decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Novell Forking OpenOffice.org
Monday, December 04 2006 @ 01:09 PM EST

Well, if there are any Novell supporters left, here's something else to put in your pipe and smoke it. Novell is forking OpenOffice.org.

There will be a Novell edition of OpenOffice.org and it will support Microsoft OpenXML. (The default will be ODF, they claim, but note that the subheading mentions OpenXML instead.) I am guessing this will be the only OpenOffice.org covered by the "patent agreement" with Microsoft. You think?

Note the role Novell played in Massachusetts also in the ODF story in News Picks. I think it's clear now what Microsoft gets out of this Novell deal -- they get to persuade enterprise users to stay with Microsoft Office, because now they don't "need" to switch to Linux. And they don't need to leave Microsoft products to use ODF. So, while Novell may call this "Novell OpenOffice.org" I feel free to call it "Sellout Linux OpenOffice.org". Money can do strange things to people. And Microsoft knows it.

I think Novell needs to change its slogan now. They describe themselves in the press release like this:

"Novell, Inc. delivers Software for the Open Enterprise™"

They've even trademarked the phrase, so we may assume that back in the day, that was their goal. Back to the drawing board. May I suggest this as more appropriate now?

"Novell, Inc. delivers A-Hint-Of-Not-Really-Open-Software for the Not-Much-Interested-in-Leaving-Microsoft Enterprise"

In my eyes, Novell is forking itself out of the FOSS community. Here's the press release, to memorialize this day in FOSS history, and so you can reach your own conclusions.

Update: A witty anonymous reader suggests this new name for Novell's edition of OpenOffice.org: PatentOffice.org.

And David Berlind asks an interesting question:

Going back to the issue at hand — office suite support for both ODF and OOXML — now the only question is when Microsoft will support ODF in earnest in Microsoft Office, if it ever will.


************************************

Novell Boosts OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office Interoperability

Novell to support Open XML format to advance document interoperability

WALTHAM, Mass.—04 Dec 2006—Novell today announced that the Novell® edition of the OpenOffice.org office productivity suite will now support the Office Open XML format, increasing interoperability between OpenOffice.org and the next generation of Microsoft Office. Novell is cooperating with Microsoft and others on a project to create bi-directional open source translators for word processing, spreadsheets and presentations between OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office, with the word processing translator to be available first, by the end of January 2007. The translators will be made available as plug-ins to Novell’s OpenOffice.org product. Novell will release the code to integrate the Open XML format into its product as open source and submit it for inclusion in the OpenOffice.org project. As a result, end users will be able to more easily share files between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org, as documents will better maintain consistent formats, formulas and style templates across the two office productivity suites.

“Novell supports the OpenDocument format as the default file format in OpenOffice.org because it provides customer choice and flexibility, but interoperability with Microsoft Office has also been critical to the success of OpenOffice.org,” said Nat Friedman, Novell chief technology and strategy officer for Open Source. “OpenOffice.org is very important to Novell, and as our customers deploy Linux* desktops across their organizations, they're telling us that sharing documents between OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office is a must-have. The addition of Open XML support reflects Novell's commitment to providing enterprise customers the tools they need to be successful, from the desktop to the data center.”

Chris Capossela, corporate vice president, Microsoft Business Division Product Management Group, said, “This is further evidence to our mutual customers that Novell and Microsoft have the same commitment to document interoperability and customer choice for document technology. As a leader in the open source community, Novell can help us make sure the Open XML translation technology works well across different applications and platforms. Novell has already provided contributions to the Ecma Open XML standard, and this commitment to support the Open XML format via their product makes it work for customers.”

The Open XML format is an open standard file format for office applications that can be freely implemented by multiple applications on multiple platforms. The Open XML format was originated by Microsoft and standardized by the Ecma International organization’s technical committee, TC45. It is presented for Ecma General Assembly approval on December 7, 2006, with the intention to offer the specification for formal ISO/JTC1 standardization. Open XML is the default format for the recently released Microsoft Office 2007. The Open XML format is also available through free updates to past Microsoft Office versions.

With an estimated 100 million users, OpenOffice.org is a full-featured, open source office productivity suite with word processing, spreadsheet, presentation and database applications. OpenOffice.org currently supports the OpenDocument (ODF) file format, which is an ISO-standardized, XML-based file format specification for office applications maintained by the open source community. The OpenDocument format ensures information saved in spreadsheets, documents and presentations is freely accessible to any OpenDocument-supporting application. OpenOffice.org is available free of charge at http://www.openoffice.org. Novell provides and supports OpenOffice.org for both Linux and Windows* as part of its SUSE® Linux Enterprise Desktop and Novell Open Workgroup Suite offerings, respectively.

The open source Open XML/ODF Translator project can be viewed at this internet location: http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter.

Novell is a member of and an active contributor to both the OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications Technical Committee, the body that manages and publishes the OpenDocument standard, and the Ecma International Technical Committee (TC45) that develops, manages and publishes the Open XML standard. Novell is the second-leading contributor to the OpenOffice.org project.

For more information on the broader partnership between Novell and Microsoft, visit http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft and http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab.

About Novell

Novell, Inc. (Nasdaq: NOVL) delivers Software for the Open Enterprise™. With more than 50,000 customers in 43 countries, Novell helps customers manage, simplify, secure and integrate their technology environments by leveraging best-of-breed, open standards-based software. With over 20 years of experience, 4,700 employees, 5,000 partners and support centers around the world, Novell helps customers gain control over their IT operating environment while reducing cost. More information about Novell can be found at http://www.novell.com.

Novell and SUSE are registered trademarks trademarks of Novell, Inc. in the United States and other countries. *Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other third-party trademarks are the property of their respective owners.


  


Novell Forking OpenOffice.org | 1174 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 01:35 PM EST
If requried.

---
I would rather stand corrected than sit confused.
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here, Please!
Authored by: martimus on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 01:35 PM EST
Put any off topic items here, and make them clicky!

---
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: Billions for defense, but not one cent for
dhimmitude.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Forking OpenOffice.org
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 01:40 PM EST
Thats not what the release says??

It says they are working on translators! And the press release title says that
they will support Open XML - what on earth is wrong with that?

I might not be happy about the length of spoon Novell appears to be using to sup
with redmond but it doesn't help the argument if we wilfully misconstrue what
they say

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Forking OpenOffice.org
Authored by: pfusco on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 01:41 PM EST
It was bound to happen. And if you think about it (hindsight being 20/ 20) kind
of obvious. M$ trying to keep the file system monopoly and now has a viable way
to do just that.

Good job Novell. And, I still maintain, this deal is why Messman was outted.

---
only the soul matters in the end

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Forking OpenOffice.org
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 01:44 PM EST
We can show our "commitment to document interoperability and customer
choice" by limiting access to your documents to products from just two
companies, instead of that incompatible OpenDocument format which only anybody
at all can write software to handle.

Makes perfect sense?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Forking OpenOffice.org
Authored by: MrCharon on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 01:46 PM EST
Snice at least SUSE 10, the Splash Screen for Open Office (that comes with the
Disto) has always said Novell edition. Other than the splash screen, I don't
know what is different.

