Microsoft Patent Deal Could Leave Novell Behind

robbyyy writes to mention a Computer Business Review Online article about commentary from Bruce Perens to Novell, about their recent deal with Microsoft. He argues that the company should quickly turn its back on the deal, because Novell risks being left behind by open source progress. From the article: "While Linux creator Linus Torvalds has previously stated that the Linux kernel will remain on the GPL v2 license, much of the code that makes up a complete Linux distribution is owned by the FSF, which intends to re-license all its code to GPL v3 as soon as it is completed in early 2007. 'In the face of these changes, Novell will probably be stuck with old versions of the software, under old licenses, with Novell sustaining the entire cost and burden of maintaining that software,' Perens wrote, adding that Novell faces a choice of sticking with Microsoft and being left behind, or turning its back on the patent deal."

Comments

Scam. It's a scam.

[robyannetta]

(IMHO) From what I've seen, it looks like Novell got sucked into this Microsoft deal without knowing the real purpose of this deal: to discredit Linux.

Look at the time line:

* Novell and Microsoft shake hands on an exclusive agreement to create better cross-compatibility between their software.
* After the agreement is signed, Microsoft does a 180 and publicly states that the crux of the deal was really Novell admitting Linux violates Microsoft's IP and this was a license agreement.
* Novell is saying 'WTF? Where did this come from? You scammed us!!1!!'
* Microsoft looks like a hero to the DOJ for saying 'We're not evil, see? Novell admits Linux violates our IP and they now license it from us. Here's the contract!'

I'm sure Microsoft will somehow defend the contract by connecting to their Xenix OS they sold through Tandy in the early 1980's.

The agreement was nothing more than the most expensive anti-Linux PR campaign ever conceived. Novell and Bruce Perens aren't the bad guys here, they just got scammed (Please, for the sake of the future of Novell, please don't forward Bruce any emails that state the Prince of Nigeria needs some cash to escape the country).

This may also give Microsoft legal footing to attempt to go after Red Hat if they really want to. All they have to do is bring up the Novell deal in court to make themselves look like angels.

This is just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary...

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[Anonymous Coward]

much of the code that makes up a complete Linux distribution is owned by the FSF

Yeah, right. Sure, FSF, own my code.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[TortiusMaximus]

>>Novell and Bruce Perens aren't the bad guys here, they just got scammed (Please, for the sake of the future of Novell, please don't forward Bruce any emails that state the Prince of Nigeria needs some cash to escape the country). I don't understand why you think that Bruce Perens got scammed... he's the one sounding the alarm!

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[cp.tar]

Well, if that happens, I guess Novell's lawyers will be the first ones out of job...

On a darker note, this is the thing we've all been predicting. And so far, none of us have been proven wrong.

On the other hand, I don't see what kind of an idiot - except the ones sitting in my country's courtrooms[1] - would accept such a contract as proof of any kind of license or IP violation. The only proof is code; this kind of contract can only mean "if any possible violation existed, we've agreed not to make a fuss about it". Note the if.

[1] In Croatia, pushing a finger in someone's anus is not considered as an even remotely possible case of rape. It is considered much more like a handshake instead. (Check the Wikipedia archives for Handshake, you'll see that this piece of information has been deleted a few dozen times or so.) I don't want to call that judge an idiot for, frankly, it would be an insult not only to idiots, but to every semi-intelligent life form as well.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not your code unless you assigned the copyright to the FSF, but they do own the copyrights on all the stuff that's been developed by their own members and others who have assigned copyrights.

Little things like gcc/g++, glibc, all the unix user space tools, ...

Without the FSF stuff Linux would not exist - there's just be a kernel with nothing to run on top of it. It'd be easier to ditch Linus's kernel and replace it with something else (BSD, HURD, etc) than to replace the rest of it.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[10scjed]

It;s about the EC ruling, Novell is helping MS undermine the ruling; What about the EC Ruling

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[ArsenneLupin]

all the unix user space toolsAll? Even though many User space tools are indeed GNU, many others come from the BSD world, or are licensed under specific licenses (Perl, Sendmail, etc.).

Even though GNU deserves large parts of the credit, they don't deserve all the credit.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[ArsenneLupin]

[1] In Croatia, pushing a finger in someone's anus is not considered as an even remotely possible case of rape. It is considered much more like a handshake instead. (Check the Wikipedia archives for Handshake, you'll see that this piece of information has been deleted a few dozen times or so.)Hmmm, interesting information. There are a couple of Croats working here, I shall ask one of them... ;-)

... gives a whole new meaning to "you should wash your hands after shaking hands with strangers".

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[johansalk]

It is a scam indeed. I knew it the moment I read that Microsoft bought soooo many Suse licenses for its customers. Yeah, right! Like Microsoft is going to market and sell Suse to its customers.

Microsoft did a really shitty thing. If there'd never been a reason to be suspicious of them before this is it.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[Richard W.M. Jones]

(IMHO) From what I've seen, it looks like Novell got sucked into this Microsoft deal without knowing the real purpose of this deal: to discredit Linux.

* Novell is saying 'WTF? Where did this come from? You scammed us!!1!!'

You may well be right, but, erm, isn't it Novell management's job to have worked out all the angles on this? It's not like this is some newbie company that knows nothing about Microsoft. Novell have tangled directly with Microsoft and indirectly with their proxies before on many many occasions. They are veterans of the server computing industry. If they had no idea that Microsoft would scam them, it shows an extraordinary corporate structure in disarray.

Rich.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[couchslug]

Unless no one at Novell reads Groklaw, it is fair to say they knew exactly what they were doing when they chose to sleep with the enemy.

SCO is almost gone, long live SCOvell.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[Jason Earl]

The FSF has reimplemented quite a bit of the BSD userspace tools. Most Linux distributions use the GNU versions instead of the BSD ones. Combine that with the fact that the FSF has been very savvy about getting developers to sign papers turning over their copyrights and the FSF is far and away the largest copyright holder in any given Linux distribution. Novell can pretend that the FSF's opinion doesn't matter, but it does.

Add in the fact that the Samba developers are very upset with Novell and Novell is in serious trouble.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[msuarezalvarez]

What great improvements to gcc/g++, glibc and the unix user space tools have been done in the last 5 years?

Go read the changelogs. You will be surprised.

Besides, it's not as if compilers and little unix utilities are exactly rocket science.

While writing a compiler and a little unix utility might not be rocket science, writing a good compiler and reliable, solid, standard compliant little unix itilities is a bit more difficult than what you seem to think.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHA.. you're killing me, man...

HAHA..

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[robyannetta]

I don't understand why you think that Bruce Perens got scammed... he's the one sounding the alarm!

You're absolutely right. I stand corrected.

When I wrote this piece, I had Perens on my mind from another post. Silly me, I meant Ronald W. Hovsepian. Thanks for noticing I'm a doofus. [smacks self]

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[Alchemar]

You are thinking in terms of logic not PR:

On the other hand, I don't see what kind of an idiot - except the ones sitting in my country's courtrooms[1]

This is meant to be tried in the media not the courts. While you may not have been able to find an idiot capable of believing this kind of distorted "logic" the media has proven themselves quite capable.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[cp.tar]

From what I've gathered - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - Microsoft gave money to Novell, not the other way around.

While it can generate bad publicity - and it has already generated pretty bad publicity among Linux users in general - as long as it remains in the media alone, we'll be fine.
We've been immersed in FUD ever since Microsoft stopped ignoring Linux (first, they ignore you...); it has never stopped Linux before. Slowed down, yes; stopped, no.

Besides, with Vista and possible further incarnations of Windows restricting user rights more and more, Microsoft will have enough bad publicity on its own.

And Linux will find a way into many a user's home as a way to run all the Good Old Games(TM) - a friend of mine, who claims Linux Is Not Ready For Desktop And Won't Be For Ten More Years, has a Linux partition from which he runs old games. He says DOS emulation under Linux is so much better, and who am I to contradict him.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[dAzED1]

and you don't think that IBM and AMD could solve that in a *snap* with compilers they already own? AMD putting together something that makes code SCREAM on their cpus? The only reason they haven't done it already is there's already a free, decent/good compiler out there (gcc) so why bother. If gcc becomes less...usable...then I can promise you that within months (ie - the gpl2 versions of gcc will still be just fine) several big hammers will have pounded out a compiler. Compilers were a big deal back in the days of small companies, bad standards, and few people in IT. It's not something to be concerned with today.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[EsbenMoseHansen]

and you don't think that IBM and AMD could solve that in a *snap* with compilers they already own?

No idea about AMD, but having used an IBM c++ compiler... I'd think IBM could never write a halfway decent C++ compiler. In the 3? years I used their compiler, we found at least 3 separate critical bugs. One compiler not-quite-infinite-by-quite-close loop in the C preprocessing (come on, how hard can that be?), one crash during compilation and finally one where the compiler produced code that subtly corrupted the stack frame. Nice, eh? Of course, debugging a closed source compiler is close to impossible.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[ray-auch]

Linux was once c++, but it was given up because the compiler was so buggy.

Maybe that was the IBM c++ compiler. Must remember to tell Linus he should have used gcc/g++ for a non-buggy compiler.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[ray-auch]

GCC has been a mixed blessing.

Standards-wise it uses non-standard extensions (embrace and extend) which have crept into use, so now code is tied to gcc (because it is written in gcc not in C/C++). Bugs with gcc have adversely impacted kernel dev - remember when Linux moved to C++. Neat idea, in theory - write mostly in C but compile in C++ to get stronger type checking etc. Didn't last long - gcc/g++ was too buggy to cope.

GCC historically also had very poor support for x86 ISA (possibly still does) because it was really designed for more RISC-like processors with plenty of registers.

As well as the extensions, gcc/g++ was historically very poor at following standards in the first place. A (scarily large) number of years ago I taught myself c++ (moving from C) to get a job. Bought textbooks, fired up Linux box, Emacs, gcc/g++... and nothing worked. Even basic textbook examples confused gcc/g++.

Fine, C++ must be too new I thought, taught myself from just the textbooks, passed the interviews, got a job. Windows, but at least it would pay the rent (could have been worse - I could have taken the SCO job instead...). First day with visual C++, I was all prepared to be smug about how much better free software was. Wrong (and I was gutted). Visual C++ was more standards compliant, not 100%, but way, way ahead of gcc.

Gcc didn't _start_ to catch up until egcs, when it forked away from FSF/RMS. The FSF fork stagnated and died. That progress you see today is because people were prepared to push for progress _despite_ RMS/FSF.

Credit RMS with the 1980s compiler by all means, but for the one you have today, the credit is elsewhere. With RMS in charge you'd probably still have a compiler worse than what _Microsoft_ had a decade ago.

RMS also ensured we could fork the code, of course, as did Linus. Linus did more though - he gave up control of the copyright so even he can't change licence now. RMS insists on keeping control.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[oohshiny]

We aren't talking about credit, we're talking about control. And the FSF controls a lot of the software that ships with Linux, and they will continue to do so as long as they are doing a good job.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[sumdumass]

Bruce is the prince of nigeria.

He is sounding the alarm of "if you work with microsoft, we will take our ball and leave". I bet novel Is second guessing their venture into opensource at this moment. Some one is likley yelling for an explaination of why they are wraped up in this open source. Their products have always interacted with microsoft's products so to suggest ditching microsoft over FSF products is like saying change the whole direction of your company because we don't like this person anymore.

What this boils down to is the current version of the GPLv3. It was bad news to begin with but now I can see It shine. When a software license or the threat of using a software license dictates what-who you can or cannot do business with, It is time to abandon that license. "Free software" has become an oxymoron latly. It is as free as a select few say it is! I'm starting to wonder if some in the FOSS movment havn't become what they railed against in the begining. It all reminds me of a line in some prison movie were the guard tells an inmate "your free to leave anytime you want, all you have to do is die first" refering to a graveyard for prisoners just outside the prison walls.

Novel has done plenty for the FOSS, it is just sad that we have an opertunity to repay them like this or make threats to do so. Oh well, Maybe IBM will stick with us.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[sumdumass]

And Linux will find a way into many a user's home as a way to run all the Good Old Games(TM) - a friend of mine, who claims Linux Is Not Ready For Desktop And Won't Be For Ten More Years, has a Linux partition from which he runs old games. He says DOS emulation under Linux is so much better, and who am I to contradict him.

And I belive this is the entire reason for microsoft's coruption of the ideals behind thier novel agreement.

We saw stories were people were expected to turn to linux when replacing win98 licenses. Vista is comming and XP will be conviently riddles with security problems making Vista more secure. And all this means that microsoft is afraid people might actualy not upgrade hardware or spend hundreds of dollars to get the new Vista experience and all the grand license versions.

But Microsoft is supposed to release Vista in about another month or so, Business licenses first, then general public. The average consumer doesn't mind or care enough for the threat of a suite but a company with 80 computers will. So in essence, It isn't really as much about spreading fud on linux is it is about scaring large companies into making the investment into Vista.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[MacJedi]

AMD putting together something that makes code SCREAM on their cpus? The only reason they haven't done it already is there's already a free, decent/good compiler out there (gcc) so why bother.

AMD very well may contribute to the gcc. It would certainly be a cheap way to make sure that code screams on their CPUs. Apple, for example, contributed quite a bit to gcc back when they were a PPC shop.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[cp.tar]

So in essence, It isn't really as much about spreading fud on linux is it is about scaring large companies into making the investment into Vista.

Apart from businesses which depend on Vista, i.e. software development companies, which need to test their software on all possible Windows versions, I don't see many companies moving to Vista immediately.
First of all, it is a big investment; second of all, will everything work?

Companies aren't home users, who can upgrade a system, then waste time getting everything to work and downgrade if they're not satisfied. Companies lose more than the money spent on licences and hardware upgrades; they lose the work hours, server uptime and whatnot, all equaling more money, and maybe even market position.

Any business other than software developers would be more than foolish if they upgraded to Vista before SP1 at the very least. Especially since nobody knows yet how anti-virus programs and other third-party software Windows users have gotten so dependent upon will work with Vista.

Sometimes I think Linux users could start FUDding back... not shilling for Linux, but just FUDding Vista. Employ Microsoft's strategy against them.

Re:Scam. It's a scam.

