Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You

Thu Nov 02 16:42:45 -0800 2006
manage

Today Novell and Microsoft announced a partnership in which Microsoft has made some unlikely-seeming promises regarding Linux. What aren't they telling you? First, you can be sure that Microsoft's not out to help a competitor. This announcement paves the way for Microsoft to implement significant control over commercial customer's use of Free Software. And it has significant negative implications for Open Source in general.

There are two significant announcements. First, that Novell and Microsoft are entering into a patent cross-license, and second, that Microsoft is promising not to assert its patents against individual non-commercial developers. The bad part is that this sets Mirosoft up to assert its patents against all commercial Open Source users. There are also some little bonuses for Microsoft, like Novell will help Microsoft turn back the Open Document Format and substitute something Microsoft controls.

 

When we say "commercial", it's interesting to note that there are really few non-commercial users: people who only use their computer for a hobby. Buying something on a web site, for example, is a commercial use. Most individuals use their computers in some aspect of making their livelihood. There will now be a Microsoft-approved path for such people to make use of Open Source, an expensive subscription to Novell SuSe Linux that costs as much or more than Microsoft Windows and that comes with a patent license.

So, the protection of non-commercial individual contributors means that you can make Open Source, but if anyone actually uses it for something other than a hobby or a non-profit organization, there is an implicit threat that Microsoft can bring a software patent lawsuit against them - unless they are a customer of Novell.

One of the questions yet to be settled is whether Novell will violate the GPL, the license of the Linux kernel and other important software, by offering patent protection that is exclusive to Novell customers. The press release pretty much stated that. On that topic, the preamble of the GPL says it best:

We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

Novell has clearly accepted that license. But it appears that they are now out to make patent protection a business differentiator.

 

Even if everyone were to be protected regarding software that Novell distributes, there's the tremendous collection of Free Software that they don't distribute. A logical next move for Microsoft could be to crack down on "unlicensed Linux", and "unlicensed Free Software", now that it can tell the courts that there is a Microsoft-licensed path. Or they can just passively let that threat stay there as a deterrent to anyone who would use Open Source without going through the Microsoft-approved Novell path.

With this agreement, Microsoft also secures Novell's assistance in pushing a pro-Software-patenting agenda in Europe and elsewhere. On a panel that I led at the AlwaysOn conference this summer, Novell's president made clear their support for software patenting - a policy that works to the detriment of any Open Source developer who wants to have users without Novell's blessing. You can be sure they'll be at Microsoft's elbow now in meeting with legislators and asking for increases in patent protection.

The timing of this agreement is significant. Microsoft and Novell are said to have been working on this agreement for some time, and sped up its announcement to take attention away from Oracle's recent announcement and to further depress Red Hat in the stock market. The timing of the SCO case is also significant. Recent testimony in that case revealed that Microsoft offered to "backstop" VC firm Baystar's investment in SCO, essentially asking Baystar to be a front through which Microsoft funded SCO's attempt to... charge a royalty to users of Linux. SCO's case is foundering, so here's Microsoft's next scheme to charge a royalty to users of Linux, and to make Novell into the next SCO. Groklaw, a widely-respected journal of technology law, probably said it best with their headline on this story: Novell Sells Out.

This entire agreement hinges around software patenting - monopolies on ideas that are burying the software industry in litigation - rather than innovation. If we've learned one thing from the rapid rise of Open Source, it's that intellectual property protection - the thing that Open Source dispenses with - actually impedes innovation. And the Novell-Microsoft agremeent stands as an additional impediment.


Press: Cleared for Publication. It's OK to quote, excerpt, or reproduce the entire article in your publication. And if you want to speak to me, try in the morning, California time, at 510-526-1165.

Novell, what have you done?

Thu Nov 02 16:55:36 -0800 2006
manage
Been enjoying the use of OpenSuse on my desk, main home server and laptop for over a year now, but I'm shocked and will be seeking a new distro. What RedHat did to alienate me seems puny in comparison.
Novell, what have you done?
Thu Nov 02 17:01:43 -0800 2006
manage
If you haven't tried Debian lately, this would be a good time.

Bruce

Novell, what have you done?
Thu Nov 02 17:12:42 -0800 2006
manage
well, a certain two-flavored Debian-derived distro came to mind. Debian in my (middle-aged, prone to get stuck in a rut) mind is a server-focused OS as opposed to desktop, though maybe that's not true anymore.
Novell, what have you done?
Thu Nov 02 17:18:14 -0800 2006
manage
I'm typing this on Debian. It's on all my workstations, my wife's workstation (and she's not a geek), my laptops, hey, there's even a flavor of it on my Nokia 770 sort-of-palmtop. More stuff works out-of-the-box than with anything else. I needed USRP software a while ago, something that most people might not touch. Most distributions didn't have that in their main repository, and even Ubuntu made it hard to install. Debian had it in working out-of-the-box form. I spend appreciably less time building and installing software than I otherwise would.

Bruce

Novell, what have you done?
Fri Nov 03 02:31:10 -0800 2006
manage
I'll second Bruce's comment about stuff generally working out-of-the-box in Debian these days.

I'm my experience the biggest hurdle is that the default Debian install might not include every package you want.  tasksel is a big help, but it doesn't set up the perfect box (probably because  everyone's definition of perfect is different). 

For example, it took me a while to get gnome to pop up a little envelope on the panel when mail arrived. Making it happen is as simple as installing the "mail-notification" package.  Mail notification works out-of-the-box in that the package just works once it is installed, but you do have to decide to install it.

Such things are probably a consequence of having choice.  Different people like being told "you have mail" in a different way, so Debian has left it to the user to decide.

Maybe Debian needs a task, package or script equivalent to EasyUbuntu?  I guess that is what tasksel is supposed to be, though EasyUbuntu is good in that it brings up a bunch check boxes allowing the user to fine tune decisions it makes. This allows EasyUbuntu to pick a sensible, but easily modified, default action for cases where there is a choice among equals.  In my experience Debian tends deal with choices among equals by making no choice, leaving it up to the user to (locate and) install the package they want.
Novell, what have you done?
Fri Nov 03 08:24:53 -0800 2006
manage
well, you guys made some impression on me since I'm looking at the Debian and planning a test bed under vmware workstation first (longing for the day when Xen will allow unmodified client OS to be run), then I'll do my laptop (after burning gigabytes of backups) and see if I really like it.

I can tell you right now that jigdo for downloading the Debian CD/DVD isos needs some work, was flying along great guns last night then it puked its guts in a way that left me clueless about what was wrong.  And jigdo in its 80% done state is a pain in the keister for even getting to sites and inputting URL of what files you need.  So forget that method until they get that app finished, I'll just use Konqueror which has great ability to resume interupted huge downloads unlike firefox (which I prefer for everything else)
.
I'm not so worried about what is and isn't a package, I use packages to provide the basic infrastructure and user apps,  but for things I really care about (hobby apps, my languages and dev tools, dbms, etc.)  I'm going to tweak configs and  compile from scratch and muck with system configs.  So for most things I'm like your aunt Minnie you converted to Linux just slapping in the packages and updates, but for a few others I'm to get into the plumbing.
Novell, what have you done?
Fri Nov 03 18:55:47 -0800 2006
manage
After dealing with stalled downloads from browsers and such, I've settled on wget.  Give it the URL on it's command line and it's good to go.  If the download is interrupted, the -c option lets it continue.  Like all GNU apps, it has about five dozen options you'll never care about.

LoseE The SuSE---Lizardectomy---Novell Tohell --- Little SuSE Gets Snuffed

Fri Nov 03 22:12:39 -0800 2006
manage
yup, wget is great, and I love the recursive get feature, but when manuvering through very deep directory structures with weird long names I like the gui browser.

.  I could have bittorrented the thing too, but probably it wouldn't be done till Monday and I really want to get going on my  Can the Chameleon party this weekend.  Goal is to have laptop up and running with Debian for what I need for work Monday, and main server backed up to DVD (just for safety, I'm sure my data and source code partitions will be just fine after install) for more partying later next week.
LoseE The SuSE---Lizardectomy---Novell Tohell --- Little SuSE Gets Snuffed
Sat Nov 04 04:46:58 -0800 2006
manage
I do use the browser to get to the file in question, then I right click on the filename and do a Copy Link Location (that's what it's called in Firefox, I'd bet it would work similarly from Konqueror) and then I can paste it into an xterm (or Konsole, which is what I actually use (I love tabbed terms)) using the middle mouse button following wget and any options.  It certainly saves me from a lot of typing and potential errors.  Come to think of it, this is just another example of the symmetry that exists between X and the command line which I find lacking on Windows.

I've used Bittorrent only a couple of times.  I downloaded the KNOPPIX 5.0 DVD this spring and it took a week!  So much for a torrent of bits.  ;-)
Novell, what have you done?
Wed Dec 13 11:45:46 -0800 2006
manage
Dunno if this will make it to you, but have you thought of using the DownThemAll extension on Firefox?
Novell, what have you done?
Fri Nov 03 18:14:55 -0800 2006
manage
I'm another very unhappy long term SUSE user; shocked and dismayed at what Novell are trying to do. Then again, I should not really be surprised. I'm interested in what you're saying about Debian. Is this Debian stable (3.1), or are you using the unstable or testing repositories?

Debian Testing, Unstable, and Stable

Sat Nov 04 05:24:54 -0800 2006
manage

Debian Unstable is not unstable in the same meaning that MS products are unstable. Stable and unstable in the context of Debian and its derivatives means more or less unchanging and changing, respectively.

It's not always so easy to dig up a good summary of the releases, but here are some links describing testing, which should be fine in many situations. For production environments, stable is recommended / preferred.

Debian Testing, Unstable, and Stable
Sat Nov 04 18:31:36 -0800 2006
manage

Hi there,

Yes, I'm already aware of the differences between the different Debian trees, I run Debian on a server and I've used Debian on the desktop in the past.

So, that's not really the question I was asking, I was wondering which version Bruce was referring to when he made his comments as I would find the answer helpful.

