Slashdot Mirror
Samba Team Urges Novell To Reconsider
hde226868 writes "The team responsible for Samba has just asked Novell to reconsider its recent patent agreement with Microsoft, arguing that the agreement is a divisive agreement, effectively splitting the open source movement into groups with and without commercial status. Samba argues that with this move Novell is disregarding the will of the people who write the software sold by Novell and that Novell has 'no right to make self servicing deals on behalf of others which run contrary to the goals and ideals of the Free Software community'."
It's SCO all over again.
Irina Romanov
just like the samba team, I don't think that this agreement with microsoft will bring good fruits. what I like about the open source movement is that it provides you with software that allow you to go to sleep at night without worry. the software that will result from this agreement will be everything except that.
"Samba argues that with this move Novell is disregarding the will of the people who write the software sold by Novell and that Novell has 'no right to make self servicing deals on behalf of others which run contrary to the goals and ideals of the Free Software community'."
In other news the sun is hot, water is wet, and... wait... yes, I taste spit in my mouth!
Come on now, what part of Microsoft + Patent + Open Source is anywhere close to what "open" source should be?
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
'no right to make self servicing deals on behalf of others which run contrary to the goals and ideals of the Free Software community'
Actually they have every right to do whatever they like as long as it is within the law. There is nothing specific in the GPL that says they cannot make a deal with Microsoft. The only thing that will stop companies from doing things like this, is if they lose customer support. If you don't like it, don't buy their products.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Bags of money or making nice which geeks who aren't even on their payroll....
Yeah, sure. I see 'em doing what the samba teams says. Yep. Sure thing. Uh-huh.
Novell has 'no right to make self servicing deals on behalf of others which run contrary to the goals and ideals of the Free Software community'."
Bullshit. First, Novell isn't making deals on behalf of others. Second, Novell have every right to make the deal they made -- if the Samba folks don't like it, they should have said so in their copyright license. They didn't.
Also, from the Samba post: "The goals of the Free Software community and the GNU GPL allow for no such distinctions."
Guess what? It doesn't forbid such distinctions either.
Listen up, folks: nobody cares about your intent. The law is about the wording of the document. That sucks, but that's how it is right now. If you don't want people to do certain things with your code, SAY SO AHEAD OF TIME, IN THE LICENSE.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
So, what's the problem?
The owls are not what they seem
This is just Microsoft trying to get Linus to reconsider and try and move the kernel to the GPLv3.
Move along.
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
This can only be a good thing for Linux.
Maybe now well be able to have proper hardware drivers.
If MSFT wants to sink alot of money into a Linux distro, then all the power to em. If it means ill be able to run Unreal 2007 and halo2 on linux with native support, and autocad and other CAD programs.
I would like to see a unified package system for Linux as well. Its just a pain in the ass having to compile programs from one system to another. especially when working in the server room wher i just want things to work the best they can without fuss.
I'm surprised, actually, that MSFT didn't do something like this earlier. It would sure put a choke hold on Apples Unix dominance with sound/music/video industry.
Although it might just be an early response to Vista. It very well could be the biggest flop that MSFT has released since ME.
..shudders.. I feel dirty for even mentioning ME
..::ALWAYS : watching::..
I think an agreement like this and Red Hat's recent problems indicate that the business model that has been touted for open source isn't sustainable. Ultimately people won't pay you money for something that they get for free elsewhere. If, in fact, Linux becomes more mainstream, all distros will be easier to use and greater customer experience will greatly reduce the need for the kind of hand-holding that Red Hat provides.
At a philosophical level, Novell probably didn't want to sign the agreement with Microsoft either ... heck, Microsoft basically destroyed them as a leading software provider. But they're in an unenviable position of trying to turn a profit. That's the double edged sword of large companies getting in the open source game. On one side, they offer massive resources that can champion and push forward technologies that groups working in their spare time cannot. On the other, they must find a way to recoup some of those expenses, which sometimes lead them down the path that we've all worked hard to stay off (namely, software patents, commercialization, and closed sourcing parts of their product).
Unfortunately I think we'll just have to deal with some closed source Linux programs and some software patents for technologies that required massive investment. The key is to pick our battles - e.g. to ensure that the entire Linux kernel, and all "typical" programs are open source and protected under the GPL (or other similar license).
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
Where's Linus durring al of this? I mean he's vocal as all hell when the GPL3 drafts start floating around, but on this he's silent?!
I know you are asking yourself, self, how could this happen?
Novell executives were asking themselves, "How can a million dollars worth of bad publicity with a small advertising budget?" "That's it! We'll show a profound disregard for the Free Software community."
These must be the same guys who bought WordPerfect.
--
Summary of Bush administration corruption.
You will be exterminated.
Isn't this just the next step in Open Source evolution? I find it hard to believe that no one saw this coming. Imho it was just a matter of time before the community got screwed by commercial interests. It will be interesting to see what the future will bring. Maybe this turns out to be alright (doubtfully) or maybe this is the beginning of a new age of open source development. I for one will be sitting on the edge of my chair and follow the steps of evolution.
http://www.moerks.dk
I couldn't disagree more. Being able to go to sleep and not worry about the software is why I don't use Linux in my business. I'm looking forward to being able to try out a Linux that at least has the MS stamp of approval, and am even more excited about using a version that may have been improved by MS. Microsoft has the potential to add a lot of value to SUSE, and at this point, it is the only one that I would consider using in my business (assuming that MS does improve the current offering). I simply cannot stake the livelihood of myself, my family, and all of my employees on what's out there now.
It's not about it being against the GPL, it's provide MSFT with an excuse, and an attack point with which to target open source developers.
That is 100% pure FUD, completely baseless and ridiculous. MS doesn't have a history of doing this, and it makes no business sense that they would do so in the future.
I don't believe that Novell can just simply "reconsider" they have entered into a contractual agreement and for good or bad have to abide with the terms or breech the contract. From what I have read it will end in five years. Besides, we all know that the patent clause is simply FUD. It may be lame that Novell did it this way, but you have to admit it was a clever way to get MS to fork over ~300 Million for nothing. The flip side is that it will help keep Novell in business which in turn will help Samba since Novell contributes. I have to admit that in the age of FUD, the tone of the Samba press release was rather nice though. Kudos for that.
Novell is in league with the Lidless Eye and the Black Hand of Sauron. The only part of open source that Novell cares about is how much money open source can make for them.
