Allegorical version of the Novell-Microsoft Patent Agreement

guest

Tue Nov 28 20:53:24 -0800 2006

manage

It's a good allegory, and I will use it. Anything that might help explain this to Joe Sixpack is a good thing (assuming you can find one that cares).

But I think you might need to insert "Sadly, it took a very long time, but" right in front of "Eventually, Novell gave up on that business and went away."

I have this feeling that we will be dealing with this for years. Unless the FSF both fixes this in GPLv3, and then plays real hardball with Novell.

Something I'd love to see. I've always felt good about my FSF membership and now there is a real hope they will (once again) bring about some positive changes for the community.

Shameless plug for donations here: SCO problem, TiVo problem, Novell problem; one way to help: https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom?

BTW: It might be shameless, but at least it's not a referral through my membership, just click the link and do what you can.

Allegorical version of the Novell-Microsoft Patent Agreement

computersareevil

Wed Nov 29 08:49:30 -0800 2006

manage

"The volunteers didn't like any of this. They made sure that Novell couldn't use any of their new work, but they shared it with all of Novell's competitors"

Well, so far I'm not aware of anyone doing this. If I understand copyright and the GPL correctly (not a given), can't the copyright owner of any GPL'd package Novell distributes just send them a letter and tell them they are no longer authorized to use the copyrighted work?

And if that's the case, and the Novell deal is a heinous as I think it is; why hasn't anyone done that yet?

Allegorical version of the Novell-Microsoft Patent Agreement

karnowski

Wed Nov 29 09:08:03 -0800 2006

manage

The copyright holder has released under the GPL (version 2) license which means that anyone who abides by the GPL license can use it. The copyright holder can't later withdraw it from GPL licensing*.

*Actually I think they can eventually withdraw. After a certain period (7 years? 70 years?) US copyright law allows the owner to relicense his material. I'm not sure of the details. But they can't do what you're suggesting immediately.

Allegorical version of the Novell-Microsoft Patent Agreement

bill_mcgonigle

Wed Nov 29 10:21:50 -0800 2006

manage

*Actually I think they can eventually withdraw. After a certain period (7 years? 70 years?) US copyright law allows the owner to relicense his material. I'm not sure of the details. But they can't do what you're suggesting immediately.

I'd like to hear more about this if anybody knows.

Allegorical version of the Novell-Microsoft Patent Agreement

karnowski

Wed Nov 29 14:36:09 -0800 2006

manage

I'm no lawyer but I have a recollection of watching an Eben Moglen interview at Harvard (this one: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/moglen-harvard-speech-2004.html , but you should also be able to find the video of it on the net). The professor asks Eben this (with the bold sections the relevant question and (non)answer):

Q: I was wondering if the SCO lawsuit might be the first of what could become a series of lawsuits filed ad seriatim and in parallel against free software? And wanted to get your view on two possible types of lawsuits that could follow on the heels of SCO, regardless of whether SCO won or lost. The first would be a lawsuit filed by a company that to its shock and amazement found that instead of its programmers hoping for their first house, working on the stuff they were supposed to work on by day, they were in fact spending most of their time Slashdot and the rest of their time coding free software, and then occasionally staying up late to do something for the old man. If those programmers have signed, which is typical, agreements with their company that says any software they write actually is property of the company, maybe even a work for hire, what is the prospect that a company could then say, Our code through that coder has been worked in to something like Linux, and it is now infringing unless we are paid damages? The second possible way in which you could see this kind of lawsuit come up would be, oddly enough, through the thirty-five year termination rule, something that normally would be heralded by people in your position, to say copyright law allows musicians and artists who stupidly signed agreements when they were but small peons, without legal assistance with big companies, thirty-five years later can take it all back, no matter what. They can reset the clock to zero and re- negotiate. I call this the Rod Stewart Salvation Act. [laughter] And while that might be helpful for the artists, much as the music industry hates it, couldn't that also mean that free software coders, who willingly contributed, weren't even blocked by their employers, to contribute to Free Software Movement, could -- down the line -- and thirty-five years isn't that long in the history of Unix, say, "We take it all back?"

Moglen: So, those are two very good questions. If I answer each one of them fully, I'm going to take too long. Let me concentrate on the first one, because I think it's really quite important. What Jonathan's question does is point out to you that the great legal issues in the freedom of free software have less to do with the license than with the process of assembly by which the original product is put together. One of the legal consequences of the SCO affair is that people are going to start to pay closer attention all the time to how free software products are put together. They are going to discover that what really matters is how you deal with the questions of, for example, possible lurking work-for-hire claims against free software. They're going to discover that in this respect, too, Mr. Stallman was quite prescient, because they are going to recognize that the way they want their free software put together is the way the Free Software Foundation put it together since now more than twenty years. The way we're going, they're going to discover that they really would like to have it, is for each individual contribution of code to a free software project, if the guy who contributed the code was working in the industry, they would really like to have a work-for-hire disclaimer from the guy's employer, executed at the same time that the contribution was made. And the filing cabinets at the Free Software Foundation are going to look to them like an oasis in a desert of possible problems. We saw that problem coming. We have tried in our act as stewards over a large part of the free software in the world to deal with it. People are going to want to have that up front for everything that they can possibly, and they're going to be much more reluctant to rely on software that wasn't assembled in those ways.

