Red Hat Rejects Microsoft Deals

Kurtz'sKompund passed us an article detailing another loss in Microsoft's licensing push: Red Hat has summarily rejected Redmond's offer of an alliance. The article also touches on Ubuntu's rejection of the same offer, which we discussed this past weekend. ZDNet reports on comments from Mark Shuttleworth and the Red Hat organization, with Shuttleworth stating "Allegations of 'infringement of unspecified patents' carry no weight whatsoever. We don't think they have any legal merit, and they are no incentive for us to work with Microsoft on any of the wonderful things we could do together." Red Hat was even more blunt, stating the organization refused to pay an "innovation tax" to Microsoft. "Red Hat said there would be no such deal. Referring to previous statements distancing itself from Microsoft, the company insisted: 'Red Hat's standpoint has not changed.' The company referenced a statement written when Microsoft revealed it was partnering with Novell, saying that its position remained unaltered. Red Hat director of corporate communications Leigh Day added: 'We continue to believe that open source and the innovation it represents should not be subject to an unsubstantiated tax that lacks transparency.' Many open-source followers argue that Red Hat, as the largest Linux vendor, would have a lot to lose from partnering with Microsoft."

Comments

Thank goodness

[symbolset]

Somebody has some sense! I was starting to wonder.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me tell you -- Microsoft doesn't "partner" with anyone. Companies that try to make that deal are brought, crushed or otherwise disposed of by Bill G.

Re:Thank goodness

[Volante3192]

Ok, I'll call your bluff... sues on what grounds?

Microsoft already tried the FUD tactic with the 237 infringing patents in the Department of Defense^W^W^W^WLinux. There's people out there literally begging Microsoft to sue them and MS hasn't yet.

So what, exactly, would the claims be?

Re:Thank goodness

[1800maxim]

RH and Shuttleworth idiots? On the contrary, if anyone is an idiot, that would be Novell. How so? For paying protection money against being prosecuted for unknown (and perhaps even made-up) crimes.

What RedHat and Ubuntu are doing is what Novell should have done. This way, there would be no players in bed with MS.

Perhaps Novell thought that this deal will attract any Linux migrator to them, as in "I guess if these guys partner with MS, their products must clearly interoperate with Windows, not like other untrusted types aka RedHat."

Time will show who the winners and who the losers of this are.

Re:Thank goodness

[drinkypoo]

Makes sense and makes sense... How much do you think SCO vs IBM has cost IBM so far, including digging up every document for their fishing expendition, answering all the bullshit motions, writing up all the reasons SCO is wrong, double wrong and still wrong? Think they'll recover a dime when SCO folds? Nope. The coffers are empty if Novell get their motion through, and if not they'll burn on lawyers long before the case has come to a close.

This is different because:

1. Microsoft is not SCO. Microsoft is a real company that will not fold over any lawsuits related to this issue.
2. Microsoft funded SCO. The USDOJ has obviously been bought off but you can only push them so far.
3. Microsoft claims to know the precise number of patents, where SCO claimed to only have a vague idea of the number of alleged infringements. It is easy to demand that they put up or shut up in court, especially since patents are filed with the USPTO whereas copyright doesn't require any registration.

I think the Microsoft deal isn't about whether Microsoft has or doesn't have anything, it's about not being the victim of it.

That is the only way in which this is similar to the SCO vs. Linux issue.

Sooner or later, Microsoft will have to have a show of hands, but not before Novell etc. start getting impatient about "what did we pay for, really? everyone else is doing the same as us, and you're not striking down on them". Until then, FUD beats facts in marketing every day of the week.

It's not necessary to win in the short term. And in the long term, Linux sells itself.

Re:Thank goodness

[shaitand]

Nonsense. They can't come after the users because most of the users are Microsoft customers as well. Suing RedHat or Ubuntu or anyone else would be suicide. There is an organization that exists solely to hold defensive patents that protect open source software. That of course ignores the fact that IBM the largest patent holder of all has an extremely vested interest in shutting down any attempt by Microsoft to sue a Linux distributor.

All of that assumes that Microsoft has any legitimate patents (if we pretend software patents are legitimate in the first place) that cover anything in the Open Source world. Just like a DA will pile on bogus charges to give himself a better bargaining position IT companies slip through hundreds of junk patents that would never withstand scrutiny for the same reason. If Microsoft sues anyone they run a serious risk of having their precious patents invalidated.