---
MrCharon
~~~~

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell NOT!!! Forking OpenOffice.org
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 01:46 PM EST
Novell has been providing their own branded version of OpenOffice.org software
for a while now.

The OpenOffice.org office suite is NOT BEING FORKED!!!

Read the announcement carefully!!!

They are developing a translator that will translate documents between ODF and
Open XML. The translator will be available as a plug-in for openOffice.org. This
is similar the plug-in for MS Office that lets you "Save As" in ODF
format that you couldn't stop saying so many nice things about when the
Massachusettes government asked for one.

Gee, when Novell is fighting SCO in court they are the good guys. When they are
making new product announcements that have anything to do with Microsoft, they
are the bad guys.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Forking OpenOffice.org
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 01:47 PM EST
There's been a "Novell" version of OpenOffice shipped with SuSE for a
couple of SuSE releases now.

Before the Microsoft thing, our 10.1 / Enterprise 10 users already had
instructions to remove Novell's version and install the real OOo because of
various bugs that Novell seem to have introduced in "their" version.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Forking OpenOffice.org
Authored by: jsusanka on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 01:50 PM EST
what the Hxxx are they drinking at novell - I think their office is too close to
sco's

odf is better that open xml and always will be and is already approved by ISO
and is totally open.

let's see is odf going to be supported in office 2007 - isn't interoperability
a two way street?

oh never mind this is microsoft we are talking about -

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Forking OpenOffice.org
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:03 PM EST
With all due respect,

"The translators will be made available as plug-ins to Novell’s
OpenOffice.org product. Novell will release the code to integrate the Open XML
format into its product as open source and submit it for inclusion in the
OpenOffice.org project."

They're creating a plug-in, and offering it for all OpenOffice versions, not
just theirs. I thought that was the whole point behind GPL'd software, you're
free to make changes and offer the changes back to the community.

Novell OpenOffice is already available, so if it's a fork, it's been fork for
sometime, and nobody's said anything until now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I will say it again!
Authored by: rsi on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:05 PM EST

I absolutly REFUSE to install Novells products, and/or SUSE or OpenSUSE, ever again! I encourage everyone else to do the same.

If you need a good alternative to SUSE, try Debian!

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Open"'s never been a good word for Free software
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:14 PM EST
PJ wrote:
They describe themselves in the press release like this: "Novell, Inc. delivers Software for the Open Enterprise™"

I've never liked the term "open" because it (by design and seemingly encouraged by the OSI) gives so much wiggle-room in it's definition. Open's been repeatedly used (not only by microsoft and sun; but in casual conversation as well) as anything where you can see some source code. What the term fails to do is express the ideas of freedom to do things with the code (redistribute).

More importantly than many like to admit it also doesn't convey the right (but not requirement) to redistribute without having to pay license fees, extortion money, etc.

Personally, I'd like to see the Free software movement give up on the word "open" and let the propriatary vendors have the term for their prefered visible-but-still-restricted licesnes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh, No, You Stay Right Where I Can See You!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:14 PM EST
Hey, everybody!

Disappointing, yes, but not exactly a surprise to me. I seem to recall, when
the M$-Novell deal was announced, that they said they were working on plug-ins
to make SuSE handle M$ stuff better.

This figured to me as a neat little dodge around the GPL. OOo would still be
GPL, but nothing says the plug-in has to be. IIRC, the GPL just says that, if
someone wants your GPL stuff without your proprietary add-ons, you have to make
it available that way. By keeping it a plug-in instead of baking it into the
code, Novell gets to eat its cake and have it, too.

As far as boycotting SuSE, well, do it because it's the right decision for you.
Don't do it to send a message, because Novell obviously isn't listening. That's
the only reason I haven't bothered to sign the petition. No matter how hard you
throw a dead fish in the water, it still won't swim.

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Forking OpenOffice.org
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:19 PM EST
Novell has been maintaining an OO.o fork for a long time. It used (maybe still
is) to be the reference version for Linux, just because the Novell people could
work with other distros and the SUN OO.o people where abysmally bad at it
(they've got better over time though)

So far Novell has been real careful to only push stuff other distros could agree
with. However Novell's desktop team has been wanting to evangelize Mono for a
long time, and MS will probably only offer C# collaboration, so it's likely the
OpenXML plugin will be in Mono.

That would nicely fit in MS & Novell agendas and effectively restrict it to
Novell Office, given Mono is now an hot potato (and RHEL has always blacklisted
it anyway)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is that a euphemism, PJ?
Authored by: billyskank on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:21 PM EST
;)

---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Forking OpenOffice.org
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:24 PM EST
Wikipedia has a nice article on software forking here:
forking

This doesn't look much like a fork to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Forking OpenOffice.org
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:26 PM EST
All hair splitting over forking aside, if the plug-in is released as open software where's the problem?
The open source Open XML/ODF Translator project can be viewed at this internet location: http://sourceforge.net/proj ects/odf-converter.
(emphasis added)

A quick check of the project page shows it's being released under a BSD license. Note that this sourceforge project is is the plugin for Word 2007, so it can save as and open ODF. The page mentions that the plug-in is "... the first component of this initiative..." I wonder what the license will be on the plug-in for OpenOffice to open/save OpenXML formats.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Conspiricy theorists, unite!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:27 PM EST
It is [sic] presented for Ecma General Assembly approval on December 7, 2006, with the intention to offer the specification for formal ISO/JTC1 standardization.
Perl Harbor Day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Forking OpenOffice.org
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:30 PM EST
Number one: one of the freedoms is the freedom to fork.

Number two: There are hundreds if not thousands of forks of the Linux kernel.
It hasn't hurt Linux. (That's developer forks, branches for parallel
development, integration forks, and of course the many distribution forks.)

Number three: there are already OO.o forks in any distribution which build from
source (for anything from path reasons to packaging reasons). Novell already
does this. It is precisely this action which Debian + Firefox got into a tiff
over not very long ago.

Summary: This is a good <b>and expected</b> thing. The filter is
open source. The "forking" which seems to be causing the tizzy is
nothing more than the usual rebuild/patch/package fork that every distributor
does, with a specific plugin integrated during packaging.

Open Source at work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:32 PM EST
I've used SuSE since the old days (7.3). I'm pretty sure (bad memory - too much
pot in college) that Novell has always had it's own version of OpenOffice.org
(SuSE may not have, but I'm pretty sure Novell always has).

I am also under the impression most distro's have their own OO.o, customized to
the look and feel of their distro or more.

Currently I use 10.1 and when I hit the icon, the splash says, "Novell
Edition".

Araye

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Splash - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 08:12 PM EST
New name for the release?
Authored by: Nick_UK on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:38 PM EST
I suggest Novell stick a few signs up for this: 'Closed
Office'. They will come in handy when sales dries up,
too.

Nick

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:40 PM EST
> Novell will release the code to integrate
> the Open XML format into its product as
> open source and submit it for inclusion
> in the OpenOffice.org project.

This is clearly no fork, just Novell scratching an itch and submitting their
code for upstream inclusion, same as distros do all the time with all kinds of
different projects.

When did Groklaw become a FUD factory? Sad.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trademark brainstorm
Authored by: mexaly on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:49 PM EST
Nicknames for the forked software:

OrphanedOffice
...

---
My thanks go out to PJ and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't see anything too wrong with this
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:52 PM EST
We should reserve our anger for if/when M$ start suing users/distributors of
non-Novell distros for using this plugin.

Until then, I don't see a problem with it. If it allows importing of closedXML
documents and saving as odf, that's surely a good thing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Novell, Inc. and its Agent SCO deliver Software for the Open Enterprise™"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 02:56 PM EST
Better?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • grow up - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 03:07 PM EST
OpenOffice.org doesn't think so!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 03:03 PM EST

OpenOffice.org doesn't think it's being forked or sold out. In fact, they seem to be quite pleased.

Novell, said McCreesh, has been an exemplary open-source development partner, and has fed improvements and changes it's made to its version of OpenOffice back to the suite's code base. "I'd expect them to continue doing so," McCreesh said. "If they use Microsoft funding to do that, we'd be even happier."

OpenOffice blesses Microsoft-Novell Pact, TechWeb, November 3 2006.

Indeed, in the very press release quoted in the current Groklaw article, Novell reiterates its commitment to feed its changes back to the main code base. So this Groklaw article smells like FUD to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Have you a link for the Press Release?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 03:04 PM EST
Google does not find it:(

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
Authored by: dfarning on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 03:07 PM EST
Hey Pj,

Looks like you hit a nerve with this article. There are more 'Anonymous'
posters than I have seen for a long time. Many who are chanting 'don't feed the
fud.'

Astro turfing perhaps.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doesn't Microsoft's OpenXML patent pledge prevent forking?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 03:21 PM EST
Doesn't Microsoft's OpenXML patent pledge prevent Novell's fork being
proprietary, or is Novell's OpenOffice plug-in going to be closed source? If it
is closed source, then we know which way Novell's bread is buttered.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anonymous Postings
Authored by: WhiteFang on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 03:38 PM EST
