The Microsoft-Novell Linux deal: Two years later (InfoWorld)

Posted Nov 19, 2008 10:46 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083)
Parent article: The Microsoft-Novell Linux deal: Two years later (InfoWorld)

The sky hasn't fallen, and doesn't look like falling any time soon.

The self-selected leaders of FOSS who have been scaremongering these past two years should be ashamed of themselves.

If the GPL3 wasn't being formulated around the same time, I doubt any of the FUD would have been generated - this would have been rightfully seen as just another partnership between companies.

Instead it was turned into a FUD-factory in an attempt to encourage GPL3 take-up.

The Microsoft-Novell Linux deal: Two years later (InfoWorld)

Posted Nov 19, 2008 13:10 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link] (6 responses)

"Instead it was turned into a FUD-factory"

As I recall, the FUD was coming from Microsoft: repeated claims about patent infringement and that they wouldn't litigate against anyone using a Linux distribution from a company partnering with them, leaving the impression that using or distributing a non-sanctioned distribution could result in a lawsuit. To claim that this is "just another partnership" is disingenuous.

The only people who should be ashamed are those who portray others as extremists whilst failing to understand how such matters can be damaging to Free Software and, given the continued threat of patent litigation, software in general.

The Microsoft-Novell Linux deal: Two years later (InfoWorld)

Posted Nov 19, 2008 20:20 UTC (Wed) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] (4 responses)

It is correct, though, that the sky hasn't fallen, and that SUSE continues to make substantial contributions to the entire FLOSS tool chain. It is also not clear to me that the people originally at SUSE (now a Novell subsidiary) have all become secret agents of Microsoft. I would also guess that all sides know the risks involved in monetizing their most holy patent portfolios against the wider Linux community.

That said, I am still not a fan of Mono et al., all I am saying is, it's hard to forbid anyone to develop whatever they think they need to develop. Their problem. ("Mono" is a remarkable name for a project that contains contagious software patents. Why on earth did they choose the "kissing disease" to name their project?)

The Microsoft-Novell Linux deal: Two years later (InfoWorld)

Posted Nov 20, 2008 12:05 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (3 responses)

"Mono" is a remarkable name for a project that contains contagious software patents.

Can you cite any of these patents? The Mono project has a public commitment to remove any code that infringes software patents held by Microsoft or anyone else, so if you could give some examples you'll be doing everyone a favour.

The Microsoft-Novell Linux deal: Two years later (InfoWorld)

Posted Nov 21, 2008 8:52 UTC (Fri) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] (2 responses)

Sorry. Allegedly. That should have been there, that is what I meant to write anyway. And the "alleged" has been around for a while.

I just always thought it odd that mono was chosen as a name especially for this project. Mono - a disease that is, by some popular accounts, transmitted by kissing and then takes half a year to go away? Very weird choice.

The Microsoft-Novell Linux deal: Two years later (InfoWorld)

Posted Nov 21, 2008 11:14 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

Mono means monkey in Spanish.

Really, I think it is blowing FUD to 'allege' patent infringement while giving no details of what those patents are. If anyone could cite the patents concerned, it would be a great help, because as Miguel said:

The position of the Mono project has always been that we believe .Net includes a lot of innovation along with a good mix of well-known technology. So, if people found a patent infringement, we would take it out. If there's prior art, though, the patent is invalid. This is the way it is done in the open source world. A good example is Freetype. They discovered that they could not use a byte code interpreter for fonts, so they invented a different approach.
This kind of punditry is always light on details. We've grown used to this. Mono was criticized way before Novell acquired Ximian. There is an animosity toward "anything Microsoft," and it lowers the level of discourse that you can have.
I wish people focused on what the actual problems are. I am certainly against software patents. It is not only Microsoft that owns software patents, but hundreds of companies. But, I think Mono is singled out, and people give a free pass to lots of other projects.

(my italics)

The Microsoft-Novell Linux deal: Two years later (InfoWorld)

Posted Nov 21, 2008 14:39 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

It's only a weird choice if you're american and think all the world speaks USAsian slang. I had to google to find out you were talking about glandular fever..

The Microsoft-Novell Linux deal: Two years later (InfoWorld)

Posted Nov 19, 2008 20:45 UTC (Wed) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link]

> As I recall, the FUD was coming from Microsoft: repeated claims about patent infringement and that they wouldn't litigate against anyone using a Linux distribution from a company partnering with them, leaving the impression that using or distributing a non-sanctioned distribution could result in a lawsuit.

They also use these as value themes in the moreinterop.com site, both in video and text. Here's an example (from http://www.moreinterop.com/Solutions.aspx ):
"And clearly defined intellectual property rights for each solution deliver complete peace of mind around intellectual property and integration."