Slashdot Mirror

Since when does MS distribute GPL'd software from Novell?

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200705181 24020691

> OIN itself condemned the deal.

This is incorrect. Groklaw tried to spin it off that way, but if you look at the transcript produced (same page) it indicates the opposite. The OIN have only ever attacked Microsoft's claims not the fact that the deal was taking place. In fact, the OIN is praiseworthy of some of the opportunities that the deal is offering; and I quote:

Customers can only benefit from greater interoperability between Linux and Microsoft products. In fact, interoperability has long been a known requirement, and is a key driver behind Linux.

Earlier this month there was a sobering article on Groklaw "3 CNET Reporters Will Sue HP Seeking Punitive Damages - What's That?" wherein PJ discussed privacy. She had this to say:

There's an interesting essay that I read as part of a course Berkman Center ran on privacy in cyberspace that said that our humanness actually depends on that kind of privacy. It's how we renew and are our true selves. The essay is still available in the readings for the course which are laudably still made available to the world, "Privacy Matters: In Defense of the Personal Life," by Janna Malamud Smith. One of the worst punishments is total surveillance, the essay points out, where you can't even go to the bathroom in privacy:

One way of beginning to understand privacy is by looking at what happens to people in extreme situations where it is absent. Recalling his time in Auschwitz, Primo Levi observed that "solitude in a Camp is more precious and rare than bread." Solitude is one state of privacy, and even amidst the overwhelming death, starvation, and horror of the camps, Levi knew he missed it.... Levi spent much of his life finding words for his camp experience. How, he wonders aloud in Survival in Auschwitz, do you describe "the demolition of a man," an offense for which "our language lacks words."...

Our function of privacy is to provide a safe space away from terror or other assaultive experiences. When you remove a person's ability to sequester herself, or intimate information about herself, you make her extremely vulnerable....

The totalitarian state watches everyone, but keeps its own plans secret. Privacy is seen as dangerous because it enhances resistance. Constantly spying and then confronting people with what are often petty transgressions is a way of maintaining social control and unnerving and disempowering opposition.... And even when one shakes real pursuers, it is often hard to rid oneself of the feeling of being watched -- which is why surveillance is an extremely powerful way to control people. The mind's tendency to still feel observed when alone... can be inhibiting. ... Feeling watched, but not knowing for sure, nor knowing if, when, or how the hostile surveyor may strike, people often become fearful, constricted, and distracted.

Over at groklaw they discuss some recent statements in Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz's blog about ms now suing. Even Mark Shuttleworth says a few words about Microsoft and patents. Jonathan doesn't say they will not sue but makes some comments about it and Mark says he doesn't think they will.

If the infringement is real, how comes they did not already "fu***'n kill Google" ? But if M$ manages to use the patent threat to fool people into signing licence agreements then those people will put the rope around their own neck. They will pay M$ for software M$ dos not own and did not even bohter to sell them, and by the time they wake up the agreement will still be in place. Yes, many people have said that the M$ coupons have no expiration date. And Eben Moglen has already debunked their "be very afraid" tour on Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200705170 83516872

"If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license providing freedom to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work to any of the parties receiving the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it.(emphasis added)"

Yes, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the GPL is a license and that it is not a contract pretending to be a license, however, my knowledge about law is rather limited. I suppose the reason they sometimes display the GPL license during installation is to make companies who are planning to use it in one of their products aware of the requirements of the license. Fortunately, all the average user really needs to know is that they have "the freedom to run the program for any purpose, any way they like."

The GPL and "freedom zero"

I was VERY impressed with Groklaw's analysis:

"Of course, it's obvious this is legal sophistry. They are saying to the world, even though it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and acts like a duck, it's not a duck, because we are calling it NotaDuck and we've taken the long way around, skulking along the unpaved back roads and alleyways instead of taking the straight highway to get to the duck pond. Er. The NotaDuck pond, where notaducks don't swim and that's not quacking you are plainly hearing.

"Forsooth, my lord, it smelleth like a duck to me.

"Now do you get it, that "Tivoization" is a metaphor for creative ways to make the GPL toothless? It's a trend, not an isolated event. There's money to be made, and the GPL is getting in their corporate way. What they forget is that the code came with a price. The terms of the GPL are that price."

