“There’s a rumour circulating that Ubuntu is in discussions with Microsoft aimed at an agreement along the lines they have concluded recently with Linspire, Xandros, Novell, etc. For the record, let me state my position, and I think this is also roughly the position of Canonical and the Ubuntu Community Council though I haven’t caucused with the CC on this specifically. We have declined to discuss any agreement with Microsoft under the threat of unspecified patent infringements.”
At least some distros can hold on to their believes!
It may be more about popularity than principles. Having seen the reaction of Ubuntu’s users to the SUSE deal, they’d have to be either insane, or convinced of the rightness of MS’s claims, to make a similar deal themselves.
Do executives and politicians routinely reject profitable and expedient positions just because their customers and constituents oppose them? Maybe in our dreams. Often we don’t even get spin campaigns designed to push public opinion and smooth over the opposition. These days, when we voice or opinions, our business and political leaders flat out ignore them, as if we don’t know what’s in our best interest and won’t vote (with our wallet, feet, or in the literal sense) to protect our interests anyway.
For the most part, they’re absolutely right. Why should they care what we think when we are so unwilling to stand on principle? How many long-time SUSE users have left the openSUSE community in opposition of the Novell deal? Probably less than 10% of the userbase. Quite possibly less than 5%. I’d guess that at least a third of the current userbase is opposed to the Novell deal and continues to use openSUSE anyway.
The point is that even if Mark signed a Microsoft deal, which would be quite unpopular in the Ubuntu community, a small bloc will leave for Debian, many will complain on the forums, and most will continue to use Ubuntu in spite of their disappointment. Signing a Microsoft patent covenant wouldn’t hurt the Ubuntu project significantly, and it could smooth the way for corporate desktop wins.
Mark Shuttleworth is refusing to sign a patent covenant not because it is a popular decision among the netroots free software community, but because it is the right thing to do. It’s easy to do what’s right when you’ve got $500M in the bank, and that’s precisely why Ubuntu is uniquely positioned to protect the interests of the free software community.
Canonical is going to become very profitable at some point, maybe 5 years down the line. Most venture capitalists and investors would balk at a tech company with such a long-term business plan. But Mark Shuttleworth is an entrepreneur with a specific vision and clear mandate to advance and deliver free software for the masses. He’s got his own war chest and no shareholders. He’s beholden to nobody but himself, his cause, and his community.
What I left out is that while it’s easy to do what’s right when you have $500M in the bank, that demographic is also the greatest threat to freedom and opportunity. The free software community is incredibly lucky to have Mark Shuttleworth, a worthy champion of freedom and one of the most promising young humanitarians of our time.
Edited 2007-06-18 01:30
Not so. Signing a Microsoft patent covenant would hurt the Ubuntu project significantly, since that would mean that Ubuntu in the future would be unable to use any software released under GPLv3.
Such software would include GNU utilities (including gcc, glibc and binutils), GNOME and samba, as a minimum.
Without those, Ubuntu would not run at all. The best Ubuntu could then hope for is to be forever mired at its current development state.
You may be right. There’s going to be some very interesting debate and legal proceedings in the near future concerning the GPLv3 and recent covenant parties including Linspire, Xandros, Dell, LG, and Samsung. I know what the intent of the GPLv3 would imply, but who knows how the language will stand up in court. Perhaps Microsoft has already found GPLv3 loopholes and has privately assured their new partners that they will be ok.
Xandros’ CEO had an interesting comment on this issue: “If you are a businessperson, you can’t worry about every eventuality.” I question how successful you can be as a CEO with this attitude, especially when you produce a very small fraction of the product you market.
All the time. Politicians in particular are always having to do really stupid stuff because voters in key marginals want it.
I disagree. I think you underestimate the importance of popularity to a project like Ubuntu. SUSE was always a corporate distro. It’s users weren’t the idealists of the Linux world. Ubuntu’s users are. They are also it’s only real asset. They provide free advertising as well as free documentation and support. Many encourage takeup of Ubuntu in the workplace, which is where the money will come from in the long term. Without the endless fanboyism that infests the internet and parts beyond, Ubuntu is Yet Another Distro.
Good one. You don’t seriously mean right as in morally right … do you? Executives and Politicians always follow the money and often bow to public pressure but they never, EVER Do The Right Thing!
Every word I’ve read about those “unspecified patent infringements” said that those patents are probably one big joke and MS not telling what they really are is proving this. If everyone knows that than Linspire, Xandros and Novell knows that too. If they are making any agreements about it that either they know more than others or there is a big fat bag of cash they got from MS. I will bet on the second possibility.
Why would they take a, “big fat bag of cash” to trade off their reputation and credibility amongst the community? The message was clear when Novell signed up. The community aggressively disagrees with it, so why would any other company in their right mind sign these so-called agreements under false pretenses if only to get a bag of money?
Surely the longer term benefit of turning their backs on the deal would be of higher value?
On the other hand, perhaps there is some validity to the claims? The lack of providing the specifics doesn’t meant they don’t exist. Personally, I think it would be foolish to announce to “the enemy” that you’re coming for them, and then provide specifics on just how you intend on doing it.
Edited 2007-06-17 21:18
Sometimes few $ in Your hand are better than reputation and credibility, specially when it does not turn into income and You got employee’s to pay.
