Slashdot Mirror
IBM Weighs In On Novell — Microsoft Deal
Azul writes "In an interview, Scott Handy, IBM's VP of Worldwide Linux and Open Source, has stated IBM's position on the recent Novell-Microsoft agreement. According to Handy, Novell has been quite clear that they had never agreed that Microsoft had any proof of Microsoft patent violations in Linux." From the article: "'IBM has long supported interoperability between Windows and Linux. As supporters of open source and open standards, we applaud any effort to bridge this gap.' ... Looking ahead, Handy said that despite the outcry in some circles about Novell's deal with Microsoft, IBM will be making 'No change in our partnership with Novell ... IBM has two strategic Linux partners, Red Hat and Novell. This has served us very well for seven-years. Over 90 percent of the Linux server market now belongs to those two companies and the industry has consolidated around those two leaders,' he added."
.. Isn't falling for the FUD and they're standing next to their partners. Given that announcement and what SCO just went through with IBM, maybe this will make Microsoft think twice before pushing the issue..
You mean Grammar I assume?
IBM can afford to shrug off Microsoft's FUD campaign, because they have enough patents in their own portfolio to defend themselves. It's pretty sad, though, that every company has to build up a stockpile of bogus patents in order to be safe from patent predation by other companies. You also have to wonder how much of a chilling effect this is going to have on efforts like Samba.
Find free books.
Well of course they are going to play down the patent agreement problems.
They have partnered with Novell and Redhat. They aren't exactly going to shoot themselves in the foot and critisize Novell, now are they?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
...they see what has happened over the last 4 weeks as strengthening the open source position, Its nice to see that M$ FUD is ignored exactly as it should be - not only by companies like IBM who understand what M$ is like on these matters - but also other companies who I thought might be a little put off by the attack on linux and thinly vieled threats
Has M$ shot itself in the foot with this deal? I think Novell's marked share will go down in the home sector but I suppose they are (just) on the right side, so if they can make linux look like a more attractive choice, all the better
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
There's an open petition to Novell's CEO by Bruce Perens protesting the Microsoft-Novell deal, signing requires registering with your name and email address.
Over 90% of the Linux Server MARKET, eh? Well, first, define server? Is that only a nice IBM piece of hardware, or some other big player piece of hardware? What about SuperMicro, and the middle ground players?
As well, define market? What part of the marketplace does Debian have? None, really, not if you define marketplace as something you can track via sales.
I believe these specifications are out of whack. 90%? From where I sit, it's 90% _non_ Redhat or SuSE....
RH - 34%,
Debian - 25%
Suse - 11 %
82% of all statistics is made up.
Is that for real?
Where can I find this "covenant of the GPL"?
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Something really, really bothers me about where the conversation usually goes when discussing the recent MS/Novell deal.And that's that some fanboi usually pipes up and says "Well, if MS sues Linux IBM will step up and defend us with their army of patent lawyers".
This is a very, very false hope, it's also really unlikely.
What the people who say this are forgetting is that IBM was the behemoth before MS was, and they didn't accumalate that patent portfolio just because they liek to collect stuff. IBM were royal fuckers, and just because they've been dabbling about with SuSE for a couple of years doesn't mean that they are going to take on someone with the portfolio and legal power of MS (which is large enough to put IBM in a world of pain).
IBM likes linux
but IBM LOVES patents
It's a LOT more likely that if MS started making legal threats against non-suse distributors, IBM would simply switch over to an MS-approved Linux and let everyone else fend for themselves.
IBM is not your savior, don't look in that corner for hope, it ain't there.
Are IBM about to get butt-fucked by MSFT in the OS market for a second time, dragging us all with them? I hope not.
This is the real play MS are making, that IBM will not endanger their software patent portfolio to fight. IBM could make a similar patent deal involving some random windows reseller, that would send a message. This just shows that they are not willing to risk their own software patent revenue. Marshall Phelps must be laughing real hard at the way he's single handedly destroyed the US software industry!
In short, we feel that Novell has acted in bad faith.
Bruce Perens.
It makes little difference what the text of the Novell deal with Microsoft says. Microsoft paid a net of several hundred million dollars to Novell. With that, it is pointless for Microsoft to argue that Novell paid money to license Microsoft's patents. Heck, if Microsoft pays me $240m, I'll go a step further and actually admit to infringing on Microsoft's patents, provided Microsoft gives me the same perpetual license they have given Novell.
