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."

Comments

decades-long score to settle

[0racle]

Make it sound like a bunch of children or something. I assure you, it's strictly business.

Re:decades-long score to settle

[mysticgoat]

Make it sound like a bunch of children or something.

That would make reporting and editorializing about these matters extremely difficult, since the central figure around which all this stuff appears to revolve is a tantrum-prone, potty-mouthed, chair-throwing monkey-dancer.

Re:decades-long score to settle

[quill_n_brew]

"Make it sound like a bunch of children or something. I assure you, it's strictly business."

IANAL -- but I have worked with several through the years, particularly the corporate variety. Whether their true character is so or not, many lawyers feel a professional obligation to act as scraping, vindictive rats on behalf of their parent/client. They are best rewarded by said parent for this. The paradox: you might assume their company officers lead and encourage this MO, but the truth is they are often surprised (though secretly delighted) when the more aggressive, nitpicking, predator patience from the legal pack pays off.

It's never really clear who navigates a company, after it gains a certain shape and size. Lawyers think the parent wants X; parent thinks lawyers want X... (Y? I dunno...) In short, they *are* a bunch of children flicking sand about from their box in the play yard. It's just how things get done -- so, yes, it is strictly business.

Try not to ascribe too much higher thinking here. Intelligence, yes -- enlightenment, no.

I know: it all sounds like a lot of simple-minded lawyer bashing. Believe it or not, most I've worked with were cool humans. But with their suits on, Mr. Hyde had rein.

I am inclined to think that in *less* than the prescribed five years, Novell might be saying to MS from their deathbed, "You had me at hello."

Re:decades-long score to settle

[speculatrix]

I am inclined to think that in *less* than the prescribed five years, Novell might be saying to MS from their deathbed, "You had me at hello."

WHO'S deathbed, MS or Nov?

Re:decades-long score to settle

[Fred_A]

WHO'S deathbed, MS or Nov?

We'll tell you in five years. Be patient.

Re:decades-long score to settle

[Frankie70]

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."

Re:decades-long score to settle

[echusarcana]

I deal with Novell. Novell is not big. Novell is not smart. Novell is a bunch of marketing guys having "conversations" with each other selling a bunch of old crap and half-integrated products purchased from other people.

Novell is gonna get obliterated. They just don't have a clue.

Oracle, Redhat, Ubuntu, Sun, and IBM should pool their resources and take on Microsoft cause that's about how big an army it is going to take.

Re:decades-long score to settle

[camelrider]

Suppose Microsoft code for Windows for Workgroups or Windows NT was finally outed and shown to contain Novell networking code. This agreement would not shield MS from liability to Novell, but might forestall the wrath of their big customers and prevent a class-action (EXPENSIVE) suit by their small customers for leaving them open to possible liability.

Re:decades-long score to settle

[JoshJ]

Ubuntu is not a company. Canonical is what you want here, but I don't really think Canonical is much of a powerhouse financially. Oracle has no desire to kill Microsoft. Sun, Google, and IBM would be the trio I'd pick to take down Microsoft.

I fear for the future

[Praedon]

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....

Enough

[Ed Avis]

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.

Re:Enough

[drinkypoo]

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.

You must be new here :)

Re:Enough

[freeweed]

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.

We may not be able to do this for much longer, if any of these idiotic lawsuits actually succeed.

Hence, the keen interest in the proceedings.

Re:Enough

[Ed Avis]

'The proceedings' of important lawsuits are fine. I'm quite happy to read about what happened in court or Groklaw's analysis of the latest ruling. That does not include witless speculation and vapour from pundits on Infoworld or anywhere else.

Re:Enough

[msobkow]

It's hard to do that when it takes years and millions of dollars to deal with one case like SCO, even when it's clear to the industry that they don't have a leg to stand on. At least with the dollars and legal teams behind Novell and IBM it'll eventually be settled once and for all -- hopefully leaving SCO and company wide open for damages.

Another spin I've wondered about is whether Microsoft might be preparing for the possibility of renewed anti-trust investigations and a future breakup. Such a conviction would likely demand that they divest themselves of either Office or Windows, so having Novell ready with a POSIX-compliant OS that runs Mono/.Net, Java, and other key Microsoft applications would be very good for the Microsoft user community.

Novell is already very well prepared and experienced to take up the file, print, and authentication services as well, should that prove necessary.

Time will tell...

Re:Enough

[msobkow]

Someone is bound to say "No way! Microsoft would never..."

But a good businessman covers the possibilities, regardless of how likely they seem. No one would ever accuse Bill Gates or the rest of Microsoft's management team of being incompetent in that regard.

Look at IBM. Once renowned as the biggest and slowest changing organization in the industry, they're now more agile than most, and still huge. Even a bankruptcy or breakup aren't that scary to people who manage such large organizations. If anything, the bumps and pratfalls are kind of expected.

Re:Enough

[hendridm]

You must be new here :)

Well, he did post his e-mail address in cleartext as his sig.

Re:Enough

[digitalunity]

Look at the user ID's. It's you who is new here. In fact, he was here a long time ago, when slashdot really was a place to read about cool technology innovations and geeky subject matter. Now, ever third story is policital in nature and every 10th story is nothing but a link to a groklaw article.

I miss the old slashdot as well.

Re:Enough

[ChiChiCuervo]

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.

You must be new here :)

... says the 6 digit ID to the 4 digit ID.... :-)

Re:Enough

[killjoe]

Why. Ballmer is promising to sue people. He is not promising to build better products.

This is all about lawsuits. When the CEO of MS is threating lawsuits we all better stand up and take notice.

Re:Enough

[Paul Crowley]

Er, I think that comment was meant as a joke about the low user ID.

I'm not sure I buy your argument, by the way. Slashdot was always crap. But somehow I keep coming back.

Re:Enough

[zuiraM]

Your ID has two more digits than his, so I'd say you're the new kid :)

I just recently signed up, but I've read Slashdot back when it was something other than a way to make me feel good by reading how silly the rest of the so-called "tech" or "geek" crowd is nowadays. I miss it.

Re:Enough

[drinkypoo]

Look at the user ID's. It's you who is new here.

Were you born without a sense of humor, or did you lose it in a freak blogging accident?

They'd sign a permanent deal, in that case.

[khasim]

No, that makes no sense when their deal will expire in 5 years. If that was the intent, they'd have signed some form of permanent, non-revocable license (see IBM's licenses with SCO).

That way, no matter who ends up purchasing whom or whomever's patents, the deal is still safe (again, look at IBM's licenses with SCO and how many companies they were passed through).

Re:They'd sign a permanent deal, in that case.

[0racle]

MS likes making 5 year deals. It worked out good for Apple in the long run, they became more successful then ever before.

Never ascribe to malice...

[lawpoop]

... 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.

Re:Never ascribe to malice...

[ballwall]

It's the same with all sorts of conspiracy theories...

After the fact it's easy to point fingers at people who take advantage of or had something to gain from some action when all of the pieces are known. Before the action though, it's much, much harder to predict how everything is going to play out, which (I think) is giving way too much credit to possible conspirators. Too many things could go wrong in most cases for someone to take a risk in the conspiracy in the first place.

Re:Never ascribe to malice...

[vertinox]

Never ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Never ascribe to incompetence what can adequately be achieved through malice.

As in... If you are going to do something bad to someone... The smartest thing to do is make it look like you did it out of stupidity and then plead ignorance.

That way they stay your friend or don't fire you and give you a scolding instead.

Not that I know anything about deleting important user files when they call me up harassing me about deadlines. It was the Sun Spots!

Re:Never ascribe to malice...

