Slashdot Mirror
Is the Microsoft/Novell Deal a Litigation Bomb?
mpapet writes "According to WINE developer Tom Wickline, the Microsoft/Novell deal for Suse support may one day control commercial customers' use of Free Software. Is this the end of commercial OSS developers who are not a part of the Microsoft/Suse pact?" From the article: "Wickline said that the pact means that there will now be a Microsoft-blessed path for such people to make use of Open Source ... 'A logical next move for Microsoft could be to crack down on 'unlicensed Linux' and 'unlicensed Free Software,' now that it can tell the courts that there is a Microsoft-licensed path. Or they can just passively let that threat stay there as a deterrent to anyone who would use Open Source without going through the Microsoft-approved Novell path,' Wickline said." Bruce Perens dropped a line to point out that most of the content actually comes from his post.
I R'd the FA, and I don't have the first clue what this perceived threat is. How does signing this deal threaten commercial use of OSS? Don't the existing OSS licensing terms still hold? Why should it matter that MS can now show there's an MS-licensed path?
Is this threat a software patent one? If so, how does this deal change the threat - if the patents already exist, couldn't they be used just as easily without the deal as with it?
I'm no lawyer, I don't swim in corporate mega-deal circles, and I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so it's possible (probable, even) that there's something obvious here that I'm missing. Can someone who knows more about it elaborate for me? Because as it stands, I don't see how MS controlling one licensing path for OSS can suddenly mean that all other methods of acquiring OSS become illegal.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Yeah!
In one way, you can easily scream OMG ITS A TRAP! The article pretty much gives us the worst case senario, which leaves me thinking FUD. Yeah. That pretty much seems like it. FUD.
Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
Other than market share... it's like selling your soul to the devil.
The recent Microsoft actions have greatly surprised me, but was it really all that surprising? Microsoft is returning to the pre-DOJ practices that made them a monopoly.
...since the feds took down the website. I guess their speed indicates that it must be a bomb.
This might end up revealing a lot about how many people will accept loss of control for the sake of "pragmatism". If you don't mind non-free drivers, etc. then I suspect you'll like whatever MS/Novell concoct. No doubt it will contain plenty of non-free technology that the proverbial "average user" needs in order to get hisher nonfree hardware to work out-of-the-box, and so on.
Acceptable?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I distrust Microsoft about as much as any other /. reader but this article is just stupid. The author seems to be implying that because Microsoft has made an alliance with a Linux vendor they all of the sudden own all open source software ever created and can just sue people for patent infringement at will. What a crock.
People....CALM DOWN.
The world is not coming to an end. Microsoft is not coming to steal your children.
TFA keeps refering to "the Vole". WTF is "the Vole"? AFAIK, a vole is a rodent endemic to Northern and alpine climes. I have no idea what it means in the given context.
This move by Microsoft was largely in response to Oracle's alignment with Red Hat. If Microsoft asserts its patents against OSF, Oracle, IBM, others, are very likely to pound the beejezus out of Microsoft for infringing on their own patents. It's very much like a nuclear deterrent: it's one that you don't want to ever have to use, because it means the demise of everyone. This article is just hyped banal trash.
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain
Isn't this what Microsoft wanted SCO to do? (litigate the Linux back to the stone age). Guess they failed there and are retrying again, this time with Novell as their minion.
This
in the code though.
The Volnovo pact will mean that non-commercial individual contributors can make Open Source, but if anyone actually uses it for something other than a hobby or a non-profit organisation Vole can bring a software patent lawsuit against them unless they are a Novell customer, he said.
Well sure, but only if you assume that there are patented procedures in Linux. Do we know that there are? I'm almost sure that there are in the Wine project. But can anyone point to an example of something in the Linux kernel that is patented by Microsoft?
Or could be, rather. It seems to me that Microsoft would have to be idiots to try and pull the kind of crap SCO were doing.
Seriously, as the article said Microsoft needs a new deterrent for all the players in the free software movement. SCO is history, now they need a new partner, someone who's not as big (or will be) as Microsoft is today. A major linux vendor is the perfect way to achieve that. Microsoft will keep continuing to push only that much technology that they would like to - I doubt whether we'll see MAPI being opened up, whether the doc format will, whether we'll see a pam_ad etc ... All Microsoft wants is to look good in the press, give a cozy feeling to its customers and more importantly have a position to draw lines in the free software movement. Patents and litigation will be seen as a major drawback by all the majors looking at deploying free software solutions. I am not talking about the average bearded nerd here in /., but the multi-millionaire CEOs who don't know jargon from garbage.
As for me, I am in India, I can keep laughing whenever talk about software patents happen.
Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips."
As I read the FAQ and announcements last night, with the M$ logo prominent on the webcast, I was reminded of the movie _The_Empire_Strikes_Back_, specifically the scene just before Luke gets into his battle with Vader. He encounters Leia and the armed guards escorting her, and when she realizes it's Luke, she screams "It's a trap!" as she's dragged away.
*Everyone* who has ever climbed into bed with M$ has been screwed: Spyglass, Stac Software, IBM, HP, Citrix, et. al. ad. nauseum. How Novell could think it's somehow immune is beyond me.
Even as Ballmer was busy announcing this in SF, I have little doubt that a literal army of lawyers were busy in Redmon, poring over the agreements and looking at the placement of commas to find loopholes, ambiguities and workarounds (beyond those that they slipped in before signing and that Novell's legal beagles missed) that will allow Redmond to rape the spirit of the agreements while nevertheless adhering to the letter.
If Microsoft attempted to assert their patents against a complete sector of activity could it be construed as anti-competitive and a basis for new anti-trust proceedings?
I would hope so.
Shh.
"Your honor, they aren't using Microsoft approved Linux!"
... you might have an argument.
WTF! The whole point of Free and Open Software is that no one CAN say that in a court.
Now, if the argument had been that MS might make business shy away from non-MS-approved Linux through marketing and strong-arm tactics
i agree with Wickline that this is the next ploy by MS to try and subvert/control/destroy OSS, especially as it pertains to commercial enterprises. at the end of the day MS are always going to try and involve the courts, as it is the easiest and most cost-effective. why innovate when you can litigate? i wonder how this will affect the new patent review group (here), as this news makes it look like a mexican standoff, with GE casting the deciding vote.
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
This was tried with SCO/Caldera/Corel/Whatever Linux, and worked oh so well. 6 years later, there are Linux distros galore to be had. And it's not as if MS actually owns Novell or SuSE either.
-b.
I just read the same story on three different sites and out of them there's one that makes sense, one that's a stretch and this one that is tin foil hat nuttiness at its finest. Keep in mind that Oracle announced there "new" enterprise Linux only days ago. Sure Microsoft has a history of trying to pound open source into the group, but the bigger threat here is Oracle by far. They may have to swallow a little pride and make things more operable with Novell, but it's to the end that people don't completely flock to Oracle's boat. I'm as suspicious of this as anyone else, but the landscape is shifting and Microsoft is aware of it. This doesn't mean that MS is going to sudden GPL Windows, but that doesn't mean this isn't forcing them to open up just enough to stay a player in this field. It won't be any more than completely necessary, but to say this is nothing more then an attempt to finish off Novell like they start a decade ago is pretty asinine. Who is Novell compared to Oracle?