Debian Testing, Unstable, and Stable
Sun Nov 05 11:08:29 -0800 2006
manage
yes I had same questions, check out my post parallel to your question

also would like to know, is testing better for desktop land

Sun Nov 05 11:07:10 -0800 2006
manage
Now that I'm up and running with Debian stable on my laptop, having terminated OpenSUSE with extreme prejudice, I have the same question as Andrew W.

Looks like Debian is still a first rate server OS.  In the realm of the desktop, for Debian-stable at least, had to deal with the usual and common rough edges to get desktop workstation fully going.  Just as example, having to load extra packages and manually changing /proc/bus/usb permissions to get digital camera software working, having to manually edit /etc files because a couple of the gui tools for wireless and network config actually clobber each other's work, and some other quite typical things I've been doing with most Linux distros the past 8 years (doesn't scare me, I've been in Unix for over 20 years, but I think of the poor grandmas and aunt minnies who actually can dig some of capabilities and freedom ($ and liberty) that OS gives, but they need lots of love from developers and distro packagers)

I did like being able to kick up from the default 2.4 kernel to 2.6 with a single command, now that rocks and shows the power of Debian packaging system.  All my favorite open source apps are in the huge Debian repositories, and being able to find things easily with "apt-cache search" and then load what you like with "apt-get install" and not worrying about dependent packages is wonderful.

For my linksys wifi card which is actually supported by Linux, had to manually compile up madwifi, which meant doing the kernel packaging thing with kernel source.  Maybe atheros drivers somewhere else in Debian land than stable? I saw a couple folk running their own private repositories with .deb files that basically would automate the buiding of it for debian but using it more steps than just the straight compile/link I did even with the kernel source and kernel-packaging gyrations!   Probably geared for places whose policy says everything has to come from a .deb package, even if it really just auto-builds and installs from source.

Now I'm quite willing to switch over to testing, though I'm going to stick with and work with stable for awhile, be good knowledge if I work on a Debian server for a client.  Got everything I need for work up and running by last night, no problems with stuff like the Citirix Metaframe ICA client or cups printing  I need to talk to my employer's windows servers.

testing can be fine, but which apps drive the interest ?

Mon Nov 06 11:14:02 -0800 2006
manage

I've run testing on workstations before. It's generally fine, it's possible that a package may be missing or incomplete on just your particular architecture.

However, what's pushing the interest in testing? If it's only one or two apps, it might be possible to do some mixing and matching.

testing can be fine, but which apps drive the interest ?
Mon Nov 06 11:35:40 -0800 2006
manage
thanks for the apt-pinning  information, and that other  good bit in there about how to expand the apt cache for dealing with multiple huge repositories.

the things needed were some X11 and qt library things of newer version, but I just dpkg'd and alien'd them in. 

But now that those problems are solved I can just stick with stable. 
testing can be fine, but which apps drive the interest ?
Mon Nov 06 16:53:53 -0800 2006
manage
I've been living on the edge and running Debian unstable at home.  The one machine acts as my desktop and server.

In my experience Debian "unstable" is stable in the sense that you get few if any important bugs in the source code.  They have been shaken out upstream of Debian.

It is unstable from the point of view of packaging.  Occasionally you will encounter packaging or build problems.  Most of the time a packaging problem means the computer continues to function bug free, but you cannot upgrade for a few days until the packaging problem is fixed.  I say mostly as I once had a problem where the movie player was broken for a month due to an auto build problem on the Debian servers.

I'm living doubly on the edge in that for the last two years I've been running the AMD64 version of Debian.   Being newer and used by a minority of people, build problems are more likely.  Before that I ran the i386 version for 6-7 years.  In that time I can't remember having any build problems that were not fixed within hours.

Being a sucker for punishment I usually upgrade my machine every month or two.

I wouldn't run a mission critical machine like this, but the machine has been pretty good considering it is running the bleeding edge of most things.

At times I've been tempted to revert to stable or testing, but I've always decided to stay with unstable.  With stable and testing you get fewer bugs, but they tend to take longer to get fixed.  It's less of a nuisance to live with a few more bugs that get fixed more quickly.  The out-of-the-box configuration of unstable is also more advanced than stable or testing.
also would like to know, is testing better for desktop land
Tue Nov 07 07:50:02 -0800 2006
manage
Actually the latest testing is quite ok for a workstation use, I have been running it for years and yes, it's not for an average user but for a power user it just rocks (I have nowadays unstable on my laptop).
I'm running Ubuntu on my desktop at the moment (I didn't have time to go around the latest kernel compile to get both gigabit ethernets working in Debian) but I'm probably going back to Debian testing since the latest upgrade from Dapper to Edgy destroyed most of the system ;-).
Debian stable is more suitable for servers where you don't need the latest hardware gadget support (thats what I'm running :) and have been runing on servers about five years, I got tired of trying to upgrade RedHat gracefully on production servers.
Novell, what have you done?
Sun Nov 26 14:05:41 -0800 2006
manage
I like Debian, but I haven't had good out-of-box experiences of late, at least not with new AMD64 based hardware. 
I stuck Knoppix on my laptop, and Kubuntu on my desktop, largely because those were the best options that
could deal with everything automatically. 

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if Debian has improved (these things change pretty rapidly, e.g. Kubuntu 6.06 worked
for me, but 5.10 didn't) -- and there are reasons I'm sticking to "Debian-based" distros.

Too bad about Novell/SUSE -- I was impressed with their elaborate demos at LinuxWorld, they looked like they had
their act together about countering any "linux isn't ready for the desktop" FUD floating around out there.

Novell, what have you done?
Mon Nov 06 11:02:07 -0800 2006
manage
I have been using Debian on the desktop since 1997. It has always served me well.

Syd
Novell, what have you done?
Mon Nov 06 03:23:09 -0800 2006
manage
Personally, I'm sick to my stomach. Blown away is more like it. I have three servers, four desktops, and a laptop all running various versions of Suse from 8.2 to 10.1. I don't know what this malarkey is, but I'm freakin' out over the Novell-Micro$oft deal. I'm really sad about it. I've been using Suse pretty much exclusively for years. Never in my wildest nightmares did I see this coming... Linus' “Wait and see” attitude seems a bit simplistic. If Novell actually does hold lots of patents from System V -- that I recall being the basis of their SCO defense -- and Micro$oft starts injecting lots of their patents in to Linux, and suing or threatening everyone, then OpenSource is going to be in serious trouble. It seems that the only recourse for the community is the upholding of the GPL. That way neither Novell or the Borg can make derivative works and claim proprietary anything. They would also have to give the stuff away. That is, of course, if Novell doesn't try to stage a Linux IP coup... And how is anyone going to prove prior art against the Borg if no one can see their code?

Novell has indeed made a deal with the one company that I simply can not in any way advocate (even though I support their shitty products professionally). I've been uncomfortable with Suse since it was purchased by Novell, and I feel like this is it for me. So, no more evangelizing, no more recommendations, no more installs. At this point I am preparing to abandon Suse altogether, and I'm sad.

Novell, what have you done? - I'm now free of Novell / SuSE

Mon Nov 06 11:01:30 -0800 2006
manage
took me 16 hours this weekend, but none of my machines now run OpenSUSE.  I thought I would just be doing my laptop, but got alot of momentum going and got ahead of schedule once I saw how Debian packaging including "alien" for rpm to .deb converter works, and how things could be brought in from "testing" and some "third party" repositories. 

like you am stopping recommendations, installs, specifying or procuring Novell products including OpenSuSE and SuSE.
Novell, what have you done?
Tue Nov 07 07:58:35 -0800 2006
manage
Fortunately I never got into the SuSe installations since I had to fix couple of servers of the customers we were hosting and decided that the whole OS did suck way too much, the whole yast+dependencies+whatever nightmare it caused when trying to perform a simple security update was also quite high on the decision to never touch to that piece again, that's why I recommended RedHat to > 1200 workstations & > 200 servers migration from windows to Linux on one project.
Go for Debian, it's worth it.   
Novell, what have you done?
Wed Nov 08 14:05:45 -0800 2006
manage
Don't forget Mandriva, it's a good Linux and it works with most of the hardware I throw at it.
Novell, what have you done?
Wed Nov 08 14:51:08 -0800 2006
manage
haha, I actually did download the three Mandriva Free 2007 disk and also Kubuntu in case I didn't like Debian.  But thing is I do like it so Debian is staying, they've gotten over the "staleness" problem they had for awhile and are downright lively, even new 4.0 release "Etch" due out next month which looks great.  I've worked with Mandrake in the past and it was very good, I'm certain the merged company Mandriva is still keeping up the good work. 

Ran Kubuntu as live CD and learned that volume manager and software raid weren't on the default install disk, so didn't go further with it at the time since I was gung-ho to get Novell out and something else good in before going back to work Monday.  There is a disk they call the "alternate install" for Kubuntu that does have those things.

I also have some machines not of i386 architecture, and Debian can run on those too if need be. 

Well, let me be the first to state...

Thu Nov 02 17:18:01 -0800 2006
manage
....that I will be proud to be an "outlaw" linux user. No way will I ever pay MS to use Linux, not happening, nor will I "switch" to MS.

I wonder if this announcement will result in a *severe* fork to suse, for those folks already running it, or will they just abandon it?

Anyway, thanks for the informed input, I have been sort of numb since I first read about it. It's something I guess a lot of people were wondering-when was the big patent shoe going to drop-but now we know.

This announcement today is more or less a declaration of war.

addendum

Thu Nov 02 17:32:07 -0800 2006
manage
I am hoping to see a response from IBM now, just on general principles, so we can see where they really stand.

I think this is gonna get ugly.
addendum
Thu Nov 02 17:34:14 -0800 2006
manage
They were all rah-rah at the press conference, along with HP, Intel, SAS, and OSDL. Big patent holders and a representative organization of big patent holders that tries to sound as if it represents Open Source.
addendum
Thu Nov 02 18:03:58 -0800 2006
manage
bogusness, ya, just found out reading the groklaw thread. I just checked some suse forums as well, a quick skim and the impression I am getting is they think it's the best thing since burritos in a bag.