[Savage-Rabbit]

... what can adequately be explained by idiocy. In this case, SCO's idiocy, 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.
~
~
~
~
:%s/incompetence/idiocy/g

There, now we agree completely...

Re:Never ascribe to malice...

[MULTICS_$MAN]

Novell actually does quite well in competition where the playing field is relatively level. Don't underestimate their cunning either.

Re:Never ascribe to malice...

[kripkenstein]

Yes, TFA does seem to assume way too much cleverness on Novell's side of the deal. For example he says

"When I consider Novell to be the party of advantage in the Microsoft partnership deal, the tone of the agreement changes. Microsoft is handing 70,000 copies of a primary competitor's operating system to existing Windows customers, introducing Windows-only shops to the advantages of the heterogeneous enterprise."

Or, more likely, 70,000 coupons for SUSE will gather dust in a Microsoft drawer.

The GPL *should* go rounds with all this...

[brennanw]

I'd like to see the GPL upheld in court once and for all. A valid license is a valid license, and it'd be nice to see at least some of the FUD surrounding it smacked down via a court ruling.

Re:The GPL *should* go rounds with all this...

[advocate_one]

I'd like to see the GPL upheld in court once and for all. A valid license is a valid license, and it'd be nice to see at least some of the FUD surrounding it smacked down via a court ruling.

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

Re:The GPL *should* go rounds with all this...

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

Re:The GPL *should* go rounds with all this...

[fedorowp]

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.

Re:The GPL *should* go rounds with all this...

[One Louder]

...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!

It depends upon what you're trying to accomplish.

If you're trying to use the code without releasing the source, then you're right.

However, if your purpose is to destroy the entire GPL ecosystem, then a rejection of the license on that basis would be quite a coup - you'd render all redistribution of GPL-licensed software illegal.

Re:The GPL *should* go rounds with all this...

[DragonWriter]

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!

You seem to think that a license can only be found completely valid or completely invalid by a court.

That is not the case.

Re:The GPL *should* go rounds with all this...

[Zeinfeld]

I'd like to see the GPL upheld in court once and for all. A valid license is a valid license, and it'd be nice to see at least some of the FUD surrounding it smacked down via a court ruling

Its not that easy, I don't think you can have a once and for all case. There are two issues that need to be established. It is pretty clear that the GPL does give permission to others to use the code in pretty much any way they choose. It is not so clear that the restrictions on redistribution are enforceable.

On the Novell thing I really don't think it is at all likely that there is anything incriminating written on paper. Microsoft and SCO both know what the score is there.

It makes perfect sense for Microsoft to pay SCO $20 million rather than spend the more than $50 million IBM has spent littigating the SCO/IBM case so far.

The Novell deal is simply another logical step in Microsoft's efforts to keep alive some semblance of competition and to clear the decks of any and all potential IPR issues. I would not read anything more into it than that. Novell is a rather sick bunny. If Novell goes under the assets are likely to be bought by a patent troll and they will go after Microsoft. Much better to cut a reciprocal deal now while Novell has an incentive to come to the table and license Microsoft IPR.

Re:The GPL *should* go rounds with all this...

[Mr. Underbridge]

However, if your purpose is to destroy the entire GPL ecosystem, then a rejection of the license on that basis would be quite a coup - you'd render all redistribution of GPL-licensed software illegal.

What would be the case? For example, would I sue to invalidate a license granted to me by the GPL? That doesn't make much sense. Would I claim some strange entrapment argument?

The only arguments I can see is on the fringe, as to what constitutes a program, and people playing weasel games (as some have been known to) to try an end around the GPL by releasing a GPL-compliant stub program and a larger closed-source program that actually contains the real functionality. But that doesn't really invalidate the GPL so much as potentially require tightening of the language.

Can anyone think of a legit type of case that could cause real problems for the GPL?

Re:The GPL *should* go rounds with all this...

[Esion Modnar]

At best, all could ever accomplish is loosing your right to distribute the software at all.

Which is fine for some, as long as everybody loses that right. Some would pee in the fountain, so long as it ruins the resource, and preserves monopoly privileges for the few.

Re:The GPL *should* go rounds with all this...

[Maxo-Texas]

Well, it's not exactly a car analogy but close enough!

Now we just need the little guy with the mustache to be done.

typical

[splatterboy]

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.

Re:typical

[exspecto]

Just an FYI, this is the first article of Tom Yager's (author of TFA) I could find that mentioned the SCO fiasco:

http://www.infoworld.com/archives/emailPrint.jsp?R =printThis&A=http://weblog.infoworld.com/yager/arc hives/2003/08/its_going_to_ge.html

He appears to have been against them from the beginning.

Re:typical

[Chyeld]

Anyone who thinks that the Microsoft/Novell deal was anything other than a coup for MS either doesn't get it or has far more inside knowledge than anyone else on this planet.

Re:typical

[splatterboy]

Yes, I was too lazy to check out his history. SCO Hasn't been worth more than cursory investigation for awhile.

If this was really a punitive deal...

[evil_Tak]

...it would have been entirely one-sided, not give and take like the actual agreement was.

Strictly business

[ENOENT]

Does that mean that someone is going to wake up next to a horse's head?

Re:Strictly business

[ATMD]

That only worked because it was the guy's prizewinning racehorse.

I'd say it's more likely he'll wake up next to a headless terminal :)

No

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

why is this relevant?

[hjf]

Every day I read some news about Microsoft and Novell, IBM, etc. What's the big deal? Their "agreements", or whatever, don't change anything we can see. Even if they agree not to step on each other's grass, they keep doing it anyway, because of their "Shark" methods (or just plain western capitalism). Then they sue each other, and the cycle starts all over.

But hey! I don't see the news about their lawyers having dinner together or going to some party. But they do! They take their eyes out in court, but outside they are friends. It's just lawyers justifying their salary. They make a big circus out of it to get a juicy paycheck.

All of this, because these operations are published in slashdot, where people don't understand a thing, but they talk anyway, as if Novell signing with SuSE will change SuSE linux or something. Well, if it does, just get a new distro.

The actual meaning for this (getting published in massive media) is so that "investors" (the ones that don't know jack about corporate operations) will buy/sell more stock of one of these companies. They're just stirring the water to make it less boring.

Early Worm Gets the Bird

[Doc Ruby]

And Microsoft, the most patient and cunning of predators (especially on the Web), coaxes Novell out if the herd with promises to treat it like a pet, not as meat. Then MS attacks the herd, suing the rest of the Linux distributors for patent infringement, including infringement of the Novell patents MS licenses under their Novell deal.

Then MS finds another way to kill and eat Novell, once Novell can't rely on safety in numbers of Linux distributors. Like MS incorporating a "Linux mode" for either "migrating" Linux source code to Windows, or just a reverse "Wine" (Line-ux, anyone?) that runs Linux apps with a (secret) Linux -> Windows API.

The MS/Novell deal looks good to Novell when it discounts the value of its own competitors in Linux vendors, and the collective value of their threat to Linux, instead greedily eying the entire Linux industry for itself. That greed could be its downfall when it ignores the Linux community, blinded by the Linux product for which MS will kill it.

Re:Early Worm Gets the Bird

[jimicus]

Then MS finds another way to kill and eat Novell

If Microsoft succeed in taking on the other mainstream Linux distributions, they don't need a way to kill and eat Novell. Remember that a lot of Linux development is undertaken by the various commercial entities such as RedHat, IBM et al. If they're out of the equation, suddenly Novell are left with an operating system which is dying on the vine as nobody else is supporting it.

Of course, this is all 5-10 years in the future here and the way Microsoft are going, I think the IT landscape will be very different in 10 years.