LOL.

"Wouldn't a patent law which does NOT promote science and arts be unconstitutional? "

This was essentially the argument presented in Eldred vs. Ashcroft, the SCOTUS case that challenged our latest Disney-copyright-extension law. Regrettably, this argument did not prevail. The holding of SCOTUS was (note, this was about copyright law, not patents -- but the constitutional basis is the same) was that a copyright law that did not radically change the contours of copyright was presumably constitutional and did not need to survive a constitutional challenge.

(I leave it as an exercise for the reader whether such things as the DMCA radically changed the contours of copyright.)

Presumably, Eldred vs. Ashcroft could be considered precedent for patent law, since constitutional challenge would be based on the same clause, even though patent and copyright law are very different.

Source of analysis, btw, is Moglen's speech at Harvard's JOLT
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2004 0226003735733

Novell took a deep dive on my credibility list too, but they are in a position to be more knowledgeable than most on the issue of Microsoft's patent claims. To hear Microsoft tell it, Novell has been told what patents are at issue. See the quote under Microsoft's second story in the Groklaw article.

Yes, that's it" "No lawsuits" ... according to senior Microsoft Executives.

In addition there is a retort by Linus, here http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh tml?articleID=199600443

and a scathing reply by OIN here, http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/press_release. php

and the ever insightful replies on Groklaw here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200705151 25107293

It seems that this was again a case of Microsoft FUD and hot air. For which we can all be mighty gratefull I should think.

From the Novell press release, issued yesterday:

"We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents. Importantly, our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents."

The commentary on Groklaw is interesting as well

I think the Lanham Act deals with trademarks not patents, but IANAL.

However using unsupported claims to weaken competition could be a violation of anti-trust law.

Of course since Microsoft Just sold thousands of copies of Linux to Dell, they have distributed any possibly infringing material under the GPL. As the owner of that material it is legal for Microsoft to choose the distribution license, but Microsoft now has to abide by the license they have chosen.

From this Groklaw interview with an EFF lawyer who has seen the MS/Novell dael under NDA:

"The deal between Microsoft and Novell also includes some marketing cooperation. Microsoft provides coupons for SUSE to companies, who then go to Novell to redeem the coupons and get their copy of the software. Those coupons procure the conveyance of lots of free software.

Our lawyers have seen the terms of the deal under NDA--unfortunately, they're still secret--but they're confident that Microsoft is already conveying GPLed software under this agreement. The coupons are the most direct proof; there is some other evidence to support that idea as well."

These 'coupons' are called coupons, but are not what most people would consider a 'coupon'. They don't discount the purchase of something from Novell, they are actually a license for a complete copy of Novell's SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop. Microsoft is like that kid who comes to your door and is selling magazine subscriptions. You'll get the magazine from the publisher, but you pay the kid.

Pamela Jones has an interesting take on this story: now that Dell has bought some of the SLES coupons that Microsoft bought from Novell, Microsoft has effectively distributed a GPLed Linux distribution, thereby granting an implied license to any patents it may infringe.

Every stupid, asinine, patent claim needs to be tagged "KSR" to refer to the LANDMARK US Supreme Court decision on obvious patents. The patent landscape has changed, fellow Slashdotters, and it favors the majority, not the infinitesimal minority. Rejoice!

Now ... all Microsoft needs to do (and is doing) is to demand license fees for the use of their patents. This won't affect Linux'es availability for anyone who's willing to pay for a license. How much opposition do you think this will engender in corporate America? How outworldish is it to try to monetise your patents? I have this sinking feeling that most of the industry will shrug it off with "Well ... we knew they're bastards, but that's why they make such a lot of money.", and simply make sure that their Linux distributions are covered by patent license agreements.

Google
Will Google suddenly litigate 150-odd patents (they won't be using the gui or Open Office, just the kernel), or will it consent to pay, say 15$ a copy in licensing fees? Eh? What would you advise Google's CEO if you were in charge of Legal Affairs?

Novell
Novell has signed this patent-agreement, so wouldn't automatically be required to oppose Microsoft when MS asserts its patents. And what about Red-Hat? Will they charge the windmills?

IBM
And IBM? Will they even be a party in the initial legal battles? I mean ... will Microsoft see it as a winning strategy to get into a court battle with IBM about anything they can sue other much smaller companies for first? I'd be surprised.