[sumdumass]

Business' are faced with a decision of "do we upgrade or stick with a 6 year old operatnig system?" when they need to replace or upgrade a computer system. Some lease the systems so it would be automatic and outside thier control to some degree.

Then they consider the facts. Among them are,

1. volume licensing deals from microsoft will soon switch to only Vista,
2. 6 years is stretching it for an operating system from microsoft.
3. Does our applications work with vista
4. what else will they work with
5. is there an alternative to Vista
6. Linux is said to be workable in a controled enviroment, Is ours controled enouhg?
7. Could we use linux to hold over some older computers long enough for vista to be tried and the bugs worked out?
8. Could we do the same with Windows XP?

So there are a few questions that will get an automatic no answer or not even be asked now that microsoft has basicly threatent to sue users of linux. SCO started when XP sales didn't materialize, Now Microsoft is doing it again. A little premature but again with the rollout of Vista. Watch the increase of statments about ti leading into the launch of Vista.

As for not moving over imeadiently, They made a pretty clean go of it on XP. Of course most of that was because thier providers gave them XP and they had little choice. But for what business' do today, Alternative to XP or Vista exist so a company faced with a decision does have options, until this cam out.

The Damage is Done

[eldavojohn]

Novell is left behind.

Now the question is who's leaving them behind. Let's take, for instance, the SAMBA team that urged Novell to reconsider. Why was it the SAMBA team? Well, probably because people on both sides saw this deal as an tacit acknowledgement that several open source projects infringe on Microsoft intellectual property. SAMBA would be a pretty easy target for Microsoft, in my opinion and that's why they voiced their concerns so quickly--I'm sure more will follow once the realization hits the entire community when the precise details of the deal are released. I've seen figures anywhere from $100-450 million USD to be accepted by Novell from Microsoft. Why? Hopefully we'll find out.

Interestingly enough, the finest details I can find on this deal come from Novell's Website with the thought provoking title, "NOVELL & MICROSOFT COLLABORATE--CUSTOMERS WIN." Once these details surface, after the FSF's lawyer is done picking them over with a fine toothed comb, then I think we'll know who's still with Novell and who's 'left them behind.'

I'm going to say right now that--pending the GPLv2 allowing this deal--projects feel genuinely threatened by Microsoft lawsuits will alter their licenses to exclude potential deals regarding their software like the one Novell made. If this deal goes through, what we'll most likely see is SuSE being pretty much the basic Linux kernel and not a whole lot more except (as the summary states) the frozen old releases of software. Ironically, the eventual evolution of the Linux kernel will probably render these releases unusable which will mean at some point Novell will have to stick with an old edition of Linux or make the upgrades and patches itself to the rest of the software. I would bet that Open Office and a lot of the Windows-y environments (like KDE & Gnome) might adjust to this and move away from SuSE just to be safe. After all, these agreements that give you protection against Microsoft litigation based on intellectual property is the first step in Microsoft's eventual licensing of the software you've written.

If this deal hasn't been signed in blood, then I would urge every project that would jump ship to publicly notify Novell they will (the only one I know of is SAMBA--there must be more). But if the ink has dried on the contract and they're checking it against the GPLv2, I fear the damage is already done. Look to the future and hope the GPLv3 that's eventually ratified stops things like this from happening.

Even if this fails under the GPLv2 and the deal never goes down, will you ever be able to look at Novell the same way again? I'm not sure I will.

Re:The Damage is Done

[antirelic]

"Novell is left behind. " Will Kirk Cameron play the CEO of Novell?

Re:The Damage is Done

[14CharUsername]

Yeah I think Samba might be a target here. If Novell contributes code to Samba, and Novell says that the code they conrtibuted was licensed from MS, then Samba can only be used by companies that are indemnified by MS. Remember that part of this deal is about interoperability, and Samba is a big part of that.

Another target id Mono. It's probably a good idea to avoid that platform altogether, since its likely only MS approved linux distros will be allowed to run apps developed for Mono. Of course its just as likely mono will remain free. But the worst case scenario is going to scare a lot of developers, making mono a dead platform.

I think Perens is right. As long as this deal is in effect, everything Novell does will be tainted. No Open Source project should accept any code from Novell until they cancel this deal. It's good to see that the Samba team gets it. Though I think it's likely this will kill Mono.

Re:The Damage is Done

[fho6]

I agree. Samba (and others like it) is probably the most to hurt from here. If Samba could be dead from this deal, what could be used in its place? Surely not web services - that would take a big step back from interoperability.

Personally, I don't see why anyone would want to use Mono. It will always be behind in the .NET maturity level. MS will make sure of that. As they did with Borland, when they didn't divulge the mobility API soon enough for Borland to integrate it into its own IDE's. That really left Borland's .NET IDE behind. Developers ended jumping to VS.NET to start mobility development. In any case Mono will probably only thrive on Suse from this point on.

It's too bad, really... now that Novell has the stigma of MS hanging around, their customers may as well be using Windows and other MS products. If anything Novell will lose their customers, since they chose to be Novell (only) customers to begin with, not a "Novell not sure if I will be sued by MS" customer.

Re:The Damage is Done

[Shawn is an Asshole]

If this deal goes through, what we'll most likely see is SuSE being pretty much the basic Linux kernel and not a whole lot more except (as the summary states) the frozen old releases of software. Ironically, the eventual evolution of the Linux kernel will probably render these releases unusable which will mean at some point Novell will have to stick with an old edition of Linux or make the upgrades and patches itself to the rest of the software.Not necessarily. If they weren't able to use current GNU tools, there's always BSD. While, IMHO, the GNU tools are nicer the BSD tools are good and very mature. They could also write better version of, say, Samba with Microsoft's help as no reverse engineering would be necessary.

Re:The Damage is Done

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, everything is compiled with GCC. 'Nuff sed. Anyhoo, it is MS that wants in - MS paid Novel for access to Linux. If anyone loses out in this deal, it will be MS. Novel has a long history of winning settlements and lawsuits against MS - almost a billion dollars when you add them all up. This is another settlement, probably induced by the SCO case.

of course

[crankshot999]

Microsoft is scared that if they are too close to novell fo too long, they'll catch it's free disease!

Revenge?

[MECC]

Maybe MS already thought about this, and this was just the sneakiest way to stick it to Novell - get them to purchase their own demise from an old enemy.

There are certain aspects of this story that ...

[OneSmartFellow]

...strike me as deja-vu all over again.

does anyone else get that ?

Act fast!

[bogaboga]

Novell should act fast on this one. I also wonder whether Novell can ever get anything right. First, it was going Gnome on SUSE Linux, and now it's this seemingly non-starter agreement with Microsoft. What is going on over at Novell is anyone's guess.

Re:Act fast!

[NoseyNick]

Going gnome? Hasn't SUSE always offered both KDE and Gnome?

Re:Act fast!

[bogaboga]

Going gnome? Hasn't SUSE always offered both KDE and Gnome?

Not by default. You will also agree that Gnome receives more "love" from Novell than KDE, though KDE is more functional than Gnome by default.

Re:Act fast!

[Knuckles]

KDE is more functional than Gnome by default.

"Has more functions" != "is more functional". Not for all classes of users.

Re:Act fast!

[sjwest]

OK I dont mind gnome, but as a non 'enterprise' user of Suse (before Novell bought it) Ive already got the torrents of fedora 6 and we have been taking a look and I like it configuration wise there a new files ive got move about. I'd have to say that damage has been done to Novell

Re:Act fast!

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE is more functional than Gnome by default.
 
"Has more functions" != "is more functional". Not for all classes of users.Exactly. "Some users" will be confused.

Hmmm.
"This "users are idiots, and are confused by functionality" mentality of
Gnome is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will
use it. I don't use Gnome, because in striving to be simple, it has long
since reached the point where it simply doesn't do what I need it to do.

Please, just tell people to use KDE."

Re:Act fast!

[bogaboga]

"Has more functions" != "is more functional". Not for all classes of users.

Indeed, but one thing that bugs me with Gnome is the fact that I cannot type or paste in the file location dialog at all! I cannot even paste say, a PDF URL into any application that uses the Gnome file selector and expect the system to fire up the appropriate application. KDE and Windows do this by default.

Re:Act fast!

[Knuckles]

I cannot type or paste in the file location dialog at all

Ctrl+L, this is consistent throughout Gnome. IIRC the next gtk version will have this enabled by default

Re:Act fast!

[Knuckles]

Have you ever worked in a company together with users whose primary interest are not computers?

Re:Act fast!

[HiThere]

The thing that bothers me about Gnome is their lack of a decent menu editor. This appears trivial, but I find it so annoying that I've never looked much further.

This isn't quite true, I used Gnome by preference back around KDE1...but not since they removed the menu editor.

Re:Life is good

[Anonymous Coward]

You know you can't trust wikipedia..

Re:Life is good

[crankshot999]

yes you can, it depends on what you areresearching i guess

The Google Connection

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, perhaps you remember Eric Schmidts involvement with both Google and Novell. I cannot imagine that this was done without his knowledge. If Google uses SUsE, Microsoft can't sue them on that basis. You first read it here. os10000.

Re:The Google Connection

[unborn]

Google doesn't use SuSE. Goobuntu, Red Hat, MacOS X, Windows are pretty much the only OS used at Google atm.

Re:FSF owns what?

[peragrin]

A lot. Apparently you have never paid attention to the software copyright that you use. That's okay that's why the GPL is good you don't have to.

All the GNU tools bash, cp, mv, rm, etc have copyrights owned by the FSF. if you donate code to those projects you are "encouraged" to donate the copyrights to the FSF. Samba, Linux kernel, and other tools have their copyrights assigned to various other people.

the FSF is the single largest copyright holder of GPL software. IBM is working on doing the same thing with their software donations, and if Sun GPL's Java and Open Solaris then they will jump in the pool as well.

Re:Life is good

[Anonymous Coward]

But it said the length of his penis has tripled in the last six months!

NovWinLux

[antirelic]

Hrm. Here is a what if scenario. What if Microsoft decides to not go the legal route, and instead starts developing software that helps interoperate Linux to windows, but only through a mechnism that is Novel specific? For example: Novel sells SUSE v25, that is "Windows Enabled", aka comes with that "bonus cd" that contains a propietary software that makes its Linux boxes "just work" with windows systems? For example, whatif you can run some direct x applications almost natively on SUSE because of what Microsoft has done? Now lets say that MCSE also has a subcomponent for SUSE support? As a CIO or a semi-retarded Mid level manager, would you choose a linux that "works well with windows" or a linux that doesnt (not saying that Linux without M$ blessing doesnt work with Windows, I'm just using standard linear "yes or no" type thinking common with mamanagement types in the IT world).

Re:NovWinLux

[HairyCanary]

An interesting proposition. But given how long it takes Microsoft to build software, and their track record at building *good* software, I would not worry much about this happening. What you described would take a few years to put together, and by then Novell will be long forgotten and out of date.

Re:NovWinLux

[ookaze]

For example, whatif you can run some direct x applications almost natively on SUSE because of what Microsoft has done? Now lets say that MCSE also has a subcomponent for SUSE support? As a CIO or a semi-retarded Mid level manager, would you choose a linux that "works well with windows" or a linux that doesnt

Where exactly did you see a CIO or semi-retarded mid level manager that could say an OS "works well with Windows" because you can run Direct X applications (mostly entertainment apps) on it ?!
Even if it existed, there is absolutely NO incentive to buy a Linux distro to basically run Windows applications. Windows would be chosen in this case, not SUSE.

Re:NovWinLux

[antirelic]

I dont have any great examples of how this could happen, but if the adage is true "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" then it could be a very good move for Microsoft to hand pick a flavor of Linux and "support it" in an attempt to draw an audiance of Linux users/enthusiasts into the realm where their IP reigns supreme. M$ has proven, even by "giving away" their software, they INCREASE their market share through simple exposure (does the anti-trust lawsuit ring a bell?). Bottom line, people are going to pick software because it works and how well it interoperates into their environment.

Re:NovWinLux

[jimicus]

That's not what the idea is.

IMO, the idea is to be able to pitch this as "Microsoft Approved Linux". That way, the paranoid CIO who doesn't want to go down the Linux route for fear of patent infringement or what have you will likely be prepared to sanction Linux - as long as it's SuSE.

Re:NovWinLux

[McNihil]

You give FAR too much credit and benefit of doubt to Microsoft. You will eventually wake up from your illusions.

Re:NovWinLux

[antirelic]

Woah! Thank God you woke me up just in time! I almost hit a telephone pole. My hero. I have no doubt that there is little good that will come for Novel from their dealings with M$, I'm just talking the hypothetical.

Re:NovWinLux

[MicrosoftRepresentit]

How do you know Microsoft didn't begin work on something like this a long time ago? They could have been writing this compatibility layer alongside the development of Vista for all you know.

Re:NovWinLux

[fho6]

Intersting scenario :) And it just might not be far fetched. Considering MS wants a (bigger) share of the server market - where all the money is. For that to happen it would want a piece or be affiliated with a "free desktop OS". So for that to happen without pissing off current windows users it needed a nice way to get into the arena. Which is where the deal came in. So then by eventually giving a "Windows-server-friendly" desktop version of linux away to its customers, for free, could only help that objective. This could make Suse a defacto "desktop standard" as it would be deemed the natural path for easier migration/conversion from Windows to Linux, thus making it more likely for CIO's to purchase MS Servers, and installing Suse linux in the corporation. So, MS can focus on selling servers and giving desktops free.

MS cannot start giving away Windows XP Home Editions for free or they would have to refund the current install base - that's a lot of cash.

Re:NovWinLux

[Cally]

An interesting proposition. But given how long it takes Microsoft to build software, and their track record at building *good* software, I would not worry much about this happening. What you described would take a few years to put together, and by then Novell will be long forgotten and out of date.This is Microsoft we're talking about here. The "MS/Linux" software won't have to actually /work/ (as in, improve interop between GNU/Linux systems and Windows systems) in order to work (as in, perform the function Microsoft have designed this strategy to accomplish.) That's also what I expect Microsoft to do. See the story the other day about Ballmer saying "most Linux users haven't licenses our IP properly", most posters took it to imply SCO-like legal threats against GNU and Linux distributors.