Unless I am entirely reading this wrong, anyone who isn't working (as a linux dev) directly for novell or ms can and most likely will be sued (maybe unless they have patents to swap, probably IBMs take). They said who they wouldn't sue, so that means whomever they left out could be, and I bet they will be pretty liberal in their interpretation of what "commercial" is.

This sure has been a weird week over-all. 

Statements from OSDL, IBM, HP

Fri Nov 03 09:25:28 -0800 2006
manage

I'm wondering if there are links to statements made by OSDL.

I was called (As the policy coordinator for CLUEcan.ca ) by ITWorld Canada who are doing an article on this.  I read here that OSDL has made statements, but couldn't find anything on their website.

I am also curious to see what statements were made by IBM and HP.  IBM is often confused as being a friend of FLOSS, and yet is one of the strongest proponents of software patents.


Russell McOrmond
http://www.flora.ca/
Policy Coordinator for CLUE: Canada's association for Open Source http://www.cluecan.ca/


Statements from OSDL, IBM, HP
Fri Nov 03 15:00:00 -0800 2006
manage
OSDL is quoted in reporting of the press release. They pose it as a positive outcome. But how could they not? Novell is among their membership, and their steering board is made of large patent holder companies. IBM and HP's comments are also quoted in reporting, making positive comments. Intel and SAS too.

Bruce

Well, let me be the first to state...
Thu Nov 02 21:21:55 -0800 2006
manage
nope, the openSUSE comunity is agnostic on this matter, and is seeing this new (but strange) change  with a great amount of curiosity and evaluating the benefits and problems that this may arise.

On behalf  of the comunity, I can tell you that things keeps going as expected, and the hell has not frozen over yet.

openSUSE is fundamentally a technical comunity and not a religeous association.
Well, let me be the first to state...
Fri Nov 03 08:44:06 -0800 2006
manage
oh, and what about us paying Novell / SuSE customers who work with huge government, educational, and manufacturing clients, who've  been migrating them from Windows and Unix(tm) to Linux, who've been recommending OpenSUSE as superior to Redhat...


who are now PISSED AS HELL at Novell, DUMPING OpenSUSE as I type, and henceforth going to be BADMOUTHING NOVELL and OpenSUSE to some of the hugest Linux adopters in the midwest.


Does that mean anything to your community?
Well, let me be the first to state...
Fri Nov 03 11:20:28 -0800 2006
manage
Probably no.

SLES != openSUSE

opensuse comunuty != Novell

The comunity has nothing to do with this, this is a business agreement between two mayor corporations, nothing very new  "business as usual " no ?

And well.you can dump openSUSE or get pissed off.if you like, nobody forces you to use a product

 You can see the reaction of the comunity to the complainers like you :

http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2006-11/msg00042.html

( as you can see, Im not kidding)

"The openSUSE project ...is sponsored by Novell"

Fri Nov 03 11:47:27 -0800 2006
manage
From the top of the OpenSUSE.org website:

The openSUSE project is a worldwide community program sponsored by Novell that promotes the use of Linux everywhere.

Looks to me like OpenSUSE == Novell from perpective of funding, direction, purpose and goals.

OpenSUSE community == Novell funded and supported community

The SLES and RHEL and Oracle Linux realm will be impacted by OpenSUSE and Novell's actions.  Some of us back-stabbed OpenSUSE former-fanboys will see to it.




Well, let me be the first to state...
Fri Nov 03 18:33:57 -0800 2006
manage

Novell has everything to do with openSUSE. How about this from opensuse.org:

---------------------
"Novell and the Novell logo are registered trademarks and openSUSE and SUSE Linux are trademarks of Novell, Inc.
The trademarks, logos and service marks ("Marks") displayed on this Web site are the property of Novell or other third parties. You are not permitted to use these Marks without the prior written consent of Novell or such third party which may own the Mark. Use of Novell trademarks almost always requires written permission or a license.
For more information, read Novell's Trademark and Copyright policy."
--------------------

good luck

Sat Nov 04 06:27:00 -0800 2006
manage
with "open" suse. I think the association is now flawed to the extreme, even if novell suse and open suse are diferent, it is obvious to everyone they have the same sort of relationship as redhat does to fedora, or close enough for cooties to stick to it. I don't see a whole lotta folks continuuing to support it once these threats see action with the backing of MS bankroll and some lawyers.


relevant stuff from this article

"The distributors of other versions of Linux cannot assure their customers that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement. "If a customer says, 'Look, do we have liability for the use of your patented work?' Essentially, If you're using non-SUSE Linux, then I'd say the answer is yes," Ballmer said.

"I suspect that [customers] will take that issue up with their distributor," Ballmer said. Or if customers are considering doing a direct download of a non-SUSE Linux version, "they'll think twice about that," he said."


 

so..are you *really* sure you want to even be in the same ballpark with that?


 

Now, I know it might suck to even have to contemplate that what you have been backing ..might be lacking... in terms of what free and open are, but the relationship you have in "open" versus novell branded suse (notice the same term suse?)  is certainly close enough so that I would bet most folks in the FLOSS community would see there's not a lot of difference, a guilt by association deal. And technically, those threats by ballmer actually include you,, if there really is a large diff between open and corporate suse. Still feeling lucky?

Put it this way, except on suse-centric forums, I am still not seeing too much support for this deal. It looks like the old classic analogy, two wolves and sheep agreeing on what's for dinner.


 

I keep looking at it, and I just cannot see anything beyond some direct and some implied serious threats to the bulk of the FLOSS community, so I don't think you are going to be getting a lot more converts, "open" in the  suse name or not. Like I said, good luck!

good luck
Sat Nov 04 11:39:17 -0800 2006
manage
Zogger : get a clue please, that article on eweek and your quotes are  bullshit, you need to boot in brainless-chicken mode to actually believe on that crap.

Ballmer can say whatever he wants, and that does not change anything, is ridiculous to think otherwise.
Well, let me be the first to state...
Fri Nov 03 11:34:04 -0800 2006
manage
I find it offensive that you call this a religious issue. If you had ever been on the recieving end of a patent lawsuit, you would have found that you are not be able to get out of it by simply changing your religion. You would generally be compelled to sign a covenant that you'd never develop software in that area again, and you'd have to sign the copyright of your software over to the plaintiff. Or, spend millions defending yourself.

It happens that I once needed Novell's help in defending a lawsuit. They refused. Fortunately, the plaintiff backed down. Don't assume they are going to help you. Indeed, their agreement with Microsoft probably contains a promise not to help you. Microsoft's similar agreement with Sun contains just that language, and in that case it applies to the OpenOffice developers. This time, it's your users who are going to be the victims.

Bruce

Well, let me be the first to state...
Fri Nov 03 18:25:21 -0800 2006
manage
"nope, the openSUSE comunity is agnostic on this matter, and is seeing this new (but strange) change with a great amount of curiosity and evaluating the benefits and problems that this may arise. On behalf of the comunity, I can tell you that things keeps going as expected, and the hell has not frozen over yet. openSUSE is fundamentally a technical comunity and not a religeous association." Have you been reading the same forums as me? eg. "http://www.suseforums.net" That's certainly not the impression I have. Many people are very upset at this.
Well, let me be the first to state...
Fri Nov 03 18:37:06 -0800 2006
manage
Well, thanks to the many FUD articles spreading all over the net (and especially linuxtoday), people are frightened and confused.

Bruce, thanks for spreading nonsense, thank you very much.
Using Debian doesn't make you any holier or a better contributor to FOSS than when doing it as part of the openSUSE community.
Your article is as qualified as a 12 year old having his first distrowar and your points both highly hypothetical as well as results of your very own interpretation.

/me shakes head
Well, let me be the first to state...
Fri Nov 03 18:47:10 -0800 2006
manage
Rather than just blather about "12 year olds" and "FUD" why don't you point out exactly what you think is wrong?
Well, let me be the first to state...
Fri Nov 03 19:18:48 -0800 2006
manage
Well, maybe Bruce wants to start explaining where *his* points are coming from. Read the announcement. Read it again.
Where the hell do you see anything realistically alledging that ?

This is pure speculation and interpretation.

"There are also some little bonuses for Microsoft, like Novell will help Microsoft turn back the Open Document Format and substitute something Microsoft controls."

That, certainly, is partially true - if and only if we think that the only possible strategy for ODF to win over "open" xml is to have everyone (except MS) back ODF and only ODF. OTOH, if ODF doesn't make it as the single standard (including de-facto standard) used everywhere, it'll certainly help everyone to have "open" xml support in OO.o

"[...] an expensive subscription to Novell SuSe Linux that costs as much or more than Microsoft Windows and that comes with a patent license."

How about spelling SUSE right.
SUSE Linux is the opensource distribution produced by the openSUSE community. Bruce should actually refer to SLED/SLES (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop/Server), which is Novell's enterprise distribution (you don't get for free). Mind you, Redhat enterprise distros are more expensive than SLES.

"[...] but if anyone actually uses it for something other than a hobby or a non-profit organization, there is an implicit threat that Microsoft can bring a software patent lawsuit against them - unless they are a customer of Novell."

How is this any different from the situation a few days ago ?
How the hell does the agreement between Novell and MS change anything about it ?

It's just a PR deal so Novell can push more Linux into businesses where suits are afraid of IP litigation claims and getting sued by MS. Apart from that, it doesn't change a thing.

"One of the questions yet to be settled is whether Novell will violate the GPL, the license of the Linux kernel and other important software, by offering patent protection that is exclusive to Novell customers. The press release pretty much stated that. [...]"

"pretty much stated that" - ah, you're a lawyer now. The protection also counts for OSS projects and work submitted as part of the openSUSE community (e.g. the openSUSE Build Service).
And you'd really think the Novell execs would have signed such an agreement if they would violate the GPL ?

"Even if everyone were to be protected regarding software that Novell distributes, there's the tremendous collection of Free Software that they don't distribute."

Erm.. yeah... and your point is... ? (the development tree of SUSE Linux contains over 16000 packages)

"A logical next move for Microsoft could be to crack down on "unlicensed Linux", and "unlicensed Free Software", now that it can tell the courts that there is a Microsoft-licensed path. Or they can just passively let that threat stay there as a deterrent to anyone who would use Open Source without going through the Microsoft-approved Novell path."