Re:Early Worm Gets the Bird

[Reality Master 201]

suddenly Novell are left with an operating system which is dying on the vine as nobody else is supporting it
Huh. Novell stuck with a dying OS that nobody else is supporting. Why is it that sounds so familiar?

Re:Early Worm Gets the Bird

[MsGeek]

What happened to the Bell Telephone Company?

Meet the 'new' AT&T. We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company.

Re:Early Worm Gets the Bird

[Doc Ruby]

MS doesn't get in trouble because of vague innuendos of monopoly. It is a monopoly, even officially declared one in the US. It's market abuse gets it into trouble. But it does it anyway, because monopoly market abuse is profitable.

Even Apple finally broke the "necessary to prove MS isn't a pure monopoly", by getting MS to invest $150M in Apple, a meaningful sum at the time, in exchange for various concessions that make it something of a partnership. Because Apple couldn't compete in the market against Microsoft, even though (but because) MS was one of the biggest Mac SW vendors. And MS continues to compete hard against Apple - harder than against Linux, because Linux isn't as big a competitor as is Apple, despite their complex deal.

There isn't going to be any "my bodyguard" coming around to make the big bad monopoly stop. We almost got that with the "final" monopoly judgement, but then Bush let MS off the hook, because he loves monopolies, as has his Republican Congress. But the new Democratic Congress has no brief to stop monopolies, least of all Microsoft which usually bribes^Wdonates more money to Democrats than to Republicans.

So the simple answer is that the point of MS killing Linux is to kill competition. Seems simple. The arguments against that are complicated, and ultimately baseless.

Re:Early Worm Gets the Bird

[Dhalka226]

Then MS attacks the herd, suing the rest of the Linux distributors for patent infringement, including infringement of the Novell patents MS licenses under their Novell deal.

The first half -- okay. Microsoft can obviously sue people for violating their patents, if that is what they think is going on.

The second half... not so much. Licensing a patent does not give you standing to sue for infringement of that patent. Only the holder of the patent has that legal standing.

Re:Early Worm Gets the Bird

[Doc Ruby]

It depends on the license. But even so, any license that doesn't allow MS to [force Novell to] sue infringers is worthless, so I don't believe it exists that weak.

It's a distinction without a difference.

Re:Early Worm Gets the Bird

[dosius]

They're pretty damn close to their pre-1984 size, especially if the BellSouth merger goes through. Let's see, what's left? Qwest, Verizon, Lucent and Telcordia, and the last two are small fries.

-uso.

Re:Early Worm Gets the Bird

[Cow Jones]

Like MS incorporating a "Linux mode" for either "migrating" Linux source code to Windows, or just a reverse "Wine" (Line-ux, anyone?) that runs Linux apps with a (secret) Linux -> Windows API.

Like, say, Cygwin?

It's not exactly the same as WINE (Linux software has to be built from source under Cygwin before it can be used), but since most Linux software is open source, that's usually not a problem.

Re:Early Worm Gets the Bird

[billsoxs]

Qwest, Verizon, Lucent and Telcordia, and the last two are small fries.

Verizon is the old GTE, Qwest was rail company as I remember and I think that Lucent got eaten by Alcatel

Re:Early Worm Gets the Bird

[dosius]

Remember the OTHER parts of those companies. Verizon is as much or more Bell Atlantic than GTE, and Bell Atlantic was part of the old AT&T (as well as NYNEX, a company Bell Atlantic ate up). I think Qwest also ate up a piece of the old AT&T (US West).

-uso.

Who would dare to imagine...

[__aaclcg7560]

Microsoft getting screwed over by Novell? Does that mean my old copy of DR-DOS is still worth something?

Inconsistencies

[steelfood]

I allow that there are at least two facts that weigh against this theory. Red Hat stated that Microsoft offered it the same deal, and the Microsoft/Novell partnership announcement makes mention of a payment by Novell.

Emphasis mine.

I thought it was Microsoft paying Novell $348mil, no?

Re:Inconsistencies

[rdejean]

FTFA:

with Novell demanding indemnity against future Microsoft IP action Novell demanded nothing of the sort. Ron Hovsepian (sp?) himself said they approched Microsoft for an interoperability deal. Microsoft wouldn't do anything without a patent agreement. So they put the patent stuff in the agreement.

Re:Inconsistencies

[Mspangler]

I noticed them too.

In 2004 SCO sold Bill some UNIX something that is widely believed to be in Vista, at least the corporate versions. But (and I quote)
"Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement reads as follows:

Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent of Seller."

Buyer is (old) SCO, now mutated to new SCO. Seller is Novell.

SCO did NOT clear the sale of whatever with Novell. So, although Bill may have acted in good faith, he has misappropriated goods in Vista. Novell found out what was sold while arguing over the UNIX copyrights. And offered to let Bill buy the full rights to what SCO sold him, or "I'm afraid we'll have to ask for an injunction on shipping Vista until this issue is sorted out, or until you remove the infringing code."

Bill pulls out the checkbook. Interestingly, Since SCO got to keep 5% of UNIX sales, and supposedly got about $12 million from Bill, that would make Novell's share of the Unix sale about $240 million.

My favorite conspiracy theory of late.

Cheers.

Re:Stupid Article...

[j35ter]

Considering that you are reading this for free, try to contribute, instead of just bitching around....give us your opinion!

The rest of the story...

[KwKSilver]

Novell also pays MS $40 million a year over the 5 years of the deal: $348M - (5 * $40M) = $148M, Novell net gain. Or so it seems.

Why microsoft does not violate the GPL?

[paulpach]

I understand that novel does not violate the GPL, because they did not license the patents from microsoft, instead microsoft licenses the patents to novel customers. Since microsoft is not distributing the software to them, the GPL does not apply to them.

BUT WAIT, Microsoft is distributing the software, didn't they receive 70,000 copies of SuSE? unless they plan to just throw them in the attic, or use them internally, they will be distributing those copies, and thus are restricted by the GPL. If they put any restriction on the people receiving the GPL code (other than those specified in the GPL itself), then Microsoft is indeed in violation of the GPL.

So I don't understand, how microsoft can use those 70,000 copies without violating the GPL. Can anyone explain that to me?

Re:Why microsoft does not violate the GPL?

[mhogg]

How many people do they employ?

Re:Mod Parent Insightful

[mpapet]

Parent is exactly right.

I've been trying figure out a way to describe the Novell/Microsoft situation for weeks.

Write this one down because this is exactly how the corporate mind works and how Microsoft's game will play out.

Writer doesn't have a clue. Microsoft doesn't get "punished" by anyone.

Re:IBM hasn't said what they found

[darkonc]

Also: SCO has been fighting to avoid releasing a bunch of info from the IBM/SCO case to Novell, so you really don't know precisely what the IBM case has that would get Novell's lawyers all giddy.

Also, IBM might be saving up their info on the (purported) SCO/MS collusion for later lawyering.

Re:Stupid Article...

[Compaq_Hater]

I thought the Article was as another Member said "sounds like the plot to Corprate legal thriller" was a pretty good description. but the plot in this article just doe's not work, if Microsoft were getting punishment the deal they have sure doe's not look like it to me.
If i were in Novells shoes i would have been a little more than wary of anything Microsoft was offering just because of their track record at screwing everyone on a moments notice.

But i would not call the Article stupid by any means i think the author did at great job at holding my attention just by adding a little bit of good ol fashion conclusion drawing but in a dramatic way.

thats my 2 cents.

CH

Tired of Silly People Potraying This Deal...

[segedunum]

...as somehow a clever trap that Novell has come up with. It isn't. Novell are stupid and incompetent. Just face it.