After reading through the bulk of the postings so far, I'm amazed at the number
of "Anonymous" posting with the same message. I'd dearly love to get a
gander at the IP logs. It looks like there is a concerted effort to get a
particular message out.

The "message" appears to be that Novell has done nothing wrong and is
not forking OOo.

Not only that, but the flurry of "Anonymous" replies to people who
point out that Novell's actions _are_ causing OOo to be forked is also
consistent.

---
DRM - Degrading, Repulsive, Meanspirited 'Nuff Said.
"I shouldn't have asked ... "

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
Authored by: greg_T_hill on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 03:40 PM EST
I'm interested in seeing a fork of OpenSuSE. SuSE without any Ximian or Mono or
Novell specific stuff.
SuSE 9.3 would make a good base to update from.
Might give Novell a clue about how Open Source works.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not sure that will fly...
Authored by: jesse on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 03:48 PM EST

Open Office is distributed under the LGPL... And I'm not sure that they can combine it with MS XML in any form:

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

* a) The modified work must itself be a software library.

* b) You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

* c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

* d) If a facility in the modified Library refers to a function or a table of data to be supplied by an application program that uses the facility, other than as an argument passed when the facility is invoked, then you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the event an application does not supply such function or table, the facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose remains meaningful.

Items b and c would seem to preclude such distribution because item "c" requires complete disclosure of any changes and additions to the library... (ie. MSXML) ..."under the terms of this License" (LGPL).

Since the part of MSXML cannot be distributed "under the terms of this license", then I don't see how they can distribute any of it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Refusing Microsoft sponsored code
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 03:50 PM EST
There are posts scattered throughout this page which argue that Novell's
contributions to OpenOffice should be judged on their own merits. I am
answering all of those here.

The Microsoft-Novell agreement is basically an agreement about software patent
royalties. The agreement imposes software patent royalties on Open Source code
distributed by Novell. Microsoft also paid a lot of money to Novell for Novell
to help coerce Red Hat into paying software patent royalties on Open Source code
to Microsoft.

As part of the agreement Microsoft and Novell set up a joint venture agreement
whereby the joint venture will contribute code to Open Source in Novell's name.
Appearantly Microsoft wants to contribute some code to Open Source as part of
their attempt to extract software patent royalties out of Open Source code.

Open Source is adamnently opposed to paying software patent royalties to
Microsoft or anybody else. As part of our fight against paying software patent
royalties we must refuse to cooperate with Microsoft's attempts to donate Open
Source code in Novell's name. Thus our opposition to the OpenOffice code Novell
is offering has nothing to do with its technical merits or usefulness. We are
opposed to the code because it is part of a Microsoft attempt to force and/or
finagle software patent royalties out of the commercial Open Source companies.

----------------------------
Steve Stites

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell "Forking" or "Killing" their OpenOffice.org
Authored by: dhcolesj on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 04:14 PM EST
You all are forgetting Novell's tendency to kill whatever it touches. Since they did such a wonderful job killing WordPerfect, UnixWare, and everything else, we WANT Them to buy into Office Open XML! IF they kill that with the efficiency they've used to kill everything else, MS will be dead in a year!

---
See Ya'
Howard Coles Jr.
John 3:16!

[ Reply to This | # ]

The wrong issue, the issue is OpenXML's license + GPL
Authored by: swbrown on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 04:17 PM EST
They're quite welcome to maintain their own fork, that's not an issue. People
are supposed to be able to do that. Ditto regarding writing code to support
more formats.

What Groklaw /should/ be pounding on here is that, at least last I looked
(anyone know anything more recent?), the OpenXML patent licenses were
incompatible with the GPL, which is what OpenOffice.org is licensed as. If that
situation hasn't changed since I last looked, it would mean we have an actual
example of Novell using its patent covenant with Microsoft to
loophole-contaminate a GPL2ed application and be the only one able to distribute
it without being sued.

This is what Brian Jones, one of Microsoft Office's product managers, had to say
regarding OpenXML's GPL compatibility back in 2005:

http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2005/09/22/472826.aspx

"People have asked for a yes/no answer for compatibility with the GPL, and
the bottom line is I think he is right that the Microsoft license for the Office
XML reference schemas is not compatible with the GPL."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
Authored by: PolR on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 04:35 PM EST
The "Novell edition" of OOo is the Novell branded successor of the
Ximian edition of OOo. Not exactly a fork, but it is definitely a tweaked
version of OOo maintained independently by Novell. This is nothing new.

However the MS patent deal changes how this tweaked version is viewed. Whenever
Novell includes MS related technology in a new release, there is a suspicion
that MS patented technology gets in there. Whether this suspicion has ground is
unknown. But the mere fact that suspicion exists is too much for comfort.

This is the effect of the MS deal. Novell is in conflict of interest because
they stand to gain if there is MS patented technology in FOSS. They may protest
their stance on patents has not changed. They may even, perhaps, be honest in
their protests. The problem is we don't really know. All we can say is that the
conflict of interests is there. As long as this situation lasts, the suspicion
will remain.

[ Reply to This | # ]

DEAR NOVELL
Authored by: dodger on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 04:43 PM EST
Dear Novell,
As a SuSE user and supporter, will you promise to protect the GPL under which
you sold your product to me? will you protect SuSE and me against entanglement
with Microsoft in the future as a result of your deal? and can you promise in
stronger terms than the terms of your agreement with Microsoft that you are
legally bound to support me in this way?

I have had no problem with the fact that you have your own products, desktops
and enterprise versions of your software that you charge money for. This is your
business. But if you screw around with the GPL, by misusing it or trying to
encumber it with "patent scare" or in reality "patent
shutout" then you are no longer a member of the community.

I hope you could respond to these questions

[ Reply to This | # ]

One Unix troll after another...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 05:01 PM EST
History shows that Unix companies does everything in their power to destroy
other *nices.
After the Unix war we've seen MS successfully push SCO and now Novell to go
after the biggest *nix.
It's just not surprising, just disappointing. The difference this time around is
that now they're not fighting on money turf but on GPL turf. With GPLv3 we'll be
safe for now while we watch the sharks eat each other.
Until v3 is here, just know your history, stay away from Novell.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Forked under GPLv2 and only GPLv2, I'll bet
Authored by: Michelle Readman on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 05:06 PM EST
I'm almost willing to place money on the following, to be quite
honest.<br><br>

With all I've heard from the 'kernel dev' camp about how evil and unneeded GPLv3
is, it wouldn't surprise me if novell asked it's devs if not being able to use
this would be a problem, and they mostly said that linux would never be
GPLv3.<br><br>

So they agreed to not support or use GPLv3, or at least not a version with
certain clauses which make it harder to get cute with the
GPL.<br><br>

Although this may seem fanciful, the power such a clause would have would more
than justify the imbalance of payments. I'd even not be surprised if microsoft
would even fund, via paying Novell under other pretenses of course, a GPLv2 fork
of the development tools. The potential damage such a route could cause would be
more than worth it.<br><br>

(OOo is <a
href="http://www.openoffice.org/license.html">licenced under the
LGPL</a>, btw)

[ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 05:08 PM EST
    Hhmmm Interesting..
    It doesnt seem like a fork to me - but it DOES seem like there could be a
    licensing issue there.. but surely thats all in how its distributed.
    If the plugins are distributed seperately doesnt that solve the GPL
    incompatibility.
    Either way - as a result of the MS patent deal we have decided that only Red hat
    is acceptable at work now. SUSE has been blacklisted !

    I'd love to see numbers but I can't see any of this being a good business move
    for Novell !

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    OpenOffice.org is LGPL licensed, not GPL
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 05:14 PM EST
    Everyone should keep in mind that OpenOffice.org is not GPL licensed. It's licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL).

    OpenOffice.org License Page

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Gack!
    Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 05:26 PM EST


    OK, the Trolls are out in droves, people are going every which way, etc. Let's
    take a logical look at this:

    1) The OXML plug in is BSD licensed, and therefore free for addition to ANY
    program written under ANY license.

    2) Forking is allowed under the GPL, LGPL, BSD, Mozilla, and who knows how many
    other licenses, and many groups have their own variation of OOorg.

    3) The press release is disturbing - quite frankly I'd say it looked like it was
    written by a weasel, but weasel's are nice animals, and I shouldn't insult them
    by using that comparison.

    4) Novell will contribute the code back to the community.

    5) And of course the bully of Redmond is sitting in the background, making
    noises about patents (hint to Microsoft, your continued employment of Steve
    Balmer is an embarassment to your firm.

    Taking everything into consideration, I wouldn't trust this. Oh, I know even if
    it was used and Microsoft jumped on the patent suit bandwagon, it could be taken
    out in a day - that's not an issue. What is an issue is that needing to take it
    out would be an embarassment to the community, and one we do not need.

    So I'd recommend ignoring the code, ignoring Novell, and ignoring Microsoft.
    Instead we should continue doing things our way, the moral way.



    ---
    Wayne

    http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Now we know what was worth $350m
    Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 05:42 PM EST
    Now we know what was worth $350m

    The first rule of a monopoly is:
    Do whatever is necessary to keep the monopoly.
    This is a cunning move to destroy/cripple ooo.

    ---
    GPLv3 *OR LATER* has been vindicated
    The "OR LATER" is vital
    A GPL set in stone will be eroded over time. -SilverWave

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 05:51 PM EST
    Hey if Microsoft can make a better translator more power to them. If this means
    that a microsoft centric document can become an open standard document. This
    would be wonderfull. This would make easier for all "forks" to use the