How is this any different than before ? You think the existence of a "MS-licensed path" changes anything ? Does it change the fact that the OSS projects do not contain IP-infringing code ?

"With this agreement, Microsoft also secures Novell's assistance in pushing a pro-Software-patenting agenda in Europe and elsewhere."

What can I say... "far fetched" ? "making up silly, highly hypothetical points against a Linux distribution Bruce doesn't like" ?

"This entire agreement hinges around software patenting - monopolies on ideas that are burying the software industry in litigation - rather than innovation."

100% ACK. The real issue is the software patenting laws in your country.

And about the distrowar thing, read Bruce's comments.

Debian is a fine distribution, it's great to have it and its many contributors in the FOSS space, they definitely deserve respect, just like any other Linux distribution that sponsors many developers working full-time on FOSS projects (e.g. Redhat and Novell) - oh, for example the LGPL'd office suite that's advertised on this blog.
Well, let me be the first to state...
Sat Nov 04 10:20:24 -0800 2006
manage
I was until this week a proponent of the work that Novell was recently doing, including promoting Novell as a path from legacy proprietary software to FLOSS.

I am now in the position of having to back out of that.  The Novell announcement changes things quite a bit.   The actual ability of patent holders like Microsoft to sue FLOSS users and developers hasn't changed, but the credability of the threat has.

I've written a longer article on my blog titled When someone pays protection money, we all become more vulnerable which help explains why this is a threat to FLOSS.

The following is from a recent contribution to the CLUE general discussion forum:


Software patent holders are always able to sue users and distributors of FLOSS software for patents embedded in that software. It isn't the ability to sue that has changed, but the credibility of the threat such that patent holders can attack FLOSS without actually having to go to the courts. If a patent holder actually goes to court they run the very large risk of having their software patents invalidated, so software  patents are far more valuable if they can credibly threaten people without ever going to court.
Well, let me be the first to state...
Sat Nov 04 11:32:19 -0800 2006
manage
This is no threat , is plain paranoia that has not been proved with facts, only by biased RMS zealots 's comments.

Zealots...?

Sat Nov 04 16:53:59 -0800 2006
manage

While we might agree that the issue relates to ideologically motivated zealots, we don't seem to agree which group is exhibiting this.  There are people, often followers of Bill Gates ideology, that believe that software should be treated like hardware and must always have a marginal cost.  This is the type of nonsense that suggested that a type of intangible exclusive right that was devised for tangible manipulation of forces of nature, namely patents, should be extended to pure intangibles such as software and other information/mental processes.  This is an ideology that has no rational basis, and yet it is this ideology and the zealots that promote it that is at the heart of the current issue.

Without this anti-scientific ideology we wouldn't have to worry about this issue at all.  Companies like RedHat recognize both the flaws in the underlying technology law as well as have a practical short-term strategy to deal with the current reality.  Novell and its fans haven't demonstrated that they understand either the problem with the law, or the current reality, and has decided to become a pawn of the zealots.

It is not the practical people recognizing the current flaws that are the problem, but the ideologically based zealots like Bill Gates and his religious followers that are the problem.


Are Evolution and OpenExchagne the real targets ?

Thu Nov 02 23:03:22 -0800 2006
manage

One of the ways M$ gets business by the short-and-curlies is through that abomination of inefficiency and insecurity, MS-Exchange. Suse appears to have been making real progress in mindshare if not actual marketshare in regards to tuning people into the fact that there are non-MS mail/calendar tools.

If people have a way to peel themselves off of the MS Exchange/MS Outlook tarbaby, then MS could lose them entirely. Taking out Novell takes out its products and thus this particular threat or potential for threat.

Well, let me be the first to state...
Fri Nov 03 09:38:46 -0800 2006
manage
I wonder if this announcement will result in a *severe* fork to suse, for those folks already running it, or will they just abandon it?

For me, it'll be wait a little bit until the hype dies and the facts firm-up. Then, if this is in-fact a ploy to lasso Linux by the convicted criminal organization, I will be abandoning SuSE and requesting a refund for the two versions I bought.  I'll miss it, as things Just Work with it.
Well, let me be the first to state...
Fri Nov 03 18:18:25 -0800 2006
manage
The SUSE forums are full of a lot of unhappy and angry people at the moment. I'm one of them!

Eben Moglen speaks out

Thu Nov 02 17:29:26 -0800 2006
manage
Eben Moglen, attorney for FSF, comments here.
Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You
Thu Nov 02 17:57:56 -0800 2006
manage
Individual, non-commercial developers.  I like that.  Allow me to translate:

You people who have no money to sue for, we won't sue you.

That's right, Microsoft wants you to keep slaving away for free...^H^H^H^H^H^H hacking.


Too bad.  I just downloaded the latest OpenSUSE .iso images.  I guess I just wasted a half-a-dozen discs.
Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You
Thu Nov 02 21:32:37 -0800 2006
manage
The line " Individual, non-commercial developers" has me a little worried.

If it is written in that manner without detailed descriptions of what it really means, then I would be afraid that Microsoft could say that if anyone else contributes to a single person's code or an organization's code, then it no longer would fall under an individual developer but a community development which isn't protected from being sued.

In other words, no community help in development of software. End users still might be able to work with the source code for their own machines and purposes but they might not be able to provide the changes to anyone else.

IANAL but I do know little technical details like that can cause big problems down the road.

Development is a red-herring anyway

Fri Nov 03 06:30:21 -0800 2006
manage

M$ could very well fulfill an agreement with Novell not to sue Novell or its developers and still at the same time sue the living daylights out of Novell's customers.

Software patents govern usage, and a heck of a lot more people use software than make it.

Development is a red-herring anyway
Fri Nov 03 11:35:07 -0800 2006
manage
In particular, they could sue commercial OpenSuSe users and decline to sue people who had paid Novell.

Bruce

Development is a red-herring anyway
Sat Nov 04 05:05:35 -0800 2006
manage

Yes. That's a likely option.

Many of the mainstream articles are contributing to the problem by getting misdirected and caught up in the irrelevant debate over who has the "right" to sue whom over the patents. The real problem is that the US patent system is broken. What's next, McDonald's suing Whaturger or Hestburger over the assembly of layers of bread and fried ground beef?

In the long run the debate needs to get steered back to how to reform the US patent system and bring it in line with the one in the EU. It's absolutely counterproductive for the US to allow patents on literature, algorithms, formulas, business methods and programs. This mess created by MS may provide the vehicle for that reform. We can see clearly that the things it has patent claims for are general knowledge and been around for years.

Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You
Sat Nov 04 02:40:24 -0800 2006
manage
I agree, the Microsoft patent pledge seems to be saying you have less rights to use our patents than US patent law already permits you, as such it doesn't appear to change the legal position one iota for anyone (except possibly Novell, but that was a separate announcement).

But the agreements seem to be all "sounds and fury" and no content, except that Microsoft will hand out some free coupons for Novell products?! Presumably this is just recognition that Novell probably had more telling patents, and some private agreement between the firms that affect nobody except possibly customers of Novell.

Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You (cont)

Thu Nov 02 18:02:48 -0800 2006
manage
I have been dealing with Novell and Windows since version 1.0 (both products). Novell is a great product that eventually put Banyan Vines out of business. Now the tables are turned and it's possibly Novell's turn to be sun-downed by Microsoft.

Novells' fortunes have come to an end and cash-flow wise and I think Novell may be financially insolvent within the next 5-7 years if things don't turn around for them.

My view on this is Microsoft needs competitors to stay in business, the way they are structured now.

MSFT bailed out (if you want to call it that) Apple with the large Apple stock purchase they made along with the commitment to keep producing Office for the Mac platform. MSFT had to buoy Apple to keep the DOJ off their backs. Without Apple, MSFT had no desktop competition.

Now I'm afraid the same thing is happening with Novell. MSFT needs a credible competitor in the file and print server space. Without Novell, MSFT will have it to themselves and the DOJ will once again have a platform to go after MSFT. Capitalism at it's best. So be it.

Now, I'm not a MSFT or Novell fanboi. I think the market decides who stays and who goes. I'm a recovering windows-a-holic, a Mac convert of about 3.5 years. Before that, it was only Microsoft for desktop and Novell for file and print, both since their 1.0 releases. Linux played a big part in the IT back office systems area. Cheap and reliable. That's where Linux still has it's niche, just like Apple has theirs.

Without competition, MSFT stands to become a regulated company just like power and gas companies due to the 'fact' that MSFT will be the defacto destop, file and print server monopoly.

Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You
Thu Nov 02 18:19:13 -0800 2006
manage
Bruce,

Your comment over on the news.com.com site "It's SCO all over again" is possibly valid enough, but...

This seems to be more like the Tivo problem to me - only now the spin is to use "we won't sue" but end up with essentially no way to actually use or create Open Source software, because we all fall into the "commercial" category, if the M$/Novell agreement is parsed fine enough.

A sort of "You can do it and we won't sue... unless you actually do it..."

That just really makes me think of "You can have the source... you just can't use it if you change it" sort of Tivo argument.

Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You
Thu Nov 02 19:17:09 -0800 2006
manage

Hey everyone,

A confirmed non-techie here...so please take it easy on me! I have a quick question for you tech guys which may help me save my investment money!

I have shares in a stock on the Canadian stock market. It's called Transgaming. (  http://www.transgaming.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=2&meid=-1  )

I am wondering if the use or application of Transgaming's porting abilities are now worth more than ever...or now completely worthless due to the marriage of Linux (Novell) and Microsoft?

I have read all of the above posts but have to admit that it is really greek to me. The reason I invested in Transgaming is due to the large size of the gaming industry...but also the awareness that Transgamings products may be used for different platforms.

Help! Please let me know your thoughts!!!

