LWN: Comments on "Who is being divisive?"

Who is being divisive?

tekNico — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 10:08:46 +0000

> The fact that Novell chose to pay protection money to see off a potential
> bully does not necessarily make things harder for those who have not paid
> that money;

It does weaken resistance against such bully. Attempts to weaken those who pay protection money are not divisive: they are not our friends anymore.

Novell has chosen a side, and will bear the consequences of such choice.

Who is being divisive?

KaiRo — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:55:12 +0000

Thanks for those words, I'm fully with you on that.

And yes, my post is late as I don't come to read LWN as often as I'd like to, due to much work, including that on my beloved SeaMonkey project.

Anyways, as long as there is no clear evidence that the Novell/Microsoft deal has harmed open source development, I will continue to support the distro of my choice, which still happens to be openSUSE (the boxed version actually, ut even that has picked up that name with 10.2). This is a very good distro, easy to use, and with a really good collection of prepackaged software, including even a very current version of SeaMonkey. Here goes a big thanks from one of the SeaMonkey Council members (group of project managers and lead developers) to the maintainers of openSUSE and of their Mozilla-based software packages.
I hope developers will NOT give up on (open)SUSE as long as there is no clear indication of harm already done to OSS. What the future might bring is nothing we can clearly forsee and we should not pretend that we can.

I'm once again very glad I upgraded my LWN acoount to a "better" level since I can afford it - thanks for being true journalists and staying neutral in such undecided cases. We need a strong, undivided though still pluralistic community and you are helping to support that. One big reason for continuing to support you.

Look at the steps

forthy — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:56:33 +0000

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.

Completely unacceptable

GreyWizard — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 04:02:05 +0000

You are accusing the Free Software Foundation of plagiarism. A charge that serious requires supporting evidence to be presented as clearly and directly as possible. A link to a document that explains one or more specific examples on a site maintained by a credible third party would do. A reference to the front page of your blog won't. You can't expect anyone to trawl through 150 rambling entries to discover what you're talking about.

That you can't be bothered to cite even one example with specificity is a strong indication that your claims are baseless. Propagating unsubstantiated charges of this kind is unethical -- every bit as much as actually claiming credit for the work of others would be. You should be ashamed.

Present evidence for FSF plagiarism claims

shieldsd — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 02:59:46 +0000

I've written over 150 blog entries in just over the last two months, with open-source as my primary subject.. Whether or not they provide the irrefutable proof you desire only you can decide. They can be found at http://daveshields.wordpress.com

I was talking about those who wrote kernels that achieved wide usage.

That the FSF hurd authors were mistaken doesn't give them reason to claim the credit due those who weren't.

Present evidence for FSF plagiarism claims

GreyWizard — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 02:36:48 +0000

That Torvalds relied on considerable volunteer assistance does not diminish the importance of his role in originating, coordinating and maintaining the Linux kernel. For the same reason, though all contributors to the GNU project deserve (and get) credit for their work, this does not devalue the role of the Free Software Foundation. Nor is it correct that they didn't attempt to write a kernel, since work on HURD began before Torvalds started writing Linux. They discovered the hard way that the conventional wisdom of the time, which held that a micro-kernel was the best possible architecture, was mistaken.

But I'm not interested in further debating the finer points of maintainership, ownership, authorship or any other kind of ship until you demonstrate that you can approach this discussion in an intellectually honest manner. This is the second time on this thread that you have accused the Free Software Foundation of claiming to have written code that some other party produced. Do you even care whether what you write is true? Where is your evidence? Unless your next response contains some extraordinary and irrefutable proof or a credible apology, I will have learned all I need to know about the kind of person you are.

Don't take it out on SuSE

GreyGeek — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 03:07:12 +0000

I feel your pain.

I purchased a new Sony VAIO computer on Dec 29th, 1997 and and had to reinstall Win95 FIVE TIMES in the next FOUR months. I had used OS/2 and went to the software store looking for a newer version of it. There I found a book called "Learn Linux in 24 Hours", for $25, IIRC. To sweeten the deal there was a copy of RH 5.0 in the back of the book! It took me about 30 hours (I was 55 at the time) to get a handle on Linux. Linux was a lot harder to learn and use back then than it is now.

I upgraded to RH 5.1 and was stunned by how much worse it was than 5.0. So, I looked around and found SuSE 5.3. It was GREAT!! Over the next few years I PURCHASED TWENTY TWO boxed sets of SuSE, the last being SuSE 9.0, IIRC.

