Microsoft Gives Xandros Users Patent Protection

DigDuality writes "Microsoft, shrugging off licensing moves to prevent it from repeating its controversial patent deal with Novell, has signed a set of broad collaboration agreements with Linux provider Xandros that include an intellectual property assurance under which Microsoft will provide patent covenants for Xandros customers."

Comments

Here we go again....

[vwjeff]

Wow. Show me the patents or shut up.

Re:Here we go again....

[iminplaya]

Microsoft: Make me...HAHAHAHAHA! The system is ours to use and abuse. Just try and stop us. We're good for at least ten more years.

Re:Here we go again....

[dpninerSLASH]

Has anyone stopped to consider the fact that this might be exactly how Microsoft wants the OS community to respond? The backlash against Novell after their deal was significant...it's safe to say they lost at least a handful of customers as a result.

If Microsoft can chip away little by little at the guys who are selling support services, then it only helps their business.

Of course I could be totally wrong.

Re:Here we go again....

[vux984]

.it's safe to say they lost at least a handful of customers as a result.

But its not like those customers became Microsoft customers. Or even abandoned linux. The only abandoned Novell.

I like these deals

[h4rr4r]

This is great. I used to have to pick from so many distros, now I have 2 scratched off the list.

I have used SuSe in the past, but I will never again. Xandros I never used and never will.

Re:I like these deals

[VON-MAN]

That happens to be openSUSE nowadays, and it is totally unencumbered by any deal Novell has made with Microsoft. And if you used SuSE in the past you're probably interested to know that Yast2 is now a fast, complete and GPL'ed system configurationtool. If you install the smart packages, you can select repositories and update your machine synaptic-style. You'd find that allmost every interesting package can be found on the repositories for openSUSE (from MythTV to XDVDshrink and hugin to ltsp). Novell updates openSUSE like clockwork, and is equally like Red Hat and IBM a big force in kernel development. That makes openSUSE a popular, high quality, solid, open source distribution (and there aren't that many).

Now I know that Novell is very impopular now, but I think, that if openSUSE would disappear it would be loss for open source as a whole. And if also Xandros would disappear it really wouldn't be that great anymore.

Re:I like these deals

[dclozier]

Agreed - I actually was considering Xandros for my parents. Xandros looks very "windows like" and if I recall correctly it came with proprietary codecs as well for DVD playback. It was because of this that I considered them. I also considered Linspire for similar reasons. I wonder if they'll be next on Microsoft's list of converts?

I went with Ubuntu in the end. Now I'm glad I did.

~Dave

Re:I like these deals

[Grishnakh]

I used to be a big SuSE fan, starting way back in 1999. My last SuSE version was 10.1.

Now I'm using Kubuntu.

As for the OpenSUSE apologists, no thanks. OpenSUSE still exists at Novell's whim, using Novell's resources. Why use that when you can use a distro that has nothing to do with MS?

Re:I like these deals

[molarmass192]

Ditto ... we had several SuSE licenses, they're slated to be replaced by RHEL5 by the end of the year. It was mostly my call to make, all it took was a quick slide show to management stating how SuSE was entering into a licensing agreement with MS, threatening the continuity of their SuSE Linux line, and approval to migrate to RHEL5 was a done deal. In the end, this is a good thing, it focuses resources back towards RH who really have maintained their stance on the GPL all along. If anybody is going to go to the mat for Linux, it'll be RH.

Divide and Conquer

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly a new strategy.

here we go again...

[theTrueMikeBrown]

I am of the opinion that Microsoft will continue to push the boundary as long as it is around.

I don't really know if this is 'news'. Expecting people to be too surprised at this is sort of like saying "Hey, everybody, another person was killed in the middle east today" and expecting to get responses like "Wow, I didn't see that one coming!" or "You gotta be kidding."

Disambiguation

[Dachannien]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection

Anybody care to suggest which of those articles is applicable?

Re:Disambiguation

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the condom one. Preferably lubricated, as I've heard MS is heavily endowed. But maybe Xandros likes it rough.

How much were they paid?

[khasim]

The patent threat is just FUD.

I'm more interested, right now, in how much Xandros was paid for this "deal". Particularly after the problems Novell had with their's. And with Jeremy Allison leaving Novell after that deal.

They know their standing in the community is going to take a hit. So, how much was it worth to them?

