EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

02.16.09

Novell the Biggest Loser in New Red Hat-Microsoft Virtual Agreement

Posted in Deals, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Novell, Red Hat, Servers, SLES/SLED, Virtualisation, Windows at 12:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

RED Hat has just made an announcement that is less important than reporters might be led to believe. Given some initial details, it’s clear that Red Hat wants nothing to do with Microsoft’s software patents.

As Glyn Moody pointed out, there is “Nothing Novell-ish here.” Matthew Aslett got that right as well.

There is no Linux-support coupon scheme, although that was exclusive to the Novell-Microsoft agreement anyway, and no patent or intellectual property agreement either.

Ultimately, this developments makes Novell’s SUSE a lot less necessary and therefore it provides an escape route from Microsoft’s patent coupons. In other words, Novell got screwed for paying for something that’s potentially free, owing to reciprocity. This isn’t the first such example where Novell looks like fool for these reasons. Bada boom!

Drums Novell

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

12 Comments

  1. Jose_X said,

    February 16, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    Gravatar

    Market pressures is apparently why Red Hat did it.

    I hate interop with Microsoft. It’s a lie. They can see all our code. We can’t see a bit of theirs. It’s wasteful to spend time on their hooks and crannies.

    The reason to control the OS was to avoid Microsoft entirely. So the weed now is doing VMs so they can get into our fertile land to choke everything else off.

    Weeds are untrustworthy. They bring no good. They have no self control.

    Avoid interoperating with weeds as much as possible (easier to do if you aren’t a public business needing to make quarterly numbers).

  2. anonymous said,

    February 16, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    Gravatar

    I had all these questions on why you’re boycotting novell if you have no problems with other vendors doing ms agreements, but then I realized you’re just an idiot getting payed to do this (well I hope you’re at least getting payed, otherwise you’re a lunatic instead of a sellout), so asking you to be logical or consistent is probably beyond your capabilities (or at least pay grade).

  3. Roy Schestowitz said,

    February 16, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    Gravatar

    In case you haven’t seen the news, the analysis is very consistent. Groklaw sort of endorsed this too.

    http://blogs.computerworld.com/red_hat_microsoft_partner_up
    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009021611190551
    http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2009/02/red_hat_and_mic.html http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2009/02/update_red_hat.html
    http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2009/02/red_hat_and_mic.html http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2009/02/update_red_hat.html

    I’ll write about this later.

  4. Roy Bixler said,

    February 16, 2009 at 2:06 pm

    Gravatar

    Most of this site’s raison d’être has to do with the patent portion of Novell’s deal with Microsoft, which at least implicitly concedes Microsoft’s rhetoric that Linux violates its IP and any customer of a Linux vendor somehow owes Microsoft money. There is also the concern that the patents deal violates the GPL, at least in spirit if not legally. To someone who supports FLOSS and wants to see it reach new heights, both of these points give many grounds for objection.

  5. Shane Coyle said,

    February 16, 2009 at 2:30 pm

    Gravatar

    True interoperability requires no agreement, just adherence to open standards (or at least working documentation).

    That being said, it appears there were no IP or even monetary exchanges, just merely a marketing announcement that aids both companies, and their customers. Relatively benign, methinks.

  6. Roy Schestowitz said,

    February 16, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    Gravatar

    I tried to represent the views of skeptics that I’ve also been seeing in some other sites, mostly in comments.

    This one is the latest that caught my eye:

    At first glance, this is a significant win for Red Hat and Microsoft’s mutual customers and partners. But The VAR Guy thinks Novell’s close relationship with Microsoft forced Red Hat to the negotiating table.

    He does have a point.

  7. Shane Coyle said,

    February 16, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Gravatar

    Many valid points are to be made all around, but, as in their differing approaches to FOSS, Red Hat’s move is in sharp contrast to Novell’s in both nature and effect.

    Somehow, despite Microsoft dismissing FOSS as communistic, or Novell claiming that end-to-end open source is not fully enterprise ready, Red Hat has consistently delivered quality solutions to their very loyal and expanding list of customers, while creating shareholder value and adhering to their FOSS philosophies all-the-while.