I ordered a new box with RHEL 4 on it 2-3 days ago

[unity100]

apparently my choice was wise. can trust these people.

It's really time for MS to put up or shut up

[dreamchaser]

Show us the patents. Enough said.

Re:It's really time for MS to put up or shut up

[Kadin2048]

My question is this: aren't patents on the public record? Aren't things like Ubuntu/Red Hat open source? How hard is it for M$ to say "Look at patent 5,656,565 and lines 1-3,000 of kernel.c. This is a violation of our IP rights."

This is exactly why a lot of people are very suspicious that Microsoft doesn't do this. Instead, they just make vague statements, e.g. "Linux violates x Microsoft patents" and never specify which ones.

Although the patents are public, Microsoft has so many of them, and many of them are so crappy/broad, that it's nearly impossible for anyone to work backwards to find the ones that they're talking about and might, by some stretch of someone's imagination, apply to Linux.

So basically, it's a totally opaque threat, and I'm similarly at a loss as to why anyone would negotiate with them without first demanding to see the goods.

And if they did partner...

[micromuncher]

... its effectively an admission of guilt. Would anyone sign an agreement saying "I'm guilty of unspecified crimes"?

Re:And if they did partner...

[FireFury03]

others have: Novel, Xandros, Linspire

But in so doing they have gained a lot of bad feeling in the Free software community. And these companies do need the community's support - Red Hat, etc. have their roots in the Free software world and understand this. Novell on the other hand is a well established propriatory software company who has jumped into the Free software world and I don't think they yet fully understand how important it is to not piss off the community.

Glad

[spungo]

I'm glad that there are still F/OSS companies out there that value common sense over greed.

What you're asking is ...

[khasim]

will there be any issues with patches submitted by the pro-Microsoft segment with regard to copyrights or patents or such?

Will the pro-Linux segment refuse such?

Well, that's part of what the GPL v3 is supposed to address. Just in case.

Wasn't sling or rock that killed Goliath

[Dareth]

.. David killed him with his own sword.

Live by the patent sword.. die by the ... well you get the picture.

Time to vote with our wallet....when we can.....

[budword]

I don't buy support myself, but I do quite a bit of small time consulting for individuals and a few small businesses, and I'll be recommending RedHat without reservation. Ubuntu and Mandriva also, for those without a need for a distro certified to work with Oracle or similar product. Vote with your wallet, when you can folks. Novell drank the cool aid, RedHat, Ubuntu, and Mandriva turned down millions simply to avoid pissing us off, time to reward them for it, when we can.

Re:Bye-bye Red Hat

[curious.corn]

I'm italian, sicilian no less, and I know what mafia means. This Microsoft thing sounds like pizzo, a tip given to avoid having your stuff burnt to the ground or getting shot in the back while walking back home... fsck it...

Re:Bye-bye Red Hat

[codepunk]

You said it yourself you are a all MS business(owned), I doubt you have any intention of running Linux
  so why would RedHat care what you do.

The bigger problem if you ever did decide to run linux is that the MS blessed distro's are as good
as dead. Go ahead and ask for some help using your new blessed linspire distro on here and see where it
get's you.

Re:So...

[WIAKywbfatw]

It's saying that they're willing to stand up to Microsoft's aggressive anti-OSS tactics.

And, as the biggest name in enterprise Linux (correct me if I'm wrong) that says a hell of a lot both to the OSS development and support community as well as the community's growing customer base.

If you support OSS then this is a positive step that can only build confidence in Linux and OSS in general. The alternative would, I'd argue, have been devastating.

I really don't see the reason for your negativity. Did someone at Red Hat murder your family or something?

Re:Bye-bye Red Hat

[splict]

Whether on purpose or not I'm not sure, but you are definitely missing the point. As far as I know, Red Hat, Ubuntu, and Mandriva all see interoperability as a good thing. No one is fighting that. And if you can find something that says otherwise I would be happy to see it.
What you are suggesting is that these companies should pay money to a competitor for (so far) baseless claims and admit a weakened and reliant position when none in fact has been shown to exist - all in order to possibly get some help with interoperability. Interoperability which, if Microsoft took the attitudes these companies did, would already be there. You are thinking very short term. If Microsoft got its way, you wouldn't have a Linux server option down the road. Good luck with your business...

Re:I ordered a new box with RHEL 4 on it 2-3 days

[mcrbids]

apparently my choice was wise. can trust these people.

