|
The Morning After - Reactions to Novell-MS - Updated 2xs |
|
Friday, November 03 2006 @ 07:36 AM EST
|
I've collected for you a representative sampling of reactions to the unfortunate Novell-MS alliance. First, my own: this is apparently some kind of a covenant not to sue, not a true cross licensing deal. I think that's how they plan to step over and around the GPL. The Novell FAQ says the deal was worked out with the GPL in mind. Right. Like how not to abide by it. Hence the vagueness on what patents are being paid for. Is it possible they have set it up a bit like IBM's patent pledge? You don't have to list patents in a covenant not to sue. Handy workaround. UPDATE: Here it is, some information on the patent agreement, the part Microsoft is sharing. We can read it together. How do you like this clause? "Microsoft reserves the right to update (including discontinue) the foregoing covenant pursuant to the terms of the Patent Cooperation Agreement between Novell and Microsoft that was publicly announced on November 2, 2006; however, the covenant will continue as to specific copies of Covered Products distributed by Microsoft for Revenue before the end of the Term." Oh, brother. Here's Microsoft's rather thin list of "community" supporters. The City of Seattle thinks this is great.] They are claiming this was a Novell initiated partnership. Otherwise, I'd say my best guess is Microsoft threatened and Novell caved rather than go through patent litigation. It should have trusted the community instead, if that is what happened. It also means we probably need to do some more tweaking on GPLv3. I think Microsoft doesn't care what you run if it's entertainment you are after, as long as it's DRM'd so they control access that way, and so long as there's a "Microsoft tax", so to speak, on Linux, which encourages the continued use of Office in the workplace as the de facto standard. It does intend to kill ODF, I gather, and Novell is apparently going to help them try.
Now, on all those stories about Microsoft falling in love with Linux, because it has to, Mary Jo Foley says this is bunk. It's Microsoft being Microsoft. It isn't waving any white flags: There is no hell freezing over, no snowballs melting and definitely no white flags fluttering over the Microsoft headquarters building. Microsoft is not conceding that desktop Linux is gaining ground. It's not admitting that its closed-source strategy has failed.
Sure, Microsoft is [listen]ing to customers' requests for better interoperability. But if you think the Redmondians are throwing in the towel, vis-a-vis open source, you are underestimating severely Microsoft's well-proven ability to come out ahead on any partnership to which it commits....I'd agree with Tim Patterson, one of the commentors on my site, that Novell CEO "Hovespian fell into the trap." I'd say she got that part right. Patterson: Mary Jo is correct. It's all about the patent agreement.
After the Q&A segment it was clear that the patent agreement was a defacto acknowledgement by Novell that Linux violates MS patents. Ballmer made it clear that the patent agreement protects ONLY users of SuSE Linux. When questioned about whether the patent agreement covered technology which will be developed or if it covers MS patents already existing in Linux the attorney made it clear that the agreement protects existing Linux in the form of SuSE.
So MS has found the big Linux vendor foolish enough to "legitimize" a patent claim on Linux by Microsoft. This makes it easier for MS to claim that Linux infringes their "IP" and claim that Novell recognized this "fact" and struck a deal. Now it's only a matter of asserting claims against all distributors except Novell thereby thinning the herd and finally, deal with Novell SuSE last.
Mitch Ratcliffe on ZDNeT asks, "How Many Times Can You Sell Your Soul?" The announcement that Novell and Microsoft will work together to improve interoperability between Windows and Novell's SuSE Linux, as well as cross-promote and support one another's products strikes me as eerily like one of those movies with Christopher Lee as Dracula.
Every time you see an old Dracula film, the same fool is making a deal with Drac to achieve eternal life, a life you know, as the viewer, is going to be awful and short. "Don't do it!" you want to shout at the screen, and so it is with this deal between the maker of Windows and the acquirer, as Novell once staked its future on UNIX, of SuSE Linux. I'm not saying Microsoft is evil, only that is makes these interoperability deals to defeat its partner, not to help them....Linux may win someday, but Novell will be found dead one morning with mysterious bite marks on its neck. Amen, brother.
Warren Togami, who founded the Fedora Project, says Red Hat will never compromise, and he asks programmers to react by helping the Fedora Project now more than ever:
Red Hat engineering invests millions every year in FOSS development. These developers contribute in a great many ways to stimulate growth in the FOSS ecosystem and the community itself. Red Hat makes this investment for three key reasons:
* It makes business sense: A healthy relationship with community builds quality products faster, and with lower expense. It is indeed possible to make money and not compromise on values.
* Perhaps the technology leaders who made many of these key FOSS improvements are best able to support business customers.
* Many of the people at Red Hat believe in the ethical values of FOSS and the benefit that it brings to society.
As long as I work on the Fedora Project, Fedora will never compromise on the essential liberties of FOSS nor will it betray the community. But the price of liberty is not free, nor is it comfortable. And unfortunately, some "leaders" of our community are willing to compromise liberty for short-term convenience. I am disgusted by people like this, and by Novell's betrayal of the community today....
But ultimately, Red Hat cannot change the world alone. That is why the Fedora Project exists. We want to enable the community to work together to improve FOSS at a rapid pace, in partnership with the large and consistent contributions from our engineers. We strongly believe that this is the most effective way for the entire FOSS movement to advance. Yes, we made some big mistakes in our community relationship earlier, but we are learning, and continue to improve at an ever accelerating pace.
For these reasons that I urge the FOSS community to support the Fedora Project through volunteer contributions of time and effort.
I would agree that it's time for the community to give its full support to Red Hat and the Fedora Project. I have met Matthew Szulik. I liked him and I trust him. He does comprehend the GPL and community values. And I'll be doing what I can. They need folks to do documentation on Fedora, I noticed, and I can and will do that. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols worries we may need to provide more help than that soon, that maybe Microsoft will be suing Red Hat and other vendors: There's always been the potential for a software patent lawsuit involving Linux.... you know that anyone can sue anyone even without valid patents, as in the case of RIM and NTP.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope that in the next few weeks, I'm not writing about Microsoft suing Red Hat. That Linux company has had more than enough trouble recently with Oracle. Or, maybe it won't be Red Hat. Maybe Ubuntu would be the target.
Why do I fear Microsoft might try this? I fear it because Microsoft's proxy war on Linux via SCO is finally coming to its endgame. And no one, probably not even in SCO's own offices, believes that SCO will win.
So, what can Microsoft do? It can bend, ever so slowly, to the simple fact that Linux is here to stay -- but at the same time, it can free itself to attack individual Linux companies in the court room.
Cynical? Yes. But after covering Microsoft for almost two-decades, I trust Microsoft the least when it looks like they're co-operating with others the most. Remember Forgent. Just because someone has a stupid patent doesn't mean there is nothing that can be done about it. Patents don't trump antitrust laws, either. For the Novell point of view, you can read Michael Meeks's blog, yesterday's entry, particularly on the ODF sellout by Novell, not that he sees it that way. He says Miguel set this up, which doesn't surprise me, along with Nat Friedman, which does, but it's from their standpoint apparently about protecting Mono. Miguel: So today we have secured a peace of mind for Novell customers that might have been worried about possible patent infringements open source deployments. This matters in particular for Mono, because for a long time its been the favorite conversation starter for folks that find dates on Slashdot.
Offensive enough for you? On the ECMA thing: Anecdotally, I would like to point out that the work that happened through the ECMA TC45 has proved very fruitful, as things that were completely left out of the Oasis specification and in the original TC45 submission were put in there because Jody and Michael that have previously worked on Gnumeric and OpenOffice managed to get these things into the spec. So instead of helping ODF, they are helping Microsoft in the name of interoperability. How do you get so turned around that you lose your way like this? It makes me think of some of the Manhattan Project guys, who cared only about the science without lifting up their eyes to the horizon to figure out what it all meant for the world that they were doing what they did. UPDATE 2: - 11:12 AM Eastern. Take a look at "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Non-Compensated Developers" and read about how it works:
To further encourage these efforts, this pledge provides non-compensated individual hobbyist developers royalty-free use of Microsoft patents as set forth below....
Microsoft hereby covenants not to assert Microsoft Patents against
each Non-Compensated Individual Hobbyist Developer (also referred to
as "You") for Your personal creation of an originally authored work
("Original Work") and personal use of Your Original Work. This pledge
is personal to You and does not apply to the use of Your Original Work
by others or to the distribution of Your Original Work **by You** or
others.
(emphasis mine) So Microsoft is purporting to provide hobbyists "royalty free use of Microsoft patents" as if they are understood to be infringed already.
But by my reading, the pledge only holds for you using your own software, not if you
distribute it. And it doesn't apply to others using the work you may contribute to Linux. You personally won't be sued, but if Red Hat uses your patch, it could be. That's how it looks to me. But if you kept it to yourself, how would MS ever know? (I
should also note that in Europe, a private hobbyist can never infringe
any patent with his own private use of anything.) So that side is
rather pointless. More to the point, how does this help if you open yourself up to legal shenanigans as soon as you
share your work with anyone? Who will contribute to Mono now, if they are working for Red Hat or anyone, except for Novell employees? One last thing. On the stage at the conference was Mark Tolliver at Palamida. My sources tell me he was the guy at Sun Microsystems, where he then worked, who did the deal with SCO. Make of that what you will. The most interesting coverage is Simon Phipps': Well, well. I'm sure in a few days some folk will wake up in Utah wondering what happened to them. The word on the street is that Novell had some deep patent dirt on Microsoft and went proudly to demand their bounty. Negotiations proceeded over several months, and the result (hurriedly rescheduled to respond to Oracle) was today's shindig in San Francisco.
So how was it that at the end of the day they ended up affirming software patents (something Microsoft wants and Free software people hate), set a precedent that open source distributors owe Microsoft money, slandered GNU/Linux as derivative and encumbered, and much more. Novell is now safe in the shade of a patent exchange and gets to talk about interoperability, a few private developers have a protection they hadn't been worrying about much and everyone else is left wondering if this means they are next for the visit from the Redmond enforcement department. What happened? Drugs in the soda? ... This is not at all surprising; indeed, I've heard others say this is Microsoft's modus operandi, a ju-jitsu move that takes the weight of an attack and turns it back both on the attacker and the folks around them, usually without them even noticing (at least not to start with). And finally (for now) I suggest you take a look at RedMonk's Stephen O'Grady's take: A: It's significant, without question. Do I think it's big in a "Red Hat is doomed" sense, or "this is a tacit admission that the Linux IP is tainted" sense? Not at all. It's a significant alteration of the landscape - and a real boon for one project that I've been following for a while - but in and of itself means little. Could execution make this really significant? Certainly, but we'll see....Q: Is the deal good or bad? Do you subscribe to the GROKLAW/Simon interpretation, or are you seeing things from the deIcaza/Matusow/Meeks perspective?
