Dell Partners with MS/Novell for Linux Servers

untouchableForce writes "Dell has announced that it will join forces with Microsoft and Novell to "make it easier for the Windows operating system and the [...] Linux [operating] system to work together." This is not overly surprising given Dell's good relationship with Microsoft, and since they already sell SUSE Linux on some of their servers, but it is likely to put a stop to the OSS community's celebration of them distributing Ubuntu. The debate over partnership between Microsoft and Novell has been drawn out since the deal was signed and for some this will add additional fuel to the fire but shouldn't the OSS community be reading this as an acceptance of Company's acknowledgment of Linux?"

Comments

This deal also.....

[8127972]

.... Likely limits the chances of Dell being sued because of some sort of IP related issue. These days, it's all about covering your A**.

Re:This deal also.....

[Penguinisto]

Indeed - I see it as a major step towards Dell selling Linux on a larger scale.

OTOH, I sincerely hope this isn't going to become a pattern, where MSFT makes bank every time an OEM moved towards Linux. Something about it just seems plain wrong, and looks like an admission of guilt towards a contention that probably does not exist (the assertion of MSFT somehow owning IP to Linux or OS tech).

/P

Re:This deal also.....

[marcosdumay]

I do have a problem with Microsoft getting something for every PC sold with Linux. But, that said, it is a much better situation than every PC comming with Windows.

Re:This deal also.....

[dyefade]

Then the customer would still be forced to buy a Windows licence, which would (partly) defeat the purpose.

Re:This deal also.....

[metamatic]

...towards a contention that probably does not exist (the assertion of MSFT somehow owning IP to Linux or OS tech).

Given that Ubuntu includes Mono by default, I'm almost certain it does include patented Microsoft technology. Does anyone seriously doubt that?

Re:This deal also.....

[aichpvee]

microsoft is to provide support under the agreement. I'll go out on a limb and assume they aren't doing it for free.

Re:This deal also.....

[civilizedINTENSITY]

There is lots of controversy regarding mono. To ask if anyone doubts if mono infringes indicates you've already made up your mind. I don't see where they have infringed. Could you be specific? Or are you just paranoid?

Re:This deal also.....

[kripkenstein]

I do have a problem with Microsoft getting something for every PC sold with Linux.

Well, me too. But the problem is the US legal system, really - note that Fraunhofer, Alcatel and likely Novell and IBM make money from every Windows PC sold. Merely as a simple consequence of the current patent system. Blame the legislators and those that lobbied for it (which includes Microsoft, of course).

Anyhow, the real issue is that Microsoft see Linux as a rising force in the industry. They are therefore moving to profit from Linux as best they can; they want 'in' on every big Linux deal. Ironic, in a way, but really quite simple.

Re:This deal also.....

[Scarblac]

Exactly the opposite - if they're suggesting they need a patent deal like this to be allowed to distribute Linux, then they are not allowed to distribute it - see the GPL (For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program).

It would open them up to GPL violation law suits.

Re:This deal also.....

[IGnatius T Foobar]

OTOH, I sincerely hope this isn't going to become a pattern, where MSFT makes bank every time an OEM moved towards Linux.

In conventional terms, this is known as a "protection racket" and it is quite illegal. Not that the law ever stopped Microsoft before...

Re:This deal also.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to point out that this Novell agreement is only in relation to Dell Enterprise (servers) in which Suse was already an option. To continue using Suse means it would make since to take part in this agreement. The Unbuntu systems are still being planned for summer and should not be effected. I say this as a Dell employee which can confirm this via internal communications. Posting as AC since I am stating my employer ;)

Re:This deal also.....

[MikeyVB]

I fail to see how this might make a difference in getting Linux sold on a larger scale. The company I work for only gets our servers from Dell, and one of the operating choices for an OS is RadHat Enterprise. They have been offering Linux on their servers for years!

Re:This deal also.....

[WindBourne]

In fact, this will force other companies to load Linux. I would not be surprised to see more of these showing up in Best Buy, CompUSA, etc.

Re:This deal also.....

[Foofoobar]

I tend to think of it this way... they are getting maybe 1% of what they would receieve shoud that have actually been a Windows machine. Bt also, you are getting people used to a new system and off the crack rock that is Windows. That in the long term has an even greater loss for them.

Re:This deal also.....

[L'homme de Fromage]

How about this patent on ADO.NET and parts of ASP.NET, both of which are MS proprietary extensions which are *not* part of the ECMA standard for C#/.NET. There are many others. The Mono team admits that their implementation of ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms is a "potential" problem.

Re:This deal also.....

[greenbird]

Something about it just seems plain wrong, and looks like an admission of guilt towards a contention that probably does not exist (the assertion of MSFT somehow owning IP to Linux or OS tech).

Are you kidding? Of course Microsoft owns patents that cover things in Linux. The way the patent office is rubber stamping patent applications as fast as they can replace their ink pads and the fact that Microsoft files for thousands of patents yearly means it's likely Microsoft has a patent that would cover any non-trivial software out there (and probably a lot of trivial software). Only the MAD effect and the fact that Microsoft has enemies that have more patents than they do keeps them from pushing the button. I mean for FSM's sake, they issued a patent on double linked lists. What makes you think Microsoft hasn't slipped through multiple patents that cover trivial crap that's used in Linux?

Re:This deal also.....

[Curtman]

The Mono team admits that their implementation of ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms is a "potential" problem.

I see:

• Jim Miller at Microsoft has made a statement on the patents covering ISO/ECMA, (he is one of the inventors listed in the patent). Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose

And as for the other stuff it says:

• Mono's strategy for dealing with any potential issues that might arise with ASP.NET, ADO.NET or Windows.Forms is: (1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless.

So that doesn't really sound like an admission of any potential problems at all.. It's a strategy to avoid those problems.

Re:This deal also.....

[JohnBailey]

When buying a system, you practically are always forced to buy a license for whatever product. Usually it is just an OEM license which are a lot cheaper for the consumers. Even if Dell would put a linux distro on it, they would have to pay for a license, maybe even cheaper but still the customer is paying for a license and in case of linux, the majority of users would be buying more expansive support with it since they have little knowledge of the OS. Not always. From a big OEM, Or from an electronics chain, then yes if its Windows, you will be buying a license. But from a small local computer shop or for home builders, you can get anything or nothing put on it. And Linux doesn't have a paid license outside the corporate versions, so unless Joe is accidentally buying a server, no Windows, no license fee. Support may be needed, but not always, paid for, and certainly not if Joe knows someone who already knows Linux well enough to help them get started. Its difficult for someone to learn Windows on their own too.

AND they would be doing a lot less with their system compared to what they would be doing with a windows based system, being playing games, watching porn, downloading illegal music etc.... As long as the mainstream software for the average joe is build for the windows OS, they are better off with that OS You do know that Firefox is available for Linux too... Why exactly should Joe not be able to do his one handed surfing on Linux? Or is porn only compatible with IE? Linux also has several bit torrent apps and P2P apps too, so plenty of opportunity to fall foul of the RIAA or the BPI if you live in the UK. Games I'll accept are pretty few and far between. That would change once Linux became more visible. So apart from that, what are the lots of things that a Linux user isn't able to do that a Windows user is? Unless you are counting defragging their hard drive, and scanning for viruses and malware as doing something with their system.

