Slashdot Mirror
Linspire Signs Patent Pact With MS
RLiegh sends us to an AP article reporting that Linspire has signed a patent deal with Microsoft. The company, which started out life as "Lindows," joins a growing list of patent agreements reached between Microsoft and vendors. Linspire will be granted a license to use True Type Fonts and "various code" that would allow for Linspire users to use voice on Windows Live Messenger as well as the usual patent protection for Linspire's customers. In return, among other things, Linspire will make Microsoft's search engine the default search on PCs shipped with their OS. Kevin Carmony, the CEO for Linspire, approached Microsoft a year and a half ago, according to the article.
Allow yourselves to be assimilated, and we will drop all litigation. Hell, we'll even let you call yourselves a "vendor".
Resistance is futile, indeed...
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Okay. That does it. I want in. Where do I sign up for the free Microsoft cash?
My blog
...continues to hang itself. At least we still have Debian. Even though its derivatives will probably all sell out.
My humor is probably your flamebait
He is mad that he never got the developer support for Hurd.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
I don't mean to sound ignorant or naive, but isn't this just what businesses do? All of the distros that have done this are really more concerned about the bottom line than freedom, right? So let them do their thing, maybe get some people and companies to switch to Linux (Which is a Good Thing) and the rest of us will use whatever distro we want regardless of patents and Microsoft, right?
Why?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Because Linus caught the FSF sleeping on the kernel work and showed the world that building a world-class OS kernel just isn't that hard?
My blog
This is how Microsoft has always done business. From Internet Explorer to Media Player on down the list, bundling the software or having it as a "default" is a very very powerful tool.
For instance, most companies lock down their computers. I can't even install quick time on ours - which means that unless it works with windows media, I don't visit the website. Many websites know that - so they don't use Quicktime formats. It's a neverending circle.
If I were google, I'd be thinking about doing the same thing in reverse. Get your office suite working and then begin package it free on every computer manufacturer that you can negotiate with.
If this agreement contains the same "Clone Product" clause that Microsoft inserted into the Novell deal, then this deal is also practically useless (for Linspire customers). Microsoft thinks that pretty much most of "Linux" is a clone (they are careful to blur the distinction of the kernel (monitor) and the whole OS)....
Red Hat , Ubuntu please do the rest of the honours. I have no freaking idea what MS has in his pocket that all these companies have agreed to MS terms of so called *patent* protection.Hell yes, i am paranoid but that so only because MS is involved in all of these pacts, i am not at all comfortable taking the bullshit.
Why is Linux community silent on a whole? Only thing they can do is host a site called as showusthecode.com and challenging Mr Balmer. And MS responded by making one more Linux company its ally. Now i am really getting worried about my submitted code as GPL. Is this just me or something is really cooking up at Redmond?
-- "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" - TAE --
All of a sudden how did Microsoft become as respected as Don Corleone? Everybody's signing pact with them for "protection". And they're JUST BLUFFING!!
I feel as if the world's been turned upside down.
Or maybe the true nature of computer businesses has been revealed. In the end, it's just a bunch of greedy b=$)/"%...
Oink oink.
I've got dozens of friends and the fun never ends
That is, as long as I'm buying
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Every time a Linux-related company signs a deal with Microsoft, it guarantees that I'll never use, or, as a consultant, ever even recommend their products.
Linspire, Xandros? These distros are going to find themselves unable to distribute GPL3 licensed software under the terms of their deals with Microsoft. Who cares?
The problem is, Microsft have a long tradition of squwelching the little guy. Some might point to the rapid pace that this is happening, and guesstimate this is an undermining tactic.
I'd have understood a normal business ideology more if this happened before Vista was out of the gates (woe, woe, woe the puns!). Besides which, I understand most of the Linux resellers were just making a profit, if at all. Not exactly the up and coming upstart that is absorbed for new technology.
Speckulartavurlay, Vista is either going really strong, or is a flop. The negative responses I've heard from pro-Windows (they think the problem is, that Macs is too expensive) non-tech leaning associates it would be the latter. [I'm a taxi driver, not in IT so possess few techie associates. Besides it just one data point. I have others but none are concrete.)
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
This will just separate the wheat from the chaff. when it is all over the GNU/Linux community will be stronger and those that sign on with microsoft will have lost the respect and be shunned by the majority of the Linux community (both developers & users)...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Microsoft clearly want to divide and conquer: They know they cannot fight against the movement of open/free software, but they sure can influence companies. As long as there are big distro's as foolisch to walk the path Microsoft lays down for them these kind of agreements will keep coming.
I'm very curious what will happen with these agreements with Novell, Xandros and now Linspire when gpl v3 arrives. And don't forget, the list of companies signing agreements with Microsoft will keep on growing.
But it seems these companies do not handle in the best interest of the community anymore, but only to serve their paying customers.
Greed, anyone?
Dependency hell? =>
I look forward to Microsoft's statement on Friday about how great it is that companies like Linspire are recognizing the need to properly licence Microsoft patents and blah, blah, blah...
Followed, on Monday, I guess, by a statement from Linspire CEO Kevin Carmony that they never admitted to infringing on Microsoft patents and that they never talked about it, and that Linspire infringes on no one's patents, and, and, and ...
Running Windows^H^H^H^H^H^H^H OSX and Linux in the home. (I don't have time for Solitaire any more.)
I've been wondering actually whether these patent agreements are indeed such a bad thing. It's basically Microsoft agreeing not to sue [insert name of company] and possibly a few sexual favours in return right? I'm asking because I'm actually quite fond of Linux, despite being mainly based in Microsoft tech and I'd actually like Linux to thrive, which with all this patent FUD flying around isn't going to happen.
'Free' in business terms doesn't exist. It makes investors very nervous as how on earth can you base your business success on technology 'no one' built? Successful solutions are bought not simply 'used' - you get sued for using something you didn't buy right?!
Ok, so that is the utter devils advocate coming out there, but my point is that I'm hoping these patent agreements will at least help allay such fears, and investors will consider Linux more seriously - even if this whole campaign by Microsoft utter toss (which I think we all know it is)
throw new NoSignatureException();
It seems like M$ are trying to get as many of these agreements out as possible before GPLv3 comes out, although I imagine they will have learnt from the Novell deal.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
Looked through the article and I see no mention of Apple.
------
Under the agreement, Linspire will license Microsoft code related to Voice over Internet Protocol, Windows Media files and TrueType fonts. With the addition of the Microsoft code to Linspire's operating system, users will be able to voice-chat with Windows Live Messenger buddies, watch Windows Media video and audio files on open-source media players, and view and create documents using familiar typefaces.
------
Now, unless I'm mistaken Apple developed the truetype standard in the early 90s or late 80s (Looks like Wikipedia agrees with me.) In which case, how on earth can Mickey-Soft grant anyone rights to use them? Obviously I'm missing something...
As far as the rest: nifty. Does it include HD WMV? And can the users check over the code for "bugs" (sorry, I don't trust microsoft that much when any linux build is concerned)
Who do you reakon will be the next distro to enter into a Microsoft deal. So far its been all the ones you'd expect - I suspect we won't be hearing much more of Xandros and Linspire, although I think Novell could still come out unscathed- My guess is Mandriva - although it saddens me to say it - they are having financial troubles etc.
I suspect that microsoft won't bother with the huge number of non-commercial distros so that leaves Red Hat, Ubuntu, mandriva, Turbo Linux and few others.
Mark Shuttleworth said he wouldn't go into any kind of deal like this and I think I believe him. Most of all we've got to hope that Red Hat doesn't, as the largest commercial Linux company it would be disastrous for any possible defence we have against possible patent issues etc
It could be worse...