Then Novell bought it. Shortly after that a new SUSE EULA appeared on their website. It forbid installing SUSE on more than one PC or making archival copies without written permission from Novell. They supplied the name and phone number of the women who could issue written permission, if you were convincing enough. I raised a fuss on the SUSE newsgroup but the Novell employees and fanbois couldn't see the problem. However, it made such a stink on several Linux sites that they relented and restored their EULA to GPL compliance, except for YAST, which they later released under the GPL. Then, they spun the episode into a mis-understanding. However, it was too late for me. If they did it once they could do something similar again. That's when I left SUSE for a Debian based distro.

I couldn't have imagined that Novell could do something that has the potential to affect me so seriously even though I don't use their products, but this "convent" has done that.

Possible Link to SCO Source licensing?

Lorenzo — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:21:48 +0000

Antitrust going well?

Ha! ... Let's see.

Judge Jackson, the first judge to hear the anti-trust case against Microsoft, saw exactly what Microsoft was doing and chastised them for it. He proposed to break up Microsoft.

Microsoft bought somebody to discharge Judge Jackson in favor of Judge Kolar-Kotely (the most business friendly judge sitting today). Judge K-K dismissed the proposed breakup order. Instead they appointed a do-nothing "special master" (or the like) to "supervise" Microsoft.

Microsoft continues its anti-trust behavior unabated.

Tell me again. Is the anti-trust action against Microsoft going well?

Ravicher report

BrucePerens — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:45:51 +0000

Engineers everywhere are told "don't look at patents". The concern is that a specific patent text belonging to the plaintiff can be shown to have been known by the defendant. In contrast, knowing that software is generally infringing of patents does not pass the court test necessary for the award of treble damages.

Bruce

Ravicher report

jhellan — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 13:56:50 +0000

So looking at the patents increases your legal risk. You know, I exected that response.

And somehow you seem to believe that signing a statement that you believe that you are infringing thousands of patents does *not* increase your legal risk. Strange.

No, just dumb

shieldsd — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 00:02:34 +0000

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.

As a software author, I have strong opinions about licenses

shieldsd — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 23:54:49 +0000

As a a software author (Jikes) and also employee of a company (IBM) that contributes to open-source, I have some opinions too (though they are of course offered here as just my own, and not on behalf of IBM.)

You say you don't want companies to profit from open-source without sharing.

Why should they have to share? All they have to do is to meet the terms of any license under which they receive software.

However, it is only because companies such as IBM, HP, Intel, Fujitsu, Red Hat, and Novell are able to make sufficient profits from open-source that they collectively contribute well over $1B/year to make Linux better.

I've seen estimates that at least half the major Linux kernel contributors are paid to do their work and they account for substantially more than half the accepted contributions.

You are clearly profiting from their contributions. Why can't they profit from yours?

To put it in even simpler terms

BrucePerens — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:23:21 +0000

Based on this, I would suggest that Novell has not harmed you, as defined under US law, yet.

This is like saying that someone is not harmed if there is a law against punching him in the nose and you kicked him in the nose instead. The harm definitely exists, but the law was not written to catch it.

Regarding whether GPL3 will prevent Novell from distributing or Microsoft from granting covenants, it will prevent Novell from distributing if they want to preserve the covenants that Microsoft is supposed to grant to Novell customers.

Bruce

Please explain

BrucePerens — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:11:43 +0000

Nat,

I have looked at OIN's 13 patents. First, it's a small portfolio about which Novell blows its horn much more than the content warrants. Second, as you are well aware, this patent portfolio would be ineffective against "patent trolls", companies that produce nothing but patents. Microsoft has already invested in Intellectual Ventures, one such troll. By bringing a proxy attack as with SCO, using a troll this time, Microsoft could avoid OIN and indeed could avoid its own agreement with Novell.

Bruce

Please explain

nat — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:34:44 +0000

Have you looked at the OIN patents, Bruce? OIN holds significant patents on ecommerce that affect just about every large company in this industry.

I'm sure you know that quality of patents and the value of the infriging business can be just as relevant as number.

Anyway, I'm proud of Novell's contributions to OIN. In the US, software patents exist. Is that perfect? No, absolutely not. But at least we're trying to work within that system to provide safety and comfort to free and open source developers.

To put it in even simpler terms

pzb — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:42:20 +0000

You said:
> Now, I suppose you could argue that Novell signed a "patent convenant"
> and not a "patent license", and that section 7 is therefore irrelevant.