This looks to me like a short-term win for Microsoft, but a long-term lose. In the short term, it seems likely that Free Software's going to lose the contributions of Novell and SuSE engineers and programmers (modulo that a lot of the SuSE people will flee if it does indeed turn out the way it looks. SuSE have some very good, clueful people who I expect would rather walk away from stock options than work for the Beast against the FOSS community.) There will be some short-term damage to the market caps of some Linux businesses, and some paranoid PHBs will decide against some Linux deployments on the basis of the FUD stirred up. On the other hand, in the long term it's likely that GPL3 will be seen as a better bet than some early commentators have suggested...

Re:NovWinLux

[LordSnooty]

How long has the MS Linux Lab been running now?

Will Novel be the only one?

[kwark]

But is Novell the only distro that will be stuck with the old GPL2 versions of relicensed GPL3 software?

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/25/ 2135222 mentioned that there are possible incompatibilities between the DFSF and GPL3. Have they been resolved?

Re:Will Novel be the only one?

[ookaze]

But is Novell the only distro that will be stuck with the old GPL2 versions of relicensed GPL3 software?

Yes

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/25/ 2135222 [slashdot.org] mentioned that there are possible incompatibilities between the DFSF and GPL3. Have they been resolved?

Before asking if they are resolved, you should ask "do they exist ?". Seems to me it's the first step.
There's no point of asking if a non-existant incompatibility is resolved, is there ?

Re:Will Novel be the only one?

[kwark]

You obviously didn't RTFA I linked to. There were incompatibilities with the draft GPL3, so there are possible incompatibilities between the DFSF and a final version of GPL3.

Re:Will Novel be the only one?

[kbmccarty]

The latest in-depth discussion I could find on debian-legal is this one from July: link

The gist of it is that most of the proposed GPL3 seems OK, there are only a few problematic clauses. This specific message by Francisco Poli has an in-depth analysis: link

Re:Will Novel be the only one?

[Knuckles]

That's because your link is broken. What's DFSF? Google doesn't know either.

Re:Will Novel be the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously he did, and you didn't, because the article you're linking to says the Debian team are happy with the current draft GPLv3.

Re:Will Novel be the only one?

[Knuckles]

Ah, link works now (was a slashdot problem it seems; yes, I _did correct the superfluous blank) and I must agree with my sibling AC: the link says the opposite of what you claim.

Re:Will Novel be the only one?

[SammyTheSnake]

I think he probably means DFSG which stands for Debian Free Software Guidelines. This is essentially the debian project's definition of what counts as Free Software (and can therefore be included in the debian distribution, though there's also the non-free section)

See http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

HTH
Cheers & God bless
        Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

Re:Will Novel be the only one?

[Knuckles]

I could have thought of that myself -- thanks :)

Fork

[janneH]

This sounds like the beginnings of a fork. Could Microsoft decide to fund the future maintenance/development of SUSE?

Re:Fork

[Yfrwlf]

I'm actually surprised this isn't talked about more. Is anyone going to fork SuSE 10.1 which was supposedly out before any of this started going on? Or maybe there are other distributions that are just better, so who needs a fork? :)

Re:Life is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Six months also happens to be time it takes to stream a porn xvid over a 9600 baud modem.

Suse is dying -- netcraft confirms it

[martijnd]

--Quote--
Suse
LiVES no longer supports Suse, since Novell signed a deal with a certain well known company.
If you are using Suse, please consider moving to another distribution.
--EndQuote--

Just downloaded Lives as I wanted to play with video editing and noticed the above. Pretty fast update.

Re:Suse is dying -- netcraft confirms it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet before you even get to this announcement, they tell you how you can run their software on windows *and* the xbox. Seems a bit inconsistent to support Microsoft outright but not to support a Linux company that signed a contract with them.

Re:Suse is dying -- netcraft confirms it

[mikesd81]

If you have a problem and need support with LiVES, there are several ways to request it. Firstly, you can log a bug or a feature request on the sourceforge project page for LiVES.

That's from the LiVES website. They ask for donations. Last I checked Suse was still a version of linux, so anyone that's donated to LiVES and uses Suse should still get support. It's fair. I have the choice to use whatever version of Linux I want and if I donated money, I should get support any way.

Re:Suse is dying -- netcraft confirms it

[DoktorTomoe]

They ask for donations. Last I checked Suse was still a version of linux, so anyone that's donated to LiVES and uses Suse should still get support. It's fair. I have the choice to use whatever version of Linux I want and if I donated money, I should get support any way.

From Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation:

Donations are transfers, or gifts, given without return consideration. This lack of return consideration means that, in common law, an agreement to make a donation is an "imperfect contract void for want of consideration." Only when the donation is actually made does it acquire legal status as a transfer or property. In civil law jurisdictions, on the contrary, donations are valid contracts, though they may require some extra formalities, such as being done in writing.

Donations are not support fees. Donations are an unsolicited display of respect and gratitude. It would be fair, but it is no obligation, and you are not entitled for support in any legal way, even less if you use a non-supported operating system distribution. Think of the implications if someone who donated would get LiVES to run on Windows, BSD, OSX or AmigaOS 3.3... there is no way proper support would be given to you, independent of the amount of money you donated.

Re:FSF owns what?

[jonasj]

You don't get it, let me explain:

WTF? I know its GNU/Linux...but it does not mean that FSF "owns" it.

Of course it does. FSF owns the copyright on the essential GNU software (coreutils, compiler, etc).

And I dont believe that the GPLv2 to GPLv3 transition will leed to a gap between GPLv2 and GPLv3 userlands.

GPLv3 forbids deals like this, so it is illegal for Novell to distribute any software under GPLv3. Therefore they will have to stick with the last versions released under GPLv2.

Mircrosoft + Novell = ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If microsoft releases a binary fully supported Direct X for Novell Desktops only you can guess what I'll be installing and who will be left behind.

Re:Mircrosoft + Novell = ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why wouldn't you just use windows?

0/10 troll points for you.

Re:Mircrosoft + Novell = ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it. If all your programs worked smoothly (No compatibility/performance issues) would you rather run Windows or would you pick Linux?

Re:Mircrosoft + Novell = ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because there's nothing on the GNU system (HA! I called it GNU system) that's capable of anything DirectX can do.

Re:Mircrosoft + Novell = ?

[bejayel]

Then 2 weeks later someone somewhere will have come up with a hack to make it work on other distrobutions. This is Microsoft we are talking about.

Re:FSF owns what?

[tronicum]

Ok. They own the copyright. I was not clear about the term "ownership".

What I wanted to line out is, even if they "own" it, after being GPLv2 licensed, anybody can use it under GPLv2 terms. And only if all that tools get GPLv3 licensed AND contributions are done, Novell gets into trouble.

But I am not sure if all projects will do so.

How can the GPL v3 change this

[nuggz]

I don't see how the GPL v3 can force a certain behaviour on MS.

Novell is not giving their customers any rights beyond those Novell or anybody else has. If there is a valid MS patent, suddenly nobody has the right to distribute or use the code.
THe only thing special is MS promised not to sue Novell cutomers.

Re:How can the GPL v3 change this

[ookaze]

I don't see how the GPL v3 can force a certain behaviour on MS

That's because it can't.

Novell is not giving their customers any rights beyond those Novell or anybody else has. If there is a valid MS patent, suddenly nobody has the right to distribute or use the code.
THe only thing special is MS promised not to sue Novell cutomers

Mmmh no !
Nobody has the right to distribute or use the code IF MS says so.
The problem is that if most of the base OS becomes GPLv3, and Novell uses it, it will pass any patent related agreement (like "promise not to sue") to every FOSS users of the software that has the problem. This would break their contract, or prevent them from using the GPLv3 software.
As most of the code in a distro like Suse comes from outside, they're in for a rude awakening then.

Re:How can the GPL v3 change this

[nuggz]

Nobody would be able to use or distribute the MS patent encumbered code unless they have a license from MS. This is because nobody has a patent distribution license.

No patent license = no distribution.

Novell does not give the "promise not to sue" to their customers. That is the key issue wrt the GPL. Novell is unable to provide this promise to their customers, but so is every other GPL software distributer.

Really Novell is not doing anything with the GPL code that other distributers aren't.

Re:How can the GPL v3 change this

[Mostly a lurker]

The problem is that if most of the base OS becomes GPLv3, and Novell uses it, it will pass any patent related agreement (like "promise not to sue") to every FOSS users of the software that has the problem. This would break their contract, or prevent them from using the GPLv3 software.

I am beginning to get the impression that FSF is trying to introduce software licenses with more conditions than Microsoft's. Why will Novell having patent protection for some of their software preclude them from distributing anything that has a GPLv3 license? Is the GPLv3 license really going to be that viral? The suggestion seems to be that if they have some Windows migration tools with patent protection, they can no longer use a completely unrelated tar program.

I really think a large group of the FOSS community is going overboard on this. Novell wants to provide a Linux distribution that can be easily used by MS Windows folks but, reasonably, does not want to get embroiled in patent disputes with Microsoft in the process. They are not implying, in any way, that this means Microsoft holds patents on techniques used in FSF developed code. The potential issues that Samba and Mono might have is nothing to do with any agreement between Microsoft and Novell, convoluted theories notwithstanding. I hate software patents, but this kind of heavy handed attempt to kill them is just going to be counter-productive.

Re:How can the GPL v3 change this

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand how new 'versions' of software released under GPL 2 can be re-released under 'more restrictive' GPL3 in any effective way. That is, if a guy improves software obtained under GPL 2 (and is thus bound to give again all the rights he was given) how can he release the improved version under a license with different and/or additional requirements imposed on his distributees?

Re:How can the GPL v3 change this

[darkwhite]

Your impression is wrong. GPLv3 will forbid Novell from suing any users of any software it distributes for IP violations present in that software's source, and will force it to act to protect such users in case Microsoft sues them based on patents present in the deal, presumably by breaking the deal (see section 11 of the draft). What isn't clear to me is whether the deal and GPLv3 are immediately incompatible or only are incompatible the moment Microsoft sues someone based on those patents.

The important point being made by the FSF is that software patents are wrong and dangerous. Sufficiently so that they're willing to alienate commercial developers to fight them, as well as restrictive trusted computing architectures. The FSF has been thrust into a position of being a key software supplier by the success of Linux. They are willing to put that popularity at stake to confront software patents. It's been fairly clear from their history that they aren't willing to compromise their ideals to further their popularity. The more I think about GPLv3, the more I respect their position and what they're trying to do.

Too late?

[Lonewolf666]

"...that Novell faces a choice of sticking with Microsoft and being left behind, or turning its back on the patent deal."
If Novell has already signed a binding contract, they may not be able to turn back. In that case, they will have to stick with Microsoft for better or worse.
From the outside, we will probably not see if they are stuck or just stubborn ;-)

Re:Too late?

[HiThere]

They do have valid reasons for declaring the contract void. Both sides have publicly declared that there has been "no meeting of minds". But if they were to void the contract, then they would need to return the money, so they don't want to.

And they it is proper that they be despised and turned into pariahs. They should be seen as the carriers of a loathsome infectious disease, and folk who value their own well-being should refuse to approach them, or to accept merchandise from them.

The end of the world is not nigh

[kegon]

> The end of the world is not nigh
And it's not ni! either (OK. Monty Python reference over)

When are FUD-crazed /. readers going to realise...

1. Novell does not own Linux. They do some deal with Microsoft, so what ? They got some free lunches (probably).
2. If mono is more compatible with .net (I don't care but I'm sure someone will) then it's a good thing, right ?
3. Are Novell really p***ing off FSF ? Who are the FSF ? To me FSF is some nebulous movement, it's certainly not an organisation that's right now organising protests in the street.
4. Does anyone really care ? If Novell and FSF don't talk, how will they (FSF) stop Novell from using open source code ? They can't, as long as they respect the licencing.
5. If Novell keep pumping out a few decent bits and pieces of Linux software then can't we be happy with that ?
6. Microsoft haven't pulled a fast one. I'm ready to believe that MS needed compatibility with the rest of the world because OpenOffice.org etc are just getting to strong. They're not the monopoly they used to be. Look at Firefox if you need another example.

Was that a rant ? Sorry if it was.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[chill]

Do your homework.

The FSF is the Free Software Foundation, and the owner of the majority of the copyrights on GNU software and the stuff in lots of Linux distributions. It isn't some nebulous movement.

Yes, Novell can do all they want with the OLD code as long as they respect the copyrights. Novell does not have the resources to maintain GPLv2 versions of everything that moves to v3. The point of GNU/Linux is that the community does a lot of the work, not just one company. Novell can't replace that and if they tried, would rapidly fall behind and into the dustbin.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[MORB]

"4. Does anyone really care ? If Novell and FSF don't talk, how will they (FSF) stop Novell from using open source code ? They can't, as long as they respect the licencing."

FSF upgrade the license of its open source software to Gplv3 -> Novell can't use them (incompatible with MS agreement), so they are stuck with the last versions licensed with gplv2 -> They now have to maintain it themselves.

The software whose FSF holds the copyright includes gcc, binutils and glibc, so good luck to Novell with that.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[SpinyNorman]

how will they (FSF) stop Novell from using open source code ? They can't, as long as they respect the licencing.

The FSF can't *retroactively* change the licencing, so Novell can continue to use current versions of GPL v.2 software, BUT, what the FSF can do, and is apparently planning to do, is to change the licence on all the software they own copyright to (presumably including gcc, glibc) from GPL v.2 to GPL v.3. Novell will then be forced to choose to continue using the old frozen GPL v.2 versions, or to keep up with the everyone else and use the newer GPL v.3 versions which would force them (or rather Microsoft) to back out of the Microsoft deal because of the patent implications forced by GPL v.3.

Owning glibc puts FSF in a pretty powerful position, since even if Linus is keeping the kernel under GPL v.2, the kernel is in of itself useless without glibc, and any kernel enhancements would be useless without userland (glibc) support. Of couse it's nt just glibc - the majority of Linux userland is GNU/FSF.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[caseih]

4. Does anyone really care ? If Novell and FSF don't talk, how will they (FSF) stop Novell from using open source code ? They can't, as long as they respect the licencing.

