|
As the light begins to come up over the horizon, Microsoft admits patent peace is not perfect - Updated |
|
Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 12:44 PM EST
|
A crack of light in the distance: Microsoft admits its patent peace with Novell missed the mark. Microsoft's Jason Matusow is blogging about it: “Nat Friedman and Miguel de Icaza from Novell have been extremely clear with us that the existing covenant is not good enough,” he added, noting that Microsoft also wanted to hear from open source community members it does not have relationships with, and inviting feedback on Microsoft’s plan. I'd call that a bit of progress, and good for Nat and Miguel for speaking up. Unfortunately, Microsoft has misunderstood how the GPL works, and where it stands on the issue of patents, if one gives Microsoft every benefit of every doubt. The folks they need to speak to are the Software Freedom Law Center. Like they're not already. But here's my suggestion anyway: stop trying to kill or sidestep the GPL. And stop trying to put a patent tax on Linux, so you or some surrogate gets a cut. Monopolies don't get to do just whatever enters their pretty little head, you know. Make your money on your own code, fair and square. There. I've said it. And what that means is that when Jason says the problem was in the execution, that the idea itself was solid, he has it wrong. The execution was outstanding, in a jujitsu kind of terrible way. The problem is the idea. You're trying to put new wine into old wineskins, as the saying goes, and it won't work. It can't. There will be no way to divide GPL developers into paid and not paid. Won't fly. Ever. There are other issues too. You can't restrict redistribution on GPL code. Period. You can't ask for royalties on GPL code. You can't add any restrictions to the GPL license. Seriously, you need to read the GPL and abide by it in all particulars, just like we have to respect your terms on your software. It's a matter of respecting what you call intellectual property. Explain that to your shareholders. And ultimately you'll find that you can't divide the FOSS community. With all our faults and the variety of views, as a group we will stick together when it counts. Patent threats, FUD or otherwise, count.
Update: And now for something completely different... a statement by Eben Moglen, quoted in Fortune's "Is the Microsoft-Novell deal dead on arrival?": The license, known as the GNU General Public License (GPL), had already been in the process of revision. In an interview with me this morning, Moglen promised that the foundation will now make "further changes" to the GPL that will make crystal clear that the Novell-Microsoft pact, or any similar pact, will violate it.
"It will surely violate GPL version 3," said Moglen, referring to the forthcoming version. Version 3 had been expected to be in place no later than March 15, 2007, though Moglen said he was uncertain whether the new circumstances would affect that schedule. "GPL version 3 will be adjusted so the effect of the current deal is that Microsoft will by giving away access to the very patents Microsoft is trying to assert."
Also, for a little context, from the International Herald Tribune's "EU gives Microsoft a deadline for antitrust compliance": On July 19, it submitted what it said was the final installment of information. The commission has since been examining the material with a monitor, Neil Barrett, who was picked by Microsoft to oversee its compliance with the 2004 ruling.
Todd said the dispute about compliance with the 2004 antitrust ruling had no bearing on the introduction of Microsoft's new operating system, Vista, this month.
In addition to providing the material to the commission, Microsoft has announced efforts to make its products work better with open-source products and those of rival companies. The moves were seen as an acknowledgment that customers increasingly run several different types of systems and are seeking ways to make these different parts work more seamlessly together.
On Tuesday, Microsoft and a group of partners introduced an alliance to make software from competing companies and partners work better together.
