SJVN is too negative
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Sander_Marechal Jul 04, 2007 12:29 AM EDT |
I don't agree with SJVN at all. I see this as a good thing. In my view, Red Hat is calling Microsoft's bluff. They're saying "show us that your FUD deals are just about interoperability and not about IP" and I think they'll win, seeing as how hard MS is backpedaling with the "but they're really connected!" line. |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2007 2:54 AM EDT |
What is it that you don't agree with SJVN about, exactly, and why? Red Hat won't make a deal like Novell's. That's a given. Novell was a special case, kind of like those bills in Congress where some important bill gets a million pieces of crap tacked on as the price for getting someting important done. Novell and Microsoft had a lot more to talk about than FOSS, but Red Hat doesn't. Red Hat can't agree to IP provisions like those in the Novell deal. GPLV3 should make that more trouble than it's worth. But... Red Hat is a business that sells to the enterprise, not the cool kid in a junior high clique. If a deal can be worked out that makes sense, they will do it. They will even agree to IP provisions so long as those provisions do not violate GPLV3. I would be very surprised, however, if they paid any money to Microsoft for IP "protection". I'd be a little less surprised if they paid money to Microsoft to license a few things, though I'm not sure what they might be. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 04, 2007 6:01 AM EDT |
I disagree with SJVN's assertion that an MS- Red Hat deal will include IP, even if it's a different kind of deal. I disagree that an MS-Red Hat deal based purely on interoperability and no IP means that they surrendered to the pressure. I disagree with his prediction that a year from now only Debian will be free from MS influence. And lastly I disagree that Ubuntu is "next". |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2007 7:09 AM EDT |
>I disagree with SJVN's assertion that an MS- Red Hat deal will include IP Don't forget that there are many ways for a deal to include IP, including licenses for Windows Media, etc. I don't see Red Hat signing an IP deal out of fear or to keep the doors open. They have the resources to fend off a (baseless) infringement attack and their business isn't going down the tubes. I could, however, see Red Hat agreeing to some kind of GPLV3 compliant IP language in a deal to keep it from breaking a larger agreement with sufficient benefit to the company. The only question in my mind is whether there is a deal that both Microsoft and Red Hat would find acceptable. >And lastly I disagree that Ubuntu is "next". Your guess is as good as his. That's one that only time will tell. |
| Abe Jul 04, 2007 7:56 AM EDT |
I personally agree with Sander on not agreeing with SJVN when he said
Quoting:One way or the other, some sop will be given to Microsoft for its eternally vague IP claims, and the two companies will work together on interoperability issues. These will no doubt include Open XML/ODF document format translators and virtualization and network administration tools.SJVN is muddying the water just like MS keeps trying to accomplish in every deal they make with little companies doing business based on FOSS. So far, both Red Hat & Canonical have been adamant about not making any IP deal with MS. This position is enforced by their firm belief that FOSS doesn't contain any infringement on MS patents. If MS believes otherwise, the burden falls on itself, and itself only, to bring it up in the open and prove it once and for all. Both companies have the full right to ask not only for their benefit, but also for the benefit of FOSS and their customers. If MS wants to charge their customers for its IP it claims it has in FOSS, their customers are entitled to know what they would be paying for. The GPL rejects any inclusion of IP and both Red Hat and Canonical respect the GPL. Consequently, they both always raise the FOSS filter up to keep any patents outside FOSS and to prevent any sneaky inclusion into FOSS. MS is persistent in keeping its interoperability pipe fully open for its IP to get into FOSS. MS knows pretty well that, ingesting its IP into FOSS is the only way to guarantee taxing users for FOSS software. Their is no harm in Linux based businesses making interoperability agreements with MS as long as the means and tools needed to accomplish it remain outside FOSS. In the case of document exchange, MS must guarantee a 100% converter/translator is available. In case of security, Kerberos compliance is best and should be guaranteed by MS since FOSS already fully complies with that protocol. E-mail, web services and many other products should all be complaint to open standards. If MS really does want to do what is best for customers, they comply with established open standards. Other than that, no agreements should to be made with them and that is exactly what Red Hat and Canonical are insisting on. MS should understand and made to realize that, changing the basis and principles of FOSS to suit their needs is not going to happen. If they were successful in buying their way with needy greedy little Linux based fish, doesn't mean they will be able to do the same with the big fish. Red Hat and Canonical are doing the right thing and all others should follow and work with them to effectively deal with MS. |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2007 8:24 AM EDT |