Nobody really knows if those claims are real or not, and we will keep wondering until MS finally tell us what they are. The thing is that they would be a joke if everyone would laugh about it, but now we got few companies who not only aren’t laughing but they also are singing deals which protect them from those claims, this will make others to start looking at the whole thing more seriously. If MS wanted to make those claims be taken seriously without revealing details this sure is a good way.
These companies aren’t full of uneducated fools.
To my mind there has to be some substance to Microsoft’s claims, otherwise why would they sign? It’s not as though Microsoft are going to just walk in at 9:00am on the very first day and be out of there by 10:00am with a signed agreement. The likes of Novell etc would have had time to consider the arguments and claims.
Edited 2007-06-17 21:49
Sure they are not stupid, as I said there is either some validity behind those claims or they are getting something else out of this, like money. They did not sign it just to be in news.
Congratulations. That’s exactly what Microsoft wants you and every other potential Linux enterprise customer to believe. You’re right though, they’re not uneducated fools. They’re uneducated, now a bit richer, tools.
Yes, and Novell and alike are falling straight into it.. Think about it.
MS paid them to not be sued by MS for patent infringement. MS didn’t get much tangible in return. (You could argue Novell’s reciprical patent protection, but Xandros?, Linspire?, no way.) What they did accomplish is to spread divisiveness, and FUD. I imagine this was their goal. They were very successful.
I will go on the record right now, even though I do not have my own linux distro (or perhaps because I do not), that if MS wishes to pay me large sums of money to agree that they will not sue me for patent violations, I accept.
otherwise why would they sign?
Here is a recent example of the tactics microsoft will use to get what they want (lobbying slash bribery to alter NY state election law to quickly summarize the link below).
http://nyvv.org/blog/bolipariblog.html
If microsoft can throw money at some politicans and get them to go against the best interests of their constituents, I think its safe to say it is in the realm of possibility that they could do the same to a CEO here and there.
Personally, I think it would be foolish to announce to “the enemy” that you’re coming for them, and then provide specifics on just how you intend on doing it.
MS is a monopoly. They could attack some Linux companies but could never kill Linux, and doing it would land them in some serious legal trouble.
First of all, lets say MS were able to sink redhat, and force sun, novell, and IBM to back off. Sure, they wouldnt have killed linux, but they would have seriously hurt its development, as those four companies employ the majority of open source all-stars.
Secondly, this isnt putting pressure on vendors through OEM deals, or leveraging their control of the platform to gain an unfair advantage in other arenas. This is patent violation, and there is nothing legally wrong with them enforcing their rights. Of course, anyone with even a small understanding of technology would say they should never have ownership of half of the ideas they own, but that is another issue entirely.
No, it is not. It is Microsoft FUDding that there is a patent violation. This is merely an unsupported claim by Microsoft.
Until Microsoft name the specific patents, and show where they allege Linux violates them, there is no real claim here at all.
Even when Microsoft deigns to be specific, it still has to be established that the patents involved are valid, that there is no relevant prior art or other prior permission (such as the IBM technical bulletin), and that Linux does really violate those patents.
Until all of that is established, there is no patent violation.
“””
No, it is not. It is Microsoft FUDding that there is a patent violation. This is merely an unsupported claim by Microsoft.
“””
Agreed. Patents being the nuclear weapons of the software industry, I was idly wondering, earlier today, what would happen if IBM, OIN, and the Patent Commons decided to engage in a bit of brinkmanship, and hit MS with some patent suits, seeking an injunction upon any further distribution of Microsoft Windows.
I’d love to be the journalist who got the camera shot of Bill and Steve peeing in their trousers. 😉
I’m not advocating that course of action. But it would have some interesting aspects.
The tacit understanding at this time seems to be that IBM, OIN, and the Patent Commons will not sue Microsoft unless and until Microsoft sue Linux.
Microsoft seems to understand this, and that is why Microsoft does not want to sue.
Since Microsoft will not sue, then Microsoft has no real leverage to make deals with Linux vendors. Novell sought a way around the GPL, to “get an edge” over other Linux vendors. GPLv3 cuts off the air supply to that deal.
Linspire and Xandros will just simply wither and die.
RedHat and Ubuntu will not make any deals with Microsoft when they simply don’t have to.
Theres really two choices. Either Novell, Xandros, and Linspire want to give MS money and burn community relations with a vocal segment of linux users for no aparent reason…
OR
Microsoft has shown them evidence to support what they are talking about, and they have responded in the best interests of their users.
People don’t give money just for FUD, and just because something exists only to people to see under NDA does not mean it doesnt exist. MS has a collossal patent portfolio, and I am sure there are plenty of ideas they own that every os on the planet violates.
Forbes did a great article on the retarded state of affairs technology patents are in awhile back.
http://members.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html
Im sure linux violates the fat line patent they listed there, everyone does. Thankfully, IBM wont sue. Microsoft will.
Xandros and Linspire don’t have any patents, so why is Microsoft dealing with them?
Novell does have patents, and Novell explicitly states that it does not agree that Linux violates any Microsoft patents, and that there was no specific patent shown to them as part of the deal … even under NDA.
The bulk of the money in the Microsoft/Novell deal went to Novell.
If you want a possible reason why some companies are doing deals with Microsoft, here is a possible reason:
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6099316851.html
But as to the notion that there really is a violation in Linux of a valid Microsoft patent … then it is abundently clear it is not so, or Microsoft would have tabled its patent and sued long ago.
