In a move that's going to raise a lot of eyebrows, Microsoft has joined the Open Invention Network to 'protect Linux and other important open source workloads from patent assertions'.
For those who haven't heard of the OIN, their mission statement is quite a simple and honourable one "The Open Invention Network is a shared defensive patent pool with the mission to protect Linux.". To find out more about the OIN see here.
Hold the phone, this isn't gaming news?
Correct. However, this is still very interesting and extremely surprising from a company that has been pretty hostile to Linux in the past. It's the kind of move that could result in some big shifts in the entire industry.
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.
Surprising is one word for it! Honestly, I'm in shock at this news. Does this mean we can firmly put the "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" phrase to rest and replace it with Embrace, extend, and protect? With Microsoft joining, they're bringing with them around 60,000 patents.
Moves like that, makes me seriously think about how Microsoft have changed, especially since their previous CEO Steve Ballmer called Linux "a cancer".
I think it also shows how far Linux has come as a platform for all things too, especially with Microsoft having a "Windows Subsystem for Linux" along with their support for running Linux on their Azure cloud computing platform.
What do you think to this?
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
All I know is that I slept a lot easier when Microsoft thought Linux was a "cancer."
1 Likes, Who?
Nevertheless Oct 11, 2018
Quoting: BeamboomI'm honestly surprised at many of the responses here. It looks like you haven't really been in touch with the IT world in at least ten years?
It's fair enough to be sceptical, I can totally relate to that, but over the last 5-6 years there's been significant policy changes in how Microsoft has approached open source in general and Linux in particular. So much so that it's made nonstop headlines in the IT press. Hence my surprise.
Their dedication is of a very wide nature and involves a lot of areas. Examples are aplenty: Linux version of Visual Studio Code (and a bloody good editor it is too) and MSSQL server, investment in time and money on the Linux Foundation, cooperation with both Canonical and Redhat on running their distros on Azure and Windows 10, change to supporting GIT over their own versioning system, I mean... I could go on and on. The list really is extensive. This is just how it is.
I'm an old man myself, and by God I tell you I've swore and cursed over their name many a times. I was there in the 90s and early 2000 when they did nothing but to inject and pollute every single open standard protocol on the whole god damn internet, shitty implementations where their friggin' trademark! Not to mention their CEOs and their attitude towards Linux.
But this is not the case today. Yes, they are a corporation and yes they have an agenda, but so do every other commercial company, also those who for a long time has proven to support Linux. Open source and corporations can coexist and benefit from each other - they have, for a very long time already. The Linux kernel would not have been what it is today had it not been for contributions from the big, commercial actors out there. Corporations have been depending on Linux for decades already - and Linux depend on them too.
There are no impenetrable walls between Linux and the corporate world, other than amongst evangelists and - yes I dare say it - fanatics.
It is only natural that Microsoft, maybe even a bit more than any other corporation, wants and needs a certain degree of control over everything they invest in. The more they depend on an investment, the more control they will want over it. So a strategic investment in Linux is not the problem, but what follows out of it is very uncertain...
I guess we have to watch their behaviour very closely, to get better views on their whole strategy. They might seem a lot friendlier than before, they might even release some free tools (that people can use to work on MS related things), but do they generally open up? Will they stop closing down gaming for example? We will have to see!
Last edited by Nevertheless on 11 October 2018 at 12:50 pm UTC
0 Likes
TheLinuxPleb Oct 11, 2018
Keep your friends close. Enemies even closer.
2 Likes, Who?
It looks like it includes their patents that affect Android and whatnot: https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/10/10/report-microsoft-making-patents-royalty-free-android-oems/
That means they will be losing a lot of revenue making this move. There's got to be something they are getting that's worth that dip. What is it?
That means they will be losing a lot of revenue making this move. There's got to be something they are getting that's worth that dip. What is it?
1 Likes, Who?
There seems to be some misconceptions about the OIN membership.
Being a member means you pledge not to sue other OIN members over patents you contribute to the OIN pool. Both Google and Oracle are members, for example...
What's protected from patent litigation is furthermore defined as the Linux System.
BTW you can join the OIN as a physical person with 0 patent at no cost *hint hint*
So the broad claim of "protect[ing] Linux and open source" is a tad misleading... As with any PR dept (especially microsoft's), read between the lines and scrutinize, folks.
Now, as cynical as I can be, I still applaud the move, but am left with the same nagging "what's in it for them" feeling.
For one thing, it means that microsoft still believes in the legitimacy of software patents.
Personally I see the OIN the same way I see WINE/Proton: a currently unfortunate necessity yet still a stop-gap until something better comes along, instead of some kind of be-all, end-all silver bullet.
Being a member means you pledge not to sue other OIN members over patents you contribute to the OIN pool. Both Google and Oracle are members, for example...
What's protected from patent litigation is furthermore defined as the Linux System.
BTW you can join the OIN as a physical person with 0 patent at no cost *hint hint*
So the broad claim of "protect[ing] Linux and open source" is a tad misleading... As with any PR dept (especially microsoft's), read between the lines and scrutinize, folks.
