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!
anyone?
Need more useless stuff to read on teh internetz?
I found it vaguely amusing/disturbing that the ad I saw below the article was a Novell advertisement for "The Linux you've always wanted."
I'll pass on MS-controlled Linux, thanks...
"Unfortunately, there's no easy way of identifying whether your distro supports the VBA interoperability apart from trying some VBA code."
Great, now I don't don't know if I'm vulnerable until it's too late. How do I disable it? Is now the time for a Linux anti-virus?
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
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.
Even though I dislike OpenOffice, I would suggest taking a wait-and-see approach, rather than just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Regards,
MBC1977,
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.
Presumably the best defense against claims of stolen code is to do what the Linux kernel folks are doing and require contributors to certify that they have the right to provide the code. Here are the current rules for submitting code for the kernel, and here is the Developer's Certificate of Origin. Significant contributions should also be well publicized so that anyone claiming infringment is forced to bring it up soon, before people come to rely on it. In this case, it would then be Novell's problem, not the community's, if Microsoft claims that the code is theirs.
Q4. With this agreement, will Novell include Microsoft patented code in its contributions to the open source community?
r ce.html
No. Novell will not change its development practices as a result of this agreement. It has always been our policy in all development, open source and proprietary, to stay away from code that infringes another's patents, and we will continue to develop software using these standard practices. If any of our code is found to infringe someone else's patents, we will try to find prior technology to invalidate the patents, rework the code to design around the infringement, or as a last resort remove the functionality.
Novell is committed to protecting, preserving and promoting freedom for free and open source software.
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensou
Seriously people, this article is simply an install and usage guide, without much of a comment on the timeline etc. Since most distros ship this stuff already (e.g. Debian), and have been for a while, it would seem to me that this code was written from scratch, unless MS was handing off code to Novell before the agreement.
So therefore we have not a copyright issue at all, but a software patent issue. Let the patent discussion begin!
First off, this code has been around since SLED shipped, if not before. Anyone who recalls Nat Friedman showing his Spirograph under OOocalc, well, this is what they're talking about.
Secondly, the Slashdot post seems to be confirming that the open source community has no way of validating code, and blindly accepts any code offered, assuming that there's no patent infringing code in it.
Good job, FSF. You've managed to do what Darl couldn't-- Completely shatter the open source community, and turn them against themselves. Bravo!
Meddle not in the affairs of Microsoft, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
If all my base are belong to you and I attempt to retrieve my base, does that mean I'm freebasing?
All hell breaks loose for Novell, not OpenOffice. Presumably this is being done officially by them and so the blame would fall on Novell.
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.
Now I can run pretty much any visual basic program (one of the most used languages in the Real World) under linux and hence switch many people to linux, but people prefers to title it as "novell may be doing some dirty things"
It's amazing how one of the most wonderful news I've heard in months can become FUD. Wake up: Patents already existed before the novell-MS pact. Microsoft has been able to sue companies for years. Getting VBA compatibility is a Good Thing. I only can thank Novell for this code.
Not to feed the trolls, but ... obviously, the idea is to allow current Microsoft Office users who already use macros written in VB to take those macros with them when they switch to OOo.
Breakfast served all day!
"...nine distros in adition to SUSE already support the VBS extensions in their versions of Open Office."
Do people really think before posting? Any OO distributed by anyone other than Novell may be violating IP. Think damn it, think.
Erm, the Novell/MS agreement is garbage. It doesn't protect people who redistribute code they receive from Microsoft, and only applies to commmercial free software producers (i.e. Sun) insofar as that code ends up in OpenSuSE. If the same "infringing" code ends up in RedHat then Redhat (and the people who supplied RedHat with the code)can be sued.
Novell can implement all sorts of Microsoft-patented ideas, hand it to and if that project is distributed by a commercial distro, then the distro can be sued by Microsoft for patent violations. Novell is in the clear due to the agreement, people who redistribute their code aren't.
Novell might get clobbered by section 7 of the GPL (or, in this case, the equivalent LGPL section), but only if it tries distributing the same code itself.
I don't know if this scenario is likely - but Microsoft are certainly hyping it up as a possibility. Did you catch Monkeyboy's proclamation the other day about how Linux infringed its patents, and Linux users owe them money?
A working solution for the problem:
boycott Novell.
Make them understand that we do not accept the deal they've made,
regardless of whether it complies or not with GPLv2.