First of all, you didn’t respond to the link I gave. There are a handful of software companies, microsoft included, that own most of the basic ideas behind software design. Any given software in the world, no matter how trivial, will probably violate a dozen or so patents held by the big players. The question isnt whether or not MS has patents which are being infringed, the question is whether or not this whole fuss recently is an actual patent shakedown or not.
That being said, while the link you pointed to was quite fanboish, the kevin carmoney snippit really wasnt. A valid point would be to say that MS wants some inter-operability going on, and is covering that in a big PR grab. I could definately buy that.
Theres really two choices. Either Novell, Xandros, and Linspire want to give MS money and burn community relations with a vocal segment of linux users for no aparent reason…
It’s the other way around: Novell got a large chunk of cash in their deal.
OR Microsoft has shown them evidence to support what they are talking about, and they have responded in the best interests of their users.
OR they made the deal for the same reason as Microsoft: to drum up uncertainty about their competitors’ offerings. Having made the deal, Novell can now say “our users are safe from MS lawsuits, and RedHat’s aren’t!” This tactic seems to have backfired among enthusiasts, but it remains to be seen how it works with corporations.
Just listen to yourself. Because the deal happened, you are convinced there was a good reason for it. That’s exactly Novell would want you to think. If they get you believing the deal had a good reason, they can hope that to be safe, you use Novell Linux instead of one of the many other distros.
In short, they might have made the deal precisely so people would make the statements you are making.
To be honest, I havent been following this incredably closely. However, statements that they have nothing to back up their claims are not well informed, and regardless of the specifics of this particular instance, if someone like MS, or IBM, or Sun comes up to a smaller company and says “Give us money or we will sue”, they do have what it takes to back up their claims. Read the forbes link I posted, its quite informative.
After reading some of the stuff Kevin Carmoney was saying, he basically said its retarded to ignore a good deal that benefits customers just because it comes from Microsoft. They used to be on the anti-MS bandwagon, but they were a different company back then, and so was Microsoft. Based on what he said, MS wants a level of inter-operability with linux, but is doing it under the guise of a patent shakedown, probably so it doesnt look like what it is, that they are acknowledging desktop linux as something more then a pipedream.
The Forbes link is not well informed.
Linux is based on POSIX methods and concepts, which are in the public domain. Look up the following terms: BSD, Open Solaris, Ancient Unix, Unix32V, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin. These all cover “prior art” protection for Linux against any patent claims.
As for counter-claims, look up the following websites:
Open Invention Network:
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about.php
and the Patent Commons:
http://www.patent-commons.org/
Microsoft software would doubtless violate some of these patents offered for protection of Linux, and Microsoft will have a great deal more difficulty finding protection against patent violation counterclaims.
Microsoft will not sue Linux over patents, for fear of the countersuit. Microsoft have even siad as much … they will not sue Linux over patents.
This makes Microsoft’s position appear extremely weak, and one would think if there was really any solid substance at all to Microsoft’s patent claims they would not be projecting such a weak appearance about it.
Edited 2007-06-18 04:40
I am not saying there is nothing in Linux’s court. What I am saying is that I’m sure Linux software violates multiple patents owned by microsoft.
There are many stupid software patents out there. IBM owns the rights to pretty much all the ways of changing a thin line to a fat line graphically. DE Technologies owns the rights to displaying the cost of a purchase in a users home currency. Friendster owns the idea of online social networks (that includes instant messaging). McDonnal Douglas owns the most popular fix to the old Y2K bug (the one currently used in time.c in Linux) Apple owns patents on half the ideas of Beryl, and a large portion of FreeType. Microsoft owns parts of RSS and XML. All of these are violated by free software (as well as pretty much everyone else in the world)
I got that from typing “stupid software patents” into google. Microsoft has one of the biggest patent portfolios in the industry, holding patents on well over 5000 different technologies and techniques for office suites, UIs, and back end stuff. It would be hard to believe that linux did not infringe on anything that microsoft owns.
Good luck having half those patents stand up in a court of law. Most of those patents would be thrown out if they were put under a legal microscope. I doubt MS would be pulling these stunts on the likes of IBM. A bully only picks on those he can push around.
Edited 2007-06-18 14:17
Whether they will or not is what is up for debate. What I was responding to was claims that Linux doesnt violate any patents held by microsoft. What I was saying was due to the retarded nature of software patent scope, all us software developers violate dozens of patents daily, most of which are held by the big players in the software industry, Microsoft being one of them.
Theres really two choices. Either Novell, Xandros, and Linspire want to give MS money and burn community relations with a vocal segment of linux users for no aparent reason…
OR
Microsoft has shown them evidence to support what they are talking about, and they have responded in the best interests of their users.
No MS wants to give Novell, Xandros, and Linspire money. It is MS who is the one paying out money in this parody of a protection racket.
MS gives these companies money and other things that they want in order to get the patents FUD inserted into the contracts. The purpose of this is:
1. To scare off companies from using Linux in the corporate IT environment.
2. To provide a controlled set of Linux suppliers that can be integrated into the MS attempt to get a total IT monopoly not only on the desktop, not even in file and print servers, not just corporate email and collaboration software but deep into the data centre as well.
4. To provide a basis for leveraging threats that in the future they will get paid for MS “IP” in Linux.
MS is afraid to unleash a patent war so they won’t litigate against anyone except the most weak and isolated. The only way to defeat them is to stand up to them united and show that the Emperor has no clothes.
