Slashdot Mirror
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."
(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...
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
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.
My work here is dung.
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.
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.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
But it said the length of his penis has tripled in the last six months!
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).
20th century Marxism is not progress...
Of course it does. FSF owns the copyright on the essential GNU software (coreutils, compiler, etc).
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.
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
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.
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.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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!
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 !
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.
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.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
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.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
KDE is more functional than Gnome by default.
"Has more functions" != "is more functional". Not for all classes of users.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
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.
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.
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
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.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
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.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
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.
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.
Regards, Vincent
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.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre