spinynorman Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Jeremy Allison, who penned the majority of the Samba code, told Linux World that large IT customers have been paying Microsoft for patent licensing to cover their use of Linux, Samba and other free software projects. Summary at The Inquirer. Full interview at www.itworldcanada.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 As i mentioned a while ago discussing the Suse takeover.... MS has given up trying to fight Linux and OS head on.... Instead it relies on FUD and divinding the Linux community.... this article bears that out.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmpatrick Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Jeremy Allison, who penned the majority of the Samba code, told Linux World that large IT customers have been paying Microsoft for patent licensing to cover their use of Linux, Samba and other free software projects. I think what Mr. Allison actually said was: Yes, that’s true, actually. I mean I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using, which they then cannot redistribute. I think that would be the restriction. I would have to look quite carefully. So, essentially that’s not allowed. But they’re not telling anyone about it. They’re completely doing it off the record. So, essentially, he was relating a claim made by unidentified third parties re being threatened by MS. I would be very surprised if this was accurate. If we are talking about large publicly traded companies, these types of customers are not likely to be rolling their own. They would probably be using a vendor like RH/IBM and if threatened by MS they would go back to that vendor. IBM has the largest IT patent portfolio in the world and is not likely to run from a fight with MS; no one in their right mind would ever take IBM on in an IP fight, not even MS. Also, publicly traded companies have reporting requirements and threatened law suits are usually disclosed in their public filings. There may be something to the story, but Mr. Allison's characterization of the purported MS deal doesn't make a lot of sense from a business/legal perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 There may be something to the story, but Mr. Allison's characterization of the purported MS deal doesn't make a lot of sense from a business/legal perspective. I disagree, it makes complete sense if Microsoft are interested in spreading FUD.... Its pretty much the big corps who are threatened the easiest... and I agree with what you said that IBM has the largest IT patent portfolio in the world and is not likely to run from a fight with MS; no one in their right mind would ever take IBM on in an IP fight, not even MS. but not Also, publicly traded companies have reporting requirements and threatened law suits are usually disclosed in their public filings. This is the whole reason MS allows them to make under the table nominal payments.... They get a nominal "get out of court free card" .... and MS succeeds in splitting the linux user community.... It equally eats away inside the corporation..... Even though they are happy with Linux the corporate lawyers want to excerize caution... At a director level they have to balance a technical reason by the IT dept (presuming their IT dept actually wants to use Linux in the first place) vs the legal one from their lawyers. What it comes down to is corprate lawyers are generally risk averse to taking risk in areas which are not a key area for that company. An oil company will happily take risks over environmental issues or trading with a country they are not meant to because that is key business.... they are unlikely to want to deal with legal risks relating to non-key issues... so their attitude is likely to be if you can just pay it under the table then lets get clear and concentrate on whatever it does their corporation actually does.... A hard nosed director or president might ask the IT dept straight out... Ok we are saving money but can we cut off Microsoft tomorrow and continue .... From the technology we are talking about here which is compatibility software between Windows and the rest of the world then that answer is obviously no, otherwise they wouldn't need samba at all. IBM has a whole team of IP lawyers and enough in the bank over what MS has ripped off from them to ever be scared of an IP battle with but this is their core business. A broadcasting corp, car maker or most over companies in the Fortune 500 are less liekly to have this as CORE business.... Hence if you believe the purpose of MS is to divide the linux community then this is an effective way.... it means they can attack the companies using Linux without having to deal with the big guns... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.