Slashdot Mirror


Red Hat Rejects Microsoft Patent Deal Overtures

Geekgal writes "Red Hat has slammed the door shut on any possibility of entering into a patent protection deal similar to the one Microsoft recently announced with Novell, eWeek is reporting. While Microsoft has repeatedly said it wants to work with Red Hat and would like to structure a relationship where its customers can be assured of the same thing as Novell's customers now are, Mark Webbink, Red Hat's deputy general counsel, says 'we do not believe there is a need for or basis for the type of relationship defined in the Microsoft-Novell announcement.' Interestingly enough, Microsoft also says that it has not ruled out going it alone and providing some sort of indemnification for its customers who also use Red Hat Linux." Meanwhile, Eben Moglen, the FSF general counsel, promises that GPLv3 will explicitly outlaw deals like this. (Of course everyone's on v2, so calling the Novell deal "DOA" would be premature.)

52 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Good for them by Epeeist · · Score: 2, Funny

    If I wasn't running Kubuntu they would get my business.

    1. Re:Good for them by diersing · · Score: 5, Funny

      And by business, we mean free downloading.

    2. Re:Good for them by 10scjed · · Score: 2, Interesting
      1) Boycott Novell

      2) Nice, Redhat!

      --
      --10scjed IANAL,AFAIK
  2. WHY!? by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Microsoft also says that it has not ruled out going it alone and providing some sort of indemnification for its customers who also use Red Hat Linux.

    WHY!? Why on Earth would Microsoft feel the need to offer indemnification to someone's customers in the first place? Why not just, y'know, not sue them without making some big announcement? How is it possible that we've entered a time when a software company saying "We've decided NOT to sue someone" will actually create positive PR?
    1. Re:WHY!? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because Microsoft wants to turn Linux into a platform for its products -- a last ditch effort to try and marginalize FOSS. First, they sign a deal with a few prominent Linux vendors, claiming that they will indemnify only those particular distros. Then, having given all the big enterprise Linux users a reason to switch over to those distros, Microsoft starts publishing software for those distros specifically, keeping it all closed of course. Finally, after a few years, Linux has become a platform for proprietary products...and is no longer a threat to Microsoft. By ensuring that only major Linux vendors are in on it, Microsoft helps sideline other FOSS projects, killing the culture of openness and freedom and limiting choice. Notice that no overtures have been made for non-commercial distros or distros that are popular among home users: Microsoft is not threatened by them. It's about the server market, and about Microsoft's continuing inability to maintain more than a 30% market share.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:WHY!? by muellerr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think what they mean to do is sell the indemnification directly to Red Hat users. Maybe the RIAA should think about doing that, too. That wuld just make it easier to know who to sue--anyone whose indemnification 'subscription' expired.

      Though the government used to call behavior like that 'racketeering' and 'extortion'.

    3. Re:WHY!? by Rhett's+Dad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As has been said in many posts in many venues since the Novell announcement, the fact that these companies felt the need to declare that such indemnification is necessary for the protection of Linux-using companies, so then Microsoft will feel the need to extend such indemnification to Linux customers of companies that don't sign agreements with it. It is by declaring such a blanket indemnification that they imply to the world that such indemnification is needed, and that without it the Linux-using companies are in violation of Intellectual Prostitution ^H^H^H^H^H Property protections.

      Their 2007 State of the Monopoly address will be titled "All Your Earth Are Belong to Our Patent, But Litigate We Not... Maybe"...

      --
      Let me introduce you to my very own DMCA-protected encryption key: BC 1B 64 4A 8D DE 49 E8 C3 7D CC EE 1A AD EE
    4. Re:WHY!? by molnarcs · · Score: 5, Insightful
      WHY!? Why on Earth would Microsoft feel the need to offer indemnification to someone's customers in the first place?

      Wrong question - because it is not what they are doing, actually. Let me translate Microsoft's offer: there are patent problems with linux. That's what Microsoft's offer means, no more, no less. A subtle, distressing and unfair FUD machine. Your question is understandable, because they offer doesn't make sense at all, unless you examine not what it says, but the message it conveys. That message is clear: linux might be encumbered with patents belonging to MS.

      It is such a pity that Novell has become a partner to this for perceived short term gains. No wonder that the free software community is up in arms (ranging from groklaw through Perens to the Samba team) - MS simply tries to single out commercial linux companies to support its own FUD propaganda. They offer these distributions a new tool to compete with: patents. So far, commercial linux distributions competed on two fronts: technical excellence and quality of support and services. Even Oracle. Novell, by accepting Microsoft's offer, introduced a new tool: patents. This is against the spirit - if not the letter - of the GPL, which tries to enforce a level playing field, and was successful until the Novell-MS deal it was successful. (That's the main gripe of the Samba team with Novell. Microsoft is fishing for others now.

