Who is being divisive? [LWN.net]

Who is being divisive?

Posted Nov 28, 2006 17:53 UTC (Tue) by marduk (subscriber, #3831)
Parent article: Who is being divisive?

I think that this article can really be summarized is: many Linux and OSS "activists" tend to be so anti-something as opposed to be pro-something. While I am pretty sure I'm not every going to be happy with Novell's agreement with Microsoft, I don't feel the need to all-of-the-sudden run out and become anti-Novell. Novell, IMO, made a mistake. And time will tell what side of the fence they are truly on, but that time has yet come.

I can't even really say that I'm anti-Microsoft. It wasn't a hatred of Microsoft that brought me to Linux, it was love of open source and community-driven software (plus the fact that Linux as an OS is awesome). I still have hopes that one day even companies like Microsoft will see the things as I see them and truly embrace open source, but being anti-Microsoft or whomever does nothing to bring that dream to reality.

(Log in to post comments)

As a software author, I have strong opinions about licenses

Posted Nov 29, 2006 0:42 UTC (Wed) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link]

I've written a fair bit of free software, and released it under a number of licenses. For small libraries, I've typically used the BSD license. For larger applications, I strongly prefer the GPL.

But in each case, my time is a gift to the world, and that gift occurs under certain terms. In the case of GPL'd software, those terms are simple: Share and share alike. Companies who want to profit from my work without sharing are the worst sort of freeloaders.

Now, Novell's patent agreement with Microsoft only makes sense if Microsoft is planning to sue free software users. And if Microsoft starts suing us, then something really weird will happen: I won't be able to use my own software, but Novell, Microsoft, and their respective customers will.

When Novell to signed this patent deal, they effectively told me, "Hey, we're perfectly OK with Microsoft suing you over your software, while we continue to make a profit off your work."

My response will be equally simple: The next releases will be under the GPLv3.

As a software author, I have strong opinions about licenses

Posted Nov 29, 2006 2:14 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Well I don't like the Novell Microsoft patent deal, but I think your letting your paranoia go a little bit far here.

It's kinda normal behavior when two big companies work together like this. It kinda gets some the patent silliness out of the way.

I am no expert on this sort of thing, but the way I look at it nothing that Novell did or Microsoft did made much of a difference to anybody other then themselves at this point. And it doesn't affect your liability in one way or another.

So Then Why did Microsoft do the deal?

Well Microsoft has trouble in the enterprise. Most enterprise environments are mixed environments. Nobody depends soly on Windows anymore then anybody depends soly on Linux. However Microsoft has a major strikes against it (among other things):

Lack of good virtualization from MS. So lets take a look at virtualization.

It's obvious that Microsoft virtualization technology is not good. It works ok, but it's nothing compared to what Xen/Linux and Vmware stuff can do and compatability with software is bad.

It's obvious that it would take Microsoft another 2 or 3 years to get to the same level of technology (ie have their own Hypervisor to compete with ESX and Xen). And it's obvious that Virtualization is going to start to be very very important in enterprise environments before that happens.

Well Xen is great and it's open source and Microsoft can use it easily. No licensing problems there and MS has worked in the past with Xen.

However Xen requires that you have a Linux system aviable running on it that has access to teh hardware in order to provide the abstraction needed for high-performance Network and Disk I/O emulation. (hence Xen/Linux)

So for Microsoft to compete with Vmware it basicly requires that they have a Linux system aviable that can easily be used to support Xen.

And it's obvious that since this is for the enterprise it doesn't make sense to leave this up in the air and potentionally confuse people. And it doesn't make sense for Microsoft to have their own Linux version as it would be a huge mistake marketting-wise (basicly they would forced to distribute GPL software and admit that they can't do it on their own anymore)

So for Microsoft Windows on Xen to work they need:
A. A third company that is willing to work with them and has the ability and desire to support both Linux and Windows.
B. A need to counter-act the anti-linux fud in a way that it won't bother their own customers to use it, but will still have a effect on the rest of the community.

So how does Microsoft do this?!

Turn to Redhat? (no, to anti-MS won't trust them and looks bad)
What is the other major Linux provider?

Novell of course!

Then to counter-act the fud without reducing it's impact they pay Novell 240 million dollars to reasure their own customers that may wish to run Xen/Linux that they aren't liable. These are MS big customers and when MS says that Linux violates it's IP, they beleive it.