If you are thinking about working in the law of free software, and gosh, I hope you are, one of the things you might want to be thinking about working on is the software conservation trusts that are going to be growing up around this economy in the next five years. I'll help you make one, or you can come to work in one of mine. We're going to need to spend a lot of time doing work which is associated with trustees. We're going to be spending a lot of time making sure that things are put together and they are built well. And we are going to be doing that on behalf of a third-party insurance industry which is going to be growing up, is growing up before our very eyes now, which is learning that it really cares how the free software is assembled.

When you go to an insurance company and ask for fire insurance on your house, they don't want to know how your house is licensed. They want to know how your house is built. And the questions you are asking about how the free software is built are about to become really important questions. What will abate those lawsuits is that we did our work well or that we are doing our work well as lawyers, assisting programmers to put projects together in defensible ways that protect freedom.

Up until the day before yesterday, there were probably three lawyers on earth who cared a lot about that, and two of them are in this room. There will be more in the near future. I will say quickly about your second question, Jonathan, that the problem presented is a serious problem, but, at least from my point of view, a manageable one, and I'm willing to talk more about why, but I think we ought to get more voices into the conversation.

Allegorical version of the Novell-Microsoft Patent Agreement

karnowski

Wed Nov 29 15:06:14 -0800 2006

manage

I did a little research. Here's the relevant section of the law (see point 3).

Allegorical version of the Novell-Microsoft Patent Agreement

Bruce Perens

Wed Nov 29 15:39:08 -0800 2006

manage

Several people filled in the theory part of the answer. The practical part of the answer is that this isn't going to work for another 10 years, and if it works then we'll sure be using some dusty decks.

Bruce

Allegorical version of the Novell-Microsoft Patent Agreement

Ben Baron

Wed Nov 29 09:28:17 -0800 2006

manage

"The volunteers didn't like any of this. They made sure that Novell couldn't use any of their new work, but they shared it with all of Novell's competitors"

I think that is referring more to the switch to GPLv3 in which, assuming they plug the hole that Novell is using, Novell would no longer be able to use updated versions of all of the Linux packages that would -- we assume -- be using GPLv3. Thus they would be left behind with older versions and be a second rate Linux OS.

^^ And yes I know that my grammar is atrocious, but I tend to write the way I would speak when I am posting on the interwebs.

Allegorical version of the Novell-Microsoft Patent Agreement

Bruce Perens

Wed Nov 29 15:35:29 -0800 2006

manage

The volunteers have, for an increasing number of projects, decided to go to GPL3 and to make the GPL3 text unpalatable for use with the Microsoft covenants.

You want us to C&D the customers? The customers aren't the ones we should penalize. We can penalize Novell directly.

Bruce

Allegorical version of the Novell-Microsoft Patent Agreement

Andrew Marlow

Thu Nov 30 03:33:32 -0800 2006

manage

I enjoyed that but I disagree with the bit at the end:

"Novell stayed a third-rate contender among Linux distributions, behind other businesses like Red Hat and even non-profits like Debian and its partners. Eventually, Novell gave up on that business and went away. "

I believe that Eben Moglen's analysis is correct; that further deals with other commercial linux distributors will be made until eventually the target becomes clear; anyone involved in linux but not via a Micro$oft-approved channel is in danger. So after the Novell deal I would expect Micro$oft to attempt a similar deal with Red Hat. Whilst such deals are obnoxious to open source developers I think they will be welcomed by industry in general who would otherwise fear being sued by Micro$oft . Being shunned by the open source community will of course do great damage to such deals, but Micro$oft will deal with this via their PR machine to placate the business that wish to buy from Novell and other commercial linux distributors. So I don't think this the diaster for business that the allegory says. In the very long term it will be bad because commercial linux will end up being controlled by Micro$oft.

Allegorical version of the Novell-Microsoft Patent Agreement

suezz

Thu Nov 30 08:15:19 -0800 2006

manage

"Big Mike was making big noises, threatening to beat up Novell's customers."

boy I sure wish this was made public to see the real roots of the deal.

I am assuming since Goldman-Sachs was on the stage that they were going to sue them.