    5. Re:WHY!? by ookaze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then, having given all the big enterprise Linux users a reason to switch over to those distros, Microsoft starts publishing software for those distros specifically, keeping it all closed of course

      Where is the problem exactly ?
      Especially since you can install these binaries in any Linux distros, just by creating a custom package. Just like some distros did for firefox binaries.
      This doesn't make the OS closed at all.

      Finally, after a few years, Linux has become a platform for proprietary products...and is no longer a threat to Microsoft

      Why is it not a threat anymore ? It runs lots of proprietary products and all the FOSS products, and yet, you magically believe that it would no longer be a threat ?
      It would be a far greater threat on the contrary : that's exactly what some company deny us now, and what people are asking for.

      By ensuring that only major Linux vendors are in on it, Microsoft helps sideline other FOSS projects, killing the culture of openness and freedom and limiting choice

      Which is BS. I fail to see how what you say ensure anything.
      Oracle was available on RH only, it didn't sideline any FOSS database project at all, Oracle even had to buy some afterwards !!
      It didn't kill culture of openness and freedom either. That's complete wishful thinking on your part, that goes contrary to factual evidence.

      Notice that no overtures have been made for non-commercial distros or distros that are popular among home users: Microsoft is not threatened by them. It's about the server market, and about Microsoft's continuing inability to maintain more than a 30% market share

      But MS has no valuable patent on the server side where it matters for Linux OS. So what you're saying seems like nonsense to me.

    6. Re:WHY!? by novus+ordo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's more of Microsoft looking for another player to embrace. In about 6 months it will be time for the last stage of this disease. But unlike you I don't believe that Linux will ever be a platform for proprietary products. The RTFM culture with proprietary make it easy software? HA!

      What Linux has and Microsoft is drooling over is developers, developers, devel... Who else would waste their time learning Linux? It's a case of the eagle hunting the fly. I actually think that Microsoft will pull a fast one and try to ride atop Linux like Apple rides OpenBSD. If you think about it, Microsoft has very little to offer Linux; the other way you can already see the dollar signs. Also fits very well with Microsoft's history of innovation. I guess they are just building their "IP bridge" Ballboy kept mentioning in the Novell press conference.

      --
      "You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
    7. Re:WHY!? by shashi · · Score: 2, Funny
      Plain simple: YOU are wrong. THAT is never happening

      Wow. Your skills at debate are astounding. Too bad there isn't a +1, Nuh uh! just for you.

    8. Re:WHY!? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Because Microsoft wants to turn Linux into a platform for its products
      Between multi-core CPU chips and virtualization, Windows is looking like a big loser in the enterprise. Why not shrink the server "farm" to a "garden", run Linux, and stick it to the man?
      Linx on the desktop and OpenOffice remain tomorrow's threat, but the fact that XP is Vista's chief competition is undeniable. And what about the costs of developing Vista? It would be interesting to see how much the profit margin has really shrunk for the OS.
      MS Office remains the cash cow for Redmond. Now that Mono is mature enough that Gnome desktop applications are cropping up, e.g. F-Spot(which hasn't really been touted for Windows, but should run readily, right?) look for Redmond to start pushing MS Office assemblies that "just happen to work real fine" on SuSE.
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    9. Re:WHY!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why not just, y'know, not sue them without making some big announcement?

      They've been not suing people for years, Sparky. What rock have you been hiding under?

      Seriously, this is just another example of the way that MS can't win with the FOSS community. They have been making assurances for years that they would not use their patents in a punitive manner and that the patents are mainly for their own protection. And the FOSS community always complains that those assurances are not good enough because MS is an evil corporation whose word can't be trusted and so on.

      Now they are trying to offer the big Linux companies some kind of legally binding agreement to that effect - probably in response to those kinds of complaints - and what is your reaction? That MS is evil and can't be trusted and we shouldn't need a binding agreement because MS should just, you know, not sue people.

      Riiight. Because that has obviously worked out so well for them. I have an idea. Why don't you and all the FOSS zealots here just admit that nothing MS can ever do will be good enough. Then all of us reasonable people will know that we can safely ignore you.

