Slashdot Mirror
Novell Responds To Microsoft's IP Claims
Azul writes "Ron Hovsepian, Novell's CEO, has posted an open letter to the Community, where he explicitly states Novell's disagreement with Steve Ballmer's claims of Linux infringing on Microsoft's intellectual property. From the letter: 'We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents. Importantly, our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents.'"
Driving that train, high on cocaine.
Casey Jones is ready, watch your speed.
Trouble ahead, trouble behind
And you know that notion just crossed my mind.
With a beginning like this, who knows? They got the O.J. special and book release canceled!
Goodness, if the heads of the two "agreement" corporations are on pages so far apart for this deal, how can this possibly work? Reminds me of the IBM/Microsoft marriage for work on OS/2, which Microsoft continued to claim was blissful right up until the time they got enough ideas for their own Windows replacement and unceremoniously dumped IBM. Too bad, too... OS/2 (while not my fave) was a pretty decent system for its time.
Isn't the following statement in effect confirming Ballmer's ascertation that Linux users are violating Microsoft's patents?
... The next big legal battle will be Microsoft vs. the world.
"In this agreement, Novell and Microsoft each promise not to sue the other's customers for patent infringement. The intended effect of this agreement was to give our joint customers peace of mind that they have the full support of the other company for their IT activities."
If Novell did not believe that Linux users were accountable to Microsoft for using these technologies, why would they look to protect these users? Sure, it's great to offer this indemnification clause for the largest of corporate clients (who have at least some reason to be cognizant of the risk of MS litigation), but by doing so he seems validate Ballmer's views.
I can see it now
Huh? Don't mind me, I'm just the new guy.
Novell is feeling the backlash of their decision to cozy up to Microsoft, but this is just spin, it means nothing. The business arrangements that Novell made with Microsoft are what counts, and they still stand. It's time to deal Novell out of the Open Source pie, we must not allow them to taint Linux with "Microsoft IP".
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Who notices a typical CYA mentality here? Have the cake and eat it, too?
"Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
It does no one any good to alienate Novell. Seeing the open source community and MSFT working together is a step in the right direction.
So you signed a deal with Microsoft
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Here's a free clue, you idiot. That last company that talked about "protecting" end users from being sued was
You might want to look at how beloved they are at the moment.
Microsoft just wasted a few hundred million dollars? Congrats to Novell...
even giving them the benefit of the doubt, they should have read the fine print.
they've sold the community for 30 pices of silver.
I run a large academic server with Suse Linux.
We will not re-new the license. We will not
accept any updates from Novell/Suse as they
are, in our opinion, contaminated with M$ code
and are trojans for the Gate's monopoly.
The squirming note from their CEO: come-on guys
trust us! doesn't pass the sniff test. They
knew what they were doing, why they were
doing it and had a long time to decide whether
to do it. They took the M$ loot and sold the farm.
Novel seems to be essentially saying that they agree and disagree at the same time on a topic which was part of their formal agreement. This may make sense to a lawyer or CEO, but seems highly illogical to me. Furthermore, it seems safe to say that any business agreement with Microsoft ultimately benefits only Microsoft, the people over are great at that. I may dislike many aspect of the Microsoft Corp. but they are darn skillful business men. I'm just happy that I don't use Suse.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
What matters is what Novell agreed with Microsoft, and that says it all.
Novell can say all it wants, but you can't fool everybody all the time. This makes this company look either totally naive and stupid, or blatant liars.
- sigs are for wimps.
Which Ron Hovsepian, Novell's CEO, said while sucking on Balmer's big one.
Doesn't this just stink of the SCO suits? It's like Microsoft has decided to start down the same road.
Personally I think this will only hurt Microsoft's position, in fact it makes me accellerate my schedule to eliminate Microsoft products from our offices. So far I've got it down to just one MS server, the other 4 servers are all Linux. Two of the workstations are Linux. If I can just replace our vertical market app it'll be all.
And I've got my in-house coding team working on replacing that.
I for one feel at least encouraged by the fact that obviously Novel is very sensitive to criticism over this. I would like to even believe that they are reading Slashdot. If nothing else, that would be a very positive development. If major players and decision makers begin reading Slashdot and become sensitive to it, that would be a very positive thing for us all. Though the first few comments to this latest news show considerable skepticism, many others in previous discussions had come to the conclusion that there is really nothing to worry about.
Microsoft licenses proprietary code.
Linux is under the GPL.
Is the "right direction" for Linux to become a little bit proprietary?
If not, Microsoft has 100% access to the source code. Microsoft can be as "interoperable" with Linux as they want to be. Any time they want to be.
Microsoft can release whatever specs it wants, whenever it wants.
Now, why don't you go listen to Ballmer talking about how Linux users owe Microsoft money before you start talking about the "right direction" and "working together"?
samrolken
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200611202 03431766
...
In that case, with all due respect, you should not have signed an agreement called a patent cooperation agreement that gives Microsoft the opportunity to say the things Mr. Ballmer has been saying. I believe that is obvious now. And you should have considered the GPL, its importance to the community, and considered what paying royalties means in that context. And we hope you will fix this.
And MS
Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents....
We at Microsoft respect Novell's point of view on the patent issue, even while we respectfully take a different view. Novell is absolutely right in stating that it did not admit or acknowledge any patent problems as part of entering into the patent collaboration agreement. At Microsoft we undertook our own analysis of our patent portfolio and concluded that it was necessary and important to create a patent covenant for customers of these products. We are gratified that such a solution is now in place.
- sigs are for wimps.
No, it's not. MS is a buncha lying crooked morons. They have been proven so, over and over and over again, even in court, over and over and over again. Lying weasels, no scratch that, that's an insult to weasels.. Not sure what computer-sphere you inhabit, but I think most people have noticed this little factoid. They have had more than ample opportunity, decades now, to change their views and complete sleazoid business practices, and they *still suck*. Novell stepped in deep shit and took their silver, they decided teh fast big buck was more valuable and are now reacting to the comunity near universal disgust. Too frikken bad. Barf, who needs 'em. If anything, we need to move farther away from MS and now Novell, and people who get it with open source will quit, move away, work someplace else-do whatever it takes to make those corporate greedoids rethink being chronic serial assholes.
There have been two stories today related to the Novell deal.
First, they insist they won't be backing out of the deal, in spite of Samba's objections. The money's already been sent to creditors, BTW.
Second, Novell assure's us that they didn't need to pay the "protection money" because they're pretty sure that Microsoft would have never really burned down Novell's headquarters if they didn't sign.
I waiting for the final announcement from the Samba team for Novell to pull Samba from Suse.
Novell's fucked.
The bigger the corporation, the more lawyers work for it. Novell, while just a shadow of what they once were, still thinks like a big corporation. Threat or not, they knew that many of their corporate customers -- you know, the paying ones -- had their own lawyers whispering in their ear. It was worth a certain amount of money to them to not have to put the effort into figuring out if they were violating patents or not. The perception was there and that money now gives the perception of safety.
What the suits didn't understand is that while Linux is moving more and more into the corporate space, at its core it is still a community driven project. They drastically underestimated that community's dislike and distrust of Microsoft.
Good luck to them trying to serve both masters.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
My gut reaction to this deal is very negative.
I really like a lot of what Novell has done on the desktop, and some of the mono desktop apps are pretty terrific. But I sort of feel like I ought to be moving toward KDE now, and distancing myself from anything mono.
The question I have, though, is about the patents. Either MS has patents that can be used to attack linux or they're pulling another SCO on us.
So much of the argument against Novell hinges on the fact that they're enabling MS with this deal. As I understand the argument, it says that corporate customers will buy Novell, to be safe from potential lawsuits. If MS can pick off a critical mass of commercial users who are willing to pay, they can start to sue other people without damaging relationships with their large corporate customers. Even non-novell customers will have a way out -- they can buy Novell.
If MS has these patents, do we really believe that fear of alienating their customers is enough for them to refrain from suing people? Couldn't they sue IT companies -- linux companies, IBM, etc., without damaging their relationships with large corporate customers? And aren't those large customers so locked in that they really don't have anywhere to go if they're alienated, anyway?