    document. This means more choices not fewer. For example, my partner can start a
    document in MicroSoft word, I can open it in Open Office Writer and save it in
    the ODF. Hopefully a third individual can then modify it using Abiword and save
    it again as an ODF file. Finally my partner can get the document back into his
    MS Word and give it a final proof. See three people each making their own
    choices.

    By the way, the novell label has been on their distributed version of Open
    Office since at least Suse 9.1. Why weren't you yelling fork back then?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Proper response to Novell/MS
    Authored by: tknarr on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 06:00 PM EST

    I think the proper response to the deal is basically the same thing Groklaw first said to/about SCO: Show us the code. Or in this case the intellectual property. MS thinks there's infringement in Linux? OK, state exactly what patents, what copyrights, what trade-secret information you believe Linux infringes. State exactly where in Linux the infringement is. The code's all there, in plain view, certainly the biggest, best (according to them) software company in the world can nail down where in the code a specific thing is done. Once we know what you're talking about, MS, then we can discuss whether you have a case or not.

    But of course that's the last thing MS wants to do. I suspect that, like SCO, their claims are a lot of smoke and mirrors with precious little substantial behind them. The only substantial things they might have are some patents, and most of those will probably be shown to be on shaky ground indeed (either obvious in the obvious sense of that word (which the Supreme Court may soon decide is the proper meaning in patent law) or worse, having been provably done before Microsoft implemented them). Not to mention the EU's reaction, when MS is trying desperately to calm that particular storm.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Pure FUD Translation: Novell Submits OpenOffice.org to Monopoly Office Formats, Patent Threats
    Authored by: fudnutz on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 06:13 PM EST
    Novell accepts Monopoly XML format to advance Monopoly document interoperability
    claims

    WALTHAM, Mass.—04 Dec 2006—Novell today announced that the Novell Fork® of the
    OpenOffice.org office productivity suite must now promote the Monopoly Office
    XML format, maintaining the preferability of the next generation of Monopoly
    Office formats in Novell's Fork®Office Suite, and over any other version of
    OpenOffice.org. Novell is submitting to the Monopoly, while others are erased
    by patent threats, on a project to eliminate bi-directional open source
    translators for word processing, spreadsheets and presentations between
    OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office. The exclusive Novell Fork® Office word
    processing translator will be available first, by the end of January 2007. The
    translators will be made exclusively available as plug-ins to Novell Fork®
    Office. Novell will not release the code to integrate the Monopoly XML format
    into any truly open source product. Novell will only submit it for inclusion in
    the OpenOffice.org project for a reasonable Monopoly fee. As a result, end users
    will only be able to share files between Monopoly Office and Novell Fork®Office,
    as documents will better maintain consistent formats, formulas and style
    templates across only these two fee-paid office productivity suites.


    “Novell supports the OpenDocument format as the default file format in Novell
    Fork®Office because it provides customer attraction and suggestivity, but
    priority to Monopoly Office has been dictated to allow Novell Fork®Office to
    exist,” said Nat "Pimpy" Friedman, Novell chief Monopoly Compliance
    officer for Project Close Source. “Novell Fork®Office is very important to the
    Monopoly, and as Linux customers deploy Linux* desktops across their
    organizations, they're telling us that sharing documents between OpenOffice.org
    and Monopoly Office is a must-have. The addition of Monopoly Format XML support
    reflects Novell's commitment to providing enterprise customers only fee-paid
    Monopoly tools we need to be successful, from the desktop to the data center.”

    Chris "Cappy" Capossela, corporate vice president, Monopoly Business
    Division Product Management Group, said, “This is further evidence to our mutual
    customers that Novell and the Monopoly have the same commitment to Monopoly
    document preference and customer guidance for document technology. As a former
    leader in the open source community, Novell can help us make sure the Monopoly
    format XML translation technology works well across only Novell Fork®Office
    applications and platforms while we deter truly open platforms with patent
    suits. Novell has already provided contributions to the Ecma Monopoly XML
    standard, and this commitment to support the Monopoly XML format via their
    product makes it work to make Open customers into our fee-paying customers.”

    The Monopoly XML format is an partially open standard file format for office
    applications that can be freely implemented by multiple applications on multiple
    platforms. The Monopoly XML format was originated by the Monopoly and
    standardized by the Ecma International organization’s technical committee, TC45.
    It is presented for Ecma General Assembly approval on December 7, 2006, with the
    intention to offer the specification for formal ISO/JTC1 standardization.
    Monopoly XML is the default format for the recently released Monopoly Office
    2007. The Monopoly XML format is also available through free updates to past
    paid-up Monopoly Office versions.

    With an estimated 100 million users, OpenOffice.org is a full-featured, open
    source office productivity suite with word processing, spreadsheet, presentation
    and database applications. OpenOffice.org currently supports the OpenDocument
    (ODF) file format, which is an ISO-standardized, XML-based file format
    specification for office applications maintained by the open source community.
    The OpenDocument format ensures information saved in spreadsheets, documents and
    presentations is freely accessible to any OpenDocument-supporting application.
    OpenOffice.org is available free of charge at http://www.openoffice.org. Novell
    provided and supported OpenOffice.org for both Linux and the Monopoly OS as part
    of its SUSE® Linux Enterprise Desktop and Novell Open Workgroup Suite offerings,
    respectively. Their continued support is subject to the Monopoly. The Monopoly
    will not support the OpenDocument (ODF) file format. Customers would like it
    too much. The Monopoly and Novell have innovated Monopoly XML and Novell
    Fork®Office to channel ODF customers, as well as government and corporate
    entities, back to Monopoly Office, or patent threats for them.

    The open source Open XML/ODF Translator project can be viewed at this internet
    location: http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter.

    Novell is a member of and an active contributor to both the OASIS Open Document
    Format for Office Applications Technical Committee, the body that manages and
    publishes the OpenDocument standard, and the Ecma International Technical
    Committee (TC45) that rubber stamps the Monopoly XML standard. Novell was the
    second-leading contributor to the OpenOffice.org project. [Wie Schade!]

    For more information on the Monopoly commissioning of Novell products, visit
    http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft and
    http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 06:23 PM EST
    I see the editorial policy is sinking to new lows.

    See my reply:

    http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Dec-04.html

    Miguel.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
    Authored by: famewolf on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 06:44 PM EST
    This article has finally driven me to register an account so I can post...first
    off I am and will continue to be an opensuse user. I've tried other distro's
    and I find Suse easiest to use. Novell for quite a while has had
    "their" version of Openoffice which usually had a novell startscreen
    and some NICER default font's then the one downloadable from openoffice.org.
    All the article says is that Novell will be working on a plugin to extend
    openoffice..that plugin will more then likely work just fine in other distro's
    as well.

    PJ,

    I lose respect for you when you stoop to using the same tactics as the
    antagonists you regularly deal with.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org = xml support.
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 07:06 PM EST
    Actually, no.

    Novell will release the code to integrate the Open XML format into its product
    as open source and submit it for inclusion in the OpenOffice.org project.

    Notice, Novell said they would be releasing this as open source. This means you
    are free to get it, modify it and re-distribute it. They would not be able to
    release this as open source, regardless of what anyone says, if you didn't have
    the right to re-distribute it. Now one question that needs to be asked of
    Novell and Microsoft is, are there any MS patents in the plugin. If the answer
    to this is no, then think of it as Novell providing the code to make the XML
    formats readable and translated to and from by open office,the same way as the
    .doc formats can be read and written to.

    Of course these questions will be asked by the Open Office.org project.

    Think of it this way. We have been griping for years that Microsoft refuses to
    document their interfaces. Well, it appears that they, for a sum of money, let
    Novell look at the interface documentation, and further appear to be letting
    Novell make that information available to the public.

    I don't have to sign a non-disclosure, no back engineering, no decompile
    agreement, no re-distribute agreement to use FOSS code. If MS sue's anyone for
    releasing this information, it will be Novell, and no one else, and they've
    promised they won't.

    Again, it will be very interesting to see what the OpenOffice.org project does
    when Novell releases it. I would trust all the lawyer types would go over this
    all with a very very fine toothed comb. The easiest way to handle this, as far
    as I can see, is for Open Office to submit the code to MS and ask if there are
    any MS patents in it. MS will either say yes, no or I won't tell you. If the
    answer is yes or I won't tell you, then it can't be accepted. If the answer is
    no, then we will know it is clean. Alternatively MS may find it in it's best
    interest to promise not to enforce whatever patents are involved, that is
    contribute them to the patent pool. I know everyone despises the idea of
    accepting a MS patent, but when push comes to shove, the reason we despise MS so
    much is because they refuse to do it.

    Does this mean MS won't break the interface with the next iteration of Office?
    Of course not. But that's no different than what we are dealing with today with
    making Open Office handle MS documents.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Digging for some truth
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 07:20 PM EST
    PJ: There will be a Novell edition of OpenOffice.org and it will support Microsoft OpenXML.
    There already IS a Novell Edition of OpenOffice.org. It's been available for about 2 years. It is a "branded" edition. It hasn't been a fork for the past 2 years, and it isn't now because:
    Press Release: The translators will be made available as plug-ins to Novell’s OpenOffice.org product.
    It's a *PLUG-IN*, IOW, an optional component. A plug-in does NOT a fork make. And if we condemn it because it "might" have some MS patents in it that they "might" be able to sue over, then we're buying into their FUD, hook, line and sinker.
    PJ: "Sellout Linux OpenOffice.org"
