Red Hat Hysteria: Aren't We Past The Point Of Being Surprised That 'Free' Is A Part Of The Business Model?

from the seriuosly? dept

As you have likely heard by now, a few days ago, IBM announced that it was purchasing Red Hat for $34 billion. I've seen a fair bit of hand-wringing over this buyout, but don't really feel that strongly one way or the other about it. It was nice having a giant company like Red Hat to point to in explaining how of course open source software could be a big business, but... that still exists within the confines of IBM.

There could be some concerns on the patent side, as Red Hat at least has long positioned itself as a fighter against patent trolls, though in practice the company has sometimes been a bit wishy washy on that, and some have accused the company of selling out its vision on patents in the past. Of course, since Red Hat is a founding member of the License On Transfer (LOT) network, that at least should prevent any of its existing patents from getting out to patent trolling entities. Still, IBM has, for decades, had the reputation of being a very aggressive patent litigator, and has at least some history of trolling and bad practices. But, IBM has long embraced open source, and its announcement pledges to uphold Red Hat's various other commitments towards open source and against patent trolling: "IBM and Red Hat will remain committed to the continued freedom of open source, via such efforts as Patent Promise, GPL Cooperation Commitment, the Open Invention Network and the LOT Network."

However, what struck me most about the deal was't so much the deal itself, but some of the coverage of it. I'll use Wired as the unfortunate example of the kind of coverage I find bizarre (especially for a publication like Wired). Here's how it opens:

IBM JUST SPENT $34 billion to buy a software company that gives away its primary product for free.

IBM Sunday said it would acquire Red Hat, best known for its Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system. Red Hat is an open source software company that gives away the source code for its core products. That means anyone can download them for free. And many do. Oracle even uses Red Hat’s source code for its own Oracle Linux product.

Spending billions to acquire an open source software company might seem strange.

Come on, Wired. It's 2018. Are we really still in an age where the idea that companies use "free" as part of their business model is somehow shocking or confusing to people? At this point, the idea that you can use free software to sell all sorts of other things, such as services, is pretty damn well established, and it's insulting to act like it's a huge shock that a business could possibly exist while giving away free software.

Just the fact that Red Hat has been so successful for so many years should have put the idea that "free" can't be a part of the business model to rest. Hell, IBM itself is another example of that, as it has invested heavily in open source software and made money by selling services as well. Perhaps Wired thinks very little of its readership, but to frame it as somehow surprising or confusing that a company that has open source software could somehow be worth so many billions of dollars is odd. Even more bizarre is to frame it as shocking that some other company needs to buy it out to validate that price. After all, Red Hat's market cap as a publicly traded company has been in the billions for years, and was approaching a similar valuation to IBM's buyout price around May and June before taking a hit on recent earnings.

Either way, there are potentially many interesting things to discuss concerning IBM purchasing Red Hat, from questions about the future of its products, to questions about cloud computing, open source, software services, patents and more. But... one thing that really isn't that interesting at this point in time is the fact that Red Hat built a business based on free software that it gave away. As we've said for over a decade, free never is the business model, but it absolutely can be part of any business model.

Filed Under: cloud computing, free, linux, mergers, open source, patents
Companies: ibm, red hat

A Decade After Trying To Block Open Source Patent Pool From Buying Its Patents, Microsoft Joins The Pool Entirely

from the times-change dept

Almost exactly a decade ago, for reasons I still don't quite understand, Microsoft invited me to sit down one-on-one with their then Deputy General Counsel for intellectual property, Horacio Gutierrez (who is now General Counsel at Spotify). It was, to say the least, a bizarre conversation in which he repeatedly tried to justify Microsoft's position on software patents, with us getting into a spirited debate over Microsoft's ridiculous FUD campaign about Linux. Suffice it to say, while the conversation was fun, we agreed on almost nothing. For a few years, Microsoft had been trotting out claims that Linux violated over 200 of its patents, and kept making these vague threats about it. It never named the patents in question. It never sued. It just kept obliquely warning that those who used Linux might somehow eventually face some patent infringement suits from Microsoft. Some might call this a patent chilling effect. Or FUD. Or a shakedown. No matter what you call it, I stand by the claim that it was despicable.

