Microsoft, Red Hat to interoperate patent-free
For years, Microsoft has insisted that open-source vendors acknowledge that its patent portfolio is a precursor to interoperability discussions. On Monday, Microsoft shed that charade and announced an interoperability alliance with Red Hat for virtualization.
The deal includes several key components, all related to virtualization:
- Red Hat will validate Windows Server guests to be supported on Red Hat Enterprise virtualization technologies.
- Microsoft will validate Red Hat Enterprise Linux server guests to be supported on Windows Server Hyper-V and Microsoft Hyper-V Server.
- Once each company completes testing, customers with valid support agreements will receive coordinated technical support for running Windows Server operating systems virtualized on Red Hat Enterprise virtualization, and for running Red Hat Enterprise Linux virtualized on Windows Server Hyper-V and Microsoft Hyper-V Server.
Pretty straightforward, as interoperability should be, and driven by customer demand for Microsoft technologies running alongside Red Hat's, according to Mike Neil, general manager of Virtualization Strategy at Microsoft. The top Linux vendor partnered with Microsoft: this is a major win for customers.
Crucially, Red Hat's interoperability deal with Microsoft does not include any patent covenants, the ingredient that torpedoed Novell with the open-source community:
The agreements establish coordinated technical support for Microsoft and Red Hat's mutual customers using server virtualization, and the activities included in these agreements do not require the sharing of IP. Therefore, the agreements do not include any patent or open source licensing rights, and additionally contain no financial clauses, other than industry-standard certification/validation testing fees.
Red Hat has long argued that patent discussions only cloud true interoperability, which is best managed through open source and open standards.
While Red Hat has flirted with such interoperability before by joining with Microsoft in the somewhat toothless Vendor Interop Alliance, this is its first direct interoperability initiative with Microsoft.
What most people don't know is that Red Hat had been discussing interoperability initiatives with Microsoft for a year before Novell and Microsoft tied the knot, but Microsoft ultimately derailed the talks by trying to introduce a covenant not to sue over patents, similar to what it ended up negotiating with Novell. Red Hat rejected this unnecessary inclusion, left the bargaining table, and Microsoft connected with Novell to use interoperability as an excuse to attack open source.
Monday, Red Hat and Microsoft have together demonstrated that interoperability can exist independent of back-room dealings over patents. Microsoft has increasingly been forced to open its stance on patents by the European Commission, anyway, proving Red Hat's resolute stance against patents was the right one. But this announcement suggests that Microsoft is maturing in its views on how to interact with open-source vendors.
It also suggests that Red Hat is maturing in its realization that it must interoperate with the old world of proprietary software even as it attempts to forge a new one of open-source software. Red Hat has long depended upon proprietary software: Red Hat Enterprise Linux's success has derived from its support for Oracle and other proprietary vendors.
Both Red Hat and Microsoft on Monday lowered their guns long enough for customers to win. They did so without encumbering interoperability with patents, which will be critical to ensuring that Microsoft can lower its guard further to welcoming open-source solutions to the Windows fold as a full partner.
Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
I welcome RedHat's involvement in the Russian Operating System initiative. Only market pressure or governmental intervention is able to restore competition in the operating system market.
The world knows that the Russian Space Federation depends on the IBM's OS/2 Warp Operating System to launch their Space Vehicles.... So, why on earth should the Russians now switch to to Tuxedo Clad Birds (Linux Systems). Maybe, just maybe these are some of the reasons why the Luxury stores in Russia are closing their doors - the adoption of the Linux Business Model with "Developers" Working For Free" and not money to pay their bills much less to shop for luxury items.
Read behind the "Communist-Socialist Operating System initiative" lines.
Long Live OS/2 Warp!
Live Long And Prosper!
Ha ha ha ha OS2 Wart.
It will never take off, but I give you credit for being it's number 1 fan and no 2, 3, and so on, because you are the only fan.
Soooo.............. much for - Freedom Of Speech!!!
Buy International! Buy OS/2!
Why work for "Free" (and, one cannot deliver) when you cannot put food on the family's table, pay for utilities and medical bills, pay for college fees for your children; and, most important - keep a roof over your head!
Long Live OS/2!
