Slashdot Mirror
Jeremy Allison Resigns From Novell In Protest
walterbyrd writes to alert us to word from groklaw.net that Jeremy Allison has turned in his resignation at Novell. "The legendary Jeremy Allison (of Samba fame) has resigned from Novell in protest over the Microsoft-Novell patent agreement, which he calls 'a mistake' that will be 'damaging to Novell's success in the future.' His main issue with the deal, though, is 'that even if it does not violate the letter of the license, it violates the intent of the GPL license the Samba code is released under, which is to treat all recipients of the code equally.' He leaves the company at the end of this month. He explained why in a message sent to several Novell email lists, and the message included his letter to management."
Now if a few more people apply similar pressure. What I'd really like to see, is the Samba team officially pull support for Novell/SuSE, if not outright inform them they are in violation of the liscense, and their right to use the software is revoked.
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
It sounds to me like he released Samba under the GPL with the idea that the GPL somehow reflects some sort of utopian ideal where everyone is equal, and the GPL just doesn't say that. I wonder if he decided to use the GPL because it was the best-known Open Source license, without actually reading it (or better yet, having his lawyer read it), and is now caught off guard when he sees that the license he chose is not as reflective of his idea of the "Open Source Ideal" as he thought.
He chose to release his software under a license that permitted this sort of behavior, and now he's complaining when people actually engage in this sort of behavior.
* The only people who are complaining are those who are true *idealists* when it comes to Linux and Open Source
....or in this case, the people that actually produce the software being used.
I have large customers (people who spend money on software AND use Open Source) who run Windows and Linux side by side. Their NUMBER ONE complaint has been lack of interoperability.
Precisely. Users will think this is great, but it's not users who are writing the software being abused. Large users in particular (I work for a very large corporate user of Linux) will think this is great, because they're already paying for their support contracts and are basically seeing Linux as a commercial OS anyway - that's true in their case, because they're paying for support and restricting themselves to supported configs etc.. But it's the people writing the code that are objecting to their labour being used in this way, not the end users.
Cheers,
Ian
From what I understand, it doesn't protect any developers unless they work for Novell. Aside from that, it only protects Novell's customers from patent lawsuits. If you're using a different Linux distribution, you're not going to be covered.
The problem here is that it does violate the spirit of the GPL. Rather than granting all users freedom, they're granting users freedom only if they've purchased a specific distribution. The GPLv3 will more than likely fix this, but for now we're stuck with the GPLv2 allowing actions such as this.
Oh, and just how is Microsoft going to be fostering interoperability? I haven't seen yet where they've adopted any of our open protocols or open formats. I don't see them working with developers of free software products to help them inter-operate with Microsoft software. All I've seen so far is that Novell is going to be making an OpenXML plug-in for OpenOffice, and OpenXML is a standard in name only, also completely avoiding the intent of what it means to be a standard.
MS said they won't file suit against hobbyist developers. They didn't say anything about developers who are paid to work on Linux by companies other than SUSE.
Jeremy Allison has been quoted many times about some of the problems of making SAMBA work with Microsoft's SMB. Many of these problems have been because Microsoft do not (perhaps that should be "did not") want operability between Windows and Linux. As the founder of the SAMBA project, he's in an invidious position for precisely the reason you state when you talk about customers who complained about interoperability and who now want to switch to SUSE.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
He did not like how his employer was circumventing the spirit of the license by which his code is developed. You see it does not matter what you, Novell, MS, HP etc thinks this is about developers. In a FOSS development model those commercial entities mean absolutely nothing at all, the developer who licensed the code steers the ship, not the other way around.
Good on him, it is his code!
Not like he has to work very hard at finding a new job anyhow.
Got Code?
Microsoft says it will sue users of Samba, but not if they give Microsoft money by being a customer of Novell (because a portion of the SUSE warantee agreement goes to Microsoft directly).
By doing this, Novell is violating my copyright and the copyright of every contributor to free software by redistributing my software to people who do not have the ability to redistribute my software (with all rights they received therein). The GPL expressly forbids this, both in intent and in letter.
Novell is now saying that when I said anyone they distribute my software to must be given the same rights to redistribute that Novell has, and be told as such, that I really didn't mean it. While the GPL says this means Novell no longer has the right to redistribute my software, I strongly suspect they think it doesn't say that either.