Edited 2007-06-18 03:53
lemur2 posted a link to a kevin carmony interview that caused me to revise my opinion on this whole thing. However, I still don’t think that it as one dimensional as you say. From what Kevin was saying, it would make more sense to say that MS is interested in some inter-operability with the linux world, and is doing that under the guise of a patent shakedown.
MS doesnt want to unleash the patent war because IBM is probably the only company in the world that owns more ideas then them, and IBMs new business strategy hinges on Linux.
For file & print servers interoperability, have a look at what is coming with Samba 4:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/New-Samba-targets-Active-…
http://us3.samba.org/samba/ <– (read the bit about Samba 4.0.0 TP4).
With respect to email interoperability, have a look at what is happening with Open Exchange:
http://www.open-xchange.com/header/home.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Exchange
… why exactly would any Linux distribution need to have an interoperability/license deal with Microsoft? The interoperability stuff mostly works now, and will continue to quickly improve, and since Microsoft wrote none of this software why does anyone need a licensing agreement with Microsoft for it?
It is not as though Microsoft invented LAN file-and-print networking or email exchanges.
Linux can easily get heavily integrated into and interoperate with Microsoft systems without any help from Microsoft.
What MS IP in Linux? (Where have I heard that type of question before?)
These companies that are making deals with Microsoft for codecs, fonts, patent protection or whatever are simply trying to play both sides of the fence. They can’t have their cake and eat it too. You’re either going to support the open source community by giving back, or, you’re going to take and then take more by getting in bed with Microsoft. By the way, Microsoft is no friend of Linux or open source. They’re doing whatever necessary to maintain their iron grip on the software markets (i.e., Operating systems, Servers, Office, and desktops.) These overtures to certain Linux vendors are nothing more than the early seeds of a “divide and conquer” strategy.
I don’t mean to sound combative, but if you are right, and they are playing divide and conquer, then it seems to be working. The way to fight against that kind of strategy is to stay united, but over and over, I seem to see that people are (probably correctly) identifying the strategy that MS is using, then still playing into it anyway, with variations on the phrase, “You’re either with us, or against us.”
Frankly, the way I see these company’s deals with MS, it’s them that are getting over on MS. They are getting real technology in exchange for a small amount of PR that MS thinks is beneficial to them. The gotcha is, that it isn’t really – Shuttleworth gets that right in this blog post. MS is basically giving away stuff for free, and the Linux companies are taking them up on that offer. I see nothing wrong with drinking free beer, especially if it’s on Microsoft’s tab.
Microsoft always understood how to utilize pressure to strengthen earnings and the position in the market.
Computer manufacturers were “forbidden” to sell PCs without their OS and crappy Office bundles, or even with competing products installed on them. If they would, they would loose their contract.
Now, commercial linux distributors are made to accept these “patent agreements” because they need the cooperation with MS for their expanded target audience (ie, media codecs, office interoperability).
MS always understood to play the simple game of refusing to give away “needed goods”. It’s the game you can only play if you have a monopoly on these goods.
Anytime some legal action is started against Microsoft’s attemps to create new monopolies using their old ones – like on media codecs/delivery – there are enough people showing up to support MS against those evil regulators. They should know that they support MS in nothing less than doing these nasty things like charging money for software others have written, just because they can.
Edited 2007-06-17 18:37
This thought has just crossed my mind. If Debian releases every new package licensed under GPL v2 or later conditions, under the new GPL v3 then Freespire (downstream from Ubuntu and therefore from Debian) and Xandros (downstream from Debian) their upstream source of packages will begin to disappear quite fast.
It looks to me that they signed their own death warrants.
As long as the packages remain GPLv2 or later then they should be OK, since they’ll simply continue using the packages under the GPL2 conditions.
If you want to cause them problems then all the upstreams have to change their licenses to GPLv3 or later. This of course might cause a fork and lead to a separate project maintaining a GPLv2 or later branch.
Doesn’t it depend on the writes of the software to choose the license? If apache or firefox or any other popular software chooses to change license their license to GPLv3 they are doomed … question is, does those pieces of software want to lose users? Suse does got a serious piece of market share!
Well neither firefox nor apache are currently licensed under the GPL so for those it’s very unlikely (if not impossible) that they’ll go GPLv3 only.
For software currently under a GPLv2 or later license they could in theory (assuming all copyright holders agree) change to a GPLv3 or later license once the GPLv3 has been published. However all version up to the license change would still be available under the GPLv2, and could be continued as a separate GPLv2 project if would come to that. You cannot relicense already released software.
Realistically however I cannot think of any significant project that might try to pull such a stunt for purely political reasons.
dagw said:
Realistically however I cannot think of any significant project that might try to pull such a stunt for purely political reasons.
I could definitely see the Gnome of five years ago changing it’s license for politics. I’m not sure how much Novell has it’s hands in Gnome now, though.
What about Samba? They’re currently GPL, everyone relies on them for interoperability (there would be a very nice sense of irony here), and they have a major revision coming up which would be a good time to change licenses. I don’t know anything about the Samba developers though, or their leanings. And given the nature of their project, they may be hesitant to piss off MS.
Edited 2007-06-17 19:48
Well the lead Samba dev quit his job at Novell after their deal with MS.
“What about Samba? They’re currently GPL”
The deal with Novell outlined that protection from clone technologies was not included.