A: It all depends on who's asking. I think the deal contains both positive and negative implications, and that they must be considered separately. O'Grady then carefully parses it out, and while I don't agree with all of his points, such as the value of the promise to noncommercial developers, which looks to me like a sham, it's a reasonable and carefully thought-through piece and well worth reading.
|
|
Authored by: MadScientist on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:25 AM EST |
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MadScientist on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:27 AM EST |
Where used please make the links clickable. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Novell made me want to cry! - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:54 AM EST
- Upcoming lecture on 1996 WIPO - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:57 AM EST
- Three years ago I smelled that smell - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:12 AM EST
- Another user of the "FOOT GUN" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:35 AM EST
- A reason with no follow thru - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 11:23 AM EST
- Re: Quatermass - Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 11:59 AM EST
- Re: Quatermass - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 03:53 PM EST
- Blast from the past: McBride & Anderer - Authored by: belzecue on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:08 PM EST
- Hmm that sounds to me like violating the spirit of the GPL while perhaps upholding its letter - Authored by: billyskank on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 02:05 PM EST
- Afternoon rally in Red Hat stock - Authored by: hardmath on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 02:13 PM EST
- Novell speaks on Microsoft deal - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:19 PM EST
- The Manhattan Project comment bothered me - Authored by: billyskank on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:28 PM EST
- Microsoft's Strategy IMHO - Authored by: brian-from-fl on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:29 PM EST
- OT materials here please - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 05:35 PM EST
- I use a NON-Windows Operating System - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 04 2006 @ 08:36 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:29 AM EST |
So, this girl settles down on the couch with a convicted rapist for a kiss and
cuddle. Later, she's found in the gutter, beaten and bleeding, sobbing "He
seemed so nice, I thought he'd changed his ways......."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Sander Marechal on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:34 AM EST |
If it's a covenant not to sue, then why does Novell have to pay royalties to
Microsoft? Royalties are usually paid for licenses, not covenants. Sounds like a
license in disguise to me. "But look! It says covenant on the tin!"
Is there something else that the royalties could be paid for? Will they be
licensing code/copyright from MS then?
---
Sander Marechal
Geek, Programmer and many more, but not a lawyer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: elronxenu on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:44 AM EST |
Now it's only a matter of asserting claims
against all
distributors except Novell thereby thinning
the herd and finally, deal with
Novell SuSE
last.
Yes. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gbl on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:47 AM EST |
I believe that Microsoft now think that TSG is going to lose and lose very
badly. When that happens all remaining Unix IP belongs to Novell and so it's
time for MS to make friends with Novell in the hope that round two is more
successful...
I think that we will see the start of Novell v. Redhat within
six months.
--- If you love some code, set it free. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:48 AM EST |
If you're reading this, I just want you to know I will never use SUSE Linux or
promote Novell anymore. May you burn like Mandriva for turning on the community
you're trying to benefit off of.
Novell actually makes me sick to my stomach. Traitors.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:56 AM EST
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:08 AM EST
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 02:25 PM EST
- Tsk tsk... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 06:23 PM EST
- Tsk tsk... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 06:52 PM EST
- Dear Novell - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:52 AM EST
- Dear Novell - Authored by: icebarron on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 01:06 PM EST
- Dear Novell - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:22 PM EST
- *sigh* Such a short term - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 11:37 AM EST
- Dear Novell - Authored by: k12linux on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 02:47 PM EST
- Wake up Novell - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:10 PM EST
- Novell has done an EV1 - Authored by: elronxenu on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:51 PM EST
- I have used Novell and Suse products for a long time... - Authored by: kedens on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 07:02 PM EST
- Almost agreed... - Authored by: Wonderbird on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 07:35 PM EST
- Look at the bright side. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 11:05 PM EST
- "Burn like Mandriva" - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 05 2006 @ 08:51 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:48 AM EST |
These are what Eben Moglen's first reactions were. Link [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:51 AM EST |
(n/t) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:53 AM EST |
How about this for a theory.
These millions of Windoze boxes on public
Internet, owned by people who don't like paying money to Microsoft, are a
breeding ground for worms and viruses and are causing hassle to Microsoft's good
clients. People who actually like Windows Server 2003, and expect it to 'just
work' for the dollars they fork over.
Microsoft is actually better off if
these 'reluctant customers' can be bounced off Windows and on to Linux; thereby
stopping being a breeding ground for Windows worms, and starting being a
breeding ground for Linux worms.
Suppose we get 100 million SuSE Linux boxes
on public Internet as a result of this love-fest. Do you think Novell will be
able to service the defect rate ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linux Worms - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:13 PM EST
- Real problem for MS - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 05:49 PM EST
|
Authored by: eer on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:55 AM EST |
on those we pretend to like.
Novell the hero for their principled stand against SCO.
Novell the doddering idiots for their never-ending attempts to walk the line
between helping customers work with and manage Windows environments, and
irrelevance.
No one ever went broke underestimating Novell's Marketing.
But their legal team have some pretty sharp cookies.
Does Novell buy into the whole "software wants to be free" mantra? No
- they've ALWAYS said they believe in an mixed business model of supporting the
OSS (for some things) and developing proprietary solutions (for other things).
Why?
Novell has a cash flow today (even a decade after EVERYONE knew it would vanish
at any instant) from providing alternative distributed management solutions for
Microsoft products.
The OSS cash flow hasn't come close to replacing that, yet.
But it has to, because EVERYONE knows it (their existing cash flow) WILL VANISH
ANY INSTANT!
Novell has a valuable patent portfolio which it has managed as a defensive tool
for as long as it's been in place (as far as I can tell, going back to '94 or
so). They've used it to protect the community (vs. SCOG). I don't see any
reason, yet, to believe they're doing this Microsoft deal to screw the
community.
But neither are they doing this deal to cozy up to the Debian crowd, either.
If you think that the ONLY software worth supporting is FREE software, then fine
- divorce yourselves from Novell, IBM and all the other crass commercial
concerns out there.
The rest of the world doesn't give a rats patooty about FREE - they have a job
they want to do, and it doesn't involve reverse engineering device drivers, it
doesn't involved compiling kernels or trying to figure out version conflicts
between RPMs and APT archives.
The real world cares about getting buildings built, children taught, elderly
cared for, and food on the table.
Its a shame the "true believers" would rather starve, and force
everyone else to starve (for support, if not for food), in the name of their
particular passion.
My advice - don't tolerate intolerance. About economics, politics, Free
Software, nor any other religion.
And wait to see how the Novell legal team interpret this, and what the company
will do to defend their interpretation.
Ed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- How quickly the Turfers show up. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:02 AM EST
- well said n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:06 AM EST
- How quickly we turn - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:13 AM EST
- How quickly we turn - Authored by: webster on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:19 AM EST
- If you have no clean shirts... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:44 AM EST
- How quickly we turn - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:51 AM EST
- blinkered post - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:53 AM EST
- Couldn't have said it better myself - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:41 PM EST
- So true. - Authored by: theMutant on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 01:08 PM EST
- So true. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 03:02 PM EST
- So true. - Authored by: bb5ch39t on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:31 PM EST
- So true. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 04 2006 @ 12:59 AM EST
- How quickly *Novell* turns - Authored by: FamilyManFirst on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 02:50 PM EST
- How quickly we turn - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 02:53 PM EST
- The rest of the World - Authored by: stomfi on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:35 PM EST
- Some of you just don't get it... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 04 2006 @ 02:19 PM EST
|
Authored by: GuyllFyre on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:56 AM EST |
Didn't Novell learn from it's MS-Netware Client debacle?
They're really cruising for a bruising this time around.
Nobody ever benefits from a MS partnership except MS.
This is sad, sad indeed.
The provision is probably for the AD integration piece and maybe even the
Exchange integration piece. Novell touts these as parts of it's corporate
desktop offering and MS may actually have valid patents on this stuff.
Not that they should nor should they have the right to, this is one of those
restrictions on interoperability MS likes to have.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
Novell, you're not going to make it out of the ring this time. MS is going lay
you out cold.
To think, I've liked Novell for a long time. I've actually got a Novell 5 CNA
from May 26, 2000. Seems like a lifetime ago.
Sorry to see you go, Novell.
-S[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:02 AM EST |
Does anyone other than me wonder if the Novell claims to the Unix copyrights
played a role here? Perhaps Novell knows that some Unix code slipped into
Windows back when MS still sold Xenix. Was Microsoft worried that, if the SCO
case confirmed Novell's ownership of the Unix copyrights, that Novell might have
claims against MS for infringement?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:03 AM EST |
I'm sorry, but I have never seen so much FUD since Bill Gates appeared behind
Steve Jobs and MS paid into Apple.
Did Apple go under? Did Windows come to the Apple desktop? Did OSX die?
Let's remember something people, Novell is one of the only companies who have
beaten Micrsoft in the courts and otherwise nearly every time these two have
gone head-to-head. The only time Novell lost was during it's stupid "we'll
be Microsoft" phase when they bought WordPerfect and a host of other
programs and failed to move NetWare only as they should have.
Since then Novell has surprised the Linux crowd by not only being extremely
supportive but bringing it to the corporate server and desktop environment
(where the big money is) so that people can see it's easy to use and give it a
shot in their homes.
But there has always been one HUGE hold out and problem and that is the fact
that no matter how close you cut it Linux apps don't interact with the worldwide
use of MS Office and other MS apps nicely. Now they will be able to.
Consider too the fact this is happening within weeks of Vista's release...an OS
that basically most of the IT world sees as a disaster for MS and something that
likely will not go over well with anyone, including the "buy it on a
Dell" public. This is more like MS is admitting they are done in the OS
field and moving toward just an apps market.
Think on that too.
But most of all give it a chance and see how it works out before suddenly
abandoning Novell who so far has been on a very steady and upward track.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The Morning After - Reactions to Novell-MS - Authored by: icorson on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:07 AM EST
- Microsoft needs tame competitors - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:20 AM EST
- MSFT not a court winner - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 11:08 AM EST
- Huh??? - Authored by: NetArch on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:23 PM EST
- Huh??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:05 PM EST
- Huh??? - Authored by: simonbrooks on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:57 PM EST
- Huh??? - Authored by: NetArch on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 05:17 PM EST
- Huh??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 07:49 PM EST
- Huh??? - Authored by: Tyro on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 06:50 PM EST
- The Morning After - Reactions to Novell-MS - Authored by: sbungay on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:30 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:03 AM EST |
This is the problem with corporations and their community relations. They have
none. They have shareholders and they are always always short sighted. They
cannot see much beyond next quarters numbers and their CEO's options deal.
What a laugh, they say to the community, "we have found a way around the
GPL - be happy everyone!"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:04 AM EST |
What about other distro's like Ubuntu, etc. ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:06 AM EST |
It's going to be interesting to keep an eye on Distrowatch in the coming
month(s)...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:26 AM EST |
Novell may have UNIX patents that affect MS products, and MS may have patents
that affect Linux products, but I'm betting that MS won't go after Linux, as IBM
also has a big patent portfolio, and they were giving code to MS for a long time
before win95. And don't forget that it was DEC who developed NT and probably
retained patents, and DEC got sold to Compaq, who got sold to HP, who makes a
lot of money from RedHat and Debian Linux on HP servers.
Also there are the existing UNIX businesses, who all use SAMBA, and they
definately will not be happy if MS sues for patent infringement.
Lastly we must not forget that IBM owns a big slice of Novell, so they would not
be happy to lose their lucrative Linux business because of shortsightedness by
Novell.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:41 AM EST |
Except for a few minor things...
1. Red Hat sucks, always has, always will.
2. Red Hat is about to cease to exist. Oracle is about to make them go poof.
And this is among other problems, like PJ making it her personal mission to
spread FUD about this agreement. Totally skewing things.