Partly in response to all this nonsense saber rattling by Microsoft, in 2005 a group of companies who relied heavily on Linux got together to create the Open Invention Network (OIN), which was designed as a giant patent pool, mainly to protect Linux. Basically, all the companies who join agree to license their patents freely for use in Linux (and Linux offshoots) to other members of the network. A large part of the reason for this was to allow various companies working on Linux to freely share patents among each other and protect them from Microsoft-style shakedowns. In 2009, OIN ended up buying a bunch of Microsoft patents for itself to help with its mission -- but here's part of what was amazing about that: Microsoft tried to block the sale, refusing to let OIN be a part of the bidding on those patents. Instead, OIN had to use a third party as a shell bidder so that Microsoft didn't know that OIN was trying to get those patents.

That's why the news last week that Microsoft had joined OIN and agreed to freely license all of its patents to every other member in the pool is so shocking. Microsoft's Erich Andersen, who now holds the role that Gutierrez held a decade ago, admitted quite frankly in his blog post about this decision that many will be surprised, but it represents a real "evolution" in the way Microsoft thinks about Linux. I would say that's an understatement.

We know Microsoft’s decision to join OIN may be viewed as surprising to some; it is no secret that there has been friction in the past between Microsoft and the open source community over the issue of patents. For others who have followed our evolution, we hope this announcement will be viewed as the next logical step for a company that is listening to customers and developers and is firmly committed to Linux and other open source programs.

Andersen notes that Microsoft has been making a number of moves along these lines lately, which is really good to see:

Joining OIN reflects Microsoft’s patent practice evolving in lock-step with the company’s views on Linux and open source more generally. We began this journey over two years ago through programs like Azure IP Advantage, which extended Microsoft’s indemnification pledge to open source software powering Azure services. We doubled down on this new approach when we stood with Red Hat and others to apply GPL v. 3 “cure” principles to GPL v. 2 code, and when we recently joined the LOT Network, an organization dedicated to addressing patent abuse by companies in the business of assertion.

I had missed that Microsoft also joined the LOT Network -- which is another creative attempt at stopping operating company patents from ending up with patent trolls (by enabling an automatic "license" should those patents be "transferred" to companies outside the network). This is another good step by Microsoft in rehabilitating some of the FUD and trolling activities that it had done in the past. Obviously, much of this is driven by the business realities of the the cloud market and Microsoft's relative position in these markets these days -- rather than some grand enlightenment about how abusive the company was with its patents in the past.

However, it should be recognized and applauded for what it is, which is an absolute step in the right direction. Maybe in another decade we'll be talking about how Microsoft is going even further and doing an Elon Musk style announcement that all its patents are available to anyone. Wouldn't that be something?

Filed Under: erich andersen, horacio gutierrez, linux, open source, patent pools, patents
Companies: microsoft, oin, open invention network

Judge Nixes PS3 Linux Class Action Settlement As Class's Lawyers Victimize The Class A Second Time

from the class-dismissed dept

We've made the point for several years now that the way class action lawsuits are handled in America is flawed in fundemental ways. What was supposed to be a method for enabling large groups of the aggrieved to pool resources against much larger and better-funded entities has instead devolved into a procedure that appears almost perfectly designed to enrich unscrupulous lawyers while the class itself gets a laughable percentage any monetary damages.

We get to see these flaws in practice yet again, this time in an update for the story that simply will not die: the legal action over Sony removing the PS3's ability to run Linux, which it advertised when the console launched. The class action suit had reached a proposed settlement, only to have the presiding judge nix it, essentially over concerns that the class was being victimized all over again, this time by its own lawyers.

The California judge presiding over the litigation is now killing the proposed settlement amid concerns the lawyers representing the class haven't explained why they should get $2.25 million for their legal services, especially considering that the deal has made it burdensome on gamers to get their cash. Of the gamers who tried to get their $55 refund, 25 percent have been rejected.

