Microsoft Getting Paid for Patents in Linux? 377
kripkenstein noted an Interview with Jeremy Allison where the interviewer asks 'One of the persistent rumors that's going around is that certain large IT customers have already been paying Microsoft for patent licensing to cover their use of Linux, Samba and other free software projects.' and Jeremy responds
"Yes, that's true, actually. I mean I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using [...] But they're not telling anyone about it. They're completely doing it off the record."
Why shouldn't they ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I know, software patents are the spawn of Satan, no-one (not even me, actually
I'm nowhere near a fanboy for Microsoft (quite the opposite, if you read my posting history), but in this case, I can't see they've done anything *wrong*. You can argue that software patents are bad - yes, agreed. You can argue that these particular patents are flawed, perhaps they are. You can argue that it's just not moral to profit from the work of others, and yes I agree with that too.
But, sadly, what they're doing appears to be legal, so perhaps the ire ought to be directed at what makes it legal, rather than shooting the messenger (dammit
Simon (ducking)
so do home users (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why shouldn't they ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why shouldn't they ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Plausible, but no proof (Score:2, Insightful)
If it is true than Microsoft sure as hell selects his targets by who they
think will pay up offcourse and selects a target (victem) that doesn't want
to see this information out in public. I mean if some Windows only shop A
has customers that are trusting the company A because they only use Microsoft
products. Microsoft discovers that company A actually runs on Linux on his
internal network, i would say company A is a perfect candidate to squeeze some
dollars out off...
It's plain and simple extortion me thinks, but hey, if they can pass it off as
protecting their IP than more power to them. Fighting this won't change a thing.
General public opinion is pro-microsoft, sad but true things have to become
much and much and much worse before people start to wake up and revolt. I hope that
day comes soon.
But i can be wrong to offcourse...
NFS is easier anyways (Score:5, Insightful)
Just another "innovation" from MSFT [smb] that they'll try to horde instead of playing the "let's weigh in on technical merits" game.
And for fuck sake, why doesn't Windows support NFS? It makes mixing boxes on a lan such a bitch
Tom
Re:Plausible, but no proof (Score:5, Insightful)
No for most public companies its going to be cheaper to bow to M$ extortion, hint M$ will customize their demands so that is the case, then to fight them. Its no surpise at all M$ can basically shake down corporate FOSS users. Until the patent/copyright situation is really resolved and sadly I don't think the SCO case is going to fully resolve it, especially the patent side, M$ can bully anyone they want.
Which is exactly what Novell was trying to stop ostensibly, although I think their motives were far less pure personaly.
Alternatively, you take file serving away from MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Leaving file serving in MS's control simply leaves you open to patent infringement etc.
It is time.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:NFS is easier anyways (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux in general isn't good at LAN-level networking. It's hard to manage network users, and it's hard to get permissions set correctly. It's getting better, but right now, for heavy-duty LAN stuff, Windows and Active Directory are much better and easier to deal with in almost all cases.
Think of the Shareholders (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NFS is easier anyways (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, Windows does support NFS. Secondly, NFS security is a joke. All you have to do is change the user ID of your user on your machine to the user ID of the person you want to steal files from on the file server. Gods help your server admin if he doesn't have root_squash enabled. Then all you have to do is su to root on your machine, and you have access to everything on the file server.
SMB has actual security and checks on the server side. Hence you have to type a password with mount -t smb, but not with mount -t nfs. Doesn't it seem kind of suspect when you don't have to enter a password with NFS?
Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone, out of the pool!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
As Floaters ensure that only the most discusting little kids ever use the swimming pool, Software Patents ensure that only the biggest, most amoral lawyer infested companies thrive in the tech industry.
Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody (Score:3, Insightful)
*In fact, it's now been shown [ffii.org] that that patenting work activity SUBSTITUTES for research activity, at least in the software field. That is to say, the patent system isn't just not encouraging innovation and progress, it's actually actively discouraging it. Brilliant.
Re:NFS is easier anyways (Score:5, Insightful)
NFS was designed for use in an environment where both client and server boxes were secure, multi-user systems. One logical connection per share would serve for multiple users. Of course, if you allow insecure clients into the equation then all your security is blown out of the water.