Simply unbelievable![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kozmcrae on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:41 AM EST |
"The Morning After"
A very apt title indeed PJ. Only I don't think there is any pill that will make
this "poor decision" go away.
Richard
---
Darl, have you been lying to us? I'm a frayed knot.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:54 AM EST |
Wiping SuSE off my server. Now. Today.
I've been with SuSE since 6.2, sometime in the last century. I have recently
moved my workstations to Ubuntu (but kept ny SuSE server), as I thought Novell
were playing silly devils with a fine distro.
Turns out I was right! They sure were/are!
biteydog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NZheretic on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:01 AM EST |
What is a
License?* Authorizes a “Licensee” to use a Patent, Copyright,
Trademark, or Mask Work which is owned by a “Licensor.”
* Also
referred to a “covenant not to sue.” The Licensor is agreeing that it will
not sue the Licensee for infringement of Licensor’s patent.
A
“covenant not to sue” is a license.
The SCO Group has sold
"end-user" licenses which included a “covenant not to sue.”. Both IBM and
Novell's lawyers have stated that this is inviolation of the terms of the
GPL.
How can Novell distribute GPL code under the a similar "end license"
proviso to what SCO proposed.
i.e. buy a license from SCO and not get sued
- NOT OK - violation of the GPL.
i.e. buy a license from Novell and not get
sued - NOT OK - Still a violation of the GPL.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jiri on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:06 AM EST |
Interestingly, re the Dracula analogy, the word "Embrace" is sometimes
used to mean "turn someone into a vampire"...
Jiri
---
Please e-mail me if you reply, I usually read with "No comments".
jiri@baum.com.au[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pfusco on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:10 AM EST |
Been a loyal SuSe user for a few years now and I loved it. Not so much today
<p>
So.... any other good distros out there for me to look into?
---
only the soul matters in the end[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:10 AM EST |
The exploitation of Linux is to be expected. Microsoft will still collect
their tax on every new PC sold. SUSE will be kept as an inferior system, with
feint support and much ridicule for SUSE users. The headlines say it all,
"Microsoft, Novell reach agreement on Linux" on Reuters; as though they can
control Linux.
Oracle hope Redhat PCs will become their machines,
that provide a very stable environment for Oracle users. No support will be
given to the rest of the applications, and users will fear to upgrade these
systems, in case they break the Oracle application.
The big
corporations have a very cosy view of their future; but will it happen? Will
you now buy a new PC, complete with Vista, just because it has SUSE on it too.
Will this somehow enable us to compete with our own applications. Or do you want
the freedom to buy an "empty" machine, and put whatever systems on it that you
want.
Another little point is the "patent agreement". Please
remember that these patents are only enforceable in the United States of
America.
There is always the chance that other Linux distributions
will grow to replace those tainted by these corporate deals. But I would think
that these deals make little difference to the growth of Linux worldwide.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:14 AM EST |
Suppose you're Hovespian. Your predecessor has just gotten the boot because he
wasn't able to induce the installed customer base, within a period of a couple
of years, to completely replace the underpinnings of their IT architecture.
Mind you, this is an inherently conservative customer base or they'd have seen
the writing on the wall and switched away from the declining Netware years ago.
What are you going to do? You're going to find a way to bring in some cash,
quick. Do you really care what the long-term prospects are? No. You want a
good run so you can make a claim about being able to turn companies around.
Then you bail for another job. Anything that happens after that is not your
fault.
You'll be hard-pressed to find a business school graduate who'd do anything
else, IMO.
Karl O. Pinc <kop aaaaa t meme dooot com>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rob.hughes on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:15 AM EST |
I would agree that it's time for the community to give its full
support to Red Hat and the Fedora Project. I have met Matthew Szulik. I liked
him and I trust him. He does comprehend the GPL and community values. And I'll
be doing what I can. They need folks to do documentation on Fedora, I noticed,
and I can and will do that.
Except that Fedora blows big,
stinky, steaming, chunks as a desktop OS. They change too many things so that
basic things, like changing an icon theme, just don't work. Not to mention that
so much is left out, especially on the KDE side, that the system is nearly
useless. RH E/AS is just fine for a server, and well supported, and WS is fine
as a locked down corporate desktop. But I dropped them as a home desktop a long
time ago, due to all the problems with making the desktop work the way I wanted
it to. If you want a distribution worthy of support as a desktop, pick one of
the debian-based distributions. Just my inflation-adjusted $.02.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Duo on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:17 AM EST |
Would it be prudent, or possible for IBM to buy Novell, and quash this deal? Or
would they face serious regulatory hurdles?
Could IBM buy Novell? Even do a hostile takeover? Could this solve some
problems?
Side note: does this put IBM on a path for a battle of epic proportions with M$?
---
Duo[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Stumbles on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:25 AM EST |
I am having trouble determining which disgusts me the most, the
SCO shenanigans or this "covenant" Novell has signed up for.
---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:29 AM EST |
Corporations cannot be trusted. <-- note the period on the end of the
sentence. In other words, end of discussion.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:29 AM EST |
Miguel always wanted to be a softie, ever since he cloned DOS apps on Linux,
re-created a GUI desktop environment, re-created his version of Excel on top of
that, and the last masterstroke... Mono, the supposedly clean room
implementation of an ECMA standard (when the 'standard' only covers a portion of
what Mono implements)
And all those efforts to integrate Mono deep in the heart of Gnome huh ?
All of his many great technical achievements going down the drain.
Nothing matters more to Miguel than his dream of becoming The Brain taking over
the world... with a little help of his friends. (whoever they are)
Thanks for everything, Miguel
So long, goodbye
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Miguel - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 03:24 PM EST
|
Authored by: Kanth on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:33 AM EST |
Oh come now, this is brilliant!
We wondered how RedHat was going to deal with Oracle trying to buy their lunch.
We now have the answer. Take Novell's business!
The people who move to oracle will be replaced by the volume moving in from
Novell!
It's brilliant!
Why am I reminded of the SNL skit about the change makers. We make change, if
you give us a $5 we can give you 5 ones. If you give us $1 we can give you 10
dimes, or 5 dimes and 10 nickels. People ask us how we make money off doing
this.. the answer? Volume.
-Kanth[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:38 AM EST |
I have Suse installed on my linux box at home. I have used Suse in the past
because I liked it the best. But now that they've made a deal with the devil, I
won't be able to run Suse with a clear conscience anymore.
Novell, why
oh why did you do this?
josmith42 (not logged in because I'm at work) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: spiff on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:38 AM EST |
in the case with SCO?
or is that too obvious?
spiffx[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pscottdv on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:48 AM EST |
It makes me think of some of the Manhattan Project guys, who
cared only about the science without lifting up their eyes to the horizon to
figure out what it all meant for the world that they were doing what they
did.
I have never heard a talk from or read about any
Manhattan Project scientist who didn't struggle long and hard over the
repercussions of what they were doing. They had a difficult choice to make and
the weight of the world on their shoulders. Perhaps they made choices that you
do not agree with, but I think this analogy maligns a group of great men and
women. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:53 AM EST |
The worse is, Novell claims UNIX and indirectly also LINUX
relevant patents. One have to afraid, that one day
they 'sell' them or transfer them anyhow else to M$.
On the other side, the whole situation changed -
especially compared with the time if W98 and W.XP:
Windows - from its architecture and being patch over
patch - have no future (and as I believe, no next
version); actually they didnt get it through, but because
its becoming worser as longer they wait, now they publish
it anyhow, 'as it is'.
Correspondingly, M$ said to pretent change to the
hardware sector.
In China (and in more and more countries like India,
Indonesia, Pakistan, Brasil) it will not long time and
they have to retract them
Beside of interoperability with Linux, Windows needs to
integrate open apps like php, mysql
M$ opens the code of Windows; even with restrictions,
but in principle everybody whom want it will manage it
anyhow to see it (certainly it will also be put in
internet, soon)
The mind of the population changes. In Asia, South
America, Europa, the dirty practics by Windows are more
and more understood only as one example of a general
enemity by the US and Israel, and the population requests
not to ignore but react against these facts - inclusive
observe the nature of informatics as concessed public
service, and the contributions by universities etc., f.ex.
to Linux and open progs, of public domain, and underlying
publical/administrative right, independent on the GPL
More and more acceptance by the public service in
almost all countries and 'officialization' of Linux
and 'marginalization' of Windows.
Most important however is the change of the mind of the
population, that OS and software have to be open. If
Linux fails anyhow - and even before - quickly will have
other open OS.
Always in the history, existing interests try to
prevent progress; the first world-wide we saw in the
religions, the last were these of the communism. However,
this means nothing else than a voluntary fall-back while
others go forwards. Because of this, it may be
interesting, but is not too much important, to see all
kinds of dirty tricks, corruption etc. invented and used
for this.
To my opinion, because of the changed situation, M$
have no other option than to change completely its
politic. Certainly, they will continue to sell their Vista
etc. more 20 years for whom it want to buy, and also
actually they try some manoevers to make still the best
from the situation, with all kinds and tricks, but without
any chance to finally pass over the reality. In my
sight, RedHat, SuSE, Novell, Orcale, Sun (thieving
StarOffice), etc, all them are wrong, and now like wolfs
among them, without however the smallest chance to stop or
change the general development or the open concept. And
all tham are bancrupt people, trying as a last solution to
sell rain water or something else what is gratis.
For the open community, these occurences among wolfs are
interesting, but not too important. The most important is
to produce many open software of good quality and easy
portable to any next open OS: this brings to bancrupcy all
comercial attempts and interests on that area. At the
same time, the population, beside of the penalties from
the consummer protection aspect, demands more and more
also penal persection of usurpation of (to be concessed)
public services; subversion against the public
administration (in each caounry); fraude (the artificial
preparation of not-existing 'rights' like currently
M$/Novell); etc
To avoid exclusion, OS and software have to be open. And
commercial interests of M$ , Novell or whomever are
lower-value good than the human rights of only one child
in the 3rd world. The nature (or whom so want, the devil)
uses the intentions by Novell etc. that they make efforts
to better Linux, deceive them however at the end w.r.t.
compensation for this; they end to have made a
contribution to the open-source society.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tz on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 10:55 AM EST |
I was wondering if we'd see another one of those memos on how MSFT plans on
killing Linux. The original one was on Halloween. The current one was merely
two days late.
Can we buy a share of NOVL and attend board meetings and try to convince them
they are playing Neville Chaimberlain to Adolph Hitler? So what about the
sudatenland and patents?
We should start calling them Nevell.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 11:01 AM EST |
Well, what will this do to SCO vs Novell? Will Novell throw in the
towel, and say "only kidding". What whimps.
wb [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hokie on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 11:07 AM EST |
The total lack of logic regarding Mono and patents just boggles my mind:
So
today we have secured a peace of mind for Novell customers that might have been
worried about possible patent infringements open source deployments. This
matters in particular for Mono, because for a long time its been the favorite
conversation starter for folks that find dates on Slashdot.
So let me get
it straight, the Mono project goes down the path of creating technology covered
by Microsoft patents. The community criticizes the move so they respond saying
that the patents are covered by RAND agreements and are most likely royalty free
so don't worry about it. Oh wait, yeah maybe they're RAND or maybe there not, we
broadly licensed patents for Microsoft so you're protected if you use Novell.