Then of course Novell isn't going to play along just because MS carries a big stick. They need something other then money in return.

So Novell wants to use Linux on the desktop and use Linux systems to support Microsoft Windows on the desktop as workgroup and domain servers.. Which are both something Linux is very weak at.

So what Novell gets in return for supporting Microsoft's virtualization efforts is they get to work with Microsoft in making Linux more suitable to replace Windows servers with Linux.

Microsoft, of course, is not scared at all about Linux on the desktop. They still think it's a joke. 5 years at LOTD hype and the best metrics still put Linux at less then 1-2 percent. So for Microsoft it's a nice trade off.

They have now have Novell supporting Xen/Linux for Microsoft for 5 years, and by that time Microsoft would of had enough time to get a hypervisor out that competes with Vmware ESX stuff and at the same time using Xen/Linux to prevent ESX from taking to strong of a hold.

So that is a major reason why they did this. The patent BS was just to make their own customers feel safe for using Linux in virtualization and support for their own server operating systems.

Lets try to make that backfire on them. :-)

As a software author, I have strong opinions about licenses

Posted Dec 1, 2006 23:54 UTC (Fri) by shieldsd (subscriber, #20198) [Link]

As a a software author (Jikes) and also employee of a company (IBM) that contributes to open-source, I have some opinions too (though they are of course offered here as just my own, and not on behalf of IBM.)

You say you don't want companies to profit from open-source without sharing.

Why should they have to share? All they have to do is to meet the terms of any license under which they receive software.

However, it is only because companies such as IBM, HP, Intel, Fujitsu, Red Hat, and Novell are able to make sufficient profits from open-source that they collectively contribute well over $1B/year to make Linux better.

I've seen estimates that at least half the major Linux kernel contributors are paid to do their work and they account for substantially more than half the accepted contributions.

You are clearly profiting from their contributions. Why can't they profit from yours?

anti-something

Posted Nov 29, 2006 0:59 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

I feel your argument is fallacious, simply because being pro-freedom also means being anti-slavery.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. In this case, vigilance means telling others, as clearly as possible, when a large company is doing something to reduce your freedom.

Microsoft's out to deprive you of your freedom to use mathematics, by claiming that they "own" large swaths of it.

Novell colludes in that campaign, to provide an advantage to their own customers at the expense of placing everyone else in legal peril.

Bruce

Please explain

Posted Nov 29, 2006 10:21 UTC (Wed) by nat (guest, #41935) [Link]

Bruce, could you explain why you think Novell has increased the level of peril for other free software entities?

Is it because Microsoft has now started to spread rumors about Linux infringing Microsoft patents, rumors that previously did not exist, rumors that might create fear in the market?

Well, we all know that Microsoft has done that for years and years -- there's nothing new there. And Novell has in fact contradicted those rumors in an open letter from our CEO where he states that Novell in no way acknowledges that Linux infringes MS IP.

There's a company called Open Source Risk Management that in 2004 funded and released a report that states that, after careful investigation, Linux infringes 283 patents, 27 owned by Microsoft. Here you have a supposedly independent and unbiased entity releasing a studious report that claims that Linux does infringe patents. Except that OSRM is not unbiased. Why not? Because OSRM is a company that makes its money selling insurance to people who are scared that Linux infringes intellectual property! So if you're scared about Linux infinriging patents, you give them money. It is obvious that this report from Open Source Risk Management is just a form of FUD released to further their own financial interests. What's interesting about all this is that you, Bruce, were on the board of OSRM when this report was funded and released. And now you accuse *us* of enabling Microsoft FUD? Excuse me if I disagree!

So surely it's not Microsoft spreading FUD -- a long-time habit of theirs -- that Novell quickly contradicts that concerns you that Novell has "imperiled" free software.

Is it because Novell has acknowledged that Microsoft owns patents which Linux infringes? Well, no, it can't be that, because Novell states quite firmly and publicly that it acknowledges no such thing -- and Microsoft agrees that Novell has made no such admission!

Is it because Novell has provided Microsoft with some legal material which can be used to muster a stronger case against Linux? Well, that can't be either, because Novell has not looked over specific patents to determine whether or not Linux infringes them, and Novell has made no statements that could be used to build a case that Linux does infringe a particular patent.

Is it because Novell has violated the GPLv2 and is somehow not playing fair? No, it's not that either -- Richard Stallman said as much a few days ago in Tokyo when he said, and I quote, "What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play."