>So far, both Red Hat & Canonical have been adamant about not making any IP deal with MS. We all say a lot of things. When the time comes to do something that makes sense, we sometimes have to spin the things we've done or the things we've said. Red Hat will not make a "bad" IP deal with Microsoft. I'm pretty sure of that. They may make a deal that includes some IP language, if the deal is a good deal to make. >The GPL rejects any inclusion of IP and both Red Hat and Canonical respect the GPL. No, it doesn't. It precludes selective patent licensing on GPLV3'd software. Non-selective licensing (ie, everybody gets the same relief) is OK. But who says that an IP deal even has to cover GPL'd software? I presume that Microsoft may only be interested in a deal that appears to grant coverage to GPL'd software, but I could be wrong about that. Maybe they would settle for something that could be spun and hopes nobody pays attention to the details. |
| Abe Jul 04, 2007 9:10 AM EDT |
Quoting:They may make a deal that includes some IP language, if the deal is a good deal to makeWhat kind of good deal would be worth making if the only intention of MS is to spin it to their benefits by making it perceived as MS IP in FOSS? Red Hat is not and doesn't appear to be that naive. Quoting:No, it doesn't. It precludes selective patent licensing on GPLV3'd software.OK, If source code that contains IP is included into GPLed code with the intent of distributing it, that code becomes GPLed and the IP can't be enforceable. That is practically the same as preventing it unless the owner of that IP wants to forfeit enforcement against FOSS. I guess that is what you meant by "selective patent licensing on GPLV3'd software." Quoting:Maybe they would settle for something that could be spun and hopes nobody pays attention to the details.Red Hat and others should not agree to or allow for such things. This is what MS has been orchestrating with the little fish to collect royalty from their customers. Red Hat, Canonical, and Mandriva came out openly and totally refused it. |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2007 10:04 AM EDT |
>I guess that is what you meant by "selective patent licensing on GPLV3'd software You might want to study the FSF's position on such things. The GPL permits patent licenses so long as they are granted to everybody who receives the software. What it doesn't allow is a license to a select subgroup of users. >if the only intention of MS Who cares about MS? Screw them. What makes a good deal for Red Hat is one that will help Red Hat's business. Microsoft can go rot for all I care, and I'm sure Red Hat feels pretty much the same way. >Red Hat and others should not agree to or allow for such things. Why not? They can't prevent, even without signing any deals. Microsoft says what Microsoft says. If a deal is good for Red Hat, Red Hat should sign it. Besides, Microsoft ain't the only ones who get to talk about the deal. As I recall, Novell put the lie pretty quickly to Microsoft's attempts to spin that deal. |
| tracyanne Jul 04, 2007 1:03 PM EDT |
Quoting:So far, both Red Hat & Canonical have been adamant about not making any IP deal with MS. And Mandriva |
| Abe Jul 04, 2007 7:11 PM EDT |
Quoting:The GPL permits patent licenses so long as they are granted to everybody who receives the softwareDoesn't that mean it becomes GPLed? May be I should go back and read the whole GPLv3. Quoting:Who cares about MS? Screw them...I don't care about MS, but I do care about what MS does to hurt FOSS, like creating a shadow over it to delay its proliferation, by creating doubts about FOSS credibility by claiming possible dubious infringements. If Red Hat signs an agreement with MS that covers IP, I care about it as much as I cared about Suse when it made the deal with MS. Quoting:Microsoft says what Microsoft says. If a deal is good for Red Hat, Red Hat should sign it.good for Red Hat is not enough to make a deal with MS, the deal must not harm FOSS in the process. Quoting:As I recall, Novell put the lie pretty quickly to Microsoft's attempts to spin that deal.We still don't know all the details of what Novell signed for with MS. If there was nothing for the community to worry about, why doesn't Novell release the terms in the open? Why did the deal prompt FSF and Moglen, who new the terms under NDA, to add the new text in GPLv3 to stop future deals? I am still doubtful about Novell's intentions and I would be doubtful about Red Hat the same way if it signs a similar deal. |
| dinotrac Jul 04, 2007 7:30 PM EDT |
