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."
Makes sense and makes sense... How much do you think SCO vs IBM has cost IBM so far, including digging up every document for their fishing expendition, answering all the bullshit motions, writing up all the reasons SCO is wrong, double wrong and still wrong? Think they'll recover a dime when SCO folds? Nope. The coffers are empty if Novell get their motion through, and if not they'll burn on lawyers long before the case has come to a close.
I think the Microsoft deal isn't about whether Microsoft has or doesn't have anything, it's about not being the victim of it. Given the insanely trivial things that can be patented, it'll be a huge undertaking to defend yourself. I doubt you'll find any way to recover those costs, certainly not turn it into a profit. And even if you did, it's a cheap bill for Microsoft for throwing you on the wayside - many companies have ended up there with Microsoft paying them a few bucks while laughing all the way to the bank with the market they captured.
Sooner or later, Microsoft will have to have a show of hands, but not before Novell etc. start getting impatient about "what did we pay for, really? everyone else is doing the same as us, and you're not striking down on them". Until then, FUD beats facts in marketing every day of the week. I bet Novell got a decent deal too for being first, credibility witness and all that. It's the latecomers who say "hmm, maybe we should have a deal too" which they bleed. So yeah, it might make business sense even if the claims are utterly and completely bogus. Sad but true, but they still deserve the flogging they get here.
Makes sense and makes sense... How much do you think SCO vs IBM has cost IBM so far, including digging up every document for their fishing expendition, answering all the bullshit motions, writing up all the reasons SCO is wrong, double wrong and still wrong? Think they'll recover a dime when SCO folds? Nope. The coffers are empty if Novell get their motion through, and if not they'll burn on lawyers long before the case has come to a close.
This is different because:
Microsoft is not SCO. Microsoft is a real company that will not fold over any lawsuits related to this issue.
Microsoft funded SCO. The USDOJ has obviously been bought off but you can only push them so far.
Microsoft claims to know the precise number of patents, where SCO claimed to only have a vague idea of the number of alleged infringements. It is easy to demand that they put up or shut up in court, especially since patents are filed with the USPTO whereas copyright doesn't require any registration.
I think the Microsoft deal isn't about whether Microsoft has or doesn't have anything, it's about not being the victim of it.
That is the only way in which this is similar to the SCO vs. Linux issue.
Sooner or later, Microsoft will have to have a show of hands, but not before Novell etc. start getting impatient about "what did we pay for, really? everyone else is doing the same as us, and you're not striking down on them". Until then, FUD beats facts in marketing every day of the week.
It's not necessary to win in the short term. And in the long term, Linux sells itself.
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday June 19 2007, @01:37PM (#19568269)
Let me tell you -- Microsoft doesn't "partner" with anyone. Companies that try to make that deal are brought, crushed or otherwise disposed of by Bill G.
Microsoft already tried the FUD tactic with the 237 infringing patents in the Department of Defense^W^W^W^WLinux. There's people out there literally begging Microsoft to sue them and MS hasn't yet.
Nonsense. They can't come after the users because most of the users are Microsoft customers as well. Suing RedHat or Ubuntu or anyone else would be suicide. There is an organization that exists solely to hold defensive patents that protect open source software. That of course ignores the fact that IBM the largest patent holder of all has an extremely vested interest in shutting down any attempt by Microsoft to sue a Linux distributor.
All of that assumes that Microsoft has any legitimate patents (if we pretend software patents are legitimate in the first place) that cover anything in the Open Source world. Just like a DA will pile on bogus charges to give himself a better bargaining position IT companies slip through hundreds of junk patents that would never withstand scrutiny for the same reason. If Microsoft sues anyone they run a serious risk of having their precious patents invalidated.
apparently my choice was wise. can trust these people.
RedHat is definitely one of the good guys. While Google's Evil-o-meter has been slipping of late, RedHat has consistently been true to their mission. They develop technology that's open and freely available a-la CentOS [centos.org] and have some of the finest hacks around working full time on open stuff. (Alan Cox, et al)
RedHat tends to get dissed around here a bit because they target servers rather than workstation/desktop Linux. They are focused on making money the honorable way, and some people seem to have problems with anybody making money.