Sorry, Micguel, but I use RedHat and CentOS so if your code has a MS patent
trojan horse, I don't want it and I don't think it belongs in the free software
and open source communities. These communities require broad cooperation,
erecting patent fences doesn't fit.
The person that I'm really waiting to
hear from is Andrew Tridgell. Maybe there are patent issues with SAMBA but for
Novell to get a license for it from Microsoft seems wrong. I 've wondered about
this for a while but sort of settled with the idea that Microsoft would be
procluded from an attack on interoperability based in part on their monopoly
status. I just can't believe that Novell got a license for code that someone
else wrote. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 11:21 AM EST |
Capone-style, The Monkey Ballmer speaks his mind:
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.
"I suspect that
[customers] will take that issue up with their distributor," Ballmer said. Or if
customers are considering doing a direct download of a non-SUSE Linux version,
"they'll think twice about that," he said.
In practice, this deal
has allowed Microsoft to rule illegal every Linux distro except Novell-SuSE!
Thank you Novell corporate morons, what a *fine* idea to deal with M$! Now
you know what kind of business you are dealin with...oops too late!
Source:
Eweek
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2050848,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000616
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 11:28 AM EST |
Could someone please quote me chapter and verse on what
specific provision of the GPL Novell is allegedly
violating? I just don't see it.
I do not see that the GPL requires that one issue a patent
license for patents not held by the redistributor. Does
the GPL require that when one redistributes a program,
that one say that there are no possible patent problems
from patents not held by the redistributor? If so, I do
not see how any program could EVER be redistributed under
the GPL, what with submarine patents and all.
I just do not see what provision of the GPL novell is
allegedly violating?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 11:41 AM EST |
I havent posted here in a long time cause people always beat me to the punch.
But theres one thing that everyone seems to have missed. What if the whole
reason behind this is politics? Think about this. What would life be like for a
monopolistic Microsoft with the democrats in the majority in both the house and
senate. The mid term elections are less than a week away and its looking bad for
the republicans. I bet monopolys like microsoft are sweating bullets right about
now. At least with this move they can snow job there way through any antitrust
investigations by saying "were trying to play nice".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 11:47 AM EST |
Sometime in the future . . .
"I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hbo on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 11:50 AM EST |
On first thought, this deal struck me as no big deal for the community. I
figured that Novell got a boost among enterprise customers with the addition of
Microsoft's covenant, to add to the rights that they retained from the Unix IP.
But the more I thought about Microsoft's angle, the more nervous I felt.
Finally, after reading some of the press coverage linked to here, I became
convinced by the scenario that has Microsoft pursuing a divide and conquer
strategy. The proof of that will be in Microsoft's subsequent actions. If they
sue a second or third-tier Linux vendor for IP "violations," then the
second jaw of the trap will show itself. On the other hand, merely increasing
the FUD, while cultivating Novell as the "official" Linux vendor,
might have the same effect over time. With the enterprise market greatly
diminished for other Linux vendors, Novell will increasingly become what
Microsoft has lacked in the competition with Linux: a company that can be
attacked in the same ways Microsoft dealt with all the companies it ran over in
the past. Never mind that Linux, the kernel and the utilities, the applications
and so forth, and all the rest of the F/OSS universe will all survive just fine
in community supported distributions. The enterprise market is what Microsoft is
after. That's where the money is.
One wrinkle in this conspiracy theory is IBM. IBM will continue to push Linux in
the enterprise market, and has a lot of patents in its war chest to deter
lawsuits by Microsoft. Novell's position in the SCO/IBM tussle bears watching,
of course. It would be advantageous for Novell to prove that the rights it
retained in Unix are valid and enforceable, as it can do by pursuing the SCO
litigation. But the mortal threat to SCO that Novell's request for a
constructive trust represents could be viewed as inconvenient to Microsoft. So
if Novell settles, it will speak volumes about what must be going on behind the
scenes.
---
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there"
- Will Rogers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 11:56 AM EST |
Specificly, what does this section mean?
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or
publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived
from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a
whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
this License.
Does that mean that you are saying that no other
organizations or individuals have any patent claims
against the program? How could anyone know that? What with
submarine patents and all?
It seems to me that if MS has patent claims against Linux
after this agreement, then they had those same patent
claims against Linux before this agreement. So how could
Novell as a redistributor of Linux, be more in violation
of the GPL now, than before?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ray08 on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 11:57 AM EST |
I predict FSF will sue Novell/M$ on next release of SuSE.
Here is link --- Caldera is
toast! And Groklaw is the toaster! (with toast level set to BURN) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:05 PM EST |
If Microsoft starts asserting it's patents in the US then Eurpoe will see the
danger of software patents and be much less likely to accept them, along with
most of the developing world. Microsoft can only depend on software patents in
the US. If the rest of the world rejects software patents and embraces Linux,
the US will be at a competitive disadvantage because of software patents. If
Microsoft starts enforcing it's patents now it might win in the US but will
almost certainly lose the rest of the world. That could kill it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:25 PM EST |
Sure Microsoft has dumped almost all other partners in a shallow grave, but this
time it's different! Sure this sounds allot like the Halloween document come
true, but this is a new Novel.
In the real world we need to proceed as though Novel and Suse are dead. History
teaches us they are. After all when you lie down with MS dogs you don't wake up
with flees, you just don't wake up. With the exception of Novel no longer
existing, like goes on as normal. Move along. There is nothing to see here
folks, except old dried up raodkill.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:34 PM EST |
OK, so this is not a patent license but a "covenant not to
sue" Novel customers. As such it cannot be limited to
number of copies licensed (IANAL, this is judt my
understanding). So, suppose I run a company using many
thousands of Linux boxen (e.g. ISP or Goggle or some
such). Do I need to cave in and by SUSE to be protected
from MS law suits? Not at all! All I need to do is buy 1
single-user copy of SUSE with support and I can by support
from Red Hat or any other linux distributor for the rest
of my thousands of boxen. So, I end up paying lots of
money to Red Hat (or other vendor, e.g. Mandriva, Ubuntu)
and paying a little bit to SUSE and yet I am protected
from MS.
After all, in this light this is not such a bad deal for
the end users...
Zs.Zs.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fredex on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:34 PM EST |
Well.
I'm certain that I'm not certain what all the ramifications of this are, or will
be.
But I'm quite certain about one thing: It's NOT GOOD.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brooker on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:36 PM EST |
I just read Eban Moglan's
reaction and
it sounds to me like he is taking this very seriously and he doesn't seem to be
one to make idle threats. No doubt he'll be watching all of this very
closely.
This quote sounds like he will have little tolerance for shenanigans,
especially the part where he says "We protect our clients", and he sounds like
he means business: "I and my firm don't take comfort from statement
from Microsoft that they won't sue programmers as long as they don't get paid,"
Moglen said. "We represent developers of free and open-source software. If
Microsoft or anyone else attempts to sue our clients for doing what they do to
create software, because they're being paid for it, then the people doing that
will be sorry. We protect our clients."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Snaker on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:37 PM EST |
Bash me lightly please or am I missing something? I see this as Microsoft
trying to buy in again since they bought from the wrong company (sco). I
believe Microsoft is trying to protect their rear. I also look at this as
something good for Novell; we are so quick to jump ship. By the way I only use
MS at work and not at home I am a Debian fan by the way of Mepis and Kubuntu.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:39 PM EST |
Who are M$ going to sue? The distributors like Red-Hat? They didn't create the
code. The developers? Their code is probably in Suse, and therefore protected.
But what about anything that isn't in Suse. If this agreement didn't exist,
would it stop M$ filling law-suits? No. If anything, this agreement tips M$'s
hand.
From Novell's perspective, this is a great deal (and don't kid yourself into
thinking that any other company, e.g. Red Hat wouldn't make it if they could).
With the ability to use M$ formats, they can migrate companies from M$ products
much easier. Yes, there is always the possibility that M$ will try to shaft
them, but without knowing Novell's strategy, there is no way to be sure.
Lastly, instead of trashing Novell, why didn't PJ go to them and put the
concerns of the community to them? You know, fair and balanced reporting?
Instead all I have been reading is a lot of FUD. <paraphrase>They are in
violation of the GPL, then they are technically not in violation of the GPL,
then we are going to find ways to make them in violation of the GPL and sue the
pants off them just because.</paraphrase>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:39 PM EST |
The title was a wonderful advertising line from IBM, on the heels of their
sponsorship of the Wimbledon tennis tournament. (You don't think Wimbledon pays,
do you ?)
But it sort-of describes what is going on here. If Microsoft, or
Novell, or IBM, or Sun, or anyone else, sues me personally for infringement of a
patent, or a copyright, then I shall put down my Personal Computer and its
keyboard, pick up a pencil and paper, and keep on trucking regardless.
If
the rights-holding corporation can explain what right it holds, then I will
cease infringing that right, and start again with my Personal Computer. Or maybe
my soldering iron and some transistors if I have to.
The technology is there
to serve me. If it gets to the point where I am serving the technology, things
will have to change. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Peter Simpson on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:39 PM EST |
They tried to do it by proxy with tSCOg. That didn't work. Now, let's see what
happens when MS goes after Linux for using "their" valuable IP. I
doubt even IBM has enough money to defend against MS.
I hope to $DEITY it doesn't happen, but my gut says it will.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Very wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:05 PM EST
- Very wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 04 2006 @ 09:03 AM EST
|
Authored by: grouch on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:42 PM EST |
Plan A:
- Make lots of noise about IP illegally in Linux
- Dangle hope
for buyout/hush money from IBM
- Pad nests of pawns and fund lawsuit via
suckers who pump the stock price up, hoping to cash in on litigation
lottery
- Use the FUD to slow the exodus to FOSS
- Enhance visibility and
funding via highly publicized license deals
Plan B:
- Use stock
pump to fund legal team
- Delay the litigation process to sustain the FUD
going to CEOs and preserve the value to the PIPE fairy (or fairies)
- Seek
discovery of mountains of IBM code in hopes of settlement due to costs or
finding a magic bullet
- Test the limits of stretching out litigation (and
exorbitant costs thereof) to provide FUD fodder
- (risky) Rent views of
discovered material to interested parties
Plan C:
- As test
litigation comes to point of obvious collapse, seek new way to threaten similar
litigation
- Use highly publicized duration of test litigation, in spite of
its obvious frivolity, to scare CEOs away from free world outside the cage
windows
- Find sucker to add legitimacy to implied threats of
litigation.
- Publicly exempt those who are already exempt from years of
disasterously expensive litigation, to appear magnanimous
- Loose the
astroturfer hounds
What will be plan D?
--- -- grouch
http://edge-op.org/links1.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tz on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:45 PM EST |
EV1 provides a good example:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061015203855256
Why would anyone pay SCO for something they don't need?
Why would anyone pay Microsoft?
To avoid nuisance suits perhaps?
To quote from the above post:
Then when EV1 actually took a license in March of 2004, we all wondered how in
the world anyone could agree to a license that was, at a minimum, to our eyes
out of conformity with the GPL in order to license something SCO hadn't proved
it even owned.
Nevell is doing something very akin to this, but Melkorsoft is worse than
SaurCOn.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:49 PM EST |
After launching this baby, I bet with wish they has taken that morning after
pill.