MS seems to be giving an ok to pretty much any commercial Linux vendor that would have customers needing solid support without any fear from MS or other companies trying to nail them for patents. (Note they are getting MS protection on things not even related to MS, that is pretty big and a broad acceptance.)
However, it could be worse, MS could just have ignored all these companies and pushed MS Linux or even a Linux Subsystem for NT as an alternative for business and left every Linux distributor to fend for themselves in the commericial market. This would be worse...
MS is not the devil anymore, we can't continue to just hate them for the sake of hating them. IBM and DRDOS got screwed by MS, not Linux. Wordperfect and Lotus screwed themselves with horrible products. Novell screwed themselves with horrible client software and high prices.
So yes MS feked up, but not as bad as they could have.
MS helped Apple several times along the way, when they could have went in for the kill. If MS was truly predatory or evil, there would be no Apple, especially when Apple was very dependent on IE and Office.
If this was MS playing the role of borg, they wouldn't even deal with these companies and like I said, would be pushing MS Linux or Linux on NT as the only solution for non-Windows *nix.
Instead MS has a BSD subsystem for NT that is not hardly even marketed other than for integration with the *nix community, and MS is looking for ways to partner with *nix OS vendors they could easily shun and effectively kill off in the corporate/business sectors. But they aren't.
So things could be a lot worse...
(If I'm wrong and MS starts shutting down these companies, I will freely admit it and join everyone here with pitch forks outside Redmond. Until then, MS giving credibility to Linux companies is a good thing.)
And guess who just recently joined the board of Linspire who thinks that Linux market share percentage is the only goal worth following? Thanks for another useful contribution to the community, ESR!
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
IIRC Apple developed them as part of an Apple/MS deal to improve Fonts and Graphics, the Graphics format didn't surface. Sort of a way to not use postscript stuff.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
It says "license Microsoft code related to...". Code != patents, just like standards != implementation.
BOooooooo Microsoft! Knock this crap off! I'm sick of hearing about these shady patent deals.
The only good thing about Microsoft is having a whipping boy for everything that is wrong and evil in software. Hhaha. It balances the universe.
Heaven/Hell, Good/Evil, Force/Darkside, FOSS/Microsoft
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
They know they cannot fight against the movement of open/free software, but they sure can influence companies.
... either they go out of business or they fork their code. (Hmmm, the latter actually does seem like "divide and conquer" after all.)
YESSSS! Give that customer another mod point.
But rather than trying to "divide and conquer" the FOSS community, I'd suggest it's a new chapter in Microsoft's "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy. Getting these companies to sign agreements covers the "embrace" part. The "extend" part is, perhaps, the will-not-sue covenant: it offers an extra warm/fuzzy feeling for the customer.
I'm very curious what will happen with these agreements with Novell, Xandros and now Linspire when gpl v3 arrives.
Maybe this is the "extinguish" part. AFAIK, the companies who have signed the agreements could no longer include updated versions of code that has gone to GPL3. So
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Isn't it about choice? You can choose Linspire if you want to have those features in place. Or, you can choose another distro.
Or, are we going to say, "You are free to choose, as long as you don't make these choices?"
Most "Freedom of X" movements turn into extreme hypocrits at the point where someone decides to be exercise free choice in an opposing direction.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Well this is the fucking stupidest comment considering they won't disclose what they think is a patent violation. Where is the list of patents linux violates? They won't disclose it because either a) there aren't any, b) they can easily be debunked or challenged, or c) what you propose, linux developers creating solutions without violations of patents, will happen and they'll be left without anything to bitch about. Instead they pull the old "we have an offer you can't refuse" tactic, and certain companies acquiesce. In case you haven't grasped it yet, this is tantamount to extortion. BTW, linux developers like to code things that are "not that easy". It's the sense of accomplishment that drives most of them, not greed. What are you a Microsoft shill?
is available here: Linspire, Microsoft in Linux-related deal. For example... In an email to DesktopLinux, however, Carmony clarified this apparent contradiction in how the Microsoft IP (and "protection" from alleged patent infringement) would be licensed. "We just bundle everything together," he wrote. "Meaning, you can't say 'I want the fonts, but not Windows Media 10,' or 'I want Windows Media 10, but not the IP coverage,' etc. If you want any or all of these new offerings, they ALL will come with Linspire 6.0. If users don't wish these, they can easily uninstall what they don't want from Linspire, or simply use Freespire, which will not include these features. When the press release was written we hadn't fully decided if we wanted to just include it in Linspire or offer a separate SKU. The agreement gives Linspire the freedom to do it either way. We're going to start by just including it with ALL copies of Linspire sold, so they don't really 'purchase a patent SKU,' but just buy Linspire which will include everything."
Well that is another distro we will not be using.
As soon as this MS patent bullshit started, I locally mirrored livna and fedora 7 and all the sources. I'm planning to burn several DVDs to put in storage soon too. Now I have a snapshot of Linux "the way it was" and "the way I use it" before Microsoft fucks everything up (as usual). You know, as much as the sky is blue, they are going to fuck it up for everyone, bastards.
Death is life's great reward. R. Hoek
I'm not saying Microsoft is doing right. I'm aware that they haven't said what the patents are (and in fact went so far as to say they don't even KNOW) I'm simply saying that these companies that the FOSS community apparently liked so much signed with Microsoft because they stood to make a huge heaping pile of money. So, because of this, my message to the FOSS community is that they should just say "good riddence", seeing as how these companies obviously are not on the same page as the FOSS community. By the way, just because someone speaks out against one company or group does not automatically make them a shill. Beyond that, I never once actually supported Microsoft in my OP. Go back and read it again and stop with the knee jerking; you are gonna have trouble walking someday, seeing as the knee is such a delicate joint.
Living With a Nerd
The wool has been pulled over your eyes. Microsoft is only doing this to give it's patent claims some validity. Their stance will be "see, Linux must infringe, all of these distributors have signed patent deals with us". This is a divide and conquer move.
But I see this dark cloud with some silver lining. We will know which companies actually are part of the Linux community and which ones are not. So far Redhat and Ubuntu have vocally expressed that they will not do any such deals with Microsoft. There may be others but I am unaware of any at this time.
You must oppose GPLv3 if you want true freedom. True freedom is allowing the developer or the user to develop, install, and use what they want on the OS. If you put in provisions that limit this, if I can't run a closed app on an open OS, then I don't have freedom.
Or, is the movement so afraid that thier position is so tenuous that they have to stifle that ability?
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
I wonder if this could end up being a good thing for the Linux community, even though it's not what Microsoft intended.
What if Microsoft continues to do deals with various second-tier Linux vendors? And what if Linux users and customers, by and large, shun those vendors? (Ok, Novell wasn't a second-tier vendor but they're already being shunned.)
And what if Red Hat and Canonical continue to refuse to sign, because, y'know, people are actually *using* their Linux distros in large numbers? Could the Linux-using world end up making a concerted effort to consolidate around the non-Microsoft-tainted distros? That would reduce Linux fragmentation and actually end up making Linux a more unified target platform for third-party ISV's.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
- Ubuntu and Lindows have a deal regarding "click-n-run", etc., and that future Lindows distros will use Ubuntu as the base.
-
Microsoft can't attack Ubuntu directly
- So Microsoft attacks their partner.
No, there's no "... PROFITOkay, this is typical marketing.
1. Introduce new flexible product at good price
2. guarantee a period of service.
3. change contract (check them out, they all have a line that says "... may change without notice...")
