| |||||||||||
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell
Quite a few people are trying to figure out what the newly-announced
partnership between Microsoft and Novell really means. Here's a selection
of postings:
(Log in to post comments)
Bruce Peren's take Posted Nov 3, 2006 7:47 UTC (Fri) by scottt (subscriber, #5028) [Link] here .From the comments: "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. "
Bruce Peren's take Posted Nov 3, 2006 9:25 UTC (Fri) by jsarets (guest, #39560) [Link] The GPLv2 makes it clear that code cannot be distributed under the GPL if the recipient would need to acquire any additional licenses (with or without royalties) not granted by the distributor in order to redistribute under the same terms. The gray area here is whether offering an optional service that includes non-transferrable membership in a patent covenant with Microsoft necessarily implies that such protection is required to use and distribute the covered software without violating Microsoft's IP.
If Microsoft asserts that some or all SUSE Linux software infringes on its IP, then Novell cannot distribute this software under the GPL, regardless of its deal with Microsoft. If Microsoft is bluffing and doesn't intend on following this announcement by, say, suing Red Hat, then it stands to question whether Novell's decision to license Microsoft IP necessarily implies that their software infringes this IP. If it does, then Novell would be violating the GPL by distributing this software. If it doesn't, then it isn't clear that the GPLv2 prohibits this deal. It isn't illegal to sell excessive insurance policies, and it wouldn't seem illegal to sell unneeded patent protection for unencumbered GPL software.
The lesson from the SCO case is simple: before we cede ground, implicitly admit that our free software stack is encumbered, and start paying for licenses, we need to know what we're infringing. Novell wants to apologize to Microsoft on behalf of the Linux community for stealing their IP, but we have nothing to apologize for... besides Novell's shameful disregard for the principles of free software and the GPL that governs much of its distribution.
Bruce Peren's take Posted Nov 3, 2006 10:23 UTC (Fri) by ghelmling (subscriber, #4140) [Link] Which really raises the question of what the value of this is to Novell and why they even entered into this agreement?
Doesn't this essentially give Microsoft a "remote kill" switch over Novell's Linux business? All they have to do is file a patent infringement lawsuit against anyone for using the Linux kernel and they put Novell in violation of the GPL...
Just like Sun. Posted Nov 3, 2006 10:49 UTC (Fri) by NZheretic (guest, #409) [Link] April 6, 2004 Did Sun Have to to Choose "Between Shame and War"?April 14, 2004 A 'Very Good Thing' for whom? Microsoft's MCPP November 29,2004 The conflict between MCPP and Open Source Finally Sun's James Gosling on February 3, 2005 Java creator questions Sun/Microsoft pact.
SuSE's death Posted Nov 3, 2006 10:39 UTC (Fri) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018) [Link] Didn't we kinda know from the start that SuSE was doomed when Novell bought it? We tried hard to believe in it, but really, annoucement after annoucement, things were not looking good. SuSE running Gnome was a killer for me, as SuSE was really associated to KDE from the beginning. Xgl developped outside of the community was also a stab in the back IMO, showing that Novell was not interested in working with the community, but more in spite of it, and the GPL.
I think it's time to either fork SuSE to give it back its soul, or leave it to rot and use its competitors instead (personally, I didn't touch it ever since Novell bought it).
SuSE's death Posted Nov 3, 2006 11:58 UTC (Fri) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] Not to be a jerk, but why comment on Novell's influence on SuSE if you haven't used it since Novell bought it? (or am I misunderstanding your last sentence?) I haven't used it, so I don't have any strong opinions about it in either direction.
SuSE's death Posted Nov 3, 2006 12:17 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] When people say stuff like 'give back suse it's soul'.. they realy mean 'get rid of Gnome and go back to KDE'.
As far as I am concerned Novell was a good thing for Suse.
For instance they open sourced YAST. (which unfortunately was too late to save it in terms of more widespread usage)
SuSE's death Posted Nov 3, 2006 14:43 UTC (Fri) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018) [Link] Yes, that's exactly what I meant: SuSE and KDE always were like the two fingers of the hand :-) Putting Gnome as default on SuSE feels like if Ubuntu was changing to KDE and creating a new Gubuntu project for Gnome users. It would lose its soul IMO (and that's from a Kubuntu user!).
Since when is Gnome default? Posted Nov 6, 2006 2:02 UTC (Mon) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] I wonder where you have that "Gnome is default" stuff from? Because it's definitely untrue. SUSE 10.1 gives you the choice when installing and neither KDE, nor Gnome is preselected. The choices are equal. And this doesn't change with 10.2 AFAIK.