RedHat is definitely one of the good guys. While Google's Evil-o-meter has been slipping of late, RedHat has consistently been true to their mission. They develop technology that's open and freely available a-la CentOS and have some of the finest hacks around working full time on open stuff. (Alan Cox, et al)

RedHat tends to get dissed around here a bit because they target servers rather than workstation/desktop Linux. They are focused on making money the honorable way, and some people seem to have problems with anybody making money.

But look at their track record. They've consistently been true to the spirit and purpose of the GPL and free or open source software in general, and have been both profitable and successful in doing so. (Hint: Ubuntu is not yet profitable)

Re:So...

[ettlz]

What do you mean by that? In what way are Red Hat "sell-outs"?

Does the fact that Red Hat makes money out of Linux and uses this to plow tons of resources into Free Software projects unnerve you?

Red Hat may take, but they sure as hell pay it back with interest.

Re:Bye-bye Red Hat

[flyingfsck]

You are not alone. There are lots of misinformed people thinking like you do.

The fact that you're 100% MS is proof

[Eric Damron]

that you're clueless.

Giving in to a bullies demands for protection money is NEVER a good idea. That should be simple enough for even a MS fanboy to understand.

Re:Bye-bye Red Hat

[abaddononion]

Again, this shows pretty much a lack of any sort of looking into things on your part. Linux pretty much has a competitive application on every front. And all it takes to find it is pretty much a google search with the word "linux" in it. For example, "Linux video editing software" or "linux accounting software", ad nauseam.

I think what you're trying to say is "a lack of proprietary apps on linux is why I cant consider it", because most likely, you dont want apps that actually do the job best, as much as you want apps where, when something goes wrong, you have a company that you can point a finger at and say "It's not my fault, it's theirs. Call them and make them fix it." Plenty of companies run on linux machines. I run a full OS server shop here at the University I work at. Do you think I am handicapping myself to a subset of applications? No. When I need an app for something, I google for it, and so far I havent had that fail for me yet.

The only option linux tends to have trouble with is games. So maybe you cant convert your Windows shop to linux because you dont want to lose the ability to play World of Warcraft at work?

Im sorry, but I have a hard time taking any of your statements with any sort of merit. You're nothing more than a troll with backwards, dated ideas on what linux is, and you have no intention to do any research or ever attempt to change them. Have fun living in the 1980s.

Re:Not smart.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it goes a long way to explain it anyways.

Just as your username goes a long way to explain things....

Priating Windows is NOT doing your part

[businessnerd]

I'd like to take this chance to try and set the record straight when it comes to pirating Windows. Without getting into the morality of pirating in general, pirating Windows is still helping Windows. Sure Microsoft doesn't get the revenue for the software, but they get the market share. And that's really what the OS market is about. First you get the OS market share, then you push the OS exclusive apps, then you get money, then you buy the khakis, then you get the girls (or something like that). Why do you think Microsoft has sold Windows to parts of the developing world for as low as $3? They don't care if you pay for their OS as long as you use it.

The moral of this story: The only way to "stick-it" to Microsoft, is to not use their products at all, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Re:I ordered a new box with RHEL 4 on it 2-3 days

[notamisfit]

Really, what did you expect? The boxed desktop Linux market just isn't there; it wasn't there in '98 when venture capitalists were tripping over themselves trying to throw money at Linux anything, and it isn't there now. Novell had to move into the enterprise to keep SuSE alive; ditto with Linspire and OEM's. Unlike Canonical or SPI, Red Hat has to make money, both in the short and long term.

Re:So...

[ettlz]

What you failed to understand is that making a deal with Microsoft is the most evil thing RedHat can do right now.

I think we all understand that.

That they respond initially with a flat "no" is truly not saying much. All it really says is that they are not very evil (which we already knew). If, for example, RedHat publicly announced that they considered MS's tactics to be racketeering, that would be news.

But that language would be brazenly combative (Truth Happens is just an ad campaign). Might it not alienate enterprise customers?

As it currently stands, RedHat's actions just aren't that significant. They haven't hurt Microsoft in any way, and they haven't challenged Microsoft to "put up or shut up." All they've said is "we aren't playing."

Why would they want to hurt Microsoft? That's stooping to the enemy's level. Neither does their stance add up to appeasement. Choosing to not get involved and carrying on as normal, rather than letting loose with (potentially expensive) sound and fury, would seem to make tactical sense.