Linspire/Microsoft Agreement Useless to Users 155
Stephen Samuel writes "Groklaw host PJ has dissected the 'patent peace' agreement between Linspire and Microsoft, and has determined that what Linspire agreed to is next to useless for many users. Essentially, under the agreement Linspire software is almost unusable: 'You can't share the software with others, pass it on with the patent promise, modify your own copy, or even use it for an "unauthorized" purpose, whatever that means in a software context. You must pay Linspire for the software, but then the "covenant" says to use Linux, you must also pay Microsoft. That payment doesn't cover upgrades. Linspire said it was absorbing the initial fees, but I don't know about upgrades. New functionality means you lose your coverage or presumably must pay again.'"
Agreement useless to users? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Groklaw?? How about objective analysis instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about reading the article and point out some actual errors in it?
I did, and most points she makes seem valid to me...
What facts did you use for your objective analysis of groklaw?
Re:Agreement useless to users? (Score:5, Insightful)
Darn! Bet MS never saw that coming!
Sidenote: Do any of these companies signing these agreements actually read them? Because so far most of the agreements seem to be designed to stop the Linux distributor from distributing Linux. Either that or there's some massive get-out clause in all of them which everybody else has missed.
Re:SCO Deja Vu (Score:3, Insightful)
Something that gets me is that this is just another choice for people. I don't understand what all the fus is over. I mean the people who would use Linspire aren't the same who would be using any other distro, it is a targeted distro that has a specific function aimed at specific users. If they wish to use it and are fine with the terms then why not? Linux isn't about you having to distribute or change something, it is about you having that option. With the Linspire deal, you still have that option you just don't get the extras.
Of course the GPL wouldn't cover the MS tech they are working into linspire so you wouldn't be able to distribute that stuff anyways. It seems overly pedantic to spend this much effort on discrediting something that is just another choice available to people. Is that what the linux community has become? Something where choice is good as long as it is only the choices we say you can have? The MS deal ads to those choices, it doesn't take away from them. You have specific obligations if you want the benefits of those choices and if you don't want to manage or fulfill those obligations then you don't take those choices. Isn't that a simpler way to look at it? It is like buying a candy bar, if the price is right, the availability is convenient, and you want it, then you buy it. If you don't want the candy bar or the price is too steep, or it isn't available then you don't buy it. But it was a choice you could have made, you could have ignored that choice all together and not lost out on anything in the process.
From the begining, even with the Novell deal, the arangments were always claimed to be about new tech they developed or are developing with the intent of working with windows better. Balmer made a statement about existing patents that Novell profusely denied. But none of the companies entering the agreements have ever stated that is was to gain protection from Microsoft IP that linux violates or infringes on. That has always been Microsoft's and a few FOSS zealot's claims. It isn't a surprise to find out that the deals don't cover where those infringements are likely to be, if there are any. It is like looking at a car that only goes 55 and was advertised at only going 55. Then complaining or making fun at the fact that the bill of sale makes reference to the manufacturer's claims of it only going 55 and disclaiming any association of it going faster. It doesn't make much sense.
Missing the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
So I'm no Kreskin... but M$ has never been subtle about it's desire to pretty much play Mongul Horde all over the face of modern computing. I think this is clearly M$ pulling an old tried and true lan out of their own gamebook and simply reverting to business as usual. I'm guessing the plan will look something like;
Have I missed anything? Probably. Y'know, if they put aside this whole Genghis Kahn, I gotta own the whole freakin world mentality, and just started committing themselves to doing good things for humanity... the rest would take care of itself. Oh well. This is going to be an interesting show! Who's got the popcorn!
Re:SCO Deja Vu (Score:5, Insightful)
This deal is nowhere near as benign as you try and describe. Remember, this is a deal with Microsoft. If they can't find IP violations in a linux distribution, they'll put it there and then cry "victim".
Re:SCO Deja Vu (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree completely with you, except:
Linux datacenters (I run one), admins, and developers should be thanking their lucky stars for IBM. They and they alone have enough legal strength and money to scare Microsoft. But it gets better!