Quote
“Now go back and read “Covenant to Customers” again. You get a bunch of Capitalized Words, some of which show up in the definitions section, and some of which don’t. One of the terms is “Clone Product”. You don’t get sued for running a Covered Product, but Covered Product doesn’t include Clone Product, and Clone Product isn’t defined. So which of the products included in the SUSE distribution are Clone Products? I asked, but that list is not available.”
Reference
http://www.linuxworld.com/community/?q=taxonomy/term/176
The term “Clone Product” is not a legal term. There is no form of “IP protection” law that makes a “Clone Product” illegal, or in any way protects a proprietary product from being “cloned”.
For example, SCOX recently found out that the acronmy “GNU” means “GNU is Not Unix” … and since GNU is not Unix, GNU is perfectly legal and legit.
Microsoft do not have any legal avenue via which to sue anybody at all for producing a “Cloned Product”. The form of “IP protection” law known as “trade secret” does not protect against other parties from making clones.
Microsoft can only sue for violation of its copyright (which means a copying of Microsoft’s source code or of Microsoft’s binaries, which Linux does not do), or a violation of Microst’s trademarks (which Linux does not do), or a violation of Microsoft’s valid patents (which, considering that Microsoft will not reveal any specific patents which are allegedly violated, one would tend to conclude that Linux does not in fact violate any legitimate Microsft patents either).
Edited 2007-06-18 00:54
For software currently under a GPLv2 or later license they could in theory (assuming all copyright holders agree) change to a GPLv3 or later license once the GPLv3 has been published. However all version up to the license change would still be available under the GPLv2, and could be continued as a separate GPLv2 project if would come to that. You cannot relicense already released software.
From the GPL v2:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
I take that to mean that a packager can redistribute GPL v2 software under the terms of the GPL v3 without consulting or obtaining the permission of the copyright holders.
The original source code would be under GPL v2 but the binary package would be under v3. A company that was already in violation of the terms of GPL v3 would not be able to redistribute the binary package. It would however be able create its own binaries from the original source code, but this then stops you from being a system based on Debian/Ubuntu. You would have a lot more work to to to maintain your distribution.
Apache and Firefox are not even under GPLv2. Apache is under the Apache License, and Firefox under the Mozilla License.
“””
Apache is under the Apache License, and Firefox under the Mozilla License.
“””
Firefox is dual licensed under MPL and GPL.
Tri-licensed actually. MPL, GPL and LGPL.
I wonder if this means that Canonical has been contacted with regard to this, and Microsoft is failing to reveal the specifics of the patent violations to open negotiation or even during the negotiations.
As for Linspire, Xandros, and Novell, believers in free software are more than welcome to avoid using them. Personally, I am avoiding them because I’m jittery about a contract that has the potential to damage the free software movement while the terms are being undisclosed. (In other words, we cannot make an informed decision on whether we are willing to accept Linspire/Xandros/Novell’s trade-off of freedoms for conveniences). Then again, as somebody pointed out on a prior thread, how many free software advocates would have used those distributions in the first place? Probably very few.
MS is only interested in dealing with commercial linux distributors. Canonical is not one, at least not in the sense that they charge a fee for the product. MS can’t extract royalty payments from a freely distributed distribution.
I can’t fathom why people think MS would be trying to adjoin the same sort of agreement with Ubuntu that they have with Xandros/Linspire/Novell, aside from being logistically impossible, it has nothing to do with community popularity, it’s all about scaring corporate customers that will buy into such tactics.
They’re not going after the Ubuntu/Debian/Gentoo et al. of the world. There’s no gain there if they do, as much as people might like to argue that.
I hope that Canonical does not cow down to MS’s pressure, lawyers, and bought politicians. I’m sure they are under MS’s spot light since Dell decided to use Ubuntu.
It really sickens me to see how MS is working. They attack ODF using bought off politicians etc… and noe this crap they are doing to Linux.
Well, it could have something to do with Canonical not being a US company…
It’s south african, afaik.
Might have something to do with things. Then again, maybe not
Canonical Ltd. is not South African but M.S. is. The company is incorporated in the Isle of Man , which is a British colony/territory.
AFAIK, since Britain/EU do not subscribe to software patents, the same must appy to Isle of Man too.
The Isle of Man has its own Government, and it is not part of the EU or Britain.
http://www.isle-of-man.com/index.shtml
http://www.gov.im/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man
It is in my opinion off topic to discuss this at great lengths here but it is important to clear the misconception.
IM may have “it’s own government” so to say but the influence wielded by Britain over IM is not much different than a 19th century colony.
Can IM sign contracts/agreements with other govenments without considerable intervention of Britain; in my opinion not.
The IM government structure is just a new way to incorporate,justify and keep colonies in the 21st century by countries like Britain, France and the US.
http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/isleofman/jimtax.html
^^^ That is why a corporation might set up in the Isle of Man.
Deleted.
M.S = Mark Shuttleworth, not Microsoft.
Duh!
Edited 2007-06-18 10:40
M.S. stands for Mark Shuttleworth ^^
Somewhat I was afraid M.S. would consider a deal with MS. I am more than glad he clearly states that this is not going to happen. Thank you!
It seems like an odd coincidence that they chose to start offering Linux just as all these deals started going down. In retrospect, the whole distribution choice and validation process went very quickly, almost as if it were orchestrated. I’ve never liked Dell, to be fair, and their decision to offer Ubuntu didn’t change much, but I’m afraid they’re in this with Microsoft to offer pressure from a second angle.
