OpenSUSE Opens Up to Questions About the Microsoft Deal

NewsForge is reporting on the recent IRC meeting that the OpenSUSE team held to answer a few questions about the controversial deal between Novell and Microsoft. The most prominent questions are highlighted and the complete IRC log is available from the article while the questions that didn't make the discussion will be posted on the OpenSUSE wiki.

Comments

What is this?

[khasim]

Nov 27 11:20:23 Novell claims to have not acknowledged any patent infringements
Nov 27 11:20:23 by Linux. But Novell is now paying a tax to Microsoft on the
Nov 27 11:20:23 Linux distributions it ships. What, exactly, is Novell paying
Nov 27 11:20:23 for?

Nov 27 11:21:05 We're paying for the promise that Microsoft made to our customers not to sue them

Nov 27 11:21:43 Not to sue them for *what*? For problems you don't acknowledge exist?

Nov 27 11:21:57 Well, we put together an agreement with MS to make Linux and Windows work better together
Nov 27 11:22:05 Now, as everyone knows, MS has spent the last 10 years saying negative things about Linux
Nov 27 11:22:11 including implying that there are IP issues in Linux
Nov 27 11:22:30 It didn't make sense for us to do a partnersihp with MS on interoperability issues and still have this patent cloud hanging around for our customers
Nov 27 11:22:39 and so MS asked us to put together a patent agreement as well.
Nov 27 11:23:00 And so, we promise MS's customers that we won't sue them and they promise the same thing to our customres
Nov 27 11:23:08 They pay us for our promise and we pay them for their promise
Nov 27 11:23:24 It doesn't matter if the allegations from MSFT are true or not

Microsoft asked Novell to "put together a patent agreement" so Novell could market that protection to their customers ... at a cost of $40 million from Novell.

Does Novell often pay millions of dollars for "protection" for its customers when it does not believe that the threat has any substance?

Microsoft is the one making the threats.
Novell is paying Microsoft to NOT follow through on threats that Microsoft has yet to substantiate.
Not to mention the patent battle that could erupt should Microsoft ever file a patent claim against anyone using Linux.

WTF?

Re:What is this?

[134697]

Exact thing I was looking at.

What's this about Microsoft paying for protection??

Re:What is this?

[mordors9]

Using language like this, it makes it sound like a RICO case should be launched.

Re:What is this?

[G Money]

The balance of payments are by far in Novell's favor from what I've seen. I don't remember the exact numbers but Microsoft is paying far more than Novell is paying them for the patent agreement. It isn't costing Novell anything to add the patent agreement, in fact, they're making a lot of money from Microsoft by doing it. It still seems like a weird deal but Microsoft is the one paying Novell not the other way around.

Re:What is this?

[Bronster]

Protection money not to indulge in a SCO style SLAPP is what it smells like. "Nice server... pity if it should get turned off by an injunction for 3 years while we hit you with a bunch of non-specific claims about it"...

Re:What is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nov 27 11:18:07 I think it's a big step that MS is going out there and saying "we're not going to sue individuals"
Nov 27 11:18:11 and they're saying this in a legally binding way
Nov 27 11:18:15 * mchroust (n=chatzill@p57A30C0F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #opensuse-project
Nov 27 11:18:19 some people have said "MS was never going to sue individuals"
Nov 27 11:18:22 but just look at the RIAA in the US
Nov 27 11:18:30 which is suing 15 year olds and 95 year old grandmas on a regular basis these days
Nov 27 11:18:39 So we're glad MS started from that sentiment

In addition, what exactly is the correlation between the the RIAA's idiocy and Microsoft's threats? There is a world of difference between distributing copies of someone elses copyrighted work and distrubuting copies OF YOUR OWN WORK!

I'm still not sure what to think of this Novell/Microsoft deal, but each time Novell representatives open their mouths they seem to add more ammo to the "stinks" conclusion.

burnin

Re:What is this?

[Quantam]

Novell is paying for their customers' peace of mind. Regardless of what Novell says (or what may be true), MS says that Linux violates MS' IP, implying that MS might sue Linux coders and/or users. That makes Novell's users nervous. They want guarantees that either MS' claims are false, or MS will not sue them, even if they are true. This contract provides that guarantee.

While that does vaguely resemble mafia "protection" payments (though not as closely as many Slashdotters seem to believe), I really don't see why people are having such a hard time wrapping their heads around the reason for this deal.

This is also reminiscent of what was going on in the US during the cold war - everyone building bomb shelters, stockpiling food, etc. The reality was that none of this would have been able to keep anybody alive, had nuclear war broken out. But the fact that people thought it would put their minds at ease, and that made all the difference in the cold war.

Re:What is this?

[ForumTroll]

After reading the IRC logs, what bothers me the most is that Novell doesn't even seem to consider why Microsoft is interested in this deal. They only talk about how they will work on interoperability and that Microsoft is "acknowledging" Linux. Microsoft has never been worried about getting sued by Novell over patent infringement, so what exactly do they think Microsoft's motives are? If Microsoft simply wants better integration with Linux, they have all the means to do so without pursuing any patent deals.

It seems that Microsoft's true motive was shown only a few days after the deal when Ballmer continued to throw FUD about patent issues regarding Linux. Only now, he can claim that Novell has acknowledged the patent issues in an effort to make the claims appear to be more legitimate.

Re:What is this?

[QuantumG]

I keep reading this. Seriously, I am going to go over to one of the many patent registry websites and search for Microsoft patents and post one or two that Linux violates if you people don't stop parroting this shit. There is absolutely, positively, no doubt that any given Linux distribution violates at least a few of Microsoft's patents. That's the whole freakin' reason why patents on software is a dumb idea. It is also the reason why Microsoft will never enforce their patents as you can say the same thing about Microsoft's products and IBM's patents. STFU about Linux not infringing on Microsoft's patents.

Re:What is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, if Novell puts it together and forgets to add something or doesn't think of what may come ( a more than probable outcome), Microsoft can sue them at a later course, a promise is only a promise when it's written down.

Re:What is this?

[Enderandrew]

Wasn't there initially a patent on the double-click?

I'm beginning to think that we need to seriously rethink the patent process on the whole.

There is a world of difference in lifting an entire screenplay, design document, or chunk of source code, and using the same small idea. We shouldn't allow patents on small, trivial concepts. But people have patents on trivial things.

I have no doubt whatsoever that various distros infringe on some small patents. And I also have no doubt that Microsoft stole countless ideas from innovators before them.

Re:What is this?

[QuantumG]

Meh, copyright on source code is pointless too. Here's one of those unspoken ideas: take random open source project that is under a license you don't like. Study it. Once you understand it, think of 20 ways you could improve it. Rewrite it from scratch. How long does it take? Well, ask the OpenBSD team, they've done it half dozen times already. That asshat Darren Reed's ip filter was rewritten in under a week. How the hell can you do that? Well it really aint hard, you just gotta work. Whenever you run into one of those annoying problems that take ages to solve the first time you're writing a piece of software, just look at the original work. So long as you're not copying the text, just the ideas, copyright doesn't apply.

Does this mean a patent system would be better? Hell no. So what then?

Re:What is this?

[Moofie]

"(though not as closely as many Slashdotters seem to believe)"

Really? I need you to elucidate that for me. Please explain how Microsoft's overtures are substantially different from "Sure is a nice business you have there. Sure would be a shame if something were to...happen to it. Like, you know, a lawsuit. Funded by Microsoft."

How is that ANY different from a protection racket?

Re:What is this?

[Enderandrew]

Again, copying the source code outright should be protected against.

Taking the concept of how something is done, improving it, and doing it yourself from scratch is another story.

Re:What is this?

[Moofie]

Now you're getting it.

Re:What is this?

[QuantumG]

Which is what is so funny, because the source code isn't the crown jewels, it's the great ideas you had that you then embodied into that code. You *could* make a system that would protect that but it would be even more draconian than copyright.

Re:What is this?

[Bruce Perens]

I think there's a crucial difference between copyright and patent, because copyright does not stand in the way of your creating a similar program if you are willing to do the work, while patent does.

Bruce

Re:What is this?

[Bruce Perens]

While that does vaguely resemble mafia "protection" payments ... I really don't see why people are having such a hard time wrapping their heads around the reason for this deal.

Well, I think most people aren't having problems "wrapping their heads around the deal". They see it as unethical. This is very different from not being able to understand it.

Bruce

Re:What is this?

[Kennon]

"Microsoft has never been worried about getting sued by Novell over patent infringement"

They may not be worried about it but Novell has recovered several millions of dollars from M$ on software patent issues and has a major case pending now even after this deal regarding MSOffice. In fact I think there is a truckload of money to be made by Novell for M$'s infringement of eDirectory with their Active Directory.

It is amazing how many times you have to say this but here it goes again...this deal only protects customers, M$ and Novell can and will continue to sue one another as companies until they are blue in the face.

Re:What is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

"also the reason why Microsoft will never enforce their patents as you can say the same thing about Microsoft's products and IBM's patents"

True, and since the patent agreement works both ways, Novell (who was a major thorn in the side of SCO's plans and established that they still maintain the rights to some quite early code) can't do this anymore.

So when microsoft does decide to sue again, Novell is effectively side-lined from taking part and microsoft gains Novell's code as part of their defense. (Ah that, well... actually we have the right to do it due to this code which implements the same thing *waves stack of paper*, if you have issues with it, go sue them (pushing it back to the other side to prove the differences (which a judge probably won't understand) instead of them)).

Re:What is this?

[Arker]

I wouldn't say I see it as unethical, on Novell's part at least. I'd say it was clueless.

I believe the Novell statement is basically honest, as honest as corporate statements ever are, at least. And I read it like this:

Novell wanted a deal on interoperability. MS played along, and managed to slip them a poison pill along with it. I don't think anyone at Novell intended to be played like this - but there's obviously some serious hardcore cluelessness at the pay scales where this deal got vetted and the decision made. As evidenced by the fact these people STILL don't see what the big deal is.

Re:What is this?

[vojtech]

Three points, from a pure bussiness perspective:

1. Even if Linux is completely clean with regards to Microsoft patents, and I do believe it is so, there is still a threat of a lawsuit. There always is. It would be unsuccessful, but it still would be very inconvenient, annoying and expensive for those that get hit.
2. Even if Novell doesn't believe that this threat is worth any action, it's enough if its customers, or potential customers (like those presently being Windows-only) do perceive that threat as important. Then, paying millions to Microsoft a reasonable bussiness decision. The extra sales of Linux and displacing Windows at those customers can offset that easily. Novell believes it should be competing with and taking market share from Windows, not RedHat, or which is the current case, old UNIXes, and this helps it.
3. Even not including any sales of SLES by Microsoft, the payment is still positive by some $108M for Novell. It is positive, because in the deal Novell gives up the option of attacking Microsoft customers, an option it would never execute, believing in srictly defensive usage of its patent portfolio.

Having said that, I will not argue that the deal is all roses and doesn't have any negative sides. I, working for SuSE, do certainly feel those. But I would like you to understand that there were good reasons for it, and that there is no need to search for dark ulterior motives on Novell's side.

Re:What is this?

[Capitalisten]

No, no, no! Novell is free to sue Microsoft six ways from sunday if they want but they cannot sue Microsoft *CUSTOMERS* for patent infringement. This deal (as rotten as it is in many other ways) at least got that part right.

Re:What is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good! Please do. It'll make interesting reading. Until you do, consider your bluff called.

Re:What is this?

[killjoe]

Why don't we do that. Why don't we put together a web site that lists all of MS patents and then declare open season on them. Let's invalidate all of them by digging up prior art. This is a fantastic opportunity for the OSS community to launch an DDOS on MS patents.

Once MS sees it's patents start being picked apart by the community they will start to panic, it will be fun to watch.

Re:What is this?

[Daniel Phillips]

copyright on source code is pointless too. Here's one of those unspoken ideas: take random open source project that is under a license you don't like. Study it. Once you understand it, think of 20 ways you could improve it. Rewrite it from scratch... Whenever you run into one of those annoying problems that take ages to solve the first time you're writing a piece of software, just look at the original work. So long as you're not copying the text, just the ideas, copyright doesn't apply.

There is indeed nothing wrong with this, quite the contrary. However, this process only works for software at a very local scale. As soon as you get into complete systems with massive internal dependencies, copyright becomes a very effective protection. After all...

That ... ip filter was rewritten in under a week. How the hell can you do that? Well it really aint hard, you just gotta work.

Exactly. People are allergic to work, that is what makes copyright on source code so effective. Do you feel like rewriting GCC just to skirt the copyright?

Re:What is this?

[mqduck]

STFU about Linux not infringing on Microsoft's patents.

I've got a better idea. How about you STFU about Linux infringing on MS patents until you "go over to one of the many patent registry websites and search for Microsoft patents and post one or two that Linux violates" like you promised?

Re:What is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the core ideas, or the core algorithms, or even the high-level ideas really aren't the crown jewels. The difficulty in creating good software is making all those different ideas work together well. The difficulty in software is making it accessible to the user. And what makes user interfaces succeed isn't patentable - you can't patent the readout of an analog watch, but you can patent the mechanics used to implement it. The problems with software patents are: 1) in computer programming, the implementation is almost always clear once the idea is defined. Our watch analogy works like this: is if a programmer of enough skill saw, say, xclock, it would be perfectly obvious how to implement it, as opposed to a watch where it might be difficult to figure out how to fit together all those little gears. 2) Many software patents are the equivalents of screws and gears - it's impossible to make any kind of mechanical device without them.

Re:What is this?

[QuantumG]

not just to skirt the copyright, but primarily because it could be done so much better now than it was in the past.

Re:What is this?

[QuantumG]

Fine. Go here, enter these numbers:

7,143,340 - a patent on the MVC pattern applied to tables in GUI. I know both the Qt and gtk+ toolkits do that.
7,139,894 - that patent covers just about any interprocess communication that transmits "configuration information".
7,131,112 - and here's a patent which covers basically every revision control software ever written (cvs, svn, git, etc)

That's 3 of 5873. Go to this page, enter "Microsoft" into Term 1 and select "Assignee Name" for Field 1 if you wanna see the list.

Enjoy.

Re:What is this?

[cytg.net]

Wonder if there's a patent out for multiclick .. or simultaneous click ... /me rushes to patentoffice ....

Re:What is this?

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

Hmm. As I remember SCO decided to chase users for frightening amounts of money. A much more dirty trick than attacking a distro directly. Perhaps this does make sense for Novell.

As for Microsoft, could this mean that MS is on the back foot? Or is it perhaps that they really do need to interop, or make the appearance of it.

Re:What is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

"patent on the MVC pattern applied to tables in GUI. I know both the Qt and gtk+ toolkits do that." Applied 2003

So this wasn't done in either toolkit before then? I think that the *effect* is taken from the athena (Xaw) widget set which predates this by about 12 years.

"that patent covers just about any interprocess communication that transmits "configuration information"."
2003 yet again. Shared memory predates this by a loooong way. So this boils down to a combination patent which is being looked at by SCOTUS. It is also damn obvious given the problem space and the tools already there.

"and here's a patent which covers basically every revision control software ever written (cvs, svn, git, etc)"
Um so broad as to be meaningless.

In ALL CASES the patent doesn't allow someone skilled to recreate the patented process AS MS IMPLEMENTED so are invalid from that point of view ALONE.

Re:What is this?

[Clopy]

"Novell is paying for their customers' peace of mind. Regardless of what Novell says (or what may be true), MS says that Linux violates MS' IP, implying that MS might sue Linux coders and/or users. That makes Novell's users nervous. They want guarantees that either MS' claims are false, or MS will not sue them, even if they are true. This contract provides that guarantee."

Microsoft is the one paying the big money here. Not Novell. So, the question is why does MS pays all this money for?

Re:What is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

"paying for protection"... isn't this what the mafia did?

Re:What is this?

[Fred_A]

The balance of payments are by far in Novell's favor from what I've seen.

Is this still true when you look at the payments as a ration against the net worth (or yearly income, or cash reserves, or whatever would be deemed relevant) of both companies ?

I haven't done the comparison but I seriously doubt it would still be in Novell's favour then. Absolute amounts don't mean anything. $100 isn't that much to me but is a lot to a 5 year old who has 25 cents of pocket money (or whatever 5 year olds get for pocket money). If I pay the 5 year old 100$ and he pays me 25$, who paid more ?

Re:What is this?

[transporter_ii]

Totally agree. In the past, these patents were used against other big companies. For instance, when SCO jumped IBM, IBM counter sued SCO, because SCO was infringing on its patents. However, when it comes to Linux, the ability to hang patents over everyone's head becomes much, much harder. I say, companies like MS, not only don't understand Open Source, but it also infuriates them that they don't have a big corporation to beat down with its patents. What is going on with Novell, is that MS wants desperately to get back to business as usual, and since they can't sue free software, they can try and do the one thing they know how to do...wield a patent over a rival company!

Transporter_ii

Re:What is this?

