NEWS - Red Hat just become a giant hypocrite - Linux

This is a discussion on NEWS - Red Hat just become a giant hypocrite - Linux ; http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9965682-7.html Under the settlement, whose financial terms were not disclosed, all software distributed under Red Hat's brands and predecessor versions are covered, as well as Red Hat customers that use the software. The software protects derivative works, or combination products, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: NEWS - Red Hat just become a giant hypocrite

  1. NEWS - Red Hat just become a giant hypocrite



    http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9965682-7.html


    Under the settlement, whose financial terms were not disclosed, all software
    distributed under Red Hat's brands and predecessor versions are covered, as
    well as Red Hat customers that use the software. The software protects
    derivative works, or combination products, that use covered products from
    the patent claim.

    "Typically, when a company settles a patent lawsuit, it focuses on getting
    safety for itself," Rob Tiller, Red Hat's assistant general counsel of
    intellectual property, said in a statement. "But that was not enough for us;
    we wanted broad provisions that covered our customers."


    So Red Hat got protection for their commercial offering and for upstream
    developers as long as their work shows up in a Red Hat product but not other
    commercial products? Isn't this what Novell and Microsoft did? Didn't Red
    Hat spend extraordinary effort to paint Novell as the most evil thing ever
    to happen to Open Source for having done so? Am I missing something or,
    despite carefully crafted words to create the illusion otherwise, has Red
    Hat just become a giant hypocrite?





    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  2. Re: NEWS - Red Hat hasn't become a giant hypocrite

    Ezekiel wrote:
    > http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9965682-7.html
    >
    >
    > Under the settlement, whose financial terms were not disclosed, all software
    > distributed under Red Hat's brands and predecessor versions are covered, as
    > well as Red Hat customers that use the software. The software protects
    > derivative works, or combination products, that use covered products from
    > the patent claim.
    >
    > "Typically, when a company settles a patent lawsuit, it focuses on getting
    > safety for itself," Rob Tiller, Red Hat's assistant general counsel of
    > intellectual property, said in a statement. "But that was not enough for us;
    > we wanted broad provisions that covered our customers."
    >
    >


    The following is not a quote from the article, but a quoted comment:

    > So Red Hat got protection for their commercial offering and for upstream
    > developers as long as their work shows up in a Red Hat product but not other
    > commercial products? Isn't this what Novell and Microsoft did? Didn't Red
    > Hat spend extraordinary effort to paint Novell as the most evil thing ever
    > to happen to Open Source for having done so? Am I missing something or,
    > despite carefully crafted words to create the illusion otherwise, has Red
    > Hat just become a giant hypocrite?
    >
    >


    These are also quoted comments from the above url:

    I am continually amazed by the asinine patents companies manage to get
    through Patent and Trademark Office. Linking object-oriented software to
    relational databases is neither novel or non-obvious. I don't think the
    USPTO even reads the applications before they approve them


    I totally agree with a previous poster, this should never have been
    patentable on the first place. Copyrighted of course! It goes to show
    the lack of knowledge employed in the USPTO.

    The difference between these patent lawsuits and the Microsoft threats
    is that these are real, identifiable patents, which apparently those
    companies do own and such can be proven. Whereas, with the M$ threats
    there haven't been any patents specifically identified which RedHat or
    Linux or Open Source violates. Red Hat is showing that while they aren't
    going to bow down to threats, they are going to defend their customers
    and the open source community from real problems. I look at this and
    think "Hurray for Red Hat for defending the open source community."
    Especially since it appears that any fines/dues will be handled entirely
    by Red Hat so that their customers and the open source community may
    continue to use the products as though there were no litigation.



    Red Hat claims that the terms of the settlement will offer broad
    protection for upstream developers, downstream distributors and Red
    Hat's customers.

    "We wanted broad provisions that covered our customers, who place trust
    in us, and the open source community, whose considerable efforts benefit
    our business," said a statement from Red Hat's in-house lawyer Rob Tiller.


    In Red Hatís settlement, not only Red Hatís software and its upstream
    predecessor versions, but any downstream software, are protected from
    further patent suits. ďRed Hatís settlement satisfies the most stringent
    patent provisions in open source licenses, is consistent with the letter
    and spirit of all versions of the GPL and provides patent safety for
    developers, distributors and users of open-source software,Ē said
    Richard Fontana, Red Hatís open-source licensing and patent counsel, in
    a statement.
    Well, Ezekiel?