Re:This deal also.....

[mgiuca]

I don't understand this. When Novell signed their souls to MS last year, there were cries from the masses of "GPLv2 Section 7!" Somehow, it was determined (by Eben Moglen, at that time the EFF lawyer) that the deal in fact was not in violation of the section you just quoted.

As I said, I don't understand how it isn't in violation (and I'd like to see someone explain it). But apparently it isn't.

Re:This deal also.....

[Curtman]

If they aren't admitting a potential problem, then why the need for "a strategy to avoid those problems"?

Because without a strategy they would be problems. With one, they aren't.

Re:This deal also.....

[JohnBailey]

Thing is.. the average web porn addict isn't really Windows savvy either. Like most of us with any interest in computers, I'm the person many friends go to when they need to buy a PC or they have broken something on their own system. Usually my first contact is when the existing PC slows down and they don't understand why. Most are delighted when I call them next day and arrange for them to pick up their freshly valeted system that is working better than new, and they have a crash course in safe surfing.

The problem for new computer users as a whole is that there are few if any places that will actually show them how to use the computer from scratch. The few self motivated ones will find someone to take them through the basics and they are the ones that would do well with Linux. Nobody expects to become a virtuoso just by buying a violin, so why should buying a complex device like a computer be any different?

I would agree that a Linux PC to a complete novice would be a bad idea if they didn't have anybody to help them set everything up, but I don't agree that they can't learn. There are just a few more things to learn than in Windows for basic use, and the more complex stuff follows easily enough.

There are more types of user than Joe Average. Just as there are many types of camera or stereo on the market, why should there only be one type of PC operating system in common use? Many have the level of interest to get themselves up to speed with Linux so long as they have a good starting point with known compatible hardware and a properly set up system. Thus you have the market for the Dell Linux experiment. Who knows.. they might sell well enough to make a profitable line.

Oy Carumba

[WrongSizeGlass]

shouldn't the OSS community be reading this as an acceptance of Company's acknowledgment of Linux? I suppose an OpenSource deal with the Devil is still an OpenSource deal, so why look a gift horse in the mouth (even if it is one of the four horses of the apocalypse)?

Re:Oy Carumba

[darth_linux]

i agree about the four horses part. M$ doesnt want to embrase linux as much as they want to extinguish. as someone else pointed out, they eventually want to make people think they (or novell by partnership) are the only ligitimate linux distributors and all others are unofficial/unsupported. I can see the add: "free linux distros come and go. run and you risk being left with out tech support. we're M$ and we're your linux source."

Re:Oy Carumba

[DogDude]

they eventually want to make people think they (or novell by partnership) are the only ligitimate linux distributors and all others are unofficial/unsupported.

Well, actually the ARE the only distribution that will be officially supported by MS to work with Windows. If Linux ever takes off in a big way, then I would bet a large amount of money that Novell/MS is going to be the industry standard for Linux for that reason, alone.

Re:Oy Carumba

[fwarren]

If I had the points, I would mod you up.

Even if the IP thing is a red hearing, even if Microsoft meant it, and it is now pretty much tossed out by the Supreme Court. Novell having a deal with Microsoft AND now being the only official version of linux to work with Microsoft products AND now having DELL load SUSE on servers. I would say Microsoft has finally found a way to survive in a linux world.

As long as Novel and Microsoft has a deal, Microsoft provides support and the big boys DELL/HP only sell servers preloaded with SUSE. Both Novel and Microsoft seem to have a long and proserous business in the Linux Market.

Also it looks like Novel with SUSE, MOMO, Gnome and their exchange replacement project, may have by dumb luck, known what they were doing.

Re:Oy Carumba

[lordSaurontheGreat]

Quite simply, Microsoft is attacking Linux with their tested-and-true EEA stategem: Embrace, Extend, Abandon. They're "embracing" Linux by increasing interoperability, they'll extend it with some more interoperability, the they'll abandon it by claiming that it's not cost-effective enough to continue supporting in later versions and MSFT-issued "standards." They then hope that people will abandon Linux to follow the Holy Standard as set forth by the MSFT Messiah.

And also quite simply, this won't work. We've already got about 75% of all the interoperability junk working without any help from Redmond (we can read .docs, read and write from Windows network shares, etc.) All MS needs to do is fill in the final mile, and then I think that the OSS community will take it from there. MSFT knows this, and that's why I think they've taken so long in executing their famous EEA attack spread. Bill wouldn't do it 'cause he's smart and knows it will fail. Ballmer will do it because he's an emo idiot.

Anyone else have something different to say? That's just my speculation, though I was wrong once and could be wrong again ; )

Re:Oy Carumba

[sumdumass]

I think it is all just a stage show. The GPLv3 is specifically going to make the Microsoft Novell deal against it. Dell making the deal also is going to be against it.

What's going to happen is that as soon as Dell is known for it's linux support, the FSF will release the final version of the version 3 GPL andall hell is going to break loose.

The FSF will move all their stuff to GPLv3, Most distros will follow, including Ubuntu which will place Dell into violation unless it maintains an old version but they also sell redhat enterprise linux and would have to do the same there too.

In the end, we would have several situations transpire, The GPLv3 gets changed again to make an exception for Dell. Dell could just use old and outdated versions and leave the door open for MS and other OSS critics to claim the system is busted, look at the 6 year old quality. It could cause a fork that Redhat and Ubuntu would have to support along with Novell. It will cause infighting and make a public spectacle over things. And BTW, did his majesty RMS ever decide if novell was going to be punished for deals before the GPLv3 come out or are they just going to punish deals that happpen afterwards? And how are they going to dictate this when the coverage of the deals will last after the GPLv3 is released.

This is going to be a truly great ways to reward the companies supporting linux and opensource products. And I think Microsoft is going to have a field day with the fallout over this. Maybe this is something they planned on.

Bill the Borg

[Anonymous Coward]

from CNet article

Dell will also establish a services and marketing program to migrate existing Linux users who are not Dell Linux customers to Suse Linux, Microsoft said.

Embrace and extend.

Re:Bill the Borg

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Dell will also establish a services and marketing program to migrate existing Linux users who are not Dell Linux customers to Suse Linux, Microsoft said.

Too bad for them.

I am a senior admin at a data center which is home to thousands of Dell servers, many of which run Linux. Our standard Linux build uses CentOS and therefore we order the machines with "no operating system installed." If Dell approaches us and tells us that they're going to forcibly move us over to Microsoft Linux (aka Novell/Ximian/SuSE) we will promptly tell them to go f**k themselves. And if they stop offering machines with blank hard disks, we will promptly switch vendors. I hear Sun's x86 offerings are competitively priced these days and I've just been itching for an excuse to go to them anyway.