This is just what the Free Software Foundation said:
> What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence,
> and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play.

Richard went on to say:
> It turns out that perhaps it's a good thing that Microsoft did this now,
> because we discovered that the text we had written for GPL version 3 would
> not have blocked this, but it's not too late and we're going to make sure
> that when GPL version 3 really comes out it will block such deals
(from http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/bangalore-rms-transcript)

Based on this, I would suggest that Novell has not harmed you, as defined under US law, yet. If you relicense under only the GPL v3 (or later), and it is incompatible with this deal, then you would be harmed. However, from Eben Moglen's recent comments, it appears the FSF is not attempting to draft the GPL v3 to prevent Novell from distributing, rather to cause Microsoft to provide broader covenant than originally intended.

Look at the steps

BrucePerens — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:53:20 +0000

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

No, just dumb

robla — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:25:40 +0000

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.

Ravicher report

BrucePerens — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 09:23:43 +0000

Actually, the results can't be published because if they were, the Linux programmers might be exposed to treble damages for knowing infringement rather than simple damages for unknowing. Indeed, I asked not to be informed of the specific patents in the study for that reason - it would have increased my legal risk as an occassional kernel programmer.

There is a parallel study, however, that is published, because Europe doesn't have that pernicious "you pay more if you look" law. It's at Your Webshop is Patented.

If you want to verify the Ravicher study, you can do so at www.uspto.gov . Just take a part of the kernel and start typing keywords into the patent search form. But please don't tell us of the specific patents you find. You'd be increasing our legal risk.

Bruce

Who is being divisive?

jhellan — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:48:08 +0000

Exactly. As we both have said, the study was paid for by a company which had a commercial interest in scaring developers. And the results can't be verified, since they are secret.

Novell is unethical, which is evil in my book

BrucePerens — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:39:18 +0000

The part I can't excuse is the cheating of GPL programmers. As LWN subscriber "emk" explains here:

I release my work under the GPL for a reason, and I expect my license to be honored, and not treated as an obstacle for clever lawyers to work around. Regardless of what Microsoft does in the future, Novell has already sent me a very clear message: They're happy to make a buck off my work, but they can't be bothered to deal with me in good faith.

What Novell did is not missing "the exact right thing". It's a willful, knowing, explicit cheat of a large group of unpaid software contributors by a $1 Billion/year company. I do not believe there is any way to portray it as an ethical action. And Nat's tasked with being their apologist, which puts the ethical issue right in his lap.

The Novell cheat also strikes right to the heart of Free Software development. If it becomes commonplace that companies can disregard their covenants with developers and suffer no consequences, the vast majority of our developers, who desire sharing with rules rather than to make an outright gift, will not be motivated to share any more software.

I wonder if Microsoft realized that, and if this is really an attack on the viability of the GPL.

Bruce

Novell is cowardly, not evil

robla — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:08:18 +0000

This situation is somewhat reminiscent of the old joke about the two campers and the bear. Novell isn't trying to be faster than the bear, just faster than the other Linux distributors. Yes, that means the odds for everyone else becoming bear food just went up a little bit. Novell's action is cowardly, but we should be worrying about the bear rather than the guy who got out while he could.

Novell is a publicly traded company trying to sustain a ~$1 billion/year business by revenue (much bigger than Red Hat). They fund a lot of free software development, and still do a lot of cool things that they don't really have to. They aren't perfect, but they've been pretty good citizens. I'm sure removing the line in "risks" section of their annual report about Microsoft suing them and their customers into oblivion seemed like it was worth quite a bit of money. Criticizing them for taking the easy way out this time is fair; demonizing them is not.

Bruce, you wrote: In summary, I sincerely believe that your ethical position really stinks. You should be out of there, Nat.

I think your attitude toward Nat stinks. You as much as anyone should know just how hard it is trying to get a large company to do the exact right thing all of the time working from the inside. Nat has done a fantastic job getting Novell to do the right thing more often than not, and I'm betting he's having all sorts of arguments with the other executives at Novell about how to do a better job. Knowing that he's paying attention to what you're saying, you should be giving him cogent arguments, not reinforcing the stereotype that all free software advocates are so dogmatic and inflexible that they'll never be pleased, and it's best to ignore them and focus on paying customers.