For upstream people:
reject their patches, regardless of the content.
Reject their feature requests.
Create new bug report state in trackers:
"WAITING for submitter to cancel cancerous deal with Microsoft".
For Novell management:
cancel the deal with Microsoft and tell us how much you are sorry.
For Novell engineers:
protest with management, and if you are left unheard eventually start
looking for alternatives.
For users:
if you are using Suse, move away. Try other distributions, there are
better ones btw.
Let Novell know that you do not want to use Suse anymore because of their deal.
Novell has put all other distributions in danger, let us not let them get away with it.
Anonymous Coward.
Thank you ... everyone above the line had their knee jerking spasmodically. I have mod points, but neither "flamebait" nor "troll" is lethal enough.
Man. come on. One needs to be subtle when pulling a trick.
2 days earlier novell gig, then 'linux owes us' 1 days ago, and now, this.
Its TOO obvious to fool anyone, even supreme court judges who are totally inaware of i.t. technology.
Read radical news here
Not to feed the trolls, but ... obviously, the idea is to allow current Microsoft Office users who already use macros written in VB to take those macros with them when they switch to OOo.
There's no troll... I'm just saying "who cares?"
Yeah, there are a few people out there who need to move Microsoft -> OOo who
might care about this; but I think it's more important that OOo support more open solutions and encourage new users to develop
their macros / scripts in something other than VBA. Sure, this might be good for short-term gratification in terms of
encouraging OOo adoption by MS users; but it seems like a step backwards in the long-term.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Next thing you know, some brilliant chum over at M$ is going to claim that he invented the personal computer and every manufactureer owes him a royalty back-payments for patent infringement...
Somebody who wrote a large number of VBA macros for themself would. If they have gotten used to using those macros, they might not switch to OOo if it doesn't support them, as this would mean they would need to write all of their code again.
This one may be harmless. But how about the next one? Or the one that Novell sneaked in before the deal was announced?
MS has only got to show that its code was introduced into a FOSS application once to discredit much of the effort that the community has put together over the years. If they can show that one piece of their code was used then they can start asking how many more pieces?
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.
>>the open source community has no way of
>>validating code, and blindly accepts any
>>code offered, assuming that there's no
>>patent infringing code in it.
>>
>Of course it hasn't. Are you willing to
>pay the lawyers? Patents are stupid and
>most of OSS developers just ignore it,
>because if we cared about respecting
>patents we would need to shut down most
>of the OSS software.
That's not much of an argument.
Brtt
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.)
Certainly Novells actions are bogus and not designed for the good of the OS community at all but we don't need to fear their code any more then code from any place else; Microsoft wants Linux out of the picture and is a fearce competitor in any market it participates in; especially is core markets like PC and micro server operating systems.
Microsoft business is good sales are up but that is because the market is growing, others like Apple and Linux are takeing a part of the share M$ is used to haveing about 98% the writing on the wall says it won't stay that way unless something is done. Think about it we are rapidly approching the point where everyone has a PC or many and business have about as many as they know what to do with. Thats not to say people and orgainzations won't be always buying computer they will but it will be mostly a retire replace thing rather then a 1 + 1 = 2 like it has been the last 2 decades. Microsoft wants to keep 98% share. They know how to deal with traditional competitors. They can't deal with everyone and their brother producing different but mostly compatable platforms and more then the business modle IBM had around the PC could deal with the clone market. They sure can deal with RH and SUSE though. They are trying to play a patent game and ensure a finite number of traitional large corporate competition so they can do what they have always done; give away enough of their crack to get people hooked and at the same time starve the competition for revenue.
If M$ can kill the Linux market outside of Novell watch for windows to be suddenly free(as in beer) and come with free as in beer support. M$ can give windows away; after all they have other products to sell for you to run on top of it. Most people will then see windows as cheak as suse not understadning that with suse they'd be getting all the other stuff like web,sql,office apps, to and pick windows because its familiar. That is what M$ wants; they want to be able to kill linux they way they killed Netscape, Netware and countless others. They can't manage that right now because with all sorts of basically not for profit distros, debian and small commecial distros that are selected by very specific people for specific reasons like slackware. There is no clear revenue stream to attack. The mass of people useing and developing the software remains big enough that it continues to improve and inovate to the point where it becomes dangerous to them and they cant stop it.