And this month, Microsoft struck a deal with Novell, a longtime rival, to ensure that Novell's version of the Linux operating system could operate with Windows in corporate data centers. Then there is Bill Gates' recent meeting with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso: President Barroso received today Bill Gates in his capacity as President of the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation to discuss development issues. Bill Gates welcomed the EC's support for the Global Fund and hoped it could continue. He thanked President Barroso for speaking out on development issues and Africa eg in the G8. Europe was showing leadership. President Barroso reiterated that Africa was a flagship for him, for Commissioner Michel and indeed for the Commission as a whole. And then there is Peter Galli's "Microsoft May Indemnify Some Red Hat Users": While Microsoft is hoping to enter into a patent deal with Red Hat similar to the one it has with Novell, the software giant has not ruled out going it alone and providing some sort of indemnification for its customers who use Red Hat
Linux.... Hilf, who has been touring Europe since the announcement, admitted that there's been a lot of negativity about the deal in the open-source community. "Our intention with this deal was not to create a problem, but rather to solve one," he said. And on that interoperability initiative: Today at Microsoft® Tech•Ed: IT Forum 2006, Microsoft Corp. announced the formation of the Interop Vendor Alliance, a global, cross-industry group of software and hardware vendors that will work together to identify opportunities for enhancing interoperability with Microsoft systems on behalf of their customers. Customers are telling Microsoft that interoperability is as important to them as security and reliability. Because of this, Microsoft is seeking to proactively work with partners and competitors alike to help increase customers’ return on investment in their IT solutions while reducing the cost and risk associated with integrating diverse systems. Founding members of the alliance include Advanced Micro Devices Inc., (AMD), BEA Systems Inc., Business Objects, CA, The Carbon Project, Centeris Corp., Citrix Systems Inc., GXS Inc., IP Commerce Inc., JNBridge LLC, Kernel Networks, Levi, Ray & Shoup Inc., Microsoft, NEC Corp. of America, Network Appliance Inc., Novell Inc., Q4bis, Quest Software Inc., Siemens Enterprise Communications, SOFTWARE AG, SugarCRM Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc., Symphony Services Corp., Xcalia, and XenSource Inc. Microsoft welcomes other organizations and vendors across the industry to explore membership in the alliance. I gather Microsoft would like to look interoperable. One last piece of the puzzle, IHT's "EU gives Microsoft a deadline for antitrust compliance": The European Commission said Wednesday that Microsoft had failed to provide all the data it had demanded and gave the company just eight days to provide all the remaining information on how its operating system works with other products....In addition to providing the material to the commission, Microsoft has announced efforts to make its products work better with open-source products and those of rival companies. The moves were seen as an acknowledgment that customers increasingly run several different types of systems and are seeking ways to make these different parts work more seamlessly together.
On Tuesday, Microsoft and a group of partners introduced an alliance to make software from competing companies and partners work better together.
And this month, Microsoft struck a deal with Novell, a longtime rival, to ensure that Novell's version of the Linux operating system could operate with Windows in corporate data centers.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:02 PM EST |
www.boycottnovell.com [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:07 PM EST |
Because all humans make mistakse [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:09 PM EST |
Please make all links clickable [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "It's true: The Zune is incompatible with Vista" - Mary Jo Foley - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 03:04 PM EST
- "Open sauce is good for the economy - study " - The Inq. - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 03:08 PM EST
- "Updating from my flight to Barcelona:" - Jason Matusow - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 03:23 PM EST
- SCO hands out Executive options - Authored by: stats_for_all on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 04:08 PM EST
- Microsoft May Indemnify Some Red Hat Linux Users - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 05:46 PM EST
- Microsoft to lay egg on turkey day? - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 08:02 PM EST
- Off topic thread - Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 10:05 PM EST
- Very wierd - Authored by: NetArch on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 10:07 AM EST
- Very wierd - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 11:44 AM EST
- Bill Gates lobbies the Speaker of the House - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 04:52 AM EST
- Off topic thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 05:59 AM EST
- Off topic thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 07:29 AM EST
- Spamhaus responce to "Busting Blocks" - Authored by: rcbixler on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 08:08 AM EST
- The Sorry State of Massachusetts - Authored by: Winter on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 09:56 AM EST
|
Authored by: marbux on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:14 PM EST |
Seriously, you need to read the GPL and abide by it in all
particulars, just like we have to respect your terms on your software. It's a
matter of respecting what you call intellectual
property.