But look at their track record. They've consistently been true to the spirit and purpose of the GPL and free or open source software in general, and have been both profitable and successful in doing so. (Hint: Ubuntu is not yet profitable)
Really, what did you expect? The boxed desktop Linux market just isn't there; it wasn't there in '98 when venture capitalists were tripping over themselves trying to throw money at Linux anything, and it isn't there now. Novell had to move into the enterprise to keep SuSE alive; ditto with Linspire and OEM's. Unlike Canonical or SPI, Red Hat has to make money, both in the short and long term.
My question is this: aren't patents on the public record? Aren't things like Ubuntu/Red Hat open source? How hard is it for M$ to say "Look at patent 5,656,565 and lines 1-3,000 of kernel.c. This is a violation of our IP rights."
This is exactly why a lot of people are very suspicious that Microsoft doesn't do this. Instead, they just make vague statements, e.g. "Linux violates x Microsoft patents" and never specify which ones.
Although the patents are public, Microsoft has so many of them, and many of them are so crappy/broad, that it's nearly impossible for anyone to work backwards to find the ones that they're talking about and might, by some stretch of someone's imagination, apply to Linux.
So basically, it's a totally opaque threat, and I'm similarly at a loss as to why anyone would negotiate with them without first demanding to see the goods.
Yes, they are - as are several million other patents, and you have absolutely no idea what sort of patent you are alledgedly infringing so good luck trying to find the right needle in the haystack.
Aren't things like Ubuntu/Red Hat open source?
Yup, which makes it incredibly easy for any patent holder to find infringing code (these days it really is impossible to write any software without infringing someone's patent - the only thing that protects the propriatory vendors is that closed code is much harder to examine for infringements).
How hard is it for M$ to say "Look at patent 5,656,565 and lines 1-3,000 of kernel.c. This is a violation of our IP rights.
Very easy. However, they have said that they won't disclose which patents are being violated because: 1. The Free software community would be able to discredit the patents (e.g. provide evidence of prior art, show the code isn't infringing, etc). 2. The Free software developers would be able to remove the offending code.
Microsoft doesn't want to licence the patents, they are simply using them as a FUD campaign to scare people away from switching to Linux - if the patents are discredited or the offending code is removed they have lost all their leverage.
To people not in the know, this is perceived as a big risk - if you switch to Linux then MS has threattened to sue you. Of course, to those of us who can see what's going on it's obvious that MS can't possibly sue anyone because: 1. That would involve disclosing the patents. 2. MS doesn't seem at all confident that it's patents are valid since the cited reason for not disclosing them is that they would be discredited. 3. MS themselves will certainly be infringing a large number of patents held by organisations who have a vested interest in Free software (IBM, the Open Invention Network, Sun, etc.) - firing off lawsuits at Free software users will almost certainly invite retaliation from those patent holders.
The patent system is nolonger about protecting your innovations, it's an arms race - everyone is infringing everyone else's patents anyway (since it's practically impossible to produce any code which isn't infringing) and whoever holds the least patents is crushed since they cannot retaliate to any threats. The whole patent system needs to be abolished - it once served a useful purpose, but these days the merits are far outweighed by the abuses.
"The patent system is nolonger about protecting your innovations, it's an arms race -..."
The nature of software and the industry makes that statement true for software, but in other areas it works just fine.
The patent system should not be abolished. It's a good system. Software and business methods need to not be patented. Clearly that should be a copyright matter.
Or, make it so all patented software myust be open it inspection. Including all code in any application that uses patented code.
BTW, for 12-15K you could have an attorney to a patent search. Hell, you could do it yourself for free. Of course, time is money but I think you know what I mean.