I am still trying to figure out why I should give a damn what Novell does? So Novell has this nice new agreement with Microsoft. Since I don't use Suse, Netware or anything Novell makes that I signed a legally binding agreement for I am not bound by anything Novell does. Novell's agreement can't trickle back the Linux programmers, because the programmers agreeed to the GPL, not the Novell agreement. If you do use something Novell has, then remove it, and keep your project moving without it. If Novell adds code to your project, and you are under the GPL, then they must agree to the GPL legally. If Microsoft wants to sue "commerical" opensource what was stopping them before this agreement? What stops them after this agreement? Its an agreement between Novell, who does not own a majority of GNU/Linux, and Microsoft, who does not own a majority of GNU/Linux. I didn't sign the agreement, none of the other open-source people signed the agreement, Novell signed the agreement. Let Novell agree to this, tell them to shove this software up their ass, and get another distro. Thats competition.
You are not legally bound by what Microsoft and Novell does.
Selex
Isn't it possible for the author of any GPL'ed software to revoke a distro's ability to include it in said distro? I thought I'd heard this happening before, but can't seem to Google a reference...
If enough authors did this to any one distro in protest...
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
I think reality is, novell wasn't making a penny on linux and suse, in fact most likely losing money hand over fist. They have already replaced some C** folks. I think MS cash infusion was about their only hope.
I don't like what they did, I think it might not even be legal, it is certainly a blow to open source, but once a company is driven by stockholders who demand endless money in perpetuity, and to have that amount actually increase, for their one time "capitalist" investment...this is what happens.
I also don't think (I cannot emphasize this enough really) software as a stand-alone business is going to survive, not in any huge big way really..there is no need. 40 years ago to a few years ago, yes, now..nope.
Software as part of a normal business, sure, in house tweaking and customizing, yep, but stand-alone it is headed the way of the dinosaurs. Open source is about designing,building and *sharing* of tools freely and Freely, whereas USING those tools within another legit business is where the long term cash with software is.
The Novell/Microsoft deal could have been good. Ie, better interoperability Microsoft products. Then monkey boy has to fuck it up with the threats.
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
You have been here for several years. Your porn site uses Windows to display other peoples content. Roughly, you act a bit like a very slow search engine, but loaded with all sorts of ads. Nowhere have I seen you espouse using Linux. In fact, you take every chance that you can to point out that you will have NOTHING to do with Linux. So why now, are you trying to claim that you will use it?
Microsoft is just now getting around to "art of war" type tactics: divide your enemies. "He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks." They're trying to divide the open source movement's spirit.
:)
Everything up to this point has been driven by hubris on their part. Now, they're finally serious about fighting open source.
This is gonna be fun.
We call upon Novell to work with the Software Freedom Law Center to undo the patent agreement and acknowledge its obligations as a beneficiary of the Free Software community.
Come on, wake up!
Money have already change hands. Do you really think they will reject an agreement in which they will not get sued after they paid for that protection?
Actually, they do have a right.
But we have a right to stop using their products.
Personally, I'll wait a little bit to see what the consensus opinion of this deal is. If, after some thought and discussion, the community decides that Novell's actions are harming Linux, then I will take this into account in my career (as a software developer).
Is there any chance do you think that this could lead to Microsoft launching a series of micro-SCO type initiatives now that their investment in SCO didn't work out? What I mean is that I'm curious about just what that money is going toward. Did M$ threaten Novell with any specific patents or vice versa? Sure Microsoft has a few good engineers maybe, but as far as I can tell most of their efforts over the years have been exremely nasty. I find it hard to believe that anything good will come of this, rather I am waiting for the first embrace/extend shoe to drop as Novell starts spouting some ludicrous SCO-like FUD under the guise of supporting the community. Hasn't M$ just bought a bitch to whip who appears a little friendlier to users and developers than SCO did? Maybe Novell will end up writing some cool Vista software but I could care less, I'm staying away from that racket. Novell buying SUSE to sell out to Microsoft is an ultra-cynical move and they deserve to get thoroughly lambasted in every public venue. I'm looking toward hearing about employees jumping ship from Novell as soon as the shit begins to hit the fan. Of course this is a very effective way for Microsoft to get rid of a competitor; it is very good at pulling the rug out from under its friends. I am just wondering if Novell was that dumb or if M$ had some really good FUD to scare their investors with.
This isn't about 'good fruits' as you put it These are large corporations that are in business to make money and increase share worth. Period.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...will teach them a lesson!
I feel its so much better that it happened now, Fail-Fast is always better. Good to have answers early on.
If we don't want such things to happen, why don't we move to more restrictive licenses? Should we actually expect people (or even worse, corporations) to always act in good faith, even when there is no obligation to do so? Why not put it all down in paper then. IM(H)O, Open Source still has not found a balancing act between pragmatism and staying true to the cause. Which is why we have issue with GPL v2 and v3. The deal (according to Eben Moglin) violates GPL v3, but v2-v3 debate is now more like a 50-50 split.
Lets all go GPL v3, or shut up.
Anyway, it is not that I found something terribly wrong with the deal. Mainly because it changes _nothing_ for existing users. It is just that Novell customers get an additional benefit. Meanwhile the Open Innovation Network still protects Open Source patents,
the Mono team still maintains that the have not violated any patents, good news for getting Open-Office to open Word 2007 XML files (and more compatibility) and some other. But on the other hand, it does create a division and give Novell somewhat an unfair advantage.
Life is just a conviction.
It is impossible to divide the Linux community any further even if you start putting individual members of it through a meat grinder.
Since when?
Red Hat users?
http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/298991.htm
Novell Tuesday night outlined the financial terms of its pact with Microsoft in an SEC filing. Then, rather than let the press stumble over it, the company sent around a press release explaining the filing.
Meanwhile, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was in India and told India's Economic Times how he'd love to cut a similar deal "with anyone who distributes Linux software, Red Hat, whoever else."
Microsoft is going to pay Novell $240M upfront for those 350,000 SUSE Linux Enterprise Server subscription vouchers it said it would distribute in the next five years. It could sell them too. CIBC World Market did some back-of-the-envelope calculations and says the number implies an annual ASP per SLES subscription of roughly $685.
Microsoft is also supposed to spend $60M between now and January 1, 2012 marketing Linux-Windows virtualized scenarios and spend another $34M on the dedicated sales force it puts in the field.
For all of Ballmer's talk of a similar deal with Red Hat, it appears that Novell has a three-year exclusive on the virtualization-through-certificate program. Novell notes that IDC projects the market for virtual machine software will be worth $1.8BN by 2009.