Yes, it's true, that there are now mono- (and thus gtk2) based administration programs like the software updater and the compiz configuration. But for both of them the next version will have KDE-based replacements. And the new software updater looks really nice.
Sometimes it really is better to build your own opinion and see first hand. Which ain't really difficult with everything being available for free and such.
Since when is Gnome default? Posted Nov 6, 2006 4:14 UTC (Mon) by alonso (subscriber, #2828) [Link] They do that and then rethink about the decision. And I think that the default destop for SLED is gnome.
SuSE's death Posted Nov 3, 2006 19:25 UTC (Fri) by heise2k (guest, #41269) [Link] Yes. I have liked SuSE since a long time, and was sad when Novell boughtthem. I did like the strong KDE relationship and more European flavour of the German SuSE. To be fair openSUSE has had good KDE support, but all that mono garbage like beagle and the zmd/redcarpet crap that needs to be disabled is horrible. Gnome is cute, and part of me kind of wants to like it, but it is so hard to do real things with. Maybe some people like less functionality, less options, less interoperability, less performance, etc.
YAST is cool, but the new updater sucks; hard. I have taken to using smart
I am still hoping things don't turn out as bad as I and many others think
-Bob
SuSE's death Posted Nov 3, 2006 14:58 UTC (Fri) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018) [Link] Sorry if I was unclear in my previous post; I was not commenting about user experience, only decisions taken by Novell for SuSE, which are public and reported in this wonderful news site. I suppose I am not the only one to be of the opinion that Novell killed SuSE's soul, having read about a number of ex-SuSE managers leaving after the 'merge'...
SuSE's death Posted Nov 4, 2006 9:14 UTC (Sat) by ajross (subscriber, #4563) [Link] Have you people lost your senses? Novell has signed a patent cross licensing agreement with Microsoft and implicitly become part of the "idemnification" FUD regime that started with the SCO lawsuit.And yet, what you really seem to be upset about, and want to flame about, is that they use Gnome?! Get some perspective please.
SuSE's death Posted Nov 5, 2006 4:15 UTC (Sun) by epeeist (guest, #1743) [Link] > And yet, what you really seem to be upset about, and want to flame about, is that they use Gnome
Gnome doesn't bother me particularly, I prefer KDE but that is what it is, a preference.
The thing that bothers me is Mono. There have been some pretty weasely words about this from it inception, as to its patent or non-patent encumbrances, what it might or might not implement that might or might not be MS IP and the MS attitude to this.
Given the pronouncement by De Icaza you have to wonder what his motives were both in developing Mono and his next job destination.
If Mono comes to be seen as tainted then there are implications for Gnome, though I think these are probably minor.
whatever Posted Nov 6, 2006 1:28 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Mono isn't any more or less 'tainted' then any other thing.
Samba is much more of a risk then Mono, but I haven't heard anybody try to claim that those developers want to go work for Microsoft.
Seriously. Don't you understand how software patents work and people like Bruce Perens go on and on about the threats.
EVERYTHING VIOLATES PATENTS. Not for a fact, but if I assume that all Linux projects violate patents I will be right probably more then 90% of the time.
The Linux kernel violates patents.
KDE violates patents.
Gnome violates patents.
Apache violates patents.
Gstreamer violates patents.
And KDE 4 will violate patents, as will Qt4.
Do I know which specific patents. No. But that doesn't matter because I have a pretty decent idea about how software patents work and I know about the vast number of patents and It's about as a accurate as guess as:
Ragging on Mono for possible violations completely and 100% ignores the larger issues with software patents and Free software. In fact Mono is probably safer because your going to have a hard time, as Microsoft, convincing a judge that it's OK to release documentation on a programming language with the intention of creating a standard and hide any patents so that other people can adopt it so later on you can sue them and destroy them.
In the past with companies like Cisco creating standards they told everybody what patents they have over that standard.
People like Samba or OpenOffice.org or Abiword is at a much higher threat because they are implimenting features and capabilities of Microsoft's software were Microsoft never intended to have anybody else use.
Cross patent licensing deals is 100% natural and for Novell. They are a pro-software patent company like IBM or Oracle or the majority of large corporate software makers. Since they know they can't avoid violating patents they do cross-patent licensing with everybody else as a standard way to defend against patent litigation. This is normal.
It's VERY obvious that they didn't consult with Miguel or any other linux developers they employ. Each one says they didn't know about it until a few days before the announcement.
