IBM Weighs In On Novell — Microsoft Deal 116
Azul writes "In an interview, Scott Handy, IBM's VP of Worldwide Linux and Open Source, has stated IBM's position on the recent Novell-Microsoft agreement. According to Handy, Novell has been quite clear that they had never agreed that Microsoft had any proof of Microsoft patent violations in Linux." From the article: "'IBM has long supported interoperability between Windows and Linux. As supporters of open source and open standards, we applaud any effort to bridge this gap.' ... Looking ahead, Handy said that despite the outcry in some circles about Novell's deal with Microsoft, IBM will be making 'No change in our partnership with Novell ... IBM has two strategic Linux partners, Red Hat and Novell. This has served us very well for seven-years. Over 90 percent of the Linux server market now belongs to those two companies and the industry has consolidated around those two leaders,' he added."
At least IBM.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
IBM is safe (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM can afford to shrug off Microsoft's FUD campaign, because they have enough patents in their own portfolio to defend themselves. It's pretty sad, though, that every company has to build up a stockpile of bogus patents in order to be safe from patent predation by other companies. You also have to wonder how much of a chilling effect this is going to have on efforts like Samba.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:IBM is safe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IBM is safe (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:SAMBA (Score:2)
Blood's in the water folks, micros
Re:IBM is safe (Score:5, Insightful)
If it really is a "FUD campaign" (and it is), then so can you.
Re:IBM is safe (Score:4, Insightful)
If it by some miracle turns out that Microsoft has a valid patent that some Linux code infringes, there are few potential impacts to the average business or developer:
Yep.
It's FUD.
Use of software (Score:1)
...
...
Actually it doesn't matter if it's OSS or closed source. Patents, even sw patents, apply to usage, so the problem is yours not the distro packager since you're the one using the software. If it were a question of copyright, like it is in the EU, then the distributor (aka distro packager) would then be the one affected. But it's not. The FUD is directed at users not distributors.
It's crap like that which has been slowing everybody down, including the technology sector. Let the US ditch software pate
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck finding the individual users of packages.
Guess I forgot another bullet point:
individual users (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you seriously think a customer targetted by such a lawsuit isn't going to turn it into a class action against the distributor?
Re: (Score:1)
Now the likeliness of Microsoft suing an individual for patent infringement is small but what
Re: (Score:2)
And, in that case, it still doesn't matter whether you use Linux or not because, as you say yourself, Microsoft can sue you anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
Wef
Duh (Score:2)
They have partnered with Novell and Redhat. They aren't exactly going to shoot themselves in the foot and critisize Novell, now are they?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for one thing I agree with you (Score:1)
Which is part of why I don't think anyone has much to worry about Microsoft's patent threats against Linux. IBM has decided that Linux is part of its strategic future and will take a scorched earch approach if Microsoft threatens what IBM sees as its eventual cash cow.
As I said before... (Score:4, Insightful)
the Novell deal doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft can pay other people to sign contracts until their bank account is empty and it's meaningless. The only thing that means anything at all (and even then, not much) is if someone admits patent infringement and then pays Microsoft a substantial net amount of money to license the patent.
I beg to differ (Score:1)
interesting that... (Score:2, Redundant)
Has M$ shot itself in the foot with this deal? I think Novell's marked share will go down in the home sector but I suppose they are (just) on the right sid
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I think this is the primary point of division on the entire MS/Novell deal. There are several ways in which the linux community is divided; anything from KDE to GNOME, from Redhat to slackware, and so on. One less mentioned division is between the home user and the corporate user. Over the past 2-4 years the larger players in the marker (redhat, novell, suse, ibm) have all be moving more and more of the resourves towards courting the corporate u
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If Deal Offends You, Sign Petition by Bruce Perens (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If Deal Offends You, Sign Petition by Bruce Per (Score:2)
Where can I find this "covenant of the GPL"?
Re:If Deal Offends You, Sign Petition by Bruce Per (Score:5, Informative)
In short, we feel that Novell has acted in bad faith.
Please, Stop This (Score:3, Informative)
Besides, if you feel so strongly that Novell has acted in bad faith, why don't you just sue them inste
Re:Please, Stop This (Score:5, Insightful)
There are folks in this same deal who aren't as tightly bound, like Jeremy, who is Samba team leader and also a Novell employee. Jeremy disapproved of the deal in public.
No, we're not stopping this! (Score:3, Interesting)
Miguel and the Mono crowd have been splintering the Linux community all by themselves.
Miguel and the rest of the Ximian and Mono
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody is modding down whole threads criticizing the behavior of certain individuals involved in this sordid affair. Disagree? Speak your piece, d
Re: (Score:2)
I got modded half troll and half insightful on both of my posts. Whatever. I could have posted anonymously and not worried about karma, but then the posts would have been quickly modded into oblivion (start off at 0) by people who think that my questions about Mono are bogus. Funny how I didn't get any sensible rebuttal.
