Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat CEO Talked Patents with MS
c3ph45 writes "Before the Novel-Microsoft deal, Red Hat was in talks with Microsoft over patents. Thankfully, the deal fell apart before Novel made their infamous partnership with Microsoft. As has been reported before, Red Hat doesn't plan to enter into any patent agreements with Microsoft, but it leaves open the question: What if both Red Hat and Novell had entered into such deals? One large vendor doing so has caused enough disruption. How would the community have coped with two of the largest vendors doing so?"
Linux would stand more open towards Embrace, Extend and Extinguish.
We would have coped the same as always, we would rant and rave and generally work ourselves into a tizz, then get back onto our normal day jobs.
liqbase
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
I don't know the exact text of the agreement but I am bit worried about the contributions from the distros that have signed the deal.
The code that for example novell puts in the kernel is covered by the GPL 2, but how will that work out with the patent deal they made? Will a switch (if)to GPL 3 of the kernel change this? GPL 3 speaks more of patents than GPL 2.
despite Linux' vendors' holier-than-thou attitude with regard to F/OSS vs. proprietary and software patents, business takes precedence. In other words, RH, Novell and Mandriva and all the other companies trying to make a buck selling Linux would happily go to bed with the devil if it earned them more money, and that their self-professed interest in the happiness of the community is just a facade to avoid alienating their source of income. RH probably rejected any deal with Microsoft because they didn't want to ruin their image, not because MS' deal was necessarily bad for them.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
In an interview with Reuters, Szulik declined to say whether
his company is now in negotiations with Microsoft over signing
such a patent agreement.
"I can't answer the question," he said.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
More people would get the distinction between cooperative communities and commercial companies, and move to Debian.
Competitive Intelligence ? - while the siren call of 'software patent' will make some confess there sins, I see nothing wrong in a discussion about 'software patents' with Chair_Thrower().
This sounds like one of thoose stories where pieces of somthing that could destroy the universe have been scattered around earth, & should never be put together less the universe should end.
More specificly, the part where one of the heros accidently drops one of the pieces & the evil supervillan almost gets it right before the cool guy that everyone thinks is next to useless swoops in out of nowhere & saves the day.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Must be really slow news - since when do we care on "what if"?
Short answer: RH would be in deep sh*t. Next news bit please.
"How would the community have coped with two of the largest vendors doing so?"
This isn't a particularly well-angled question, in my opinion. The answers are too obvious. The community would cope by...
* Printing up obscure if arguably quasi-witty T-shirts with phrases on them like "PATENTS == MURDER" or "LESSIG SIGNED MY TITS" or "THE BORG HAVE THE RED BOX!"
* Posting foaming diatribes to hot-spots of cultural influence like the ass-end of a deeply nested thread on Slashdot or, worse, on a crappy, template-raped personal weblog and then spammed via Digg.
* Ruining a potentially good date by trying to lecture the poor girl about the GPL.
* Catharsis through extra masturbation.
* News: Red Hat and Microsoft strike a deal. Not-news: Some geek writes a snarky headline about it on Fark. Take THAT, Redmond!
* Lego re-enactments of famous scenes from movies re-written to reflect the patent deal situation, uploaded to YouTube. "Luke, I am your patent holder." "Noo-o-o-o-o-ooo-oo!"
* LOL i haz ur intellec2al properdy portpholeo!!11!!11
Oh yeah, baby -- it'd be like the Million Man March all over again.
These stories are free but worth money.
This has been clear for ages. See my article on Digital Majority.
Linux (and all the free software it supports) is a compelling technology that underpins huge new markets. Microsoft wants to tax these markets. It has been accumulating patents, and lobbying for software patents in Europe, and investing in Intellectual Ventures, to create the necessary tools. It has decided the time is right to move. Its strategy is to divide and conquer the Linux community, by making deals with the commercial vendors. The deals don't need to be patent deals, they just need to allow Microsoft to pump some money into the companies in question, so they become slaved to Microsoft's policies. This is a standard operating procedure for MSFT.
The real targets are the large Linux users - big business. These firms will be asked politely but with force to pay a MS tax on Linux, in the name of "interoperability" and "intellectual property". The carrot will be interoperability with Microsoft's stacks, the stick will be that wallet of "infringements".
Above all, Microsoft wants to make life hard for IBM: its fear and loathing of IBM underpins its strategy in the Linux space.
There are two big problems with Microsoft's strategy:
One, it has moved too soon and too aggressively, probably scared by the GPLv3, and has created serious anger with those large firms it's supposed to be gaining as "Linux customers".
Second, it is playing games with an industry - the patent industry - that is more evil even than Microsoft. By feeding the trolls, it's sowing the seeds of its own departure from the software business.