4. claim no one wanted that product everyone wanted the more expensive less flexible choice.
(no I'm not doing the profit "joke")
Corporations change the rules solely to get consumer controlled and paying exhorbent prices. They only give options when no one will buy the "profitable" product. Then reduce/alter the terms of using the product so consumers are buying the "profitable" product anyway. The problem for the corporations isn't that the choices aren't profitable, it is that they aren't profitable enough.
It is this 'choice' we "Freedom of X" movements oppose. Don't try control us, we see and understand what is happening. If Microsoft gives us a choice of using linspire et al without the 'patent violation' threats, I for one would only be suspicious, not condeming of parties involved.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
So what does Eric Raymond have to say about this? Isnt he on the board of linspire?
We have not yet lost the battle.. War's only over when Debian signs the deal :).
xer.xes -- 4181
Novell, Xandros, and Linspire? To hell with them.
I took issue with your last comment because it seemed to imply that the Linux community was being lazy about creating something to replace what has been lost because they were complaining that it was "not that easy". When M$ won't release the list, it's impossible. I was responding to the fact that your post implied someone could divine what to code when M$ won't reveal any of the 235 supposed violations.
As for my "knees", why tell everyone to "shut the fuck up"? We're on a message board. We're here to discuss it. So let those that want speak, do so.
Actually, I think what we are seeing is Microsoft adapting to the market place. Microsoft is at a point that they haven't been in for at least 10 to 15 years; competition that they view as either currently or potentially viable as a replacement for their product, and consumer/corporate reaction to the marketplace. It started mainly with Firefox. It was a popular 3rd party product that has been steadily gaining marketshare on their product (IE) since it's creation, and has for the most part been resistant to their reactionary responses (IE 7). Now, we have a major system builder that is selling systems with a competing product on them, aimed potentially at their markets (Dell/Ubuntu), seemingly as a result of consumer outcry for a NON-Microsoft option (although, considering how this behavior predates Ideastorm, I would be willing to bet that Dell and Shuttleworth were talking way before then, and that Shuttleworth might be talking to other major vendors as well). Microsoft is suddenly faced with the possibility that their product won't be the de facto standard that people become used to. This isn't about "lets kill the competition" or "lets weaken the competition," it is about Microsoft working to keep themselves profitable (not to say that they are not now, just to say that they are concerned about future profits and are attempting to secure those). Honestly, there is no threat of Microsoft suing anyone for patent infringement. However, they are still the 800lb gorilla, and CEOs are more knowledgeable about Microsoft PR then the fact of the matter. These patent agreements aren't anything odd, or unprecedented for Microsoft. All they are doing is expanding into yet another line of business (same as with the Xbox devision, or their myriad of other product divisions) and trying to set themselves up for what they think might happen 10-20 years from now. Plus, with this deal, they get to continue their standard line of business as well (their defaults on prebuilt machines).
It's really funny that Microsoft is "letting" Linspire use Truetype, especially considering that:
.ttf file) may be coprightable ( http://nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/cf_13.htm ) however that is easily resolved: ttf2afm $foo $bar && afm2ttf $bar $zag. Granted, that is a sleezy way to work around the issue, but the end result is likely not going to be an identical binary file. That would be a slightly interesting test case. Considering that the outline itself is not copyrightable but the binary representation of it is, I wonder if such a tactic is clear of infringement in a court of law? I'm sure the big business would win, but it's not outside feasibility for that to be considered not infringing since typefaces are an odd creative work in terms of copyright.
- Truetype is an APPLE innovation
- Truetype was developed over 20 years ago, so any patents pertaining to such have long run out. Even if there were valid claims, APPLE would have to be the one to pursue the claims. Somehow I cannot see Apple doing this.
- Fonts aren't copyrightable, based on numerous court precedents (note: a font is distinct from a typeface: a font is a typeface with a style, weight, size applied)
A typeface dscriptor (a
So, licensing truetype fonts to Linux distributions? Ha. I hope these linux vendors are not paying so much as a dime for these "agreements"
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Or, are we going to say, "You are free to choose, as long as you don't make these choices?"
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
You are not free to make choices that restrict my freedoms. Full stop.
Part of freedom is about maintaining freedom. The problem with deals like Linspire and Novell and Xandros is this: they are complicit in Microsoft's attempt to control free software. If they are successful, they have contributed to the reduction of my freedoms.
This isn't a matter of, "You are free to do as I say." This is a matter of, "Don't tread on me." This is a matter of, "Your right to swing your fist ends just before my nose." This is a matter of, "Those fuckers are trying to destroy a beautiful thing."
You are free to use Linspire. Go ahead. But as you find yourself free to do what Microsoft says, remember: it was your choice.
And choices have consequences.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
"Vista isn't selling"
s ta-40-million-licenses/
Why are you trying to convince yourself? What is so deeply wrong with you? It's the fastest-selling OS of all time:
http://stuff.techwhack.com/archives/2007/05/16/vi
The way that Linux users just shove their fingers in their ears, say "blah bla blah" over the top of facts and refuse to believe anything makes me ashamed to be part of this community.
These patent agreements with MS are the equivalent of George Bush's infamous "Bring them on!". It would have been a slow migration from GPL2 to GPL3 with significant holdouts (e.g., Torvalds) and significant confusion. Now I think it will move en masse.
What I find funny about all of these patent deals, is that these Linux distributions are selling out, and they are also alienating their userbase. I also believe by signing these patent deals the companies are acknowledging that Linux does violate Microsoft's patents and are giving these patents a sense of validitity. I won't be using these products anyway.
MS wanted to sue him out of existence not too long ago.
My last comment (including the shut the fuck up part) was directed towards those that are bitching about these companies doing it. My implication was that people in the FOSS community are obviously talented, so stop bitchinga bout it and replace what code was lost by these companies "selling out"
It wasn't directed at any specific person, just the group of Linux-heads complaining about certain companies "siding with the enemy"
Living With a Nerd
This isn't about shutting down these companies. This is about making Linux unfree.
See, right now, you have the freedom to download and install Linux on as many machines as you desire. Imagine a corporation with thousands of computers. Imagine the license fee savings alone, let alone the freedom of modifying the system to fit your business model, rather than fitting your business model to your software. Right now nobody can tell you that you must purchase a per-seat license, and you don't have the right to make modifications, or distribute those modifications.
Microsoft is attempting to change all that. They are trying to put the cloud of patent litigation over every "unauthorized" installation of Linux. They are trying to give the appearance that they are the ultimate arbiters of who can and cannot use Linux. They are giving veiled threats: "It'd be a shame if somethin' bad were to happen to your network infrastructure. A damn dirty shame."
If Microsoft were simply to create an MS-Linux, they would be forced by the licenses to release their modifications. They would have to abide by the various licenses. Now, granted, they could make changes to the X Windows System, or Apache, or Perl, and not release those modifications back to the community, but they would then have to suffer the non-standard nature of their distro. But, MS-Linux would be an overall win for Linux, and for free software.
And, I believe, for Microsoft.
The path they have chosen is the path of pain. It will harm everyone involved, and many not currently involved. All of use will suffer. Right now, Microsoft is trying to keep their name in the news, with the appearance that they own Linux. I'm not sure about the timing, but I bet it has to do with corporate license renewals, especially concerning Vista. I would bet their salesmen are able to point at the news and say, "See that? We own Linux, too. Now how about signing that license renewal? We'll give you a great deal. We'll throw in patent indemnity for Linux, for a modest fee."
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
It's because Windows is still largely bundled on every new PC, and PC sales are reaching record highs. It's not that hard to figure out.