    OpenOffice runs on Windows, too. Linux does not have a monopoly on GPL'd software. The plug-in will be offered for the Windows version as well, which might very well draw some MSOffice users that don't really want to pay what MSOffice 2007 costs into using OpenOffice for Windows, because they can save money and still maintain compatibility with their coworkers/clients/suppliers/vendors/etc. Novell could be doing a reversal on "embrace, extend, extinguish". Make OpenOffice so good at interoperating with MSOffice that it makes MSOffice irrelevant. THAT would be fitting.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    dirty work
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 07:24 PM EST
    Novell performing MS dirty work...

    Haven't they learned from history?

    They need to ask 3Com for their after thoughts on teaming up to make the next
    generation LAN Manager. And what value is IPX networking now? Novell barely
    survived the transition to TCP/IP.

    Novell is on a course to be the SCOx, new puppet for the MS Puppet Master.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What is the problem?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 07:41 PM EST
    Forking is one of the prime rights granted by the GPL. The new code will be released under the GPL. This means that all members of the community will be able to decide if they want to use the new code or make it the basis for further modifications. That is freedom isn't it? What exactly is the problem?

    By the way, Stallman and Moglen have both admitted that the MS-Novell deal is consistant with GPL v2. Stallman quote here. Complete transcript of Stallman quote here. Moglen quote here.

    According to Stallman Gpl version 3 will have to be modified to stop deals like the MS-Novell deal. Draft version 3 does not do it. Perhaps Moglen not denouncing the MS-Novell deals as a GPL v2 violation was a "dog not barking in the night" after all.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • What is the problem? - Authored by: Jude on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 08:23 PM EST
      • oh come on - Authored by: NemesisNL on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 02:41 AM EST
        • oh come on - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 03:16 AM EST
          • Please PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 06:18 AM EST
            • Please PJ - Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 07:40 AM EST
              • Please PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 09:05 AM EST
                • Please PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 10:56 AM EST
                • Please PJ - Authored by: dht on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 11:05 AM EST
            • Please PJ - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 12:37 PM EST
              • Please PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 02:41 PM EST
                • Please PJ - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, December 07 2006 @ 10:11 PM EST
        • oh come on - Authored by: Sean DALY on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 04:48 AM EST
          • oh come on - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 06:20 AM EST
        • oh come on - Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 06:58 AM EST
          • oh come on - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 01:01 PM EST
    Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
    Authored by: simonb on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 07:55 PM EST
    Yes i did regsiter just to reply, been yes I have been lurking at groklaw since
    the SCO deal started. And yes I have both Suse and Mandrake linux at home and
    one windoze for games.

    A couple of observations

    1.. I do not see any indication of Novell "forking" OO and to state
    such is just FUD, sad to see it coming out of groklaw.

    2.. there will always be suspision that linux has MS patented code in it which
    MS will foster as much as it can. Whether Novell releases GPL changes to OO for
    inclusion or not doesn't chnage that fact. As it will be covered by GPL the
    MS/NV deal makes no difference in reality to that risk. To state that you are
    "safer" under a Novell distro or more at risk outside of a Novell
    distro is ultimately an illusion.

    3.. It seems clear MS cannot stop Linux as a whole, new plan seesm to be

    i.. split linux into multiple camps (MS/NV vs RH)
    ii. have FOSS community start fighting each other
    iii MS can kill what remains after the battle is finished

    Seems to me as if (i) is done and (ii) is well under way. seems also like
    groklaw is activly helping with (ii) now.

    I'd rather focus on the real competitor here MS, rather than trying to rip
    Novell apart, and helping MS in the process, even before there's any
    "real" evidence of wrong doing on NV's part.

    Sure be suspecious of NV, but let the facts and actions speak for themselves
    and finally keep groklaw FUD free.




    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Most of you are already using "Novell forked OpenOffice"
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 08:01 PM EST
    Check http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/ooo-build/

    Please note the email address of most contributors, and please note the
    directory which includes the distros' branding:
    http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/ooo-build/distro-configs/

    Ark, Debian, Frugalware, Gentoo, Mandriva, Suse, Ubuntu...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 08:14 PM EST
    Open XML is going to be standard format. It is hardly surprising that Novell is
    supporting this.

    The release doesn't mention any forking as far I can see. and including support
    for open XML is not a bad idea at all.

    If you really think this is such a big mistake, you should cry foul over open
    office supporting save in Microsoft doc format also.

    Just because Novell is partnering with Microsoft, would make whatever code they
    contribute tainted is Ignorance.

    Get a Grip PJ. Report facts not speculations.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell adding MS patents to OpenOffice.org
    Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 09:05 PM EST
    Novell is gaining speed down the slippery slope.
    By adding MS patented XML to Open Office Novell users CAN be sued by Microsoft.

    Again, what is "changing the code"?
    By creating docs with MS patented XML the Novell customer will roll the dice...

    ---
    This message sent from a laptop running Fedora core 6 with Intel wireless
    networking.
    Everything works....

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SO it all starts to make sense...
    Authored by: thombone on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 10:29 PM EST
    This is SCARY stuff. BAD, BAD news. Read on as to why:

    It all sounds SO good, too! Make is easy for OOO to read and write Office 2007
    formats, while making it easy for Office 2007 to read and write ODL.

    Here's the catch as I see it: Novell releases this code to the main OOO source
    tree and it's accepted. it gets put in under whatever license they plan to use
    (BSD probably but maybe LGPL?), and then once it's distributed, BLAMMO!

    Microsoft swoops in and starts suing the pants off of anyone but Novell (who has
    an "agreement not to be sued, remember?) for PATENT violations.

    This is scary, scary, scary.

    I pray to GAWD ABOVE that the OOO folks are smart enough not to allow this code
    to touch their source tree.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Article by A True Journalist
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 10:52 PM EST
    <p>Here's an article by a true journalist who has supported FOSS for as
    long as I've read his articles (since about 1998):
    <br>
    <a href="http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5248375481.html">
    Novell adds Microsoft's Open XML to OpenOffice
    </a><br>
    <p>Notice the distinct lack of unsubstianted accusations or FUD.
    <br>
    <p>Notice that you won't find the word "fork" used to describe
    this plug-in.
    <br>
    <p>I wonder why that is?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Is this even "non-literal" forking?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 11:04 PM EST

    PJ states her e that the headline is not to be taken too literally.

    "Could you try not to be so literal minded? Or if you are determined to miss my point, note the quotation marks. That indicates a creative use of the words, to indicate it's "like a fork" or "will result in a kind of one" like a fork of users, for example. Or a fork of MS-blessed OOo.org and nonMS-blessed."

    But is even this a valid assertion? The proposed Novell contribution cannot result in a "fork" based on GPL compatibility, because OpenOffice.org is not GPL licensed, and neither is the proposed plug-in extension. It cannot divide users based on patent infringement vulnerability because Microsoft has already issued an irrevocable covenant not to sue conforming Office Open XML implementations for patent infringment. The proposed Novell extension does not appear to divide either developers or users into different camps based on vulnerability to patent infringement claims. If there is a "fork" to be found, what is its rationale?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org - claims PJ is spreading FUD.
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 11:15 PM EST
    There has been a lot of talk her about PJ not being objective about the Novell XML translator. There are some who say the contribution is a good thing, and others who claim it's tainted by MS.

    Lets look at a different view point. Here is a Computerworld article based on documents obtained by Computerworld using Freedom of Information requests.

    Inside story: How Microsoft & Massachusetts played hardball over open standards

    My apologies that I can not give you a link directly to the story but every time I tried to past in the url listed, I got a page not found. So you will have to do a search for the story if it no longer shows in the top of the news.

    It appears this stuff has been in the works since last February. Further, apparently this forking of Open Office is not real news. On the last page of the story we find the following paragraph.

    "Ironically, on Nov. 2, Gutierrez’s last day as CIO, Microsoft announced an agreement with Novell Inc. that included a pledge to cooperate on development of translation software to improve the way ODF and Open XML work together."

    Now the following question for all you trolls and anti-MS fanatics. Did this agreement between Novell and MS include the patent will not sue covenant, or was it outside the scope of that, or did the covenant come about because of this agreement.

    At least in one point, I believe PJ can be independently vindicated. It very much appears the ODF adoption by Mass, and MS resistance to that, is part of these deals between MS and Novell.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
    Authored by: rhaas on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 11:30 PM EST

    Look... it seems like, since this patent deal with Microsoft went down, Novell can do nothing right. I feel like Novell could rescue innocent children from a burning building and people would still find a way to put a negative spin on it ("arson suspected, news at 11"). Of course, the patent deal may be a bad thing for open source, but that doesn't mean that every single thing Novell does until the end of time is also a bad thing.

    The fact is that it's not unusual for particular Linux distributors to release their own versions of particular packages. I know Red Hat's kernels are heavily tweaked, there's been discussion on Slashdot of how Debian's Firefox has quite a few patches applied to it, and I'm sure those are just two of many examples. As long as Novell releases the changes under the appropriate license (which it seems that they intend to do), whatever they are doing is legal, moral, and normal. And it's not usually referred to as a fork.