To me, this really isn't about Novell. I don't pay them, and I don't code for any projects, so I understand that they don't really care about me. It would be irrational for them if they did. But this sort of burns the bridge to Novell and mono as far as I'm concerned. That's done.
But how big is this threat? Is this the beginning of legal threat spanning years and years. with fronts opening up in legislatures, in anti-trust enforcement agencies around the world, etc.?
Is this real, or is this a bunch of baseless stuff that's going to dog us for years?
If a free OS that's built from scratch by volunteers can't be allowed to exist in the current intellectual property law environment, what then? Does this mean we either have to give up and finally take on the intellectual property framework at some really fundamental level?
Microsoft has 100% access to the source code for Windows AND for Linux. If Microsoft wanted "interoperability" then Microsoft is in the best possible position to just do it.
And Microsoft can release any specs at any time so Linux could implement "interoperability" improvements.
The fact that Microsoft does not do either should tell you all you need to know about the "interoperability" bullshit.
Read the interview Moglen: How we'll kill the Microsoft Novell deal.
Alright that's the legal piece. There's also www,boycottnovell.com and the Samba disapproval. Other links and ideas welcome.
I was kept wondering how on earth did steve balless say that linux is infringing microsoft's patent? Did he really know what the heck he is saying? Linux is the kernel not the whole system. I dont think novell even owns THE KERNEL! I am very very pissed. and yet I am still using windows :(
The only thing I see every day is my laptop dying on me. http://www.op3r.com
What did novell expect? Time to boycott Novell, and GPLv3 should be re-written to forbid these sorts of deals.
What's next? EV1Servers announces a deal with Novell?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
A rule of thumb when dealing with Microsoft.
Microsoft ALWAYS shafts their partners.
I've watched it happen repeatedly with big-name and little-guy companies here in the valley, and seen news of it elsewhere.
Cutting a deal with Microsoft is an invitation to big trouble and I fail to see how companies keep falling for it. (Perhaps there IS something to the PHB stereotype.)
Cutting a deal with Microsoft for (limited) licensing of their patents is an invitation to accusations of IP infringement - and the first shoe has just dropped.
But (like reading Microsoft source code) it's also an invitation to accidentally contaminating the open-source code base with actual Microsoft IP.
I expect THAT to be the second shoe - with Microsoft first FUDding up the customers, then going after Linux ala SCO, but with their ducks correctly aligned before filing the first suit.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
A customer enters a Novell Office.
...
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(Novell does not respond.)
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?
Novell: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Praline: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Novell: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this Linux Distro what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
Novell: Oh yes, the, uh, the Novell OpenSuse Linux...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. According to the terms of the GPL you can no longer distribute it, that's what's wrong with it!
Movell: No, no, it's uh,... part of the service agreement.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a violation of the GPL when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Novell: No no it not violated, it's , it's cirumvented'! Remarkable OS, the Suse Linux, idn'it, ay? Beautiful eye candy with GLX
Mr. Praline: The eye candy don't enter into it. your in violation of the GPL.
Novell: Nononono, no, no! it's just slightly cirumvented!
And soweth the fabled Microsoft Lawyers marched from their barracks in Redmond, Wa, headlong into the world's courtrooms to wage the biggest legal war of their lives. But, they know they are brave, strong willed, money filled and are large in numbers. They march with patent documents in their briefcases, and they sing their fabled Microsoft Lawyer Battle Cry:
"We are protectors of IP, saviors of the MS pocket books".
Everyone knows Al Gore invented IP. Next thing you know M$ will claim it invented and owns rights to all dookie.
Hit it where it hurts. Send a message that it's practices won't be tolerated. We already pay enough "Microsoft tax".
Microsoft has a handful of patents could apply to open source. They'll give you a patent for putting the OK button on the bottom right of the diagbox because the eye scans it first. There have to be some.
As big a gun as Microsoft is, it needs a few things in place in order to be able to leverage its IP. First, there are a couple big companies with massive patent portfolios that could be leveraged to counter-attack Microsoft software (since there are enough ridiculous patents that nobody with much software could avoid violating something). Second, they need to be sure they have a defense against anti-trust action (we weren't trying to eliminate competition your honor, you see, we even made an agreement to protect users of that system who were willing to join in a mutual respect of our rights as innovators: we didn't attack our competitor, only a group of vendors stealing our IP).
In one action they have made Novell a pawn. Novell may or may not see the fallout and simply have sold out. Perhaps Novell jumping at the opportunity to become the only Linux show in town and eliminate their biggest competitor. Perhaps they were only considering the additional clause an added bonus. Whether Novell was witting or simply misdirected the effect is the same, Microsoft has their glowing halo in case of anti-trust and one of the two big guns has been disarmed should Microsoft attack.
At least IBM is still out there.
It seems to me that the agreement not to sue is meant for future developments that come from Microsoft and Novel working together. Microsoft is just trying to take things out of context. They're trying to use scare tactics for their own gain. Let's hope it doesn't work.
I personally use openSuSE on my personal computer and I don't plan on changing.
Hmm.. i just saw that the linux-topic-image is a gif. And a non-transparet too. What the... I mean it's no big deal, mut i thought slashdot is on the forefront of technology. So why is this so png with alpha-transparency.
Don't tell me about the IE6-"bug". (To me a bug has to be unintentionally, so it really isn't one.) ;))
There is an easy and high-performant workaround with the directx-filter-css-extension usable for the ie stylesheet... if you really care to support IE on an it-experts site's subsection about linux.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Although I'll give them credit for a lot of code, good old BSD is the well from whence many operating systems drink.
Given re-invention of code, or code I can 'steal', I'll look at good code and glean the best from it any time. So did Microsoft. So did IBM. So did Novell. It's the sincerest form of flattery, after all.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I gave the man the benefit of the doubt, even though I am extremely angry at Novell, and read his letter. It is very well written and makes the reader think, "Oh, that's all right then". But it isn't. He is not acting in a vaccuum and this is not a textbook case study (yet). Why?
1. Novell obviously needed cash quite badly, enough to risk a PR backlash.
2. Microsoft was a key driver behind SCO and this is their next highly visible move against Linux.
3. Microsoft has linux people in-house. If they wanted linux they could make their own distro for free, plus hiring a team to add interoperability which presumably should be easy since they would be the only team on the planet with the inside knowledge of how to do that.
4. Of course, this expert knowledge would be copied by other distros if it was GPL, so they wouldn't want to do that.
5. And, they wouldn't be able to easily infect other distros a la SCO, which is another reason.
6. Finally, if they distribute GNU/Linux under GPL then they are finally saying everything is already under the GPL. (possibly including nonencumbrance by patents but IANAL).
7. Novell cannot leash the dragon once it begins to rampage. In fact, this patent agreement clearly removes potential weapons of OSS-friendly vendors like IBM against possible future SCO-like lititgation from Microsoft. It means that Novell may likely enter the role of indeminifying vendors and users against Microsoft litigation (if the patent agreement allows that).
8. Novell's CEO claims their actions prove they are honorably. I am sure he would like to think so. However if actions are louder than words, then surely this deal with Microsoft proves Novell is only in business for Novell, especially if it means all other OSS vendors get poisoned by their actions.
9. It also proves that Novell's CEO is intellectually and/or ethically unfit for his position due to his blithe ignorance of SCO and Microsoft's role in SCO, smoking gun and all.
10. The only reason imaginable is that Novell is really on the brink of bankruptcy and some threat from Microsoft would push them over the edge. Possibly Novell has some proof of OSS in Windows but who will ever know? Novell's actions cast a pall of smoke and brimstone over all OSS-related activities, projects, and products they have.
11. Unfortunately this makes me and lots of other people very scared of what may end up in Suse and strongly suggests that Novell will be Microsoft's key tool for attempting again to destroy Linux and the OSS world, no matter what Novell ever says.
