PDA

View Full Version : Can Linux be bought?



kthakore
November 10th, 2006, 06:43 AM
After hearing the microsoft and novell made a deal, I became both happy and a little alarmed. I remember when Bill Gates said that linux is not a treat, and now that they are making a deal with a major linux distributor, it seems we have become a threat. And I was thrilled, but than my microscft married brother, pointed out somethin, this is how a lot of microsoft takeovers occured. My question in the end is can Linux be "bought" and re-patented by microsoft? I know there is GPL licences but how does that work and how does it protect Linux developer's work and users.

mushroom
November 10th, 2006, 06:48 AM
Not easily. Buying Linux itself and re-licensing it would require contact with every single developer who's ever worked on the kernel and their consent to do so, and of course Linus would still never do it. Even if it were possible to buy it, it would just be forked into something else. Nothing to fear.

adam.tropics
November 10th, 2006, 07:49 AM
I am by no means an expert but it is an interesting, if alarmist notion. I mean really they wouldn't have to find a way to buy 'all'of it, just enough to make what's left impractible or un usable. So to re-write the question, perhaps it should be 'Does Linus have his price?'!!!

OffHand
November 10th, 2006, 08:04 AM
So to re-write the question, perhaps it should be 'Does Linus have his price?'!!!

No

mdsmedia
November 10th, 2006, 08:10 AM
No

LOL I thought that was going to be the first reply to the OP :)

podunk
November 10th, 2006, 08:14 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

deanlinkous
November 10th, 2006, 05:03 PM
Linus - YES (imo)
Linux - NO!
You cannot buy linux exclusively. What is GPL is ALWAYS GPL!

That being said they could buy a relicensed copy of it but that is also near impossible and some of the copyright holders would NEVER do that.

bastiegast
November 10th, 2006, 05:20 PM
Even if they could, why would they? They have theyre on nice software and they dont need linux. Maybe on the server market they would be able to take advantage but still that wouldnt affect projects like Ubuntu. But like already said it would still be near to impossible to relicense linux.

MaximB
November 10th, 2006, 05:28 PM
and remember Linux is the kernel.
GNU project leader stallman is working on other kernel HURD that will run instead of Linux and will work with GNU.
and stallman would NEVER sell the rights to the GNU and/or HURD.

woooee
November 10th, 2006, 05:32 PM
They would also have to buy the open version of BSD. If any of these people were only interested in money, they would be programming things in MS Windows as that's where the big money is.

DoctorMO
November 10th, 2006, 05:38 PM
The current liceince agreement does not permit the gpl parts of GNU/Linux to be stolen/bought it's just not posible even if Microsoft gets all the developers for the kernel to agree to a re-licience it would only effect that instance and not the instances already in GPL.

puppy
November 10th, 2006, 05:43 PM
Worth bearing in mind that Mr Gates must have an ulterior motive for cosying up to Novell - I'm sure if he could, he would extinguise the bright little flame that is Ubuntu, and all the other flickering little flames too and impose Windows on the entire planet. He is *not* a nice man, and he never does anything that doesn't ultimately profit Microsoft [-(

kthakore
November 10th, 2006, 05:43 PM
That takes a load of my mind! Thx guys!

deanlinkous
November 10th, 2006, 05:51 PM
Ahhhh the power of the GPL!

Felipe_U
November 10th, 2006, 05:53 PM
and remember Linux is the kernel.
GNU project leader stallman is working on other kernel HURD that will run instead of Linux and will work with GNU.
and stallman would NEVER sell the rights to the GNU and/or HURD.
I think HURD has been in development for more than 10 years, does anyone know when will it be stable enough for production machines?

On a different topic, what about Microsoft using Novell patents to sue linux developers for patent infringment? is that posible? Does linux incurs in paten infrigement?