      I'm not an MS fanboy by any means but I don't hate them. And I am really, really, really goddamned fed up with this attitude that MS is always to be criticized no matter what they do. It represents a rigid close-mindedness that I feel is no different than those who always say that FOSS is not ready for the mainstream because it still doesn't implement feature X, regardless of the impressive progress made over the years at implementing A-W.

      I say grow up and learn how to take a balanced view toward MS. Criticize them only when they deserve it, which they certainly often do, and not just because you need to get your daily dose of MS hate.

    10. Re:WHY!? by ewhac · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Where is the problem exactly ?
      Especially since you can install these binaries in any Linux distros, just by creating a custom package. Just like some distros did for firefox binaries. This doesn't make the OS closed at all.

      Try installing ClearCase on anything other than RedHat or SUSE. Things may have improved in the last few months, but SUSE only received official support just over a year ago. Prior to that, it was RedHat only. If you were/are a Debian user, you were essentially SOL.

      Linux distros can, in fact, be marginalized by precisely the kind of half-baked support Microsoft plans.

      Schwab

    11. Re:WHY!? by ewhac · · Score: 4, Informative
      I'll use small words.

      ClearCase is proprietary; source code is not available. That means any quirks in ClearCase that depend on a particular distribution can't be fixed at the source level, and you have to rely on the vendor for support. This support is often perfunctory at best, and most commonly non-existent.

      The most obvious quirk is the location of various config and library files. Sometimes, even the app's installation directory is different (/opt versus /usr/local versus administrator-established).

      A less-obvious quirk is kernel dependencies. ClearCase ships with a kernel filesystem module (no source code). Again, things may have improved in recent months, but it used to be all you got was a binary module which was compiled against a specific kernel -- namely, a "standard" RedHat kernel with RedHat-specific mods. If you had recompiled the RedHat kernel, or you weren't running a RedHat kernel at all, then you were SOL, and couldn't use the kernel module (which, in the instance of ClearCase, is fairly crippling to its use).

      This is exactly the kind of nonsense Microsoft thrives on.

      Schwab

    12. Re:WHY!? by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have been saying for some time now, IMHO, Microsoft is preparing for the day when the operating system is purely commodity, and the real money is in the apps, which need to change more than the os does, since they run on TOP. That day isn't too far away, and Linux is proving it.

      MS is hedging their bets, simple as that. If Linux DOES gain a foothold on the desktop soon, MS apps will run on it. If Linux ever became the most popular OS for servers, then workstations, then home system, then MS apps will run on it and you won't be able to blame Bill Gates for bad security any more.

      I believe MS is first and foremost concerned about profits, not ideology. If more and more computers shipped with SuSE, MS Office, plus other MS apps, they could live with it and still be profitable. They hope it doesn't happen that way, but they are preparing just in case, which is what their stockholders would expect.

      I would imagine a very small voice in Bill Gates head would love to not have to deal with the security issues that come up when you are the OS maker. All the blame, "fucking hackers", and anti-fanboys. But then he would look at his bank statement and think "oh yea, THATS why we put up with all that shit".

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  3. You WILL become one ........with the Borg. by LibertineR · · Score: 3, Interesting
    As Novell becomes THE Linux for companies with a Linux-Windows infrastructure, Red Hat will look back on this day as when they lost warp field containment and got stuck in Redmond tractor beam in search of revenue.

    Bet me.

    1. Re:You WILL become one ........with the Borg. by div_2n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll bet you a cookie. Do you really think Microsoft reps are going to promote another company's products let alone a Linux product? Think again.

      I'll throw you a cross bet--this is just one more link in the FUD chain for Microsoft to suggest Linux has "intellectual property" problems and, more specifically, it has patent issues.

      Microsoft shops that want to deploy Linux must have something very specific in mind. I'd wager they'll use whatever they think is best. It may very well be Suse, but that will probably be for reasons that have nothing to do with Novell and Microsoft forging some sort of strange and obscure patent deal.

    2. Re:You WILL become one ........with the Borg. by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As Novell becomes THE Linux for companies with a Linux-Windows infrastructure, Red Hat will look back on this day as when they lost warp field containment and got stuck in Redmond tractor beam in search of revenue.

      I think you swapped "Novell" and "Red Hat" in that sentence.

      Rich.

    3. Re:You WILL become one ........with the Borg. by Morphine007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      and owns ~80 of the market.

      A WHOLE 80 SERVERS!? ... shit man... that's like 95% of the market ;-)

      /ducks

    4. Re:You WILL become one ........with the Borg. by molnarcs · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You are recirculating the same argument you had yesterday. I have already answered your question, remember?

