Red Hat Rejects Microsoft Deals 287
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."
And so did Mandriva (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And if they did partner... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Two camps? (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 this sort of patent protection deal, since it requires any patent protection to be extended to *all* users of the software, not just a small subset.
Re:Bye-bye Red Hat (Score:3, Informative)
I believe that you are an asshole. I back this belief up with the fact that you have made ignorant assumptions about whether or not I have reasons or facts to back up my belief, and then chosen to share your stupidity with the rest of us.
Sorry, no. Actually, if you dug way way WAY back into my slashdot comments, you could find me badmouthing the GPL and complaining about its viral nature, saying that when I make a release it is typically under the BSD license, et cetera.
But along the line someplace (I don't remember when, but slashdot remembers - although finding information on slashdot is a lost cause) I changed my mind. I came to the realization that Freedom for software is the only way to ensure freedom for users. And I have come to believe that the GPL, perhaps even version 3 of the GPL, is the way to best ensure that.
However, I have never been a Microsoftie. This is probably because I had experience with multiple other systems before I ever spent much time with Windows or even DOS. In elementary school and at home it was the Apple ][. In junior high and at home (by then) it was the Macintosh. Then I got an Amiga, and had a real taste of what computers could be like and haven't been happy since. Sure, AmigaDOS had its failings, and there were plenty of them. But they never did anything so horrible as did Microsoft.
Microsoft, however, has been doing bad things to the industry since their inception. If your paper tape of altair basic was defective, Microsoft would not replace it. You had to buy it all over again. And I'm talking about reading the tape the first time in a known good reader. Since then Microsoft has been caught red-handed time and time again engaging in anticompetitive business practices, including leveraging a combination of a virtual monopoly over desktop computing (on the wane now, but only slowly, and very much still in effect) and the proprietary nature of their applications to force users to stay with their so-called "solutions".
More recently, Microsoft has found itself unable to compete on technical merit, and so has engaged in a FUD campaign against Linux, the major thrusts of which were funding SCO in order to get them to carry out a Pyhrric lawsuit against IBM and Novell in order to produce a cloud of FUD, and now the patent agreements and their refusal to put up or shut up about the patents that Linux supposedly infringes. If Microsoft knew that they could nail Linux, they would absolutely do so because it would send a clear message: Run Microsoft, or Run Away. But they know no such thing, because any patents Linux supposedly infringes would have to fail a test for obviousness. Microsoft knows it doesn't have a leg to stand on, and will only keep the FUD machine going as long as possible.
If you want me to go on longer about how the GPL can save us all or at least is our last best hope for interoperability, I will. But I don't think you do. So I won't. Suffice to say that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, that your attack on me is utterly unwarranted, and I would appreciate it if you didn't try to put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. There are plenty of both in their respective places already.
P.S. Isn't accusing me of following a party line while you're buying Microsoft's FUD at wholesale a little hypocritical?
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.
Re:And if they did partner... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: Thank geedness (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Bye-bye Red Hat (Score:2, Informative)
"I own a business that's all MS right now..."
Really? Then please explain this: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?display=uptime &site=phydeauxpets.com&find_site=GO [netcraft.com].
If your business is "all MS", then why are you using CentOS for your web site? I guess ISS couldn't do the job for you...
What a troll...