But in so doing they have gained a lot of bad feeling in the Free software community. And these companies do need the community's support - Red Hat, etc. have their roots in the Free software world and understand this. Novell on the other hand is a well established propriatory software company who has jumped into the Free software world and I don't think they yet fully understand how important it is to not piss off the community.
While the GPL is the GPL is the GPL, I wonder if this will lead to any kind of animosity between, say, RH and SuSE?
Even worse (serious question), will this lead to less interoperability between those who refuse MSFT and those who sold their souls (IMHO)? Sure, YaST vs. YUM type stuff will always be present, but what of deeper items, say things that would otherwise wind up being incorporated in kernel.org? I wish I had a better way to articulate the question ATM, but the jist is that maybe the whole 'divide and conquer' plan may work more than most folks think it will, in that either by necessity of 'patent deals' or by necessity of what-have-you, the coders @ Novell won't or can't spread their improvements to RH and vice-versa.
IMHO, that is a greater danger than any lawsuit blustering and posturing that has been coming out of Redmond.
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday June 19 2007, @01:33PM (#19568205)
We have all been frustrated by lack of driver support for Linux. I suspect that MS will wind up using partnerships with hardware vendors to write proprietary Linux hardware drivers, release them binary-only and compile them into the kernels of their minion-distributions by default, thus giving the sell-out distros an functional advantage over the pure distros.
Furthermore, users of the pure distros won't be able to swipe or reverse-engineer the binaries without being at risk for infringement lawsuits.
The end result will be a market-perception of superior functionality and legal saftey when using Linux distributions that include a Microsoft tax.
I suspect that MS will wind up using partnerships with hardware vendors to write proprietary Linux hardware drivers, release them binary-only and compile them into the kernels of their minion-distributions by default, thus giving the sell-out distros an functional advantage over the pure distros.
Doing so would be a very clear violation of copyright. If anybody starts selling such a distribution, I predict they will receive a cease and desist letter from some Linux developers. (I might consider writing it myself, but probably some larger contributor would do so before me).
Furthermore, users of the pure distros won't be able to swipe or reverse-engineer the binaries without being at risk for infringement lawsuits.
That depends on where they live. There are countries that have a law that clearly states such reverse engineering is legal, and the right to reverse engineer cannot be given up by a contract.
In effect you are suggesting that the copyright violator sues the copyright owners over something the owners does with their own code, which would be legal in many parts of the world even if they didn't own the code in the first place.
being a linux programmer i wouldnt want my software being a part of the ones that make deals with M$
You can word the licence you release under however you want, you can even put in a clause specifically excluding any distributor who has made a deal with MS. However, then the licence ceases to be Free.
It seems that you should look at a more generic licence which still allows the 4 freedoms but is also incompatible with aspects of these deals. For example, the GPL 3 looks like it will be incompatible with t
when you read this, had this image of Gates, dressed as Darth Vader with the breathing, holding out his hand to Red Hat (or whomever), and saying, "Come with me to the Dark Side and we can rule together!"
No? I guess it's just me.
Or what about, "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." No?
I always pictured Gates as the Emperor and Ballmer as Vader standing over a small company. As the small company person nurses a wound from a chair expertly thrown at it, Emperor Gates steps in front of Darth Ballmer and says: "Throw yours at him. Let your unethical business instinct fill your soul. Together, we can monopolize the software!"
It looks like the MS & Linux war is finally starting to take shape. At least now I have a side to stand on. Someone get me my red hat and a cup of ubuntu, I've got partitions to make.
A lot of people have made a lot of the Novell/Microsoft deal because of patents that open source software supposedly infringes. However, once you buy in with Microsoft on one of these deals, it's a whole lot more.
I discovered a few weeks ago that as part of the Novell deal, and Microsoft selling SLES coupons supposedly, SLES actually has to be a subserviant within a Windows domain controller set up. Ergo, SLES can quite easily be replaced with Windows at a later date without anyone being any the wiser. Presumably, when this deal runs out in five years Microsoft will have hoped that they'll have replaced all the SLES and Netware servers with Windows, replaced a lot of Red Hat servers with SLES replaced with Windows, and Novell will be no more.