Thanks,

Newbie

 

Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You
Thu Nov 02 20:29:11 -0800 2006
manage
Dear Newbie,

One of the truisms of investing is "invest in what you know". Which isn't transgaming. You have to consider how they are eventually going to make money, which is by charging for games that have been ported to Linux. And then you have to consider the size of the market for games on Linux. Which is not very well developed at all. And then you have to figure out what their exit strategy should be. Get bought? By who, and why? Do an IPO (unlikely)?, operate a profitable business for decades (not really an exit at all and could take a long time to pay)? And you have to look at other similar companies in the games market and how they've done, and why they were successful or unsuccessful (which probably has a lot to do with making hit games and timing their releases for peaks like Christmas and having good console partnerships). And then you have to figure out if transgaming can make a hit without being in the content business, just selling infrastructure for other games. And somehow I don't see the gamers paying big bucks for Novell desktops, so I'm not sure this story matters to transgaming's market at all.

IMO you should sell this and look for stocks that you understand.

    Bruce
Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You
Fri Nov 03 05:37:27 -0800 2006
manage
I doubt many games are written using any of the .Net technologies, so it's hard to see this having anything at all to do with Transgaming or more to the point their Cedega product (or even Cedega's relatives Crossover Office and WINE). Cider is mostly to do with Mac gaming, so that's not involved and their porting work appears to be mostly console related, so again Transgaming isn't really involved. SwiftShader is pure Windows technology (ie, it's not written in .Net) that only work on Linux through Transgaming's Cedega product (so depending on how you look at it, it's not even really a Linux product).

Even if somebody did write a game in .Net, it wouldn't necessarily be portable to mono/linux. Mono supports a different range of APIs than .Net, so an app would be portable only if used the subset of .Net functionality that is supported by both .Net and Mono. I'm not certain how many of the APIs in that subset are suited to gaming.
Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You
Fri Nov 03 08:10:30 -0800 2006
manage

Hi Bruce and Maethorechannen....I appreciate your feedback....I know I should know more on the Tech side....especially if I am investing in a Tech based stock....I was lured in with the size of the Gaming market.....what I did was cut my position in half this morning....since I got into the Transgaming stock the price has doubled...so effectively I am riding for free now....thanks again for your comments guys! Now I will sit back and try to absorb and learn from the great discussion taking place. Much appreciated!!!

Newbie

You Want to be Careful With That Reasoning!

Fri Nov 10 17:36:45 -0800 2006
manage
I have a friend who plays the stock-market for a living, using a sophisticated form of what is in effect chartism. He's doing rather well, which means: there's a lot of irrational behaviour out there. Enough so that there's still plenty to exploit.

The flaw in halving your position when the stock has doubled is that it's the future value of your portfolio that matters, rather than the past value. Unless there's a particular thing that you want to buy (say), so that your utility metric has a kink in it, it's probably better to think "What's the right degree of exposure?", rather than "How do I get back what I started with?"; the first question is an investor's question, and the second is a gambler's, IMO.

The right degree of exposure is based upon knowledge, certainly, but also such factors as your existing degree of exposure to correlated shares, so that it can be rational to invest without a lot of knowledge if you know that the correlation with the other shares in your basket is low. Sophisticated investors will also know how to hedge (make use of negatively correlated instruments), particularly with regard to such risks as currency shifts, but at this point I don't know if I'm teaching you to suck eggs or getting too technical, so I'll stop.

Selling half the stock was wise, from the little that I know; selling all of it might have been wiser, but there is something emotionally satisfying with getting your money back. That "irrationality" does represent real (emotional) utility, so maybe selling half makes sense after all...

Ximian (aka "Novell") are evil.

ajc
Thu Nov 02 20:10:14 -0800 2006
manage
I'm telling ya, those kids have been in Microsoft's back pocket since day one.  I remain convinced that Miguel de Icaza and Nat Friedman are on Microsoft's payroll.  Maybe not directly, but I'll bet if you follow the money you'll find the connection.

People always loved to say "Red Hat wants to be the Microsoft of Linux" but it isn't true.  Ximian (who call themselves "Novell" these days) really do, and they mean it.  Why else would they pull Microsoft's "Not Invented Here" game, over and over again?  They destabilized Linux's ascendance on the desktop by creating GNOME, when KDE was already there.  They delayed Linux's migration to a managed code environment by introducing Mono to muddy the waters.  There are probably a dozen or so other major projects that follow this pattern of behavior.

And now that they're in control of Novell, they're signing a deal with the devil.  Novell will get screwed just like every other Microsoft "partner" in the last 20 years has, but they don't care.  They're deliberately trying to turn Linux and Open Source into a legal minefield.

Now is the time to boycott Ximian (aka Novell).  Do it now.  If you're a business, cut your ties with them.  Get your commercial support from Red Hat or Oracle if you have to.  If you're an individual user, go for Ubuntu or some other distribution that's well-supported by the community.  And when you're selecting what software to run, make sure it isn't something controlled by the kids from Boston.
Ximian (aka "Novell") are evil.
Fri Nov 03 05:15:18 -0800 2006
manage
Of course, now Ubuntu is shipping with some mono apps by default. I saw a link on slashdot to this blog entry by Seth Nickell, and it looks to me like we're somewhere between Acts 2 and 3 (though I'd replace Red Hat with Ubuntu - RedHat has more pressing concerns at the moment :-)
Ximian (aka "Novell") are evil.
Fri Nov 03 08:03:08 -0800 2006
manage
would have to disagree with one point on your recollection of history, gnome for me made a Linux desktop useful in the late 90's, at the time it had better features and let me run some useful applications that the kde world didn't.


Now about a year ago I switched back to kde (with gnome libraries to run a couple gnome-centric apps I still like) because now it's better!

I think the competition has been good in the window manager space, and the way things are now I can have my cake and eat it too, I don't care if an app is requires gnome, I can run it under my kde!

I can't see where the Mono project has made much of an impact on anything in the commercial / government space as far as adoption of Linux

Patent protection is part of SUPPORT contract?

Thu Nov 02 21:16:41 -0800 2006
manage
"One of the questions yet to be settled is whether Novell will violate the GPL, the license of the Linux kernel and other important software, by offering patent protection that is exclusive to Novell customers"

Bruce, IANAL, but could Novell get around this by stating that they are providing the patent protection for customers of the Novell SLES support contracts?  So, they provide the same patent protection for SUSE to everyone, i.e. none.  But if you buy support, then you get the patent coverage.

Savio
Patent protection is part of SUPPORT contract?
Thu Nov 02 21:38:18 -0800 2006
manage
Microsoft is bragging in their press release that they found a way around the GPL by "using a covenant", probably a covenant not to sue, we'll have to see the details. Whatever way they do it, they are at least circumventing the spirit of the license, and possibly the letter. Shame on Novell for helping them do that. And doesn't this remind you why we need a GPL3.

I don't think that coupling the patent protection to a support contract would be any better - it's still about using the software, the GPL still covers that software.

    Thanks

    Bruce
Patent protection is part of SUPPORT contract?
Fri Nov 03 06:36:40 -0800 2006
manage
http://y12web2.y12.doe.gov/techmgt/lic/licensing/tsld002.htm

What is a License?

Also referred to a “covenant not to sue.” The Licensor is agreeing that it will not sue the Licensee for infringement of Licensor’s patent.

Google “covenant not to sue”  + license + Microsoft

Microsoft has used “covenant not to sue”  throughout many of it's licenses.

Both Novell and IBM lawyers have stated that the SCO Group cannot sue Novell, Novell's customers, or any downstream recipients of GPL licensed code because SCO distributed code under the terms of the GPL.  How can Novell distribute GPL code under the a similar "end license" proviso to what SCO proposed.

i.e. buy a license from SCO and not get sued - NOT OK - violation of the GPL.
i.e. buy a license from Novell and not get sued - NOT OK - Still a violation of the GPL.

Who holds the patent? Lobbying more critical.

Fri Nov 03 06:47:41 -0800 2006
manage

I think something is missing in this discussion.  IANAL, but I have always understood that the clause of the GPL being discussed only comes into effect when the patent holder and the distributor of GPL are the same.  It is not a GPL licensee that sues anyone, but a third party.


The Software Patent threat has never been about patents held by people who have a stake in the success of FLOSS, but outsiders who can lob these landmines at us without having any consequences to themselves.

While I am very worried about what Novell is doing on the lobbying side, and have never been a customer as they haven't come out clearly against software patents worldwide, I don't think there is any legal case against them for being distributors of GPL software (even GPLv3 software) and having a separate arrangement with a third-party patent holder.

Note: As policy coordinator for Canada's association for Open Source I am often asked why it is that we don't have vendor support for lobbying the federal government on key issues such as PCT (Patent, Copyright, Trademarks, etc). I believe this issue will help people understand, which is that just because you are a beneficiary of FLOSS, including being a commercial supplier of it, doesn't mean you understand or agree with the underlying economic value of it. Many FLOSS vendors are monopolists just like Microsoft is, just less successful.


Russell McOrmond
http://www.flora.ca/
Policy Coordinator for CLUE: Canada's association for Open Source http://www.cluecan.ca/

Who holds the patent? Lobbying more critical.
Fri Nov 03 07:46:24 -0800 2006
manage
Here is the language from the GPL. It's not limited to the patent and copyright holder being one and the same.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Who holds the patent? Lobbying more critical.
Fri Nov 03 09:18:42 -0800 2006
manage

I agree with what you are saying as far as the intent, but we all know that the law gets interpreted in ways different than intended. Moglen often says that "law is not code" (To flip Lessig's Code is law), and that it is far more squishy than software code which we can type "make" and know how a CPU will interpret it.

If Novell was getting a "license" for the patents then we would receive two benefits.  First, Novell would be in violation of the GPL and we could sue them.  Second, the license agreement would disclose exactly which patents were being licensed.

Since this is a pact to not sue Novell, then we don't receive any of these two legal benefits.   Instead we get the political harm of having Novell publicly stating that they believe that SuSE infringes Microsoft patents.  SuSE isn't licensing these patents, but getting an assurance from Microsoft that they won't be sued (at least for the moment).

The specific mention of ODF, Mono and Samba in the joint letter is also telling, suggesting that Microsoft is successful both in neutralizing ODF (Now OpenOffice.org will be compatible with Microsoft's formats that went through ECMA, so no need for OASIS/ISO OpenDocument). Mono and Samba can now be presumed to be patent encumbered, and I believe any Novell contributions to these projects should be considered suspect.