The distributors of other versions of Linux cannot assure their customers that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement. "If a customer says, 'Look, do we have liability for the use of your patented work?' Essentially, If you're using non-SUSE Linux, then I'd say the answer is yes," Ballmer said.Can this happen? I took the quote from http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/from_freedom_to_slavery

dca
November 10th, 2006, 06:36 PM
GNU/Linux can't be bought, nor the people invloved... Linus, Stallman, etc... However, if you're a start-up that has created your own Linux distro and you've surrounded yourself by a bunch of geeks that you can sell support for that distro, those companies can be bought. That's one of the arguments, why stocks are so low when comparing RH or Novell to the likes of Oracle, M$, etc.

on a side note: I'd still like to d/l me a copy of that Oracle 'Unbreakable Linux' and see if I can break it....:D

kanem
November 10th, 2006, 07:28 PM
It's already been said distributed over a few folks' posts, but I though I'd make a simple example:

If I code and release an app under the GPL, as the owner of the code I can re-license it under a closed source license anytime I feel for whatever reason.

But that can't stop someone from taking the last version that was under the GPL and doing whatever they want with it (within the bounds of the GPL). At this point there's a fork, with the only difference being the different licenses that they're under.

I think Nero actually bought some GPL'd code and re-licensed it for their Linux burning software. Presumably they intended to make changes to it that they didn't want others to see. But the GPL'd version of the code lives on.

And we all know what happened when the XFree86 team decided to make their license not so free; we stopped using it. Some devs took the last version of it that was under a free license and turned that into XOrg.

So yeah, if each and every one of the Linux developers agreed to sell Linux to Microsoft, Microsoft could buy it and put it under a closed source license. But other developers would just take the last GPL'd version and continue working on that. The worst thing would be if Linus sold MS the Linux trademark since then we wouldn't be able to call what we use 'Linux'.

podunk
November 10th, 2006, 07:41 PM
I think everyone sort of missed a point here.

By Novel paying Microsoft to not be sued for the open stuff they support or offer service subscriptions to it sort of lends credence to any Microsoft claim in court that some piece of software infringes their patents.

If they chose to begin suing people they will use this argument in court.

How many Linux companies can afford to go toe to toe with Microsoft? How many end users can oppose Microsoft in court when MS claims the company has pirated their software? Not many Linux coders will keep writing code once Microsoft begins suing members of the community.

Remember what happened to Napster? Remember how quickly file sharing fell off once MS and the record companies began suing individuals?

DoctorMO
November 10th, 2006, 08:33 PM
Some people will stand up to bullies. I'd like to see the billion dollar company that stands up to me!

meng
November 10th, 2006, 08:40 PM
But doesn't SCO already own Linux?
*ducks*

Reshin
November 10th, 2006, 08:42 PM
I thought Gates wasn't responsible in anything microsoft anymore? Shouldn't blames go to that Steve Ballmer or whoevers it was that new CEO?

Aranel
November 10th, 2006, 08:50 PM
I think everyone sort of missed a point here.

By Novel paying Microsoft to not be sued for the open stuff they support or offer service subscriptions to it sort of lends credence to any Microsoft claim in court that some piece of software infringes their patents.

If they chose to begin suing people they will use this argument in court.

How many Linux companies can afford to go toe to toe with Microsoft? How many end users can oppose Microsoft in court when MS claims the company has pirated their software? Not many Linux coders will keep writing code once Microsoft begins suing members of the community.

Remember what happened to Napster? Remember how quickly file sharing fell off once MS and the record companies began suing individuals?

If that happens, history will only repeat itself. Remember what happened when AT&T sued BSD for supposedly pirating UNIX? And I think AT&T had a stronger case in that scenario than Microsoft would here.

kthakore
November 18th, 2006, 09:52 PM
My only fear is that M$ will make up some random claim and throw money at it until it sticks like say "wine is piracy". It has been done in the past.

bonzodog
November 18th, 2006, 10:44 PM
See, thats the thing with Open Source.
It's out there now.
It Just Exists.
You cannot stop the source code.
You cannot stop the GPL.
Linux is more of a living, viral creature.
Yes, the GPL IS Viral.
It was deliberately designed that way.

