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.
This conversation is getting a bit surreal. People arguing about whether we should trust Microsoft? Really?
I don't see why I should trust Microsoft even as far as I trust other gigantic corporations like Google, Amazon, Facebook or Coca Cola. Which is about as far as I can throw a hippo. There's just no chance of any of them ever putting the consumer before the investor or ideals before profit. Except maybe where forced to do so by governments.
In fact, I think it's extremely naïve to ever truly trust a public corporation. We buy their products knowing (and ignoring) that while they might be cheap, or even the only convenient option due to a market monopoly or whatever, they sure as hell don't deserve our trust for either of these reasons. They are not cheap because they want you to have an opportunity to enjoy their products, and they aren't the only option because nobody else wanted a slice of the cake. Ideally we should be able to trust the system(s) to keep the corporations in check and protect our rights, but we all know that these multinationals have more power than some nations.
But hey, capitalism—in the form it takes in the real world—depends on people going against their best interests. Otherwise none of these businesses would have had the opportunity to corner their respective markets as they did.
I don't see why I should trust Microsoft even as far as I trust other gigantic corporations like Google, Amazon, Facebook or Coca Cola. Which is about as far as I can throw a hippo. There's just no chance of any of them ever putting the consumer before the investor or ideals before profit. Except maybe where forced to do so by governments.
In fact, I think it's extremely naïve to ever truly trust a public corporation. We buy their products knowing (and ignoring) that while they might be cheap, or even the only convenient option due to a market monopoly or whatever, they sure as hell don't deserve our trust for either of these reasons. They are not cheap because they want you to have an opportunity to enjoy their products, and they aren't the only option because nobody else wanted a slice of the cake. Ideally we should be able to trust the system(s) to keep the corporations in check and protect our rights, but we all know that these multinationals have more power than some nations.
But hey, capitalism—in the form it takes in the real world—depends on people going against their best interests. Otherwise none of these businesses would have had the opportunity to corner their respective markets as they did.
6 Likes, Who?
I'll believe they've "changed" when they make all their new DirectX releases just thin open source wrappers around Vulkan and only support GPUs with open drivers. Now that would raise a lot of eyebrows. Mostly in Nvidia corner.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: tuubiThis conversation is getting a bit surreal. People arguing about whether we should trust Microsoft? Really?
I don't see why I should trust Microsoft even as far as I trust other gigantic corporations like Google, Amazon, Facebook or Coca Cola. Which is about as far as I can throw a hippo. There's just no chance of any of them ever putting the consumer before the investor or ideals before profit. Except maybe where forced to do so by governments.
In fact, I think it's extremely naïve to ever truly trust a public corporation. We buy their products knowing (and ignoring) that while they might be cheap, or even the only convenient option due to a market monopoly or whatever, they sure as hell don't deserve our trust for either of these reasons. They are not cheap because they want you to have an opportunity to enjoy their products, and they aren't the only option because nobody else wanted a slice of the cake. Ideally we should be able to trust the system(s) to keep the corporations in check and protect our rights, but we all know that these multinationals have more power than some nations.
But hey, capitalism—in the form it takes in the real world—depends on people going against their best interests. Otherwise none of these businesses would have had the opportunity to corner their respective markets as they did.
Trusting is indeed the wrong wording. I guess most people here, me including, are discussing if the relation between company and customer is more a win-win or more of a win-loose. Some companies want to earn a profit by somehow improving the situation of their customers in the broadest sense (win-win), other just want to earn a profit while solemnly cheating on their customers (win-loose). Most companies are somewhere in-between of that wide spectrum and some tend to shift a little bit in one direction or the other once in a while imho.
Last edited by jens on 12 October 2018 at 4:53 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: cprnI'll believe they've "changed" when they make all their new DirectX releases just thin open source wrappers around Vulkan and only support GPUs with open drivers. Now that would raise a lot of eyebrows. Mostly in Nvidia corner.
But just open sourcing their current(and future) DX versions wouldn't be enough? Even if they ported it to Linux? It has to be on top of Vulkan?
Last edited by Kristian on 13 October 2018 at 2:34 pm UTC
0 Likes
http://techrights.org/2018/10/10/lotnetwork-msft-and-now-oin/
A more in depth answer about what it is not a good news as it may seems superficially.
Basically, Microsoft still does tons of patent trolling, he does not have given to OIN the patent used on patent trolling and the move can be seen as a way to legitimate software patent.
A more in depth answer about what it is not a good news as it may seems superficially.