Could we not just say that the Microsoft-Novell
deal boils down to software piracy?
--- Retired lawyer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:15 PM EST |
I still have trouble with people willing signing contracts with MSFT. How many
"partners" has MSFT stabbed in the back in just this decade? heck
this year alone has the AV companies, and Playforsure hardware/music companies
stabbed.
Napster already on shakey ground just died, as zune isn't compatible with their
music. AV companies have been leeching over off MSFT carelessness for years so
Vista isn't a surprise to me.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- As the light begins to come up over the horizon, Microsoft admits patent peace is not perfect - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:54 PM EST
- As the light begins to come up over the horizon, Microsoft admits patent peace is not perfect - Authored by: TAZ6416 on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 02:32 PM EST
- As the light begins to come up over the horizon, Microsoft admits patent peace is not perfect - Authored by: AJWM on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 06:00 PM EST
- Birth Rate - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 09:57 AM EST
- Remember MSX? - Authored by: Winter on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 02:50 AM EST
- As the light begins to come up over the horizon, Microsoft admits patent peace is not perfect - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 03:20 AM EST
- How many partners... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 17 2006 @ 03:04 PM EST
|
Authored by: MrCharon on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:26 PM EST |
Here is the link to the blog its self. Warning: links to
msdn.com
--- MrCharon
~~~~
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:29 PM EST |
Well spoken Pamela.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:35 PM EST |
Given that the Mono proponents are mainly responsible for positioning Novell as
an MS cloning shop, this does rather sound like stable doors slamming.
--
Dominic[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:37 PM EST |
Just a thought here, isn't this an attempt by Microsoft to devalue GPL code?
Isn't that "slander of title?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: J.F. on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 01:49 PM EST |
Well, they could do like Apple and slap a Windows-like layer on top of BSD and
use that as their next OS in 2010. It'd be much better than what they're doing
now, and the BSD license is more closed-business friendly than the GPL.
I really expected them to do that for Longhorn, but MS still hasn't learned
yet.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 02:05 PM EST |
At the press release when Microsoft and Novell announced their
deal
Steve Balmer, after being asked for a 45 second
summary:
"Two things, I'll make it real simple: Number one, [Novell and
Microsoft] are going to work together technically to help the Windows world and
the Linux world interoperate. Number two, we've struck a deal under which we can
provide patent agreements to Linux customers, in which Microsoft's intellectual
property is respected, and we are appropriately compensated for the use of our
intellectual property; and we've done both of those things in a way that we
think still allows the open source development community to actively pursue what
it has been doing on behalf of everybody for the last several
years."
But what intellectual property are we supposed
to be respecting? Assuming that we buy a SUSE system. Microsoft should be
honest about this, and state what they claim to own, it may be that there is
prior art, and their claims are unenforceable. But, if they keep to their word,
they should state what they are selling to us.
Brad
Smith Microsoft's general counsel and senior vice president,
"We really
had to think hard and work hard and be as creative as we could to figure out how
we could build a bridge in intellectual property -- a patent bridge -- between
open source and proprietary source software...I have to admit, there were times,
especially when we started, where we wondered, how will we do this? And yet
through an awful lot of great work, from some very bright people who figured out
how to work together, we built that bridge, and that's one of the really
historic things for our industry that we're able to talk about
today."
"To do that," Smith continued, "one of the things we fashioned
was an approach that will ensure...that every customer who purchases a
subscription, for example, for SUSE Enterprise Linux will get not only service
and support from Novell, but will get as part of that, in effect, a patent
covenant from Microsoft."
"In a sense, I think of Novell as a proxy for
the customers. Novell works with the open source community, so we needed to have
a way to work with Novell that was respectful of the community. But nobody
represents the community. On the other hand, our customers were saying, we want
somebody to represent us in the use that we will make Linux. And customers
weren't picky, they said, 'Find somebody who's in this game who really wants to
get after it.'"