Microsoft is also going to pay Novell $108M upfront under their shiny new "patent cooperation agreement" and Novell in turn will pay Microsoft at least $40M over five years - something like $8 million a year - "based on percentages of Novell's Open Platform Solutions and Open Enterprise Server revenues" - OES being Novell's mixed NetWare/Linux package and Open Platform all its Linux stuff.
Novell was at pains to explain that it wasn't paying Microsoft patent protection since the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the keeper of the GPL flame, at the mere mention of a patent agreement last week, started protesting that Novell couldn't - under section 7 of the GPL - distribute Linux if it was acknowledging patent infringement.
Novell claims it doesn't acknowledge that Microsoft has IP in Linux but the way the Microsoft and Novell attorneys sidestep the issue is by having Microsoft promise not to sue the SUSE customer, leaving Novell out of the equation.
Novell spokesman Bruce Lowry declined to explain exactly what Novell is paying Microsoft the $40M for or what Novell patents Microsoft is interested in. It's "just the way the deal was financially structured," he said. Whether that satisfies FSF attorney Eben Moglen remains to be seen. Novell is still negotiating with him, Lowry said.
Novell also posted a new FAQ trying to address the flood of questions it's been getting about the Microsoft deal from the open source community. In it, it says the $40M is "for Microsoft's covenant directly to Novell's customers."
So is Novell paying Microsoft to go out and scare Red Hat users?
In a canned statement, Novell general counsel Joseph LaSala said:
"Many people want to know whether this agreement is compatible with Novell's obligations under the GPL, especially section 7. This was an important consideration for us as well. Under the patent cooperation agreement, Novell's customers receive directly from Microsoft a covenant not to sue. Novell does not receive a patent license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft, and we have not agreed with Microsoft to any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL. Our agreement does not affect the freedom that Novell or anyone else in the open source community, including developers, has under the GPL and does not impose any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL. Therefore, the agreement is fully compliant with the GPL."
There are exceptions to the "won't sue" covenants that aren't spelled out.
Rumor - underscore rumor - has it that Microsoft did the Novell deal because Novell threatened it with IP, which might explain why Microsoft is paying
In either case, all it takes is a quick google search to come up with their full history.
He's a coder, not a lawyer. Which is why I'm glad to listen to him on technical matters, but why I don't really care what he thinks about legal matters like the GPL v3, etc. No offense intended, but I'll get my legal advice from lawyers and my technical advice from technical people. In other words, I think he's right to keep quiet.
That said, hopefully he'll see this as a time to reconsider his stance on the GPL v3. Granted, Linux would have a difficult time converting due to the cut-off he put in Linux by removing the "or later" clause (from what's published, he may not even understand how it works), but this is exactly the sort of loophole v3 is meant to prevent, and Microsoft is obviously looking for a way to take advantage of that. You can't really expect them to pass up any way to screw up the competition, and Linux pretty much _is_ Microsoft's competition.
You don't have to like it, but it takes lawyers to stop lawyers.
The current SCO is really Caldera.
Unixware was ATT Unix that was then sold to who? Novell. Novell then "rented" Unixware to original SCO. Original SCO than moved to pretty much supporting nothing by unixware (the old xenix/sco unix was folded into this). Caldera was created by Novell Ray Noorda and a number of Novell folks WHILE they were at Novell. It was too be offered as Novell Linux. But Ray and others felt that they would do better without the Novell issues. So they spun it off from Novell's "permission" along with the DR-dos suit. Caldera then bought everything of SCO (save tarentella). The current SCO was owned by Novell and almost likely the IP will be shown to belong to Novell (in spite of what current SCO says).
So yes, Novell owned "SCO", just not the original.
Under American patent law, if you use a product made by a company that did not have a license to a necessary patent, you can be sued, not just the company.
An implication of the Microsoft-Novell agreement is that Microsoft could sue any Linux (or Samba?) user who did not buy it through Novell. It major lawsuits start happening and Microsoft wins the lawsuits, Linux will disappear from corporations in America, or they'll all go through Novell. If Linux isn't open, there's no point in using it.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
It's SCO all over again.
No, this time M$ is selling a "I won't sue you license" directly. In the SCO case, M$ hired a proxy for it's dirty business. This time they are making the threat directly. The only thing the two cases share is a bogus claim to other people's work and FUD generation. Hopefully, IBM will make them pay for business lost to the fiaSCO and people have learned to ignore M$'s groundless threats.
Don't pay the extortion. It strengthens M$'s ownership of your work and gives them money to sue your neighbor.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Novell destroyed themselves.
The only thing that Microsoft did was release WinNT without the license broadcast that NetWare boxes did. I could use one license and setup 1,000 WinNT boxes on a network. If I used the same license on 2 NetWare boxes on a network, they'd broadcast their license codes, see that they were duplicates and shut both boxes down. "Piracy" gave Microsoft the edge.
After that, it's been 100% Novell fuck ups.
Why buy SuSE when for a LOT less money you can just hire Linux developers to write the code/apps you want? You spent $210 MILLION.
Okay, you own SuSE now, why is it easier to run GroupWise on Windows than on Debian? Microsoft is a bigger threat to your existence than Debian.
Why haven't you ported the look and feel of you NetWare apps (inetcfg, nwconfig, etc) over to SuSE?
Service Pack 6 for NetWare 6.5 is over 800MB. Compressed.
As is every other company out there. McDonald's manages it, yet their costs have got to be higher than cooking healthier food, yourself, at home.
No. The problem is when closed source companies don't bother to understand the Open Source environment and believe they can treat it the same as their closed source products.
Which is exactly what Novell is trying to do.
Instead, Novell should have spent a one tenth of the money they spent on SuSE and paid lots of programmers to port Novell's money-making products (GroupWise, eDirectory, ZENworks, etc) to Linux. Go ahead. Try to get eDirectory running on Ubuntu. It's pretty easy on SuSE, but damn hard on Ubuntu.
Oh really? You mean like Oracle? Their stuff is still closed. Yet they seem pretty happy with running it on Linux.
This message posted with 100% Ubuntu Edgy Eft.
False. Samba uses the stock GPL.
Can't they just inform Novell that they no longer have the right to distribute Samba under the GPL, but instead must either fork it or work out commercial licenses with the Samba code contributors (good luck with working out a deal with each copyright holder)? Other project teams could do the same, and Novell will have a hard choice to make:
1. Fork each project where distribution rights have been and choose to fork, becoming incompatible in the near-to-mid future
2. Reconsider the deal, pull out, and work with Redhat, Canonical, IBM, et al, ensuring compatibility, and create a strong front against Microsoft's monopoly. They could also form clean room reverse engineering teams where binaries are decompiled and notes are taken on the architecture, then hand those notes (but NO decompiled code examples) to the open source developers. This way. legal, clean-room implementations of Samba, wine, etc. can be created WITHOUT tainting of GPL and BSD code by Microsoft.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
They couldn't "divide" them.