As far as Suse goes.. Everybody seems to completely ignore the fact that Suse was halfway propriatory company anyways. They tried the old thing were they added propriatory software to Linux to try to make it worth paying for. Now OpenSuse is completely Free as is Yast now open.
whatever Posted Nov 6, 2006 9:10 UTC (Mon) by dbreakey (guest, #1381) [Link] A lot of people seem to forget what the problems with patents really are. To summarize, as far as I know, the essential problem is as follows:
With a copyright, all you need to do is figure out a new way of accomplishing the same end result. A patent removes that option because the concept rather than the implementation is protected. Another part of the problem is that patents are granted in much the same way as copyrights—namely, far too easily. There are hundreds, probably thousands of examples that were granted that fail the non-obviousness requirement of a typical patent (generally accepted to mean that a patentable invention must be non-obvious to an experienced member—ie: of typical expertise—of the relevant field). Part of the issue here is simply the fact that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office is both woefully understaffed and are now expected to have expertise in a range of fields that are far outside of their experience. Hence patents are often granted, that shouldn't be, simply because they don't have the time or expertise necessary to evaluate them properly.
whatever Posted Nov 7, 2006 3:11 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] Theoretically, patetnts are supposed to protect methods, which are sort of like implementations but a bit abstracted. They aren't supposed to protect abstract ideas. The problem is the domain of "methods" has become so distended to encompass basic things like mathematics, so that effectively in some domains ideas are patented, or else enough similar patents are registered such that the idea might as well be patented.
Sigh.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 3, 2006 8:31 UTC (Fri) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] Don't forget Jeff Merkey's take: Well,
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 4, 2006 11:27 UTC (Sat) by arafel (subscriber, #18557) [Link] Yeah, but Jeff never did seem to have a particularly firm grasp on reality (or on what's actually important, for that matter).
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 3, 2006 9:06 UTC (Fri) by frazier (subscriber, #3060) [Link] More "insight" from Laura DiDio in this Seattle Times article.
Does this protect Mono from Microsoft? Posted Nov 3, 2006 9:22 UTC (Fri) by xylifyx (guest, #29041) [Link] and does it influnce its use in Open Source
Does this protect Mono from Microsoft? Posted Nov 3, 2006 14:15 UTC (Fri) by gravious (guest, #7662) [Link] Ah hah! There was always this lingering suspicion of Mono running afoul of some MS .Net patent mines. Novell is invested heavily in Mono - this makes tons of sense for them. Also they were one of the first to indemnify against SCO and now they can claim that they are indemnified against the MS patent horde. On principal I think everyone in the Open Source community would rather commit hari kiri than cut a deal with Bill Gates and his minions but we must realise that Novell has been in this business a long time and that they have a lot of assets to protect.
Though I do not use Suse I have seen nothing that would indicate Novell is anything but keen on expanding it's role in the Open Source world. I think caution is wise but the amount of nay-sayers on LWN is a bit depressing at times. Oracle/RedHat - good riddance RH! MS/Novell - good riddance Novell! Just remember all the passionate Open Source/Free Software people these companies employ - they must have some influence on their future directions. Let's not keep yelling "The sky is falling!" every time a commercial deal is struck.
I genuinely believe nothing can stem the flow of one of the most altruistic movements I know. Between the Open Content and Open Source we will pry the fruits of our labour from the greedy hands of those whose sole aim in life is the headlong pursuit of Mammon. You know, their is no end to this struggle (I believe that fervently!) We are just a continuation of any movement that values collaboration/cooperation and sharing more than proprietary gain. Nobody walks blindfolded into a deal with MS these days unless they missed the last 15 years of computing which Novell obviously have not considering they swallowed up arguably the second best distribution out there - barring the rise of Ubuntu.
In other news, have you seen MS has shared source[1] all 3.9 million lines of the new Win CE? Now _that_ is news and a genuinely competitive move to cut off Linux in the embedded space
whaddya reckon?
Anthony
Does this protect Mono from Microsoft? Posted Nov 6, 2006 1:46 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I'd be much more worried about Samba or OO.org and the patents they probably are violating rather then Mono.
They've done more to hurt Microsoft's sales then anything else coming out of Linux other then the Linux kernel itself.