On the other hand, OEMs like HP, IBM and Dell are still shipping PCs with Windows XP on them due to customer demand. Imagine that...customers *demanding* a downgraded product.
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with Vista. Keep telling yourself that.
If so, than all of this is a red-herring. The real target might be Google and yahoo. If so, that is smart on MS's part, but scarey on the distro's part.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Microsoft is "allowing" Linspire to use TrueType, a technology developed by and owned by Apple, Inc. Microsoft gets to use TrueType as part of it's patent cross-licensing deal with Apple. There is also a Postscript clone called TrueImage that Apple developed and no one uses any more.
I believe Ubuntu's founder made it clear that Ubuntu would not sell out to msft in this interview.
I'm shooting in the dark on this one, but here goes.
Maybe the idea is to create a shed load of legal documents for the sole purpose of legally defining Linux.
Right now, Microsoft is building a legal library of sorts. Instead of directly attacking Linux in front of a judge, they are ensuring the outcome of dragging something through court. They have the ability to legitimately claim to a judge, "This is a standard term because there are X number of agreements with Y number of other parties that use it. Therefore, it is SOP."
The litigation bomb never goes off because the outcome is already slanted in Microsoft's favor.
Someone with more Legal experience please chime in and tell me how wrong I could be.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
Except the stuff with the most polish, the most easily used stuff, the stuff that has a heavy UI component, that's all been heavily backed by corporations.
OpenOffice? Sun.
GNOME? Novell and RedHat.
KDE? TrollTech.
"To begin a work is divine; to complete it, servile." (Leonardo da Vinci) It takes an incentive such as a job to keep many developers working on a project once all the interesting bits are finished.
One of Microsoft's main marketing levers is piracy. Those darned Linux geeks just won't steal their technology when they can get better stuff for free.
The only way Microsoft can induce piracy in the FOSS community is to hire companies like these to insert their IP into their Linux distributions. That's why all of these deals have development components.
Thus, you see, Microsoft IP has negative value to the FOSS community.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Microsoft is a thirty year old company, debt free, with tens of billions in liquid reserves, quarterly profits up and every other week or so another billion gets poured into the money bin. Microsoft plays for long-term gains.
"Nobody wants Vista." But Vista is selling.
Attracted by aggressive prices and the launch of Microsoft's Windows Vista OS, consumers purchased more notebooks during the first quarter than expected, pushing IDC to raise its 2007 PC industry forecast.
The PC industry is set to ship 256.7 million units in 2007, marking 12.2 percent growth over the previous year. IDC had previously forecast a growth rate of 11.1 percent and shipment volume of 254.2 million.
The primary engine of growth was a 28 percent jump in first quarter notebook shipments compared to the same period last year, a faster pace than the 25 percent increases seen in that segment for the past three quarters. Vista and notebooks boost PC sales
You know the Geek is living in a dream world when it is bad news for Microsoft that Acer's shipments are only expected to grow 30 to 40 percent this year. Vista knocks down Acer sales
Why? Because these agreements don't protect the developers. In the long run, it won't do Linspire or whoever any good if they're legally allowed to sell Linux, but the community is dead.
This is how Microsoft "cuts off the air supply" of Free Software.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Exactly my point. Thank you.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Deleted
I really dont know what to make of it all... MS is certainly "up to something", it's what they specialize in. I.e. "destroying any type of competition". What i certainly will try not to do is do anything that results in MS making money from linux, to me that is the ultimate blasphemy.
But on the other hand, i've got to wonder if it'll work in our favor.. i.e. gplv3 comes along and suddenly microsoft destroy's half its own patent's. Though, some of it reminds me of an article I cant find in slashdot anymore about "the top 10 things MS can do to kill linux" and im sure soem of this type of behavior was on the list.
Of course the thing that makes me bang my head against the wall from the very beginning is the stupidity of the US patent laws in the first place.
Quoting a poster on another board:
"Xandros are about to go BK (and this deal guarantees it), desperation
creates mistakes. EV1 was headed by a business incompetent. Novell had just had
Hovsepian parachute in with a desperate need to impose his authority despite a
shaky understanding of the business.
Seeing a pattern yet... only screwed up companies went for the deals. Knowing
that its real hard to take SCOX or MSFTs few success's totally seriously."
Come to think of it, scox was heading towards certain bankruptcy before msft got
involved. And let's face it folks, Linspire was never much of a distro.
The real Linux heavyweights: Redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, etc. Have flatly stated that they have no interest in msft's patent deals.
Mark Shuttle gives excellent commentary on the scam . . er, I mean deal, in this interview.
...Microsoft has enough Linux IP claims to start his quest to make Linux a Microsoft invention.
In 5 years joe user will bet you a beer at the local watering hole, that Linux was invented by Microsoft.
I mean Micosoft has already invented the computer and the internet right...what's one more thing.
I may just be trolling here but can anyone verify that Vista is not a Linux distribution?
Just my 2 cents.
Hedghog
So is the whole thing falling apart, or is Linus' valiant stand in opposition to GPLv3 the only thing that will keep the community going?
What community? The community of anti-GPL whinners that can't help themselves to make any news a crusade against the GPL and RMS, the "King of the Nutjobs" as you so elegantly put it? For all that I care that "community" could drop dead tomorrow. I wouldn't even notice, and what's more, nobody else would since when it comes to actually *do something* that "community" has little or nothing to show for. Unless you're using any BSD, but in that case you wouldn't be talking about the "community" in an article about Linux vendors.
BTW, "Linus valiant stand" against the GPLv3 isn't half as romantic as your hyperbole would led to believe.
"The whores are now walking bowlegged, and gingling with every step..."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Really, why does linux really need TrueType fonts? Does Microsoft have a patent over them?
(warning, just my opinion)
both Xandros and Lindows were on the fringe of the linux community, Xandros for its seeminly less than wholehearted loyalty to FOSS, and Lindows for, well, because it seemed like a toy to attract Windows users.
now, "Suse isnt the fringe" you say. yes, but why is that? is it perhaps because we have a hard time separating pre- and post-Novell Suse? had Novell started their own distro, instead of buying Suse, what kind of reputation would that distro have?
now the question is, who's next? will they ever go after the big guys in the center (red hat, debian, etc), and will they succeed?
None of which is to denigrate the Linux people in any way. They've done a great job in raising the profile of Open Source / Free Software (and they are the same thing) to the point where an entrenched monopoly is running scared.
As for Hurd, well, that failed simply because it's a microkernel and microkernels plain don't work. Hurd is designed around the idea of building fences where they look pretty, irrespective of how much traffic may have to pass through them. Linux is designed around the idea of building fences where as little traffic as possible ever has to pass through them, no matter how ugly it may look to an outsider with no understanding of what those fences are there to do. The existence of layers is natural, but the boundaries between them are determined by cold, hard mathematics. Attempting to adjust those boundaries will ultimately be futile.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Really?
Scott Carr
Did anyone here actually read the AP summary? Linspire went out and licensed actual code from MS for Windows Live Voice stuff, Windows Media files, and Truetype Fonts (it doesn't say anything at all about patents for fonts, they probably just mean providing the fonts). They're also working on translating between OpenXML and ODF. These are all pretty important to people who want commercial Linuxes to "just work" in a Windows-centric world, and can't settle for partially working reverse-engineered implementations. And oh yeah, they also agreed to protect Linspire users against legal action by Microsoft in regards to any patents. It sounds more like Linspire went out to license these technologies from MS, then MS wanted to add in the patent protection stuff to make it sound like another Linux vendor is paying protection money to them (even though MS seems to be paying most of the money so far). Yes, I hate MS, and yes I think the patent deals spread a lot of FUD, but I think Linspire has managed to get some good things out of this deal, depending on how much they paid. Or maybe MS paid them again?