  3. Re: NEWS - Red Hat just become a giant hypocrite


    "Rick" wrote in message
    news:fOqdnTkvyadaEs_VnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@supernews.co m...
    > Ezekiel wrote:
    >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9965682-7.html
    >>
    >>
    >> Under the settlement, whose financial terms were not disclosed, all
    >> software distributed under Red Hat's brands and predecessor versions are
    >> covered, as well as Red Hat customers that use the software. The software
    >> protects derivative works, or combination products, that use covered
    >> products from the patent claim.
    >>
    >> "Typically, when a company settles a patent lawsuit, it focuses on
    >> getting safety for itself," Rob Tiller, Red Hat's assistant general
    >> counsel of intellectual property, said in a statement. "But that was not
    >> enough for us; we wanted broad provisions that covered our customers."
    >>
    >>

    >
    > The following is not a quote from the article, but a quoted comment:
    >
    >> So Red Hat got protection for their commercial offering and for upstream
    >> developers as long as their work shows up in a Red Hat product but not
    >> other commercial products? Isn't this what Novell and Microsoft did?
    >> Didn't Red Hat spend extraordinary effort to paint Novell as the most
    >> evil thing ever to happen to Open Source for having done so? Am I missing
    >> something or, despite carefully crafted words to create the illusion
    >> otherwise, has Red Hat just become a giant hypocrite?
    >>
    >>

    >
    > These are also quoted comments from the above url:
    >
    >
    > I am continually amazed by the asinine patents companies manage to get
    > through Patent and Trademark Office. Linking object-oriented software to
    > relational databases is neither novel or non-obvious. I don't think the
    > USPTO even reads the applications before they approve them
    >
    >
    > I totally agree with a previous poster, this should never have been
    > patentable on the first place. Copyrighted of course! It goes to show the
    > lack of knowledge employed in the USPTO.
    >
    > The difference between these patent lawsuits and the Microsoft threats is
    > that these are real, identifiable patents, which apparently those
    > companies do own and such can be proven. Whereas, with the M$ threats
    > there haven't been any patents specifically identified which RedHat or
    > Linux or Open Source violates. Red Hat is showing that while they aren't
    > going to bow down to threats, they are going to defend their customers and
    > the open source community from real problems. I look at this and think
    > "Hurray for Red Hat for defending the open source community." Especially
    > since it appears that any fines/dues will be handled entirely by Red Hat
    > so that their customers and the open source community may continue to use
    > the products as though there were no litigation.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Red Hat claims that the terms of the settlement will offer broad
    > protection for upstream developers, downstream distributors and Red Hat's
    > customers.
    >
    > "We wanted broad provisions that covered our customers, who place trust in
    > us, and the open source community, whose considerable efforts benefit our
    > business," said a statement from Red Hat's in-house lawyer Rob Tiller.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > In Red Hatís settlement, not only Red Hatís software and its upstream
    > predecessor versions, but any downstream software, are protected from
    > further patent suits. ďRed Hatís settlement satisfies the most stringent
    > patent provisions in open source licenses, is consistent with the letter
    > and spirit of all versions of the GPL and provides patent safety for
    > developers, distributors and users of open-source software,Ē said Richard
    > Fontana, Red Hatís open-source licensing and patent counsel, in a
    > statement.
    >
    >
    > Well, Ezekiel?


    Well what. Redhat has done the *exact* same thing that Novell and Xandros
    did. Except that when Novell opted for patent protection Redhat made a big
    stink out of it and claimed how this was terrible, wrong, evil and all sorts
    of things. Then a few months later Redhat turns around and does the exact
    same thing.

    There is no difference. Both Novell and Redhat are paying for patent
    protection for their customers.


    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  4. Re: NEWS - Red Hat just become a giant hypocrite