    There’s nothing better than good, clean, business… except maybe some monkey-business – (all apologies to Rodney Dangerfield). Yes, this will help both companies to make more money, and yes I believe that was their motivation. Hopefully, customers will benefit as well.

    I see it as not much more than a marketing announcement, but of course there is some significance in the nature of the announcement – has Microsoft ever done any deal (of any kind) with a GNU⁄Linux distributor and not garnered an IP deal to crow about?

    That speaks either to Red Hat’s strength, or Microsoft’s softening of their stance somewhat. The future will reveal which, I suppose.

  8. twitter said,

    February 17, 2009 at 11:01 am

    Gravatar

    I have to agree with the dimmest view of this deal. “Interoperability” with non free software is a lie by definition and there is nothing more harmful to free software than M$’s “Marketing”. M$’s intentions and the fate of companies that make deals with them have been extensively examined here through coverage of Comes vs Microsoft and the Microsoft Novell patent deal. As Roy noted, Novell is the biggest loser in this deal and that is the usual end of cooperation with M$. The best thing to do with Windows is to dump it like the second rate and toxic sludge that it is. The more M$ tech you bring on board, the more pain you invite because of M$’s court proven record of technical sabotage. Anything that argues otherwise is a move in the wrong direction. The only good thing that can come from M$ is a full software patent surrender and liberation of their own code. Nothing short of this should be trusted, especially by one of the principle targets of M$’s long running software patent extortion.

    This deal needs to be studdied, not to know if it’s bad but how bad it really is. Here is Red Hat’s press release. Here is their earlier announcement. I look forward to more insightful commentary from Boycott Novell and add my preliminary analysis below.

    At face value, nothing has been gained for free software. M$’s customers may very well demand virtulization of Windows and GNU/Linux may be the best way of doing it. The whole point of virtualizing Windows is to put something more stable in charge of hardware and to get around the need for a dedicated machine for each set of incompatible non free “solutions” users have. If M$ had the customer’s best interest at heart, no “certification” or other permission would be required by users to solve these problems with free software. Because M$ does not have the customer’s best interest at heart, the deal can’t be trusted and everyone knows it.

    Endorsing a lie is always harmful. Red Hat has implicitly endorsed M$’s customer hostile behavior for their own benefit. Once again M$ has created a favored GNU/Linux distribution for a particular task in the name of “ineteroperability” Tactically, this is damaging because M$ can shift favorites and create costs for GNU/Linux users. More damaging than that is the idea that M$ can tell people how they can and can’t run software. M$’s EULAs specify which versions of Windoze can be run virtualized and which can’t – it’s a power grab that should never be endorsed. The zeroth software freedom is the right to run your software. The only “major hurdle to more widespread adoption of virtualization” is M$’s customer hostile business model.

  9. Roy Schestowitz said,

    February 17, 2009 at 11:20 am

    Gravatar

    “Interoperability” is hostility towards standardsreal standards.

  10. Shane Coyle said,

    February 17, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    Gravatar

    Let me say it this way, the Novell deal – sans the patent covenant – probably wouldn’t have spawned this site. Or, if it was Novell SUSE Enterprise BSD, I likely wouldn’t have cared about some silly marketing announcement with Microsoft.

    Yes, there are myriad other issues such as Antitrust and such, but without the betrayal of the GPL (in my opinion), I personally wouldn’t have been so offended. I took Novell’s actions as a betrayal of the GPL and the community, and I took it personally.

    At it’s core, that’s all I see this Red Hat announcement as – a marketing move that will hopefully garner both companies more business. From a technical standpoint, yawn, honestly. If it actually yields good results for customers, great.

    I have no problem with the existence of closed source/proprietary software, it takes all kinds – I prefer Freedom, and try to teach others that such options exist, but I don’t wish to push my beliefs on others. Like Novell, I don’t hate Microsoft, I just take issue with many of their actions.