"The Court has concerns, based upon how the notice and claims process preceded, the results it produced, and the disproportionality of the attorneys’ fees versus the class recovery, that the settlement agreement is not fair, reasonable, and adequate."

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez separates her concerns into two categories: the cut taken by the class's lawyers and the burden on the class in attempting to collect on the settlement. For the question about the lawyers' fees, the numbers are pretty ridiculous. The maximum the class would be compensated under the settlement would be just over $600,000. For this award, the class's lawyers would be compensated $2.25 million. In submitting the settlement to the court, there was apparently no attempt to justify this fee, which is perhaps because any justification would be difficult to formulate for a case that the court notes never got further than discovery and a grand total of two motions before the court.

This lack of evidence is all the more concerning in light of the fact that the litigation here never progressed beyond a motion to dismiss and an appeal of that motion. While some discovery was apparently conducted, that discovery does not nearly approach the level that would have been required to take the case to class certification, or beyond. Without billing records or some more detailed explanation of the basis for the fee request, the Court is without sufficient information to determine whether the request is reasonable.

And then there are the hoops members of the class would have to jump through should they attempt to collect. The same lawyers happy to take four-times the money as the entire class had apparently agreed to settlement conditions including the following:

Here are some of the hoops that were required for both groups to get the refund: proof of purchase, a console serial number, and the Playstation Network Sign-in ID used with the Fat PS3 between November 1, 2006 and April 1, 2010. Class A members were also required to prove use of the Other OS functionality and a statement under the penalty of perjury that the Linux operating system was installed and used. Consumer Class B members had to provide a statement under the penalty of perjury that they knew about the Other OS functionality and relied upon the Other OS functionality in making the decision to purchase a Fat PS3, "and intended at the time of your purchase to use the Other OS functionality." There were also other hurdles, including forcing gamers to obtain a "temporary ID" from the settlement administrator that Sony would use to check against its own records to verify purchase of a Fat PS3.

So, claimants would have to provide all kinds of proof of all kinds of everything in order to collect on the settlement...and obtain a temporary ID so that Sony could verify much of that same information in its own records. If that seems like the settlement was designed to throw up as many annoying barriers as possible to collecting the maximum $55 per claim, it's likely because that's exactly what occurred. The court notes that this kind of circular runaround is likely to discourage claims.

Class action lawsuits: great in theory, brutally corrupt in practice. It's nice to see a court recognize this and look out for the public to keep them from being victimized all over again.

Filed Under: class action, lawyers, linux, ps3

Lenovo Accused Of Locking Linux Out Of Certain Laptops At Microsoft's Request

from the that-would-be-dumb dept

A thread on Reddit is getting a fair bit of attention today, claiming that Lenovo has set up some of its Yoga laptops to block anyone from installing Linux -- and a Lenovo representative then pointed the finger at Microsoft, saying that it's part of what Lenovo was required to do as part of the Microsoft "Signature Edition" Windows 10 program, though there are reasons to doubt this is true. What is clearly true is that there's a problem installing Linux on a bunch of Lenovo machines. Here's a giant thread on the problems (which apparently disappeared for a while, but is back as I write this). And here's another. And here's another. Some of these threads go back many months. But the issue that has suddenly made it big news is a comment supposedly from a Lenovo "product expert" that the company is forced to block it as a part of the Signature Edition program: If you haven't heard of the Windows "Signature Edition," it's a program from Microsoft to offer a "clean" (read: no annoying bloatware) version of Windows. Think of it like a Google Nexus phone with a clean Android install, as compared to one from a carrier or handset maker stuffed with annoying bloatware you'll never use. The Signature Edition PCs have received some fairly glowing reviews -- and many (ironically given this story today) of the news stories about the Signature Edition program use the Lenovo Superfish malware fiasco as a reason for why people should look at a Signature Edition computer if they want to run Windows.