Three, it is forcing IBM to move to action against Microsoft. The Open Invention Network (OIN) can be seen as a direct counter to Intellectual Ventures, which although highly secretive about its investors, most likely runs on MSFT cash.
Red Hat will, IMO, eventually make a deal with Microsoft, as will Canonical. The deal won't mention patents at all, but it will come to the same: cash flowing from Microsoft to Linux vendors, in sufficient quantities that they will be forced to play nice with Microsoft's plans.
My blog
We have Debian. The community existed before commercial interests took notice of us and we do not need any commercial vendor. SUSE, RedHat, and any other commercial vendor could file for bankruptcy without affecting the GNU/Linux community at all. Our power lies in cooperation, volunteerism, and our love for free software. We don't need money to keep our community alive, because it is based on ideology and love for technology. I moved all of my SUSE-based servers and machines to Debian after the Novell patent deal.
How would the community have coped with two of the largest vendors doing so?
One word,
Ubuntu
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
"Red Hat will, IMO, eventually make a deal with Microsoft, as will Canonical."
Not sure about Canonical doing this, look at bug #1 in their buglist:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1
This leaves open the question: what if both girlfriends broke up with me? The one girlfriend has caused enough navel-gazing on my part. How would I have coped with two broken relationships?
(Yeah, I know the answer, it starts with a W and rhymes with Banker.)
"The answers are too obvious. The community would cope by..."
Totally ignore the main points of the article and address totally bogus strawman fallacy.
was: Re:Can't Cope, Clown'll Eat Me
davecb5620@gmail.com
[Bangs on side of computer] "Be more funny!"
These stories are free but worth money.
Wow, how amazingly insulting: comparing people who use Lunix to people who died fighting to free their nation.
It would be hilarious were it not so amazingly insulting to the real patriots.
Error:
Why don't RedHat start sending threatening letters to MS customers telling them that they are in violation of RH patents.
davecb5620@gmail.com
I expect a deal. A good one in fact to get RedHat to sign. I also believe Microsoft has just revealed their motive for these cross licensing agreements. Go after Ubuntu.
The way I see it, only entering a patent deal is not necessary bad. (except for giving MS money and FUD ammo.) The problems only starts the moment you include patented stuff into GPL'd software.
Without the patent deal, if you by mistake include patented stuff, you will anger the authors of free software AND risk being sued to death by Microsoft. With the deal, MS can't touch you. You only have to find a way to please the authors of any GPL'd code you may have distributed. History has shown that if it only was an honest mistake, they tend to have small demands. Just remove the offending code and everyone will most likely be happy.
is that it highlights the FOSS community's basic inability to come together over topics. Not that this is a bad thing, but it has to be accepted that some members of the community (yes, RH and Novell are extremely valuable members) will do things others wouldn't. Learn to live with it. Don't quit your day jobs...
(PS- I call shenanigans!)
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
In a heartbeat, I'll switch to FreeBSD.
.we're respecting patents!" And than our Borg friends at Redmond would have spun it to say, "we are your friends, and we mean no harm, now give us your money."
This type of crap, Linux vendors making deals with the devil, Microsoft, goes against the whole core philosophy of the OSS movement. It is a shabby excuse for Novell, Xandros and Linspire to ink these type of deals knowing full well that the @$$h0le$ in Redmond, WA will spin saying, "You see, they're signing these deals because Linux does infringe on our patents! Now be prepared to be assimilated."
Red Hat, in its infinite wisdom, negotiated with the devil themselves but yet didn't sign any deals because frankly, it would have most likely required some kind of statement Red Hat to say, "hey, look what we did. .
These type of deals do no justice to any vendor and simply give legitimacy to the public relations garbage of that Borg alien race software vendor named Microsoft. Simply put, a new distribution ought to be created and with the understanding that no patents deals may be associated with it but hey, IANAL, so I'm not sure how enforceable that really is. . . .
The community would have survived, but much time would have been wasted on dealing with FUD and other unproductive arguments. As long as none of the leading business-supported distributions (currently Redhat and Unbuntu) is affected, the damage is much more limited.
Therefore, it's important to react now, as long as it's essentially just Novell, and support the GPL version upgrade from version 2 to version 3.
Novell etc are hurting their human-to-human relationships with the community and (to the extent that the deals they do violate GPLv2 and GPLv3) they hurt their ability to continue to legally distribute GNU/Linux, but the contributions they've made are irrevocably made under whatever license they distributed their contributions under - these contributions don't become invalid if they violate the license on parts of GNU/Linux that were contributed by others.
this stuff is starting to scare me more and more each time I read it. Sure you can talk about "We will just do without them" but the fact is the corporate world does contribute to linux. How much do they and where would linux be without it I really can't say. But to act like what they do contribute is insignificant is bs if you ask me.