The position of M
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Indeed. And now look at Miguel's comment that Sun's contract with Microsoft allowed Sun to ship Mono on Solaris. And Miguel insists that people who write for Gnome use Mono (from the Mono FAQ).
Miguel, if Mono doesn't infringe WHAT THE FUCK DID SUN BUY?
--
BMO
Maybe Not.... (Score:2)
Since Eben Moglen seems to think that changes are needed to GPLv3 in order to "prevent this from happening in the future"
Re:Maybe Not.... (Score:5, Informative)
I flew to NY to discuss this whole issue with Eben last week. First, the Novell-Microsoft is clearly outside of the spirit of the GPL and thus demonstrates bad faith on Novell's part. Is it within the letter? Novell and Microsoft say so, and obviously took a lot of time to engineer it to just slip within a hair of the letter. I think that Novell and Microsoft would like to drag us into an expensive and ultimately fruitless fight. Rather than take it to court, and spend a lot of money on something that will be ambiguous for years, we will make it very, very clear that this is NOT within either the letter or the spirit of GPL3 and LGPL3. And then a lot of stuff that Novell needs will go under those licenses, and Novell will be stuck with the entire version of maintaining obsolete forks without the help of the community.
Bruce
Typo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
So... what they did is entirely legal, albeit not what RMS and Eben and whoever else had in mind for Free Software.
Sorry. It just sounds like you guys are just being a bunch of sore losers that they are playing in your playground. And you guys are doing as much, if not more, mudslinging that Microsoft.
And then a lot of stuff that Novell needs will go under those licenses, and Novell will be stuck with the entire version of maintaining obsolete fork
Re: (Score:2)
That is not yet determined. And regardless, going to that length to engineer a loophole in a contract with someone else is a show of egregious bad faith.
Regarding BSD, it would be funny to watch Novell attempt to wedge an entire other C library into their product and have everything keep working. But although BSD is a worthy system, I suspect that a lot of BSD developers are watching this situation and re-asessing their own take on licensing. After all, they face the same p
Re: (Score:2)
It is the fact that the camp that is supposedly based on "freedom" is reacting in a manner that continues to restrict and restrict and restrict further. It started with the tivoization clauses in GPLv3, etc. You can't preserve freedoms by removing them. You shouldn't implement your political agendas in a so-called "free" license.
given that the other side of the argument is the one exercising bad faith. It doesn't sound
There are things entirely legal... (Score:2)
Take patent trolls for example.
In this case our "buddies" in Novell decided to raise a one finger salute to Red Hat, Mandriva, Xandros, Linspire and any other commercial distirbutions makers (all of whom contribute software to Linux, or in this case, I shuld say GNU/Linux which is entirely appropiate).
They decided that they could keep benefitting from the community at large while becoming a safe heaven from the MS protection racket whose thugs can be unleashed, suits and all, into the
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying there's nothing to worry about, but I think the indemnity is an issue that is orthogonal to the GPL, and perhaps
Not an Indemnity, more like a protection racket (Score:2)
Microsoft is not providing an indemnity. They are providing a promise not to sue regarding Ki>their own patents. In contrast, companies that provide indemnities, like Red Hat, are not the holders of the patents that they are protecting you from. So, Microsoft in this case is sort of like the extortionist who makes you pay protection money so that they won't break y
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What I don't find is any wording that would prevent a third party from providing indemnity to those users, which is what Microsoft is doing.
Microsoft is not providing an indemnity. They are providing a promise not to sue regarding their own patents.
In contrast, companies that provide indemnities, like Red Hat, are not the holders of the patents that they are protecting you from.
So, Microsoft in this case is sort of l
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If Deal Offends You, Sign Petition by Bruce Per (Score:4, Funny)
It's not as if everyone and their dog has such a petition on any trivial issue; they're very drastic steps in moving towards change. You should really take more gradual steps.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Gee, I'm glad you said that. I was just getting my Tactical Nuclear Weapon ready, and I looked at your message and thought, Gee, is this going too far? Can't we try to love each other? So, I went outside, hugged a tree, and felt much better. We'll forgo the really drastic means for now. But internet petitions are really just symbolic. The real weapon is the fact that a lot of us will never
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, I long ago stopped recommending Novell for anything. Wait... I actually never recommended Novell for anything.
I also don't recommend Microsoft for anything. My friend bought server 2003 64 SR2 and I've had no end of grief getting that thing to run apps well. I've recently installed Ubuntu on my new desktop pc. What a relief. (a co-worker did the same a few days later. The semi-official company wiki runs on Ubuntu. I also run a couple of Debian servers there.)
I wor
Re:If Deal Offends You, Sign Petition by Bruce Per (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
yes, but define market? (Score:5, Insightful)
Over 90% of the Linux Server MARKET, eh? Well, first, define server? Is that only a nice IBM piece of hardware, or some other big player piece of hardware? What about SuperMicro, and the middle ground players?
