LWN: Comments on "openSUSE 10.2 RC1"

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

GreyGeek — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 02:17:47 +0000

I seriously doubt that you are "curious', or that your questions are either, since you immediately jump to the attack mode with a couple of "maybes' and insulting suggestion, since you have no idea how often I "go out'.

The following URL is a 2:31AM posting of the announcement which took place just a few hours earlier. After listening to a 45 minute description of the "deal' a reporter asked the participants to describe it in plain English in 45 seconds. Here is what he reported that Ballmer said:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_to_Promote_Linu...

"Two things, I'll make it real simple: Number one, [Novell and Microsoft] are going to work together technically to help the Windows world and the Linux world interoperate. Number two, we've struck a deal under which we can provide patent agreements to Linux customers, in which Microsoft's intellectual property is respected, and we are appropriately compensated for the use of our intellectual property; and we've done both of those things ...."

Hovsepian was on the stage when Ballmer and Smith, Microsoft's General Counsel, and could have raised objections to Smith's continuing explanation, but he DID NOT. Here is what Smith said:

"We dealt with the need for an up-front balancing payment that runs from Microsoft to Novell," Smith continued, "reflecting among other things the large relevant volume of the products that we have shipped. And you'll see, as well an economic commitment from Novell to Microsoft, that involves a running **ROYALTY**, a percentage of revenue, on open-source software shipped under the agreement. So we've been able to sort out the economics, and in some ways, perhaps one of the most important things is, because we've been able to sort out the economics, Novell's customers don't have to."

In other words, Novell, acting as a proxy on behalf of its customers who might otherwise be subject to lawsuits, is paying Microsoft royalties for sales of SUSE Linux. Rather than haggle out the details of who owns what and who doesn't, the two companies have apparently decided that Microsoft indeed owns something, and has estimated the relative value of that something.""

Did you catch that word, "ROYALTY", and Smith's context for that word?

Hovsepian stood beside Ballmer and Smith AND DID NOT OBJECT to Smith's use of that word to explain WHY Novell was paying Microsoft for each copy of SELS sold. Smith, who helped write the documents Novell and Microsoft signed (but which have not been revealed SO NO ONE ELSE KNOWS EXACTLY the full extent of what Novell agreed to) goes on to explain that ONLY those who PURCHASE the commercial SELS version of Linux will be immune to a Microsoft lawsuit "because" part of their payment for that copy of SELS will go to Microsoft as a ROYALTY for "Microsoft IP" present in SELS.

Hovsepian DID NOT OBJECT to that explanation nor to the fact that it placed a threat of lawsuit on EVERY user of any Linux version EXCEPT the subscription version of SELS. Novell effectively spit on every other distro, including OpenSUSE because those who use it do not pay for it.

Hovsepian DID NOT OBJECT to the part of the "deal" which deliberately broke GPL coders into to groups, those who code for pay and those who do not. The first group would be under a threat of a Microsoft lawsuit if they distributed any GPL code they wrote or modified unless they gave it to Novell only. The second group could. The GPL FORBIDS such distinctions, giving every one equal writes to receive, modify and distribute GPL code. At the worst, many feel that this part of the "deal" puts Novell in violation of section 7 of the GPL and prohibits them from continuing to distribute SUSE under the conditions of the "deal". At the best, as Bruce Perens says, it violates the spirit of the GPL by a devious circumvention.

The Software Freedom Law Center said the "patent pledge" (devious circumvention) offers no real protection and thus is useless:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/20061109a.html

"In short, the pledge applies precariously to developers who work in a vacuum: those who write original software in their spare time, receive no payment for it, and do not distribute it to anyone under the GNU GPL. It's worse than useless, as this empty promise can create a false sense of security. Don't be confused by the illusion of a truce; developers are no safer from Microsoft patents now than they were before. Instead, Microsoft has used this patent pledge to indicate that, in their view, the only good Free Software developer is an isolated, uncompensated, unimportant Free Software developer."

Two years ago Ballmer threatened to sue Asian governments that used Linux, claiming Linux contained MS IP, just like McBride claimed. He later denied his statements. With this "deal" Ballmer is renewing his threats to sue users of Linux, except for those who purchase subscriptions of SELS and he has put the threat into writing in the form of a "patent pledge".

IBM owns 20% of Novell and distributes commercial SELS. Their users are immune from the threat of a Microsoft lawsuit, but users of RED HAT, IBM main competitor, are not. So, IBM thinks the deal is great!