This is a massive win for Microsoft, and a major loss for quite a few FLOSS communities (IE: Linux, OpenOffice.org/ODF, Mono and Samba).


Four birds with one stone -- wow, Microsoft is good at what they do!


Russell McOrmond
http://www.flora.ca/
Policy Coordinator for CLUE: Canada's association for Open Source http://www.cluecan.ca/

Patent protection is part of SUPPORT contract?
Fri Nov 03 06:59:02 -0800 2006
manage
From: http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml?articleId=193501489

Brad Smith, Microsoft's chief legal counsel:  "Every customer who purchases a subscription for SUSE Linux Enterprise will get not only service and support from Novell but a patent covenant from Microsoft"

Again, Bruce, IANAL and don't understand the difference between a covenant and a ball of wax, but it basically sounds to me that if you buy a subscription, you're covered against patent infringement legal action.  If you don’t buy (and maintain) a subscription…well…Talk about lock-in!

Savio

Patent protection is part of SUPPORT contract?
Fri Nov 03 09:17:05 -0800 2006
manage
I think there are two distinctions that determine whether this arrangement permits distribution under the GPL:

1) Whether a covenant not to sue with respect to a set of patents is legally equivalent to licensing the patents.  The GPL explicitly prohibits distribution of code which is additionally covered by an exclusive or non-transferrable license.  The wording of the PR implies that Microsoft isn't granting Novell any patents, but rather promising not to sue on their basis.  However, Novell is reportedly paying royalties for this "covenant," so I would assume they are buying licenses.  If it is merely a promise not to sue, I'm not so sure the GPL or any valid copyright license could prevent exclusive "promises."

2) Whether the possibility that GPL software might infringe on unspecified patents necessarily implies that patent protection is required for lawful distribution.  If it does, then by buying into the covenent, Novell implicitly admits that the covered software is encumbered, and therefore they cannot distribute under the GPL since their patent rights are exclusive and non-transferrable.  Otherwise, the distribution of GPL software with optional preemptive patent protection coverage would be allowable until an unprotected (commercial) user is sued, at which point the patent in question would become necessary to license and therefore revoke distribution rights under the GPL .  Another way to phrase this is: Does section 7 of the GPL cover the mere threat of patent ligitation, or is some legal action required to establish a particular patent license as a distribution requirement?  Does this Novell/Microsoft agreement establish that this Microsoft IP is a distribution requirement beyond those of the GPL?

There are lots of reasons to oppose software patents, but for me the most compelling are that it's next to impossible to write useful software with the assumption that the software doesn't violate existing patents, that patent holders can watch someone allegedly violate their patents for years before filing suit, and that most case are settled out of court without any closure on whether any patent was infringed at all.  This situation involves all three, but the worst part is that Novell approached Microsoft to make this settlement without Microsoft so much as sending a strongly-worded memo.
Patent protection is part of SUPPORT contract?
Fri Nov 03 10:49:13 -0800 2006
manage

I wonder how Linus Torvalds feels right now.  His arrogance toward Richard Stallman regarding GPLv3 has been sickening.  Richard enabled Linus, Linus did not enable Richard.  

Is Linus ready to be Bill and Steve's bitch now?  Does he care?

Linus is a great programmer and project manager, but in terms of vision and setting strategy for free software (disregarding Mr. Stallman's philosophical zeal, looking at this on the merits only), Linus is not fit to carry Richard Stallman's water, and is in fact, dangerous.  He doesn't know the edge of his competencies.

jwwrj

Patent protection is part of SUPPORT contract?
Fri Nov 03 11:40:10 -0800 2006
manage
Linus is playing Alfred E. Newman, the character from Mad magazine whose motto was "What, Me Worry?"

His response was "Why assume that everyone has to be enemies? Let's see how this plays out".

I agree with you, Linus botches strategy outside of software and it would be best if he'd shut up about it.

Bruce

It gets better. NPR has trotted out Enderle to add his gems

Fri Nov 03 06:26:50 -0800 2006
manage

NPR has trotted out Enderle to add his gems of wisdom: apparently all the defects are shortcomings in the server and MS Windows is faultless.

I was wondering where he had gotten to. Now were is the Didiot, the other sock-puppet?

It's going to take a lot of work to clean up NPR's technology coverage since it's all outsourced to Slate these days, which is beholden to MS.

Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You
Fri Nov 03 06:37:14 -0800 2006
manage
What impact do people see this having on SUN, and OpenSolaris? Will microsoft go after the Linux kernel? If so, is the Solaris kernel tainted going opensource? I have seen a lot of discussion about the impact to GNU/Linux but none regarding Unix.

Sun?

Fri Nov 03 14:50:32 -0800 2006
manage
what could be talked about?

There's the matter of suspicious injection of funds into SCO by Sun and Microsoft to license some code.

Sun and Microsoft made alot of noise during settlement where they were going to share and interoperate and someday see amazing new stuff.

We could talk about how Sun is notorious for floating huge time & money consuming trial balloons and then suddenly dropping them leaving some of their customers with their britches down and tender parts of their anatomy still in their hands, metaphorically speaking (like the old x86 solaris they dropped and are now restarting, or cobalt, or the on-again off again linux push including sun linux, for a few fer-instancers).  Don't be  totally amazed if one day the opensolaris site mysteriously disappears one day with nary a word from Sun leadership.  (ditto for opensuse and Novell, as an aside)

Novell in SCO probably will be found to be the holder of most Unix(tm) copyrights, now we know that it isn't in good hands.  Maybe they use that advantage to push Unix(tm) users toward their type of Linux.

Definitely an unholy alliance

Fri Nov 03 06:37:33 -0800 2006
manage
I was wondering why MS has been very quiet of late.  I marked it up to not paying close attention to technology issues during the summer when other interests come to the fore.  Then the cake to Mozilla devs happened and that raised an eyebrow, then WinCE 6.0 has "open source" and now this jaw dropper.  It has been a whole ten days of Halloween releases.

I was excited to learn that our company will be upgrading to its Novell servers to Novell Linux, now I'm not too sure that this will be a good thing.  Or that it will allow us to be as independent as I'd thought (for the record, I'm a hardware tech and have no control over the servers and what runs on them or the PCs).

This is certainly a turning point.  Which direction are we turning?
Definitely an unholy alliance
Fri Nov 03 07:30:04 -0800 2006
manage
As a SuSE user since 8.1 I am outraged. Novell has betrayed me, their other customers, and the community.

I'm especially angry that I've spent time bug hunting for openSUSE to do what little I can to contribute just to see Novell sell us all out.

I have been checking-out Debian lately and it seems to be exactly what I need.

Bye-Bye SuSE.
Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You
Fri Nov 03 08:14:36 -0800 2006
manage
I haven't been reading everything that's been written about this story (who can?), so please, bear with me if someone has pointed this out already.

I think this is about Oracle coming out competing with Red Hat. 

I think Oracle is coming out against Red Hat because Red Hat is a direct competitor to their bread-and-butter DBMS with their support of Open Source DB and applications.

http://www.redhat.com/solutions/rhappstack/

Why is MS getting involved here at this time?  To win against Oracle, Red Hat will have to push its Open Source application portfolio much more aggressively.  If Red Hat should win that battle, or even fight it to a draw, MS will be in a much worse spot with pushing its own application stack into the Enterprise.

This new support of Novell/SuSE gives SuSE immediate credibility amoung CIOs at the expense of Red Hat .

What of the danger of SuSE being seen more seriously as an alternative to MS?  Remember what's always happened to those who partner with MS in complementary software offerings...  MS marketing and sales (and MS partners) will forget SuSE completely when sales of of SuSE might come, in any way, at the expense of MS products.  It will only be offered in press releases and as a last ditch to large Enterprise customers who want an "integrated" MS/Linux Architecture after they've tried to fill every need with MS products.

What about Xandros?

Ray
Fri Nov 03 09:34:41 -0800 2006
manage
Xandros is debian based and easy to install. For a desktop Linux, is it a good choice? Is there some dark secret about this distro I should know about before choosing it? TIA
What about Xandros?
Fri Nov 03 15:11:35 -0800 2006
manage
I think they just went through some sort of bankruptcy-related re-organization. They are owned by the investors who were angels for Ximian, who are nice enough guys but aren't having success with this company as far as I can tell. If you have some technical competence and want to put in some effort now to establish a long-term solution that works, I'd say Debian. If you want to get there fast, Ubuntu might be easier.

Me, I want a solution that doesn't come from a for-profit. They sell out too easily. Debian fits that role.

Bruce

What about Xandros?
Fri Nov 03 20:38:37 -0800 2006
manage
I second that. I started with RedHat, but had a lot of problems (this was 6.2). I found Debian, realized that Debian was one of the few distros that couldn't sell out, and struggled through it. I'd say there are still plenty of warts with Debian and I don't recommend it to any of my non-techie friends or relatives, but I do have my mom's and sister's computers running it because it's rock-solid stable and I can admin them remotely, not that anything ever goes wrong other than hardware failures. It is also the most consistently easy to upgrade distro that I've tried.

On the other hand, SUSE and RedHat do some great work, and put a lot back into open source. For example, ACLs in Linux are in a beta level of quality in my opinion, and when I reported some bugs, it was a SUSE engineer who put quite a lot of work into fixing them.

Like all the distros, Debian seems to keep getting better.
Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You
Fri Nov 03 13:54:50 -0800 2006
manage
Bruce you are absolutely correct.  In light of historic events, patent cooperation sounds like a euphemism for impending lawsuit.  Whenever lawyers posture in coordination with a patent system that is painfully broken we should expect very dangerous developments.  Maybe MS/Novell will extend the “genuine advantage” to Linux.  =P  And what an advantage it isn't!  MS Linux anyone?  Novell no more for me and my customers.

A larger question I ask is why litigation is the primary method of "competition."  Acknowledging our injustice system is about the economic endowment of the participants I just sent my donations to the FSF, SFLC and OSDL! 

http://www.fsf.org
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
http://www.osdl.org

So who exactly are they gonna sue anyway.