Does this protect Mono from Microsoft? Posted Nov 6, 2006 14:04 UTC (Mon) by gravious (guest, #7662) [Link] Mmm. Samba. You know Microsoft must be just dreading Samba 4[1] :) Tridge is an-uber hacker and Microsoft should be rightly quaking in their collective boots. oo.org - I dislike the java-fication this has gotten recently. This was definitely a political maneuver to get Sun's grubby little language into a large code base. If I'm wrong I apologise. <rant>Java and .Net are closed source solutions to the problem of portability that is answered most effectively by shared source. I mean you have to see the JVM and the CLR as _platforms_ like x86 and mips. We need less not more platforms (especially considering only a few languages can target that platform - in this respect .Net is way less sucky than Java). They are both interesting. They both kinda suck. Technically you could almost write an open source OS on top of either of them, perish the thought. If they're sooo great why isn't Firefox rewritten in Java or .Net, hmmm?</rant>
I thought Samba was completely reverse engineered so it should be okay. Also Sun can and will defend oo.org, Novell is smaller than Sun - I say Mono was giving their lawyers the screaming wotsits!
respect,
Does this protect Mono from Microsoft? Posted Nov 6, 2006 9:18 UTC (Mon) by dbreakey (guest, #1381) [Link] Novell isn't really the problem here (I mean, seriously, from a purely business perspective, this makes perfect sense). The question is—what the heck is Microsoft planning to do to take advantage of this?
Too much pessimism Posted Nov 3, 2006 9:43 UTC (Fri) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] First of all, there isn't enough info in the annoucements to say what significance this really has and everyone commenting should admit this up front. One key question is what, if any, special feature the SuSE distro will end up with as a result of this and the answer is that we don't know, so not much can be said.That said, my take is that what this and the recent Oracle move are really about is large companies looking with envy at all the money IBM is making in services by leveraging their Linux connection. Oracle and Microsoft want in on that action and its future growth. That is basically a good thing for Linux.
Will Novell survie? Posted Nov 3, 2006 9:53 UTC (Fri) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] INAL, but statistically chances of surviving a partnership with Microsoft are minimal. The deal will at least give more insight in the power of GPL. GPL terms may have as a result that downloading a Suse free distribution gives you imunity against MS patent claims.
Novell can no longer legally distribute Linux, SAMBA and OpenOffice.org Posted Nov 3, 2006 9:58 UTC (Fri) by NZheretic (guest, #409) [Link] Novell has put itself into a legal position where it can no longer distribute any GPL licensed products that infringe on any Microsoft patents covered by the Microsoft-Novell agreement. This includes the Linux kernel, SAMBA and OpenOffice.org.The GPL Preamble clearly states :- Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. 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. Section seven of the GPL license clearly states :- 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. Novell does not hold all of the copyrights to the Linux Kernel,SAMBA or OpenOffice.org ( Novell uses and distributes the latter under the terms of the LGPL not SUN's commercial license ), and Novell cannot legally distribute those same GPL licensed products under any license but the GPL. Also any more restrictive terms is a clearly a violation of the GPL! Both Novell and IBM, in their legal briefs in there cases against the SCO Group, have made it repeatedly clear that the more restrictive SCO IP EULA is a violation of the terms of GPL license. The same GPL license which Caldera, Old SCO and the SCO Group was granted the right to distributed the copyrighted products in the first place. Novell is in no position to argue that it now has the right to grant it's customers exlusive rights to use the GPL'ed technology that infringes Microsoft's patents. That is a clear violation of section seven of the GPL. A “covenant not to sue” is just another name for a "license" For example : The Licensor is agreeing that it will not sue the Licensee for infringement of Licensor’s patent. Just changing the terms used for "Licensor" and "Licensee" does not change the fact that it is plainly clear that the agreement represents a license. I'm sorry Novell, you have been screwed by Microsoft almost exactly the same way Sun was screwed by Microsoft, but will it take almost a year for you to realise it?
you are premature, I think Posted Nov 3, 2006 10:13 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] If Microsoft were to sue someone for patent infringement, and Novell were then to say that paying Novell customers have a patent license, at that point it seems clear that Novell could no longer legally distribute the "infringing" work. But this has not happened yet. We don't know the exact terms of the deal.
All that is needed is the threat of a lawsuit : Declaratory judgment Posted Nov 3, 2006 10:33 UTC (Fri) by NZheretic (guest, #409) [Link] The SCO Group did not directly threaten Redhat, but the just the threat by SCO to Redhat's customers was enough for Redhat to bring a case before the courts.Also, unlike SCO lawsuit and most patent cases, it would be a lot easier for a copyright holder of the GPL'ed source to demonstrate actual ownership and request a Declaratory judgment.
