Mandriva Says No to Microsoft Linux Deal

Kurtz'sKompund writes "French Linux vendor Mandriva said no to dealing with Microsoft on open source patents. They're the third Linux vendor in a week to do so, joining Red Hat and Ubuntu in the 'against' column. TechWorld reports that Mandriva's CEO echoed statements from other open source leaders, saying essentially 'we don't need to pay protection money to do our job.' From the article: 'Jonathan Eunice, an analyst at Illuminata, said Microsoft's deals with Xandros and Linspire don't have the same impact as they would if they had been made with a major Linux vendor such as Red Hat. "I think Microsoft is going to second-tier players, and they're cutting deals with them because they are softer targets," Eunice said.'"

Comments

I hope that perception catches on

[Weaselmancer]

"I think Microsoft is going to second-tier players, and they're cutting deals with them because they are softer targets," Eunice said.

Let's hope that perception catches on. Only second-tier Linux players go in for a Microsoft deal.

Want to give everyone the perception that you're one of the major players? Refuse to deal.

Re:Where's the business case?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Red Hat and a few other major players have openly contested MSFT's claim that Linux violates its patents. So the value of "Look Ma! These guys agreed and paid me money" argument is very low.

Further to sustain, "they paid us money" argument, they have to show that these companies paid more to MSFT than the recieved in concurrent deals. Already they can show that it is MSFT that paid Novell and not the otehr way around. They will move for discovery to see what kind of deals it offered to others who signed on. That is a can of worms MSFT would not like to open.

Further, many open source advocates have openly challenged MSFT to identify the alleged violations and they claim if there were really violations they could work around it easily. By not identifying these patents, Linux advocates could argue that MSFT has abandoned whatever rights it had. In copyrights/trademarks, if a company knows there is a violation of its trademark/copyright and still takes no action, it loses the trademark. This is one argument Linux could make.

In my opninion, IANAL, the strong, open and vocal dispute over the claims MSFT made over Linux has completely voided any residual "why would they have paid us money if they had not violated my patents?" arguments.

Re:So..

[bonefry]

Turning away a deal with a devil that'll plop you tons of cash in your pocket to help fuel future R&D ... You forget that it's the community that does the actual R&D ... and Novell, Xandros and Linspire will feel this when major projects start going GPL3, and they are left behind with old forks that need maintenance.

That's what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you ;)

Re:So..

[Wylfing]

So very well put.

These companies who profit wholly on the efforts of gift-economy programmers want to make deals that shaft those very same people. Either participate in the gift economy or don't. We don't care. But please don't try to poison our gift economy.

A deal they SHOULD be making

[CrazedWalrus]

... is one with each other. Some sort of mutual defense agreement. If MS does decide to sue, they should all come to each other's aid. Maybe one company is too small, but the combination of those in the 'against' column might stand a fighting chance.

They should also highly publicize this agreement. It will go a long way against the MS patent FUD. Actively recruiting players who were not approached, like IBM and Oracle, would go even further.

In the end, a couple things might happen:

1. MS doesn't sue, and good PR was had by all (except MS).
2. MS sues and gets a run for its money. They might even lose, all dollars being equal. Either way, they need to disclose their patents at that point, which ends this particular FUD campaign.

In any case, mutualy defense is a win for F/OSS.