Linux is the ultimate hackers OS - it's so open that if you stop one section, a fork appears and the project continues. It's so secure that people can make their systems disappear on the internet.
I used to do this, with relative ease. I checked that the only response ANYONE would get from my machine was "There is a computer here, but its unidentifiable and has no ports open. Running in stealth mode."

You can maybe shutdown Novell, RedHat, even Canonical. You won't stop IBM. They have a vested interest in Open source to the tune of Billions of dollars. If M$ even *try* to sue someone, IBM will just get the lawyers out again.
Anyone care to see the gargantuan fight that will be MS vs Big Blue???
Not just that, but if need be, we CAN strip out anything potentially infringing on MS code - it would possibly mean stripping quite a lot of X apps, but the kernel and utilities and base libs would still be there. You have to remember that MS themselves borrowed a lot from UNIX in the late 80's and early 90's. X windows existed BEFORE Windows did.
Sorry, but you cannot shutdown linux. It is too widespread. There were 180+ plus known distros at the last count.

DoctorMO
November 18th, 2006, 11:14 PM
The only *code* we infringe is those stupid wmv codecs; everything else is open source or not microsofts.

stop making patent FUD look like copyright FUD they are so far apart it makes me quizy how easy you guys are confused.

Freddy
November 18th, 2006, 11:16 PM
I will buy it all....I wonder if 10 dollars is enough?!?

mo79
November 18th, 2006, 11:24 PM
Linux is the side effect of free software/open source first isn't it? I guess you can't buy something that's free; just illogical.

grte
November 19th, 2006, 01:08 AM
You can maybe shutdown Novell, RedHat, even Canonical. You won't stop IBM. They have a vested interest in Open source to the tune of Billions of dollars. If M$ even *try* to sue someone, IBM will just get the lawyers out again.
Anyone care to see the gargantuan fight that will be MS vs Big Blue???


Not to mention Google and Oracle. I doubt Google would be happy at the expense of having to change all their servers over to something else.

InsomniacUK
November 19th, 2006, 01:14 AM
After hearing the microsoft and novell made a deal, I became both happy and a little alarmed. I remember when Bill Gates said that linux is not a treat, and now that they are making a deal with a major linux distributor, it seems we have become a threat. And I was thrilled, but than my microscft married brother, pointed out somethin, this is how a lot of microsoft takeovers occured. My question in the end is can Linux be "bought" and re-patented by microsoft? I know there is GPL licences but how does that work and how does it protect Linux developer's work and users.

We've known Microsoft views Linux and OSS as a threat since the so-called Halloween Documents. The GPL ensures that Microsoft could never "buy" Linux as a whole. Even if they bought a leading distro lock, stock and barrel, any code they modified would have to be released back into the community anyway, so it wouldn't matter.

H4rm0ny
November 19th, 2006, 02:11 AM
Wow! What a lot of optimism. I guess that must be a side effect of using Ubuntu too much. ;)

But seriously, I don't think it's as secure as everyone here seems to believe. The GPL can't be revoked, but the software released under it can be stolen away by patent litigation. We haven't seen any moves of this kind yet, but then over here in Europe we still haven't given in to a US style patent system (it's been a hard fight, though). It's been said to me, and it sounds plausible, that real patent wars are being postponed until the EU has accepted software patents because the chance of getting them to accept them after a patent war are zero. So it hasn't become overt yet, but with the massive resources that Microsoft have, I don't believe they don't have lawsuits prepared if they choose to use them.

How much validity any legal challenges would have is open to debate, but if the prosecution is one of the World's largest corporations, then people are going to entertain the possibility it will win. And if there's a risk that Linux will be revoked or cost an unspecified licencing amount, or open you up to being sued, then these are things that many businesses are going to consider when it comes to either adopting Linux or becoming too dependent on it. Business likes certainty.

