Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
This clears nothing upThis clears nothing upPosted Nov 27, 2006 19:33 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)Parent article: Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal
I only had the heart to read 2/3 of the transcript but it doesn't appear to say anything new. It's just more of:
"We are not violating the letter of the GPLv2."
Jon asked the key question. Search on "corbet" and watch Novell dodge it completely.
It's really, REALLY depressing for me to see this corporatespeak coming directly from Nat Friedman. I used to have a huge amount of respect for the guy. Nat, what has happened to you? I can only hope that Novell is paying you a huge amount of money for this.
Sigh. Not a good way to start a Monday.
(Log in to post comments)
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 27, 2006 20:07 UTC (Mon) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] But our editor seems to have been satisfied enough with the answer to not inquiry further.
One can look at it this way: real or not, Novell's customers don't want to risk any patent threats. So Novell made this dead with Microsoft, regardless of them not knowing of any infrigments. Customers want their insurance, and they got it.
The monetary value is calculated by the risk of an infrigment. They only say that there is a certain chance without knowing anything concrete and multiplied it by the money involved.
And let's face it: the chance is there and always has been. There are just too many patents to not step on one, and a part of them belongs to Microsoft. As a part of them belongs to Microsoft, so for Microsoft there's a chance too, that they are infriging.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 27, 2006 20:11 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] There's a difference between being satisfied and simply realizing that it's time to get out of the way because you're not going to get any more.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 27, 2006 20:31 UTC (Mon) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] Thanks for clarifying.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 27, 2006 20:25 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Actually, it's pretty clear that Jon was not satisfied by the answer.The monetary value is calculated by the risk of an infrigment... How does this produce $348 million? Niner, if you have information that might make this deal look more concrete, I'd be very interested to hear it. Novell made this dead with Microsoft... I couldn't have said it better myself. :-)
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 27, 2006 20:33 UTC (Mon) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] I do not know more than what's available online, since I'm in no way affiliated with Novell, other than that I bought some SuSE distributions and am contributing a little to openSUSE.
And I really have no idea where those typos come from that plague me these last weeks ;)
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 27, 2006 20:26 UTC (Mon) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link] > But our editor seems to have been satisfied enough with the answer to not> inquiry further.
Actually, it looked to me like they all but cut him off.
I agree that Our Editor asked just about the only useful and interesting question (the other candidate being the questions about GPLv3, which Novell sidestepped by saying they haven't seen it--which is a very legitimate response of course... but still a sidestep). I also agree that they didn't really address it head-on. Although Nat tried to draw a parallel, I think there's a big difference between the generic patent indemnification offered by some companies, and this very specific payment of money to another company to cover patent use by your customers.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 27, 2006 20:44 UTC (Mon) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] Of course there's a difference. And this difference is what a part of the community holds against Novell. It's just hard to judge if the difference is large enough to damn Novell.
It seems like Novell's potential customers did not need a generic indemnification, they were just afraid of Microsoft. Offering a generic indemnification is an uncalculateable risk. It could destroy Novell if the wrong customer is sued by the wrong attacker. On the other hand Novell even get's net money out of the Microsoft deal. So it's the lesser risk, produces direct income and satisfies potential customers. One certainly should be able to understand, why Novell did it.
So the issue that remains is: it is Microsoft. And they are dangerous for sure. Does this deal admit anything more than for example Redhat's indemnification? What do their customers need it for if there is no infrigment? I'm still not convinced that this has raised the risk for us non-Novell-customers. But maybe that's just because I'm an optimist.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 28, 2006 4:05 UTC (Tue) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] Unfortunately that risk assessment totally ignores the obligations Novell has to the community which provides the vast majority of the code in their products. Unfortunately, this seems to confirm that Novell either never really got it - or possibly that only a few individuals, now gone or out of power - ever got it.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 28, 2006 8:29 UTC (Tue) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] But _what_ obligations to the community are broken by Novell? I am part of that community, and I just don't see it. Could you please enlighten me?