They have just shown a willingness to go along with a much much larger SCO
attack on Linux. Shades of EV1!
Remember: Friend of my enemy is my enemy.
Let's keep working on Linux. Let's keep working to disprove these parents. MS is
a convicted monopoly, and it's been paying off really well, so there is NO
chance they are going to stop.
I once worked at FTP Software. I doubt you know who they were. FTP struck a deal
with MS and 8 months later it was clear they were dead. The best part was that a
guy from Apple (I kid you not) that we hired endorsed the deal and said
"Microsoft would never screw us." This got a huge laugh from all the
programmers, most of which knew the score and start printing resumes. This was
back in 1993.
Microsoft seems to know what works and how to be a good monopoly. They lost in
court and still came out on top, even after faking evidence.
Freedom, even in software, is a funny thing. You can do whatever you want, but
don't piss off the $42 billion dollar bull. Once you gain it's attention you are
going to be played with like a rag doll in a tornado. With that kind of money
I'm surprised open source star programmers don't end of missing more often.
I don't know how much is costs to buy off congress. I doubt I have that kind of
money. I'm sure that Microsoft does have an idea. They can easily out lob(by)
money at congress critters than anyone else. For those of you outside the US
lobbing is the art of negotiating the amount of a legal "almost"
bribe. It's easier if you just think of lobbing as a bribe meeting.
Like with inventing Software we'll need tactics to keep our freedom's alive.
Some original, some old an trusted. VOTE. If you live in the US and aren't using
a Diebold machine, vote, if you are then I wish you luck. At least try. Vote for
who you think will solve these and other problems. They people currently holding
the job sure seem to have not tried at all.
We need a think tank of people finding ways to defeat Microsoft from cutting off
the oxygen supply and killing the baby. We're not safe. We, those who use our
freedoms, to program and share, to solve problems, and share solutions, are in
the cross hairs. We are left with only one option. We need to put MS directly in
our sights. While they exist freedom of software is more or less only a word.
Freedom without a defender is only a wish or a dream.
Good luck to you all. That my crazy ramble.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:53 PM EST |
Deja Vu?
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.
"I suspect that [customers] will take that issue up with their
distributor," Ballmer said. Or if customers are considering doing a direct
download of a non-SUSE Linux version, "they'll think twice about
that," he said.
Quoted from http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2050848,00.asp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ray08 on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:53 PM EST |
"From now on you know if you become a Novell customer you risk litigation
from Microsoft if you ever try to choose a different supplier - Steve Ballmer
said as much in the Q & A. That's the most extreme lock-in I have seen in
ages."
---
Caldera is toast! And Groklaw is the toaster! (with toast level set to BURN)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NetArch on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:57 PM EST |
Say it with me, people:
THIS VALIDATES LINUX!
MS agreement with Novell VALIDATES that Linux is extremely hurtful to its
business, and this is a reaction. Even money says Novell reversed the tables and
pulled a "Gambino" on Microsoft: "Nice little business you have
there. Be a shame if something happened to it..."
With all the discovery of the AT&T/USL/Novell/SCO/TSG contracts, Linux will
have a clean bill of health.
Of course, we'd still like to know how this affects Novell's big products:
Ximian's Evolution and Exchange Connector, mono, eDirectory - and how they
interface to Exchange, .Net and Active Directory.
---
NetArch - building a better Internet one subnet at a time...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stutchbury on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:58 PM EST |
This makes the SCO's shenanigans pale into insignificance.
I will still place my bet on freedom winning the software war, but it's going to
take a generation or two to get there - with some serious damage to innovation
and enterprise in the meantime.
Capitalism works fine when corporations have a social consciense. When driven by
pure greed (for power and/or money), society pays a heavy price.
When will the law-makers wake up to the fact that software patents only
strengthen entrenched interests, achieving quite the reverse of what they were
designed for?
Oh - I forgot, the law makers are 0wn3d by the entrenched interests....
Philip[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 01:01 PM EST |
Since, As I read the agreements and understand the GPL ... If Microsoft sues Red
Hat and is able to get one of it's Patents to be upheld in court - suddenly
Novell is no longer free to distribute under the GPL.
Since at that
point in time - Novell would know that it could not distribute the GPLed code
freely and unencumbered - it would have to stop distibution.
Microsoft
has found a way to kill more than one company with a single legal action. Let's
see how many other companies it could get this agreement with.....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pooky on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 01:04 PM EST |
I disagree with PJ's reasoning of this, no offense. I doubt MS threatened to sue
Novell and Novell caved. I think it's more likely that Novell has been losing
money on SUSE since they purchased it and this is how they plan on reversing
that fortune: by making themselves a "safe" Linux distributor,
implying that you have more rights or protection in using Linux when it's their
distribution. It's a marketing angle that they think will appeal to
corporations, which is the business Novell really wants.
---
Many Bothans died to bring us this information.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 01:16 PM EST |
"Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by
software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that
redistributors of a free program will individually obtain
patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary.
To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent
must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed
at all."
Which section of the GPL accomplishes this with respect to
patents not held by the redistributor? I am unable to find
that section. Please quote the specific text.
The patents (if there are any) are held by MS. Novell did
not license those patents before this agreement was made.
So How can Novell be in GPL violation NOW, and not have
been in violation before the agreement?
Does the GPL say that redistributors must guarantee that
there are no possible patent claims against the program
from all possible third parties? If so, a lot of
redistributors are in trouble, not just Novell.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 01:19 PM EST |
How to transform SUSE Linux in MS Linux:
1. Let Novell become the only trusted Linux distro for corporations
2. Give them MS Office for Linux, licensed only for SUSE
3. Buy Novell (or find the way to put them off business)
4. Start selling MS Linux Corporate Edition
Done!
What! You say there is GPL existing? You will try to sue them? You must be
kidding. Very funny![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- GPL Matters - Authored by: cventers on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:16 PM EST
- and ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:16 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 01:26 PM EST |
Novel has just lost the techical backing for any company to purchase their brand
of Linux. What they seem to forget is that Linux is Linux. Any distribution
will do. So now when the purchasing dept goes to the technical types for the
purchasing recomendation, Suse will not get it because "the parts we need
are not covered by the agreement" so there is no reason to pay extra for
them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 01:35 PM EST |
Extend -> Embrace -> Exsanguinate
M$ hasn't changed its
tactics since I have been following them for 20 years. Let's face it, IBM was
Gates' first large hide on the wall. But what is really curious is how many
companies think this will be different for them. Ha! Gates is a very clever guy
and even sharpest and most experience business people get snookered by him. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: theMutant on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 02:13 PM EST |
First of all, IANAL and I don't pretend to understand all of the legal
requirements entailed by the GPL. However, I do know that Novell has
distributed its own proprietary code on top of SUSE (specifically in its OES
distribution) for several years and, while the FOSS community has vocally stated
that it didn't like it, there were no claims that it violated the GPL. With that
in mind, I started to consider one particular aspect of the press conference and
the releases that may explain the royalty payment requirement.
Novell has promoted XEN and even announced in Brainshare last March that OES 2
will include a version of NetWare (proprietary code) optimized to run in XEN.
The question that came to my mind is, how would one go about getting XEN to work
with Windows? Now, M$ is (as we all know) very protective of its patents and
writing code to interract with its API's might involve stepping on those
patents. Did VMware have to pay M$ to get it to work (and be supported) with
Windows? My guess is that it did. It is likely that the same will be true
regarding XEN.
Also, it has not yet been made clear on which distribution of SUSE this
subscription (which includes the royalty) will be available. Novell offers four
distinct distributions of SUSE; SLES, SLED, OES and openSUSE. Of the four, only
openSUSE is, to my understanding, fully OSS The other distributions all include
Novell's own proprietary code that has not been released under the GPL but has
been included in a way that does not violate it.
During the press conference, I can only remember the royalty being metioned in
regard to SLES. Now, SLES is incorporated into OES so that is probably included
as well. It may be the case (and we should wait and see what unfolds) that the
royalty only applies to SLES and OES and that the "IP peace of mind"
agreement only applies to running Windows in XEN on those specific
distributions. SLED might be included although I don't think XEN is included in
its distribution. Might there be a business justification for saying we will
migrate to SLED and OpenOffice but we need to run XP (or Vista whenever it gets
released) for certain things that are not (yet) available on SLED?
Now, we all know that M$ does not simply give things away. Neither does Novell
for that matter as it still charges for any purchase of its own proprietary
code. So, doesn't it stand to reason that M$ would charge for modules written
for XEN that touch on their IP? As long as these pieces of code are independent
and not rewritten versions of GPL'd code, then they do not fall under the GPL
and are not in violation of it. (Unless the users here at Groklaw not state
that the GPL effectively does what they ridicule SCO for claiming in its case
against IBM: that SCO can now control the terms of IBM's own code simply because
it touched - in any way - SRVx.) From what I have read about the GPL,
proprietary code can be written to interact with GPL code without having to be
put under the GPL. It is only when directly modifying GPL code (and then, for
distribution) that the new code must also be put under the GPL.
My expectation is that Novell (and their lawyers) have carefully studied the GPL
and know what is required. If my above assumption is correct, then, we can
expect that any such development to run Windows on SUSE/XEN will not be included
in the openSUSE distribution since that one (to the best of my knowledge) does
not include proprietary code. Remember that Novell has stated all along that it
intends to co-exist and be a player in both the proprietary and OSS markets. In
my opinion, they have lived up to this and have not sold out.
---
David W. Cooney, CNB (Certified Novell Bigot)
IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 02:16 PM EST |
'Nuff said.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 02:20 PM EST |
I'm sorry to tell you folks this. Linux does violate a bunch of M$ patents.
It's the basic problem with software patents. You can't write a program these
days without violating somebody's patent. This is why every startup I've worked
for has had a priority to build up a war chest of patents. The hope is if
someone sue you. You can sue back. Then you both smile, shake hands and agree
to cross license each other patents. This happens all the time.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 02:41 PM EST |
I've just sent this off to Novell, was I angry when I wrote it? You bet!
FAO RW
Hovsepian,
I am both disgusted and dismayed by the announcement today of the
"arrangement" between Novell and Microsoft, In one fell swoop you have attempted
to discredit and undermine the work of thousands of volunteer programmers and
the thousands of other people who have been involved with the Linux product and
community over the years. By your actions you are attempting to give credence to
the corporate misconception that software is patentable, I find your stupidity
with regard to this course of action staggering, irresponsible and totally
misguided.
I have to state that I have been a very happy and satisfied user
over the last 6 or 7 years of the SuSE offering, and I must add, that I took
what I thought was the right decision to obtain the "paid for" product and not
go for the free download option, however it appears that my, what I thought of
as, principled behaviour ,has not been reciprocated by your company, bigger fool
me! Upon hearing the news of abandonment of any form of ethical behaviour by
Novell I have been forced to make the decision that my relationship with Novell
must now cease, and that the SuSE distribution will no longer grace any disk
drive on any computer within my company now or in the future. I can only hope
that you are satisfied with this outcome which are as a direct result of your
actions.
Therefore, to paraphrase a famous journalist "Goodnight and good luck"
(I think you're gonna need it!)