I like linux, I've been using it for the past 5 years as my only os, but that doesn't mean I run around with blinders on thinking all is fine and dandy. Would linux continue on if as a community we said screw you guys I'm going home, I'm sure linux would go on but how much would it slow its ability to keep up with the likes of Windows, OSX, and the other os's available? I never here anyone mention this factor when talking about picking up our toys and going home. My thoughts on this go much deeper and there are many more factors that I haven't mentioned but my main point is I'm a little worried with all thats been going on lately. Call me a worry wort if you want but I like my linux and if worrying about all the bs that has been tossed around as of late is wrong then so be it.
He would have been negligent if he didn't talk to MS. In the end, he probably made the correct decision.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
and people are the livestock.
Keep doing your job, watching your entertainment and paying your taxes.
Is this really all that much of an incentive? I'm putting together a very-big-assed RHEL thingy that has no requirement to interoperate with any MS stacks (other than http, and that's hardly proprietary).
In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
It's important to understand that "the community" by and large doesn't run Red Hat Enterprise Linux or SuSE Linux Enterprise (Server|Desktop), so Novell and RedHat license agreements simply don't affect them. Perhaps a RedHat agreement with Microsoft would have caused yet more ill will and sped up the decline of Fedora, but that's about it.
Now, what would really impact the community would be if Ubuntu signed a Microsoft deal. But fortunately, that's not gonna happen. And even if it did, we'd still have Debian.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
How would the community have coped with two of the largest vendors doing so?
FreeBSD.
Übersoft v Richard Stallman
Matrix XP
Microsoft iPod
Southpark Matrix - Parody
Ghost in the shell- Matrix Parody
Exclusive Matrix Parody
davecb5620@gmail.com
Assorted narrative jokes about robots and spacehips
These stories are free but worth money.
Disclosure: I work on the Fedora Project. I am employed by Red Hat, but I am not in corporate communications. However, here is the official statement that was issued by that group:
"Red Hat has only recently been able to see some of the terms of the original Microsoft/Novell deal, due to the belated and redacted SEC filings that were made. Based on what we have seen, the deal is not interesting to us. Red Hat continues to believe that open source and the innovation it represents should not be subject to an unsubstantiated tax that lacks transparency."
My own thoughts, that are not necessarily those of my employer:
CEOs have to be very careful about what they say in public, especially in this day and age in the US business world. Sometimes a "no comment" is the only safe answer. Personally, I do not believe Red Hat would ever make a Novell-style deal. I can't even begin to express how angry and disappointed I would be with Red Hat, and Mr. Szulik, if such a deal were to ever happen. But I don't stay up at night worrying about it, because I trust Red Hat's CEO and top management to do the right thing.
The bottom line is if it's hard for business to run on M$'s "64bit" platform, what's the point of persisting, it's already difficult to support. Business dosen't want to spend so much money on keeping something as simple as spreadsheets wordprocessors and email clients going, and it's M$'s own doing through the BSA. Had software asset management not become such a big deal through the threat of litigation, contract compliance and snap infrastructure audits, the underbelly of M$'s infrastructure cost model would not have come under scrutiny by the management of so many businesses.
Questions like why so much money is spent on virus software and the economic's of how PC's are retired long before analogous computing infrastructure has reached the end of it's useful life would not be scutinised by company accountants.
Micro$oft improved WINE, without the hassles that windows presents when deployed in enterprise environments, I can see the ad's now "Microsoft extends business application lifespan, and brings value to your business's Linux investment - ask us how". I'm sure there will be a whole lot of small IT shops that have captured some vertical market leaned on by microsoft to play thier way as they migrate windows based application to linux. M$ won't guarantee all those 16bit legacy applications will work anymore under vista, suddenly Linux looks viable to those markets. Because M$ knows that IBM knows that the M$ infrastructure model costs too much. IBM can't stand M$ because they HAVE to purchase so many Windows licences, anti virus licences, office licences for their own operations and the clients they service. IBM know they can't derive the revenue streams with PC's that they can with other computing infrastructure and that profitability end's up as another companies revenue, mainly M$. Meanwhile IBM quietly develop's their own Linux desktop. And good riddance, they're like Novell before TCP/IP, but so much more belligerant with their client base. They have been squeezing business for soooo long, and for what, a platform that play's video games, I mean, we have been talking about a Personal Computer all this time. They have been shadow boxing for years, but IBM won't engage them no matter how many bloody noses they get from M$ unless M$ becomes openly confrontational. IBM has alot of business strategists that want to shake that M$ revenue tree, they know deploying linux into business will be a MASSIVE source of growth, linux is a perfect fit for the IBM service model. While Micro$oft fight IBM, IBM fight's it's own bureaucracy. Not willingly, kicking and screaming maybe. I think they both recognise the potential for service revenue is far greater without M$ involvement than with it and next to impossible without IBM lending them validity in the marketplace. If the push comes from anywhere it will be from Red Hat's investors.Cheers, I'll be reading over your article after I get some sleep, ttfn.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
What is this disruption you refer to? Its it something new from the FUD that has been circulation for years, fodder for /. or idiotic articles in Computerworld?