Explain yourself, Commander Spock! One too many glasses of Klingon blood wine?
Work for free.
Community work can save money and lots of people make money from Open Source.
In addition, a proprietary OS cannot compete with an Open Source one unless it already has significant momentum and programs running on it. If Windows and Linux both supported the same programs, then Linux would have a significant cost advantage which would win many customers, but OS/2 Wart has little reason for it's existence now. It is neither Open Source or compatible with programs. It is more likely to be used in smaller invisible markets like ATM machines, and kiosks.
How can this be so "alegr" when all of the $700,000,000,000 (with more to come from the Stimulus Package) went to the banks (that chose 90% Windows (Code-Base OS/2) over Linux.
Why on God's Greening Earth are you missing the 90% (Code-Base OS/2) Plus point!!!
So, with whatever you are having (?????) against that which Commander_Spock and Crew are having (?????) - you can have whatever you like.
Very, very simple to explain - Buy Americas!
http://www.iadb.org
"Financial and Economic Crises...." What Financial and Economic Crises????
I don't see how either side lowered the guns. Both's customers are as open to IP problems as they were before. By choosing to support interoperability, neither side did anything to lower customer or their own risk from patent issues. Arguably Red Hat has little to hold over Microsoft anyway so this was a no brainer for Microsoft. Go after Red Hat workload on Hyper-V to maintain control of the data center. Promise nothing relative to IP in order to keep options open. They couldn't do that with Novell because Novell had enough patents that Microsoft needed to worry about and Microsoft had by far made more money off those potential infringements than Novell. And, as you point out, Microsoft's attitude was different then.
I agree that the interoperability and coordinated support are good for customers. Coordinated isn't quite the same as the support agreement Novell and Microsoft put in place but it is a step in the right direction.
To claim the world is quite different because of this announcement or in any way imply that Red Hat's customers are some how safer from IP claims because of it is pretty irresponsible. This is a business driven move. If there comes a point where Microsoft thinks the best thing for its business is to go after Red Hat for IP issues, they'll still do that. If they think the best thing for the business is to leave Linux and / or all of OSS alone, they'll go that way.
As for safety, Red Hat's customers are as safe today as they were yesterday...as are Microsoft's. The difference is that Microsoft is no longer holding out the specter of patent suits to induce customers to buy, as it did with Novell. This is about making technology work together, which is what interop is supposed to be about, and not about lawyers getting a recessionary bail-out.
And, as you know, the lawyers made plenty of money in forming this new Red Hat - Microsoft agreement anyway. They always do. How do you think they came to the conclusion that this particular agreement, narrowly focused on interoperability of virtualization on each other's hypervisors (no desktops, no samba, no domain or AD services) was in fact free and clear of all things Microsoft is otherwise still thinking are IP issues?
Given that the Samba team work for Google, not Red Hat, and that they have everything they need I don't see why it would even come up. The reason for the continuing incompatibilities is the amount of time it takes to implement such a complex system.
And, hoping that this was "slow" enough for you this time!
Or it suggests that Microsoft is realizing that any deal with Red Hat may stem the tide for them to trash Microsoft in the server market.
At least Red Hat has managed to make the deal and maintain their integrity (so far). I don't think the community is going to light their torches and grab their pitchforks for this one!
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/03/26/march_2008_web_server_survey.html
Research next time, before you make such claims.
Crappy hosts like 1&1 and GoDaddy put hundreds of websites on a single machine running a single copy of windows server. It is one install, yet gets counted up to hundreds of times.
Microsoft is a bit player in the server room.
"It also suggests that Red Hat is maturing in its realization that it must interoperate with the old world of proprietary software even as it attempts to forge a new one of open-source software."
Pushing an agenda in your article?
I am not a fan of Matt, but the first statement is factual, and the second is reasonable conjecture.
Before stating as fact that "Microsoft announced" something, it'd be a good idea to scan their press releases to see if they'd done so. You're attributing way too much to them in your original article.
- by AMDJulie February 20, 2009 7:33 AM PST
- Margaret Lewis of AMD noted this article, and her take on the announcement, in her virtualization blog http://links.amd.com/coopetition
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(34 Comments)