12. That is why Novell cannot be trusted, and anything they ever contribute to OSS projects must be painstakingly analyzed and thrown in the garbage at the least worry. Even so, there is no way to be sure anything they offer will not be either a fragment of patentable data, or a fragment of a potential vulnerability to either access from microsoft or attack by a windows virus. It would be a much different story if Microsoft was going to provide all necessary documentation and experienced OSS programmers could plan how to interface with those APIs for best performance and security. Of course the same goes for anybody who ever thought of buying Novell or maybe making a contract with Novell. I don't see how anybody can ever trust Novell again.
...I sure did.
That MIGHT be reasonable
But Linux has been seeing double digit growth for years now. Linux server sales are growing faster than Microsoft's server sales. Sure, Microsoft has a larger share of the market right now so it doesn't take as much for Linux to grow faster
Why would Novell want to "mitigate fear" that would hamper sales when sales are growing at a double digit rate?
SCO is the last company that tried that argument. And I'll ask you the same thing I asked back then.
What company was the last company (not SCO) that sued end users for patent violations instead of or in addition to suing the company distributing the infringing product?
Go ahead, dig as much as you can. You won't find anything. It does not happen. There was not threat. There is no "fear".
Again, Linux sales are growing at double digit rates. There doesn't seem to be much "fear" out there.
MS agreed to pay Novell M$200 and in a face saving gesture, Novell agreed to give M$40 back.
Obviously MS is the one with the guilty conscience.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Dear Novell Executives:
How many company's have entered into collaborations, with Microsoft, that did not end up with a rectal aperture far exceeding that of goatse? How many did? So, do you actually fell that lucky? Talk about a long shot. Well, I'm sure you are all busy packing your golden parachutes, and will be long gone before the fecal matter hits the rotary device.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Would you trust an automatic binary update mechanism from Novell?
I always trusted Redhat's to keep me protected from vulnerabilities, and drooled over Red Carpet.
How would you feel though if Novell introduced a service like Windows Update?
How about if they ran it just like Microsoft does, rolling into critical security updates crap like Genuine Advantage to snoop how many seats you have? It seems likely that it would include DRM, which would maybe talk to secure hardware, let you play secure Microsoft video streams, secured DVDs, etc. Maybe you will not be allowed to play your legally ripped mp3s anymore. Wouldn't you look at your router from time to time to see if any packets are being sent when they shouldn't? All these things seem to be likely to come from this Novell-MS partnership. They may become the only linux distro compatible with MS DRM, but they also will be a wedge. You will see machines with this virus on it. Would you mind if your favorite distro included binary code that originated at Microsoft?
Personally the idea that Windows Update would come to linux, or that a tool meant to increase security against crackers could be turned against the people who own the hardware, is anathema and that whole mindset is a major reason I hate using windows. I forgo DRM'd stuff and boycott DRM vendors. I would like to see Novell's CEO stand up and promise (not that I trust him as far as he could throw a chair) that the above scenario will never happen with their products.
...to see Ron just flapping in the wind... ...I wonder how many users he's lost already.
sigh.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
And read on, for PJ's wonderfully to-the-point response to Microsoft's spin malarkey:
(emph. mine)
you had me at #!
So Microsoft has released the specs to allow Linux to interoperate with Windows? Tell me more
So by "interoperate" you mean
And by "you're wrong" you mean
Come back when Microsoft opens up NTFS or Active Directory, okay? Or even when Microsoft has 100% support for ODF, as a default option, out of the box.
Like I said, Microsoft has access to all of the Linux code AND all of the Microsoft code.
Microsoft can open any spec it wants, whenever it wants.
Any other talk about "interoperability" is pure bullshit.
As a member of the Linux community, I personally am disappointed by your maneuvers. While I can only speak for myself, I feel confident others share my sentiment.
Let's not beat around the bush on this. Your actions reek of the proprietary and closed mindset--not open source. It is clear this is a deal meant to benefit you first and foremost. While your customers may (or may not) benefit, the community at large seems to be left pissing in the wind. This is profoundly confusing since the vast majority of the Linux product you purport to protect has been written and continues to be written by that community and not your engineers.
While I'm not anyone famous, I am one of surely many decision makers looking for well supported open source solutions. I had been considering you for several projects and would have considered you in the future. Given that you push your idea of what is best for the community despite fairly blatant protests to the contrary from prominent community members, I cannot include your products in any projects until you correct your course of action.
Until that day comes, good luck making deals allegedly protecting a product with a company that has shown enormous contempt for and a desire to kill off that product. I find it overwhelmingly ironic that the market dominance you enjoyed long ago was taken by the very company with which you are now spooning. I guess you didn't learn your lesson the first time around.
OMG, o no you dint. USER wtf?
/twat
With all the news and junk floating around, you're concerned with what file format is being used for the penguin?
1) Microsoft chose not to implement transparency (ergo, not a bug)
2) Lots of people use IE anyway
3) Yes it's news about linux, Windose users read about linux too
Here's my take on it. If an "it-experts site" resorts to using DX CSS extensions, I will put my SIZE 14 FOOT so far up its HAIRY, CRUSTY, HERPES-INFESTED ASS that I will need to untie my FUCKING SHOES via COLOSTOMY BAG you MORON
There's this great thing on the other side of the "door" (that's where the pizza dude shows up when you give him mom's money in exchange for food. Mom's money or a blowjob, that is). It's called a "city" or maybe a "world", and you can live what people call a "life" there. You can even communicate with other homo sapiens without having to type!!!!
The simple translation for all this rhetoric is as follows:
MS: uhm, er, oh yes, there are IP issues to be cleared up, but we have _agreements_ to provide protections for our customer bases.
Novel: There are no IP issues, we simply wish to be paid fairly for surrendering to the borg^H^H^H^H constant unrelenting pressures of Redmond, and in an attempt to bail out our stock holders, we have to pretend that this pig's ear is a silk purse.... er, we have worked out a reasonable agreement with Redmond to protect our customers.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Is there a legally binding agreement not to sue if you use them? Then it's worthless.
Having a patented spec be visible doesn't make it open, and is SURE doesn't make it free.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Watching MS over the years, they have had good moments, and bad moments, done good things and done things that make your skin crawl...
The sad part of this is the 'business' model that Ballmer and his crew use as an Ideal are at the heart of almost every failed and every skin crawling activity MS has done.
MS was a good company at various times after the past 30 years, but if you notice those fleeting moments, Ballmer and his 'ideals' were the recessive thought mechanism in the company at those times. The 'older' Gates ideals and people emulating him are a lot less likely to hae ever pulled a lot of the crap MS has done in the past 15 years.
This new Linux scare from Ballmer is just another mark in the 'oh crap he did not say that' box. I'm sure there are technologies in Linux that come from MS, even if you take distributions that read FAT32 drives, but on the same note, MS has also taken a lot from the *nix community and it would be so petty to drive the market into this type of war.
Ballmer's words remind me of Oracle's CEO (Ellison) a few years back, at every event or launch, instead of telling us how great their software was, he spent most of the time complaining about MS,and yet MS's products were slammin them in the market because they just worked better. If he or his people would have just spent more time making their products 'better' then could of actually been on stage showing us how much better they were, rather than only pitching how awful MS was.
Maybe ol' Steve is a nice guy, but he is just not helping MS. MS needs to put back in power 'idealists' that believe in 'consumers first' thought and not how they can squeeze the extra nickels out of their business models.
Even look at Vista, in a lot of ways it is a revolutionary OS if you look at the intelligence it implements and the architecture, yet marketing and the 'business' people don't get the genius from the development teams, and will have trouble selling it.
This is evident with the marketing and business people creating five freaking versions of Vista for consumers. It creates more confusion and is less profitable and could hurt the 'standard windows' base because of the differences. It would have been better for MS to have just added $20 to the cost and do only one version. In fact the Vista release like XP is in contradiction to the 'design' ideals of the NT group in having a shared code base to 'reduce confusion'. (Of course the code base is still shared, but the confusion is artificially added by the business and marketing people.)
My two cents for today...
