Slashdot Log In
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.
from the one-domino-not-falling dept.
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.'
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.
Shuttleworth Says No Patent Deals With Microsoft
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 121 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Stuff that matters? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
summaries help busy readers (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.digitaltippingpoint.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 09, @09:25PM)
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
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.
Everyone kinda knew. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think everyone kinda knew this already, though it is nice to be sure.
Re:Everyone kinda knew. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Everyone kinda knew. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.laurencemartin.org/)
(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)
source (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Saturday August 25, @03:49PM)
Re:source (Score:5, Interesting)
meanwhile at microsoft.. (Score:2, Funny)
steve: time to look at that french company.
Hurray for Shuttleworth (Score:2)
Who? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because news should only ever be about things everyone already knows! Heaven forbid that you might learn something new.
Re:Who? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.game-point.net/ | Last Journal: Monday November 14 2005, @09:19AM)
Please turn in your Slashdotter card, and exit the building. The hounds will be released in 5 minutes.
Ramifications (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday October 15, @07:06PM)
Looking forward to the consolidation. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://uncensored.citadel.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday November 23 2003, @03:10PM)
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.
Better link (Score:4, Informative)
(http://uncensored.citadel.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday November 23 2003, @03:10PM)
applause (Score:3, Interesting)
The real story is SJVN (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5160975921.html [linux-watch.com]
Once again, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols proves that he is a Microsoft shill who should be forever ignored by intelligent, thinking people.
Dear Ballmer. (Score:1)
NUTS.
Signed,
Mark Shuttleworth
Here it goes... (Score:5, Insightful)
So who will it be?
Digging the trenches (Score:2, Insightful)
Cool things (Score:2, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday June 11, @03:59PM)
Linspire (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Tuesday February 27 2007, @09:35PM)
who next ?? (Score:1)
(http://codermaniac.com/)
So Microsoft just buys Canonical instead (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Wednesday November 17 2004, @01:00AM)
Is it just me? (Score:1)
"Mr. Shuttleworth is to be applauded for not bending to Microsoft."
"It's pleasing to hear that he will not be directly working with Microsoft"
"Dear Ballmer. NUTS. Signed, Mark Shuttleworth"
Ok, so Shuttleworth hasn't taken MS's shilling on the patent issue: but he hasn't exactly given a "Nuts" reply either, and has most certainly not discounted directly working with MS, quite the opposite.
From Shuttleworth's blog:
1/ "We have declined to discuss any agreement with Microsoft under the threat of unspecified patent infringements,"
2/ "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. A promise by Microsoft not to sue for infringement of unspecified patents has no value at all and is not worth paying for."
3/ "I have no objections to working with Microsoft in ways that further the cause of free software," "and I don't rule out any collaboration with them, in the event that they adopt a position of constructive engagement with the free software community."
I read this as :
1/ "We *have* been approached Microsoft, who insisted on the patent clause as part of the deal" .
2/ "Just in case MS thinks that our refusal is just us stalling for a higher price, let me make it clear: pull the other one, guys, it's got bells on it. *Any* price you offer will not reimburse the value lost to us if we publically state that MS has IP in Linux OS".
3/ "If MS really *are* for real on the question of interoperability, then we're still listening.
Shuttleworth is refusing to capitulate on the patent issue, because if he does he signs away the value of his company. He calls MS' bluff by implying that Canonical would insist on opening the relevant interoperability source, but says it in a way that if MS are for real, then no-one's lost face and negotiations can proceed.
My estimation of Mr Shuttleworth's business acumen just shot up.
Cheers,
C
Is it really so hard... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://carroll.org.uk/ | Last Journal: Saturday December 09 2006, @05:16PM)