So, yeah, based on this storyline so far, you have Microsoft making a clean install of its operating system without bloatware (good idea!), but then being accused of making Lenovo design its BIOS to block the installation of Linux (bad idea!). There is at least some reasonable skepticism that the problem here is really because of the Microsoft Signature Edition program. First of all, Signature Edition computers are supposed to only be available directly via Microsoft's stores -- and the laptop that kicked this off was purchased at Best Buy. Also it wasn't labeled as a Signature Edition PC. And it's certainly not unheard of for low level employees in forums to post incorrect information -- and there is even some question as to whether or not the "Lenovo Product Expert" in the forum post above is even a Lenovo employee or a third-party contractor anyway.

So whether Microsoft is truly to blame here is still an open question. At the very least, it does seem like Lenovo has some questions to answer -- and one hopes that the company will be more forthright and honest than it was back during the Superfish episode when it basically lied through its teeth until it couldn't lie any more.

Filed Under: bios, blocked, competition, linux, locked, secure boot, signature edition, windows
Companies: lenovo, microsoft

Another Day, Another Anomaly: Paramount Issues DMCA Takedown On Ubuntu Linux Torrent

from the but-stopping-copyright-infringement-is-easy? dept

The legacy copyright industries keep insisting that it's "easy" to recognize when something is infringing and thus it's "easy" to stop copyright infringement. They're very, very wrong on both counts for a variety of reasons. We could go into the details for why, but it's easier to just let them show us themselves. Not too long ago we wrote about Warner Bros. issuing DMCA takedown notices on its own sites (and also Amazon and IMDB links for its movies), and now TorrentFreak alerts us to Paramount issuing a DMCA takedown on a torrent of Ubuntu, the popular version of Linux that many people use all the time.

It's kind of a weird request, and it's not at all clear why it's included in this takedown notice, which is for a variety of movies. In the section on the movie Transformers: Age of Extinction, Paramount (filed by notoriously clueless IP Echelon), it includes a link to a torrent of an Ubuntu iso. So, once again, we have a major Hollywood entertainment entity -- which has been insisting for years that Google and others should "just know" when something is infringing and take it down and block all future infringements -- who can't even properly identify the content that it's claiming to hold the copyright over. And, again, copyright is context specific, meaning that the absolute best party to understand if there's infringement is the copyright holder, rather than some random third party. But in just a week or so, we've seen examples of how two of the biggest studios in Hollywood can't even figure out their own takedown notices properly. How can they possibly expect others to do so for them -- and why should we trust them when they ask for a "notice and staydown" system that will inevitably take down (and keep down) tons of non-infringing material?

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, false takedowns, linux, takedowns, torrents, ubuntu
Companies: paramount

Sony Settlement Gives PS3 Owners $9 After Company Made Console Less Useful Via Firmware Update

from the just-renting dept

We've noted countless times how in the modern computing era, you don't really own what you think you own. You don't really own the music or books that can arbitrarily disappear on your devices, and you no longer really own a wide variety of hardware that can be dramatically changed (often for the worse) via firmware update months or years after purchase. If you're extra lucky, you'll shell out $300 for a piece of hardware that one year later simply won't work at all. With intelligent automobiles and the rise of the internet-of-not-so-smart things, that's more true now than ever.

Case in point: back in 2010 we noted how Sony issued several firmware updates for its Playstation 3 gaming console that effectively made the console less useful. One specifically (PS3 software update 3.21) removed the console owner's ability to load alternative operating systems like Linux. But tinkerers being tinkerers, some users found ways to use the feature to expand the console's functionality in all kinds of creative ways. Fearing a loss of control and potential spike in piracy, Sony decided to make the console significantly less useful.

Sony was ultimately sued via class action for the decision. After six years of litigation, Sony has agreed to settle the dispute by doling out a whopping $9 to each console owner that bought a PS3 based on Sony's promises to provide "Other OS" functionality, and $55 to each PS3 user that managed to get Linux running on the console. Like most class actions it's the attorneys who'll reap the most benefits, Sony doling out $2.25 million in attorneys' fees for the lawyers who brought suit (though it's worth noting even this wouldn't be possible today thanks to TOS mouse print banning class actions and requiring binding arbitration).

