Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
As part of this agreement, Microsoft will provide a covenant not to assert its patent rights against customers who have purchased SUSE Linux Enterprise Server or other covered products from Novell, and Novell will provide an identical covenant to customers who have a licensed version of Windows or other covered products from Microsoft."
Posted Nov 3, 2006 0:06 UTC (Fri)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (22 responses)
That would seem to mean that it does not suffice for Novell to assure its customers that they are safe; the customers must be able to pass on source code to non-customers as well.
Posted Nov 3, 2006 0:08 UTC (Fri)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 3, 2006 17:40 UTC (Fri)
by daniel (guest, #3181)
[Link]
Posted Nov 3, 2006 0:36 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (13 responses)
> Second, Microsoft will not assert its patents against individual noncommercial open source developers.
So, I'm guessing whoever doesn't get paid would be fine, but someone from Red Hat working on Fedora may not be. Or maybe only if they work on RHEL, then they could get in trouble... Confusing.
No idea. But hey, this is Microsoft - things aren't supposed to be straightforward, right? :-)
Posted Nov 3, 2006 3:26 UTC (Fri)
by proski (subscriber, #104)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Nov 3, 2006 3:36 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Nov 3, 2006 3:57 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (5 responses)
> "We've made two promises under this agreement," said Brad Smith, senior vice president, general counsel, corporate secretary, legal and corporate affairs for Microsoft. "One is a promise that we won't assert our patents against individual open-source developers. These are individuals that are contributing code, not creating it as part of their job, but acting in an individual non-commercial way. The second is for developers who are getting paid to create code that Novell then takes and inputs into its distribution that is then covered within the open-source agreement between us."
That's from:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2050692,00.asp
So, I guess that means that folks from Ubuntu, Mandriva, Red Hat etc. are not safe. How's that in line with the GPL (JoeBuck's point: http://lwn.net/Articles/207413/), I don't know.
Posted Nov 3, 2006 6:03 UTC (Fri)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (4 responses)
So Novell is no safer than Red Hat.
Posted Nov 3, 2006 6:50 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 3, 2006 11:37 UTC (Fri)
by pdsdst (subscriber, #19395)
[Link]
Posted Nov 3, 2006 19:57 UTC (Fri)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link]
As much as RMS gets flak for pointing it out, a Linux distribution contains a significant amount of GNU code, and most if it is absolutely critical infrastructure (can you say "C runtime"? I knew you could!) Due to their copyright assignment policy, the Free Software Foundation almost certainly holds the copyright to more of any standard Linux distribution than any other single person or company, by any metric.
You can bet that the FSF and Eben Moglen will be keeping an extremely sharp eye on this and be ready to file legal paperwork the instant it's warranted.
Posted Nov 4, 2006 21:13 UTC (Sat)
by donkyhotay (guest, #41493)
[Link]
Posted Nov 3, 2006 10:57 UTC (Fri)
by gouyou (guest, #30290)
[Link]
Anyone collecting money for open source development is exercing a commercial activity (sell tee-shirts, manual and so on, you are on the other side of the border).
Posted Nov 3, 2006 15:06 UTC (Fri)
by Richard_J_Neill (subscriber, #23093)
[Link] (2 responses)
1)Pessimistic
2)Optimistic:
Posted Nov 4, 2006 10:39 UTC (Sat)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link] (1 responses)
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/community...
The covenant does not apply to opensuse users, let alone anyone else.
Posted Nov 4, 2006 23:04 UTC (Sat)
by jonabbey (guest, #2736)
[Link]
See this clause: 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. So if you buy a copy of a covered Novell product and then distribute it as you are legally entitled to do by the copyright license, you void your covenant protection. By subsection 2, above, you also lose that purported patent protection if you use a copy of gcc, say, and then distribute the binaries you compile wit hit. Microsoft's goal has always been to destroy free/open source software and bind it with constraints that permit not one iota of freedom more than what Microsoft would themselves give you with their proprietary source/commercial software. Certainly, all the language of this deal speaks to that. "We promise not to sue you, if you promise not to do unnatural things with the software, like copy it, modify it, distribute it, or anything else we might have difficulty competing with." Utterly foul.
Posted Nov 4, 2006 10:50 UTC (Sat)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link]
"Microsoft hereby covenants not to assert Microsoft Patents against each Non-Compensated Individual Hobbyist Developer (also referred to as You) for Your personal creation of an originally authored work (Original Work) and personal use of Your Original Work."
