openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 25, 2006 21:36 UTC (Sat) by syspig (guest, #41889)
In reply to: openSUSE 10.2 RC1 by einstein
Parent article: openSUSE 10.2 RC1

>Just as open as ever - all packages GPL'd, everything available for free download and unrestricted use. So much for the knee-jerk reactions.

Correct, but perhaps you are missing the bigger picture...

I work for a long-time Novell shop. Much as I've been drawn into the Linux camp (quite willingly), Netware/eDirectory/ZenWorks has been a dream from an administrator's standpoint. It works well, it's secure, and it's easily manageable. Still, the Netware part of this equation must come to an end...anyone who doesn't see the writing on the wall here is kidding themselves.

As such, we're rolling out Open Enterprise Server - essentially, Novell services on top of SLES. This allows us to move to Linux servers, with relatively little disruption to our clients and admin tools.

On to the point...the Novell/Microsoft contract didn't bother me initially, and in fact, I welcomed it. I still think too much is being read into it by the naysayers, but that's not relevant. What is important, are the GPL3 considerations. Now that it's clear Novell will be cut off from significant portions of the Linux community once GPL3 takes effect, they simply become a vendor to move away from as quickly as possible.

Novell essentially uses OpenSUSE as a test bed for many open source products that eventually work their way back into their enterprise solutions. As of now, Novell is free to pick and choose from OpenSUSE, waiting for code to mature or see what features garner the most interest. With much of this code switching to GPL3, they will no longer have this pool of code to pull from, and more importantly, may decide to contribute less money and/or developer time to OpenSUSE projects.

So yes - Novell's decision certainly has the potential to hurt OpenSUSE. My view is a little more pragmatic and perhaps optimistic, though. Unlike most folks these days, I consider Novell to be a pretty decent company. They will indeed realize that the GPL3 issue raises a serious hurdle they must overcome, and the only realistic way to do so is to alter their agreement with Microsoft. They certainly know that taking the wrong "fork" in the road (pun intended) will lose them their most loyal customers.

We're perhaps one of Novell's most devoted customers, but much as I like them, there is zero chance we'll use their products if they are based on a forked version of GPL2 code. If they choose to go down this road, the idiocy of that decision will pale in comparison to any fallout from the Microsoft contract.

to post comments

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 26, 2006 14:42 UTC (Sun) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (3 responses)

GPLv3 may not actually be the problem for Novell that people think it is.

Although it may end up being a problem for Microsoft. A HUGE FUCKING problem for Microsoft.

Imagine this:

Say your a customer of Novell and you buy Novell's operating system which includes GPL'd code.

Now your a 'customer' and are safe from Microsoft.

Now think about this: What Exactly Does It Mean When Your A Customer Buying Novell GPL'd Software?

Your purchasing Novell's software.
GPL'd software.
Your buying it Because it's GPL'd.

GPL software allows you to use the source code. As Novell's customer your using their code in yoru project as stipulated by the GPL license.

Think about that.

To put it another way:
If your a SAMBA developer and you want to make all the source code you want and you want to have protections against Microsoft.. What do you do?

Well what you do is:
1. Goto Novel's website and order a copy of Suse Linux for 80 bucks or whatever they charge you. Your now a customer.
2. You get the cdroms so then you stick some of the source code from Novell's SAMBA version in your CVS repository. As a Novell customer using Novell's source code as stipulated by the GPL.
3. You are now immune against patent lawsuites against Microsoft. And also this should spread to your end users also, because it's stipulated in the license you got as a customer of Novell.

See? Your purchasing the GPL'd software because it's GPL'd. You using code you obtained from Novell as a customer of Novell. As a customer of Novell your redistributing the source code to every corporation on the planet.

Pretty good deal for a few bucks eh? You just purchased yourself several million dollars worth of licensing protections from Microsoft for the cost of a copy of Suse.

You've, of course, heard of the term of 'Money Laundring'?
Well as a Linux developer Novell has just become your 'Microsoft Patent Laundry'.

Microsoft isn't going to like this. As soon as Novell starts distributing GPlv3 code then you can expect to Microsoft to pull a fast reverse out of this deal. It's not a violation of the GPLv3, your just a Novell customer using the GPLv3 code as the licensing terms have been delivered to you.

Patent language and all.

Now I don't know if this is right or not or if I am completely misunderstanding the whole GPLv3 patent language.. but look at this:

Eben Moglen comments on the subject:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/20/eben_moglen_on_mi...

Start Snippet----

"Our further strategy is to finish GPL 3 in a way which gives us, in the free world, what we must have, and which is otherwise respectful of the needs of people who use the free world's products in whatever legitimate way they do them.

"We believe agreement on all the major issues is now within reach. We're going to publish a last-call draft very soon, that will show agreement has been reached with most of the major parties on all the major issues, and now it's time to finish the license and put it in place, and get the benefit of the protection that it accords us - at a time when the protection is really needed."

So how will adopting GPL 3 torpedo the Novell-Microsoft agreement?

Moglen told us:

"Suppose GPL3 says something like, 'if you distribute (or procure the distribution), of a program (or parts of a program) - and if you make patent promises partially to some subset of the distributees of the program - then under this license you have given the same promise or license at no cost in royalties or other obligations to all persons to whom the program is distributed'."

"If GPL 3 goes into effect with these terms in it, Novell will suddenly becomes a patent laundry; the minute Microsoft realizes the laundry is under construction it will withdraw."

----End Snippet

So some clarification on this would be welcome..

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 27, 2006 9:47 UTC (Mon) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] (2 responses)

It's even better. GPLv3 sais that whenever you buy a GPL software from someone who owns a patent that's violated in this software, you get a transferrable license of that patent, which is just limited to GPL software (you can't transfer it to proprietary software). So: Buy a SLES/SLED support contract from Microsoft, which is allowed to sell that through the devil's pact. Now you not only have a convenant not to sue, but also a license. Isn't that wonderful?

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 27, 2006 10:51 UTC (Mon) by mjthayer (guest, #39183) [Link] (1 responses)

Unfortunately, Novell does not own Microsoft's patents, they just have a
limited licence to use them. Microsoft is not yet distributing GPL 3
software (who knows what the future may hold?)

So it would probably go back to "if you can't grant those rights, you may
not distribute the software". And in that hypothetical case, neither
could Redhat, Canonical and Debian.

(Disclaimer: IANAL. Just in case anyone thought I was).

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

Posted Nov 27, 2006 11:15 UTC (Mon) by niner (guest, #26151) [Link]

Novell does not even have a license to use them, only their customers get one (if you want to call it "license").

But apart from that your asessment seems just right. Of course, IANAL, too.