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."
Make it sound like a bunch of children or something. I assure you, it's strictly business.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
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'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.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
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.
Does that mean that someone is going to wake up next to a horse's head?
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
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.
--
make install -not war
I thought it was Microsoft paying Novell $348mil, no?
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
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?
Why ever not? They received several hundred million dollars from Microsoft, without giving Microsoft anything or committing to anything.
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.
Twinstiq, game news
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.
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.
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)
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.
Breakfast served all day!
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
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...
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.
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.
This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
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