That deal Novell struck will do quite a bit of damage if any more like it are agreed.
... divide the Linux community, starting with the smallest weakest firms. Build up a credible patent claim against Linux (where "credible" means "incredible but nonetheless believable if you are borderline insane, as many firms are"). Attack Red Hat, and avoid annoying IBM directly.
Microsoft is doing a classic patent ambush on the Linux community, and it's significant. We're not seeing an attach on Linux, but on the Linux market. Microsoft wants to own the market.
I'd be surprised if MS actually threatened any FOSS developers, and I'd expect eventually MS to start supporting some free software projects, and eventually even the GPL, if it does get its planned iron grip on the Linux market via its unnamed patents. Free software is so much cheaper to build than the classic kind. Eventually, MS will port its stack of patent-protected lock-in technologies to a BSD or Linux core.
The weakness in Microsoft's armour is those unnamed patents. If they were to be named, they would be disarmed, and Microsoft's entire gambit would fail. In the US there is no need to detail a patent infringement claim. In Europe, Microsoft's claims come very close to illegal unfair competition; IIRC there is a clause in the European Patent Convention that says a claim of patent infringement must be backed by details of what patents are concerned.
I don't buy support myself, but I do quite a bit of small time consulting for individuals and a few small businesses, and I'll be recommending RedHat without reservation. Ubuntu and Mandriva also, for those without a need for a distro certified to work with Oracle or similar product. Vote with your wallet, when you can folks. Novell drank the cool aid, RedHat, Ubuntu, and Mandriva turned down millions simply to avoid pissing us off, time to reward them for it, when we can.
Well freeking finally; Someone at least managed to have a pair;
A pair of cerebral lobes, of course, what were you thinking!!!
Oh, THOSE cerebral lobes....never mind....I guess those would work also
What utter FUD. One does not sue the users of patent infringing software - one sues the makers of it. I'd like to see Microsoft try and sue me for using Ubuntu in a country which doesn't even acknowledge software patents. What bollocks.
Red Hat are pretty much the oldest Linux company in existence of any reasonable size. When asked, they consistently make noises that very strongly suggest that they're aware that anyone who wants to in any way make money with Linux should consider themselves Stallman's bitch by default.
As such, they're not going to sign agreements with Microsoft or do anything else which might upset the "community" of red eyed fanatics in any way. They know who their father is.;)
I'm italian, sicilian no less, and I know what mafia means. This Microsoft thing sounds like pizzo, a tip given to avoid having your stuff burnt to the ground or getting shot in the back while walking back home... fsck it...
You said it yourself you are a all MS business(owned), I doubt you have any intention of running Linux
so why would RedHat care what you do.
The bigger problem if you ever did decide to run linux is that the MS blessed distro's are as good as dead. Go ahead and ask for some help using your new blessed linspire distro on here and see where it get's you.
RedHat sells support. And it's a DAMN GOOD support - much better than from MS. We had a problem with IPX/SPX network stack in W2K3 and it took ages to debug and resolve problem.
But when we had a problem with SAMBA on Linux (winbindd did not work well) - it was resolved in little less than an hour with RedHat support.
As for mission-critical apps - usually you can run them under emulation. We have a couple of legacy apps working happily in Xen. And of course, Linux can interoperate quite nicely with Windows, so you can have mixes Windows/Linux environment.
Again, this shows pretty much a lack of any sort of looking into things on your part. Linux pretty much has a competitive application on every front. And all it takes to find it is pretty much a google search with the word "linux" in it. For example, "Linux video editing software" or "linux accounting software", ad nauseam.
I think what you're trying to say is "a lack of proprietary apps on linux is why I cant consider it", because most likely, you dont want apps that actually do the job best, as much as you want apps where, when something goes wrong, you have a company that you can point a finger at and say "It's not my fault, it's theirs. Call them and make them fix it." Plenty of companies run on linux machines. I run a full OS server shop here at the University I work at. Do you think I am handicapping myself to a subset of applications? No. When I need an app for something, I google for it, and so far I havent had that fail for me yet.