[EvilRyry]

Then theres the little problem that none of those are legitimate patents. Either they are blatently obvious, or prior work.
I'm not quite sure when the first version control software came out but it certaintly was long before 7,131,112 was filed in 2000.

Re:What is this?

[cortana]

Your summaries of the patents are far too broad. In addition, none of them have anything to do with Linux.

Re:What is this?

[Ginger Unicorn]

there is infringement even bruce perens agrees. follow the link in his sig.

Re:What is this?

[mshmgi]

Dis is a nice operating system you'se gots here. It'd be a shame if sumtin' were to happen to it ...

Re:What is this?

[timjdot]

But don't you know Microsoft has a patent on the "isnot" operator? http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/19/14 26256&tid=155&tid=109

With the patent office working for Microsoft of course Novell figures it cannot win in court. The US Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/microsoft-2001.html) gave them carte blanche to run a monopoly and they plan to take full advantage. I heard within the last month from one of the largest computer resellers that they STILL are required to install Windows (or DOS) on EVERY PC they ship.

Clearly Microsoft operates above the law. The US law that is. I like to think they do not operate above the laws of society and progress. Their oppression of technological advance has held us back about 10 years and may just snap back in their face in 2007. Clearly Open Source is the leading software in many countries outside of the USA. The irony for Microsoft is I can download from Sourceforge Open Source softare that does 80% of anything they do and better yet is totally customizable.

I think it is clear to anyone that if Microsoft as much as raises one lawsuit against it will be counter-sued out of business. In fact, that could be the absolute best way to get technology progressing again. The money in Open Source may be in suing the monopoly. Talk about a taste of your own medicine. That said, Microsoft is no more than an IP thug in their recent move and, like any thug, will probably pick on the weakest first. They'll probably try to shutdown strong but fledgling Open Source projects such as TinaPOS or L'ane POS and then work their way up to Linux. Once the courts set a precedent of allowing Microsoft to squash Open Source projects then they will try to do it with the larger projects. Given how they won in US vs. Microsoft one would not be surpirsed to see them get the courts to outlaw MySQL, Linux, and Apache - or at least outlaw useful features. Their current ability to manipulate the courts into absolutely ridiculous findings (e.g. Web Browers is part of an OS!) could lead to the USA being a non-played in the coming Technological Singularity. I guess like Manufacturing in the Wal-Martification of America, Microsoft will have us be a purchaser only in the coming future of technology. They cannot simply fire people ni Seattle and invest Billions in India but will have to outlaw progress here to stop Open Source. In the end, they will of course fail.

Microosft's investment in NOVL reminds me of their investment in APPL a few years back. With their investment in Novell they hedge their bets and could sell SUSE once the gig is up and the general public realizes Windows is inferior to Linux and Microsoft products are inferior to their Open Source competitors. I expected them to start selling Linux in 2007 but this move was not well-orchestrated IMO. It leaves anyone with any sense avoiding NOVL and certainly any business with any desire to survive would never partner with Microsoft. But alot of businesses sell to WMT and lose money. I even know that a major ATM vendor pays WMT (loses money) to maintain their ATMs. Worshiping at the feet of the wealthy will never give you a better life.

TimJowers
http://www.serviza.com/ : Serviza Monster Linux Computers and Open Source Training Bundles

Re:What is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

If memory severs correctly during the SCO fiasco Novel claimed to still hold some rights to the original AT&T Unix code. Given how screwed up the patent system in the USA could Novel be holding some patents that MS infringes on.

I seriously doubt this but just thought I would mention it.

Re:What is this?

[vojtech]

With the current patent system, the huge numbers of patents granted every day, infringement cannot be considered until validated by either an agreement of two parties (then valid for those two parties) or a court decision (then valid for everybody in the country).

It is generally believed that most, if not all the patents Linux potentially infringes on would fail either the obviousness or prior art tests in court.

However, again due to the sheer numbers of patents that were granted so far, it is not possible to go and check every single one whether it passes or not in court.

Re:What is this?

[chance2105]

That's a great idea, until it becomes obvious that viewing so many patents makes you an ineffective contributor to open source projects.

Not knowing the existance of a patent and inventing the same idea on your own is one thing. Knowing a patent exists and writing code that violates it is another.

The other side of that coin: actually trying to avoid patents would make you code one line of code a year. Your productivity would drop to something pointless.

Here's one (of many) example of Linus' views on patents on LKML: http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/8/11/155

Re:What is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Walk down the hallway outside of the superlab at IBM in RTP and look at some of the patents they hold which are on the wall. I promise you that every OS is in violation of their patents.

On a side note, I appreciate the work that you have done for the OSS community. With that said, the sky is not falling. I wish that the community would make up their minds. Do they want Linux to be accepted in the corporate environment? If so, there are going to be deals and assurances such as this. I am not a Microsoft fan and I do not trust them but, businesses want assurance that interoperability and stability will be there. I think the realization is there on M$ side that Linux will not be going anywhere and they better deal with it. There are two players that they can really approach in regards to this, RedHat and Novell. RedHat from all past experience will not come to the table for what I would like to term zealotry. Yes, software patents are silly but a fact of life. It drives me crazy that I have to jump through hoops to deal with certain file types on my machine. Hopefully, if both "communities" can work together it will eliminate some of these issues.

Re:What is this?

[oh_my_080980980]

"They want guarantees that either MS' claims are false, or MS will not sue them, even if they are true. This contract provides that guarantee."

Here's the flaw in your logic. Microsoft never said their claims that Linux violates Microsoft's IP. In fact Steve Balmer AFTER they signed the agreement said Linux violates Microsoft IP. What the agreement says, according to Balmer, is that Novell admits Linux violates Microsoft's IP and agreed to pay Microsoft money for that IP and by paying Microosft for Microsoft's IP, Novell customers will not be sued. The rest of the linux community is fair game for lawsuits.

Do you understand now.

Moron.

Re:What is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent cites plenty of prior art, so the question is: what was different.

You seem to dismiss the patent based on the filing date ("CVS existed before"), well so did all the previous references that the author described.

People typically only look at the "Summary" of the invention, they actually have to look at the "Claims" section (the summary is useless, and is not even used in a court). The "Claims" are the actual problems.

Re:What is this?

[Elektroschock]

Mental Peace? If Novell wanted to pay for their customers peace of mind, they should invest in softpat lobbying as Suse did. As a Suse customer the Novell deal would make me pretty nervous as I was irritated when they pushed for premature Ximian technology in Suse, esp. tainted technology such as Mono, the implementation of MS .NET which will likely infringe their patents. We have a look at Novell-MS and think back: Caldera/SCO. Novell, we don't know on what side they are or will be.

150 Millions for license deals? 15 millions for lobby campaigners and the problem will soon be gone, forever, on a worldwide scale.

Lobbying is the only way to stop the dangerous legal machinery. And it works pretty well as the European debate has shown.

And by the way: Novell-MS patent deal is no defense against bad laws

Re:What is this?

[div_2n]

Novell wanted a deal on interoperability.

When has Microsoft EVER worked with GPL'ed products for interoperability? I'll give you a few decades to research that and feel quite confident you won't find an example.

So if interoperability with GPL'ed products isn't on their agenda, what is? Don't think too hard. Look at Ballmer's comments only a few days with the announcement out of the gates for clarity.

I'd say [Novell} was clueless.

I don't think clueless even scratches the surface of the level of ineptitude required on Novell's part to make them innocent in this deal. Egregious incompetence comes close, but even that seems to fall short IMO.

Re:What is this?

[T-Ranger]

And we all know that it doesnt cost anything to defend against patents that are absurd.

Yeh, right. Welcome to the real world.

It doesn't matter if you will eventually win or not, or even when you do win that you may even be able to get coin out of the accusers. You've tied up yourself (if its just you), or lots of senior management (if a corporation), and most likely taken a big hit in the marketplace, too.

Re:What is this?

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Microsoft is giving them $350 million (IIRC). They have to pay $40 million back over a couple years. That means they get $310 million out of the deal. How does that not add up in Novell's favor?

Re:What is this?

[drew]

Does Novell often pay millions of dollars for "protection" for its customers when it does not believe that the threat has any substance?

Obviously, it believes that there is some substance to the threat, or they wouldn't have paid any money. The thing is, you're looking at the wrong threat. By now, if nothing else, the one thing we should all have learned from SCO is that you don't need to be in the right to cost another company a lot of money litigating. Whether Novell believes SuSe infringes on any of Microsoft's patents or not, the threat of a lawsuit from Microsoft still exists. I suspect the Novell looked at $40 million vs. the cost of successfully defending even one patent case against Microsoft in a long drawn out battle, and figured it was a no-brainer.

And it probably is worth the money just to have something to show their potential customers. Sure they can tell their customers till they are blue in the face that Novell does not infringe on any Microsoft patents, but how often do you listen to anything that someone trying to sell you something says without a grain a salt? Having an agreement in writing from Microsoft that they can show their customers could easily be worth $40 million to them, even if Novell itself doesn't think it's necessary.

Re:What is this?

[emil10001]

I think that a different type of person might be interested in said project. Someone who would like to contribute to the community in a different way than contributing code. So, this would be helpful to the rest of the community who does contribute code, because it creates a sort of protection for them, and might be easier to come by than money.

For example, I have a friend who works in the patent office looking at software patents, she doesn't want to write her own code, instead to look over others' code and all of the legal aspects of giving that person/company a patent for that code. That is the type of person would be able to contribute to such a project without contaminating the community at the same time.

Re:What is this?

[burnetd]

Then theres the little problem that none of those are legitimate patents

Ask RIM how much difference that makes.

Re:What is this?

[killjoe]

"That's a great idea, until it becomes obvious that viewing so many patents makes you an ineffective contributor to open source projects."

Right. So the developers don't read the site. This will be a way for people who do not code to contribute to OSS.

"Here's one (of many) example of Linus' views on patents on LKML"

I don't think people respect Linus as much as they used to. He totally messed up the bitkeeper situation, he rejected the GPL3, and he has said nothing about the threats by MS to sue linux developers, distributors and users. You would think that he would at least condemn Ballmers remarks but not a peep.

It's clear that linus doesn't get IP. He doesn't care and he thinks everybody is like him. Maybe the one good thing to come out of all this will be that linus learns to care about the threats of patents, DRM and licenses but somehow I doubt it. He will remain uncaring I am sure.

Re:What is this?

[Atzanteol]

Something like, uh, patents?

Re:What is this?

[init100]

Microsoft is the one paying the big money here. Not Novell. So, the question is why does MS pays all this money for?

To get a certain amount of credibility to their FUD, at least among business types.

Re:What is this?

[QuantumG]

Yeah, ok, look, I studied these patents for 5 minutes. You probably studied them for 15 minutes. Neither of us are patent lawyers (right?) and neither of us actually looked at any code to see if it violated these patents. Fact is, if Microsoft wanted to make up a list they would put a lot more effort into it and defending against such a list would not be cost effective.

Re:What is this?

[Bruce Perens]

There are a lot of things I'd attribute to ignorance. But taking 1/3 Billion dollars to welsh out on a contract with less-well-off folks, no. Novell had enough money to do the best possible due diligence, if they wanted to.

Bruce

Re:What is this?

[Fred_A]

It depends. How much is 40 million worth to Novell compared to 350 million to Microsoft ?

Microsoft is worth a lot, makes heaps of money and is supposed to have billions in cash. So to them 350 millions isn't worth much. I don't know about Novell but for a lot of companies 40 millions is quite a bit of money. Also I don't know when or how the MS payment will be made.

And there is more than the cash to take into account. MS pays what is essentially (to them) peanuts in a deal that isn't completely clear, to promote some kind of FUD campaign *and* gets Novell to part with 40 million which may or not be a large sum to them while at the same time damaging the goodwill of the community towards them.

Novell may end up making money in the end but they may also lose more than they earn.

Re:What is this?

[Arker]

Oh, I don't disagree with that. I just get the impression that the folks making the decisions at Novell today are so totally clueless in regards to free software they didn't, and apparently still don't, grok that they have obligations here. Old-thinking suits, crazy as it is, often show that level of cluelessness in this particular regard in my experience. I theorise they have some major mental blocks that are responsible. Either way, it's not an auspicious sign for the future of Novell. Gnu/linux is their only viable long-term hope, and they don't seem to have a clue how to run a business around that.

Re:What is this?

[247wallst]

Some of the key developers at Novell are going public with complaints about the company's deal with Microsoft. The arrangement calls for co-marketing Windows with the Suse version of the Linux open source OS that Novell offers. Apparently, some of the covenants in the agreement do not give Linux developers enough protection from potential intellectual property claims from Microsoft.

Re:What is this?

[ZachPruckowski]

OK. But the minute someone gets sued, they have to raise a shit-ton of money to go prove that. If they're an end-user-company, it's far cheaper to switch to MS stuff or just pay MS their extortion for the patent, and that's what they'll do. If it's a developer who isn't a major company (like IBM or Red Hat), they're up shit's creek. If it is Red Hat who gets sued, well, at least they can fight the uphill battle to eliminate the patent.

Re:What is this?

[aug24]

Seriously, I am going to go over to one of the many patent registry websites and search for Microsoft patents and post one or two that Linux violates

Well get on with it then. I can't wait to see what you can find that explains why MS doesn't try to enforce their patents, but instead plays SLAPP-style threat games instead.

If there was anything non-trivial they would be going to court against RedHat, IBM, Oracle, SuSe... why aren't they? Because they are worried the patent would be struck down.

Justin.

Re:What is this?

[QuantumG]

1. Read my post later down where I do (it's modded +5, how'd you miss it?)
2. You're obviously new to this as you don't appear to understand the dynamics of mutually assured destruction applied to software patents, so stop talking.

Re:What is this?

[msuarezalvarez]

I'm beginning to think that we need to seriously rethink the patent process on the whole.

You are beginning to think that?

Re:What is this?

[aug24]

OK, found your post. It's a reply to something that is 2, Flamebait, so it's not visible.

I somehow think none of those patents is likely to stand up, not that I know any of them in detail. For example, "just about any" - well, do you think that might be 'overly broad'?!

I doubt you know them in detail either, unless you're much sadder than I suspect ;-) I very much doubt MS is that confident too, cos there are plenty of people they could go after with those that aren't in the whole patent-protection-swapping game (which I assume is your MAD reference). Hell, any up-and-coming game company is going to break the config-info-passing one - don't you think they'd want a share of that pie?

Justin.
PS lay off the ad hominem stuff, eh? Makes you look childish.

Re:What is this?

[mqduck]

who the holy hell moderated this as "flamebait"?

but what we all want to know....

[Anonymous Coward]

Is how MS can make linux a better OS!

Re:but what we all want to know....

[aussie_a]

By staying the fuck away from it.

Novell

[loconet]

Who else thinks Novell mis-underestimated the magnitude of the uproar due to this deal? This was a very bad move.

Re:Novell

[SmokedS]

Well, for all intents and purposes, to anyone that really believes in FOSS and is informed about the deal, Novell is now a pariah.
I've lost count of the number of people calling for a boycott, or reporting that they have switched away from, or are in the process of switching away from Novell products.
I think that it is essential that this is continued. The community is the strength of FOSS. If we cannot stand together against what in essence is a form of corporate blackmail Microsoft will continue to drive wedges into the community. It's classic divide and conquer tactics.

We need to continue to spread the truth about this deal so that people have the information they need to see it for what it is, and shun Novell for he traitor in our midst that they have become. Hopefully Novell will come to their senses and abandon the deal. If not, the boycott needs to be as absolute as we can make it. We cannot allow stabbing the entire community in the back to be profitable. Currently, Novell is the new SCO, and should be treated as such.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200611030 73628401
http://technocrat.net/d/2006/11/2/9945
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/20061109a.html
http://news.samba.org/announcements/team_to_novell /

Re:Novell

[aussie_a]

Well, for all intents and purposes, to anyone that really believes in FOSS and is informed about the deal, Novell is now a pariah.And to 99% of the business world the deal has only had a positive effect on Novell's image. I wonder who Novell is more concerned with? The business world or a few fan boys from slashdot?

Re:Novell

[SmokedS]

Last time I checked, the majority of the large software businesses in the world have been very much involved in the Open Source community for some time. They have been stabbed in the back as much as the independent developers by this deal, and I very much doubt that they are happy about it. And if you think the support of enthusiasts and independent developers is not important to Novell you are less than well informed about how a Linux distribution functions. The great great majority of support come from the unpaid community. Also, a large part, likely the majority of bug reports, fixes, and enhancements also comes from the same community. And guess who is running the servers, and advising the management of businesses about FOSS.

If you are a player in the FOSS market, and you figure that stabbing the community in the back in return for short term profit you are apt to find that you've made a fatal miscalculation.

Re:Novell

[Anonymous Coward]

"Last time I checked, the majority of the large software businesses in the world have been very much involved in the Open Source community for some time."

If the linux market is limited to "large software businesses", than it's a very small market indeed. The vast majority of computer users are not in the software business.