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=206274&cid=168 23028

      In the case of SUN-MS, the deal covered software developed by SUN & MS. In the case of Novell-MS, the deal covers software developed be MS and distributed by Novell. But I guess you don't really want to have an answer to your question - you simply want to repeat the same statements over and over again, that SUN made the same deal like Novell with MS, even if that assumption is patently (excuse me) false.

    5. Re:You WILL become one ........with the Borg. by ray-auch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And I refuted your non-answers.

      Now you seem to be even more confused - "Novell is distributing software developed by MS" - huh ? This is about patents, not copyright. It matters not at all who developed the software - patent liability doesn't care. And what MS software is Novell shipping ???

      Note that I have never claimed that the deals are exactly the same - they clearly aren't - but what I am interested in is what is the difference that makes one deal ok by the GPL and the other an (alleged) violation.

      The GPL argument, as I understand it, is that any patent licence you have that covers GPL code has to be freely distributable (to everyone downstream) - or you cannot distribute the code. Liberty or death. Note that this is about licences you have to 3rd party patents - your patents are automatically licenced by distribution under GPL, so how many patents Novel & Sun have is not relevant - it's the ones they licence from elsewhere (MS) that are important for the liberty-or-death clause.

      Agreed or not ?

      Now the deals:

      Both deals involve paying royalties to MS in respect of MS patents in return for some sort of covenant-not-to-sue (which is frequently argued to be identical to a patent licence).

      In both cases, the licenced MS patents may or may not cover the GPL code and may or may not be valid etc. etc. - but we don't know. Although, in fact Novell says that there are no patent issues with the code they ship, which may cover them wrt. GPL. Ballmer says the MS patents do cover Linux, but then he's been saying that for years and he's full of it - why should we believe him ? Sun, on the other hand, hasn't said that Java is clean - probably because they'd be lying if they did, as Java is known to violate third party patents.

      But, leaving the above aside because we don't know which patents / code (if any) is at issue in either case (so, no difference there), the argument frequently made against Novell is that the covenant/licence itself is the issue, because why would they need it, why would they pay royalties (back) to MS, if there was no violation ? Now, I'm not entirely convinced by that argument, but assuming it applies, then it also applies to Sun, since they are paying MS for a patent licence/covenant too.

      So, at this point we conclude that either by the GPL liberty-or-death argument, the patent covenant/licences must be freely distributable downstream to meet the GPL. [Novell-MS's is not, Sun's might be, I don't have a copy of it to tell].

      Or they don't have to be distributable because in some way they don't cover the GPL code.

      Either way it must be the same for both cases, since the evidence of a patent licence exisitng and covering GPL code is the same in each case (Novell & MS statements on applicability appear to disagree, so discount both, Sun has no statement).

      [I'm assuming here that we see through Novell-MS's wierd "party pays the royalties, party's customers get the licence" scheme as being really just a traditional cross licence like the GPL was designed to account for].

      And finally, you still haven't responded on the issue of the other non-MS patents that Sun licences for Java - are those patent licences GPL-compatible (ie. freely redistributable to everyone) or not ?

  4. Easy to do. by khasim · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Hilf, who has been touring Europe since the announcement, admitted that there's been a lot of negativity about the deal in the open-source community. "Our intention with this deal was not to create a problem, but rather to solve one," he said.

    As such, Hilf is trying to be more clear about the company's true intentions and trying to translate all the legalese around the deal into something that a layman can understand.

    That's easy to do.

    Simply explain to them why Ford would pay hundreds of millions of dollars to Chevrolet for an agreement not to sue Mom (who drives a Chevy) for violating Ford's patents.

    There, that shouldn't be so difficult, right?
  5. Stand Tall and Wave Your Red Fedora! by Rhett's+Dad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good for them! I admit I've been one of the complacent ones over the last several years, feeling like Red Hat was the Linux business big dog, and that I was a hipper hacker for spreading my use/support around to other distros. No more...

    The big company I left this year was one of those whose IT bureacracy monsters that would not sanction open source, so informed and competent programmers had to use it in the dark. My new company is a Red Hat user, and I'm more proud of that today than I was yesterday. Shame on me for yesterday...

    I'd like to teach the world to sing "Red Hat Is The Way"...

