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. Links 28/7/2016: CORD as Linux Foundation Project, Wine 1.9.15 Released

    Links for the day



  2. EPO Loses More Than 80% of Cases at the International Labour Organisation (ILO)

    The International Labour Organisation (or Organization) helps show just to what degree the European Patent Office (EPO) violates the rights of workers



  3. To Understand What Battistelli Has Turned the EPO Into Look at Turkey and China

    Battistelli and his notorious Vice-President from SIPO (Croatia) turn the European Patent Office, once the pride of Europe, into a human rights cesspool with SIPO (China) connections



  4. Patent Lawyers Move Closer to Battistelli's Rubber-stamping Office While the Appeal Boards Pushed Away as Collective Punishment Which Masks Decline in Patent Quality

    Urgently sending appeal boards away and urgently granting applicants patents without proper examination will be Battistelli's sorrow legacy at the European Patent Office



  5. Software Patents a Dying Breed, But Patent Lawyers in Denial Over it and Notorious Judge Rodney Gilstrap Ignores Alice (Supreme Court)

    A look at what law and practice are saying about software patents, contrasted or contradicted by the patent industry and trolls-friendly courts (which make business out of or together with patent aggressors)



  6. CAFC Meddling in PTAB Affairs; Unified Patents Fights a Good Fight by Invalidating Software Patents

    A look at how the AIA's Patent Trial and Appeal Board is invalidating software patents post-Alice, with or without involvement of patent courts



  7. Early Certainty That Benoît Battistelli is Dangerously Clueless and a Major Risk to the EPO

    The chaos which Team Battistelli is assured to deliver if it doesn't treat scientists like scientists, instead viewing them as a production line with rubber-stamping duties



  8. OIN Makes Claims About “Open Source Innovation”, But It Produces Nothing and Protects Virtually Nobody

    The Open Invention Network (OIN) reports growth, but in practical terms it does little or nothing to help developers of Free/Open Source software



  9. Links 27/7/2016: New CrossOver, Blackmagic for GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  10. The Death of Software Patents and Microsoft's Coup Against Yahoo! Made the Company Worthless

    A look at what happens to companies whose value is a house of software patents rather than code and a broad base of users/customers



  11. Munich Attack Mentioned by EPO But Not Ansbach

    The EPO does the usual right-wing thing (exploiting disaster/emergency for domestic crackdowns), but some bemoan the omission of the explosion at Ansbach (also in Germany)



  12. Kluwer Thinks People Are Clueless About the Unitary Patent System and Pretends It's Business as Usual

    Flogging the dead UPC horse at times of great uncertainty (enough to bring the UPC to a standstill)



  13. Almost Everything That the Government Accountability Office Says is Applicable to the EPO

    The Government Accountability Office in the United States produces reports which can serve as a timely warning sign to the European Patent Office, where patent quality is rapidly declining in order to meet 'production' goals



  14. Microsoft Says It Loves Linux, But Its Anti-Linux Patent Trolls Are Still Around and Active

    Highlighting just two of the many entities that Microsoft (and partners) use in order to induce additional costs on Free (as in freedom) software



  15. Links 26/7/2016: Microsoft Growing Desperate, Linux 4.8 Visions

    Links for the day



  16. Links 25/7/2016: Linux 4.7 Final, PostgreSQL 9.6 Beta 3

    Links for the day



  17. Leaked: Boards of Appeal Face 'Exile' or 'Extradition' in Haar After Standing up to Battistelli

    A look at some of the latest moves at the European Patent Office (EPO), following Battistelli's successful coup d’état which brought the EPO into a perpetual state of emergency that perpetuates Battistelli's totalitarian powers



  18. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) Comes Across as Against Software Patents, Relates to the EPO as Well

    Some analysis of the input from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with focus on the EPO and software patents



  19. In the US, Patent Trolls Engage in Patent Wars and Shakedowns, Whereas in China/Korea Large Android OEMs Sue One Another

    Highlighting some of the differences between the US patent system and other patent systems



  20. Links 24/7/2016: Elive 2.7.1 Beta, New Flatpaks and Snaps

    Links for the day



  21. Links 23/7/2016: Leo Laporte on GNU/Linux, Dolphin Emulator’s Vulkan Completion

    Links for the day



  22. Links 22/7/2016: Wine 1.9.15, KaOS 2016.07 ISO

    Links for the day



  23. Haar Mentioned as Likely Site of Appeal Boards as Their Eradication or Marginalisation Envisioned by UPC Proponent Benoît Battistelli

    Not only the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO) is under severe attack and possibly in mortal danger; the increasingly understaffed Boards of Appeal too are coming under attack and may (according to rumours) be sent to Haar, a good distance away from Munich and the airport (half an hour drive), not to mention lack of facilities for visitors from overseas



  24. EPO Attaché Albert Keyack Viewed as Somewhat of a Mole, Reporting From the US Embassy in Brazil Until Shortly Before the Temer Coup

    Public responses to the role played by Albert Keyack on behalf of the United States inside the European [sic] Patent Office



  25. EPO Insiders Explain Why the EPO's Examination Quality Rapidly Declines and Will Get Even Worse Because of Willy Minnoye

    Public comments from anonymous insiders serve to highlight a growing crisis inside the European Patent Office (EPO), where experienced/senior examiners are walking away and leaving an irreplaceable bunch of seats (due to high experience demands)



  26. Patents Roundup: BlackBerry, Huawei, PTAB, GAO, Aggressive Universities With Patents, and Software Patents in Europe

    Various bits and pieces of news regarding patents and their fast-changing nature in the United States nowadays



  27. Glimpse at Patent Systems Across the World: Better Quality Control at the USPTO Post-America Invents Act (2011), Unlike the EPO Post-Battistelli (2010)

    While the EPO reportedly strives to eliminate pendency and appeal windows altogether (rubberstamping being optimal performance as per the yardstick du jour), the USPTO introduces changes that would strengthen the system and shield innovation, not protect the business model of serial litigants



  28. Blockstream Has No Patents, But Pledges Not to Sue Using Patents

    Blockstream says that it comes in peace when it comes to software patents, which triggers speculations about coming Blockchain patent wars



  29. Links 21/7/2016: Ubuntu 16.04.1 LTS, Linux Mint 18 “Sarah” Xfce Beta

    Links for the day



  30. Links 21/7/2016: An Honorary Degree for Alan Cox, Looks Back at DebConf16

    Links for the day


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