Basically, Microsoft still does tons of patent trolling, he does not have given to OIN the patent used on patent trolling and the move can be seen as a way to legitimate software patent.
0 Likes
Quoting: amataihttp://techrights.org/2018/10/10/lotnetwork-msft-and-now-oin/I'm never sure about techrights. Their basic position tends to agree with my prejudices, but the style is ranty and the articles always seem mostly to link to other techrights articles; generally it comes off too dodgy for me to trust even though it caters to me.
A more in depth answer about what it is not a good news as it may seems superficially.
Basically, Microsoft still does tons of patent trolling, he does not have given to OIN the patent used on patent trolling and the move can be seen as a way to legitimate software patent.
0 Likes
The style is ranty as hell, but I never saw them lying and even if they mostly source themselves, when they write their articles, the info used are everywhere on the news.
So I'm still cautious about them but no more than with mainstream newspaper from my country
So I'm still cautious about them but no more than with mainstream newspaper from my country
0 Likes
So I looked at the techrights article. It spends a whole lot of words saying little, and it's hard to tease out exactly what it's saying is bad about this. Frankly I think it's quite bad writing. But ultimately it seems to come down to a few things:
1. The OIN itself is problematic because it gets everyone to treat software patents like they're OK. I can see that point, but that isn't Microsoft's fault and I'm not going to consider Microsoft unusually bad just because they're not coming out backing software patent abolition.
2. Microsoft is holding back certain key patents, noticeably FAT-related ones. I'm not quite sure that's actually true, we've talked about the FAT issue, he seems to be relying on the same source, and what it says is not that Microsoft is holding back those patents but rather that relevant FAT-related code is not in the Linux kernel proper and so not protected by what OIN technically does. This again is not Microsoft's fault. If they are holding back those key patents, that is an issue. But it doesn't make all the other patents they are including in OIN irrelevant.
3. Microsoft have been systematically funneling patents to sort of deniably-affiliated patent trolls and siccing those patent trolls on its opponents rather than getting its own hands dirty, thus allowing it to have its propaganda cake and eat its enemies too. Joining the OIN makes no difference whatsoever to use of this tactic. This is a very important point if true, and would indeed make MS joining the OIN a worthless and deeply cynical move. I have seen techrights articles making this claim before. I've never seen anyone else discussing it, whether to agree or debunk it, so I'm not sure if it's true or not.
Side note . . . shouldn't all that FAT stuff be running out at some point? It's friggin' ancient! Have they been pulling those tricks like the pharma companies do where you tweak it a little and get a bunch of extra time?
1. The OIN itself is problematic because it gets everyone to treat software patents like they're OK. I can see that point, but that isn't Microsoft's fault and I'm not going to consider Microsoft unusually bad just because they're not coming out backing software patent abolition.
2. Microsoft is holding back certain key patents, noticeably FAT-related ones. I'm not quite sure that's actually true, we've talked about the FAT issue, he seems to be relying on the same source, and what it says is not that Microsoft is holding back those patents but rather that relevant FAT-related code is not in the Linux kernel proper and so not protected by what OIN technically does. This again is not Microsoft's fault. If they are holding back those key patents, that is an issue. But it doesn't make all the other patents they are including in OIN irrelevant.
3. Microsoft have been systematically funneling patents to sort of deniably-affiliated patent trolls and siccing those patent trolls on its opponents rather than getting its own hands dirty, thus allowing it to have its propaganda cake and eat its enemies too. Joining the OIN makes no difference whatsoever to use of this tactic. This is a very important point if true, and would indeed make MS joining the OIN a worthless and deeply cynical move. I have seen techrights articles making this claim before. I've never seen anyone else discussing it, whether to agree or debunk it, so I'm not sure if it's true or not.
Side note . . . shouldn't all that FAT stuff be running out at some point? It's friggin' ancient! Have they been pulling those tricks like the pharma companies do where you tweak it a little and get a bunch of extra time?
0 Likes
Quoting: Purple Library Guyshouldn't all that FAT stuff be running out at some point? It's friggin' ancient!
[url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT"]exFAT[/url] != FAT. Their patents are still effective for at least 10 years.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: DrMcCoyQuoting: Purple Library Guyshouldn't all that FAT stuff be running out at some point? It's friggin' ancient!
[url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT"]exFAT[/url] != FAT. Their patents are still effective for at least 10 years.
Quoting: DrMcCoyOh well.Quoting: Purple Library Guyshouldn't all that FAT stuff be running out at some point? It's friggin' ancient!
[url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT"]exFAT[/url] != FAT. Their patents are still effective for at least 10 years.
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me