Re:Novell

[Bruce Perens]

The business world is concerned. I have been getting calls from Novell stock analysts, for example. Having the people who write and own the software turn upon Novell is a big deal to them. And they've watched SCO, and the last thing they would have wanted Novell to do would have been to follow in SCO's footsteps.

Bruce

Re:Novell

[remmelt]

> The community is the strength of FOSS.

Can we patent that community thing you're talking about?

Re:Novell

[iksrazal_br]

"Having the people who write and own the software turn upon Novell is a big deal to them. "

That's the ironic thing for me as a happy opensuse user, this deal has made me quite seriously thinking about switching distros for myself and my clients. Why?

1) I'm not comfortable with an agreement on linux that only supposedly applies to the novel.
2) Novel's answers implied that GPLv3 is unfinished, buts its clear to me GCC etc will become GPLv3 next year. That leaves me with a huge question mark for the future of opensuse.
3) The deal is revocable and in any event its only good for five years - an awfully strange contract IMHO. Both novell and microsoft are already disputing what it means - how is that supposed to make me feel good about a revocable contract good for only five years?
4) I can't remember any company benefiting from a microsoft agreement, which raises the question of their long term health. Having their revenue in the last few years be mostly from Microsoft deals doesn't help me feel better either.

In short, ever since novell bought Suse, every day its seems more like they are about to destroy it just like every other thing they have touched. Its a pity because although I consider opensuse to be a fine distro, I'm really thinking if I stay with them they will blow up in my face.

Re:Novell

[miguel]

The "5 year" is miss understood.

It means that any software that is developed within the next five years and is included with SUSE and might infringe on any patents filed by Microsoft up to the end of the agreement will be covered by the agreement.

This means that if software is written in 4 years, 300 days that is shipped with SUSE it would be covered forever for any Novell customers. Software that infringes on *new patents filed after the end of the agreement* would not be covered.

Miguel

Re:Novell

[iksrazal_br]

'The "5 year" is miss understood.

It means that any software that is developed within the next five years and is included with SUSE and might infringe on any patents filed by Microsoft up to the end of the agreement will be covered by the agreement.

This means that if software is written in 4 years, 300 days that is shipped with SUSE it would be covered forever for any Novell customers. Software that infringes on *new patents filed after the end of the agreement* would not be covered.'

Even if that is true, my three legal concerns are that the agreement as generally understood is revocable - a strange contract feature - and if microsoft disagrees with the interpretation above it can still drag things out in court at any time in the future by feat or by proxy. And lastly, I plan on using linux longer than 5 years and therefore this agreement leaves long term open questions. As an opensuse user I ironically feel far less safe.

You know, since novell has chosen to stand alone it may have to fight alone someday.

Re:Novell

[salimma]

This means that if software is written in 4 years, 300 days that is shipped with SUSE it would be covered forever for any Novell customers.
Surely that can't include additions to the code made after the agreement expired (even if the coverage is non-recoverable). Microsoft is not stupid.

If they claim that an addition made to OSS project Foo version x.y violates their patents, then the solution is still to either rewrite the violating code, challenge the patent or acquire the rights to it.

Either we got nothing or you got nothing.

[radarsat1]

A few
Nov 27 11:43:05 <Nat_> We are collaborating with Microsoft on a few different interop areas
Nov 27 11:43:27 <Nat_> We'll be adding Open XML support to OpenOffice, building a virtualization shim to run SLES optimized on Veridian and Vista on Xen
Nov 27 11:43:44 <Nat_> We'll also be working together on WS-Management
Nov 27 11:43:46 <Nat_> All this code will be released open source
Nov 27 11:43:47 * cboltz (n=cboltz@88.134.58.13) has joined #opensuse-project
Nov 27 11:43:51 <Nat_> so everyone gets that, and can benefit from it
Nov 27 11:44:33 <Nat_> (By the way, in that process, we don't plan to add MS-patented code to our contributions)
Nov 27 11:44:42 <Nat_> (Our policy on that is unchanged -- and MS didn't give us the right to do that anyway!)

Hm, wow, I'm convinced.
So what was the point of the deal then?
Either you'll be contributing code that you couldn't have before, meaning no one else who doesn't have a similar MS deal can use, or you'll be contributing code that you could have easily added previously anyways.
I don't get it.

Re:Either we got nothing or you got nothing.

[Coryoth]

So what was the point of the deal then? Either you'll be contributing code that you couldn't have before, meaning no one else who doesn't have a similar MS deal can use, or you'll be contributing code that you could have easily added previously anyways. I don't get it.

I believe the "point", as they see it, is that they are being paid a lot of money to write this code. Sure, it might have been things they could have implemented anyway, but being paid enough to have lots of full time paid developers devoted to the task is more likely to (a) ensure the work actually gets done and (b) gets done more quickly than if you didn't have developers working on it full time.

This, of course, doesn't exonerate Novell - MS managed to slip the patent arrangement into the deal, and that part is certainly very fishy. My point is simply that they are actually getting something out of this.

Uh, huh...

[Ekhymosis]

When was the last time MS actually kept its promises, especially in the face of reaping millions? Hmmm?

protection racket

[GeorgeS069]

Does anyone else think this sounds very illegal?

If I walked into an office and told them they needed to pay me cause there's a possibility the place might get robbed
I'd be in jail so fast it would make my head spin.
Isn't this pretty much what MS has done here?

Re:protection racket

[ewl1217]

That's completely wrong. Microsoft is suggesting that Novell needs protection from being sued. Unlike robbing someone, suing someone is a perfectly valid legal process. Legally, as far as I know and barring possible monopoly abuse, there's nothing wrong with what Microsoft is doing. Ethically, morally, logically, and ideologically, it's a completely different issue.

Re:protection racket

[GeorgeS069]

IANAL but,as I thought I understood it,it's not exactly "legal" to "threaten to sue"
I was told that it was safer to suggest that you might "explore your legal options" and to never,ever use the word
sue or lawsuit.
Since a lawsuit against any and all Novell customers and possibly Novell itself would pretty much destroy the company
I'd say it is just as bad as robbing someone...or perhaps even worse.

Re:protection racket

[bblboy54]

If I walked into an office and told them they needed to pay me cause there's a possibility the place might get robbed I'd be in jail so fast it would make my head spin. Isn't this pretty much what MS has done here?

Did you have a degree in rocket science?

Re:protection racket

[Daniel Phillips]

Unlike robbing someone, suing someone is a perfectly valid legal process.

Extortion, however, is not.

Re:protection racket

[Pichu0102]

Except: You're a consumer, while Microsoft is huge multi-billion company.

Another Take

[Jack Action]

On the other hand, Novell may have done Free Software a great service.

All those who lambasted RMS for the explicitness of GPLv3 may now have to reconsider their opposition. This includes organizations like Red Hat and OSDL, who called the FSF approach "extremist."

Who's the extremist now?

Re:Another Take

[burnin1965]

Only time will tell, the verdict is still not out on the legality of the deal the suits concocted.

Re:Another Take

[theLOUDroom]

Only time will tell, the verdict is still not out on the legality of the deal the suits concocted.

This is part of the problem. Even if the deal is deemed to violate the GPL v2 how long will it take? How much money will it cost?
Even if Microsoft/Suse looses, they can make subtle tweaks to the agreement and try again.

If you want something to be against the terms of a contract, it's best to come right out and say it. If the issue becomes one of subtleties and the other party has orders of magnitude more money than you, you've already lost. At least in the US anyways.

Re:Another Take

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who's the extremist now?"

Unless I'm very much mistaken, still the FSF. It's not like Red Hat have gotten more extreme than them over the past couple of weeks. The most amazing thing is that your comment is moderated "insightful".

Re:Another Take

[asuffield]

All those who lambasted RMS for the explicitness of GPLv3 may now have to reconsider their opposition. This includes organizations like Red Hat and OSDL, who called the FSF approach "extremist."

Not likely. The problem with GPLv3 is that RMS refuses to consider proposals from people who don't agree with him. Most of the problems with the GPLv3 could be solved while still accomplishing what he wants, but he sees no reason why he should bother solving them. RMS apparently does not care about making a license that other people want (previous versions of the GPL have coincided with what other people want, but that was not intentional).

Absolutely nothing to do with a them-vs-us scenario. RMS's position isn't really "extremist", it's just "entirely uncooperative". Everybody else isn't really "opposition", they're just "going to use a different license".

Re:Another Take

[init100]

The problem with GPLv3 is that RMS refuses to consider proposals from people who don't agree with him.

The GPLv3 process started with a set of goals for the license to achieve. The comment process is not there for those that ask him to dump any one of these goals, it is there for those that see other problems in the license, such as lack of language clarity to laymen, or circumstances that would make it possible to sidestep the goals of the license.

RMS apparently does not care about making a license that other people want

Why should he feel obligated to? Remember that this is primarily the license for the GNU software suit. If other people like it and use it, fine, but if not, they can use another license. Why should he have to give up certain goals of the GNU project to accomodate the wishes of other projects?

Stupid

[dotslashdot]

Thanks to some opensource proponent (was it the FSF?), MS knows where to look to find infringing code in the kernel! Someone did an analysis (to prevent software patents, which was not going to work in the U.S.) to convince every linux user that patents were bad by demonstrating how the linux kernel potentially infringed on 200+ patents. You're going to say "potential," but NO opensource developer will have the $ to defend themselves against MS. I predict MS is going to start suing like a motherfucker and linux is going to go away.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Microsoft can sue all they want, but fat chance of Linux ever going away. I won't even guess how many copies of the Linux source code exist out there. And not just on the Internet, but everywhere anyone has ever stored it. We'll probably see law enforcement win the war on drugs (read: never) before Microsoft destroys Linux.

I'm not saying it's impossible that Microsoft spew lawsuits at Linux distributors. I am saying if/when they do, the rest of us can all giggle at the futility of it all.

Re:Stupid

[foreverdisillusioned]

Even if Microsoft manages to pull off a spectacular legal coup d'état, I predict that their success in European and Asian courts will be... less than spectacular. Linux isn't going away anytime soon, and when it does go away it will be for technical reasons (i.e. 100+ years from now they finally rewrite the OS from scratch), not legal reasons.

Re:Stupid

[ozmanjusri]

NO opensource developer will have the $ to defend themselves against MS.

These guys IBM already are; Groklaw.

They seem to be coping well enough.

Re:Stupid

[Coryoth]

Even if Microsoft manages to pull off a spectacular legal coup d'état, I predict that their success in European and Asian courts will be... less than spectacular. Linux isn't going away anytime soon, and when it does go away it will be for technical reasons (i.e. 100+ years from now they finally rewrite the OS from scratch), not legal reasons.

Sure, Microsoft is unlikely to be able to kill Linux via this, or any similar route. If they can knock over the businesses backing a couple of major distributions, however, they can set Linux back a bit. Red Hat, for instance, contributes an awful lot of code. Yes the developers will still work on their projects, but they won't be paid to work on the full time anymore. New systems will spring up and Linux will keep rolling along. Potentially it can buy Microsoft more time in a comfortable monopoly position though, and I think right now that's all Microsoft cares about. The can try to leverage the monopoly into some other markets, or just buy themselves some breathing space. I think they'll be happy enough with that at this stage.

Re:Stupid

[bheekling]

NO opensource developer will have the $ to defend themselves against MS.

Nov 27 11:16:50 Well there's definitely one thing that we've asked Microsoft to look at Nov 27 11:17:07 During the discussion with them we asked Microsoft to make a promise not to sue individual developers, ever, for patent infringement Nov 27 11:17:12 * benJIman_ (n=bw@compsoc.sunion.warwick.ac.uk) has left #opensuse-project Nov 27 11:17:21 * Bille (n=will@p54945687.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #opensuse-project Nov 27 11:17:22 And we were pleasantly surprised that they were very open to doing this Nov 27 11:17:29 * benJIman (n=bw@compsoc.sunion.warwick.ac.uk) has joined #opensuse-project Nov 27 11:17:34 The "individual non-commercial" covenant that you can find on their web site is the result of that discussion

MS seems to have promised not to sue individual developers. And please don't say

Re:Stupid

[Bruce Perens]

IBM really likes its patents. And its patents are in a different part of the company from Linux, and a part that can override the Linux department.

Remember, we have software patents in the U.S. because of a lawsuit brought by IBM.

Bruce

Re:Stupid

[mikrorechner]

I predict MS is going to start suing like a motherfucker and linux is going to go away.

I think you forget one tiny little thing: IBM is one of the biggest investors in Linux, having pumped several billion Dollars into the development of and services around Linux.

And even compared to Microsoft, IBM is the 800 pound Gorilla in the patent league.

Of course I don't know wether IBM really would through its weight behind Linux - but neither does MS, and I don't think they are willing to take that risk.

Re:Stupid

[killjoe]

Nah.

Here is how it will go. MS will sue (or they will get novell to sue). There is already a pool of patents donated by Novell and IBM and others so somebody will countersue MS. Furthermore they will demand the source code for windows and start combing through the source code for GPL violations. The community will immediately find prior art which would completely invalidate the MS patent(s) in question. Some GPL violation would be found and MS would be embarrased as hell.

MS isn't going to sue anybody. Not even ballmer is that stupid.

Re:Stupid

[ozmanjusri]

IBM really likes its patents. And its patents are in a different part of the company from Linux, and a part that can override the Linux department.

True, but there's an implication in the parent poster's claim that Open Source developers are all too impoverished to defend themselves against MS. It's an extension of the false meme that FOSS is created solely by pasty basement dwellers in their spare time.

That's no longer the case (if it ever was), and there are now plenty of organisations with relatively deep pockets ready to fight if their software ecosystem is threatened by MS.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The massive take-up of Linux outside the U.S. will guarantee it's future long after U.S. developers have been cease and desisted into oblivion. A hellava-lot of work is done here in europe (where there are no software patents, Linus is european BTW). India and China have taken a healthy interest in Linux (no software patents and half the world's population), and some South American countries (Brazil springs to mind) and Africa too. In fact the whole free software, open-source thing is the perfect platform for developing nations to join the rest of us in the modern hi-tech world.

Linux IS NOT going away. It may change it's name but the project will live on in one form or possibly many. The cat is well and truly out of the bag, and monopolistic software companies (and their protectionist software patents) will have only themselves to blame.
Open-source offers good, healthy competition that will ensure that we all see software improve and evolve.

If you can't patent a book, a piece of music or a mathematical equation, why the hell can you patent program code?

Re:Stupid

[Hooya]

> there are now plenty of organisations with relatively deep pockets ready to fight if their software ecosystem is threatened by MS.

well, let's hope their Department of Altruism can go over the heads of the Department of Patents within the deep bowels of the said deep pocketed friend.

personally, i hope the community can defend itself. with or without help from commercial entities. kinda like what ESR said about enough eyes making bugs shallow, i think instead of looking to *a* deep pocket, enough shallow pockets should make the well deep. i'd be more than glad to contribute to a fund should such a fund be created to fight the bullying tactics that MS, and others, get involved in.

up until recently, we were at the "first they laugh at you". now we're squarely at the gates (no pun intended) of "then they fight you". if we can't defend ourselves, contrary to popular belief, we don't win.

if a bunch of unrelated, dispersed people can band together and come up with a software development methodology, the software and the support system (GNU, linux, Debian etc...) out of ether to successfully compete with highly organized corporate entities dedicated to that task.. surely we can find a way to massively DDOS the legal arm of the said corporate entities. for example (and this is only a non-thought-out example so do not feel free to use it for the strawman) if every LUG filed a complaint in small claims court around the world - for the shrink-wrapped EULA (that you can't read before you open the package, only to find out that by opening the package you've already agreed to the EULA) or some such...

hmm... regardless; i still would like to believe that we can defend our own instead of looking for a sympathetic deep pocket.

Re:Stupid

[ozmanjusri]

i hope the community can defend itself. with or without help from commercial entities.

I believe the community INCLUDES commercial entities. That means it's not a matter of a poor dispersed peoples looking for a "sympathetic deep pocket".

It means that it makes sound financial sense for those commercial entities to defend the FOSS resources which are helping to make them more profitable.

Re:Stupid

[everphilski]

If it were illegal in the US, IBM couldn't back it. What do you think would happen to Linux then? IBM is the 800lb gorilla in the corner backing up the penguin...

Additionally, if it were illegal to use for US businesses, it would be a huge blow. Sure you could use it internationally but no major international company would mix their rollout just for the sake of having linux. Only solely foreign companies would use it. It would be a big blow.

However i doubt Microsoft will sue and anything of this magnitude will ever happen.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The community will immediately find prior art which would completely invalidate the MS patent(s) in question.Why wait? We (the community) should start finding prior art on every patent Microsoft has and work to invalidate them all. Anything that Linux actually infringes on should be removed/worked around ASAP. As long as Microsoft can continue the FUD it will hurt the progress of FOSS.