The only option linux tends to have trouble with is games. So maybe you cant convert your Windows shop to linux because you dont want to lose the ability to play World of Warcraft at work?
Im sorry, but I have a hard time taking any of your statements with any sort of merit. You're nothing more than a troll with backwards, dated ideas on what linux is, and you have no intention to do any research or ever attempt to change them. Have fun living in the 1980s.
...when I say, "We'll really miss the non-business you did with us, all the expanded capabilities that our non-installed software failed to provide to your business that didn't need them anyway."
Maybe, one day, long in the future, you'll see fit not to install us again. Until then though, we'll have to accept that we had a good long non-run, and leave it at that.
It's saying that they're willing to stand up to Microsoft's aggressive anti-OSS tactics. And, as the biggest name in enterprise Linux (correct me if I'm wrong) that says a hell of a lot both to the OSS development and support community as well as the community's growing customer base.
If you support OSS then this is a positive step that can only build confidence in Linux and OSS in general. The alternative would, I'd argue, have been devastating.
I really don't see the reason for your negativity. Did someone a
Wrong. I have absolutely nothing against RedHat, and I already have access to all their enterprise systems. In fact, I have several friends that work for RedHat and I use RHEL daily.
What you failed to understand is that making a deal with Microsoft is the most evil thing RedHat can do right now. That they respond initially with a flat "no" is truly not saying much. All it really says is that they are not very evil (which we already knew). If, for example, RedHat publicly announced that they considered MS's tactics to be racketeering, that would be news. As it currently stands, RedHat's actions just aren't that significant. They haven't hurt Microsoft in any way, and they haven't challenged Microsoft to "put up or shut up." All they've said is "we aren't playing."
If you think that pirating XP is "sticking it to the man" you're wrong. Microsoft _depends_ on you doing that, because for every illegitimate copy of Windows installed, it means one less "alternative" installed.
You don't think that WGA will ever become bulletproof, do you? It won't, ever, despite Steve Ballmer's bombastic assertions that it will.
"Although about three million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
Thank goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank goodness (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the Microsoft deal isn't about whether Microsoft has or doesn't have anything, it's about not being the victim of it. Given the insanely trivial things that can be patented, it'll be a huge undertaking to defend yourself. I doubt you'll find any way to recover those costs, certainly not turn it into a profit. And even if you did, it's a cheap bill for Microsoft for throwing you on the wayside - many companies have ended up there with Microsoft paying them a few bucks while laughing all the way to the bank with the market they captured.
Sooner or later, Microsoft will have to have a show of hands, but not before Novell etc. start getting impatient about "what did we pay for, really? everyone else is doing the same as us, and you're not striking down on them". Until then, FUD beats facts in marketing every day of the week. I bet Novell got a decent deal too for being first, credibility witness and all that. It's the latecomers who say "hmm, maybe we should have a deal too" which they bleed. So yeah, it might make business sense even if the claims are utterly and completely bogus. Sad but true, but they still deserve the flogging they get here.
Parent
Re:Thank goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
This is different because:
That is the only way in which this is similar to the SCO vs. Linux issue.
It's not necessary to win in the short term. And in the long term, Linux sells itself.
Parent
Re:Thank goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All it takes is a clear understanding of just who wears the condom, and who bends over and assumes the position.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft already tried the FUD tactic with the 237 infringing patents in the Department of Defense^W^W^W^WLinux. There's people out there literally begging Microsoft to sue them and MS hasn't yet.
So what, exactly, would the claims be?
Re:Thank goodness (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Thank goodness (Score:4, Insightful)
All of that assumes that Microsoft has any legitimate patents (if we pretend software patents are legitimate in the first place) that cover anything in the Open Source world. Just like a DA will pile on bogus charges to give himself a better bargaining position IT companies slip through hundreds of junk patents that would never withstand scrutiny for the same reason. If Microsoft sues anyone they run a serious risk of having their precious patents invalidated.
