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!
Hopefully, Novell will keep Stafford Masie's promise to be GPL v3 compliant, fix the deal, and then maybe they can hire him back, with a raise and promotion of course. Best of luck to Jeremy.
--10scjed IANAL,AFAIK
You don't think that MS and Novell have had teams of lawyers going over everything for this deal, including the GPL. When it comes down to it, it's the letter of the contract that matters, not the intent that was in the minds of the writers.
If I write a contract to deliver a dozen roses, but for some reason I think that carnation is called a rose and instead deliver a dozen carnations, I will be held in breach of contract. It doesn't matter what my intent was if I framed the contract improperly to ensure my intent.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Ha ha only serious?
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
Well, here's a nice hiring opportunity for Red Hat - let's see if they take advantage of it.
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
I think his decision is what was expected. People can argue all they want about "technical compliance" and "spirit" of the license. In this case decision seem to be based on a simple fact: employer did something, that goes against employee's beliefs. Employee decided not to "live with it" and quit, as changing of employer's mind seems to be impossible.
I hope he will find another job soon. I also hope that other people that may be unhappy about the situation will find courage and chance to do something about it.
Hyperom.com
Whatever you think about what Allison has done, you have to repsect him for living up to his convictions. This sort of thing can't be good for your career, or for your bank account.
I really admire people who choose to live by their principles, even when it's hard or costly to do so.
* 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
Part of this agreement involves Novell paying Microsoft not to sue them.
It makes the Linux world look guilty of stealing from Microsoft.
And the second Novell gave Microsoft money, Novell ceased development on products that would compete with Microsoft.
Do you think that Novell isn't forever compromised by this deal?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
However, nobody is saying samba has got to be easy to compile, run or maintain on Novell's distro.
Got Code?
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
Ok, I'll bite. You DO realize that the chances of J A going without a job are about the same as the likelyhood of being killed by falling airplane parts, in a submerged submarine, right?
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
You're wrong.
There are many instances in the law where intent does matter very much, especially in regard to contracts. If it can be shown that Novell and Microsoft colluded to violate the terms of the GPL, you can bet it would be worse for them than if they had been found to be "accidentally" in violation. Plausible deniability is nice to have.
Related to intent is understanding - the concept of the "meeting of the minds," which is central to contract law. This excerpt is taken from a site about health care, but it's still applicable. Emphasis mine:
And of course, in criminal law, the intent to commit a crime is hugely important. Google "mens rea" sometime... or, wait, I'll do it for you. Of course, any case coming out of this would likely be civil rather than criminal, but you get the picture.
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.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
"Oh, and just how is Microsoft going to be fostering interoperability?"
Go visit http://port25.technet.com/
Take some time and actually read what they are doing over there. Note that Microsoft and Firefox folks have been working together...
It isn't all bad folks.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
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
A software's author that licensed the project under the GPL or any other license STILL RETAINS THE COPYRIGHTS of that project. Thus ... the author of a software project can specifically forbid a certain individual or company from distributing that software.
If the Samba team holds the copyrights of Samba ... go figure, they can.
I know they've done a few things that are at least somewhat "open", but I don't see this as being a significant part of Microsoft's strategy. It's probably more something to garner "good will" in the community, so we're more complacent. With all that said, they can *still* exert control over their patents if an open solution they've developed is used or extended by somebody else.
I just don't see them doing anything that's going to weaken their stranglehold on the PC community.
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
Intent is a vitally important part of contracts. Essentially, whenever there's any dispute over a contract, unless a term is specifically and excruciatingly spelled out, the intent of the parties making the contract is what the judge will use to make a decision.
SUSE 10.2 is my preferred flavor of Linux, and with all that is currently going on, I feel guilty for liking it as much as I do. I see it as a potential windows alternative down the line, once XP is sufficiently outdated, if 10.x keeps improving, cause I'm sure as hell not pissing money away on Vista. Now I feel like I'm being sucked back to the Microsoft teet even as I make plans to break away.