"We dealt with the need for an up-front balancing
payment that runs from Microsoft to Novell," Smith continued, "reflecting among
other things the large relevant volume of the products that we have shipped. And
you'll see, as well an economic commitment from Novell to Microsoft, that
involves a running royalty, a percentage of revenue, on open-source software
shipped under the agreement. So we've been able to sort out the economics, and
in some ways, perhaps one of the most important things is, because we've been
able to sort out the economics, Novell's customers don't have to."
"Microsoft today is making two, I think, important commitments or promises to
different groups of developers in the open source community. The first is a
promise that we won't assert our patents against individual, non-commercial,
open source developers. Who are these? These are individuals who are creating
code, contributing code, they're not being paid for that code - they're often
working in the evenings, or at home. They're not creating it as part of their
job, but they're acting in an individual, non-commercial way."
"The
second thing we did in this area," Smith continued, "was add a promise that goes
even to developers that are getting paid to create code to OpenSUSE.org, code
that Novell then takes and incorporates into its distribution, and that is then
covered under the patent cooperation agreement between us. Because after all,
Novell is ensuring that our patent rights are respected in an appropriate way,
and that gives us the ability to address the needs and interests of those
individuals."
So it is OK to play computers at home,
not get paid, and not share our work, But anything distributed must be supplied
by the convicted monopolist. A bit like Al Capone with whiskey
sales.
But it is OK for Novell's developers to get paid, because
Microsoft protects them.
And Jeff Jaffe, Novell's
CTO
"Microsoft is announcing that they are not going to assert patent
infringement claims against individual open source developers," repeated
Novell's CTO, Jeff Jaffe. "So that's really, really important for open source.
Open source is, in many ways, the innovation engine of the entire IT industry,
and now, this statement just makes that so much stronger and so much more
important."
Well he is right about open source being
innovative; unlike his new found partner.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 02:07 PM EST |
"the existing covenant is not good enough"
Exactly. Part of
the Microsoft-Novell agreement is a joint venture set up to produce code which
will be donated to Open Source in Novell's name. Microsoft obviously wants to
donate some code to several Open Source projects.
The covenant
differentiates among Open Source users. In the agreement Microsoft promises not
to use software patents to attack some Open Source users and producers. In
their public statements Microsoft threatens to attack the Open Source users and
producers who are not mentioned in the agreement.
We refuse to allow
Microsoft to both cooperate with us and fight us at the same time. If Microsoft
attempts to do so we will continue the fight and refuse the cooperation.
Microsoft and Novell both say that the agreement meets all of the details of the
GPL. Novell also promises that the code being donated by the joint venture will
not infringe on Microsoft patents.
This is not acceptable. If
Microsoft wants to cooperate with Open Source then they must unconditionally
agree not to use their software patents against any Open Source project, user,
or distributor.
"Microsoft also wanted to hear from open source
community members it does not have relationships with"
I have sent
letters to Brent Smith and Steve Ballmer offering to meet with Microsoft and
discuss the personal issues between me and Microsoft. Microsoft does not even
have the courtesy to answer my letters. Why are you passing up the opportunity
to meet with me?
------------------------
Steve Stites
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 02:21 PM EST |
Will Eben Speak? Maybe it's better if he doesn't speak? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 02:49 PM EST |
"Make your money on your own code, fair and square"
Isn't that what they are trying to do by getting you to pay for the use of their
patent? I mean, if linux potentially infringes like 240 patents, somebody has to
hold them and by law is allowed to make money from them.
Now I agree that what Novell and MS did was a bit far reaching.. But if linux
does violate a patent somebody should pay for its use.