Re:Stupid

[blackest_k]

Problem with Slashdot is its very usa centric,
Software patents are an american problem, for now.
If Microsoft flexes its software patent muscles in the usa, then lets assume Linux will effectively be forced out of the american market place.
If this was timed prior to european legislation allowing software patents, then europe would likely to sieze the advantage and bury software patents somewhere deep in the mid atlantic.
It is for this reason that the patent war is likely to be delayed.
but lets assume Microsoft grows impatient.

How does that effect the european market I would assume distro's such as ubuntu would be largely uneffected, companies such as ibm can probably counter sue and probably would, redhat, fedora would probably be forced to imigrate, google quite possibly would have to fight or exit america too.

The costs associated with an american data centre would rise, certainly european data centres employing linux would have a cost advantage, more money would stay within europe boosting european economy's.

It doesn't look great for the american IT industry and there would be growing economic pressure for the US goverment to reform software patents. It would be interesting to see the effects on global multinationals would they withdraw from the united states or take a battering in the market place from european and asian rivals?

Linux developers in america will probably be forced into a choice of withdrawing from linux projects or finding an alternative country to reside in. Talented Engineers will have no problems relocating. Ireland and the UK seem reasonable within Europe, New Zealand and Australia assuming they are software patent free are a much nicer place to be.

Exile from america to avoid being sued and never being able to set foot on US soil seem like a high price to pay but most of the world lives quite happily without living or visiting America, I'm assuming relatives left behind would be able to obtain permission to travel outside the united states.

So what are we looking at here a decline in the American economy a renaisance for Europe and Tiger Economys for most of the rest of the world.

Of course this all conjecture and I would assume an American Goverment would protect the American Economy by reforming Software Patents.
Interesting times, but probably not a great time to be in the IT industry in America.

Re:Stupid

[init100]

We (the community) should start finding prior art on every patent Microsoft has and work to invalidate them all. Anything that Linux actually infringes on should be removed/worked around ASAP.

Except that those of us doing the real programming work are very unlikely to ever look at any patents, since that would open them up to treble (triple) damages for willful infringement if they were ever sued for patent infringement.

Re:Stupid

[init100]

It doesn't look great for the american IT industry and there would be growing economic pressure for the US goverment to reform software patents.

The US govenment would also exert growing political and economic pressure on the EU to adopt software patents. They have already been there, done that.

Re:Stupid

[Grishnakh]

Why wait? We (the community) should start finding prior art on every patent Microsoft has and work to invalidate them all.

Because it's a waste of time. Why spend time looking at patents and searching for prior art when you can spend that time doing something productive instead, like writing new code, fixing bugs, etc.?

Besides, even if you do find prior art, what does it matter? The USPTO doesn't care; they'll just tell you to take the patent holder to court. The only time prior art matters is when a case concerning a patent comes before a court, and a judge rules the patent invalid because of the prior art.

Basically, here in the US, everything of a legal nature must be done in a court. Not in a patent office, not by a legislature, but in a court. This is a property of the English Common-Law system that we use. Laws that legislators/Congress write really don't matter, as laws are actually decided in court by looking at case history and precedent. This is different from Civil Law countries where laws are written by legislators and applied by courts.

Re:Stupid

[Grishnakh]

In fact the whole free software, open-source thing is the perfect platform for developing nations to join the rest of us in the modern hi-tech world.

Yes, and hopefully those of us in the USA can eventually join the rest of you in the modern hi-tech world by migrating away from an operating system that still uses drive letters.

Re:Stupid

[Grishnakh]

The US govenment would also exert growing political and economic pressure on the EU to adopt software patents. They have already been there, done that.

Right, and why exactly would the EU cave? After all, they're a large and growing political power now that they're unified, unlike a couple of decades ago. And also during that time, the US has lost economic power; we can't even make most of our goods any more, and the only thing we seem to be good at nationally is lawyering, which is only useful inside the country.

I'm sorry, the US has already been pressuring the EU to adopt software patents for a while now, and it still hasn't happened. I don't think it's all that likely that the EU will adopt software patents.

Re:Stupid

[init100]

I'm sorry, the US has already been pressuring the EU to adopt software patents for a while now, and it still hasn't happened. I don't think it's all that likely that the EU will adopt software patents.

There is a new directive being worked on that may legalize software patents, the Community Patent Directive. I'm rather pessimistic about this, as I believe that they will adopt it one way or the other, even if it means sneaking it though as a side issue to be rubberstamped without discussion on a meeting for the ministers of fishing and agriculture, as they tried last time.

Formatted much better

[jamienk]

http://lwn.net/Articles/211216/

Much much easier to read.

"MS-patented code"

[Augusto]

What in the world is "MS-patented code" or "patented code" in the first place?

A lot of software patents focus on the design, algorithm or architecture of a software "solution", not necessary on the fine grain details of the implementation (the code).
So if Amazon patents buying via one click, it means just that, you patented that feature (as stupid as it sounds) no matter what code implements it or not.

If MS patented a C# language feature, again, it doesn't matter how you implemented they patented something that is higher level (or even dumber, like a keyword).

Re:"MS-patented code"

[Bruce Perens]

What in the world is "MS-patented code" or "patented code" in the first place?

Code which practices an algorithm or other technique which is claimed in a patent owned by MS. And MS knows it, and now it's in your program. Sounds risky.

Bruce

Re:"MS-patented code"

[remmelt]

It does worry me that the Novell people seemingly don't know the difference between copyright and patents. The code is copyrighted. That is why it's not allowed to go in the Linux code, and that is good. We have our own code which works just fine. The patents are what this is all about: the way it's implemented is of no concern, it's the idea behind the code that has a restricting patent on it. Novell just paid MS a bunch of cash for not getting sued, they're now acknowledging that they can't use the "patented code" anyway. Sounds fishy. Can or can they not use the patents?

I hope this was just a typo/braino, but when people who just got into a highly suspicious deal with a company that is not known for its benevolence, I can't help but be worried.

Think about that for a moment.

[khasim]

How does a coder know what the specs are?

#1. They hack them out the way Team Samba does (yay Team Samba!!!)

#2. They read the specs that are published

#3. They "clean room" the specs.

#4. They read the specs that they've just purchased the rights to.

Anyone have any other ways?

Now, which way are the Novell coders going to use to get specs ... that does NOT involve a potential software patent issue with Microsoft?

If you're thinking "Novell just partnered with Microsoft and Microsoft can share their specs with Novell now" ... that's the easiest way for Microsoft to get their software patents into Linux.

And anyone who thinks that Microsoft wants to play nice with Linux has NOT been reading the history here.

Re:Think about that for a moment.

[burnin1965]

And when a monopolist uses illegal business tactics you use the law to ensure interoperability, cooperation, and a competative free market, you don't sign contracts or agreements with a corporation known to use illegal business tactics to destroy competition.

http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=19883&hed =Microsoft+Meets+EU+Deadline

Re:Think about that for a moment.

[Phantombrain]

Nov 27 11:44:33 Nat_ (By the way, in that process, we don't plan to add MS-patented code to our contributions)
Nov 27 11:44:42 Nat_ (Our policy on that is unchanged -- and MS didn't give us the right to do that anyway!)

Re:Think about that for a moment.

[ClosedSource]

You seem to be confusing trade secrets with patents. You can't use the "clean room" approach to avoid a patent issue. Either interoperability can't be acheived without violating MS patents or it can be. Whether Novell coders do or do not get specifications is irrelevent to the patent issue. You don't need to know anything about how Amazon implemented their one-click functionality to violate the one-click patent.

Re:Think about that for a moment.

[Bruce Perens]

He may have one valid point, though. The difference between knowing infringement, and unknowing. Knowing infringement carries treble damages, unknowing only simple damages. I think it might be more difficult to claim unknowing infringement on code that comes from Novell now.

Bruce

Re:Think about that for a moment.

[ClosedSource]

I think that's a pretty big stretch. I seriously doubt a court would buy the idea that you were guilty of knowing infringement of any and all MS patents on the basis of an agreement not to sue between Novell and MS. It's a bit like IBM claiming that you knowingly infringed on one of their patents simply because you were aware that they have more patents than anyone else. The relationship is too indirect. Most likely MS (or IBM) would have to prove that you had knowlege that you were infringing on the specific patent in question.

Re:Think about that for a moment.

[vojtech]

At SuSE (now part of Novell), we have implemented a number of open-source drivers based on specs we based on documentation received under some kind of contract, including NDAs.

We always made sure that the contract contained a clause that we're free to use any information we received this way to implement and distribute a driver under the terms of the GPL, and that the other party knows about that and agrees to it. This implies that there either are no patent claims on that code, or that the relevant patents are licensed to every potential recipient of the code automatically.

We are not going to change that policy.

Btw, points 1-3 don't protect anyone from having potential patent issues, they can only help with copyright issues. For patents, it doesn't matter how you arrived to implementing one of those.

Let's make Novell a similar offer

[Peter Cooper]

If Novell will pay me a mere $4 million over the next five years, I'll promise not to sue any of their customers for any reason at all.

This offer is also open to any other companies who want to take me up on it.

Re:Let's make Novell a similar offer

[aussie_a]

If Novell will pay me a mere $4 million AU over the next five years, I'll promise not to sue any of their customers for any reason at all.

This offer is also open to any other companies who want to take me up on it.

Re:Let's make Novell a similar offer

[Victor Antolini]

Bill, is that you?

Clarification: Questions in the wiki

[invisik]

I was able to attend the meeting this morning and feel the text of this slashdot story is a little misleading.

People who are unable to attend can post their questions in the wiki before the meeting (the wiki link in the article). The questions in the wiki were reviewed during the meeting, and many were addressed. Some, however, were not specifically addressed as they were answered during the live Q&A earlier in the meeting. Therefore, all of the questions (live and on the wiki) were addressed in one way or another.

That being said, I think it was great to hear from Nat directly.

-m

Scripted by PR?

[HiThere]

This think reads like it was scripted by the PR department.

Also, I notice that they had things rigged so that they could censor any questions they didn't like. (Reasonable, an open forum would have been a mad house, but not exactly a process that builds trust.)

They also didn't say anything about which of their customers could redistribute what. The short answer appears to be "We aren't interested in developers."

Re:Scripted by PR?

[invisik]

I believe it is standard practice for openSUSE meetings to have a moderator in control of the questions (eg, turning on one person at a time to ask questions). I'll find out for sure next status meeting! Anyone in attendance could pose their question to the moderator or to the wiki before to be included. I don't believe there was a hard time limit (although a 1 hour notice was posted, even thought the meeting went for almost 2 hours).

Also, I think it's reasonable to believe that Nat doesn't know everything about the deal. There were some questions that didn't get good answers as a result. (Like what happens is MS doesn't fulfill their end of the deal, etc). I hope Novell corporate is reading the transcript and is working to answer.

-m

Re:Scripted by PR?

[QuantumG]

Kinda makes you think that half way through the log you'll see:<DeveloperBob> Look, it's really not a big deal. This is just business stu.. RUN YOU FOOLS, IT'S A TRAP!!!
*** DeveloperBob has left IRC
<DeveloperSteve> ok, so next question please...They've been taken over by the borg, man.

Re:Scripted by PR?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got that right!

And did anyone else notice how little real information was released?
Even Nat and AJ were only "informed" about the deal a few days prior to announce..?

So why are they the ones trying to answer questions and anchoring the IRC event?
Where were Hovsepian and Dragoon, the ones who conceived and consummated the deal?

They are the ones that should be holding Press conferences and answering questions.

Re:Scripted by PR?

[houghi]

The meeting USED to be moderated. They are open now. As long as the noise is low enough, there is no problem. You can find all the logs at openSUSE.org and read them youselves..

However there were more then 200 people and having a meeting with such a controversial subject would have ended up in not being heard at all if it were just open for all to post whatever they wanted,

I believe they are working on answering the rest of the questions that were not answered during the meeting.

Look at what Microsoft is paying for.

[khasim]

The balance of payments are by far in Novell's favor from what I've seen. I don't remember the exact numbers but Microsoft is paying far more than Novell is paying them for the patent agreement.

Yes, that is correct.

Microsoft is paying hundreds of millions of dollars for SuSE support licenses. Far more than Novell is paying Microsoft.

Now, when was the last time anyone tried to buy SuSE from Microsoft? Has anyone here tried to? No?

Okay, when was the last time anyone called Microsoft's tech support about a SuSE issue? Has anyone here tried that? No?

Well, it seems that Microsoft paid a LOT of money for licenses that it will probably never use and didn't seem to need in the past. You might want to look up the history of the SCO lawsuit and see how Microsoft also paid for SCO licenses that Microsoft will probably never use and didn't seem to need prior to that.

So, it looks like Microsoft paid for Novell's signature on that "patent agreement". Novell couldn't say "no" to that big of an instant payoff.

Now, go back and read about Microsoft's other "partners" and how Microsoft treated them. There isn't any reason to believe that Microsoft is suddenly going to play nice and fair with Linux (or Novell). Microsoft's who business model is based upon their monopolistic control of the desktop.

Re:Look at what Microsoft is paying for.

[idlake]

So, it looks like Microsoft paid for Novell's signature on that "patent agreement". Novell couldn't say "no" to that big of an instant payoff.

Yes, indeed. And that also makes the agreement pretty meaningless. "I give you a net amount of several hundred million dollars, together with a license to all my patents" simply does not demonstrate that someone's patents have any value.

Re:Look at what Microsoft is paying for.

[vojtech]

A few points:

• The patent covenant agreement alone is cash positive for Novell, sales of SLES by MS not included.
• Microsoft is contractually required to sell those SLES coupons, and failing that, it would create a reason for the termination of the agreement.
• Microsoft didn't pay for any licenses, only for the right and obligation to sell SLES to its own customers.
• Novell doesn't at all expect to be treated nice by Microsoft. And it isn't. Your post, attacking Novell, clearly shows that Microsoft's strategy is working. What's the best way to hurt an open-source company? Make a few remarks that turn its community against it.

Re:Look at what Microsoft is paying for.

[krayfx]

...maybe then, novell should wake up, smell the coffee, and then get the heck out of that deal! the writ is against them, they are going against the grain, and as mentioned by bruce that a lot of analysts are indeed verifying the deal with a healthy dose of caution. looks like novell's just pulled the trigger on themselves.

is this another case of greedy management looking after their wad of greens ? maybe the board should simply fire the mgt team and get a new one and save the company from being on the headlines at fuckedcompany.com very very soon.

Re:Look at what Microsoft is paying for.

[init100]

What's the best way to hurt an open-source company? Make a few remarks that turn its community against it.

No, the best way is to sign an agreement with the open source company and start to FUD its competitors. Just like the situation we have now.

Re:Look at what Microsoft is paying for.

[G Money]

There isn't actually a license to use each others patents, only an agreement not sue each others customers for any products they sell which might infringe on their patents. They can still sue the hell out of each other, just not the end customers.

Where will he go away?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mexico?
Cuba?
The south of France is wonderful this time of year
and so close to both the riviera and Barcelona.

Oh yes, please let it be that!

let that be where goes away .....

Go now little Linux...go on your merry way....

This statement might be wrong

[astrashe]

Nat said, "We're glad they're talking about GPLv3, also, because it means that they don't think there are any incompatiblities between GPLv2 and the covenants issued by Novell and Microsoft."

But here I read that, "Moglen offered no opinion on whether the Microsoft-Novell deal violates the GPL currently in effect (known as version 2), but merely pledged that version 3 would clearly bar such "discriminatory" deals."

Maybe the quote I've used here is wrong, or maybe it's been superceded by something Moglen has said since then. Or maybe Nat made an honest mistake.

But I think the Novell people should be as careful as possible not to misprepresent any of the facts in this situation -- once it seems like spinning, people will just tune Novell out.

Re:This statement might be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Nat said, "We're glad they're talking about GPLv3, also, because it means that they don't think there are any incompatiblities between GPLv2 and the covenants issued by Novell and Microsoft."

no more than you little deal with msft infers that msft has patents that linux breaks.

how can you guys be so thickheaded not to see how intellectually inconsistent you are?

this isn't some cheesy game here - you guys accepted bribe money to FUD linux until kingdom come - just so you could make a buck.

well, you'll never make a buck if i can help it until you renounce your moral relativism in a big way...

"our patent deal with msft doesn't infer anything, but if they talk about updating the gpl v3, it means were all good with v2" doesn't cut it.

oh, and why are you making $300 million deals if you don't even know if the deal may end your business model that is the foundation of the deal?

i hope the money was worth the heaping coals and damage you've done to the open source communities around the globe.

do tell me you got s big cut for toting the company line in such an inconsistent way...

skeetebug - /. wasn't letting me login tonight.

Re:This statement might be wrong

[Nat Friedman]

A few years ago Red Hat introduced their service license which said that if you bought Linux from them, made a copy of it, and put it on another machine, your service contract for the paid machine was canceled. There was a pretty loud reaction to this, and a lot of people in the community said that Red Hat's service agreement was incompatible with GPLv2. Eventually Eben Moglen and the SFLC reviewed Red Hat's service agreement and said "it's on the edge, but it does not violate GPLv2" (or words to that effect).

That seems to be what's happened here too. In Tokyo a few days ago Richard Stallman said:

> What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence,
> and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. [...]

(from http://www.germany.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/to kyo-rms-transcript#novell-ms)

This is a pretty clear statement that the letter of GPLv2 is not touched.

(He does go on to say that GPLv3 will include new language.)

Re:This statement might be wrong

[dcam]

This is a pretty clear statement that the letter of GPLv2 is not touched.

(He does go on to say that GPLv3 will include new language.)

Whether this was the intent or not, the patent side of this deal has pissed off the FSF to the extent that it GPLv3 will be explicitly written to invalidate this deal. Equally this deal is likely to spur the adoption of GPLv3, even among people who were previously opposed.

Sorry Nat but whatever your intentions, I think you guys are in serious trouble.

Re:This statement might be wrong

[meosborne]

While I didn't like RedHat's terms, it is not the same thing as what Novell has done. Nothing in RedHat's terms would stop you from actually running the software, it affected support only. Under the Novell deal, if I don't want to pay Novell then I am under threat of being able to use the software at all. Big difference.

I find the whole interoperability thing to be a joke. The is *NO* issue with being interoperable with Linux since everything is open. No special deals are required. Microsoft can make Windows more interoperable with Linux at will. They don't want to. This agreement is about making Linux doing things the "Windows Way(TM)" which is Microsoft's real definition of interoperability.

Re:This statement might be wrong

[init100]

This is a pretty clear statement that the letter of GPLv2 is not touched.

Not necessarily. RMS basically uses Novell's own words, and it may be that he views it that way. That does not mean that a court would view it this way, if a developer of GPL software were to sue them for breaking the license. What the court would say is simply unknown, and usually cannot be inferred in advance.

Re:This statement might be wrong

[pajor]

And yet, in the Novell case, it's quite clear they setup a legal construct to specifically get around section 7. Don't you think this is shady unto itself? Why are the Ximian guys not addressing this? The intentions of developers are clearly being avoided. Why is the response, "Well redhat kind of did it too" instead of an explanation why this is moral and upstanding behavior?

Samba? Mono? Moderators?

[mpapet]

All broke
has microsoft expressed any interest in cooperating inother compatibility areas? apart from xen and OOo?
Nov 27 12:21:44 say, samba or kerberos.. or wine
The three areas we already agreed on are the beginning, not the end. I am sure you will see more going forward.
Nov 27 12:22:50 hd41, let's say I worry because so far they haven't given the EU much useful documentation
isnt samba and mono covered too?
        Virtualization, OpenOffice and WebServicesManagement is where we begin.
        who are the moderators?
        We can't really comment on that.
Someone help me out here. They can't comment on the moderators? They don't want to touch Samba, MS's broken kerberos or wine?

Give me some clue. I'm not getting the warm fuzzies based on these comments.

Real reason for deal revealed!

[Azureflare]

5. This deal does not violate GPLv2.
Eben Moglen read our agreement and hasn't said a thing about GPLv2 violation. It's abundantly clear that he doesn't think there is any.
Instead, he and Richard are using the community energy to try to get people to adopt the previously-controversial GPLv3 (which we support also)

Hey, this is actually a cool way to get GPLv3 accepted. Reading over the log, and seeing their responses, I feel a bit better about the deal. I'm still suspicious but I'm no longer at the point where I am ready to remove openSuSE from my system and install debian.

I really hope this works out, Novell has done a lot of great things in the past and I would like to see them continue their good work.

Re:"mis-underestimate"

[loconet]

No kidding. Thank you for pointing that out. That is why keyboards shouldn't work after a certain number of hours of constant functioning.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I find the software industry dominated by sociopaths like RMS and ridiculous and virulent software licenses like GPL3 far scarier than the patent cold war. GNU and the GPL have been a plague on the free software movement from day one. Holding proprietary driver code shops at gunpoint and telling them they are legally obligated to open up their modules effectively illustrates this point. nVidia/ATI doesn't need linux, linux needs nVidia/ATI. If people truly cared about 'freeing' software instead of control they would use the BSD license. The FSF is nothing more than a thinly veiled power grab. World domination indeed...

It is a damn shame that they have infected so many useful bodies with their lies.

--

Re:Really?

[SmokedS]

Ah, it's so cute to see the little trolls having fun.
*pats the little troll on the head for a spirited, yet inane and obvious trolling attempt*

Re:Really?

[mAIsE]

BSD makes sure the software is free to use
GPL makes sure the software is truly free

Re:Really?

[init100]

And you should go back under the bridge where you belong.

rofl

[bouma]

(The Vercotti brothers enter. They wear Mafia suits and dark glasses.)
Dino: (Terry Jones) Good morning, Colonel.
Colonel: Good morning gentlemen. Now what can I do for you.
Luigi: (Michael Palin) (looking round office casually) You've ... you've got a nice army base here, Colonel.
Colonel: Yes.
Luigi: We wouldn't want anything to happen to it.
Colonel: What?
Dino: No, what my brother means is it would be a shame if... (he knocks something off mantel)
Colonel: Oh.
Dino: Oh sorry, Colonel.
Colonel: Well don't worry about that. But please do sit down.
Luigi: No, we prefer to stand, thank you, Colonel.
Colonel: All right. All right. But what do you want?
Dino: What do we want, ha ha ha.
Luigi: Ha ha ha, very good, Colonel.
Dino: The Colonel's a joker, Luigi.
Luigi: Explain it to the Colonel, Dino.
Dino: How many tanks you got, Colonel?
Colonel: About five hundred altogether.
Luigi: Five hundred! Hey!
Dino: You ought to be careful, Co1onel.
Colonel: We are careful, extremely careful.
Dino: 'Cos things break, don't they?
Colonel: Break?
Luigi: Well everything breaks, don't it Colonel. (he breaks something on desk) Oh dear.
Dino: Oh see my brother's clumsy Colonel, and when he gets unhappy he breaks things. Like say, he don't feel the army's playing fair by him, he may start breaking things, Colonel.
Colonel: What is all this about?
Luigi: How many men you got here, Colonel?
Colonel: Oh, er ... seven thousand infantry, six hundred artillery, and er, two divisions of paratroops.
Luigi: Paratroops, Dino.
Dino: Be a shame if someone was to set fire to them.
Colonel: Set fire to them?
Luigi: Fires happen, Colonel.
Dino: Things burn.
Colonel: Look, what is all this about?
Dino: My brother and I have got a little proposition for you Colonel.
Luigi: Could save you a lot of bother.
Dino: I mean you're doing all right here aren't you, Colonel?
Luigi: Well suppose some of your tanks was to get broken and troops started getting lost, er, fights started breaking out during general inspection, like.
Dino: It wouldn't be good for business would it, Colonel?
Colonel: Are you threatening me?
Dino: Oh, no, no, no.
Luigi: Whatever made you think that, Colonel?
Dino: The Colonel doesn't think we're nice people, Luigi.
Luigi: We're your buddies, Colonel.
Dino: We want to look after you.
Colonel: Look after me?
Luigi: We can guarantee you that not a single armoured division will get done over for fifteen bob a week.
Colonel: No, no, no.
Luigi: Twelve and six.
Colonel: No, no, no.
Luigi: Eight and six ... five bob...

Dumbass

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

They clearly state that they are paying up to prevent frivolous lawsuits. Furthermore, in their GPLv3 conversation, they go on to say that Redhat and HP offer the same protection, only they are agreeing to pay for the legal costs if their customers are sued. Read the whole article first.

Re:Dumbass

[suckmysav]

"They clearly state that they are paying up to prevent frivolous lawsuits."

Yes. Frivolous lawsuits bought against them by . . . . Microsoft.

But no, it's not a protection racket, no. Not at all.

How does MS benefit from this deal?

[argoo]

How will MS benefit from interoperability with OO? MS Office is a cash cow for the company. Why would MS want to make it easier for customer's to dump MS Office? Virtualization interoperability makes more sense. MS wants to make sure that Xen, etc. can run Windows w/o a hitch.

Re:How does MS benefit from this deal?

[Eric MB Lard MD]

Why would MS want to make it easier for customer's to dump MS Office?

The collaboration is on adding support for M$'s rival to open document format to OOo.

M$ wants to own the office format, hence its fear of open document. Having support for their own, xml-based, format in OOo is a good thing for them. Their format has enough proprietary stuff embedded in it that they can continue to ensure that open source office products don't render documents the same is M$ office.

This piece of collaboration is a no-brainer for M$.

My Rant.

[bmo]

" I think people have overreacted to this deal
  I guess because it involves the words "Microsoft" and "patents" "

BECAUSE, NAT, WE'VE GOT A FUCKING LAWSUIT THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER THREE FUCKING YEARS ASSERTING THAT THERE IS FUCKING INFRINGING IP IN LINUX AND IT HAS BEEN NOTHING MORE THAN VACUOUS STATEMENTS BACKED UP BY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING SINCE FUCKING 2003! AND NOW YOU IDIOTS SIGNED A FUCKING CONTRACT THAT IS BEING SPUN BY MICROSOFT THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH INFRINGING IP IN LINUX! WELL, FUCK YOU! WHERE THE FUCK HAS NOVELL BEEN FOR THE PAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS? I FUCKING SWEAR THAT HOVESEPIAN CAN FUCKING MESS UP MAKING A FUCKING PEANUT BUTTER SANDWICH!

I hope that's plain enough.

Goddamn, they _still_ do not get it.

--
BMO

Re:My Rant.

[Enderandrew]

I'm sure someone is going to mod you troll, but that doesn't take away from the veracity of your post.

Re:My Rant.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I think you proved their point. The deal essentially says that a lawsuit can happen but novell customers or noncommercial devlopers will not be sued. it does not contrary to your well thought out rant, provide any evidence that there is any infringing code and microsoft made it clear that they understood that to be novell's position. If you listen to microsoft's fud and take it as truth thats *your* fault. Emotion is ... not logical. Novell simply went one step farther than redhat or hp did by offering protection against lawsuits by actually getting a promise from a company. A potential lawsuit would kill mircorsoft as well if you read the transcript you would have been reminded of the microsoft linspire lawsuit that went so well for them. Also note that the much hates sco case has also gone along way in setting president. And its not looking good for people trying to "discover" infringing code in linux.

Re:My Rant.

[bmo]

"The deal essentially says that a lawsuit can happen but novell customers or noncommercial devlopers will not be sued."

Which means that everyone else is left swinging in the wind. It means that members of OSDL are not protected because they are paid. Correct me if I am wrong. It means that every author that accepts a paycheck from his regular programming job is a target if he writes software that Microsoft doesn't like.

And it doesn't even have to be something that infringes. Just the threat of a lawsuit in a strongly worded letter from a Microsoft lawyer makes many people retract projects, because they simply can't afford to go up against a giant like Microsoft.

Oy, there is so much wrong with your assumptions that I don't know where to finish up.

"If you listen to microsoft's fud and take it as truth thats *your* fault."

I am not worried about _my_ ears. I am worried about the FALSEHOOD AND LIES that Microsoft is spreading around to be picked up by every PHB, Purchasing manager, and uninformed internal corporate lawyer. Novell has just signed a deal that _endorses_ Microsoft's behavior and agrees with their POV.

Get the facts, indeed.

*grumble*

--
BMO - SuSE Linux from versions 6.1 to 10 and no further.

Re:My Rant.

[Daniel Phillips]

BECAUSE, NAT, WE'VE GOT A FUCKING LAWSUIT THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER THREE FUCKING YEARS ASSERTING THAT THERE IS FUCKING INFRINGING IP IN LINUX AND IT HAS BEEN NOTHING MORE THAN VACUOUS STATEMENTS BACKED UP BY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING SINCE FUCKING 2003! AND NOW YOU IDIOTS SIGNED A FUCKING CONTRACT THAT IS BEING SPUN BY MICROSOFT THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH INFRINGING IP IN LINUX! WELL, FUCK YOU! WHERE THE FUCK HAS NOVELL BEEN FOR THE PAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS? I FUCKING SWEAR THAT HOVESEPIAN CAN FUCKING MESS UP MAKING A FUCKING PEANUT BUTTER SANDWICH!

Well said, my sentiments exactly. To be honest, Nat Friedman's dodging makes me ill.

Re:My Rant.

[weicco]

Getting sued by / counter-suing SCO?

Re:My Rant.

[Builder]

Dude, really! Hadn't you heard that profanity is the inevitable linguistic crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker? (apologies to Bruce Sherrod). You can't be using words like asserting and vacuous in the same post as fucking.

I mean, come on, standards people!

Re:My Rant.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way that Novell could have taken MS's money is by showing an itemization of the deal:

Hovespian:"We paid Microsoft one dollar so they wouldn't sue our customers, and they paid us 450,000,001 dollars for Suse licenses. Steve, call me if you want the dollar back."

And, some strong language from Hovespian, the next day wouldn't have hurt either, (this is especially effective from someone working in Provo)

Hovespian: "If Steve thinks he paid for anything else, he can go fuck himself. I am sure Microsoft's army of lawyers could explain that to him- if he'd let them. How does it feel to be hanging from the end of the rope? Ha! Ha."

But that's the trouble with dealing with whores. Maybe you only wanted the massage, but your wife sees things differently. The statements from Ballmer the day after the deal sounded like someone got screwed and it's clear who was on top.

No, Novell needed a cash infusion at any cost. It cost them their good reputation.

Re:My Rant.

[houghi]

Uhm. How is the thread different from what was going on before?

Before: Everybody could get sued.
Now: Everybody, execept NOVell customers could get sued.

Re:My Rant.

[Zellis]

Well, that explains the advantage to Novell at any rate. Now they can profit from skittish customers who switch to Novell because they take Microsoft's "undisclosed balance liability" FUD seriously, since, as you say, Novell customers (and ONLY Novell customers) can't be sued.

Getting a leg-up over your Linux competitors via Microsoft's FUD? That's business I guess. It's just not any kind of business I'd want to associate with.

Re:My Rant.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's different because Novell has implicitly agreed with MS that there are IP problems in Linux. Having somebody admit "guilt" goes a long way to making any further claims credible. That's often how the patent trolls work - find a weak victim that knuckles under, and then, once precedence is set, go after the bigger fish.

We'll ignore how it goes against the spirit (and possibly the letter) of GPL 2 and will definitely be a no-no in GPLv3.

Re:My Rant.

[BiOFH]

Brav-Fucking-O

Re:My Rant.

[morzel]

And how exactly are patents involved in the SCO case? (And I'm not talking about IBM patents)...
IIRC, the whole SCO case is based on contract issues w.r.t. "IP" (as superfluous as that term is) and possibly a copyright issue. The Microsoft deal is so different it's not even funny -- especially when you know they actually have a bloody case under the current US legislation.

Not having the Microsoft-Novell deal would change absolutely nothing about the legal status of Linux and the kernel w.r.t. Microsoft's patents. If you think that killing the deal would be better for Linux, you're sticking your head in the sand.
Microsoft can sue any Linux distributor and end user at any given time for patent infringement and have a case of substance, regardless of the "obviousness" of the patent... Look how the RIM/NTP case went: all patent claims were stricken as bogus and NTP still hit the jackpot.

The only reason Microsoft is not suing is because of the impact of such a move on the anti-monopoly suits that Microsoft is currently dealing with.

Software patents should be abolished. That is the only way this can be resolved. Not by hammering on this deal.

Re:My Rant.

[init100]

The only reason Microsoft is not suing is because of the impact of such a move on the anti-monopoly suits that Microsoft is currently dealing with.

As well as the pro software patent lobbying they are doing in the EU. A software patent lawsuit against a major open source project and/or Linux distributor might cast a big shadow on their lobbying.

I guess they'll wait with the lawsuits until software patents are legalized in the EU.

Re:My Rant.

[BlindBear]

Well said bmo, the clarity of your appreciation of what is really going on is refreshing. I could not word it better and feel that some others haven't yet 'got a grip on it'.Your use of uppercase and colorful words on /. is probably required at this stage to help the few still in the dark to 'get a grip' on the real situation.
There will be no more Suse/Novell in this household.
Have a great day !

Re:My Rant.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what you mean to say is that you were desperate for a reason to hate someone (or maybe even Novell specifically) and now you have the incling of a reason and so you are going to emotionally explode at them.

Bravo Linux Community, bravo.

And you guys wonder why you will lose this so-called "Microsoft vs Linux" war. You guys are out for blood. Anyone's blood. And people see that and are put off by it all.

Re:My Rant.

[10Ghz]

Before: "Linux infringes on our IP, and we COULD sue them."
After: "Linux infringes on our IP, and we COULD sue them. And Novell agrees with us".

wow, is it just me?

[zappepcs]

Everyone here knows what happens to people/companies that do a deal with MS... they very quickly become deceased or owned. This simply means the final end of Suse and Novell. MS will do this one distribution at a time... or have we not learned anything from their past behavior?