Ubuntu and Linspire made a deal to bring Click and Run technology to Ubuntu. How this patent pact with Microsoft affects the relationship between Ubuntu and Linspire?
Check out my cross-platform apps
Think about what you just said for a moment. Are you seriously suggesting that Microsoft is doing this in order to help people and companies switch to Linux?
Doesn't it strike you the least that there's something wrong with that picture? Are you at all familiar with how Microsoft plays the software game?
Microsoft is the ultimate control freak. They have well demonstrated that they want control over everything. And they have constantly demonstrated that they will do anything and everything, legal or illegal, in order to achieve their goal.
So now you're suggesting that they are doing a good thing for Linux. Excuse me, but yes, you do indeed sound naive.
It's not clear to me what Microsoft is trying to do here. But it is extremely clear that they still want complete control over everything. This pattern just strikes me as a new approach that they are trying.
And these little distros are doing their best in order to help Microsoft out.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that they sold 40 million+ licenses, nor am I a Linux zealot, but when you simply use the sales figure amount of OEM licenses sold to various vendors to make a point, that number doesn't necessarily reflect the real-world usage of Vista by customers. Just because 40 million licenses were sold doesn't mean that 40 million licenses were *deployed* and are happily being used by new PC owners:
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/vist
What Microsoft's sales figures don't reflect is sell-through, or how many Vista licenses have cleared the channel. They also don't reflect the number of licenses deployed by businesses.
"'Sold' does not equal 'deployed,'" said Al Gillen, IDC's research vice president of system software. "If you went out and tried to find the portion of that 40 million that went into businesses, you will find a lot of the machines have been downgraded to Windows XP, which is perfectly legit."
If they released figures of the number of Vista retail boxes sold, rather than simply the number of licenses sold (OEM builds and coupons included, regardless of whether they're being used), that "40 million" number would drop to something alot more modest.
This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
They want to get enough supporters to maintain a viable linux distro under the old license
At first I was pretty angry at LINUX vendors doing this. But then I thought "who cares" it's their money. If they want to put it in a pile and light it on fire that's their deal.
Personally. I'll refuse to support any vendor that does "deals with Satan".
Linspire and Novelle can kiss my ass.
No. There is no GNU operating system.... yet.
GNU is the ultimate goal of the FSF, one which it has never realized and probably never will. However the name GNU should be reserved for it's coming. Even if it will be sometime after the sequel to DNF hits. It is the delays in GNU which have lead to Linux supremancy and caused RMS to go off his nut and try to lay claim to things that aren't his to claim.
Look at it thusly. The FSF and the GNU project have released many parts of an OS, which have been adopted into many environments, including Linux but also including Solaris, Windows, *BSD and MacOS. None would try slapping the GNU label on any of those other platforms for using FSF tools. But mostly because the distro should get the right to name the collection. Redhat isn't trying to finish GNU, SuSE isn't trying to finish GNU.
Debian was originally trying to finish GNU and would have been correct to apply that name but were cast out of the FSF clubhouse for being too impure. Thus it is wrong for them to attempt to confuse people into thinking they are still GNU. And even if they patched things up with the FSF someday they should avoid the / because Linux is a registered trademark and eventually GNU probably will be. Trademarks are supposed to have whitespace around them and should not be mixed. On the other hand, since they have Debian with a variety of kernels it does make a bit more sense when they use the / because it is probably the least awkward way of saying it. But today they should be saying Debian / Linux, Debian / HURD, etc.
Democrat delenda est
was that intentional or ....
-- "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" - TAE --
from the linspire website: "microsoft will help deliver a better linux" ...
I don't know what to say!...
Don't look at this as an attack on a vendor. If anything this is an attack on the GPLv3.
But more importantly look at the details of the deal. So far as I can tell, this stuff only covers the use of proprietary stuff with GPLed/third party offerings. Outside the idea of a GPLed program potentially using them, it won't effect the GPLv3 status at all _IF_ the agreement is specific in what code or IP the patent protection covers and that code isn't inside a GPLed program.
I think this might be another case of jumping the gun on too little details. The reaction to Novell's deal was way overblown and once the details were released, it appeared to no cover anything that would competing with microsoft blah blah blah. People said Novell got screwed. Well they did, by the GPL leaders who reacted over a bunch of misplaced hype. None of this was about the potentials of contaminating OSS. it is all about dealing with Microsoft. You don't even know the specfics of the deal and are accusing "Microsoft attacks" already.
At best, this just shows MS's effort to fracture the GPLv3. When enough companies need to stick around that projects will be forked or uninformed people implode over using the GPLv3 while having deals like this and become angry enough to make an ass of themselves it will be their doing. MS is likely attempting to do a divide and cause conflict within as their strategy of dealing with OSS and it is going to be highly successful.
I've been using OpenSUSE for a few months now--my first concerted foray into Linux besides a Mandriva webserver I set up a couple of years ago to start learning--and really liking it, but the patent-deals I wasn't aware of then are making me uncomfortable now. As frustrating as Ubuntu has been for me (I feel like my hands are tied with it, compared to being more free to do whatever I want in SuSE), I'm seriously considering switching just to be more free. My sense of independence is very important to me, and I don't like the idea of having my PC so tied to Microsoft...
That or I'll go to Fedora Core, since I really like my RPM repositories...
Correction: Shouldn't that be hurd?
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
Don't forget Red Hat. They turned down Microsoft. They definitely still "get it" in terms of maintaining an open source distribution. Not making business arrangements with companies that tick off the FOSS community is only part of the good behavior expected of companies making money of FOSS software.
Red Hat is still a big contributor to the Linux kernel, Gnome and the OSS community in general. With the exception of Red Hat Network (paid service) all the products they've built (system config tools) or the product of companies they've bought have been released under the GPL to the community.
I continue to support Red Hat because I think they do get it.
Perhaps more unified could be a benefit for MS though. If 90% of people get their Linux through one or two companies then MS knows who to attack using their usual tactics. At the moment there are so many different distros being used that they can't attack them all. Maybe they just want to stream line the majority of Linux use through RedHat and Ubuntu so they can destroy them somehow in their next line of attack...
what you're saying is that, in your opinion, $bar is legally unrelated to $foo and can be manipulated in any form without legal consequence?
Calling it a derivative work is a straw-man: derivative work status allows you to put your own copyright on the new entity, it does not (in itself) allow you to remove the copyright ownership from those portions of the old entity which have been incorporated.
Besides, I hardly think you could say that format shifting of any file type would introduce "a substantial amount of new material" even if every single byte were different, given that (once parsed appropriately) the effect presented to the user is the same, or as close to the same as makes no odds.
Can I ROT13 a novel, and upload it to a web site without fear of legal consequence?
I think the press release will read:
you had me at #!
Next week on slashdot:
Linspire complains about GPL v3...