SUN
And yes, SUN will not take allegations that it's Open Office infringes on Microsoft's patents lying down. But will it take up the cudgels to protect the Linux kernel when it's trying to make a go of Open Solaris? Really?

The little guys
Although I will readily admit that "corporate" use of Linux has helped it along enormously, there are still the "purist" and "hobbyist" distributions. I'm guessing that there are hundreds of small specialised tweaked Linux distributions (ranging from Knoppix to firewalls) brought out by individuals and tiny little companies. That's where Linux shines. And that's where you see the oddball experiments and many of the interesting new developments.

So what are those small guys going to do when they receive a pay-license-fees-or-cease-and-desist nastygram? Their entire assets might just be enough to have a lawyer read the letter and explain to them what it means. My guess is that they will be unable to defend themselves and will quickly fold and withdraw their distros. That alone would be a blow.

The Kernel repositories
And then the Kernel repositories. What are the chances that those will have to take down the infringing portions of their code, if asked? Of course I can't say how likely this might be, as I'm not a lawyer. But Denis Crouch is and his response here ( http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/05/microsoft_ foss_.html) doesn't completely reassure me that Microsoft won't get anywhere.

What does Microsoft have to loose really?
And about other companies giving Micorsoft a hard time ... who likes buying Microsoft? A show of hands please! ... And now, who of you buy Microsoft because it happens to come with the hardware, and it works after a fashion, and you're locked-in anyway?

Really ... what does Microsoft have to loose from some bad publicity when trying to collect licenses on their patents? Somehow I can't even imagine that it would spark off an anti-trust suit, because all the "corporate" Linux distros aren't affected. Microsoft isn't (formally) trying to siderail an opponent, it's trying to get money for patents they own. Well yes, it's lethal to free-as

Microsoft, for credibility will have to produce a detailled list of said patent violations (and eventually a list of specific OSS application that they think are infringing).

You can search the USPTO for Microsoft patents. I suggest that you then register with the Peer to Patent Project. If Microsoft decides to go to war, it will be fun to watch them get dismantled groklaw-style.

Hi Over on Groklaw, the article http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200704220 83715451 describes a possible attempt to lock-in users when using the inbuilt Vista burning software. It appears that the inbuilt default is to use a version of UDF file system rather than mastering software and the author cited claims that it is yet another lock-in attempt by Microsoft. In the WIkipedia article "Criticism of Windows Vista" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_ Vista, there is an attempt by Microsoft fans to rubbish this fact.

This kind of thinking is what Microsoft uses to justify forcing people to write their CDs in a non-portable format , not offering backwards compatible formats for their Office applications (unless their monopoly is being threatened by the likes of Open Office), and beating you over the head if you want to use a format other than their blessed (and ever-changing) .doc format.

Putting a ring through your users' nose, and forcing them to walk a specific path just because you think they should isn't being user friendly. It's being intolerant.

Let the users do what they want to do. Give them the choice to protect themselves, but if they really don't want it, don't presume to know what they want better than they do.

or as my great aunt once told my mom (when she was young)

I say you're tired, and if I say you're tired, then you're tired.

'Open Source projects can be more expensive than their equivliant out of the box vendor specific solutions .. assuming you actually give them time to roll the software and train on it'

This is how most people use Open Source. Decide on a particular distro and sign a support contract. Any problems are dealt with upstream, by the software developers themselves. They are interested in bug reports but that is the sum total involvment of your IT staff in rolling software.

Open Source is about control of your IT and independence from vendors as well as reduced TCO, up to 90% according to the French DGI.

'it allows us to cut our software costs We are trying to evaluate the software TCO implied by our policy. It's probably a bit more than an overall factor of 10'

'Companies with at least 2,000 employees can reduce their total cost of ownership (TCO) by as much as 26 percent over three years by using Linux servers over Windows'

was Reply to: Open Source != Lower TCO

Investors should be aware of the overall dangers the legal profession present to companies, and how its current and generalized naiveté can sink fortunes overnight. While I know of no corporation that has been bankrupted by this sort of fiasco, it will happen eventually if lawyers doesn't catch up with the times.

