Although IBM’s open-source support is no money-maker, it does serve as a deft weapon to undermine Microsoft’s markets. Bob Sutor is the VP of IBM Standards. Go here to see his other comments and his extensive list of links to articles on the subject from all the major developer and business publications.
IBM: A Way to Hammer at Windows
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
We’re getting to a point where everyone is doing UNIX and Linux but Microsoft. Even Apple is persuing UNIX, now. Lock-in gets under peoples’ skin, even if they don’t realize it, which will continue to work against Microsoft until open software once again returns to the top (UNIX started out open source way back when).
why not release OS/2. or even update OS/2 with the devs they use for linux. It’s 100x more mature than linux
I believe they sold OS/2 to another company. They’ve updated it.
Is this true??
I was under the impression that, IBM actually makes money off open-source. I even remember reading somewhere that money that make from open-source(support, software, whatever) is greater than the money they make by selling licenses(of their patents).
Can somebody clear this??
Just more of people not understanding the OSS model. IBM is in fact making plenty of money from OSS.
Just one example: http://www.cioupdate.com/news/article.php/1574431
“why not release OS/2. or even update OS/2 with the devs they use for linux. It’s 100x more mature than linux”
Much of OS/2’s code is licensed by IBM from third parties, so IBM isn’t free to release that code. That includes some key elements like the HPFS filesystem, for example.
However, IBM has allowed Serenity Systems to release a version of the OS/2 client OS bundled with various updates from IBM and third-party enhancements. That’s what the “eComStation” product is that you see mentioned here every few months, and it’s currently the only way to get an SMP-capable OS/2 client (for example), since IBM has never released one itself.
Do a search on Google for eComStation. It’s a stupid name, but the product itself is pretty nice, and the installation routine by itself makes it worth it, I think, at least for an existing OS/2 user who wants to use OS/2 with newer hardware…
There’s an exception at the end of the IBM statement:
IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source.
Does it mean something like a company can’t use an OSS implementing one of these patents if it sues a copyright holder of an OSS software? It’s something like RMS said there would be in GPL3 (and it’s in the CPL). I think IBM should be more explicit in the statement.
Two ways to interpret “going opensource”: using opensource software and open sourcing one’s software. IBM does both, but I believe the author means IBM isn’t making money by releasing their own code as opensource. It’s hard to quantify exactly how much money they’ve made from contributions (bugfixes, etc.) to their own software by the public.
Does anyone out there still think that IBM or Apple competes with MS? IBM’s most important patents are in materials and AI, not IT software. They might just as well open source some of their stuff and let others maintain it for free.
”
Does anyone out there still think that IBM or Apple competes with MS? IBM’s most important patents are in materials and AI, not IT software. They might just as well open source some of their stuff and let others maintain it for free.
”
Ummm, well, if I remember correctly, IBM was very active in the software industry up until the mid-nineties. That is only 10 years ago, and IBM at that time was applying for plenty of patents. If you knew much about patent law, you would know that these patents are still valid. IBM’s patents don’t expire the instant a competitor knocks them out of first place.
”
why not release OS/2. or even update OS/2 with the devs they use for linux. It’s 100x more mature than linux
”
Some technical merits to back up that statement please.
“Although IBM’s open-source support is no money-maker”
Incorrect. Look at IBM’s earnings reports and see how much money IBM made from Linux-related offerings.
And then there’s the popularity bonus among geeks for fighting SCO–something that isn’t quantified in their earnings reports.
Also, look at what impact Linux had on Sun Microsystems–a key IBM competitor. I’d argue Linux hurt Sun a lot more than Microsoft.
It is a shame IBM can’t at least open-source the parts of OS/2 that they own, and let us know who owns the rest, so that the OSS community could fill in the gaps.
Sadly, I guess there’s not a lot in it for IBM. I guess there may be more complex legal issues, too.
Oh, well…
Phrases like “collaborative innovations”, “innovation networks” or “intellectual property commons” may delight reporters but they mean nothing in reality. It’s small things that matter : having access to a piece of equipment, having a high bandwidth web or ftp server, being able to read the specifications of a NIC, etc. These bring immediate benefits, not having to search through numerous patents to see if there’s no legal land mine ready to blow up
I hope IBM, HP, SGI and others will stop believing that without their support, the open source movement will grind to a halt. Linux and the BSD have been humming along for more than 10 years now.