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
The only thing that holds a company / product back are the people who manage the company or who make the product not the competitors around it. In this day and age if a product or service is as good as people rave about it sells it's self.
Like it or not, many of those "true idealists" are also the people writing the code. So maybe their opinion matters.
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]
Their opinion absolutely matters. And while I applaud Allison for standing up for his convictions, I think they are poorly placed with this particular move.
Look...he can do what he wants, as can any other coder. They is his, and your right. However, it is my prediction that in two years, this agreement will be seen as the best thing to happen to Linux in the Enterprise. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly come back here to Slashdot and publicly state that I was foolish with my assessment.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
having been on the payroll at the time of the contract signing with MS....does this mean he's got any sort of restrictions now dangling on his neck, at least from the point of view of microsoft?
I might be dead-wrong here. I might be so wrong that I'll lament ever supporting this. But I look at this as Microsoft finally admitting that Linux and Open Source are here to stay, and since they can't and won't beat it, why not see how to best work with it. The formation of the Port25 website and the Open Source lab is a good step in the right direction.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
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."There is nothing about interoperability in that agreement.
If I write a contract to deliver a dozen roses, but for some reason I think that carnation is called a rose and instead deliver a dozen carnations, I will be held in breach of contract. It doesn't matter what my intent was if I framed the contract improperly to ensure my intent. That's actually not true. If the mistake is unilateral (only the other party made a mistake and you were not aware of it) then they are probably in breach - however, if any element of the contract suggests that the mistake was apparent at the time of contract (the price is far too low, there is evidence that you were show a picture of the final product, etc) you're boned. Judges will tend take a narrow view of parties who attempt to abuse contract language to enforce and unfair deal. If it is clear that the given interpretation is decidedly one sided, or that an interpretation requires ignoring common use of language and interpreted meaning of the contract - they will see it for what it is, abuse of the legal system, and rule accordingly.I'm not going to take the time to teach class in contracts, but the long and short is that judges (usually) interpret for intent, punish those who seek to abuse ambiguity, and interpret toward a useable contract (if an interpretation makes the contract void, they go with a different interpretation).
Wikipedia has some information on mistake, and also interpretation: Mistake / Interpretation of Tems.
-GiH
Well, I'll give it to you for being optimistic. :) It'd be nice if they were going to adopt a lot of these open practices and move forward towards a level playing field. But, we're talking about the largest software company in the world, whose monopoly allows them to pretty much do whatever they please. I don't see them giving that up easily, and I don't think the FOSS community is big enough for them to really care. It might be their way of conceding and working together more on the server front, but I don't see it moving over to the desktop. But, time will tell. We'll see.
They're still violating the spirit of the GPL, though.
BINGO!
Clearest, most concise description of the FUD we as Open Source supports should be saying. Period, end of story.
Fight FUD with FUD. They made their bed, now is the time to make them sleep in it.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Okay.
But that does not seem to be happening.
So far it is just Miguel who supports it
I think you're confusing those items.
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.
Huh? So Red Hat (where Alan works) is "second-rate"?
Or is it that Ubuntu is "crappy"?
I don't see that happening. Instead I see a company flailing at its declining marketshare and signing an agreement to FUD everything else Linux related.
Just like SCO did.
And Novell will die, just like SCO is dying.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm interested to know if the GPLv3 would help stop this kind of deal.
My understanding is that under GPLv3 Novell would have their rights to redistribute samba terminated if they themselves tried to enforce a patent claim against Samba.
Under GPLv3 would Novell have their right to redistribute Samba terminated if they knowingly introduced code that was patented by Microsoft into Samba? Also how could it be proven?
He has mine for now. Anyone who will put there convictions above their paycheck gets high marks from me. I have seen too many people keep silent because they don't have the guts to speak out against something that is wrong or just plain stupid, and I'm not just talking about the M$/Novell deal.
One of the greatest Evils is when the Good stand by and do NOTHING.