People have been dissecting it left and right, and the people who **actually** read the agreement have come to the conclusion realize that it doesn't violate the GPL.
Patent lawsuits cost a lot of money.
Previously you would have expected patent holders to go after corporations (like Novell) that make money off of the allegedly infringing technology.
Now, since the corporations making money off of Linux are signing big-money partnerships.-- and the patent holders (bogus or not) can only go after the end developers rather than Novell for fear of entering into an IP war against the combined portfolios of Microsoft and Novell.
Furthermore, suddenly Novell's interests are aligned with Microsoft in spreading FUD about Linux IP rather than invalidating the bogus patents.
"So customer, do you want to go for that Red Hat version that'll be sued next time Microsoft buys a shill like Darl - or do you want to pay royalties for the nice-safe SuSE version that pays Microsoft a cut?"
1) The inquirer? Seriously?
/. I can drag things to.
2) The article isn't even coherent. None of what's said here make any logical sense, and even less legal sense.
I need a trash bin on the side of
not to mention that the linked article, and articles linked from that, are pretty much incomprehensible. Microsoft and Novell agree to work together to make Linux and Windows work together, Microsoft agrees to support SUSE for Novell customers, therefore Microsoft owns Linux? Sloppy reasoning, sloppy writing, sloppy discussion.
Ofcourse they can cooperate as they will and develop software under any license. I would not complain if they would do just that.
But why, do they have to threat with suing commercial opponents?
I guess Microsoft by now is only used to playing the monopolist and only wants to operate in the linux market with the rules they have become used to.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
The SCO case taught us the taxonomy of what's inside Linux, and it's protected. Add to this the GNU utilities, also hand-crafted by RMS. Any patents that Microsoft pulls out of its sleeve and sends torts about will be fodder for the EU community to go ballistic about, and worse, hurt Microsoft's chances to make friends with the OSS & F/OSS communities.
No, this is a case of the enemy of my enemy is my cross-licensed friend. This would never happen while Ray Noorda was alive, but alas, he's gone now. It's probably making Eric Schmidt, who once headed Novell, cringe.
It's all for chest thumping. Nothing to see here. Move along.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
He says he didn't even read the terms of the deal - "depends on precise terms of the agreement that Moglen hasn't seen" - ... he has no idea what he is talking about. Patent protection != Royalty.
Personally, I think Novell has the touch of death for everything it gets involved in. It's not enough for them anymore to issue grossly untested patches and releases of their own propietary Netware/Groupwise crap any longer (I'm referring to modern incarnations of Novell software, yes they used to be good a long time ago), overcharge and overprice for their software and lousy support; now they have to take a formerly good linux distro, send all the good developers and managers from it running and now create potential legal issues for the entire OSS world!
p.s. I hate Provo
"It's possible that Thursday's deal between Microsoft and Novell could conflict with a provision in the General Public License (GPL), according to Eben Moglen, the attorney for the Free Software Foundation that created and oversees the Linux license. "If you make an agreement which requires you to pay a royalty to anybody for the right to distribute GPL software, you may not distribute it under the GPL," Moglen told CNET News.com Thursday. Section 7 of the GPL "requires that you have, and pass along to everybody, the right to distribute software freely and without additional permission." Article from CNET: http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6132156.html
I don't see anything necessarily nefarious in this. As I commented in the earlier article, most likely, Novell is may making sure that Microsoft continues to support NDS/NetWare (which is now the Linux-based Open Enterprise Server) by having the client software supported on Vista. Microsoft wants to make sure that .Net has a foothold in the linux/unix backend market. They both get something out of the deal. Novell gets Windows desktops to provide a market for their server products. MS gets Novell supported Mono/.Net-based servers to provide a market for the desktop and application products. Anything that grows the NDS/Netware line is good for Novell. Anything that grows .Net is good for MS. They both win.
Why is it always zonk that posts these types of articles?
Not yet.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
so MS has the final say in what businesses can do with open source software? funny, i don't remember electing them. i use and recommend the use of OSS on win32 for all sorts of things. and just HTF does MS get to "license linux"?
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
Suppose Microsoft decides to sue AutoZone and Chrysler for patent infringement because of their use of Linux. If the victims don't particularly feel like fighting, a logical settlement would be to "come into compliance" by migrating to the Novell/MS distro(s). I could see a lot of judges encouraging this sort of settlement rather than trying to figure out who owns what "intellectual property"...
A few hundred commercial users later, you have the standard EmExEx scenario
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
And read people's analysis - just not the mainstream press, who spun this sensationally as "MS validates Linux." It becomes clear quickly that this is a very cold move to:
1. make it clear that Novell has the only authorized Linux, and anyone else is open to lawsuits. This is an attack on one of Microsoft's main challenges, Linux, as well as open source in general. They also make it clear that anyone but Novell who is funding open source development is subject to lawsuits.
2. make it clear
3. Establish that a normal way of doing business is to exchange patent suites. This is an attack on individuals and small business.
Watching the video, Novell's CEO slips in that he reached out to Microsoft. Missing that, during Q&A, someone asks who reached out to whom. He again has to state he reached out to MS, but with more visible squirming and coverup.
Also during Q&A, someone asks Ballmer if they would work with other vendors such as Red Hat on a similar deal. Ballmer talks for an extended period and does not address the question.
The press release video has been reorganized so I can't find it here, but the text is here: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/steve/200
That this is spun as news is incredible, when you consider what they are really claiming here - that they are ready to sue any Novell/Open Source company that is not Novell.
Welcome to the new world.
So MS has said that it won't sue Novell's customers, and Novell said it won't Sue MS's customers, (sad, BTW, that this is what it comes to) but how does this protect the corporate Linux adopter from everyone else with a lawyer? If corporate CIOs and legal departments are truly holding off on Linux and open source (and apparently they are) because of potential litigation over IP issues, then I don't see how this is much of a help. If I now go out and install Suse, what's to keep Oracle, or TIBCO, or Cisco from suing me. Do RH and Novell have to secure covenants from every copyright/patent holder in the industry?
Besides, hasn't the SCO thing proven that suing your customers is not a good idea (despite what the music industry is up to). If MS sues Citigroup for using Red Hat, then I'd put my money on Citigroup.
This deal started back in April when Ron Hovsepian called Microsoft. This can't be a reaction to the Oracle announcement because it has taken 6+ months to wade through the legal mine field.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions... but he is definitely banging the old "Linux infringes our patents" FUD drum...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
I'll take a stab at this one, but I might miss a few points.
1. Microsoft announces agreement with Novell for Suse, and says they won't pursue any patent claims against them (and quite possibly, only them).