As has been stated many times, Novell can indeed continue to distribute software under the GPLv2. But as the FSF (which owns the copyrights on a lot of software that is critical to any linux distribution, such as the compiler) moves their software to the GPLv3, this new license forbids Novell from distributing such software because of their patent agreement with Microsoft. The GPLv3 does not allow Novell to license a particular patent that is alleged to cover the GPLv3 software to some people but not others. In other words Novell cannot respect the GPLv3 terms because of the patent covenant with Microsoft and therefore can use but not distribute GPLv3 software (well at least such software that is supposedly covered by the patents they licensed).

No in this case paranoia is in fact justified on the rest of your points. The FSF is often portrayed as a bunch of strange, ideological extremists, but the truth of the matter is they are more like prophets. Who would have thought when the FSF started working on the GPLv3 (well they did, obviously) that something as bizarre as this Novell and Microsoft deal would emerge, necessitating the need for the GPLv3. Obviously the FSF saw this coming and in the coming years we will thank them for having the foresight. Now the GPLv3 still isn't settled yet, and there still are legitimate concerns by a lot of people over it. Perhaps this Novell/Microsoft stuff will influence people like Torvalds to really get involved in the process and get everything moved to an acceptable GPLv3 as soon as possible (I have my doubts there).

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[jimicus]

Perhaps this Novell/Microsoft stuff will influence people like Torvalds to really get involved in the process and get everything moved to an acceptable GPLv3 as soon as possible

Not gonna happen. Unlike many OS projects, Linus doesn't demand that anyone working on the code assigns their copyright to him (or some other neutral organisation).

Therefore, the entire kernel is a mess of copyrights all over. And some of the things in there were written by people who have sinced passed away, other bits were written by people who definitely don't want to go GPL3 etc etc etc.....

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[ClosedSource]

Of course this could cut both ways. If Linus decided to fork the FSF stuff to keep it GPLv2, what impact would that have on the FSF? If there were incompatibilities between the Linux tools and the FSF tools, would most developers prefer having HURD compatibility or Linux compatibility?

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[kegon]

Novell will then be forced to choose to continue using the old frozen GPL v.2 versions, or to keep up with the everyone else and use the newer GPL v.3 versions which would force them (or rather Microsoft) to back out of the Microsoft deal

Even if we assume that Microsoft are only "quite" naive, I find it rather hard to believe that they would pay good money to Novell for the rights to software that Novell do not own the rights to and cannot deliver under GPL 3.

So, either Novell and Microsoft were so dumb they signed up to a deal they cannot complete or perhaps the actual deal they signed is something a bit more sensible than most /.'ers think. In the first case it's not worth worrying about and the second case doesn't hurt OSS/GNU/FSF anyway so everyone can chill out.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[Malchor]

Actually the kernel will be unaffected by the GPLv3 tools. Linus has nothing to gain by forking the FSF tools.
The GPLv3 just forms a subset of the GPLv2. A few more restrictions, but it doesn't give more rights that the GPLv2 has already. The Linux Kernel and the userspace FSF tools can exist quite happilly together.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[fho6]

The OpenOffice file formats are already "open", so if MS wanted compatibility with the rest of the world they could have made it happen (with their own products) without a deal like this.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[kegon]

Do your homework.

The FSF is the Free Software Foundation... It isn't some nebulous movement.

Well done! I would never have known that, except, I did. That's why I said "To me". When you use the prefix "to me" it means that this is your personal impression of something. It is not an invitation to pedants.

Thank you.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[ComputerSlicer23]

Glibc is held under the LGPL, not under the GPL. Just as a point of order, so the GPL v2 vs GPL v3 would have nothing to do with that.

See: http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_mono/ libc.html#Copying

For the most part, I agree with the rest of what you are saying. SuSE will continue to be extremely relevant as long as they continue to employ high-profile Open Source developers, and their developers continue to contributed valuable code that is accepted by upstream providers. That is the sign that SuSE is in serious trouble. Wake me when they lose the developers, or the upstream providers refuse to work with them because they are employed by SuSE. Until then, this is all just hot air moving about.

Kirby

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[Anonymous Coward]

glibc is under the LGPL, not under the GPL v2.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[ClosedSource]

Actually, if the GPLv3 tools cut out Novell, Linus does have something to gain from forking the FSF tools. Significant icompatibilities between Novell and Red Hat will slow down Linux's adoption rate.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohhh! So that's why all those FSF 'pedants' insist on calling it GNU/Linux!

And that's why the GPL is described as 'viral' - cos it is!

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[Lando]

You appear to be a bit off on this. Since glibc is not used in the kernel itself I don't see how glibc is critical to the kernel not to mention the fact that it is under the LGPL and not GPL. As I understand it, the big issue with GPL 3 is the patent protection built into the project and if Novell distributes GPL 3 they are giving their rubberstamping that the software is not patented and is available for distribution. Theoretically, this means that if Microsoft does not prosecute and continues to allow Novell to distribute software under GPL 3, that everyone is granted access to those same patents. The only way for Novell to avoid this will be to use GPL 2 code which means that they will not be able to make use of new software and they also will not be able to backport new code written under GPL 3 to their GPL 2 base. The issue with the FSF is not gcc or even glibc but the fact that a majority of the basic utilities available for linux are owned by FSF. Linux is just the kernel there is a lot of other software that is needed to make a complete operating system.
      Just to be clear. Using gcc and glibc does not force you to use a specific license just because you are compiling with gcc. This is specifically stated on the gnu.org website the last time I looked. It's not the compiler that is at issue but the bulk of FSF software packages that are needed in order to provide functionality beyond the kernel.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[LinuxDon]

Quote: "Therefore, the entire kernel is a mess of copyrights all over. And some of the things in there were written by people who have sinced passed away, other bits were written by people who definitely don't want to go GPL3 etc etc etc....."

I believe we can be very happy about that, it prevents the kernel from being sold out. History has learned us that, given enough time, such a thing is eventually bound to happen.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't disagree with you, but what I see is some kind of split between software that alleged infringes on MS patents and software that don't. Maybe Novell's strategy will be to say that the deal applies only to some software and not to all components of the distribution. Not that it will easy the life for Novell, but probably there exists other ways of circumventing the GPL.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[jimicus]

I believe we can be very happy about that, it prevents the kernel from being sold out. History has learned us that, given enough time, such a thing is eventually bound to happen

I reckon it's a mixed blessing. If (and it's looking increasingly likely, what with the MS/Novell deal) some lawyer succeeds in couching some sort of agreement in such terms that it follows the letter of the GPLv2 but completely blows away the spirit of it, then to all intents and purposes the kernel may as well become public domain because that's what will eventually happen.

I think the strength there comes from the various other pieces of software the kernel depends on. Good luck getting anything vaguely functional out of the kernel alone - but that's not to stop someone like Novell sublicensing an old version of glibc and gcc under GPLv2 and such a GPL-killer agreement.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[LinuxDon]

I clearly see your point, but wouldn't any code that Novell adds to a GPL product be covered under the patent agreement even if it violates a MS patent?
Since only Novell is responsible for distributing it under the GPL, and they in fact can't be sued.

I don't see how end-users can be sued for the code as long as they keep pointing at Novell. SCO appears to have a hard time pulling it off.
Or am I thinking wrongly here?

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[Xaero_Vincent]

Just so everyone knows. The LGPLv3 is being modified to include the same or very similar patent clause as the GPLv3. The GNU standard C library "glibc" will be no exception.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[Anonymous Coward]

You are probably right but don't underestimate Linus cum suis. When it was no longer possible to use Bitkeeper how long did it take to replace it with git? A few weeks? The kernel also spawned a relatively simple static checking tool Sparse. Maybe the C library can similarly be worked around (not to mention that the last GPL v2 version of the C library will remain available for use with Linux the kernel). Although it would of course be a lot more work.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[Anonymous Coward]

> The GPLv3 does not allow Novell to license a particular patent that is alleged to cover the GPLv3 software to some people but not others

That's nice. But is irrelevant. because Novell is NOT licensing patents to anyone. They're just promising not to sue Microsoft customers.

> In other words Novell cannot respect the GPLv3 terms because of the patent covenant with Microsof

A covenant not to sue is not licensing.

Not licensing.

Not.

OK?

I cannot see any way in which the FSF can prevent deals like this one without some highly discriminating and irrelevant language that would undermine the very freedoms that RMS wanted in the first place.

My prediction: Novell will happily use and distribute GPL3 software, and the FSF will bluster and complain, but there won't be a damned thing they can do about it because Novell is NOT licensing patents to some people and not others.
GPLv3 has not be developed in a vacuum, Novell's lawyers will have seen the draft versions and it's well known what the goals for it are, so there's no way in hell they would have knowingly drafted a deal that would undermine their business like that.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[Stalyn]

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when the majority of the slashdot community is easily manipulated by FUD from both sides. You are right there is no patent licensing deal between MS and Novell making this entire 'GPLv3 incompatibility' issue moot.

Patent indemnification is not patent licensing. Every major corporation that deals with FLOSS has patent indemnification clauses including Red Hat, IBM and HP.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[pallmall1]

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when the majority of the slashdot community is easily manipulated by FUD from both sides.

*sigh* How true. Now, if you could kindly submit a link to the full Novell-Microsoft agreement so the rest of the easily manipulated slashdot community could read it like you apparently have, it would help dispell all the FUD. I still haven't been able to find it anywhere on Novell's website, or Microsoft's.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[Stalyn]

http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensour ce.html

It's not the actual contract but it answers some relevant questions. Notable highlights.

Our agreement with Microsoft is focused on our customers, and 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. We have not agreed with Microsoft to any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL and we are in full compliance.

Q3. Is this agreement an admission that Linux products from Novell infringe Microsoft patents?

No.

Patent concerns did not drive our entry into this agreement. Novell makes no admission that its Linux and open source offerings infringe on any other parties' patents. Our position has not changed as a result of this agreement.

Q4. With this agreement, will Novell include Microsoft patented code in its contributions to the open source community?

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.

Q8. What does this mean for Mono and its inclusion in non-SUSE distributions? Does Mono infringe Microsoft patents?

We maintain that Mono does not infringe any Microsoft patents. This agreement does not impact the rights and abilities of other distributions to bundle and ship Mono.

Novell is the leading contributor to Mono and we remain committed to the Mono project. Mono is a community project with many constituents and collaborators from companies, universities, governments and individuals.

And here's the actual agreement from Microsoft.

Re:The end of the world is not nigh

[pallmall1]

Sorry, but the Microsoft page is NOT the actual agreement. It refers to the agreement:

Microsoft reserves the right to update (including discontinue) the foregoing covenant pursuant to the terms of the Patent Cooperation Agreement between Novell and Microsoft that was publicly announced on November 2, 2006; however, the covenant will continue as to specific copies of Covered Products distributed by Microsoft for Revenue before the end of the Term.

but it does not link to a copy of the agreement signed. Considering that Novell and Microsoft don't agree about the meaning of the actual agreement, neither of your examples is anything but speculation. The actual agreement is still secret, and it can reasonably be inferred (speculated?) that there is something in it that neither Microsoft or Novell wants the open source community to view.

It should be noted that a key word in "Open Source" is Open. By ignoring this key, Novell and Microsoft are responsible for the very real fear, uncertainty, and doubt surrounding the deal, not the slashdot community.

Pretty silly...

[IANAAC]

since you can still download the source and compile it. If you don't feel like compiling, there are rpms that are easily found on sites such as rpm.pbone.net. They'll probably always be easy to find as long as the source is available.

Don't stick a FORK in Novell yet

[Sloppy]

FSF's plans for GPL3 have been pretty controversial in some says, and Novell might not be the only ones who end up saying they don't want it. Who says the GPL2 releases of userland tools will freeze? This is Free Software, people, and anyone can maintain it, including a multimillion dollar company and all the other people who don't like GPL3. All of FSF's software may be headed for a fork.

Re:Don't stick a FORK in Novell yet

[ookaze]

FSF's plans for GPL3 have been pretty controversial in some says, and Novell might not be the only ones who end up saying they don't want it

Not a problem, once every GNU software goes GPLv3, they won't need Novell to do the same, mark my word.

Who says the GPL2 releases of userland tools will freeze?

Every people that know about them and works with them. A fork on these would be a HUGE painful task.

This is Free Software, people, and anyone can maintain it, including a multimillion dollar company and all the other people who don't like GPL3. All of FSF's software may be headed for a fork

I think you don't have any idea of the task at hand. Anyway, a fork is not a bad thing.
But if you really believe that all the people out of the MS-Novell deal will contribute to software with a license (GPLv2) that will only help Novell, with risk of a lawsuit as a reward, you're again in for a very rude awakening. I bet all these GPLv2 sofware will go GPLv3 quick, so that it doesn't happen !

Re:Don't stick a FORK in Novell yet

[Anonymous Coward]

> I bet all these GPLv2 sofware will go GPLv3 quick, so that it doesn't happen !

Fact is most GPLv2 software will have to go GPLv3 to protect the programmer's arses. The programmers are the ones threatened by the MS-Novell deal and the programmers are the copyright holders, so the programmers get to decide the license. In the case of a company owning the copyright, the company will have to use GPLv3 so their programmers don't quit and find safer GPLv3 based jobs.

Given a choice between:

1. going GPLv3 and protecting yourself from defending a groundless law suit, or
2. staying GPLv2 and getting harassed by a groundless lawsuit from MS.

I know which one I will choose.

Re:FSF owns what?

[MORB]

All the GNU tools bash, cp, mv, rm, etc have copyrights owned by the FSF.

And more importantly, gcc, binutils and glibc. Good luck to Novell to maintain those all by themselves.

Since the day news of this deal broke...

[bealzabobs_youruncle]

I keep asking why Novell would make any deal with MS? How many times have MS stuck it in them? MS managed to marginalize Sun (as they slowly killed themselves off internally as well) so I see why they took the money and ran, but Novell almost appeared on the rebound? A couple guys from Novell spoke at the 2005 Ohio LinuxFest about converting the whole company to Linux and seemed to be True Believers. Why make a deal with the devil when you are finally getting some stuff right?

Re:FSF owns what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The copyright license applies anew to every fresh release!

Copyrights apply to publications, and, as each new version of $BLAH is a new publication, being different code and all, it, or at very least the changes, have got a new copyright on them to which the license that accompanies that release applies.... So, the OLD VERSION of $BLAH remains under the GPLv2.