Misrepresenting RMS

bronson — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:52:54 +0000

Well, the FSF is very thorough when taking ownership of a piece of code. When I contributed a few patches to emacs, they required that I give them full rights to the code and certified that with a paper document and hard-copy signatures.

So yes, the FSF could be a little better about giving credit where credit is due, but there's no question that they own all the code that they maintain (to the extent that anybody can own code). If they wanted to relicense all their code Shared Source, including my contributions, there's nothing anybody could do to stop them.

This doesn't keep me up at night. :)

Misrepresenting RMS

shieldsd — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 01:34:06 +0000

Are you saying all that code was written by employees of the Free Software Foundation? I thought the code was written by volunteers and that the Free Software Foundation was the maintainer of some of the projects.

Maintainership is not ownership.

Open-source is not about ownership. It's about collaboration and giving credit where credit is due.

Look at any of the Linux kernel release notes from Linus that lwn publishes regularly. At the start of each you will a detailed list of *every* contributor. Everyone involved goes to great trouble to give credit where credit is due.

On the other hand, there is another group that seems to claim authorship of most of the open-source code in the universe...

To say that Torvalds "finished" someone else's work just because someone else thought it would be a good idea to have a kernel -- but didn't bother to write any code -- is ludicrous.

Why section 7 matters to me, and why you should care what I think

emk — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:12:54 +0000

You really think MSFT will sue an OSS developer, or even a customer?

Right now, Microsoft would have great difficulty suing Linux users, because section 7 of the GPL keeps IBM, RedHat and other big Linux players from settling. For example, if IBM settled a patent lawsuit with Microsoft, section 7 would force them to stop distributing Linux (costing IBM billions of dollars). Given the stakes involved, IBM would be forced to fight, presumably by using their massive patent portfolio against Microsoft. And neither Microsoft nor IBM wants to go there.

Basically, section 7 of the GPL is mutually-assured destruction mechanism for big Linux players. Now, you may think that section 7 will never be needed, and that's your perogative. But as a copyright holder, I suspect that section 7 is the only thing standing between us and total patent doomsday.

Now, because I feel that software patents are a real danger (again, I'm not asking you to agree with me), I chose to release my software under the GPL. Novell, as a redistributor of GPL'd software, has three choices: (1) Refrain from distributing my software, (2) comply with my license, including that weird provision in section 7, or (3) negotiate a separate license with me. I'm happy to offer Novell different terms if I'm getting paid!

Now, if Novell has found a loophole in section 7 (the whole "license" vs "covenant" distinction), then they can get away with this Microsoft deal. But from my persepctive, they're exploiting a bug in my license, and that bug will be fixed.

And as for Novell: Please remember that GPL'd software is not in the public domain, and that its authors still hold valid copyrights that you must respect.

The more I think about the Novell agreement, the more it makes me think

lmb — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:43:01 +0000

Novell did not, and still does not, expect anyone, least of all MSFT, to start sueing anyone for patent claims. Our customers had unsubstantiated fears - and we managed to make a lot of cash (by means of handing out Linux to more customers, no less!) and calm those irrational concerns. I find it hard to disagree with that.

You really think MSFT will sue an OSS developer, or even a customer? The mind boggles. Their PR machinery wouldn't allow that. How much money could they make from that? How much would they lose? What would the impact of that be on the various patent reformation projects?

And the statement from MSFT to not sue individual contributors needs to be made much broader, that would be better still. No doubt. Let's see.

Nothing you had before has been taken away from you. I don't even, personally, believe that the factual situation of anyone's customers have changed. Sueing a customer? That company is very unlikely to make big inroads anywhere. Only a patent troll would do that. So, it can only have been about calming unsubstantiated fears. And yeah, Ballmer tried to spin it differently, but it's clear he has failed.

The main focus is the cooperation on virtualization, office and so on. And apparently the realization that at least for the next so many years, neither OS will totally replace the other - so a joint marketing campaign tends to make sense for the companies. From a Linux enthusiast point of view, I'd love to have them all use Linux only (as an employee, it means more revenue ;-), but reality disagrees. People still use it as a boot loader for games, for one thing, and businesses apparently - unfortunately - have similar needs.

So, let's make Linux kick ass so that it can replace Windows for everyone. That sounds like a good plan. World domination is inevitable.

To put it in even simpler terms

emk — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:35:36 +0000

What has become worse for you?

Under US law, I hold copyrights in my work. I have the exclusive right to distribute and sublicense that work. If an unauthorized party distributes my work, I'm legally entitled to damages.

