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!
Ha ha only serious?
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
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.
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.
Fortunately, YANAL, and you're dead wrong. Using your example, if you deliver Kevin Rose and 9 members of his family, you've fulfilled the letter of the contract, but will still be held in breach of it because you violented the intent of it.
* 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
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
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.
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
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.
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]
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."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.
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
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.
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?
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.
To be honest I think I would rather see IBM pick up Samba and Jeremy. Not because I don't have anything against Red Hat because I don't. IBM has a lot more good lawyers should Microsoft start threatening lawsuits and IBM would be better equipped to stand up against any attack from Microsoft. Not to mention the fact that SMB originated at IBM.
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!
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.
"GPL3 ain't done till Microsoft and Novell won't run"?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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.
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
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.
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."
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.