Re:How much were they paid?

[Ngarrang]

They know their standing in the community is going to take a hit. So, how much was it worth to them? And this his Microsoft is showing how smart it is. It is using the very divisiveness that exists in the open-source community against to attack Linux. The SCO lawsuits have failed. The patents threats are being laughed at. So, pay someone a bunch of money, give them a promise of lawsuit protection and voila, watch a small portion of the community shut that vendor out. Then, target the next distro. Even if this isn't Microsoft's plan, it is working out this way. The Microsoft community shows more cohesiveness than this, which is their strength.

Re:How much were they paid?

[bigpat]

Well, I think this has just become a running joke. I think it is much more than just "the Linux community" that thinks Microsoft is full of shit with their lies and marketing ploys.

Microsoft continues to lose all credibility as anything other than a "me too" technology company. Microsoft makes money on the kickbacks it dishes out to idiot CIOs and by its policy of designing vendor lock-in into everything they make, not on the merits of their products.

Smart CIOs would ban MS products from the office, not standardize on them.

Re:How much were they paid?

[Paradise Pete]

watch a small portion of the community shut that vendor out. Then, target the next distro.

It more like rooting out the distos that are willing to sell out. I'd say it's a good service Microsoft is providing. And they can't get them all. Even if every single one is willing to sell out, all that does is create a cottage industry of new distros waiting their turn in line.

Re:How much were they paid?

[bigpat]

No. A Smart CIO will standardize on MS Office products because the average Joe and Jane knows their ways around Office Suite. No they don't. And if they did, does this mean that people shouldn't upgrade to Office 2007 because it has too many new features? Might as well move to OpenOffice in that case.

Software selection was never about superior technology and morale high ground in the first place. Since when is simply not wanting to get shafted by Microsoft the "morale high ground"? It is pure self interest to want to avoid being stuck with all your corporate information in files that have been purposefully made so that they can only be effectively used with the help of one particular vendor's product. I would be perfectly fine with MS Office if it would simply use the standard OpenDocument format instead of using proprietary add ons.

No, as a corporate CIO I probably wouldn't ban Microsoft products altogether, but like the former CIO of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I would make sure that using standard open formats were a primary criteria for software selection. With proprietary formats only being used if no other software was available to fill a need.

Using open formats isn't about taking some moral high ground, it is about business continuity and being able to do what you want with your own assets. Nothing should piss off senior management more than discovering that you can't use the data that your own employees have generated over many years just because Microsoft doesn't support what you want to do.

Re:How much were they paid?

[rvw]

So, pay someone a bunch of money, give them a promise of lawsuit protection and voila, watch a small portion of the community shut that vendor out. Then, target the next distro. Even if this isn't Microsoft's plan, it is working out this way. If MS cleans the weed out of the Linux distros this way, let them. If Red Hat, Slackware and Ubuntu/Debian don't follow, it will make the market a lot more clear, and it will help the "good" distros survive.

Re:How much were they paid?

[killjoe]

Average joe is not familiar with the new office. OO looks more like the old office then the new office does.

If the CIO is smart he will minimize his training costs by switching to OO.

Re:How much were they paid?

[Kadin2048]

Xandros had a reputation -- pre-Ubuntu, anyway -- of being the most "polished" Linux distro. I think they've used up most of their cachet, but there was a point a few years back when I suspect, had you asked Joe Random Linux User what the best hope of "Linux on the Desktop" was, they probably would have mentioned Xandros at some point in their response.

I think Ubuntu pulled the rug out from under them, in large part, though; I haven't used any of their stuff lately, but last time I looked there just wasn't anything that made me want to fork over for one of their supported versions, that I didn't think I could get with Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu. (It *might* have some proprietary multimedia codecs -- e.g. MP3 or Divx -- pre-installed, but I'm not 100% clear on this.)

Re:How much were they paid?

[MindKata]

"Long term" ... It looks like M$ are playing for the long term.

First we had the M$+Novell stunt. Then the 235 fictitious patents and now the "deal" with Xandros. Its looking ever more likely, this is part of an ongoing serious tactical move by M$ to damage the name of Linux, by implication alone, that its somehow unsafe from legal action, unless licensed by them.