Think about GNU/Linux is not quite but almost good enough to push replace windows in just about every desktop and server space it owns save a few without much pain. It does not need to be as good as windows just good enough and cheaper. Now even when those conditions are reached its still not going to be a big Linux title wave; in fact nothing at all will happen because people generally like the status quo. Ahh but what if a KILL APP was found something that you just can't do with windows but you could do easily with GNU/Linux. I don't know what that would be but at that point the war would be won over night. Windows would be a legacy platform like netware. That is what they fear.
In the mean time though M$ played their cards wrong and so did Novel. Novel was thinking this little patent game with M$ could effectivly make them a Monopoly or part of a Oligopoly in the Linux market which while not huge would be better from their point of view then the current situation. Novel is wrong of couse because if it worked out that the developers would dry up. Nobody wants to write free code for Novel. They want to write code that the whole community can use. They do it because its fun to have your name on something that lots of people depend on. They do it because its a fun challenge and it produces a useful product for them and friends. They do it because they benifited from and OS project and feel they should give something back. They do it to show off their skills and make themsevels more marketable. They do it for all sorts of ot
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
to banish Novell/Suse to the Linux Leper Colony.
The problem is that novell's involvement with linux software is just too big now. Novell has Mono, GTK, OO.org, GNOME developers and lots others.
Boycotting novell would mean boycotting gnome, gtk, openoffice and virtually every distro out there.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
...and most closed source software as well.
Pretty much *any* software of even medium complexity violates numerous patents. That's the crux of the whole software patent debate -- most software patent claims tend to be very broad, covering very basic issues, and software is so complex it pretty much *has* to overlap these claims in multiple directions.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
The question is the origin of the patch. Since a Novell employee is involved, this action is suspect.
That's the key, a Novell employee making the patch. If MS were to go after anyone they'd have to go after Novell for releasing the patch not to a third party who uses the patch. But of course MS can't, er won't as they gave Novell a guaranty not to sue Novell.
And copyrighted? Why do you suppose that the people running OpenOffice.org have access to Microsoft's source code for comparison?
Or are you basing your position on the fact that no one could possibly have gone through the patch and deleted all the "this code written by Microsoft employee # 1234567 and is protected by copyrights and patents"?
Patent not copyright may be applicable in this case, however in both copyrights and patents, there is a record that can be looked up to see if there is an infringment. Both the Copyright and patent offices have databases of them which anyone can lookup. The problem with this is knowing how to search the records.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Dear sir,
I am intrigued by your non-sequiturs and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Nope. Microsoft could go after anyone distributing/selling their property. Not just Novell. Not just the one employee at Novell.
It doesn't matter how it originally got in there, as long as it was not Microsoft who directly put it in there.
Not exactly. There is no central authority that has all the Microsoft source code available for searching to determine if a code block was illegally copied from them. And with Microsoft's "Shared Source" program, it is possible to "accidentally" copy code from them.
And the patent database is useless for looking up specific concepts. Particularly with "submarine patents" which can change until they're officially granted.
The safest way is to dump any and all functionality additions from Novell.
Novell coders can still submit bug fixes for code that non-Novell employees have submitted, but no new features should be accepted from anyone associated with Novell.
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
Of course, but how is it more likely to occur in this case than in any other open source project? Because Novell and MS are both involved (although only Novell directly)? I'm just not ready to take that as proof of poison.
A higher level of caution does not justify the baseless accusations present in the slashdot summary.
This module was first documented a year ago from what I can tell. See the history on this wiki page: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/VBA
While it seems that Novell does maintain and develop the code now, I'm sure somebody familiar with the ooo-build repository can track down the original author(s).
I mean it's a good compromise to allow the code to operate for those users who need it (providing the features to help F/OSS), and when/if the posion pill is used, just replace it with something more FOSS--as if the need is great someone will find an alternative to get things working [with another piece of code]--that's the beauty of FOSS: there's always a way out. This is interface programming 101. Just as long as it's not tightly coupled to the main baseline/tree, there's nothing to worry about unless some lawyer wants to twist the facts (death to all lawyers as someone said?)
Transition from closed source to open source isn't as simple as a 'throw the old stuff away' switch over scenario. If it is, then we've been watching too many hollywood movies.
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
I'm just wondering why everyone is saying that part of the agreement is that Microsoft won't sue Novell when the Novell has clearly stated that "does not include a patent license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft to Novell (or, for that matter, from Novell to Microsoft). Novell's customers receive a covenant not to sue directly from Microsoft."