Assume, for a moment, that Microsoft does sue you, or me, for using Linux. Could you afford to defend yourself? I couldn't. Not being able to defend myself who would come to my aid? The FSF? Who would fund their efforts, IBM or Novell? Red Hat? HP? The OSRM? I can't afford their "insurance". Against me Microsoft would win by default and I'd be forced to pay a fine and court costs for using supposedly using MS IP illegally, since I could not afford to prove otherwise. I would also be forced to stop using any version of Linux except one that pays Microsoft a ROYALTY for their IP. In other words, commercial SELS.

Eighteen days later, AFTER MUCH HEAT FROM THE FOSS COMMUNITY, Hovsepian DID OBJECT to FOSS community members who characterized the deal as a "sell out", and denied that they admitted there was MS IP in SELS, but he refused to repudiate the "deal" or explain the reason for the payments which Brad SMith called ROYALTIES for the MS IP in SELS.

So, why boycott OpenSUSE? Because SELS is derived from OpenSUSE the way Red Hat is derived from Fedora Core. If we have to kill SELS the only way is to NOT download OpenSUSE and for volunteers not work on or for it any more. Hopefully, when GPL v3 is released most of the current GNU/Linux utilities nd applications can be put under v3, even if Linus refused to put the kernel under v3. The alternative contributes to Novell and Microsoft's hijacking of Linux and is a sure way to destroy any freedoms the GPL v2 granted.

BTW, do not forget that SUN agreed NOT to defend OpenOffice when Microsoft sues it for "MS IP" violations. Why should they? They have StarOffice to sell you, and if you can't download OOo then expect to pay 5 times what you can get StarOffice for right now.

This is not a fight against McBride's mouth and SCO. This is a fight against Microsoft, and if you still remember their past behavior, you realize it is a fight for the life of Linux.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

ris — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:46:36 +0000

Maybe it refers to common basilisk lizard, just like the previous release was Agama Lizard...
http://www.ohs.osceola.k12.fl.us/teachers/animals/rljcliz...

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

NRArnot — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:14:22 +0000

Anyone intrigued by the codename "Basilisk"?

A basilisk is a mythological king of the reptiles, so venomous that just looking at it (or more accurately, it looking at you) is lethal. It's not a codename I'd have chosen for anything, except for a nuclear weapon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilisk

Think about the Microsoft / Novell patent deal. Is the codename a deliberate attempt at a joke, or is someone's subconscious talking?

have a bit of work instead

ldo — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:28:51 +0000

>I always hated that message instructing me to 'have a lot of fun'.

Actually that's the name of one of the original developers, Havel Otto-Fun. The "have a lot of fun" is just a poor Romanization of the name from the original Eurasiatic script. You know, similar to what happened with "all your face are like a bus" ...

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

proski — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:17:07 +0000

I was not implying that OpenSUSE is covered by the agreement with Microsoft.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

proski — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:10:30 +0000

Nobody forces you to use the add-on CD - avoid that and you're 100% GPL

There is a huge difference between "all packages are 100% GPL", which you were saying originally and "nobody forces you to use non-free packages", which you are saying now.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with whether SuSE is free. It comes with the same programs as debian, redhat, gentoo etc - if SuSE is not "free" then neither are any of the other distros.

Again, there is a huge difference between "free" (as defined by FSF) and "available for ... unrestricted use" as you said in your comment. Unfortunately, software patents can restrict free software. I was commenting on "unrestricted use" from your comment (which would imply patent immunity), and now you are reverting to "free" from the comment you were replying to.

Censorship

smitty_one_each — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:25:59 +0000

>This is not censorship.

Concur. I think the proper term is: editing.

Censorship

anselm — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:45:42 +0000

(that is called censorship)

Jon Corbet and his associates are free to voluntarily not report on things they'd rather not write about for whatever reason. This is not censorship.

If the government prohibited LWN from reporting on the Novell/Microsoft issue when they in fact wanted to do so, that would be censorship.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

epa — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:11:10 +0000

I always hated that message instructing me to 'have a lot of fun'. If they've got rid of that, I might give SuSE another try. I honestly can't see what the fuss is about with the Microsoft deal, and I don't understand why people try to gaze into a crystal ball and predict the corporate fortunes of Novell three years from now based on some imagination of what GPL3 might or might not contain.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

niner — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:15:10 +0000

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.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

mjthayer — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:51:46 +0000

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

nix — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:08:08 +0000

Well, you're 100% free software. No distro *ever* has been `100% GPL', not least because of little things like the network utilities, oh, and glibc and libgcc as well. :)

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

forthy — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:47:23 +0000

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

niner — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:43:45 +0000

Just right click on the KDE menu and select "Switch to KDE menu" and you'll get the nice old menu back :) Have been running 10.2 since beta 2 and would not want to switch back to 10.1. It's running better already and it's not even released...

