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?"
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.
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.
Yes it is. Software patents are EVIL! I almost had a heart-attack just reading the headline!
Guys Szulik basically gave no comment which has been interpreted as an affirmation. If he did 'talk' patents, he probably talked about how Microsoft's vaporpatents don't scare him. RH isn't going to make a deal like Novell did, period. You're way overreacting.
"If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind."
"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.
"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
Why don't RedHat start sending threatening letters to MS customers telling them that they are in violation of RH patents.
davecb5620@gmail.com
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
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!
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 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?