Yours in disgust,
C P WIll[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 02:43 PM EST |
In the various articles analyzing the agreement between Microsoft and Novell
there are a lot of statements about how the agreement affects other entities.
This agreement is between Microsoft and Novell. It neither protects nor
threatens anybody who is not a party to the agreement. The various covenents
made by Microsoft are irrelevent to anybody other than Novell.
The
contradictions between the terms of the agreement and the terms of the GPL meant
that Novell will never be able to live up to the terms of their agreement with
Microsoft. Under GPL2 you cannot restrict distribution rights to Open Source
code. If Novell distributes GPL2 code then the recipients can redistribute that
code regardless of Novell's patent agreement with Microsoft. Richard Stallman is
working on GPL3 to remove any doubts that patents cannot be used to
differentiate among Open Source
users.
----------------------
Steve Stites
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 03:00 PM EST |
"Did you ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?"
— The Joker
The Joker/Jack Napier, to Batman/Bruce Wayne, in Batman (1989). Quote said
before he kills his victims.
Nuff said,
JimS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 03:01 PM EST |
You know all the comments about the terms in GPLv3 relating to patents, the
ones that're aimed at blocking entities from using patents to block others from
distributing GPLv3'd software while distributing it themselves?
I hate to
say I told you so...
No, it's not direct. But MS can easily use this
agreement to steer business into using Novell/SuSE while using patents against
all other distros. Then they only have one company to destroy to eliminate their
competition and dead-end Linux in business. The GPLv3 patent terms couldn't
touch MS (unless they actually distribute the code, which they won't). They
would, however, tie Novell's hands when it came to distributing SuSE without
passing the protection of their agreement along to all recipients who could in
turn pass it along, spreading the umbrella of protection too wide for any "now
we only have one company to shut down" tactic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RLP on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 03:10 PM EST |
this isn't just Bill and Larry continuing their childish games into the Linux
playground? Bill has Novell as his playing piece(the hat) and Larry is trying to
get Red Hat for his(the shoe). Then they can happily play Monopoly and nobody
else gets to pass go or collect any dollars.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 03:15 PM EST |
>Otherwise, I'd say my best guess is Microsoft threatened and
>Novell caved rather than go through patent litigation. It
>should have trusted the community instead, if that is what
>happened.
My guess is the same.
And I don't blame Novell, it saw more than once how dangerous
Microsoft is. Novell also has pretty big legal bills with
respect to SCO, and it will not see much money out of it,
even if Novell will win in court. (My guess is that the
large transactions in SCO lately are a sign of looting.
Think about Ken Lay selling his stock to Enron, while
Enron run out of money, fast.)
What "we" really need is an agreement between most Linux
vendors to support each other. Every patent suit will be
considered by such an alliance, and the legal bills will
be divided between them. Yes, I know that United Linux
was the beginning for something like that, but I am not
all that impressed with the result.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Toon Moene on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:07 PM EST |
> I'd agree with Tim Patterson, one of the commentors on
> my site, that Novell CEO "Hovespian fell into the trap.
Hmm, I don't agree. He started as a CEO of Novell six months ago and
immediately initiated this "deal".
That's not because he fell for it, but because he was planted to enable this
deal.
---
Toon Moene (A GNU Fortran maintainer and physicist at large)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Bitey on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:23 PM EST |
I've been going through all of this in my head and the only sense I can make of
this is that it's a big FUD gambit for both Novell and MS.
MS gets uninformed or skittish enterprise customers to shy away from Linux and
go with their new Vista line.
MS scares open source developers and distributors ala SCOX again. Makes consumer
scratch their heads.
Novell gets more Linux-savvy but MS-scared enterprise and corporate customers to
move to SUSE for "protection".
Novell encourages more open source developers to work lawsuit-free with SUSE. (I
think that'll backfire, which will make MS smile anyway)
...but there is just one other little thing that is bugging me. Apple and MS had
a patent non-litigation deal a while back and it's been very good for Apple.
So...does Novell have something up its sleeve? Can they use this as a club on
MS? I'm not smart enough to know. But this is a pretty FUDdy deal.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tizan on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:24 PM EST |
On the lighter side:
Has anybody really found dates on slashdot ?
Is there any such stories in real life ?
---
tizan: What's the point of knowledge if you don't pass it on. Its like storing
all your data on a 1-bit write only memory ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: arthurpaliden on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:27 PM EST |
Novell is just trying to increase its market share for SUSE Linux by giving
their distribution some added value via IP protectio that will resonate with
middle and upper management. Unfortunately by doing so they impune, by virtue
of Microsoft's pronouncements regarding possible legal actions, the hard work
and reputations of all those who have provided the basis for the original
product that they are selling, the original SUSE distribution of Linux. Which
is the same avenue that tSCOg tried, using IP protection as a value added
element to the Linux operating system and by extension Linux distributions. The
only difference here is that it will not be Novell initiating any legal actions
it will be Microsoft so that Novell can sit back and say to the open source
community, "hey it not us doing it".
---
Have you payed your legal tax today?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 04:35 PM EST |
From Jason Matusow, Microsoft's Director of Corporate Standards: "Under the
patent agreement, customers will receive coverage for Mono, Samba, and
OpenOffice as well as .NET and Windows Server. "
This makes me think Mono
was the real target. Novell invested heavily in
their-clone-of-Microsoft's-clone-of-Java; and Microsoft has been getting a
number of patents related to compiler technologies relevant to their C#/.NET
stuff.
I wonder if the reason Microsoft could force Novell into this as
opposed to Red Hat or Debian or Gentoo or Canonical or any of the dozens of
other companies is because Novell invested so much in C# infrastructure and
doesn't want to see it go to waste if Microsoft has some strong patents
protecting it.
My conclusion, though:
- Stay away from Mono/C# -
it's probably patent encumbered.
- Stay *FAR* *FAR* away from SuSE Linux.
Their own vendor thinks it's patent encumbered and shockingly to me won't even
tell you why!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 05:01 PM EST |
I believe the picture looks very different in Europe, where this is likely to be
seen as very good news. In the round, Europe is less affected by American
litigation anyway.
Add the highly unusual situation of havng Microsoft
influenced litigation so held up to the light for so long, in such depth, and
found transparent will weaken future Microsoft attempts.
This means that the
Novell/Microsoft deal is more likely to be seen as a major reduction in Vista v
Open Office switching concerns in a political climate that is very hacked off
with Microsoft period.
Next steps? More Governments and Local Authorities will
announce Open Source initiatives fast, not all Novell, and by March 2007 the
successful sales models of Linux equipped PCs needing open source enterprise
servers from Asia will hit London, Berlin, Paris, Rome...
Microsoft's markets
will return back to North America, but innovative technology trends may favour
Asia and Europe.
Open Source Evangelists should be aware but, again in the
round, by 2009-2012, I believe Microsoft will not feature much in the open
source end game.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gfolkert on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 05:26 PM EST |
Not that I condone what Novell has allowed Microsoft to hold the knife and
position it where it is going to be...
Just that, if you are going to get
proper exposure and usage and familiarity and cooperative Linux implementations
you have to sign The deal with Satan while wearing a lead alloy
lined, asbestos suit, with a special enhanced back and pooper shield.
As
a special procaution1, never look over the shoulders whilst
wearing that suit. It gives Microsoft the chance to do all the dirty work they
want, having little effect on the real product, except more exposure, upping
usage, gaining familiarity and making the "host" look far worse than it really
is.
IOW, this allows the "Brilliantly Cut, Flawless, Colorless, Clear
Diamond" to be uncovered or discovered in the dog-doo that surrounds
it.
Also, based on my experience, Linux DOES run better as a hosted OS
(in Windows) than Windows running as the hosted OS (on Linux or Windows). It
boggles my mind as to why, though I do have a good idea
why.
1 == Yes, I know the "proper" spelling.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 05:27 PM EST |
This whole M$ and Novell agreement smells and smells badly.
I cannot fully explain why.
The secrecy of the whole thing is part of the problem. Secondly some key
players were not invited to attend. Players such as RMS and Professor Moglen.
Strictly suits were invited to the game.
krp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 05:32 PM EST |
Microsoft have started designing microchips.
When we do it, we need to run for about 7 days on a 32-way AIX SMP to lay the
wiring out right on the silicon.
Windows doesn't really do anything useful for this work.
I bet Microsoft are using SuSE Linux.
And it's a good idea always to be on friendly terms with your suppliers, in case
you need prompt service one day.
It's a new world.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 05:36 PM EST |
There it was masquerading as a harmless attempt to make the world a better
place, and Novell just felt so sorry for it with those puppy eyes and that
little waggly tail, so it decided it would take it to its bosom and nurse it
back to health. Besides, if Novell starts to feel a bit sick down the road, the
virus will nurse Novell back to health won't it,................ won't it,
...................won't it???[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 05:56 PM EST |
Novell knows the Open Source community fairly well. They have seen how strong
the community is especially what happened to EV1 servers. Reading Groklaw
alone, you can see how strong the community is.
1. Novell must have at least considered how the Open Source community would
react. The probably expected that the open source would not like it and that
people would bring up the GPL. I can't imagine Novell would turn on the open
source community, not after all they did, if they wanted, they could have went
along with SCO's scheme from the start.
2. I see Novell putting a good faith effort here to combine windows and linux.
If Linux really wants into the OS market, they have to play with other OS's, so
why not work with MS. This is really what the open source wants. Certainly not
everyone will have a linux OS. Then linux would be the monopoly.
3. There could be possible GPL violations. But if Open source wants to work
with MS or Mac, how can it happen without breaking the GPL? Is it the goal of
Open Source to be a competive player? I don't know how it can compete with MS
if its not somehow mixed in with it. Anyway thats my take.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 06:04 PM EST |
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2006113326103.g
if
I think we will ALL want their company address
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 06:45 PM EST |
GPL clause 7:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or
allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent
issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse
you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to
satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other
pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program
at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or
indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this
License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the program.
If any
portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular
circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as
a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of
this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right
claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole
purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system,
which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that
system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the
author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through
any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
Unless Microsoft has overlooked something that allows Novell
to distribute code which can then be redistributed onward by anyone without the
patent threats, then Novell must cease distribution of Linux or renege on the
deal.
Basically, if Novell continues distributing Linux, those who buy
Linux from Novell don't get any protection. If they do, Novell is in breach of
GPL and must cease distribution. This makes SUSE Linux products the least safe
Linux product to use. The first time someone is sued by Microsoft for anything
in SUSE Linux being redistributed, SUSE Linux is shut down for everybody.
Hosvespian is the blithering idiot of the century!
My advice to customers is
to avoid SUSE Linux if you don't want to be left suddenly without support.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wrong - Authored by: theMutant on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 07:06 PM EST
- Re: Wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 07:32 PM EST
- And the first step ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 04 2006 @ 03:42 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 06:46 PM EST |
I thought they canned that program a long time ago. YaST - what a joke.
"Yet another sorry tool."
Makes me appreciate my ubuntu all the more. 3 machines, all Edgy Eft. Maybe
there's some good reason to use SuSE in the enterprise, but for the home user no
way. That's a lesson I learned the hard way.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 06:50 PM EST |
I would like to understand a few points before making a definitive judgement.