This is a bribe to one company, intended to set a precedent which MS will then use on the others. I predict based on my reading of the documents and MS's past behaviour that MS is preparing suits now, to file against Red Hat's customers, and the company itself.
Eliminating the party who is stubbornly opposed to you makes conquering the rest so much easier.
-GiH
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.
I'm not involved in coding for the project or in GPL litigation.. however others who are have posted below. Check it out.
Here's one argument on how Novell is breaching the GPL: sample
I'd do more linking.. but it's lunch time.. [runs off to meet fiance]
-GiH
You miss the point. Novell and Microsoft are saying that they can release code under GPL v2 that is encumbered by patents. If this is the case FOSS CANNOT use that code without denying the freedoms that were the intent of the GPL.
Microsoft could, for example, help Novell inject their IP and later tell users that they must pay or be sued for patent infringement.
I didn't support GPL v3 in the past but I do now. Let's close this loophole and shun Novell until they straighten up and fly right!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
That is the first, intelligent and well reasoned response I've seen yet. You make some very good points.
However, I think there is a fundamental difference between SCO and Novell. SCO was worthless from the word go. Novell was, and could again be, a good partner. It's going to be necessary to wack them with a clue stick repeatedly until they wake up.
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
I don't see that this would do any harm to his career at all.
He's just proven himself to be a highly ethical person. Some employers like that.
you had me at #!
I just have to wonder if the Novell management was high that day. If you look at what tends to happen to MS 'partners' you should know *not* to deal with MS. Example include: Sybase, thier 'plays for sure partners', Orange, IBM, and I'm sure others could come up with more.
I predict in a year or two Novell will be an empty shell of a company, not unlike SCO. Also, IIRC, doesn't Novell hold Unix copyrights and patents? If Novell needs to liquidate assests would MS get first refusal on these copyrights and patents? What exactly was in their deal?
It maybe tinfoil hat thinking on my part, but it could get scary.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Alright, I'll make my prediction with the same pledge. I predict Novell will do the same thing to Suse Linux as they have done with every other product they have ever touched, which has been described as spinning gold into toxic waste. But that isn't really relevant to my post.
I must say, it grieves me, too. Novell has been a really solid community partner. Really! They seemed to "get it" when it came to the GPL community. I just don't understand it.
I should also point out that it is perfectly possible for the agreement to be the "best thing to happen to Linux in the Enterprise" and also be the worst thing for Free Software depending on your goal for "Linux in the Enterprise". I strongly suspect that Allison's primary goal is not increased market share. After all, he's obviously one of those "true idealists".
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
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.
I don't think you have much to fear when your resignation immediately makes positive front page coverage on both Slashdot and Groklaw. 100 million people just found out Jeremy Allison's looking for work.
:)
I'd feel better about my own career if I had that kind of visibility. PS. I'm looking for a job.
you had me at #!
Too few people let things go by just because their job depends on them shutting up. I'm glad this guy has the power to say no.
I'm not seeing that. If people question Linux, they'll choose Windows instead.
Just like Novell's CEO saw when he tried to go head-to-head with Microsoft
No, the "easy choice" will be Windows. The "easy choice" in IT is always to go with a single vendor. That way there's no finger-pointing about why something won't work that way the salesperson said it would.
Why would anyone be looking for "full IIS compatibility" from a different vendor when they can have IIS itself? Migrations are expensive and the customers know that deals between IT companies can go sour. It's safest to involve the fewest companies and that means buying from the vendor selling the product itself. Not from someone promising "compatibility" with that product.
Linux has a few advantages over Microsoft products. And licensing is one of the biggest advantages for the end user. Once that is gone (and it is under Novell's deal), there really isn't any reason for the end user to consider "compatibility" with Microsoft's products when they can just go with Microsoft itself.
Particularly when Novell has to maintain its own "forks" of projects such as Samba because Team Samba has gone with GPL v3.
Once somebody has the adjective "legendary" applied to them they become more of a symbol than a key player. If there's such a thing as an FOSS Fellow (like an Apple Fellow) he should appy for it.