I'll just quickly paste in a section out from my previous /. post on the subject...
"Microsoft could well be using this "patent news" in a very underhanded, but very tactical way to scare corporations away from adopting open source tools and/or OS, in an attempt to tip the balance so corporations buy Vista. Non-technical Corporation bosses would be afraid of this kind of underhanded sabre rattling tactic of Microsoft, as they would fear wasting time and effort on Linux and so go the "safe" route of using Microsoft tools & OS. ("Safe"=What M$ tell them is safe)."

Now with this Xandros move, it looks like its part of a bigger overall strategy. It looks ever more likely this is a much more serious tactical move than just sabre rattling to just sell more copies of Vista.

I can only hope organisations and even governments who use Linux, can quickly take serious legal action against M$ for this strategically very devious mud slinging.

If this isn't stopped fast, M$ are going to scare other Distros into signing up and each that do, add implied weight from a legal perspective, in the eyes of non-technical judges, that something is up with unlicensed Linux. Its a very underhanded strategy to imply something is wrong with Linux.

If enough Distros sign up, then M$ just has to say in court "hey look judge, even these big Distros admit there was something wrong with Linux. So now, we want everyone else to pay up".

Microsoft look like they are playing a very big chess game to win control over Linux and it needs to be stopped fast.

Re:How much were they paid?

[bigpat]

You've got some good point. However, that's not the opionions of the majority of the CIOs in US. What I'm trying to say is that for the CIOs it is far more important for them to look good while keeping their job, and in many cases their conclusion is staying with MS Prodouct, non-withstanding the Office 2007 and Windows Vista. What I am saying is that a CIO that actually cares about their job beyond just treading water for a few years while they cash in stock options and make enough money to get out, they need to consider the longer term well being of their company. Getting stuck with Microsoft as an unintended business partner on their terms is not good for your business.

They look far too different for too many average Joe to accpet them. However, Office 2000 and Office 2003 are just fine for most people. Again, I think this "average joe" view you have is completely wrong. I find it is much more the very few "power users" of excel and the like that are the ones that have so much invested in certain products, learning all the details of their use, that they don't want jump to a new software product. But for the vaste majority of "average joe" users they could care less what document viewer they use every once in a while to read a memo written as an attachment. And you don't need to force everyone to drop MS Office in order to standardize on an OpenDocument Format, but it does make it harder to enforce an OpenDocument policy when MS products will try to get you to save in their own formats.

I have used Open Office myself. Be honest with you however, I can still tell the subtle difference between it and Office 2k or 2k3 that may cause issues with the Average Joe. My parents both decides it is far easier to use Office 2000 and 2003 than using Open Office, just to give you two examples of people who won't care about "getting screwed" by MS licensing issue. Now if a lot of people don't care about the issue itself, then by definition liking the deal or not becomes a moral issue, whether you like the terms or not. At work I uninstalled MS Office because I couldn't patch it without the original CD. Figured if it was going to screw up my system with patch warning, but wasn't going to let me patch, then I didn't really need it. I think the licensing issues are serious. One of the main reasons that MS Office remains popular is that it has been easy to acquire and use illegal copies. I think to a large degree this is built into the $100+ price, so that if three people go in on Office together then the per person costs drop to a more reasonable $30-40 price. This is serious because every time Microsoft wants more money they seem to clamp down on illegal copying, which is their right to do under the law, but it is a practice very similar to entrapment. People are lured in under one premise, but find themselves unable to switch products when the vendor executes a bait and switch on them. Yes, most people don't care about getting screwed until they get screwed.

Choice of product is not a moral dilemma for the user, no more than buying a used car from an untrustworthy business is. It is all about what is in the users best interest. Buyer beware. Getting stuck with all your company's work in one vendor's proprietary format, so you are at the mercy of their future business practices, given a clear history of monopolistic business practices designed to promote vendor lock-in to maximize Microsoft profit beyond what they could reasonably expect in a free market, is not in any company's or user's best interest.

Re:How much were they paid?

[Kjella]

Microsoft continues to lose all credibility as anything other than a "me too" technology company.

Unfortunately, the reputation of a 800lb juggernaut which let others pioneer shallow waters and only comes cruising in where there's an established market to conquer isn't nearly as negative as you might think. Their similar-but-legally-distinct products won't be the best or cheapest, but you know it'll be pushed enough to get a decent market share, the deep pockets to stick around and it'll play nice with your other MS software. It's quite easy to find MS Certified Somethings to staff it up, rather than the mix of applications you'd need otherwise. Most CIOs aren't out to help "the little guy" or try out the latest bells and whistles or custom solutions, they want something standard and solid.