Now, section 7 of the GPL is pretty clear: It only allows people to redistribute my work if they provide patent licenses to everyone, not just their immediate customers. If they can't meet that requirement, the GPL forbids them from distributing my code at all.

Now, I suppose you could argue that Novell signed a "patent convenant" and not a "patent license", and that section 7 is therefore irrelevant. But short of this kind of legal sophistry, Novell's deal with Microsoft harms me in a way explicitly recognized by US law: They're redistributing my copyrighted code without a valid license.

The more I think about the Novell agreement, the more it stinks

emk — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:11:04 +0000

What has become worse for you?

Well, I'm making two assumptions here:

Microsoft can bring a plausible patent infringement claim against almost any open source project. And lately, they've been advertising this fact very loudly.
There's no point in Novell signing a patent non-aggression pact covering SuSE users unless Novell expected someone to start suing Linux users.

So from my perspective, it looks like Microsoft is threatening to sue me (in my role as Linux user and/or developer of GPL'd software), and that Novell has cut a special deal with Microsoft to protect their users. But Novell has chosen not to protect the people who wrote the software--we apparently matter less than Novell's paying customers. Or to put it more succinctly: "Hey, thanks for your code. Have fun getting sued by Microsoft!"

Not only is Novell's position rude, it violates the spirit (if not the letter) of GPL section 7: For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

As an author of GPL'd software, I want Novell to respect the spirit of section 7: If you can't give a license to everybody, please refrain from distributing any of my GPL'd code. My copyrights are only licensed to people who share and share alike, not people who cut special deals to protect themselves.

Now, I've heard it claimed that Novell's deal is technically a patent "covenant", and not a patent license, and that section 7 of the GPL therefore does not apply. But frankly, this is just weaseling. And if this is the best argument in Novell's defense, then shame on Novell.

anti-something

JohnNilsson — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:05:09 +0000

For anyone interested in the full scope of this battle I can highly recommend The Wealth of Networks[1] by Yochai Benkler. (Available under a CC license for online reading).

[1] http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300110561

The more I think about the Novell agreement, the more it stinks

lmb — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:49:55 +0000

Which wolves have you been thrown to? What has become worse for you?

It is of course within your rights to boycott Novell's products. But companies have always made certain things available to their customers (I believe the technical term is "offering goods and services for sale"), so that, by itself, can hardly be a reasonable attack vector.

The more I think about the Novell agreement, the more it stinks

emk — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:31:44 +0000

Novell's patent agreement with Microsoft is a clever legal hack that attempts to (and probably succeeds in) weasling around the GPLv2's patent provisions. But as a GPL software author, I really don't like being thrown to the wolves in such a fashion.

I release my work under the GPL for a reason, and I expect my license to be honored, and not treated as an obstacle for clever lawyers to work around. Regardless of what Microsoft does in the future, Novell has already sent me a very clear message: They're happy to make a buck off my work, but they can't be bothered to deal with me in good faith.

As such, I think I'm well within my rights to call for boycott of Novell's products, and to publicly criticize their actions. Granted, my criticism of Novell might seem premature and "divisive." But Novell's patent agreement makes it very clear that I'm not a member of their community. That community includes Novell's customers and employees, but apparently not the people who write the software.

Misrepresenting RMS

GreyWizard — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:51:41 +0000

We developed the free operating system GNU, which many people call "Linux".

RMS is tring to say exactly the same thing JoeBuck is pointing out above. The Free Software Foundation developed the compiler, much of the C library, the assembler, the linker, most of the little programs in /bin or /usr/bin and so on. When they began developing these things in the 1980s they considered them pieces of a completely free operating system which they called GNU. They still think of things this way, even though someone else finished a free software kernel first. RMS has never claimed that the Free Software Foundation created the Linux kernel or that this kernel should be called anything other than Linux. He is objecting to the use of "Linux" to describe the combination of the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel. Presenting the position of the other side correctly is a requirement of intellectually honest debate.

Who is being divisive?

PaulMcKenney — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:06:01 +0000

Clearly, a collective yawn of apathy would be quite inappropriate. And I certainly do not in any way approve of or agree with the Microsoft/Novell deal's providing Mr. Ballmer with grist for his "Linux infringes Microsoft IP" mill.