They have been slapped around, mainly by Microsoft eating their Netware share away, in recent years and they're making zero headway against Red Hat, and Hovsepian and the executives in charge have no idea whatsoever how to arrest the slide. Many customers have given them mixed messages that the problem is that Novell's software doesn't interoperate with Microsoft's - which of course is intentional. Rather than think their way through this and start making their software better they got down on their knees and begged to Microsoft, and that's exactly what Hovsepian's laughable phonecall was. The Microsoft deal was simply a desperate way of saying to Microsoft "Pretty please, stop?! Will you interoperate with our software so our customers will stop throwing away Netware and eDriectory? We'll give you anything you want." There wasn't even any known attempt at circumventing the GPL, as many people have also said. That was merely a side-effect thrown in by Microsoft.

Novell are desperate.

That's it. Anyone who is trying to portray there deal with Microsoft as anything else doesn't know anything about Novell's situtation, doesn't know anything about their customers and has never touched an environment that uses Novell's software or products with a tenf foot bargepole.

Re:Tired of Silly People Potraying This Deal...

[beheaderaswp]

"Novell are Desperate"...

Ya think?

Considering that if you remove distro related "religion" from the mix, Suse is a very weak distro.

why shouldn't they?

[oohshiny]

My personal opinion was that Novell should not have accepted such a deal

Why ever not? They received several hundred million dollars from Microsoft, without giving Microsoft anything or committing to anything.

Re:why shouldn't they?

[NickFortune]

They received several hundred million dollars from Microsoft, without giving Microsoft anything or committing to anything.

Without committing to anything that they're willing or able to disclose. Microsoft will have had something in return for that money. I really don't think Novell's promise not to sue windows users us worth 300 million to Microsoft.

So we have to ask ourselves what Novell did agree to that was worth so much money. What are MS getting in return? I doubt many people will buy into TFA's theory that MS are buying some sort of estoppel agreement and dressing it up as a cross licence. However there was a recent case where MS paid way over the odds for a licence they obviously neither wanted nor needed; on that occasion were bankrolling SCO for the big lawsuit. People are bound to be suspicious.

Novell staked its future on Linux. They may yet find that alienating the community is far more expensive in the long term.

That's one reason why not.

Re:why shouldn't they?

[oohshiny]

Without committing to anything that they're willing or able to disclose.

If they are not disclosing it, then it doesn't matter.

Microsoft will have had something in return for that money.

Yes: some patent licenses, a PR opportunity, and, most importantly, people like you spreading FUD.

Seems like you're helping them make their investment pay off.

Re:why shouldn't they?

[NickFortune]

If they are not disclosing it, then it doesn't matter.

Really? To whom, and on what grounds do they choose not to so concern themselves?

If two thieves make a pact to rob my home and steal my goods, the details of their discussion still matter to me, irrespective of whether or not they both choose to sign a non disclosure agreement.

Even if, as in this case, only one party is openly and implacably hostile, while the other , a relative newcomer to our community has been seen in whispered discussions before accepting a large amount of money.

So if it's all the same to you, I think I'll be the judge of what matters to me, thank you.

Microsoft will have had something in return for that money.

Yes: some patent licenses, a PR opportunity, and, most importantly, people like you spreading FUD.

A third of a billion for a promise not sue random windows users, and some PR? Do behave.

If you pull the other on, you may well find it has bells attached.

Re:why shouldn't they?

[oohshiny]

Really? To whom, and on what grounds do they choose not to so concern themselves?

It's a legal agreement between Microsoft and Novell and therefore binding only on them, nobody else.

If two thieves make a pact to rob my home and steal my goods, the details of their discussion still matter to me,

That analogy doesn't work here. Besides, the only thing of any consequence you can do is not buy SuSE/Novell products, which I suspect you are already not doing.

So if it's all the same to you, I think I'll be the judge of what matters to me, thank you.

Well, you can get hysterical about whatever you like, but don't expect other people not to call you on your irrational hysteria.

A third of a billion for a promise not sue random windows users, and some PR? Do behave.

Microsoft does a lot of stupid things with their money. I neither know nor care what they were thinking this time because it frankly doesn't matter.

Re:why shouldn't they?

[NickFortune]

It's a legal agreement between Microsoft and Novell and therefore binding only on them, nobody else.

Which doesn't imply that those details are not of interest to the community. Nor does it imply that we should not take an interest. For example, the deal between MS and SCO was a private agreement between the two of them. As we learn more about that case, it seems more and more likely (I suspect few would now dispute it) that the agreement was that Microsoft would pay SCO to try misappropriate certain rights to Linux and/or destroy the GPL.

At the time we were interested, despite it being a private agreement. As it turns out, our interest seems more than warranted. There are enough similarities here that "shut up and mind your own business" just isn't going to cut it.

That analogy doesn't work here

That analogy doesn't work here because...? Do you have anything more than bluster to support that assertion?

the only thing of any consequence you can do is not buy SuSE/Novell products

I can always discuss the deal on Slashdot. If we were to go by some of the responses, then some people would appear to think this tremendously damaging to Novell. Personally, I just think open debate is always a good thing.

Microsoft does a lot of stupid things with their money.

Couple of examples, perhaps? Microsoft's position of wealth and power doesn't seem to support your case here.

I neither know nor care what they were thinking this time because it frankly doesn't matter.

And once again the missing word is "because". Why is it that you think Microsoft's motives do not matter? Not, I assume, because they're so poor and weak and helpless.

Re:why shouldn't they?

[oohshiny]

And once again the missing word is "because".

Unlike you, I've given plenty of reasons in previous postings.

As it turns out, our interest seems more than warranted [referring to SCO]. There are enough similarities here that "shut up and mind your own business" just isn't going to cut it.

SCO is working itself out. Why? Because it didn't matter what deals SCO cut with anybody, what mattered was that the source code was GPL'ed and that its developers were careful not to infringe. The SCO example undermines your argument that there is anything special to be done prior to some company actually filing a lawsuit.

I can always discuss the deal on Slashdot.

You aren't "discussing" anything, you're just spreading FUD. You have failed to make a single constructive suggestion for what the open source community should do beyond what it is already doing.

Re:why shouldn't they?

[NickFortune]

I neither know nor care what [Microsoft] were thinking this time because it frankly doesn't matter.

And once again the missing word is "because".

Unlike you, I've given plenty of reasons in previous postings.

Well, if you think there is a post elsewhere in which you express yourself particularly well, feel free to link to it. I do sometimes look up a correspondent's posts on a subject if they seem have something interesting to say, but somehow, I doubt many people will leap to that conclusion based on what I've read so far. By way of example, here is the start of what I thought was quite a productive discussion on this topic.

I do find it a bit odd that you apparently expect me to look up your other posts, but can't be bothered to do do the same thing yourself. Never mind; in the interests of moving the debate forward, let's examine these pearls of wisdom.

There was this one where you said

In the end, Microsoft ends up giving several hundred million dollars to Novell. All the taking is "virtual"--a small face saver for Microsoft that has no real significance.

No sentiment there you haven't expressed in this one, Spending hundreds of millions of dollars as a face saving exercise does not sound at all like the Microsoft I've come to know and loathe. Can you offer any support for the notion? Oh, wait, maybe it's expressed on one of your other posts.

We'll see.

Your next offering at least had a little substance to it:

MS won't sue anybody for patent infringement because they know it's pointless. I mean, who are they going to sue? You? Me? RedHat? Fedora? My cat?

So we're all supposed to rely on Microsoft's lack-of-imagination being equal to your own? How reassuring.

Even if they have a valid and enforceable patent, it will be worked around within a day of them filing any lawsuit.

mmmm... just because we can fix buffer overrun exploits inside 24 hours, that doesn't imply we can get the same turnaround for patent issues. The exploits are often fixable in a handful of lines. A patent violation would require changing how something was done, which would mean a redesign, followed by coding and testing until we again had stable software.