2. Suse feeds back technologies to the rest of the Linux community like they are supposed to.
3. Microsoft cries foul and says they only promised not to litigate Novell/Suse for any potential patent violations.
4. OSS community is forced to either not use any of the Suse extensions (now Microsoft proprietary and licenced) or to say that Suse is required to share with the crowd.
5. Microsoft sues all other Linux distributions who are using code contributed by Suse, and claims that those people are violating MS patents, gets an injunction preventing distribution of Linux.
6. Linux is fuxored.
Basically, the fear is that they will do what they do on standards comittees -- play along very nicely, patent the technology they've been holding in open discussions (without telling anyone), and the say nobody is allowed to play except by their rules. Then they get to claim that only people who bought a license (and nobody who is doing pure OSS can buy one) can use the technology.
Think submarine patents, but more like submarine licensing. Only the goal is to make sure that by having someone who is a licensee, all others who aren't licensees must be violating the law. Kinda like what SCO thought they could do.
The very paranoid might look at the partnering with Novell/Suse as an attempt to poison the environment so that eventually the rest of the OSS people would be guilty of using MS technology without a proper license.
At least, that seems to be the gist of the argument.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Microsoft blesses Novell. This is a hard beat at RedHat... Oracle beats on Redhat too, it make some more pain to RH. Now RH falls bankrupt... Now, there is no RH... Novell thinks they won.. Then MS drops Novell support (along with Oracle?)... then Novell goes bankrupt... Then commercial linux is dead....
Another MS strategy?
I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
I'm no Microsoftie, but fuck, enough with making these made-up scenarios where Microsoft will try to kill OSS. Come on! It's really a small percentage of people who come up with these crackpot ideas where they think Microsoft will go around and kill Linux, but IT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
In the past couple of years Microsoft has done what it can do embrace Linux, not kill it. Don't they even install Linux on their VMs to make sure that it works? They have softened some of their license restrictions, they have made more and more of their source code open source... yet every day, there is another article talking about some great conspiracy that Microsoft will entail to take over the world.
How much more do they need to do???
Let's be real, they will never convert to Linux or fully open and free source, but why should they? But given everything that I've seen, Microsoft is filled with pro-Linux types and ethical programmers who would never, ever let the company get away with killing off something like free programming, open source, etc.
When have they EVER, EVER exerted their powers to kill open source? I'll tell you: NEVER. They have only worked to try to co-exist with it in the last couple of years, so please, stop being paranoid, and slashdot please stop posting all this ridiculous nonsense that propagates this stupid attitude.
I for one welcome our new operating system overlords... oh, wait! ..... That's right they already are overlords!
It could simply be that this guarantees Microsoft some revenue from Linux via Novell, and gives Novell some lift up to the acceptance level Red Hat already has.
On the other hand, for those of us trying to get away from Microsoft, this hurts Novell, since now I am definitely NOT going to use Suse in the enterprise...
(...unless of course they have the only Linux version of a solution to something.)
If Novell really wanted to help their marketshare, they should deeply discount the use of Suse as a replacement for all the old Novell OS licenses that are out in the world. I would have used Suse had they done that. I've got a whole stack of useless old Novell licenses in the closet!
But until then, Red Hat's the OS for my enterprise servers.
...is that knee-jerk, anti-MS nazis will now abandon SUSE because of some non-specific perceived threat. It's a great distro (my personal favorite) so let's all see that it continues to be great.
I have a suspicion that what Wickline mean was Microsoft would only support software on Suse Linux that was Microsoft approved. What this could do is creat an imbalance in relation to commercial acceptance of open source software. Microsoft will say "We support package X, but not package Y or Z." So commercial companies who need the functionality provided by X, Y, or Z will choose X because it's supported, not necessarily because it's better. As an example, for customers using Suse Linux, Microsoft may say we only support Cedega, not Wine. More people will start using Cedega over Wine, and more money filters into Cedega over Wine. Taken to extreme, the Wine project may run out of money and have to shut down (it's not likely, but possible). Now, in Wine and Cedega's case, they are both open source, but Wickline may be worried that Microsoft will only support close sourced, commercial software running on Suse Linux, creating a shift of corporate funds away from the open source projects they may currently be supporting. Considering it's the Inquirer, I suspect they edited what Wickline said, but didn't fully understand it and screwed it up.
Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
we see the Windows splash screen say "Microsoft Windows Vista 2009 Edition powered by Linux"
Anything that grows the NDS/Netware line is good for Novell. Anything that grows .Net is good for MS.
1. So, suddenly after years of competing directly with Novell, they are "giving an inch" to Novell in the battle for corporate customers?
2. I'm all for win-win situations, but how many deals does microsoft make where they don't eat the other party alive?
Please, show me some examples.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
But, worryingly, Microsoft owns a LOT more patents, and has the resources to fight such a court battle.
Should they decide to later on behave like they have in the past, things could get messy. I mean, really, partnering with MS is like cuddling a crocodile -- sooner or later it's going to do what a crocodile does and bite you. Historically, such partnerships are (seem?) beneficial at first, and then become damaging in the long run.
One just never really knows what they're planning.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Thus if Microsoft distributes Linux it licenses the patents contained in the code.
Microsoft said in plain english in the press release that they WILL NOT distribute Linux. They will merely recommend it if a customer must have a linux solution in a Microsoft environment.
Also, enforcing a patent against the GPL revokes the license putting MS in very hot water.
Sigh... have you even read what this is all about? Microsoft and Novell came to a patent agreement whereby they will not litigate each other. No patent enforcement. FUD. Go away!!!
There's verifiable proof that there's no Microsoft-owned code in Linux: It doesn't crash!
I personally think Microsoft is trying to plant a patent FUD turd inside the head of any CIO thinking of deploying Linux.
Hey Miguel de Icaza, what are your thoughts on this?
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
... where he says "but I haven't read the terms of the agreement."
Why just Linux? Could not one or more of the BSDs be "threatened" like this also?
What Microsoft is planning in the future is of little relevance when the damage done to Linux in the commercial world is already:
1) Made it clear that only those Linux distributions 'blessed' by Microsoft are 'safe' for a commercial company to use
2) Linux is so riddled with Microsoft patented processes that it requires a major Linux vendor to enter such a one sided 'agreement' with Microsoft
3) Mono - I don't even know where to start with that fiasco for Linux
The damage Novell has done is most likely irreparable. Right now only IBM has a chance of saving Linux in the commercial world.
Novell's screwup will have no effect on the rest of the distros, software that is GNU/GPL will always remain GNU/GPL...
the more insightful users of Novell/SuSE will jump ship to another distro, while Novell will soon lose marketshare by a good percentage and will become obsolete or a fringe with just a few hard core fanboys slowly becomeing a smaller & smaller circle, basically Novell commited GNU/Suicide if they dont reverse this thing quickly (within the next few days)...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Linux is not going anywhere (at least not through MS's FUD spreading tactics) and Microsoft knows it. I've been trying to make sense out of this whole Microsoft/Novell deal and an article on ZDNet, in which they present Novel and Microsoft as painting a target over Red hat, got me thinking. What better way of getting rid of Linux on the server than to join forces with the rival of the biggest Linux company.