TrueType was developed as a joint effort between Apple and Microsoft, because of Adobe's refusal to open their font format to third parties. For a while, it offered better font rendering than Type 1, at least on the Mac.
r aw_GX_and_Apple_Advanced_Typography
However, Adobe subsequently opened up their formats, and Apple pretty much lost interest in improving TrueType further. They shipped QuickDraw GX (based on TrueType), but pretty much killed it immediately by refusing to license any of it back to Microsoft. It has been replaced with Apple Advanced Typography (AAT, the system on OS X), which supports PostScript as well as TrueType, just as OpenType does.
http://mac.wikia.com/wiki/Apple_typography#QuickD
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Are you trolling? RMS isn't trying to stamp out your freedom to ship code you own as closed, embedded systems. He's just trying to stop you from releasing other people's code as closed, embedded systems, and only when they have explicitly stated they don't want you to be allowed to do so.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
In a perfect world, there would be no software patents (and binary only software would be prohibited), unfortunately there currently are laws "protecting" software patents in the United States, and the U.S. court systems will uphold them. For any (U.S.) business, especially a publicly traded company, their responsibility (to it's shareholders, or simply the want to stay in business) is to avoid being sued by anyone.
Once Microsoft started making threats (and these threats have only now become in the public eye), these companies needed to devise a strategy in order to protect itself from litigation. Even though Microsoft has not gone ahead and filed suit against anyone, the threat is there and needs to be taken seriously by these companies.
Granted some companies (i.e. Red Hat) have (so far) tried to avoid such litigation in other ways, such as creating a "patent pool" from various other companies, but not many companies can do that (have the resources or popularity to).
I am not saying that the backlash that the community is giving these companies is wrong, but how about redirecting this backlash to the actual cause of the problem (not the side effect) - Software Patents. (Especially since some of these companies do contribute quite a bit of code back to the community)
I believe it was also about Linspire getting continued access to MS codecs. Linspire, IIRC, was/is the only distro which ships with full multimedia access/enabled for US users. They got that from the settlement to change their name from Lindows to Linspire, along with a bunch of cash.
It appears that rights to use MS codecs was not unlimited and Linspire wanted to continue with that 'feature' of their distro. My guess is that alot of the motives behind this was the extension of the licensing for those codecs. Like in the Novell deal, Microsoft probably 'requires' the fake IP protection crap or else any other deal would fail or cost too much. It's typically how they operate.
How this will impact the Click-n-Run deal with Ubuntu will be something to look at since I'm sure Microsoft would not want Linspire to just hand out those codecs to just anybody.
I will warn others to not believe this is about Microsoft collecting fees from Linux. Microsoft runs by Windows and without Windows, they fall. Therefore, all this IP licensing stuff is about killing Linux or killing corporate use of Linux one way or another. They've shown before that they're willing to spend billions just to protect the Windows monopoly/gravy-train and Linux is a threat. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
good point(s). I had once posted that any software tied to MS should be forked to keep its developers and users 'clean' but that is probably what Microsoft wants. Get so many tied to it's contracts that they'll have to fork alot of the projects since many will go GPL v3 and that'll splinter the software market and slow down Linux OSS progress and increase user confusion.
It is really sad to see so many distro's getting suckered into these deals but then again, I've not met a single business management person who'd not take money from Microsoft. They just don't understand that ANY deal with Microsoft is a deal that'll eventually hurt them( not Microsoft ). IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I had this conversation with one of the developers who worked on the Linux Kernel in the early days, and I worked for Microsoft for over 6 years...
But we discussed the whole Microsoft + Linux thing, and we came to the conclusion, based on "inside information" about Microsoft and Novell, that Microsoft is looking to the future...not for their $$ (like other "patent trolls") but for the future of Windows...
The NT kernel is outdated. It can not really, successfully sustain any more tweaking as it is, and Vista is about as far as Microsoft can go to patching the problems (and it is still showing vulnerabilities and problems)...
Microsoft plans to "change" or "re-write" the NT Kernel...i.e. they will move to a Linux Kernel, much like Apple did with OSX and their BSD kernel...
This will "fix" some of the issues Microsoft has been facing the past while...it also means that their future kernels will be held under GPL, while the rest of the OS will be proprietary. This means that we will be able to use Open Source and code to the Kernel...and because of this, Microsoft now has to make alliances with someone who will supply a kernel and support for building Windows around it, and they have to find a way to control a lot of ways that we would use their OS with a new Linux kernel...
This is where this whole Patent Deal comes in...they get people to sign some kind of contract, or licensing deal, and then they gain control over how and what is used in any other distro of Linux as opposed to what they, themselves, can use in their new OS...
So while it is all complicated and ugly...they best thing that could happen is for the distros to "just say no".
--E--
And I'll be back where I was 6 - 7 years ago, running only FreeBSD. So long and thanks for all the fish.
Too lazy to create a sig...
Well, of course the problem is that RMS wanted to get a high grade from Tanenbaum and therefore used a microkernel design.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
What concerns me is that in spite of all the rallying on Slashdot, there seems to be no negative impact on the vendors that sign these deals. openSuSE is still third on distrowatch's rankings. This may not be an concrete indicator for installed base, but it does show that people are still reading about it and linking to their website.
We need to completely drop any Linux vendor that signs a deal with Microsoft. Change distributions to a "clean" one, remove any currently installed software, and contact the vendor for refunds on any boxed software purchased through them. I don't expect anyone to get refunds, but the calls will serve as a reminder.
This is serious people.
"He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. [...] It's what drives men mad, being methodical." G.K.Chesterton
I know, I know, I've been reading /. for too long. But here goes. Maybe MS want to attack Redhat with a patent barrage. Divide and conquer, right? Splinter off the smaller businesses (I'd guess Novell would be the next biggest) and then make a really big kill, to put the fear of Balmer in the OS community. I'm not sure where to put IBM in this story, but it's a start.
What the heck are MS up to?
Sell-outs. MS should change their name to the Umbrella corporation.
Many self-contradictory comments on MS patent deals from Carmony: http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/20 07/06/a_slight_differ.html
"How this will impact the Click-n-Run deal with Ubuntu will be something to look at since I'm sure Microsoft would not want Linspire to just hand out those codecs to just anybody."
I think Click-n-Run can be used to purchase propritary software. So the deal may not effect Click-n-Run at all. Linspire probably pays Microsoft a cut on any Microsoft Codecs etc. that they sell.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Xandros, Linspire, Novell... and any other companies that fold like pup tents are off of my list. This is one of the fundamental problems with OSS, after months/years of hard work with little gratification the lure of the all mighty dollar is hard to ignore. Microsoft is easily taking advantage of this and exposing a huge chink in the OSS armor.
It is amazing how many idealists and followers flip flop and would sell their own mother to MS when enough money is flashed.
This next year is going to be a big one for our industry and I'm not so sure I like the picture I'm starting to see as it comes into focus. This is one time I truly hope to be wrong.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Dang. The fonts licensing may be the most significant aspect of this. If I want to share work on a .doc or have something look the same on a customer's machine as mine, I have to have the same fonts, don't I?
Getting fonts to look decent on Openoffice/Linux, and convert to PDF decently, and share with windows users decently is one of the last nagging little problems I've got. Using or installing improperly liscenced fonts just to get things working may be a vulnerability many individual users may have.
How do I:
1. start with distro X
2. legally install fonts to allow me to share work with MS users, without selling my soul to MS??
Call me crazy, but an MS Linux could have the capability to rock some serious socks off. Try and buy a piece of hardware that isn't Windows certified (for at least one version anyway).
Now, it would need a major change of heart in a leadership that seems to despise Linux in as visceral a way as any rabid Linux fanboy hates Microsoft, and it would also mean Windows and the concept of a closed OS layer going the way of the dodo. However I think it would be deliciously ironic for Microsoft to end up as a leading standard-bearer for GNU/Linux, with paid-for "MHQL" or "MSQL" stickers on nearly every bit of hardware and software in the shops. They'd be free to charge as much as they like for their leading closed-source applications, any accusations of being a monopoly go the way of Windows, and GNU/Linux (and along with it, the GPL) gets to be the international standard OS suite for just about every computing device out there.
