Slashdot Mirror
Novell/Microsoft Deal Punishment for SCO?
An anonymous reader tipped us off to an article on the Information World site looking at the Novell/Microsoft deal from a new angle. Article author Tom Yager is of the opinion that the deal is Microsoft's punishment for throwing in with SCO. The very public announcement was made, in his opinion, as a stopgap measure against a future lawsuit on Novell's part. From the article: "Novell has exhibited the patience and cunning of a trap door spider. It waited for SCO to taunt from too short a distance. Then Novell would spring, feed a little (saving plenty for later), inject some stupidity serum, and let SCO stride off still cocksure enough to make another run at the nest. That cycle is bleeding SCO, which was the last to notice its own terminal anemia. When it became clear that SCO wouldn't prevail, Microsoft expected only to face close partner IBM. Microsoft did not brace for Novell, an adversary with a decades-long score to settle with Redmond. Through discovery, Microsoft's correspondence with SCO is, or soon will be in, Novell's hands, and it's a safe bet that it will contain more than demand for a license fee and a copy of a certified check."
My personal opinion was that Novell should not have accepted such a deal, and that the end result would bring a major shock wave all through the world. With todays growing number of lawsuits, the continued smack talking (like Palmer did earlier last month) and other things, I feel this may be a turn for the worst.
Another growing concern that I have, is that the GPL may have to go rounds with all of this, and everyone who has contributed over the years, many many useful tools and services that plays an active role in a linux OS. Here's hoping that these fears are not made into reality....
Just me
Can we stop treating this as some kind of corporate soap opera? I'll be happy when Slashdot can once again focus on the technical features of SuSE Linux or other Novell software, together with how well it respects the freedoms of its users. Those are things we can have some knowledge of and discuss sensibly, rather than speculating and fanboying.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
... what can adequately be explained by incompetence. In this case, SCO's incompetence, and utter lack of any kind of sane case. What might look like Novell slowly but surely bleeding SCO dry could just be SCO's braindead stubbornness in pursuing their case, or lack thereof.
I don't really know the legality and details of the SCO case or the MS/Novell agreement, but this sounds way too clever and complicated for the average corporation to pull off. If Novell is so smart and crafty, why can't they do a better job competing against MS in the marketplace? Does Novell's business acumen lie only in creating clever trapdoors in risky legal deals? It sounds more like the author is writing the plot for a corporate-legal thriller than any analysis of reality.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I guess this guy has never read/heard of groklaw... He probably thought SCO really had something 3 years ago, and now he's on the IBM/Novell bandwagon. Discovery in the IBM case is over and if there was evidence of Microsoft correspondence they would have found it already. PJ's take on the Novell/Microsoft contract is pretty much the opposite and she has a legal backround with OSS experince as well. He's grasping at straws.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." ~The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
...it would have been entirely one-sided, not give and take like the actual agreement was.
This is not what happened. What happened was that Microsoft offered Novell a deal, and Novell took it, and Novell will die from it. The deadly spider is Microsoft.
It has been... several times in several countries... most recently is was the fool Wallace who got told where to go by an American court
And to add the usual point...even if the GPL were somehow found invalid, it means you have NO license to distribute the software, and thus have not helped your case any! As you point out, Wallace's assertion that the GPL was somehow synonymous with public domain won't stand scrutiny by even the dumbest judge. ANd that's saying something.
It has been upheld in the courts in Germany, but the reason why it hasn't been litigated in most countries, including here in the US, is because it's clear and simple.
Here's a comparison. Let's say a town counsel passes an ordinance that says you are not permitted to park your car on the street without a parking permit available for purchase from the clerk at city hall, and if you have such a permit, you are only allowed to park on the street according to the conditions on it. You then go to the clerk, buy a parking permit which reads right on it, "The holder if this permit is entitled to park one vehicle on roads in the town for not more than seven days." You then proceed to park your Hummer for three months on Main Street, and as might be expected, your vehicle gets towed.
You get pissed, so naturally, you want to hire a lawyer. The only two approaches your lawyer could argue are either:
A) The parking permit is invalid.
-or-
B) You can park anywhere you want, and you never needed a permit to begin with.
Which argument has a chance of succeeding?
Consider that there is a history of cases unanimously upholding that towns can pass any parking laws they want, and that they can tow your vehicle if you don't follow them.
Your only chance of success is arguing the parking permit is invalid. Unfortunately, NOTHING ELSE GRANTED YOU PERMISSION TO PARK YOUR VEHICLE. With that pertinent piece of information, perhaps one might be better off not spending a lot of time and money challenging the parking permit.
The GPL is like that parking permit. Nothing else grants you permission to distribute the software copyrighted by other people unless you agree to its terms.
So of course it _could_ be tested in court, but spending a lot of time and money to do so will never result in you being permitted to distribute the software without following the terms of a valid license. At best, all could ever accomplish is loosing your right to distribute the software at all.
You seem to think that a license can only be found completely valid or completely invalid by a court.
That is not the case.
Make it sound like a bunch of children or something. I assure you, it's strictly business.
Ob Quote
Micheal Corleone about his father - "It's all personal, every bit of business. He takes
everything personal. Like God."
For all we know, Microsoft entered this deal to secure indemnity against actions they have performed that threaten Novell's very existence, but which Novell know nothing about. It's not like they've never been prosecuted for unethical business practices before, or been found guilty of them, so one must wonder why they were so keen on this agreement BEFORE Novell learned the full facts. It is possible that the full facts will prove fatal only because the deal was entered - again, that has happened before and we cannot ignore that as a possibility.
Paranoid? No, you're not paranoid when they really ARE out to get you. Seriously, I'm not saying that Microsoft is doing anything shady here. All I can say is that the "Get The Facts" campaign, the EU lawsuits, prior actions by Microsoft involving agreements with other companies (such as spyware/anti-virus vendors) and prior comments by Microsoft indicating extreme hostility and antipathy towards Linux and its vendors, are all indicative of motives that are somewhat less than snow white, pure and radiant. They are not stupid and did not enter this for Novell's benefit, any more than their deal with anti-virus vendors ending with crippling those same vendors was in the interests of those other parties.
If a banana plantation enters an agreement with an 800 lb. gorilla armed with a machine-gun, it is safe to assume that the gorilla will be extremely happy with the outcome - no matter what.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I have never read a Tom Clancy novel but a quick google turns up the fact that their plots typically revolve around things like CIA spies and plots to blow things up and double agents and such, none of which are being suggested here. Instead, what is being suggested is that corporate executives might funnel money to third parties to do their dirty work, defame competitors, and bring frivolous lawsuits against groups or individuals who threaten their market dominance. Where might we have read about such things? Oh right--in the newspapers. In fact, several of the stories have involved Microsoft, and some even involved Darl McBride, as well as hundreds of other companies big and small.
Unless you are going to stick to your guns claim that we can drop all the white-collar crime laws off the books because nobody actually does such things and people who claim they do are just reading too much Tom Clancy, you'll have to come uyp with a better argument than that.
--MarkusQ