...
So they paid hundreds of millions of dollars to the people in one bloc.
Those people then tried to spin the deal in various ways.
Just because Novell was Microsoft's competitor and had purchased SuSE does not mean Novell had any depth in the Open Source community.
They bought their way in and they sold themselves out.
Now if Microsoft can buy Linus or Alan or Samba or Apache or
Thank you, Samba team, thank you. Richard Stallman bless you for your words of wisdom to Novell.
First, I'm disappointed that this got modded insightful. It speaks to the lack of understanding how Intellectual Property law works in this country.
Second, the whole reason Microsoft started down this path is to narrow the market for Linux distros down to one. The one that microsoft controls through threat of litigation carpet bombing. Microsoft's competitors here are Oracle and Dead Cat. They can, when they are ready, litigate Novell into extinction.
Third, microsoft doesn't actually -want- to sue developers like the RIAA does to individuals. They want Linux dollars flowing to them only. Litigation is a big carrot/stick that will ensure the corporate dollars flow to Microsoft.
Will Microsoft sue individual developers? If their current strategy doesn't work. Yes. They'll identify maybe 10 key contributors and a couple of distros who aren't backed by IBM/Oracle and let the litigation fly. This is your "chilling effect."
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
From your description, you're a prefect client for Microsoft.
/.?
So if there's no time or money to be wasted, and time is money, why are you wasting time on
Instead of wasting time here, you would (more logically) be better off spending time on various Windows tech forums. You'll want to learn MORE about the systems that you use right now than spending time chatting about systems that you aren't going to use. (And you've detailed the reasons that you aren't going to use them.)
Strange how that works.
that should be "self-serving" (as it is on the samba.org page). "Self-servicing" is what you do at the porn sites.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I see a lot of negative comments (and seeing that I use Windows based systems exclusively, but am learning Linux just to have second skillset) this does not really affect me, but I am curious (from a business standpoint) if there are any positives that can come from this? Granted, I know people use past performance to dictate their decisions, but until I get a balanced understanding (meaning BOTH pros and cons), one can't just make the arguement all things MS bad, and all things Linux good.
Regards,
MBC1977,
(US Marine, College Student, and Proud Parent!)
Regards,
MBC1977,
and avoid them like hell. Anything done under such debatable license, and anything done in conjunction with microsoft, i would avoid like hell.
Microsoft is not trustable in my opinion, in regard to freedom of anything. This is no 'j00B micro$oft eviLLaZ' type of thought - it is based on practical reasons : microsoft have never been a trustable ally in matters related to openness, freedom, and it is fat chance that they will - with all those shareholders.
So, i would avoid them like hell, and advise all my colleagues to do so always.
Read radical news here
If you add to a GPLed project, isn't it presumed that you have the rights to do so, and so MS would only sue the person who donated the code and not those who are using/distributing it?
But isn't it true that if there is patent-infringing code in Linux that it won't matter whether Novell has made an agreement to immunize its users?
No and no! First, it's hard to have patent-infringing code that simply implements Unix concepts that were pioneered 30 years ago, regardless of how slow software vendors have been to adopt those improvements. Second, software patents are just as bogus as a patent on gramma's chili ingredients. Third, it matters. A company full of "experts" caving into this obvious extortion lends weight to both software patents and M$'s bogus claim to own concepts implemented in free software.
It's diabolically anti-competitive and should be against the law if in fact is is not. M$ would use "intellectual property" law to steal other people's work. It makes a mockery of everthing patent and copyright laws are supposed to stand for. As Bruce pointed out, they are licensing patents. Those patents are backed only by judicial extortion. The DoJ should gear up the next series of anti-trust cases around this.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Actually, some of the developers may indeed take it back through the courts. That is yet to be decided. But even if they don't take it back, a lot of those developers will go to GPL3 just because of this. Including important stuff like the C library and GCC (which FSF owns). And it's already been made clear that GPL3 will close this loophole.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
You have my highest respect. Tell me.
Gizmos Gagets For Ninjas
So the deal to enhance interoperability ends up alienating the experts in the Samba project who are all about...interoperability?
This dog don't hunt.
I wish someone could salvage opensuse from Novell's [now dirty] hands...
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/
... How much did Novell pay for SUSE?....hummmmm ..... let be think ..... maybe I'll Google it....Yep just as I thought!
Microsoft is on the attack and they have a HUGE war chest! So a quick duck out of the way of this impending doom may just be Solaris. Whooo 'da thunk?
Now my memory is a bit vague
Guess Novell is just trying to bail out of a bad decision.... which of course will ruin one of the top distros.
Gizmos Gagets For Ninjas
There's a simple way to make Novell uncompetitive: release your code under the GPL version 3. What's touch and go in version 2 is clarified in version 3.
Novell, most likely, won't be licenced to use your code. You get the additional benefit of community defence against future antisocial and free-riding behaviour.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Silly Silly. I don't forsee Novell releasing any individual (open source) package in their distribution with a changed license. Talk about it when you see Novell changing from the licences currently used.
fight tomorrow.
It is wonder that Novell has survived this long without distinctive product, and with every other major IT business providing similar solutions. This deal allows Novell to live as company, and perhaps invest this cash into something for the future.
Is Novell business to protect GPL for free, or to profit?
Finally acquisition of SuSE paid off for them. Conspiracy theorists could claim that this was planned from start by Microsoft and Novell.
I would too sell somebody else's property for hundred millions of dollars.
"Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires." -James Madison
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
tridge works for ibm, who is of course no great friend to microsoft.
Nice recap...
Why should Novell listen to the Samba team? It's too late, the deal is done, and anyway, by doing the deal, Novell has shown that it doesn't get the whole Open Source/Free Software thing.
Novell is dead. Weep for them and move on.
Stick Men
Actually, MS was going to trash Xenix, when a father-son team went looking for something to do. They decided to make an offer to MS for Xenix who said something for nothing is good. It was not an active spin-off from MS.
Novell bought USL (Unix System Labs) long before Caldera came along. They also bought the rights to DR-DOS before Caldera. In fact, when Novell engineers started up with a Linux group, ppl such as Dvorack ripped Novell for even looking at Linux. So the engineers convinced Ray to spin them off and back them. Ray quit Novell and spun off all the Linux and DR-Dos work with a new company called Caldera (which became 2 companies for IPO purposes; but I forget what the name of the embedded one was).
