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...
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The nature of the Novell/Microsoft deal is somewhat irrelevant. The problem is the threat of Microsoft launching patent attacks against ANYONE over anything in SuSE. The public statements say that Microsoft won't launch a patent suit against noncommercial distributors or against Novell - that still leaves commercial distributors open to a patent lawsuit.
If THAT happens, Section 7 of the GPL kicks in and Novell loses the right to distribute GPLed code in SuSE. Section 7 is the 'liberty or death' clause which says that if you can't distribute GPLed code without some patent(or other) restriction being imposed on your customers, you cannot distribute GPLed code at all. The idea is to prevent code being proprietarised using legal machinery other than copyright - having someone offering GPLed code under a partial patent umbrella that effectively bars, say, commercial distribution, is exactly the sort of thing that section 7 was designed to prevent.
(My theory is that the main reason Microsoft had to offer patent protection to at least one Linux distributor was to skirt antitrust problems if it starts using patent law to crush competition. )
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.
No, but patent protection may put you in a position where you can't distribute under the GPL, even if there's no money involved.
Read the above very carefully. What is says is that if you sign an agreement that puts any restrictions on your distribution or on subsequent redistribution of a program licensed under the GPL, then you cannot distribute the program at all (because you can't place additional restrictions on redistribution or derived works of GPLed code).
My blog
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.
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.
No more than they were prior to the announcement.
Of course, its already a violation of the GPL to distribute a program under the GPL if it is encumbered by patents that would prevent recipients from redistributing it freely.