Microsoft can pay other people to sign contracts until their bank account is empty and it's meaningless. The only thing that means anything at all (and even then, not much) is if someone admits patent infringement and then pays Microsoft a substantial net amount of money to license the patent.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Calm down! I mean, this is an important issue, but you're going a bit far with an internet petition.
It's not as if everyone and their dog has such a petition on any trivial issue; they're very drastic steps in moving towards change. You should really take more gradual steps.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
You are conveniently forgetting that this Nat Friedman was at the forefront of this deal. If anyone is part of this community, it's Nat. Need I tell you what Nat has done for GNOME? If anyone represents the community it is Nat and I am sure Miguel de Icaza was not far behind him in his support. By these attacks on Novell, you are attacking the community itself and this will likely lead to splintering it.
Besides, if you feel so strongly that Novell has acted in bad faith, why don't you just sue them instead of running yet another useless petition which is not likely to accomplish anything at all?
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
"We have never seen any need for patent protection for Linux, and we don't see any need for it now. If legal claims exist, they should be resolved between vendors and not involve end-user customers." -- Scott Handy
This statement betrays a fundamental disconnect: Scott forgot to mention the developers, the real engine of the community.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Doctor Livingston, I presume?
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
No! Dr. Crane, I consume!
The point is that the entire GPL, and section 7 in particular, binds the community of people who redistribute the software to stand together against a patent aggressor rather than sell out individually and thus weaken the rest of the community against that aggressor.
... the GPLv2 must not be adequate. Either you are wrong or he is. Who is it?
Since Eben Moglen seems to think that changes are needed to GPLv3 in order to "prevent this from happening in the future"
He must be French, you insensitive clod!
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
That should read "entire burden".
Bruce Perens.
What if Novell was simply used by Microsoft as a proxy for buying SUSE ? Perhaps everything was already prepared when Novell adquired SUSE. It would have been certainly much more difficult and expensive for Microsoft to attempt the deal. After all, it was just three years ago. The round number (almost exactly 3 years) is also suspicious.
:o)
I'm not following this too much, so if this conspiration theory has already been aired, just mod me down. If not, I require full bragging rights for it
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Doctor Who?
Gee, I'm glad you said that. I was just getting my Tactical Nuclear Weapon ready, and I looked at your message and thought, Gee, is this going too far? Can't we try to love each other? So, I went outside, hugged a tree, and felt much better. We'll forgo the really drastic means for now. But internet petitions are really just symbolic. The real weapon is the fact that a lot of us will never recommend Novell again for an enterprise deployment, and will not license our software so that it's usable along with the patent covenants. The petition is just an indication of our sentiment.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I'd sign but, what license is that petition text under? I don't want my name to get GPLed.
"Need I tell you what Nat has done for GNOME? If anyone represents the community it is Nat and I am sure Miguel de Icaza was not far behind him in his support. By these attacks on Novell, you are attacking the community itself and this will likely lead to splintering it."
.NET for Linux? And now this "special" deal for Novell customers indemnifying them against Microsoft lawsuits?
.NET on Linux ever since the idea was suggested by Miguel and the worst fears have been verified by this new Novell/Microsoft contract.
Miguel and the Mono crowd have been splintering the Linux community all by themselves.
Miguel and the rest of the Ximian and Mono team should just pack their bags and get the fuck out. This whole deal with Novell and Microsoft was only possible with their help, and probable instigation. I've had misgivings about
Would Miguel swear on his dead ancestors graves that Mono doesn't infringe on Microsoft patents?
"Similar deals have been done in the past, in 1997 Microsoft signed a similar deal with Apple, and Apple used that agreement and the incoming monies to turn the company around.
Sun signed a similar agreement with Microsoft in 2004, which at the time I realized enabled Sun to ship Mono on Solaris (which we already supported at that time)."
That's directly from Miguel's blog at http://tirania.org/blog/ [tirania.org]
Come again, Miguel? If mono is truely Open Source and non-infringing, what did Sun actually buy from Microsoft?
Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK?
--
BMO
Where the server is it's the 23rd. Of course as I understand it, the server is likely in the US (at least as far as timezone), and the US is almost the last country to tick over to a new day, It's hard for someone to be located somewhere a day behind that, maybe on the east side of Greenwich?. Of course here in oceania it is the 24th.