Novell then sold the rights to re-sell Unixware to original SCO. Note, that does not include the IP (supposedly). SCO then merged Unixware and sco unix.
As SCO saw the future, they sold this same Unix rights and the name to Caldera. Caldera kept the Caldera Name for about 1-2 years. Once McBride cut a deal with MS and Sun, they switched back to SCO name and started their infamous Linux crap.
BTW, I used all of these environments at one time, including MS Xenix.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Don't know about US or other countries, but here there's a law here which the government must obey.
It says you can't exclude anyone from participating in official auctions (I believe the English word is procurement).
So you think you can always buy Red Hat. Well, you can't. You must conduct a session, previously advertised in media, open to all interested parties, with open and transparent negotiations and you know what? Novell can make the price reach 0 if they so will.
And, as the law declares the winner he who offers for less, Novell will get the business, whether you want it or not.
It sucks, but there's nothing one can do. Unless Red Hat comes up with some technology which is essential (very doubtful) and Novell has not (also very doubtful and in fact, the opposite is quite more probable since Novell sells proprietary aplications).
Also, I'd like to remark one detail which is important IMHO: Microsoft is desperate to make OpenXML (or whatever it's called nowadays) a valid standard. This is not possible now, because even if ECMA manages to make it be ISO approved, many governments will favour ODF, because it has no IP issues.
OpenXML OTOH, and unless MS changed its stance, cannot be derived (forked) by third-parties. Or so I read from the news.
MS, the deal reads, is getting Novell to adapt Oo.o to accept OpenXML. This will make some Multiple Choice Selection Experts (M.C.S.E.) rejoice...
I don't see why people get so upset about this. The agreement is pretty meaningless as far as open source is concerned. Microsoft probably made it in order (1) to spread FUD, (2) maybe actually get involved a little with Linux, and (3) to get cross licenses for Novell's patents. It's not like it's a huge amount of money for them, but it does help Novell, and Novell has actually contributed positively for the time being.
It seems like everyone is afraid that M$ will sue someone over patents.
I don't think the patents are the target of M$, but the ability to run Linux code natively in Windows.
Both parties are paying each other for something. I don't think Novel is paying for patent protection, but rather paying for the use of Windows library files which M$ will modify for some M$ code to run within Novel's distros. I specified that M$ will modify the code in order to prevent others from making the code available to other Linux distros.
M$ is paying for Novel's code base in order to run their distro within Windows. The difference is M$ will be able to see the source code and (I believe) they hope to make similar code but different enough as to not violate any patents Novel holds. Once M$ has its own code that can run Linux applications within a Windows OS, they will discontinue any partnership with Novel. This would force Novel to remove any Windows libraries they have been using becoming once again just a Linux distro.
M$ now would have been able to see and take any and/or all the good parts of Linux, and incorporate them within a future Windows OS. They then could also create free downloads of code that would allow users to run any Linux applications within this new OS.
Who wins? M$ with a Windows OS that can run Linux applications natively or a Linux OS that can run Window applications in a soso manner within a virtual environment or thru a dual boot method.
Beside FUDing, MST might try to establish itself as some kind of authority in the linux and FOSS domains. If this starts to happen, it will have to be dealt with
I mean, how many times does Novell have to sit on the brink of bankruptcy before they get it?
Every hour MS spends on WGA, DRM, and the like is an hour they could've spent making my machine run better. Admittedly, it's only the /. prefilter that makes us think MS's development efforts go solely into technological control measures, but the point stands that F/OSS basically never goes near this realm.
Question: without all the control measures that benefit only MS and its partners (Cf. the "content industry") would Vista still require all that processing power?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I don't think Microsoft has intentions of being the next SCO. They just want a way to control some foothold of open source deployment. In process Novell is happy to get some solid sales going from their SUSE investment even if they piss off the open source world.
I don't see this as a dividing tactic but just a money making one. It's not as if half of the open source community is going to jump to proprietary software just because of one deal.
There is something repulsive about a company whose value derives from the free contributions of thousands of people turning that value into profit for a few people. There oughta be a law. There probably isn't. And if there is, it's probably on the wrong side.
I'm not going to address a essay that hinges on the word "evil". "Evil" is a word that is best left to religion and other fairy tales. Instead of that badly written essay, you should instead go to the source. From lp.org:
Transitional Action: Eliminate all federal grants of monopoly or subsidy to any private companies, such as utilities, airlines, energy companies, agriculture, science, medicine, broadcasting, the arts and sports teams. Repeal all anti-trust laws. All federal agencies whose primary function is to make or guarantee corporate loans must be abolished or privatized.
You don't need some convoluted essay to explain the Libertarian stance. It's very simple: government is bad. Private rights (including property rights) are good. Government interfering with private property ("anti-trust") is very bad.
-- nt --
Wikileaks, no DNS
It's all because SuSE sold itself.
"meh" with a shrug
Yes, but I feel at least one important factor is missing in it, he failed to mention the red dressed archangle Pamela and her heavenly troops who rose from nowhere to hit SCO's litigation with facts and research.5 0515115448782
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=200
605413? Yes, it's a prime.
"Novell donates, code to firefox, and now Microsoft can sue the mozilla foundation for patent infringements,"
That's a totally illogical and ignorant statement. Whether or not someone is in violation of a patent has *nothing* to do with who wrote their code. Such an idea totally confuses patents and copyright.
I can't believe the amount of bullshit that's been posted on slashdot since the novell microsoft deal. The deal is something that in no way shape or form puts microsoft in any position to threaten the open source movement (how could it?!), if anything it does the exact opposite. Yet, since it happened slashdot has been filled with fear mongers and bigots who can do nothing but spew shrill and incoherent microsoft bashing, and "deal with the devil" arguments.
The reasons that microsoft has been allying with various opensource companies like Novell and Xensource, and releasing open source software (wtl, wix, etc) are entirely clear and make total business sense. There's no need to construct some legally impossible and nefarious scheme about microsoft trying to sue open source companies, especially considering that part of the legal agreement microsoft made with Novell was to *not sue based on patents*.
>Remember Vader's lines: "I am altering the terms of our agreement. Pray that I do not alter them again."
*rolls eyes* Why don't you just compare microsoft to Hitler while you're at it? Jesus, this is software development, not freaking star wars you *child*.
I will not dignify the content of your post by addressing it directly. I will just say that it was a total load of shrill, nonsensical, and ignorant bullshit, and that you should feel ashamed for having written it.
And the legal team (BSF) that represented scox against msft, now has been paid off by msft to represent scox against msft's old business partner, ibm.