The other thing is that patent litigation is expensive; just ask RIM. It's a game that favours those with deep pockets, and who has deeper pockets than Microsoft?

Furthermore, the Microsoft/Novell deal doesn't protect Novell or its customers: if there actually were a patent infringement lawsuit, everybody would effectively have to stop using the software until the infringing code has been removed.

As Kevin Renner might have put it, "that turns out not to be the case". This is from Novell's press release (I'll use bold face to distinguish third party quotations from your own contributions).

The two companies also announced an agreement to provide each other's customers with patent coverage for their respective products.

So, people who have bought a copy of SUSE from Novell are quite explicitly exempt from any litigation Microsoft might bring. The point is expanded upon in their Joint letter to the Open Source Community

Novell and Microsoft are providing covenants to each other's customers, therefore releasing each company from the other's patent portfolio.

So it seems that Novell could continue to sell contested software, even while the case was bein

what give and take?

[oohshiny]

In the end, Microsoft ends up giving several hundred million dollars to Novell. All the taking is "virtual"--a small face saver for Microsoft that has no real significance.

just FUD

[oohshiny]

Then MS attacks the herd, suing the rest of the Linux distributors for patent infringement, including infringement of the Novell patents MS licenses under their Novell deal.

MS won't sue anybody for patent infringement because they know it's pointless. I mean, who are they going to sue? You? Me? RedHat? Fedora? My cat? Even if they have a valid and enforceable patent, it will be worked around within a day of them filing any lawsuit.

Furthermore, the Microsoft/Novell deal doesn't protect Novell or its customers: if there actually were a patent infringement lawsuit, everybody would effectively have to stop using the software until the infringing code has been removed.

This entire "Microsoft patent" crap is pure FUD, and you are spreading it.

ovell-Microsoft....

[nikostheater]

[quote] I understand that novel does not violate the GPL, because they did not license the patents from microsoft, instead microsoft licenses the patents to novel customers. Since microsoft is not distributing the software to them, the GPL does not apply to them. BUT WAIT, Microsoft is distributing the software, didn't they receive 70,000 copies of SuSE? unless they plan to just throw them in the attic, or use them internally, they will be distributing those copies, and thus are restricted by the GPL. If they put any restriction on the people receiving the GPL code (other than those specified in the GPL itself), then Microsoft is indeed in violation of the GPL. So I don't understand, how microsoft can use those 70,000 copies without violating the GPL. Can anyone explain that to me? [/quote] I think that Microsoft will give those SUSE licences for free to the customers that want a Linux deployment...

The features of Novell software no longer relevant

[symbolset]

The moment they signed this secret deal to insert MS patented IP into their Linux software all their products became toxic. They can't undo it. They've taken the money and signed a pact in conflict with the well being of their customers. All balking from the deal would do now is make them dishonest both ways. Stick a fork in them. They're done.

How come nobody punishes me this way?

[dslauson]

I wouldn't mind getting "punished" by receiving a whole shit-ton of money for intellectual property that's not even mine. That's my kind of punishment.

Your SCP

[Doc Ruby]

MS can stop distributors from distributing until the court determines that they are no longer distributing infringing code.

When they sue RedHat, they will cripple RedHat's finances and management bandwidth. When they sue individuals, like the RIAA has, they will scare developers away in the short term. The long term will see more developers work on Windows rather than Linux. Both because of the intimidation, and the "winning platform".

The Microsoft deal with Novell licenses MS patents to Novell, which of course protects Novell from lawsuits on those patents.

The strategy I, along with many others, have detailed is legally valid and powerful business. It's debatable, like any prediction of the future, but I have backed up my projections with detailed facts and logic.

While you have done nothing but make empty assertions on bad logic and false facts. With an obnoxious, insulting post. Stupid Certainty and Faith, the new "SCP" sweeping the loudly inane.

Shut up until you have something to say worth hearing.

Re:Your SCP

[oohshiny]

MS can stop distributors from distributing until the court determines that they are no longer distributing infringing code.

Quite right: MS can stop distributors from distributing individual pieces of software that are infringing. They will remain infringing for, oh, probably about a day after Microsoft actually comes through saying what specifically is infringing. Give it another couple of days for the binary packages to be updated. Users won't even notice a hiccup in their update pipeline.

The Microsoft deal with Novell licenses MS patents to Novell, which of course protects Novell from lawsuits on those patents.

No, it doesn't. If RedHat has to stop distributing, then so does Novell. Microsoft may choose not to sue them, but the actual copyright holders of that software very much would, and they could and would get a court order against Novell to do so.

The strategy I, along with many others, have detailed is legally valid and powerful business.

No, the strategy you have detailed is naive and exactly what the GPL was intended to prevent. And it prevents it.

Stop spreading FUD about open source software and licenses.

Bullshit

[rjdohnert]

Since Novell is actually coming off of this paying more than Microsoft will pay I think the author has a little bit too much tinfoil in his hat. Microsoft in any ways didnt actually do anything wrong in the SCO vs IBM thing, Remember IBM asked in discovery for ALL of the correspondence from SCO concerning MS and nothing turned up, even when IBM questioned Microsoft employees

Re:Bullshit

[wes33]

???? MS pays $348m-$440m; Novell pays "at least $40m" ??? Wake up.

No, it's Divide and Conquer

[HalAtWork]

Please bear with me as I refer to the open source community by using generalizations, and also as I tack on my thoughts on MS. But hey, it's only what I think.

It's not payback for SCO, it's divide and conquer. In one move, MS has eliminated Novell as a competitor. Novell has confused and/or pissed off a lot of the open source community by entering into this agreement behind closed doors; That is, without the open approval of the majority of SuSE customers, users, and supporters involved with SuSE, and yet they are claiming otherwise.

Now everyone in the community is paranoid about code touched by Novell post-agreement. Now Novell is no longer of any use to the community as a whole (i.e. those not directly involved with SuSE but still involved with OSS) since they can no longer be trusted by a large portion, which will lead to arguments which will lead to either forks or simply no integration of Novell code and therefore a lot of work that was lost on something that doesn't benefit those who helped build up SuSE or the other OSS projects that share code with SuSE in the first place (by using GPL-compatible licenses and by not restricting them with patent law).

This move has also caused the community to slow down by everyone putting so much attention on Novell instead of building better code, and to fight amongst each other as we decide what to do with Novell code and the SuSE platform.

Now Novell is building its software to be compatible with Windows so that businesses can easily migrate from the Novell platform by slowly phasing out their linux boxes and replacing them with Windows ones.

This is a move that attempts to funnel Novell customers to MS (I'm just saying now there is a much bigger chance of it happening than before, and MS may have some other moves/FUD/threats/patents/whatever up its sleeve to make this much more likely). This is also a move that attempts to cause in-fighting and to put chinks in the armor of the OSS movement/community/whatever.

MS is trying to figure out how to battle OSS and they are getting more and more successful with every attempt -- even if they are just throwing shit up on the wall to see what sticks, they're tenacious and they're building a strategy around the results of their actions. Slowly and steadily they are figuring out how to "deal with" OSS.

MS is easily forgiven as long as money and other flash are thrown around, but OSS has its integrity and the fruit of our sweat and blood. Let's show them which is most important.

Re:No, it's Divide and Conquer

[Mostly a lurker]

Run that by me again. How does creating tools that make in easier to run Windows and MS Office applications under Linux encourage customers to move from Linux to Windows? Even if you believe Novell is lying through their teeth about the objective of the deal, I see absolutely nothing in it that facilitates migration from Netware, Linux or Unix to Windows.