Wait and watch for the interesting times as the SCO/EVERYBODY lawsuits wind down.
Prediction: IBM sues Microsoft into the crapper once the SCO thing is resolved. At the end of the ten year lawsuit, Microsoft is irrelevant- but IBM have open sourced it's patent portfolio.
Then again... I am probably wrong and we'll be running Windows "Orbital View" and paying a penny a keystroke.
But one can hope.
SCO conspiracy theory (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO was a trial balloon for Microsoft. Though Microsoft's pipe fairy, SCO got a hot cash injection. They started making wild claims, which drove their stock up quite nicely, thank you.
Then they started suing, and everything went downhill. SCO discovered they actually had to *prove* something. So, we've been fortunate enough to witness a corporation spinning faster and faster until rotational velocity rips it apart. It's kinda cool.
Here's what Microsoft learned from SCO: *accusations work.* They work very, very well. Make vague, unsubstantiated claims. Oh, don't go as far as Darl McBride. He's an ass. Instead, insinuate. Make a few direct claims, let those claims disappear, then play on the doubt those claims left behind.
It's working surprisingly well. The one thing that's backfiring, though, is that Microsoft has associated their name with Linux, in a strange approving sort of way. This is PR that Linux couldn't buy. I have non-geek people asking me about Linux these days, people who'd never heard of it before.
Anyway, Microsoft will never take this to court. They would be complete fools to disregard the SCO effect.
Re:DRM formats are a "feature" to users (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of videos don't work out of the box on Windows either. People either chase down the codecs themselves or get their resident geeks to get them. Many also end up with trojans or viruses like Zlob as a result.
Clicking the Automatix link in Ubuntu doesn't seem that difficult to me, and it's certainly much safer than playing codec roulette on Windows.
Re:SCO Deja Vu (Score:3, Insightful)
What's all the fuss about? Well lets see what the CEO of Microsoft has to say about the deal:
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/arch
"our job has got to be to help our customers get interoperability"
Sounds reasonable
"We've had an issue, a problem that we've had to confront, which is because of the way the GPL (General Public License) works"
There should be no problem as long as Microsoft keeps their hands out of the GPL cookie jar. If they believe their "ip" has been stolen and placed in the GPL cookie jar then they should specify their claim.
"the fact that that product uses our patented intellectual property is a problem for our shareholders"
Hmm, that doesn't sound like interoperability, it sounds like Microsoft is asking for compensation for unspecified infringement
"Suse Linux is appropriately covered. There will be no patent issues. They've appropriately compensated Microsoft for our intellectual property"
More unspecified claims of infringement and Suse is safe because they now pay Microsoft for the unspecified infringement.
"anybody who has got Linux in their data center today sort of has an undisclosed balance sheet liability, because it's not just Microsoft patents"
Still no specifics, just a simple "everyone owes us", where have we heard that before.
"Novell said to us, 'Hey, look, if you're serious about this stuff, you better help us promote Suse Linux.' To which we said, 'You know we're trying to sell Windows, that's what we do for a living! Windows, Windows, Windows, baby! We don't do Linux that way here.'"
Well duh, and here we were all thinking it was about interoperability, think again.
"there's so many customers who say, 'Hey look, we don't want problems. We don't want any intellectual property problem or anything else. There's just a variety of workloads where we, today, feel like we want to run Linux. Please help us Microsoft and please work with the distributors to solve this problem, don't come try to license this individually.' So customer push drove us to where we got."
Ah, now it makes sense. Microsoft has been roughing up customers for their use of linux and some of them told Microsoft to piss off, so now they are going after linux distributors. Fortunately the most significant linux players have already told Microsoft to piss off.
Obviously the fuss isn't about a bunch of "FOSS zealots" improperly portraying these agreements, all the fuss is in response to a shake down.
Honestly I'm not concerned, this latest Microsoft FUD foray will likely be as fruitless as their paid for effort from The SCO Group and all their unfounded claims of linux infringement. The SuSE deal was a significant issue but the latest agreements are meaningless because the distributors they are working with are in no way significant contributors to linux.