Good news

[flyingfsck]

The MS Active Directory system and Exchange is what keeps MS shops locked in. Lately, the Active Directory integration has improved with new wizards from Redhat and Mandriva, but the Exchange front still sucks.

Re:Good news

[RidiculousPie]

It is early days, but the openchange project is looking to change this.
Also samba 4 should be a vast improvement AD wise.

Re:Good news

[EvilRyry]

There are plenty of open souce and commercial offerings for linux that give functionality similar to an Exchange server. Many of these even play nicely with Outlook.

Exchange may have the advantage of lock-in for people unfortunate enough to already run exchange, but there certainly are alternatives out there for new setups or people willing to break free.

In our datacenter, Dell's doing well with Linux

[csoto]

It used to be like pulling teeth to get anywhere next to current drivers and software for Linux, but over the last few years, it's just as good as Windows. Man, it sucked to have to boot a server in Windows or visit it with a USB floppy drive in order to update firmware. I see this move as a good thing. Dell realizes they sell more boxes with better Windows AND Linux support than with good support for just one of these...

What's really going on here?

[zCyl]

Something still doesn't make sense in this cluster of partnerships.

Microsoft said it would offer corporate customers a chance to license its Windows operating system as part of a package that includes maintenance and support for Novell's Suse Linux platform.

This strikes me as a strange statement. This is like offering a chance to lease a Ford with every Honda maintenance.

I get that Dell might see patent immunity as an advantage, but if Microsoft gives patent immunity to everyone, then this contradicts the proposed strategy of using patents as a weapon. Giving patent immunity to Novell was simply an empty gesture, of course. But if cards fall right Dell could actually become a substantial distributer of preinstalled Linux systems. With too many of these deals, patents can no longer be used against Linux, contradicting a plan Microsoft had stated a desire for for some time.

While patent immunity for Linux installations is a good result, I'm not primed to expect good results from Microsoft after a history of them not acting in such a manner. So I am still left wondering what is going on behind the scenes here.

Re:What's really going on here?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Life is strange, and these are "interesting times", for sure, but in terms of what is really going on, I suspect there might just be other sharks circling in these waters and creating a little bit of turbulence:

As a result, even though the two companies have spent the last decade battling each other, Novell's chief executive Ronald Hovsepian found it in himself to approach a contact at Microsoft last year, after a boardroom shake-up in June 2006 saw him replace then incumbent, Jack Messman.

Hovsepian's aim of starting a dialogue was aided, however, by some of Microsoft's major financial services customers making it clear that they were going to use Linux whether the vendor liked it or not. The reality is that enterprise customers want the vendors to start playing nicely together in order to deal with the resultant interoperability issues.

Organisations such as Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Wal-Mart and AIG Technologies have since purchased coupons from Microsoft that provide them with a one-year subscription for maintenance and updates to Novell's Suse Linux Enterprise Server (SLES), along with a mix of priority and standard support services.

Novell SUSE is now MS Linux.

[pallmall1]

Dell has agreed to buy Suse Linux Enterprise Server certificates from Microsoft

SUSE has become MS Linux. Thanks a lot, Novell.

What really happened:

[DJCacophony]

Microsoft was caught off-guard by Dells move to put Linux on their machines. Microsoft was simply not expecting them to do it. Now that they realize that Dell is serious about it, they offered Dell kickbacks in order to put Microsoft/Novell software on the machines instead of the free-as-in-beer Ubuntu Linux so they can keep control over their customer base.

Re:What really happened:

[phasm42]

They'll probably throw in some MSN.com links on the SUSE desktop.

Re:What really happened:

[T5]

Microsoft caught off-guard? Far from it. This is precisely the reason Microsoft cut the deal with Novell. Linux rears its ugly head in territory that Microsoft believes is rightfully theirs (like pre-installed desktops as is the case with this Dell deal) and Microsoft responds with their "blessed" Linux counter, SUSE. Bottom line: Microsoft maintains control, even over Dell...

Make no mistake. Microsoft has purchased themselves a play in the Linux market. And they'll leverage it anywhere they can to maximize their revenues. And the Linux community will suffer as a result.

Ideastorm topic added

[mhall119]

I have added this concern to Dell's Ideastorm.

http://www.ideastorm.com/article/show/67008/Dont_i mply_Microsoft_IP_in_Linux

Anyone concerned about Dell's involvement in this MS/Novell pact should promote and comment on it.

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[brunascle]

i'd promote & comment, but IdeaStorm doesnt allow you to sign up with an email address with a + in it.

where's the guy with the link to the relevant RFC in his sig?

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[Locutus]

did you ever think that the Ubuntu deal was done specifically to get a better price on the Microsoft/Novell deal? I've been asking myself why/how Dell could be doing the Ubuntu deal without threatening it's massive cash flow coming from Microsoft in co-branding and marketing contracts. That cash has been said to make up over 20% of Dell's profits and Dell can't afford to lose 20% of its profits.

So could it be that much like how Dell kept playing AMD against Intel for 4 or 5 years to get great pricing and kickbacks from Intel, Dell is playing Ubuntu against Microsoft/Novell to get a great deal on Suse, service, and support? Make sense given how Dell has played the game in the past.

LoB

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[mhall119]

I see how you might come to that conclusion at first, but looking more into it, this seems more like something that caught them by surprise. Dell knew there was some demand for Linux desktops, but they were probably thinking about business workstations using the Novell or Red Hat varieties, or their counterparts OpenSuse and Fedora. I think the demand for home desktops with Linux, and Ubuntu specifically, was unexpected and is probably what caused Michael Dell to get it on a laptop.

In the end, if this was just to get a better deal from Microsoft, I think they would be doing more talk and less show. Now granted that nothing has been "shown" yet, but the talk to far hasn't been about what "may happen", or "will happen at some point" like it was with AMD, it's more like "what is happening, and where we are now". Dell is also not promising sweeping changes, they're not suggesting a 50/50 mix of Windows and Linux. What they are currently proposing doesn't threaten Microsoft's profits from Dell, like using AMD would have threatened Intel.

In the end, you may be right, I just don't think so.

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[sumdumass]

I just demotes your little rant. I didn't do it because I have anything against you but because it is completely factually wrong and continues to spread FUD.

First, Novel has never implied that linux contains Microsoft's IP. In fact, they have specifically stated that they aren't aware of any infringements and the entire patents arrangement came as an offering from Microsoft. They also have specifically stated that discussion of IP in linux never came about during their deal.

Second, the sales of MS windows licenses are only part of the support packages, you don't get it when you buy SuSe linux, you get it when buying the support package. It is yet to be demonstrated if you have to by the support certificates with the purchase of the servers loaded with SuSe linux. They can give you free support but as most free support is, it will probably be lacking the amount of quality a paid support program offers (reload the OS from restore CDs as opposed to fixing the glitch).

Third, I don't mind asking Dell to state it's position on Microsoft's IP in any versions of linux. But it does express an undue burden on them that shouldn't be needed. The tone of the post including the false pretext of it seems like a trap at best. For Dell to make such a claim they would have to do one of several things. The first might be checking and certifying the versions of linux. This would be long and costly with inaccurate results. The other is to just repeat any statments on this situations made by the linux vendors they are using. While this is nice, It isn't anything the users of linux won't already know. It is pointless to do. We don't demand microsoft declare no one else's ip is in any of their products and we certainly don't demand anyone selling them make those assurances.