As an employee of a very successful commercial opensource company I can say that bags of money and making nice with geeks who aren't on our payroll can go hand in hand if you do it right. Novell is just going about it wrong this time.
Absolutely right. If Samba doesn't want their code to be used like this, then they shouldn't have put it out under a license that *explicitly gives Novell the right to do whatever they want with it*.
If anything the samba post just goes to show that they have little understanding of the GPL and the philosophy behind the free software movement. The samba developers should know that they retain no right whatsoever to tell any company what they can and cannot use their software for, as they have already given them a license for unlimited use.
The fact is, they don't have to like or approve of what novell does with their software, as long as novell follows their legal agreement, they have every right to do whatever they want with it.
He and some top kernel devs were gushing about how GPL2 was good enough. Avoiding comment on this allows them to save face.
>Uh, the idiomatic "right to ..." phrase typically means "moral justification to ...".
I have nothing more to say to that other than it is patently false, and you should learn how to speak english.
I agree, I am not overly worried about Novell Suse and MS destroying OSS, GPL, FSF, GNU, Linux, ....
.... It is do or die time for many software companies including ... will they have something to offer in the future that customers want.
... fraud which is protected by legacy Luddite governments (US, EU, UN ... them) controlled by the special interest plutocrats.
There was a GPL, a GPL-2, soon the GPL-3 will spread to cover OSS. Novel Suse wants more market share from RedHat and others, MS is trying to survive and may become a late-future OSS OSD. MS is evil, but maybe will repent their sins in the far-fetched future or fail/lose market share like IBM, GM, Novell,
Eventually, 3 to 10 years, the international community, US, and UN will demand reasonable IPR laws that protect innovation, private R&D and personal use, commerce, and ownership. Today's IPR are just industrial-age theft of property, exploitation, extortion
Long-winded but accurate objective perspective of US and politics today.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
There are probably enough people who don't like this to start a Novell boycott.
Many people who read slashdot are consultants or know consultants and these people are actually closely connected to those who control the purse strings.
If Novell goes bankrupt over this then we can be assured other companies will notice.
Not legal right.
What a shame SuSE sold out to let itself be destroyed by Novell. .iso I could load a mini boot.iso and then run the install over ftp, downloading only the files I actually needed. Less important now, but when 5.3 was fresh having an ISDN connection with 64kbits was the best of the affordable options and size did matter then.)
I've been with SuSE for a long time, since 5.3, to be precise.
After all, it was a German distro, for once defaults tended to be like I needed them, instead of always US orthodox.
And SuSE had that very comfortable ftp-install option (instead of having to download an entire
And KDE instead of Gnome. A list of European ISPs to choose from when configureing dial-up instead of US providers not available here. etc.
SuSE turned Novell and the first thing that changed was to ami-ify all the defaults and rebrand the thing. Next thing Novell got rid of a good number of key persons who had actually made SuSE. It was then that SuSE projects turned slow, like you could consider yourself lucky if clamAV for SuSE followed to the next version step before clamAV itself did even the next one. Time to explore alternatives for me.
As of now there are just two boxen left running on Suse 9.3 and 10.0, and as soon as updates for those versions get discontinued, they will be moved to either k|x|ubuntu or debian like the other ones.
After going down to Novell SuSE lost most of its sellingpoints for me, making deals with MS makes it even less attractive in my eyes.
605413? Yes, it's a prime.
Have you noticed that Microsoft has purchased 70 000 coupons for SUSE Linux Enterprise Server maintenance and support per year and that Novell has 50000 customers
Check this on:
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq.html
http://www.novell.com/news/press/item.jsp?id=1199
Is there an error on these numbers??
I know, that a customer can have more than one license, but some customers don't have purchased the SUSE Server. So... Microsoft has bought a number of licences that is similar to the currently base-installed?
And then you have that Novell will pay Microsoft a royalty fee depending on sales... The movement seems to be more than just a patent issue, don't you think?
Any comments on the Database camp?
Seriously, thank you for being willing to stand up and speak like this, most particularly
because you work for Novell.
Since you work there, maybe I can ask you if you happen to know: were SUSE developers consulted at all prior to the deal being struck?
I'd imagine that Novell were coerced into this agreement by Microsoft, who adopted a strategy of "Agree to this, or we go after you". They know full well that such an agreement will have massive effect on Novell's reputation within the Open Source community, and $300 million for a big dent in the commercial reputation of Linux is from Microsoft's perspective a good deal. Matt
The Magic of Branding.
It has nothing to do with, well, anything thats going to affect the software that runs your business. But wow it sure makes you Feel Better.
I mean, what else is there to say? The SAMBA team has said it all. Truly an excellent response. Sums it up perfectly. Thanks for sharing this story.
The Novell deal will have no effect on open source developers at all. The 'license' is just not related to open source. It might provide limited coverage to Novell customers, by which I mean limited to Microsoft, but it will do nothing to protect Linux users from claims made by other companies such as the claim by FireStar against Red Hat. In any case, Novell, Red Hat and other companies have stood behind Linux with indemnity for their customers, and so Novell hasn't bought anything of benefit to their customers; only reduced their own risk profile.
Lets stop beating up on Novell; the move was pragmatic - it got them some cash so they could continue to survive. The interesting thing will happen if and when Microsoft attacks another Linux company, because then Novell will be aware of a patent, and then they won't be able to distribute according to the GPL.
Personally I think that the community has vastly over reacted to the move by Novell, and that if we want to be taken more seriously we should perhaps look at ourselves. We were baited by this one, and we took that bait hook, line and sinker.
This is yet another example of why we need GPLv3. The patent clause in GPLv3 would prevent Novell from distributing patented software with patent protection without extending the patent protection to everyone in the community.
With regards to patents... let's see.. what has the Samba team or anyone else in the free software movement done to try to eliminate the current US patent system? Answer: NOTHING
Well... there are a few "sit ins" and some (not Samba) have learned to speak Welsh... but those are just simple protests and really haven't had any effect.
Novell sees patents as something current... something with some legal bindings... and low and behold... that's 100% true! You can hate patents, loathe patents, detest patents... but at the end of the day, when you are served notice of patent infringement, what are you going to do? Is it going to magically disappear??
I don't like the Novell+Microsoft deal either. So... I'm guessing that the Samba team (again, who has done NOTHING to effect any change on the patent system) must have a wondrous idea of how solve the problem. Maybe the Samba team has offered to pay the legal fees for any and all software developers working on the Samba project who are doing Samba development or other open source code development? I guess I don't know the answer to that.
