Posted on 11/20/2006 10:28:45 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
RUSSELS (Reuters) - Supporters of PC operating system Linux are preparing to counter a recent deal penned by Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) which establishes for the first time the principle of paying the software giant for the operating system, whose license requires it to be free.
Microsoft signed a deal with Novell, one of the providers of Linux, in which Novell paid it a lump sum in return for a guarantee that Microsoft would not sue Novell's clients for what it calls a violation of its own patents in the Linux program.
The prospect of a drawn-out legal battle with Microsoft, an experienced litigator, could push users of Linux into the hands of Novell (NOVL.O: Quote, Profile, Research) and away from dominant Linux provider, Red Hat (RHAT.O: Quote, Profile, Research), which does not have such a deal with Microsoft.
Although Linux is free, providers of the system offer the software with packaging, documentation and -- most important -- installation and maintenance, so any client shift from Red Hat would cost it money.
"Either customers desert Red Hat to go to Novell, to get safety, or Red Hat will be forced into a similar deal with Microsoft," said Eban Moglen, a professor at Columbia Law School and founding director of the Software Freedom Law Center in New York.
Moglen, one of the pioneers of free software, said Microsoft's deal skirts the requirements of the GNU General Public License, used by Linux and other free programs, which requires the software to be given away.
He and others have started work on updating the license to close the loophole by saying a promise not to sue, such as the one given by Microsoft, would be automatically applicable to everyone.
That would effectively flip Microsoft's agreement on its head and guarantee that no one would face a suit from Microsoft if anyone were protected.
"A clause like that would not be difficult to get community agreement on these days," Moglen said, adding that a change could be ready in weeks or months.
LIABILITY?
Under the Novell deal, in which both companies agreed not sue each other's clients for patent violation, Microsoft agreed to pay Novell $348 million, while Novell pays Microsoft $40 million, on the basis that Novell has fewer customers.
Microsoft says it has patent rights to some of the technology in Linux, although it has never said exactly what those rights might be or what patents are involved.
Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer said if customers bought Linux from anyone but Novell, they could face trouble.
"If a customer says, 'Look, do we have liability for the use of your patented work?' Essentially, if you're using non-SUSE Linux, then I'd say the answer is yes," Ballmer told eWeek.com recently, referring to the Linux system sold by Novell.
"I suspect that (customers) will take that issue up with their distributor," Ballmer said, adding that if customers considered doing a direct download of a non-SUSE Linux version, "they'll think twice about that."
Microsoft makes the Windows operating system, for which it charges billions of dollars a year, but Linux has been a thorn in the software giant's side because it is freely available.
Linux was created, maintained and improved by volunteers working under a license requiring that it be freely available for copying, modification and improvements.
Not really.. While its true Linux became the dominate x86 *nix platform if it were never created FreeBSD could have easily grown to fill that role. Suns stupid games on the x86 architecture (great today but its too little too late) hurt them very badly.
No, he's not.
The thing you have to remember is that Sun, SGI, and Cray all have different architectures. Not to mention that SGI and Cray lost because Intel and AMD brought reliable, state-of-the-art processors to a single architecture (x86) that became universal.
Not to mention the myriads of sellings, acquisitions, and mergers between the three companies (SGI bought most of Cray Research in 1996, only to sell it off in bits by 2001).
Cray did merge their architectures into a single one with the X1, but this didn't happen until a couple years ago, IIRC.
SGI did release a 64-bit chip in 1992 (followed by Digital's Alpha platform), but their major undoing was using MIPS when companies jumped to get employees using computers. Many of these companies' computers used an Intel or AMD chip in them--and when 3D came out for x86, there was simply no reason to use SGI products.
Low and medium-end SGI products competed with similar Intel-based solutions, and high-end systems were generally prohibitive for most corporations for a wide variety of reasons (cost being a primary factor).
Heck, this is the same reason why SGI itself abandoned MIPS (and IRIX) in favor of the Intel Itanium chip and Linux (currently uses SLES with SGI-specific mods). Interestingly enough though, this wasn't enough to keep SGI from filing for bankruptcy this past May.
forgot to ping...
Novell has sold its soul to Satan himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.