But that root exploit in GNU package $BLAH ? Novell can't use the upstream fixed version, it's under the GPLv3... Novell have the full maintenance burden of repatching (WITHOUT violating copyright...) their old GPLv2 fork of $BLAH

Perens' Assumption

[segedunum]

I too think Novell has been scammed into this, but Perens is assuming a lot if he believes that Novell will be left behind. For a start, it is by no means certain that GPL 3 stops this kind of deal (and it would have to be proven), and secondly, all the contributors to GCC and other software may just fork it and remain on GPL 2. The FSF may have copyright on the software, but that software is nothing without many contributors from IBM, Novell, Red Hat and other places.

Re:Perens' Assumption

[ookaze]

For a start, it is by no means certain that GPL 3 stops this kind of deal (and it would have to be proven)

It will specifically address these kind of deals, by the FSF attorney's own mouth.
We're just waiting for it to be written.

and secondly, all the contributors to GCC and other software may just fork it and remain on GPL 2

You're living on denial now ? So you really believe all the contributors, most of them screwed by this deal, will stay GPLv2 to stay screwed ?
Wow, you really think FOSS community are some kind of idiots, don't you ?

The FSF may have copyright on the software, but that software is nothing without many contributors from IBM, Novell, Red Hat and other places

You got to be kidding !
Drop the narrow vision, and try the other way : the Linux distros from IBM, Novell, Red Hat and other places are nothing without the GNU software !
And rest assured at least RH contributors won't work for Novell for free, then to be screwed.
But I forgot : you think they are idiots !

Re:Perens' Assumption

[segedunum]

It will specifically address these kind of deals, by the FSF attorney's own mouth. We're just waiting for it to be written.

So it hasn't been tested yet? That was the point.

You're living on denial now ? So you really believe all the contributors, most of them screwed by this deal, will stay GPLv2 to stay screwed ? Wow, you really think FOSS community are some kind of idiots, don't you ?

Many people like yourself seem to have delusions of grandeur about the position the FSF have as copyright holders, so I'll spell it out for you. No distribution will be using GPL v3 software until they've worked out the full impact of the license and what it means.

The vast majority of contributors to FSF projects, particularly GCC, are employees of Red Hat, IBM, Novell and other companies. How on Earth do you think that GCC is actually a half-decent compiler rather than the usual never completed FSF projects like HURD? If they don't want GPL 3 then they will fork the projects, maintain it themselves and the FSF will be cut out of the game.

>You got to be kidding ! Drop the narrow vision, and try the other way : the Linux distros from IBM, Novell, Red Hat and other places are nothing without the GNU software !

Errr, I hate to break this to you but employees from those companies have contributed the lion's share of the code for a lot of GNU software. They have absolutely everything to do with it, since they're the ones who write the code. In the end they decide, whatever the FSF does politically.

And rest assured at least RH contributors won't work for Novell for free, then to be screwed.

Errrrr. They already are working for Novell, and vice versa. That's the way open source and free software works. No one's screwing Red Hat. In reality, this is one of the best things that could have happened to them competitively.

Re:Perens' Assumption

[igb]

It's incidental to this discussion, but in actual fact gcc is a particularly bad case to pick for HURD-like FSF behaviour. gcc sprang pretty well fully-formed from rms' head. Techniques were absorbed from other compilers, sure, but those of you not around in the mid-eighties can't imagine how seismic the arrival of gcc was. Within a few versions it was fantastically better --- in correctness, in compile- and run-time performance, in diagnostics, in every way --- than the prevailing (mostly pcc-derived) compilers. I recall using it to compile cTeX using something like 1.0.7 and being simply blown away by the performance. It was fantastic on 68k and on VAX, which were the only architectures that mattered at the time, and it did a perfectly decent job on NS32K. It struggled with x86 (because of segmentation) and took a long time to catch up on SPARC (because of things like deferred branch and register windows, which RTL and the instruction scheduler struggled with) but by the time those architectures mattered the whole industry of somewhat hacky single-target C compilers was dead. Then Tiemann came along with g++ which, although it had some other issues about standardisation (which was nascent at the time for C++ anyway), blew cfront into the weeds within minutes. There are FSF-sponsored projects which have been bloated, late and technically dubious. gcc isn't one of them. To my mind, the GPL is a fantastic intellectual and moral achievement, and probably rms' magnum opus. However, if he still cares about being seen as a memorable programmer, gcc is the place his repuation should be measured. emacs, yes, it's impressive, but the original TECO one is in many ways more groundbreaking than GNU emacs. For the latter, rms had Gosling's implementation --- whose redisplay was used up until about v16 --- and perhaps more importantly Bernie Greenberg's, later maintained by Barry Margolin, Multics Emacs, which was written in MacLisp. Not in C with an embedded Lisp-lite: Greenberg wrote in it MacLisp and made it usable on mainframes (I used it on Multics for about five years: an amazing piece of work). But there was nothing of the scale and scalability of gcc. It's a great piece of work.

ian

Call me daft, but...

[andpigswillfly2]

Why would Novell be left behind? If GPL3.0 states that you can't sue anyone for using the software, what's to stop Novell, Microsoft, big companies et all from just taking it and doing what they want? Nobody would be able to sue them!

Re:Call me daft, but...

[msuarezalvarez]

Wow. You crearly have no comprehension of what copyright is.

Daft.

Re:Call me daft, but...

[mav[LAG]]

Copyright law has nothing to say about use of a copyrighted work. It only covers copying, redistribution and making derivative works. Novell, Microsoft and other big companies can (and do) use Free Software all the time without violating the terms of the license.

It's only when they want to redistribute GPLed code that the license kicks in. And since by default, no-one can legally copy, modify or distribute someone else's copyrighted work, they must obey the terms of the license or face the copyright holders in court where they will lose.

So here's the situation: Novell has SuSe Linux, all released as Free Software under the GPL. None of its permissions or rights can be retroactively removed - it has permission to redistribute the software from here on in (I know that's debatable because of the patent end run but let's say it does). But GNU/Linux changes rapidly. Let's says SuSE uses glibc version 2.5 now. When the next major version, licensed under the GPL 3.0, is released with lots of bugfixes and better performance Novell will not be allowed to redistribute the code. It will have to stick with 2.5. It will have to use its own developers and its own resources to improve that code. Fast forward 18 months and Novell is still stuck with a bastardised old version of glibc while everyone else is enjoying version 3.5 or whatever the latest version is.

That is how Novell will get left behind. This is a serious, serious problem for the company. Major portions of its software will just be frozen in time (where the time is right now), barely improving, perhaps stuttering along. Novell can't seriously compete with the hundreds of thousands of developers around the world that improve Linux daily, now can it?

Re:FSF owns what?

[marcosdumay]

Sun did already GPLed Java, so that is already the case.

Open Solaris is open source, and Sun also owns its copyrights. It just ins't GPL.

Re:FSF owns what?

[Directrix1]

Anybody can use the code released under GPLv2 as GPLv2 code. But FSF can and will relicense their code to GPLv3, making any future code changes from the GPLv3 which may not be relicensed to GPLv2.

Only partial maintenance burden

[ClosedSource]

Of course, Novell would be free to look at the GNU notices for the exploit fix, examine the code to determine the solution and write different code that does the same thing all without violating copyright. That's a lot less than "the full maintenance burden" you predict.

In the closed source world, the source for the fix would not be available so it would require significant reverse-engineering to figure out the changes (even if you were legally allowed to modify and redistribute the code). The open source model only protects against a simple "copy-and-paste" operation, it isn't designed to protect against more subtle "theft".

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[rubycodez]

It is a reality of software complexity that writing alternate code *WILL* break existing applications that use libraries and services, just because that won' be the code that the developers and testers are using. That will turn business and careful users away. Novell has alienated themselves from the mainstream of FOSS, and as time goes on things will get worse and worse for them trying to maintain a compatible environment.

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[Jason Earl]

Yes, and anyone who has ever had to maintain an incompatible fork with a Free Software project knows how difficult and time consuming that can be. In the end Novell will likely be forced to maintain their own fork of nearly all of the GNU tools, a considerable burden. Novell's competitors (ie Red Hat) won't be forced to accept this same burden. Novell already has the added burden of maintaining Netware and other pieces of commercial software. Maintaining versions of GNU software is going to add to its expenses.

More importantly, don't be surprised if Free Software projects start rejecting code from Novell engineers out of hand. After all, under its agreement Novell's customers are safe from infringing on Microsoft's patents, but everyone else's customers are potentially at risk. Anything that Novell engineers contribute has to be judged on that fact. Novell could easily inject software that is covered by Microsoft's patents into Free Software projects knowing that its customers are safe.

It boggles the mind that Novell's executives could take such a large step without talking to its partners in the Free Software community.

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[Anonymous Coward]

> Of course, Novell would be free to look at the GNU notices for the exploit fix, examine the code to determine the solution and write different code that does the same thing all without violating copyright. That's a lot less than "the full maintenance burden" you predict.

That is like saying that jumping from a 15 stories building is less deadly that jumping from a 70 stories one.

They could last a bit longer, but when there will be violent merges of new functionality, they will be left maintening their code alone. Hundred of millions of line of code, with no spec, no design and no access to the original developers.

And when code will start requiring GPL v3 compilers, it will get even better. They'll have to adapt the code to the compiler they ship or rewrite such functionality in their GPL v2 branch.

And as glibc will be GPL v3, they will have, hard time supporting new hardware, short of writing chunk of glibc code in GPL v2. And if they copy/paste large chunks of glibc GPL v3 (easy to see, as they have to give the code), they'll get sued immediately!

Hope they have a great marketing department and a great legal department, because they will need them badly :-)

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[ClosedSource]

I guess that's true for applications written by by poor developers who rely on the internal implementation of libraries.

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[ClosedSource]

"More importantly, don't be surprised if Free Software projects start rejecting code from Novell engineers out of hand."

Well, if Novell has actually been making significant contributions, this will be a poor decision on the part of the free software projects that take that position unless there's some real reason to believe that Novell is going to deliberately put patent-infringing code in Linux.

Perhaps MS is relying on the F/OSS's communities emotional reaction to this issue to slow down future Linux development by rejecting significant contributions from "impure" companies like Novell.

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[ClosedSource]

"Hundred of millions of line of code, with no spec, no design and no access to the original developers."

Eventually all the orginal developers will be dead no matter what license is used. As for having "no spec, no design" that's either already true of the current code or it's not. Is GNU planning on creating more documentation once they convert to GPLv3?

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Yes, and anyone who has ever had to maintain an incompatible fork with a Free Software project knows how difficult and time consuming that can be. In the end Novell will likely be forced to maintain their own fork of nearly all of the GNU tools, a considerable burden.Ever hear of BSD? GNU isn't the only option. OS X/Darwin use the BSD tools. So could Novell.

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[Darth]

Ever hear of BSD? GNU isn't the only option. OS X/Darwin use the BSD tools. So could Novell.

Yes, Novell could abandon the codebase and customer base they bought for $210,000,000 and start over with BSD.

However, their shareholders might start questioning the decision making processes of their management.

To abandon that kind of investment, and the time and money invested in porting their network apps to linux and start over with BSD might very well cost them more money than Microsoft paid them in the first place.

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[HiThere]

You must not be an experienced programmer. ALL code develops incompatibilities and bugs appear as the environment changes. Only "short-time" projects can even appear stable. I've had code last for five years. It wasn't doing much that was environment facing.

Well, I suppose that if it's simple enough.... "hello, world" still works, and that's been decades, but once things start getting at all complex things change.

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[HiThere]

I don't think that's going to be optional. Rejecting code from Novell is going to be a necessary defensive act. I've already stopped accepting updates from them to old software (so I'm looking for alternatives when the applications are necessary...fortunately I'd only just started investigating Mono, as I'd been worried about IP of SOME [undetermined] nature all along).

If Novell has been making significant contributions, then this will be a sad loss. But necessary.

If you think this is purely an emotional argument, then you have read the publicly released portions of the agreement. Or you haven't analyzed what actions could be taken on the basis of those agreements.

"IBM thinks its a good agreement"? This bothers me, and if the arguments presented made sense, then I'd re-think my position. When I read them, though, they don't make sense unless you're a large company that is already maintaining a stable of lawyers. I can clearly see why the agreement wouldn't significantly bother or threaten IBM, but IBM's situation is not at all similar to that of the average FOSS developer.

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[HiThere]

I believe that BSD uses the gcc. I could be mistaken. as I'm not really that well acquainted with it.

But note that Darwin uses the gcc under the GPL, and doesn't try to impose non-GPL acceptable conditions on the use of GPL code. Novell doesn't appear to have that option.

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[ClosedSource]

"If you think this is purely an emotional argument, then you have read the publicly released portions of the agreement. Or you haven't analyzed what actions could be taken on the basis of those agreements."

Nothing in the agreement obligates Novell to put patent-violating code in Linux, so what would Novell's motiviation be for doing it? So far I haven't seen anyone answer that question. The arguments seem to be more like "We're pissed at Novell for violating the spirit of the GPL, so we're going to punish them".

"IBM thinks its a good agreement"? This bothers me, and if the arguments presented made sense, then I'd re-think my position. "

Well, I wouldn't take advice from IBM either way, they don't have any idealistic ties to open source and will do whatever benefits them without regard to anyone else. IBM has done an excellent job marketing to the F/OSS community but don't confuse marketing with reality.

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[HiThere]

Nothing that we know of obligate Novell to publish MS IP. But they've just bought insurance that allows them to do so without worrying about getting sued. Also there are many parts of the deal that have not been made public.

There is no *proof* that we have any more to worry about than before. But given patent law, if you wait for proof your business will be toast. The question is "Can you trust them", and they've just bought insurance that allows them to grossly violate your trust without worrying about getting sued. It's clearly not proof...but it removes most grounds for trusting them. And if you don't trust them, then public statements that aren't legally binding are worthless.

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[ClosedSource]

"But they've just bought insurance that allows them to do so without worrying about getting sued."

No. They've bought insurance against their customers being sued, that's quite different.

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[Anonymous Coward]

> Ever hear of BSD? GNU isn't the only option. OS X/Darwin use the BSD tools. So could Novell.

