Samba Team Asks Novell to Reconsider

Samba Team Asks Novell to Reconsider

Posted Nov 13, 2006 17:25 UTC (Mon) by jayorke (guest, #10685)
In reply to: Samba Team Asks Novell to Reconsider by cventers
Parent article: Samba Team Asks Novell to Reconsider

> What Novell is doing isn't indemnification. Red Hat does indemnification.

If Microsoft finds something in Linux that is their own and decides to go the SCO route of going after companies using Linux then what is Red Hat's idemnification worth?

According to Red Hat's website:
> The Open Source Assurance program is designed to allow customers to
> continue to use their chosen open source solution without interruption.
> It does this by either (i) replacing the infringing portion of the
> software, (ii) modifying the software so that it becomes non-infringing
> or (iii) obtaining the rights necessary for a customer to continue its
> use of the software.

Both (i) and (ii) will not happen instantaneously to protect the customer so lets focus on (iii). If there is code in Linux in violation of a Microsoft patent then Red Hat would need to buy the patent or pay licencing fees (which would certainly violate the GPL if distribution continued) for that patent. If Microsoft didn't want to sell their patent (why would they) then Red Hat would basically be paying Microsoft money not to sue its customers and paying licencing fees for the patented materials. Meanwhile over at Novell they would also be finding a way to do (i) and (ii) and would have stopped shipments until (i) or (ii) is accomplished but they wouldn't be breaking the bank protecting customers because they already did that with this agreement and they wouldn't be in violation of the GPL because they wouldn't be paying to licence anything.

This deal seems a lot like a bilateral version of a protection found in item (iii) in the Open Source Assurance Program minus knowing what infrigements might exist.

> What Novell is actually doing is intentionally very hairy and poorly
> described, because it quite possibly runs afoul of the GPL. They have
> paid for a 'covenant not to sue' (let's stop beating around the bush and
> call it a 'license', which is precisely what it is).

I don't think you can call it a licence because it doesn't give rights to anything. Take the agreement from the standpoint of Novell wanting to legally protect its customers who use Linux because Linux has a lot of code which hopefully does not contain patented methods or copyright violating code, but it might contain those things. How does Novell sign a deal with Microsoft, holder of a whole bunch of software patents, such that it can protect Linux customers against any possible patent or copyright violations which may be in the open source code that a whole lot of non-Novell employees contribute? After SCO there are probably some potential customers that are scared to use open source software and what can be done to alleviate some of that FUD.

Microsoft as a company is a unique threat to companies using Linux in that (a) it holds a lot of patents, and (b) unlike IBM, HP, Novell, and other large patent portfolio holders it doesn't support Linux and probably would prefer it to go away. In order for Novell to remove the fear customers may have with using open source software possibly containing infringing code Novell has no knowledge of, it makes sense to alleviate the risk to its customers.

I guess we will have to wait to hear what the Software Freedom Law Center has to say when it completes its review. Novell seems pretty adamant that they have not violated the GPL.

---

(Log in to post comments)