Slashdot Mirror
Why the Novell / MS Deal Is Very Bad
jamienk writes "PJ from Groklaw has taken the time to really explain the big picture of the Novell/MS deal and how it all fits into the SCO case and the strategy some have employed to attack Free Software. If you thought PJ was becoming too shrill before, or if you haven't understood what the big deal is with Novell's agreement, it's really worth a read." From the article: "This is Groklaw's 2,838th article. We now have 10,545 members, who have worked very hard to disprove SCO's scurrilous claims, and we did. We succeeded, beyond my hopes when we started. But here's the sad part. As victory is in sight, Novell signs a patent agreement with Microsoft..."
one of "...Groklaw's 2,838[th] article[s]..."
Congratulations!
1. Novell agrees to violate the clear intent and spirit of the GPL in an attempt to comply literally with the words but not with the actual known purpose of the license to make money off of code Novell didn't write and doesn't own. So instead of trying to prove the GPL isn't binding, they just kick it to the curb and step over it and dare the community to do something about it?
2. puts a FUD legal cloud over Linux (this time a patent cloud) or in any case an "IP" cloud, as per Steve Ballmer's vague wording -- and was Darl McBride's less vague?
Actually, this makes GPL software from Novell safer, not less safe, for others to use. Why? Because Novell cannot distribute software under the (L)GPL if that software is covered by patents. Since Novell has negotiated a legal agreement with Microsoft, they can be presumed to know what patents apply, and Novell has to be extra careful about patent violations when distributing software, since they would be liable for willful commercial infringement.
3. makes Novell's Linux cost more, because it has agreed to pay Microsoft royalties, whereas SCO asked for money for its license;
Novell made a huge net profit on the deal, so Novell Linux won't cost more.
And since Microsoft paid Novell and not the other way around, the logical conclusion is that Microsoft does not have IP of any value related to Linux or Mono, and instead is using this as a marketing gimmick. And courts probably won't see that any different either.