Slashdot Mirror
Novell Injects MS Lawsuit Exploit Into Open Office
F.M. Petain writes, "It looks like Microsoft's first move in the 'Linux owes us' game is to move a Pawn. A few days ago, a Novell programmer, Noel Power, submitted patches to add VBA compatibility to Open Office's spreadsheet module. This is great for people trying to convert the business desktop from closed source to open source, but is this gift really a ticking time bomb? What happens when Microsoft declares that the VBA code was stolen?" The patches may have been submitted only a few days ago, but the code must be considerably older; the article claims that nine distros in adition to SUSE already support the VBA extensions in their versions of Open Office. (Linux.com and Slashdot are both part of OSTG.)
Microsoft is trying to slip poison pills into projects that endanger their cash cows... Be very, very careful!
I'm truely amazed that Novell is co-operating to let them do this. How can they benefit from Linux being threatened when their entire business is revolving around Linux these days??
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
All patches from Novell must be rejected, as of now. As well as a statement of our standpoint wrt/ their actions, it can only be assumed that they will include a poison pill that makes Microsoft's case.
Oh, and for Saturday night relief - even the mighty can be seduced by MS charm: farewell, Napoleon!
Besides the presumptuous headline, can we please try to distinguish between VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) and VBS (VBScript, I assume). Next, it appears that the Novell programmer is simply integrating a patch into the mainline product which the other distros have been applying during their packaging procedure for some time now. Is there any evidence that the VBA code was lifted from Microsoft (ie. they're setting people up for a copyright liability), or that some aspect of the VBA implementation is patented? No? I didn't think so.
Cut the crap, this is pure paranoia. Since when exactly does every little action by Novell employees deserve an article at Slashdot?
Do not trust this signature.
The author's reaction, that is. A lot of the above comments are saying the article is garbage and FUD and paranoia and etc., and maybe it is, but keep in mind that for a lot of people (and probably, a lot of projects), this kind of paranoia is going to be the first thing that crosses their mind with they see patches from Novell.
"How will this possibly screw us later?"
Get used to these responses, it's the new Novell.
After reading all the scathing criticism lately about Mono and OOo being tainted by MS patents, it leaves me to wonder why WINE never had so many skeptics (though it did have a few). With the same line of reasoning, WINE should be at a greater risk.
Anyway not that I think any of these will face any problems,
1. Anti-Trust - It will be difficult for MS to pull of anything close to killing a small competitor out of business using patents.
2. Massive attrition at Microsoft - All things being equal, people tend to work for saner, lesser-evil companies. There is a certain pride in it, and I don't fancy a lot of people saying - Yeah I work for SCO! (I just dug this interesting article from Paul Graham about MS Patents)
3. MS has benefited from interoperability, and cross-technology support for years (Remember how Word had Word perfect emulation modes and shortcuts). I don't think patents cover those APIs too.
4. And piss off the large clients??
5. Total loss of good-will and PR disaster.
6. Can OIN (Open Innovation Network) patents be used against Microsoft?
7. Only a tiny fraction of Mono and OOo will ever fall under the patenttotine, and those will no doubt be re-written and re-implemented the same weekend.
Life is just a conviction.
If MSFT is going to try and litigate Linux they're going to try it with or without Novell. OpenOffice is compatible with a lot of file formats, including PDF export. If this was some attempt to poison an open source code base it's both clumsy and ineffective.
Unless Ballmer is completely stupid...and I wouldn't necessarily rule that out...then you have to believe the SCO litigation-by-proxy is seen internally as a huge, embarrassing mistake. If anything the whole fiaSCO actually highlighted how strong Linux is from an IP standpoint. SCO demonstrated that attacking Linux is bad business, and the reaction of the open source to community to an attack from MSFT could be even more extreme.