Sony's lawyers at several points tried to claim that the update was "voluntary," refusing to acknowledge that users that refused to install the firmware couldn't actually use it for much of anything:

"...Sony said the update was voluntary. However, without updating, console owners couldn't connect to the PlayStation Network, play any games online, play any games or Blu-ray movies that required the new firmware, play any files kept on a media server, or download any future updates. Before the settlement, Sony argued that its terms of service allowed it to remove the Other OS feature and that the functionality wasn't that big of a deal for most console owners."

Part of the settlement requires that PS3 owners show "some proof of their use of the Other OS functionality" -- which after six years may not be all that easy for impacted users. While it's nice to see PS3 owners get a little something after six years of litigation, the overall trend in technology remains one where consumers can't tinker with the hardware they "own," can't be sure the hardware will adhere to day one marketing promises, have no guarantees that the gear will even work even one year down the line, and can't sue if what they own is intentionally downgraded or crippled by the manufacturer. Progress!

Filed Under: class action, firmware, linux, playstation 3, ps3, settlement
Companies: sony

Developer Issues Bogus Takedowns Against Cup Of Linux YouTube Channel In Retaliation For Being Banned For Abusive Behavior

from the IP-as-low-rent-thug dept

When you've run out of good ideas and constructive actions, there's always IP abuse. It's the perfect accomplice for all sorts of abusive behavior. Don't like someone using your own words against you? Just holler about copyright until the criticism goes away. Pissed off by a bad review? Fire off copyright claims on the footage used in the video.

Fair use and YouTube will never work in sync, mainly for logistical reasons. So it has become a go-to platform for IP abusers. Here's yet another story in which a legitimate YouTube account is a few steps closer to permanent death because a person decided to act vindictively, rather than responsibly.

The backstory: the Cup of Linux YouTube channel handles all things Linux, including coverage of distributions and how-to guides for new users. One Linux developer, Antoni Norman, is the main force behind the Pinguy OS Linux/Ubuntu hybrid. Over the years, he's been a valuable contributor to the Linux community, including the one centered around Cup of Linux. Also, over the years, Shawn Patrick Ryan ("Spatry") has covered Pinguy OS releases in a number of YouTube videos. So far, so good.

But things went bad. Here's Spatry's account of recent events (via email).

Pinguy was banned by moderators of my community at cupoflinux.com for several counts of misconduct while impaired. Pinguy is a great source of information and we have been more lenient with him than anyone else. I was going to consider lifting his ban after a 3 month period to send a strong message to him that we will not tolerate bad behavior from anyone. This act of acrimony makes his ban permanent and is treated as a "trademark troll" attack. The GNU general public license grants us the freedom to use GPL software in any way we see fit with the inclusion modifying, sharing and providing tutorials under FAIR USE.

An announcement at the Cup of Linux forums makes it a bit more explicit.

Users who require support for "P I N G U Y - O S" will need to direct their inquiries to their forum. The developer was justly banned from this community for multiple counts of bad behavior on our Mumble server.

In retaliation the developer of "P I N G U Y - O S" filed a trademark complaint against Cup of Linux for having promotional videos of that product. All developer posts have been removed from this board and all related materials have been purged from my YouTUBE channel. The forced removal of such videos do not hurt me personally but causes harm to community members who benefit from the tutorials.

Compiz videos tied to that series will be re-branded and re-released without "P I N G U Y - O S" logos or verbiage.

This is the notice Spatry received.

This has every appearance of being done for purely retaliatory reasons. This concern about his Pinguy trademarks didn't manifest itself until after he was banned from the Cup of Linux forums and server. Spatry has provided more evidence of the previously friendly relationship these two enjoyed, including Norman's appearance on videos produced by Cup of Linux, as well as his willingness to share his Pinguy OS logo with others for their own use.

In this thread, Norman praises Spatry for his How To video series featuring Pinguy OS and raises no objection to the sharing of a "Pinguy OS sticker" created by the Cup of Linux head.

This thread features both Spartry and Norman discussing a recent video featuring the Pinguy OS developer as a guest. Again, everything about the discussion is friendly. The only thing notable about it is Norman's assertion that he shouldn't have done the video "at 3am after 8 beers." Despite the abusive behavior leading to his banning being (apparently) alcohol-related, there's nothing in this discussion that indicates Norman crossed any lines during this recording session.