Dont hate me, hate software patents. And stop blaming the companies for using
what is legally entitled to them. Blame the government for listening to them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- As the light begins to come up over the horizon, Microsoft admits patent peace is not perfect - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 02:54 PM EST
- As the light begins to come up over the horizon, Microsoft admits patent peace is not perfect - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 03:03 PM EST
- As the light begins to come up over the horizon, Microsoft admits patent peace is not perfect - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 03:10 PM EST
- As the light begins to come up over the horizon, Microsoft admits patent peace is not perfect - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 03:22 PM EST
- You potentially owe me 5 billion dollars - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 03:32 PM EST
- Are you a troll, or just not paying attention? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 03:55 PM EST
- Far reaching != software piracy - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 05:26 PM EST
- As the light begins to come up over the horizon, Microsoft admits patent peace is not perfect - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 10:27 PM EST
|
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 02:56 PM EST |
Microsoft is operating as if it still has a monopoly, as if there is no
competition to it's products. Apple targets high-end creative artists and home
users, not MS's core business, so they aren't real competition. Linux is
finally ready for the average home and business user and provides a cheap,
stable desktop for commodity hardware. For the first time Linux presents real
competition for Microsoft's core business. Outside of technical, Linux has 2
strengths in this market. It is cheap or free, depending on how much support
you need. It is freely redistributable. While Microsoft faces real competition
for the first time it addresses Linux's core strengths by further restricting
redistribution or even re-installation and increasing prices. This will cost
them dearly in the coming months when they find that people and businesses are
not willing to pay more for less.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: clark_kent on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 03:00 PM EST |
Case in point - A dear sister of mine, who knows absolutely nothing about Linux,
and uses MS-Windows, was surprised that Microsoft acknowledged the need to
collaborate with a linux company. In her mind, that made Linux more important.
And now she feels better about me installing Linux on a PC that once ran Windows
98 and had lotsa spam bots on it. Now, no spam bots, always running, and a
not-so-strange OS running her PC because multi-billionare Bill and Steve said it
was ok. Aside from patents, and even if they were talking about SuSE Linux
specifically, it was funny they were talking about collaborating with a Linux
company at all. Linux just earned some consumer points.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- message - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 03:25 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 04:18 PM EST |
PJ said: "You can't restrict redistribution on GPL code. Period. You can't
ask for royalties on GPL code. You can't add any restrictions to the GPL
license. Seriously, you need to read the GPL and abide by it in all
particulars,..."
Is there any basis for that?
Does code put under the GPL becomes sacred or so?
And should Microsoft ( or anyone else ) feel obliged?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 04:44 PM EST |
If there's something like Fraunhofer's 'mp3' patent required by Linux, the I
want to know the number; which countries it is valid for; and where to send my
25 cents to if I desire a licence. And when it expires.
I might buy a
licence, I might find some prior art and invalidate the patent, I might
collaborate with friends to come up with an alternative such as Ogg Vorbis. I
might offer a cross-licence to a patent I hold.
It's a risk you take as a
patent holder. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 05:07 PM EST |
And the third thing to celebrate is the landmark deal between Microsoft and
Novell to improve interoperability between Windows and Linux. What's really cool
about this agreement is that it acknowledges the fact that so many of you manage
mixed-source environments and that, to support you effectively, we have to
bridge the divide between open source and proprietary software. To that end,
Microsoft and Novell will create a joint research facility to pursue new
software solutions for virtualization, management, and document format
compatibility. This isn't so much about Microsoft embracing Linux; it's about
supporting the choices that customers make and making it easier to deploy
Windows in Linux environments and vice versa. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 05:20 PM EST |
And ultimately you'll find that you can't divide the FOSS community. With all
our faults and the variety of views, as a group we will stick together when it
counts.
Actually, it's very easy to divide the FOSS community.
The
OSI vs FSF is one example;
XFree86.org is another;
Caldera is
another.
The strength of the FOSS community is that it's totally OK to
divide it - and just like a fork in software projects, the better fork of the
FOSS commuinty will continue on unharmed. While the lamer (for lack of a better
word) fork will die off if it serves no useful purpose - or continue on with a
niche following if it does.