    --
    Let me introduce you to my very own DMCA-protected encryption key: BC 1B 64 4A 8D DE 49 E8 C3 7D CC EE 1A AD EE
  6. So Essentially ... by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Informative

    Let me get this straight, essentially Microsoft has successfully divided the Linux community in twain by making some sort of psuedo-deal with Novell. The details of which are pretty shady and the specifics are hard to find. Both companies are using generic speak to describe the deal they've sealed. Except that it's not sealed yet as there's still some tweaking yet to be done. And now people are spreading all kinds of rumors and the SAMBA group is upset at Novell and suddenly it's like I'm back in high school again and Microsoft asked Novell to go to the senior prom--but we all know he only did that because Novell will put out in the back seat of Microsoft's dad's Cadillac. Everyone else is pissed.

    The "alternative to Microsoft" community is divided and all Microsoft had to do was dump $500 million on Novell & play some mind games with them about possible suits if they didn't take this deal. Masterfully done, Microsoft. Once again, your business strategy is state of the art while your technology doesn't really have to be.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:So Essentially ... by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, it's particularly brilliant how MS have done this FUD without even specifying any supposedly "infringed" patents. They've made sweeping statements about "owning" this that and the other (eg. "owning" ".Net") which it simply isn't possible to do, and everyone is repeating their FUD. Well done Microsoft.

      Rich.

    2. Re:So Essentially ... by heroofhyr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is there some way anyone could see what patents they've allegedly got that are being infringed? I know Dan Ravicher supposedly compiled some list which includes 20+ patents owned by Microsoft, and that because of the "engineer no looky at law breaking listy" rule in US patent legislation it isn't widely available, but is it actually available at all or do we just have to take his word for it that it exists and is accurate? If it's the latter, that seems an awful lot like those ethereal Communist lists compiled by Joseph McCarthy. Can't I just click through some MS-style EULA and promise not to use any of the information myself? It can't be a coincidence that the guy who made this list nobody is allowed to see just happens to own a company that provides "insurance" to programmers against patent infringements, can it?

      --
      brandelf: invalid ELF type 'KEEBLER'
  7. Microsoft tax, now also for Linux! by pugdk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Eh? I don't get it. So Micro$oft want us to pay them for Winblows even if we don't use it, so we don't get sued? Sounds like Micro$oft wants people who use Linux in their business to obtain a Micro$oft license to do so.

    In other words, Micro$oft want us to pay a Micro$oft tax for using something that has nothing to do with them. I got two word for you Bill Gates: Piss off.

  8. Obligatory Gandhi quote by Sr.+Zezinho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they provide indemnification."

    --
    os trabalhos e os dias: http://zmoreira.net
  9. And you will LOSE that cookie, by LibertineR · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Microsoft if anything, is pragmatic. If they can squeeze the market down to a few Linux vendors that either play well with Windows or don't, that can leverage .NET or not, that can integrate into an Active Directory solution or not, you think they wont help market that?

    How many companies and vertical markets does Microsoft have to kill off before some of you get it?

    1. Re:And you will LOSE that cookie, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Prediction: in five years time, Trusted Computing hardware will be widespread and Microsoft's networking software will be using trusted network connects. In other words, you won't be able to connect to a Microsoft machine unless you are running code that has been blessed (signed) by a Microsoft key.

  10. Three years by overshoot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    WHY!? Why on Earth would Microsoft feel the need to offer indemnification to someone's customers in the first place?
    Read the coverage of the Microvell deal -- the "promise not to sue" expires in three years.

    First, get them dependent on MS technologies such as Mono, then tell them time is up and they have to pay or get sued into oblivion.

    "Nice little enterprise IT setup you have here. Pity if a court slapped an injunction on it."

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  11. OK, microsoft is shilling GPLv3 now? by Medievalist · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Meanwhile, Eben Moglen, the FSF general counsel, promises that GPLv3 will explicitly outlaw deals like this.
    Up till now everybody's been saying "GPLv3 is too complex and restrictive for actual use, GPLv2 has proven its worth and we're going to stick with that".

    But I'm guessing GPLv3 just got a big boost in popularity. I wonder if the FSF is going to send Ballmer a thank-you note?
    1. Re:OK, microsoft is shilling GPLv3 now? by Gazzonyx · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, they'll send him a cake.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  12. Red Hat, you have my deepes respect and admiration by Ice.Saoshyant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even if in the long run, it might be your demise, you have not sold out yourself and your users to Microsoft. For that, you have our gratitude—mine and of those who'll see in the future that in spite of all odds, you made the right choice.

  13. Way to go Red Hat by pbailey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thank goodness these guys didn't get into bed with M$ too. There is still hope. Won't be doing any business with Novell/Suse in the future though....