In August, the Attorney General's Office quietly hired private attorney Brent Hatch, who had been defending Unspam Technologies and its money-making interests in Utah's Child Protection Registry. So far, Hatch has been paid $100,000 - half of what his contract allows, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said.

To be fair to Slashdot's editors, very few of the events in SCO's existence have been covered here. I know its hard to believe for some, but there are a lot more ramblings going on than just the ones you read on Slashdot. Go give Groklaw a read to see just how many stupidities happen on a monthly basis with this company.

IBM's no saint in the computer world, but this is just crazy -- please remember people, SCO hasn't even established ownership of the Copyrights they claim were broken in the first place. That's another case altogether (with Novell).

Groklaw "broke" the news April 28 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200704281 9571717

Since then all these "anonymous sources" just cite from PJ, without properly giving credit. The second paragraph in the groklaw article reads:

      It also wanted Linus Torvalds, Eben Moglen, and Eric Raymond to be prevented from commenting publicly about the litigation.

Please, update the title, its' missing the fact that they wanted to gag also Groklaw http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200704281 9571717

Why is there no mention of them trying to gag PJ and Groklaw, considering she has covered the SCO case more than the other 3 combined and then multiplied by 100?

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200704281 9571717

SCO Tried to Gag Groklaw in 2004

I have been working through the decisions rendered and what I've found most striking is the phrase "What <patent> taught us..." This is the court back to saying that the purpose of patents is to share knowlege while repecting original invention. I like the language being used.

It seems like this ruling directly applies (against Microsoft's favor) in the case of Microsoft's innuendos of patent infringement by Linux. From Microsoft's arguments in the case, object code and source code cannot be patented because it is not on a physical machine that performs the patented operations nor can it be directly installed on such a machine without going through an intermediate step (linking) in the foreign country. Thus, any open source project that provides the object or source code over the Internet but not the binary installer is completely shielded from any patent infringement claims by Microsoft because they are distributing non-installable data that doesn't constitute a patentable invention. I can't wait for Groklaw et al. to jump all over this fumble by Microsoft (as some are already discussing http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200704301 21005424/). Seriously, besides saving some pocket change, can anyone understand what Microsoft was thinking here?

Now here's the key twist. In an Amicus brief that was probably not appreciated by Microsoft and apparently not embraced by the court, the SFLC argued that *all* software is like a blueprint or an algorithm, as this weird test case of installing it overseas versus installing it domestically demonstrates (in their view). Therefore, software should be fundamentally unpatentable.

JUSTICE BREYER: I take it that we are operating under the assumption that software is patentable? We have never held that in this Court, have we?

MR. JOSEFFER: No,..

This is what you said about me for doing my job:
the defense attorney grilling him was being a complete dick

Then when I correct your misuse of legal terms, you say

It may have taken some effort, but the testimony reads like a playbook for anyone who needs to pick apart any RIAA expert.

I posted this before, but this should be required reading for anyone interested in the subject:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200703020 73736822

And it's not just refuting the sham expert, it's about refuting the RIAA's strategy in general, and it's worked. The RIAA has much higher hurdles to jump now. Extorting money from random people just became much more expensive.

--
BMO

Dear Sirs,

I'm very disappointed with your actions and claims this summer by attacking Linux and also GPL in the farsighted way you are doing.

The only logical conclusion I can make from this is that you have decided to kill your own product, UnixWare.

Whether you win this case or not is not important from that point of view. You have harmed your own business for all future. UnixWare is dead. If you win this case, the freedom in this world is gone. You are creating anarchy, worse than the US patent system causes due to it's unlimited patentability on software and business methods.

I don't expect an explanation back from you.

Sincerely yours
myname
mycompany

I actually recieved an answer containing:

SCO is not trying to destroy UnixWare, we are only trying to protect our
intellectual property. I'm sorry that this runs contrary to your
thinking, but when a company's intellectual property is being
threatened, it has to take action.

My immediate conspiratory consideration then was that Microsoft gladly supported the trial as it had potential to harm both UnixWare and the Linux kernel, both competitors to MS.

At that time the Microsoft mix into this were merely rumours but last year their support were more or less proven

Why would a hedge fund do that when the total value of was a combined $519 000 according to Their last financial results?

SCO owns nothing of value at this point.