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Note that each of these MS "agreements" are cash-positive to the open source side. Also note that neither MS nor the open source company gets anything of tremendous value. The MS patents are unspecified, of dubious enforceability, and the "protection" is limited. The only real threat from open source is to give away functionality that matches or exceeds what MS is selling. Even with the agreements, the threats to both sides remain pretty much the same.
The end game is for MS to try and sell the concept that open source uses something that MS must be paid for. None of this would pass the giggle test, so MS pays the open source companies to suppress their laughter. The real test comes when MS tries to use the precedent of these agreements to impose a tax on open source, via a new round of "agreements" in which the cash flows the other way.
This is MS' attempt to buy the open source industry. Until recently, it was considered impossible -- the community is too large and too diverse to be bought. Evidently, MS thinks there are some common choke points that would hinder open source development. We all know that cash is a very effective tool to influence corporate behavior. This is either very clever or very desperate -- I'm not sure which.
At one time, the idea of patents was created to encourage investment in innovation and protect new ideas, rewarding the founder and investor in new ideas for a set period of time. This is fine for completely new technologies, but I seriously question the usefulness of patents for well established ideas, especially when someone attempts to place a patent on an idea that really is well established and wants to own every nuance. That kind of patent ought to be abolished completely.
I can understand patents for brand new ideas, and I can tolerate them for that, though my first preference would be to get rid of patents altogether. Perhaps their time of usefulness has passed. Instead, let's collaborate more on innovations, change laws to encourage open collaboration, and only protect against closed collaborative efforts of giants who seek to squash any potential newcomers into their markets.
What I advocate is protecting freedom and protecting choice. Politically I see freedom and choice getting reduced. I wonder how much longer we will be able to speak freely like this?
Brian Masinick, masinick at yahoo dot com Linux
why do you think redhat needs ms patent agreement? they've publicly called it an innovation tax. of all the companies that microsoft has to fear, redhat probably tops the list. I want to know if redhat will flock to the gpl3 along with the kernel developers.
The dude is just a typical rabid FOSSie: all chump and no pump.
It's the same "fighting keyboarder" mentality the Republican Chickenhawks use to support their quagmire in Iraq. Rather than be a man and go detect IEDs in the defining struggle of our lifetimes, they are content to just cheerlead from their mom's basement with their orange fingers and bag of cheetoes, fighting for GWB.
Same thing with teh lunix fanbois and FOSSie fanatics: they want to feel like they are defeating tyrany, but all they are really doing is trying to destroy an American company which creates software it's customers want.
The problem with the NRA is that they say they need guns to fight off tyranny but essentially define tyranny as not having guns.
There is no problem with the NRA. As for tyranny and firearms, almost if not every population that was tyrannized was disarmed first. This is true even for the 1980s and 1990s. For instance Iran, after the Iranian revolution the Ayatllahs left people alone at first. The Revolutionary Guard then sponsered a program wherein for every firearm a person brought in they were given enough food for a family of 4 for a month, or something like that. Once the populace was disarmed the Revolutionary Guard started cracking down on the populace. How about Rwanda? Once again the populace was disarmed before the genocide started there. Take Sudan today though there has been an ongoing civil war, Darfur is where the population isn't armed, yet is where most of the bloodshed is and entire villages burned down. In the south however where rebel groups are armed still they don't have villages being destroyed.
FalconShould there be a Law?
And yet we still have other, solid distros. We have Debian, which predates RH, and let us not forget about reliable Slackware, the oldest distro in existance. I'll admit that Debian was suffering due to it's release cycle, but, what's wrong with Slackware? Ok, maybe everyone doesn't like to use ./configure; make; make install to upgrade software. Gentoo anyone? Or can you just not wait for "emerge kde" to do the trick? I recently installed Gentoo(x86; I've been working with Gentoo-MIPS for some time now) to test it out. Less then 48hrs later on a 1.7GHz P4 it was fully functional, and quite efficient. And if that's too slow for some, why not go try either *BSD or Solarlis? With it being freely available, if I get either another decent system, some more RDRAM, or a large (> 100GB) HD I'll be giving it a shot (although I've worked some with version 9).
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
4.0, kuh-maaaahn!