| |||||||||||||
This clears nothing upThis clears nothing upPosted Nov 27, 2006 21:25 UTC (Mon) by jtc (subscriber, #6246)In reply to: This clears nothing up by niner Parent article: Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal
"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?
(Log in to post comments)
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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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 (guest, #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.
|
|||||||||||||