06.28.07
Intellectual Property FUD Gets Fuelled by Old Red Hat News
It’s all about the timing: GNU GPL’s big day, Red Hat’s profit surge
Jim Finkle, the man who loves to ‘miunderstand’ and ‘misinterpret’ all things that embody freedom, comes back with a new swing. We ask you to take this with a grain of salt, knowing where it comes from.
According to this article, about a year ago, Microsoft discussed issued that are related to software patents with Red Hat. The article contains an element of mystery. The article also bothers to mention an important point towards the end.
An update to that license, version 3, is about to be implemented. It will forbid companies from distributing Linux software if they enter into patent agreements like the ones that Microsoft signed with Novell.
Be aware that on many occasions Red Hat clarified that it would not negotiate IP deals and never accept interoperability that is based on ‘innovation/interoperability tax’.
Is somebody trying to keep the FUD candle ablaze on the day of GPLv3′s finalisation and official release? It seems like an old story that gets unleashed at the ‘perfect timing’ by a man with questionable history on these matters. Also remember that Red Hat reported a 42% rise in revenue. That was yesterday. Whether strings are being pulled here or not (never trust the commercial media), we shall let the readers decide.
James Ronoson said,
June 28, 2007 at 7:01 pm
I think you guys need to get lives. Novell is trying to make money, they are offering viable software to corporations and small businesses alike (and everyone in between). And guess what? That’s what makes the world go round. Certainly not a stupid cause for a bunch of hobbyist geeks. I know 99.9% of people trying to run a business efficiently do not care if Microsoft and Novell are in bed together. As long as they make their savings and their lives become easier, they don’t see any problems.
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 28, 2007 at 7:52 pm
James, you have not addressed the issues associated with baseless claims, explicit threats, and ‘taxation’ that is imposed on those who create software in a peer production fashion.
James Ronoson said,
June 28, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Ok, explain to me how you can market your ‘peer production’ software as a viable alternative if there are no foundations for support or backing? The more companies use this software, the more guys like you will be paid, the more your salaries will go up.
There are literally thousands of great open source developers wasting away on helpdesks supporting proprietary software applications, whilst putting together great apps in their spare time.
Novell’s actions are legitimising your efforts to the enterprise. They are making Open Source viable. They are making it officially supported by a billion dollar corporation, not a forum or wiki.
But if you’re happy knocking together software in your bedroom and giving it away for free…… whatever floats your boat.
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 29, 2007 at 12:21 am
James,
Red Hat already does all of this. Neither has it required an implication that Free software is ‘unclean’, nor has it required to pay for the right to merely communicate with other software.
Microsoft wanted to divide the community. Novell nodded in approval and thought this would help itself (not Linux) gain advantage.
Had Novell not sold out to Microsoft, the EU would have had an easier time declaring that communication between software (servers) must be both free and open. Had Novell not sold out to Microsoft, OpenDocument would have possibly been the only document format out there. Had Novell not sold out to Microsoft, any claims about Microsoft IP would be laughed at (not only by people who actually understand what is going on).
Face it. Novell took $0.3 billion for a reason. Microsoft is threatened by Linux. It wants to weaken Linux. It does not try to assist its adoption in the enterprise.
Novell now has some money to play with now. It opened just one among 400+ doors to the world of Linux and let the Trojan horse enter.
As a business, I understand that certain needs need to accommodated immediately, regardless of all that ‘politics’ you loathe. In the long term, however, without sustainability of the software, what is truly gained? Businesses needn’t endure any loss, but they must employ judgment that combodies common sense, ethics, and team spirit. Software does not write itself (not yet anyway, AI is not quite so advanced
).