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 27, 2006 21:25 UTC (Mon) by jtc (guest, #6246) [Link] "One can look at it this way: real or not, Novell's customers don't want to risk any patent threats. So Novell made this dead with Microsoft, regardless of them not knowing of any infrigments. Customers want their insurance, and they got it."
A couple questions: Does the deal with MS cover future work at Novell, such as their work with MS to make Linux and Windows more interoperable? (E.g., that MS will not sue Novell for working with them to make Linux and Windows more friendly towards each other [How nice of them :-)], because of a resulting perceived patent violation.)
Does the deal cover any of Novell's other software (whether commercial or open source) that is not part of the OpenSUSE release?
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 27, 2006 21:43 UTC (Mon) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] Remember: I do only know what's publicly available about this deal. From that I can say, that it will cover future work at Novell for five years.
And I can correct you insofar as openSUSE is _not_ covered by the deal. It's about the Enterprise products (SLES, SLED). Users of openSUSE are not covered. But ("non-commercial") developers contributing to openSUSE are. And according to the IRC log this covenant should be broadened to all non-commercial developers of free software.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 28, 2006 1:33 UTC (Tue) by pzb (subscriber, #656) [Link] > Does the deal with MS cover future work at Novell, such as their work> with MS to make Linux and Windows more interoperable? (E.g., that MS > will not sue Novell for working with them to make Linux and Windows more > friendly towards each other [...], because of a resulting perceived > patent violation.)
While the deal does include a technical cooperation agreement that helps make sure that Free/Open Source software and Microsoft products work together better, it does not give Novell a license to any of Microsoft's patents. It also does not protect Novell from suit by Microsoft.
> Does the deal cover any of Novell's other software (whether commercial or
According to Novell, the agreement includes "percentages of Novell's Open Platform Solutions and Open Enterprise Server revenues." This would seem to imply that at least OES is covered in addition to the SUSE products. Also, in the original press release, it says "other covered products from Novell" are covered by the patent agreement, which implies that more than just SUSE Linux Enterprise Server is covered.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 28, 2006 17:16 UTC (Tue) by mrfredsmoothie (subscriber, #3100) [Link] > While the deal does include a technical cooperation agreement that helps> make sure that Free/Open Source software and Microsoft products work > together better, it does not give Novell a license to any of Microsoft's > patents. It also does not protect Novell from suit by Microsoft.
Would't estoppel prevent this?
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 30, 2006 8:00 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] >> [The deal] does not protect Novell from suit by Microsoft.> Would't estoppel prevent this?
Perhaps normally, but in this case, no. The deal is specifically
... All conditional on my understanding of the issues, IANAL, etc...
Duncan
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 28, 2006 15:56 UTC (Tue) by nat (guest, #41935) [Link]
The deal covers all Novell products including openSUSE, SLES, SLED, and our proprietary products.
And Novell promises not to sue Microsoft customers over their use of MS products.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 28, 2006 17:47 UTC (Tue) by grouch (subscriber, #27289) [Link] The patent "agreement" covers packages distributed by Novell which includes GPL'd code. Novell purchased blanket patent protection for these packages from a single patent holder. Denying the "agreement" is a license (permission to use) does not change the effect of the agreement. Novell's statements that "[...] Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents" does not change the fact that entering into such an agreement with Microsoft while specifying packages that are covered by that agreement which include GPL'd code is an implicit acknowledgement of patent infringement.Novell purchased the patent license on behalf of Novell's customers. Novell's customers cannot pass that license along when the customers distribute the GPL code received from Novell. This is not the same as the indemnification sold by, e.g., Red Hat. Red Hat is selling a warranty, as provided for in the GPL. Novell is selling a specific patent holder's promise not to sue, also known as a license, which is a grant of permission to use any patents, regardless of validity, that the specific patent holder may have that read on the packages distributed by Novell. The agreement's blanket coverage for any and all patents held by the patent holder is not equal in its coverage for all persons included. It divides the people it covers into end users and developers. It further divides developers into commercial and non-commercial. It is an inequitable license, which goes against the intent and purpose of the GPL even though it covers packages which include GPL'd code. Novell has enhanced Microsoft's FUD machine. Novell has purchased rights for its customers from a single patent holder. Novell's customers cannot pass those rights along with the code those customers redistribute. Novell has purchased a license from Microsoft which flies in the face of the intent and purpose of the GPL:
Novell's purchase of a non-distributable patent license from a single patent holder, which covers packages that include GPL'd code, named by Novell, is a violation of the intent and purpose of the GPL.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 28, 2006 18:32 UTC (Tue) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] "the fact that entering into such an agreement [...] is an implicit acknowledgement of patent infringement."