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:27:50 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Rick" wrote in message
    > news:fOqdnTkvyadaEs_VnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@supernews.co m...
    >> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9965682-7.html
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Under the settlement, whose financial terms were not disclosed, all
    >>> software distributed under Red Hat's brands and predecessor versions
    >>> are covered, as well as Red Hat customers that use the software. The
    >>> software protects derivative works, or combination products, that use
    >>> covered products from the patent claim.
    >>>
    >>> "Typically, when a company settles a patent lawsuit, it focuses on
    >>> getting safety for itself," Rob Tiller, Red Hat's assistant general
    >>> counsel of intellectual property, said in a statement. "But that was
    >>> not enough for us; we wanted broad provisions that covered our
    >>> customers."
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> The following is not a quote from the article, but a quoted comment:
    >>
    >>> So Red Hat got protection for their commercial offering and for
    >>> upstream developers as long as their work shows up in a Red Hat
    >>> product but not other commercial products? Isn't this what Novell and
    >>> Microsoft did? Didn't Red Hat spend extraordinary effort to paint
    >>> Novell as the most evil thing ever to happen to Open Source for having
    >>> done so? Am I missing something or, despite carefully crafted words to
    >>> create the illusion otherwise, has Red Hat just become a giant
    >>> hypocrite?
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> These are also quoted comments from the above url:
    >>
    >>
    >> I am continually amazed by the asinine patents companies manage to get
    >> through Patent and Trademark Office. Linking object-oriented software
    >> to relational databases is neither novel or non-obvious. I don't think
    >> the USPTO even reads the applications before they approve them
    >>
    >>
    >> I totally agree with a previous poster, this should never have been
    >> patentable on the first place. Copyrighted of course! It goes to show
    >> the lack of knowledge employed in the USPTO.
    >>
    >> The difference between these patent lawsuits and the Microsoft threats
    >> is that these are real, identifiable patents, which apparently those
    >> companies do own and such can be proven. Whereas, with the M$ threats
    >> there haven't been any patents specifically identified which RedHat or
    >> Linux or Open Source violates. Red Hat is showing that while they
    >> aren't going to bow down to threats, they are going to defend their
    >> customers and the open source community from real problems. I look at
    >> this and think "Hurray for Red Hat for defending the open source
    >> community." Especially since it appears that any fines/dues will be
    >> handled entirely by Red Hat so that their customers and the open source
    >> community may continue to use the products as though there were no
    >> litigation.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <http://www.itnews.com.au/News/78210,...ernate-patent-

    suits.aspx>
    >>
    >>
    >> Red Hat claims that the terms of the settlement will offer broad
    >> protection for upstream developers, downstream distributors and Red
    >> Hat's customers.
    >>
    >> "We wanted broad provisions that covered our customers, who place trust
    >> in us, and the open source community, whose considerable efforts
    >> benefit our business," said a statement from Red Hat's in-house lawyer
    >> Rob Tiller.
    >>
    >> <http://practical-tech.com/business/o...r-red-hat-one-

    big-legal-step-for-open-source/>
    >>
    >>
    >> In Red Hat's settlement, not only Red Hat's software and its upstream
    >> predecessor versions, but any downstream software, are protected from
    >> further patent suits. Red Hat's settlement satisfies the most
    >> stringent patent provisions in open source licenses, is consistent with
    >> the letter and spirit of all versions of the GPL and provides patent
    >> safety for developers, distributors and users of open-source software,
    >> said Richard Fontana, Red Hat's open-source licensing and patent
    >> counsel, in a statement.
    >>
    >>
    >> Well, Ezekiel?

    >
    > Well what. Redhat has done the *exact* same thing that Novell and
    > Xandros did. Except that when Novell opted for patent protection Redhat
    > made a big stink out of it and claimed how this was terrible, wrong,
    > evil and all sorts of things. Then a few months later Redhat turns
    > around and does the exact same thing.
    >
    > There is no difference. Both Novell and Redhat are paying for patent
    > protection for their customers.


    Paying? Doubtful. Red Hat's settlement seem to protect all downstream
    users, not just their customers.

    >
    >
    > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


    I don't care where you post from.


    --
    Rick

  5. Re: NEWS - Red Hat just become a giant hypocrite


    "Rick" wrote in message
    news:7K-dnVC_m7kBPs_VnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@supernews.com...
    > On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:27:50 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" wrote in message
    >> news:fOqdnTkvyadaEs_VnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@supernews.co m...
    >>> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9965682-7.html
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Under the settlement, whose financial terms were not disclosed, all
    >>>> software distributed under Red Hat's brands and predecessor versions
    >>>> are covered, as well as Red Hat customers that use the software. The
    >>>> software protects derivative works, or combination products, that use
    >>>> covered products from the patent claim.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Typically, when a company settles a patent lawsuit, it focuses on
    >>>> getting safety for itself," Rob Tiller, Red Hat's assistant general
    >>>> counsel of intellectual property, said in a statement. "But that was
    >>>> not enough for us; we wanted broad provisions that covered our
    >>>> customers."
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> The following is not a quote from the article, but a quoted comment:
    >>>
    >>>> So Red Hat got protection for their commercial offering and for
    >>>> upstream developers as long as their work shows up in a Red Hat
    >>>> product but not other commercial products? Isn't this what Novell and
    >>>> Microsoft did? Didn't Red Hat spend extraordinary effort to paint
    >>>> Novell as the most evil thing ever to happen to Open Source for having
    >>>> done so? Am I missing something or, despite carefully crafted words to
    >>>> create the illusion otherwise, has Red Hat just become a giant
    >>>> hypocrite?
    >>>>
    >>>>