Fri Nov 03 14:05:36 -0800 2006
manage
Let MS and Novell go into their little agreement.  Let them both spend millions, billions for that matter...  what does it matter.  Last I heard a Guy named Linus is the final authority on what gets included in the core OS.. 

Who exactly are they gonna sue, and for what reason..  because you don't buy something from a particular vendor?  That is perplexing...  'I am sorry sir, but GM is sueing you because you bought a Ford'...  It's the GPL!  Come on and SUE ME!  I have several NON-SUSE desktops I use daily at work.  I make money from them technically because I work with them in the office.  I D/L OSS , I drink regular coffee, and smoke 2 packs of Marlboro's a day.  Bring it on...  I would enjoy the laugh when any sort of law suit doesn't even make it to court...


Hey Microsoft, are you there?  Here's the voice of one of the NON-Silent Majority.. 
So who exactly are they gonna sue anyway.
Fri Nov 03 19:13:05 -0800 2006
manage
I wonder if this whole deal is not an attempt by Novell to use the ignorance of business people with respect to open source to their advantage. I'm a proud 100% free Blag Linux and GNU user, and I have nothing but contempt for M$. I don't understand this issue that much, but from what I do know, I'm not that worried. Here's my interpretation of these events.

I read before that the biggest obstacle preventing M$-using businesses from adopting linux (and thus the biggest problem for companies like Novell and Red Hat) is that they're afraid of being sued down the line when someone tries to claim that linux has illegally incorporated their code. This, as far as I understand, is an unfounded fear. However, business people believe it, and that's a big reason why they're not switching to linux.

In order to address this fear, Novell decides to pay M$ to publicly promise not to sue anyone who pays for Novell linux. This is Novell's attempt to calm the fears of the business people and get them to switch to SUSE. And it's a pretty sneaky ploy, in the sense that it leads people to believe that M$ could and might sue anyone who doesn't pay for SUSE. So business people thinking of switching to linux might think--"If we switch to linux, we'd better use SUSE, because then we'll have protection from being sued!"

But the thing is, M$ couldn't and wouldn't sue anyway. On what basis could they sue? There's no chance. If they could, they would have sued Red Hat a long time ago. Imagine if M$ decided to sue all non-SUSE using linux users! There would be very very wide scale outrage, and they'd never be able to pull it off. And if they could pull it off, it would have nothing to do with this deal--if they could, M$ would sue with or without this deal. Is there anything in this deal that makes non-SUSE linux users more vulnerable to a M$ attack? It doesn't look like it to me. In any case, I, like the poster above, am not worried.

To those with a better understanding of what's going on here, please correct me if this interpretation is way off base.

You got it exactly right

Fri Nov 03 19:20:42 -0800 2006
manage
See, when someone's not on a flaming trip, you actually understand what's behind the IP protection thing.
So who exactly are they gonna sue anyway.
Sat Nov 04 05:29:05 -0800 2006
manage
As I've continued to read comment and opinion here and there the past couple of days, I've been coming to the same conclusion as you.  I think Matt Asay, formerly a Novell employee, has a pretty good summation at http://asay.blogspot.com/2006/11/microsoft-and-novell-much-ado-about.html (I tried to add a link, but the thing seems broken).  Ballmer's scolding not withstanding, this is business as usual for us.  MS wants to stop Linux, how quaint.  Is this really news?

The question that keeps popping up in my mind is, what's in it for MS?  Of course there is the notion that this is a play to kill off both Red Hat and Novell, and perhaps more companies, but that alone doesn't explain this move entirely.  In my opinion, they've been reading the tea leaves and things are not looking good.  Vista is arriving not with baited anticipation like previous releases, but with a collective yawn.  Most companies have finally wrestled XP into what they want it to do and would probably like to have five years or so of stability before another round of upgrades. 

We all know that they've lost the data center, utterly and completely and they've lost mindshare which is so critical for uptake and development.  No number of lawsuits can bring the mindshare back and they know it.  They are hoping they can bluff the PHBs long enough to get them to buy another round of upgrades with Vista and then they'll try to conjure up another "strategy" a few years hence to keep them in the fold.  MS has learned well from the mafia and the drug cartels about keeping customers on retainer.  With Sarbanes-Oxley hanging over their heads, many PHBs will be cowed into staying with the safe bet and I'm willing to guess that this is a part of MS' plan.

We here in the community have the momentum and it will take a lot more than Ballmer jumping up and down yelling, "Patents!, Patents!, Patents!, Patents!, Patents!" to derail us.  World Domination continues apace.
So who exactly are they gonna sue anyway.
Sat Nov 04 08:59:00 -0800 2006
manage
Novell was willing to put other distributors of GNU/Linux distros and Linux itself in potential danger for their own gain. That is enough to be evil.
So who exactly are they gonna sue anyway.
Sun Nov 05 11:04:22 -0800 2006
manage

Novell was willing to put other distributors of GNU/Linux distros and Linux itself in potential danger for their own gain. That is enough to be evil.

Hands down the most succinct, accurate, and insightful post on this thread so far. I couldn't agree with you more.

The painful part is that I had been promoting Novell/SUSE to some degree. Although I personally don't/didn't use it, I had been recommending it in the places I though it would 'fit' the users needs. Well that ended - and I'll take a bit of egg on my face over it, but that's OK, I'll survive it.

Evil is as Evil does - and Novell's actions have now defined them.

Specify, Procure, Architect, or Manage in IT? Take Novell's Survey on this Matter

Sat Nov 04 09:24:10 -0800 2006
manage
Novell has a survey for their announcement here.  At the bottom of the survey linked from that page they have a comments box.  Funny I was able to agree with much of the goals in that survey as a useful thing, but in that box gave them a wee bit negative reaction to their announcement.  Also put my name and email though they didn't ask for it.
Specify, Procure, Architect, or Manage in IT? Take Novell's Survey on this Matter
Sun Nov 05 12:58:09 -0800 2006
manage
I took the survey, and added my comment. I wasn't able to agree with any of the 'goals' in the survey, unless you looked at it from a Novell == Linux view.

Which was how that survey is actually 'spun', IMO.

Still we should perhaps all take it and leave what ever our thoughts on the matter are... What I'd like to know is how to see the results of the survey. Possibly I missed where they were being posted? A 'survey' without posted results seems sort of worthless to the community... and I don't mean just a "% in favor v. % unfavorable" which is worse then useless - it's untrustworthy, at best.

Specify, Procure, Architect, or Manage in IT? Take Novell's Survey on this Matter
Sun Nov 05 15:03:10 -0800 2006
manage
well, what I really meant was a sense in which some of those questions could be "spun" in my mind so they could be useful thing. For example, Linux Xen continuing toward being able to virtualize any client OS (but not with any help from microsoft). Or Microsoft open sourcing their OS (haha). Web services for managing a mixed environment, sure why not. Document format compatibility, sure Microsoft dumps its proprietary stuff that's so bad it's not even interoperable from one version to the next, and adopting an open document format, yeah, that'd be good too.
Specify, Procure, Architect, or Manage in IT? Take Novell's Survey on this Matter
Sun Nov 05 17:49:55 -0800 2006
manage
Well sure, in that sense who among us would not see most, if not all of the listed gaols as being good - for us all.

I think what got me so out of that mind set, was that I read every thing on their website and the off site links, about this deal, and I was almost nauseous with the overwhelming feeling that Novell (at least everything I read) seems to be saying "We're the ONLY Linux there is - if it's good for us, then it's good for the community.

Well I may not be all that much of a big player, but I'm a long way from riding free in what I see as "community" - I donate way more dollars every year to the EFF, FSF, FLOSS projects and various distros then buying twice (or more) all the equivalent (well not as good, but you get my drift) M$ products would ever have cost me - and I always feel like my plate gets fuller for it. I do a little code too, but I have to help with dollars because as much as I wish I was, no great coder am I.

My point is that I haven't used any M$ stuff (disclaimer, the stray Nvidia or printer driver, etc. just not any M$ OS since Win 95B) - I really believe in "community" it's really done right by me - so the feeling that Novell == Linux, just over powered me... I'm actually feeling a bit physically down over all this.

So I probably was not in a great mood to be taking a survey - I'm rather sure from my comments that they know I'm not a happy camper. No name calling or flame though, just what I think about Novell's actions... I don't think just commenting trash talk does much good - not that anything I had to say will change their minds, but they now know they have at least one rather dedicated EX-supporter of Novell/SUSE out here in the "community" at least what I view as my "community"... I began to feel Novell belongs to a rather different "community", and by the time I took the survey I was sure of it.

Novell-Microsoft: What... Else... They Aren't Telling You

Mon Nov 06 07:10:42 -0800 2006
manage
I am definitely not a lawyer, but but some of the text found at http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/patent_agreement.mspx struck an interest... Here is a paragraph from the above link:

Microsoft, on behalf of itself and its Subsidiaries (collectively “Microsoft”), hereby covenants not to sue Novell’s Customers and Novell’s Subsidiaries’ Customers for infringement under Covered Patents of Microsoft on account of a such Customers’ use of specific copies of a Covered Product as distributed by Novell or its Subsidiaries (collectively “Novell”) for which Novell has received Revenue (directly or indirectly) for such specific copies; provided the foregoing covenant is limited to use by a Customer of Novell (i) of such specific copies that are authorized by Novell in consideration for such Revenue, and (ii) within the scope authorized by Novell in consideration for such Revenue. For the avoidance of doubt, the “received Revenue” requirement above is deemed satisfied with respect to such Customer receiving from Novell a free update to a component of a specific copy of a Covered Product for which Novell has previously received Revenue, but is not satisfied with respect to such Customer receiving a free upgrade or a new version of such specific copy unless Novell has received Revenue for such upgrade or new version.

It would seem to me, with the exception of testing versions (and their use for up to 180 days), that any users of SUSE that did not pay Novell for their install (this mainly covers boxed retail copies), are not protected. This is pretty well expected, and I believe Bruce mentioned something along those lines.