Fourth, The only things wrong with the MS-Novell deal is whatever people have imagines. No one can name anything Novell has done that explicitly give credit to any IP that doesn't belong or any violations of the GPL in any ways. All the can do is assume and make statements about what they could do. The GPLv3 draft had to be rewritten because the facts about Novell's involvement have made it clear they didn't violate anything and the FSF wanted to punish novel for making friends with Microsoft.

Finally, and probably most importantly. Dell has entered into the partnership with Microsoft and when the GPLv3 comes around, we know have a major player that could give linux the coverage and distribution it deserves entering into deals that the GPLv3 specifically forbids. This will either create support for not switching to the GPLv3 and cause a fork or it will be a public lashing on the viral effects and inherent instability of the FSF's GPL software license. Once again, Microsoft's sales are down and this ordeal will help them bring customers back to the fort. When Dell has to sever their deal or not distribute GPLv3 software or the chaos that will come afterwards when people try to fork and start infighting, Microsoft will have it's purposes served.

How long would it take to get linux back into a mainstream vendor like this again. When Ubuntu goes GPLv3 by force, it won't be sold again because of their deal to sell SuSe. Redhat will be gone too, it will end up a SuSe only situation from there on out. And Not there are more big players with money to fund lawsuits when they are harmed by the switch.

There are my objections. andI think it is childish to ask this of Dell without consideration for the truth or how it will effect them.

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[mhall119]

I just demotes your little rant. I didn't do it because I have anything against you but because it is completely factually wrong and continues to spread FUD.

Ok, fair enough. Though I would have preferred you post your objections to the Ideastorm article so that the objections could be noted and explained (as I am about to do) for others to read before voting on it.

First, Novel has never implied that linux contains Microsoft's IP. In fact, they have specifically stated that they aren't aware of any infringements and the entire patents arrangement came as an offering from Microsoft. They also have specifically stated that discussion of IP in linux never came about during their deal.

Indeed, if you had read the comments, I stated this exact same thing. I'm only asking that Dell specifically state the same thing that Novell stated. This is all because Microsoft has been saying that the agreement is an admittance of Linux's infringement. I just want Dell to make it clear whether they agree with Novell's interpretation, or Microsoft's.

Third, I don't mind asking Dell to state it's position on Microsoft's IP in any versions of linux. But it does express an undue burden on them that shouldn't be needed.

Last month I would agree with you completely. However, now that Dell is selling licenses that Microsoft says is admittance of their IP in Suse Linux, I think it is not an undue burden to ask Dell to state their position on the legal status of the software they are selling under that license.

Fourth, The only things wrong with the MS-Novell deal is whatever people have imagines. No one can name anything Novell has done that explicitly give credit to any IP that doesn't belong or any violations of the GPL in any ways.

Again I agree with you, and actively defend Novell's and Dell's involvement in the deal. But when Microsoft is spreading misinterpretations of that deal to the press, I would like the comfort of knowing Dell's position before I buy any Linux preloaded computer from them.

Finally, and probably most importantly. Dell has entered into the partnership with Microsoft and when the GPLv3 comes around, we know have a major player that could give linux the coverage and distribution it deserves entering into deals that the GPLv3 specifically forbids.

All indications seem to be that the Linux kernel will remain GPLv2. Other programs that run on top of Linux have many various licenses, not all of them are GPL compatible. I don't see anything in the GPLv3 drafts that will change the current ecosystem, or prevent Novell, Red Hat, or Canonical from distributing their software through Dell.

When Ubuntu goes GPLv3 by force, it won't be sold again because of their deal to sell SuSe.

I can't even begin to understand why you would think that.

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[sumdumass]

I didn't post into Dell's idea storm for several reasons. Two of which are the fact that you were promoting you post here and there are enough people here to correct me if I am wrong without being some anti-anti whatever without actual facts. I'm comfortable with the process and people here. The other reason is because I don't want to give the anti linux trolls on the Idea storm any ammunition on their site. It seems to hurt a lot of people's feelings when linux turned out to be so popular there.

Indeed, if you had read the comments, I stated this exact same thing. I'm only asking that Dell specifically state the same thing that Novell stated. This is all because Microsoft has been saying that the agreement is an admittance of Linux's infringement. I just want Dell to make it clear whether they agree with Novell's interpretation, or Microsoft's.

The problem is that I think the deal will give Novell the abilities to create non-GPLed software that accompany their GPLed offering to make the interaction with microsoft product easier. These product might use microsoft's IP but there might not be any ways of getting around their IP in order to do so. Dell might not be in a position to say they everything that comes with Novell SuSe and the Microsoft support contract don't violate Microsoft's IP and they shouldn't. Also Dell is relatively new to the linux world in offering something like this. They offered SuSe for a while but they just extended the support stuff because it was available with the purchase of SuSe linux. I mean, you don't expect Microsoft to certify that everything in any version of windows is completely theirs. You assume that by the representations of the vendor. Asking Dell to certify Microsoft is also clean sounds about as ridiculous.

Last month I would agree with you completely. However, now that Dell is selling licenses that Microsoft says is admittance of their IP in Suse Linux, I think it is not an undue burden to ask Dell to state their position on the legal status of the software they are selling under that license.

Maybe it is just the wording of how the position of the request was stated that offends me. Asking Dell to choose which side it agrees with doesn't seem like demanding them to certify the software. But then again buy the logic of believing what the vendor claims, they are already siding with Novells side by offering SuSe and extending their support agreements. Actually, Dell would have to default to believing Novell's story because they offer other distributions and could face legal reprisals if they knowingly believed something to be infringing on someone else's IP without their explicit permission.

My answers to the last two statements kind of run together. consider them as a whole.

Again I agree with you, and actively defend Novell's and Dell's involvement in the deal. But when Microsoft is spreading misinterpretations of that deal to the press, I would like the comfort of knowing Dell's position before I buy any Linux preloaded computer from them.

Dell's position has to be on the Novell side. You cannot attempt to profit from something you knowingly believe is infringing on someone else's IP without opening yourself to suite from whoever owns the infringing IP. Microsoft, if they wanted to and Dell truly believes linux has microsoft's IP in it, could take Dell to court for damages and stop the distribution if linux under them. We havn't heard of any Dell microsoft deals concerning it and Dell hasn't stopped supplying other versions of linux. So again, it is a given on their positions. TAsking them to state it is just redundant and could open them to other legal challenges.

A middle man vendor shouldn't be put in this position. The main vendor makes representations to their products when selling them. Dell and every other value added resaler whether a consultant or something else should only be required to pass on the representations m

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[mhall119]

You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a patent license

Now I am not a lawyer, and if you are I will concede the point to you, but this reads to me as saying that you cannot distribute a GPLv3 program if that program requires royalties or a patent license. There isn't an all or nothing clause that would stop them from distribution any GPLv3 software, only what is covered by the patent. This only means that if Novell adds code to, say, Mono that requires a Microsoft patent license, then they cannot distribute Mono under GPLv3. However, they can still distribute the GNU tools under GPLv3, because those tools do not require the patent license.