;)
Once this flag carrier of Linux servers (RH) becomes irrelevant, you can, in the same but easier way, turn around and do the same to your once ally (Novell) technically killing off two your biggest enemies by pitting them against each other. Furthermore, it would not only put Linux on the server at a disadvantage but it would also make Linux lose credibility in the corporate environment which may trickle down to the already somewhat struggling (but with great potential) Linux on the desktop.
A lot of maybes and stretching of the imagination but my point is that MS did not join Novell to make friends with Linux, not that we ever thought otherwise around here
[alk]
I've got two thoughts on the subject. Mainly that this is probably going to end up being a very bad move on the part of Novell. It's hard to say exactly how it will play out but companies foolish enough to partner with Microsoft often times end up getting double crossed. And we know that Microsoft has it out for Linux, as it's pretty much the only thing slowing their growth in the server market. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind Microsoft is going into this deal with malice aforethought a evil in their hearts. Novell is going to get it in the back, mark my words.
Second, as far as the fear that Microsoft is going to start a patent war with Linux, I have three words for you: Eye. Bee. Em. Novell is small enough, and has made enough mis-steps in the past, I can imagine them letting Microsoft screw them over. I don't think Big Blue is going to let it happen though. SCOvIBM has shown that they are willing to go the distance to keep Linux in the clear, and they have more software patents than anybody I believe.
I don't care at all. I live in the EU, there are no software patents in my country an there won't be any in the future no matter how much Nokia wants it. Some unknown company claims that it holds the patents of JPEG? Who cares? Microsoft wants to sue me because they have the patent to doubleclick? I am so scared! I don't need to worry about that whole SCO/JPEG/etc stuff.
So I conclude the agreement lasts only 5 years. And after that? If this agreement encourages adding MS-patented stuff to Linux, and there's no extension after those five years, then Linux will make a perfect target for future MS lawsuits.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Let them. The source code is already out there. Nothing short of the Earth exploding can unpublish it. Are they going to have the resources to sue every Linux developer and every person and/or company that puts out a distro? In countries that are unfriendly to US corporate interests? I think not.
Plus, to do so would further antagonize various governments and organizations that are just itching to press antitrust suits against MS. This bodes ill for Novell, certainly. However, this *may* also mean that MS is getting out of the "NT" based server market and is shopping around for a suitable replacement platform - maybe they're learning from their mistakes.
-b.
RE:["I'm no Microsoftie"]
the rest of your comment betrays the first three words...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
The only reason a GPL challenge hasn't reached a US court yet is because in every case so far, the violator has ended up settling. And, no - despite what you've heard, the SCO vs IBM case is not about the GPL. Darl McBride's letter to the US Congress about how the GPL was unconstitutional was greeted with a big fat "so what?"
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. 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.
This means that , should MS enforce its patents on other open source companies, not even Novell can distribute GPL programs covered by the same patents.
Well, that's nice...the tiny and mostly irrelevant GNU freak crowd will excommunicate Novell.
Now out in the real world, the commercial business community that doesn't give a shit about open source ideology just saw a major Linux distributor endorse the idea that Linux is a patent litigation minefield...
Watching the video, Novell's CEO slips in that he reached out to Microsoft. Missing that, during Q&A, someone asks who reached out to whom. He again has to state he reached out to MS, but with more visible squirming and coverup.
No, it was incredibly clear, RTFTranscript:
QUESTION: How long have these talks been going on about this agreement, and who initiated it, essentially? Did Novell go to Microsoft, or Microsoft go to Novell, or did you just sort of get together spontaneously? How did that work?
RON HOVSEPIAN: How it happened was I reached out to Kevin Turner in the April timeframe, the COO of Microsoft, and I suggested to Kevin that there was a relationship to be had here, and I'm smiling a little bit, because I said to Kevin, I know you're at Microsoft, but I want you to go back to when you were a customer, and we had some laughs about that.
Also during Q&A, someone asks Ballmer if they would work with other vendors such as Red Hat on a similar deal. Ballmer talks for an extended period and does not address the question
It's pretty clear to me:
We had discussions with lots of folks in the industry. You can probably guess a list of names, as you hypothesized one [redhat]. But, it was really when Ron called and initiated a contact, since he's thinking about where he wanted to take Novell, that we were able to put together something that addressed the business issues, the patent issues, and the technology issues all at once.
Novell had the best portfolio. You have to make a trade why would they haggle with (say) Canonical? Nothing to gain patent-wise, whereas Novell has a decent portfolio.
From what I can gather, the agreement between Microsoft and Novell would only cover software developed between them that uses a Microsoft or Novell patent.
After all, you can't license out something you don't own, that's called fraud. If I release one of my programs under an OSS license, NOTHING gives Microsoft the right to issue a different license for it.
So this agreement has no effect on open source software covered by most open source licenses.
A blasphemer!! hang him!!! STAKE HIM!! BURN!
[alk]
So all the "insightful" comments say that this is no big deal, Microsoft is not gaining any control they didn't have already, it's actually a win for Linux, etc.
People, wake up! It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that all these "insightful" comments are just a Microsoft-sponsored astro-turfing campaign of the most profound magnitude! The wool is being pulled over your lemming-like eyes as the oppressors take the castle!
Comments mention that the warnings in the article are weak, unsubstantiated, confusing, meaningless...don't you all understand that the complete lack of evidence is just PROOF of how all-encompassing the conspiracy REALLY IS!?!?!?
NOW is the time for ACTION...before it's TOO LATE!!!
Not at the moment, but that's clearly what Microsoft are moving towards and what they hope for. They're not going to go out and sue people tomorrow, but it gives them a nice mechanism to scare people with some FUD of their own.
Novell have fallen for it like the clueless bunch of buffoons we all know that they are. If Novell's credibility wasn't negative before it sure is now.
They are relieved because Microsoft can now no longer be ligitated for monopoly of the os market, because there is now a laternative in the form of suse-linux. Really why do you think they took suse? because it is in Europe and in Europe they have a big problem with the EC for monopolist behaviour. They got fined BIG. Better to do a deal with a european compagny then get an other 500 million dollor fine.
-- ac for a reason?
That's the ONLY people who develop FOSS that they claim won't be a potential lawsuit target and they did NOT clarify what they meant as a "commercial" developer. If you as an independent dev write some code that someone else uses for business-is that commercial? Money changes hands based on YOUR code then, they could say it is. And linux in general? If it isn't the blessed novell distro and release, will that mean anyone giving it away or selling it might get sued, even if there is no merit? Huh? Oh, that isn't in the release either is it. All it says is novell and MS won't sue each other, which leaves it wide open for anyone else, depending on what patent bombs they want to drop and what they claim is a commercial developer. A TON of FOSS guys develop commercial who DON'T work for novell or MS. Those two companies just threatened all those folks.