I don't really see the problem with all this. Microsoft and Novell can say and do anything they like about patents, but it doesn't make a patent problem arise where there was none, nor does a lack of agreement make one disappear if there was one. Novell got a few hundred million bucks out of MS, and it doesn't affect anybody else one whit. Why not let em have it?
The agreement says nothing about real issues of patent violation or the validity of such potential lawsuits.
It just says it's a lot cheaper to just swap money now and cut the lawyers out of the loop.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Most folks haven't realized that Novell made a deal to protect MS customers and vice versa...there's no protections implied between the companies with regards to patents, they still can either sue or not sue each other.
And to be honest, to say that Linux does or doesn't infringe on any patents out there is quite naive. It'd be the same to say that Windows doesn't infringe on any patents is equally naive. To be quite fair, there are probably quite a few (300 some odd patents) which could be infringed upon with regards to Linux and Novell has just been forthright enough to try to protect their customers from that concern.
They haven't hurt the community in the process, they haven't unGPL'd anything, etc. They have however, made a deal with the devil, and surprisingly (note the sarcasm), have seen the devil continue on with the FUD which most are falling for.
The truth is MS can't really pursue it without major retaliation and to vilify Novell is nothing but silly and naive...so please read the accurate information before spouting rhethoric and continuing the spread of FUD...you're doing nothing but helping MS with this.
>Even look at Vista, in a lot of ways it is a revolutionary OS
>if you look at the intelligence it implements and the architecture
Dude, that was funny.
I mean that was Micheal Richards funny.
Vista = revolutionary OS
Priceless.
Too Fucking Late...
and...
Them what lies with dogs, gets fleas...
or do you disagree with that too?
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Waaa, I only made a deal with the devil. I didn't know it would turn out this way.
Microsoft has lawyers. Lots of them. If they have IP that's infringed and they know it, they have to sue to protect it or they lose it by neglect. If they had something, the money would have gone the other way. So, they haven't got cause for a suit or they'd have to sue.
What Microsoft does have is a fat wad of cash. That is exactly what a company like Novell that backdated Waaay too many stock options needs. The bonus is Novell gets $400M to promise to not sue a company they've got no grudge against.
The sad part for us is that Novell must now and forever be a leper. They've done great deeds in the past. There was great hope for their future. They're trying to fight the FUD now but you can't unring the bell. A shame they had to get weak kneed in the end. It's also sad Ballmer gets to say things like "Gee, that's a nice linux webserver you got there. Be a shame if one of our IP lawyers had to have it admitted as evidence." Makes you wonder if he was shaking down kids for their lunch money in school. I hope Novell's development teams have litte trouble finding honest work before the end.
The upshot is that we've got $400,000,000 worth of proof that Microsoft's got nothin. Nothin, that is, except a metric ton of coupons good for one free SLED install they couldn't unload even as wrappers for free ice cream cones. Can you imagine the sales call? "Yeah, I got this coupon for a Linux install we can sell ya, but after five years if you're still running it we have to sue ya. Oh, and our BSA thugs will be around regularly to make sure you don't exceed your linux quota, k?" They'll have to paper the halls of One Microsoft Way with expired coupons. The companies that adopt Linux under Novell's indemnity will discover that Linux is rock solid, swift and sweet. When they realize Microsoft's always had nuthin, they'll migrate painlessly to a distro that's less tainted. Perhaps this is the dirty trick that convinces them to get all the way out of business with these creeps.
I blame Ransom Love for this whole mess, because he killed Unix. Him and all the chowderheads that think this indemnity nonsense has more value than six inches of used dental floss. It's a bad thing to be mugged at the point of a lawyer. It's cowardly to be blackmailed with lawyers that have nothing.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Microsoft has never sued another company or individual or organisation for patent infringement.
The "to the point response" from PJ is the blinded zealotry I've come to expect from Groklaw.
Working with Micro$oft life lessons:
- When you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
- When they make the bed, watch for the short-sheet.
- The words to that song they're humming: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
We'll talk more later.It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Novell will indemnify their customers but their distro isn't the only Linux distro out in the public hands.
Consider this. M$ probably won't go after anyone with the funds to fight them in a patent suit.
The reason for this is simple. Go after someone without the means to fight, such as an individual with a Linux distro other than Novell's and with earnings at or below the poverty line, then unless the Linux community can help with lawyer fees and find a lawyer that deals with patents, that individual will probably make a fast deal to protect what funds he/she does have and agree that they are infringing and pay for a license from M$. M$ just needs to go after the small fish and deal out cheap licenses so they gain more support to their cause that Linux infringes on their code, whether or not its actually true.
MS/Novell shows only contempt for you. If enough speak out, the bankers notice:
The transaction would negatively impact the companys position in the open source community.
If you threaten to sue and force other people to go out of business, you already abused software patents.
With Gates on the way out, isn't it time to retire the Borg icon? How about an airborne Aeron?
is Hovsepian's greedy ass should get ousted by the Board and someone like Shuttleworth should be invited to be CEO. I'm betting it will be 6 months at most before we see the fallout of this deal.
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
It's called NTFS-3G: http://www.ntfs-3g.org/ The documentation is the binary ntfs driver, chkdsk and the NTFS on-disk file format one can find on any Windows box. These are the *REAL* documentation, which are *MUCH* detailed than any technical specification could ever be.
Ok... Until now there isn't a Patents Violation. But what will appends when Novell starts to develop program with microsoft collaboration? Microsoft can Inject them to destroy all other distributions?
"When you sup with the devil, use a long spoon"
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
This agreement is at the heart of what IT users demand -- to deploy both Linux and Windows, and to have them work well together
First off, what is an "IT User"? Is it the IT/SA, or is it the end user?
Customers told us that they wanted Linux and Windows to work together in their data centers
Which customers? Why were they "currently" having this interop problem? They seem to work fine for me. Did MS just recently change something that broke CIFS and LDAP?
but Microsoft asked that we cooperate on patents as well
Asked or insisted? Why didn't you have two seperate agreements. One for the non-existing interop problem and coupons no one asked for, and one for the patent deal that MS asked for so they can screw you later.
some parties have spoken about this patent agreement in a damaging way
Yes, those parties are Novell, and Microsoft. I'v actually found everyone else to be quite reasonable.
We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents
I feel a disturbance in the force, as if a million voices suddenly cried out "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!"
Our stance on software patents is unchanged by the agreement with Microsoft.
You havn't really told us your stance yet. You have quite a few software patents, so I guess you're fine with them. You sign cold-war agreements with MS, so you seem to be willing to leverage them. So really, what exactly is your stance?
BBH
On a deeper level, I hope everyone will please think about what software patents are doing to the industry. Microsoft didn't have to deal with them when it was building its business, but now it has them in hand to try to bully Linux, the better mousetrap that endangers its monopoly, to death. Yes. To death. Think about whether that is the patent policy you really want, and if it isn't, you need to change it. Because the community will not let go of the GPL as its license of choice, and the GPL and software patents simply don't mix. So, if the world wants GNU/Linux to survive -- and the development model that made it happen, and by that I mean unpaid volunteers, because that is who wrote Linux -- it will have to make some changes to the US patent system, some fundamental changes, or all you'll have is things like Vista and Zune. Read their EULAs, then read the GPL, and then think it over. What kind of world do you really want?
As the US patent system now operates, it's like the Mafia. Give me money for my patent or I'll break your kneecaps. And the threat works even if the patent is bogus. Someone really needs to clean house.
And those of you in Europe trying to decide what you want to do about software patents, is it not clear now from this incident what Microsoft intends to do if you empower them?
"Microsoft didn't have to deal with them when it was building its business, but now it has them in hand to try to bully Linux, the better mousetrap that endangers its monopoly, to death. Yes. To death."
nicely worded. i just had a peep at how OS/2 looked like. it was ditto win 3.11 down to the last detail of q green background on its desktop! and now it doesnt want a level playing field! someone remind them of this!
Over and over and over again people enter into "agreements" with MicroShaft and over and over and over again they get screwed. Won't people ever learn that you can't trust MicroShifty an inch. If you do they'll only end up taking the mile, or should that be the p*** !
