of doing, only, perhaps in Microsoft, it could lead to a case that actually has merit, and also favors Microsoft.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Informative)
1: When you are hired, they claim ownership of any IP that you created unless you specifically list it as excluded on a form they give you.
2: You must get permission in writing from Microsoft to do any work outside Microsoft, or do any moonlighting
3: If a dispute arises, you agree to grant them a non-exclusive, non-revokable, worldwide, royalty-free license to distribute, modify, and re-use the disputed IP.