Or really? I must have missed that BSD C compiler. And the BSD binutils. And how absolutely compatible the BSD and GNU C libraries are, you sure wouldn't have to make any adjustments, all those patches in BSD ports are just there for fun.
If it was only about cp and rm and stuff sure, I don't think Novell would have much trouble reimplementing them, but just check how much of the code in a BSD system is GPL and how much is even has FSF copyright, you might be surprised...

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[Jason Earl]

In the end it all works out the same. Novell can use Microsoft's patents in its software and then tell its customers that things are all right. Sure, Microsoft could sue Novell for patent infringement, but it's not going to. After all, Novell is paying a per seat license to protect its customers. Microsoft wants *everyone* to do that. The last thing that Microsoft is going to do is sue Novell.

Other Free Software developers and vendors have no such promise. Microsoft can sue their customers with impunity. If these developers accept code from Novell's engineers then they have to worry that the Novell engineers are inserting Microsoft's patented methods into their code opening the window for Microsoft to sue their end users. Heck, it's in Novell's best interest to insert Microsoft's patents into Free Software. After all, if Microsoft does start to go after customers Novell can say that they have the solution. Simply purchase Novell's SuSE distribution and everything will be fine.

That's why Free Software developers are mad at Novell over this deal. All of a sudden any project that cooperates with Novell engineers has serious problems.

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[Jason Earl]

Sure, Novell could simply switch horses. That won't help them with the Samba team (as there definitely is no BSD licensed replacement for Samba), but theoretically Novell could simply rip out all of the FSF licensed code in its distribution and start over from scratch using BSD licensed code.

Meanwhile Red Hat will be hard at work selling more subscriptions. Novell needs to do something that is going to put them *ahead* of the competition, not put them farther behind. At some point Novell would be better off dropping Linux development entirely and going back to simply trying to sell Netware.

Good luck with that.

Re:Only partial maintenance burden

[rubycodez]

no, that's true for any huge collection software works written by team who's members have changed over decades.

Re:FSF owns what?

[powerlord]

Yes but, are patch diffs from GPLv2 to GPLv3 code copyright infractions? Exercises of "Fair Use"? Something else?

Older versions ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the GPL3 does not include the "or an older version" option ?

Put it in layman's terms

[brouski]

Could someone explain in layman's terms why Novell would be barred from releasing GPLv3 licensed codeas a result of the MS deal? Is there a "Thou shalt not make deals with Microsoft" clause?

Linus' stupity is going to kill corporate Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

This will undoubtedly get censored to hades by the fanbois, but Linus's stupidity about GPL3 is really screwing over the Linux community. The Novell deal is just the second shot in this battle with Microsoft (SCO being the first).

The next shot will be when Microsoft starts making contributions to the kernel, and creating their own FSF-free Linux distro, as the only distro which is blessed by Microsoft (and interoperates with it). This is the next logical step of embrace and extend. IMHO, it's a major screw-up by Microsoft not to be doing this already; it would truly hurt RedHat and other distros in the money-making space.

At that point, Linus's idiocy over GPL2 would mean that he'd either have to be Microsoft's bitch, or cut over to GPL3. If Microsoft played their cards right, by the time the latter thought dawned on Linus, it would be too late.

If only there were a real alternative.

Re:Linus' stupity is going to kill corporate Linux

[robyannetta]

If only there were a real alternative.

OS X. If Apple would lighten up and unlock OS X for x86, the market would shift dramatically.

Re:Linus' stupity is going to kill corporate Linux

[Richard_J_N]

I agree, Linus has misunderstood GPL3. I don't think I'd call it stupidity though.
He originally made 2 arguments; as I understand, the first was a simple error of fact which he no longer pursues:

1)GPL3 makes you give up all your private keys => "Developers would never have any privacy".
This isn't true - you only have to give up a private key which you used to sign code, if the hardware will only boot that signed code. This is essentially a ban on hardware which runs open code but cannot be modified.

2)GPL3 will impose conditions on hardware manufacturers, making it less free (in a BSD-sense), and therefore less useful to them. But kernel developers shouldn't try to impose usage restrictions.
This seems a fair point - but it underestimates the vital importance of "Free as in Freedom". Stallmann hasn't yet been wrong on this, although sometimes it takes a decade for him to be proved right.

I think GPL3 is inevitable, and even the "open source" people who don't fundamentally care about politics will come to need it. Fortunately, we do have 2 alternatives, should we need them: GNU/BSD (or GNU/Darwin) and GNU/HURD. I hope it doesn't come to that, though!

Re:Linus' stupity is going to kill corporate Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm. It seems as though it's not only Linus' "idiocy" alone: it's clearly shared by a bunch of the core kernel developers. In their recent letter, they state quite clearly that, as far as they can tell, there are hardly any problems that the new license solves, and a whole raft of new ones it creates.

Bruce's optimism aside, it's completely unclear that developers of gcc or any other components that (might) move to GPLv3 are necessarily going to move along with it, either. The quite possible upshot is that FSF will wind up with a moribund GPLv3 version of whatever they've got the copyright on, while the rest of the community continues to work, quite happily, on the ongoing v2 versions.

GPL v3's "anti-Tivoisation" language would--as Linus has correctly noted--make it impossible to use a GPLv3 kernel in a wide variety of interesting contexts, such as cellphones and other devices, where (because of regulatory and other factors) it's not possible to allow the user to replace the software in situ.

The question is, which is more important: getting more open source (or "free", if you prefer) software into more places, or maintaining some sort of questionable philosophical purity with a new license that doesn't really improve on the old one?

Re:Linus' stupity is going to kill corporate Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

So who would buy the overpriced (keep the dell comparisons to yourself) Apple hardware anymore?
I personally find OSX enormously annoying to use...

Re:Linus' stupity is going to kill corporate Linux

[endeavour31]

Who would ever use OSX on a server. There are very compelling technical articles which demonstrate that OSX is not really designed for servers. I have never heard of a data center running Apple servers. There are undoubtably a few but a very tiny percentage. I like OSX on the desktop but I would not run it on the backend. What the hell would you run on it other than file/print and web server anyways? No applications for business means this is a non-event.

Re:Linus' stupity is going to kill corporate Linux

[Kjella]

1)GPL3 makes you give up all your private keys => "Developers would never have any privacy".
This isn't true - you only have to give up a private key which you used to sign code, if the hardware will only boot that signed code. This is essentially a ban on hardware which runs open code but cannot be modified.

You missed the point Linus is worried about - whose hardware? If someone produces hardware that only runs binaries signed by Linus, does he have to give up his key? If not, it's almost pointless because you could simply create Foo, Inc. and Bar, Inc. to distribute hardware and software, one signing and the other running and never give out a key.

Re:Linus' stupity is going to kill corporate Linux

[Richard_J_N]

I don't think I follow. What your postulating is that some Nasty,Inc could extort Linus' private key from him by this means? I think you're wrong on 2 counts:

i)If Bar,Inc make hardware which contains the binary, then it is Bar,Inc upon whom the obligation of key-distribution rests.
Besides which, Linus doesn't tend to sign random binaries with his key! Signing the source would never be a problem.

ii)Linus's main beef is that he doesn't think "Tivoisation" is immoral, so doesn't wish to prevent it. In his view, as long as Tivo share their own source, that's sufficient, and he doesn't want them to be obliged to produce hardware whose software anyone else can modify. I think that's a short-sighted view - I don't care about the TiVo, but I'd be really cross if we get "Trusted(*) PCs" which can only run signed binaries.

(*)Note: this depends on who signed them. I'm all in favour of signed binaries (like rpms) when it is under my control and protects against abuse, but if the BIOS prevented me from running arbitrary code when I *explicitly* want it to, that's Bad.

Re:Linus' stupity is going to kill corporate Linux

[a.d.trick]

If someone produces hardware that only runs binaries signed by Linus, does he have to give up his key

No. They are required to give up Linus' key, but they can't, because they don't own Linus' key. In short, they're screwed.

I think a proper analogy for this would be if I owned a nice piece of land by a river. It was the only peice of land by the river that was usable. I sign a contract with you to sell it to you for 6 million dollars. Then someone else offered me 7 million dollars. Being the foolish retard that I am I sell it to the second guy. Then you come back to make good on the contract. Now I owe you the land, but I don't own it. I still need to give it to you, (or something equivilant). So I can try to buy it back from the guy who gave me 7 million for it, but if he isn't willing then I'm screwed. Since there's now other land by the river that's usable we would probably end up going to court and the judge would decide what an appropriate equivilant trade plus some punitary damages for me being such a retard.

That's how things work out at the moment, I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure how it would transfer over to a GPL3 case, but my guess is that the people who produce the offending software would be required to give all their users equivilant hardware without those code-signing restrictions (or buy Linus' private key, which would be slightly expensive).

Re:Linus' stupity is going to kill corporate Linux

[hritcu]

Fortunately, we do have 2 alternatives, should we need them: GNU/BSD (or GNU/Darwin) and GNU/HURD. I hope it doesn't come to that, though!

I think we will need these options, and this is not because Linus and the Linux kernel developers don't want to move to GPL v3. It's because even if they wanted they cannot. Linux was released right from the start under GPL v2 only, and I personally don't think it would be possible now to track all persons who ever contributed and ask for their legal permission to change the license.

So the switch to an alternative kernel is not just a theoretical possibility, it's something most of us are going to have to go through after FSF moves GNU to GPL v3. However, the kernel alternatives seem mature enough. And if Sun (re)releases Solaris under under the GPL v3 (which I think will happen right after v3 is released, since Sun would be total idiots not to do this), then there will be a third major alternative: GNU/Solaris.

Will this hurt Linux (the kernel)? Sure it will. However, for the FSF people this would be great news, since this will make them right all these years when saying: "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels".

Will this fragment the community?
Not more than it's already fragmented.

More important, will this hurt the users?
Maybe I'm wrong, but having more kernels to chose from will benefit the GNU/Linux users, to the extent one considers having more choice as being something good. Sure, the process of choosing will be a little harder, but every distribution will have its preferred kernel so it will still be just a matter of choosing a distribution. Also, at the same time I expect such a move to benefit Mac, BSD or Solaris users since there will be more developers interested in working on their kernels.

What I'm curious about, is not whether this switch will occur (I'm pretty confident it will), but which will be the kernel officially endorsed by the FSF (if there will be such a thing), and which kernel will be the one that will gather the largest user community.

Re:Linus' stupity is going to kill corporate Linux

[Richard_J_N]

I think that moving the kernel to GPL3 is actually practical.
  a)Most contributors can be tracked (we already know where code came from, thanks to SCO)
  b)Those that can't be found will probably still hear about the relicensing, and get in touch. I expect most
        of the small contributors to be willing to go along with the change.
  c)For a very small number, code could be re-written.

Re:Linus' stupity is going to kill corporate Linux

[hritcu]

a) Sure, many contributions can be tracked. The question is: can the origin of every single line of code be tracked? And even if the best effort is made, will there ever be any guarantee that the code is not tainted by one line which is under GPL v2.
b) You assume that all contributors will also want the change, which is not the case now. Linus has pronounced himself clearly and repeatedly against it. Also there are contributors from companies which will dislike v3 (Novel?), so it's quite unlikely it is going to be easy (if possible at all) to convince all important Linux contributors to make the switch.
c) Maybe I'm wrong, but if things are like I presented them above the change to GPL v3 would be a huge effort (if possible at all) and would necessitate a lot if things to be rewritten in the clean room. This is why looking for alternatives which won't have this license problem is so important.

microsoft has just done that already!

[krayfx]

i think novell missed the bus already! microsoft has in effect done precisely what they intended. drive a wedge find a weak link. greedy corporations/ half baked manager/ mgt teams are the precise target. they know it the game very well, novell played by their game, bought the tripe and is now stuck. if what perens has to say is true - staying with old software is too much of a hassle to handle, and the open source community will not touch the 'pariah' code. this in itself a major victory. duplication of efforts by novell and the mess would be grain in the gears.

open source is forging ahead in a lot of things. novell has 2 of the brigtest and hardworking team in them (suse and ximian), what better way to scuttle the open source army's healthy progress! imagine if kde 4 was already out in time for vista (no, they aren't in the same market). things would have looked good for a lot of enterprises to go for solid products like novell desktop with say all the gloss of kde 4. i don't know how this war is heading/ shaping, and also what microsoft's plans are - but one thing's for sure - they have won the battle number one. they've split the community. it upto us in the community to close the ranks, regroup and look for the best possible solution, i wouldnt want novell to go down and taking suse and ximian along with them!

Re:microsoft has just done that already!

[fho6]

Yep, MS are probably laughing right now.

Divide and conquer. Confuse and attack. Assimilate.

Delay the progress of Linux (and opensource) adoption and development. MS wants to sell servers. They could come up with free (linux) desktops that is friendly to their servers and file formats and development platform.

Re:microsoft has just done that already!

[krayfx]

> Divide and conquer. Confuse and attack. Assimilate.

yup, you were right, they just did that. Mr. Shuttleworth has fired the first salvo. they're already squabbling, while mark clearly mentioned about his post isn't meant to divide the community, he did the opposite. sad.

Re:Perens is a lame-ass mobster --and communist.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past ~100 years virtually every plank of the 1920s American Communist party has become law. Thanks a lot, fucker.

Re:FSF owns what?

[Directrix1]

These patch diffs would still result in the same body of work being constructed and compiled as the GPLv3 code, and therefore relicensing would not be legal since it would be a copyright violation.

SUSE == Mandrake?

[alucinor]

Mandrake was another distro that lost touch with its community (not to mention its original developers). Reminds me of another distro! I wonder if their fates will be similar.

This isn't a troll now, mind you ... just a concern. SUSE's a great distro technically, but it seems that the Linux OSS community is gravitating more and more around Fedora (+ Red Hat & CentOS) and Debian (+ Ubuntu) distros these days ....

abandoned property?

[zogger]

How does that work in the software world? In meatspace there are certain set rules, such as posting notices in the official newspapers, etc. before something that has been abandoned can be auctioned or used or kept.

Re:abandoned property?

[ZachPruckowski]

The copyright will be owned by their estate, or pass to their children. The code is still under copyright for about 100 years after their death. The main problem is that you have to hunt down the dead coder's will, figure out who then has control of his copyrights, and then try to explain it to a person who may well know nothing about programming, and convince them to sign the form or whatever.