I can (just about) understand a point of view that says that noone should deal with the Great Satan on principle, regardless of whether it is in the interests of your company and stockholders. I can even (while thinking it is stupid) comprehend the argument that there might be some legal strategy Microsoft could use against those that are not a party to the agreement that would otherwise be impossible. But, please do tell me: which part of the agreement provides a "migrate to windows" button in Linux?

Re:No, it's Divide and Conquer

[HalAtWork]

Like I said, I'm just saying now there is a much bigger chance of it happening than before, and MS may have some other moves/FUD/threats/patents/whatever up its sleeve to make this much more likely.

MS will always keep its crown jewels to itself, and may hold back a lot of the glue that keeps the Linux tools being developed in "cooperation" with them to themselves, and make businesses that use the functionality introduced into Linux by this cooperation as a crutch to introduce more and more MS software.

Anyway, I'm just saying it would be a lot more likely and easier. Who knows what MS has in the cards, but it's definitely not helping their customers migrate to Linux.

Re:No, it's Divide and Conquer

[Mostly a lurker]

Part of what I do for a living is consult with small companies regarding their IT strategy. When appropriate, I advise them to move towards open source solutions, such as Open Office and Linux. An argument that says we should not support Windows file formats and APIs on Linux is a guarantee that there are going to be fewer companies that can make the transition. Small companies running Open Office under Linux can already move to Windows, still using Open Office. Those using IMAP under Linux can already move to Windows, still using IMAP (standards are good that way). The problem is going the other way: from proprietary products under Windows to open products under Linux.

that's good... all it takes is one copy

[oohshiny]

So I don't understand, how microsoft can use those 70,000 copies without violating the GPL. Can anyone explain that to me?

Quite to the contrary: if they distribute even a single copy to a third party, then they are effectively giving everybody immunity from patent infringement claims by them because they may not restrict the rights of recipients of the software they distribute under the GPL, through patents or any other means.

Re:that's good... all it takes is one copy

[Perky_Goth]

i hadn't thought of that. more mud, great :)

Tom has been reading too much fiction

[nathanh]

If we were to believe Tom then there is some sort of dark sinister plot unwinding with steely eyed CEOs plotting the downfall of their rival companies. The CEO of Novell is sitting back in his leather chair, surrounded by bikini clad girly girls and hired goons with steel brimmed bowler hats, cackling madly in glee as his plan to use SCO's hubris to destroy Microsoft has finally comes to fruition.

That's fiction. The real world is much simpler. Novell is doing what all IT companies eventually do; realise that you can't fight Microsoft, so you might as well make sure your software interoperates. I don't give a shit what conspiracy theories are flying around Slashdot about the Novell/Microsoft deal; the ability for OpenOffice to read Word documents is farking awesome and I'll gladly pay money to Novell if necessary to get in on that. Sun did the same thing (identity software). IBM and HP and Apple as well. The money that changes hands and the lawsuits just serve to obscure the benficial outcomes for you and I; software from multiple vendors that works together. Sometimes (you might say always) the business relationship with Microsoft works to their eventual detriment (R.I.P SGI) but there's no business sense in taunting the 800lb gorilla. You give it a banana as a peace offering and hope it doesn't sit on you.

SCO isn't a pawn of Microsoft. That's a fiction invented by Groklaw and it's the worst kind of conjecture and conspiracy imaginable. SCO's CEO convinced himself that they owned UNIX, that Linux stole from UNIX, and that SCO deserved a piece of the action. "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence". There is no doubt that Darl is incompetent, so there's no need to paint him as a malicious figure. It was a stupid lawsuit initiated by a desperate CEO to save a pathetic, dying company. The 1000s of articles generated by The Site Whose Name Makes Even Cthulu Cringe has made an echo chamber, where conjecture is used as proof for the next piece of conjecture. It's like the fishing story where the fish keeps getting bigger with each telling.

This is just business. There's no conspiracy. It must be a slow news day when "journalists" start inventing Tom Clancy plotlines and making stupid analogies with trapdoor spiders.

Re:Tom has been reading too much fiction

[ChronoFish]

"...If we were to believe Tom then there is some sort of dark sinister plot unwinding with steely eyed CEOs plotting the downfall of their rival companies. The CEO of Novell is sitting back in his leather chair, surrounded by bikini clad girly girls and hired goons with steel brimmed bowler hats, cackling madly in glee as his plan to use SCO's hubris to destroy Microsoft has finally comes to fruition...."

Sinister plot? Probably not. No only is the "real world much simpler", but often times companies find themselves in lucky situations. Humans have little ability to kill on their own, yet like most predators, have eyes planted squarely on the front of their face. Humans are carnivorous, cannibalistic, and opportunistic scavengers. It may very well be that MS approached Novell knowing that their SCO partnership was dead, and Novell may very well have had enough leverage to ensure indemnity against future Microsoft IP action. Not enough leverage to "take down" MS, but enough to shore themselves up. And this probably fell in their lap with no prior plan.

If MS is the 800lb gorilla here then IBM is weighing in at 2,500. It has more than four times the number of employees as MS, more than double the revenue, and more patents than any other technology company. IBM is pretty shrewed when it comes to IP enforcement - often times acting like Mercedes (which has given up safety related patents for the good of the industry) and it's only until you get on their bad side that they show you who's boss, as SCO is learning now.

MS has missed out on much of IBM's wrath, but IBM is playing the long war here with its investment in Linux. IBM stopped trying to co-develop with MS (IBM-DOS, OS/2) as it has been burned by MS on multiple occasions. It now has over 300 Linux kernel developers and has invested literally billions into Open Source. Tellingly, they also sold off their entire PC/laptop hardware division.

MS has yet to show that it can survive a change at the helm. To make matters worse, Ballmer is no spring chicken. The Gates Legacy will be in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Ballmer's legacy will be his dance.

-CF

one more thing

[oohshiny]

One more thing: because Microsoft actually becomes a distributor of SuSE Linux under this agreement, they automatically grant everybody a license to any patent that any GPL'ed part of SuSE Linux might contain. Well, strictly speaking, they only grant a license to the recipients of those copies, but because that license is transferable, they grant it to the world.

After signing this contract, Microsoft's entire claims of patent violations in Linux pretty much completely collapse.

It's called CygWin.

[HiThere]

Red Hat supports (used to support?) it.

There are others, but that's the version I'm familiar with. The last time I tried it, over 5 years ago now, it couldn't successfully run KDE unside of MSWind98. Close though. Even then if you were satisfied with native MS windowing, it was quite good.

Re:It's called CygWin.

[Doc Ruby]

I used CygWin a few times, even wrote some apps for its API. It was crude, but effective for some tasks, which could be tested thoroughly before deployment.

But the trick is a complete API that runs all KDE or GNOME apps under Windows. With a secret API mapping, so MS can control it and compete with it - roll out Linux apps that work better than the "real" ones, because they use the secret "works faster/better" API to make Windows do its thing.

CygWin proves that it can be done, has been done for years. With MS' budget and other resources, it wouldn't take long for it to use CygWin's open source to figure out how to do what CygWin does, then improve it and fold it in. A tiny fraction of the Vista effort could have done this by now. If I were Gates or Ballmer, I'd have done it, even just to have an ace in the hole.

But then, if I were Gates or Ballmer, I'd spend over $100M a year giving a team of 100 crack programmers & managers a $1M budget to make my PC the best possible PC in the world, using any MS source code they wanted. Then I'd test it on a few thousand people for another $10M. And then I'd roll it out to the public a year later, so I was always a year ahead, but the rest of the world made more apps. But they don't do anything like that. So who knows if they're making a LINE-ux emulator in their whole paranoid "no VMs" sector.