SMB was designed on the assumption that the client would be an insecure single-user system. All the security is on the server, and connections are on a per-user basis.
Neither system is really ideal for the situations which we have today. What is needed is a secure system which copes with multi-user client boxes.
John
What is wrong... (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporate bullying should never be tolerated in a mature nation. Also, corporation profit compromising as a motive for prosecution tells a lot about (lack of) respect for humans.
Proof (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if its proven to be happening, then ya. its time to get pissed off. ( though, no one can say this wasnt unexpected )
Puts the Novell Deal in Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why shouldn't they ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Allison's argument is that it's not legal for the companies that are paying the money to MS. Those companies are only licensed to use Linux under the GPL. The GPL forbids what they're doing. (I'm sure that's a vast oversimplification, but that seems to be the general idea.)
Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why shouldn't they ? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, No they havn't.
Unless selling out = working with microsoft to provide non-GPL proprietory tools which allow better linux/windows interoperability and agreeing that both microsoft and linux code probably infringe on each other's patents and therefore agreeing not to sue each others' customers.
To me, that's not selling out, that's being sensible and making your product more attractive to corporates with $$$. Some would even say it was a smart business move.
Re:Why shouldn't they ? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Pay us under the table and we'll not sue you into the ground on the basis of something which has never been proven before - but you'd rather not have to risk it, wouldn't you?"
Re:NFS is easier anyways (Score:4, Insightful)
Even in the mac world, rather than mess with AFP (which isn't difficult to use or set up), we just tell our mac users to connect using smb to our servers to get shares when they are not logging into the Apple Domain. It just works and it can communicate with all our OSs.
That said, I feel that NFSv4 is likely a more secure, more open solution. Alas, though, I doubt we'll ever see Windows support it fully, including permission mappings.
Re:Alternatively, you take file serving away from (Score:5, Insightful)
'Write a free cross platform client and server network filesystem which runs on...'
Here is the catch.
'...OSX'
Only Apple can make OSX natively support your new standard. They probably will since it is an open standard.
'...Unix'
Unix is modular and you could plug in your solution even if vendors didn't ship it. You probably wouldn't have much trouble getting vendors to include an implementation of your protocol since it only benefits them to do so.
'...Linux'
Duh
'...Windows'
And here is the show stopper. Only Microsoft can integrate native support for your protocol in windows. Further Microsoft has complete control of the API's that would be required to hook support into windows after installation and can change them at will and break your solution's installed base.
Since Microsoft is a monopoly they don't have to play ball and interoperate with you. For the same reason, in order to have a chance of success you must interoperate with them.
Re:NFS is easier anyways (Score:5, Insightful)
And in a world where network jacks are in every wall, it is trivially easy to bring in an "insecure client" and even easier to bring in a LiveCD with you favorite flavor of Linux, NFS is secure how? NFS's default "security" and "authentication" is trivial to circumvent in a practical sense in most corporate environments.
SMB has many drawbacks. However, it's out-of-the-box authentication + ACL mechanism is vastly superior to what NFS (v2 & v3) has to offer. That is why NFSv4 ACLs look alot like Windows ACLs and why RPCSEC_GSS (aka Secure NFS) went from being an option to a MUST in RFC 3010.
Re:NFS is easier anyways (Score:4, Insightful)
NFS has been a joke from day one. The design itself had poorly thought out identity mapping, complete lack of authentication, failure to implement UNIX file system semantics, incredible inefficiency, and a useless RPC layer. I think Sun has done a grave disservice to the UNIX world with NFS. To this day, we still don't have a widely used, decent, secure network file system on UNIX.
Re:Why shouldn't they ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't know why they should not own everything (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and the keyword there is suddenly. If the code is slowly, quietly and profitably (to the right folks) swapped out, it will happen.
And that's why we've got to raise a ruckus.
Re:Plausible, but no proof (Score:5, Insightful)
While the idea is plausible and scary, where's the proof?
I'd like to know that, too. Name some of these companies. Because I work with a lot of big end users, most of them running Linux in some fashion, and they all seem to enjoy telling the MSFT rep they lost those sales. I've been in the meetings, MSFT has questioned Linux IP but not in any specific fashion. When I asked them point blank if that was a threat they backed right off it.