Take note, take note, O world,
To be direct and honest is not safe.
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
Well I don't think Miguel agrees with you but that situation existed long before he came to Novell.
Miguel's work is important, but I'll continue to worry about Mono entering the core Linux desktop until Microsoft issues a non-revocable public license for their CIL and .NET patents.
OpenOffice is more a competitor to the lite versions of Office and as already mentioned VB has been available for some time before this deal. So I can only conclude that all this noise has nothing to do with patents.
Most (all?) office documents I've seen are simple enough that they could have been written in just about any word processor. I frankly don't know how OO.org compares an advanced features, but considering "competition" I'd look at the broad part of the population, and in that respect I think familiarity and brand name is the biggest challenge for OO.org.
If patents, copyrights or trade secrets are not an issue here, then the only noise I'd make is an applaud for OO.org. I'm simply lacking the assurance.
But simply fratenizing with the enemy and GPLers are notorious for not getting along with others hence GPLv3.
GPLers is a broad generatization. Not all GPL users are Free Software proponents in RMS' sense, though I'd probably include myself. The GPL is designed to avoid software from being lifted into propreitary products. It's no stricter than common propreitary licenses, except if it is used for libraries, in which case LGPL or dual licensing are options.
Exactly - you should never read patents. Do your own thing and donate your code to the FSF. The only protection against patent lawsuits is charitable organization status. Nobody will sue a charity, since even if they would win the law suit, they cannot collect and the charity will simply close its doors and open again under another name. This is why all large software houses are running charities: IBM=Apache, Sun=OpenOffice, MIT=FSF, Berkeley=BSD and so on. The perpetual pledge of poverty is an excellent form of protection against law suits.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Patent not copyright may be applicable in this case, however in both copyrights and patents, there is a record that can be looked up to see if there is an infringment.
I'm sorry. This is emphatically not true. The copyright office does not require that whole programs be submitted for the copyright to be registered.
C//
I'm just wondering why everyone is saying that part of the agreement is that Microsoft won't sue Novell when the Novell has clearly stated that "does not include a patent license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft to Novell (or, for that matter, from Novell to Microsoft). Novell's customers receive a covenant not to sue directly from Microsoft."
You're right, my mistake. MS is not going to sue endusers of SuSE not Novell itself. However my understanding of patents is that an IP owner has to go after the original infringer for redress before it can go after a third party that uses something that infringes on IP distributed by the infringer so this agreement doesn't seem to mean much.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I still cannot run any one OO app without launching the whole suite. You'd think by now they'd learn to make it a shared library, make it start in less than 10 seconds, etc...
I was considering using OO to convert some Word files to OpenDocument awhile ago. I ended up choosing AbiWord, because AbiWord can be run in a commandline mode to do that translation, whereas OO requires an X server and a VB-like macro to automate the process -- and the macro must be embedded in a file, and installed through the OO GUI.
So, you're absolutely right, if this was a well-architected, well-run project. It isn't.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
SuSE was born in the Linux Leper Colony. This is the company who, until recently, produced only proprietary software - specifically, every one of the tools they created for their distribution, most notably yast, were closed-source.
They appear to be merely returning to their roots.
brilliant title
They patented VB's "IsNot" operator.
m s_ms_patent/
http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2005/02/22/real_sla
Sure this may be in other distros but Microsoft probably already considers those distros as in violation of their patents, now that it's in Suse, when they start raising a stink about this patent, people can have the option to switch to Suse.
Microsoft is being extremely evil and Suse is just playing ball with them. I'm sure the developers at Suse justify this, who can blame them, without Microsoft's money they would be unemployed. But this patch should be looked at as an omen, nothing less. Be careful, this is part of Microsoft's strategy. At this point it's a game of chess for Ballmer to see how he can abuse OSS. At this phase in the game he's planting seeds.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
How is this a move in the "Linux owes us" game? OO.o isn't particular to Linux. OO.o itself may be running afoul of MS (and others') patents, but this has nothing to do with Linux.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
By embracing, extending, extinguishing all the competition, no matter how small. Remember Stacker?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I'm sorry. This is emphatically not true. The copyright office does not require that whole programs be submitted for the copyright to be registered.
Are you sure? If I wanted to copyright a book, or an article or song, I have to submit the whole text. Though I haven't had anything copyright registered, I used to write a lot and was a member of two writers groups that did have published members. If the whole thing isn't submitted then how can you prove someone else infringes?