Meaning
To allow code to trickle in SLES they won't sue you if you contribute to opensuse and the result ends in SLES. The protection does not extends to opensuse users of your code though
« Microsoft
covenants not to assert Microsoft Patents against each Individual Contributor
for Your distribution of Your
work
directly to openSUSE.org, but only if,
(i) Your
Work becomes part of
SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, and (ii) You ensure
openSUSE.org,
do not receive any licenses, covenants or any other rights under any Microsoft intellectual property. »
(The covenant is actually more restrictive, I've only quoted the main part)
Read
and judge by yourself
Posted Nov 3, 2006 4:09 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (1 responses)
http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6132156.html
Posted Nov 3, 2006 12:01 UTC (Fri)
by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989)
[Link]
Posted Nov 3, 2006 5:05 UTC (Fri)
by garloff (subscriber, #319)
[Link]
Posted Nov 3, 2006 8:39 UTC (Fri)
by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Nov 3, 2006 16:12 UTC (Fri)
by AJWM (guest, #15888)
[Link] (1 responses)
That could just as easily mean that the agreement was carefully designed to circumvent those obligations as it could mean to adhere to them. PR froth.
Posted Nov 4, 2006 16:39 UTC (Sat)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link]
Posted Nov 3, 2006 0:15 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link]
WOW! From cancer to partner, eh?
If someone told me in 1999 that Microsoft would have a press release with the word Linux in it mentioned in a positive context, I'd tell them to go find some help. And yet, here we are.
Not quite world domination, but not too shabby either...
Posted Nov 3, 2006 1:08 UTC (Fri)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Nov 3, 2006 2:31 UTC (Fri)
by landley (guest, #6789)
[Link]
Posted Nov 3, 2006 11:24 UTC (Fri)
by arcticwolf (guest, #8341)
[Link] (1 responses)
Seriously, though, this really is just another attempt to spread FUD, and Novell played right into M$'s hands by accepting this deal - M$ has long since asserted the Linux violates (some of) their patents, but now they can actually go and say "hey, one of the major Linux companies signed an agreement with us, so obviously, when we're saying there's patent problems with Linux, it's not just hot air!". It may not impress the average developer or user much, but upper management sure are going to be interested in that.
Personally, I think this is a perfect example of the prisoner's dilemma. Novell gains a short-term advantage from the deal (because suits worried about patent assertions from M$ will be more inclined to choose SuSE over RedHat or other commercial distros now); but RedHat etc. will be tempted to sign similar deals, with the end result that none of them gained anything - they just lost to M$.
Eben's (and JoeBuck's) explanation of why a deal like this would most likely violate the GPL may be sort of a "get out of jail free" card for the community (even though Novell in its short-sightedness may not see it as such), but we'll still get a black eye, at least, since the executives etc. will still think about patents again, and may still conclude that it may be safer to use windows (or a commercial Unix) rather than Linux.
Posted Nov 4, 2006 10:58 UTC (Sat)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link]
Posted Nov 3, 2006 2:38 UTC (Fri)
by landley (guest, #6789)
[Link] (2 responses)
But it's also looking like Vista's a heck of a non-starter, and the
Apple, however, is...
Posted Nov 3, 2006 3:21 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link]
Yeah, and some other proprietary vendors, apparently:
- Adobe (Flash plugin)
I mean, how hard is it, really? The darn achitecture has been on the market for years now...
Posted Nov 4, 2006 11:01 UTC (Sat)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link]
A lot of corps hold on 2000 → XP migration thinking (rightfully) that XP didn't bring that many advantages over 2000 to justify a costly migration.
However finding products that work on 2000 is getting increasingly difficult, so they'll have to migrate soon. At this point jumping directly to Vista is attractive.
Posted Nov 3, 2006 3:15 UTC (Fri)
by gdt (subscriber, #6284)
[Link] (3 responses)
The media release does not address the business aims. Here's some guesses. They want to cooperate on virtualisation as neither want VMWare's hypervisor to be the strategic software of the future. Both own operating systems, which are the strategic software of today, and neither wants to lose the power that gives them over further customer purchasing decisions. They both fear a third party developing a compelling directory federation product or architecture. Look at how Microsoft has designed Active Directory so that the core of most enterprise networks must use some Microsoft products. Effective federation software could remove that need. As if OpenOffice.org wasn't going to be able to import Microsoft's "Office Open XML". More interesting to all is Microsoft Office's ability to import and export OpenDocument files. And I can't find a detailed committment to do that in this agreement.