It is a blatant fucking threat to anyone BUT novell involved with linux, easy enough to see. How many people can afford to go to court over something like this? It is a pure intimidation effort, beyond obvious, it is to get people to just stop developing, or eventually work through some bogus MS license based on even stupider "patent" claims they may or may not want to use. Novell and MS just turned nto something like the RIAA or MPAA, so, feeling lucky? You TRUST them? I don't!
Make a binding agreement, not limited in time or target, to never use any of their patents against any open source project.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Seems to be plenty of people are talking without reading the FACTS. How about reading the press realease and some of the FAQ before starting FUD. One of the best notes in the FAQ is this...
Q. The press release indicates Microsoft is also pledging not to assert its patents against individual, non-commercial open source developers. How is this connected to Novell?
Microsoft and Novell felt it was important to establish a precedent for the individual, non-commercial open source developer community that potential patent litigation need not be a concern. Microsoft is excited to more actively participate in the open source community and Novell is and will continue to be an important enabler for this bridge. For these reasons, both Novell and Microsoft felt it was appropriate to make this pledge for Microsoft not to assert its patents against the non-commercial community.
The author and those of you who would like to find out more should look at Novell's website...
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/
> GNU/Suicide
GNUicide. I love it.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Because we should trust a non-binding press release over the binding details of the deal. It's not like the stated goal will be different from the actual goal. Nobody is ever sly; everybody says exactly what they mean.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
If the parent is correct, then clearly Novell must now be excommunicated from all GPL/FOSS activities unless they can show/prove that every bit of everything they contribute to to GPL/FOSS community is totally free of IP encumbrances especially encumbrances from Microsoft. And, frankly, the additional effort that would require would cost more than what they would contribute. Buh-bye Novell!
I want to know why Novell would ever make a deal with Microsoft. What's really happening?
I dont think they ever really quit.. Just went underground a bit.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Only problem with that analogy is that you assume mutual destruction. Microsoft has enough cash in the bank to still come out on top if full war is declared.
And since they apparently dont care about public opinion ( marketing spin can fix any of that ) anything is possible.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"The crux of the deal, to Wickline, is the fact that Microsoft is promising not to assert its patents against individual non-commercial developers."
I thought orginally they said they wouldnt do it at all and all the patents were just for their 'protection' ? Did they change their mind? ( not suprising if they did ).
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Another thing: in return for licensing Novell to use its patents, Microsoft will get paid a small "tax" on certain sales by Novell. So that when somebody buys Novell Linux with a support contract, they're also paying Microsoft, which uses part of its revenue to try to destroy or cripple Linux.
Novell, and its legal team, has clearly calculated that it can simply screw all the people who wrote the software that Novell bundles and sells in its distro. Novell has enough good lawyers, and it's probably right.
For what it is worth, though, I shall make damn sure that anybody who asks me for advice about Linux is steered away from Novell.
Can anyone spell MONOPOLY? That's what they're trying to make it. And the funny thing is that I don't recall either MS or Novell/Suse having any hand in the writing of the original Linux.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
SuSE/Novell wouldn't be the ones going after them. Microsoft does the dirty work. Novell isn't trying to enforce any patent or such nonsense and violate the GPL. And Microsoft even gets to take out the Linux that helped them play this dirty game since all the hard-core Linux vets will be dumping SuSE like a plague for what they've done if it's at all reasonably possible to replace in their places of work.
Downloading SUSE source RPM's makes you a Novell customer, apply diffs from your current source tree and MS (who can't claim ignorance of the GPL or how linux distros are redistributed) have agreed not to sue for infringement. Novell would be strongly advised to make the details of this agreement public...
Either the patent deal is sublicensible or Novell are already infringing the GPL. Seems Novell can either butt-fuck Microsoft or get busy lubing up.
these statements make it pretty clear that this is a royalty (like for example by saying "royalty"). I hope Moglen crushes this deal.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Several lines above are quotes of me and I'm not attributed. And my writing is coherent, unlike the article cited here. The real article is here.
Bruce Perens.
It's Wine, not WINE.
I have been using SUSE 10.0 for quite awhile now. I have no problems myself with using proprietary components, but this behavior is a threat to FOSS and Linux. I guess it is time to switch.
Let's Hear it from the Horses' Mouth, aaaa, Ballmer himself!
:
This is just in
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2050848,00.as p?kc=EWEWEMNL103006EP17A
SAN FRANCISCO--Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said his company is open to talking to other Linux distributors about reaching mutual patent coverage deals similar to the agreement signed Nov. 2 with Novell.
Such talks would be a good idea, Ballmer suggested, since now only Novell's SUSE Linux customers are the only Linux vendors that have any assurance that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement.
Ballmer and Novell CEO Ronald Hovsepian spoke to eWEEK about the implications of their joint announcement here. The two companies have entered into a broad collaboration agreement aimed at providing greater interoperability between Windows and Linux while eliminating concerns about potential patent violations.
Click here to read Darryl Taft's story on what the Novell-Microsoft patent deal means for the software developer community.
The two companies agreed to assemble a joint research facility to work on virtualization technology for Windows and Linux as well as developing greater compatibility between the Microsoft-backed Open XML and the open-source community's OpenDocument formats. They also agreed to work on Web service technology to manage physical and virtual servers in mixed Windows-Linux environments.
The distributors of other versions of Linux cannot assure their customers that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement. "If a customer says, 'Look, do we have liability for the use of your patented work?' Essentially, If you're using non-SUSE Linux, then I'd say the answer is yes," Ballmer said.
"I suspect that [customers] will take that issue up with their distributor," Ballmer said. Or if customers are considering doing a direct download of a non-SUSE Linux version, "they'll think twice about that," he said.
However, Ballmer did not say whether Microsoft had any plans to file patent infringement suits against other Linux distributors.
Competing Linux vendors "are certainly welcome to get involved to quickly provide these covenants not to sue," he said. These vendors have other incentives besides pressure from their customers and the worry about legal action, Ballmer noted.
The collaboration agreement demonstrates there are other factors "in which our technical cooperation is a definite advantage to Novell," Ballmer said.
The other Linux distributors, Ballmer suspects, will review their own position in the light of the Microsoft-Novell agreement. "There are a lot of Linux distributors now. All of the sudden you have got Oracle in the game; you've got Red Hat in the game."
They all "will have to face the issues and help their customers" in the same way that Novell is, Ballmer said.
The two companies haven't set any timetables for the delivery of Windows and Linux collaboration technologies. Planning is in the very early stages, Hovsepian said, considering that the two companies formally signed the collaboration agreement literally minutes before they walked to the press conference podium at the JW Marriott Hotel here. "We'll roll out the schedules appropriately to the public as we get them finalized," Hovsepian said.
Is the Novell-Microsoft collaboration agreement good for Linux? Read Steven Vaughan-Nichols' column.