I admire Novell for disagreeing with Ballmer. They signed with the devil himself in order to collect some money and stay solvent. I'm betting they knew this was coming and that they could defend Linux by disagreeing and not toeing the Microsoft party line.
So they have in effect got a bunch of money from Microsoft and now they're screwing up Microsoft's FUD agenda. Microsoft's FUD here is only effective if Novell plays along and they are not. Interesting outcome - MS ended up financing a linux distributor and their FUD is ineffective. I didn't see this turn of events coming but I like it. You know Ballmer is throwing a few chairs about now.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Did you miss the "under a month" part? Have you any idea how long NTFS has been a part of Windows? Do you not remember all those years that there was hardly a read-only driver? That there's a good ntfs reversed engineered driver, at long long last, is great. It should and could have been there years ago, though.
Forgive my ignorance, BUT:
If Ford infringed a BMW patent I would not expect every owner of a Ford car to be sued by anyone: they have done nothing wrong!
Shouldn't this be the real issue being addressed ?
Where am I missing the obvious flaw in my logic ?
and replace him with Shuttleworth! Tomorrow! I give it 6 months before we see the fallout of this deal.
If I remember correctly Samba team was doing this interoperability and gues what ? They doesn't need that $200m cash even they do their jobs withouth accessing Microsoft Networking code...
Mr.CEO of Novell. Take your arguments and put them where are they come. We do not believe who bedding with Microsoft.
Your company was DEAD. Your Distro was DEAD. You are History. We are bury you near SCO.
Regards
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
And again all the posts that are +5 are those that say the same thing over and over again.
c e/2006-11/msg00004.html- suse-linux-wtf.html- opens-microsoft0 6-11-08/transcript#The_Novell.2F_Microsoft_deal
The deal is done. Live with it. At least Novell tries to answer the questions people have. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. People asked that they wanted the details of the deal, so they gave them. They gave a lot of promises.
The IRC meeting will most likely also just be a lot of copy-cats yelling: Yes, but you signed a deal with M$ and we are so anti-M$ that we don't care about anything else.
So instead of yelling that it is so bad, come up with a realistic alternative what you want and what questions you want answerd. Be at the IRC meeting and/or see that your answers are asked on the site if you can't be there.
It is very much fun to react emotionaly, yet it is only spreading the FUD further, no matter who started that FUD.
The useal links:
http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse-announ
http://dev-loki.blogspot.com/2006/11/call-to-dump
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4287912423.html
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2168151/novells
http://en.opensuse.org/Meetings/Status_Meeting_20
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Here is my conspiracy theory....
Novell, who made it a point to clearly prove that they still owned UNIX (part of the whole SCO thingie) has sold the alleged IP to Microsoft with a clause that Microsoft can't sue Novell or their customers about it.
So, in short.... maybe it is SCO all over again...
OTOH... maybe it's Novell pulling a prank on our favorite jokesters in Redmond... selling the alleged IP because MS wants it, but being fully aware that said IP is not in Linux.... In turn, now that the IP was sold to Microsoft for some other product that Novell still owns, they now had to pay a license fee for the IP to Microsoft... it all gets twisted together all over the place, but it might make sense.
MS: Do you have the code SCO was suing about
Novell: Yes
MS: How much you want for that?
Novell: We can't sell it...we still use it in other products
MS: We'll buy it, and promise not to sue you for using it.
Novell: OK, but we need big bucks.
MS: Yay... now we can sue Linux users
(MS Departs and heads back to their corner in hell)
Novell: (joking amongst themselves) Ha ha, that code isn't even in Linux, so even if they do sue about it, it's no problem.
Make America grate again!
We are Microsoft, lower your shields and surrender your IP. Your customers will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
It looks more like it is not a cross-licensing deal. Usually, those go along the lines of a swap for the duration of the agreement. This agreement does not do that. It is an exchange of cash. That's a very different activity and establishes a practice that can be continued when the agreement is over (either on schedule or pre-maturely). Furthermore, the prices could change any time.
Cutting a deal with Microsoft for temporary licensing of their sw patents is a set up for accusations of patent violations. The USPTO has handed out far too many sw patents for all kinds of material skimmed from curricula, text books, and established best practices. There are just too many to go through and laywers can fight over even the worst of them for years. No. The only option is to annull all patents the USPTO has accidentally given out for software, algorithms, formulas or business methods, and to ban granting new ones.
Patents have no place in software. Copyright has been fine and has the added advantage that it is far less a hinder to progress.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Windows Update sucks. Really.
To see how this feature should REALLY be implemented, just look at APT. APT is the sort of thing that Microsoft might "innovate" in about ten years as a "new" way of distributing software. Forget just distributing security updates - distribute entire operating systems and complete application stacks. Your system can always have the latest software: you'll never need to upgrade by hand.
APT (and other package managers) are one of the key things that really set Linux apart from other OSs. A massive online software repository, full of packages that are ready to install with all dependences already marked up. This just doesn't exist outside of the free software community, at least not on the same scale.
There's nothing on Windows that allows you to request a word processor or a web browser and have it delivered, set up for you automatically, and updated whenever new versions come out. You have to go get it yourself. Security updates and dependences are managed on an ad-hoc, per-application basis.
Fortunately, when Microsoft "invents" this, we'll have prior art dating back to the mid 90s.
No, there is fear.
Problem is that Linux server market is growing on shrinking of Unix server base. But when you will try to replace Windows servers in SMB market...simply forget it. There are TOTALLY different mindset there and they are afraid - and not maybe even afraid, as brainwashed - to believe what big, good old ole Microsoft says to them.
Double digit rates are because Linux has a lot of catchup to do.
Thinking that "fear from patents" are not based on reality and not impacting anything is very wishful thinking. At least let's be honest.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Talk is cheap
$100MM is nothing to msft. Do you know what it costs to produce just one commercial?
Now there is a legal cloud over all Linux. $100 is a damn cheap way to kill the competition.
As long as we're talking about the topic of "Linux infringing on MS Intellectual property" we're on the right track. Loaded question, loaded topic, like "when did you stop beating your wife" implying many things. No matter how you argue, or what answer you give, you accept the premise of having beaten your wife.
Problem is that Linux server market is growing on shrinking of Unix server base.
That's no longer true, I've seen a lot of "new" Linux based deployments that weren't simply based on UNIX displacements. Conversely, the new Windows deployments I've seen are those where 3rd party support for Linux is still lacking. In the market I deal in, telecom/isp, Linux currently has a numerical lead over Windows in new deployments. For the distro watchers, it's still RHEL by a wide margin, with the occasional SLES but SLES still has some ground to make up on 3rd party certifications.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
"We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents...Our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property," Hovsepian said in the letter.
Instead of hiding this announcement on a web site, call a press conference and state that Microsoft is full of shit. Ballmer shows he has balls in going public with his retarded rants. Why doesn't Novell come out publicly and make sure everyone knows the truth?
From a pissed off ex-SuSE user.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
What needs to be understood is that this is Microsoft's - and especially Steve Ballmer's MO. Not much different than that infernal Mark Cuban. They spout off in the press and the moronic masses believe them - why? Well because they are who they are and no other reason. No proof, nothing to backup a claim, just lay down your crap and walk away to let it stir.
That is all Ballmer is doing here, no more, no less. He's trying to lay the groundwork for doubt in Novell's motivations to sign up, thinking everyone will just go along with him because, well he is who he is and most folks have no clue about anything in this arena.
K.
Sun Microsystems did exactly the same thing in 2004, except it took a lawsuit to get the settlement out of Microsoft.
Note especially this bit in the linked article which sounds quite a bit like the original press release: The goal of the technical collaboration between Sun and Microsoft is to improve interoperability between the companies' respective products, according to Sun.
I think it is tremendously inconsistent to be pounding Novell for this agreement and not pound Sun or any of the other many companies that have do-not-sue covenenants over patents. The only difference as far as I can tell between this most recent deal between Novell and Microsoft is the extension to end users.