Of course, according to slashdot Windows has horrible stability and security. Yes, all through the 1990s Windows was crap. but Windows 2000 (for business) and Windows XP Home released in 2001 (for consumers) is stable. Perhaps not seven 9's stable, but enough that it gets lost among crappy drivers, hardware failure, lack of UPS, required reboots (which Linux has too, for the kernel) and whatnot. Yes, I know manufacturers are asshats and won't release specs and yadda yadda. The ratio of old obscure hardware supported by Linux to bleeding edge new hardware not supported doesn't really make it a big swing in favor of Linux. Oh and if you use "experimental" drivers, BLOBs and whatnot then most of the stability promises went out the window anyway.

As for security, on the server side IIS 6.0 released in 2003 has had NO major exploit, and on the client side XP SP2 released 2004 with the firewall patched up plenty. There's been nothing like slammer, blaster, iloveyou or any of the other mass exploits for several years. Yes, I know it was a decade or something after Linux, but it's there NOW. For a place that loves to pull up the "Companies have no right to ask time to be turned back" quote, many here are incredibly happy to turn back time and present old arguments as still valid.

Not to mention a few that are just absurd, like forced obsolesence when extended support lasts 10 years after release on Windows and not over 5 years on any Linux platform I know. Or how Windows users who don't patch their boxes for months at a time would be any different. In the same timeframe as one remote exloit there's probably several local ones, if you can't just patch a userspace program and trick you into sudo-install the trojan yourself. Or horribly unrealistic comparisons where you compare the effective security of tech-geeks on Linux against grandmas on Windows, or that postulate "everyone should become a tech geek like me".

Hell, I've heard the sales pitch some of the Microsofties give, even they aren't singing the hallelujah chorus. The pitch goes more in direction of "love them or hate them, but you'd be a fool to ignore them" and make the customers feel like they make some kind of strategic blunder if they go with anything else. There's more than ample proof that you need not be liked nor ground-breaking to be successful.

Re:How much were they paid?

[Paradise Pete]

No. A Smart CIO will standardize on MS Office products because the average Joe and Jane knows their ways around Office Suite. Throw in something slightly different and people start freaking out because they look different.

Yup. That's why at my company we're still using paper and pencil. The average Jane and Joe here know their way around it. I tried to introduce computers, but people started freaking out because they looked different. I keep thinking maybe I should just hire slightly more competent people, but hey, if it ain't broke...

What's that? long-term thinking? Please. What are you, some kind of egg-headed "visionary"?

Selling Out

[Nom du Keyboard]

What is selling out providing, except to bolster Microsoft's position that they must have something, else nobody would be dealing with them?

A propoganda step with a little fish

[Bruce Perens]

For those who have never heard of Xandros (which will be a lot of you), it's a commercial distribution descended from Corel's Linux system, funded by the same VCs that funded Ximian, and derived from Debian at one point, although I don't know how much comes from there any longer. They've been around a long time, although for obvious reasons I can't believe they are very successful.

They took the money that Microsoft offered. That's really all the news there is here - that Microsoft found another foundering commercial Linux distribution willing to sign up to the patent covenant and give it publicity. The technical aspects are irrelevant, as they indeed are in the Novell deal. Xandros is a little fish without significant technology to offer. Even in the case of Novell, nobody needed Microsoft's help with virtualization - the only thing Microsoft can offer is the slight performance increment of paravirtualization for Windowsover the full virtualization that is available now.

There's not much to do about Xandros. They aren't a big player, this isn't going to make them into one. We should turn away from them as was the casewith Novell, but it seems a bit silly since most of us didn't even know they existed.

Bruce

Re:A propoganda step with a little fish

[Bruce Perens]

Both versions of linux (regardless of your stand on the patents) are safe from microsoft lawsuits

Not at all. You didn't read the Novell-Microsoft agreement. No use of server-client software is safe. No use of systems that send mail is safe. No use of wine, OpenOffice, several other programs is safe. No use of the software on the desktop is safe. And there are some additional ambiguous exceptions that may well apply to anything Microsoft decides they apply to.