As well, define market? What part of the marketplace does Debian have? None, really, not if you define marketplace as something you can track via sales.
I believe these specifications are out of whack. 90%? From where I sit, it's 90% _non_ Redhat or SuSE....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me? I'm pretty sure it was 86%!
Re:yes, but define market? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I don't mean to put anybody down here - but when an IBM exec weights in about Linux's market distribution I'd give it a tiny bit more weight than when some random person on Slashdot does.
The few large server-based businesses of which I have any behind-the-scenes knowledge are all running Red Hat Enterprise Linux. One used to run CentOS ("free" Red Hat), but switched to RHEL after their customers demanded support for the OS itself.
The real business world - the one IBM is concerned with - is quite a bit different than the Go-Daddy / Dreamhost / Fat Cow world of tiny hundred-hits-a-month websites.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's really the point, isn't it? There is no "real" business world. You sell, you buy, you run a company from your home or a billion dollar enterprise, you're in business. IBM and others tend to act elitist, as if you must do $x in sales per month to count in such a world.
Frankly, a single server in some guy's basement, selling porn on Debian stable, is still a server. That is part of the server market. Someone with two boxes in a colo and a supermotherboard system -- servers. IBM didn't specify
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely.
Re: (Score:1)
No they wouldn't (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No, that's part of installed user base of servers. Market [reference.com] is a word that is very much related to sales. If the guy didn't buy debian, he's not a part of the server software market, as it would be recognised by businesses. The nature of Free software, and a great benefit, is that it is not restricted to the marketplace.
Re: (Score:2)
Merely because the OS is free, does not mean all the additionals go out the window. This is a MASSIVE mistake that software/hardware vendors are making in the server market.
Example:
- 90% of all Linux installs, according to sales figures, are Redhat or SuSE
- however, that only accoun
Re: (Score:1)
So yes, if you have total control of a box you can roll your own but where your software is sharing a server with others you stick to an industry standard. Today the standard for Linux is RedHat.
Personally I prefer Debian but have fallen for Ubuntu in a big
Re: (Score:1)
Market [reference.com]:
1. an open place or a covered building where buyers and sellers convene for the sale of goods; a marketplace: a farmers' market.
Market is indeed defined by sales, not the installed user base. IBM would probably be only interested in sales.
Debian is the second largest GNU/Linux distro (Score:5, Informative)
RH - 34%,
Debian - 25%
Suse - 11 %
82% of all statistics is made up.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
IBM LOEV PATENTS (Score:3, Informative)
This is a very, very false hope, it's also really unlikely.
What the people who say this are forgetting is that IBM was the behemoth before MS was, and they didn't accumalate that patent portfolio just because they liek to collect stuff. IBM were royal fuckers, and just because they've been dabbling about with SuSE for a couple of years doesn't mean that they are going to take on someone with the portfolio and legal power of MS (which is large enough to put IBM in a world of pain).
IBM likes linux
but IBM LOVES patents
It's a LOT more likely that if MS started making legal threats against non-suse distributors, IBM would simply switch over to an MS-approved Linux and let everyone else fend for themselves.
IBM is not your savior, don't look in that corner for hope, it ain't there.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
is missing a third line: IBM REALLY FUCKING HATES MICROSOFT
Make no mistake. A Microsoft patent assault on Linux would bring a full frontal assault on Microsoft by IBM over both hardware and software patents.
IBM is a big, diverse company (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Come to think of it, that pretty much goes for every technology company on the face of the planet except Adobe
I think you're forgetting that Adobe has taken them to court (or provided the EU with anti-trust documents? I forget which) over Microsoft attempting to screw PDF in favor of their own doc standard.
PDF is the key to the Adobe kingdom. I don't think they'd take such a threat likely, and I expect to see some fallout between Microsoft and Adobe over it, in fact. Hopefully, including a backing off
say != do (Score:1, Insightful)
This is the real play MS are making, that IBM will not endanger their software patent portfolio to fight. IBM could make a similar patent deal involving some random windows reseller, that would send a message. This just shows that they are not willing to risk their own software patent revenue. Marshall Phelps must be laughing real hard at the way he's single handedly destroyed the US software i
Mild and pragmatic, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
This statement betrays a fundamental disconnect: Scott forgot to mention the developers, the real engine of the community.
Either that or they really do get it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He specifically said "end-user customers".
Conspiration Theory (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not following this too much, so if this conspiration theory has already been aired, just mod me down. If not, I require full bragging rights for it
If that was the case.... (Score:2)
MS could let out an MS Linux and I would be all for it as long as they layed by the rules.
But they just can't stop being themselves. MS hates fair competition and they will do all what is in their might to crush it, they have shown they are not afraid to go beyond what is legal and moral to do so if necessary.
The fundamental problem here. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)