Further, there is absolutely nothing in the GPLv3 that would require Linux to move to the new license, unless the Linux maintainers chose to include GPLv3 licensed code in the kernel. Distros using the GPLv2 kernel can still distribute GPLv3 software on top of it, why would you think otherwise? Also, the kernel maintainers don't require contributors grant them copyright on the code, so the maintainers cannot offer contributed code under a different license than they were granted, including the GPLv3 since Linus stripped the "or a later version" from the GPLv2 license he used. This means that for the Linux kernel to move to the GPLv3, they would need the consent of every contributor, which doesn't seem possible.

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[sumdumass]

Now I am not a lawyer, and if you are I will concede the point to you, but this reads to me as saying that you cannot distribute a GPLv3 program if that program requires royalties or a patent license. There isn't an all or nothing clause that would stop them from distribution any GPLv3 software, only what is covered by the patent. This only means that if Novell adds code to, say, Mono that requires a Microsoft patent license, then they cannot distribute Mono under GPLv3. However, they can still distribute the GNU tools under GPLv3, because those tools do not require the patent license.

I am not a lawyer, but that was the literal translation intended by the FSF. In a discussion with some FSF people on slashdot, it was mentioned that this would preclude stuff like the Novell-Microsoft deal from ever happening again and i will explain it piece by piece in a minute. There is more to the section then what I posted so I will link to the current draft this time.

Before we get started, section 11 of the http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2007-03-28.html >3rd drafting of the GPL defines a patent license in the same sense of a covenant not to sue a particular group of people. The wording is For purposes of the following three paragraphs, a "patent license" means a patent license, a covenant not to bring suit for patent infringement, or any other express agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent.

Now let revisit the part of section 11 that I wuoted and I will line comment on it.

You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software

You may not convey a covered work. Any covered work at all. It doesn't say this coevered work or you specific contritubtions to the covered work. This means you cannot distribute a GPLv3 covered work at all if you violate this part of section 11. The "placing Patented IP in to GPLed software" is separate and covered by the paragraphs preceding this one. This part was added to specifically forbid deals like the microsoft-novell deal that the previous GPL revisions didn't address sufficiently enough to forbid deals like that.

under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a patent license

Now this is were I stopped my quote from before and probably the source of your confusion. There is more in the GPLv3 revision and I took for granted that you had knowledge of it and would use this as a reference point. but the rest follows.

(a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you, and/or copies made from those, or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, which license does not cover, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of any of the rights that are specifically granted to recipients of the covered work under this License[, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to March 28, 2007].

This means that if you enter the agreement after March 28 of 2007, you can't convey GPLv3 software if the agreement doesn't extend the exact same extention and protections to anyone downstream who is exorcising their rights under the GPLv3.

This means no GPLv3 software at all and is the entire intent of the talk that novel cannot use the software that was going to GPLv3. There are some who think changing software to GPLv3 like the GNU tool and libraries will make it too difficult to maintain a fork of the GPLv2 stuff. I seem to think it will force many others into making the fork successful. But as it is, It is past march 28 of 2007 and del has entered an agreement to sell the Microso

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[mhall119]

Corrected link: http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2007-03-28.html

Ok, I went back and read the 3rd draft. I still think you're reading it wrong:

You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work,

This clearly limits "a covered work" to only those in which you are a party to an agreement requiring royalties or patent licenses due to your activity in "the work". It clearly has no connection to either works not covered by the GPLv3, or GPLv3 works not covered by the royalties and patents.

But I think what you are specifically talking about is this:

(b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, which license does not cover, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of any of the rights that are specifically granted to recipients of the covered work under this License

This means that if Novell pays Microsoft royalties for Suse, or if Suse requires a patent license from Microsoft, or if you must agree to limitations to the rights afforded by the GPLv3 license of an included program in order to obtain Suse, then Suse cannot contain GPLv3 licensed programs like the GNU tools. However, if the patent license is primarily for only a single work within the collection, like Mono, and it does not impose any limitations on the user to exercise their rights under the terms of the GPLv3 for other works in the collection, like GNU tools, then they are not in violation.

Under your interpretation, nobody would ever adopt GPLv3 programs, because then they could not be distributed under Mac OSX, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, and any other operating system that contains patent-covered programs.

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[sumdumass]

Ok, I went back and read the 3rd draft. I still think you're reading it wrong:

If I am, then a lot of other people are too. Here is just one of my conversations over this. Follow the discusion down to Bruce Perens and mine. It gives the express implication of this. Bruce Perens specifically states, The new GPL3 provision says that if you arrange to protect any party from patents regarding the software, that protection has to apply to everyone. The problem is, Dell is doing just this by selling the Novell-microsoft support contracts that carry a covenant not to sue their direct users over patent infringments that microsoft claims might be in linux. You may be correct and the FSF yet again failed to accomlish it's goal. But the thing is, this is their goal and that was supposed to accomplish it.

This means that if Novell pays Microsoft royalties for Suse, or if Suse requires a patent license from Microsoft, or if you must agree to limitations to the rights afforded by the GPLv3 license of an included program in order to obtain Suse, then Suse cannot contain GPLv3 licensed programs like the GNU tools. However, if the patent license is primarily for only a single work within the collection, like Mono, and it does not impose any limitations on the user to exercise their rights under the terms of the GPLv3 for other works in the collection, like GNU tools, then they are not in violation.

No, it doesn't say you cannot use _this_ covered work if you try to do this, It says you cannot use a covered work period if you enter a deal like that. A covered work is any work subjected to the GPL license. And of course each license version is independletly covering the same versions.

That is an over confusing explaination of this. What it means is that if you get rights ot GPLed software, you have to do so in a way that passes all those right to downstream users. If you make a deal that give you rights, you have to do so that extends all those rights to all downstream users too. The Novell-Microsoft agreement gives a coevent not to sue that is only passed down to Novells imediate customers. They are attempting to stop the creation of one safe distro and having it hijacked by whoever made it safe. But the GPL doesn't distinguish between any distro, it only concerns itself with covered works. The previous statments are there to stop you from placing something in a GPLed work that doesn't extend all the rights to all other users of that GPLed work. The one I quoted is specifically to deny deals like the microsoft-novell one.

Under your interpretation, nobody would ever adopt GPLv3 programs, because then they could not be distributed under Mac OSX, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, and any other operating system that contains patent-covered programs.

