openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 26, 2006 12:48 UTC (Sun) by roel (guest, #41887) [Link]

The moral of this story is: in case of bad news, always kill the messenger.

Posted Dec 3, 2006 2:17 UTC (Sun) by GreyGeek (guest, #41838) [Link]

The following URL is a 2:31AM posting of the announcement which took place just a few hours earlier. After listening to a 45 minute description of the "deal' a reporter asked the participants to describe it in plain English in 45 seconds. Here is what he reported that Ballmer said:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_to_Promote_Linu...

"Two things, I'll make it real simple: Number one, [Novell and Microsoft] are going to work together technically to help the Windows world and the Linux world interoperate. Number two, we've struck a deal under which we can provide patent agreements to Linux customers, in which Microsoft's intellectual property is respected, and we are appropriately compensated for the use of our intellectual property; and we've done both of those things ...."

Hovsepian was on the stage when Ballmer and Smith, Microsoft's General Counsel, and could have raised objections to Smith's continuing explanation, but he DID NOT. Here is what Smith said:

"We dealt with the need for an up-front balancing payment that runs from Microsoft to Novell," Smith continued, "reflecting among other things the large relevant volume of the products that we have shipped. And you'll see, as well an economic commitment from Novell to Microsoft, that involves a running **ROYALTY**, a percentage of revenue, on open-source software shipped under the agreement. So we've been able to sort out the economics, and in some ways, perhaps one of the most important things is, because we've been able to sort out the economics, Novell's customers don't have to."

In other words, Novell, acting as a proxy on behalf of its customers who might otherwise be subject to lawsuits, is paying Microsoft royalties for sales of SUSE Linux. Rather than haggle out the details of who owns what and who doesn't, the two companies have apparently decided that Microsoft indeed owns something, and has estimated the relative value of that something.""

Did you catch that word, "ROYALTY", and Smith's context for that word?

Hovsepian stood beside Ballmer and Smith AND DID NOT OBJECT to Smith's use of that word to explain WHY Novell was paying Microsoft for each copy of SELS sold. Smith, who helped write the documents Novell and Microsoft signed (but which have not been revealed SO NO ONE ELSE KNOWS EXACTLY the full extent of what Novell agreed to) goes on to explain that ONLY those who PURCHASE the commercial SELS version of Linux will be immune to a Microsoft lawsuit "because" part of their payment for that copy of SELS will go to Microsoft as a ROYALTY for "Microsoft IP" present in SELS.

Hovsepian DID NOT OBJECT to that explanation nor to the fact that it placed a threat of lawsuit on EVERY user of any Linux version EXCEPT the subscription version of SELS. Novell effectively spit on every other distro, including OpenSUSE because those who use it do not pay for it.

Hovsepian DID NOT OBJECT to the part of the "deal" which deliberately broke GPL coders into to groups, those who code for pay and those who do not. The first group would be under a threat of a Microsoft lawsuit if they distributed any GPL code they wrote or modified unless they gave it to Novell only. The second group could. The GPL FORBIDS such distinctions, giving every one equal writes to receive, modify and distribute GPL code. At the worst, many feel that this part of the "deal" puts Novell in violation of section 7 of the GPL and prohibits them from continuing to distribute SUSE under the conditions of the "deal". At the best, as Bruce Perens says, it violates the spirit of the GPL by a devious circumvention.

The Software Freedom Law Center said the "patent pledge" (devious circumvention) offers no real protection and thus is useless:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/20061109a.html

"In short, the pledge applies precariously to developers who work in a vacuum: those who write original software in their spare time, receive no payment for it, and do not distribute it to anyone under the GNU GPL. It's worse than useless, as this empty promise can create a false sense of security. Don't be confused by the illusion of a truce; developers are no safer from Microsoft patents now than they were before. Instead, Microsoft has used this patent pledge to indicate that, in their view, the only good Free Software developer is an isolated, uncompensated, unimportant Free Software developer."

Two years ago Ballmer threatened to sue Asian governments that used Linux, claiming Linux contained MS IP, just like McBride claimed. He later denied his statements. With this "deal" Ballmer is renewing his threats to sue users of Linux, except for those who purchase subscriptions of SELS and he has put the threat into writing in the form of a "patent pledge".

IBM owns 20% of Novell and distributes commercial SELS. Their users are immune from the threat of a Microsoft lawsuit, but users of RED HAT, IBM main competitor, are not. So, IBM thinks the deal is great!

Assume, for a moment, that Microsoft does sue you, or me, for using Linux. Could you afford to defend yourself? I couldn't. Not being able to defend myself who would come to my aid? The FSF? Who would fund their efforts, IBM or Novell? Red Hat? HP? The OSRM? I can't afford their "insurance". Against me Microsoft would win by default and I'd be forced to pay a fine and court costs for using supposedly using MS IP illegally, since I could not afford to prove otherwise. I would also be forced to stop using any version of Linux except one that pays Microsoft a ROYALTY for their IP. In other words, commercial SELS.

Eighteen days later, AFTER MUCH HEAT FROM THE FOSS COMMUNITY, Hovsepian DID OBJECT to FOSS community members who characterized the deal as a "sell out", and denied that they admitted there was MS IP in SELS, but he refused to repudiate the "deal" or explain the reason for the payments which Brad SMith called ROYALTIES for the MS IP in SELS.

So, why boycott OpenSUSE? Because SELS is derived from OpenSUSE the way Red Hat is derived from Fedora Core. If we have to kill SELS the only way is to NOT download OpenSUSE and for volunteers not work on or for it any more. Hopefully, when GPL v3 is released most of the current GNU/Linux utilities nd applications can be put under v3, even if Linus refused to put the kernel under v3. The alternative contributes to Novell and Microsoft's hijacking of Linux and is a sure way to destroy any freedoms the GPL v2 granted.

BTW, do not forget that SUN agreed NOT to defend OpenOffice when Microsoft sues it for "MS IP" violations. Why should they? They have StarOffice to sell you, and if you can't download OOo then expect to pay 5 times what you can get StarOffice for right now.

This is not a fight against McBride's mouth and SCO. This is a fight against Microsoft, and if you still remember their past behavior, you realize it is a fight for the life of Linux.

Posted Nov 27, 2006 12:45 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

(that is called censorship)

Jon Corbet and his associates are free to voluntarily not report on things they'd rather not write about for whatever reason. This is not censorship.

If the government prohibited LWN from reporting on the Novell/Microsoft issue when they in fact wanted to do so, that would be censorship.