All that is needed is the threat of a lawsuit : Declaratory judgment Posted Nov 3, 2006 11:38 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Actually I recall them naming Red Hat specifically as a company that (supposedly) was benefiting from the alleged infringement. I also remember one of the company officers said something like "there will be a day of reckoning" for Red Hat. I'm sure you can find some similar quotes in Groklaw's quotes database or on the Web in general...
Nothing much has changed Posted Nov 3, 2006 10:14 UTC (Fri) by irios (guest, #19838) [Link] It is still too early to rip our clothes and run screaming naked in the streets. More than anything it looks as though Microsoft has secured the use of some of Novell's patents (most likely in identity management) in exchange for promising to leave Novell alone and giving them some money. These patents could've really rocked Microsoft's boat if things became nasty.
In exchange for that, Novell can assure their customers that they are safe from any action against them coming from Microsoft, which many customers will see as a Good Thing. This is a just covenant between Novell and Microsoft, with a personal promise not to sue, and has nothing to do adding or substracting conditions to the GPL; I'm sure that any of Novell's lawyers understands the GPL at least as well as any of us, and knows much better than risking their rights to the code trying to keep others from distributing the same works.
So, if I'm a large business and I buy SLED or SLES today, I know that I'm safe from Microsoft, because Microsoft has just promised so. If I buy the same stuff from Red Hat or Ubuntu, then I've got no promise, just as nobody had it last week.
And somebody has mentioned this above, and I couldn't agree more: by no means will Microsoft wield a software patent against a competitor until software patents are approved in Europe. Somehow I would like them to attack right now, because that would make software patents way more likely to be defeated here in the EC for good.
Royalties has changed Posted Nov 3, 2006 10:35 UTC (Fri) by kh (subscriber, #19413) [Link] Why do I want to purchase SUSE if a portion of my payment is going to be a royalty paid to Microsoft? I would be happy with royalties sent to the FSF, or ODSL, but I want to support free and open standards, formats, and protocols, not patent encumbered ones. This does not seem to help interoperability at all to me.
Nothing much has changed Posted Nov 3, 2006 13:45 UTC (Fri) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] So, if I'm a large business and I buy SLED or SLES today, I know that I'm safe from Microsoft, because Microsoft has just promised so.Nope. As soon as Microsoft goes after Red Hat for patent infringement in GPL code, Novell loses the right to distribute the same code. So as a Novell customer you lose support for that code.
Nothing much has changed Posted Nov 3, 2006 17:39 UTC (Fri) by mjr (subscriber, #6979) [Link] As soon as Microsoft goes after Red Hat for patent infringement in GPL code, Novell loses the right to distribute the same code. So as a Novell customer you lose support for that code. IANAL, but since anyone can claim anything, wouldn't it have to stand up in court first? (Settling with less than GPL friendly terms would of course disqualify the settler from distributing, but I don't think others, including Novell, should be affected in this case.) In the end, the result is the same though if one of these claims goes through trial. Novell just bought some time to react at the expense of a lot of goodwill. That loss is well deserved.
Nothing much has changed Posted Nov 4, 2006 4:40 UTC (Sat) by seyman (subscriber, #1172) [Link] IANAL, but since anyone can claim anything, wouldn't it have to stand up in court first?Nope. The only thing that SCO has proved in their case against IBM is that you can make any odd claim and make the resulting lawsuit drag on for 3+ years.
Nothing much has changed Posted Nov 4, 2006 5:35 UTC (Sat) by mjr (subscriber, #6979) [Link] Nope. The only thing that SCO has proved in their case against IBM is that you can make any odd claim and make the resulting lawsuit drag on for 3+ years. I fail to see the relevance of your comment on the actual subject matter. Sure, lawsuits can take time, but until there's a court decision, it's still all allegations and no more.
Nothing much has changed Posted Nov 4, 2006 8:09 UTC (Sat) by seyman (subscriber, #1172) [Link] Sure, lawsuits can take time,Note that while the lawsuit is taking place, the legal fees are going to increase. If Microsoft does go after Red Hat, they may file a claim and then seek delay after delay, waiting for the legal fees to start hurting Red Hat. but until there's a court decision, it's still all allegations and no more.I doubt Red Hat's customers will take it that calmly.
