Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Shuttleworth Says No Patent Deals With Microsoft

Posted by kdawson on Sat Jun 16, 2007 03:45 PM
from the one-domino-not-falling dept.
Patents Microsoft Software Linux
christian.einfeldt writes "The FOSS press has speculated for some time now that Mark Shuttleworth would probably not agree to any patent 'protection' deals with Microsoft, but blogger Steven Rosenberg has found a page on Shuttleworth's personal blog ('Here Be Dragons') that unambiguously sets out Shuttleworth's opposition to Canonical's participation in any such deal. Rosenberg summarizes Shuttleworth's position in these terms: 'So there you have it — Canonical welcomes any efforts by Microsoft to improve "interoperability," isn't a fan of OpenXML, doesn't want to infringe on anybody's patents or trademarks, thinks Microsoft's threats are ill-advised, and would like to actually deal with the issue rather than respond out of fear.'
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Linux: Red Hat Rejects Microsoft Deals 287 comments
Kurtz'sKompund passed us an article detailing another loss in Microsoft's licensing push: Red Hat has summarily rejected Redmond's offer of an alliance. The article also touches on Ubuntu's rejection of the same offer, which we discussed this past weekend. ZDNet reports on comments from Mark Shuttleworth and the Red Hat organization, with Shuttleworth stating "Allegations of 'infringement of unspecified patents' carry no weight whatsoever. We don't think they have any legal merit, and they are no incentive for us to work with Microsoft on any of the wonderful things we could do together." Red Hat was even more blunt, stating the organization refused to pay an "innovation tax" to Microsoft. "Red Hat said there would be no such deal. Referring to previous statements distancing itself from Microsoft, the company insisted: 'Red Hat's standpoint has not changed.' The company referenced a statement written when Microsoft revealed it was partnering with Novell, saying that its position remained unaltered. Red Hat director of corporate communications Leigh Day added: 'We continue to believe that open source and the innovation it represents should not be subject to an unsubstantiated tax that lacks transparency.' Many open-source followers argue that Red Hat, as the largest Linux vendor, would have a lot to lose from partnering with Microsoft."
[+] Linux: Mandriva Says No to Microsoft Linux Deal 150 comments
Kurtz'sKompund writes "French Linux vendor Mandriva said no to dealing with Microsoft on open source patents. They're the third Linux vendor in a week to do so, joining Red Hat and Ubuntu in the 'against' column. TechWorld reports that Mandriva's CEO echoed statements from other open source leaders, saying essentially 'we don't need to pay protection money to do our job.' From the article: 'Jonathan Eunice, an analyst at Illuminata, said Microsoft's deals with Xandros and Linspire don't have the same impact as they would if they had been made with a major Linux vendor such as Red Hat. "I think Microsoft is going to second-tier players, and they're cutting deals with them because they are softer targets," Eunice said.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Shuttleworth Says No Patent Deals With Microsoft 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Stuff that matters? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aysa (452184) on Saturday June 16 2007, @03:56PM (#19535205)
    So now we have a site for nerds, that quotes an unknown blogger quoting Shuttleworth.

    Great, I will link to the slashdot article in my blog. Maybe I get slashdotted and we get a dupe.

    Cant't we go straight to the source?
    • I linked to Steven Rosenberg's blog because he did a great job of finding a comment buried deep in Mark Shuttleworth's blog and because he nicely summarized Shuttleworth's opinion. Rosenberg broke that story by exhuming it from lots of other content on Shuttleworth's very active blog. Without Rosenberg's blog highlighting of Shuttleworth's blog entry, we /. readers would not have noticed it. Shuttleworth posted his comment on 15 June 2007 [markshuttleworth.com], and a full day passed without that comment being noticed on /., which is a long time for a comment by the founder of a major GNU Linux distro to go unnoticed by /.

      Also, Rosenberg saved busy readers a bit of time by summarizing Shuttleworth's longer opinion. Shuttleworth clearly took the time to make sure that his comments were diplomatic and well-rounded, but the result is that his comments were not subject to the kind of quick-glance summary that many /. readers need.

      So, in summary, I felt that Rosenberg provided two important journalistic services, and that he deserved to get the attention and traffic for his good work.