I think someone at Microsoft understands that most paid OSS developers choose their salaries over the many principals violated with the deal. I'm not discrediting the developers who make this choice. I've sacrificed my principals in exchange for feeding my family many times and I'm not alone.
As has been said before, Microsoft is trying to narrow its Linux competition to one or two then eliminate them later. The influx of corporate politics and big money/power stands to poison the whole notion of bazaar-style development. Big-Money has a way of doing that. Look at Debian and dunc-tank. That's hardly big money and it's already affected volunteerism at that project.
As is often the case, there are just a couple of people who carry such a strong sense of principals, that they choose a more uncertain path over a more predictable one that is the result of having more flexible principals.
I for one admire his sense of conviction.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
From TFA
I think this sums up both the reason why the GPL community is mad at Novell even if they didn't technically violate GPLv2 and why there is a need for GPLv3.
Some are saying that the community has no right be mad at Novell because they aren't technically in violation of the GPL. Fine for them. But many of those that contribute code to GPL projects do so because they believe in the intent of the GPL, which is that all who receive the code are to be on the same legal footing as all others regardless of how they receive it. If the GPLv2 is no longer sufficient to provide this guarantee, then changes are needed. And it is perfectly valid for Eben Moglen to craft the changes to plug specific legal-loophole, zero-day exploits in the GPLv2 such as this Microsoft-Novell deal.
Novell keeps trying to make this deal smell rosy by talking up the interoperability part of the agreement. Are they really so stupid that they do not see that the interoperability part of the deal is not what has GPL supporters upset? They could have made any number of deals with Microsoft to work on interoperability without trying to destroy the foundation of the GPL.
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
Besides, in the past, the Samba team has demonstrated a professionalism that has put their detractors to shame, and I hope they can continue to uphold their standards. Witness what they said to SCO when SCO accused the evil Samba team of spreading the deadly plague of Open Source (all the while distributing Samba with their SCO Linux). Here's the letter from Samba to SCO:
Translation: "Up yours, SCO." But they say it in such a way that it will carry weight in business circles. In the same way, Allison's resignation makes a clear statement.
It would be a mistake to do otherwise; if the Samba team says, "Well, then I *un*-give you the code! Nyaah nyaah!", it would epitomise in the minds of executive decision-makers that Open Source is run by a bunch of immature J.Random Hackers From China who will revoke your license at the slightest provocation.
One only hopes that Novell will show some more understanding of how much turd they have now placed their foot in, and make some public gesture to show the IT world that OSS is alive and well. Sort of like what EV1 did. Novell's done a lot of good for OSS. I hope they continue.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
How is Novell violating your copyright because of something another company said?
If there were no deal and MS said 'we'll sue everyone, but not Novell 'cause we like their funky green lizard', would Novell still violate the GPL by redistributing?
Now if MS comes out and points out copyright violations in GPL code, Novell can't legally distribute it regardless of the deal...
I've RTFA and I think the guy is saying he feels marginalized by the community because the company he worked for 'made a deal with the devil'.
"We can pledge patents all we wish, we can talk to the press and "community leaders", we can do all the right things w.r.t. all our other interactions, but we will still be known as GPL violators and that's the end of it."I've run SUSE for a few years now, through 10.1, but with the Novell deal I've reimaged with Kubuntu 6.10 and I don't plan to look back.
Ballmer promptly started spewing once this deal was signed that customers of other Linux distros were at risk [somebody shut him up shortly afterwards]. This provides MS a wonderful FUD opportunity now that the SCOX farce is winding down. This implies that Linux actually infringes on Microsoft patents somehow without openly admitting it, and that Novell paid them off to stay legit. All of which is anathema to the FOSS movement that created this code to start with.
If Stevie B actually thinks there's patent violations in Linux, let him bring them forward. If not, he should STFU and try competing on the merits of his company's products. Oh wait...
EXACTLY the sort of consideration this deal generates, all to MS' gain.
And why the developer community is so seriously dead-set against it. Any code contribution by Novell at this point has to be considered suspect against MS claims of infringement that Novell/its customers are supposedly safe from, but the rest of us are wide-open to.
