Hubert Mantel Returns to Novell

Krondor writes "Hubert Mantel, SUSE Co-Founder, has confirmed in an interview with Data Manager Online that he has returned to employment with Novell. When asked why he left Novell to begin with, Hubert responded that he was 'burned out' and 'following unpleasant experiences with our investors needed some time off.' Slashdot had reported previously Hubert's departure from Novell approximately one year ago shortly following Novell's acquisition of SUSE and subsequent layoffs. Hubert also provides his opinions on the Novell-Microsoft Agreement, which he characterizes as 'a good thing.'"

Comments

Mantel doesn't address issues on MS/Novell

[KWTm]

I anticipate some derisive comments about how Mantel is a bad guy, and Jeremy Allison is a good guy for quitting. If this does happen, it would start to become a mudslingfest like the name calling at the start of the Iraq war.

I had been hoping to hear Mantel's views on the MS/Novell deal, seeing what further insight he could provide. Disappointingly, he only points to the good side of the deal, and doesn't explain why this outweighs the bad side. We already know the good part: that MS has acknowledged the importance of Linux. No one is arguing with that. But the point is, MS is poisoning the waters, as pointed out by Allison's statement, and that is definitely a bad thing.

It's like some small Pacific island country who has just acquired nuclear weapons, and now the USA is going to come invade them with two navy fleets. The island country's president says: "I see this as a good thing: the USA is now taking us seriously." Yeah, right.

Maybe Mantel hasn't had time to formulate his thoughts and reactions to the negative aspects of the deal yet. But you can't make something good just by pointing out the positive aspects and ignoring the negative. You might try it on those populace of those states whose IQ's are in the lower half, but it's not going to work here on Slashdot.

Re:Mantel doesn't address issues on MS/Novell

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is not that Novell is making business deals with Microsoft over Linux, but that Novell made a specific deal whereby Microsoft would agree not to enforce its patents and other IP - but *only* for the commercial SUSE distro marketed and sold by Novell. At the same time Novell announced some projects for increasing interoperability with Microsoft's products. In effect, they're taking free software and making it non-free, because if someone forks the code, they will be in danger of being sued by Microsoft for patent infringement. This is not paranoia: Steve Ballmer made this very clear in interviews about the deal. After a big outcry he acknowledged that Novell and Microsoft disagreed whether "Linux" infringes MS's trade secrets. And as usual with either SCO or Microsoft, it isn't clear whether by "Linux" Ballmer is referring to the kernel, the entire SUSE distro, or any Linux distro in widespread use.

Re:out of context

[Scott7477]

Mantell's comments seemed thoughtful and reasonable to me. It seems to me that it would be nice to be in a position where you could quit your job, take a year off, and then get your old job back.

Re:Explanation, please

[Arker]

Yes, they've cut a separate peace with MS, essentially. The GPL doesn't allow this, it has the 'live free or die' clause. There's a saying, we must all hang together, for if we do not, we shall assuredly hang separately. Novell has attempted to find a sneaky way to subvert the live free or die clause. This may not make them evil, but it certainly isn't behaviour to be rewarded. And it won't be. They just destroyed their own credibility with the community that develops the software they've bet their future on. In the process, they've converted themselves from a major player to a bit player, whether they realise it or not.

Re:Explanation, please

[Arker]

There is no chance of that, however. For it to become 'better' than the others, they would need good relations with the community that produces the software, that's the point. The better their relations are with the community, the better the community supports them, the more likely the community is to be responsive to their needs, and so forth. If you alienate the community, they don't care what you need anymore. That's the place Novell has put itself. Think about Samba, or instance. When Novell had good standing in the community, they had Jeremy Allison working for them, if there were things they had a need for in Samba they could just give him a call and know he'd put that on the front burner. Now, their desires are no longer relevant. If they need something they'll have to do it themselves, and if it's helping them and not the rest, they'll have to maintain a fork.

Re:Explanation, please

[Anonymous Coward]

The subtext of this deal is "If Novell and/or Microsoft decide to modify a GPLed product then you will be in danger of being sued by Microsoft if you do anything with their version." So if YOU write something and release it under GPL and Novell modifies it then you can't use the changes without the threat of being sued by Microsoft. This is every bit as bad or even worse than releasing binaries containing GPL code without releasing the changes you have made. The code could find its way into another product thereby exposing its authors to potential litigation.

Novell is the first to sign into such a deal. No other large company has tried to undermine the GPL for their gain in such a way. Allowing this deal to gain legitimacy would severely undermine the GPL.

Microsoft Derangement Syndrome? Is that when you make up really stupid, snarky acronyms to name things that are idiotic and misconceived?