On the other hand, if they’re upset with Microsoft, or really are in this for the right reasons, they could prove to be an asset.
What are you saying?
That there is some hidden agenda in delivering Ubuntu on Dell hardware?
I thought I was pretty clear on that.
I’m not saying I think it’s the case, I just now thought of it as a possibility and haven’t examined it all that much yet. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me, though, and the timing is odd to say the least.
I think ubuntu and redhat have painted themselves in a corner that they can never really come out and say that they would also love to take Microsoft’s money.
Distros like Xandros and Linspire are already the bad guys of the Linux industry – so for them to get into bed with Microsoft is a no brainer.
“””
I think ubuntu and redhat have painted themselves in a corner that they can never really come out and say that they would also love to take Microsoft’s money.
“””
Hey! Who *wouldn’t* like Microsoft’s money? But once one recognizes that the price of taking it is one’s soul, can you really call that painting one’s self into a corner?
One thing to be said for RedHat is that they truly believe, in their corporate executive hearts, that if they stick to the straight and narrow path, they will be rewarded. That philosophy has worked well for them so far. And although their faith in it could waiver in the future, there is no sign of that happening today.
Canonical, although they do not have the history that RedHat has to assist us in our judgement, seems to be sticking to the same path.
Edited 2007-06-17 22:54
Who exactly is getting money from Microsoft as part of this scheme? Not Linspire, not Xandros, not Novell. These companies are paying a per-unit fee to MS for each license sold. Red Hat and Canonical would be expected to do the same.
Now, Novell is getting money back from MS, but that’s because Novell holds a number of patents that MS may be potentially violating. So Novell winds up with more money than they pay out, simply because Windows sells more than Suse. Neither Red Hat nor Ubuntu are in a position to squeeze money out in return for the “licensing” program MS is promoting.
There’s much to dispute about this tactic from Microsoft, but let’s not confuse the issue by claiming it’s a case of MS throwing money around. That’s not the case. These distros are voluntarily paying money to MS, but keep in mind that MS is exploiting a broken US patent system and the distros involved play heavily in the US market.
People can complain about these deals all they want, but they’re only symptomatic of a bigger problem.
Microsoft did not write any of the software in Red Hat or Ubuntu distributions, so they have nothing to license out.
Microsoft are more at threat over patents than Linux is, because Linux is based on well-established prior art.
Microsoft are not in a position to legitimately “squeeze money” out of Linux.
Edited 2007-06-18 04:49
It is nice to see Ubuntu not make a deal with a horrid software tyranny. Linspire, Xandros, and Novell should be considered MS subsidiaries, and their software should be shunned.
the more and more i read the more i am reminded of a move named Antitrust. haha
anyone who has seen it should find that rather amusing
“the more and more i read the more i am reminded of a move named Antitrust. haha ”
Thanks for bringing up the painful memories of one of the stupidest movies ever made.
How they ever got Tim Robbins to appear in it is a mystery buy I’m guessing they had some dirt on him.
Congrats Mr. Shuttleworth for continuing to illicit respect from the community with sound (not self serving) decisions. I just hope you have your ethics with you when MS offers you a fat multi million $$$ deal like they did Novell!
“””
Congrats Mr. Shuttleworth for continuing to illicit respect from the community
“””
Agreed. Though I think you probably meant “elicit”. 😉
It’s Novell, Xandros, and Linspire who exhibit “illicit” behavior.
Someone in a vaguely respectable position who has no knowledge of something (in this case, the thing being the MS licenses) nonetheless declares his absolute expert knowledge of said thing. In the meantime, a news site takes this uninformed knowledge and reports it as fact. Film at 11.
Almafeta,
Could you elaborate on that a bit, please? Who is in a vaguely respectable position with no knowledge of something, etc.? Mark? Steven? You don’t really specify.
Thanks,
Steve Bergman
“Those who don’t use UNIX, are forever trapped re-inventing it”
The same old threats and patent suits and open-or-not dramas were all played out a long time ago with Berkley, SCO et al.
“””
Those who don’t use UNIX, are forever trapped re-inventing it.
“””
Actually, I believe that the original quote was:
“Those who do not understand Unix are doomed to reinvent it, poorly.”
Originally stated by Henry Spencer in 1987, I think. I’ve always liked that one. 😉
Thank you for the correction. Indeed, the point is that similar fears and concerns have already played out before. But in the long run, freedom won. We have the BSDs, we have Linux, and we have a languishing SCO, bitter to the end.
… someone posts at the said site, basing their entire attempt at making a point on an unwarranted assumption that this “something” exists in the first place, thereby committing the same “sin” they happen to accuse the Someone In A Vaguely Respectable Position of.
Easily identifiable hypocrisy and inability to think logically at 10:59.
This is great to see. The minute Ubuntu would have signed a deal with MS I would have stopped using it and moved to RedHat or mosy likely Debian. Ubuntu is my favorite distro and I wouldn’t change willingly unless i felt betrayed somehow. Make me feel kind of bad for those users who have used Suse for years and now they have to re-evaluate if using it is worth having MS standing over there shoulder.
Linux is gaining too much momentum to be stopped by Microsoft’s petty tactics even if Ubuntu were to get in bed with them.
