«

What better way to destroy Linux?

Buy a major distribution.
Offer patent immunity if you use this distribution.
Initiate legal action against other distributions.
Destroy competitors.
Control and manipulate other distributions through restrictive licensing.
Conquer the Linux market.

Who owns Linux? Microsoft. Game Over!

On Tue, 15 May 2007 21:06:16 +1200, Mickey Mouse wrote:

> What better way to destroy Linux?
>
> Buy a major distribution.
> Offer patent immunity if you use this distribution.
> Initiate legal action against other distributions.
> Destroy competitors.
> Control and manipulate other distributions through restrictive licensing.
> Conquer the Linux market.
>
> Who owns Linux? Microsoft. Game Over!

Oh. By the way.
The URL....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070515/...lGYsUAbRsh2.cA

On Tue, 15 May 2007 21:06:16 +1200, Mickey Mouse wrote:

> What better way to destroy Linux?
>
> Buy a major distribution.
> Offer patent immunity if you use this distribution.
> Initiate legal action against other distributions.
> Destroy competitors.
> Control and manipulate other distributions through restrictive licensing.
> Conquer the Linux market.
>
> Who owns Linux? Microsoft. Game Over!

Problem, a distribution is only a packaging. The code remains aloof.

Seems to me someone is having problems in understanding OSS.

Mickey Mouse wrote:
> What better way to destroy Linux?
> Buy a major distribution.
> Offer patent immunity if you use this distribution.
> Initiate legal action against other distributions.
> Destroy competitors.
> Control and manipulate other distributions through restrictive licensing.
> Conquer the Linux market.
>
> Who owns Linux? Microsoft. Game Over!

MS knows that OSS is a major threat. OSS offers much a better value
proposition, except where MS can exert their monopoly (such as through
captive hardware vendors and application developers). More and more users
are finding OSS is a viable alternative.
To stop the leakage of captive customers, Microsoft seeks to scare them into
submission. It used to be called FUD.

A couple of years back, it was that SCO scam. SCO made extravagant claims
about Linux having stolen their code, and initiated legal actions. Legal
actions are expensive, but SCO had plenty of cash (reports were that
millions were provided indirectly from Microsoft). This saga is still
limping on, the most conspicuous aspect being the total failure of SCO to
identify ANY example of stolen code.
This is just another example of Microsoft trying to scare people into using
their products.

If Microsoft's products were so good, why would they have to do this?
If someone actually has stolen some of their code, why doesn't Microsoft
speak up, ask them to cease and desist. And if they don't, take legal
action.


Peter

Peter wrote:
> If Microsoft's products were so good, why would they have to do this?
> If someone actually has stolen some of their code, why doesn't Microsoft
> speak up, ask them to cease and desist. And if they don't, take legal
> action.

As always, Groklaw has interesting comment and links.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...70513234519615
Paraphrasing the claim: "Our precious IP is worth beeelions, and you must
honor our sacred intellectual property, which is behind this curtain. We
can't exactly show you or identify it with specificity, but trust me, it's
worth oodles and boodles, and you are violating it. We just can't show you
precisely where and how. But we don't want to sue you, so we will let you
use Linux anyway, if you just sign on the dotted line and pay us for code
we didn't write but we'd like to tax because it's winning in the
marketplace and we don't know how to make money fair and square against
it."

----------------------------------------

On 15 May 2007 09:22:25 GMT, Gordon wrote:

> On Tue, 15 May 2007 21:06:16 +1200, Mickey Mouse wrote:
>
>> What better way to destroy Linux?
>>
>> Buy a major distribution.
>> Offer patent immunity if you use this distribution.
>> Initiate legal action against other distributions.
>> Destroy competitors.
>> Control and manipulate other distributions through restrictive licensing.
>> Conquer the Linux market.
>>
>> Who owns Linux? Microsoft. Game Over!
>
> Problem, a distribution is only a packaging. The code remains aloof.
>
> Seems to me someone is having problems in understanding OSS.

The key here IS the distribution, particularly when offering support
packages to corporates. Novell in bed with Microsoft (Suse), along with
patent immunity. The OSS environment may be harder to crack, but the
objective is the same.

On Tue, 15 May 2007 09:22:25 +0000, Gordon wrote:

> Seems to me someone is having problems in understanding OSS.

Shhh. Don't say that too loudly. Balmer might throw another chair.


--
Jonathan Walker

"You'll have to excuse me — I have a long
bath and a short dress to get into."

On Tue, 15 May 2007 22:24:29 +1200, Mickey Mouse wrote:

> The key here IS the distribution, particularly when offering support
> packages to corporates. Novell in bed with Microsoft (Suse), along with
> patent immunity. The OSS environment may be harder to crack, but the
> objective is the same.

Linux is not developed by Novell. It is developed by the Linux Foundation.

OpenOffice is not developed by Novell. It is developed by OpenOffice.org
and mostly funded by Sun Microsystems.

Samba is not developed by Novell. It is developed by the Samba team.

Novell does contribute to the development of those projects, but they are
not controlled by Novell, and neither are releases of those pieces of
software controlled by Novell (other than custom releases as a part of the
SuSE Linux distro.


--
Jonathan Walker

"You'll have to excuse me — I have a long
bath and a short dress to get into."

In message <>, Mickey Mouse wrote:

> What better way to destroy Linux?
>
> Buy a major distribution.
> Offer patent immunity if you use this distribution.
> Initiate legal action against other distributions.

Trouble is, there's a problem here. As a result of the deal with Novell,
Microsoft is now a distributor of software covered by the GPL. But, the GPL
<http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html> says (in section 7) that

If a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the
Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through
you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would
be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

In other words, if Microsoft tries to enforce its patents against
distributors of Linux and other GPL'd software, then it loses the right to
distribute such software itself.

The only way around this is for Microsoft to sue end-users directly. Since a
large proportion of those Linux users are also users of Microsoft products,
such lawsuits are inevitably going to leave a bad taste in their
mouths--put them right off buying Microsoft products. This will put a major
dent in Microsoft's business. Which is the last thing Microsoft needs right
now, with all its problems over Vista.

I see it as as huge compliment from Microsoft to open source software.

After rubbishing the Linux desktop for ages, Microsoft now has to admit
that Linux is making a dent in their profits. Hence the sable rattling.

Not a clever move: any publicity is bad publicity here.