The most likely scenario is that Novell is sitting on software patents (my guess is that it has something to do with Active Directory) and floated a feeler into Microsoft that they were considering a lawsuit. In return, I'm guessing that Microsoft offered to settle right up front rather than go through yet another lawsuit. On the agreement itself, there is probably a meeting of the minds. The only disagreement comes from the spin. Microsoft likes to construct deals so that they can put a their own unique spin. Like when they settled with Apple quite some time ago, instead of a simple cash payment, Microsoft bought 150M of non-voting Apple stock. On its balance sheet, Microsoft lost no money on this settlement so that they could spin to investors that they lost nothing. They're doing the same thing here by requiring that Novell return the licensing deal.
All the people out there taking a hard line against Novell ought to be taking the same hard line against Sun, IBM and Apple (just to name a few of the companies that have similar deals with Microsoft).
Somehow it looks like there is a need to make every word suspicious, why not try to read the message without trying to see how much comment you can give on this?
First off, what is an "IT User"?
"IT User" is a user of IT solutions, especially in data center environments where virtual servers take over quit some of the market of what used to be mainframe and Unix systems. This is where Microsoft has the ability to grow and so does Linux, this is also where combined solutions with Windows and Linux are quit common.
Which customers? Why were they "currently" having this interop problem?
Doesn't the line already give you the answer? It's about "work together in their data centers", if you aren't managing a datacenter maybe you haven't got the issues Novell and Microsoft focus at.
Asked or insisted?
I assume they insisted. Looking at the balance on this, I assume it's Microsoft that wanted this in there and Novell has played the game quit well as they pay 40 while they get 108 million out of the "do not sue my customers on patents" deal.
Yes, those parties are Novell, and Microsoft. I've actually found everyone else to be quite reasonable.
Somehow I get the feeling many people just want to post something to join the big discussion without realizing what this deal is all about
I feel a disturbance in the force, as if a million voices suddenly cried out "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!"
and so did Novell, at the announcement Novell and Microsoft already indicated they are competitors. In addition Novell explained several questions around this in the November 7 FAQ they released. Somehow people don't seem to read these and just keep telling different
You havn't really told us your stance yet.
Isn't that what the whole letter is all about? Participating in OIN and the other stuff?
I've got no clue about what this will bring for Linux or Open Source, but instead of just screaming everything is bad just because there is a cooperation with Microsoft is too easy. Let's say that Novell with some help from MS makes XEN the perfect virtualization tool and go bankrupt while doing so, then still the work they have done needs to get back to the community. As soon as they violate the GPL rules, Novell will be out of business, some might think Novell is stupid, I don't think they are that stupid.
Novell's idea of a good press release:
That's ridiculous. Of course I didn't assault that poor defenseless woman and her young child.
I did not beat them with a club. I did not kick them and hit them.
I did not make them bleed and cry.
I did not do any of that.
Yeah, that should clear up our name.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
There's always one bad apple in any crowd. Here's the key question. So what are you going to do if you get a useful patch from Microsoft for the kernel, or any other software product? A patch which is under GPL2? A patch which might be implementing something that Microsoft has already patented?
My guess is that you'll incorporate it. You might think twice for a moment. But you will incorporate it if it looks useful; and especially if your manager tells you to do so.
And once you do, Microsoft has grounds for a Patent Infringement suit against any Linux distribution that blindly accepts your set of patches. This is a a Trojan Horse, waiting to happen.
So forgive me if I'm dubious about anything from Novell now. Your reputation is suspect, and it will be impossible to get it back as long as you are working with Microsoft.
I say this regrettably, as I do know some of the SuSE developers personally. I can no longer trust anything from them.
WARNING: The good part of the Register article are the quotes from Moglen, who knows his subject. The reporter who wrote the article, however, makes basic mistakes. E.g.,
"But why use a contract upgrade rather than filing a lawsuit to scupper
the deal, which might produce a clearer result in the long term? Moglen
himself couldn't be drawn on specifics, but the view amongst free
(rather than open) strategists suggests that elements of the deal make
litigation undesirable - even if it is legally justified."
However, Licenses are not contracts.
This is not about interoperability this is about Novell paying MS a royalty (even though its only symbolic) for them to sell Suse/Mono which contains 'MS Patents'. This covenant only covers Suse customers and not the rest of the open source community.
If they believe that Suse/Mono does not contain patents then why are they paying MS a royalty?
Second, Microsoft (and not only them, but almost every major IT firm that has been involved in a patent dispute) has a history of making settlements that involve either the cross-licensing of patents or covanents not to sue over patents.
It is perhaps illuminating that Novell could most likely pay off its five year obligation to Microsoft with less than than the interest it would earn from investing the amount Microsoft is paying to Novell up front.
Dude, an IBM weasel ain't you ?
There is a difference between -
1. Discovering infringement, sueing, battling in court and working out that settlement might be a good idea, AND
2. Threatning a community AND a comany on "alleged" patent infringements with non-existent patent numbers non-existent court case and demanding "settlement" before the case reaches the courts!
(1) is what happens in pretty much most of civil patent litigations! Lengthy court debacles only richens the lawyers! So people DO settle out of court you know ?
- mritunjai
Statements of "intent" in an open letter to a "community" (AKA a "Press Release" or "PR") have no legally binding weight. "Intent" cannot be proven, or more importantly, disproven. And that's human intent - corporate "intent" doesn't even exist in theory, except as a fallacious figure of speech.
If the agreement doesn't explicitly state the itemized valuation of the patents vs other business engaged under the agreement, then that claimed "reflection" has absolutely no legally binding reality. Maybe Microsoft just paid way too little for a great deal on Novell patents, and quite a lot more for Novell's cooperation with the overall strategy based on the agreement. Which would let Microsoft spare Novell (and its customers) when MS sues Linux developers, distributors and users for violating patents itemized in the agreement, which covers only MS and Novell. Driving most Linux business to Novell, but at a risk that Novell will alienate customers and generate countersuits, perhaps from large companies, including competitors like IBM, with its own army of lawyers and arsenal of actionable patents. If I were Novell, I'd demand a big payoff from MS to ensure my risk costs were covered. Even if a successful strategy would hand me nearly the entire Linux market. Because I'd next have to face the costs of being the sole remaining Linux competitor to Microsoft, which would have its own Linux to "embrace and extend".
These statements mean nothing legally binding. They're PR. Maybe they're true. Maybe Novell's current execs expect to get money from Microsoft just because MS will now operate under a license without violating Novell's patents. And don't expect to cooperate with any of Microsoft's usual "embrace, extend, exterminate" strategies. But those plans can change. Those execs chan change, or change their minds, especially if MS pulls out other pressure. And maybe they're jus
--
make install -not war
Maybe once upon a time, but I'd wager that IBM also has similar ongoing covenants with Microsoft. They are almost certainly no different than Sun and Novell in this regard,
For the record, since 2003 I've used Macs exclusively at home. While my bread and butter is currently earned in an entirely Windows environment, I've no love for Microsoft and am attending school part time to get out of the IT industry altogether. After twelve years working various computer jobs from help desk to programming, I'd much rather be a cranky old liberal arts professor out in the middle of nowhere.
I just happen to think that the hystrionics over this latest agreement are absurd. Pretty much every large company with a significant patent portfolio has made this sort of deal with Microsoft.
The single most important thing that needs to be clarified here I think is that the element of Linux's userbase which refers to itself as the "Community," (uttering the word with a hoarse, high-pitched shriek is necessary to approximate the word's usage when used by members of said group) are exactly that demographic which Novell (and anyone else sane, for that matter) are least likely to want to have anything to do with.
I've known numerous people who use Linux and work on Linux related projects in any entirely peaceful and positive manner, who did not identify themselves as members of the famous "Community" at all, and who if asked, generally quietly confessed to feeling as much revulsion for it as I myself do.
Let us also be clear on exactly what this "Community" is:- It's a cult, and it's also generally the first thing any of Linux's detractors draw attention to...because they well know that there in fact *is* a genuine problem here. Before one of the very lemmings that I'm actually talking about here pipes up and accuses me of being "disingenuous," as they have in the past, I would also encourage them to go and study the definition of the word cult. I know what it means...When you do, if you're honest, you'll see some parallels. The attitude exhibited by the Debian project in relation to the Iceweasel flap, as one example, can entirely without hyperbole be described as cultic.