A lot would be disappointed and might leave,but really,Ubuntu like Mandrake/Mandriva , Suse/Opensuse is just today’s “linux du jour”.
Another just as good uncompromising distro will come along, they always have and always will.
My fear is that, regardless of who is paying who and who gets what out of the deals, Microsoft’s real strategy may be somewhat more subtle and potentially successful.
Microsoft may in effect be driving a giant wedge between developers and distributors, whilst simultaneously making Linux a less attractive platform for Enterprise use.
What i mean by that is, by having popular distributors sign such deals, which obviously has upset a lot of people, we get reactions from developers such as “let’s license everything in such a way that Novel/Linspire/Xandros will die a slow death”. However, these are the very companies that are pushing Linux into the Enterprise, marketing it, hiring developers to develop it faster, etc. It is these companies that Microsoft fear, because they have the potential to, in time, convince the big software companies like Adobe, MYOB, etc to start supporting key software packages for Linux, and mark my words, if that ever happens you can watch Linux’s desktop market share shoot from 1% to 10% so fast that it’ll be blinding.
The community needs to call Microsoft’s bluff and to continue supporting the key distributions just like always. To turn our backs on the major Linux supporters is to, I think, fall straight into the game plan of Microsoft. For Linux to continue to grow, there must be unity and strength. United we stand, divided we fall, and all that.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=5374
http://news.com.com/Adobe+dipping+toes+into+desktop+Linux+waters/21…
Evidence perhaps that it is starting to happen already.
Some measures have Linux desktop share at 3%, BTW.
Edited 2007-06-18 07:12
I applaud you Ubuntu (includes community) and Mark Shuttleworth for not going into illegal as i see it agreements with MS which can hurt the GPL potentially .. every distro which does this doesnt get used, installed or whatever by me or by people who depend on me for helping them out with linux .. and thats quite some people already … i am supporting 10 people on ubuntu linux at the moment … lol
.. the list of distros i am not even considering using anymore is growing sadly .. Suse (Novell), Opensuse (Novell), Linspire (never even tried it 
), LG Electronics (no LG for me no more), Xandros .. etc …
Writing this comment now on Ubuntu Feisty .. and what a great distro it is … it is even better tested on hardware than Fedora 7 is .. one of my other distro i am using frequently … i just want to say .. keep up the good work .. keep on improving ubuntu .. keep away from MS .. they are bad .. and they suck at what they do .. and want lots of money for it … look at vista .. memory demand is huge … let alone lots of other stuff we all can sum up about microsoft ..
Looking forward to next ubuntu release ..
Cheers,
Johnbon
To be fair, Mark Shuttleworth hasn’t expressely ruled out a deal with Microsoft. All he’s said is not while these patents are unspecified.
Mark’s blog gave me the impression that if that wasn’t such a boundary then he would like to come to an agreement with MS and talk about “the wonderful things they could do together”
I hope that never happens
“””
To be fair, Mark Shuttleworth hasn’t expressely ruled out a deal with Microsoft. All he’s said is not while these patents are unspecified.
“””
1. He knows that they will not specify anything.
2. If they did, Canonical, the CC, et. al. could evaluate whatever was specified on a case be case basis.
3. Mark is employing excellent PR tactics for “our” side.
OK, I just have to chime in here. There are some comments and speculation in the area of “Microsoft really does want interoperability with Linux, they just unfortunately went about it using the patent angle”. If you believe that, then either you’re an MS astroturfer or extremely naive.
All MS has to do to “get interoperable with Linux” is publish and adhere to open, royalty free standards. That’s it…end of story. Until I see that happen, which it won’t, I refuse to believe that MS is doing anything in the customer’s best interest. There is nothing positive about what they are doing here. It is simply business as usual that we’ve all come to expect from them…
“””
There are some comments and speculation in the area of “Microsoft really does want interoperability with Linux, they just unfortunately went about it using the patent angle”. If you believe that, then either you’re an MS astroturfer or extremely naive.
“””
I agree about Microsoft’s lack of interest in interop.
But we *really* need to be aware that regardless of the existence (or not) of “astroturfers”, we can really make ourselves look like paranoid schizophrenics by referring to them.
This is why I said, in an earlier post, that Mark Shuttleworth is employing good PR techniques to our benefit. (Sure, Microsoft. We’re happy to talk to you… if you actually come up with something to talk about.)
I used to work with a really cool lady who said to me one day:
“Ten ‘Attaboys’ is worth one ‘Oh Shit'”.
And what she meant by that, in a business sense, was that the making of one enemy could be more detrimental than what the making of ten friends could offset.
I think that we who care about software freedom have made a few enemies here at OSNews by over-utilizing terms like “FUD”, “astroturfing”, etc.
I don’t mean to single you out on this. And, like I say, I don’t think that Microsoft is really interested in interop.
But when it comes to delivering a message, the packaging *does* matter.
And ten “Attaboys” really *is* worth one “Oh Shit”.
Edited 2007-06-18 23:46
Agreed. I think Shuttleworth absolutely did the right thing, and took the high road at that. I just hate to see people standing up for MS on this, because no matter how much MS coolaid you’ve drank, it’s hard to see what they are doing in a good light.
Microsoft Office suite for Linux.
Microsoft Active Directory for Linux.
Microsoft Media Player for Linux (or actually, just the codecs will do).
Microsoft Truetype Fonts for Linux.