Dude, I do get it. You seem to misunderstand how copyright & licenses work. The samba team definitly owns the license, and they released a version with a license that says that anyone can copy it and reproduce it and change it, as long as they release whatever changes to the code they make. In doing so, they lost the ability to retroactively go back and say, "I take it back, that's not free anymore".
Any NEW versions they release, they can release under whatever license they want. But they can't retroactively go back and undo the GPL'ing of their earlier code. If you could retroactively un-GPL code, I can guarantee a huge number of minor projects, that became successful, would have been un-GPL'd by their authors and be commercial software today. New version, whatever license you want, but once it's been released under the GPL license, you can't go back & undo that.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Here...go listen to this netcast. It just *happens* to be Jeremy Allison being featured on FLOSS weekly. Pay close attention to the bits (somewhere around 35 min. into the netcast) where he mentions MS's intentions on interoperability, specifically what changes they made to the Sever Message Block protocol in Windows 2003/Vista. Yah, they might say that they want to play nice, but I have a hard time beleiving that MS has changed their tune since the creation of SMB2.
It's FUD. The fact that they have an agreement in the first place suggests to people that Novell (read Linux) infringes on Microsoft's IP.
This means that people start to think "Linux infringes, maybe we should steer clear until it sorts itself out", as it's better to be safe.
I doubt highly that Linux infringes on any legitimate IP of Microsoft's, but Microsoft what the general public (and managers that don't know any better) to think that it does.
As was said with the SCO case (or if it wasn't then it should have been), "Show us where we infringe, and we'll happily take it out". Microsoft can peruse all of the source, so why would they choose not to simply sue anyone/everyone who makes money from Linux?
So as a developer I have to indemnify everyone for all the bits of the software i didn't write?
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
I don't know where you get that, especially since, two weeks after Novell shook hands with Microsoft over their deal, Steve Ballmer specifically said that non-Novell Linux was a target.
In short, it is not good for Linux because it is not good for anyone outside of Novell. If Microsoft wanted interoperability, they didn't need Novell to do it. Why do you think they did need Novell?
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Duplicate 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
A contract to which Novell and Microsoft are parties cannot bind him personally. It can obviously affect him in his capacity as a Novell employee. I suspect that he has not committed any changes to the Samba tree since the agreement was enacted, nor will he until next month, just to be sure that he isn't opening that particular door. He probably is familiar with how Gerald Combs had to change the name of Ethereal to Wireshark because his former employer had legal claims over the prior name. This one isn't a trademark issue, of course, but the same principle applies.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
> Their NUMBER ONE complaint has been lack of interoperability.
Did you ever ask yourself WHY there were interoperability problems ?
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
It's not my place to ask. These are large, Fortune 500 or larger companies. They want something that works...period. If it doesn't work, they will look for something else that does.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
Precisely, but you can say it both ways : GNU/Linux is not interoperable enough with Windows, or the other way around : Windows is not interoperable enough with GNU/Linux.
Why do your customers always seem to look the same way ? Just explain them, they should understand : If Windows doesn't work, they just have to move to something else that does.
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
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.
Most IT companies I've seen have you escorted out the door at the end of the next hour after they find out you're quitting. Why is he special?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I mean this in the nicest possible way, but you're on crack.
Nothing prohibits any Novell customer from giving any non-Novell customer the source code and binaries to any GPL product contained in that distribution. Nothing in the GPL even begins to deal with things outside of the boundaries of Copyright law. That is to say, Copyright normally takes your rights away and the GPL allows you certain freedoms in contradiction to Copyright should you agree to uphold those ideals.
Those ideals are very simple, and none of them include giving away something that is normally expected to be paid for, like a warrantee. In fact, most GPL products expressly disclaim any warrantees to users in the first place, so I'm still not sure why you're upset.
You do realize that's all this is right? -- a warrantee agreement between Novell and its customers with permission from Microsoft.