The issue with the Novell deal isn't copyright. It's patents. In countries dumb enough to allow software to be patented (ie, the US), Microsoft could make Samba 100% compatible with Windows and 100% GPL. They'd be able to say, though, if you're not a Novell user they'll sue you for patent infringement.
So this leader of a popular software development project goes and gets his name splattered all over the web tied to an account of how strong his integrity is?
You can't buy marketing like that :-)
It's a simple matter of complex programming.
Pardon me, but you sound like a Novel apologist, trying to sow memes of acceptance of Novell.
Allow me to disprove your contention; it's quite simple. This deal has been such an utter P.R. disaster for Novell that they have had several P.R. opportunities to try to explain themselves. Not once has there ever been any hint of a statement that this deal was either a mistake, or that they were forced into it.
Your "feelings" about this deal are seriously misguided. If this were indeed the case, Novell would have at least dropped some hints in this direction. Please quite trying to justify this deal by making excuses for Novell.
My impression of Novells' actions and statements is that this deal is all about greed, not fear.
It's all hypothetical, but I'm speaking strictly from the vantage point of a non-technical person (I am an IT person, I'm just playing non-tech's advocate.) and that is likely the way they will see things. "Oh... I heard that you shouldn't use RedHat in the server room because it can't run on the latest servers since they didn't go with the Trusted Computing option that Novell did". Or... "Yeah, I could use Debian to run a web server but this review I read said that Novell's Apache based web server has full IIS compatibility and is able to essentially duplicate the previous version of IIS". To those people, Novell is going to seem like the easy choice and the others will be fairly irrelevant. Of course to those same people anything that isn't "Big name/corporate backed" isn't relevant anyway. My bosses keep trying to convince me that we should have paid support for EVERYTHING we run in the server room so they really want Redhat or Novell. With the latest, they are starting to lean towards Novell and away from Redhat. Not wise, but that's the typical impression of non-technical folks.
Personally Gentoo rocks my world and I run it on all the boxen at home as well as on a few Xen VMs here doing some fairly important stuff (syslog for our network switches routers and firewall for example). The only thing that makes me run "supported" Linux distros are product requirements. Oracle's management package MUST run on RedHat Linux Enterprise for example. Can't get away from that... So if these companies eventually start dictating that only the "one true" Novell Linux is the only supported one, I'll be stuck. And you know there are going to be people who will see the Microsoft "blessing" of a Linux distro as meaning that it's got a higher level of quality over non-blessed distros regardless of the truth.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
The beauty of the GPL is that they cannot do that. That's why I support the GPL over all other licences, its track record to this day has been perfect in keeping free source free.
An honest litigant dosen't need to use these tactics, they are the techniques of the abuser and the oppressor company, but they work, and there are lawyers who will do this for Microsoft, RIAA, and other sources of pain and suffering.
Microsoft would be willing to bear these costs, because they see a need to confront the open source movment NOW before Google shows the world how to get run everything through a web browser, and open office winds up sitting in front of technical evaluators at middle sized companies. Putting the stink of this kind of litigation - branding open source software as an illegal movment which steals and cheats the system, will drive buisiness back towards main stream solutions. As of right now, MS is the only show in town that qualifies.
This is another in a long chain of life altering moments that you should probably write about in your diary - today I saw MS launch the second stage of its war on linux.
-GiH
Please sign the Open Letter to Novell. I'd like to get that over 3000 signatures at least today. It's at about 2950 now.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
EXACTLY. And if you'll look at the SCO case, you'll see the exact same thing. SCO sued a couple of its own customers NOT because they were using Linux but because they did not comply 100% with the contract they had signed with SCO.
When Microsoft comes in for an "audit", they're not doing it to help you. They're doing it because they want more money out of you. And the only way to get more money out of you is to "find" that you are not "in compliance" with the agreement you signed.
Which is why it would be smarter for people to avoid Novell products which Novell is paying a ROYALTY to Microsoft for if you're looking to reduce your exposure to Microsoft lawsuits and/or reduce your costs to Microsoft.