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

thebluesgnr — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:07:58 +0000

Novell would be stupid to start using code that infringes Microsoft patents on purpose (though it's impossible to not do it unintentionally when you're distributing an OS), because:

a) the deal can be revoked at any time;

b) the deal only protects some Novell customers, not all of them and not Novell itself;

c) the deal is over in less than 5 years.

So, I think their contributions to OSS (which are many) are as tainted now as they were a few weeks ago.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

drag — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 14:42:16 +0000

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

petegn — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:24:15 +0000

What a bunch of frillie knickerd wet necked wassucks

If you dont like some of the contenet then dont install it what could be simpler .

No matter how much you all wet your knickers there is STILL a need for things like the Nvidia driver (i would not go near ATI with a barge pole) ,So all the whinging ect gets you precisley nowhere nowt zip zilch nada

And by the way 10.2 RC1 seems to be very good so far with almost all the crap of 10.1 sorted .

Type on a laptop with working wirless touchpad ect ect plug the external mouse reciever in an works instantly display was correct first time no messing only thing i got againt it now is that strange idea someone has concocted for the KDE menu it sucks big time ..

Pete .

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

roel — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:59:58 +0000

Just supply your email address as well, that would help you collect really useful advertisements.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

roel — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:48:32 +0000

Once upon a time, in a tavern, in a far away country, patriots were secretly discussing the cruelty of their king, when suddenly, a man entered, shouting: "The king has received a son!". One of the patriots stood up and commanded "Lynch that man! He announces the heir to the throne!" They did, and lived happily ever after.

The moral of this story is: in case of bad news, always kill the messenger.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

jimmybgood — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 06:14:20 +0000

I hear you, man, but I'm not the one that posted that link to the Novell site.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

beoba — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 05:36:36 +0000

Dude. Gross.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

jimmybgood — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:53:18 +0000

And your logic relies on Novell practicing what they preach. I've done business with Microsoft and I've done business with Novell and I'd believe and trust MS before I would Novell.

Read this from the link you cited:

"Novell makes no admission that its Linux and open source offerings infringe on any other parties' patents."

It's not a lie, but it's typical lawyers' BS. They aren't saying there are no infringements, they're just refusing to admit to them.

and this:

"We maintain that Mono does not infringe any Microsoft patents."

Again, they aren't saying there are none. They're just maintaining that there aren't.

I maintain that if only given a chance, I could satsify you sexually, even though I and everybody I've tried with knows full well I can't get it up anymore.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

pzb — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:45:57 +0000

>1) openSUSE developer writes code that infringes on MS patent (but is protected by MS-Novell agreement).
>
>2) openSUSE distributes the code to developer who is paid by Redhat.

The failure in your logic is that Novell has said "It has always been our policy in all development, open source and proprietary, to stay away from code that infringes another's patents, and we will continue to develop software using these standard practices." (from http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensource.html) I do not think there is any reason to believe that they will be changing this, and so will not be any open source code that is accepted into openSUSE that knowingly infringes on patents, from Microsoft or anyone else.

There is no indication that openSUSE code cannot be distributed under the GPL, as long as there are no infringed patents. The MS/Novell agreement does not change this, as far as I can see.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

jimmybgood — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:16:30 +0000

> The MS/Novell agreement does not even include openSUSE

But it does confer protection to any non-commercial Linux developer and even paid Novell _and_ openSUSE developers, but _not_ Linux developers paid by anyone else. So IANAL nor am I Richard Stallman, but I believe the argument runs something like this:

1) openSUSE developer writes code that infringes on MS patent (but is protected by MS-Novell agreement).

2) openSUSE distributes the code to developer who is paid by Redhat.

3) Redhat developer modifies the code, but can't distribute it because it infringes on MS patent.

4) Therefore, whatever license openSUSE distributes under cannot be GPL, because GPL requires that the recipient of GPLed code be allowed to modify and redistribute.

If this had not been intended to poison Redhat in particulat and Linux in general, openSUSE and non-commercial Linux developers wouldn't have been mentioned. Then openSUSE could distribute under the GPL to the world and a non-free license to Novell. Only Novell and their users would be protected from MS, but the code would be free.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

tajyrink — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:12:20 +0000

Ah, I didn't know of that, nice that you can uncheck such a box when installing. I've just been doing FTP updates mainly. I'm a SUSE user from ca. 5.3 era, though nowadays using more Debian and Ubuntu.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

einstein — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:03:46 +0000

> If only they'd provide a DVD without non-free packages.

You can easily make such a dvd from what suse provides. Download the 5 CD isos, then use the suse makedvd script to create a dvd of only the 5 OSS CDs.

OTOH, you could just install from the normal DVD, and uncheck the "non-free" package selection, your problem neatly solved.