    Of course, it's an open question whether this particular set of patches is a good thing for OpenOffice or not. My suspicion is that most things which improve compatibility with Microsoft Office are good, because although some people will be willing to switch to a competing format that doesn't interoperate well on the basis of the fact that is a free (as in speech) and open format, many (probably most) people won't. On the other hand, if interoperability is not an issue, then many (probably most) people will choose a free (as in beer) product over an expensive one. It may be wrong for people to think this way, but they do.

    I don't know how to evaluate the prospect of future patent lawsuits by Microsoft against OpenOffice users who are not customers of Novell. I am not a patent lawyer, or, indeed, a lawyer at all. But it seems to me that if Microsoft wanted to insinuate code into OpenOffice, or some other project, that implicated Microsoft patents, it could find some more subtle way of doing so than having a business partner with whom it just announced an unpopular cross-licensing agreement put out a press release.

    I guess it also seems to me that if we look at everything Novell does and ask ourselves "How could this be evil?", we're often going to be able to figure out some way that, hypothetically, it could turn out to be a basis for lawsuits against open source. I mean, you could look at some of the claims in SCO v. Novell, and say, hmm, Novell says they own those copyrights, what are they going to do with them? But just because you can hypothesize that something could be used a certain way doesn't mean that you're right, or that it actually will be. I'm not saying that it's wrong to keep a watchful eye on Novell, just that we should be careful about jumping too quickly to negative conclusions.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org - NOT!
    Authored by: GrueMaster on Monday, December 04 2006 @ 11:44 PM EST
    If this is considered "Forking", then almost every Linux distribution
    out there has been forking the kernel since Redhat 1.0 (or what ever version was
    their first release). Take for example the code Mandriva added to the kernel
    for supermount. It was never fully absorbed into the mainstream kernel.
    Neither has SELinux from Redhat.

    Linux distributors often add open source content to their Linux distributions.
    Most of the time it gets absorbed upstream, but often it doesn't. Unless the
    OpenXML format code is created as a separate library with it's own license, it
    isn't proprietary and not worth mentioning. All you have here is an
    announcement from Novel that they are working on making OpenOffice interoperate
    with MS Office 2007 file formats. This is no different than the Office 97/2000
    support they have now.

    If there are patent issues tied directly with this work, then there is a story.
    But so far, I haven't seen anything listing the specific patents this little
    Microsoft<>Novell handshake applies to.

    PJ, you are a great legal tech journalist. Don't start something like this
    without more facts. It isn't good PR for you.

    And no, I am not standing behind the annonymous shield. I am not affraid to
    state my opinions, right, wrong, or left.

    ---
    You've entered a dark place. You are likely to be eaten by a Grue!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
    Authored by: smeier on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 12:15 AM EST
    Why would I care if a MicroSoft/Novell translater to odl works better then
    groktext translater as long as I can get the document into ODL?

    This is about choice. My partner can create a doc in MS word. I can move it to
    ODL via Open Office and change it.. a third person can use abiword to add more
    changes and then my partner can flip it back into MS word for a final review.
    Three people this programs. It is the actions that we can do and not what you
    want to limit us from doing.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Some Food For Thought
    Authored by: grayhawk on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 01:02 AM EST
    If their (Novell's) version runs under GPL, then the code that allows the MS
    format to be created must also be under GPL which means that the Open Source
    movement now has the information available to create their own filter and ways
    of making open source software better when interacting with MS software which
    also means it is easier to also reverse port their M$'s stuff into an open
    source format. Now that makes it easier for any company to now port all the M$
    stuff to open source and get off of the M$ Gold Digger. Knowledge is a
    wonderful thing.

    ---
    It is said when the power of love overcomes the love of power, that it is then
    and only then that we shall truly have peace!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Needle in a haystack
    Authored by: brian on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 02:21 AM EST
    I have been crawling the USPTO website trying to actually
    find the OpenXML patents Microsoft is trying to claim.
    What I found so far are is:

    7,073,123 With references to the following patents:

    6,996,773
    6,763,499

    I could be wrong on this (see my .sig for why) but it
    seems to me that if they can be invalidated then this
    issue is moot. The abstract reads as follows:

    "In one embodiment, a method of parsing an XML data stream
    comprises receiving an XML data stream containing a
    namespace prefix and an associated element tag name. The
    element tag name is associated with an element tag. The
    namespace prefix and the element tag name are converted
    into a token that uniquely represents a namespace
    specification that is associated with the namespace prefix
    and the element tag. A stack is defined and is configured
    to receive one or more tokens during parsing of the XML
    data stream. Parsing of the XML data stream is performed
    without requiring an XML tree structure comprising an XML
    document embodied by the XML data stream, to be built."

    OT a little...

    I think it better to put the famous Groklaw energy towards
    this goal than slinging FUD in either direction. The Pro /
    Anti FUD doesn't do Groklaw any good IMO and in fact shows
    a bit of poor decorum that shouldn't be the Groklaw style.

    B.

    ---
    #ifndef IANAL
    #define IANAL
    #endif

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    OpenOffice Blesses Microsoft-Novell Pact
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 03:56 AM EST
    If it is a fork it is not a hostile one.
    "We're going to be building translators between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice to ensure that we have interoperability, compatibility at that level," promised Jeff Jaffe, Novell's chief technology officer, during a press conference Thursday.

    OpenOffice.org welcomes that goal. "We'd be delighted to see that," John McCreesh, the marketing project lead of the open-source OpenOffice.org group, said Friday. "We're very keen for anyone to make enhancements, as long as they benefit everyone."

    Novell, said McCreesh, has been an exemplary open-source development partner, and has fed improvements and changes it's made to its version of OpenOffice back to the suite's code base. "I'd expect them to continue doing so," McCreesh said. "If they use Microsoft funding to do that, we'd be even happier."

    [ Reply to This | # ]

      unexpected bonuses
      Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 04:11 AM EST
      Hey, look on the bright side everybody. At least we now know where Darl's foot
      gun went :D

      It seems MS took it back from Darl when he stopped using it, and loaned it to
      Novell along with their 'patents'.

      Saaay, thinking along those lines... SCO started a case against Linux based on
      thin air, and now Novell signs a Linux licensing deal based on thin air...
      Anybody spot what these have in common?

      Methinks someone told the MS 'chairman' that "The GPL is vulnerable to
      nothing", and he took it a bit literally ;-)

      Myx (still too lazy to log on)

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      The Good and the Bad
      Authored by: Sesostris III on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 04:38 AM EST
      According to some, it would seem that Novell has gone to the dark side. On the other hand, according to others, they haven't. It would seem that Novell is either forking OpenOffice.org (bad), or just providing a useful plug-in (good). In doing so they are either providing valuable resources back to the FLOSS community (good) or partaking in Microsoft's Evil Plan to Destroy the FLOSS Community (bad).

      Now, I must admit I haven't been following too closely the Microsoft/Novell "Patents" agreement, as I'm in the UK, and we don't have software patents(!), so I cannot comment on what legal effect this will have on the use of OpenOffice.org and Novell's fork/plug in the US. In the UK, the only issue is copyright, and if Novell release any fork/plug in under the GLP, then my understanding is that this is OK for us in the UK.

      (For similar reasons I'm not as concerned about the differences betweein GPL v2 and GPL v3).

      But I don't think this should stop me from commenting on whether Novell is Good (capital "G") or Evil (capital "E").

      Unfortunately, I can't! The reason is simple really, unlike virtually everyone else on this board, I, myself, am not perfect! No, really, it is true; I have my faults, and there are things that I do that can only be called less than ideal. For instance, although I'm a vegetarian, I still have an old pair of shoes that are made from leather. OK, when they wear out, I'll replace them with non-leather shoes, but until they do, I'll continue wearing them! I apologise for such incoherent behaviour.

      There's more. Although I can get 15 miles to the litre fuel consumption from my car, I still do too many miles driving each year. I should give it up! Alas, I am not fully doing my bit to save the planet. Also, although I use low energy light bulbs, some of these use 18 watts (100W equivalents) rather than 11 watts (60W equivalent). That is a full 7 watts I am wasting!

      So how can an imperfect hypocrite like myself have the audacity to criticise what may (or may not) be a failing by Novell? I can't. So I apologise. I must leave such criticisms to the rest of you, who I recognise to be more perfect and better in every way than I am.

      I mean, good gracious me! I even use Microsoft Windows at work (gasp!). I clearly lack the moral fible to give up my job and live penniless and homeless in a cardboard box (as I should do) rather than use tainted software from what eveyone agrees is an "Evil" corporation (Well, everyone except me, as I can't criticise due to my own failings).

      So, I fear I shall continue to use OpenOffice.org at home. I shall continue to use FLOSS software from Novell, and if Novell release a plug in for Microsoft Office XML format, I shall probably use that as well.

      But then, I am not perfect.

      Sorry

      Sesostris III

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Tinfoil hat time
      Authored by: Chaosd on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 05:23 AM EST
      1. This isn't a fork. The base code is not being modified. It isn't even a patch. To state otherwise is bad. PJ, you of all people should know better.
      2. Since this isn't a fork or a patch MS will have no legal hold over the OOo code base. The community IP is safe from this.
      3. There is a possible dark-side to this. The translator will probably be patent encumbered, and this is where things start to get interesting:
        • It is quite likely (given the views expressed here by people who should know better) that there will be a backlash against Novell and OOo for 'sleeping with the enemy'. This can only be of benefit to MS marketing/lobbying. Notice how, from this point onwards, they just sit back and do nothing, and end up smelling like roses amongst all the crap the FLOSS community seems to want to throw around.
