Slashdot Mirror
Linspire/Microsoft Agreement Useless to Users
Stephen Samuel writes "Groklaw host PJ has dissected the 'patent peace' agreement between Linspire and Microsoft, and has determined that what Linspire agreed to is next to useless for many users. Essentially, under the agreement Linspire software is almost unusable: 'You can't share the software with others, pass it on with the patent promise, modify your own copy, or even use it for an "unauthorized" purpose, whatever that means in a software context. You must pay Linspire for the software, but then the "covenant" says to use Linux, you must also pay Microsoft. That payment doesn't cover upgrades. Linspire said it was absorbing the initial fees, but I don't know about upgrades. New functionality means you lose your coverage or presumably must pay again.'"
Linspire should just expire.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
Luckily there are 300 other distros to choose from :)
I'd like to know Eric Raymond's take on this. Isnt he on the linspire board or something?
Isn't it much more like Linspire/Microsoft Agreement makes Linspire useless? Additionally, that is an understatement also since the general idea of useless is that you won't get anything good from it. In this scenario, it should be Linspire/MS Agreement Toxic to Users.
I think they have a great business-plan
1. Start a Linux distribution
2. Get Microsoft's attention
3. Get millions from Microsoft (more then they will ever earn selling it), agreeing to everything Microsoft ask.
4. Go out of business
I think more distributions should do it... (as long the really serious ones don't)
Microsoft's tactics in providing "patent agreements" remind me of the SCO days when they made an assumption that Linux "belongs" to them because of some vague "infringements". Based on this assumption, they start doing wonky things like charging $699 per seat for the right to use Linux, and other such nonsense.
MS is operating along the same lines. The assumption is that you owe Microsoft something for using Linux, hence the need for such agreements between MS and Linux vendors.
It's classic FUD, but I don't know if MS would actually sue anyone. Unlike SCO Microsoft has a bottomless pit of money, and yet MS may not be large enough to successfully try and destroy Linux via patent infringement lawsuits.
We'll see how it all plays out. Will Microsoft embarass themselves the same way SCO did? One thing's for sure, if Microsoft decides to play the patent game, they too are at risk of getting countersued for whatever patents they infringe (and based on how many software patents are out there, there's sure to be some).
How about objective analysis instead?
How about reading the article and point out some actual errors in it?
I did, and most points she makes seem valid to me...
What facts did you use for your objective analysis of groklaw?
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
So I'm no Kreskin... but M$ has never been subtle about it's desire to pretty much play Mongul Horde all over the face of modern computing. I think this is clearly M$ pulling an old tried and true lan out of their own gamebook and simply reverting to business as usual. I'm guessing the plan will look something like;
Have I missed anything? Probably. Y'know, if they put aside this whole Genghis Kahn, I gotta own the whole freakin world mentality, and just started committing themselves to doing good things for humanity... the rest would take care of itself. Oh well. This is going to be an interesting show! Who's got the popcorn!
Their original claim to fame was that you would be able to seamlessly run Windows apps on what was then called Lindows.
0 335256
Somewhere between that promise and the actual release of Lindows 1.0, they had a falling out with Codeweavers, and Codeweavers terminated their business relationship with Lindows:
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/04/05/
Neither Codeweavers nor Lindows had much to say in public that I am aware of, but there have been rumors that the main issue was that Lindows wasn't too keen on the idea of releasing their Wine modifications, and that while Codeweavers persuaded them to release a lot of code, the relationship kind of soured from there. Again, this is conjecture and rumor that I remember hearing at the time, not (AFAIK) documented fact, but based on how secretive Lindows was during their first beta cycle (beta testers paid $99 bucks and got the title Lindows Insider and access to betas), not releasing source code and saying "The source will be there when we release 1.0" (IIRC the source was released at the time), I find the conjecture plausible.
A week ago, there was this article which said Microsoft excludes GPL3 from the Linspire deal, and I wondered whether Linspire had any significant userbase in the US
/. must simply ignore this deal and related news - it doesn't matter much.
That post got modded Interesting, but didn't get any replies, so I'm really not sure whether Linspire is alive in the corporate segment, which should be the segment that worries about patent suits... like SCO sued Daimler-Chryssler (?) and lost face.