So Long and Thanks for all the Fish. Proprietary Unix will be dead by Christmas. Linux forever.

See also:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200704271 85116413

Quoted from Groklaw:
  On April 23, 2007, The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company") received a letter from The Nasdaq Stock Market ("Nasdaq") indicating that the bid price of its common stock for the last 30 consecutive business days had closed below the minimum $1.00 per share required for continued listing under Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(4). Pursuant to Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(8)(D), the Company has been provided an initial period of 180 calendar days, or until October 22, 2007, to regain compliance.

Quoted from Groklaw:
  On April 23, 2007, The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company") received a letter from The Nasdaq Stock Market ("Nasdaq") indicating that the bid price of its common stock for the last 30 consecutive business days had closed below the minimum $1.00 per share required for continued listing under Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(4). Pursuant to Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(8)(D), the Company has been provided an initial period of 180 calendar days, or until October 22, 2007, to regain compliance.

Since there was no link in the story, I figured it'd be prudent to provide one sowing that SCO is indeed in peril of having their stock de-listed.

As usual, PJ provides the relevant and proper info.

Soko

The Novell-75.pdf [PDF] document is the order. In it, the judge says:

it is unclear under the language of the APA whether the copyrights transferred.

The Microsoft + Novell deal is just SCO + EV1 servers all over again. The schemers are running out of creativity. Both deals are more smoke than fire. Neither is meaningful because their secret nature precludes people from making rational decisions about them. How do you put a value on the products of either SCO or Novell, when they've entered agreements that prohibit them from disclosing who owns what? Is the point of this to allow both of them to sell you the same thing, twice? When your marketing approach is "Sign this contract or we'll sue you out of business whether our claims have merit or not," people have to start wondering what makes you morally superior to a mugger and whether being in an enduring relationship with you is preferable to going directly to court or cheaper than settling you with a different kind of "contract.". Eventually these people are going to try this with the entirely wrong victim and it won't take the courts to sort the matter out.

The declaration of Novell's outside attorney that did the deal, Tor Braham reads like death to SCO's claims. Basically he was there, wrote the draft that got signed. He signed it himself. He kept drafts of what the Old SCO asked for and the edits where they were struck, and explains why very clearly: SCO just didn't have the cash, Novell wasn't interested in selling the Unix copyrights, Novell needed to protect its interests in case of an OldSCO bankruptcy.

It's interesting that just 1/2 hr before the close of market two days ago somebody unloaded 466,000 shares of SCOX, just over 2% of the company. As of December 31, 2006 yahoo lists only seven companies and two insiders with that much of a stake. I wonder who....

• Novell Files 4 Summary Judgment Motions
• Declaration of Allison Amadia as text - Amendment 2 Didn't Transfer Copyrights
• Declaration of Tor Braham - the lawyer for Novell who drafted the APA

• Novell Files 4 Summary Judgment Motions
• Declaration of Allison Amadia as text - Amendment 2 Didn't Transfer Copyrights
• Declaration of Tor Braham - the lawyer for Novell who drafted the APA

• Novell Files 4 Summary Judgment Motions
• Declaration of Allison Amadia as text - Amendment 2 Didn't Transfer Copyrights
• Declaration of Tor Braham - the lawyer for Novell who drafted the APA

Lets not forget all the FUD MS intentionaly spread trough the press, as say some recently disclosed documents.

there are laws against exploitation of legal system in order to suppress, intimidate, extort people.

arent there any in united states ?

Yes, there are. See SCO vs. IBM, for example. Four years running.

Groklaw has some legal eagles who can give you better answers than I can.

My guess is that unless they can "pierce the corporate veil" they'll be stuck in line with other unsecured creditors.

If they can pierce it then they can go after executives and maybe even the law firms or the individual lawyers. Even if they don't recover much, if the lawyers wind up holding the bag it will send a message to corporate land sharks everywhere: Don't participate in bogus lawsuits.

If you just want to punish the landsharks:

The judge can also sanction the lawyers directly, with the fines going to the court. Likewise, non-insider SCO shareholders who bought in before the suits were filed may have action against the lawyers for malpractice. Then there's the Utah bar association.....

How can you be a healthcare provider AND be using Windows XP?

Well now you are just plain wrong: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200312142 10634851