So, we have a friendly relationship that went south, due to Norman's problematic behavior when impaired. Norman had any number of options available to address this situation if he felt it was unfair. But rather than use any of those routes (appeal to moderators, wait out the suspension, address it at his own forum, etc.), he decided to jeopardize Cup of Linux's YouTube account by deliberately issuing bogus takedown demands.

As Spatry points out, the use of any Pinguy OS trademarks (and there's no evidence any of these are registered -- although ultimately that lack of official registration has little bearing on Norman's right to issue takedowns) was clearly fair use. The marks were used in the context of instructional videos and, apparently with Norman's full support prior to his banning. This is nothing more than Norman abusing tenuously-held "rights" to retaliate against Spatry for banning him.

YouTube has allowed Spatry to make changes in response to the requests and his channel doesn't seem to be threatened with a shutdown at this point. But that could change. The system is easily abused and Norman knows it. The amount of damage he can do is disproportionate to the actual "harm" he's experienced -- both by being banned and (especially) by having his suddenly beloved "trademarks" used in videos that were largely supportive of him and his OS.

Norman experienced no harm from Spatry's use of his trademarks. If he felt he had, he never mentioned it during the previous few years of interaction. It wasn't until he engaged in self-destructive behavior that he suddenly became interested in "protecting" his IP. Spatry is challenging the claims, but everything about the situation will be left up to YouTube's mostly automated processes. Context -- as well as fair use considerations -- won't be considered. No doubt Norman is aware how slanted the system is towards rightsholders. He knew he could hurt Spatry and his channel and suffer zero repercussions. The only damage he'll suffer is to his reputation.

This last avenue is the only route Spatry and Cup of Linux have available to them while YouTube sorts this out. While Spatry points out that Norman has been a useful contributor in the past, his current activity makes him any enemy of the same community he claims to be a part of.

As a community leader, I feel that I would be doing a major dis-service by keeping silent. If Antoni Norman wants to censor the community, maybe he should consider removing GPL licensing and applications from his operating system because this goes against everything the Free and Open software community stands for.

At this point, Spatry has removed an additional 29 23 videos from his channel in hopes of steering clear of further retaliatory actions -- above and beyond the six being disputed. That's 35 29 videos gone because of bogus trademark claims motivated by nothing more than vindictiveness. While we can all appreciate creators' desire to protect their creations, the solution isn't a system that can easily be exploited by petty individuals who have run out of good ideas.

Filed Under: antoni norman, cup of linux, fair use, ip, linux, pinguy linux, retaliation, spatry, takedowns, trademark, youtube
Companies: youtube

From 0 To 70 Computers With No Money And Open Source Software

from the when-'for-the-children'-actually-means-something dept

For today's children, an education is not complete unless it comes with some form of computer interaction. In order to become fully functioning adults, these kids need to learn basic computer skills. Unfortunately for many schools, this goal runs in opposition to slashed budgets and bureaucratic apathy. What is an educator to do when he realizes that the computers that kids need are not going to be part of any budget the school has to offer?

Thanks to I Love Ubuntu, we have at least one answer answer. Robert Litt, a 6th grade teacher from Alameda County, faced just such a predicament. He needed to provide his students with computers but had no money and little support from the administration. So he set about building the computer lab his students needed using donated computers and the Ubuntu Linux operating system.

Why go with Ubuntu over the much more common Windows? Cost.

Most of the computers’ problems could be fixed by wiping the disks and reinstalling the operating system—but buying new software for every donated computer would be prohibitively expensive. So Robert began to research more affordable options. An acquaintance at the Alameda County Computer Recyclers suggested he use a free operating system, such as GNU/Linux.

This is one of the key issues of those hit with budget constraints. Computers can be expensive and having a proprietary operating system such as Windows can add to the cost. By going the Linux route, Robert was able to stick to his $0 budget and still provide the neccesary computers for the students. His early success in bringing in 18 computers led to additional excitement from both students and staff. He was then able to expand the computer lab to 70 computers through these means.