But again, they could, and that's why the MS/Novell deal stinks. And why I don't believe for a second that Novell is just "punishing MS for SCO", because MS does indeed ensure it never gets punished by anyone.

Re:The features of Novell software no longer relev

[budgenator]

That's not what happened or is happening, the deal is M$ will not sue the customers of Novell for infringement of M$ patents in Novell products; M$ isn't even saying that they found patented technologies in Novell product, just that they will not sue. There is also work to insure interoperability of SuSE Linux and M$ products for which Novell is getting paid, considering how well Linux plays with M$ when given half a chance, I'd consider it free money and likely paid more from guilt in hopes it'll be seen as a peace offering

I agree

[jd]

For similarish reasons. One threat I see is that if Microsoft violates the GPL on a Novell product, there may be something in the contract Microsoft can use to void the GPL as a whole even if they lose. They know how to work the system and we should assume that they have not entered this contract with any more respect for the spirit of it than they did with the Windows 95 non-integration deal, the Spyglass IE deal, or any other deal they've ever entered.

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.

Re:I agree

[Miseph]

Sure, unless the banana plantation is also a front for a poaching outfit, one that will happily give out free bananas to a gorilla in need...

Don't forget, the GPL is (intentionally) written in a very unbalanced way. It wouldn't even be too inaccurate to call it "viral". If something touches GPL, it must either become GPL, or be destroyed and rebuilt from scratch. There is no "undo" button, nor is there a way to go backwards. True, there are some potential workarounds (GPL stubs calling on closed source apps with all the functionality), but they just amount to putting a wall between your proprietary stuff and the GPL, something that is already allowed and not really that big a deal.

Re:I agree

[jd]

Problem is, Microsoft knows this. Let's say Microsoft has poached a whole bunch of GPLed code from SuSE, and the contract agrees to indemnify Microsoft for all prior GPL infractions and to grant them exemption. In secret. Novell's the license holders and can do this. Or, maybe there's a clause that says that Novell accepts full legal responsibility under the GPL for any GPL violations resulting from a joint project. If Microsoft violated the GPL under that kind of contract, Novell would be liable and banned from using or distributing GPL code, killing the whole SuSE effort. It wouldn't touch Microsoft at all.

(To use the analogy, this would be like the gorilla shooting first and selling the dead bodies from the poaching outfit to organ transplant companies.)

Novell competing with Microsoft

[PCM2]

If Novell is so smart and crafty, why can't they do a better job competing against MS in the marketplace?

Or, as one of my coworkers put it at our company Christmas party last night: "The Novell/Microsoft deal is easy to explain. Novell has already given Microsoft all its NetWare customers. They don't have any left to give. So they have no choice but to start finding Linux customers to give to Microsoft. Novell is actually the most diabolically clever sales tool that Microsoft ever invented."

Oh, how we laughed.

Re:Mod Parent Insightful

[hendridm]

Here here. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer...

If I were B.G.?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If you were B.G. what would YOU do?

Hand the company to somebody else.
Cash out.

"Come on ... Take the money and run!"

And you haven't been keeping up with the facts

[MarkusQ]

SCO isn't a pawn of Microsoft.

The evidence certainly doesn't support this position. We already know that MS gave SCO a significant amount of money through various channels with absolutely no visible return (the licenses, the PIPE funding, underwriting the EV1 deal, etc.).

It certainly seems more reasonable to assume that Microsoft is paying SCO to do exactly what SCO is doing rather than assuming that they've decided to start just giving away money for no particular reason.

--MarkusQ

Re: you have been reading too much fiction as well

[nathanh]

We already know that MS gave SCO a significant amount of money through various channels with absolutely no visible return (the licenses, the PIPE funding, underwriting the EV1 deal, etc.). It certainly seems more reasonable to assume that Microsoft is paying SCO to do exactly what SCO is doing rather than assuming that they've decided to start just giving away money for no particular reason.

Conspiracy and conjecture. Exactly the sort of nonsense I was ridiculing. You don't know why the investment was made, or whether there was a return, so you invent the most overwrought and implausible story that it was a mercenary payment for SCO to attack Linux even though that would eventually mean SCO's demise.

Go back to reading Tom Clancy novels.

I respectfully disagree

[symbolset]

MS says patent infringements are in linux, implying SuSE. Novell says they didn't admit to it -- not the same thing as denying it. They took the money, and the public assurances from MS that they won't sue the customers. Implied here is that Novell is performing a service for their $300M, to wit: inserting patented methods into their linux products. More than implied, it's directly stated with their immediately following project announcements. The point of the secret agreement is to provide a five year window where Novell linux products have enhanced features for integration with MS platform of products to the detriment of other Open Source companies. After the five years, just when Novell's linux products are really taking off, MS gets to nix the renewal and eat Novell's corpse, to the detriment of everyone else on the planet except Microsoft's lawyers.

There is no guilt money here, no peace offering. This is the basic sale of soul for brief wealth and certain damnation deal popular in classical fiction and Microsoft business strategy. It keeps working because after four years of phenomenal returns the C?Os get to exercise huge options and retire; their long term strategy doesn't require the survival of any of the other players.

In short, nobody wise would have anything to do with any of these people. They have made a secret agreement between them not to bargain with us in good faith.

Re:I respectfully disagree

[Ed Avis]

MS says patent infringements are in linux,

This is absolutely right. There are patent infringements in Linux. The state of software patents is such that any nontrivial program infringes on them. Some of the infringed patents are held by Microsoft. This is not news at all.

As for the fantasizing about the 'secret agreement', please come back when you have any shred of evidence.

Re:Mod Parent Insightful

[strider44]

No it's not - the corporate mind isn't as stupid as either of you are.

Lets see the holes in the argument.

Firstly, a patent deal doesn't make patent infringements magically appear. Novell's deal with Microsoft has no legal bearing on Linux at all - NONE. If Microsoft can sue with the deal they can sue without the deal.

Secondly, even if there are patent infringements in Linux that probably would only minorly affect Linux - the patents would be only valid and enforceable in the US while the major centre of development is outside of the US in Europe and others. It would only affect people trying to use Linux in the US and, quite simply, there's now more money invested with Linux as a base than there is in Microsoft's whole market cap, so the economic impact of the patents for America would outweigh the impact on the Linux developers. Besides this, the PR for Microsoft would be, let's put it mildly, horrific.

Thirdly, Linux code is GPL - it can't disappear and even if it infringes on Microsoft patents that doesn't mean Microsoft owns the code. They can't incorporate Linux code into Windows without making the Windows kernel GPL - patents != copyright.

Forthly and finally (and pretty much refuting every single word that the grandparent said) there's no reason for Microsoft to want to run Linux apps. There's simply no incentive for them to make a reverse wine - if there was they don't need any patent infringements to do it now...

Call me old fashioned

[jon_joy_1999]

but I loled when I read this:

Today, I'm overjoyed that with Microsoft, Sun, and greedy investors bailing out of bailing duty, SCO's ship is sinking fast from the holes it punched in its own hull. IBM's role as anchor is finally proving effective, but the torpedo boat is captained by Novell's frighteningly accomplished legal team, ably assisted by the SCO litigation squad, F Troop.

Re:Fairies Will Protect Linux

[mpapet]

if there are patent infringements in Linux that probably would only minorly affect Linux

Microsoft doesn't care about kernels. Kernel litigation with SCO failed anyway. They worry about distros because they are stealing Microsoft's lunch.

And the of the top-100 distros over at distrowatch.org, how many have DEEP pocket to go more than one day in court? Damn Small Linux? Mepis? Slackware? When microsoft has finished culling the herd, they'll litigate most distros into oblivion. They will be careful about it too, because they've got enterprise customers they don't want to piss off.