Even repeating that endlessly and ignoring all counter arguments does not make this a fact.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 28, 2006 18:54 UTC (Tue) by lmb (subscriber, #39048) [Link] Even Microsoft has released a press announcement to the effect that Novell did not acknowledge any such thing.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 29, 2006 3:02 UTC (Wed) by grouch (subscriber, #27289) [Link]
Selective quoting out of context does not refute the statement. Novell will be paying Microsoft for 5 years. Novell has named packages that are covered by the patent agreement. Those packages include code released under the GPL. What is Novell paying for? For Microsoft to not sue Novell's customers over non-infringement of non-existent patents? How much of each payment by Novell's customers is devoted to this protection payment for the non-license for non-infringement of non-patents?
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 29, 2006 11:26 UTC (Wed) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] I wonder why you try so hard to see an admission by Novell, when even Microsoft says that there isn't. And they would profit immensely from one. What do you get out of it?
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 29, 2006 15:29 UTC (Wed) by grouch (subscriber, #27289) [Link]
I wonder why you try so hard to rationalize the agreement. I wonder what you get out of it. The patent agreement between Novell and Microsoft is wrong insofar as it encompasses GPL code distributed by Novell or Novell's customers. It conflicts with the intent and purpose of the GPL. In fact, it fits the situation anticipated by the GPL in 1991:
The only "admission by Novell" that I seek is that the patent agreement is wrong where it includes GPL'd code and is wrong where it imposes extra conditions on users (the divisive distinctions between commercial and non-commercial, developers and "end users"). Novell and Microsoft should go back to the table and correct this agreement.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 27, 2006 21:52 UTC (Mon) by jedidiah (guest, #20319) [Link] If Novell was really worried about patent issues, they should have asked Microsoft for a statement that would greately undermine their ability to sue ANYONE for patent violations relating to Linux. As things stand now, all promises that Microsoft have made are completely MEANINGLESS and they continue to engage in active sabre rattling about Linux being in volation of Microsoft IP. Novell has not furthered their own stated interest in this matter and really have only "thrown gasoline on the fire".
A license, or a license by some other name, is just an implicit admission that Microsoft has something meaningful to sue over.
This clears nothing up - Cleared up now perhaps? Posted Nov 27, 2006 22:52 UTC (Mon) by Alan_Hicks (subscriber, #20469) [Link] You (and I believe just about everyone else) are missing the real purpose of the deal. Microsoft and Novell have a common enemy and that enemy is Red Hat.
In the enterprise Linux world, Red Hat is the 800 pound gorilla and Novell has been unable to wrestle a piece of the pie away from it. In order to do that, they feel they need new weapons like money, better Windows interoperability, and some sort of "patent covenant" they can wave around in the air to appease any skittish customers.
Microsoft wants to stop Red Hat from growing, plain and simple, but they haven't been able to do this with the Windows Server offerings, too many customers are wanting to run an enterprise Linux OS.
So a partnership between the two makes sense. Novell is as of right now absolutely no threat to Microsoft, and if purchasing these coupons and giving them to their customers who want to use Linux will cut off some of Red Hat's revenue stream, they'll do it; that's just basic business.