There has to be a few things in order for this to work in that way. First, the patent protections have to pertain to GPLed software. So if one of those other operating systems uses GPLv3 software and extends a covenent not to sue over portions of the GPLed software and that doesn't extend to all downstream users, whoever made the covenent or deal and whoever is a party to the deal cannot distribute GPLv3 covered works again (ever). This doesn't mean they cannot be distributed, it is just that they can only be diostributed in certain ways as to not give the implications that anyone doesn't have the same rights according to the GPLv3 as their customers. But lets say that HP and solaris make a deak with microsoft to develope a product that would allow exchange interactions with MS exchange and part of that was a patent license (promise not to sue) that is only extended to their imediate users or even just a select few of them, they can no longer distribute GPLv3 software. So if that means no one adopts it, then that is what it means. But the intent is to stop deals like that f

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[mhall119]

Ok, read all three links, but still I think you're wrong.

The new GPL3 provision says that if you arrange to protect any party from patents regarding the software, that protection has to apply to everyone.

Again, that seems to only implicate code licensed under the GPLv3 that is covered by that patent protection. You don't have to give patent protection to all GPLv3 software, just the ones you claim contain your patent. So if Microsoft gives Novell patent protection on, using your example, MS Exchange protocols in Evolution, that doesn't mean they have to extend patent protection to the Linux kernel, or anything else not a part of or derived from Evolution. Now if Evolution were to change to the GPLv3 license, then either Microsoft would have to extend the patent protection to anyone using Evolution or a derivative thereof, or Novell could no longer distribute Evolution. Either way, it has no effect on Novell's ability to distribute any other code, GPLv3 or otherwise.

So if one of those other operating systems uses GPLv3 software and extends a covenent not to sue over portions of the GPLed software and that doesn't extend to all downstream users, whoever made the covenent or deal and whoever is a party to the deal cannot distribute GPLv3 covered works again (ever).

I still don't see that "all or nothing" clause. All it says is that you cannot distribute the specific GPLv3 work that is covered by a patent protection that does not extend downstream. You can still distribute GPLv3 work that needs to patent coverage, or who's patent coverage extends downstream.

Now the FAQ is actually more confusing (and I think misleading) than the actual license:

Second, in the fifth paragraph, the draft says that you are prohibited from distributing software under GPLv3 if you make an agreement like the Microsoft-Novell deal. This will prevent other distributors from trying to make other deals like it in the future.

This seems to back your argument that Novell would be prohibited from distributing ANY GPLv3 software, but that is not what the license says:

You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party ... under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants ... a patent license in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you ... or primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, which license does not cover, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of any of the rights that are specifically granted to recipients of the covered work under this License

Now again I am not a lawyer, but basic English interpretation of this suggest that the first "a covered work" is meant to convey a single arbitrary work, and the following "the covered work"s are meant to refer back to that single arbitrary work. For what you are suggesting, with they would both have to be changed to read "any covered work".

To illustrate, if I told you" "You cannot eat a food if the food contains apples", that means if the food you have contains apples, you cannot eat it. It doesn't mean that if the food you have contains apples, that you cannot eat any food, regardless of apple content. Make sense?

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[sumdumass]

I don't understand why you don't see it. I can only think they you are ignoring it or just don't want to see the connection. Maybe it is because of all the FUD that has been surrounding the Novell deal.

Again, that seems to only implicate code licensed under the GPLv3 that is covered by that patent protection. You don't have to give patent protection to all GPLv3 software, just the ones you claim contain your patent.

Yes, It is only when concerning GPLed code. The entire point is that the microsoft novell deal extends these protection to Novell's customers only and those who have purchased the support contract from microsoft only. It is saying that it you buy this thing, you won't be sued by microsoft if any infringing IP is in any GPLed software that Novell distributes. But it doesn't extend any of this to anyone else which is what that was suppposed to prevent. And the way it prevents it is by saying you cannot use any covered work if your in violation. This doesn't mean just the piece of software that infringes, it means any covered work. And Piece of software that uses the GPLv3 as a license, is now off limits once you do this. Dell has done it.

So if Microsoft gives Novell patent protection on, using your example, MS Exchange protocols in Evolution, that doesn't mean they have to extend patent protection to the Linux kernel, or anything else not a part of or derived from Evolution.

Exectrly. And this is the way Novell intended the deal to work. They intended to develope something to help them interact with Microsoft. The wording of the deal though, doesn't discriminate about were the protection is. The deal says "anything Novell distribute" which would include GPLed software. The FSF thinks this is an attemtp to create a legal version of any softwar and make the appearance of there only being one safe place to get your software. SO they banned this. And the way they banned it stops anyone from distributing any GPLv3ed software again, ever.

Now if Evolution were to change to the GPLv3 license, then either Microsoft would have to extend the patent protection to anyone using Evolution or a derivative thereof, or Novell could no longer distribute Evolution. Either way, it has no effect on Novell's ability to distribute any other code, GPLv3 or otherwise.

I don't think your grasping the entirity of what a covered work is. A covered work is any work the GPLv3 (in this case)claims it covers. So a covered work is any GPLv3 work. Not just evoltion. This is the meat they were attemtping to punish novell over andis clearly represented as being this way in those links I posted.

I still don't see that "all or nothing" clause. All it says is that you cannot distribute the specific GPLv3 work that is covered by a patent protection that does not extend downstream. You can still distribute GPLv3 work that needs to patent coverage, or who's patent coverage extends downstream.

Show me the paragraph were it says the specific work. It says a covered work because it's intention is to stop you from using any GPLv3 software if you are in violation of section 11. This is the entire Idea behind the statments concerning Novell not being able to use GPLv3 software and how it will force them to cancel the deal with Microsoft when the FSF changes things to the GPLv3.

This seems to back your argument that Novell would be prohibited from distributing ANY GPLv3 software, but that is not what the license says:

You see, the phrase A coverd work is supposed to mean that you cannot convey anything the GPLv3 covers. If they havn't succedded in this, then they have failed again.

Now again I am not a lawyer, but basic English interpretation of this suggest that the first "a covered work" is meant to convey a single arbitrary work, and the following "the covered work"s are meant

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[mhall119]

Maybe I will have to ask the FSF for clarification here, because you still haven't convinced me. In English "a" denotes a singular item not plural, so "a covered work" denotes a singular covered work, as opposed to "any covered works" which would denote a plurality of covered works.

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[sumdumass]

Ok, I'm seeing a trend here and I think I have figured outnthe confusion. When you agree to accepting the GPL license, You do so for each and every license to each and ever product. Right? well, the singular form is because each covered program has it's own license and you essentially have to accept that license to convey that work. "A covered work" is consistant in this because you would check the license of each work to determine if you had a right to it. If they are a GPLv3 covered work, then you are not allowed to use it.

Now, this means every time you encounter a GPLv3ed work which is a covered work, you cannot convey it because you were in violation of the fourth paragraph of section 11. Now take all your attempts of using A for a singular method and combine that with All GPLv3 covered works and on the whole, that is what you cannot convey.

If you still are in doubt or not, I still encourage you to check with the FSF directly. They might want to change something again. Here are some contact sources if you don't have them already. I'm pretty sure their intent is to mean any GPLv3 software and I'm also pretty sure they are representing it as that.

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[sumdumass]

It appears we are both right. You were right by the wording of the GPL and I was right by the context of the Microsoft support contracts.