Robert Muglia, Microsoft's senior vice president for servers and tools, and Jeffrey Jaffe, Novell's executive vice president and chief technology officer, will be working out the collaboration team's priorities and development plans, said Hovsepian.
The two companies are looking for a research laboratory location that will be equidistant to both companies' headquarters, Microsoft in Redmond, Wash., and Novell in Provo, Utah, said Justin Steinman, Novell's product marketing director for Linux.
One of the key goals of the collaboration effort is to build file fo
A hungry bear does not dance!
I really love reading Slashdot every day..........until people go crazy.
Things we know...Novell and Microsoft have made a deal. Scary for Novell? I would be if I were th CEO. Scary for Microsoft? Probably not. Are they scared though of other things? I think so.
Is Linux ever going to die? As an Open Source project it is IMPOSSIBLE until it has no more people wanting to work on it. At that point, who cares? The source is out there. All I need to do is burn it and work on it on my own. If Novell dies and takes RedHat down too, who cares? I'll start my own distro to do things properly later one.
Stop freaking out people. The net result of all of this may be one or two fewer companies but, probably, enhanced interoperability between Microsoft products and the rest of the industry. Will ODF die? Only if everybody who wants it gives up.
"Don't Panic" (TM)
Instead, Microsoft is coming to sue me for production and distribution of unlicensed children...
Hey, wait a second, I'm totally safe! I'm posting on Slashdot and will therefore never have children.
MS; "we have 30 billion dollars in cash in the bank, we can sue Linus, RMS, RH, Ubuntu, Mandriva, the EU, China's CP, Fidel Castro, Tony Blair and the Easter Bunny".
OSS community: "but your patents are broad and rely on the corrupt US patent system to be enforced!"
MS: "lah,lah lah lah".
OSS community: "you know those are frivolous patents!"
MS: "30 billion!"
We finally know what will be the use of all thos reserves of cash. MS clearly has its sights in litigating the competition out of bussinees.
If there was a case ever for abolishing (or stoppping) patents of software, this is it.
MS can sue everybody, mattering little if their claims are legitimate or not.
3o billion is lots of money fellas, enough to obliterate any competition out of bussiness.
Charming.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That jumbled mess the Inquirer put out even misattributes the source of the quotes, Bruce Perens. Get the real story and the real quotes here , from the horses mouth. Oh, and my rude subject line was just to get everyone's attention. sorry, won't ever happen again, much.
Not only is it like selling your soul - it's dumb too; Microsoft screw their business partners, they've done it over and over again. In a couple of years time Novell will regret this.
Sure, the patent agreement means little as far as Novell distributing GPL code. However, it is clear that Novell wants SLES and SLED to be composed of (separate so not in violation of the GPL) components, some GPL and some under other, hopefully open source, licenses. I am fairly sure Novell wants the ability to develop tools that will make it easier for Windows users to migrate to Linux. It will be hard to do this and stay clear of Microsoft patents at the same time.
More interesting is to decide what Microsoft hopes to gain from this. Personally, I am sceptical of the theory that this is part of a litigation strategy. I fail to see what laws Red Hat is breaking as a result of this agreement that they were not breaking before. No, Microsoft wants part of the revenue stream that is coming from enterprise use of Linux. I think there are two main areas
FAT32 is patented by Microsoft.
e
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Tabl
If that quote can be confirmed, this entire thread is cast in a clearer light. Only other CEO I've seen talking so openly about their intentions was the Deiblod CEO http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/03/quote_of_the_ day_die.html
"If you don't have eyes you shouldn't have wings" -- Carl Pilkington
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that not only is this Microsoft/Suse agreement not a bad thing for Linux, it's fabulously beneficial. If Microsoft makes an agreement to allow Novell to distribute Linux with Microsoft's patents, then MICROSOFT IS GIVING PERMISSION FOR THE USE OF ITS PATENTS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE GPL! They can't claim they are allowing only Novell to use their patents, because they know that if Novell can't distribute under the terms of the GPL then Novell can't legally distribute at all. If they try to bring infringement claims then they will have to go before the court with dirty hands, admitting they engaged in a conspiracy with Novell to distribute copyrighted software (Linux) without a legitimate license.
Microsoft might still be able to claim patent violations for patents they don't know are in Linux. But they would have to convince the court that they didn't know about the patent violations while they allowed Novell to distribute Linux (or other GPL software that Novell distributes, like Wine, SAMBA, or OpenOffice!)
Microsoft will now be able to write even better tools to move people from Netware/Suse/Linux to Microsoft products...
Dunno if its true (no cited ref), but this might apply here:
Etymology:
The name for the company Novell was suggested by George Canova's wife who mistakenly thought that "Novell" meant "new" in French. (In fact, the feminine singular of "new" in French is "nouvelle").
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell)
No,... really!
Everyone had better start downloading those source ISOs along with the binaries from now on. This battle may have to go underground.
BSD is looking pretty good these days....
Both Novell and Microsoft have patent portfolios on their Proprietary codes. But FOSS does not have a patent portfolio only copyleft and whatever FOSS License it use. Both Novell and microsoft shall be helping each other to improve interoperability of ODF and OXML among other things. Remember the Microsoft holds the right for royalty fees on OXML.
The problem will occur when Novell knows about Microsoft Technology and contributes to GPL'd/LGPL'd Softwares (i.e. OpenOffice). It's just hard to keep track on how clean Novell's code contribution from patent infringement. When working with a GPL'd code you are working with the community and cannot narrow the rights on the code to a selected vendor(s). With the involved threat it would make it ineffective for Novell to contribute to GPL or FOSS projects. This bans them the right to continue using GPL code; as part of the Principle is to distribute code without additional restrictions.
Microsoft will wait and squeal when code from Novell will take clout into major FOSS projects and they can claim any patent infringement, under the sun against, any FOSS projects they choose. That's the bottom line.
Microsoft need to do drop down all patents claims against all FOSS projects; do a public statement and give specific patent portfolios. Until then, stay away from all Novell solutions and contributions; better yet, revoke their right to use FOSS code because of the imminent threat it imposes on the ecology of FOSS. This can happen with project leaders making the effective steps.
Remember folks..... it's still war for Microsoft. Declaring that they do not enforce patent claims against those who contribute unpaid and for Novell. This mean that they want to destroy the ecology of FOSS by rendering programmers jobless and without an income. That is not the idea of FOSS. FREE is not about Price it's about FREEDOM. A programmer gets paid because he/she has the capability to drive the technology. If a programmer is dismissed, by virtue of GPL, he/she has the right to continue to contribute or create his own bundle of solution.
NBJayme
Wahaaa. ...again).
I've been a gnome user for about 3 years now and I'd hate to see free software devs moving away from it because of the mono stuff that's in it now.
I hope that either someone (like UBUNTU) ships gnome without all the mono stuff (I don't care for any mono apps that are out there right now..) or someone convinces the gnome people NOT to include mono as a dependency (or they finally convince themselve
Please don't let MS Mono kill GNOME.
WAHAAAA...