In this case, I think we'll see a minor split in
the community - as people who see a benefit in Microsoft (and oh boy do they
help us when it comes to lobbying in washington) - will now be able to use Linux
in projects where it has technical advantages over Windows. But that's a small
niche; and I doubt anyone outside Novell, Microsoft, and a few government sales
people will ever care or even notice that it exists. The rest of F/OSS will
march on without us; and be better off to have us out of their hair (except when
they try to sell to the same customers at which Microsoft is spreading the
intellectual property FUD). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 06:41 PM EST |
MS may be many things, but they are not stupid when it comes to business. The
100's of millions paid up front to Novell are calculated to come back many times
over.
The question we should be asking ourselves is "how?"...
I,
for one, do not believe the present reasons being put forth is anything but
smoke and mirrors. Their naive plausibilities are just convincing enough to
sound sort-of-true, but does not really explain anything. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Microsoft has a problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 08:37 PM EST
- Vista - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 10:45 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 06:56 PM EST |
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6135879.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 07:31 PM EST |
Microsoft has long known what's in Linux, and what it has patented. Why doesn't
Microsoft enforce its patents?
I would suggest that Microsoft has waited so long to enforce its patents that
they are no longer enforceable -- or perhaps they don't really exist.
If someone were infringing patents from IBM or Intel, how long do you think they
would wait to take action against the infringer?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 07:43 PM EST |
I guess it must be Groklaw effect :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 07:55 PM EST |
I can't help but think he's premature in his pronouncment. Of course, it could
be a misquote.
But considering that NO distribution of patented software has occurred as yet,
NO violation of GPL has occurred.
I'll ask it again and again until someone gives me a straight answer - WHERE
exactly has/have the so-called GPL violation(s) occurred? Which patent? Which
software package?
If you can't answer, then you're talking out your hindquarters when you accuse
either MS or Novell of GPL violations.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 08:16 PM EST |
> Unfortunately, Microsoft has misunderstood how the GPL works
First, I think that's not true. Folks at Microsoft are smart and they know how
GPL works. However, they gave this Novell thing a shot, hoping that FOSS
community (now there is something they don't understand) isn't going to notice.
It didn't work.
Second, it is about much more than just GPL. There is a whole heap of other FOSS
software that also wouldn't get anything out of this deal. For instance, how
would a lone PostreSQL developer (supposedly protected) feel better about the
BSD licensed code, if regular distributors wouldn't be able to ship it due to
patent FUD raised by Microsoft? She wouldn't. This Novell - Microsoft deal
affects everyone and not in a positive way. It puts FUD into software
distribution.
On purpose? You better believe it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: om1er on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 09:35 PM EST |
Because Microsoft made a deal with Novell over Linux, does that not imply that
Microsoft does not believe that SCO owns/controls Linux?
---
Are we there yet?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 09:51 PM EST |
MS gets to stuff some innocently looking bits of code into "Novell's" Linux.
Wait for it to percolate into other distros (say with the help of some
third-party entity), and then SLAM, patent infringement lawsuits
against those who didn't buy 'protection'.
You saw it here first,
folks! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 15 2006 @ 11:46 PM EST |
To my dearest Microsoft munchins, little, litteler, litteliest.
"Microsoft has misunderstood how the GPL works, and where it stands on the
issue of patents".
This is the optium phrase for my dearest Steve B and Billie G.
"How could you?" "How would you?' "How can you!"
Th dark days of the cold war are far behind us, yet the XOs of
Microsoft dwell in this conoluted world.
So where does that put Steve B and Billie G in reality?
Toodles[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 04:05 AM EST |
Hi
Could this all be about Vista and their embedded DRM technologies?
I mean Novell has been negotiating (their own words) with suppliers to enable
their protected content technologies use within SuSE for some time now.
What if SuSE was the only Linux distro entitled to decode protected files ported
from Vista due to the patent .. er hem ... covenant?
Suddenly Microsoft achieve several goals.
1. A revenue stream for their protection technologies, which would satisfy the
content industries, from their leading (only) competitor Linux.