FalconShould there be a Law?
"We've recieved this piece of code and will include this into our software. If you see any problems with this, get back to us within 90 days or we will take your silence as an acceptance and a promise not to take any action against us, legal or otherwise". Or something like that.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
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).
I'm going to quote John Stewart at Crossfire on this one, aimed at Slashdot:
Please, please, please... STOP. You're hurting us.
We all know ignorance spurs fear. And granted, we should all somehow fear this Novell/MS deal. But a sensationalist headline like this, is not just F, it's not just U and it's not just D. It's a capital I, of Ignorance. PLEASE, if you're going to post something that is going to be read by thousands of people, at least try look into it before you slam a title like this.
If you actually looked around a bit, you'd see that what has been submitted is something that has been lying around for some months now, which is actually already present in other distros. I know this is Slashdot... but again, this IS Slashdot, and it is not acceptable.
"I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
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.
No, not really. Previous to YaST's license being changed to GPL in 2004, the source was fully available. The original YaST license, however, was not OSI-compatible in that while you could modify and/or redistribute YaST, one was prohibited from selling any product using YaST or YaST derivatives. The only proprietary software provided by SuSE was in the box sets (MainActor demo, Acrobat Reader, Flash, Arkeia, etc.), all placed in a separate package group and not installed by default, with a popup when installing through YaST notifying you of its non-Free status.
That sounds just like what Microsoft wants since it triggers mistrust and legal fears which would put a stop to any more migrations from Windows to Linux. And know that Microsoft has spent and lost 10s of billions of dollars on money losing 'businesses' just to keep Windows in a monopoly position. They have no problem with that and have the cash to continue for a long time. But, GNU/Linux is getting so widespread that they can't go anywhere without someone asking them about GNU/Linux/FOSS and it now seems to be the time they step up the fight.
It's gonna get bloody and though it'll hurt GNU/Linux/FOSS in the short term, IMO, Microsoft will end up the loser. There are just too many on the GNU/Linux side.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I bet they already did. And at the worst moment they will pull a rabbit out of their hat.
This novell deal just gets more code/IP into place for the eventual 'takedown'.
Advice: get and save all the code you can now, before it all goes away and leaves us with nothing.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Kill off the kernel, samba, oo, hell lets toss in some IP against KDE/GNOME while we are at it.. Tthats a big chunk of what people use, and what is left becomes a useless pile of 'tools' like the old days when we were waiting on HURD to appear ... ( worst case that is )
Dark times are coming in the 'free' world.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
However my understanding of patents is that an IP owner has to go after the original infringer for redress before it can go after a third party that uses something that infringes on IP distributed by the infringer
That's not the case. A patent holder can go after anyone and everyone (at anytime, in no particular order) that "exercises" (uses) the patent, whether they bought the infringing device/software from somebody else or not. It's just that the patent holder is more likely to win worthwile amounts of damages going after a manufacturer/distributer. There was a case a couple of years ago where the holder of some web (or database? forget the details) patents was threatening to go after Microsoft's customers because their settlement with Microsoft only covered Microsoft, not the customers.
-- Alastair
So, Microsoft figures it's going to win by pissing off the geeks? *That* ought to be an amusing debacle.
The public follows the geeks: it's part of the trickle-down effect. When the geeks decide they've put up with enough bullshit and that it's time to move to a real OS, Microsoft is going to go bye-bye.
And frankly, I could not care less. Fuck Microsoft: it's been incompetent and lazy and evil for about ten years longer than it should have.
Microsoft has jumped the shark.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
The first emphasized thing is an instance of the second. Or in other words, Novell is necessarily liable for any code created by Novell that infringes any patents, Microsoft's or otherwise.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That was a copyright issue, not a patent issue. Weak troll.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Not quite. Section 7 of the GPL doesn't work retroactively. It doesn't say 'You're breaking the GPL if one of your customers happens to get sued', it says 'You're breaking the GPL if you distribute while knowing about a GPL-incompatible legal restriction that will be imposed on your licensees'
If Novell stops distributing code as soon as it hears about an actual Microsoft patent claim (or some other legal machinery that prevents it's customers from exercising their full GPL rights), then it won't be liable for previous instances where it supplied someone with GPL code.
Of course, it does lose the right to distribute the code from that moment on, which is hopefully a Big Deal.