Parent
Go Redhat (Score:4, Funny)
Wasn't sling or rock that killed Goliath (Score:3, Insightful)
Live by the patent sword.. die by the
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"What say you now, Goliath? Without your hair, you no longer possess your fantastic strength!"
Delilah (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wasn't sling or rock that killed Goliath (Score:4, Funny)
Surely: Live by the patent method-and-apparatus-for-inflicting-stabbing-type
Parent
I ordered a new box with RHEL 4 on it 2-3 days ago (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I ordered a new box with RHEL 4 on it 2-3 days (Score:5, Insightful)
RedHat is definitely one of the good guys. While Google's Evil-o-meter has been slipping of late, RedHat has consistently been true to their mission. They develop technology that's open and freely available a-la CentOS [centos.org] and have some of the finest hacks around working full time on open stuff. (Alan Cox, et al)
RedHat tends to get dissed around here a bit because they target servers rather than workstation/desktop Linux. They are focused on making money the honorable way, and some people seem to have problems with anybody making money.
But look at their track record. They've consistently been true to the spirit and purpose of the GPL and free or open source software in general, and have been both profitable and successful in doing so. (Hint: Ubuntu is not yet profitable)
Parent
Re:I ordered a new box with RHEL 4 on it 2-3 days (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
It's really time for MS to put up or shut up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's really time for MS to put up or shut up (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly why a lot of people are very suspicious that Microsoft doesn't do this. Instead, they just make vague statements, e.g. "Linux violates x Microsoft patents" and never specify which ones.
Although the patents are public, Microsoft has so many of them, and many of them are so crappy/broad, that it's nearly impossible for anyone to work backwards to find the ones that they're talking about and might, by some stretch of someone's imagination, apply to Linux.
So basically, it's a totally opaque threat, and I'm similarly at a loss as to why anyone would negotiate with them without first demanding to see the goods.
Parent
Re:It's really time for MS to put up or shut up (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, they are - as are several million other patents, and you have absolutely no idea what sort of patent you are alledgedly infringing so good luck trying to find the right needle in the haystack.
Aren't things like Ubuntu/Red Hat open source?
Yup, which makes it incredibly easy for any patent holder to find infringing code (these days it really is impossible to write any software without infringing someone's patent - the only thing that protects the propriatory vendors is that closed code is much harder to examine for infringements).
How hard is it for M$ to say "Look at patent 5,656,565 and lines 1-3,000 of kernel.c. This is a violation of our IP rights.
Very easy. However, they have said that they won't disclose which patents are being violated because:
1. The Free software community would be able to discredit the patents (e.g. provide evidence of prior art, show the code isn't infringing, etc).
2. The Free software developers would be able to remove the offending code.
Microsoft doesn't want to licence the patents, they are simply using them as a FUD campaign to scare people away from switching to Linux - if the patents are discredited or the offending code is removed they have lost all their leverage.
To people not in the know, this is perceived as a big risk - if you switch to Linux then MS has threattened to sue you. Of course, to those of us who can see what's going on it's obvious that MS can't possibly sue anyone because:
1. That would involve disclosing the patents.
2. MS doesn't seem at all confident that it's patents are valid since the cited reason for not disclosing them is that they would be discredited.
3. MS themselves will certainly be infringing a large number of patents held by organisations who have a vested interest in Free software (IBM, the Open Invention Network, Sun, etc.) - firing off lawsuits at Free software users will almost certainly invite retaliation from those patent holders.
The patent system is nolonger about protecting your innovations, it's an arms race - everyone is infringing everyone else's patents anyway (since it's practically impossible to produce any code which isn't infringing) and whoever holds the least patents is crushed since they cannot retaliate to any threats. The whole patent system needs to be abolished - it once served a useful purpose, but these days the merits are far outweighed by the abuses.