So I think the High Programmers of various OSS projects should be very guarded about what gets into their code at the moment, and the OSS community should do everything they can to get OSS software entrenched before it gets hard. If people thought Microsoft was vicious when it was a young and hungry company, that's nothing compared to how they'll be when they're old and dying.

Sorry everyone. But I read this thread and felt a real need to inject some dark foreboding. I honestly think there's going to be a big fight in our future.

az
November 19th, 2006, 02:30 AM
The original question was "can linux be bought?"

That is a good question.

The GPL is very simple. Free-libre software licencing is by-and-large very simple: It's free (as in software freedom) or it's not. However, many Microsoft employees continuously describe free-libre software licencing as difficult and complicated.

On the other side of the coin is this thread, where people are trying to apply intelectual property ideas to free-libre software.

Here is the key that makes it all make sense:

Linux (and other GPLed software applications) are not intellectual property. The rules that apply to IP do not apply to FLOSS. And vice versa, software freedom is not something that is easily reconciled by people who's business it is to sell IP.

So, most of the development of FLOSS is contingent on it remaining free (not someone's property). Most of the development of proprietary software is contingent on it remaining their property. That means that if a free-libre project becomes closed, it probably will die. As well, it is not an easy path for a proprietary application to go free (although there are a few examples)

Both models currently coexist in the marketplace. I suspect, though that the free-libre software model will begin to overwhelm the proprietary one. I think it is unavoidable; why pay for something when you can get it for less or for free?

An OS is a commodity: there is a choice between different OSes just like there is a choice between brands of orange juice.


But I am digressing...

Macintosh Sauce
November 19th, 2006, 04:16 AM
My personal take on this is that Microsoft is going to have a field day with Novell and its SuSE Linux distribution. MS is starting to threaten other Linux distributions to "fall in line." :rolleyes: SuSE is going to be in some serious trouble in the future for making a deal with the Devil.

TBOL3
November 19th, 2006, 05:34 AM
Microsoft won't be the downfall of Linux, the closing up of the internet will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rNg_FVaPek

Sunnz
November 19th, 2006, 06:42 AM
He is *not* a nice man, and he never does anything that doesn't ultimately profit Microsoft [-(

Actually, he IS a nice guy - he is donating large sums of money to Africa for Aids or something.

He is just a bad *** at business. But Ballmer is responsible nowadays at M$ anyway.

As for the original question... they don't have to buy Linux, it is already free!!! What Ballmer said about how companies can't use it is simply not true!!! They can build their own distribution, if they wanted to, without paying anything to Linux developers!!!

Re-licensing GNU/Linux is another story though - just look at how difficult would it be to change the Linux kernel from GPL2 to GPL3 (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=300379). And that's only a small incremental change within the same type of licence!!!

Polygon
November 19th, 2006, 06:49 AM
who cares if he donates money. he could easily be doing that to "improve" his image when he actually doesn't give a crap about what happens over there.

Sunnz
November 19th, 2006, 06:55 AM
Whatever you think his intention is, you still can't deny people are still benefiting from his money.

Maybe we don't like the way he does business; but there is no need to hate him so deeply that even he try to do something good, we twist it around to make it seem bad.

deanlinkous
November 19th, 2006, 07:01 AM
Plenty of people benefit from drug money also. :)

Frak
November 19th, 2006, 07:11 AM
Just remember, WE shouldn't be afraid of Microsoft...

Microsoft should be afraid of US!!!!
We hold the power over them,
We can outsmart them,
We could break every law,
and everyone would know it,8-)
Yet everyone would know nothing...:?:

deanlinkous
November 19th, 2006, 07:16 AM
yea but underground is soooooo 80ish :D

drFUNK
November 19th, 2006, 09:12 AM
Microsoft won't be the downfall of Linux, the closing up of the internet will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rNg_FVaPek

So true. That video has me deeply concerned about the future of the internet in my country.

EDIT: Here's the second draft of the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQUvhw6s1ck

shining
November 19th, 2006, 12:57 PM
Actually, he IS a nice guy - he is donating large sums of money to Africa for Aids or something.