None of my or your precious GPL freedoms are being taken away at all, and this hoopla is very confusing to me. Yeah yeah, the evil Microsoft signed an agreement with a Linux distributor, so what? I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy with six Linux PCs at home, but really, who cares? What matters is how the software is distributed and your rights to do whatever you want with the sources (which you would still have as a Novell customer).
You may not be able to transfer any additional warrantee Novell gives you w.r.t. Microsoft lawsuits that may or may not ever happen, but you wouldn't have had that without the agreement either.
Please, informed replies only. Flames are not helpful.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Contracts do not require a signature or even a writing - spoken promises can suffice for most purposes. Every sale you've every completed is a contract with certain assumed responsabilities (default warranties) and rights (exchange of property). A Licesnse is a contract to allow another access to your property for a stated purpose/duration, etc. Tickets are also licenses - most often the terms are spelled out on the back.
This is all contracts 101 stuff.
-GiH
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.
Straight from the devil's (Ballmer's) mouth:
...we understand there's going to be Unix on Intel, and therefore Linux, for the long foreseeable future.Hooray! Microsoft has acknowledged the survivability of Linux! Who'd-a-thunk-it?
mandelbr0t
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
This is one of those things that is "true, but simplified to the point of being misleading"; even under the so-called "objective" approach to interpretation, usages in trade, the course of dealing between the parties, and all kinds of other things that would to anyone but a lawyer be considered evidence of subjective intent rather than objective meaning of the words will be considered in determining intent.
Thanks for this answer.
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
I, for one, do not _need_ any job. I will make my way through the world as I can with or without you.
I pity anyone who _needs_ their job, rather than wanting it.
Good for Mr. Allison. He can reap the benefits of being good at what he does and contributing to a highly recognized body of work.
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!
I really doubt this would be a threat to Samba, let alone kill it. Samba is GPL'd, so even if Novell somehow "owned" the Samba team (which AFAIK they do NOT) then it would still be likely that people would pick up the code and run with it. It does seem likely that Novell itself will stop using Samba, but that won't kill Samba any more than Novell disregarding the GPL will kill the GPL.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
with:
I'm sorry, I'm lost. Ad hominem attacks are "professional"?
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
Thereby violating various methods patents owned by everybody's favorite megacorp.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
You are
You will be.
The benefits you see are the bait. The patents are the hook. The line is currently four years and ten months long. The death of Novell is the sinker.
If people trust this deal, they're going to feel a lot of pain getting uncommitted.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
You're right, that's Jeremy's problem with Novell, but parent said they didn't understand the problem, so here it is:
Novell made a deal that promises protection for their customers. That's a big part of why they made it, and along comes Microsoft and says as much. Novell could say You know, we really meant that to protect our customers for Novell products, not for third-party products and yet they didn't. They said trust us, we're the good guys remember?
The simple fact is that Novell doesn't have the right to enter into that deal with Microsoft using SUSE because Novell doesn't have the right to guarantee their customers those rights (under the deal with Microsoft). If they did, Microsoft probably wouldn't have entered into the deal.
Thanks for the debate. Right or wrong, it was fun, and I think it's good for everyone.
Happy holidays to you.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
This is what Ballmer wanted to happen!
Divide and conquer people!
Because Novell is licensing thse patents for the use of their customers (presumably with SUSE), they are denying their customers the rights to use the software for any purpose (they can only use it on machines with paid-up SUSE licenses). They can't give someone else the rights to use the software (assuming the patents are valid), so if Linux really does contain patented algorithms that aren't freely licensed for everyone's use, Novell loses the right to distribute Linux at all since the recipients cannot transfer those rights to others.
You accuse someone of drug use "but in the nicest possible way", lecture an argument on a single broken assumption, and then say, "only people who agree with me can reply-"
Software and its use is supposed to be Free: Free to run, Free to change, Free to share, and Free to improve. US Copyright law guarantees the first two, so the GPL really is about Free to share the software, and improved versions of that software. Anything that produces inequalities in its users, or its use is contrary to the spirit of the GPL, and I really do think anyone informed about Free Software knows this.