Then you have to re-implement all the code that you can't get relicensed, either because you can't track down the original owner, or you can't get them to agree to the change. That's going to be a lot of code, and may introduce a fair few bugs.

All of that skips the really hard part: Figure out who owns what code. For a given module, let's say that A writes the first version, B updates it, and then C fixes a bug. You need A's permission to relicense the module at all, and you need B and C's permission if you don't want to start with the older version. If you get C's permission, but not B's, you're out of luck. And I'm sure that any given kernel module has 5 or more contributors.

software patents vs Free Software

[iamstan]

It's not anti Microsoft. It is the oxymoronic concept of software patents.

Software Libre and software patents do not mix. The 4 freedoms of the gplv2 implied this, gplv3 will make it explicit.

Re:There are certain aspects of this story that ..

[bs7rphb]

Well, yes.

Stallman saw this coming!!!

[Colin Smith]

Perhaps he's the second coming of The Messiah!

...Or the first if you're jewish...

Oh come on, IT'S FUNNY!

 

Re:grow up you idiods, /. is hurting linux.

[Anonymous Coward]

O RLY?

No Vell Is Left Behind?

[mysticgoat]

Pardon my ignorance, but I'm a recent grad-ewe-et of the American school system so I don't know any better. I mean, I know what it's like to be in a "no child left behind" school system: it means that all of us were better than average when we grad-ewe-etted. My math teacher explained this to us in a really neat way in between his lectures on Intelligent Design: he drew something he called the Gaussian Distribution on a sheet of clear plastic, then folded it in the middle so it had two right hand tails and nothing on the left side of the midpoint. Neat, huh? Isn't topological statistics wunnerfull?

So anyway, here is my question:

Who is a Vell, and why shouldn't some of them be left behind?

Wakey, Wakey

[sjvn]

Who cares about the GPL3? In case you've forgotten Linus doesn't want the GPL3 and neither do the rest of the serious kernel developers.

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9955615279.html

If only a handful of developers move to the GPL3, and that looks to be the case, it's the GPL3 that won't matter. Yes, some of their code, most noticeably gcc, will be GPL3. But again, so what? It's also under the GPL2, Linus and other practical open-source developers will keep using the old version and fork their own.

Perens et. al seem to have forgotten that you can't stop Novell, or anyone else, from using GPL2 code.

Steven

Re:Wakey, Wakey

[NoOneInParticular]

glibc is FSF copyright, and *will* move to GPL3. Without glibc, linux is a kernel without userland tools. So although linux-the-kernel might stay GPL2, linux-the-operating-system will be GPL2+3.

Re:Wakey, Wakey

[paskie]

glibc will move to GPL3, but will the Red Hat glibc developers (which do practically all the development nowadays) move to GPL3 as well? (I'm not saying either - Red Hat might or might not go for GPL3, both cases for valid reasons. It's just that people are handwaving about FSF but it's the developers who matter, and whether they will follow the lead. And like it or not, the core GNU tools are mostly developed by corporate-sponsored developers nowadays.)

Re:Wakey, Wakey

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a lot of us will be using HURD kernels sooner than expected.

that's the best tag I've seen all day

[somersault]

made me laugh out loud after reading the story.. was like "hmm", then saw the tag :D

It's FUD, but I can understand Novell signing

[msobkow]

MicroSoft cannot use Xenix as a defense, as that was among the IP that became SCO. (I helped do remote driver debugging for the initial Xenix/386 releases on one of the first IBM PS/2 model 80's. :) )

Novell got cash. Needed cash.

Perens claim that Novell will be stuck maintaining old code makes no sense. Why would Novell have an issue and RedHat not? Indemnification deals are customer insurance at most, and do not affect the actual IP ownership.

If it turned out that MicroSoft had a valid patent violation to defend/attack Linux, Novell still would not own the rights to the software in question. Any component under a GPL variant that proves to have IP issues is yanked from all distros. Even though Novell and their customers would be protected against a lawsuit, they would no longer have a license to the source module in question under the GPL variants. As they didn't write or own the original software, they still wouldn't be able to continue distribution.

Re:It's FUD, but I can understand Novell signing

[Darth]

You misunderstand Perens' point.

He is saying that the GPL v3 will explicitly disallow the kind of contractual arrangement Novell used to end-run around the GPL v2. When v3 comes out, Novell will have to either abandon the contract, or they will not be able to use code licensed under v3.

Since all of the FSF foundations tools will move to v3, and most of the toolchain for linux is owned by the FSF, Novell will be left behind with old versions of a lot of the software in their distribution. They will have to fork the code base at the point the license changes and maintain v2 implementations of those tools themselves. That will be a lot of work and the Novell versions of the tools will probably end up divergent from the FSF versions of those tools.

This will make SuSE less interoperable with other open source software and less attractive as a platform on which to build your infrastructure.

Re:It's FUD, but I can understand Novell signing

[msobkow]

You're right. I don't understand Perens' point at all.

The indemnification contract between Microsoft and Novell does not alter any GPLv2 software. It does not change the ownership of the software. It does not determine whether or not the distro software has any IP violations that would lead to it being yanked from GPL status.

Quite frankly, it does nothing useful that I can see for or against Linux. But it may affect some proprietary components of SuSE, or allow Novell to implement proprietary software for Linux that interoperates better with Vista than OSS will be able to (e.g. access to use proprietary protocols, or reimplement some software stacks.)

Re:It's FUD, but I can understand Novell signing

[Darth]

You're right. I don't understand Perens' point at all.

I dont think we're talking about the same point from Perens. I was referring to why he says they might have to maintain gpl v2 forks on their own and why that would become a problem.

The indemnification contract between Microsoft and Novell does not alter any GPLv2 software. It does not change the ownership of the software. It does not determine whether or not the distro software has any IP violations that would lead to it being yanked from GPL status.

Perens' point is that the agreement goes against the intention of the gpl. If the gpl v2 doesn't restrict it, that is a shortcoming in that version of the license. The GPL v3 will explicitly forbid it. He doesn't say anything about the status of any gpl software being affected. He talks about the status of Novell's distribution being affected by the future license requirements for some of that software.

Quite frankly, it does nothing useful that I can see for or against Linux. But it may affect some proprietary components of SuSE, or allow Novell to implement proprietary software for Linux that interoperates better with Vista than OSS will be able to (e.g. access to use proprietary protocols, or reimplement some software stacks.)

Well, it creates confusion and an opportunity for Ballmer to claim there are patent infringements in Linux. It also creates an environment of mistrust between the community and Novell. Any contributions from Novell employees now need to be examined for possible patent issues. (not necessarily because Novell is trying to undermine linux, but because there is no guarantee that they will vett the code they are releasing since it is no longer a significant legal concern for them)

It could also possibly create some uncertainty around samba. Since samba team members work for Novell, if they do not carefully document the reverse engineering they do, this agreement could be used by microsoft to make an "unclean hands" assertion against samba in an attempt to limit other distributions' ability to interoperate with windows.

To me, the whole deal seems to be an attempt by microsoft to use Novell to marginalize the rest of the linux distributions. The logical conclusion of that avenue (based on microsoft's prior actions) is that once that is achieved, they will turn on novell and attempt to crush them as well. I think this is just a long term strategy on their part to remove a competitor in the server market that they have found themselves unable to displace fairly.

Re:It's FUD, but I can understand Novell signing

[msobkow]

People need to read their licenses in detail. Even under GPLv2, the license expressly and explicitly states that if there is an IP conflict, the software in question may not be distributed or used under the GPL. You must use another license. Only the owner/author can relicense the source code accordingly, unless the IP violation can be corrected by rewriting segments of the code in question.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=208292&cid=169 83934

progress

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is a hard nut to crack.

You'll notice what they said -- "we believe" that Linux violates...

instead of

"we intend to prove" that Linux violates.

"we believe" does not violate gplv2, and, coming from Microsoft could be seen as a friendly gesture -- remember, it's Microsoft we're talking about here (root of all evil, etc...)

"we intend to prove" would probably violate gplv2 section 7, certainly if they backed it up with some kind of action, in light of the fact that patent agreement the both of them signed.

Microsoft can believe whatever it wants - it has every right to freedom of mind, and freedom of speech. If, however, it decides to try to prove (not just says so, but actually does something towards that end) that there are actual patent violations in GPL software, then the deal that Novell has signed with them would probably be in violation of section 7 of the GPL.

Overall, I think that this is a form of progress with Microsoft on the Linux front. MS still has a lot to learn when it comes to Linux, and its modus operandi is fundamentally incompatible with volunteer projects and sharing code, as fundamentally incompatible as large offices for Wal-Mart executives -- "Sam wouldn't have wanted it that way"... remeber that Bill Gates, when he started doing what he did, was frustrated with everyone sharing each other's code, and he wanted to monetize it.

It's not so much the laws that are the problem, it's the very corporate culture of Microsoft - it's the very impetus that drove Bill Gates to start the company - he was sick of a bunch of hackers putzing around sharing code instead of taking it big. At least that's how I understand it. So for MS to say "we believe" instead of "we intend to prove" is a ground-breaker, a collosal shift.

Bruce Perens has a petition to send to Novell

[bl8n8r]

Much of TFA seems to be written from the petition, or vice-versa. It addresses the issues of alienating the FOSS community the way that Novell is planning on doing, and how much of the codebase Novell relies on, will be unavailable to them should GPL3 be rolled out soon.

http://techp.org/petition/show/1

SCO?

[njhunter]

Is there no connection between the patents that Novell hold over Unix and Microsoft?

Re:NovWinLux...Since When...?

[Nom du Keyboard]

"bonus cd" that contains a propietary software that makes its Linux boxes "just work" with windows systems?

Since when has Microsoft developed and sold anything that "Just Works"? Now if we were talking about Apple...

Re:grow up you idiods, /. is hurting linux.

[fho6]

If Windows compatibility is such a big issue then just recommend/stay with Windows end to end.

But I bet you want Linux so you can cut your own or your customers costs. But if in the end you have an MS-approved linux distro, you'll end up paying something, somewhere along the line, guaranteed.

MS could always have helped compatibility and interoperability for free if they wanted. But true to their business nature, they have to get something out of a deal like this.

And rightly so - they do have share holders to answer to.

So, don't get your hopes up.

I don't get it...

[Kjella]

...how will the GPLv3 solve anything? Novell has from what I've understood not recieved any patent license. If they had, the GPLv2s distribution clause would require they pass it on or refrain from distributing at all. So what specificly about the GPLv3 would prevent them? Nothing I saw.

It's all about executive compensation

[walterbyrd]

Novell is basically Ximian now. Top execs at novl just want $$, they don't give a crap about the company.

You can be sure that a lot of msft $$ will find it's way into the pockets of top novl execs. That is all the execs care about, the execs are not on some idealistic crusade.

A very delicate and sensitive issue

[stock]

I got a permban on my local #linux irc channel for commenting about the Novell/SuSE deal
and the remarks from the Samba Developers :

http://wiki.linux-irc.net/wiki/Stock_Speaks

Here's how i got kicked :

http://crashrecovery.org/irc-bulle.html

Robert

Re:A very delicate and sensitive issue

[Anonymous Coward]

You flodded a channel with links and irritated the op when he asked you to stop.

Yeah you definitely got banned because of SuSE *rolls eyes*

Re:A very delicate and sensitive issue

[stock]

I didn't make this up. You can try to /join that channel, if you want
to find out. They have a policy that politics oriented URL's are not
allowed on the channel. Recently it also includes URL's which report on
politics concerning the issue of Open Source and Linux.

It's a choice by the operators, fair enough, but if this is becoming a
trend inside the Linux community, i predict that Linux won't make be
making great inroads. Opponents of Open Source and Linux adoption in
businesses and institutions seem to have slipped down to the policy of
"dirty politics", as that's all they seem to have left which works from
their current position.

You can call me a Troll for stating it like this, but facts seem not to
contradict this view.

Robert

Fun times in Redmond on Monday

[rancher dan 3]

There's going to be so much furniture flying around Ballmer's office next week that the help is going to think there's a poltergeist... or that he's possessed.

Hey, now there's an explanation for Microsoft's behavior: the Devil made them do it.

Any word from Linus on GPL3 now?

[debest]

Does anyone know if Linus has commented on the whole GPL3 issue since the Novell-MS deal was announced? He has been opposed to the GPL3 in the past. Is the current climate going to change his mind?

Re:Any word from Linus on GPL3 now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bruce Perens is indicating that the Linux kernel will go GPL3. I don't know what he bases these claims on.

Re:FSF owns what?

[bcrowell]

All the GNU tools bash, cp, mv, rm, etc have copyrights owned by the FSF.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't it irrelevant to Novell whether bash is relicensed under GPL3? Bash isn't a library, and Novell isn't linking to it. Likewise, somebody pointed out, in another reply, that glibc's copyright is owned by the FSF, but glibc's license is LGPL, so again, I don't see why this would matter to Novell.

Re:FSF owns what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It just ins't GPL.

Not yet.

Re:FSF owns what?

[Darth]

If the GPL v3 explicitly disallows the kind of contractual arrangement MS and Novell have made, Novell cannot distribute GPL v3 software while the arrangement stands. Novell can continue to ship those tools in their GPL v2 incarnations, but the lack of improvements to that version will quickly make them divergent and damage interoperability between SuSE and the rest of the open source world. They can fork them and maintain their own branch of GPL v2 code, but the resource requirements to maintain and improve the quantity of tools that will be migrated to GPL v3 will probably make that financially untenable.

Re:FSF owns what?

[metamatic]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't it irrelevant to Novell whether bash is relicensed under GPL3? Bash isn't a library, and Novell isn't linking to it.

No, but they want to distribute it. And to distribute versions released next year, they must agree to the GPL v3. Which they can't do because of the Microsoft agreement.

So, they either have to maintain their own Novell bash shell, or remove bash from their Linux distribution. Either way, compatibility issues may ensue.

Grow up..

[PermanentMarker]

So finnaly a linux version gets support.
What does the linux community say..
Help "it goes to the big companies" and it wouldn't evolve anymore.
(btw look how fast MS has evolved in this way).

