Patent nonsense
March 31st, 2007
When Novell and Microsoft announced they were getting into bed together, I was not as critical as many in the open-source community. My main reassurance was that if the deal turned out to be particularly poisonous, then the open-source developers in Novell would jump ship.
However, as time progresses, I’m feeling less comfortable. When Jeremy Allison did indeed head for the lifeboats, he stated:
The Microsoft patent agreement has put us outside the community, and there is no positive aspect to that fact, and no way to make it so. Until the patent provision is revoked, we are pariahs.
I can confirm this is starting to be a real issue. In OpenOffice.org we get enquiries from computer manufacturers (from the smallest to the biggest) who have been asked by their customers to pre-install OpenOffice.org. Since the Novell/Microsoft agreement, we have started to see requests to provide an “indemnity”.
Now, if you are a software house trying to develop your portfolio by buying a product from another company, it makes sense to ensure that the vendor actually has the right to sell what they are buying. In this case, seeking a legally binding indemnity is a sensible way to protect your investment.
However, open-source software is built using a different model, with individuals and companies contributing freely to the common good (why? in the case of major pieces of software like OpenOffice.org, you get back hugely more than your individual contribution). In this model, the “indemnity” concept just doesn’t work.
Corporations who don’t understand this model are putting themselves at an economic disadvantage compared to their competitors. Buying commodity software when you can get it for free does not make sense.
The message to computer manufacturers is clear: ignore Microsoft/Novell “indemnity” FUD - install OpenOffice.org for free - it’s what your customers are asking for.