Posted Nov 3, 2006 3:21 UTC (Fri)
by landley (guest, #6789)
[Link] (2 responses)
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq.html
> Under the patent agreement, both companies will make up-front payments
...
> Q. Why is the patent agreement important?
Microsoft is paying Novell now, but after they've established the patent
Remember, the point of the SCO thing (from Microsoft's perspective) was to
Rob
Posted Nov 3, 2006 13:13 UTC (Fri)
by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 4, 2006 11:11 UTC (Sat)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link]
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/steve/2006/11-02N...
Funny how reading the legal documents on the MS site and what MS execs actually said in the conference, is a tad different from the Novell FAQ. I don't see MS agreeing to any of the groundbreaking changes Novell advances to justify selling out.
Posted Nov 3, 2006 4:17 UTC (Fri)
by einstein (guest, #2052)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 3, 2006 16:17 UTC (Fri)
by AJWM (guest, #15888)
[Link]
Where's the fun in that? ;-) And how will you know when you've seen ALL the facts?
Myself, I'm willing to form an opinion and then change it if/when contradictory facts come to light. (Mind, that opinion is based on twenty years of observing how Microsoft operates.)
Posted Nov 3, 2006 6:34 UTC (Fri)
by clintcan (guest, #21406)
[Link] (2 responses)
What makes me nervous is the fact that they always stress out, which is:
They pledge not to sue individual, non-commercial developers.
This reeks and sounds fishy. Many kernel developers are employed to do kernel work - Linus, Morton, and others.
I contribute code as well, albeit for hobby distros like alinux or pnutproject. Making that statement is like telling the kernel developers you are liable for patent infringement (although in my country, software cannot be patented by law).
Besides that, doing such a limiting patent protection violates a section of the GPL which is:
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.
Wouldn't that constitute the revoking of the linux license for Novell? Although at first glance it seems they are talking about virtualization, looking closer they seem to emphasize the fact that they are the only "linux" company that provides patent protection.
I'm a bit shaken about this. It doesn't speak well for Novell in the long run. At least RedHat/Fedora didn't go that far (although I understand how people got pissed off with the Fedora split at first) and avoided as much as possible patent issues.
Clint
Posted Nov 5, 2006 4:18 UTC (Sun)
by GreyWizard (guest, #1026)
[Link]
(although in my country, software cannot be patented by law) Which country is that? What sort of immigration policies does it have?
Posted Nov 7, 2006 2:35 UTC (Tue)
by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link]
Posted Nov 3, 2006 7:30 UTC (Fri)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (3 responses)
It looks like Novell just realy screwed up badly. REALY BADLY. And they think they did a good thing.
I feel so sorry for the Linux people that work for them. Their management just got suckered in by Microsoft in a bad way and they aren't going to find out how badly until probably 3-4 years from now.
Novell just inadvertantly went in with Microsoft in a sceme were they are basicly agreeing that MS should be allowed to sue any open source software developer anywere that doesn't happen to work for Novell and works for a living.
Posted Nov 3, 2006 8:44 UTC (Fri)
by alonso (guest, #2828)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Nov 3, 2006 13:15 UTC (Fri)
by gvy (guest, #11981)
[Link] (1 responses)
go figure
Posted Nov 3, 2006 15:29 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
That is, they'll have no redress.
(sorry)
Posted Nov 3, 2006 9:34 UTC (Fri)
by mcastell (guest, #12226)
[Link] (2 responses)
Maybe some degree of cooperation between Win and Linux may turn useful for users of both systems, after all. For now, I feel the best position is wait and see...
Marco
Posted Nov 3, 2006 9:58 UTC (Fri)
by alonso (guest, #2828)
[Link]
Posted Nov 4, 2006 18:31 UTC (Sat)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link]
Posted Nov 3, 2006 10:14 UTC (Fri)
by dion (guest, #2764)
[Link] (3 responses)
Exactly how MS will try to destroy Novell is not quite clear, but it will certainly be interesting to watch.
Pity, I really like SuSE 10.1, I guess I should step up my plans to try out kubuntu...