I just recieved my email reply back from the FSF and it does appear that the wording a covered work only means the covered work in question. But if the deal applies the covenent not to sue to the entire distribution, they is applies to every GPLv3 licensed code in that distribution. I am checking to see, but I'm pretty sure the intent is that if the deal effects GCC 5 when it is covered under the GPL, then distributing GCC 5 covered in the same way in another distribution would be barred too.

Truthfully, I didn't expect a reply back so soon or I would have fired an email off earlier. If you haven't contacted them yourself, I can forward their replies to you. Or you can just ask the same questions and get the same answers.

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[mhall119]

Ok, that makes more sense to me. I'll admit, I just assumed that the "covenant not to sue" specified specific products within the Suse distribution. I would be surprised if Microsoft would give Novell the IP equivalent of a blank check, allowing them to violate any Microsoft patents as long as it's packaged into Suse. But, I guess if their intent was to make Novell a pawn to kill off other distros, even at the expense of temporarily losing Windows licensees to Novell, it would make sense.

However, since Novell's official position is that there is nothing in Suse Linux that requires a patent license from Microsoft in the first place, and that it is only to make potential customers less worried about compatibility and possible legal action, then I suppose they could argue that it is not a violation of the GPLv3 at all. After all, the GPL specifically allows people to distribute GPL code with additional warranties and guarantees, why not with additional patent protection as well.

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[sumdumass]

I have asked a few more questions about this that I'm wondering about too. When I get a reply, I can let you know about what happenes.

Microsoft could do the equivalent of the Novell deal with everyone by just making the covenant not to sue available to anyone who is willing to buy a Microsoft support contract that could come with "a Valid non-transferable license to use any Microsoft's IP that might be in any open source software while in connection of using that software, as long as you didn't place the IP in there on purpose". If I purchased one of these (if it was available) or it was included in some companies support contract, this could take a lot of potential players away from the table. The blanket statement might from Microsoft would include all GPLv3 covered works.

MS could also offer something like this to to any OEM distributer and say to the major ones, "Windows OEM licenses will cost $5 each if you offer this contract for sale and $1 each if you include it automatically with any Open source operating system offering for your new computers. Then say the regular OEM license will now be $99 like the rest of the world has to pay. If it would cause those OEMs to be in violation and therefore stopping them from distributing GPLv3 software, they would have little choice but to accept it because now offering Linux or some GPLv3 software places them at an economic disadvantage.

I hope they have thought of this and either have it worded to do something or can make some changes to let us know the intent on something like this. It present some interesting challenges. And you know, I just realized something. Microsoft could include on of these in the Windows operating system licenses for everyone who runs windows and just place some limitations on them. So anytime you buy a computer with windows on it, or any version of windows, when you accept the license agreement on the first boot or during the install, they could essentially stop you from being able to distribute any GPLv3 covered work.

Did I mention I have a vivid imagination?

Re:Ideastorm topic added

[mhall119]

Did I mention I have a vivid imagination?

You aint kiddin.

It would be nice of the language of the GPLv3 were phrased such that you are only dissallowed from distributing a work due to a patent license or similar agreement if that GPLv3 work requires such a license to be legally distributed. That way even if Microsoft makes a blanket patent license for all of Suse Linux, Novell could distribute GPLv3 software, even without the patent license extending to non-Novell customers, because the GPLv3 work itself does not require the license. That would protect Novell from the GPLv3, while still letting them hold Microsoft to the compatibility part of the agreement. Even better, the fact that they would be distributing GPLv3 software under the MS agreement, and MS allowing them to do so, would be an admission by both parties that the GPLv3 software contains no Microsoft IP. Otherwise, if Microsoft wants to claim that the GPLv3 software does contain their IP, they would have to tell Novell where it is, something they (like SCO) have not wanted to do. And if Microsoft is distributing copies of Novell, which I think they are, then would either have to legally disclaim any patented code or be themselves in violation of the GPLv3.

You can pass this suggestion on to whomever you're talking to at the FSF.

No.

[RLiegh]

This should be read as the first nail in the coffin of linux. There is no way that MS will let any other distribution but suse exist; and only then for as long as it takes to kill off ubuntu, etc.

Killing the open document format, getting linux pushed off the OLPC project and off of Dell...these should all be seen as signs that Microsoft is serious about eliminating Linux (and Free Software) with extreme prejudice.

Any win for Novell is a loss for Free Software; particularly in this case.

Re:No.

[Heywood J. Blaume]

OK, so when Linux is actually pushed off OLPC and Dell, we'll believe you. Running around like Chicken Little, in my opinion, plays into Microsoft's hands. Not that I doubt their intentions are just as nefarious as you suggest, I just don't think they can pull these things off.

Re:No.

[apokryphos]

Your statements show such an ignorance of Novell's history and works that I barely know where to start. If you'd stop fuming for a second from your irrational Novell and Microsoft hate campaign, you would head around to a few facts:
* Microsoft has explicitly mentioned that its deal with Novell is not exclusive
* Novell has done more for OSS over the years than you can possibly imagine; do a little Googling. They're still the biggest contributors to GNOME and KDE, and pipe incredibly significant development efforts into the Linux Kernel, OpenOffice.org, X.org/Xgl/Compiz, etc etc
* Novell are fully and totally dedicated to the ODF format.
* There is absolutely no way Ubuntu is even remotely ready for the Enterprise. Consumer desktops are nice and everyone is pleased about that deal, but it simply doesn't have the software and innovation as RH and SUSE to survive in many Enterprise environments.

Re:No.

[nine-times]

There is no way that MS will let any other distribution but suse exist

There is no way for MS to stop other distributions from existing.

Re:No.

[FishWithAHammer]

GNOME, sure, but KDE? Granted, I'm lazy and haven't done any research, but what's gone KDE's way while Novell pumps GNOME?

Re:No.

[Coryoth]

GNOME, sure, but KDE? Granted, I'm lazy and haven't done any research, but what's gone KDE's way while Novell pumps GNOME? Novell bought Ximian, and that has resulted in significant contributions to GNOME from Novell via the Ximian staff. Novell also bought SUSE, and that has resulted in significant contributions to KDE from Novell via the SUSE staff (since SUSE was one of the major contributors of KDE code). Think of it this way: Novell, unlike Redhat, has been quite seriously pursuing the corporate desktop (Redhat has been halfheartedly pursuing it at best, and instead focusing on servers); that has involved quite a bit of user testing and usability studies, the results of which can be applied to both desktops.

Re:No.

[fnj]

Novell also bought SUSE, and that has resulted in significant contributions to KDE from Novell via the SUSE staff (since SUSE was one of the major contributors of KDE code). Unfortunately (IMHO), the default desktop on SUSE has changed from KDE to Gnome since Novell took it over. I'm afraid Novell is not the friend to KDE that the old SUSE was.

Re:No.

[apokryphos]

Well, they employ more KDE developers to work directly on KDE than anyone else (though _possibly_ tied with Trolltech). 3 of the 7 people on the KDE Technical Board are also SUSE employees, which alone sums up SUSE's dedication to the KDE desktop.