      Aysa is critical of the decision to link to Roseberg's blog, but IMHO, Aysa's criticism is directed more toward his or her disdain for bloggers and evinces a bias toward big media. Aysa would have had no complaint if this same summary had appeared on say Newsforge. Notice that Aysa doesn't complain about the caliber of Rosenberg's summary or Rosenberg's editorial choice to discuss Shuttleworth's blog. Indeed, Aysa could not have made such complaints, because Rosenberg's summary is pithy and his choice to run a comment by news-making Shuttleworth was unimpeachable. Rosenberg's only "fault" was the fact that his work did not appear on Newsforge. IMHO, Aysa's criticism of the link to a blogger therefore lacks substance and shows a meritless disdain merely for Rosenberg's status. If journalism is good, it's good regardless of where it appears.
      • > Rosenberg broke that story by exhuming it from lots of other content on Shuttleworth's very active blog.
        I don't think that word means what you think it means? Shuttleworth "broke the story," Rosenberg "commented on his blog."

        > Shuttleworth clearly took the time to make sure that his comments were diplomatic and well-rounded
        So basically you're saying that these comments weren't good enough? They shouldn't be diplomatic or well-rounded, they should be blog-o-ready, bite-size soundbytes?

        We're heading t

  • Everyone kinda knew. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Howitzer86 (964585) on Saturday June 16 2007, @04:03PM (#19535253)
    Canonical is out of range of Microsoft's Patent arsenal. Mark is also a smart guy and knows what's really going on.

    I think everyone kinda knew this already, though it is nice to be sure.

    • Re:Everyone kinda knew. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rudlavibizon (948703) on Saturday June 16 2007, @04:18PM (#19535375)
      Also I get the impression that he's not in for making quick cash out of linux. It looks like he has long term plans, not just with linux as a platform, but with free software as a development/business model.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ushering05401 (1086795)
      Canonical is out of range, but Ubuntu is partnering with U.S. companies who are signing on to this patent protection B.S. Like Dell, for instance.

      I wonder what went on behind the scenes of Dell's decision to not allow a full range of support for the Ubuntu machines they are offering. I wonder what will go on behind the scenes of future Linux related decisions by distributors who are aligned on the other side of this issue.

      Regards.

      • Re:Everyone kinda knew. (Score:5, Informative)

        by RobertLTux (260313) <robert&laurencemartin,org> on Saturday June 16 2007, @04:51PM (#19535597) Homepage
        umm news flash most likely due to folks raising Holy Hell about it they have stated that they will in fact do the 4 year "CompleteCare" on linux systems
        (and i just checked and the option is back up) They said that somebody more or less fat fingered the data base (oops we sowii)
        • The point is that Linux seems to require people raising holy hell to get the treatment it merits. Now one of the most successful distros is lining up contrary to some of their biggest potential partners in America.

          I am glad they are standing up, I am worried about the results.

          Regards.

      • I wonder what went on behind the scenes of Dell's decision to not allow a full range of support for the Ubuntu machines they are offering.
        I would guess something like this:

        "So who's going to handle the calls we'll get about the Ubuntu systems?"

        "Well, there's Joe and Larry."

        "Anyone else?"

        "Nope."

        "Oh."
    • Not only that, think of the blowback from the community if Shuttleworth sealed such a deal.

      Ubuntu is still at a stage where a lot of the progress depends on hardwork of the True Believers of the community. Such a deal would kill their enthusiasm for Ubuntu because they say, "Look, Shuttleworth is just like the rest of the sell-outs." And then a fork would soon happen where lots of the movers/shakers migrate to.

    • Canonical is out of range of Microsoft's Patent arsenal.
      But no one is safe from their pervasive advertising [flickr.com]...
      • It bothers me too, but I've decided to think it's because at the time the decision was made, GNOME may have had some kind of advantage over KDE for the target market Mark had in mind, such as technophiles who fear power and elegance and just want something brutish that mostly works like their Windows does. It's not like KDE has had anything less than first-class support, it's just not the 'root' distribution. There could also be problems with KDE being based on Qt, but I highly doubt anyone really cares abo
        • Well, considering a lot of the complaints regarding Ubuntu I've read have all been GNOME-specific (e.g., clipboard issues, menus, Cancel/OK instead of OK/Cancel, lack of customisation, shitty (literally) default theme, etc.), I think they would have been better off with KDE as the default. At least Kubuntu is moving along quite well nowadays, although it still feels like it's more for experienced KDE users who want a Debian-based system with more actual KDE support.