-- This is about the point where my post becomes fractured (specifically, the next paragraph may or may not be entirely valid). It had been my understanding that purchasing a retail-shelved copy of SUSE, you were not paying for the software, but for a tech support coupon, however, in doing some research for this post, I discovered that the SUSE Enterprise Linux versions appearantly charge for upgrade of the software (from 9.8 to 10.1, for example), which is and of itself seems to circumvent the spirit of FOSS (the GPL does more than allow for charging distributees for the software, but after that, it's generally thought to be in their hands, and free of any further restriction: while charging for upgrades perhaps does not come close to violating the GPL, it does seem quite nefarious). I'd be interested to know if I've at all got this wrong, and if not, what other distributions use these same business tactics. --

Of greater import, though, as I understand it, any users who upgrade to a later release of SUSE without paying Novell are then exempt from Microsoft's promise of ignorance. If, indeed, Novell charges for a system-wide upgrade to a subsequent release of the SUSE Enterprise distro, then this would apply to users who switch to, say, OpenSUSE repositories. In other words, if having the bleeding edge software is important to you (if not, stick with Debian Sarge), then "if you stop paying... you'll pay." Also, as per the wording, it would seem that if Novell offers some free upgrade to the SUSE Enterprise packages, such as in the hypothetical case of Novell providing some sort of "good faith" free upgrade from all 10.x version to their latest release, they would unwittingly be making any users who took advantage of that upgrade subject to the whims of Microsoft's lawyers.

“Covenanted Customers” means an enterprise or individual that utilizes a specific copy of a Covered Product for its intended purpose as authorized by a Party in consideration for Revenue (directly or indirectly) to such Party. Enterprises or individuals are not Customers when they (1) resell, license, supply, distribute or otherwise make available to third parties additional copies of the specific cop(ies) of a Covered Product they otherwise utilize as a Customer; or (2) resell, license, supply, or distribute the output of SDKs or embedded developer kits they utilize as a Customer. For avoidance of doubt, an enterprise or individual cannot qualify both as a Customer and Distributor for use of the same copy of a Covered Product.

More important yet: being almost wholly GPL, Novell is not allowed to prevent a user from taking a boxed copy of SUSE, ripping out everything but the GPL components (non-GPL components mainly include Macromedia's Flash Player, some of Sun's stuff, etc), and making an unlimited number of copies for redistribution. Looking at the above text from Microsoft, we can see that any person who distributes these copies is instead available for attack from Microsoft, as are the users of any "unauthorized" copies, unless they pay Novell for use of those copies: this is direct evidence of a Microsoft-imposed SUSE licensing scheme.

Some other notes:
  • The burden of SUSE "authorization" lies exclusively with Novell. Since before this Microsoft-Novell partnership, there would have been little reason to distinguish between authorized and unauthorized copies (it is Linux, after all), unless Novell issues (or already has issued) an "All copies of SUSE Linux Enterprise Server/Desktop are authorized" statement, then their paying customers are technically, as per the wording above, not protected (if that's the case, then no user of Linux would be protected under the "promise of Microsoft").
  • If they do manage to get past the GPLv2 and sue users of Linux, I don't see how it can be done without also suing those Microsoft promised to leave alone, though it'd be good to hear from an industry lawyer on this one.
  • The Microsoft lawyers don't seem to have a firm grasp of English grammar, which is generally thought to be requisite to writing documents legal in nature.
Novell-Microsoft: What... Else... They Aren't Telling You
Tue Nov 07 05:04:37 -0800 2006
manage
From Novell's FAQ on the subject, it is clear that you need to have a *current* support agreement to be protected.

(btw - IANAL & IANAprogrammer (at least recently (but I do like nesting my parenthesis)))

Now let's for a second make a few basic assumptions.
1. The GPL will not collapse,
2. Linux and many open-source packages have code that is largely clean and
3. any exceptions to assumption #2 will be quickly remedied by the community.

Consider the following:
1. Novell is likely able to write pluggable modules from scratch or based on MS code that can interface with GPL binaries but then do not owe any allegience to the GPL.
2. The agreement at least covers Samba, Office formats, OpenOffice and Mono. These are the pieces that will best allow interoperability with MS.
3. Much as some of us would like, organizations cannot always say good-bye to MS software. Interoperability is important.
4. From a business perspective, the stability of the end user environment is important.

Implications:
1. Novell will have the best version of OpenOffice, Mono and Samba - at least as far as compatibility with MS is concerned. I mean no offense to current developers of these packages, Novell just won't have to reverse engineer anything and will at least have a temporal jump on the open source competition.
2. Novell versions of these packages won't break when MS issues mandatory security patches.
3. What about shared secret security keys? Will Novell have the only versions that CAN work.
4. Businesses who go with Linux will have to shell out support costs to Novell for the 'best' interoperability. And they will, 'just to be safe'.
5. Organizations who gets tired of the Novell head tax (or is that bum tax?) and stop payment will immediately top the 'Whom to sue' list.

I don't think this is so much a kill Linux ploy in the short term but more of a long term strategy to freeze out the competition.

Politics ?

Mon Nov 06 13:37:11 -0800 2006
manage
Was very sad to see political ads of any kind here.

Too much division of every kind, seems the whole world is US or THEM, at every level.

B
Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You
Wed Nov 08 01:20:27 -0800 2006
manage

Just imagine the status of Linux, if Section 7 of the GPL is not present. All the tough works dated from 1991 would have been killed by lack of a single section in the license.

Richard Stallman (GNU GPL) is far better than anyone in protecting Free/Open Source Softwares.

In Software Industry, a piece of code is a junk until it gets protection and support with interested people using a good license like GPL.

Corporations like IBM, Microsoft, Novell, ... are famous for Business decisions which will try first to help out the software, then suck profit out from that, bring another competitive product which they will own and kill the original one.

History:

even SCO is seems to fight with Linux, the actual fire of the problem is,

IBM was agreed with SCO to do "Monterey Project", a large 64bit OS Project.later cunningly left SCO, since profit was better from Linux rather than SCO UNIX.

The betrayal is the main cause for the SCO-IBM Lawsuit.

IBM,a large supporter of Software Patents which is/will_be the main killer of Free/Open Source Projects at any time(may be tomorrow or next) will kill Linux, if it finds anything else very profitable.

IBM, bought and killed Informix, a database which might be a problem for their DB2.

Microsoft, sameway killed CP/M (Digital Research), using QDOS, and made MSDOS.

Novell, sameway bought and killed DR-DOS(family of CP/M)

These companies are purely profit minded rather than Free/Open Source philosophies.

Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You
Mon Nov 20 12:03:15 -0800 2006
manage
I, for one, would like to see the actual contractual documents they signed before rushing to judgment on this and tossing out SLES and/or SLED, just because someone on Groklaw or Slashdot had a kneejerk reaction.

My take on the IP "covenant" thing is this:  it has nothing to do with distros, illegal IP, copyright infringement or the GPL and everything to do with a marketing gimmick on Novell's side and covering their asses on Microsoft's side.

I have seen nothing that says this is a "cross-licensing agreement" or that any admission or acknowledgment on Novell's part of Microsoft IP being in any Linux code - except in opinion pieces by people that really don't know the details.  I DO see that Novell has stated that it is NOT a cross-licensing agreement; simply a covenant not to sue each others' customers.  There's not even a covenant not to sue each other!  Novell could easily sue Microsoft once SCO finally goes under and SystemV reverts fully back to Novell.

The "entire agreement" does NOT hinge around software patenting.  It "hinges" much more on collaboration and platform interoperability as regards connectivity/access, virtualization and productivity software than on software patenting.  It seems more like something Microsoft threw in in order to make the deal, and is more a case of Microsoft being afraid that Novell will sue Microsoft customers for having Windows software with closed-source,Novell-patented technology IP not legally licensed by Microsoft - most likely the System V code they "licensed" through SCO to bankroll their lawsuits, that SCO didn't pass royalties for on to Novell as they are obligated to do.  The disparity in payments from M$ to Novell for their "covenant" to M$ customers is more likely a reflection of Microsoft's guilt in the matter than are Novell's payments to M$ for their "covenant" to Microsoft customers.

Further, Novell should be thanked, IMHO, that they insisted the "covenant" be expanded to cover people donating their time to the OpenSuSE project, and further, to people doing non-commercial stuff with SuSE-distro-related code, rather than being slammed for it.

To say that commercial developers are left in the cold isn't exactly true either.  They're no more or less exposed than they were before the agreement.  The agreement was intended as an additional "IP Indemnification/Protection" value-add for Novell corporate customers, to get around a major roadblock to corporate adoption of OSS, but on Novell's insistence, Microsoft added language that serves to indemnify private OSS developers as well.  Commercial developers damn well better be making sure *themselves* that they aren't infringing on anyone else's patented or copyrighted works in the first place, and if they aren't then they are leaving themselves and the companies they work for open to lawsuit from *anyone* - not just M$.

Nowhere in any of the documents I've been able to find so far does it say that 1) Novell acknowledges the existence of Microsoft IP in Linux, 2) Novell says there's ANY commercially-licensed IP in Linux, 3) that any Microsoft-licensed-IP will be added to any GNU-licensed software related to the SuSE distros or any other OSS project Novell is involved with or 4) this is any form of cross-licensing of patented code.

I DO see reaffirmation of Novell's commitment to the open-source community, and to the spirit and letter of the GPL, and a restatement of their commitment to a) ensure no licensed IP that conflicts with the GPL ever get into any OSS they're participants and contributors to, b) work to invalidate false IP claims through research and discovery of "prior art," c) continue to use their own IP patent portfolio to protect OSS interests and d) continue to work with the OIN (Novell is a founding member) to further increase the IP patent protection the OIN provides the open source community.

I also see nothing that indicates the intent is to "turn back" ODF development and hand the market to M$.  Even though Novell contributes a lot to the OpenOffice.Org project, it remains open source and it is very unlikely the Novell developers on the project, not to mention all the other people on the project that are NOT affiliated with Novell, would allow Microsoft to do that.  To suggest that is the intent sounds like an idea someone with a tinfoil hat would come up with.