Parent
Re:It's really time for MS to put up or shut up (Score:4, Interesting)
The nature of software and the industry makes that statement true for software, but in other areas it works just fine.
The patent system should not be abolished. It's a good system. Software and business methods need to not be patented. Clearly that should be a copyright matter.
Or, make it so all patented software myust be open it inspection. Including all code in any application that uses patented code.
BTW, for 12-15K you could have an attorney to a patent search. Hell, you could do it yourself for free. Of course, time is money but I think you know what I mean.
Parent
And so did Mandriva (Score:5, Informative)
And if they did partner... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And if they did partner... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But in so doing they have gained a lot of bad feeling in the Free software community. And these companies do need the community's support - Red Hat, etc. have their roots in the Free software world and understand this. Novell on the other hand is a well established propriatory software company who has jumped into the Free software world and I don't think they yet fully understand how important it is to not piss off the community.
Two camps? (Score:5, Interesting)
Even worse (serious question), will this lead to less interoperability between those who refuse MSFT and those who sold their souls (IMHO)? Sure, YaST vs. YUM type stuff will always be present, but what of deeper items, say things that would otherwise wind up being incorporated in kernel.org? I wish I had a better way to articulate the question ATM, but the jist is that maybe the whole 'divide and conquer' plan may work more than most folks think it will, in that either by necessity of 'patent deals' or by necessity of what-have-you, the coders @ Novell won't or can't spread their improvements to RH and vice-versa.
IMHO, that is a greater danger than any lawsuit blustering and posturing that has been coming out of Redmond.
What you're asking is ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Will the pro-Linux segment refuse such?
Well, that's part of what the GPL v3 is supposed to address. Just in case.
Probably drivers (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, users of the pure distros won't be able to swipe or reverse-engineer the binaries without being at risk for infringement lawsuits.
The end result will be a market-perception of superior functionality and legal saftey when using Linux distributions that include a Microsoft tax.
Parent
Re:Probably drivers (Score:5, Informative)
That depends on where they live. There are countries that have a law that clearly states such reverse engineering is legal, and the right to reverse engineer cannot be given up by a contract.
In effect you are suggesting that the copyright violator sues the copyright owners over something the owners does with their own code, which would be legal in many parts of the world even if they didn't own the code in the first place.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can word the licence you release under however you want, you can even put in a clause specifically excluding any distributor who has made a deal with MS. However, then the licence ceases to be Free.
It seems that you should look at a more generic licence which still allows the 4 freedoms but is also incompatible with aspects of these deals. For example, the GPL 3 looks like it will be incompatible with t
How many of you... (Score:5, Funny)
No? I guess it's just me.
Or what about, "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." No?
Never mind.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
so... (Score:3, Funny)
Glad (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a war (Score:5, Funny)
A Microsoft Deal is More Than Just Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
I discovered a few weeks ago that as part of the Novell deal, and Microsoft selling SLES coupons supposedly, SLES actually has to be a subserviant within a Windows domain controller set up. Ergo, SLES can quite easily be replaced with Windows at a later date without anyone being any the wiser. Presumably, when this deal runs out in five years Microsoft will have hoped that they'll have replaced all the SLES and Netware servers with Windows, replaced a lot of Red Hat servers with SLES replaced with Windows, and Novell will be no more.
That deal Novell struck will do quite a bit of damage if any more like it are agreed.
Microsoft's strategy... (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is doing a classic patent ambush on the Linux community, and it's significant. We're not seeing an attach on Linux, but on the Linux market. Microsoft wants to own the market.
I'd be surprised if MS actually threatened any FOSS developers, and I'd expect eventually MS to start supporting some free software projects, and eventually even the GPL, if it does get its planned iron grip on the Linux market via its unnamed patents. Free software is so much cheaper to build than the classic kind. Eventually, MS will port its stack of patent-protected lock-in technologies to a BSD or Linux core.