Bruce

Two down, how many to go?

[pieterh]

With Novell, Microsoft subsidised Novell Suse licenses. With Xandros, Microsoft is doing a deal to provide "patent covenants", which means protection being sued by Microsoft for patent claims that Microsoft has not actually specified.

The game is to knock down the commercial Linux vendors, one by one, and establish them all as clients of Microsoft's "intellectual property". You can bet that the pressure on Red Hat to settle is quite intense. First, their competitors are being subsidised. Second, their clients are being blackmailed.

I've written a more detailed analysis on this. Microsoft is using software patents to try to take ownership of GNU/Linux and all free software / open source that would be distributed along with it.

Divide and conquer. At the end, the volunteer distros will be left alone to do their work, contributing to the shiny new future, while Microsoft makes sure it gets its 10%.

GPLv3 is being seen as many in the industry as the answer. I think that's wishful thinking. The real answer here is a lawsuit from the government for abuse of monopoly power, where Microsoft is using its monopoly in the desktop area to interfere in the server OS market.

On a related tangent it seems that the Redmond astro-turfing drones are out in force, insulting RMS, calling the GPLv3 all kinds of names, claiming that "freedom" includes the right to abuse other people. Well, drones, suck it. Doesn't matter how much you scream and rant, how much your managers pay you to mess with ISO and push OOXML, Microsoft is either going to learn to "do no evil", or it's going to sink like the Titanic.

Re:Two down, how many to go?

[pieterh]

No, ranting and raving won't do a thing.

However no monopoly is an island.

Look at how hard the Microsoft drones have tried to discredit GPLv3 here. There is a steady stream of propaganda: "GPLv3 takes away your rights, RMS is evil, why limit freedom..."

If we - those who are meant to swallow such crud - are worth talking to, then we're not powerless. Microsoft cannot make an infinite number of enemies in a networked world. At some stage it needs friends. And it's got so few left, it now has to buy them.

I'm really waiting for the day when Microsoft looks at Apple's and Google's share prices and realises "being nice could actually make us more money than being evil bastards that everyone hates."

Re:Two down, how many to go?

[pieterh]

Bizarre. IHBT, but I'll bite.

My firm makes its money thanks to the GPL. If we did not use that license - for which RMS has earned my eternal gratitude - firms would simply steal our free software without giving anything back. The GPL ensures that we can earn money from our hard work by selling commercial licenses. What kind of business model do you see for "the community" you claim to be part of...?

As for "the tatters of our credibility", you are blaming RMS for a problem that is not there. Free software has never had a higher credibility.

I'll tell you who has lousy credibility... it's ACs who pretend to be part of a community. GNU-slash ruined Debian for you, did it? I'm so sorry for your fragile world.

I don't, and I'll tell you why

[mrchaotica]

When it was just Novell, you know they'd be screwed after GPLv3 because they wouldn't have the resources to fork the last GPLv2 releases of everything. But on the other hand, if Novell and Xandros and ??? ('cause at this point I think we can assume MS will continue making deals) get together, there could be significant forks. And that's really, really bad news.

All the people who've been saying "MS has something else up it's sleeve; just wait for it..." have just been vindicated, I believe.

Re:I don't, and I'll tell you why

[MikeBabcock]

Forking isn't bad news. Unless Novell et al completely own the Copyrights on said GPLv2 software (say, a few packages?) they can't change the licensing on it. It will have to stay GPLv2 which allows the rest of us to keep seeing their sources and picking and choosing any useful patches they distribute to their software. On the other hand, they won't be able to do the same to GPLv3 software being worked on by the rest of the community. Forking is bad news for them, not us.

Re:I don't, and I'll tell you why

[mrchaotica]

The point I'm trying to wake is that it MS makes enough shills, they'll become the "community." The GPLv2 fork could become the dominant one.

Re:I don't, and I'll tell you why

[jonbryce]

Only if it is released as "GPL 2 or later". SuSE could release all their stuff as GPL 2 only, then it can't be put in the GPL 3 version of the product.

Re:Patents?

[Bruce Perens]

Consider the difference between from and to.

Re:Patents?

[Cato]

Patents are involved, but they are Microsoft's not Xandros', since Xandros is quite a small company that clearly has no patents of interest - that's why it says MS is not licensing patents FROM Xandros. Another part of this article says:

"The agreement with Xandros, to be announced Monday, includes a promise by Microsoft to refrain from pursuing patent claims against users of Xandros software."

