No, just dumb [LWN.net]

No, just dumb

Posted Dec 1, 2006 9:25 UTC (Fri) by robla (subscriber, #424)
In reply to: Novell is unethical, which is evil in my book by BrucePerens
Parent article: Who is being divisive?

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.

(Log in to post comments)

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.