Yes, I'm probably crazy.
09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
Stricter? How is GPLv3 any stricter? As far as I am concerned it only clarifies language and makes certain things explicit instead of implicit. It does not limit any of the things I have ever done with GPL software and as a developer of GPL'd code and long-time Linux user (since 94) I welcome this change. I came to Linux because I was tired of MS after having used their stuff for only a few years. And I'm not going anywhere.
Of course, I am trolling, but Stallman's stance against so-called "tivoization" is a slippery slope and ought not succeed. He does not want an entity to be allowed to utilize GPL code on a system that will refuse to run a modified version. That is ludicrous. The software and the hardware shouldn't be linked like that.
Tivo makes their code available, which is all they ought be required to do. And whether HARDWARE that is not "open" runs modified code shouldn't be RMS' concern, as, in Tivo's case, their code is available for free
However, if you think this is bad now. Wait until the GPLv3 comes out and get adopted in full force. I have a good feeling that MS is going to craft a deal and place it in their software licenses that would effectively make anyone using their software mini-novels as far as the you can't use the GPLv3 clause is concerned. They probably will also offer a license at 10 times the cost as the normal software without the part that violates the GPLv3 clauses just to make sure the payment part is satisfied. This would cause a lot of companies and users to not use or at least contribute to any GPLv3 software and pretty much force a V2 effort on anything they would use or want to contribute back.
Not only would this make a lot of people wonder if it is worth the effort but probably further split the community and even demoralize it to some degree. I have been making statements about this for a while but no one seems to care. I guess the Anti-Novell clauses are worth more then a potential effect they could have. Often I have to explain the entire details of how it could happen and still have people say they didn't think it would happen. I think this splitting the community and forcing the FSF to be more or less left behind or segmented to a small portion of it has been the plan all along. All these other deals just make it more apparent and guarantees a fractional group to go to.
I don't really have a problem with the new GPL version as it is written outside it lets stuff like this happen and third party vendors cause it to happen. The GPL shouldn't be an all or nothing on principle but that it what I see it being forced into. (forced by third part software vendors).
"This would cause a lot of companies and users to not use or at least contribute to any GPLv3 software"
This would cause a lot of other companies and users to not use or at least contribute to any Microsoft-based software.
Pointing out an authors lack of conviction to be one's own person is a valid contribution to the conversation. Admiration didn't come into it.
There is an old proverb, be careful what you wish for, you may just get it...
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
Unfortunately, as we have heard time and time again, this isn't always possible or practice. If someone depends on a windows only application or game or whatever, they will need to at some time purchase something from MS. I think things that require windows to run does more to sell windows then the quality of their software or whatever. And OEMs will be somewhat forced to carry only GPLv2 software as an alternative because they will be part of the deal which means they cannot distribute GPLv3 software. (no dell ubuntu pre-loaded computers after the switch). So Installing and configuring the GPLv3 OS will be necessary too for most people too.
It is going to inconvenience the hell out of whoever attempts to go around them. Most cannot get around it because of some dependency, development for cross platform software will be tricky because of testing issues. It is going to be a major issue.
And what makes you think that you can equate Microsoft's business practices with property ownership?
"He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. [...] It's what drives men mad, being methodical." G.K.Chesterton
I truly hope shuttleworth doesnt let ubuntu cave in, that would be a dreadful day....
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
why does it suprise you that vista is the fastest selling OS in history.... praactically no other comapies have sold an os and made profit from it. well not in the last 10 years.
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
You truly are a strange fellow... hmmm... then again I think Ghandi also pointed stuff out by not pointing them out... no, he was pretty verbose.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
The reaction to Novell's deal was way overblown ...
I agree 100% on that ...
People said Novell got screwed. Well they did, by the GPL leaders who reacted over a bunch of misplaced hype
I've been saying that Novell did pretty good - getting Microsoft to give them a most a half billion. And as I've pointed out plenty of times, Novell has continually denied any patent infringement charges, as has everyone (except Microsoft).
None of this was about the potentials of contaminating OSS. it is all about dealing with Microsoft. You don't even know the specfics of the deal and are accusing "Microsoft attacks" already.
We saw an attempt to contaminate developers with "shared source." I'm kind of wondering why we need MORE interoperability with Windows, myself. Let Microsoft make THEIR products more interoperable, if their customers really want interoperability. The source is out there for linux AND BSD - let Microsoft fix their b0rked implementations (hello, Kerberos, IE, etc.). After all, that's supposedly what their customers are paying them for - an operating system that's able to do at least as much as the free alternatives :-)
I'd say we have more than enough "interoperability" with Windows from our side - let them fix their stuff so it plays well with everyone else.
We really should do more about letting people know about non-US repositories like packman.de that include multimedia codecs.
(To use our fellow poster's allusions to current affairs) The Australian government has swamped the freedoms of people under the guise of 'freedom from terrorists' & 'co-operation' with our allies. If distro venders are comparable to governments, then a nation's own government has sold out it people to the enemy ('dog in the manger' proprietry software; not necessarily Microsoft) under the guise of the very freedoms said government sold.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
Are you an MS employee? How is it flamebait to call a spade a spade?
I was preparing to install a new mail server for my employer when the Novell deal happened. I had OpenSuSE ready to install, but switched to CentOS instead. Where could you find figures for folks like me?
Well, as a TiVo owner, I disagree. I find it intensely irritating that I can't modify the open source software of my TiVo to enable me to program it remotely via SSH, for example.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
OpenSuSe has, in fact, been dropping in the Distrowatch rankings. The default view shows data from up to 6 months ago. Change that to 3 months, 30 days, or 7 days and you'll see that it's dropped from 3rd (1784) to 4th (1277), a significant difference of ~500. Unscientific, but notable.
Also, check out their web logs. OpenSuse usage has dropped 0.5% from May 2007 to June 2007 on Distrowatch.com However, it's not clear if this is a result of their agreement with Microsoft.
We just don't like it.
If I am going to work hard for third parties to benefit, I want something in return. If it is not money, it is improvements to the code I wrote.
BSD provides neither, so frankly, no thanks.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
MS could do several things:
-Offer a free guarantee to any distributor of Free OSes that they will not pursue any patents. Something legally binding would be nice.
-Work with Linux distros distributors and maintainers to remove any patent encumbered bits in Linux creating distros free of MS patents (this for the US market of course, in the EU and many other places this is mooth point and MS's sable rattling looks idiotic and vacous).
-Work in high visibility interoperability projects.
In other words, show good faith.
This divide an conquer using the small commercial Linux distros (and to their eternal shame, Novell) shows there is no good faith on their side. They will continue with this idiotic series of agreement, more reminiscent of a gangster's protection racket, until the big players (Red Hat, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware and others) are the only ones left.
Then MS would have 2 options: go to court (they will lose whatever happens: most of their "patents" would be found to be without merit, and the ones where they are found to have a point, according to the courts, will be swiftly removed from the corresponding distros).
So in other words, these companies are entering in agreements in which they are getting nothing in return.
Pathetic.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Then they can develop their own OS using GPL2 or their own licensing terms.
I am sure they have the resources for that small enterprise.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
how is this ridiculous monopoly perpetuated? how is this company allowed to be lawless for twenty years? bill gates must be from ancient family. what is occurring now is a struggle between good and evil, between ancient power and those of us raised to believe in their symbols, the US flag, the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegience, but these are just mind control symbols and the truth is the courts and the government, especially today, do not have an allegience to truth and principle and law and market economics. There is something else at play and obviously this company has been protected. here's an interesting angle, all those nobobdy Microsoft licensed enablers, the noobs running the remaining MS servers and perpetuating this software on the wider public, the reason these are so cocky and self-assured while being ignorant of real computing skills, these get their arrogant power from association with this industry director, Mr. Gates, and his connection to ancient family that is then supported through the courts and government depsite law and principle. It is a system of henchmen.