He is just a bad *** at business. But Ballmer is responsible nowadays at M$ anyway.


Bill Gates is a very good guy at business, which makes him an evil guy.
And he's stealing money from the whole word, then he's donating a tiny part of it, and it's enough to make him look as a good guy from many people.
What a laugh.

H4rm0ny
November 19th, 2006, 01:35 PM
Bill Gates is a very good guy at business, which makes him an evil guy.
And he's stealing money from the whole word, then he's donating a tiny part of it, and it's enough to make him look as a good guy from many people.
What a laugh.

Oh please. What's with all the good guys and bad guys world view? I've not met Bill Gates. I'd be surprised to learn you have. But I bet he's just as complex as anyone else. He can be sincere in wanting to help AIDs victims just like you or I can. Come on, you'd have to be a monster not to want to help. That doesn't mean that in a different area of life - Linux as far as we're concerned - he can't be massively destructive. And what's more he can be massively destructive while still considering himself to be in the right. Hey - Microsoft is protecting the years of work and livelihoods of millions of employees. What's more, he's helping keep the USA strong. If people like us succeed in reducing software to a mere commodity, putting out of business company after company, then where does that leave not only domestic business but the US's sales to other countries?

You see - everyone is a "good guy" within their frame of reference. The only moral duty we have is to expand that frame of reference to encompass more people. You may not like it, but Bill Gates, through the donation of millions of dollars of aid, has saved more lives than you ever have. So quit using obsolete terms like evil. It means nothing. If you say he subscribes to an obsolete business model that is holding back society, then you convey information and that's good. But "evil" says more about your mindset than his.

frup
November 19th, 2006, 01:42 PM
I would become a linux jihadist in the fight against microsoft if they EVER started trying to take linux users to court. I will not let them destroy something that i value very much.

az
November 19th, 2006, 02:24 PM
I would become a linux jihadist in the fight against microsoft if they EVER started trying to take linux users to court. I will not let them destroy something that i value very much.

It's not about individual users. It's about commercial uses of free-libre software.

So, no, you can't break every law and not get caught - Linux is a major force in the the IT world. Many companies make lots of money deploying and supporting linux. They contribute back a significant portion of the work that goes into the ecosystem; and that can end up benefiting desktop users as well.

So what would you do if MS leveraged it's patents and lowered the incentive for companies to use free-libre software? Make a bomb?

Sunnz
November 19th, 2006, 04:09 PM
Oh please. What's with all the good guys and bad guys world view? I've not met Bill Gates. I'd be surprised to learn you have. But I bet he's just as complex as anyone else. He can be sincere in wanting to help AIDs victims just like you or I can. Come on, you'd have to be a monster not to want to help. That doesn't mean that in a different area of life - Linux as far as we're concerned - he can't be massively destructive. And what's more he can be massively destructive while still considering himself to be in the right. Hey - Microsoft is protecting the years of work and livelihoods of millions of employees. What's more, he's helping keep the USA strong. If people like us succeed in reducing software to a mere commodity, putting out of business company after company, then where does that leave not only domestic business but the US's sales to other countries?

You see - everyone is a "good guy" within their frame of reference. The only moral duty we have is to expand that frame of reference to encompass more people. You may not like it, but Bill Gates, through the donation of millions of dollars of aid, has saved more lives than you ever have. So quit using obsolete terms like evil. It means nothing. If you say he subscribes to an obsolete business model that is holding back society, then you convey information and that's good. But "evil" says more about your mindset than his.
Finally some rational thoughts, instead of blind faith, kudos for that!!!

56phil
November 19th, 2006, 05:53 PM
Novell is toast. Linux will continue to thrive.

apjone
November 19th, 2006, 06:08 PM
Dosen't M$ infringe on un*x ip? And if he wont tell us what part of windows linux infringes than he can't take it to court

sanderella
November 19th, 2006, 07:37 PM
post deleted