  • source (Score:5, Informative)

    by wizardforce (1005805) on Saturday June 16 2007, @04:08PM (#19535299) Journal
    here is the source: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/125#comme nt-112738 [markshuttleworth.com] It is good to know Mark doesn't fold under bogus patent threats like novell/xandros/linspire did. keep up the good work Ubuntu :)

  • meanwhile at microsoft.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ozzie: bitch, shuttle wont land, seems to have enough fuel.
    steve: time to look at that french company.
  • ... um, that's really all I have to say.

  • Who? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ebcdic (39948)
    You might at least say who this guy is. We aren't all experts on the personnel of every Linux distribution.

    • Re:Who? (Score:4, Informative)

      by jeiler (1106393) <go...bugger...off@@@gmail...com> on Saturday June 16 2007, @04:55PM (#19535647) Journal
      Shuttleworth runs Canonical Ltd, the folks who sponsor U/Ku/Xu/Edubuntu.
      • Yes, I found that out with Google. The point is that writers should take account of the likely knowledge of their readers, and however well known Mark Shuttleworth is in some circles, the readership of Slashdot is much wider. If your readers have to look up the subject of the article, you've got it wrong.

    • Re:Who? (Score:5, Funny)

      by jez9999 (618189) on Saturday June 16 2007, @06:33PM (#19536245) Homepage Journal
      You might at least say who this guy is. We aren't all experts on the personnel of every Linux distribution.

      Please turn in your Slashdotter card, and exit the building. The hounds will be released in 5 minutes. :-)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ebcdic (39948)
        We may be geeks, but we're not all Linux-distribution geeks.
        • Well, if you're using firefox, double click to highlight the name and right click to select 'search google for "Mark Shuttleworth"'.
          Is that too advanced for you ? It even opens in a new tab.
          • There's nothing "up to date" with various reconfigurations of the same old (mostly GNU) software packages, nor is there anything technically interesting about them, either.

            One can be a geek and be interested in what the newest gadgets can do -and not know dick about software distributions.
            One can be a geek and be interested in BSD virtual memory managment -and not know dick about software distributions.
            One can be a geek and be interested in the latest innovations from APL -and not know dick about software d

  • Ramifications (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fishthegeek (943099) on Saturday June 16 2007, @04:54PM (#19535629) Journal
    I've often wondered if Shuttleworth would turn out to be some sort of 21st century Dr. Faustus and sign a deal with the devil. He is a business man after all and Canonical is a business. It's pleasing to hear that he will not be directly working with Microsoft, but one has to wonder whether or not Ubuntu's collaboration with Dell and Linspire (both of whom have signed on with MS) mean to Canonical. Is he saying this now because in some indirect way Ubuntu becomes indemnified by default? I'm not saying one way or the other, and I certainly am not questioning His commitment to FOSS but it is curious to watch this happen. What one of us here wouldn't give our little used left testicle to just be a fly on the wall of those patent extor... errr.. licensing meetings between MS and insert your own company here.

    • From what i have gathered by reading columns through the Internet (Internet!=true) is that Mr. Shuttleworth is okay with where he stands in life. He built a business that in turn was bought by Verisign which made him a lot of money. Using some of that money, he created Canonical as a framework for housing the Ubuntu development team.

      So does he need to cross license with Microsoft? No. Why bother? He doesn't need the money, his company is small in terms of staff and he set forth a goal which is not to compe

      • Debian are the people who renamed Firefox to Iceweasel due to trademark issues; there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that they'd do anything cooperative with Microsoft.
  • This is great. Hopefully the Linux community will now consolidate around Canonical and Red Hat -- already, two leaders who have done well by listening to what people want and simply delivering quality free software without any strings attached -- now, the two who are sane enough to avoid getting in bed with Microsoft.

    As the also-rans sign their lives away to the Beast of Redmond, their users will disappear. They will become irrelevant, because nobody wants to run Microsoft Linux. And the fragmentation of Linux will gradually go away as everyone consolidates around Ubuntu and Red Hat (and Red Hat respins such as CentOS).

    I'm looking forward to it.
    • >And the fragmentation of Linux will gradually go away ...

      "I wish that linux had but a single neck, that I might chain it" Caligula, by way of B. Gates
    • Hopefully the Linux community will now consolidate around Canonical and Red Hat

      Debian? Where would Canonical be without them?

  • Better link (Score:4, Informative)

    by IGnatius T Foobar (4328) on Saturday June 16 2007, @04:57PM (#19535663) Homepage Journal
    Here's a better link: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/127 [markshuttleworth.com] This one is a top-level entry in Shuttleworth's blog in which he states his position. The one TFA references is a comment attached to some other blog entry.