It's possible that Thursday's deal between Microsoft and Novell could conflict with a provision in the General Public License (GPL).
"It's possible" or "could" are expression used to indicated a possibility, not a certainty.
This is my second, but different post on the subject.
Novell needs to explain to me why as of now they need patent indemnification on products they have sold since buying SuSE two years ago? Novell already ripped out the copyright/Patent violating programs in SuSE (Can't do MP3/Video in a stock SuSE install).
My company has recommended SuSE/SLES to all our clients (a lot) but we support Redhat as well. Its the customers choice. We also recommend Windows 2003 Server for the other clients. Most want Oracle/MySQL on Linux/Windows.
I'm pissed. What patents has Mono/OpenOffice/Samba violated? Are these submarine patents Novell was aware of all along?
IBM also needs to help me out here. That stupid IBM VP comment from the press release does nothing for me.
Is IBM still supporting SuSE on the X series or not? IBM owns SMB/CIFS. Is IBM dumping Redhat? I need to know before I recommend IBM/HP for the next client. Dell is advertising Linux enterprise Linux support these days.
Don't give me any of the "Benevolent Microsoft" crap. Ballmer said in the Q&A There will be no Microsoft technology in Linux. In other words, your not getting Microsofts marketing driven programming in linux.
Now I'm Confused about Enterprise Linux choices. Maybe that was Microsofts plan all along?
Enjoy.
It's just the normal noises in here.
I'd very much like to know what the developer community thinks, especially ones not on Novell payroll.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Holy Lord, this "pact" is seemingly minutes old, and people are already worried about the death of Open Source! SLOW DOWN.
Sheesh...
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!"
Even if he's not seen the language, he knows that the GPL prohibits all such agreements that include any party that has accepted the GPL - as Novell of course has.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Replacing linux/unix code and derivatives would avoid this supposed patent litigation danger.
Open source software would benefit from assembling a non-linux, non-BSD, non-Unix derrived code base.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_e xtinguish
I have a question for Mr. Ballmer:
[Ahem] Mr. Ballmer, can you name at least 567,890 of the 123,456,798,000 Microsoft patents that Linux infringes upon?
1) Find large customer considering Linux/having Linux problem
2) Demo easy fix
3) Find IBM/Novell/Suse got there first
4) Easy fix is not welcome, they want a broken system (need high headcount of idiots, still looking for fix done the "IBM way" (lots of Java written in India).
5) Get angry at IBM & friends, recommend M$ as something that sucks less/less evil
6) M$ solution implemented, difficult, expensive, unreliable, but still better than IBM/Suse/Novell crap.
7) ?? Profit (for M$ only). No wonder M$ & Suse work so well together.
It's happened to me twice this year, on two completely different hardware platforms. IBM had a broken "customized/ancient" version of the kernel attached to drivers for their "secret hardware interface". It is much easier to download M$ stuff (passport, etc.) than the secret stuff through Novell for IBM hardware/joint ventures.
Customers don't care, they either want IBM or M$. At a status meeting: "IBM/M$ is looking into the issue why (whatever) is totally slow/broken.
And we wonder why Linux is not getting anywhere with such great "friends". Be sure to recommend Suse/OpenSuse to newbies, we must honor our commercial hosts who contribute rather dubious value to Linux. OS/2 looks good relative to the IBM incarnations of Linux -- I laugh at the stupid customers who bought this IBM offering. It was funny to hear IBM remind customers "we are no longer in the PC business" just after "15 years from now, which vendor will be here to support your Linux/Java/..."
M$ is quite willing to relegate Linux to those "customers" (government, etc.) that require a broken, slow system to justify "how can we fix this mess we selected [because we wanted a broken system]. So Suse/M$ work together well as a team.
If they cut Linux use in half, they've won. They don't need to eliminate Linux, but if they can decrease the amount of money going into OSS, and if they can cut down on the number of developers, they'll slowly strangle Linux. They don't need to make Linux completely impossible to use/install, they just have to make it harder.
I said pretty much the same thing in a comment that didn't get any attention.
From my cold, dead fingers buddy, just like the P226!
My SIG is a P226
See what happens.
What are you going to do ANYWAY? Stop using SUSE? Who cares (other than Novell)? Sue Microsoft (gimme a break)?
For now, just go right on using your distro and relax.
When Microsoft starts trying to shut down Linux (fifty million users or whatever, not to mention fucking CHINA!), we can all have a big laugh. The WORST that can happen is that Novell, Red Hat, and the rest legally relocate to some offshore country that doesn't obey US patent laws...and go right on selling the stuff to companies around the world who don't give a shit about Microsoft.
Oh, sure, the big boy companies in the US may never be able to switch to Linux now that Microsoft is suing everybody - who cares? The US is doomed, anyway, courtesy of Bush, the politicians, and the homo/drug-using evangelicals...
Move to China. Watch the United States collapse. Laugh hysterically.
And keep using Linux.
Does ANYBODY here really believe Linux use can be stopped by LEGAL means? It's more available than DRUGS, for Christs on a stick sakes! Have they stopped DRUGS?
Get a grip. This is just Microsoft throwing its weight around again - in the end, to no avail.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Nonsense.
Microsoft's goal is to eliminate Linux as a threat to its survival. This means fracturing the market, capturing revenue from it where possible, and letting everyone know that it would be a real shame if you were to use Linux without paying them for it.
It's SCO all over again, except that with patents, this might actually have some teeth.
Microsoft has a long history of using licensing agreements to knife their so-called friends, and Novell is a friend to Microsoft only for so long as Microsoft is more worried about Red Hat than it is about Novell. If Novell actually does well in this deal, Microsoft will knock them down when the deal expires.
Microsoft is ruthless, that's why they are where they are. Nothing there has changed, except now they are aggressively moving to exploit the industry-wide monopoly of ideas that patent gives them, rather than the more limited (!) hundred-billion dollar monopoly they've enjoyed through copyright.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Darn. I put the wrong URL above. This http://technocrat.net/d/2006/11/2/9945 is the right URL.
Bruce Perens.
To take your point in a slightly different direction, the Microsoft/Novell deal can perhaps be seen as, in large part, being about .Net. Both Microsoft and Novell (with Mono) are invested in .Net, and making it the standard development platform will be of benefit to both. Ensuring interoperability between Windows and Suse will help .Net become a multiplatform solution.
.Net. Whether that can be believed, is a good question.
I'm not sure I buy into this theory, but it's interesting. In particular it seems to imply that Microsoft are willing to take a (possibly small) hit on Windows, in order to improve the position of
The problem here isn't with developers, but with Novell and Microsoft (and mostly Novell). Section 7 of the GPL states that no one is allowed to pursue private deals individually. Either no one is covered, or everyone is covered. Eben Moglen has already raised concerns about the private deal. Some may dismiss him. For those people, you can send your arguments to: Dr. Eben Moglen, Free Software Foundation Pro Bono General Counsel. Columbia School of Law, Columiba University, New York City, New York, USA. Oh, and if Microsoft wants to get into a patent fight, IBM will cheerfully get into that dance too (and IBM has more IP than all of the other technology companies combined, and theirs is far more fundamental than the others. If Microsoft started a patent war, it would be like nuclear war for Microsoft. IBM would impose their patents on things like 'operating systems' for example. Every system Microsoft sold over the last 20 years would be subject to penalties and fines. $50 billion would have to turn into $50 trillion pretty fast, or microsoft would die.