Posted Nov 3, 2006 10:22 UTC (Fri)
by petegn (guest, #847)
[Link]
Posted Nov 3, 2006 11:14 UTC (Fri)
by eru (subscriber, #2753)
[Link]
No, Microsoft isn't out to destroy Novell, at least not for a while. The point
is probably to use Novell as a tool to undermine Red Hat and in general
create divisions in the Linux community.
By the way, Novell hasn't been averse to using intellectual property
FUDding even before this. Two years back I sat at a presentation where
a Novell salesman explained how safe choice SuSE is, because Novell
has rights to Unix, so SCO cannot attack Novell customers. I'm sure they will now
on use this patent pact with Microsoft to convince nervous suits that SuSE is
the only safe Linux distribution for enterprises, because others might
be attacked by Microsoft.
Posted Nov 3, 2006 13:44 UTC (Fri)
by Seegras (guest, #20463)
[Link]
Yep. The best thing you can do about Microsoft is nothing having to do with it. As a little fish you don't want to go swimming with the shark. You'll get killed or eaten (read: go bankrupt or get bought) most probably.
Posted Nov 3, 2006 10:48 UTC (Fri)
by mgh (guest, #5696)
[Link]
What if this is a signal that there is a change of stance from Novell who seem to hold a lot of cards?
Maybe this is just the next logical step for a company who paid many millions to another company (read individuals) to carry out a suicide attack on linux?
Posted Nov 3, 2006 11:05 UTC (Fri)
by frankie (subscriber, #13593)
[Link]
Posted Nov 3, 2006 11:54 UTC (Fri)
by tnoo (subscriber, #20427)
[Link]
Posted Nov 3, 2006 12:46 UTC (Fri)
by nhippi (subscriber, #34640)
[Link] (1 responses)
Whether the "if" is true, will only be found out in future. The "patent cooperation agreement" is probably a zero-sum game, but the "coupon" deal could expose (Novell) Linux to many people who would have not met Linux elsewhere.
All the blah-blah about patents and non-suing is irrelevant. Risk of being sued existed before and will exist in future, they are just a bit more public now and excluded some people from suing who wouldn't get sued anyway.
People who recognize FUD will keep choosing whatever distribution they want and the nervous ones can choose SUSE and feel safe.
Posted Nov 4, 2006 3:37 UTC (Sat)
by jonabbey (guest, #2736)
[Link]
If there were anything to do with free software, here, their customers could take that software, modify it, improve it, fork it, and redistribute it. But this agreement carries the Novell-endorsed implicit threat that Bad Things Might Happen if anyone were to have the temerity to actually do such an awful thing.
/me spits on the ground in front of Novell headquarters.
Posted Nov 3, 2006 14:48 UTC (Fri)
by DouglasJM (subscriber, #6435)
[Link]
Posted Nov 3, 2006 15:40 UTC (Fri)
by marduk (subscriber, #3831)
[Link] (1 responses)
The truth is Most of the (prior) closed-source companies just don't get it. I don't know why it's hard for it to sink in. Given that Red Hat started off as an open source company they are slower to lose "focus" if that's the right word.
Closed source companies (Novell, Oracle, etc.) come in, embrace Linux and open source, but they want to see resultfs fast (i.e. $$$) and when they don't see things going in their favor (either because they don't spend the time, effort, or just don't "get it") then they look for a way out.
Novell has invested a lot in open source (Ximian, SuSe) and have, in my opinion, dropped the ball. They did the same with Unix. I always thought that Novell was the last company in the world I would want to see go open source because whatever they do seems doomed to failure.
This announcement does not demonstrate that open source has failed Novell, but rather that Novell has failed open source. Or am I reading to much into things?
Posted Nov 3, 2006 20:10 UTC (Fri)
by justme (guest, #19967)
[Link]
- provide good service
When another company manages to execute these simple concepts, then Red Hat will have competition.
Posted Nov 4, 2006 8:07 UTC (Sat)
by epeeist (guest, #1743)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Nov 5, 2006 2:30 UTC (Sun)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (1 responses)
It would appear that Mono remains under the same cloud as before, but nothing has really changed.
Posted Nov 5, 2006 2:39 UTC (Sun)
by daniel (guest, #3181)
[Link]
Posted Nov 5, 2006 13:04 UTC (Sun)
by job (guest, #670)
[Link]
1. Novell will pay unit royalties to Microsoft for a blanket patent license.
2. Novell will implement a partial support for the new Office XML format. Lack of multiple implementations was the major reason for the EU to choose Open Document instead.