Considering what's been said in mainstream press this week such as ComputerWorld where CIO's have "taken offense" by Ballmer's statements, combined with the statements from IBM, Novell, and other sources such as Groklaw, I think it is clear to everyone from the clueless to the initiated that Ballmer's statements are complete bull -- unfounded, unsupported, and powerless. This thing has clearly backfired, and can just be filed away with the ongoing pathetic MS attacks on Linux, right along with the Halloween documents and the SCO debacle.
This has really been a good incident, and Linux users should be happy to see Ballmer shoot himself in the foot so publicly. He looks both clueless, and like a bully, all at the same time. And as a dividend, the world sees yet again how well defended Linux is, from the grassroots all the way up to the corporate level. It's another deflected bullet, providing yet another real world example of Linux's armor.
Thanks Ballmer. Keep up the good work. You may as well be wearing a GNU/Linux T-Shirt.
Who modded that down and who do they work for?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Or maybe, just maybe, in the real world... IBM is a corporation. And so is Novell. So, while some corporations are more or less evil than others (arguably), they're still corporations, and really don't care about your conception of what the world should be like.
+5 Insightful, really!
the samba project is safe; microsoft has come close to alienating a large portion of it's corporate market in the last few years. they backed down from the multi-core processors requiring a license per core when a number of major corps began making other plans. One of my buddies works for a major national corp as a tech and he got a call from headquarters instructing him to prepare to remove all microsoft products from ALL company equipment not just the servers in question.
Blood's in the water folks, microsoft knows they have to befriend the linux community especially in the current political environment, they may be back in fromt of the doj soon anyway as some people in the currently elected House/Senate feel they require a LARTing.
Hi HO the Dairy-oh, a LARTING we shall go...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Doctor? No.
Ah, see, we can all play nice...
By the way, I long ago stopped recommending Novell for anything. Wait... I actually never recommended Novell for anything.
I also don't recommend Microsoft for anything. My friend bought server 2003 64 SR2 and I've had no end of grief getting that thing to run apps well. I've recently installed Ubuntu on my new desktop pc. What a relief. (a co-worker did the same a few days later. The semi-official company wiki runs on Ubuntu. I also run a couple of Debian servers there.)
I work at a Fortune 200, in health care.
PS: I also don't recommend anything by IBM; especially not their global consulting.
I only recommend Sun hardware because of AMD. But to be honest, I don't think it's worth the money with competent sysadmins.
"Piter, too, is dead."
I think you expect behavior on the part of the SEC that is beyond their mission. The SEC isn't going to investigate and analyze what MS patents are or are not in Linux just as they didn't investigate any of the 500 patents that IBM offered to the open source community 2 years ago. That could be seen as exactly the same kind of market manipulation.
I have signed the petition. I am only a taxi driver, but I can smell the true aroma of this deal down here in Brisbane.
I prefer Classic Slashdot.
- You just use OSS and the problem is up to your distro packager.
...Actually it doesn't matter if it's OSS or closed source. Patents, even sw patents, apply to usage, so the problem is yours not the distro packager since you're the one using the software. If it were a question of copyright, like it is in the EU, then the distributor (aka distro packager) would then be the one affected. But it's not. The FUD is directed at users not distributors.
It's crap like that which has been slowing everybody down, including the technology sector. Let the US ditch software patents and let's move forward again.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
So yes, if you have total control of a box you can roll your own but where your software is sharing a server with others you stick to an industry standard. Today the standard for Linux is RedHat.
Personally I prefer Debian but have fallen for Ubuntu in a big way. (Pretty is a feature).
"Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
IBM Hardware and IBM Semi-Conductor probably couldn't really give a rat's ass about Microsoft one way or the other. The PSP division, however, has been waiting for a chance to crucify Microsoft for quite some time. The thing that sets IBM apart from most companies that are fueled by a vendetta is that IBM has been around the block enough times to patiently wait to pounce until they can find a way to destroy MS that increases IBM's shareholder value. Unlike Novell's ill conceived take Microsoft on on all fronts war, IBM wil wait until the perfect opportunity presents itself. A Microsoft patent offensive on Linux would be precisely such an event.
There is no real distinction between developers and end-users in the GPL software ecosystem. Both are users of code; they just use it in different ways.
If everyone started using only free software and not purchasing said software you can better believe that the vendors that used to sell in that market would unequivocally agree that that market segment died. No sales means that there is no market. There may be an ecosystem. There may be users. But without a marketplace where money change hands for goods and services, there is no market.