    Someone had said that RedHat had caved in to pressure from customers – yep. They should, Red Hat is a business and they need customers – preferably happy ones – so long as they do not violate any explicit or implicit contracts with the community that provides their products, I say good luck – go get ‘em boys…

    At face value, nothing has been lost for Free Software, either. But, Red Hat – a Free Software distributor and friend of the community, certainly may have something to gain here. And, if Microsoft does too, okay.

    (As I understand the deal at this time, I always retain the right to start yelling if there are details that come to light…)

  11. twitter said,

    February 17, 2009 at 10:03 pm

    Gravatar

    The thing lost for free software is the appearance that M$ cooperation is required to run M$ junk and the appearance of cooperation with M$ by Red Hat in this. You will see all sorts of FUD about it later. The continued use of Windows is a losing situation for everyone concerned but M$. People who work in the industry owe it to their customers to tell them this but they continue to cooperate, even as the money in it evaporates.

    I don’t mind that non free software exists either, even though most of it was stolen from the public domain in the first place. The problem is what society does to back the limitations non free software makers try to impose. The power granted to organizations like the BSA is completely out of proportion to the social good done by non free software. My hatred of M$ comes from seeing through the myth of a free market to the reality of extensive limits on my freedoms, privacy and ownership of my property. Non free software companies have aggressively pushed their wares and beliefs onto everyone. Everyone is poorer for it and the few laws in the public’s favor are woefully unenforced.

  12. Roy Schestowitz said,

    February 17, 2009 at 10:17 pm

    Gravatar

    The theme will be: Microsoft is helping open source.

What Else is New


  1. Patents Roundup: Bad Quality (USPTO), Bad Analysis (India), Bad Microsoft, Bad Actors (Trolls), Bad Scope (Software Patents), and the Ugly

    A mishmash of news about patents, mostly regarding the United States, and what can be deduced at the moment



  2. Links 26/6/2016: IceCat 38.8.0, Wine 1.9.13

    Links for the day



  3. With UPC Dead for Battistelli's Entire Remaining Term, No Reason for the EPO or the Administrative Council to Keep Battistelli Around

    Thoughts about what happens to the EPO's leadership after 'Brexit' (British exit from the EU), which severely undermines Battistelli's biggest project that he habitually used to justify his incredible abuses



  4. Links 24/6/2016: Xen Project 4.7, Cinnamon 3.0.6

    Links for the day



  5. Benoît Battistelli Should Resign in Light of New Leak of Decision in His Vendetta Against Truth-Telling Judge (Updated)

    Benoît Battistelli continues to break the EPO's own rules, not just national laws, as a new decision helps reveal



  6. Fake Patents on Software From Fake Australian 'Inventor' of Bitcoin and the Globally-Contagious Nature of EPO Patent Scope

    News from Australia regarding software patents that should not be granted and how patent lawyers from Australia rely on European patent law (EPO and UK-IPO) for guidance on patent scope



  7. Patent Lawyers Love (and Amplify) Halo and Enfish, Omit or Dismiss Cuozzo and Alice

    By misinterpreting the current situation with respect to software patents and misusing terms like "innovation" patent lawyers and others in the patent microcosm hope to convince the public (or potential clients) that nothing in effect has changed and software patents are all fine and dandy



  8. Looks Increasingly Plausible That Battistelli is Covering up Bogus and/or Illegally-Obtained 'Evidence' From the EPO's Investigative Unit

    Why we believe that Benoît Battistelli is growingly desperate to hide evidence of rogue evidence-collecting operations which eventually landed himself -- not the accused -- in a catastrophic situation that can force his resignation



  9. As Decision on the UK's EU Status Looms, EPO Deep in a Crisis of Patent Quality

    Chaotic situation at the EPO and potential changes in the UK cause a great deal of debate about the UPC, which threatens to put the whole or Europe at the mercy of patent trolls from abroad



  10. Another Demonstration by European Patent Office (EPO) Staff on Same Day as Administrative Council's Meeting

    SUEPO (staff union of the EPO) continues to organise staff actions against extraordinary injustice by Benoît Battistelli and his flunkies whom he gave top positions at the EPO