3. Novell already uses the Xen hypervisor, which has a deal with Microsoft to make their APIs compatible, but we already knew that.
Please explain to me why Novell would do this? It smells exactly like SCO. Are there parts of this deal which hasn't been made public yet?
It would appear that section 7 of the GPL could be a problem for Novell, depending on how the agreement is worded:
... 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.
Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
I already posted much the same comment in the other thread; I thought I had sent it elsewhere.
sorry for the repetition ...
I already posted much the same comment in the other thread
sorry for the repetition ...
Please just keep posting it to every thread about this, it's very important.
I count 15 uses of the word "patent" in Microsoft's press release.
They kind of did promise _something_ along those lines (whatever that may mean):Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
I guess "noncommercial" should be read as "non-proprietary" (in "RMS speak"). In this case, Red Hat is safe (and so is Novell).
Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
I was thrown off by "noncommercial open source". I was thinking that if it's "open source", then it's automatically "non-proprietary", making "noncommercial" an additional qualification. But, you could be right.Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
Here is official interpretation:Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
The instant Microsoft takes action against Red Hat for distributing anything Novell also distributes, and Novell claims its customers are immune, all the Linux kernel contributors who work for Red Hat will simply announce that Novell's license to copy, modify, and distribute Linux is terminated under clause 7 of the GPL.
Novell could be out of the Linux business
Yes, that would appear to be the case under clause 7. It would seem that Novell actually purchased a lemon.Novell could be out of the Linux business
Novell probably did not have much choice at this point. The US patent mess is getting worse every minute and with a whole basket of lemons and insufficient funds this is probably the best deal Novell could make for their stockholders. After all, Apple is doing fine after yielding to their old enemy. I also think that large companies are too dependant on Linux by now for MS (or Oracle) to try to kill it off by destroying Novell, Red Hat and Canonical in one fell swoop without seriously hurting their own bottom line (and making it politically impossible for the EU to let them of the hook). MS as a company may act stupidly sometimes but I do not think they are seriously considering using their patents against Red Hat in the next few years (at least not until software patents are enacted in the EU). Friendly competition is usually much more rewarding for all involved and MS is still making a lot of money.Novell could be out of the Linux business
Probably, but we don't even have to wonder about the kernel, with its fragmented copyright ownership situation (yes, I know that any single owner has standing).Novell could be out of the Linux business
I think this is the beginning of an attempt to "kill" linux. Sure they have the clause it won't affect "non-commercial linux" but if they can kill off the big commercial companies then they can easily prevent small commercial linux companies from ever starting. Without SOME commercial incentive linux dies. Think about it, lots of people help with linux but linux needs the companies to move at the rate it does. Think about it, if red-hat suddenly died then fedora would slow up. Same thing for all the other major distro's (debian, ubuntu, suse, etc.) people run on their systems. It wouldn't COMPLETELY die (people at home would work on it) but it would be a serious blow to linux development. But I don't think taking out home linux use is microsofts goal. They dominate the home market already. I believe M$ is looking long-term which requires expansion. With their control of the personal computer market the only place big for them to go is onto the servers (which are mostly unix/linux). The servers also generally run the commercial versions. So they aim to wipe out the commercial linux companies. Their customers are forced to run SOMETHING on their servers and they're going to want tech-support that non-commercial options can't provide. This leaves as the only option (surprise) microsoft enterprise! Then after controlling both the servers and the home computers they can work on grinding out macOS. After that they would leave us few devoted NON-COMMERCIAL linux developers around in order to say to the world "we're not a monopoly! Look at those linux developers!" Of course the second any linux developer actually attempts to earn some money with linux then they would declare them commercial and stamp them out. Now novell of course is the one in danger but if they can pull this off then it'll be easier the next time. What worries me more is they might be attempting to work their copyrights into the GPL so that they are in direct conflict with each other. Then it goes to court to determine if microsofts copyright is stronger then the GPL. I can just imaging getting 12 random people that hear about "copyright infringement" (everyone knows copyright infringement is bad) and then hear about "violating the GPL" (GPL? what the @#$% is a GPL?) combined with all the money microsoft can pour into it and the next thing you know the GPL is overturned. Novell could be out of the Linux business
Open Source is still commercial: RMS was selling cartridge of GNU software making a commercial activity ...Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
Is there any way that the converse could apply? i.e. instead of interpretation 1, we use interpretation 2? Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
"If Novell requires a patent license to distribute software, then it loses all rights under the GPL"
"Novell obtains a patent license to distribute software. Because it is GPL, everyone else is automatically covered".
