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'."
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...
Sure does seem like it and frankly I have not been able to work my brain around the notion this agreement DOES NOT violate some aspect of GPLv2. And maybe, just maybe that's what Microsoft was REALLY after.... to get Novells right to distribute GPL code revoked. If that were to happen it seems to me it would put a big hurt on Novell. Microsoft is not known, nor has it been known NOT to stab a company in the back or setup a chain of events that in the long run damages or distroys it's competitor.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
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
"First, Novell isn't making deals on behalf of others."
well, yes, they did. the deal was done on behalf of Novell's customers. the deal is specifically designed to indemnify Novell's customers from patent lawsuits brought by Microsoft. thus, Microsoft can pursue a patent suit against Samba, but if you bought a Microsoft approved distribution you won't be penalized.
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?!
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
you are also correct. however, the downside here is that if users, especially businesses, feel a need to take advantage of this "protection" then Novell has succeeded in delegitimizing other distributions. i'm no GPL geek, so I don't know specifically what the license has to say on this, but if programmers or vendors are forced to question their rights to code or distribute then we've lost something.
> Ultimately people won't pay you money for something that they get for free elsewhere.
oh I don't know, it has worked for hookers for thousands of years for much the same reasons people will pay for OS: service level agrements and a no quibble contract
Considering that MS, Novell, and SCO have been interwined for 20 + years, Yes. Keep in mind that Novell owned SCO at one time and sold it off to Caldera. Of course, Caldera was a start-up from who? Novell's own Ray Noorda. Now, I liked Ray, but the whole Novell, SCO, Caldera is an inbred world. The best thing that Novell could have done was kept the SUSE team together for diversity. But they dismantled the group. What is left now, is a group that is trying to figure out how to take over the number one spot from Redhat without regard to the long term impact of the linux world. These guys think very short term. Once they increase the value of the company, they will break it apart and sell it off. Remember what happened to SCO? Same thing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I agree wholeheartedly. What should have been said is that Novell, by making this deal, is behaving against the ethics of Open Source and Free Software. Microsoft is a perfectly legal company... and has engaged in behavior that many consider highly unethical. Thus many people think poorly of their business dealing. This is a matter of ethics, not a matter of law or rights.
Ethics is part of business. I know I've had the opportunity to screw over my business partner many times in the nine years we've been working together. I'm sure he has as well. We have both behaved as ethically as we possible and we trust each other. The same goes for the companies that we have brokered deals with. We behave in an ethical manner and we receive business because of our reputation. Microsoft has partnered with many companies and subsequently screwed them over. That should be a consideration when dealing with them, and Novell -- as an OS/FS company -- is now dealing with them. This will certainly chill relations with the people who develop the product they sell, and likely some customers. Dealing with unethical people or companies does impart a certain taint to you and your product. That is what is occurring here, not a violation of law.
Just because you have a right to do something does not make it right to do.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
MS doesn't have a history of doing this
How do you define this? MS certainly does have a history of playing ugly with competitors (real, potential, perceived.)
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
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
They play hard, yes. So does every other business. So does my business. They do NOT have a history of aggressively suing patent infringers. In fact, they've started promising that they WILL NOT do this. And, they won't have any grounds to do so with this deal, unless there are some GPL programmers stealing code, which apparently rarely happens.
"At your expense"? Like, what, exactly? If you wrote any OSS code, and gave it away, then there is no expense for you if it is used by Microsoft or anybody else.
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.
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.
And at least with a hooker you KNOW you're getting screwed.
We have exactly 6 people. We need software that works out of the box, no questions asked. There's little room for error, either as far as time or money goes. Any time spent twiddling with software is money lost. It's that simple.
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.
Being a monopoly is not unethical or immoral. The Sherman Act was not enacted to prevent or dismantle monopolies that are good corporate citizens. There are plenty of examples of regional monopolies that never have any consumer issues. The problem is monopolies who *abuse* their position to *stiffle* the free market. The free market is about providing consumers with the most valuable product, not working against your competition to prevent them from even having a chance to get their product to market. If you want to live in Soviet Russia where there's 1 kind of toilet paper, and 1 kinda of coffee, knock yourself out, I like the free market
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
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
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.