The weakness in Microsoft's armour is those unnamed patents. If they were to be named, they would be disarmed, and Microsoft's entire gambit would fail. In the US there is no need to detail a patent infringement claim. In Europe, Microsoft's claims come very close to illegal unfair competition; IIRC there is a clause in the European Patent Convention that says a claim of patent infringement must be backed by details of what patents are concerned.
Time to vote with our wallet....when we can..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well finally (Score:3, Funny)
A pair of cerebral lobes, of course, what were you thinking!!!
Oh, THOSE cerebral lobes....never mind....I guess those would work also
Sue me Microsoft (Score:3)
Are we surprised? (Score:3, Funny)
As such, they're not going to sign agreements with Microsoft or do anything else which might upset the "community" of red eyed fanatics in any way. They know who their father is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bye-bye Red Hat (Score:5, Insightful)
so why would RedHat care what you do.
The bigger problem if you ever did decide to run linux is that the MS blessed distro's are as good
as dead. Go ahead and ask for some help using your new blessed linspire distro on here and see where it
get's you.
Parent
Re:Bye-bye Red Hat (Score:5, Informative)
But when we had a problem with SAMBA on Linux (winbindd did not work well) - it was resolved in little less than an hour with RedHat support.
As for mission-critical apps - usually you can run them under emulation. We have a couple of legacy apps working happily in Xen. And of course, Linux can interoperate quite nicely with Windows, so you can have mixes Windows/Linux environment.
Parent
Re:Bye-bye Red Hat (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what you're trying to say is "a lack of proprietary apps on linux is why I cant consider it", because most likely, you dont want apps that actually do the job best, as much as you want apps where, when something goes wrong, you have a company that you can point a finger at and say "It's not my fault, it's theirs. Call them and make them fix it." Plenty of companies run on linux machines. I run a full OS server shop here at the University I work at. Do you think I am handicapping myself to a subset of applications? No. When I need an app for something, I google for it, and so far I havent had that fail for me yet.
The only option linux tends to have trouble with is games. So maybe you cant convert your Windows shop to linux because you dont want to lose the ability to play World of Warcraft at work?
Im sorry, but I have a hard time taking any of your statements with any sort of merit. You're nothing more than a troll with backwards, dated ideas on what linux is, and you have no intention to do any research or ever attempt to change them. Have fun living in the 1980s.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I speak for the entire OSS community... (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe, one day, long in the future, you'll see fit not to install us again. Until then though, we'll have to accept that we had a good long non-run, and leave it at that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And, as the biggest name in enterprise Linux (correct me if I'm wrong) that says a hell of a lot both to the OSS development and support community as well as the community's growing customer base.
If you support OSS then this is a positive step that can only build confidence in Linux and OSS in general. The alternative would, I'd argue, have been devastating.
I really don't see the reason for your negativity. Did someone a
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you mean by that? In what way are Red Hat "sell-outs"?
Does the fact that Red Hat makes money out of Linux and uses this to plow tons of resources into Free Software projects unnerve you?
Red Hat may take, but they sure as hell pay it back with interest.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)
What you failed to understand is that making a deal with Microsoft is the most evil thing RedHat can do right now. That they respond initially with a flat "no" is truly not saying much. All it really says is that they are not very evil (which we already knew). If, for example, RedHat publicly announced that they considered MS's tactics to be racketeering, that would be news. As it currently stands, RedHat's actions just aren't that significant. They haven't hurt Microsoft in any way, and they haven't challenged Microsoft to "put up or shut up." All they've said is "we aren't playing."
Parent
Re:Licenced to steal (Score:5, Interesting)
Lord Vader (er, Ballmer) sends you his regards.
If you think that pirating XP is "sticking it to the man" you're wrong. Microsoft _depends_ on you doing that, because for every illegitimate copy of Windows installed, it means one less "alternative" installed.
You don't think that WGA will ever become bulletproof, do you? It won't, ever, despite Steve Ballmer's bombastic assertions that it will.
"Although about three million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
Bill Gates - about 9 years ago.
--
BMO
Parent