Go read this :Only paid-for Suse products are protected
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/patent_ag...
Even SLES betas are only covered 180 days at most.
Only paid-for Suse products are protected
Things are straightforward :Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
1. You must not receive any compensation whatsoever for your code for the covenant to apply
2. It only applies for your personal use, distributing the result to someone else voids the covenant.
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/community...
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/patent_ag...
Moglen's take:Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
Ineteresting link.Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
However, I'll stand by for a jeremiad from RMS. Promises to be interesting.
This would assume that a patent is actually asserted against GPL code.Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
In http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq.html it's said:Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
"Novell recognizes the significant contribution open source developers have made to Linux and their reliance on the General Public License. The patent agreement signed by Novell and Microsoft was designed with the principles and obligations of the GPL in mind." But the details are not included.
> The patent agreement signed by Novell and Microsoft was designed with the principles and obligations of the GPL in mind."Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
It could also mean that they didn't think of it at the moment, but will try to weasel their way out of in between the rock and the hard place. As you imply, worthless without the details.
Weasel
> Under this new model, customers will realize unprecedented choice and flexibility through improved interoperability and manageability between Windows(R) and Linux.Pigs flying and all that
... and then you win.Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
Gandhi-con 4.Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
We're still in phase 3; things just got a little dirtier. Do you honestly think that M$ is now saying "we tried to fight them, and it didn't work, oh well, guess we'll let them win"? If you do, I've got a used car and a bridge you might be interested in...Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
It's worse than that, Novell actually also squandered a lot of goodwill in the community (the tech people who do write the product lists suits choose from) and I guess it can probably give up any hope of further pushing Mono in GNOME. I don't see Red Hat, Ubuntu, Debian, Mandriva, Sun, Gentoo hackers accept to have this major piece of the Linux DE depend on a tech Novell just agreed to pay royalties for (esp when the java veil is lifting). Need I remind you why GNOME was founded in the first place ?Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
The focus of the agreement is servers, not desktops. It's about Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
virtualization (running virtual copies of SuSE under Windows, and Windows
under SuSE). Its a big crack in the wall, but not dismantling it yet.
upcoming obsolescence of 32 bit x86 (in favor of x86-64) is something
Microsoft is not prepared for.
> and the upcoming obsolescence of 32 bit x86 (in favor of x86-64) is something Microsoft is not prepared for.Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
- Sun (Java plugin)
Vista will actually benefit from XP.Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
Why?
Well, one thing that looks clear is Microsoft wants to commercialize its Why?
patent portfolio:
> in exchange for a release from any potential liability for use of each
> others patented intellectual property, with a net balancing payment from
> Microsoft to Novell reflecting the larger applicable volume of
> Microsoft's product shipments. Novell will also make running royalty
> payments based on a percentage of its revenues from open source
> products.
>
> The patent agreement demonstrates that Microsoft is willing to enter
> into agreements that extend its patent protection to open source
> customers. This is an important foundation in building the bridge
> between proprietary and open source software.
portfolio as applying to Linux, and something royalty payments attach to?
They may expect money to flows their way later, after everybody's onboard.
attach per-unit royalties to Linux.
Why? "running royalty payments to Microsoft"
Remember, the point of the SCO thing (from Microsoft's perspective) was to
attach per-unit royalties to Linux.
Which seems to be precisely what they will get now with Novell/Suse. From the Novell to make 'running royalty payments' to Microsoft article:
Who would have imagined Microsoft receiving royalty payments from a Linux vendor based on the ongoing sale of its open-source products? It could have been one of the main incentives for Microsoft to make the broader agreement -- which, on the flip side, will have Microsoft's sales force promoting Novell's Suse Linux to business customers that decide to go the Linux route.