  14. Thank you, RedHat. by Lethyos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Accepting any deal of the sort from Microsoft is tantamount to giving legitimacy to a corrupt system and buying into blackmail.

    --
    Why bother.
  15. Score one for the 'good guys' then by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft is SOOOOO stupid in that matter.

    It is evident that due to their corporate heritage/understanding, they still think that they can manipulate the whole world by dealing with a number of big corporations.

    So, novell, red hat and similar will succumb to their schemes, and we, millions of developers, system admins, it managers will oblige by them ? duh ?

    am i missing something here ? we 'the people' in the field were the ones to make linux come to where it is today, not the single handed effort of any company. zillions of our contribs made linux come to this point.

    not only that, but we as a whole are the bulk of the community that will advise our top brass, decision-makers, bugdet planners, policy-makers in our corporations and workplaces as to what should be the best course to take.

    we did not oblige by microsoft crap then, and you can easily deduct that we will never do. and you can guess that our advice/move on that matter would be to avoid more microsoft crap.

    we will just scratch anybody who deals with microsoft to that kind of harmful extent, and build on something new. im not putting a prophecy here - im talking about the social dynamics and previous experience - new distros can be done, new platforms can be put together, even now-obscure operation systems/platforms may rise to prominence.

    this is the power of people. microsoft has rowed against the river before, got carried away with it, STILL trying to do as such. do not make the same mistake again. and as for novell, we are already wary about you.

    do not take these as the babblings of a fanatic - this is being spoken from bitter experience with these stuff and a great deal of practical concerns.

    red hat has the go for now.

  16. Ideals of Redhat vs Novell by mythz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This fiasco clearly shows the ideals of these two 'opensource' companies. Redhat is driven by both the idealism of open source and basis its revenue model on the value proposition and technical superiority of its products.

    Novell on the other hand is a stagnated giant, it only turned to Linux in a bid to generate some revenue to comabat the decline in its directory sales. Novell is clearly driven by profit as is demonstrated by this deal with MS. With this deal Novell is no longer just competing on the strength and value proposition of its products, it has created an artificial barrier (FUD / illusion customer protection) where they are now hoping customers will consider their products of greater value as it has this 'added' protection. If Novell really believed in open source and not as just a way to make profit it would have open sourced NDS a long time ago simarily to what redhat had done with its acquisition and opensourcing of Netscape directory services.

    Now I have to ask what is with the 3 year exclusive deal with MS? Surely this is not a restriction MS has imposed on itself? This must've been a directive from Novell, which makes me think that Novell is more than a puppet in this MS sponsored charade.

  17. GPLv3 by metamatic · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Meanwhile, Eben Moglen, the FSF general counsel, promises that GPLv3 will explicitly outlaw deals like this. (Of course everyone's on v2, so calling the Novell deal "DOA" would be premature.)

    Yeah, Novell might decide to fork the entire GCC toolchain, the standard C libraries, the file utilities, the shell, the bootloader, and go it alone maintaining the entire system without the benefit of the Linux community. Yeah, that'll work well for them.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  18. Indemnification from WHAT ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Someone please tell me what patents Microsoft has over Linux ! Don't they have the cart before the horse here, ala SCO ? "We won't sue you" Great. How are they going to sue us now ? Don't we have to infringe on something not to be sued ?

    And even if Microsoft does have a patent or two buried in Linux, don't they have to give fair warning and wouldn't the OS Community just rewrite around it ?

    I totally don't understand any of Microsoft's involvement with Linux. It seems to me like they are trying to scare people into getting an "indemnification license" to run Linux ! They can't control the OS itself, so they can't license that, but somehow they can extort a patent license from it ?

    Doesn't make sense to me.

  19. Re:Correctamundo!! by fangorious · · Score: 3, Funny

    There aint a [got] damn thing anyone can do about it.

    Get these mother f'in .nets off this mother f'in linux?

  20. scaredy cats by rucs_hack · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft are scared, really scared. If they can't get some leverage in the linux world, then they lose their monopoly. Can you list how many products Microsoft have released outside of a monopoly position that have made money?

    Offering indemnification regarding other peoples products is crazy, unless they need to in order to hold their position as market leader. They can only be hoping to stir up more doubt.

