THE RED HAT-led ploy to stockpile 'Linuxy' software patents wasn't lost on us. We wrote a lot about this over the past 11 years. We've heard speculations that it did so to artificially raise the purchasing price, e.g. by IBM, a leading software patents lobbyist and bully (Red Hat also considered Microsoft as its buyer). This is quite the opposite of where Red Hat stood in its earlier days -- back when it lobbied against software patents in Europe (2005).
"We have not seen any evidence of IBM changing its patent policy. We have, however, in recent months seen IBM blackmailing yet more Internet companies using patents on Web stuff, i.e. software patents."In his interview with Techrights, Red Hat's CEO who is now the IBM President spoke briefly about this subject (software patents). It didn't bother him that much, even back then in 2011.
Days ago we saw the article "How many patent Red Hat Transfer to IBM after its acquisition?" and here's the bottom line: "Red Hat the second-largest corporate contributor acquired by IBM last year with 3574 patents including its subsidiaries’ patent portfolio."
We have not seen any evidence of IBM changing its patent policy. We have, however, in recent months seen IBM blackmailing yet more Internet companies using patents on Web stuff, i.e. software patents.
"It's a recipe for incompatibility and thus lock-in."Red Hat announced its new CEO and IBM's new CEO took his position/duties about a week ago. What has changed since then? Or what is going to change? Sure thing is, we'll be watching closely and reporting on it. If Jim Whitehurst and IBM’s new chief (President and CEO, respectively) continue the aggressive legacy of the predecessor, then we're willing to call for a boycott of Red Hat-centric packages, which include lock-in such as systemd. Systemd seems to solve non-issues and replaces things nobody ever wanted or asked for replacements of. That in its own right ought to raise totally legitimate questions, concerns and doubt. What is Red Hat seeking to accomplish, for instance, by substituting longtime UNIX conventions for a bunch of unasked-for complexity? It's a recipe for incompatibility and thus lock-in. We gradually move away from it. Will Debian follow (along with its many derivatives which include Ubuntu)? There will be a new Debian Project Leader (DPL) quite soon. Debian cannot succeed by merely following IBM's every step. There's also a (software) patent trap. ⬆