Microsft ODF plugin for Office (similar to the Sun or DaVinci plugin, not a convertor, so that it can be set as the default save format) for Linux and Windows.
Microsoft NTFS driver for Linux.
Microsoft NFS driver for Windows.
Microsoft ext(2/3)fs driver for Windows.
Microsft W3C compliance for IE7.
Microsoft SVG libraries for Windows.
Microsoft ogg vorbis codecs for Media Player.
That will do for a start. Microsoft could offer all of those on a CD, and inetroperability would be fine.
If Microsoft did not want to re-code all of these for a different API, then how about just this one product instead: Microsoft SDK for Wine.
Edited 2007-06-19 05:34
“Microsoft Office suite for Linux.
Microsoft Active Directory for Linux.
Microsoft Media Player for Linux (or actually, just the codecs will do).
Microsoft Truetype Fonts for Linux.
Microsft ODF plugin for Office (similar to the Sun or DaVinci plugin, not a convertor, so that it can be set as the default save format) for Linux and Windows.
Microsoft NTFS driver for Linux.
Microsoft NFS driver for Windows.
Microsoft ext(2/3)fs driver for Windows.
Microsft W3C compliance for IE7.
Microsoft SVG libraries for Windows.
Microsoft ogg vorbis codecs for Media Player.
That will do for a start. Microsoft could offer all of those on a CD, and inetroperability would be fine.
If Microsoft did not want to re-code all of these for a different API, then how about just this one product instead: Microsoft SDK for Wine.
“
How about Microsoft makes Microsoft Office for Linux, Microsoft Wine, et al, but with a EULA that states that these can only be legally run on Linux distros whose vendors have reached agreement with Microsoft wrt patents? (I saw this scenario speculated on in another message board.) If that were to happen, would Red Hat, et al, really stand by, refusing to make a deal, while businesses switched to distros that could legally run Microsoft Office, Microsoft Wine, etc?
BTW, are you saying that Microsoft should spend millions developing the items on your list and then give them to you for free, or are you willing to pay for the items? Microsoft won’t do any of what you say if there’s not a big enough market of paying customers to see a return on the investment.
I also notice that you put the entire onus of interoperability on Microsoft. Why should Microsoft be the ones that make:
Microsoft NFS driver for Windows.
Microsoft ext(2/3)fs driver for Windows.
Microsoft SVG libraries for Windows.
Microsoft ogg vorbis codecs for Media Player.
The OSS community can already do all of that if they want to. Microsoft doesn’t have the expertise in NFS, ex(2/3)fs, SVG, or ogg. YOU (the Linux/OSS community) have that expertise, and there’s nothing preventint you from making that stuff for Windows.
Edited 2007-06-19 22:03
How about Microsoft just makes stuff for GNU/Linux and sells it like any other program or utility that they offer for Windows?
Eg, why cannot Microsoft just sell an “MS Office for Linux” on CD, with the license to run it legally included in the purchase price?
Where do Microsoft get off asking for a license to run GNU/Linux itself when Microsoft have written none of the GNU/Linux code? Pure chutzpa, that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chutzpa
I personally don’t want to run Microsoft stuff, because of the restrictions and invasions of privacy associated with Microsoft’s licenses. Look up “OGA” for example. Shudder! I can get far better alternative programs with far more freedoms (as in liberty) associated with them, thanks.
In answer to your question, however, in respect of (say) businesses running MS Office on GNU/Linux, I suspect that the reason why Microsoft won’t do any of what I say is that they fear a big enough market of paying customers to see a return on the investment would actually develop.
The onus so far has been entirely on the FOSS developers, and they have already done: NTFS-3g; Samba (Samba 4 is nearly ready, BTW, and look at what that can do); OpenOffice import filters for (legacy) MS Office formats; Mono; OpenExchange; etc, etc. It is about time Microsoft took up some of the burden.
They already do this as part of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_Services_for_UNIX
… but it should be part of the core of Windows, and not a bolt-on afterthought.
These need to be part of the core of Windows in order to be useful. FOSS developers are not permitted to add anything to the core of Windows.
FOSS developers have made available source code for a reference implementation of these (ext2/3 driver for Linux, libcairo). If Microsoft wants to study the code, they are welcome. If Microsoft wants to use that as a basis for design, then please go ahead, just don’t copy the code literally. If Microsoft want to keep their implementations of these for Windows closed, copying the code literally then distributing a closed version of these would be a violation of their licenses, so Microsoft should re-write their own work-alike implementations of the code (similar to the way Samba is a work-alike implementation).
There is already a third-party implementation of this:
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Vorbis_Ogg_ACM.htm
The thing is, if one tries to play an Ogg Vorbis file in Windows Media Player, not only does Windows Media Player fail to install a codec, but the message Microsoft returns implies that Windows Media Player cannot be made to support this media format.
Why can’t Windows just support it? It is after all a free format (both in price and in freedom).
Edited 2007-06-20 02:56
Actually, it turns out that the Cairo graphics library:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_%28graphics%29
already has a backend that supports output to the Win32 GDI, so all of the design work is already done.
Microsoft just need to re-write Cairo in their own implementation, and Windows would instantly become far more W3C-standards compliant, for almost no effort. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortium#Standards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_Independence
If hardware vendors release Open drivers and more “main stream” programs, specifically Game Companies, that work on Linux natively..like they do for Mac then the gravitational pull will shift from forcing MS to work with Linux to MS needing to.