>Doesn't that mean it becomes GPLed? May be I should go back and read the whole GPLv3. Umm...I thought we were talking about GPL'd software. **Cough** If you go back and do the research, you will find out that GPL'd software is what the GPL applies to. >good for Red Hat is not enough to make a deal with MS, the deal must not harm FOSS in the process. Ummm....If the deal is good for Red Hat, it is plenty enough to make a deal with MS. Given that Red Hat is a FOSS company, it's real darned hard to imagine a deal that harms FOSS being good for Red Hat. >We still don't know all the details of what Novell signed for with MS Ummm...so what? The topic was spin. >I don't care about MS, but I do care about what MS does to hurt FOSS You seem to care a lot more about MS than that. >if the only intention of MS is to spin it to their benefits You seem to care that they say nasty things that hurt your feelings. Why is beyond me. |
| jsusanka Jul 04, 2007 8:30 PM EDT |
I am still waiting to see all this great interoperability from these deals. where are the products? where are the results? all I see is a bunch of hidden back room deals being made that leaves nothing but FUD/vaporware for the customer. microsoft has always been good at vaporware. if microsoft is supposedly concerned about the customer where are the results. how about getting results for the customer. |
| tuxchick Jul 04, 2007 8:56 PM EDT |
LOL jsusanka, right you are. You know as well as I do that Microsoft's legendary concern for the customer means 'squeezing as much money as possible' out of them. I know it's been said a lot here on LXer- these deals are all about MS poaching a revenue stream off Linux. Yet more "MS tax." And that all of this "interoperability" blather is hot air- it's always been there for the taking. MS has always been the interoperability roadblock, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. |
| dcparris Jul 05, 2007 1:42 AM EDT |
>>Doesn't that mean it becomes GPLed? May be I should go back and read the whole GPLv3. > Umm...I thought we were talking about GPL'd software. **Cough** If you go back and do the research, you will find out that GPL'd software is what the GPL applies to. Hmmm.. maybe he's referring to the non-GPL'ed software involved? In that case, the company has a choice - either GPL their software or drop the deal, if it affects their software that way. |
| dinotrac Jul 05, 2007 1:59 AM EDT |
>In that case, the company has a choice - either GPL their software or drop the deal ????? Ummm....I think we're getting a little confused here. It's always been the case that incorporating GPL'd software into your own software means you cannot distribute it unless you do so under the GPL. Non-GPL'd software that doesn't incorporate GPL'd stuff is not affected by any version of the GPL. |
| Abe Jul 05, 2007 7:00 AM EDT |
Quoting:Hmmm.. maybe he's referring to the non-GPL'ed software involved?Thanks for clarifying it Don, that is exactly what I was referring to. Quoting:Non-GPL'd software that doesn't incorporate GPL'd stuff is not affected by any version of the GPL.Hmmm Dino, and what made you think that is what I was referring to? I was referring to using/including GPLed code in non-GPLed code. I thought that was obvious. |
| dinotrac Jul 05, 2007 7:11 AM EDT |
>I thought that was obvious. Did you? Considering that your statement was in responce to: >The GPL permits patent licenses so long as they are granted to everybody who receives the software and that non-GPL'd software had not come up, no, I wouldn't say that it was obvious at all. Hence my confusion. |
| Abe Jul 05, 2007 7:23 AM EDT |
I believe this is what I said above. (inclusion, ingesting, outside FOSS), all refer to FOSS code. May be I should have been more specific and added code after FOSS.Quoting:The GPL rejects any inclusion of IP and both Red Hat and Canonical respect the GPL. Consequently, they both always raise the FOSS filter up to keep any patents outside FOSS and to prevent any sneaky inclusion into FOSS. MS is persistent in keeping its interoperability pipe fully open for its IP to get into FOSS. MS knows pretty well that, ingesting its IP into FOSS is the only way to guarantee taxing users for FOSS software. |
| dinotrac Jul 05, 2007 7:59 AM EDT |
I think I was thrown off by your phrasing "inclusion of IP". If you meant inclusion of code subject to IP constraints, then it makes more sense, but is a little confusing because, on distribution, included code would have to be GPL'd, IP or no IP. Besides, strictly speaking, GPL'd code is also IP. The only code that isn't is code in the public domain. |
| Abe Jul 05, 2007 9:00 AM EDT |
Quoting:GPL'd code is also IP.You are right, IP could be Patents, Copyright, Trademarks and who knows what else. Sometimes our fingers don't obey our brains or our brains don't send the right signals. we need brains that bypass the middle man. I wonder when will that be! |
| Scott_Ruecker Jul 05, 2007 9:43 AM EDT |
Quoting:we need brains that bypass the middle man. I wonder when will that be! If I could get my Brain to bypass my mouth, THAT would be a miracle!!! |
| dinotrac Jul 05, 2007 10:04 AM EDT |
>If I could get my Brain to bypass my mouth, THAT would be a miracle!!! So, how are we related? |
| jdixon Jul 05, 2007 2:16 PM EDT |
> ...we need brains that bypass the middle man. I wonder when will that be! Regardless of when it comes, and whether they have anything to do with it, I'm certain Microsoft is working on a patent for it as we speak. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jul 05, 2007 2:30 PM EDT |
We must be long lost Cousins or 3rd removed Brothers or something... LOL!! |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!