Another area where Novell require education is that they seem to be labouring under the genuinely tragic misconception that the "Community" consists of people remotely interested in any form of diplomacy.
They are not. If there is one thing Richard Stallman has taught this group well, it is simply to make demands of anyone they see fit, and then expect that they will be fulfilled to the letter, without being willing to compromise on even minor points. Stallman and the proponents of this kind of radical inflexibility seem to believe that it is the product of superior moral integrity; it is not. It is a documented symptom of the particular neurological affliction known to science as autism, which Stallman has himself admitted that he most likely suffers from. Diplomacy itself is also an art form which was developed and is practiced exclusively among the neurotypical population; Autistic individuals have consistently shown that they are utterly devoid of capacity for it.
That, then, is my central assertion here...that in the context of Linux, the word "community" does not refer to anything which is redeemable or desirable in any way, but instead refers simply to an aggressive, self-righteous, Marxist, radical group of chronically autistic cultists, who have come to believe that they can force the entirety of the rest of humanity to conform with all of their demands, as long as said demands are repeated with sufficient persistence and volume. If Novell believes that with such a group there can be anything remotely approaching sane, rational dialogue, I fear that they are in for an unpleasant awakening.
Really, the importance of OIN cannot be overstated. Together with other initiatives like the Graphical Landscape Open Invention Network ("GLOIN") and the Desktop Windowing Architecture Language Implementation Network ("DWALIN") it is one of the most important contributions to practical system interoperability today. Others, like the Open Retrostructuring Initiative ("ORI"), the New Open Retrostructuring Initiative ("NORI") are considered less influential, mainly due to the constant need for further revisions - but these led to the Definitive Open Retrostructuring Initiative ("DORI"), which was much more successful. Their file standardization efforts, the Basic Office File Utilization Recommendations ("BOFUR") and Basic Infrastructure File Update Initiative ("BIFUR") have made many strides (although small ones, some would say) toward greater interoperability. Likewise, the Free Information Layer Initiative ("FILI"), which outlined mechanisms for accessing metadata in different file types, went largely unnoticed until it was adopted by KDE with the KDE Information Layer Implementation ("KILI"). Novell's efforts with the Border Access Layer for Interprocess Networking ("BALIN") and Border Object Marshalling Bidirectional Update and Recovery system ("BOMBUR") held great promise in terms of the ability for different systems to interoperate over networks, even with different applications communicating through their interprocess communication interfaces. Their research work in Textual Heuristic-Operated Redundant Information Networks ("THORIN") was perhaps the most ambitious and successful project in its early phases, though unfortunately the project was killed before it could achieve widespread acceptance.
Microsoft's contribution to all of these is the Boldly Innovative Litigation Braintrust Organization ("BILBO") - but some say that it's a trap, and that Microsoft's efforts here are essentially painting them as thieves. But even those who are less hostile toward Microsoft generally agree that it's a very small effort without much promise.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
No! You think?
You'd also think that Balmer would have more sense than announce his strategy to get ONE linux provider on board with false promises and immediately go on the attack with all of the other linux providers.
You'd be wrong.
The , uh, agreement. (bargain with Satan?) might have been for one thing but Balmer didn't even read it. It didn't matter to him anyway.
He figures he'll find co-mingled code if he's got to get his M$ minions to do it for him. And then he'll sue all of the providers and keep them tied up in court and away from the keyboard for years.
Why Novell/SuSE Linux? (Volkerdink wouldn't be much of a victory, now would it?) They're closely affiliated with IBM and if he can keep Novell/SuSE and IBM tied up (why else the original support for SCO?) long enough, they'll lose (lose in court or lose interest, it doesn't matter. As long as they lose...)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
For stealing every idea they see as a threat :
All the way, down to things stolen lots of years ago like the mouse idea which was stolen from xerox, Copying Linux/Mac styles+ideas in every O.S.
I think in the after Vista OS they will came to think that the SHELL of linux is actually cool, so they will make a shell of their own (not like cmd, something which is actually useful).
I'm just hoping Google will release their Linux based O.S A.S.A.P to shut Balmar's mouse or mouth, it depends who you ask.
Reading the different statements brings up a point that may be getting gloassed over, and that MS wants to gloss over: Novell doesn't own Linux. So, what Novell is saying is true and what MS is saying is true but with spin. Novell said that Linux doesn't violate IP patents....which includes MS patents AND Novell. MS is saying Linux has MS IP in it....but the agreement is with Novell, not Linux. So, everytime we say Novell screwed up by entering a Patent agreement with MS, we help MS spread their FUD by making the connection between Novell and Linux that MS is implying but never saying.
Maybe we should QUIT spreading that for them....
According to Novell, MS is using Novell patents in thier software and Novell products (Not Linux, since Linux isn't "owned" by Novell, it isn't thier software) use MS patents. MS then turns around and says Linux uses MS patents...but the agreement they signed with Novell has NO bearing on that opinion....or am I loopy?
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
Sure Sun did the same, that's why ppl in the community trust Sun so little. And that's why you have these whiney blogs from Sun employees along the lines of "We poor Sun people.... we open source all this code and still nobody loves us.. boohoo" A similar pattern starts to emerge with Novell...
It was also very visible back at Caldera, where you had engineers working at GPL code while their CEO (before Mcbride) was badmouthing it at the same time. That creates a rather big credibility gap.
Saying that it works as intended is hardly badmouthing.
SuSE ---===> MS-Linux?
F u cn rd ths u cnt spl wrth a dm
I'd have to say you're a bit short-sighted. While Linux is gobbling up server sales at impressive speed, at some point there will be a near saturation point where there will be three main competitors: Linux, *BSDs, and Microsoft. Without some fundamental shift in the market, the relative numbers of those will probably be very similar for many years. Hence, it is in the best interest of Linux distributors to increase Linux penetration even further now. The main issue then is our difference of opinion on whether such a contract will hamper or help sales.
Forgent Networks has sued or threatened to sue the JPEG group and people who used their base software (such as Microsoft) for violation of their patent as used in the JPEG standard. They've managed to make on the order of $90 million in licensing fees, even if they never managed to successfully win a case.
There is fear. Whether or not there is significant fear is certainly up for debate, just as it's up for debate on whether the gains for removing at least some such fears is worth the legal conundrum that is the Novell deal. Novell has decided to make such a deal, and I think Microsoft must be happy to remove at least one major Linux player from instituting retribution for the whole SCO affair. In any case, I think it unreasonable to state their is no fear or that absolutely no companies chose to not buy Linux because of said fear.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
A FUD-ball attempting to reach critical mass:
I gave the man the benefit of the doubt, even though I am extremely angry at Novell, and read his letter. It is very well written and makes the reader think, "Oh, that's all right then". But it isn't. He is not acting in a vaccuum and this is not a textbook case study (yet). Why? ...
1. Novell obviously needed cash quite badly, enough to risk a PR backlash.
A somewhat base supposition unsupported by any facts but, pray continue
2. Microsoft was a key driver behind SCO and this is their next highly visible move against Linux. ...
Once again a tenuous supposition and an extremely odd example of of a move against anybody
3. Microsoft has linux people in-house. If they wanted linux they could make their own distro for free, plus hiring a team to add interoperability which presumably should be easy since they would be the only team on the planet with the inside knowledge of how to do that.
Mute point. MS making an in-house distro would still require a GPL'd release of the end product plus, why redesign the wheel?
Imagine that the interoperability is with Novell products only, this requires the use of Novell owned IP so that MS don't infringe upon Novell Patents. MS doesn't want to get sued either.
4. Of course, this expert knowledge would be copied by other distros if it was GPL, so they wouldn't want to do that.
Why should they? This is a purely Novell/MS collaboration not a community effort. Or are you saying that, if a joint Novell/MS product was to be released under GPL you wouldn't use it?