But some people feel that one of Microsoft's goals is to destroy a major Linux distro. Red Hat's "peace in our time" blog posting from Mark Webbink certainly points this way. If you agree with this blog posting's analogy between Novell and Chamberlain on the one hand and between Microsoft and Adolf Hitler on the other, then you would have to conclude that Microsoft wishes to destroy Novell. Furthermore, it is easy to imagine Mr. Ballmer using this tidbit to great advantage: "Mr. Customer, you see, you just cannot rely on open-source software companies to stay in business."

Given this, is it possible that by carelessly attacking Novell, one might actually be doing Microsoft's dirty work for them? Expanding on Webbink's analogy, mightn't it be better to instead follow Winston Churchill's example?

Paul E. McKenney (my opinions, not necessarily those of my employer)

Who is being divisive?

BrucePerens — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:44:51 +0000

I'm just glad I wasn't brought up that way :-)

Who is being divisive?

lysse — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:39:54 +0000

Oh, there's a petition... *scurries off to be no.2584*

> ...one guy who wrote, I kid you not, "this is like masturbation - it's shaking hands with the devil"

Completely off-topic, but thank you for sharing with us all a new euphemism for the male member. My culture has been enriched. :)

anti-something

lysse — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:33:26 +0000

> Oh come on! This is only software.

No. No, it's not "only software". The issues being addressed by the free software movement strike at the very heart of our freedoms - to build, to own, even to imagine. There *are* no more important matters - software is just the battleground.

anti-something

BrucePerens — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:51:20 +0000

Oh come on! This is only software.

King's work was vastly important. But it was important that King's message was communicated. Today, computer software is the conduit for communication of political discourse.

Before Gutenberg, copyists, using pen and ink, duplicated written political dialogue laboriously. Only the wealthy and the church could afford to employ copyists, and during this period the paucity of communications limited the exercise of democracy to small groups. The advent of Gutenberg's press made the mass distribution of written political dialogue possible. People vote based on what they hear and read, and the improvement in communications brought by the press made egalitarian mass democracy possible. It is thus no surprise that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of the press.

Within the last century, electronic communications have increasingly become the vehicle of democratic discourse. Because radio and television broadcasting are expensive with limited frequencies available, the wealthy have dominated broadcasting. The Internet and World Wide Web place into the common man's hands the capability of global electronic broadcasting. Clearly, the Internet is the most important tool of democracy since Gutenberg developed movable type.

In order to protect democratic discourse in the future, the Internet must remain a fair and level playing field for the distribution of political speech. The full capability of the Internet must remain available to all, without restriction by religious, business, or political interests.

A number of "Internet radio" devices have become available today. Most of those devices only receive stations that have been enabled through the gateway site of the device's manufacturer. This means that the manufacturer of an Internet radio can control what stations the device provides access to, and thus what political viewpoints are available via the device. One day in the future, most of us will receive text, audio, and video programming via the Internet, either wired or wireless. Imagine the problem for democracy if, when that day dawns, the manufacturers of our access devices are a few companies that have attained a market lock on Internet broadcasting, thus determining what political viewpoints the electorate can receive.

That's one of the reasons that Open Source software is important to democracy. By remaining an tool for communications that individuals can control, it can help us get a political message through when the commercial infrastructure may be stopping that message.

Bruce

anti-something

N0NB — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:32:43 +0000

"All the waste of time used bashing sco and microsoft could be used to create better free software..."

The majority of the people making commentary and writing about these issues aren't writing software anyway, so your strawman falls down. If your argument had any validity, Free software wouldn't have improved at all over the past 3 1/2 years since the SCO debacle began. In fact, it is an order of magnitude better now than it was then. It seems discussing these issues hasn't slowed the pace of development by any significant measure. At least those developers that engage themselves in these issues aren't just software drones, but instead do care deeply about what they're doing.

This is the bazaar and at times it's a very noisy and lively place.

Who is being divisive?

BrucePerens — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:24:40 +0000

The number 283 comes from Dan Ravicher, who was at the time a volunteer counsel for the Free Software foundation, and is now leader of the Public Patent Foundation and an attorney for the Software Freedom Law Center. OSRM paid for the study, but it didn't tell us anything we did not already know.

Bruce

Please explain

N0NB — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:15:47 +0000

"And Novell has in fact contradicted those rumors in an open letter from our CEO where he states that Novell in no way acknowledges that Linux infringes MS IP."

No matter what is said, one must follow the money. If Novell is truly not infringing on any Microsoft patents, why did they pay Microsoft any amount at all?

Money doesn't talk, it screams.