Most PHBs think that (a) Novell pulled a fast one on MS, (b) Microsoft is overstepping, or both.
Which is part of why I don't think anyone has much to worry about Microsoft's patent threats against Linux. IBM has decided that Linux is part of its strategic future and will take a scorched earch approach if Microsoft threatens what IBM sees as its eventual cash cow.
This is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. i realise that from a philosophical point of view novell and msft are againts the principal of opensource, but it seems like everyone is missing the point. even if msft is evil, the techs who are posting here are compleat morons. these are the verry same techs who have bewailed their phb's because they only trust MS, and now they are attacking novel for what they have done. this is to the techs who are posting here. " you are compleat loosers and assholes and you should be fired and or drummed out of this industry". i dont care if novell made a deal with the devil this now gives me a solid meckanisim to sell linux to my higher ups. The first thing you idiots should have done is to submit a purchase order or to build a project involving novell SUSE to your higher ups, stating the stability of linux and the guaranteed compatibility of SUSE and Windows. pointing to this deal. this is how you can get linux in the office and get a foothold. a year down the line you can switch to what ever distro you like. this is why most industrys wont market or take linux seriosly. because when you get exactly what you want handed to you on a silver platter, you rail about how horrible it is. " grow up, wake up or get out of this buisiness" the posts on this board are doing more to harm linux than anything that MS can do
Individual users in this context mean not just your average slob at home but also businesses, organizations, school districts, local governments, and so on. Just knowing that they are using computers or using them for certain purposes (e.g. web shop, XML) indicates violation of certain patents. No need to go after all the home users, except to make an example of one or two now and then. There are plenty of small and medium size businesses, governments and agencies with deep pockets that can be spotted with a few minutes work. Many will simple assume the position and pay up when presented with a bill.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I'm not saying there's nothing to worry about, but I think the indemnity is an issue that is orthogonal to the GPL, and perhaps Perens has raised a red herring here. And I'm one who agrees with Perens far more often than not.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Microsoft is not providing an indemnity. They are providing a promise not to sue regarding Ki>their own patents. In contrast, companies that provide indemnities, like Red Hat, are not the holders of the patents that they are protecting you from. So, Microsoft in this case is sort of like the extortionist who makes you pay protection money so that they won't break your store window. What Red Hat and other companies who indemnify are doing, in contrast, is much more benign because Red Hat's not out to hurt you, they're giving you some support if a third party not affiliated with Red Hat attacks you.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
What I don't find is any wording that would prevent a third party from providing indemnity to those users, which is what Microsoft is doing.
Microsoft is not providing an indemnity. They are providing a promise not to sue regarding their own patents.
In contrast, companies that provide indemnities, like Red Hat, are not the holders of the patents that they are protecting you from.
So, Microsoft in this case is sort of like the extortionist who makes you pay protection money so that they won't break your store window. What Red Hat and other companies who indemnify are doing, in contrast, is much more benign because Red Hat's not out to hurt you, they're giving you some support if a third party not affiliated with Red Hat attacks you.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
... that are not moral.
Take patent trolls for example.
In this case our "buddies" in Novell decided to raise a one finger salute to Red Hat, Mandriva, Xandros, Linspire and any other commercial distirbutions makers (all of whom contribute software to Linux, or in this case, I shuld say GNU/Linux which is entirely appropiate).
They decided that they could keep benefitting from the community at large while becoming a safe heaven from the MS protection racket whose thugs can be unleashed, suits and all, into the rest of the community.
They want to reap the benefits of shared development without standing with the rest of the Linux developing community when a bogus patent war is unleahsed.
That may be actually legal, but for bunnies sakes, it should live a bad mouth taste in any decent inidividual.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... they would be wasting money.
MS could let out an MS Linux and I would be all for it as long as they layed by the rules.
But they just can't stop being themselves. MS hates fair competition and they will do all what is in their might to crush it, they have shown they are not afraid to go beyond what is legal and moral to do so if necessary.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Perhaps I used the wrong term, but I don't think what you describe really meets the legal definition of "extortion", either. IANAL, however. I do have a concern that, if GLPed software is ever found to be infringing a patent, then that software's license is not valid (according to my understanding of the GPL). So even if Microsoft exempts Novell's customers in a patent lawsuit, and Microsoft prevails, Novell would have to halt their distribution of Linux. So Novell hasn't exempted itself from any legal quandary with this deal, after all.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!