The real question is whether a Judge will honor the spirits of the GPL, and the authors of Free Software, or the twisted freedom hating interpretation of Microsoft.
Here's the long and short of it: Novell is redistributing all the rights it has. Novell has no patent license, a promise not to sue is nothing at all in IP law. Does Microsoft even need any formal agreement at all to sue everyone but Novell's customers? No. All Novell needs to do is to pay Mircosoft somehow, and mysteriously enough they don't get sued. And I doubt very much there's anything the GPLv3 could do about it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This is what I predicted from the beginning. The goal here was fragmentation of the Linux development community.
It makes no difference whether the Samba team likes Novell or SuSE; the software is released under an open source license. The ability by people you don't like to use software that you release under an open source license is an essential part of open source.
Many Linux distros are doing exactly that and that's why taking Linux down a few pegs is a necessity to MS. MS doesn't want Linux dead. They just want it to smell funny. Probably something like pee. (I keep doing that)
That's what Microsoft does. So what? Whining about it isn't going to change it.
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.
Microsoft either derives code from something that's GPL'ed or they don't.
In the first case, they have to provide source code to their stuff under the GPL, plus transferable licenses for all necessary patents.
In the second case, they are effectively simply releasing a piece of proprietary software--no different from lots of other proprietary software that SuSE, RedHat, and other distros are already shipping.
Either way, I don't see what the big deal is. Microsoft could always distribute proprietary stuff, and Microsoft could always sue people of patent infringement. Nothing has really changed, other than that they are a couple of hundred million dollars poorer.
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."
The only "IP" Ballmer could be referring to is the Interface definition needed to properly talk to a Microsoft box. MS has the right to keep it proprietary, but trade secrets are not protected by copyright or patent. If they publish and patent it, then to the extent that MS keeps that information proprietary, then any attempt to hack and market it (reverse engineer a properly working interface and sell it) is theft of MS IP.
Everything else on the Microsoft side of the interface is part of the Windows OS or some other MS style product. The only way they are owed compensation for that is if that particular copy of the OS is pirated.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
What Novell and Microsoft are claiming is that they CAN incorporate patent encumbered IP into GPL v2 software. I believe that that claim is being examined by a FOSS lawyers. If the GPL v2 license doesn't prevent that (as Novell and Microsoft assert) then we have a real problem using that license.
The mere fact that Novell entered into a patent agreement does several things:
1.It tells the world that Novell does not care about the intent of the GPL.
2.It casts doubts about any projects that they may contribute to the FOSS community.
3.It will be a major FUD source for Microsoft.
And yes, any corporation that uses GPL'd software but does not abide by the intent of the GPL needs to pay a heavy price. I really hope that Novell realizes their mistake and comes back to the community but until then I won't use their products. It really hurt to wipe Suse off my PC. It was one of the best distros I have ever used but I'm adjusting to Ubuntu.
The last thing we should do is let this pass.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
It was Andrew Tridgell, not Jeremy Allison who founded Samba.
Jeremy has been an amazingly important contributor to the project, but it was Andrew's "AT&T LANMan compatibility code" that started the project .
I know, because I brow-beat Andrew on Usenet until he released it after mentioning it once in a post to one of the news groups, and once it was released, I suggested that he start a mailing list for it (we had a bunch of AT&T WGS boxes that AT&T had donated to the University, they all had LANMan, and I wanted to hook them up to the Ultrix box we had).
Also, I used to work in the cublicle across from Jeremy when he was working at Whistle communications before it was bought by IBM. 8-)
-- Terry
If anyone in the community had bothered to stop and think about this, they might have realised that it is possible that causing such division is exactly what Microsoft intended with this agreement. As those of you who've read ESR might remember him saying, the greatest (and ultimately only) strength FOSS people have is their programming ability.
If Allison had stayed with the company, he might have been able to keep securing funding for the Samba project, which in turn would mean that code would continue to get written...presumably GPLed code which Microsoft thus would have been unable to co-opt.