Surely, it is not just me that sees this as the first step in MS owning Linux? I KNOW how paranoid that sounds, but lets get real and deal with past history, real fact, actual behaviors...

I really don't care how this gets modded, it must be said that a tiger doesn't change it's stripes, so why is MS doing this? out of kindness, or out of a desire to own Linux? While that may be paranoid at this point, look at what they stand to gain if one distribution owns up to IP issues? It will tie up all the other distributions in litigation...

I have to say, personally, I find all this 'love fest' rather dangerous indeed

Re:wow, is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that happened, Microsoft would only "own" one particular distribution of Linux. It's really no different than if they made their own, except that SuSE users would either have to work with Microsoft or switch.

Re:wow, is it just me?

[kripkenstein]

Everyone here knows what happens to people/companies that do a deal with MS... they very quickly become deceased or owned. This simply means the final end of Suse and Novell. MS will do this one distribution at a time... or have we not learned anything from their past behavior?

Mostly correct, but I disagree with the bit I emphasized. Microsoft are surely smart enough to know that they can't wipe out Linux one distribution at a time; for every distro they quash, a few others will rise up. This tactic may spread fear in the business world ("Linux is a risky business" and such), but it won't kill 'Linux'.

No, Microsoft are surely smart enough to know that they can't kill Linux like they killed their former victims. Instead, they'll have to destroy every possible Linux distribution in one fell swoop. How can this be attempted? By, say, patents - assert a few patents that any OS must implement, and every Linux distro is in jeopardy.

Thank you, Novell, for empowering Microsoft's long-term plan to do so.

Re:wow, is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

How on Earth got that crap modded +5 Insightful? Microsoft did not buy SUSE nor Novell. They merely agreed that they will not sue each others' customers. Geez.

Re:wow, is it just me?

[Nat Friedman]

People keep saying this, but there are counterexamples.

In 1997 Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple. The deal also involved a promise from Microsoft to make Office available on Macintoshes, and there was a patent agreement as well. Bill Gates appeared on the big screen at MacWorld to jeers and shouts. People said Apple had done a deal with the devil and was dead. But in fact the deal gave Apple the money and the breathing room to build itself up and they are far from dead now (though not the most open company in the world, obviously).

In 2004 Sun did a deal with Microsoft, were paid $1 billion, and signed a patent agreement with MS as well. This month they announced they are GPLing Java.

So while I agree that MS is a dangerous company and you have to be careful when you do anything with them, it's simply not true that doing a deal with them is always fatal.

Re:wow, is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Nat, You're right these deals aren't always fatal.

The thing to remember whenever you play russian roulette with Microsoft is to watch them. They load extra chambers when you're not looking.

Re:wow, is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you have more examples than that. Neither one of those companies are primarily software based. Apple without MS Ofiice?
No problem. Sun without Java? No problem. What's Novell without Linux?

Re:wow, is it just me?

[CODiNE]

the deal gave Apple the money and the breathing room to build itself up

While I agree with most of your comment, I'm pretty sure that Apple had a few billion $$ in the bank at the time and Microsoft's investment was more of a good faith gesture than actually being badly needed cash.

Re:wow, is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

In 2004 Sun did a deal with Microsoft, were paid $1 billion, and signed a patent agreement with MS as well. This month they announced they are GPLing Java.

How convenient of you to FORGET that Sun also agreed NOT TO PROTECT OpenOffice from a Microsoft lawsuit. Could it be that they have StarOffice to sell? Could it be that they KNOW that if OOo goes away they can jack StarOffice's price up to 80% or more of Office's price?

And, you also forgot that Sun did NOT GPL the classpaths. How convenient for them.

Re:wow, is it just me?

[Vitriol Angst]

That "investment" was when Jobs had Gates over the barrell with a sawed off shotgun aimed at his head. Microsoft was found guilty of stealing the API of Quicktime in its Video for Windows 1.4c (if memory serves) - the rip-off was so blatant, the compiled binaries matched up (on Windows, of course). It was either give Apple some marketplace credibility with this "investment" or finally get caught red-handed being software pirates. The second option would have hurt Microsoft a lot more, but helped Apple, their stockholders, and any chance at getting Office compatibility.

So the one example you found, of Microsoft "doing the right thing" is because it was a backroom deal.

Please note, that Microsoft almost destroyed Java by "embrace and extend" and their "niceness" was after years of legal battles. They stole lots of design and API ideas from Apple to create Windows -- but through legal loophole, used a developer agreement to create a competing product -- so a combination of Jobs being too trusting, and a lousy Judge. So while not fatal is like saying; some people survive cancer ... I don't know of anyone who wants to contract it, just because some people survive.

Microsoft has benefitted greatly by stealing ideas, embrace and extend, monopoly bundling, and anti-competitive practices... the slaps on the wrist they've received have never equaled the profits created. So I don't see any reason for them to change. Perhaps they can grab a lot of LINUX patents, and ruin the corporate marketplace with a lot of lawsuit FUD. I'm willing to bet, that they helped another prominent company attempt to do the same thing a few years ago.

And SUN is GPLing Java -- they are not Microsoft... and again, that "Deal" was because Microsoft had to due to their anti-competitive behavior with Java.

Please come back with some actual examples, of good business practices by Microsoft where it concerns a competitor. I don't know of any. Though I think they might have done OK for the group that made SoftImage, because they abandoned 3D development.

A-fucking-men.

[SaDan]

And that's all I've gotta say.

Thanks Novell, for going after the quick buck. I hope you die a slow ass death much like SCO... burn, baby, burn.

Novell likely looking for coverage for mono

[JohnnyCanuck]

I think the real thing here is that they are looking for coverage of Mono is possibly infringing on .NET patents. I think this is the first time that software has done a cross-licensing deal for patents in the same way that a lot of hardware companies do (amd and intel have a cross patent agreement If I remember correctly). Novell has bet a lot on mono to build up apps that run on linux/windows and this is ensuring that. if there are some casualties that arent part of their business agenda so be it.

It does not matter what Novell's motivations were

[mythz]

The issue is not what Novell intentions were or what they were thinking at the time when entering the deal, it's what the deal now allows MS to achieve. Novell just got pawned as they have now just strengthened MS ability to print FUD about Linux.

This deal was a trojan from the start. Before the ink was even dry Ballmer was screaming that they were finally getting economic return from the use of their IP in Linux and that anyone not using Suse will have an 'undisclosed balance sheet liability'. There was not a peep about how great this deal is that it now allows MS and Suse operating systems to work better, which was meant to be the *purpose* of the deal anyway.

Doesn't Violate GPL2?

[Bruce Perens]

They seem to be so proud about having engineered this really circuitous granting of promises to each other's customers instead of to each other so that they could (maybe) fit within the letter of the GPL2 by a hair. They should be feeling shame for having screwed their partners that way. Because there's no question that they're way outside of the intent of the agreement that they entered with thousands of GPL programmers.

My open letter to Novell is still available for you to sign. There are 2245 signatures from angry people as I write this. That is an unprecedented number for anything like this, and shows a tremendous depth of anger in the Free Software community over this deal.

Bruce

Re:Doesn't Violate GPL2?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it amusing that you boldened "angry people" in your statement, because, really, that's all they are. They are EMOTIONALLY upset at something they don't fully understand. It is a known fact that emotions cloud people's reasoning.

You are just playing on people's emotions. That makes you morally suspect. Anyone who has to play on people's emotions to win an argument is sure to be standing on pretty weak ground.

I'm sorry, Bruce, but you sicken me.

Re:Doesn't Violate GPL2?

[Azureflare]

Hmm maybe I need to re-evaluate my position then. I .. think I may be installing some debian later.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

MS end run around the GPL.

[fuego451]

The single best place to go for information on this ms/novell deal, best estimates of what it means to the FOSS community and the GPL is Groklaw. PJ, as usual, has put a lot of effort into gathering information, explaining legal points, providing links to more information and getting opinions form many in the community. She has about four posts up on this subject and each is worth the read.

Just my two cents worth.

What Red Hat and HP offer is not the same

[Bruce Perens]

Red Hat and HP are offering to help you if you get sued by a patent holder who is not them. In contrast, Novell has this friend "Big Mike" who was going to beat you up, but Novell made a deal with him so that Big Mike will now promise not to beat you up. Hopefully everybody can see the difference.

Bruce

Re:What Red Hat and HP offer is not the same

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Ok true, but I don't see how the situation can be improved with GPL v3 and not affect Redhat Et all. But, going forwards, its going to be difficult to police patents in Linux. I don't think patents should be applicable in software,but unfortunately I'm not in charge of writing the laws. The jpeg and Gif patent cases show the effect of patents on commercial software. If there weren't proprietary software to go after, who are the large patent holding companies going to go after? Anyone who has demonstratable money, which includes large end users ans well as resellers. I've heard various people opine that if infringing code were to be found it would be expunged, but what if the patent is to such a important piece of an open standard that can't be easily replaced, at least in corporate production environments? I think, short of changing the laws, indemnification packages are here to stay and that probably means companies will start making deals with individual patent holding corporations to ensure a stable ecosystem. It sucks,but companies can package it together with support contracts. I think the Major distros have to be proactive in this regard and band together so deals such as novell microsoft cover *everyone*.

Re:What Red Hat and HP offer is not the same

[Bruce Perens]

Ok true, but I don't see how the situation can be improved with GPL v3 and not affect Redhat Et all.

Oh, it's no problem for Red Hat and HP. It's only a problem for people who own the patents in question or people who have made a deal with the owners of the patents. People who indemnify do so by reimbursing your damages out of their own pockets or through an insurance company, and they do so regardless of whose patents got you in trouble.

There is a fundamental difference between indemnification and what Novell is doing. And an ethical difference too.

I don't think patents should be applicable in software,but unfortunately I'm not in charge of writing the laws.

You don't feel very empowered, do you. Not many of us do. But that's what democracy was supposed to be for. This is a problem we have to solve.

Bruce

Re:What Red Hat and HP offer is not the same

[Nat Friedman]

Hopefully everyone can also see that Big Mike so-to-say ended up getting shaken down by Novell for an awful lot more than they got from Novell.

Re:What Red Hat and HP offer is not the same

[frogstar_robot]

Big Mike was more than happy to pay since he got an expansive license to run his mouth AND sound like he knows what he's talking about. Linux will have more than 300 million dollars of damage done to it on account of this deal. That Novell profited is hardly any consolation.

Re:What Red Hat and HP offer is not the same

[14CharUsername]

Also don't forget the implication that "Big Mike" might beat you up if you buy stuff from Novell's competitors.

Re:What Red Hat and HP offer is not the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Replying AC from work.

If I sound less than empowered thats because, I *do* have some contacts with a couple democratic US senators. Its not a priority of theirs, and they don't really want to look into it.

Re:What Red Hat and HP offer is not the same

[miguel]

Hello,

This is actually inacurrate. In Red Hat's case, as stated on their service contract:

http://www.redhat.com/rhel/details/assurance/

The assurance program assures customers that if there is an intellectual property issue with Red Hat Enterprise Linux ("RHEL") or JBoss Enterprise Middleware Suite ("JEMS"), Red Hat will either (i) replace the infringing portion of the software, (ii) modify the software so that it becomes non-infringing, or (iii) obtain the rights necessary for a customer to continue its use of the software without interruption.

So everything is fine up to points (i) and (ii). The problem comes if the technology is deeply embedded enough that it can not be simply "replaced" or "modified to become non-infringing".

Per the service agreement that customers are signing up to with Red Hat, they would be forced to "obtain the rights necessary for a customer to continue its use of the software without interruption".

So the contract actually contradicts Red Hat's Mark public statements.

Miguel.

Re:What Red Hat and HP offer is not the same

[salimma]

Red Hat would acquire the right to use the patent if absolutely necessary. That sounds different to me to paying someone for patent coverage protection.

Re:What Red Hat and HP offer is not the same

[Atzanteol]

Aren't you a little concerned about why "Big Mike" has an evil grin on his face then?

Re:What Red Hat and HP offer is not the same

[init100]

Red Hat and HP are offering to help you if you get sued by a patent holder who is not them. In contrast, Novell has this friend "Big Mike" who was going to beat you up, but Novell made a deal with him so that Big Mike will now promise not to beat you up.

Exactly! This is analogous to the difference between an insurance company and a protection racket. An insurance company provides insurance against problems not caused by the insurer, while a protection racket provides insurance against problems caused by the insurer.

Re:What Red Hat and HP offer is not the same

[Bruce Perens]

Right. I'll remember make that point next time.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:What Red Hat and HP offer is not the same

[Bruce Perens]

Per the service agreement that customers are signing up to with Red Hat, they would be forced to "obtain the rights necessary for a customer to continue its use of the software without interruption".

And this is fine, as long as they obtain those rights for everyone. If they don't, their ethical position would be as bad as Novell's, and I'd be complaining as I am at Novell.

Bruce

Let's be clear about software patents

[Bruce Perens]

QuantumG is correct. There are simply so many software patents, on so many fundamental principles, that no non-trivial software program could exist that was licensed by all patent holders with claims reading on the algorithms used. This is regardless of whether it is proprietary or Free Software.

Bruce

Protest the Novell-Microsoft Patent Agreement.

Re:Let's be clear about software patents

[T-Ranger]

Take those two things as a given.

• Software patents are broken.
• 6 weeks ago, MSFT could have sued nearly anyone for using their patents, as implemented in Linux.

What has happened since then?

• Novell is still involved in the patent commons and other anti-patent concerns. At the same time, they are living in the real world and playing the game. Hate the game, not the player
• MSFT can still sue most everyone for not using patents, but with the deal there is blanket protection for all OSS developers (legally binding or not, it does make any potential future case less likely; MSFT would be even less likely to win, and if they do, less likley to even recover their legal costs in any settlement). This is at worst neutral, at best an improvement
• MSFT can still sue non-Novell customers. MSFT may or may not be able to sue Novell customers. If you are not a Novell customer, no change. If you are a Novell customer, peace of mind

Protesting the agreement is dumb. You're not going to change anything. You are the one widening the gap between corporate acceptance and use of OSS and the OSS developer community. Given the litigious nature of corporations, and the minefield of software patents, with the theoretical risk to all OSS developers, and a higher risk to NOVL and their customers, this agreement is a victory. Its a shitty war, with shitty tools, but its the war and tools we have. So pretend for a minute that you exist in the real world and that some of us have practical concerns. Realize that this deal, while having some bad parts, is net-good. If you want to protest, set up a paypal account, collect donations, and deliver a truck load of anal lube to Nats house. Loosen up.

"Our Customers"

[LuYu]

Q: Novell claims to have not acknowledged any patent infringements by Linux. But Novell is now paying a tax to Microsoft on the Linux distributions it ships. What, exactly, is Novell paying for?

Nat Friedman: We're paying for the promise that Microsoft made to our customers not to sue them.

Q: Not to sue them for *what*? For problems you don't acknowledge exist?

Nat Friedman: We put together an agreement with Microsoft to make Linux and Windows work better together. Now, as everyone knows, Microsoft has spent the last 10 years saying negative things about Linux, including implying that there are IP issues in Linux. It didn't make sense for us to do a partnersihp with Microsoft on interoperability issues and still have this patent cloud hanging around for our customers, so Microsoft asked us to put together a patent agreement as well. And so we promise Microsoft's customers that we won't sue them and they promise the same thing to our customers. They pay us for our promise and we pay them for their promise. It doesn't matter if the allegations from MSFT are true or not. People can sue each other anyway, and a patent lawsuit is very expensive to defend against.

This "our customers" language is typical of Novell's statements surrounding this issue. They constantly speak of their customers but do not speak of the wider impact on the FOSS community itself. This might sound like a non-customer asking for a handout, but the fact remains that the majority of Linux developers and users are not associated with SUSE or Novell. The fact also remains that Novell relies on the FOSS community for its development. Therefore, a patent lawsuit that caused, say, X or kernel development to be halted or altered would affect Novell as well, even though MS could claim that they have not violated the agreement.

It goes without saying that Ballmer's statements have caused harm to the FOSS community and that many more people were exposed to Ballmer's statements than Hovespan's.

I think the reason that RMS and Moglen are so incensed about this agreement is obvious. This agreement to create a de facto ownership of Linux by suing anybody who competes with Novell. If MS sues successfully for patent infringement in Application A, Novell can continue to use it without being sued, but no one else can. In this way, they can become the only non-MS people to be able to use it in consequence of their "get out of jail free" card. It is an end run around the GPL.

Both MS and Novell benefit from this. Novell destroys its competition in the Linux arena and becomes the only "legitimate" Linux vendor. MS reduces its competitors to one complacent one which it can dispatch at its lesiure or use to prove that MS is not a monopoly.

In light of this, Novell only has two options if it truly believes in FOSS:

1. Require MS to agree not to sue any FOSS project for patent infringement.
2. Back out of the deal and admit Novell did not have the consent of all of its developers when it entered this contract.