Presto, no java, no flash and no acrobat reader for you!

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

tajyrink — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:34:36 +0000

If only they'd provide a DVD without non-free packages.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

syspig — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:36:53 +0000

>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.

Case-sensitive identity crisis

pr1268 — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:22:18 +0000

<slightly off-topic>Didn't we have a similar identity crisis a few months ago with ~~MYSQL~~ ~~Mysql~~ ~~MySql~~ MySQL? (The command-line program and URL are excepted.)</slightly off-topic>

I, for one, plan to pass judgement on OpenSuse (OpenSUSE? OpenS.U.S.E.? Oh, drat!) as a distribution without first testing it (which assumes I actually would test it). However, this whole Novell/Microsoft deal is upsetting to me to say the least.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

niner — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:22:51 +0000

Just a quick question: do you deliberatley spread falsehoods, or do you just not know any better?

The MS/Novell agreement does not even include openSUSE, so how could it affect it's openess?

You're second sentence is just plain wrong: openSUSE 10.2 does not require installing Mono for anything except some Mono based software like beagle and ZMD, which are completely optional. Package management works wonderfully without ZMS, even quite faster.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

man_ls — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:43:52 +0000

Rest assured that LWN is not bending the truth in any way; it just reports on a (IMHO very good) free distro. It also posts announcements for Linspire and binary drivers. The fact that you do not support a way of doing things does not mean you have to censor it; many people may need e.g. binary drivers for graphics cards, just as Stallman used a proprietary editor to write the first free software.

I have been subscribed to LWN for almost two years now, and in this time the editorial line has, if anything, moved further in support of freedom. The adverse consequences of several proprietary packages (the BitKeeper fiasco, the Stanford checker, binary drivers for 64-bit platforms and so on) have had a tangible effect on our favorite editor's stance towards them.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

dh — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:36:06 +0000

What precisely is your problem? You know the meaning of "news site"???

Geez, if people just started thinking before writing strange things...

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

tjc — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:23:38 +0000

If I had know that LWN is going to support Novell's betrayal of the FOSS community by helping disseminate SuSE I wouldn't have spent the money.

Are you suggesting that it would be better to pretend that openSUSE 10.2 RC1 has not been released?

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

tomsi — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:17:00 +0000

LWN has always reported all sides of a story. Just because Novell has made an agreement with Microsoft that many people doesn't like is not a reason to stop reporting on what happens with Suse and Opensuse (that is called censorship). Also remember that not everybody is decided on the Novell/MS issue yet.

Tom

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

epeeist — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:55:20 +0000

> Just as open as ever - all packages GPL'd, everything available for free download and unrestricted use.

The packages may be GPL, but that doesn't sanitise the MS/Novell agreement.

You should also note that the Mono is a requirement for the distribution and that the software includes the Mono implementation of Windows Forms.

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

niner — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:54:22 +0000

I'm curious. Why do you think that Novell is tacitly admitting to Ballmer's claims and how does this fit with the public statements by Novell that they do _not_ admit any infrigment of Microsoft's "IP"?

Maybe it's just because you do not understand the difference between any infrigment that's done today and any infrigment that may be done unintentionally in the future.

Maybe you just want to find a conspiracy, even including LWN (wouldn't that be some story?). But if that's the case, maybe you should go out more often...

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

GreyGeek — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:44:07 +0000

I purchased a subscription the LWN.NET a couple of days ago.

Has something changed since then? Did Novell agree to the SAMBA teams request to repudiate their deal with Microsoft? From the news I've read Novell is still paying Microsoft $40M for 'something', which Ballmer portrayed as payment for use of Microsoft's IP, which he claims infects all Linux distros, and the promise not to sue users of COMMERCIAL SuSE, while specifically leaving those who download OpenSUSE, and other distros, under a threat of lawsuit. So, Novell is still tacitly admitting to Ballmer's claims. I guess $300M is a huge inducement to remove the "UnbendtheTruth" webpage, re-bend the truth, and buddy up to Microsoft.

If I had know that LWN is going to support Novell's betrayal of the FOSS community by helping disseminate SuSE I wouldn't have spent the money.

Have not lost our souls

tony.taylor — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:23:26 +0000

We haven't lost our souls. We sold them for "convenient pragmatism."

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

niner — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:40:05 +0000

The Microsoft/Novell deal does only cover the enterprise products. openSUSE is not covered, so it's status is just the same that it was a few weeks ago, and the software it contains is just as free (appart from the completely optional Add-on CD of course).

openSUSE 10.2 RC1

alonso — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 08:38:40 +0000

>But what really worries me is that they don't seem to want me to have fun anymore.

Yes! This is their problem, they have lost their soul.