Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Could Microsoft Buy Red Hat?

Posted by timothy on from the sure-they-could dept.

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.

9 of 572 comments (clear)

  1. Selling ideas? by aweiland · · Score: 5, Informative

    Doesn't red hat sell support?

  2. Re:I don't think so... by njvic · · Score: 5, Informative

    Interesting, although I read this blog entry earlier and it is good food for thought.

  3. Re:I don't think so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Windows Services for Unix package includes GPL'ed code, including gcc.

  4. Ever Hear Of Xenix? by Black-Man · · Score: 3, Informative

    Microsoft's UNIX in the 1980's? Based on AT&T's license and they basically killed off the product a few years down the road.

    1. Re:Ever Hear Of Xenix? by nitehorse · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, um, no.

      Microsoft sold Xenix off to SCO (and others).

  5. Paul Murphy blows smoke once again by nadamsieee · · Score: 4, Informative

    GrokLaw readers will recognize Paul Murphy as the SYS-CON writer who likes to defend SCO. The statement from the ZDNet blog that should raise a red flag is this:

    The second most important threat facing them is that an IBM Linux on Cell offering gives the Linux and general open source communities an opportunity to rebel against Red Hat's pretense of selling support with free licenses rather than licenses with free support.

    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.

  6. Re:I don't think so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    RedHat has all of their developers sign agreements with very interesting & strict terms. I've signed 2 of them in the past 3 years (changed projects). It's an understatement to say that they will not be quitting and working for suse any time soon.

  7. Re:I don't think so... by JebusIsLord · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also, I'd like to add that the main 3 GNU toolchain packages, GCC, GLIBC and Binutils, are all (AFAIK) hosted and funded by Redhat.

    --
    Jeremy
  8. Re:I don't think so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Microsoft does in fact have such a clause in their contract.

    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.