I can understand how things look unfair and I can understand that people are upset. But I think this statement that Novell has placed other companies and organizations and people in peril is unsubstantiated, and I'd love to understand why you think it's so.

Please explain

Posted Nov 29, 2006 17:47 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

Nat,

Bruce, could you explain why you think Novell has increased the level of peril for other free software entities?

First, that's just what Novell is trying to do - increase the peril of other free software entities relative to Novell. by creating an agreement that gives Novell the sole "microsoft-lawsuit-proof" path to use the community's software, and thus FUDs all other distributions as being "microsoft-lawsuit-prone".

Second, you're trying to rationalize away what Novell has done by telling yourself that it does not increase the level of peril for other distributions. But the GPL terms are that Novell must face the same level of peril as everyone else - by foregoing exclusive patent licenses - or not distribute the software at all. This is meant to put Novell in the same boat as everyone else and thus align their interest in solving the problem with everyone else's. Novell acted in bad faith by creating a fiction of covenants rather than licenses in order to circumvent its previous agrement with thousands of GPL programmers. Novell doesn't have to share our risk, and yes our peril is now greater than yours.

And yes, Novell has broken the GPL - the covenants are clearly outside of the intent and only (maybe) within the letter due to a legal fiction that covenants are not licenses. Welching on Novell's GPL partners that way is a bad-faith action for which you should be ashamed - regardless of whether or not it would slip through a court by a hair.

And Novell has in fact contradicted those rumors in an open letter from our CEO where he states that Novell in no way acknowledges that Linux infringes MS IP.

But that's just perpetuating a lie. Microsoft patents have claims that read upon many algorithms and techniques used in Novell Linux and the GNOME GUI. Microsoft even has a patent on double-clicking that can be read to apply to a mouse. Now, I don't feel that a just world would have granted those patents, but they exist. Did you ever think that 5000 software patents from a company that makes an OS, GUI, and applications would not cover anything we've written? If you search for software patents from all companies, not just Microsoft, there are no non-trivial programs - be they free or proprietary - that do not contain material covered by patents currently in scope and unlicensed for use in those programs.

There's a company called Open Source Risk Management

I was on the board of OSRM to keep it honest. I've never made a cent from it and never will. We had Dan Ravicher, who was at that time a volunteer counsel for the Free Software Foundation and is now leader of the Public Patent Institute and an attorney for the Software Freedom Law Center look for potential, unlitigated, infringements in the kernel. He found 283. Dan confirmed what we all knew.

OSRM's dream was to provide an indemnity to any enterprise that cared to pay, not coupled to any distribution, and not coupled to any patent holder but equally defending against all of them. If that had worked, the company would have been able to aggregate Open Source defense and make it much less expensive. And its defense would have defended the software for all users. It didn't work, IMO because of the way it was operated - not any problem in the idea.

It is not FUD that Open Source infringes. All software infringes. That's the plain truth and we need changes in legislation because of it. Novell's denial of that is prevarication to rationalize that they are not doing damage.

Novell does place in peril efforts to solve the software patent problem for everyone, because now Novell will be at the side of the proponents of software patenting in telling EU legislators and others that there is a "legal" path for using Linux - theirs alone - and that legislative change will not be necessary.

In summary, I sincerely believe that your ethical position really stinks. You should be out of there, Nat.

Bruce

Please explain

Posted Nov 30, 2006 0:58 UTC (Thu) by erwbgy (subscriber, #4104) [Link]

For the other side of the story see:

and note that Novell is a member of the Open Invention Network whose is aim is to promote innovation by protecting developers from patent attacks using the threat of the very same weapon.

It seems to me that your petition is just as devisive as your handling of the UserLinux Gnome/KDE discussion and will probably be as successful.

Please explain

Posted Nov 30, 2006 1:17 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

Novell is a member of the Open Invention Network

OIN holds 13 patents. Perhaps it can be significant someday, but right now I'd say it's a token.

Regarding the patent policy, what they write on their web site is public relations. What they have said in front of legislators was different. I was there when Novell declared its support for software patenting in the EU. They did oppose the particular patent bill at the time, because they didn't like the language. Will they oppose EPLA? They aren't showing any signs of doing so.

Bruce

Please explain

Posted Dec 1, 2006 16:34 UTC (Fri) by nat (guest, #41935) [Link]

Have you looked at the OIN patents, Bruce? OIN holds significant patents on ecommerce that affect just about every large company in this industry.