Yes, this is a review, but some of you guys may have not thought long enough about the smoke and mirrors and are still are in denial about Novell:
1. The MS/Novell deal really was just Novell paying for both companies to announce protection for Novell customers. The rest was just window dressing.
2. Balmer
You already know about the Balmer thing, but maybe you need to think it over again without deal-fluff: a taste of things to come and you can thank Novell for it.
This alleged exploit and its reactions of paranoia or debunkings are just noise. Sanitize now.
>>> "Patents are considered valid until proven - at great expense - otherwise."
... but I can't see how else you could do it? You'd have to prove things like there not being a disclosure written on a microdot behind my ear ... absurd things.
That's actually not true. Patents are a contract between the state and a legal person granting a monopoly in exchange for a disclosure of a novel or non-obvious technical advance.
The technical nature of a patent is examined before the patent is granted. The validity is put into question in terms of the novelty and fullness of the disclosure. Documents are often cited against an application - the applicant must then demonstrate and advance beyond the disclosure of the documents in order to gain a granted patent.
I guess you're right in that if no citations (documentary, pictorial or otherwise) can be found then it is assumed that no citations exist
It's like Popper-ian scientific method. Proving validity is hard. Proving invalidity is easy - if you have a good citation.
I'm writing from a UK stand point - but last I looked into it this type of process was carried out in UK, EPO and US. It's easy, however, to be confused by the publication of "A-documents" which give an early disclosure of the subject matter of the application (usually) several years before it is granted or refused.
If Microsoft wanted to slip Microsoft-proprietary code into an open source project, they'd have easier ways of doing it.
In the end, every open source project needs to know where its source code comes from (and almost all of them do), and it needs to get a legally clear license statement from its contributors. Should the code infringe copyrights or patents, the contributor may be liable, Novell in this case, in particular if they did so knowingly. And if it turns out that Microsoft hired Novell to put this code in, then the project is in the clear anyway.
Even if "bad code" gets into a project, it's not the end of the world. Should Microsoft assert a claim, the offending code would simply be removed and that would be the end of it.
All this hand-wringing over proprietary code is just supporting Microsoft's FUD strategy. Open source projects simply do not seem to be particularly vulnerable to patent claims in the real world; at worst, the infringing code is removed and the rest of the project goes on.
As I mentioned in another thread, I think all these patent worries are just attempts to spread FUD and have no real basis in reality.
However, in general, I also think that applications like OpenOffice should be more componentized. Some of the Firefox extensions, for example, are probably infringing on patents, but Firefox itself is in the clear. Most of OpenOffice functionality should be provided like Firefox extensions. That's particularly true for Microsoft-compatibility, not because there is much real risk, but because it cuts down on the FUD.
Unfortunately, creating a robust extension system is hard in C/C++. Even Firefox only works as well as it does because most extensions are not native code.
No, it was a comment on how Microsoft does business. They sued Stacker to the point where they could no longer survive as a company, then snapped it and its technology up for pennies on the dollar, only to come out with 'this brand new piece of technology we call Doublespace. Aren't we innovative?' Amazing how stuff other people come up with ends up in Windows, doesn't it? Drivespace, the disc defragger that looks an AWFUL lot like the Norton one, the whole TCP/IP stack...
Yeah, Microsoft really knows how to innovate...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
But will those macros work on the next version of MS Office? I wouldn't make book on it. And once they're forced to upgrade to the next version of Office by being forced to upgrade to Vista, they will. What I'd like to know is, who really needs a 64 bit word processor?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
The RTFA is an accurate statement of fact. The summary on slashdot is not. Facts of interest:
I am still running SUSE 10.1, there are some things I need to do before I can think about the change. However, I will be making it sooner than I anticipated.
While running an update this morning I noticed that the "Mono implementation of ASP.NET" was being updated. Why the fsck should I need this on a desktop machine?
I wish I had a newsletter. *sigh*
OK, just because a Novell programmer added VBA support doesn't automatically mean MS is going to start suing people over it. If that does happen remember that MS has to actually prove that it was stolen. That's a pretty tall order considering that it probably wasn't. Why does Slashdot have to take something good and spin it into a bad thing?
VBA is a language created by Microsoft. Open Office now has some VBA capability. Now think of the Mono project, it is there as an implementation of Microsoft's .Net.
The patches which add VBA capability did not go in in the last week or so, they predate the Novell / Microsoft agreement. Since Novell did not have access to Microsoft sources when this code was written, where is the difference? It is just a programming language is being implemented here.