  21. Go FSF! by Zonk+(troll) · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I for one will be welcoming the GPL3.

    In the mean time, though would it be possible to create a GPL 2.1? Maybe add a clause like this (taken from the CPL):


    b) Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under Licensed Patents to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import and otherwise transfer the Contribution of such Contributor, if any, in source code and object code form. This patent license shall apply to the combination of the Contribution and the Program if, at the time the Contribution is added by the Contributor, such addition of the Contribution causes such combination to be covered by the Licensed Patents. The patent license shall not apply to any other combinations which include the Contribution. No hardware per se is licensed hereunder.

    c) Recipient understands that although each Contributor grants the licenses to its Contributions set forth herein, no assurances are provided by any Contributor that the Program does not infringe the patent or other intellectual property rights of any other entity. Each Contributor disclaims any liability to Recipient for claims brought by any other entity based on infringement of intellectual property rights or otherwise. As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses granted hereunder, each Recipient hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if any. For example, if a third party patent license is required to allow Recipient to distribute the Program, it is Recipient's responsibility to acquire that license before distributing the Program.

    ...

    If Recipient institutes patent litigation against a Contributor with respect to a patent applicable to software (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), then any patent licenses granted by that Contributor to such Recipient under this Agreement shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. In addition, if Recipient institutes patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Program itself (excluding combinations of the Program with other software or hardware) infringes such Recipient's patent(s), then such Recipient's rights granted under Section 2(b) shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.


    Then, the "or later" clause could be use on existing software and all new versions could hopefully be switched to the 2.1 version.
    --
    "The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
    End The FED. -
  22. what are the patents anyway? by radarsat1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone have a list of Microsoft patents that affect GNU/Linux?
    Like, what exactly are they providing indemnification for?
    And how many of them likely have plenty of prior art that could be used to fight in court?
    Are there any that we should specifically be worried about?

    Additionally, another thing I don't get about this is that by making this Novell deal, they seem to be indicating that they are willing to sue customers of other distros for patent infringement. But since when do CUSTOMERS get sued for patent infringement? Last I checked it was only the vendors of infringing products that could get sued for patent infringement.

  23. Cringely on MicroSuse (or is it Sues, now?) by sesshomaru · · Score: 4, Informative
    Here's Cringeley's tak on it:

    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_200 61110_001188.html

    Relevant quote from Cringely article:

    We saw this happen before when 3Com tied its fortunes to Microsoft in the late 1980s with the lamented 3Com-Microsoft LAN Manager network operating system, which was ironically Microsoft's answer to Novell at that time. Then 3Com CEO Bill Krause felt the only way to compete with Novell was through an alliance with Microsoft. So 3Com bought its way into the relationship, ended up doing all the work (MORE THAN all the work if you count recoding Microsoft blunders), then had to BUY ITS WAY BACK OUT when the product failed.
    After that deal was over and the blood had dried, 3Com founder Bob Metcalfe claims that a Microsoft exec told him, "You made a fatal error, you trusted us."
    I still think Microsoft is less evil than Sony though... but only just.
    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  24. Re:Extortion works. by molnarcs · · Score: 2, Interesting
    LibertineR, you forget that RH already offers complete protection from any patent litigation to its customers. Basically, they want to force Microsoft's hands. MS doesn't want to sue actually, with the EU decision hanging above their heads, and countless of patents others might have (OIN, SUN, even RH), especially in the server space.

    The Novell-MS "protection" is simply worthless compared to what RH has to offer. On top of that, FSF is going to release glibc/gcc/etc. under GPL v3 - which will explicitly prohibit MS-Novell deals. Which means, that in probably less than a year, Novell will be in a legal poopoo, or will remain stuck with the latest glibc that was released under GPL v2 - in other words, it will be at a technological disadvantage compared to other distroes. Actually, it is Novell whose days are numbered, not RH (especially with SUN's GPLing java, and RH owning Jboss!)

  25. That does not really matter. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you are server tomorrow with a lawsuit from MS to stop using Linux, you have to ask you the following:

    -Do I have the poclets fto fight them?
    -Do I have the time to fight them?
    -Do I have the energy to fight them?

    note that the validity of any possible patents is completely immaterial, in a litigation systems in which money talks, the threat of being sued is enough to do whatever you are told to do if you don;t have the resources to defend yourself.

    And of course MS will not go after the big players first (banks, oil companies, software producers, Hollywood studios), no, that would be an even battle.

    They will go after the little guy, the one they can crush. That creates a climate of uncertainity in which Linux will be questioned instead of prised because the bully would be out to get you.

    If MS had any decent intentions they would have launched an interoperability panel with the mantainers of the 5 or 6 most important Linux distributions and teams working on Samba, Mono, Cedega, OpenOffice.org and other parties interested in making interoperability work. They would have alos announce that no patents would have been used against any Linux software.