You'd think if MSFT was really trying to muscle companies someone would be talking. Anyone have a copy of the letter? I'd be posting mine on Groklaw, then turn the stories in for here and Digg. I'd be amazed if MSFT could keep anything this big a secret as disorganized as they are.
Or maybe a couple wise guys show up at the office and say if they don't pay bad "tings" might happen?
Let's see some proof or this is FUD.
Re:Why shouldn't they ? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, selling out == doing an end-run around the GPL by exploiting a legal technicality that subverts the intent of the license and leaves other Linux vendors in a position of increased liability. At one and the same time, it also subverts Novell's position in the market, because GPL 3 is virtually guaranteed to block this hole, making Novell's future status (and therefore its clients' as well) quite uncertain.
To my knowledge, there is no admission of infringement - or statement of non-infringement - of patents. The only thing it contains is an agreement not sue the others' customers. And this is the most insidious element of the agreement. It creates an atmosphere of FUD, and does nothing to clarify the two parties' relative positions.
Make no mistake - the only winner in this debacle is Microsoft.
comes a time... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is way past the time with that despicable company. There are a few out there that are the epitome of sleaze and greed, enron, exxon, haliburton/kbr, the media companies represented by the MAFIAA price fixing cartel come to mind.
And Microsoft.
I applaud the foreign nations who are actively resisting and moving away from them as much as possible. Regrettably, I know the USA will be the last to see the light on how they are dragging down and ruining the computer scene, they are well past any sort of usefulness for society. All they represent now is economic inertia and "the big skim".
For the past several years now I have expected nothing from them other than severely restrictive, over priced buggy bloatware, being pushed in the sleaziest manner possible-and I certainly haven't been disappointed in the least, they nail it every chance they get. And what is worse-you can't "vote with your wallet". You as an individual can decide to not use their stuff, but that doesn't stop some piece of all your tax money and some piece of the cost of everything you buy winding its way back into their already stuffed to the seams bursting wallets.
That is a clear sign when some corporation has just gotten too large and too intrusive and too greedy and too powerful, when you can't even avoid them when you want to.
The original icon with bill the borg was just so right-on. In fact, it's worse, imagine a corporate society that took the worst they could find from ferengi society and the borg and combined them, that's MS.
The only people I feel sorry for are the ones stuck working there in this economy, because they need a job that can pay the bills. I know there has to be a lot of folks there who know full well that "things are just not right", but are stuck for a handy alternative.
Perhaps those folks and any non-greed filled stockholders can turn that company around back to being useful and ethically straight-not just "profitable", I mean ethically straight. No one really minds honest decent companies, and no one really minds if someone makes a buck, but people do mind and do notice once companies have gone off the deep end into uncontrolled spasms of pure greed.
Yes, Balmer, someone does need to "take the food off your plate", you and your slobbering yes-men are overstuffed bullies and just plain rude and obnoxious in my opinion.
Put the damn fork down and push away from the table, haven't you gorged enough? Is society now supposed to fund your computing vomitorium so you can keep eating at the economic trough well past any semblance of normalcy and decency? Did you ever stop to think that yes, it IS possible to be civil in our civilization?
Re:I don't doubt... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sun have sat on their laurels for all too long with Java. It's telling that Java is a common source of fodder for thedailywtf.com, because the language in itself is horrific to develop in, and seems to be evidence of being "The software industrys way of proving that no matter how fast hardware manufacturers can make hardware, software manufacturers can STILL make it run like utter shit."
Being open source does not automatically make it good. Just like being closed source does not automatically make it BAD. If only more people would understand this and judge products based on their merits not whether or not you can read its source code (with no intention of modifying it).
Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you, sir, are the troll. Could you throw FUD or accusations of murder or attempted murder after the fact in the direction of FSF or Linux Users? By doing it now, you are claiming us of a zealotry (no, internet posts don't count, especially when someone releases steam) that has not surfaced yet when it has been shown time and again that MS is the lawbreaker and predator. Not us.
Thank you.