2. Total marginalisation of the entire worlds other distro's in one fell swoop
as they would not be able to take and use these technologies.
3. Visible evidence to demonstrate to the EU of their wonderful cooporation
with competitors even while it shackles them and stabs them in the back.
4. An end run around the freedoms and market share that Linux is beginning to
enjoy due to the GPL.
What does it matter that it effectively kills off every other distro or
competition unless they sign a deal with the devil, isn't that exactly what
Microsoft would want?
The only way this would fail is if Vista flops big time.
I personally have no intention of helping the delivery of a crippled Vista
desktop to anyone, all my recent builds for friends and family have gone from
very badly running infested Windows rubbish to a beautiful clean Linux desktop
and is an absolute joy.
rgds
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Vista and DRM? - Authored by: dht on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 04:56 AM EST
- Vista and DRM? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 09:17 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 05:59 AM EST |
Those of us who work on proprietary software can also benefit from the sort of
patent covenant advocated by Groklaw. Parcel up your "parent-encumbered"
functionality and offer this as a GPL'd product, distinct from from your main
system but leveraged by it.
There will be a certain amount of hassle
to satisy the GPL, for example seperate installers, but this is a small price to
pay for freedom from Microsoft patents. - giafly[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 08:56 AM EST |
John Le'Brecage pointed out something interesting: Gnome has come to depend
rather heavily on Mono. Not surprising, I suppose, with Miguel heading up both
projects.
However, now that Novell has effectively declard Mono to be
proprietary (only Novell has the legal right to distribute it), what happens to
Gnome? It would seem that none of the other distributions can take the chance
of shipping Gnome because it depends on something that Novell has added patented
Microsoft technology to.
Ironically, Gnome was started because of objections
to KDE being based on the (then) non-libre Qt library. Could it be that
Gnome will die due to dependency on non-libre Mono? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 09:09 AM EST |
The idea of attacking Free Software with patents has been in Microsoft's agenda
at least from 2004.
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/07/19/2315200
http://news.com.com/HP+memo+Microsoft+planned+open-source+patent+fi...
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2004/07/21/203990/HP+memo+wa...
The pact with Novell has been months in the making now.They are trying the field
now, trying to get some partners in this felonny, and spreading as much FUD as
they can meanwhile. At the same time they have set Jason Matusow blog just as a
honeypot so Free Software advocates can speak their, partly buying in the false
claim of the interest of Microsoft to interoperate winth F/LOSS, so MSFT can
know they enemy better in order to build new distractions.
But they will attack mercilessly once Microsoft get what they want, and this is
software patents approved in Europe (they are illegal right now, and proposals
to pass a law allowing them have been defeated once and again in the European
Parliament, but Bill Gates is on tour around the European Union lobbying the
politicians, and making the delight of patent lawyers firms, in order to impose
a system as corrupt as the one in the U.S. through the EPLA (European Patent
Litigation Agreement) or through the so-called London Agreements)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/08/business/patents.php
The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FF.II.), a member of the
FSF Europe is fighting against it:
http://www.techworld.com/applications/news/index.cfm?newsID=7348&am...
http://epla.wikidot.com/
http://www.digitalmajority.org/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 09:30 AM EST |
"Microsoft also wanted to hear from open source community members
it does not have relationships with..."-- Microsoft’s director of
standards, Jason Matusow (link in PJ's article; my
emph)
Eeeewwwww. Anyone else get a cold shudder down their
spine reading this? Contrast and compare:
"Contracts are what
you use against parties you have relationships with."-- SCO statement
(my emph)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: 34CFR20USC on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 10:01 AM EST |
It's Embrace, Extend and Extinguish with a new twist. The Embrace phase has
begun and next comes Extend.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 10:13 AM EST |
While Microsoft is hoping to enter into a patent deal with Red Hat similar to
the one it has with Novell, the software giant has not ruled out going it alone
and providing some sort of indemnification for its customers who use Red Hat
Linux....