They're Microsoft - they don't need to actually sue patent infringers. They just need to ask them to stop - most organisations don't want a legal fight with MS. Especially if they're just some guy writing an open source application (the example I linked to seems to be a really good case of MS behaving like a jerk for no particularly good reason).
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
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
Yet you do 'porn stuff' and your website is down.
Yay for Microsoft indeed....
Ah, you must mean the iCashRegister application suite.
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I can't have some hacked together stuff that that may or may not interact well.
If this is the case, then you're definitely using the wrong solution. MS only interacts well with MS (if even then..interoperability in MS solutions isn't universal or without its' own problems), with only a few exceptions. Even those exceptions are usually a result of the work of people outside of MS, reverse engineering things with, at the very least, no help from MS...that is, if MS doesn't actively work through multiple means to impede or halt any such efforts outright.
One of F/OSSs' main strengths is the ability to interoperate without artificial barriers for the sole purpose of increasing corporate profits, lock-in, and marketshare.
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. That you chose the MS solution is just that; *your* choice.
However, saying that you have no choice in order to stay in business and/or avoid firing employees is disengenuous. There *are* choices, you just *chose* not to avail yourself of them. Citing "peace of mind" and "interoperability" as reasons is facetious, as it has been widely acknowledged that both qualities are present in spades with current non-MS approved/certified F/OSS solutions.
If you're so concerned about the welfare of your employees, perhaps the money you could save using F/OSS solutions could be used to hire more employees or increase benefits/pay rates of current workers.
Just my 0.02
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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
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.
I wish someone could salvage opensuse from Novell's [now dirty] hands...
"Not for your benefit" != "at your expense".
(chronology and events altered slightly for creative license)
Microsoft introduced Xenix, spun it off and begat Santa Cruz Organization -- The Old SCO(tm) and it was good; an affordable x86 Unix environment.
Novell was a very proprietary company which improved their products v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y ('80s through mid '90s) so SCO a group of engineers and execs left Novell and begat Caldera. Caldera bought DR-DOS after the Windows incompatibility fiasco (deliberate sabotage by Microsoft), declared that "OSes want to be free" and opened up their DOS source for all to see. Caldera begat Free DOS, and it was good.
Novell saw their market declining due to interoperability problems introduced by Microsoft, and by utilities introduced by Microsoft which were promoted for use for bypassing Novell's per-seat restrictions. Novell examined their positions, saw that Unix had a strong future, so they bought the IP for Unix, assigned SCO as the license broker for Unix IP, and saw that it was good.
Caldera looked upon the Free DOS and their gaining a decent following, and declared that open source looked promising, so they introduced a Linux distribution that was a bit ahead of its time. They looked upon their package management and update download-equipped open-source Linux operating system and saw that it was good.
Santa Cruz Organization saw its Unix product's future shrinking, and even with their 5% comission on Unix licensing they could read the writing on the wall for their core product, so they sold the "SCO" name and Unix products and contracts to Caldera, and thought all was well. The New SCO renamed Caldera Linux to SCO OpenLinux and claimed that it was good, and all was well.
Enter the serpent who goes by the name Darl McBride; a sneaky if not clever demon who felt that he could tempt investors to take a bite from his fruit of profit. He declared that Linux Stole SCO Code and thart SCO in fact owns the IP to all Unix-like OSes. In doing this the serpent indeed deceived them and got them to take a nibble with his declaration that Linux infringed upon his Unix IP and that all Linux users must pay him $699/processor/Linux box. Linux users grumbled to the Lord.
The serpent bit AutoZone's and Daimler Chrysler's heels, took them to court, and the judge did stomp on the serpent's head, crushing it, and rendered its vemon harmless. Linux users rejoiced, singing "O where is SCO's sting?"
Serpent McBride of SCO, relentless in his evil, pursued Lord Novell and Lord IBM into court. The courts did chuckle, but granted the serpent access to the throne. McBride shouted "I will own Linux! I will own Unix! Users will bow down to me and I will be like the most high Novell!"
