Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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?
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
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?
How does a coder know what the specs are?
... that does NOT involve a potential software patent issue with Microsoft?
... that's the easiest way for Microsoft to get their software patents into Linux.
#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
If you're thinking "Novell just partnered with Microsoft and Microsoft can share their specs with Novell now"
And anyone who thinks that Microsoft wants to play nice with Linux has NOT been reading the history here.
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
Well, for all intents and purposes, to anyone that really believes in FOSS and is informed about the deal, Novell is now a pariah.
0 73628401l l /
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=20061103
http://technocrat.net/d/2006/11/2/9945
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/20061109a.htm
http://news.samba.org/announcements/team_to_novel
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.
"A Lisp programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing." - Alan Perlis
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.
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.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
" 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
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?
How we know is more important than what we know.
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
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
"(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?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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
Bruce Perens.
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:
Whether Novell sees this future or not, it is screwing the Linux community. And garbage like this:
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
you had me at #!
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.
Is that a SCSI connector or are you just glad to see me?
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
Bruce Perens.
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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.
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.
... ip filter was rewritten in under a week. How the hell can you do that? Well it really aint hard, you just gotta work.
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
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?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
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
"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.
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
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.
"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.
evil is as evil does
Bruce
Bruce Perens.