The flip side has been summed up by Steve Ballmer in the conference this way :Why? "running royalty payments to Microsoft"
« If anybody is confused by the end of the press conference, I'll say it now, you've got a new application that you want to instance, I'm going to tell you the right answer is Windows, Windows, Windows. »
dayum. this makes me aufully nervous - but I'll wait to see all the facts before I form an opinion. Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
> but I'll wait to see all the facts before I form an opinion.Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
I just saw the video press conference.Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
Countries without Software Patents
Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
I contribute code as well, albeit for hobby distros ...
No dice. It is only for code you develop and use strictly for your own amusement, or (if given to someone) does end up in SLES. (Like they would ever find out what you code behind closed doors, or even care...).
Dammit. And I was enjoying contributions Novell was making to Linux.Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
Yes! But I think that in a very sort time, they'll have no developer and Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
no costumer. For sure -1 costumer ;) Bye, bye suse. Good morning fedora!
costumer != customer"countermeasures"
opensuse != suse
fedora != rhel
No, alonso was right. If they go wrong, nobody will be dressing them anymore."countermeasures"
Well, I'm very curious (and also a bit excited) about this rather "unexpected" partnership, since I do not think it's necessarily a bad thing. Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
Yes, with linux, not with Novell or Ubuntu or Xandros ot Linspire.... This is a distruptive move for the ecosistem.Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
Can you point out one good thing that has come out of a partnership with Microsoft? No, I don't consider Office for Mac a good thing. $0.5 B indemnifications could be, but often they come too late to solve anything.
Partnership with the devil
It seems that every time someone partners with MS they get pummeled, so this does not bode well for SuSE.Partnership with MS?
Look at Mephis have switched all but one of my Linux machines to Mephis now Partnership with MS?
SuSe lost there way after 9.2 10.0 sucks but just about works 10.1 and up are nowt but bargepole fodder
It seems that every time someone partners with MS they get pummeled, so this does not bode well for SuSE.
Partnership with MS?
Exactly how MS will try to destroy Novell is not quite clear, but it will certainly be interesting to watch.
It seems that every time someone partners with MS they get pummeled, so this does not bode well for SuSE.
Partnership with MS?
The thing that seems to stand out to me is how many keys Novell have been shown to hold in the SCO case - seemed like Novell had been protecting the freedom of OS.Novell changes stance
This is the ultimate solution. Do that in USA, this is the final battle.Kill the software patent thing everywhere
Software patent is an aberration, plain and clean.
Todays newspaper headline: Linux
wird Windows-kompatibel (Linux becomes Windows-compatible)Linux becomes Windows-compatible
And this in a highly respected and usually quite
clueful newspaper. (They sponsored the development of an open source CMS)
tnoo
I think the bottom line is: If this means Novell gets more money to develop free software, this is only a good thing for everyone. Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
No. This agreement doesn't help Novell develop free software in the slightest. All Novell is doing is agreeing to pay protection to Microsoft so that terrible things don't happen to their paying customers. That's all.Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
I would wonder if this is a case of trying to legitimize bogus patents. If I understand correctly, part of the test of a legitimate patent is whether you can get people to pay a royalty on it. Is this a case of M$ making a deal with Novell to be able to show how "valuable" their otherwise trivial patents are? This could be laying the ground work for future cases against GPL software saying, "See, our patents are legitimate, Novell has been paying for them."Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft
Everyone seems to be picking on Red Hat lately (which is how I interpret this announcement). To me this means Red Hat is and industry leader and is winning. Since Red Hat seems to go along more with my views of free software I think this is a good thing.Red Hat: Industry Leader
Spot on. The Oracle and Novell manuevers (and Sun's before) seem to assume that Red Hat holds its customers only due to some magic spell. Well, here's the incantation:Red Hat: Industry Leader
- at a good price
- leverage your expertise
- don't use Linux as a means to sell expensive crap
Is it time for distributions to consider whether to get rid of anything that de Icaza and Friedman had a hand in?Time to Dump?
Those guys contributed a whole hell of a lot of useful code, and were not in on the Novell/Microsoft negotiation. They didn't just do Mono, they did a hell of a lot of Gnome code.
No
Those guys contributed a whole hell of a lot of useful code, and were not in on the Novell/Microsoft negotiation.
No
How do you know that those two were not part of the negotiation, or did not promote the idea within Novell? We do know that Miguel has stepped up unabashedly as an apologist for the pact:
"today we have secured a peace of mind for Novell customers that might have been worried about possible patent infringements open source deployments" -- Miguel de Icaza
Let's see if I understand this correctly:Novell's press release on partnership with Microsoft