What worries me about this deal is what our esteemed editor (and might I say a hard-hitting reporter last night) asked: "What is the value of this promise?" Of course if Microsoft broke the agreement they would have to pay damages to Novell, but that seems to me to be chunk-change compared with the value of destroying a major open source project like Apache or Samba, or even the Linux kernel. In my mind this "promise" only has value as long as Red Hat remains a legitimate threat to Microsoft.
Another concern is that there just isn't enough room in the enterprise Linux market for both Novell and Red Hat. If this is the case, it's easy to see why Microsoft would push SuSE as doing so could easily destroy both Red Hat and Novell. And what would become of this "promise" if Novell decides to sell off it's SuSE Enterprise Linux business because it hasn't turned out to be profitable? What if Microsoft buys it to bury it in the same way that Caldera "bought" the redistribution rights to SCO?
This clears nothing up - Cleared up now perhaps? Posted Nov 28, 2006 12:40 UTC (Tue) by gravious (guest, #7662) [Link] You (and I believe just about everyone else) are missing the real purpose of the deal. Microsoft and Novell have a common enemy and that enemy is Red Hat. Rubbish: not only are we smarter than you give us credit for, you are wandered off into fantasy land without the rest of us. 1: Novell and Redhat are not enemies. They ceratainly are competitors and the competition may get fierce but I believe the spirit of FOSS binds us all. FOSS has many enemies, Microsoft is just one of them. Microsoft's desktop/office monopoly makes them an enemy of everyone, including FOSS in an economic and polotical kind of way. If Redhat has a propietary enemy it sounds like it could be Oracle. 2: There is room in the server market place for many vendors. What makes you believe that there is only room for one? Prove it. In every fair market there are lots of players. Why should this case be any different? 3: I happen to believe the noises coming out of Novell. I think they are *brain-damaged* possibly to do a deal with Microsoft, of all companies. Though when you think about it, it was inevitable that the Ximian guys were on a collision course with Microsoft the minute they started Mono. Novell has a ton of software, they get a pile of cash. I think they realise by now (what with Ballmer's gleeful crowings - God I can't stand that man, bring back Bill, all is forgiven) that they may have stepped in some doo-doo on the way to greener pastures. 4: You're always going to piss off the extremists. 5: Tell me how any of this will destroy Apache or Samba or the Linux kernel. Get real. with respect, Anthony
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 27, 2006 21:41 UTC (Mon) by lmb (subscriber, #39048) [Link] Novell acknowledges the concerns of its customers, not that these concerns are valid. Even MS agrees that Novell did not make any concessions on this point: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov06/11-20...
As Novell itself is NOT covered by the agreement, Novell will continue to not ship any infringing code, and Novell's Open Source developers are never ever in danger of being exposed to such knowledge.
The major part of this deal is about the cooperation and interoperability - and that is nothing fundamentally new, Microsoft has been one of the key contributors to Xen all along, even when Xen was Linux/BSD only. If other companies see the business advantage in Open Source, why shouldn't Microsoft ;-)
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 28, 2006 5:54 UTC (Tue) by snitm (subscriber, #4031) [Link] Yes, Nat has officially sold out... I'd wager Nat would acknowledge as much. Maybe not publicly but introspectively he knows it.
1) Nat asserted that technical Novell employees weren't consulted in the deal with M$.
Obviously Nat/Novell thinks its worth it, which should make us all very afraid for what the future holds for Linux. Sure Linux will rise above the inevitable flood of M$ bullshit but its all very unfortunate that the enabler of said bullshit (currently) has such an instrumental role in developing Linux.
It all smacks of Novell, and Nat, being pennywise and pound foolish.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 28, 2006 10:03 UTC (Tue) by epeeist (guest, #1743) [Link] > Yes, Nat has officially sold out.
I may be maligning him, but are we sure that he and de Icaza were firmly in the FOSS camp in the first place?