Nothing much has changed Posted Nov 5, 2006 7:52 UTC (Sun) by job (guest, #670) [Link] What we also learned from SCO was that Linux is of strategic importance to IBM and they won't take threats against it lightly. Given that Red Hat (and Novell) has some sort of Linux partnership with IBM, a lawsuit against Red Hat could quickly turn nasty.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 3, 2006 10:31 UTC (Fri) by jwb (subscriber, #15467) [Link] I'm really interested in the idea that Microsoft has licensed patents to me. OpenSUSE and SLES (or whatever they are calling it these days) both ship my code. According to the press release, contributors to OpenSUSE and SLES are granted license to Microsoft patents. That is dandy indeed. Which patents? I'm planning to violate the heck out of them as soon as I find out.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 3, 2006 13:55 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] The covenant is there :http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/community...
Note that for the OpenSuse part you're only covered as a developer if your contribution is integrated in SLES. Also, it seems users of the OpenSuse packages are not covered. Definitely using the same code through another distro is off-limits.
Does this taint any Novell contributed code? Posted Nov 3, 2006 12:34 UTC (Fri) by kornak (guest, #17589) [Link] Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding, code contributed byNovell is potentially tainted by implication? Never mind the emotional taint that will affect their product. I think this just might be the worst business decision they have ever made.
Does this taint any Novell contributed code? Posted Nov 3, 2006 14:53 UTC (Fri) by kornak (guest, #17589) [Link] It also occurs to me that Microsoft by implying that they might sue isenough to threaten the Linux market. They could not in reality risk it since they risk closer scrutiny of their own chain of code ownership. The threat is all they need to de-stabalize the market.
Red Hat's Initial response (*NEW* indemnification) Posted Nov 3, 2006 13:01 UTC (Fri) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link] Red Hat posted a piece on their website regarding the Novell/Microsoft announcement. It is rather good reading actually. Not much new though other than the following:Q: Has anything changed about Red Hat's Open Source Assurance program?
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 3, 2006 13:14 UTC (Fri) by danieldk (subscriber, #27876) [Link] And things are getting less pretty:http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2050848,00.asp
"Such talks would be a good idea, Ballmer suggested, since now only Novell's SUSE Linux customers are the only Linux vendors that have any assurance that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement."
"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."
Did Novell open the box of Pandora? I guess that we'll see.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 3, 2006 13:59 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Microsoft, the Mafia, what's the difference? Increasingly little in termsof business methods, that's clear. Business by threat.
Charming.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 4, 2006 14:24 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] I personally prefer this one:
> Or if customers are considering doing a direct download of a non-SUSE Linux version, "they'll think twice about that," he said.
If this isn't a direct threat, I don't know what is.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 4, 2006 19:44 UTC (Sat) by daniel (subscriber, #3181) [Link] Such talks would be a good idea, Ballmer suggested, since now only Novell's SUSE Linux customers are the only Linux vendors that have any assurance that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement.So now Steve Ballmer threatens to add barratry to Microsoft's long list of illegal monopolizing tactics.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 5, 2006 15:15 UTC (Sun) by gfranken (guest, #22822) [Link] Yes, Ballmer's comments are being quoted and cross-posted on many Linuxsites. And they send a chill down my spine.
One person a few comments back said:
"by no means will Microsoft wield a software patent against a competitor
I'm not so confident that Microsoft will wait. And if Microsoft, a US
I rarely push the panic button, but this time, I view this Novell/SUSE
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 3, 2006 13:32 UTC (Fri) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] Does anyone know of a way to remove the Suse license from Novell before it's too late ....
Novelle have been nothing but bad news from day1 now they are selling out to that twat gates and his bunch of W*****S there has got to be a way to stop this once and for all (leagaly of course ;_) know what i mean)
as if that ever bothered me i dont think so gimme a nuke I'll stop the rot dead in it's tracks ... :~)
My response to Novell/Microsoft Posted Nov 3, 2006 21:39 UTC (Fri) by jonabbey (subscriber, #2736) [Link] From <a href="http://jonabbey.livejournal.com/142997.html">my blog</a>:
So, <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061103201234813">Novell, meet Faust</a>. Novell has signed a deal with Microsoft wherein Novell will pay protection money to Microsoft in exchange for Microsoft threatening to sue all Linux users who aren't paying Novell customers, on the grounds of heretofore undemonstrated patent liabilities.
This is the SCO scam writ larger (and more credible). It will redound to Novell's benefit in the short term, possibly, but it comes at a tremendous long-term strategic cost. By entering into this deal, Novell has endorsed Microsoft's unsubstantiated claims of ownership over patents covering Linux, as well as put their own product at risk. Novell doesn't own their own IP, you see.. the Linux kernel is an amalgam of the work of many thousands of people, licensed under the GPL. Under clause 7 of the GPL, Novell cannot distribute GPL-licensed code to some parties if they do not have the same rights to redistribute without acquiring a patent license. At the press conference between Novell and Microsoft, there were some claims made to the effect that the deal was carefully designed not to run into conflict with the GPL, but the only real attempt to deal with clause 7 seems to be the use of the term 'covenant not to sue', rather than 'license'. I doubt that would fly in court, if push came to shove. Novell might well lose the right to distribute Linux at all if they try to push this.