I don't know why you think otherwise. This deal is the indication that they're about to do so.
Now when - not if, when - they sue Red Hat, they can claim "Ah, see, Novell thinks our patents are valid and enforcable, otherwise why did they cut a deal?"
This deal is nothing more than Microsoft giving their attack dogs a Linux-scented handkerchief to smell. They'll come for all Linux vendors, and they'll come soon.
And Novell, make no mistake, they'll come for you as well. They'll just kill you last.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I have been waiting for this to come up. I have read extensively on the ECMA-INTERNATIONAL web site. Here is the story about Mono. Mono is based on the "open standards" published at www.ecma-international.org. Those standards contain Microsoft patented information that Microsoft has agreed to license under RAND. This is a troll bomb waiting to go off. I emailed the FSF abot this problem months ago and that have ignored me. Microsoft is a charter member of ECMA. The Mono developers thought that "Open standards" meant "public domain". But if you read the fine print on the ecma site, You will see that it is far from the truth. Ecma is the key to this plot, and the Mono developers fell right in without a moments hesitation Dot-gnu has the same problem. I noticed that ubuntu's package manager can load the mono development stuff too. I think that this may be about mono, was a very keen insight.
Except that the developing world will keep developing non-M$ OS's, just because they (a) won't be able to afford the ever-increasing hardware demands of Micro$hit, (b) don't particularly like the US oftentimes, and (c) want to keep their hardware free of US control.
Besides, Micro$oft tried to pull a cute trick liek that in 2000/2001 with SCO. Guess how far that got them. SuSE is one distro out of several hundred (at least!) The strength of Linux is its decentralization.
The other possibility is much less "evil" - that MS is actually conceding that they may need help for their next generation of OS.
-b.
>>Besides, Micro$oft tried to pull a cute trick liek that in 2000/2001 with SCO.
The difference is that Linux was innocent of SCO's charges, but is clearly guilty of the patent charges.
The point is that Microsoft is losing out in the world market (including China) to Linux. Microsoft must insure that their commercial programs (Office, MS SQL, etc) run on some version of Linux. Also, by insuring thier software runs on Linux, it may reduce interest in open source projects on competing software (Open Office, MySQL, etc.). Half the driving force for many open source projects is to make Linux as good as Windows by providing the major applications consumers need. Now there will be less reason for those projects.
Right, so's basically *any* operating system company, including Microsoft, Apple, and Sun. To use the often-overused car analogy, a lot of those patents are like patenting the location of a shift lever or the number of cylinders in a car. Such very general patents have been ruled to be void time and again.
Besides, does the developing world/non-US/EU countries really give a flying fuck about software patents in the US? Or will they shake their heads in disgust and keep developing Linux and other innovative systems? I don't think that Ubuntu's signing on to M$'s protection racket, nor are the hundreds of other small Linux creators and companies. And with torrents and improved p2p tech, the distribution of Linux won't cease, even in the US.
-b.
Oracle is unlikely to sue RedHat. Its just not big enough and its wonderful for warding off anti-trust claims. Ubuntu, Mandriva.... aren't even on the radar. However Oracle is an interesting case. There are database OS patents. Oracle Linux might very well violate those. Novell would love Oracle to be busy in a war with Microsoft.
I think Oracle not RedHat / Ubuntu is the target.
Right, so's basically *any* operating system company, including Microsoft, Apple, and Sun. To use the often-overused car analogy, a lot of those patents are like patenting the location of a shift lever or the number of cylinders in a car. Such very general patents have been ruled to be void time and again.
And I sure hope that a lot of these do get tossed. However, as you'll recall from RIM v. NTP, the patent got tossed but RIM still had to pay umpteen million dollars. The major commercial companies cross-license, but Linux doesn't (having nothing to cross-license with, and also hating the very idea). So even if 195 of the 200 or so revelant patents get tossed, Microsoft only needs to register one as valid.
US judge: pay up.
Linux company in country with unfriendly patent laws: kiss my hairy....
-b.
US judge: pay up. Linux company in country with unfriendly patent laws: kiss my hairy....
Sounds nice, but in a lot of the world, particulary a lot of the world with money, that won't work as easily. Eliminating US money and US developers who aren't willing to move overseas is going to do a lot of damage, even if people in more progressive countries are unfazed. And the way the whole thing is going, it won't be long until you have to enforce US patents to trade with the US, and that progressive country will see us geeks on one side and millions/billions of dollars on the other, and it's gonna go with the money.
It wouldn't eliminate all US developers. A lot of Linux code is written by people as a hobby anyway, and it's not going to make a bit of difference to the hobbyists.
As far as the 3rd-world countries following US rules: keep in mind that a lot of time and effort has been put into developing Linux as an educational OS for poorer schools (Ubuntu and friends) as well as a de facto government standard in some places (see: Red Flag Linux and whatever projects are on in India). I don't thuink that anyone will let this work go to waste.
Add this to the fact that Linux is just one of several common UNIX-type OS's out there these days. There's Solaris, the *BSD systems, even OS X, all of which have the backing of large companies and are commonly used by universities (again with money) and, I suspect, government research establishments.
The M$ deal was stupid of SuSE you, I grant, but it's not the end of the world nor is it the path to Microsoft's domination of the world as many readers here are making it out to be. Microsoft is a large entrenched company, and history has shown that companies like that generally end up getting pimpslapped into oblivion by a nimbler and more innovative competition. Empires always fall.
-b.
The anti-MS people are so anti-MS that now they are making stuff up to be afraid about.
They really should be more worried about all of our privacy information being farmed and traded by companies like Google and everyone else. We should have laws that prevent companies from using non-anonymous information for anything other than banking, billing, and shipping and have this information non-transferable without your permission at the time it is to be transferred (this means even when the business is bought out or goes out of business). Nobody seems to care about this, they are too busy whining about the patriot act and trying to make everyone socialist.
"Except that the developing world will keep developing non-M$ OS's, just because they (a) won't be able to afford the ever-increasing hardware demands of Micro$hit, (b) don't particularly like the US oftentimes, and (c) want to keep their hardware free of US control."
Except that most of the development isn't done in those places. Most of the development in major projects is done by developers paid by US corporations. For successful suit, just the RISK of such a suit is enough to cut off that development funding.
Uh, the every gnu/linux distro I've encountered is already licensed....
Microsoft salesman: hey, I'll give you an excellent deal on suse, now on what application did you say you were going to use that suse...
I'm "peace" over at groklaw. Thanks for the back and forth commenting you did over there regarding this issue.
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w