        • MS will control the keys to the gates out of office. Writing an MS -> will be technically easier, but legally more complictated. MS will own the 'method or concept' of MS-XML->ODF translation, and will be able to tax it's use. Ok, so the patents will be shaky, and workarounds more than possible, but MS will have kept the waters murky for a little longer.

      PS: The first offerings are a plugin for MS-Word (for those who haven't bothered to check out the SF page yet). No doubt OOo translator plugins will be released in good time.

      PPS: I noticed a few people make the Anonymous Post == Astroturf link. PJ is not often wrong, and never this badly wrong - I believe the lurkers (brought here from RSS feeds, blogs, news sites and /.) willing to correct her are testimony to this.

      ---
      -----
      No question is stupid || All questions are stupid

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      The Sad Part
      Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 06:51 AM EST
      The really sad part is that Microsoft is probably "celebrating" (or
      going to) the success of their project to halt and discredit ODF. And that there
      are people inside of Microsoft who actually believe by having helped with that
      project they did a good thing.

      Two possible ways of countering this:

      - Educate the people working *inside* of Microsoft about Open Standards and
      alternate operating systems, so they can see the truth about it for themselves.
      My guess is once they realize the true extent of their actions the
      "inefficiency machine" won't be as effective any longer.

      Yes, Microsoft has reached the point where the only way to maintain the status
      quo, or even grow, is to make sure that other solutions are insufficient or at
      least less efficient then they could be.

      - The other is: all of the lobbyists are working overtime in order to make sure
      their employer keeps an unfair advantage over others. Make sure there is a
      lobbying effort of our own to counter this.







      [ Reply to This | # ]

      • The Sad Part - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 11:10 AM EST
        • Game on - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 01:33 PM EST
      What's with Microsoft?
      Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 07:29 AM EST

      Is it just me or haven't the world+dog for years been pleading with Microsoft to adhere to accepted standards in their file formats?
      So now Microsoft sort-of does just that, albeit in a roundabout way and through their newest proxy, Novell.
      What is it with Microsoft and their pathological need to control everything?
      How much capital are they going to soak out of the IT industry, how much innovation are they going to stifle before it's enough?

      Frustrated

      [ Reply to This | # ]

      Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
      Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 08:44 AM EST
      Look at it from the positive side. This makes using OpenOffice easier for some
      people to use. This could cost M$ sales of Office. And once a person is use to
      using OpenOffice, it is easier to transition to using Linux.

      [ Reply to This | # ]

        Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
        Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 09:09 AM EST
        It's clearly a coincidence that this is announced the week after the
        OpenDocument format is formally published as an ISO standard. I'm also sure
        Microsoft will not use this to present OpenXML as being supported by more than
        one suite and therefore appropriate for establishment as an ISO standard too.

        </sarcasm>

        Nigel Whitley

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        RTFA
        Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 09:49 AM EST

        From the Press Release:

        "Novell will release the code to integrate the Open XML format into its
        product as open source and submit it for inclusion in the OpenOffice.org
        project."

        I know people are challenged when it comes to reading but that is play as day.
        Novel is forking OO. Period. This is not some 3rd party plug-in but integrated
        code. Did you get that? That's the fork.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
        Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 10:33 AM EST
        Novell has been forking OO for around 3 years and before that Ximiam who Novell
        purchased was forking it.

        There is nothing working with creating forks the licence allows for it and
        without forks OO would not exist, after all SUN would never have released the
        underling code if it could not continue with its own fork. There are also a
        number of smaller companies who fork the code so that they can provide value-add
        services such as bespoke support.

        In the past the Ximiam product was very different from the standard OO release,
        but over time the OO code base has been improved and companies like Novell have
        put back many of their extension/fixes back into the common code base.

        The main thing that Novell does do with their release that they can not put back
        is include a set of licensed fonts from AGFA that map directly to Microsoft's
        default fonts to improve compatiblity.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Preemptive strike?
        Authored by: geste on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 11:51 AM EST

        I have tried to read as much of this topic as possible; sorry if my point has already been covered.

        I am not sure of my stance on "forked" versus "not-forked", but in response to Miguel's protestations I would simply say this: Ballmer's choice words in the days following the MS-Novell deal tell me all I need to know; I will never trust Novell or be their customer again. That is unfortunate.

        Now to my question:

        StarOffice/OpenOffice have done a great job over the years with MS-Office document compatibility. Am I correct in thinking that this was done on a reverse-engineering, "clean-room" basis?

        If Novell manages to slide MS-OXML capability into OpenOffice -- if it is accepted in some fashion -- but on a basis that has some IP grey areas, would this have the effect of preventing OO developers from including unencumbered, reverse-engineered compatibility functions?

        So, I guess my question is whether this initiative is, in part, an effort to pollute the clean room? To preemptively get compatability functions in OO that are *not* unencumbered.

        (Now, with MSFT's proprietary new format, I have to say that I don't know what the prospects would be for reverse-engineering, but those reverse engineers *do* seem clever.)

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Remember saying this Billy boy?
        Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 12:12 PM EST
        "The last thing you want to do for a shared use computer is have it be something without a disk ... and with a tiny little screen. If you are going to go have people share the computer, get a broadband connection, and have somebody there who can help support the user, geez, get a decent computer where you can actually read the text and you're not sitting there cranking the thing while you're trying to type,"

        What happened to cause you to do this. Link

        How will the Windows version operate alongside the Linux version? Will MS owe Novell some more cash?

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Miguel de Icaza responds
        Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 01:54 PM EST
        "Facts barely matter when they get in the way of a good smear. The comments
        over at Groklaw are interesting, in that they explore new levels of
        ignorance...."

        Miguel de Icaza: OpenOffice Forks?
        http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Dec-04.html

        Another response:
        Pascal Bleser: Groklaw FUD machine
        http://dev-loki.blogspot.com/

        [ Reply to This | # ]

        Ximian's OO.o gone a similar route before
        Authored by: swbrown on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 02:41 PM EST
        Btw, in case anyone has forgotten, Ximian's OpenOffice.org (by way of Ximian Desktop) was the one that was modified to save to Microsoft's DOC format by default in 2003. They've always played it very close to Microsoft's camp, so I'm assuming they're pretty happy being able to finally work directly with Microsoft.

        [ Reply to This | # ]

          A radical idea
          Authored by: thombone on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 03:19 PM EST
          Maybe, just maybe, this is a GOOD thing. Perhaps if some of these issues start
          to collide, and some of it hits the courts, perhaps a whole of of the FUD can be
          rooted out and disposed of by law.

          I mean think about it. We know the GPL is a valid distribution license and is
          (for the most part) rock solid. Perhaps events that invite testing of it might,
          in the long run, actually help cement it as valid in the public eye and help
          defuse some of the FUD campaigns against it?

          Maybe, just maybe, Novell's stupidity might turn into a GOOD thing for FOSS?

          I mean, well, SCO in the long run sure isn't hurting the cause any. They are
          helping it by drawing so much scrutiny to the movement (which ends up proving
          itself as valid every time it's attacked).

          So maybe, just maybe, some more attacks should be welcomed? Previous ones seem
          to only give FOSS more and more credibility, right?

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          What Novell doesn't get...
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 03:41 PM EST
          Two of the best reasons that folks like me endure the pain of learning Linux is
          to avoid Microsoft's ridiculous and oppressive EULAs and to avoid paying a
          Microsoft tax on every computer we own. Those are the very same kinds of
          reasons that we had a tea party and fought a war back in the 1700s.

          Now, in one ill-advised move Novell has entered me, without my consent, into a
          legal agreement with Microsoft and become Microsoft's tax collector for every
          copy of Suse Linux I buy. That is taxation without representation.

          I have no problem at all with Novell or anyone else adding enhancements to Open
          Office but I draw the line at paying a Microsoft tax to get them.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          The Question is why
          Authored by: DBLR on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 05:13 PM EST
          Why is everyone so willing to take Microsoft at there word? They have always
          found a way to screw over anyone they want. We all know that they will always
          find away to shaft anyone who gets in their way of profit and or to stay a
          monopoly. So why should anyone trust them now when they hide the facts to this
          whole deal. Why oh why will so many people believe that MS has changed their way
          I’ll never know.

          ---

          "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
          a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
          Benjamin Franklin.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          MS Office Open XML Covenant - read before you criticize
          Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 05 2006 @ 08:42 PM EST
          Here's what the convenant says:
          Microsoft irrevocably covenants that it will not seek to enforce any of its patent claims necessary to conform to the technical specifications for the Microsoft Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas posted at http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/default.mspx (the "Specifications") against those conforming parts of software products. This covenant shall not apply with respect to any person or entity that asserts, threatens or seeks at any time to enforce a patent right or rights against Microsoft or any of its affiliates relating to any conforming implementation of the Specifications.

