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."
Can we stop treating this as some kind of corporate soap opera? I'll be happy when Slashdot can once again focus on the technical features of SuSE Linux or other Novell software, together with how well it respects the freedoms of its users. Those are things we can have some knowledge of and discuss sensibly, rather than speculating and fanboying.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
... what can adequately be explained by incompetence. In this case, SCO's incompetence, and utter lack of any kind of sane case. What might look like Novell slowly but surely bleeding SCO dry could just be SCO's braindead stubbornness in pursuing their case, or lack thereof.
I don't really know the legality and details of the SCO case or the MS/Novell agreement, but this sounds way too clever and complicated for the average corporation to pull off. If Novell is so smart and crafty, why can't they do a better job competing against MS in the marketplace? Does Novell's business acumen lie only in creating clever trapdoors in risky legal deals? It sounds more like the author is writing the plot for a corporate-legal thriller than any analysis of reality.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I guess this guy has never read/heard of groklaw... He probably thought SCO really had something 3 years ago, and now he's on the IBM/Novell bandwagon. Discovery in the IBM case is over and if there was evidence of Microsoft correspondence they would have found it already. PJ's take on the Novell/Microsoft contract is pretty much the opposite and she has a legal backround with OSS experince as well. He's grasping at straws.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." ~The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
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
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
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
It has been... several times in several countries... most recently is was the fool Wallace who got told where to go by an American court
And to add the usual point...even if the GPL were somehow found invalid, it means you have NO license to distribute the software, and thus have not helped your case any! As you point out, Wallace's assertion that the GPL was somehow synonymous with public domain won't stand scrutiny by even the dumbest judge. ANd that's saying something.
It has been upheld in the courts in Germany, but the reason why it hasn't been litigated in most countries, including here in the US, is because it's clear and simple.
Here's a comparison. Let's say a town counsel passes an ordinance that says you are not permitted to park your car on the street without a parking permit available for purchase from the clerk at city hall, and if you have such a permit, you are only allowed to park on the street according to the conditions on it. You then go to the clerk, buy a parking permit which reads right on it, "The holder if this permit is entitled to park one vehicle on roads in the town for not more than seven days." You then proceed to park your Hummer for three months on Main Street, and as might be expected, your vehicle gets towed.
You get pissed, so naturally, you want to hire a lawyer. The only two approaches your lawyer could argue are either:
A) The parking permit is invalid.
-or-
B) You can park anywhere you want, and you never needed a permit to begin with.
Which argument has a chance of succeeding?
Consider that there is a history of cases unanimously upholding that towns can pass any parking laws they want, and that they can tow your vehicle if you don't follow them.
Your only chance of success is arguing the parking permit is invalid. Unfortunately, NOTHING ELSE GRANTED YOU PERMISSION TO PARK YOUR VEHICLE. With that pertinent piece of information, perhaps one might be better off not spending a lot of time and money challenging the parking permit.
The GPL is like that parking permit. Nothing else grants you permission to distribute the software copyrighted by other people unless you agree to its terms.
So of course it _could_ be tested in court, but spending a lot of time and money to do so will never result in you being permitted to distribute the software without following the terms of a valid license. At best, all could ever accomplish is loosing your right to distribute the software at all.
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.
"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."
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?
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.