1- Does the terms of the deal violate the GPL as Bruce Perens and Eben Mogden
asked? I bet the pit bulls thought about it so the answer is probably no.
2- Does the terms of the deal reduces anyone's freedom in the FSF sense? Here
again I bet the answer is no. The patent treaths on programmers and FOSS project
exist regardless what kind of deal Novell signs. So the freedom of programmers
is not changed in any way.
If I guess correctly, the deal would be innocuous from a licensisng perspective.
Microsoft's convenant not to sue may be bogus, but if nobody is harmed, let's
make it a laughing matter.
Other questions:
3- Does this deal has FUD value due to the patent treaths? I think there is and
this could be the real harm. The community can response to FUD by debunking
them. We have been pretty good at it until now,
4- Is this a prelude to actual patent lawsuits instead of mere treaths? Then the
deal is not mere FUD. It is a vivid illustrate of the effect of the patent
thicket on free competition. The ability of Microsoft to collect royalties on
software developed by others without the consent of the legitimate owner is very
telling.
Novell just tried to negotiate its way through the thicket to secure its
business, programmers and customers. Its mistake is it failed to really solve
the patent problem, and this is an impossible task. They sought a solution for
themselves and their attempt to extend the protection to the community is
pathetic. But I don't see anything harmful that wasn't there before except
Novell lost much goodwill from a large fraction of the community.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: leopardi on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 07:01 PM EST |
Ted Haeger at Novell is asking
for questions. for
a "special edition for Novell Open Audio."
I've already
submitted mine. You may want to add your own
questions.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 07:35 PM EST |
I think the deal stinks.
I wonder what Novell has that Microsoft wants to quash, steal, skuttle.
Since Novell has all the Unix copyrights and patents, maybe Microsoft used some
of them in Vista after they paid SCO $10 million bucks. Now it seems they may
have bought nothing from a company, SCO, that did not own what Microsoft wanted
from Unix and has used in Vista.
Now why Novell would enter a deal with Microsoft, a company of known predatory
and cannibalistic behaviors is beyond me, a Novell stockholder, with a lot of
stock.
Yuk
Yoda 1[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 07:41 PM EST |
Bill Hilf, general manager of the platform strategy group for Microsoft,
will discuss the site during his keynote at the conference in Boston.....Hilf,
who formerly worked on Linux deployments at IBM, has been overseeing Microsoft’s
Linux and open-source interoperability lab at its Redmond, Wash., campus for the
past two years. He recently moved into a more senior position, replacing Martin
Taylor, who has moved over to the Windows Live team. Hilf now is in charge of
all of Microsoft’s open-source compatibility efforts, including its
controversial Get the Facts anti-Linux campaign and its SharedSource initiative,
which is the company’s own version of allowing developers access to some of its
proprietary source code.
The aim of the new website is to make transparent
Microsoft’s efforts to ensure its proprietary systems interoperate with
open-source software, including Linux..... CIO Hovsepian
revealed that he was the one who had opened the negotiations with Microsoft. He
made the first moves in April 2006, not long after he became Novell's
CEO.....
DeskTopLinux
June 30, 2006 SCO revisited? No, but Firestar
sues Red Hat over Hibernate
In a move reminiscent of SCO's lawsuit over
Linux source code, FireStar Software has sued Red Hat over patent violations in
Hibernate3, saying that it violates a process for employing a relational
database with object oriented software. The patent seems unenforceable for a lot
of reasons, but it's still there.
The patent, specifically, is U.S. Patent
#6,101,502.....here's a summary from the patent:
In accordance with the
present invention, a mapping between an object model and a relational database
and a runtime engine are employed to facilitate access to a relational
database.........provides transparent access to the relational database. The
interface objects and runtime engine perform read and write operations on the
database, including generation of SQL code......
Theserverside Brian S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:04 PM EST |
Meanwhile in Europe, India and China Linux moves on.
Things might become sticky in Europe if software patents become legal, so we may
become irrelevant too.
As Google explains to us every day, it is not how big your pc is or what os you
are using, but what use you make of the knowledge you have and can access.
If you are using something big and expensive that runs Vista , but cannot
actually do anything due to WMP11/DRM permissions, or build on the knowledge in
the os to make something new,
dont be too surprised when someone with a $100 pc running Linux does something
interesting, and you end up paying to get it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ursus_Orribilus on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:05 PM EST |
If Novell doesn't want to play within the ethics of the Linux community, then
it's time to kill SuSE. I have used SuSE for almost ten years, since around
1996/97. I have always considered it to be one of the best distributions-- very
polished, and as perfect as was available with each distro. Shortly after
Novell bought it I began to have doubts as to its future use by me. But I hung
on to see what would happen-- I hung on in the spirit of giving Novell a chance.
And SuSE did get better. Then, within the past three months, I reluctantly
tried GNOME for the first time, because Novell had declared its support for it.
I have had doubts about GNOME from its inception, because Miguel Icaza seemed to
be a Microsoft wannabe, with his footsing around with Mono, .Net, and C#, and
trying to put that garbage into Linux. Why would anybody in their right mind
want to use anything by Microsoft in Linux? That boggles the mind. And now
Novell reveals with their latest misguided decision, that it, too, is sucking up
to Microsoft. After a month of using GNOME, I went back to KDE, because GNOME
took away from me most of the functionality of the desktop I had in KDE. GNOME
is like a girl with a pretty face and a zero mind. Now my faith in SuSE has
been totally undone with this shotgun marriage between Novell and Microsoft. I
will be switching either to Debian or Kubuntu as quickly as possible, after I do
a little more Googling about the differences between them. I am leaning toward
Kubuntu. The best thing about Kubuntu, as opposed to Ubuntu (which defaults to
GNOME-- does it?-- correct me if I am wrong) is that the Kubuntu installation
does not include ANY GNOME packages, unlike SuSE 10.1 with the KDE
installation. If Icaza wants to support Microsoft, why doesn't he just go to
work for them? Oh, wait-- that's just what he has been doing all along, isn't
it? Want to save Linux from Microsoft's greedy clutches? Then dump SuSE now
for something else. Put Novell out of the Linux business. They never deserved
to be there anyway, as we all now know. I am not worried where this nefarious
"partnership" with Microsoft will go, because I know that the Linux community is
not going to let Microsoft get away with this. The GPL will stop it. Where
will Novell get the developers after this? Just sit tight and watch SuSE die.
That will be a shame, and it will be Novell who has killed it. Idiots! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:26 PM EST |
Pure coincidence but I had just had too much of SUSE even before this event.
After many years of Red Hat and Fedora, I decided a few months ago to go SUSE.
After lots of frustration, I now know what's best for me. Today I threw out my
Suse10.1 and fired up Ubuntu on my production machine. Very refreshing! Clearly
an improvement. My other development machines are running Fedora 5. And by the
way, that Xen stuff... do yourself a favor, stay away from it. VMware works, Xen
doesn't!
My laptop is next up for Ubuntu! Who needs Novell anyway?
Remember the old days of Novell? They never learn. They bought Suse and managed
to destroy it.
The nice thing with GPL is you can sort of laugh at it and move on with those
who does a better job. Move on with GPLv3.
Happy Hacking!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:40 PM EST |
Novell European president Tom Francese demonstrates to
The Inquirer why Novell just does not grok it. Here is one particularly
boneheaded comment:
INQ: How about OpenOffice, Microsoft Office
and document formats?
TF: There’s always been this struggle to interoperate
well and we think we’ll be better served on document interchange. We have
learned in the past that this shouldn’t be a threat to either company and taking
it up a level will benefit everybody. Religious wars are not productive and are
a thing of the past.
So at Microsoft, interoperability with its
Office formats is *not* perceived as a threat? Does anyone at Novell other than
Tom Francese really believe that?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 08:56 PM EST |
I don't think this is really about patents. There are some shrewd people at
Microsoft (unlike SCO, perhaps), and I doubt they really want to get into
litigating their patents on a large scale. They'll go after "low hanging
fruit",
perhaps, and they defend themselves against others, but I'd bet that
they
recognize the weakness of the junk patent system. If they litigate, they
could
lose. It's better for them to keep it as a vague threat. That's where
they get
FUD milage.
What I think this deal is really about, from
Microsoft's perspective, is a way to
deploy MS "technology" into the Linux
space, without having to open it. I
think they want a distro that will include
MS blobs. The words are there:
"interoperability" is the goal. MS probably
isn't so worried about the client
side, so these would probably be
free-as-in-beer. They want to shore up
their server side. So, I'd expect to
see blobs that allow Linux apps to transact
with .Net servers, without
disclosing details.
It's harder to figure what's in it for Novell. I guess
they're betting that the
Linux that plays best with MS tech will be attractive
in the corporate world.
Which might well be true. But it is kinda wierd,
given Novell's history with
Microsoft. Unless there's a "smoking gun" patent
violation somewhere in
Linux, which I doubt. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blackcube on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 09:31 PM EST |
What if Microsoft knows that Vista is going to be the biggest egg they have ever
laid? Bigger than "Bob". What if they are trying to cover bases with
a possible "Microsoft Visual Linux" to offer when Vista tanks? Maybe
they think they have enough resources to fend off FSF in court (bury them in
paperwork) long enough to "embrace and extend" Linux into a Microsoft
product.
It wouldn't suprise me for Bill, Steve and Co. to think that they can ride
roughshod over anyone that has the guts to stand in their path.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 04 2006 @ 05:05 AM EST |
Interestingly, Tim Paterson is the name of the original author of
DOS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ti
m_Paterson [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Peter Baker on Saturday, November 04 2006 @ 05:18 AM EST |
Remember when the MS Windows source code was leaked on the Net? I spend several
weeks ensuring that the guys I knew would actively avoid ever being exposed to
it because there would otherwise be a risk of intellectual pollution (i.e. MS
claiming their subsequent code was derivative - not to mention that the quality
of their code could suffer :-).
I see this as another, much broader attempt to do just the same. Expect
'generous' code sharing by MS to try and pollute as many projects as possible.
As soon as I get back into the office I will root out any product that runs on
SuSE - I already had discussions with the OpenExchange guys about getting it to
run on Ubuntu.
There is no, repeat, no way I will allow any Novell based product to run in what
I can control as I now perceive that to be heading for the same risk-inducing
scenario as using MS products represents. I fail to see why an enterprise
should pay more money to introduce more risk into the business.
Even the most ignorant CEO can see the risk when it's laid out in front of them
- I guess it's time to write it all down as another part of TCO.
I'll start a project - I need people to help, though. Who?
---
= PB =
"Only a man can suffer ignorance and smile" - Sting
(Englishman in New York)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rob.hughes on Saturday, November 04 2006 @ 08:34 AM EST |
Well, he does. NOVL is now cast in the unfortunate role of
being the next ex-MS
partner. While NOVL may have some
crafty people, MS is the king of screwing
their partners
after getting whatever they want out of the deal. And the
patent precedent now set is most likely what they wanted.
My
guess is their
longer term strategy is to start going
after the multimedia guys first, since
you can't have a
desktop OS without multimedia functionality. And that
would
shut down that threat. The next step will probably
be to go after individual
module maintainers where they
think they can bludgeon a given maintainer into
dropping
out. I don't think we'll see them going after Linus,
Andrew M., etc.
any time soon, since they know too many
people would come to help with their
defense. Instead, I
see them picking away at the base of the linux kernel
developers.