Linux code is GPL - it can't disappear
They don't want it to disappear. They just don't want anyone using it. If the only place to get it is some repo in Germany then your PHB certainly won't run it. Linux as a product will be unmarketable. Mission accomplished for Microsoft.

Microsoft has a damn good plan. Distros should be preparing for long-term litigation.

Re: you have been reading too much fiction as well

[swillden]

Conspiracy and conjecture. Exactly the sort of nonsense I was ridiculing.

Umm, wrong. No conjecture or conspiracy required here. Microsoft paid several million dollars to TSG for a Unix license that they don't need and aren't using. This is a matter of public record, reported in TSG's SEC filings (and press releases, and quarterly conference calls and... they were really crowing about it). Of course, it's always possible that Microsoft might start making use of their license in the future, so if you squint really hard you can convince yourself that it had nothing to do with SCO vs. IBM, but the timing is pretty darned suspicious. Sun did a similar thing at the same time, of course, but Sun at least has made use of the broader license they purchased. They couldn't have opened Solaris without it, for example.

You don't know why the investment was made, or whether there was a return

We don't? We've seen the sworn testimony of the Baystar employee who was approached by Microsoft and asked to make the investment. I suppose you're right that we don't know *why* it was made -- just that a Microsoft exec told Baystar that Microsoft would make sure it was worth their while, and Baystar invested $50M. We also know that Baystar took a shellacking on the investment, recovering barely $20M of the $50M. Microsoft didn't put any money in, or get any out. They just implied that other business Microsoft would do with Baystar would make it worthwhile, even if it turned out to be a bad investment.

I'm not going to bother looking up the docs that support all of this, but they're all in Groklaw's archives if you care to.

so you invent the most overwrought and implausible story that it was a mercenary payment for SCO to attack Linux even though that would eventually mean SCO's demise.

That would be pretty implausible. It's all conjecture, but what I think happened is that SCO really thought they might have a case, and really hoped that they could just convince IBM to buy them off, giving them a quick infusion of cash. Microsoft noticed that what SCO was doing would cause huge problems for Linux if they could prove their case, and might sow some decent FUD even if they couldn't, and decided to throw some petty cash at them to help keep them going. Microsoft's cash (both the direct payment and the Microsoft-arranged Baystar PIPE), in turn, encouraged SCO and helped to keep them pushing forward even as they started to realize that maybe they didn't really have any case against Linux -- and maybe none against IBM, either.

We also know that IBM issued a lot of subpoenas to Microsoft, Novell, Baystar and a couple of individuals that were involved in all of this, and it's pretty clear that IBM and Novell have cooperated on their cases against SCO. I'm sure IBM didn't actually give any of the key information about Microsoft's involvement to Novell, because most of it was filed under seal, but I wouldn't be surprised if IBM let Novell know that there was some interesting stuff in there, and I think Novell has subpoenaed a lot of the same stuff themselves (not sure; I haven't been following that case as closely).

Taken together, along with the fact that the Novell/MS deal nets Novell ~$340M, I think it's plausible that the Novell/MS deal may have been largely about making sure Novell didn't come after MS. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I think that's the case, but it is plausible.

competing ... too crafty

[symbolset]

Novell was already in a world of hurt. Loans being called over a delisting threat for restated earnings because of options investigations, Linux business flatlining, Unix business a zombie shell of its former self, etc, etc.

The brass needed a golden parachute because they were flaming out. Along came a charming gentleman with a fat wad of cash and a deal that's too good to be true... There's only one string attached... They just have to screw everybody who does business with them until the sherriff padlocks the doors. Do that and they get great personal wealth to comfort them for the loss of their once great company. Shareholders and creditors get zilch, like always. Customers are left hanging. What employees are left at the end get away with neither their self respect nor a decent separation package.

This deal looks like SCO redux because that's what it is. There is nothing new or subtle about this plot.

Re:Fairies Will Protect Linux

[strider44]

Uhuh. Let me make this clear - Microsoft's software patents are only enforceable in the US. So no, I probably won't be affected and my PHB won't care since we're not part of the US, and I don't think any businesses actually run Damn Small Linux, Mepis or Slackware. Those distros don't really have a need to be centred in the US so I don't think it matters if Microsoft tries to sue the users of those distros - all it would gain them is a pittance of money and a shitload of bad publicity.

So, as for American business linux users (which are the only ones that are able to be targetted if Microsoft have a patent that Linux clearly infringes) I don't think they'd be that vulnerable. IBM and their customers for instance would be impenetrable because of cross patenting and I doubt they would have no issue with Red Hat being targetted. Novell cannot be targetted as they have this patent deal. Who does that leave? Anyone?

I'm not really trying to criticise you I just think that you're not thinking of things realistically here and you're just embracing a doomsday scenario seeing how it's "flashy". Realistically using their software patents against the free software community would be a death knell for Microsoft - it would open pandora's box. Realistically people (and especially companies) don't react very well to blackmail or threats because they can't afford to react to it. "Use my software or else I'll sue you" is a very bad way to do business.

Re:Not just Novell.

[poopdeville]

Big deal. To continue your roach analogy, one of the other roaches (IBM, Redhat, whatever) will pick up the slack. P2P-like decentralization is one of open source's biggest strengths.

Re:Not just Novell.

[billsoxs]

Put simply, code from Novell must now be considered "contaminated", whether it actually is or not. It's just not worth it for any open source project, especially the major ones like the Linux kernel, OpenOffice, GNOME, GCC, X.org, etc., to accept code contributed by Novell.

So your claim is that M$ has asked - or rather paid - Novell to insert M$ code into GLP code and then they will use this to shut down such code? I think not. M$ will then be activitely involved in putting the code - who are they going to sue over this? Themselves? They can't have someone add code and then sue for it. It would be like me taking my TV next door then calling the police and claiming that the neighbor had stolen it... Can't happen.

Tom Clancy vs. Reality

[MarkusQ]

Go back to reading Tom Clancy novels.

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

Re:The features of Novell software no longer relev

[Ed Avis]

The moment they signed this secret deal to insert MS patented IP into their Linux software

Whoa there. What deal to do what? Oh right, I see, it's a 'secret deal' so obviously it must be a conspiracy to insert 'MS patented IP'... there's no way to prove that allegation either way, so it must be true!

US Patents only valid in USA? Wrong!

[KWTm]

Microsoft's software patents are only enforceable in the US. So no, I probably won't be affected and my PHB won't care since we're not part of the US.

Strider44, while I don't dispute that, technically, you are correct, I continue to be worried. I see too many people relying on their location outside the USA to protect them. Yes, we are grateful that the world, far from being just the USA, has a healthy number of countries who disagree with the US; but the USA just has way too much clout on this planet.

I envision the US government championing patent enforcement --their version of it-- to other countries, under the banner of IP protection, possibly rolling it into the same snowball as preventing DVD piracy. "Yes, Mr Prime Minister, as part of our trade agreement, you agree to the We-Will-To-Protect-IP clause. Just sign here on the dotted line ..." And then suddenly one more country has agreed to crack down on Eric S. Raymond because he wrote that evil Fetchmail script that so egregiously violates Microsoft's patent of "doing things On A Computer".

Don't get too complacent about things happening with US law outside your jurisdiction. The OSS community needs to make a concerted push to get organizations and institutions, especially outside the US, using OSS. Once OSS is entrenched to some degree, it will be harder for Microsoft to impose its will outside the US, because there will be a tangible economic impact. From economic impact comes clout. For only when it hits the pocketbook will people and governments start feeling passionate about defending issues like freedom to process information.