I'm sure you know that quality of patents and the value of the infriging business can be just as relevant as number.

Anyway, I'm proud of Novell's contributions to OIN. In the US, software patents exist. Is that perfect? No, absolutely not. But at least we're trying to work within that system to provide safety and comfort to free and open source developers.

Please explain

Posted Dec 1, 2006 17:11 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

Nat,

I have looked at OIN's 13 patents. First, it's a small portfolio about which Novell blows its horn much more than the content warrants. Second, as you are well aware, this patent portfolio would be ineffective against "patent trolls", companies that produce nothing but patents. Microsoft has already invested in Intellectual Ventures, one such troll. By bringing a proxy attack as with SCO, using a troll this time, Microsoft could avoid OIN and indeed could avoid its own agreement with Novell.

Bruce

Please explain

Posted Nov 30, 2006 12:39 UTC (Thu) by superstoned (subscriber, #33164) [Link]

i think you're being unfair to Novell. if you look at the reason why they
did this, i think it's hard to say they're doing wrong.

customers where afraid to use Novell's linux software because they didn't
want to get sued. now they wouldn't get sued, or at least, it would be
very unlikely. but they still didn't want Novell, likely or not. now
Novell makes this deal, and no matter if it really makes a difference or
not, it *feels* different to those customers afraid for patent trouble.

this was and i'm sure still is mostly about 'feeling' not 'fact'. the
money MS and Novell are paying each other is about 'feel', not 'fact', and
the effect on their customers is the same. and the reasons you and many
other Free Software users are against the deal is the same: 'feel',
not 'fact'.

Novell is cowardly, not evil

Posted Dec 1, 2006 8:08 UTC (Fri) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link]

This situation is somewhat reminiscent of the old joke about the two campers and the bear. Novell isn't trying to be faster than the bear, just faster than the other Linux distributors. Yes, that means the odds for everyone else becoming bear food just went up a little bit. Novell's action is cowardly, but we should be worrying about the bear rather than the guy who got out while he could.

Novell is a publicly traded company trying to sustain a ~$1 billion/year business by revenue (much bigger than Red Hat). They fund a lot of free software development, and still do a lot of cool things that they don't really have to. They aren't perfect, but they've been pretty good citizens. I'm sure removing the line in "risks" section of their annual report about Microsoft suing them and their customers into oblivion seemed like it was worth quite a bit of money. Criticizing them for taking the easy way out this time is fair; demonizing them is not.

Bruce, you wrote: In summary, I sincerely believe that your ethical position really stinks. You should be out of there, Nat.

I think your attitude toward Nat stinks. You as much as anyone should know just how hard it is trying to get a large company to do the exact right thing all of the time working from the inside. Nat has done a fantastic job getting Novell to do the right thing more often than not, and I'm betting he's having all sorts of arguments with the other executives at Novell about how to do a better job. Knowing that he's paying attention to what you're saying, you should be giving him cogent arguments, not reinforcing the stereotype that all free software advocates are so dogmatic and inflexible that they'll never be pleased, and it's best to ignore them and focus on paying customers.

Novell is unethical, which is evil in my book

Posted Dec 1, 2006 8:39 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

The part I can't excuse is the cheating of GPL programmers. As LWN subscriber "emk" explains here:

I release my work under the GPL for a reason, and I expect my license to be honored, and not treated as an obstacle for clever lawyers to work around. Regardless of what Microsoft does in the future, Novell has already sent me a very clear message: They're happy to make a buck off my work, but they can't be bothered to deal with me in good faith.

What Novell did is not missing "the exact right thing". It's a willful, knowing, explicit cheat of a large group of unpaid software contributors by a $1 Billion/year company. I do not believe there is any way to portray it as an ethical action. And Nat's tasked with being their apologist, which puts the ethical issue right in his lap.

The Novell cheat also strikes right to the heart of Free Software development. If it becomes commonplace that companies can disregard their covenants with developers and suffer no consequences, the vast majority of our developers, who desire sharing with rules rather than to make an outright gift, will not be motivated to share any more software.

I wonder if Microsoft realized that, and if this is really an attack on the viability of the GPL.

Bruce

No, just dumb

Posted Dec 1, 2006 9:25 UTC (Fri) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link]

Never attribute to malice that which can be more easily explained by stupidity. I'm guessing most of the executives didn't realize the gravity of what they did. And now that the deed is done, it's probably too late to undo it.

I'm not calling it "ethical". I called it "cowardly", and now I'm adding "stupid". And I suppose that you may have license to attack Nat after he laid into you about the OSRM thing. But there's no good reason to. For all we know, he's the voice of reason inside of Novell, and may figure out how to make Novell do the right thing.

Look at the steps

Posted Dec 1, 2006 9:53 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

Rob,

It's difficult to believe this is "just stupid" because of the steps involved. It does not seem possible that the agreement was initially drafted with the covenants and with no knowledge of GPL section 7, since the use of covenants would be needlessly overcomplicated for such circumstances.

Someone had to decide to engineer a loophole and thus cheat those developers. Both companies had to agree to implement the loophole for each other. Counsel had to understand that the loophole was outside of the spirit of the previous agreement with unpaid contributors. Management must have heard about that as part of their exercise of due diligence.

Remember when you had to make a pragmatic decision about Free Software at Real Media? I was fair to you. I don't lambaste a company if it's not warranted.

Bruce

Look at the steps

Posted Dec 7, 2006 9:56 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

I'm a bit confused with the official interpretation of section 7 of the GPL. The "patent license" there is an example. It's not that section 7 just talks about how patent licenses ought to be dealt with, it gives an example how legal issues ought to be dealt with - patent licenses (for example), convenants (not an example), whatever. Section 7 is just a clarification by example what the rest of the GPL means: You can't put other contracts in place which allows direct distribution, but would prohibit redistribution; whatever these contracts are.

So IMHO, a convenant not to sue might violate the GPL once one party does indeed sue someone else. The issue still is complicated, since patent holders have the right to discriminate. You can tolerate violations from party A, and sue party B over the patent, just because you don't like B's nose, annual turnovers, or whatever. Unlike violating copyright, violating patents is not a criminal offense.

BTW: By (non-commercially) producing software that's incorporated into SuSE, I'm covered by the MS-Novell deal. I didn't do anything to it, but the fact that I'm covered means that I would violate the GPL when I distribute my software. That would be ugly. Fact is: the patent law is a minefield.

No, just dumb

Posted Dec 2, 2006 0:02 UTC (Sat) by shieldsd (subscriber, #20198) [Link]

Hear, hear!

I've always felt that, to a first approximation, incompetence is a much more likely explanation of an unexpected act than malice.

As an example, the elaborate theories that people are proposing here -- to "explain" what MS and Novell are up to -- may say more about the intelligence of the proposers than the malice of the corporations.

Please explain

Posted Nov 30, 2006 15:15 UTC (Thu) by N0NB (subscriber, #3407) [Link]

"And Novell has in fact contradicted those rumors in an open letter from our CEO where he states that Novell in no way acknowledges that Linux infringes MS IP."

No matter what is said, one must follow the money. If Novell is truly not infringing on any Microsoft patents, why did they pay Microsoft any amount at all?

Money doesn't talk, it screams.

anti-something

Posted Nov 29, 2006 19:04 UTC (Wed) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640) [Link]

> I feel your argument is fallacious, simply because being pro-freedom also means being anti-slavery.

Still, we, free software people, *constantly* manage to portray ourself as rather as anti-something rather than pro-something. And thats horrible marketing. All the waste of time used bashing sco and microsoft could be used to create better free software...

What if Microsoft's intent is simply to keep Linux community wasting energy fighting internally? That could be much more effective than suing some random developer, which would only unite the community..

anti-something

Posted Nov 29, 2006 20:12 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

Still, we, free software people, *constantly* manage to portray ourself as rather as anti-something rather than pro-something. And thats horrible marketing.

If your goal is to sell a product, feel free to project as sunny a disposition as you can. That's marketing. Our goal is bigger than selling a product.

Should Martin Luther King have marketed the "new, cooperative, hard-working, fully-interoperable Negroes"? Or should he have protested the way Blacks were oppressed? There are situations where you have to be anti-something.

Also, I actually reject the premise that being anti is bad marketing. Conflict sells stories in the press and gets eyes on an issue.

Bruce

anti-something

Posted Nov 30, 2006 8:37 UTC (Thu) by jhellan (subscriber, #17103) [Link]

> Should Martin Luther King have marketed the "new, cooperative,
> hard-working, fully-interoperable Negroes"?

Oh come on! This is only software. The civil rights movement was about much more important matters.

anti-something

Posted Nov 30, 2006 12:33 UTC (Thu) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link]

while i feel that the open source culture does indeed have the potential to change the world for the better, i wholeheartedly agree with your comment :-D

(an ardent open-source partisan

anti-something

Posted Nov 30, 2006 12:46 UTC (Thu) by superstoned (subscriber, #33164) [Link]

“In a world where speech depends on software, free speech depends on free
software.” — Don Marti jr.

anti-something

Posted Nov 30, 2006 15:51 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

Oh come on! This is only software.

King's work was vastly important. But it was important that King's message was communicated. Today, computer software is the conduit for communication of political discourse.

Before Gutenberg, copyists, using pen and ink, duplicated written political dialogue laboriously. Only the wealthy and the church could afford to employ copyists, and during this period the paucity of communications limited the exercise of democracy to small groups. The advent of Gutenberg's press made the mass distribution of written political dialogue possible. People vote based on what they hear and read, and the improvement in communications brought by the press made egalitarian mass democracy possible. It is thus no surprise that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of the press.

Within the last century, electronic communications have increasingly become the vehicle of democratic discourse. Because radio and television broadcasting are expensive with limited frequencies available, the wealthy have dominated broadcasting. The Internet and World Wide Web place into the common man's hands the capability of global electronic broadcasting. Clearly, the Internet is the most important tool of democracy since Gutenberg developed movable type.

In order to protect democratic discourse in the future, the Internet must remain a fair and level playing field for the distribution of political speech. The full capability of the Internet must remain available to all, without restriction by religious, business, or political interests.

A number of "Internet radio" devices have become available today. Most of those devices only receive stations that have been enabled through the gateway site of the device's manufacturer. This means that the manufacturer of an Internet radio can control what stations the device provides access to, and thus what political viewpoints are available via the device. One day in the future, most of us will receive text, audio, and video programming via the Internet, either wired or wireless. Imagine the problem for democracy if, when that day dawns, the manufacturers of our access devices are a few companies that have attained a market lock on Internet broadcasting, thus determining what political viewpoints the electorate can receive.

That's one of the reasons that Open Source software is important to democracy. By remaining an tool for communications that individuals can control, it can help us get a political message through when the commercial infrastructure may be stopping that message.

Bruce

anti-something

Posted Nov 30, 2006 20:05 UTC (Thu) by JohnNilsson (subscriber, #41242) [Link]

For anyone interested in the full scope of this battle I can highly recommend The Wealth of Networks[1] by Yochai Benkler. (Available under a CC license for online reading).

[1] http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300110561

anti-something

Posted Nov 30, 2006 16:33 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link]

> Oh come on! This is only software.

No. No, it's not "only software". The issues being addressed by the free software movement strike at the very heart of our freedoms - to build, to own, even to imagine. There *are* no more important matters - software is just the battleground.

anti-something

Posted Nov 29, 2006 21:06 UTC (Wed) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link]

It would appear to me that free software people, or mostly the developers of free software, are constantly developing high quality software. Occasionally they are interrupted and need to defend their right to develop high quality software. Apparently you are only seeing the interruption.

anti-something

Posted Nov 30, 2006 15:32 UTC (Thu) by N0NB (subscriber, #3407) [Link]

"All the waste of time used bashing sco and microsoft could be used to create better free software..."

The majority of the people making commentary and writing about these issues aren't writing software anyway, so your strawman falls down. If your argument had any validity, Free software wouldn't have improved at all over the past 3 1/2 years since the SCO debacle began. In fact, it is an order of magnitude better now than it was then. It seems discussing these issues hasn't slowed the pace of development by any significant measure. At least those developers that engage themselves in these issues aren't just software drones, but instead do care deeply about what they're doing.

This is the bazaar and at times it's a very noisy and lively place.

Who is being divisive?

Posted Nov 29, 2006 16:56 UTC (Wed) by gouyou (subscriber, #30290) [Link]

Just one note on being anti-Novell: most of the Free Software community is anti-patent, Novell is supporting software patent and is on the pro-software patent side in the current debate in Europe.

So if the deal with Mircosoft is not a reason, you have another one.

Who is being divisive?

Posted Nov 29, 2006 17:44 UTC (Wed) by lmb (subscriber, #39048) [Link]

To do away with software patents, or to radically reform them, is a long-term plan. Pursuing it is not contradicted by contracts which, as a side-effect, include such provisions as discussed here.