Protection racket?

[INT_QRK]

So in Brooklyn, for example, Fingers and Lucky come into your restaurant one day and demand a weekly payment in return for which nothing bad happens to your business or your cute little kids. See the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering,quoting definition of Racket, quoting the article: "...best-known is the protection racket, in which criminals demand money from businesses in exchange for the service of "protection" against crimes that the racketeers themselves instigate if unpaid..." So is there a *RICO case here? * RICO (from the same article) "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. 1961-1968)...allowed law enforcement to charge a person or group with racketeering, defined as committing multiple violations of certain varieties within a 10 year period.... purpose..."the elimination of the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce."

Re:Protection racket?

[MontyApollo]

Microsoft is not threatening to commit a crime, so I don't believe it would be racketeering. Threatening "something bad" is just business unless the "something bad" is criminal. Lawyers do it all the time.

Re:Protection racket?

[INT_QRK]

So, notwithstanding my tongue-in-cheek analogy regarding "racketeering," because it's a lawyer who promises not to sue for a non-existent case in return for a settlement fee that's just below the threshold to make it less damaging to settle than to fight, even if would be a sure win, that's morally OK?

Re:Protection racket?

[MontyApollo]

A big business usually can't have morals. First off they are an organization, not a person, and second the shareholders ultimately are most concerned about making money. Laws tend to be the controlling factor in business rather than morals, but the good point there is that citizens can theoritically change laws.

In your example of the lawyer, I personally think that is a good reason to change the law. I think the lawyers should be personally punished for pursuing frivolous lawsuits.

Re:Whatever

[Marcion]

Exactly, Xandros do not really interact with the wider free/open-source community, so have nothing to lose by getting into bed with Microsoft. The thing is, Microsoft's patents are probably not the best, they got there pretty late in the game, and there are Patent Troll organisations with bigger piles of better patents. So getting the green light from Microsoft does not get you very far.

Redhat ditched the end-user desktop market because they knew that all the money is in servers. Linux, the kernel, and the GNU tools like GCC, Bash, etc, are not very new ideas at all, prior art is everywhere. The basic Linux server system is not that different from a 1970s Unix machine etc. So the only difference between the 1970s box and a Linux server is basically Apache which implements open web standards, etc, and networking stuff which was invented by Novell and other companies that are on the Linux train anyway.

Therefore, I cannot see how a patent lawsuit could do that much damage to the LAMP world, and in the Linux desktop there is no money anyway. Considering the recent Supreme court decision, I think Microsoft's patent lawyers are General Custer and the Indians having one last hurrah before the world moves on.

It's all a big facade

[Frosty Piss]

As others have said, this is part of Microsoft's FUD program to convince people that Linux venders believe Linux does have major patent vulnerabilities, and are bowing to Microsoft's ownership (although, I thought SCO owned Linux, why isn't Microsoft going after them?). But the real Enterprise Linux players will never fall for this. Red Hat might, but Oracle probably will not, given how much Larry hates Bill. Mandrivel and all the rest are not US based, and probably don't see much threat.

Not Grandfathered

[codepunk]

March 28th was the Grandfathered cutoff date for the GPL3 as far as I know...interesting...

Re:Andreas Typaldos (CEO of Xandros) is a MORON!

[Frosty Piss]

What the fuck was this guy thinking, to make the same kind of deal despite seeing Novell get blackballed by the community?

The difference is that Xandros is a dieing company and a little cashola from Microsoft keeps them afloat a little longer. And too bad for Xandros, Microsoft doesn't own Linux, SCO does... ;)

Re:Andreas Typaldos (CEO of Xandros) is a MORON!

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Novell may be getting "blackballed by the community" but recent earnings reports show that since the Novell/MS deal, Novell has gained share at Red Hat's expense. The "community" of which you speak might be good at "blackballing" but so what? That community doesn't pay the bills. It's not like you guys actually buy any distros or sign up for support contracts anyway, so you can "blackball" whomever you want. It makes no difference since distros aren't seeing any money from you anyway.

More questions than answers

[Anonymous Coward]

Are Xandros planning on distributing GPLv3 code? Has Microsoft just affirmed it is prepared to shield all downstream recipients against infringement claims? I hear Microsoft talking about building bridges which is strange considering the GPL is already a straight road.

