Intellectual Property FUD Gets Fuelled by Old Red Hat News
- Dr. Roy Schestowitz
- 2007-06-28 10:14:55 UTC
- Modified: 2007-06-28 10:19:10 UTC
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.
Comments
James Ronoson
2007-06-29 00:01:50
Roy Schestowitz
2007-06-29 00:52:16
James Ronoson
2007-06-29 04:19:30
Roy Schestowitz
2007-06-29 05:21:54
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 ;-) ).