    >>>
    >>> These are also quoted comments from the above url:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I am continually amazed by the asinine patents companies manage to get
    >>> through Patent and Trademark Office. Linking object-oriented software
    >>> to relational databases is neither novel or non-obvious. I don't think
    >>> the USPTO even reads the applications before they approve them
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I totally agree with a previous poster, this should never have been
    >>> patentable on the first place. Copyrighted of course! It goes to show
    >>> the lack of knowledge employed in the USPTO.
    >>>
    >>> The difference between these patent lawsuits and the Microsoft threats
    >>> is that these are real, identifiable patents, which apparently those
    >>> companies do own and such can be proven. Whereas, with the M$ threats
    >>> there haven't been any patents specifically identified which RedHat or
    >>> Linux or Open Source violates. Red Hat is showing that while they
    >>> aren't going to bow down to threats, they are going to defend their
    >>> customers and the open source community from real problems. I look at
    >>> this and think "Hurray for Red Hat for defending the open source
    >>> community." Especially since it appears that any fines/dues will be
    >>> handled entirely by Red Hat so that their customers and the open source
    >>> community may continue to use the products as though there were no
    >>> litigation.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> <http://www.itnews.com.au/News/78210,...ernate-patent-

    > suits.aspx>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Red Hat claims that the terms of the settlement will offer broad
    >>> protection for upstream developers, downstream distributors and Red
    >>> Hat's customers.
    >>>
    >>> "We wanted broad provisions that covered our customers, who place trust
    >>> in us, and the open source community, whose considerable efforts
    >>> benefit our business," said a statement from Red Hat's in-house lawyer
    >>> Rob Tiller.
    >>>
    >>> <http://practical-tech.com/business/o...r-red-hat-one-

    > big-legal-step-for-open-source/>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> In Red Hat's settlement, not only Red Hat's software and its upstream
    >>> predecessor versions, but any downstream software, are protected from
    >>> further patent suits. Red Hat's settlement satisfies the most
    >>> stringent patent provisions in open source licenses, is consistent with
    >>> the letter and spirit of all versions of the GPL and provides patent
    >>> safety for developers, distributors and users of open-source software,
    >>> said Richard Fontana, Red Hat's open-source licensing and patent
    >>> counsel, in a statement.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Well, Ezekiel?

    >>
    >> Well what. Redhat has done the *exact* same thing that Novell and
    >> Xandros did. Except that when Novell opted for patent protection Redhat
    >> made a big stink out of it and claimed how this was terrible, wrong,
    >> evil and all sorts of things. Then a few months later Redhat turns
    >> around and does the exact same thing.
    >>
    >> There is no difference. Both Novell and Redhat are paying for patent
    >> protection for their customers.

    >
    > Paying? Doubtful.


    Yes they are paying. Redhat is paying about $800,000 for patent protection.


    > Red Hat's settlement seem to protect all downstream
    > users, not just their customers.


    And Redhat is paying $800,000 for this patent protection. But earlier Redhat
    was whining that paying for patent protection is wrong. And now the
    hypocrites turn around and do the exact same thing.






