Red Hat Rejects Microsoft Patent Deal Overtures 201
Geekgal writes "Red Hat has slammed the door shut on any possibility of entering into a patent protection deal similar to the one Microsoft recently announced with Novell, eWeek is reporting. While Microsoft has repeatedly said it wants to work with Red Hat and would like to structure a relationship where its customers can be assured of the same thing as Novell's customers now are, Mark Webbink, Red Hat's deputy general counsel, says 'we do not believe there is a need for or basis for the type of relationship defined in the Microsoft-Novell announcement.' Interestingly enough, Microsoft also says that it has not ruled out going it alone and providing some sort of indemnification for its customers who also use Red Hat Linux." Meanwhile, Eben Moglen, the FSF general counsel, promises that GPLv3 will explicitly outlaw deals like this. (Of course everyone's on v2, so calling the Novell deal "DOA" would be premature.)
WHY!? (Score:5, Interesting)
WHY!? Why on Earth would Microsoft feel the need to offer indemnification to someone's customers in the first place? Why not just, y'know, not sue them without making some big announcement? How is it possible that we've entered a time when a software company saying "We've decided NOT to sue someone" will actually create positive PR?
You WILL become one ........with the Borg. (Score:4, Interesting)
Bet me.
Re:WHY!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So Essentially ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it's particularly brilliant how MS have done this FUD without even specifying any supposedly "infringed" patents. They've made sweeping statements about "owning" this that and the other (eg. "owning" ".Net") which it simply isn't possible to do, and everyone is repeating their FUD. Well done Microsoft.
Rich.
And you will LOSE that cookie, (Score:3, Interesting)
How many companies and vertical markets does Microsoft have to kill off before some of you get it?
Three years (Score:5, Interesting)
First, get them dependent on MS technologies such as Mono, then tell them time is up and they have to pay or get sued into oblivion.
"Nice little enterprise IT setup you have here. Pity if a court slapped an injunction on it."
OK, microsoft is shilling GPLv3 now? (Score:5, Interesting)
But I'm guessing GPLv3 just got a big boost in popularity. I wonder if the FSF is going to send Ballmer a thank-you note?
Way to go Red Hat (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So Essentially ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Go FSF! (Score:2, Interesting)
In the mean time, though would it be possible to create a GPL 2.1? Maybe add a clause like this (taken from the CPL):
Then, the "or later" clause could be use on existing software and all new versions could hopefully be switched to the 2.1 version.
what are the patents anyway? (Score:3, Interesting)
Like, what exactly are they providing indemnification for?
And how many of them likely have plenty of prior art that could be used to fight in court?
Are there any that we should specifically be worried about?
Additionally, another thing I don't get about this is that by making this Novell deal, they seem to be indicating that they are willing to sue customers of other distros for patent infringement. But since when do CUSTOMERS get sued for patent infringement? Last I checked it was only the vendors of infringing products that could get sued for patent infringement.
Re:And you will LOSE that cookie, (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Extortion works. (Score:3, Interesting)
The Novell-MS "protection" is simply worthless compared to what RH has to offer [redhat.com]. On top of that, FSF is going to release glibc/gcc/etc. under GPL v3 - which will explicitly prohibit MS-Novell deals. Which means, that in probably less than a year, Novell will be in a legal poopoo, or will remain stuck with the latest glibc that was released under GPL v2 - in other words, it will be at a technological disadvantage compared to other distroes. Actually, it is Novell whose days are numbered, not RH (especially with SUN's GPLing java, and RH owning Jboss!)
Read it again, they are brazenly licensing Linux. (Score:3, Interesting)
Red hat is right to reject such a deal. If M$ pulls it off, it will represent the largest theft of IP ever. In the last round of theft, the non free companies closed off software that was government funded. In this theft they lay claim to anything and everything of value anyone ever writes. Now that's evil.
Novell in a corner? (Score:3, Interesting)
Has Novell effectively run itself into a corner with the MS-deal?
Re:Good for them (Score:2, Interesting)
2) Nice, Redhat!
Re:You WILL become one ........with the Borg. (Score:3, Interesting)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=206274&cid=168 23028 [slashdot.org]
In the case of SUN-MS, the deal covered software developed by SUN & MS. In the case of Novell-MS, the deal covers software developed be MS and distributed by Novell. But I guess you don't really want to have an answer to your question - you simply want to repeat the same statements over and over again, that SUN made the same deal like Novell with MS, even if that assumption is patently (excuse me) false.
Re:WHY!? (Score:3, Interesting)
MS is hedging their bets, simple as that. If Linux DOES gain a foothold on the desktop soon, MS apps will run on it. If Linux ever became the most popular OS for servers, then workstations, then home system, then MS apps will run on it and you won't be able to blame Bill Gates for bad security any more.
I believe MS is first and foremost concerned about profits, not ideology. If more and more computers shipped with SuSE, MS Office, plus other MS apps, they could live with it and still be profitable. They hope it doesn't happen that way, but they are preparing just in case, which is what their stockholders would expect.
I would imagine a very small voice in Bill Gates head would love to not have to deal with the security issues that come up when you are the OS maker. All the blame, "fucking hackers", and anti-fanboys. But then he would look at his bank statement and think "oh yea, THATS why we put up with all that shit".