Shuttleworth Says No Patent Deals With Microsoft

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.'

Stuff that matters?

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?

summaries help busy readers

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.

Everyone kinda knew.

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.

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:Everyone kinda knew.

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)

source

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 :)

Re:source

Indeed. Besides, the threats only affect those selling Linux. Microsoft can try and stop community Linux, but the backlash would be huge.

meanwhile at microsoft..

ozzie: bitch, shuttle wont land, seems to have enough fuel.
steve: time to look at that french company.

Hurray for Shuttleworth

... um, that's really all I have to say.

Who?

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

Re:Who?

Shuttleworth runs Canonical Ltd, the folks who sponsor U/Ku/Xu/Edubuntu.

Re:Who?

If your readers have to look up the subject of the article, you've got it wrong.

Because news should only ever be about things everyone already knows! Heaven forbid that you might learn something new.

Re:Who?

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. :-)

Ramifications

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.

Looking forward to the consolidation.

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.

Better link

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

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.

The real story is SJVN

Although it shouldn't come as any surprise, once again SJVN shows his true colors, trolling and misquoting - which is partly what prompted Mark to repeat himself more clearly.

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.

NUTS.

Signed,

Mark Shuttleworth

Here it goes...

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?

Digging the trenches

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 their ground with us. So here we are just like in pre 2000, except that we have more than redhat to add legitemacy, we have ubuntu.

Cool things

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?

Linspire

Considering the murderous rage:) GPL3/Stallman is showing towards these deals, it seems as though the FSF wants Linspire (and Novell and Xandros) to pay dearly. But what I'm wondering is, as Linspire has made these patent deals, what will it mean for Cannonical. Didn't Linspire and Cannonical make agreements? If their agreements are done legally (rather than Mark&Mike talking, I don't know too many details) will that mean that any GPL3 consequences about these deals could affect Cannonical through Linspire? I'm no lawyer, so I don't know. And could this end the two companies' relationship? We need to look at a broader picture, as Shuttleworth is a big guy in the business, and has both legal (to Linspire?) and political influence.

who next ??

Mandriva ?!

So Microsoft just buys Canonical instead

So what if Shuttleworth says he won't allow Canonical to parttake of the Microsoft plan. Microsoft will just buy him out. It's not as if Shuttleworth has a history of taking the moral high ground when an evil competitor comes offering cash for his equity.

Is it just me?

Typical other responses to the /. posting :

"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...

...to link direct to Shuttleworth's post on his blog [markshuttleworth.com]?