I think the wider implications of this are important considering the FSF have essentially put Microsoft on notice with regard to GPLv3. Is Microsoft really spoiling for a fight or are they just upping their bluff?

I was wrong

[ClosedSource]

There is a way to profit from open source. Make a Linux distro and then make an agreement with MS. Sweet.

They brought the Linux PC to WalMart.

[khasim]

Xandros was the Linux distribution running on Microtel hardware that WalMart was selling. It was a very big deal back then.

It's sad to see how far they've fallen.

Tell Xandros what you think

[Bruce Perens]

Those of you who would like to tell Xandros what you think may do so here. You may also tell Novell here. - Bruce

Re:Tell Xandros what you think

[Bruce Perens]

I REALLY need to be able to contact you when your state, nation, whatever is considering a bill that would be harmful to Open Source software. To do that, I need to know where you are. This is much more important than the Xandros and Novell matters.

Thanks

Bruce

Not exactly like that (it's worse).

[khasim]

So, pay someone a bunch of money, give them a promise of lawsuit protection and voila, watch a small portion of the community shut that vendor out.

It seems that they'd do it even without the lawsuit protection.

Microsoft seems to just want that bit in there so they can spread FUD.

So, for some money (small change to Microsoft, big bucks to Novell, no idea about Xandros), Microsoft purchases the assistance of a Linux distributor for spreading FUD.

In which case, it is understandable that the rest of the community will reduce their associations with that company. Why waste efforts on a company that is going to help spread FUD about you, your products and your customers?

Re:Andreas Typaldos (CEO of Xandros) is a MORON!

[mrchaotica]

The "community" of which you speak might be good at "blackballing" but so what? That community doesn't pay the bills.

Yeah, but that community does make the software. If the community gets pissed off, Novell has no more product to sell -- hence the GPLv3.

Re:Andreas Typaldos (CEO of Xandros) is a MORON!

[Grishnakh]

The "community" of which you speak might be good at "blackballing" but so what? That community doesn't pay the bills. It's not like you guys actually buy any distros or sign up for support contracts anyway, so you can "blackball" whomever you want. It makes no difference since distros aren't seeing any money from you anyway.

Don't be ignorant. The "community" typically has day jobs in the IT sector where they get to recommend vendors. By pissing off the community, they've bought themselves a lot of bad word-of-mouth inside companies that they seek to sell cupport contracts to.

I used to recommend SuSE whenever I had the chance. Not any more.

I have a plan ....

[PurPaBOO]

1. Fork Xandros - call it Expandros or something.
2. Do a "patent" deal with Microsoft.
3. ???
4. Profit!

You are Here -- *

[handmedowns]

First they ignore you

then they ridicule you

then they fight you --- You are here

then you win.

Jumping from the bush leagues to "The Show"

[rbrander]

Remember how the movie "Bull Durham" emphasized what a dramatic jump it is from the bush leagues to what they called "The Show", the majors?

Xandros and a dozen other of what Mr. Perens posted above as "struggling" Linux distributions are struggling because people like myself (MEPIS man, 3 years) consider their $50 or $100 OS price a Grave Decision and hopscotch through various distros (Mandrake, Lycoris and Linspire for me) and probably settle on a totally free one. Like me.

So Xandros and many others have gone over a decade unable to ever meet payroll for more people that can gather around one conference table, with growth flattening after they reach a base of a few thousand home users, a couple of dozen minor corporate installs and perhaps a couple of larger ones.

Then MS comes along, and it's not the direct cash so much as the mere prospect of a CHANCE of being seen as a Serious Corporate Solution that might, just might now get picked up by a couple or six dozen larger installs in the hundreds of desktops each. Slashdot readers might not be scared of the patent boogeyman but the larger a company is, the more averse it is to the prospect of such risks, however small. To them, a volume purchase price of $25 per desktop is very, very cheap insurance against even spending one legal-staff-week on a lawsuit threat.

So a company like Xandros can "offend" a free software community that has been collectively sending it a few hundred thousand a year at most to grab a shot at the brass ring of joining "The Show" and selling thousands of installs to big corporations. Like a baseball player taking a longshot at "The Show" even if it burns all bridges back to the bush leagues.