In my opinion Ballmer is bluffing. It would be stupid for MSFT to launch a direct attack against Linux. More likely this is their own clumsy way of trying to cut a deal, handicapped by naturally poor corporate execution and their ego driven CEO. You don't have to look any farther than Zune to see another glaring example of ego inspired faltering execution. Ballmer wanted to grab a piece of the iPod market because he doesn't like Jobs and had they been anyone but MSFT they might have succeeded. This same group isn't going to be any more effective or execute any better against Linux. So don't give them the satisfaction of going off the handle and every bit of drool that comes out of Ballmer's mouth.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Wrong. If Novell can distribute it, then everyone else can. If everyone else can't, then neither can Novell, though for different reasons. (If everyone else can't distribute it because of patent issues, then Novell can't distribute it because the GPL doesn't grant distribution rights if you can't or don't license the patents too.) This means that if MS sues another distro over patent issues, and the offending code is traced to Novell, then everyone ELSE who has code in the kernel can then sue Novell for brach of contract/copyright violation, especially if they continue to distribute the code themselves. (Depending on the outcome of the case mentioned a couple days ago.)
From the original article, it seems the code predates the Novell-MS agreement. That would suggest it didn't come from MS. So why is this a problem?
Can the other distros (which the article claims had previously added the code) add MS compatibility code and have no problem, but when Novell adds the same code, they'll be accused of adding MS-supplied code?
Hopefully Novell will clarify their standing with MS such that any code released by Novell under the GPL is truly free GPL code.
Another area is the restriction that Suse development is limited to hobbyist development only. Commercial developers get no protections when using GPL code from SuSE. Sounds like SuSE may have shot themselves in the foot.
-l
If there's one thing that Microsoft does well, it's business. Their technical skills may be poorly managed, but they do killer business. How else do you think they kept their position if their software is so bad?
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
If Microsoft wanted to sue Linux companies for patent usage, he could do it without injecting any "poison pill".
The point is that Microsoft doesn't want to sue at this time.
MS (like most of the big patent-pushers) does not want a Big Patent War before they get software patents passed in Europe - because the chances of getting software patents passed after a Big Patent War are slim-to-none.
European Patent Wars Heat up Again
fork the further development of Ooo into a Novell (Microsoft) and a Debian fork. see how far the Microsoft influence goes, and see how far the FSF influence goes. THEN choose your pick.
memento mori
I'd hardly call this case of "paranoia". Few had issues with Novell-contributed code before they started signing deals with Microsoft. But everyone in the open source community now should be very cautious about any source code coming from Novell.
Most of us are developers, not lawyers. We don't know the intimate details of this contract they signed. Even if we did, we are not necessarily in the position to know, from a legal standpoint, exactly how it affects us. Thus we have only one response: to shun all code from Novell, regardless of where it came from or for what project it was developed.
Dealing with software coming out of Novell is just not worth the risk, especially when it may directly impact projects worked on by those outside of Novell. It's not worth it to put a very important project like OpenOffice.org at risk, even if the contribution made by Novell could be quite useful. It's better to have OpenOffice.org without some minor functionality, rather than not having OpenOffice.org at all (due to licensing or legal troubles).
If MS is contemplating a lawsuit (nothing in TFA indicates that), it's not because of one user coding up macros to make their lives easier. MS doesn't make (much) money from individual users, they make their money on corporations, some of which have an infrastructure investment in Excel macros (I know, I know, it's a horrible idea... but it's true). Those macros represent a huge moment of inertia for an organization to overcome before they can switch to another spreadsheet-- that's why it's "cheaper" to pay the massive licensing fees for MS Office than to change to free software. Changing platforms requires planning, controlled conversion, and meticulous testing of code that does something that in many cases no one even remembers precisely. Many users don't even know they're running macros, they just know to 1) load the spreadsheet, 2) press Ctrl-X or something, and 3) type in some new numbers. That creates a very difficult situation for someone planning to change platforms.
If OOo includes transparent VBA support, which can be demonstrated to be reliable, much of that inertia is overcome. MS doesn't care about an individual coder who wants to write spreadsheet macros, whether they're in VBA or Haskell or Snobol or RPG-- they've already lost those users. It is very much in their interest to keep those 50-seat (or 20,000-seat) user licenses coming in. And protecting that revenue stream will pay for a lot of lawyers.
Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
The RTFA is an accurate statement of fact. The summary on slashdot is not. Facts of interest:
There's no need for that. Open Office can assimilate compatibility with MS Office, AND it can go beyond. For me, major turning points were when Open Office started supporting HTML editing and PDF exports as standard features out of the box. In addition, I've frequently found Open Office to have better support for old MS Office formats than new versions of MS Office.
Scripting should be no different than the file format capabilities. Open Office can support the most used scripting capabilities in Excel, plus an assortment of other options. Then it is MS Office which cannot compete feature for feature.