We could go back and forth like this all day long...point for point. But I'll break it down like this:
1. Windows was in the Data Center first (except for mainframe and Unix...but hang with me for a minute)
2. Linux is the newcomer to the corporate world.
3. Companies are not going to dump their Windows environment for Linux, just because Microsoft has, admittedly, made no effort to integrate with Linux. We would be foolish to believe Gates / Ballmer would say "you know, it would be great if we could make our OS work with this new, free OS that is our direct competition." If they did, they would have their shareholders up in arms. My last company made great strides in integrating Linux into their corporate environment, but when you have a gazillion Exchange servers, you're not going to dump that. Just isn't going to happen. Same with SQL servers...not going to win that one either.
4. Now, Ballmer decides he can't beat Linux or Open Source decides that perhaps it is time to work together, because the customers are telling them they need to do so. Great. But don't expect him to change over night. Sure...he can say "all Linux users are fair game..." but what are the odds of that happening? Surely he's seen the fiasco that is the SCO lawsuit. He's not that stupid.
Look...if it were up to me, everyone would run Linux on the desktop and the server. I've done it for years, and with the exception of my work laptop, I'm either running Linux (Debian & SUSE) or Mac OSX. But it isn't up to me. IBM said they were going to switch everyone to a Linux desktop. They didn't. Novell said everyone was going to use a Linux desktop. A lot do, but not everyone. The plain and simple fact is that Microsoft is the world's largest software manufacturer. Ballmer is charged with protecting its interests. The Open Source lab and the deal with Novell are a good step. But as I said, we can't expect him and the ship that is Microsoft to change course over night. It takes time. Companies and individuals will also change over time, and more Linux will show up on the desktop and server. When I work with friends setting up businesses I recommend and help them implement Open Source software. But that is from the ground up. Trying to get bigger companies to make that change isn't easy, and they will stay with what they have because of what it would take to switch.
Come up with a tool that will seamlessly migrate Windows desktops and server to Linux with little to no down-time, and you'll be a Billionaire...guaranteed, and this discussion won't happen, because everyone will run Linux, because they can, and it won't hurt in the process of changing over.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
Yes, that pretty much sums it up. Novell has always maintained that it hasn't infringed on Microsoft's patents but Microsoft has openly stated that Samba and Mono and other software does infringe.
.NET to the world as an "Open Standard" and then claiming that whoever implements it are using Microsoft's IP that are protected by the patent laws.
So what you have is Microsoft offering
Microsoft has never been known for playing fair and it's time for the entire world to work hard to simply make them irrelevant. Don't implement standards that are not truly open. Don't support Microsoft in ANYTHING they do. Demand that they be held accountable for their continued antitrust violations. Microsoft needs to be broken into at least three separate companies in order to level the playing field. This can easily be justified by their continued lawless actions and the effects those actions have on the IT world.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Except, that's not ad hominem because it's directly related to the issue at hand. Pointing out that even SCO doesn't really agree with their own arguments if you look at their behavior doesn't create the standard logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
It's stupid to let a third party change your license at will. You're essentially giving the FSF full control of your software with that clause.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Except
a) It doesn't work retroactively and far more important
b) It will no longer be GPL
There's no such thing as "GPL with my extra requirement", then it's not GPL or even GPL-compatible. If you're lucky it's still OSI-definition "open source", but I think that would even disqualify it as that.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If the legendary Jeremy Allison moves to Red Hat or Canonical, he'll probably still be working on Samba. And when the GPL v3 comes out, it will probably be adopted by Team Samba. [...] So in that specific case, it would be Novell who would have to fork the project and do all the work without the help of Team Samba.
There is no rational reason anybody has demonstrated why SuSE shouldn't be able to ship Samba under GPL v3. So, please, stop spreading FUD.
I wouldn't feel too bad for him. He's moving to google http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=170/ which I'm sure isn't too bad for his career or his bank account. It's easier to have strong principles when you have a safety net. I've always found a job offer from a competitor to be the perfect opportunity to get things off my chest followed by a resignation.
Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
So, if Novell is distributing under a nontransferable "patent umbrella license" from MS, wouldn't that put them in violation of the GPL3 with any GPL3-licensed package they were to distribute? That's the crux of the whole GPL3 issue, IIRC; that Novell would need to do its own support and updates under GPL2 'cause they couldn't distribute anything under GPL3 and still offer the "patent protection." I don't seem to recall there being any wiggle room in that deal for Novell to distribute Open Source software outside the "umbrella," and that's the only way they could still be in compliance.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."