Whether Novell sees this future or not, it is screwing the Linux community. And garbage like this:

Ubuntu's open week sounds like a really good idea. I'm just surprised that it is done to get users away from openSUSE as Mark Shuttleworth announced on the opensuse mailing lists.

Mark, let me reiterate that the openSUSE community and the Ubuntu communities share the same goals. We might put different emphasis on some of them, so let me speak just about one where I see a different focus.

. . .

Mark, I'd like to invite you to discuss what possibilities we have to work together against the domination of Microsoft on the desktops and servers - instead of fighting against each other.

... is just proof that the Novell develo

This is unusual

[Bruce Perens]

In what feels like 10 years of participating on Slashdot, I have never come upon a post which makes its point so excellently, and also contains so many F-words. Those two things have been mutually exclusive. Until now.

Do me a favor. Take your anger here for a moment and help me out, if you haven't done so yet. But no F-words there, please, it would detract from the document. Even if Novell tosses it off, it's point is already made to a lot of Novell users and VARs and investors and the press. They've been calling me.

Bruce

Re:This is unusual

[bmo]

"I have never come upon a post which makes its point so excellently, and also contains so many F-words."

It was hand crafted from rare woods, with each syllable hand rubbed with fine oils to bring out the grain.

"Take your anger here for a moment and help me out ... But no F-words there, please "

Done.

--
BMO

Re:This is unusual

[MMC Monster]

Reminds me of the old saying "We either hang together or hang alone", or "United we stand, divided we fall". Yes, I signed the petition using my real name. I hope it makes a difference.

Re:This is unusual

[everphilski]

I have never come upon a post which makes its point so excellently, and also contains so many F-words.

We call them trolls. You fed one. Bad Bruce.

Re:This is unusual

[bmo]

"We call them trolls. You fed one. Bad Bruce."

No, it wasn't a troll. There was no disingenuousness behind it, whatsoever.

Microsoft has been throwing FUD at Linux through SCO's lawsuit for three and a half years. Since the lawsuit is looking quite grim for SCO/Caldera, Microsoft paid Novell to sign a pact that says basically the same thing that SCO has been saying right along.

Yes, I said paid.

You don't think for one moment that Microsoft is ever going to distribute those SLES coupons, do you?

The Devil will construct a contract so carefully worded that he will honor it to the letter, and while you will get what you signed for, it will be exactly _not_ what you desire. Novell desired interoperability. What they signed was an agreement to be Steve Ballmer's bitch.

--
BMO

Ass kisser.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ass kisser.

very well said

[toby]

And IBM is pouring millions upon tens of millions into Linux's side of said vacuous case. While Novell crows about their 30 pieces of silver.

Re:very well said

[Nat Friedman]

I guess you're talking about the SCO cases. It's probably worth remembering that Novell have been pretty active in that arena too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM#Novell_ent ers_the_controversy

Game Theory Wise...

[Anonymous Coward]

its quite simple what Microsoft is up to....you see, according to game theory, a threat is only going to change the course of someones actions if it is credible, i.e. the other person thinks you will carry it out...so, in a lot of scenarios, the default textbook example being used being a nuclear holocaust scenario, a superpower using its nukes in response to some small event is not credible....for the simple reason that the other side will nuke back and the payoffs just dont make sense...or for instance when a child threatens to jump off a building cause it didnt get ice cream for pudding...te payoffs for it are so bad, that its threat isnt credible.

So, what to do what to do in this situation where my drastic course of action is not perceived as credible, being too over the top with horrendous payoffs? Simple. I scale down the size of the threat until it becomes credible that i might do it by making it a probabilistic threat...i.e.

"If you guys are not covered by my uber shiny end user patent agreement covenant there is the possibility that i might sue you...i dont know, i might, i might not...etc etc"....

That ladies and gentleman, plain and simple is what Microsoft is trying to do...they know a threat to sue linux developers or end users is not feasible because IBM would serve their rectums up to them on a plate for breakfast (owning as many if not more patents than they do) (i.e. that threat is not credible)...so they scale down the threat by introducing the possibility that end users might get sued (maybe, maybe not who knows)....voila the threat is a credible one, and theyve made a threat which might discourage end users from using linux....

Re:Game Theory Wise...

[DaDibbel]

The worst thing you could do at this point is to Shun SUSE's distribution. That's what Microsoft Want! They want to kill Linux, I know this first hand. It's one of their primary objectives! Don't let them win by killing SUSE! Sure let Novell know how you feel but don't abandon them!

Re:Game Theory Wise...

[Anonymous Coward]

Suse is not the only distribution. Linux life does not depend on Suse's survival. Choosing from over 400 distributions is already a difficult problem. Negative factors count when scoring distributions, too. Novell's deal with the devil is a very big negative for them, probably fatal.

Any game theory analysis should have included/anticipated the community's backlash. This is especially true when building on a product with a political license (GPL) at its core. The product's value to the user base depends greatly upon how much support is obtained through intangible factors (good will.)

If you need someone to hold your hand with Linux, RedHat is setup nicely to write your support contracts.

Throwing in one more random fact: It appears that Gates and Ballmer are more familiar with the GPL requirements than Hovespian (Novell).

Call me thick

[Anonymous Coward]

but I still don't get it. People see this as some kind of Redmond Horse at the gate, but really? Nah. Microsoft could always have people try to slip in code that violated a patent. The angle that they are trying to use Novell's development to slip in such infringement is silly.

The notion that by holding up Novell they can protect themselves from suits against other linux firms on the grounds of anti-competitive behavior/antitrust is silly too. If you collude with a business then you're still capable of guilt when it comes to monopolistic/antitrust practices.

The only real meat of this whole thing was the fancypants that Microsoft got to wear for a day or so in the non-tech business side of things and the fearbread they are trying to cook out of scared-of-the-law managers and businessmen with more money than spines. Those are the people who will pony up the money to Microsoft for copies of Vista or protection money to Novell; a fool and his money are soon parted. A wise man and his linux laugh at the fool, then feel kind of bad and help him run a net-install.

It's a Protection Racket for God's sake

[obnoxiousbastard]

Microsoft's lawyer goons promise not to bust you up if, and only if, you buy from their bitch Novell.

The Mob only wishes there were smooth enough to pull off crap like this.

Open letter to Ronald Hovsepian

[ozzee]

Cher Ron,

Je suis a bit fromaged off avec votre decision to compromise la communauté de source ouvert avec le contrat avec le diable. Je reckon vous must have d'autres choses in La Belle Novell itself pour donner ? Unixware ? Votre premier fils ? votre soul, puet etre ?

Frappez le crows avec stones, Sport! La guerre contre m$ n'est pas fini. We need ce contrat about as beacoup as poisson need les bicyclettes.

Un autre point, cobber. Votre histoire de produit dev isn't tres flash, consisting, n'est-ce pas, of produits the likes of Unixware, WordPerfect, Quattro Pro, et Dos 7. Un contrat won't change le tradition. Have vous forgotten?

Reconsider, mon ami, otherwise le produits de votre future won't matérialiser pour vous. Votre chums don't want that.

Adapted from a famous open letter to Jaques Chirac from an Australian journalist protesting the nuke tests in La Pacifque.

can't someone start a new "freesuse" ?

[krayfx]

I'm ticked off & tired of the treachery by Novell. is there a way out ? I like suse, and want to continue using it, but, i do not want to support Novell and its brain dead ways(its pretty obvious that the community did not figure ANYWHERE in their talks, it was all about the dough, some covenants, licenses, assurances, novell & MS).

I do not want to piss people off the opensuse projects, its not their fault. can we have freesuse ? since its GPL'ed code, is'nt that possible ?

maybe we can thank Novell for what it has done so far and start afresh, leaving them alone to deal with the devil, their covenants, and the get-quick-rich scheme. good luck to the employees of Novell (err... Suse, Ximian, and others, they need a good pay packet after all)....

'Free' Suse please.

Re:can't someone start a new "freesuse" ?

[Shawn is an Asshole]

I do not want to piss people off the opensuse projects, its not their fault. can we have freesuse ? since its GPL'ed code, is'nt that possible ?It wouldn't be too difficult to do a CentOS with OpenSUSE. Personally I'd avoid that unless it's an actual fork, though. Mainly because Novell might start infecting it with Microsoft patents.

Re:can't someone start a new "freesuse" ?

[n3uT]

I was a SuSE zealot for almost a decade now. Since this news about this deal with micro$hit I've reinstalled sles9 at work. Now it runs fedora6. Reinstalled my own laptop running opensuse 10.1. Now it runs OpenBSD. Some 7 years ago I've almost got fired from my job defending linux(SuSE) against eager marketing lady from microsoft which threatned my boss and then me to stay with microsoft. When I've joined the company it was 100% windows. When I left it 3 years later microsoft was down to about 15%. Didnt get fired but the thing with microsoft made me mad and since then I dont want to have to do anything with them. I have one more SuSE 10.1 on my other laptop. If this insanity and wannabe corporate thing continues SuSE is after a decade gone from my professional and personal life. I was wondering wouldn't it be much better idea for developers of suse and people from novell to improve on suse? Do something about the slow monster You created(YAST kills IO like DoS), do something about the size of the distro, make it again the slick and fast lizard. Go back to the german precission and if You want to play in corporate world please join microsoft and give me my SuSE back!!! FreeSuSE sound very interesting and nice:)

Re:Novell's service

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, Novell may have done Free Software a great service.

True, but I doubt anyone will laud them for it, since it's essentially the same favour Judas did for Christianity. Dude gets no respect.

It was OSRM I think.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Thanks to some opensource proponent (was it the FSF?), MS knows where to look to find infringing code in the kernel!"

Bruce P should know, he and PJ worked for them.

Your rant

[Nat Friedman]

Novell has not provided any useful precedent or other legal ammunition that ANYONE can use in ANY court case. We didn't acknowledge that there are any MS patents infringed by Linux. So this court case you're screaming about is totally unaffected by the Novell/MS deal. Microsoft has been spreading FUD that Linux infringes MS IP for years -- nothing changed in that respect here.

Another point I want to make. Open Source Risk Management is a company that makes its money by selling insurance on Linux IP infringement. So if you're worried that Linux infringes someone's IP, you buy their products. Two years ago OSRM went off and funded a study by Dan Ravicher -- whose PubPat is in my view a great organization -- that looked at Linux to determine whether it actually violates anyone's software patents. Then in August of 2004 (a few months after Bruce Perens joined their board, I might add), OSRM published a study stating that Linux infringes 283 patents, 27 from Microsoft. You can read about it here:
http://news.com.com/Group+Linux+potentially+infrin ges+283+patents/2100-7344_3-5291403.html

Here is a company that sells Linux IP insurance and therefore directly benefits financially from people's fear over Linux patent FUD, so they publish these ominous statements about Linux infringing hundreds of patents! This is realy work done by real people to examine specific patents and determine whether Linux infringes them or not.

On the other hand you have Novell who make NO such statement, who directly contradict Microsoft in the press when Ballmer goes off and says things like this.

So pardon me, but I think it's worth looking at the whole picture here.

Re:Your rant

[meosborne]

I've so lost whatever respect I had for you. It makes me sad. :( I find your arguments to be completely disingenuous.

"Microsoft has been spreading FUD that Linux infringes MS IP for years -- nothing changed in that respect here."

What has changed here is that Novell, a Linux distributor, has tacitly endorsed Microsoft's FUD all the while saying they have admitted nothing. Please, just how stupid do think your customers are? Novell's actions speak far more accurately than its words.

A simple general indemnification clause should be all that is necessary to satisfy IP concerns for customers. No special deals are required. If Novell truly believes what they say about IP in Linux then the indemnification makes even more sense than a special IP deal with Microsoft. Yet Novell chose to tapdance around the GPL, a license that their Linux business depends upon.

Re:Your rant

[init100]

Novell has not provided any useful precedent or other legal ammunition that ANYONE can use in ANY court case. We didn't acknowledge that there are any MS patents infringed by Linux.

While you haven't actually said so, this is what the management of Linux-hesitant corporations will read it as.

OSRM published a study stating that Linux infringes 283 patents, 27 from Microsoft.

No, they didn't. They said the Linux potentially infringes said patents. That small word is important, as it means that those patents are far from certain to stand in a court case.

Here is a company that sells Linux IP insurance and therefore directly benefits financially from people's fear over Linux patent FUD, so they publish these ominous statements about Linux infringing hundreds of patents! This is realy work done by real people to examine specific patents and determine whether Linux infringes them or not.

On the other hand you have Novell who make NO such statement, who directly contradict Microsoft in the press when Ballmer goes off and says things like this.

The difference is that OSRM operates as a regular insurance company, that sells insurance against IP lawsuits from third parties. Microsoft, on the contrary, operates like a protection racket, selling insurance against IP lawsuits brought by themselves.

If Microsoft have any issues, they should sue, not making vague threats. And Novell made those threats more legitimate, since they (you) entered into a patent agreement with Microsoft.

Don't take this personally though. I understand if you are compelled, as a Novell employee, to defend their actions, regardless of what you personally think of them.

Re:Your rant

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they didn't. They said the Linux potentially infringes said patents. That small word is important, as it means that those patents are far from certain to stand in a court case.

To use your own words against you:

"this is what the management of Linux-hesitant corporations will read it as"

So I now must ask you, are you always this much of a hypocrite? Or just when it suits you?

Re:Your rant

[Anonymous Coward]

Novell had indemnification long before this deal. If that had settled customers concerns, why then, was this deal needed? Gee, let me think: PREVIOUS INDEMNIFICTION DIDN'T SATISFY THEIR CUSTOMERS

I hope that was clear enough for you.

Re:Your rant

[bmo]

1. You can't point at OSRM and say that I agree with them or that this is apropos to the conversation (yes, I know, it's late, but still). OSRM, IMO harms Open Source just as much as this does. Nice strawman. *kick*

2. "On the other hand you have Novell who make NO such statement" No, but they constructed, with the help of Microsoft, a _contract_ that is written in convoluted lawyer-ese that if _any_ conclusions can be drawn from it is that "there is infringing IP in Linux" and which is _exactly_ what Ballmer came out to say after it was signed. Didn't your lawyers think about the implications of this? Have you guys been living under a rock for the past 3 and a half years? Have you not read the Halloween Documents? *veins pop out on BMO's forehead* I find it telling that the SuSE team was kept deliberately out of the negotiations between Novell and Microsoft.

3. "So this court case you're screaming about is totally unaffected by the Novell/MS deal."

The whole point of the SCO lawsuit is NOT TO WIN BUT TO TOSS MUD ON ALL OF LINUX. Fortunately, there are brighter people than those at Novell who have seen through and traced finances for the lawsuit back through to Baystar and RBC, and with any luck, back to Microsoft.

Since Microsoft can't directly fight Open Source, they are using proxies. Novell just became one of them. Thanks.

If anyone is missing the big picture, it's Novell.

--
BMO

Re:Your rant

[meosborne]

There are many other companies with patents that are far more litigious than Microsoft. Anyone of them could sue Novell's customers at any time and this deal provides NO protection at all.

A general IP indemnification provided by Novell would address those companies as well as Microsoft and requires no special deals, no royalties, and has no GPL issues.

Any customer with sense should prefer the indemnification to this deal.

What's really going on here.

[crhylove]

I've got a prediction:

Vista is going to suck. It's uptake is going to tank. No Linux distro will copy the windows interface verbatim, so MS is trying to buy a piece of Novell (the closest Linux has come to looking like the interface 95% of people are comfortable with) in order to hedge their bets. Novell just wants money, so it doesn't care.

Now MS will come up with some ungodly commercial/Linux combination (as quick as they can before the GPLv3 screws up their plans) that plays all the games, looks exactly like Windows, and they can charge people for, like they always have.

The tragedy is that no Linux distro will head them off. They all want to be DIFFERENT than windows, and that is why:

A truly FOSS OS will never penetrate the desktop market.

That's my prediction. Tell me why I'm wrong, and it better not be the usual nonsense about how every Linux interface doesn't suck, which is funny, because clearly 95% of the populace seems to think that they do (and I'm one of them!).

Now if there was a distro that was VERBATIM to windows XP in icon placement, menus, installation, and the like, well then, I'd switch to it RIGHT NOW, and so would a whole shit load of other people.

Then Free Software, with all of it's benefits and code superiority would rally rule the day, and in a good way for everyone.

But NO, Linux egos won't let it happen. Mark my words, all these Linux elitists screaming "RTFM" will point at Ubuntu and all these other ugly non-windows clones and wait for MS to continue to dominate the market, this time with some heinous Frankenstein that is actually exploiting a lot of the good hard work that FOSS coders have spent years working on up to today. Of course, all the icons will be WHERE THEY SHOULD BE, and 95% of the people who already use Windows won't give a shit, because "IT JUST WORKS!".

Human nature makes me sad. I've been quietly rooting for Linux on the sidelines for soooooo long.

*sigh*

Re:What's really going on here.