  • applause (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DaMattster (977781) on Saturday June 16 2007, @05:03PM (#19535695)
    Mr. Shuttleworth is to be applauded for not bending to Microsoft. Bending to Microsoft is capitulating to the FUD climate and ultimately does more harm to Linux than good. Interoperability is a good thing, but at what cost? Have software patents and measly threats turned us all into scared little rabbits? I am not much of a Linux fan, instead favoring BSD, but I have to give credit for Mark Shuttleworth challenging Microsoft to put its money where its mouth is. These thinly veiled threats by Microsoft represent nothing more than a company in the beginning of its death throes. Microsoft is loosing its ability to innovate. Open source may actually save Microsoft and its own executives see it as nothing more than a cancer. Once Samba releases version 4 [samba.org] and the Open Change Project [openchange.org] makes its first release, Microsoft will have a serious threat to its Active Directory and Exchange dominance. Face it, MS SQL server isn't as irreplaceable as Microsoft would have you think, Share Point Server is purely redundant, and Apache is the web server Howitzer. Microsoft has an excellent chance to open source its protocols, streamline its business model, and take advantage of all the free community development to work out the myriad of bugs and problems. Microsoft does not have the problem of market penetration so, by open sourcing its protocols and using its marketing machine, there is no serious threat to long term profitability. Conversely, its products would be made that much better.

  • Here it goes... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wellingj (1030460) on Saturday June 16 2007, @06:47PM (#19536335)
    Eben Moglen has stated that there is a Waterloo [cnn.com] to be fought some where in this current attack from Microsoft. I think this situation is more analogous to the American Revolutionary War because this is more about freedom. I believe Mark Shuttleworth has accomplished the equivalent of the Boston Tea party with his statements. In effect he's saying that he won't pay the Microsoft tax on his freedom, regardless of how insignificant or silly the medium of that tax. We all (should?) know what happened 2 years after the Tea Party :

    By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
    Their flag to April's breeze unfurled;
    Here once the embattled farmers stood;
    And fired the shot heard 'round the world.
    So who will it be?
    • Strikes me as a lot closer to the civil war. A lot of good developers, our brothers and sisters in the South and North, are going to get hurt in the process of fighting a war that neither side can actually "win" - resulting in one side that claims victory, but changes none of the behaviour that led to that war's existence in the first place.

      The civil war did not end slavery; Microsoft's licensing war will not end intellectual property practices.
  • Linux and free software as a whole represent a new business model. It's good to see one of the big players standing with the community. Most people say microsoft is just bluffing, but I'm not one of them. The reality is that open source software is pressuring the entire industry to change the way they do business. Microsoft will not change, and will not hesitate to remove any threat. I think this still comes back to novell saving their company with the community's product, but not being willing to hold
  • Thats a cool thing. I was hoping that it would happen because Ubuntu is so cool and don't actually need anything from microsoft to become better. Interoportability is just a lie in my opinion... Why would microsoft want to make windows more portable for linux while it isn't interoportable on previous version of windows... dx10 and dx9 games. Why would someone want to make windows work with linux when he can make linux work with linux?
    • Why would someone want to make windows work with linux when he can make linux work with linux?

      Because, for the time being, people are still using Microsoft. Linux is the unknown and therefore scary. If you can show Joe Sixpack that your Linux box and his Microsoft box can play well together, he becomes less scared of Linux. Then you show him the respective price tags and watch as he sees the light.
    • Linspire is based on Ubuntu... Not the other way around...
      So if anything the patent protection will flow to Ubuntu
      without Mark lifting a finger (assuming GPLv3 adoption that is)
      Then... Ubuntu is Debian based, and so on and so forth to the
      Linux Kernel. Maybe... I'm a bit fuzzy on GPLv3 so far... any one
      care to enlighten?
      • Wasn't Lindows around long before Ubuntu was? I thought Lindows was orignially based on pure Debian, then adding in the Wine software and some licensed codecs. When Microsoft jumped them and Linspire came about, there was a lot of reshuffling, but Linspire was still based on Debian, and Ubuntu was still being developed.

        Anyone care to correct me here?
    • Excellent adaptation of a most appropriate famous line!

      My hat's off to you, sir.

      I'm kinda surprised that there seems to be lack of recognition of this quote with this crowd...Hmmm?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.