    There was no need of this nonsense, but the only kind of relationship that MS understands is the one in which they are the abusive party.

    I wish I could say lets give them the benefit of the doubt, but the way I see things is pretty obvious they are positioning themselves for a legal battle. They must be careful, they may be bitting more than what they can chew.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  26. Read it again, they are brazenly licensing Linux. by twitter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The "indemnification" only extends to M$ customers. It's kind of stupid to promise not to sue your own customers, but the threat is really aimed at companies who are about to dump their shit all together. The idea being conveyed is that M$ might forgive your cheating heart if you keep paying them. As Bruce Perens pointed out, M$ is effectively selling Linux licenses. It might not look like a sale now, because they are offering thirty pieces of silver to a select few, but the deal is to recognize M$'s bogus patents. Once that recognition is granted, M$ will attempt to collect licensing fees from free software vendors.

    Red hat is right to reject such a deal. If M$ pulls it off, it will represent the largest theft of IP ever. In the last round of theft, the non free companies closed off software that was government funded. In this theft they lay claim to anything and everything of value anyone ever writes. Now that's evil.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  27. Novell in a corner? by greylion3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just a thought here; if the rest of the Linux world moves on to GPLv3, does that prevent Novell from updating SuSE?
    Has Novell effectively run itself into a corner with the MS-deal?

    --
    Privacy begins with ..
  28. MS doesn't want to run software on top of Linux by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft doesn't want to release proprietary software for anybody's Linux distro.

    What they want is to make Linux non-free. They want to scare IT managers into only using commercial distros that don't cost much less than Windows. You see, they know that their whole TCO argument is bogus. Windows is probably not cheaper TCO-wise in many situations today, and in the future, the argument will become less and less valid, not more so.

    But if they can make sure that businesses (think they) have to buy Linux to use it, then they know how to compete with it.

    If they have to release some proprietary stuff on Novell's distro in order to keep the FUD alive, they they may do just that. But there's nothing in their announcement that suggests that they feel the need to do that. They're gonna 'help' Novell interoperate with Windows, but that just means "if you feel you must use Linux, we'll make sure it can be made to work with Active Directory". That just kills 2 birds with one stone. Preventing any migration to NDS, which is cross-platform, and removing the Linux price advantage. I think they even get some royalty payment.

    All of which is targeted at one ultimate goal... elimination of the Linux threat.

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  29. Not a gift horse, but a trojan horse. Here's why: by KWTm · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Perhaps naively , but it:
    I agree with your "naively" there.

            1) appeared MS gave Novell money now, for Novell making payments later;
            2) MS will help sell [Suse] Linux -- that means MS is distributing and bound by GPL2 code;
            3) MS promised no patent attacks on Linux software used by Novell. This means the _SOFTWARE_ is free -- the promise wasn't protecting Novell users, per se, but the Linux software. Any other distro that uses the same software will find most of their software is covered by the MS-Novell deal.

    What you fail to explain is why Microsoft specifically refers to Novell. If the software is free, as you say, then why not simply say that Microsoft won't sue anyone? You may answer that perhaps Microsoft simply happened to deal with Novell, and when they said "We won't sue Novell's customers", they really meant that they wouldn't be suing any customers. But that's patently false, since Steve Ballmer specifically said that the protection afforded Novell('s clients) is something that other distros wouldn't have. They even went out of their way to offer the same deal to Red Hat, so clearly Red Hat didn't have the same indemnity that you were suggesting would have applied to any user of the software.

    You may say that that's a minor detail, with the important thing being that Microsoft is actually working with a Linux vendor! But keep in mind: Microsoft is not a technology company. Microsoft is a marketing company. As such, the perception of the marketplace is their lifeline and focus. You must admit that the outcome of the Microsoft-Novell pact is the perception of legitimacy in the vague threats about patents and intellectual property, similar to the SCO case.

    Whether this is the deliberate intent of a conniving scheme, or simply a byproduct of Microsoft's genuine desire to support and promote Linux, is a matter of opinion. Given the past history of Microsoft with respect to software freedom, working with corporate partners, and throwing money around, I would side with the Slashdotters who are taking Microsoft's altruistic pronouncements with more than a grain of salt.

    In the meantime, yes, some other nice things have resulted: Microsoft acknowledging the importance of Linux, the $380M to Novell, etc. Doesn't mean we stand by while the FUD is being spread about Software Freedom.
    --
    404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
    [GPG key in journal]