          This statement is not an assurance either (i) that any of Microsoft's issued patent claims cover a conforming implementation of the Specifications or are enforceable, or (ii) that such an implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party.

          No other rights except those expressly stated in this covenant shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, or estoppel, or otherwise. In particular, no rights in the Microsoft Office product, including its features and capabilities, are hereby granted except as expressly set forth in the Specifications.

          Microsoft will make the covenant above available for the Ecma International Standard on Office Open XML file formats. Information on the status of the work of the Ecma International Technical Committee TC45 on this standard is available at http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/TC45-2006-50.htm.

          To further clarify the covenant's meaning, they include this in a FAQ:

          Why did Microsoft take this approach?

          It was a simple, clear way to reassure a broad audience of developers and customers, within a rapidly changing licensing environment, that the formats could be used without constraint forever.

          We looked at many different types of licensing approaches that would recognize the legitimacy of intellectual property but would make it clear that the intellectual property in the OpenXML document formats would be available freely, now and forever. Given that this is a rapidly changing area and lay people sometimes have difficulty understanding terms, we wanted to create something simple and clear. We looked at Sun's recent approach with the ODF format and the positive feedback about the approach. With minor changes to this for clarification, we felt that it was a simple, clear approach that would reassure customers, governments, and developers that there would never be a barrier to working with the formats.

          At least one leading OSS legal advocate has made positive public comments regarding the acceptability of this approach. However, please look into this yourself. We hope that this approach will continue to get close scrutiny and will gain positive long term confidence across the industry as a way to insure that document formats are usable by all types of developers with different intellectual property licensing philosophies.

          Here are a few more specific and detailed questions and answers about Microsoft's 'Covenant Not to Sue' approach:

          * There is no longer really a license that people need to sign up for in any way—No one needs to sign anything or even reference anything. Anyone is free to use the formats as they wish and do not need to make any mention or reference to Microsoft. Anyone can use or implement these formats to both read and write the formats with their technology, code, solution, etc.

          * Patents—We eliminated the license to patents language and are instead providing an irrevocable commitment to not sue anyone based on the patents we have in the formats. If any parties prefer, we will make available the existing open and royalty free license as an alternative.

          * Why does Microsoft have patents in this case at all?—We pursue patents early in our development process (as required by law) to protect our innovations and protect ourselves at the same time. Having patents gives us the ability to fend off patent lawsuits that are the inevitable result of being a big company and delivering new technology. In this case we are deciding not to enforce our patents in connection with these formats.

          * Transferability of solutions and "GPL Compatibility"—If someone wants to build a solution that works with our formats, they are free to do so without worrying about patents or licenses associated with our formats. The concerns raised with our previous license about attribution and sub-licensing are now eliminated. Because the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone, we can’t give anyone a legal opinion about how our language relates to the GPL or other OSS licenses, but we believe we have removed the principal objections that people found with our prior license in a very simple and clear way.

          * Subsets, supersets, and 'conformance'—Anyone is free to work with a subset of the specifications, and anyone is free to create extensions to the specifications. A 'conformant' use is simply one that does not modify the specification. Of course subsets and supersets may create incompatibilities with other uses of the specifications and we want to provide some guidance on this topic in the future, but this will be guidance and not a mandate. The key is that this is an assurance that no one will be sued for using intellectual property in the specifications as they are written.

          Having read the actual text, I personally don't see a problem with the covenant, or any way that it is bad for OpenOffice.org in particular or FOSS in general.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
          Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 06 2006 @ 08:08 AM EST
          You have, not surprisingly, missed the point.

          I mentioned the timing of the announcement - which you ignore.

          I mentioned the use of this agreement to bolster MS's progress towards having
          OpenXML accepted as a standard - which you ignore.

          By all means make your points as a general comment (it's an open forum) but I
          fail to see how your "reply" specifically replies to anything I said.
          To summarise what you did say : "greed is good". It's a viewpoint but
          not one that I share and not one directly relevant to the post I made.

          Once again (without the irony which seems to confuse you) the timing of this
          announcement so soon after the publication of the ISO standard is significant.
          Attempts to get the second XML open document standard adopted will be eased if
          MS can show it is an "industry standard". We do not need two
          "standards" as long as one is truly open and usable. Therefore we do
          not need OpenXML and announcements which primarily serve to assist its adoption
          as a standard are "bad". You seem to imply that it would be good to
          have both an open and a proprietary "standard" but, while that might
          be lucrative for you, for the general populace it would be bad (as a clue there
          are two dominant "standards" for HTML : WWWC standard and that used
          for IE).

          -----------
          Nigel Whitley

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          *sigh*
          Authored by: tarasis on Wednesday, December 06 2006 @ 02:09 PM EST
          I am sure I am going to be branded a troll for saying something anti Groklaw but
          anyway.

          I have just registered an account here, despite reading the site for pretty much
          the whole time it has been running. I welcome PJ's analysis of the SCO case and
          the detail she and others go into makes it interesting to watch it play out.

          However since the whole MS / Novell thing I find that those articles tend to
          veer to the outraged ott tone / angle. Groklaw is subtitled "Digging For
          The Truth" but where is th e truth in claiming that OO is going to be
          forked when that isn't what is going to be happening?

          Every time I see an article like this it puts me more and more of Groklaw and I
          am not the only one.

          I agree that this deal is likely bad and we will have to wait and see what pans
          out. Novell is unlikely to turn around and change their minds about it. However
          I don't feel there is a need to blow things out of proportion or abandon
          anything Novell touches because of how it deals with.

          In case anyone asks, I use Suse 10.1, Ubuntu and Windows XP. Each of them have
          there pluses and minuses.

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
          Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 07 2006 @ 03:43 AM EST
          Maybe I have this wrong - IANAL or even a paralegal - but this is snipped from
          the IBM rebuttal to SCO:

          8. The intellectual property rights of GPL licensees or others may not be used
          to "overwrite" or create an exception to the restrictions of the GPL.
          (Ex. 128 § 7; Ex. § 129 & 11.) Section 7 of the GPL expressly states:

          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 my other pertinent
          obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
          (Ex. 128 § 7 (emphasis added); Ex. 129 § 11.)

          -----------

          Doesn't that mean that since OO.o is licensed under the GPL, if Novell then
          modifies OO.o and redistributes it, a) it must also be under the GPL and b) if
          there is any question of patents that would restrict its use under the GPL, then
          Novell must not distribute it at all?

          [ Reply to This | # ]

          What about old .doc format ?
          Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 08 2006 @ 11:06 AM EST
          * DISCLAIMER *
          I work for one of the companies that often gets criticized here. If that's all
          you need to know to make an opinion about this message, don't loose your time
          reading on.

          Still reading ? Groklaw is my home page, and I think that without Groklaw
          GNU/Linux would face tougher problems than it is currently. I welcome the job of
          PJ on the paralegal side of things, and I do respect her attitude, even if we
          may disagree on some points.

          I think that the current article was written out of shaky informations, and that
          PJ's technical background may have been insufficient at the time of writing to
          understand that some arguments were flawed.

          Others have noted that Novell is a long-time supporter of OpenOffice, and that
          they follow a standard pattern to submit their bug fixes and enhancements in the
          main version of OpenOffice, so I won't discuss the "fork" issue.

          I understand some of the issues around new Office formats. There is a war going
          on there, and PJ is on one side. That is clear to me and I see no problem in
          that.

          What I don't like in the article is that the Novell plugins issue, even if right
          in the battle, does not deserve to be treated that way. OpenOffice has
          implemented cross-compatibility around old MS Office formats, and we all see the
          merits in that, as we see merits in Wine or Samba. So, MS Office gets a new
          format, and someone implements a compatibility plugin for OpenOffice. If that
          someone had been Novell *before* the MS/Novell agreement, we'd have clapped
          hands. If that someone was Sun or IBM right now, we would also love it.

          I would welcome a discussion on the merits of endorsing Office formats by having
          them readily available in OpenOffice, but I think that a frontal attack on
          Novell on that announcement is dangerously close to disinformation. Groklaw is a
          valuable source of information because it usually relies on clear-cut facts.

          It would be nice, when things go a little overboard, to acknowledge it:
          integrity is your main weapon in this war. it's a potent one, don't weaken it.

          [ Reply to This | # ]
          Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
          All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
          Comments are owned by the individual posters.

          PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )           		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
          Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
          News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
          Powered By GeekLog
          Created this page in 0.13 seconds