I think linux people should make a choice, unix has had a verry long historie of versions even before linux. Would it like to go in that way or would it rather build on something get support from companies like Novell. You can say no i want to be free. But then think of you as an administrator running 300 machines with linux. You are responsable for them, now for some reason you have problem, then what are you going to do ????

At home you would probaply post it in a forum, and with luck get a great answer.
But your not at home your at work, 300 desktops have a problem, would you be able to debug it, could you rewrite the code, or would you rather call your vendor. The vendor with who you made a contract deal for support.

In some respect MS is a bit more grown up.
And this could be the time to realize that linux needs to grow up too, in this way.
And dont think "wel i have linux mail relay which routes all my (MS Exchange) Email to the outside world (as you think Linux is so safe). As I know such custommers, but non was able to reconfigure their sendmail when their design required changes. Even when i talked to their Email experts. They couldn't do it. Think of it with 300 desks behind it.....
So when you go deep you better have a good knowledge of it all, or if you dont have it get contracts with a support company who can help you. Novell might become just that for this linux build.

Okay perhaps it wouldn't evolve that fast (in the beginning) but look how fast MS evolved.
Perhaps not that free either, but the hired men who needs to configure your environment isn't working for free either. Neither is the time you spend late night to post problems in blogs it does cost other people's time.

But these days people complain when they buy some software why is it 350 euro (5 licenses for an antivirus product) While they like to buy an expensive company car. This man was explaining that it was so expansive for him as a small office company. But he forgot the car was only to drive to a custommer sometimes, while he used his other software all the times.

This 350 euro is nothing compared to the price of a car
350 euro is nothing compared to hiring an IT expert for one day (but they need to live)
350 euro devided trough the hours it is used is almost nothing.

Novell could still use GPLv3 software

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain to me how Novell would be barred from using GPLv3 software? The aggregation clause is still there, and isn't likely to change:

A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.

The only thing Novell could not do, as I understand it, is to distribute modifications based on patented material and not provide a patent license.

Even in the worst case, you get Novell's apps containing MS code and requiring patent licenses bundled with the kernel in a "mini-distro". Then a legally separate company "Novell Distribution, Inc." aggregates the restricted Novell software with GPLv3 code, all under the respective license of each piece, to make a full enterprise-grade distro. And the main Novell can still sell support contracts for the whole.

IANAL, so what am I missing here?

glibc is LGPL

[everphilski]

... so the rules don't apply ... it is not viral. Unless they change it, which **will** cause an uproar in the community.

Wouldn't be total abandonment

[everphilski]

$210M for a name brand and a customer base is cheap (which is really what Novell was purchasing. If all they wanted was a distro, they would have just made a derivative off of RH or someone else). Replacing some gnu tools with BSD would not be a big deal in the shareholders eyes, I don't think. The core kernel, linux, isn't changing along with most major packages... Honestly I like the fact they are shaking things up.

Re:Wouldn't be total abandonment

[Darth]

well, the number of tools held by the FSF itself isnt trivial and will definitely be moving to the new license. They could migrate away from gcc and glibc, or just stick with the gpl v2 versions, but over time it will become a bigger and bigger problem. Even projects that don't migrate to gpl v3 will most likely be built with gcc and glibc and as those tools continue to develop, it will be necessary for Novell to back port those changes into a v2 codebase to keep their other tools from breaking (or maintain a compatible compiler and library, or maintain branches of those projects modified to be built against a different compiler and library).

That might be more trouble than it is worth.

Re:Wouldn't be total abandonment

[Jason Earl]

The question quickly becomes how happy do you think Novell's customers are going to become if Novell drops all of SuSE's engineering on the GNU tools and switches to BSD ones that are mostly compatible but not 100% compatible. SuSE has a hard enough time convincing customers that Red Hat isn't the de-facto standard. Now imagine how much more difficult life would be for these poor fools with a distribution that is radically different from every other Linux distribution.

Even if Novell's customers aren't upset at Novell for how this deal will effect the Free Software community, they are going to be upset when they find out that their applications don't run, and that they have a completely new userspace to deal with.

Not to mention that some critical projects that aren't part of the FSF (like Samba) are also very upset. How useful is Novell's Linux likely to be if it gets stuck maintaining its own version of Samba? Sure the kernel guys aren't switching to the new version of the GPL, but they can't be happy about how this has turned out. Eventually they are going to have to ask the same question that everyone else is asking. Can we accept contributions from Novell?

Novell has pulled yet another typical bonehead Novell move. It was really only a matter of time before it happened.

What happens if everyone abandons Novell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone abandons Novell. Novell goes bankrupt. Auditors sell Novell's assets - its IP - to the highest bidder. That bidder then owns copyrights to UNIX. The SCO lawsuit looks like a picnic compared to what might happen if a company with a more money than morals decide to buy them.

What "patent encumbered code"?

[argent]

Nobody would be able to use or distribute the MS patent encumbered code...

What "patent encumbered code"?

A "do not sue" patent license doesn't change whether the licensed software is "patent-encumbered" or not. Whether Microsoft's alleged (and unspecified) patents are valid or not is irrelevant - Novell hasn't conceded anything, they've just bought a "get out of FUD" card.

Re:What "patent encumbered code"?

[nuggz]

Get out of FUD card.
That's one way to put it, but nobody has been able to explain how that get out of FUD card violates the GPL.

Parent post is right!

[LinuxDon]

This is the most sensible thing I've heard about the entire issue. Novell has a lot of proprietary software, Zenworks and Groupwise for example, which are direct Microsoft competitors. Having a patent agreement on these products seems like a very helpful thing.

The following seems to be the case:
- Novell is just trying to do business.
- Microsoft is still after discrediting Linux.
- FSF is trying to push GPLv3 at all costs.

Accidental inclusion is more of a problem

[zrq]

.... unless there's some real reason to believe that Novell is going to deliberately put patent-infringing code in Linux.

It isn't necessarily deliberate addition that we would be worried about.

If Novell developers are going to be working with Microsoft developers as part of the move towards better interoperability - which is a good thing - then they are likely to pick up ideas and techniques from each other.
If Novell as a company know that their customers are protected, then they might not put as much effort into verifying that they aren't injecting ideas or techniques picked up from the Microsoft developers.

Roll forward a couple of years, and a Novell developer picks up a nifty new technique while she was part of the Novell-Microsoft interop team.
She changes her job within the company, and joins Novell's OpenOffice team.
Not only does she have to remember where she got the idea from (do not think about a rhinoceros), but she also has to remember not to use it when working on the OpenOffice code (remember - do not think about a rhinoceros).
If the idea is in your head and it solves the problem in front of you, then you will just use it (still not thinking about a rhinoceros ?).

Roll forward another year or two, and lots of other developers have picked up on the neat trick that they found in the OpenOffice code.
Presto, up pop Microsoft and declares that they own patents on a technique that is used in a good percentage of the Linux GUI applications. The technique in question is non-obvious and someone who hadn't seen the original code would be unlikely to have thought of it.

Ok, the individual projects could refactor their code, and try to solve the problem without using the patented technique (remember, don't think about a rhinoceros) . But in the interim, many of the large Linux distributions have to pull the applications from their releases, setting Linux on the desktop back a couple of years.

Re:Accidental inclusion is more of a problem

[ClosedSource]

I think that if interoperability between Linux and Windows fundamentally violates a MS patent, then there might be a problem, but I think it unlikely that either the MS team or the Novell team will have a lot of knowledge of specific patents as they do their work. So I think the danger would be about the same whether the work was done by Novell with MS's help or done by a third party working independently.

What about pulling a trick on MS?

[LinuxDon]

Isn't it possible to pull a trick on MS?
Say someone willingly writes code to violate a MS patent.
The coder then transfers the copyright to Novell.

Novell then contributes the code under their copyright to an OSS project.

Isn't Novell then entirely responsible for the offending code?
And since MS can't sue Novell, users of the OSS software are safe a long as Novell denies it violates MS patents.
Since MS can't sue Novell, they can't prove it in court.

Anyone who can shed a legal light on this?

Re:What about pulling a trick on MS?

[ClosedSource]

Neither copyright law nor the GPL can trump patent law. If, for example, Red Hat were to produce a version of Red Hat Linux that contained offending code they would be in violation of the patent. It doesn't matter who wrote the code or who held the copyright, it's still a violation and Red Hat could be sued ( as well as its users).

Blah, blah, blah

[petrus4]

"While Linux creator Linus Torvalds has previously stated that the Linux kernel will remain on the GPL v2 license, much of the code that makes up a complete Linux distribution is owned by the FSF..."

Translation:- "Novell, you haven't done what we want you to do. Therefore I'm going to try and scare you into getting back with the program. Fear is something which our friends in the FSF deal in rather a lot these days; our own fear of the dreaded bogeyman DRM, as well as the fear we try and instill in other people of the bad things that could happen if they don't do exactly as we say."

Go and crawl back under your rock, Bruce. Aside from anything else, there are at least 3 libc projects alone that I know of which either aren't under the GPL, or are, but aren't part of the GNU project and hence are not necessarily migrating to GPL v3. Novell can and I suspect will replace as much of their system as they need to; and I would recommend they do it as soon as possible, so that they no longer have to endure radical egomaniacs like you who somehow think that anybody who uses Linux is answerable to you by default. Another thing...fearmongering and making veiled, euphemistic threats really doesn't make you look good, in case you were wondering...that's the sort of behaviour I'd expect Steve Ballmer to engage in. Once again, with the FSF and the Debian Project's mujahideen, we see more evidence that the so-called cure is just as bad as the disease (Microsoft) itself, if not actually worse.

It's time for Linux to fork, IMHO...past time, in fact. Let Perens, Stallman, Kuhn, and all the other hard leftist whackjobs fork it and go and work on their own system. Meanwhile sane, mainstream society can retain the primary tree...as well as hopefully beginning work to replace the GNU project's applications as quickly as possible. Once that's done, FSF apologists will have no basis to continue screeching about how much we owe Stallman and how we have no right whatsoever to use Linux unless bow down and worship him and obey his (and his followers') every deranged decree. I've been accused in a recent post on here of having major problems with FOSS itself...I don't have problems with the software at all...I just really badly want and need to see some of the freaks get thrown over the side.

So, FSF...if you don't like what the rest of the world are doing, there's an easier alternative than trying to ram your own retrograde viewpoints down everyone else's throat, which IMHO would work a lot better for everyone. Fork off.

That way, those of us who want to can use Linux while at the same time being blissfully able to forget that you exist.

Re:Blah, blah, blah

[xiaomai]

So, FSF...if you don't like what the rest of the world are doing, there's an easier alternative than trying to ram your own retrograde viewpoints down everyone else's throat, which IMHO would work a lot better for everyone. Fork off.

are you retarded? projects don't fork software that they wrote themselves. it would be the rest of the community forking from the FSF

Good News for the HURD?

[adavies42]

Maybe this is good for the HURD--if Linus insists on sticking with GPLv2, and GPLv2 is found to permit this kind of thing, that might be incentive to people to finish up the HURD and get a pure GPLv3 kernel out there.

Re:FSF owns what?

[zsau]

GNOME is the GNU Network Object Model Environment, and as I understand it the desktop for the GNU project. Is GNOME also owned by the FSF/GNU, or just developed in conjunction with it?

who cares?

[oohshiny]

Look at it this way: Microsoft paid Novell $240m and gave them a license to their patents. Novell didn't even admit patent infringement, but even if they did, so what? If someone gives me $240m and a license, I'll take the deal--there is no downside.

The Microsoft-Novell deal is meaningless except as a PR stunt. And even at that, it looks like it's backfiring.

The only problem with the deal is that people like you keep spreading FUD based on it, positing risks and possibilities that are completely unrealistic. I don't know whether you actually work for Microsoft, but you might as well.

thank you, Microsoft

[oohshiny]

I think the FSF could not have wished for a better means by which to illustrate the importance of GPLv3. Prior to this, free software developers, even those who have been using the GPL in the past, have been somewhat undecided about GPLv3. I think the Microsoft-Novell deal makes it pretty clear that the GPLv2 has loopholes that need to be addressed.

Sun for teh win

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch sun dump solaris into GPL3 land. *That* would be interesting

The Patching is Done

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ironically, the eventual evolution of the Linux kernel will probably render these releases unusable which will mean at some point Novell will have to stick with an old edition of Linux or make the upgrades and patches itself to the rest of the software."

You mean like distros do NOW?

Fake ads..

[elihu252]

looks like redhat is having a little bit of fun with the situation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzbqpbY6gfU/

Parent post is right!-Ahmen

[Anonymous Coward]

Next up on Fox "When agendas collide." Sounds so very...human! BTW there's nothing stopping SuSE from building a free distro on BSD like what Apple did, and the differences wouldn't be apparent to most people.

Redat fake ads??

[elihu252]

looks like redhat is having a little bit of fun with the situation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzbqpbY6gfU

Re:Redat fake ads??

[elihu252]

sorry for double post

so...the FSF wants to emulate Microsoft...hmmmm

[tiqui]

So, after all the talk about "open" and "freedom", the FSF plans to shift all the code to GPLV3 and force all Linux users and vendors to accept the new license. Why does this sound like the way Microsoft keeps expanding the reach and complexity of their shrink-wrap licenses and forces users to accept the new licenses of get left behind? The good folks at the FSF are going to love Linux to death. The GPL already prevents Linux from getting any real commercial apps, now it will constrict matters even more. Linux can never get significant market share on the desktop if its licenses prevent average users from simply being able to use media they can use on Windows and that's already impossible for some codecs on Linux with the current license. It's a funny thing about political revolutionaries that they often seek so much purity that, in the end, they kill-off their friends and allies and are themselves eventually killed. Too bad to see software revolutionaries on the same path.

Takover Maybe ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Something seems pretty obvious and hasn't been mentioned yet. Microsoft is getting a lot of pushback from its customers that are using Windows and Linux in a mixed environment and dealing with lots of ugly issues. The customer wants interoperability and if forced to choose one or the other, Linux is maturing to the point that some might be able to live without MS. Maybe a few CIOs let slip that comment.

Maybe MS figured that they had to work with somebody. Since Novell has a lot of propietary software and long history of making interoperability software, they are a good candidate. By attempting to make one distro more attractive from a corporate perspective, they can try to steer customers toward one juicy takeover target after it has ripened.