  11. Links 23/6/2016: Red Hat Results, Randa Stories

    Links for the day



  12. Interview With FOSSForce/All Things Free Tech

    New interview with Robin "Roblimo" Miller on behalf of FOSSForce



  13. Links 22/6/2016: PulseAudio 9.0, GNOME 3.21.3 Released

    Links for the day



  14. IP Europe's UPC Lobbying and the EPO Connection

    The loose but seemingly ever-growing connections between AstroTurfing groups like IP Europe (pretending to represent SMEs) and EPO staff which is lobbying-centric



  15. EPO “Recruitment of Brits is Down by 80%”

    Letter says that “recruitment of Brits is down by 80%” and "the EPO lost 7% of UK staff in one year"



  16. The Conspiracy of Patent Lawyers for UPC and Battistelli's Role in Preparing by Firing People

    The parasitic firms that lobby for the UPC and actually create it -- firms like those that pass money to Battistelli's EPO -- are doing exactly the opposite of what Europe needs



  17. Patent Lawyers, Having Lost Much of the Battle for Software Patents in the US, Resort to Harmful Measures and Spin

    A quick glance at how patent lawyers and their lobbyists/advocates have reacted to the latest decision from the US Supreme Court (Justice Breyer)



  18. Links 21/6/2016: Fedora 24 and Point Linux MATE 3.2 Officially Released

    Links for the day



  19. Supreme Court on Cuozzo v Lee Another Major Loss for Software Patents in the United States

    Much-anticipated decision on the Cuozzo v Lee case (at the highest possible level) serves to defend the appeal boards which are eliminating software patents by the thousands



  20. As Alice Turns Two, Bilski Blog Says 36,000 (Software) Patent Applications Have Been Rejected Thanks to It

    A look back at the legacy of Alice v CLS Bank and how it contributed to the demise of software patents in the United States, the birthplace of software patents



  21. EPO Self-Censorship by IP Kat or Just Censorship of Opinions That IP Kat Does Not Share/Accept (Updated)

    ree speech when it's needed the most (EPO scandals) needs to be respected; or why IP Kat shoots itself in the foot and helps the EPO's management by 'sanitising' comments



  22. Caricature: Bygmalion Patent Office

    The latest cartoon regarding Battistelli's European Patent Office



  23. Links 21/6/2016: GNU/Linux in China's HPC, Linux 4.7 RC4

    Links for the day



  24. Under Battistelli's Regime the EPO is a Lawless, Dark Place

    How the EPO's Investigative Unit (IU) and Control Risks Group (CRG), which is connected to the Stasi through Desa, made the EPO virtually indistinguishable from East Germany (coat of arms/emblem above)



  25. New Paper Demonstrates That Unitary Patent (UPC) is Little More Than a Conspiracy of Patent 'Professionals' and Their Self Interest

    Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna's latest paper explains that the UPC “expert teams” are in fact not experts but people who are using the UPC as a Trojan horse by which to promote their business interests and corporate objectives



  26. Money Flying to Private Companies Without Tenders at Battistelli's EPO (by the Tens of Millions!)

    Extravagant and cushy contracts to the tune of tens of millions of Euros are being issued without public scrutiny and without opportunities to competition (few corporations easily score cushy EPO contracts while illusion of tendering persists -- for small jobs only)



  27. Patent Examiners and Insiders Acknowledge Profound Demise in Patent Quality Under Battistelli

    By lowering the quality of patents granted by the European Patent Office Battistelli hopes to create an illusion of success, where success is not measured properly and is assessed by biased firms which he finances



  28. Jericho Systems Threatens Alice, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Threatens the Patent Trial and Appeal (PTAB)

    A look at the two latest threats to those who helped put an end to a lot of (if not most) software patents in the US



  29. How the Halo Electronics Case Helps Patent Trolls and How Publications Funded by Patent Trolls (IAM for Instance) Covered This

    A Supreme Court ruling on patents, its implications for software patent trolls, and how media that is promoting software patents and patent trolls covered it



  30. Patent Lawyers' Fantasy Land Where Software Patents Are Suddenly Resurrected Even When They're Not

    A quick glance at where the debate over software patents in the United States stands and how profiteers (such as patent lawyers) not only mislead the public but also bully the messengers


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts