This clears nothing up [LWN.net]

This clears nothing up

Posted Nov 28, 2006 18:32 UTC (Tue) by niner (subscriber, #26151)
In reply to: This clears nothing up by grouch
Parent article: Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal

"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.

(Log in to post comments)

This clears nothing up

Posted Nov 29, 2006 3:02 UTC (Wed) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]

Even repeating that endlessly and ignoring all counter arguments does not make this a fact.

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 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?

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:

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
-- Preamble, GNU GPL

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.