Novell really believes they did something good (really). IMHO, "good" and "Microsoft" don't belong in the same sentence. But I do understand why Novell felt it was necessary. Even if we disagree with Novell's "solution" (if it's even a solution), we can at least say that something was attempted to protect individuals (even if it turns out to not be so effective).
Personally, I would love to see it all work out for Novell... but the open source community needed a witch... Microsoft has proven to be inflammable. Time to torch Novell and see if this witch will burn. And... if Novell is the open source witch... I guess we should all celebrate the torching. Fedora flambe anyone? This could be fun. Gives new meaning to ESR's Scorched Earth philosophy.
Hopefully this will change their view of GPLv3.
In GPL V2 we have:
The corresponding section from GPL V3 reads:
Note how "would not permit" has been changed to "prohibits". What the authors of GPL V3 do not seem to realize is, that a patent License does not have to prohibit anything! All "prohibiting" is done by the U.S. code. A patent license can grant some rights while failing to grant other rights. This is not "prohibiting".
The ironic thing is the GPL works the same way. The FSF has been boasting for years that the GPL is not a contract. See:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200312142 10634851
It grants some rights and fails to grant other rights. This is explicit in the GPL:
You see! The GPL does not prohibit anything! All prohibiting is done by title 17 of the US code. There is no reason that a patent license could not do the same thing with Title 35 of the US code!
The change from "would not permit" to "prohibit" does make sense. If "would not permit" is read as "fails to explicitly allow" then the "for example" statement is not an example! Let us look at the "for example" statement in context:
What if you accept an agreement, which is a patent license, that does not impose any conditions or obligations on you that are inconsistent with GPL? This could happen, for example, if all the patents mentioned were invalid! Or it could happen if you were the recipient a patent license that was a unilateral grant of rights and you never agreed to anything. (Like the GPL). If "would not permit"; is read as "fails to explicitly allow" then the "for example" statement could apply even though the two sentences above it fail to apply. In short you could have an "example" that is not an example of anything!
That is why I believe that "would no
Funny how the open source folks think everything should be open. Until of couse someone does something with the "open" code that they don't happen to agree with. Then they scream how unfair "their" code gets used for that purpose.
If I understand the agreement correctly, the only thing it affects is virtual machines. You can run SuSE on a Windows based VM and vice versa. Thats it. You would think that deals like this have never existed before. There are TONS of propriatary commercial software that runs on Linux that has a "Only supported on x". For years there was no option other than Red Hat for commercial software on Linux is you wanted support from the software company.
This states that SuSE is the only supported version of Linux running in Windows VM, and that Novell is protected if you are using something like Xen to run Windows on a SuSE box.
Microsoft gets to pick its poison when it comes to Linux running in VMs and Novell gets the antidote.
i think i agree with what ive seen so many others saying lately, boycot all novell crap
There are F/OSS alternatives available already to accomplish everything you've cited. I know, I've done it. A few minutes' googling will usually result in multiple F/OSS apps/systems/OSs, etc to accomplish a given task.
I can head down to my local office supply store and pick up a copy of Quickbooks for $150. There is no FOSS equivalent that has anywhere near the functionality of Quickbooks. You really can't get any more basic than that as far as business software goes. You can Google all day, but you won't find anything that comes remotely close to it.
Come on. Name one. Just one. One that has all of the functionality. Hell, how about 75% of the functionality? Where is this magical software?
I'm not exaggerating. You simply cannot run a viable small business with just Linux, unless you handle your accounting with a bookkeeper that is running Windows or OSX o even DOS.
The really sad part about this story (to me) is that I can't submit the response I originally wrote even as Anonymous.
Let it suffice to say you completely misunderstand both the history and the situation. Novell is the SCO in this remake. The role of weaselling lying lawyer has yet to be cast, but competition for the role is fierce as this starring role gets 100% of Novell's considerable assets and none of its liabilities. The part of Baystar is being played by Wells Fargo. The script has only minor changes. The set is still on location in Utah. Filming will commence concurrently with the final episodes of the original serial drama.
Watching the original was like a slow motion train wreck -- morbidly compelling, but tediously dull at the same time. Hopefully for The Last Remake of FUD Geste they can at least get a Baldwin.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Laugh all you want, then go over to the Apple store and take a look at the point-of-sale displays.
Not sure if they sell it to the public, but "iCashRegister" exists, and it works with the credit card readers, UPC scanners, receipt printers, electronic-pen signature devices, cash drawers and everything else there.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Learning and teaching Celtic languages is fun anyway, and I don't need an unrelated political cause to get into it.
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
Come on, we are talking about corporation here.
So, next version of GPL will forbid distribute covered product by company? It is that right?
Or I missing here, is there something so very important about FUD and PR, we can't address without change of license?
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
I don't think MS really dug Apple out of their hole (Zune anyone?), and likely they're not going to tread lightly on Novell either.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Microsoft is on the attack and they have a HUGE war chest! So a quick duck out of the way of this impending doom may just be Solaris. Whooo 'da thunk?
No man, you got it all wrong.
It's Joerg Schilling and his magentic personality that's going to draw people towards OpenSolaris in their millions!
My scenario is, I think, more plausible than yours.
Some, however, are very obvious Microsoft concepts, such as CIFS and FAT. You can be forgiven for not realizing this, as someone on slashdot had to point this out to me recently.
That merely highlights your own personal lack of knowledge about Unix and Linux.
CIFS and FAT have zero to do with native Unix or native Linux --- CIFS and FAT functionality have been added purely to be able to interoperate with Microsoft. And the right to interoperability has been protected in the courts for half a century now. It's one of the strongest technical legal rights.
No Unix/Linux person would be seen dead using CIFS or FAT unless they need to interoperate, as it would be a totally moronic thing to do, since it is massively slower than using native filestores and also breaks or limits a large number of common Unix facilities like file permissions, file naming, named pipes, etc.
There are better ways to deal with patents than to prevent entire groups of people from using your software.
Either the GPLv2 or earlier software contains MS patents (or other people's patents) or it doesn't. This has nothing to do with Novell. -- I know, I know, you say it does, but hear me out please -- If it doesn't contain MS patents, (or anybody else's patents for that matter), then there is no violation of the GPL. If it does contain MS patents, (or anybody else's patents for that matter), AND the party who owns the patent sues, then everyone who uses that software, sells that software, etc. would be in violation of the GPL. The only difference is that Novell customers wouldn't be in violation of the patent (if and only if it's MS's patent)
Example 1: So let's say we have a MS patent violation in Samba (and they sue):
Novell customers: violation of GPL
other distro customers: violation of GPL, violation of MS patent.