I can't imagine a company like Linspire would inspire any confidence in knowledgable markets like in Asia... The manner in which they caved in during the Lindows trademark dispute with Microsoft was suspicious and intriguing as well.
At a guess, just how many customers does Linspire have, if any? A few hundreds? In which case, I think
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Okay, when you install MS-Windows, what icon do you get on your desktop?
That's right. "My Computer." (Among others. Stop yer quibbling.)
Who owns that icon?
That's right. Microsoft.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Hopefully this will just put people off using Linspire, which is no big deal in the long term. Last I checked, Linspire was full of all manner of nasty closed-source shite which the world would be better off without. If the Debian developers aren't pissed off to the back teeth at the way some people (and not just Linspire) have bastardised their "100% i-tal forever" distro, they deserve sainthood in at least as many religions as there are platforms on which Debian runs.
Never forget, it was Linspire who provided a lot of the funding for Pidgin when it was called Gaim (which was so staunchly GPL that they didn't even make the usual OpenSSL exception; it was GNUTLS or no MSN), then -- as soon as they realised that the terms of the GPL meant they could never get the code all to themselves, cage it up and take away the Source Code -- left the developers right in the lurch with the AOL lawsuit.
Fortunately, the GPL prevailed; the developers were able to fork their own code and give it a new name, but it just goes to show how some people will double-cross you at the last minute.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
A Microsoft contract limits what you can do with what they perceive to be their property.
This is the crux of the matter.
They do *not* "perceive [it] to be their property." They *claim* it is their property, but refuse to prove in any way, shape, or form that it *is* their property.
So.
The rest of your post is essentially mumbling about contract law, of which you come close to admitting you know almost nothing. You are saying your opinion is worth more than someone who actually knows something about contract law?
There was no misinformation about the Groklaw post. PJ stated that the Linspire/Microsoft deal, which was touted as something good for the customer, is in fact *bad* for the customer. The customer is actually purchasing a product that is hobbled, and actually *using* the product pretty much voids the whole Linspire/Microsoft "value-add."
It was actually a very good dissection of the agreement, as it affects the customer. It shows that Microsoft most definitely got the better of the deal, and Linspire and their customers kinda got shafted.
But, anyone who deals with Microsoft ends up getting shafted.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Who do you think started the SCO lawsuits?
SCO was a trial balloon for Microsoft. Though Microsoft's pipe fairy, SCO got a hot cash injection. They started making wild claims, which drove their stock up quite nicely, thank you.
Then they started suing, and everything went downhill. SCO discovered they actually had to *prove* something. So, we've been fortunate enough to witness a corporation spinning faster and faster until rotational velocity rips it apart. It's kinda cool.
Here's what Microsoft learned from SCO: *accusations work.* They work very, very well. Make vague, unsubstantiated claims. Oh, don't go as far as Darl McBride. He's an ass. Instead, insinuate. Make a few direct claims, let those claims disappear, then play on the doubt those claims left behind.
It's working surprisingly well. The one thing that's backfiring, though, is that Microsoft has associated their name with Linux, in a strange approving sort of way. This is PR that Linux couldn't buy. I have non-geek people asking me about Linux these days, people who'd never heard of it before.
Anyway, Microsoft will never take this to court. They would be complete fools to disregard the SCO effect.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
My wife is a good example. She has an older Dell laptop but long admired my PowerBook, and wanted a new laptop for her birthday. So we bought her a MacBook Pro.
So I set it up for her (which mostly involved adding the MAC address to the wireless access list and installing a couple of apps) and turned her lose with it. Almost the first comment she made to me was that her favorite site (some home design TV show thing) wasn't showing the videos. Sure enough, HGTV's Design Star (I think it's called) site uses a codec that's not supported in Safari. Flip4Mac solved this, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect a less-technical user like my wife to figure out that a video codec is unsupported, discern that an application is needed to enable playback, then find, download, and install that app. Especially on "less-friendly" distros of Linux.
I agree with your assertion that the market will decide, but I wouldn't rule out the average user finding it annoying when something on the Internet that "always worked before" doesn't work on first boot. Whether that "first boot" experience is a factor in purchasing is something else.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com