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 28, 2006 15:53 UTC (Tue) by nat (guest, #41935) [Link]
My better instincts compel me to shy away from responding to these ad hominem attacks, but I'm just too sensitive not to point out that Miguel and I have written and released and funded the development and release of millions of lines of free software, and I think that should count for something.
But I guess you can draw your own conclusions.
I also really don't understand the actual material damage that people are claiming this Novell/MS deal does. Maybe you can explain that to me.
This clears nothing up Posted Jul 17, 2007 4:58 UTC (Tue) by snitm (subscriber, #4031) [Link] Nat,We are only now starting to feel the very real negative impact of the MS/Novell deal. I work for a Linux company and the large OEMs (with extremely deep pockets) that we work with are making corporate edicts that "SLES is the only Linux allowed" purely because of all the sabber rattling Microsoft has been doing (as part of the deal with Novell and in subsequent FUD campaigns by M$ executives). SO it has seemingly worked out quite well for Novell (and likely you) but as a Software Engineer I do _not_ liked to be pigeon holed on which Linux-based solutions I _must_ integrate/design into nimble and innovative solutions. Even if Microsoft is making idle threats it has genuinely detracted from true competition in the Linux community; particularly where Linux interfaces with the enterprise.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 28, 2006 15:41 UTC (Tue) by nat (guest, #41935) [Link]
Hey, so I did my best to answer corbet's question. I wasn't in the discussions in Redmond where they figured out how much money goes in what direction, so I wasn't sure how to best answer him. I said that the payments were for the promises, and mentioned how other patent-related payments often happen.
What is left unanswered exactly? I'm totally open to more questioning on this.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 28, 2006 19:51 UTC (Tue) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] Here's how I understand the question (and it's one I also have): You say the money is exchanging hands for patent licenses (convenants, whatever) for customers. At the same time, you say you are unaware of any patents that Novell is infringing on. So there are two possible ways to consider this:
1) Novell is not aware of any patents they are infringing on, but believe they are infringing on some (this is a reasonable belief given how many software patents there are). This implies that they also believe MS could theoretically sue their customers, and the protection is important.
2) Novell is not aware of any patents they are infringing on, and do not believe they are infringing on any. In this case, you believe MS is paying you for nothing. You say "It doesn't matter if the allegations from MSFT are true or not" but MS certainly believes it, and believes it enough to pay you millions of dollars. Alternately, MS is irrational, and just likes throwing money at you.
This means there are three possible outcomes. First, Novell is waffling and believes they did actually purchase real protection for their customers, but doesn't want to admit it to the people who they didn't purchase it for. Second, Novell and Microsoft have very different opinions about the efficacy of the contract they have agreed to, MS believing it means something and Novell believing it doesn't. Third, Novell is doing business with a company that is completely irrational.
None of these options reflect very well on Novell. So please, explain what exactly Novell is paying for, and why.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 29, 2006 2:52 UTC (Wed) by pzb (subscriber, #656) [Link] > At the same time, you say you are unaware of any patents that Novell is> infringing on. > > Novell is not aware of any patents they are infringing on, and do not > believe they are infringing on any. In this case, you believe MS is > paying you for nothing.
You seem to have confused two things. This is a bidirectional agreement. Microsoft is paying Novell for a promise by Novell not to sue Microsoft's customers. Novell is paying Microsoft for a promise by Microsoft to not sue Novell's customers.
In Microsoft's statement they said "Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on [...] whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents." This would seem to be more related to payments by Microsoft to Novell than any discussion of Novell's infringement on Microsoft patents.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 29, 2006 10:39 UTC (Wed) by nat (guest, #41935) [Link]
Novell is paying Microsoft to promise not to sue Novell's customers. Microsoft is paying Novell (much more money) to promise not to sue Microsoft's customers.
Novell does not state in any way that Linux infringes Microsoft IP. It was enough for Novell that Novell's customers were concerned (whether those concerns are valid or not).
|
|||||||||||