Now, as cynical as I can be, I still applaud the move, but am left with the same nagging "what's in it for them" feeling.
For one thing, it means that microsoft still believes in the legitimacy of software patents.
Personally I see the OIN the same way I see WINE/Proton: a currently unfortunate necessity yet still a stop-gap until something better comes along, instead of some kind of be-all, end-all silver bullet.
0 Likes
Quoting: BeamboomI'm honestly surprised at many of the responses here. It looks like you haven't really been in touch with the IT world in at least ten years?
It's fair enough to be sceptical, I can totally relate to that, but over the last 5-6 years there's been significant policy changes in how Microsoft has approached open source in general and Linux in particular. So much so that it's made nonstop headlines in the IT press. Hence my surprise.
Their dedication is of a very wide nature and involves a lot of areas. Examples are aplenty: Linux version of Visual Studio Code (and a bloody good editor it is too) and MSSQL server, investment in time and money on the Linux Foundation, cooperation with both Canonical and Redhat on running their distros on Azure and Windows 10, change to supporting GIT over their own versioning system, I mean... I could go on and on. The list really is extensive. This is just how it is.
I'm an old man myself, and by God I tell you I've swore and cursed over their name many a times. I was there in the 90s and early 2000 when they did nothing but to inject and pollute every single open standard protocol on the whole god damn internet, shitty implementations where their friggin' trademark! Not to mention their CEOs and their attitude towards Linux.
But this is not the case today. Yes, they are a corporation and yes they have an agenda, but so do every other commercial company, also those who for a long time has proven to support Linux. Open source and corporations can coexist and benefit from each other - they have, for a very long time already. The Linux kernel would not have been what it is today had it not been for contributions from the big, commercial actors out there. Corporations have been depending on Linux for decades already - and Linux depend on them too.
There are no impenetrable walls between Linux and the corporate world, other than amongst evangelists and - yes I dare say it - fanatics.
One question here is if this is really a policy change in Microsoft or if they are more or less forced to go this way to stay relevant in the Enterprise/Cloud environment where they want to grow. I hardly think that the their expectation was that the majority of instances on Azure should be Linux servers when they first launched the service, and the very fact that this is so probably scares them somewhat.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: F.UltraQuoting: BeamboomI'm honestly surprised at many of the responses here. It looks like you haven't really been in touch with the IT world in at least ten years?
It's fair enough to be sceptical, I can totally relate to that, but over the last 5-6 years there's been significant policy changes in how Microsoft has approached open source in general and Linux in particular. So much so that it's made nonstop headlines in the IT press. Hence my surprise.
Their dedication is of a very wide nature and involves a lot of areas. Examples are aplenty: Linux version of Visual Studio Code (and a bloody good editor it is too) and MSSQL server, investment in time and money on the Linux Foundation, cooperation with both Canonical and Redhat on running their distros on Azure and Windows 10, change to supporting GIT over their own versioning system, I mean... I could go on and on. The list really is extensive. This is just how it is.
I'm an old man myself, and by God I tell you I've swore and cursed over their name many a times. I was there in the 90s and early 2000 when they did nothing but to inject and pollute every single open standard protocol on the whole god damn internet, shitty implementations where their friggin' trademark! Not to mention their CEOs and their attitude towards Linux.
But this is not the case today. Yes, they are a corporation and yes they have an agenda, but so do every other commercial company, also those who for a long time has proven to support Linux. Open source and corporations can coexist and benefit from each other - they have, for a very long time already. The Linux kernel would not have been what it is today had it not been for contributions from the big, commercial actors out there. Corporations have been depending on Linux for decades already - and Linux depend on them too.
There are no impenetrable walls between Linux and the corporate world, other than amongst evangelists and - yes I dare say it - fanatics.
One question here is if this is really a policy change in Microsoft or if they are more or less forced to go this way to stay relevant in the Enterprise/Cloud environment where they want to grow. I hardly think that the their expectation was that the majority of instances on Azure should be Linux servers when they first launched the service, and the very fact that this is so probably scares them somewhat.
I guess both with a changing market and a different CEO as the driving forces.
0 Likes
Quoting: BeamboomTheir dedication is of a very wide nature and involves a lot of areas. Examples are aplenty: Linux version of Visual Studio Code (and a bloody good editor it is too) and MSSQL server, investment in time and money on the Linux Foundation, cooperation with both Canonical and Redhat on running their distros on Azure and Windows 10, change to supporting GIT over their own versioning system, I mean... I could go on and on. The list really is extensive. This is just how it is.
I have a question for you: how does that boot taste?
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: DrMcCoyIs everything OK with you?Quoting: BeamboomTheir dedication is of a very wide nature and involves a lot of areas. Examples are aplenty: Linux version of Visual Studio Code (and a bloody good editor it is too) and MSSQL server, investment in time and money on the Linux Foundation, cooperation with both Canonical and Redhat on running their distros on Azure and Windows 10, change to supporting GIT over their own versioning system, I mean... I could go on and on. The list really is extensive. This is just how it is.
I have a question for you: how does that boot taste?
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me