But for anyone that think there's no patents being
violated
anywhere in an entire linux distribution, I'd
have to say that such people are
extremely naive, at best.
Reverse engineering gets you around copyrights, but
that's
why MS is so fond of patents: you can't use a patented
method, period
(unless you pay, of course). And so that's
probably how it all went down; NOVL
went to MSFT with what
they thought was a sure-fire deal to get some easy money
out of MS for some IP infringement or other, and MS turned
around and said
"Fine, sue us. Get in line. But remember,
we have billions in the bank to
defend against this with,
and we'll counter-sue for everything we think will be
seen
as an even vaguely plausible violation in SuSE. Have a
nice day." So what
NOVL ended up with was a decision by
upper management to let MSFT bleed them a
bit each month
in return for a promise not to sue them or their customers
instead of trying to litigate a lawsuit over dozens or
hundreds of
patents.
Not that I'm cynical about the whole mess, or anything... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tz on Saturday, November 04 2006 @ 09:26 AM EST |
Anyone can patent almost anything. It would be better to have Microsoft accuse
Nevell and see if any held up. If any did, then Linux would be rewritten around
them. If they all fell down, then the last major piece of FUD would be gone.
The key problem is that if there is a valid patent - and isn't Nevell admitting
there are with the deal - then the software covered by the patent CANNOT be
redistributed according to the GPL. The only thing that gives Nevell (or SCO to
remind people about that) the right to distribute Linux is the GPL. If the GPL
is violated or isn't held valid, the software doesn't become public domain, it
goes back to the MORE restrictive copyright.
If Nevell says they have to pay royalties (including one-time agreements to
Micrushaft) to distribute it, THEY are in violation. The software cannot be
covered by the GPL because of the derivative redistribution clauses (as others
have excerpted - if you can't redistribute because of patents, you simply can't
redistribute at all).
Compton claimed a patent on practically all data CDs that looked up information
- it was held invalid. Eolas had patents - which microsoft says aren't valid.
Also there is the matter of enforcement - if you don't enforce a patent for a
long time, you can't wait years then enforce it. Or the case of Rambus who
attended a standards committee to write into a spec things covered by their
"submarine" patents then sprang them after everyone started to adopt
the technology (their technology and patent claims were eventualy both
rejected).
Until they actually go to court, a software patent's use is merely for FUD.
But just like EV1 fell for SCO's claims, Nevell fell for Microsoft's claims.
Again, if Nevell says they need a license to redistribute Linux (Evolution,
Mono, whatever) because of patents, they have no rights to redistribute it under
the GPL. So either they have to come out and clearly renounce any licensing, or
stop redistributing as they have no right to do so under the GPL.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 04 2006 @ 06:39 PM EST |
From his blog:
Why did you guys work this deal with
Microsoft?
Although I did not take part of the actual negotiations, and was
only told about this deal less than a week before the announcement, I had been
calling for a long time for a collaboration between Microsoft and Open Source
and Microsoft and Novell.
As much as i've disagreed with
Miguel on many occasions, he's not stupid, or evil (and I can nearly say that
with a straight face, after having to deal with two of his abominable babies for
6 odd years: bonobo and etable! But hey, we all made plenty of mistakes back
then ...). Perhaps arrogant, and caught up in his own importance at times, but
good on 'im for that I guess. Anyway, cooperation is one thing, which is all
well and good, but this deal doesn't sound like a software hacker inspired one
...
No, it sounds more like a purely legal/bean counter's wet dream. Novell
is still very much a proprietary software company at heart, even if they've done
a lot of good free-software things recently. It seems as though (from one of
the last commentators in the main story) that legal found they had some patents
that MS were infringing, they went after it for some extra cash, and MS came
back with some counter 'claims', and they sorted it all out in a cozy deal. So
they make a few quick bucks ... and get to help MS out in its efforts to make
linux COST money to everyone at the same time - an MS tax even on OUR FREE
SOFTWARE.
NotZed (ex Ximian/Novell 'hacker')
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 04 2006 @ 11:20 PM EST |
Just wiped SUSE 10.1 and installed Mandriva Free 2007.
Novell can learn their lesson without me!
Freedom is more important.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 05 2006 @ 01:27 AM EST |
1) Never was shown any patentable code inside Linux,
during long time. Even when existing, thus, the
patent-owners agreed tacially with its use, and with that
its published, and going into public domain.
2) On the other side, anyway its part on the total code
would be extremly small, such like 0,1% (as example).
Then, on all profits from selling, the open programmers
would have the right of 99,9% and patent-owners 0.1%.
3) open programmers never renounced in any absolute sense,
but only w.r.t. cases of application of the GPL.
However, the selling of Linux, or any claim like patent
rights, is outside the GPL. In fact, such a selling by
M$/Novell is not more inside but expressively outside the
GPL, its that M$/Novell sell pirat copies of Linux. For
this, 1st is not more applicable the GPL and its renounce
of payment by the programmers, 2nd its case of a
indemnization.
4) The software fundation or GNU should better
incoorporate in them new license GPL3, this, and that the
programmers stay with a copyright and disponibility right
over their work; also, that they transfer to FSF or GNU
the no-exclusive right to process collectively infrcators
of the GNU license[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 05 2006 @ 11:00 AM EST |
Patents don't trump antitrust laws,
either.
Actually, It would be nice to see this as a penalty
for anti-trust violation. Right now it seems that levying any monetary penalty
has done little to curb Microsoft’s greed and lack of regard to anti-trust laws.
It makes complete logical sense that the government who granted limited
monopolies via patents should now lift that grant for the repeated violations of
anti-trust regulations.
This would level the playing field. And seems
fitting to a company that asks government to grant the monopolies in certain
aspects of business and fragrantly violate monopoly regulations in
others.
It seems like a much stronger incentive to adhere to the
regulations. Don't adhere to government rules? Fine, then don't expect help or
privileges from "de jure monopolies." If this seems too drastic to void all
company held patents, then maybe only voiding the patents it holds that are
older than a certain age may be more equitable.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 05 2006 @ 01:18 PM EST |
Very few people know if Novell violated the GPL. Why?
Because very few people have seen the text of the
agreement. The people who have seen it, Novell lawyers,
don't appear worried.
Very few people know if Novell admitted that MS has valid
patent claims against Linux. (They would have to have been
beyond stupid to do so.) Why? Because very few people have
seen the full text of the agreement.
Very few people know if Novell sold out free software.
Why? Because very few people have seen the actual text of
the agreement.
For all we actually know, MS made a blunder, and Novell
made a deal that is good for the community! We would have
to see the text to know!
According to this article by Joe Barr:
http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/11/03/2325229
Novell may be required to reveal more in a upcoming FTC
filling. Perhaps then we will see the text and be able to
compare with the text of the GPL. We will be able to
analyze the effect on the community if any.
I can get plenty of of jumping to conclusions, panic,
cries of outrage, and rumors at slashdot or Linux today.
From Groklaw, I expect reasoned analysis from established
facts.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 05 2006 @ 05:13 PM EST |
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2505:
The worst
thing about it is that what's in MS's crosshair is not just Novell. It's all of
Linux and Free/Open Sourse Software. Novell is aiding and abetting that assault
by recognizing in writing and in payment Microsoft's claims of its intellectual
property stakes in Linux. Look, what a wonderful exhibit to use in courtrooms
and in front of judges! And once the other Linux vendors are dealt with, in 5 or
6 years, when the present treaty is expired, they can comfortably go after
Novell too (the're planned to be the only ones left).[...]
I just think
its very funny that Novell was strangled by MS some years ago and barely got
away with its life. And now gets into bed with the same company. Its such a nice
strong man, ehh, company, afterall...
The details released so far show this is
a really bad thing for free software everywhere.
Novell is encouraged to add
features to open source software which MS has a patent on. And Novell can sell
those items, no problems. Unfortunately all the other distros can not sell that
same open source software without getting a license at MS as well.
Having a
royalty payment on each and every box of linux sold must sound great to them.
Seems like MS indeed embraced open source.
If anyone needs good open
source developers, I'm sure there are various people at Novell/SuSE that are
keeping their eyes open.
You are absolutely right that this goes
against the intent of the GPL. However, I am afraid the community and the FSF
may have been outsmarted by Novell/MS this time.
The problem is that
only Microsoft, the patent holder, can trigger the enforcement of section 7 of
the GPL, by "a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement". As long as
they just sit and wait, SUSE/Novell can claim that they don't see any problems
with whatever code they add to your GPL'd program. Thus, they can keep poisoning
their code base for years, forcing the community to either ignore any code
coming from Novell (leading to a fork) or to include it anyway (leading to
disaster).
Novell will claim that they are distributing pure GPL code
with no additional restrictions, so you can't sue them for copyright violation.
Their code does not come with a patent license or any other strings attached,
you see. Sure, there is the "covenant", but since no patents are really
infringed anyway in their opinion, how is that relevant
again?
Meanwhile, all of the above has zero relevance the day Microsoft
decides to finally sue, say, Red Hat. Obviously the covenant offers no
protection for Red Hat and any GPL violation that Novell may have engaged in is
surely no excuse for Red Hat to infringe Microsoft's patents.
Only
after Red Hat has finally been destroyed in a lengthy legal process, lasting for
years and scaring everyone else away from anything open source, there might be
some legal ground for surviving KDE developers to sue Novell. But don't count on
winning.
IMHO Novell and Microsoft have very cleverly found a hole in
the GPL by this shady covenant construct. The good news is that the hole may
still be plugged in time for GPL v3. The FSF now has an opportunity, if they can
think of nothing else, to specifically forbid the very type of agreement that
Novell entered with Microsoft, thus denying the partners in crime any software
that switches over to GPL v3.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Great summary - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 06 2006 @ 07:32 AM EST
|
Authored by: mtew on Monday, November 06 2006 @ 03:45 AM EST |
better be wearing a Kevlar vest with a big hunting knife up their sleeve. Even
then you may not be able to get up the next day...
So, Novell should use the time this deal grants them preparing to be ... by MS.
They should also be preparing to take the offensive once things start to get
rough. They have good lawyers. They are probably getting prepared to give them
some very important work.
---
MTEW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 06 2006 @ 06:20 AM EST |
My first SuSE distro was 4.4 - about 10 years ago. I am not a zealot and I'm
not going to wipe all things SuSE from my hard disk immediately. Instead, I
will be carefully watching.
Don't you remember "divide and conquer"? If you let this escalate
into a fully fledged war and if former Linux companions become foes, Microsoft
has got all it could be asking for.
Keep together, and don't be so fast. A lion preys on animals with are singled
out.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 06 2006 @ 09:42 AM EST |
Lets look at the SCO case and, what if it came out in court documents that MS
was in fact funding SCO. This would put MS in the position of being sued by
Novell... unless MS had an agreement for Novell not to sue.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 06 2006 @ 04:41 PM EST |
While Microsoft are in a good mood , how quickly can we scatter a hundred
million SuSE Linuxes across the USA ?
You can download from SuSE Live BitTorrent
You can order from Amazon
You can ask a friend who already has one.
It doesn't really
matter whether they get used, or kept for a rainy day. Just use the distribution
channel now it's Open, and we'll argue about the details later. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|