Throwing a tantrum and leaving accomplishes nothing. It will not hurt Microsoft in the slightest, nor is it likely to impress anyone watching with Allison's "moral stand." The only thing it will accomplish is possibly throw the future of the Samba project into question, at least with regards to his ability to continue maintaining it.
A number of people involved in FOSS need to read Machiavelli and get a clue about how the real world works. Isolated exceptions like Gandhi aside, "principled" martyrdom generally accomplishes exactly nothing. 99.9...% of the population are only ever going to care about FOSS purely on the basis of how doing so benefits them. They DO NOT CARE about moral abstractions of any kind. I wish I knew why so many people associated with Linux had such difficulty comprehending this.
Please try and understand one simple concept. Windows became the dominant system purely because it gave people what they wanted. No other reason. If the people who develop Linux want it to become the dominant system, then they are ultimately going to have to abandon any other consideration; technical superiority, "principle," whatever. If Linux's developers want it to take over the world, the *only* thing that can matter is that it does what people want.
If principle is something that Linux's developers care more about than relevance, that's fine...but people need to start recognising that the two are mutually exclusive. If you want one, you're going to have to let go of the other. In terms of gaining the type of popularity for Linux that many of its' developers seem to want, Hobbesian ethics are far more likely to be of assistance than the Lockean philosophy that such groups as Debian claim to adhere to.
This more than anything else is how I know that people are naive when they believe that Stallman is the being of light that they do, while still having managed to gain the marginal degree of influence that he has. Power doesn't work that way. It comes from giving people whatever pleasant mirage they want to see. In Stallman's case, the Prophet, St Ignucius, is the image some people want, and which with a certain demographic, Stallman has managed to rate pretty highly...but again, it's purely because by following along with his crusade, people expect to either be able to get free software, or make money from it...straight back to the "what's in it for me?" principle.
As an example of this, it nearly made me vomit the other night when, in a reply to one of my posts here, someone from India in particular had the gall to quote the FSF's party line on morality and principle.
I know exactly why Stallman is so popular in India; it's because Linux is one of the primary elements enabling India to do a role reversal with the US as an economic member of the Third World. If you think it's because contemporary Indians take after Gandhi in being pillars of virtue and caring about the FSF's "principles", then please, pass me some of what you're smoking.
You're right of course. How could I make so stupid a mistake?! Thanks for the correction.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
According to the ECMA Code of Conduct in Patent Matters there is no requirement that any relevant that patents pertaining be opened, merely that they are made available for licence under Reasonable And Non Discriminatory (RAND) terms.
The problem here is that RAND is not further defined, meaning that a company like MS can charge a peppercorn licence fee, and still place the licences out of the reach of FOSS projects who can't pass on the overheads to their customers.
Additionally, ECMA don't seem require the patents to be actually licenced, they just require a statement of policy from the patent holder. If the patent holder later declines to issue the patent, they may be excluded from further participation in that committee, but by that stage you could still have a whole hell of a lot of deeply entrenched patent violations, so I don't take much comfort from that provision.
Oh, and if they ask the patent holder if they have any undisclosed patents, and the holder doesn't respond, the technical committee is free to vote on adoption, and therefore presumably adopt, the standard anyway.
So, as it turns out, there's absolutely nothing in the ECMA procedures prohibiting patent bombs, at least in so far as Free Software is concerned.
IANAL, Groklaw has a bunch of them who examined this in detail at the time of the Massachusetts ODF flap. Check it out!
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
No other reason. It was the only upgrade path from ms-dos.
Msft is absolutely masterful at the vendor-lock game.
This ZDNet blog entry has more details: The ultimate revenge? Novell's Allison to join Google.
If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
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."
Well, that statement is misleading. In fact, Novell has a choice: either they fork and offer patent protection, or they simply ship under the GPL v3 and don't offer patent protection. So, statements like "Novell [...] would have to fork the project and do all the work without the help of Team Samba." are incorrect, since such statements already assume that Novell would not choose to go with the GPL v3.