Example 2: Now let's say we have an NTP patent violation in Samba (and they sue):
Novell customers: violation of GPL, violation of NTP patent.
other distro customers: violation of GPL, violation of NTP patent.
Notice how Microsoft would be better off not getting Novell in trouble (by suing other distros) in Example 1 -- (MS wants Novell patents). Everyone is better off with this deal (as far as MS patents are concerned). The effect to the "community" is this: No GPL developer(s) have to ever worry about violating MS patents UNINTENTIONALLY ever again so long as they stick with gpl2. Period. It's a wonderful, beautiful, amazing day for Linux, and you're WRONG. Now of course, I'm NOT talking about Novell's "OSI non-compliant open source" software. That's not "free" software. Just GPL and other "free" software.
Notice how Eben says that Novell's customer's "may be" in violation of GPL - if there's a patent in there AND MS sues, they may be. Obviously, the deal doesn't violate GPL2 on the face of it. Only if MS sues (which they won't, because of Novell's patents). Of course, if there's anyone else's patents in there, and THEY sue, there "may" also be a violation (if that package is installed). Duh. Gotta love lawyers. And I do, really. Especially Eben - he's cool.
None of this would even be an issue if the license were a BSD license.
The point is this -- if YOU can't use the software, if I can't use the software, then what's the point of having the software? So that someone can make money?
Fine - make money off it if you want. Whether or not it "violates" the GPL is irrelevant. The point is this - we want to get high quality software to as many end users as possible. HOW that happens is irrelevant. I see no difference between restricting software via GPLv3, locking it up in a vault at MIT and Microsoft locking up in a closed source software in some cave somewhere. Either way, certain groups of people end up not being able to use the software.
The deal is fine - it's good. It's good for Linux. Who appointed you as proxy anyway? I have a right to use BSD software or GPL software or whatever. I didn't vote for you as my proxy, did I?
There's no problem here, move right along. What part of freedom do you not understand? Sacrificing freedom for security? You'll have neither.
If you don't let people use your software, they'll replace it with something else. Also, the driving force behind this software that we're talking about is the Linux kernel, not the FSF or GNU or GPL. Where's HURD gotten off to? The thing that attracts developers is the Linux kernel. It's not any of those other things. Linux could be licensed under any OSI-approved license, and it would attract developers like crazy. Where Linux goes, developers follow. Squa
Novell will do what it has to do to make money, or Novell will be No-More.
Granted they have a history of botching up things (Buying Word Perfect, dumping Word Perfect)...
but on the whole, Novell needs to look towards the future and survive the cash flows of today.
I don't know about SUSE developers but De Icaza stated he didn't know about this (which took 6 months according to several in the conference video) until less than a week before the announcement:
"Although I did not take part of the actual negotiations, and was only told about this deal less than a week before the announcement, I had been calling for a long time for a collaboration between Microsoft and Open Source and Microsoft and Novell."
from http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Nov-04.html
What happened to all that "free as in speech" freedom that is supposed to go with FLOSS, Linux, and the GPL?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The EU, Korea Republic, Australia amongst many others have ruled against MS.
And in case monopolies are something close to your heart what about thieves? Check for Stac Eletronics and their stacker disk compressing disk software.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
MS ~400 000 000
GNOME 0
Now, back to reality.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
All the distros need just to delete it to be on the clear.
Not such good luck for any developpers if they get sued, they can't run away from their cod so easily.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Sorry to be blunt, but frankly you seem to be living in another planet.
You can't just ignore patent and copyright issues. This has nothing to do with mindless zealotry, for many of the folks doing development work, patents are a real issue that can make your life a misery.
If you are in a place where patents are a non issue, good for you, keep coding.
But otherwise is completely childish and idiotic just to keep coding without stop staring at your computer screen and check what is happening around you, and how that could affect you.
If MS would sue for patent infringement regarding Mono (which are blantantly trying to replace functionality only to be found in MS products, you work the likelyhood of this) the lives of the developpers would be hell. They would either have to settle (most likely on their prejudice) or face the 800ton gorilla and their team of lawyers.
The Samaba team are exactly in the same boat because they are aiming to provide an alternative for MS software. If you think MS has not patented stuff regarding their protocols, no matter how trivial those patents are, then you are drinking some very strong Kool-Aid, share some.
Mono is here to stay in SuSe Linux (if, and that is a very big if, Novell has not broken the GPL, then Novell would have no Linux to start with), but as Ballmer made clear, anybody else may be be not so lucky.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
We've been using SuSE for about as long as you have. As a company we're fairly recent Novell Partners.
10.0 was about the last "good" SuSE release. Actually 9.3 was the last good release, 10.0 was OK and had some good points (I'm using it right now to type this).
Before Novell signed their own death warrant on the 2nd of November, I was already feeling uncomfortable about what Novell had done to SuSE 10.1 and the Enterprise 10 releases - in particular the absolute requirement to use Mono. Before the 2nd I had partially accepted the latter with an "at least they eat their own dog food" self justification, even though it appears to make the package installer run like a dog (I thought it had crashed the first time I used it - that's when I worked out that it was using Mono).
We were going to use SLES10 as the basis for a communications hardware platform, but in light of the recent events we're highly likely to use something else instead (probably RedHat.) We need an "Enterprise Grade" Linux OS that is going to be vendor supported for a while. We're largely self-supporting Linux-wise, but we do/will have customers. I'd be interested if anybody knows of any alternatives.
I have 10.1 on my laptop but I think I'm going to upgrade it with Slackware (I haven't used that since 2.something).
I really, really want to hear you defend - logically - what you just said. You know why? Because you can't. At least, you can't without (a) sounding like an idiot because you don't know what you're talking about, or (b) lying, because what you wrote is a flat out lie and you can only defend it by lying further.
Which will it be?
For example, tens of thousands of businesses use Samba internally (Novell, employer of Jeremy Allison, for one). And some contribute back to the project. IBM is another. Red Hat is doing pretty well also. Look at all the internet appliances out there that use Linux and a host of other GPL packages (Cisco-Linksys, Buffalo, Netgear, etc.). They seem to be doing just fine - making money selling products for a profit.
I call your FUD and raise it with Facts.
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
he's talking about Microsoft's obvious threat, don't you?
.Net for Linux thing and obviously that was a mistake. I am afraid Mono is dead. It'll twitch for a while but it's dead unless Novell can eliminate the patent infringement fear. Novell has lost loads of credibility because of the deal they cut with Microsoft.
Yeah, a lot of people have bought into the whole
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!