5. And, they wouldn't be able to easily infect other distros a la SCO, which is another reason.
Eh? This isn't even English, slow down on the recreationals.
6. Finally, if they distribute GNU/Linux under GPL then they are finally saying everything is already under the GPL. (possibly including nonencumbrance by patents but IANAL).
How else can it be distributed? They are saying nothing of the kind, the logic train had departed the station about an hour before you arrived! (Obviously).
7. Novell cannot leash the dragon once it begins to rampage. In fact, this patent agreement clearly removes potential weapons of OSS-friendly vendors like IBM against possible future SCO-like lititgation from Microsoft. It means that Novell may likely enter the role of indeminifying vendors and users against Microsoft litigation (if the patent agreement allows that).
I thought that point 6 was the final one but emotive bile knows no bounds.
This agreement does nothing of the sort, there is no logical way that your assumption flows from any availible facts. As Novell have denied that there are any patent infringements by Linux upon MS patents then the patents in question are, presumably, those held by Novell on their communication products.
8. Novell's CEO claims their actions prove they are honorably. I am sure he would like to think so. However if actions are louder than words, then surely this deal with Microsoft proves Novell is only in business for Novell, especially if it means all other OSS vendors get poisoned by their actions.
Gee, not a lawyer and not too hot as a market analyst either. This is nothing more than a biased opinion baked in a conspiracy theory. Of course Novell are in it for Novell - they don't have power of attorney for anyone else and they are a commercial operation.
I'm stunned and shocked that a commercial business made a commercial decision with the intent of making a competitive and commercial gain - not.
9. It also proves that Novell's CEO is intellectually and/or ethically unfit for his position due to his blithe ignorance of SCO and Microsoft's role in SCO, smoking gun and all.
Stop throwing vitriolic toys about it makes a mess of the nursery. It shows that a CEO of a commercial operation is capable of making a commercial deal with another c
Democracy is being able to elect your own megalomaniac, a dictatorship cuts out the middle man.
Everybody knows that you guys, the people actually doing the work, have nothing to do with this and most likely pay due diligence to ensure any FLOSS software remains clean and unecumbered by copyright (easy) and patent (almost impossible) issues.
But at the end MS do not care about that. They know the patent system in the US is broken and they will try to milk it for all what is worth, they have the money to do so, and lose they will, but that does not mean it may not be painful.
If software was not patentable this would be a non issue, you and anybody in the IT industry, should get of their asses and tell your bosses that it is time to buy ^H^H^H lobby politicians to ensure software patents are outlawed as the aberration they are (programming is a fomr of speech, but needs to be done because machines are stupid and we need to explain to them our inner thought about how to solve a problem).
I can see only parasites and monopolists benefitting from the current state of affairs, but since politicians will never do anything about it from their own volition, the responsibility is on IT companies to do the necessary, as it is becoming ever more clear that software patents are a hindrance to anybody trying to make a decent buck out of software, propietary or otherwise.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
There are geeks high enough in the food chain in most companies that understand the issues at hand.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
MS was poluting Java. Big time.
They were found out and before losing, decided to settle.
Completely different to setting up a protection racket, intimidating the first fool willing to play ball, and showing it to the rest of the community as an example while pointing out to other not paying that they may not be protected.
Al Capone would be proud of MS's tactics.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Don't use it.
Quite simple frankly.
If you feel so much revultion at the thought of a community this is mostly a free world you know, nobody is forcing you to be part of it.
The community initially included mostly developers of software, debuggers, users and finally anybody interested in free software as a cultural and political issue. In any community you will find people fully commited to the causes spoused by it, some others attracted tangentially to it, and some more just trying to reap the benefits associated to being in a group without any of the responsibilities. Call the community a neighbourhood, state, city or country, you will always identify people that broadly fits any of these patterns of behaviour. And yes you will find zealots. Wellcome to the real world, we have been missing you.
People in the FSF promoting the adoption of free software have always been quite upfront about their aims and objectives. Anybody deciding to use GPL and similar licenses should (or should have known) that behind the software developped there were a set of cultural and political objectives, implied or explicit. If people released software under such licenses and did not do their homework regarding the implications, well, they are to blame, not the folks mantaining the consistency of the licensing scheme. And they can release the software under another license of their own chosing if they feel so bad about it.
Anybody using FOSS as users should inform themeselves what is behind the licenses. If they did not want to do it that is perfectly fine, apathy is an option, but if they are distressed by the commitment of other people using or developing the software, well, the door is wide open, good bye and good luck.
You said lets be clear, and the first thing you do is to cloud the issue by playing word games.
I will not bother to find the definition of what a cult is, because it is not what you are after. What you are after is to paint a group of people in a bad light that fits your political convictions. That is cool, such is life, but your assertions should not go unanswered. To be politically commited to a cultural cause is not being part of a cult, many folks around here confuse political intransigence with cultism, but there are issues in which negotiation is not possible from an intellectual point of view.
Issues like slavery, women and children rights are no longer to be examined, they are set in stone and the political orthodoxy dictated by common sense is full intransigence. If anybody would suggest to reopen them and look about how good slavery could be of if perhaps children or women should be subjects of any rights people critizing vehmently such idiots could hardly being called zealots or cultists.
Well, guess what, many of us believe that society is damaged if software is not open for inspection and we think this is not an issue that should be open for negotiation. Nobody is forcing you to sign to this agenda. Nobody is forcing you not to develop software under a different set of principles. But we have principles, and those are not open to negotiation. If your are, that says alot about what princiles mean to you.
In regards to the Debian community, the problem is that software is not in a vaccum and has to deal with legal issues. if you are not strictly scrupulous to the point of fastidioussness you are going to be called to task sooner or later, in a litigious environment, you may be even if you are diligent. The Debian folk have taken the point of view that by mantaining a clear separation between what is fully free and what is not, keeps developers and users protected from any claims about copyright and maybe even patent infringement. Sorry that you can't differentiate between legal due diligence and cultism, but the facts are there open for all to see and draw their own conclussions.
So frankly your tirade about this cultural movement being a cult is disingenous (yes, really, it is), facile, and lacking of any substance.
Do you hav
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
All the people calling us, people obejctin to this deal, fear mongers, FUD spreaders and what have you.
/.ers should be more careful abbout the differences between copyright and patent issues.
The matter of fact is that MS does not need to go and find any code in order to claim patent violation.
If they have a patent for lets say the trash can icon )bear with me this is just for illustration purposes) they can point to the trash can icons in all OSes anc claim a violation without needing to see a single line of code.
There is no queston that MS learned from SCO that copyright claims ar a no starter if you are intent on spreading misinformation, specially when it comes to open source products, but claims of patent violation are a completely different game. Just thik about Amazon and the one-click fiasco.
That is the kind of threat that MS is laying bare in front of everybody. They want to kill or at the very list constrain Linux progress by means of of the treath of death by thousend one-click patents. Absolutely despicable.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You chose the correct identification by going as "Anonymous Coward".
1. You did not even try to understand my text. Else you'd never shitted that list out of your assface. What did i say about MS and trsparency? What did i say about "lots of moro...ehem... poeple...ehem FUCKING! MORONS!"
2. You never made a website, did you? Ever heard about the technique of doing a standards-compilant site in the first place, and THEN adding workarounds to a *copy* of it, that you throw out to those outdated clients? Well, then i must tell you that it's FUCKING STANDARD since years! Yo won't even be able to see the ms-dx-trash until you tell the server you're an MSIE!
3. If you think i'd do for my code, what i recommended for sites that have to support morons like you, then just go to my site with the IE and see how far you'll can go: http://cyberworldz.org/
Yes i'm blocking ALL IE users! And YES i'm fuckin' proud of it! And if you don't get the reason behind it yourself, then i can't help you anyway by explaining it.
4. You should *really* pay attention to what you say...ehem...FART! You left to much useful traces out there... Wasn't all to hard to find your crappy home. Maybe you should look over your shoulder in the darker, colder night, if you want to still have that shoulder the morning after...
And don't fuck that poor guy whose home *you* may find. (If they let you out of the zoo some day.) He's not even knowing of you and me.