Of course, it's not all sour vinegar. To sweeten the deal some, Microsoft has promised not to sue any individual developers who work on open source products without getting paid for it, so long as <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061103073628401">they don't do anything gauche</a> such as, you know, actually try to distribute their work.
And this last was touted in the credulous press as a great fluffy bunny rainbow puppy dog concession by Microsoft.
Incredible.
Apparently, Novell had some heavy duty patents that Microsoft was on the wrong side of, so you'd think that they could have come out of the deal better than they went in to it. Microsoft did pay them a lot of money, apparently, but that money was a lump sum, while Novell is on the hook to pay that money back, and more, in royalties over the next five years. The more successful Novell is at screwing Red Hat, the more business they accumulate, the less of that lump sum they'll have left in the bank. Cost to Microsoft in this circumstance? Zero.
Or, as Mastercard would put it:
Resolving patent liabilities by paying Novell: $500 million
Of course, neither party announced the amount that Novell got out of the deal, but one has to presume that it'll show up in their SEC filings before too long.
Now. To look at this from another angle, and assuming for the moment that Novell will not lose their right to redistribute the Linux kernel due to a GPL violation, there are some things to be said about this deal from Novell's point of view.
First, Novell gets a huge stick to use against Red Hat. In an instant, they may gain some credibility in the corporate world, particularly in heterogeneous environments with Microsoft installations. This could be the sand on the snow they need to really grab some traction and start being a force in the market.
Second, as shitty as this deal is by any Open Source standard, it's a hell of a lot better deal than anyone else has ever got from Microsoft. Novell is in control of their own API's, and is free to configure and sell distributions without Microsoft's permissions. In a world where an HP or a Dell can't chose to sell Windows boxes without Microsoft revenue streams attached, (to say nothing of actual components like Internet Explorer), this is an extraordinary amount of freedom. If Novell were to actually catch fire with this deal and start selling in the high tens of millions of units shipped, that's a lot of money that Microsoft is letting go to a relatively independent vassal, and I don't think they've ever let that happen before.
In effect, Microsoft is attempting to trade ownership and control of the operating system for ownership and control over the rights to sell the operating system. Assuming their royalty rates are non-trivial, this could be the cheapest money Microsoft's ever made.
Best of all, from Microsoft's perspective, is that this is a time-limited deal, set to expire in five years. If Novell really does somehow become a Linux colossus, the Microsoft of five years from now will just decline to re-up on the deal, or will drastically spike the royalties, and Novell will be up against the wall, alone, without a viable industry of Linux companies to partner with.
Microsoft has done this sort of thing from day one. Microsoft famously forced Apple to give them the rights to the Windows interface in exchange for Microsoft allowing Apple to continue to have Applesoft BASIC back in the early 80's, after the initial licensing agreement expired. Apple wasn't expecting to lose Applesoft at the time, wasn't prepared for it, couldn't afford to let it die, and so gave Microsoft the keys to the kingdom that would power them for the next 20 years. And two years later, the Apple ][ was completely irrelevant in the market, and the value that they had traded for was dust.
Negotiating with Microsoft is like dining with Hannibal Lecter. They're smarter than you, and they're a whole lot more vicious. No matter what you think you're getting out of the deal, you're in grave danger.
My response to Novell/Microsoft Posted Nov 4, 2006 19:06 UTC (Sat) by daniel (subscriber, #3181) [Link] Lovely commentary. Make no mistake about it, this is that big attack we have been expecting from Microsoft. We can and will defeat it.
Daniel
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 4, 2006 11:13 UTC (Sat) by The_Pirate (guest, #21740) [Link] We (ALSLUG, a small danish LUG) have taken the consequence of this deal. For your information, this is the letter we wrote to Novell yesterday:
----8<----
We have with astonishment noticed the deal your company have done with
As a Linux User Group, we can not anymore risk having the Novell/SuSE
If the deal is withdrawn, we will of course be willing to include SuSE again.
Until that happy moment, we hereby cut all connections with Novell and SuSE.
