Microsoft Getting Paid for Patents in Linux?

kripkenstein noted an Interview with Jeremy Allison where the interviewer asks 'One of the persistent rumors that's going around is that certain large IT customers have already been paying Microsoft for patent licensing to cover their use of Linux, Samba and other free software projects.' and Jeremy responds "Yes, that's true, actually. I mean I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using [...] But they're not telling anyone about it. They're completely doing it off the record."

Comments

Re:Why shouldn't they ?

[numbski]

D'oh. Found my answer:

http://ubiqx.org/cifs/SMB.html

"Like NetBIOS, the Server Message Block protocol originated a long time ago at IBM. Microsoft embraced it, extended it, and in 1996 gave it a marketing upgrade by renaming it "CIFS"."

Short answer: I have it backwards. SMB is the "open" one. CIFS is what you get after MS does their embrace and extend act on it. Ooops. Sorry for the misinformation!

I don't know why they should not own everything.

[twitter]

But, sadly, what they're doing appears to be legal, so perhaps the ire ought to be directed at what makes it legal, rather than shooting the messenger (dammit :-).

In this case, the messenger is also the guilty party. M$ is one of the largest proponents of software patents and other bogus "IP" laws.

The reason you should be outraged is that they now own your code. Without any further effort than paying off a bunch of lawmakers and lawyers, they have secured an income on .... everything. They also grant themselves the power to shut down projects they don't like. Make no mistake, a little control for M$ is total control when it gets in the way of your software freedoms. Long after Vista bombs in the market place, M$ will be profiting from your work and using it to cause you further harm in any way they please.

This is why anti-patent language in GPL 3 is so important and why everyone should support it. The true cost of supporting M$ though judicial extortion will only be revealed if we hang together. The internet itself would not function without GPL'd code. Laws will change if suddenly that code is unavailable.

I'm nowhere near a fanboy for Microsoft (quite the opposite, if you read my posting history)

I will do exactly that. See you in half an hour or so.

Re:NFS is easier anyways

[macemoneta]

What is needed is a secure system which copes with multi-user client boxes.

FUSE and sshfs meet your requirements. I've been using sshfs between 5 systems for a year now, and its operation has been flawless.

WINS on a Mac

[StarKruzr]

Long ago and far away, before there was OSX, when sysadmins needed to connect Macs to Windows shares, there was... DAVE. :)

Dave does WINS.

My thoughts exactly

[plopez]

I am going to call 'urban myth' on this one. If I'm wrong all of slashdot can give me virtual noogies as punishment.

1) If a publicly traded company is under real threat of lawsuit, they would have to publicly declare it or face SEC and exchange scrutiny.

2) Now suppose that they pay up quietly. There has to be a paper trail somewhere. Not openly declaring expenses on your balance sheet/share holder report once again may be a violation.

3) There would be dozens of people involved. The CIO, the CIO's staff, possibly a CEO + staff, accountants + a legal team to review any licensing agreement. Multiply by dozens of companies and you have hundreds of people involved, at minimum. No way a secret can be kept for any length of time with that many people involved. One disgruntled accountant is all you need to blow the lid off.

4) Why would they hush it up? Why not proudly proclaim that they have insured that they are in compliance and that they respect IP?

It doesn't add up. There is a much higher likelyhood that Chewbacca is from Endor.