In fact, Novell keeps saying that they don't think the FOSS they are shipping is infringing. So, most likely, when GPL v3 software comes out, they'll simply ship that under GPL v3 and live with the fact that there will be no patent protection from Microsoft claims. At that point, Novell will be in the same boat as all other Linux vendors again, except that they have gotten some money out of the deal.
In any case, the sooner the GPL v3 gets out and adopted, the better for everybody, including Novell, because the GPL v3 will clarify these issues and let us focus on important questions again.
The GPL forbids distribution that is patent encumbered; from the preamble: Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. This means that if those programs are patent-encumbered, then Novell doesn't have a right to redistribute them, no matter what Microsoft says. In order for Novell to have the right to redistribute GPL software, then Microsoft cannot have the right to use anyone (not Novells' customers, not anybody) for those patents.
Now ordinarily, we could simply agree to disagree- and wait for a Judge to say if Microsoft is right or not, but the problem here is that Novell is saying that these files are encumbered with patents and so therefore Novell is saying expressly that Novell is violating copyright law.
Of course, it's possible that contract isn't legally binding, and that neither Microsoft nor Novell had the right to offer what they did in the contract, but you seem to forget that the parent poster was asking why anyone is bothered about this and here it is: Either Novell is an asshole to GPL developers and sold something Novell didn't own, or Novell is an asshole to GPL developers and violated their copyright.
I just signed the document and as of then : 3109 people have added their signatures to this document. I can understand why Bruce would hesitate to edit it now. Hey he has provided a space for your comments, just use it to present your IMHO rather excellent logic. Myself, I noted the parable of the scorpion and the eagle as being most topical.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
"Windows became the dominant system purely because it gave people what they wanted. No other reason."
Not really, Windows became what it is from a combination of several factors. Number one is preloads, that Microsoft managed to persuade IBM to tie a MSDOS license to each CPU clone was an outstandingly brilliant business move. That it can manipulate vendors into preinstalls today is due to failures of the legal system to act. Some of the success is due to simple good fortune of being at the right place and time. Some is due to vision of seeing the possibilities. Much more is due to ruthless practices, ethical flexibility in regard to acquisition of others persons ideas, even IP as they themselves define it. Somewhat more than most expect a lot is due to MS being rather soft on the piracy of Windows in the early years. In the later years it has been more about manipulation, deception and marketing, oops sorry those are kinda of the same thing. I will concede that compared to commercial versions of UNIX, DOS and especially Windows was rather cheap and easy, read dumbed down and limited to make is so. Since IBM PC cloned hsrdwsre was also much cheaper than Apples MS scores again.
It may very well be that many here need to be better informed of natural philosophy. However a Wikipedia linked mini dissertation on how "Hobbesian" or "Lockean" philosophical base principles are related to software development and the marketplace is pointless in such a construct and I can easiy twist such an argument around on you. As brilliant as these men were they or no other person has ever nailed down the human condition well enough to support such an argument. Yes there are "Machiavellian" persons about in the world and there are those who strive to the ideals of Gandhi, however the vast majority of persons fall into the vast grey center. These opposing philosophical views often work out in the real world in ways you might not expect.
An example is called for here: Modern Linux distributions are much closer to what the vast majority of people would choose as per your definition of "Hobbesian values". That it is cheap, and dependable are attributes that most people want is due mostly to the merits of the FOSS "Lockean" type of ideals. Linux is getting easier to use and more dependable with each generation. Microsoft indeed realizes all these trends and this is why they are being as aggressive as possible in the deals they cut, the manipulation, deception, collusion and the FUD they spew forth.
On the other hand Windows is getting more expensive, less easy to use in many ways, and its relevance is being diminished by the greed of MS the RIAA and others.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
Ah yes of course, the legendary Jeremy Allison, whom I have never heard of before and the reason why I have no interest in reading past the first 4 words of the summary.
Support the FairTax