This success in building a quality lab has expanded the ability of the teachers at the school to teach meaningful computer skills to the students.

“The digital divide is growing in a hidden statistic,” Robert says, “the actual teaching of technology in a meaningful way.” He shows students how to do math on spreadsheets, how to make simple websites, how to put together slide presentations, all on free software. These are the computer skills that, students tell him, they are later expected simply to know.

By going this route, Robert was party to keeping the cost of education down, something that many people are trying to accomplish. It also brings in a fresh approach to teaching in the digital age. By stepping outside of his comfort zone when it comes to computers, Robert was able to expand his skill set. He now has an opportunity to share that new knowledge and skill with the students and hopefully expand the way in which they interact with technology. Something these kids and and future kids will be doing far more frequently.

Filed Under: computers, labs, linux, open source, ubuntu

Microsoft Continues To Get Companies To Pay It For Non-Microsoft Software

from the this-is-not-a-good-thing dept

We've discussed in the past just how ridiculous it is that Microsoft has a "licensing program" for Android -- someone else's technology. And, of course, for many years, Microsoft has been running around insisting that Linux infringes on hundreds of its patents, though it gets pretty shy when asked to identify them. Every so often, Microsoft convinces some company to cough up some protection money for being Linux users -- though usually it's for companies selling Linux-based hardware.

Now Microsoft has convinced Amdocs to fork over some cash for running a Linux-based service. While (of course!) details are sparse, Microsoft made sure in the press release that it was clear that the license was for "Amdocs' use of Linux-based servers in its data centers."

This really does seem somewhat offensive. Microsoft is getting other companies to pay it for software that it had absolutely nothing to do with (and which many people use, in part, because it keeps them away from having to pay Microsoft).

Filed Under: fud, linux, patents
Companies: amdocs, microsoft

Wil Wheaton Reminds Us That Torrents Are Awesome, And Not Just For Pirated Movies

from the targeting-the-tool dept

The conflation of tools and technologies with the ways people use them is a big problem in the copyright debate. One of the many, many examples is the way the anti-piracy crowd treats "torrent" as a dirty word. Google endorsed this last year when they started dropping it from their search autocomplete results, and as Mike pointed out at the time, just imagine they had done the same with "mp3" a few years ago when that was supposedly synonymous with piracy. Defenders of this kind of filtering don't take such a forward-thinking stance, and their typical response in the torrent debate is to assert that the majority of BitTorrent traffic is likely infringing. Of course, that's not really the point: you don't look at the ratio of infringing use to legal use, but rather at the legal use by itself—if it's substantial and meaningful, then you have to go after the infringing users, not the technology as a whole.

Torrents have many legitimate uses. BitTorrent is simply a good protocol for sharing large files with large groups—they are perfect for films, video games, music and of course software. Linux distros are a commonly cited example, since they are always available by (perfectly legal) torrent, but this is often brushed off as if it's an excuse and torrents are not really necessary for this. Geek icon Wil Wheaton puts a bullet in this notion with a recent post on his blog, clearly demonstrating why he turned to BitTorrent for a copy of Ubuntu:

One of the things that drives me crazy is the belief in Hollywood that bittorrent exists solely for stealing things. Efforts to explain that this is not necessarily true are often met with hands clamped tightly over ears, accompanied by "I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA."

As an example of the usefulness of bittorrent for entirely legal purposes, I present the following comparitive images:

In case you can't see, the torrent is going about six times faster than a direct download, needing less than 10 minutes as compared to nearly 45. It's a simple example, but an effective one: P2P sharing is simply better sometimes. Google prides itself of directing people to the best possible information, but when their users start searching for the latest version of Ubuntu or the new Counting Crows album, they won't see autocomplete suggestions for this perfectly legal (and potentially superior) means of obtaining what they want. Seems like that runs directly counter to Google's mission. It may only be a minor annoyance, but it's also pointless, and it will only get worse as more and more people embrace torrents for legitimate distribution.

Filed Under: bittorrent, linux, wil wheaton