I also imagine that if this turned out not to be the case, whoever submitted the patches would have a problem - especially if they acted in bad faith. Open Office is mostly under the LGPL, so what happens to people who take proprietary code which does not belong to them and place it under the LPGL? In particular, what would happen if the company they worked for then was paid several hundred million dollars by the patent owners?
Looking at this from another direction, I thought Microsoft were dropping VBA at some point. Are we going to have a situation where VBA applications will only work under Open Office and not under Excel?
Speaking personally, VBA is a security risk. The only thing I want to have to do with it on my system is to disable it in the setup options. I use SuSE 10.1 but did road-test OpenSuSE 10.0, I am thinking of moving back again for 10.2 (my laptop is brand new so I will need it) but this issue is not a show-stopper.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Didn't Microsoft withhold the undocumented interfaces they used for Word for WIndows from other companies, thus disadvantaging Word Perfect?
And isn't that one of the reasons MS felt it economically sensible to pay half a billion (10e9) dollars to Novell rather than defend one of their several legal claims?
There is a pattern of behaviour.
"That was a copyright issue, not a patent issue. Weak troll."
I swear this forum gets dumber (and lazier) by the minute.
"In 1993, Microsoft released MS-DOS 6.0, which included a disk compression program called DoubleSpace. Stac executives were outraged, as Microsoft had previously been in discussions with Stac to license its compression technology, and had discussions with Stac engineers and examined Stac's code as part of the due diligence process. Stac sued Microsoft for infringement of two of its data compression patents, and won; in 1994, a California jury ruled the infringement by Microsoft was not willful, but awarded Stac $120 million in compensatory damages, coming to about $5.50 per copy of MS-DOS 6.0 that had been sold. The jury also agreed with a Microsoft counterclaim that Stac had misappropriated the Microsoft trade secret of a pre-loading feature that was included in Stacker 3.1, and simultaneously awarded Microsoft $13.6 million on the counterclaim."
MS dominates the PC OS market and will do so for years to come, mainly because Windows is installed on almost every new machine before it leaves the factory. So Linux isn't a problem because it will always cost more effort to download/install. OpenOffice on the other hand is way cheaper than the MS equivilent and a major threat to an important MS revenue stream. Solution: cosy up to companies that support Linux and enlist their aid in undermining OOo.
How this is exactly news? How this is matter?
No, Microsoft/Novell deal isn't nothing, it matters, but please let's take that into acount that there are lot of companies who contribute GPL code, but have different NDA with different companies, patent licenses (IBM, for example), etc. Just because it BIG BAD Microsoft, it should be something deadly, right? World wasn't exactly black/white before this deal either, just let's check out Samba and Wine.
Ximian/Novell worked on lot of integration stuff of Microsoft document formats before. For OpenOffice.org to be accepted in majority of users, it SHOULD support Microsoft Office formats better than it is now, period. Like it or not, nothing else will help it. Yeah, OpenDocument is nice, but people simply don't care. And calling them idiots won't get you anywhere either.
So suddenly, all this stuff is "viral" now? How it is very different than before? AFAIK, just deal won't help Microsoft nor in court, nor with DOJ, if there will be change in direction of current things.
This Novell action was important, and no one is denying to have strong feelings about it, but please, at least do not make a hyperbole out of it.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Patents are so broad that you will infringe, no matter what you do. And even in situations when you don't infringe, a company with enough patience (SCO), money (you know who) or both can make your life hell.
Repeat after me: software patents are idiotic.
THe only wise course of action for Novel in the current litigous climate would have been to start talks with other companies in order to lobby for the complete abolition of software patents. For any decent company innovating in the field, copyright protection should be the only means to obtain advantage of any product created.
You guys chose the very worst path: appeasement of the bully.
You rightly deserve to be shunned and to become a pariah.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I don't understand why it is modded dow so badly.
The only nitpick is that MS has not won in the EU.
They are in the brink of being fined big time.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"El que con leche se quema, hasta al jocoque le sopla" (burn your mouth with hot milk, you will blow even to ice cream, or something like that).
Can't remember an English saying but the point is that Ballmer is declaring his intent in no uncertain terms, that means unfortunately, that the good code byt the geeks working for Novell will have to be treated from now on with suspicion.
Sorry guys, it is not your fault, but frankly your bosses screwed up this one big time.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.