Yours truly
Kim B. Christensen
----8<----
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 4, 2006 12:20 UTC (Sat) by gravious (guest, #7662) [Link] I notice you haven't explained anywhere in your severance statement why you have made the choices you have made apart from some vague mention of risk from an unspecified source. Is this a normal practice of yours? Do you also snub your local delicatessen when they do a deal with McDonalds but only hint at your displeasure and grievance? (Okay - I know, odious analogy.) At least give Novell the courtesy of your informed and considered opinion so that they may see the error of their ways. Or do we suddenly live in a world where people are now automatically tainted by association? Having said all that I wouldn't trust Microsoft with a proverbial ten foot barge pole but until somebody can convinglingly demonstrate to me that not only has Novell acted in bad faith towards the Open Source community and also put us all somehow in jeopardy I'm not buying any of this Evil Novell crud. Clause 7 or no clause 7.
regards, Anthony
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 4, 2006 19:21 UTC (Sat) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] Or do we suddenly live in a world where people are now automatically tainted by association? Novell made a deal with a convicted criminal monopolist that has called GPL-licensed software a "cancer". That's pretty tainting.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 5, 2006 4:12 UTC (Sun) by The_Pirate (guest, #21740) [Link] IM(private)HO, anyone who starts doing buisness with Microsoft is certainly tainted. Badly.
The reason the letter from our LUG didn't contain specifics is, that a very, very large part of the world-wide community is taking great pains to explain, to the smallest detail, why they/we are unhappy with this.
Apart from that, yes, i think it's a very good idea to be specific with a complaint. Had it been the local shop going nuts, i would have told them what i thought and why.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 6, 2006 13:46 UTC (Mon) by gravious (guest, #7662) [Link] Look - with all respect - the thrust of my argument is that we should hold off calling Novell scum and such like. There are a lot of good people working for that company and whatever you think about the _corporates_ they are a substantial part of our community now. This was always going to happen if Linux became successful. I think we may charitably say that Novell better be cautious and that they were probably 'dumb' to make a deal with Microthingy. (I officially started hating them when the Halloween documents first came out. I'm old enough now not to need a lecture on monopolistic business practices and their ethical position vis-a-vis Linux). All I'm asking is for people to Novell some time to see how this plays out before striking out with the condemnations and melodrama.
Okay?
ps: yes, I think they were dumb.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 6, 2006 19:39 UTC (Mon) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] ...we should hold off calling Novell scum... I never called Novell scum. Stupid, misguided, doomed maybe. Microsoft, however, is scum, so when Novell does a deal with Microsoft, then Novell is tainted by Microsoft's reputation. There are a lot of good people working for that company... There are a lot of good and bright people working for Microsoft, yet they consistently do underhanded things and produce crappy products. If the leadership is bad, then a company can be far worse than what you'd think it should be by looking at the low-level tech workers.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 28, 2006 15:46 UTC (Tue) by gravious (guest, #7662) [Link] Okay - we both believe Novell was almost certainly dumb/stupid and we both agree that Microsoft's de facto monopoly is a very bad thing(tm). Let me repeat - let's see how this pans out before saying "That's it, you're outta here". When it comes to it though, if Novell hurts the community then I say, sure torpedo away. Happy now?
Chris DiBona's take Posted Nov 4, 2006 14:48 UTC (Sat) by scottt (subscriber, #5028) [Link] here ." ... while I'm not going to go into a long diatribe about how I do not agree that I need Microsoft permission via Novell to use Samba or much of any free software, I will say this to my open source developer friends at Novell: The Google Engineering Staff and Open Source teams are hiring."
Multimedia? Posted Nov 4, 2006 15:05 UTC (Sat) by charris (subscriber, #13263) [Link] Are any media patents part of this deal? How about direct X? Just asking, because I don't really see where the value is in this deal between Novell and Microsoft. I assume there is value there somewhere, because why else make the agreement? Where is the money? Money being that curious ancient invention that allows many imponderables to be quantified.
As to all the political talk: guys, this isn't the Spanish Civil War or the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. You want good and evil, go rent LOTR.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 4, 2006 18:58 UTC (Sat) by edvac (guest, #13074) [Link] Trusting microsoft is a very dangerous thing to do - history documents this many times. This is very disturbing news.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell Posted Nov 6, 2006 9:31 UTC (Mon) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link] Personally, I think that first bit, concerning agreeing not to sue'hobbyists' was a brilliant move. Microsoft essentially just reached out and grabbed a great big chunk of the deeply fearful 'open source'ers and put them into their court.
The recasts the debate into;
brilliant move.
How this shakes out, imho.
Few will sign,
|
|||||||||||