    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  6. Re: NEWS - Red Hat just become a giant hypocrite

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:52:40 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Rick" wrote in message
    > news:7K-dnVC_m7kBPs_VnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@supernews.com...
    >> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:27:50 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" wrote in message
    >>> news:fOqdnTkvyadaEs_VnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@supernews.co m...
    >>>> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9965682-7.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Under the settlement, whose financial terms were not disclosed, all
    >>>>> software distributed under Red Hat's brands and predecessor versions
    >>>>> are covered, as well as Red Hat customers that use the software. The
    >>>>> software protects derivative works, or combination products, that
    >>>>> use covered products from the patent claim.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Typically, when a company settles a patent lawsuit, it focuses on
    >>>>> getting safety for itself," Rob Tiller, Red Hat's assistant general
    >>>>> counsel of intellectual property, said in a statement. "But that was
    >>>>> not enough for us; we wanted broad provisions that covered our
    >>>>> customers."
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> The following is not a quote from the article, but a quoted comment:
    >>>>
    >>>>> So Red Hat got protection for their commercial offering and for
    >>>>> upstream developers as long as their work shows up in a Red Hat
    >>>>> product but not other commercial products? Isn't this what Novell
    >>>>> and Microsoft did? Didn't Red Hat spend extraordinary effort to
    >>>>> paint Novell as the most evil thing ever to happen to Open Source
    >>>>> for having done so? Am I missing something or, despite carefully
    >>>>> crafted words to create the illusion otherwise, has Red Hat just
    >>>>> become a giant hypocrite?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>

    >>>>
    >>>> These are also quoted comments from the above url:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I am continually amazed by the asinine patents companies manage to
    >>>> get through Patent and Trademark Office. Linking object-oriented
    >>>> software to relational databases is neither novel or non-obvious. I
    >>>> don't think the USPTO even reads the applications before they approve
    >>>> them
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I totally agree with a previous poster, this should never have been
    >>>> patentable on the first place. Copyrighted of course! It goes to show
    >>>> the lack of knowledge employed in the USPTO.
    >>>>
    >>>> The difference between these patent lawsuits and the Microsoft
    >>>> threats is that these are real, identifiable patents, which
    >>>> apparently those companies do own and such can be proven. Whereas,
    >>>> with the M$ threats there haven't been any patents specifically
    >>>> identified which RedHat or Linux or Open Source violates. Red Hat is
    >>>> showing that while they aren't going to bow down to threats, they are
    >>>> going to defend their customers and the open source community from
    >>>> real problems. I look at this and think "Hurray for Red Hat for
    >>>> defending the open source community." Especially since it appears
    >>>> that any fines/dues will be handled entirely by Red Hat so that their
    >>>> customers and the open source community may continue to use the
    >>>> products as though there were no litigation.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://www.itnews.com.au/News/78210,...les-hibernate-

    patent-
    >> suits.aspx>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Red Hat claims that the terms of the settlement will offer broad
    >>>> protection for upstream developers, downstream distributors and Red
    >>>> Hat's customers.
    >>>>
    >>>> "We wanted broad provisions that covered our customers, who place
    >>>> trust in us, and the open source community, whose considerable
    >>>> efforts benefit our business," said a statement from Red Hat's
    >>>> in-house lawyer Rob Tiller.
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://practical-tech.com/business/o...t-for-red-hat-

    one-
    >> big-legal-step-for-open-source/>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> In Red Hat's settlement, not only Red Hat's software and its upstream
    >>>> predecessor versions, but any downstream software, are protected from
    >>>> further patent suits. Red Hat's settlement satisfies the most
    >>>> stringent patent provisions in open source licenses, is consistent
    >>>> with the letter and spirit of all versions of the GPL and provides
    >>>> patent safety for developers, distributors and users of open-source
    >>>> software, said Richard Fontana, Red Hat's open-source licensing and
    >>>> patent counsel, in a statement.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, Ezekiel?
    >>>
    >>> Well what. Redhat has done the *exact* same thing that Novell and
    >>> Xandros did. Except that when Novell opted for patent protection
    >>> Redhat made a big stink out of it and claimed how this was terrible,
    >>> wrong, evil and all sorts of things. Then a few months later Redhat
    >>> turns around and does the exact same thing.
    >>>
    >>> There is no difference. Both Novell and Redhat are paying for patent
    >>> protection for their customers.

    >>
    >> Paying? Doubtful.

    >
    > Yes they are paying. Redhat is paying about $800,000 for patent
    > protection.


    I have missed where that figure is documented. Where is it?

    >
    >
    >> Red Hat's settlement seem to protect all downstream users, not just
    >> their customers.

    >
    > And Redhat is paying $800,000 for this patent protection. But earlier
    > Redhat was whining that paying for patent protection is wrong. And now
    > the hypocrites turn around and do the exact same thing.
    >


    Red Hat's settlement protects the entire OSS community. Does Novel's
    agreements with Microsoft?





    --
    Rick

+ Reply to Thread