The difference between the Microsoft/Novell patent
indemnification pledges and those by IBM and Redhat, are that IBM and Redhat
offer protection against patent lawsuits by others. Microsoft is selling
"insurance" against their own legal action for unspecified patent breach
allegation. When someone sells insurance against their own actions, that is
called extorsion/racketeering. To threaten to litigation if a payment is not
made, without precisely stating what the victim is paying to license or settle
out of court is criminal racketeering plain and simple. In other words if you
sell "fire insurance" against your setting fires, or if you sell "health
insurance" against your breaking someone's kneecaps, that is criminal
extorsion/racketeering, and that is what Microsoft is attempting to do judging
from the above statement.
Novell seems to be changing it's story from day to
day, but the Microsoft/Novell deal can only be one of three mutually exclusive
possibilities:
1) Novell licensed patent rights from Microsoft for GPL code,
and is reselling it to it's customers without passing on the rights of
redistribution to them. In this case Novell must stop distributing GPL
code.
2) Novell is running a criminal syndicate with Microsoft which
involves Microsoft running a protection racket which extort money from customers
as protection from unspecified litigation in which Novell collects through
license fees and passes on to Microsoft. Novell claims there is no link between
Microsoft's patent pledge and the payment of royalties between the two, but of
course it is covered by a secret syndication agreement.
3) There is no
agreement between Novell and Microsoft that pertains to patents or patent
pledges relating to GPL code, but by granting rights to Novell customers only
and not users who Novell customers distribute the same code to or other
distributors who use the same code, and by setting conditions on how third
parties may employ and remunerate programmers, is criminally abusing it's
monopoly position to manupulate the production, distribution and use of it's
only viable competitor - open source software. This would be the most serious
violation of anti-trust law by Microsoft to date.
Hilf, who has been
touring Europe since the announcement, admitted that there's been a lot of
negativity about the deal in the open-source community. "Our intention with this
deal was not to create a problem, but rather to solve one," he said.
The
"problem" is Microsoft's stated intention to kill open source and perpetuate
it's monopoly by using a government mandated monopoly grant (software patents)
which it hopes will legally justify it's continued monopoly. He can solve the
"problem" at any time if he wants, simply by pledging that in perpetuity
Microsoft will never sue anyone for software patent infringement except
defensively against persons making a software patent claim against Microsoft, as
IBM and others in the industry have.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 10:25 AM EST |
If the GPLv3 and GPLv2 are non-compatible, and the GNU stuff
(current versions)
are re-licensed GPLv3 only, and the kernel remains GPLv2 only
(for practical
reasons), the net result is that NO-ONE can distribute
Linux.
Now that's just plain crazy talk. There will be no
issues with shipping a kernel under GPLv2 and "rest of OS" on GPLv3, just like
there are no issues with running any software under any other license on a
system running the current Linux kernel. Not sure where you came up with this
idea but it's not even close to being correct. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 10:32 AM EST |
If the GPLv3 and GPLv2 are non-compatible, and the GNU stuff
(current versions)
are re-licensed GPLv3 only, and the kernel remains GPLv2 only
(for practical
reasons), the net result is that NO-ONE can distribute
Linux.
Sorry to disappoint you but this is just wrong and makes
your entire argument wrong. Where did you come up with this idea anyway? GPLv3
code can run with the Linux kernel for the same reasons any proprietary app can
run with the Linux kernel today. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 16 2006 @ 10:58 AM EST |
"I'd call that a bit of progress, and good for Nat and Miguel for speaking
up. Unfortunately, Microsoft has misunderstood how the GPL works, and where it
stands on the issue of patents, if one gives Microsoft every benefit of every
doubt. The folks they need to speak to are the Software Freedom Law Center. Like
they're not already."
they know how the gpl works and they still think it is a cancer and that it
needs to go away.
it is their way or no way - that is how they see it and that is how it will
always be with them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|