So what's the big deal?
The rankings in distrowatch are from page hits from that distro. Why can't anyone seem to get the point that, people leaving one distro for another are of course going to go to distrowatch to find a new distro. People using a distro they like have no reason to go to that site at all. So, using distrowatch to tell the popularity of a distro is just silly. If we really want to find out a distros popularity we should do it by measuring the number of people updating their distro, not on a site dedicated to people swapping distros.
Perhaps because the Slashdot Geek isn't their market.
Linspire's customers want the out-of-the-box media experience they can get with Windows or OSX. Walmart won't touch the OEM Linux box that is dependent on gray market codecs.
I'm not sure how one would track overreaction to the Novell-MS deal. ;)
Scott
©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
Then why don't you take the Tivo code and roll your own box?
Why should the hardware gaurantee your ability to run modified code on that hardware?
When you buy a Tivo, you buy hardware and software that accomplishes a task, with software having been developed from freely available sources.
The hardware is not so developed and there is no license granted for the user to access that hardware. The way I see it, Tivo has fullfilled
its obligations under the GPL by releasing its modified code. I don't understand why the software license should have any influence on the how
the hardware operates.
Why is so-called "tivoization" bad? If the code is released, are the requirements of the GPL not fullfilled?
Can anyone provide a solid rationale for preventing tivoization other than "because I want to access my tivo via ssh"?
"this isn't always possible or practice"
Neither I said otherwise. Microsoft's strategy will be successfull in some cases, and will be a failure in others.
"And OEMs will be somewhat forced to carry only GPLv2 software as an alternative because they will be part of the deal which means they cannot distribute GPLv3 software."
Just like they were forced in the past not to show a multiboot menu but only a Microsoft OS? Maybe this time the antimonopoly laws will do a better job.
"Most cannot get around it because of some dependency"
Someones have already learnt what kind of long-run problems takes being in the hands of a convicted monopoly abuser like Microsoft and already *do* avoid such scenarios. Maybe others will follow that same path.
There are a lot of things that could happen. It doesn't look good for the GPLV3 crowd. But I'm past the point of caring. I have informed enough people and if they don't do something, they deserve everything that happens.
Because that was the clear stated intent behind the licensing terms the code was released under.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Was that merely the intent or the actual terms.
I have read the GPL, and I find nothing that specifically bars me from creating hardware to run only a specific derivative
of GPL'ed work. The GPL tells me how I may redistribute code, how my changes are to be licensed, and other obligations, but I find no obligation that I provide hardware on which derivative works of my work will function.
I respectfully submit that anti-tivoization was never the intent of the GPL.
See the FSF's Four Freedoms page. Clearly the "whole community" cannot benefit from your being able to change the software if none of them can run it.
Also, further down:
"The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity."
i.e. without getting it signed by a device manufacturer.
And if you doubt that that was the historical intent of the GPL, read about the history of the GNU project and a 2001 speech from Stallman. RMS was prevented from fixing the printer controller of the AI lab's laser printer, which had been provided as part of a turnkey hardware bundle from Xerox.
So the right to improve the software that runs on your hardware, even if the software and hardware were sold as a bundle, is exactly what RMS wanted GPL to give users.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I'll submit that what you indicate about the "Four Freedoms is true, but that does not change the fact the GPL, at least in v2, does not prohibit closing hardware.
I have not investigated it too much, but I would assume that one could assemble the proper hardware and build his own system based off of TiVo code, no?
I haven't seen any real argument against this so-called "tivoization" that makes a clear demonstration of how it damages "the community". TiVo has produced its
code and made it readily available to anyone that wants it, in keeping with what is specified in the license.
If TiVo prevents one from being able to make use of their code due to specialized hardware that is not available on the open market, then i think that there is an argument
against "tivoization", but if the argument is merely that the hardware Tivo sells will only run a signed version of the code, then I think that the argument is specious at best.
Personally, I believe that GPLv3 is more effective in removing freedoms. There are a host of reasons why hardware should only run a signed version of an OS.
Perhaps TiVo wants to try and guarantee that their network won't be infiltrated via a TiVo box. By requiring signed code, they ensure that no one will be able to code some kind of trojan or virus into a TiVo box that can cause harm to TiVo's infrastructure. Theft of service is another. By using GPL code with the requirement to release such, TiVo is well aware that the most minor security flaw could be exploitable, and the best protection is to clode oneself off to the outside, which TiVo has done.
I just don't see the logic behind requiring that the hardware be required to run any old thing when the hardware is covered by the GPL. The anti-tivoization clause just seems to me to be the kind of capricious action of someone who can't get what he wants and so changes the rules.
TiVoization damages the community because it means TiVo owners can't improve the free software on their machines and share it with the rest of the community of TiVo owners. That's one reason why the TiVo software has stagnated in comparison with MythTV.
The security aspect is really unconvincing. TiVo's provision of listings information is, from a security standpoint, no harder than putting files on a web server. If they didn't lock me out of doing so, I'd be using my own network connection to obtain the information. Their servers are Internet accessible already, so they're just as hackable now as they would be if TiVo was freed.
The theft of service argument is bogus too, because the hardware already includes a unique piece of cryptographic hardware used to decode the signal, in the form of the DirecTV crypto card. By the time the data hits my TiVo's software, they've already verified that I'm a subscriber.
The logic behind requiring that hardware can run modified GPL software is simply that if you can't modify the software, the entire point of the GPL has been defeated.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
But you can modify the software. That is why I don't understand the argument. The source is available as required by the license, so why is the closed box a problem?
Sure TiVo is missing out people b eing able to do interesting things with there devices like the Linsys WRT, but isn't that really TiVo's loss?
Shouldn't the market decide whether a closed hardware system is viable or not?
As to the claim that the security argument is moot, The fact that my box is verified before it gets information is precisely the problem.
A savvy code may be able to find ways to exploit TiVo's system because the users device is implicitly trusted. The proper use of functions
like fgets() is lacking in this world, as evidenced by the infinite number buffer overflow/code injection exploits you find. It might be weak, but I don't need to justify
any explanation when I don't agree that the complaint is valid.
I can modify the software, but I can't run the modified software. That makes the ability to modify it moot.
And there's nothing wrong with letting the market decide whether a closed hardware system is moot. What's wrong is using free software with hardware that is locked down to remove the freedoms the free software license says end users should have.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I can modify the software, but I can't run the modified software. That makes the ability to modify it moot.
I disagree, the ability to read the code and to modify it provides a great deal of value. Were I to wish to do something simliar,
but with added features, I could start from what TiVo has already done and improve upon it. I am still free to compile the TiVo
code for whatever system I have on hand.
Were I to create some novel piece of hardware that runs Linux, would similar reasoning lead to the assumption that I must provide the hardware?
Let's say that a company uses OSS to create some kind of novel algorithm, but the code is written specifically for an in-house piece of hardware
that is not sold. Would it be the intent of the GPL that this company should provide the harware to the community because the software running
on it is so novel and useful? I realize the the GPL would not require this fictional company to release code that it is not distributing it, but if the GPL
requirements extend to hardware, and this company is using this software and hardware to run a back-end web system, where does one draw the line?
Better yet, when will "the community" demand that the ability to RUN the modified code is also a requirement of the GPL?