[frogstar_robot]

I'll spare you debate about Linux UIs then. If MS was going to do such a thing, they'd use a BSD. The license permits and encourages it. That be as it may be, SuSe's UI mainly comes from KDE and GNOME and most of THAT code isn't BSD. It is mostly GPL and LGPL. MS knows this so that couldn't be what they are up to.

MS IS hedging their bets but not in the way you think. The Novell deal gives MS a way to collect a toll on each copy of SuSE sold. This in turn will be used to legitimize "Linux-contains-our-IP" FUD.

Anyway XPDE is one project to almost exactly duplicate XP's interface in Linux. It never attracted much developer OR user attention. Nor has it attracted much in the way of money from commercial Linux distributors. I suspect that exactly copying Windows isn't the path to success you think it is. What you really seem to want is Windows with the irritations removed. Pestering MS to fix their products or buying a Mac may be better choices for you.

Re:What's really going on here.

[init100]

because clearly 95% of the populace seems to think that they do

How can you think that something sucks if you are not aware that it exists?

The reason I won't buy any more Novell products.

[Anonymous Coward]

And I've bought quite a few, both as a private person and professionally for companies..

is that I quite simply do not want that money to end up in microsofts pockets. Neither through protection rackets nor other ways.

For me, it's really as simple as that.

Fork openSuSE ?

[bl8n8r]

I know fork is a dirty word in this game, but why?. Why not just download the openSuSE 10.x source code and start rebuilding? call it openESuS or something. This seems like a perfectly reasonable opportunity to excersize that right under the GPL.

Btw - if you want to let novell know how you feel, Bruce Perens has setup an open letter to Ron Hovsepian. If you agree, and want to sign, it would reflect best on the OSS community if you keep the comments professional. ergo: "Fuck you" can be put as "Decided to abandon your product based on principle and merit". The choice is yours however, as is everything with OSS. http://techp.org/

Re:Fork openSuSE ?

[rmcd]

A fork might be appropriate, and not only for those outside Novell. Perhaps Novell will end up forking Apache and other key components of Linux in order to keep a version under GPL2.

Re:Fork openSuSE ?

[init100]

Perhaps Novell will end up forking Apache and other key components of Linux in order to keep a version under GPL2.

Except that Apache is not under the GPL at all. Apache is distributed under the Apache license.

Don't buy gear from anyone that preloads Windows

[brokeninside]

To be consistant, if money ending up in the pockets of Microsoft is your overriding concern you can't buy anything from IBM, Apple, Dell, HP, Adobe, or most other top tier hardware or software vendors. You also have to make a career that doesn't use Microsoft products in any way.

Of course you could also analyze the deal as a a net loss for Microsoft. While Novell may be paying money to Microsoft over a course of five years, Microsoft is paying so money to Novell up front that Novell could probably make its payments to MiS with the interest.

I can fully understand why some people don't like this deal. While I disagree with the reasoning put forth by Bruce Perens, I'll gladly concede that what he's doing makes sense given his reasoning. But the simple desire to boycott Novell to keep Microsoft from making more money seems confused at best and contradictory to the stated goals at worst.

CVS predates it

[Shawn is an Asshole]

CVS started in the mid eighties:

CVS developed from an earlier versioning system called Revision Control System (RCS), still in use, which manages individual files but not whole projects. Dick Grune has provided some brief historical notes about CVS on his site. To quote:

I created CVS to be able to cooperate with my students Erik Baalbergen and Maarten Waage on the ACK (Amsterdam Compiler Kit) C compiler. The three of us had vastly different schedules (one student was a steady 9-5 worker, the other was irregular, and I could work on the project only in the evenings). Their project ran from July 1984 to August 1985. CVS was initially called cmt, for the obvious reason that it allowed us to commit versions independently. --Dick Grune

The code was publicly released to mod.sources on June 23, 1986: the original usenet post is still visible via Google Groups.

The code that eventually evolved into the current version of CVS started with Brian Berliner in April 1989, with later input from Jeff Polk and many other contributors. Brian Berliner wrote a paper introducing his improvements to the CVS program which describes how the tool was extended and used internally by Prisma, a third party developer working on the SunOS kernel, and was released for the benefit of the community under the GPL.

Source: Wikipedia, Concurrent Versions System.

Re:CVS predates it

[Anonymous Coward]

That may invalidate a patent or some of its claims; or it may not. It depends on the vagaries of the legal system; having the evidence on your side increases the odds of winning, but doesn't guarantee success. In the meantime, you've spent every cent you had on the lawsuit MS brought against your project, so even if you "win" in the end, you're still broke. Who wants to play that game?

Re:CVS predates it

[XiaoGirl]

In civil torts like these most legal fees aren't billed until after the case has been closed. The reason for this being that 9/10 the losing party is required to pay the legal fees of the winner as well as their own (which is part of the reason why the RIAA has been backing down a bit).

Your presumption further feeds into conglomeration way of thinking "we're bigger so we can intimidate you into backing down". Given evidence of this nature, and a competent lawyer it's not hard to sway a judge. Furthermore, the legal system is far from vague and isn't as blind to technology as you would presume -- it does offer some protections in realitively newer fields of technology. We can easily speculate as to why there isn't more legal protection offered to technologies (ignorant law makers, over-abundance of republican representatives, etc.) but they are just that, speculatory.

Instead of playing right into the hands of the corporations how about being just a tad-bit more proactive?

I'll gladly take you up on that offer ....

[brokeninside]

... provided that we make it more like the MS/Novell deal.

You pay me 20 Millions Dollars (US) up front and not only will I promise not to sue any of your customers, I will pay you 5 Million Dollars (US) over the course of the next five years for your promise not to sue any of my customers.

Not what I want.

[crhylove]

No, what I want is freedom, but freedom without relearning every god damn thing. I want it for me, and I want it for that 95% of the public, too. We should ALL want that.

Re:Not what I want.

[frogstar_robot]

No, what I want is freedom, but freedom without relearning every god damn thing. I want it for me, and I want it for that 95% of the public, too. We should ALL want that.

Your only other choice is to throw money at ReactOS. It's either that or start learning. Vista point upgrade that it is will even require you to learn a few things. Freedom entails responsibility for your choices. You either live with the choices you have or do the hard work of creating the choices you don't have. Others have exercised their freedom and did much of the hard work for you. If that isn't enough then do something constructive. There is a vast difference between freedom and a free lunch.

Re:Not what I want.

[Grishnakh]

Freedom doesn't come for free.

Re:Not what I want.

[init100]

No, what I want is freedom, but freedom without relearning every god damn thing.

I guess that you also would like Linux to do away with its file system hierarchy of /bin, /etc, /home, /var, /usr, etc, and adopt the C:, D:, etc, as well as C:\Linux, C:\Program Files, C:\Documents and Settings, etc.

Another thing that many "Linux newbies that really want Windows without the irritations" complain about is the "unituitiveness" of running programs as a non-administrative user. "I should be able to access the entire computer as my ordinary user, since I own it" is not an infrequent complaint. Most of the areas where Linux differs from Windows are frequently complained about.

Re:Not what I want.

[crhylove]

You know what? I'm going to go ahead and agree with you.

But I AM keeping an eye out for ReactOs....
rhY

The UI? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

A truly FOSS OS will never penetrate the desktop market. That's my prediction. Tell me why I'm wrong, and it better not be the usual nonsense about how every Linux interface doesn't suck, which is funny, because clearly 95% of the populace seems to think that they do (and I'm one of them!).

Of course. That whole 95% of the populace avoiding Linux is due completely to the UIs, and has nothing to do with interoperability, existing market dominance, or familiarity. What a fascinating (and horribly wrong) idea.

Now if there was a distro that was VERBATIM to windows XP in icon placement, menus, installation, and the like, well then, I'd switch to it RIGHT NOW, and so would a whole shit load of other people.

Indeed. Never mind the fact that numerous in-house applications will be incompatible to some degree, or that certain proprietary drivers might involve a fair amount of config-file-editing to get up and running. As long as Linux includes a My Computer icon on the desktop, you're golden. Again, I'm fascinated.

I guess you absolutely can't use KDE because the desktop icon reads "Trash" instead of "Recycle Bin"?

So you must admit that SuSE is in the right

[everphilski]

There are simply so many software patents, on so many fundamental principles, that no non-trivial software program could exist that was licensed by all patent holders with claims reading on the algorithms used.

... So then, by your own admission, it is crystal clear why SuSE took out this patent protection from Microsoft.

Non sequitur

[seguso]

Nov 27 11:21:05 We're paying for the promise that Microsoft made to our customers not to sue them Nov 27 11:21:43 Not to sue them for *what*? For problems you don't acknowledge exist?

Signing the deal does not imply acknowledging the problem. Novell may not believe the problem exists, and still acknowledge that some customers do. Therefore it is entirely consistent for Novell to sign a patent deal without thinking that Linux really violates patents.

what, exactly is Novell paying for ? ..

[rs232]

"Q. What, exactly, is Novell paying for?"

"Nat Friedman: We're paying for the promise that Microsoft made to our customers not to sue them .."

What authority do you have to make such a decision on behalf of your 'customers'. Does a Novell customer somehow enter into an agreement with Microsoft merely by using SuSE code. Does a Novell customer want to have any contractual association with Microsoft. I ask this as a SuSE user.

I can see what MS have got out of the agreement, you've handed MS ammunition in there FUD war against Open Source. I can't for the life of me see what Novell get out of it. Personally I haven't decided to switch, I'm going to wait and see.

Re:what, exactly is Novell paying for ? ..

[Zellis]

As stated, they got a promise from Microsoft not to sue them or their customers. Which clarifies to me what what Microsoft is trying to create with this deal: a legally-sanctioned protection racket.

"Gee, that's a nice stock price you've got there, Linux-using company, be a shame if a lawsuit happened to it. You'd better go to the Linux distributor that we say you should use if you don't want that to happen to YOU."

true

[toby]

But that ruins the pretty picture I was painting of IBM as good guys and Novell as bad guys!

Sigh. I guess I "overreacted"... But the rant was hilarious and expressed the exasperation some of us feel.

Is Ubuntu violating GPL?

[chroot_james]

I do not fear Shuttleworth, because people who fear that openSUSE might violate GPL will not go to a distro which actually is doing it.

Adrian seems to be implying it here... Can anyone comment?

Re:Is Ubuntu violating GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, by default they ship proprietary ATI/nVidia drivers

Re:Is Ubuntu violating GPL?

[8-bitDesigner]

Not really, though the inclusion of binary blobs in the kernel (such as the NVidia and ATI driver modules) is seen as some to be a violation of the GPL. Since Ubuntu (being a people friendly) disto includes these proprietary drivers, some people consider Ubuntu less "free" than other distros.

Honestly, it's something that most users with a high-end GPU are going to do anyways so most users don't quite mind, but from a distro-wide philosophy aspect, many distros find blob inclusion to be pretty scary, if not outright anti-GPL. OpenSUSE and Fedora fall in this camp, while Ubuntu and Linspire are willing to use blobs where it benefits the user

Yep, wikipedia said so your Honor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Judge to Lawyer: "Thank you for the very authoritative reference source."

Obligatory Reservoir Dogs quote:

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Seriously, I am going to go over to one of the many patent registry websites and search for Microsoft patents and post one or two that Linux violates if you people don't stop parroting this shit."

Are you gonna bark all day, little doggy, or are you gonna bite?

Ummmm... no!

[John Jamieson]

No,
Bruce clearly said that ALL complex code uses someones patent that it is not licenced for. He said NOTHING about using one from MS.

Plus, MS has an obligation to inform infringers of violations if they exist.

Re:Ummmm... no!

[QuantumG]

Plus, MS has an obligation to inform infringers of violations if they exist.

Where'd ya get that from?

Re:This statement might be appalling

[Anonymous Coward]

Nat,

You didn't fully quote what rms said. What he said was that you guys behaved
cunningly to get around the GPL's section 7 (which I believe may be
illegal itself, to deliberately bypass the clear purpose and intent of a
license because you don't feel like abiding by its terms), but he only
mentioned Section 7. That isn't the only section in the GPL, nor is it the
only way you could run afoul of the GPL.

Your apparent joy at thinking you having found a way around the GPL and can
get away with it is appalling. Why would you want to do that, Nat? No. Seriously.

As it happens, because there is a handy GPLv3 draft process happening right now,
there is a quicker and easier solution than suing you, one that will have certain
results. That's what I understand to be the
situation currently, not that you have been judged to be in compliance
with v2.

Here's the full rms quote:

However, there's another way of using software patents to threaten the users which we have just seen an example of. That is, the Novell-Microsoft deal. What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a patent licence that is rather limited to Novell's customers alone.

It turns out that perhaps it's a good thing that Microsoft did this now, because we discovered that the text we had written for GPL version 3 would not have blocked this, but it's not too late and we're going to make sure that when GPL version 3 really comes out it will block such deals. We were already concerned about possibilities like this, namely, the possibility that a distributor might receive a patent licence which did not explicitly impose limits on downstream recipients but simply failed to protect them.

What if one company pays Microsoft for a patent licence where Microsoft says "Alright, we won't sue you, but we're just not making any promises about your customers if they redistribute it". We had already written a downstream shielding provision into GPL version 3 saying that if you convey the program, and you are benefitting from a patent licence that is not available, that does not extend to the downstream users, then you have to do something to shield them.

This is, it turns out, inadequate in two ways. First of all, "shielding them" is vague. We're replacing that with a specific list of methods, and second, once again it assumes that the distributor has received a patent licence, so the Microsoft/Novell deal cunningly does not give Novell the patent licence, only Novell's customers.

Well, now that we have seen this possibility, we're not going to have trouble drafting the language that will block it off. We're going to say not just that if you receive the patent licence, but if you have arranged any sort of patent licensing that is prejudicial among the downstream recipients, that that's not allowed. That you have to make sure that the downstream recipients fully get the freedoms that they're supposed to have. The precise words, we haven't figured out yet. That's what Eben Moglen is working on now.

Re: Not accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

That study didn't say that at all. It said Linux didn't infringe any court-tested patents. None. It said there were some that had issued but were not court tested and therefore of unknown merit that could conceivably be brought to bear, but of these only 27 belonged to MS, and of these none was proven to be a valid patent. The rest belonged to you at Novell, to IBM, etc. Considering that PubPat has said at least half of all patents that issue are not valid, I suggest you are spreading FUD.

But even if they had said what you claim, how does that exonerate you? Are you now saying that you did the deal because your customers need protection from Microsoft?

GPLv3 forces a Fork?

[seeklinux]

I was on the chat, wanting to ask one question, but it someone else beat me too it. Nat was asked a couple of times about GPLv3. The first time he mentioned that Novell was one one of the committees (the corporate one). Later he was asked again about the fact that RMS and Moglen have stated that GPLv3 would prevent this type of agreement (the one just entered into between Novell and MS). I guess it is not surprising, but the answer was not real enlightening.

He said he heard what RMS and Moglen have been saying, but he said

"The way I heard their statements, they were more of a threat to Microsoft than to Novell." Well, I don't see how he figures that. I think Novell would be hurt much more than MS if this happens. He was asked about the possibility of having to fork gcc, etc. if the stuff changed to GPLv3. He said "Obviously we don't want to spend our time forking and maintaining parallel branches of glibc, gcc, etc". He said this was all hypothetical and they would have to wait and see what happened.

Well, unless you decide RMS and FSF are bluffing, and they can do what they want irregardless of what committees Novell is on, this seems to imply that (1)Novell/SUSE is a dead end, and/or (2)Novell will indeed have to fork a whole bunch of stuff. Certainly the stuff that FSF owns completely (copyrights already owned or assigned to them) would be put under GPLv3. This would hurt Novell a lot more than say Tivo, since Tivo probably doesn't (or doesn't need to) distribute the tools, but a company producing a distribution sure does.

So again, unless you think RMS et al are just posturing or something, anyone using Novell/SUSE Linux is going to be stuck with something that doesn't keep up and/or is difficult to support. I guess at this point, they (Novell) are betting this isn't going to happen. But what user, be it individual or corporation, would want to make that same bet?

Violating the spirit of GPLv2

[iamstan]

They may have managed to sneak around the wording of GPLv2, but they sure have violated the spirit of Software Libre.

It's at LEAST 90% due to...

[crhylove]

UI FAMILIARITY. Yes thank you for saying that word, because that is what I wanted. Much more accurate. You get a gold star.

rhY

Re:It's at LEAST 90% due to...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really suggesting that my KDE desktop with "My Computer" and "Trash" icons is that different than the Windows desktop with "My Computer" icon and "Recycle Bin" icon? I'm completely blown away by that idea. Really.

Re:It's at LEAST 90% due to...

[crhylove]

No, but I'm suggesting that trying to copy files from one folder to another and being told you don't have admin rights every 20 seconds, is going to stop Linux "Market Penetration" indefinitely. That and not finding "Divx on GreenDemon" over "My Network Places" out in the Living room....

rhY