Linux users, seeing through the deception, grumbled to the Lord, and proclaimed "Woe unto SCO, for they are evil and their king Darl McBride shall surely perish." The Lord IBM and The Lord Novell heard their grumbling and took offense at SCOs actions. They dragged SCO back into court, presented their counterclaims, saw SCO's stock plummet, and it was good.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
from my understanding, this shouldn't violate V2 of the GPL as it does not mention patents; however, I think there is a potential problem in it for Novell in that they will via the GPL be providing people with a license to indefinitly copy and distribute a program to which they via contract with MS have limited access to distribute. The question I have is what happens to Novel in five years when they've given everyone the right to redistribute the software under GPL 2? Providing a second contract for the patents would violate GPL 2 as that inherently would violate the clause preventing additional restrictions.
As an alternative, Novel could provide compatibility plugins under a different license and do a hybrid distribution much as exists with commercial distributions on the market. In a business sense, this is very powerful as it would give novel the ability to gain traction and provide a much needed service - a linux environment with better windows compatibility. OVer the course of this five years, it could in theory strengthen the adoption of linux amongst the crowd that need windows compatibility for smooth day to day function. What happens in five years is that they will have linux systems in their environment that hopefully are deeply embedded enough that transitioning back to windows quickly would be a challenge. In such a setup, they will be more free to transition to an environment w/o windows present.
I personally think this deal is not as big an issue as it is made out to be. What it does point out is the dangers of patent pacts to small businesses and independent inventors. I think that eliminating patent pacts as being anticompetitve is necessary to force competition. Of course this will just heighten the worries and abuse of the patent system, but maybe that abuse will force the big corps into supporting patent reform instead of using patent arseonals to smother the competition.
Sadly to say IBMs response to SCO largely reflects their abuse of the patent system. SCO attacks and they respond with countersuits using their massive stockpile of patents. While in this case, sco may be deserving of annhiliation - the method used is still that of a bully.
Attacking this deal is missing the target completely. Businesses will do what they need to to compete. Rules need to be changed to adapt to a changing environment. All this attention should be more strongly focused on patent reform and a stronger lobby needs to be made to see it happen.
alright, done ranting... if you got this far, you can go about living your life as u were.
When all else fails, try.
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
I don't have any idea of what your business is, but my personal experience points right in the opposite direction.
I work for a design, communication and advertising agency, and we've used Windows for our storage systems before the society was reorganized (putting me in charge of IT).
With windows, we had load of problems:
Since we do webdeveloping aswell, we didn't had much time to lose after the servers administration: once you get them up and running, they shouldn't need to be checked every day for hours.
Windows sadly, was a whiny bitch and constantly asked for some attention.
Since I switched to Fedora Core for all the servers, none of the above problems have surfaced, except an hardware failure on our router (an old WWI Pentium box, that apparently died from exhaustion).
So my conclusion is that half of my problems with windows arise from the fact I do not know how it works in detail, and that I find it harder to find solutions for Windows issues rather than Linux issues onto the net.
This has a precise reason, but I bet you can see it clearly aswell: and from now on, refrain from generically bashing technologies you never tried to use, without giving specific details of what the matter is.
nbody2002:If you can read this you may be addicted to the internet
Likewise, if I donate my time and effort to an open source project, I want that effort to help others who can make honest use of my code (yes, including Microsoft), but I don't want it to be used as a cudgel against others (or, even, against my own efforts!), the way getting entangled with this Novell+MS plan has the potential to do (and given MS's past history, there's absolutely no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt).
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
So yes, I would give significantly more weight to a Linux that has MS's stamp of approval.
Right, because ATM's, Point of Sale machines, electronic billboards, fight schedule displays and many other business related machines running on MS software has such a proven track record. There certainly aren't any examples around of them failing.
"We need software that works out of the box, no questions asked. There's little room for error, either as far as time or money goes. Any time spent twiddling with software is money lost. It's that simple."
I hope to god you are not using MS software then.
evil is as evil does
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.
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.
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.
The initial question was whether someone wants to help MS "at their expense", and one's "wants and desires" most certainly *do* come into play here. If I don't want to help MS at my expense (for example), even if after my contribution has been made, I *still* don't want to see MS benefit. That's the point. Not that it is somehow going to cost me more after the fact.
Then it is clearly up to the person not to give away their efforts in the first place. When you give away code anyone can benefit - nambla, shin-ri-kyo, the pope, or nelson mandela -- anyone. If a person isn't prepared to let everyone use the results of his work, he shouldn't be giving it away in the first place. Just because he may not have thought through the implications beforehand is no excuse.
But there's more than just my past expense, there's my present and future expense. Will I want to further contribute to a project that I now know is going to be used against me?
That's circular reasoning, since there is no additional expense incurred by MS's use, by definition it is not being used against you. MS's benefit is not your loss, it is not a zero-sum game.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Yeah well I work for Novell. So what do you have to say about that ?
I can say this statement was agreed upon unanimously by the Team.
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Microsoft owned SCO at one time. In fact, the Santa Cruz Office of Microsoft became SCO. I have a machine here in my collection with pre-SCO Microsoft Xenix installed and running on it. Microsoft in their pre-MS-DOS days developed the first port of UNIX to run on the Intel 8086 processor, called Xenix. When Billy decided he didn't want to do UNIX anymore, it was all split off to become SCO.
SCO was an entity formed by Microsoft. It was once owned by Microsoft.
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*.
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?
Err - you and I cannot be thinking of the same Microsoft here. I've spent the whole of my professional career supporting Microsoft solutions and just as GNU/Linux have problems so do Microsoft's applications. But on to the next part...
Ah! Now I see what you really like about Microsoft's products - the "tight" integration of their business applications. This is probably the one thing that keeps businesses from switching. I have to admit that having nearly all of their business apps integrate with Office decently is a nice feature. It works most of the time. MS has had more than a few problems though. Overall, I will agree with you that there are many linux applications that aren't tightly integrated and could use a bit of polishing, but there are many, many programs that despite not being a tightly integrated family of apps, they DO get the job done and do it VERY well.
"It's SCO all over again."
:-)
I wonder if that is more true than we think?
In 2002 SCO sold something Unix related to MS, and also something to Sun for a total of $24 million. In the MS case, this something was supposed to allow UNIX apps to run on Vista, at least on the professional version.
Now, it has come out that SCO was NOT ALLOWED to sell Sys V technology to anyone without Novell's permission. But they did. Now, like buying a stolen car, MS won't be held liable for having the code in their possession, but they aren't allowed to use it either. So they would be out the money, and they would have to pull the code out of Vista a whole month before it's launch date. Disaster city.
However, if they go to Novell, they can buy the code from the people who CAN sell it. Actually, Novell may have knocked on MS's door, as it took until last spring for Novell to pry the contract out of SCO detailing exactly what was sold to MS.
So, Bill has to upchuck cash to keep Vista on track. And the rest of this is smoke and mirrors to cover Bill's butt, and to give Novell a marketing edge with the pointy-haired IT manager set.
The payment to Novell worked out to $686 for each of the 350,000 SLES. Interestingly, SCO gets to keep 5% of the revenue from Sys V licenses. 5% of about $240 million is $12 million, right in the middle of SCOs 2002 technology sales revenue. So Novell just had MS cough up the other 95% they were due?
It's currently my favorite conspiracy theory
So you feel anti-trust laws are somehow bad? Let's get rid of IP laws as well, I think they're morally corrupt. The two sort of balance each other out to a degree, although the former is typically only used when companies grossly overstep their bounds and the latter at the drop of a hat. If we're going to get rid of anti-trust laws that protect us from this sort of behavior, let's get rid of a few more bad apples while we're at it.
GPL: Free as in will
Ooooh, the scary payroll problem.
I also use QuickBooks, and I also subscribe to the payroll service, the most basic one. However, that is just because I have better things to do with my time than do the very simple calculations required for tax compliance. I still do my own deposits via the Federal EFTPS system and the state online systems. I send in my own little quarterly coupons and quarterly fed 941 returns.
For a small business, manually calculating it would take a little research the first time, and from then on it would be trivial every other week to manage for a handful of employees. I used to do it. It isn't rocket science. Calculate percentages, track and stop at yearly limits. Keep totals, enter liabilities into the appropriate account in accounting software. Make your tax deposits. File your forms. People managed this just fine before QuickBooks. It was quite viable. They used those ruled double entry accounting notepads ("the books") they sell at the office supply stores, not to mention the payroll management worksheets they sell. Using an accounting software package to replace the notepads is quite an improvement. If somebody wants to save a couple hundred $$ a year and do their own payroll, it certainly isn't difficult.
Larry
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."