You can blame them but you should also see their point of view.

Re:Jumping from the bush leagues to "The Show"

[DannyO152]

Okay for the short term.

But isn't there a point within the next 60 months when they will have to fork and maintain their own GPL2 licensed versions of vi, gcc, emacs, grep, awk, bash, tar, etc.? If they can't afford a conference table of employees, where will that support come from? Will Microsoft do it?

Re:For all those who wanted less distros

[LDoggg_]

Who will be next? Keep tuned

Hey, can't we all just create derivative distros and have MS pay us to indemnify our users?

Oh, wait... should that have been in 1..2..3?..Profit!!! form?

Here's a link to a similar racket

[Weaselmancer]

Buy Xandros, now with immunity from Microsoft Lawsuits(tm)!

Sounds pretty similar to this.

Re:Question

[Bruce Perens]

I think that Microsoft is making sweetheart deals with failing Linux distributions so that it can support its political stance in favor of increases in software patenting. They are using Xandros to drive Microsoft's campaign to create a situation in which any competing product must somehow be infringing of Microsoft, or at least is believed to be infringing of Microsoft.

Xandros didn't have the money to pay Microsoft for this. They were dying anyway.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Andreas Typaldos (CEO of Xandros) is a MORON!

[jedidiah]

SLES is already "that other enterprise Linux". IOW, some zealot inside the IT organization has to go out of their way to make Novell visible to the CxO crowd. Novell is already in a disadvantaged position. Pissing off the people most likely to make them visible is not the brightest strategy.

Lotus v. Borland

[tepples]

Other word processing Suites can claim that they are similar, but again to a lot of people, they are not the same. (Unless the software "copies" MS's navigation style. And in this case, they are liable of being sued of the content, as the copyright law today would dictate). Program menus are deemed a "method of operation" and not subject to copyright. Lotus Development v. Borland International .

Re:Question

[rewt66]

Yeah, I think that too. And I was looking at the direction of the cash flow in this deal (which is in the direction that violates common sense) as proof.

Dear Mr. Gates

[Mateo_LeFou]

I heard you were doing this thing where you -- generously, I must say -- agree not to sue a distrbution's customers for infringing a bunch of patents that you won't name. I also heard -- and this is why I'm writing -- that *you are paying *them for this. So...

I'd like in on this. I'm going to create a new distro every day from now until August 7. In exchange for you not suing the people who buy or download it, I'd like you to give me, say, $5 million per distro. I can come down a bit, though.

Re:Question

[Bruce Perens]

Yes, it violates common sense for Microsoft to pay Xandros to take the protection, if you judge the agreement at face value. Which is an important point to bring up in talking about this.

Bruce

Re:I show you the patents

[trolltalk.com]

How about the patents that *might* be infringing, if they were valid ... and could stand scrutiny.

If they really existed, you know darned well that Microsoft would have already closed THAT barn door. They're not afraid to sue anyone.

Let me deconstruct the ribbon patent

[tepples]

However, you cannot copy graphics and icons (unless they're standard icons). This limits the effectiveness of a "copy" of someone else's interface. If they're not standard icons, then users won't notice that they've been redrawn from scratch, and those users who do notice can be retrained: "To open the Start menu, click the K instead of the colorized Wheatables cracker".

The first would, of course, be patents MS most definitely holds on the ribbon. I tried Access 2007's ribbon once, and it was pretty much just a tabbed toolbar. The bottom panel of Blender 3D modeling software has something very close to a ribbon. Do you have the numbers of these patents so that I can try deconstructing their claims?

New Microsoft Strategy

[Pengo]

1. Pick distro's nobody is using.
2. Give them patent protection hoping people will use them knowing they suck.
3. ...
4. Profit!!

Patents

[Z34107]

Or, it could be that Microsoft recognizes that their Windows market share is at its zenith, and wants to start disarming a potentially nuclear patent war. Sure, Microsoft has a bunch of patents, but how many times has Microsoft been accused of (or actually has been) "borrowing" some *nix code here and there?

Granted, Microsoft could hire an entire state bar association if they wanted, but litigation is a pain and Microsoft's PR is bad enough as it is. Is is possible that there isn't a conspiracy, and that they just want some 1) good PR and 2) to avoid an ugly suit they're sure to lose by the "deepest pockets" theory of social justice?