Re:No.

[apokryphos]

GNOME is default on SLED, but NOT on openSUSE, where KDE is very much thriving.

Re:No.

[sjbcfh]

Unfortunately (IMHO), the default desktop on SUSE has changed from KDE to Gnome since Novell took it over.

No, it hasn't. The default selection in SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop is Gnome, but that only means the radio button for Gnome is preselected rather than for KDE when choosing which desktop to install. It doesn't take much effort to select the KDE button. The default selected desktop for openSUSE is still KDE.

There's a demand for MS-Helped Linux

[saterdaies]

In the world, there are many companies who like the idea of Linux and love its cost, but do worry about compatibility issues. Those companies get all warm and fuzzy inside when they hear news releases like this because they think "oh, someone is making sure that isn't a problem".

Whether it is a problem or not, IT people at companies often like the path of least resistance (don't we all) and so paying a little money for something they have to worry less about it a good thing to them.

I don't like Novell cozying up to M$ any more than anyone on /., but I understand why they're doing it - they're customers want compatibility guarantees and protection from IP disputes. The only real way to break ourselves of deals like this is with legislation for open-standards and IP-law reform. Those two would mean that companies using Linux would have no fear about using the OS - even if those fears today are simply in their heads.

Re:Dang.

[trewornan]

Beware of geeks bearing gifts?

This isn't for the home segment...

[jkrise]

From TFA:
On Sunday, Microsoft and Novell said Dell has agreed to buy Suse Linux Enterprise Server certificates from Microsoft and that the computer maker will set up a services and marketing program aimed at getting users of open-source platforms to switch to the new Suse Linux offering.

"Dell is the first major systems provider to align with Microsoft and Novell in this collaboration, and we intend to lead in this space," Rick Becker, a vice president in Dell's product group, said in a statement.

The pact between Microsoft and Novell is primarily aimed at the growing number of major companies and government agencies that rely on both Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft's patent-protected Windows and Novell's open-source Linux platform to run their computers....

Home PCs will still likely run Ubuntu.
There's hardly any point running Enterprise Servers (which is nothing but marketing speak, anyway) in one's Home PC.
And nothing can prevent corporates from installing Dell's Ubuntu-based Home offerings in company networks.

Am I missing somethign???

[StealthyC]

Why does Dell have to purchase Suse Linux Enterprise Server certificates from Microsoft? I haven't touched SuSe since Novell bought them... So I'm a little bit behind... Was MS & Novell already working together? "Microsoft has promised not to file patent-rights lawsuits over any of its technology that's blended with Suse Linux."

Re:Am I missing somethign???

[Kalriath]

It's for support. MS intends to offer support services to the Dell SuSE customers, rather than Novell.

So now what?

[k1e0x]

So I was all geared up to buy a Dell system preloaded with Linux.. Then they go and jump into bed with Microsoft.

So do we support linux and continue to support Dell? or do we shun them and kill off any hopes for pre-installed Linux?

I say screw em.. Linux will make it to the desktop eventually.

Re:So now what?

[Down_in_the_Park]

So I was all geared up to buy a Dell system preloaded with Linux.. Then they go and jump into bed with Microsoft.

What do you mean? Was Dell the biggest non Windows PC seller before this deal...? They sold MS-Stuff since day one, now they want to sell Linux also and just because they do this with there long term partner, you don't trust them anymore and they "jump in bed with Microsoft"?

How would you describe the situation before; a gangb... at the open window...?

Re:So now what?

[Hatta]

Now you build your own machine and put whatever distribution of linux you want on it. Why the hell is preinstallation so important?

Re:So now what?

[k1e0x]

True.

Hea, I'm just lookin for a way to shaft Microsoft for the PC Tax any way possible.

Re:So now what?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

You could grow up and just buy whatever works rather than getting mired down into mixing religion/politics with your technology choices. Just a thought.

Re:So now what?

[Hatta]

Obviously, if you build your own box you can check whether the hardware you select has kernel support.

Re:So now what?

[Locutus]

I hate to be the one to bring the bad news but Dell has been "in bed" with Microsoft for a VERY long time. It has been stated that Microsoft funnels back to Dell as much as 20% of Dells profits because Dell plasters the Microsoft logo and other advertising all over it's PC's, website, and shipping cases.

the question you should be asking is how good of a bedfellow has Dell been these days and what has been the pillowtalk more recently. Especially with the Ubuntu/Canonical deal and now this Microsoft/Novell/Suse deal. But rest assured, Dell and Microsoft are quite comfortable together.

LoB

Re:So now what?

[falconwolf]

Now you build your own machine and put whatever distribution of linux you want on it. Why the hell is preinstallation so important?

Because, unlike the average /.er, most people don't install an OS, they buy a computer with an OS already installed. They just want to get it home, plug it in, and boot it up then use it. Unless and until Linux promoters understand this Linux will never have much of a market share for the desktop.

Falcon

Re:So now what?

[mrchaotica]

You could grow up and just buy whatever works...

By definition, a system that I don't have control over doesn't "work."

Re:So now what?

[that this is not und]

Since your mouse has firmware in it that you don't control, are you implying that your mouse 'plays' around on the desk when you're not looking?

Re:So now what?

[mrchaotica]

Since when did mice have firmware?

Re:So now what?

[innocent_white_lamb]

Low-risk business opportunity: Folks buy a computer based on your recommendation and you install and set up Linux on it for a fee.
 
Many consultants (including me) do variations of this.

Re:So now what?

[Down_in_the_Park]

The only way to avoid it? Buy parts and assemble it yourself. Certainly more expensive, but at least you roughly now what is inside of your computer and you could even buy parts known to run Linux well.

Re:So now what?

[mgiuca]

It's one thing to sell Microsoft products. It's completely another thing to sell non-Microsoft products, (products which are by-and-large purchased because people want an alternative to feeding Microsoft), and then pay Microsoft for it.

Re:So now what?

[Down_in_the_Park]

Oh, absolutely right. I don't recommend buying from Dell and pay MS for getting Linux on my PC (I guess I could do that easier myself). I was just referring to the statement that now Dell jumps in bed with MS. I would rather see Linux as an affair, where the partner has to do compromises in the partnership because of the affair... :-)

Re:So now what?

[mgiuca]

Lol ... well if you want to look at it that way, this is basically like paying your wife to let you sleep with a hooker.

Re:So now what?

[that this is not und]

Mice have had firmware since they introduced Serial mice. (The original mice just had switching circuits which were all connected to an ISA card) (I am referring to 'PC' mice, mind you).

All Serial, PS/2, and USB-interface mice have a little microcontroller in them, which runs the firmware embedded in it. Often it's an 8-bit PIC controller.

GP commenter doesn't have the source code for said Firmware, and is thus 'cast adrift' and doesn't have the source code for EVERYTHING on his computer. Oh My!

And, the horrors! Every keyboard has firmware in it, too!

Re:So now what?

[Down_in_the_Park]

Buying Linux preinstalled from Dell..."is basically like paying your wife to let you sleep with a hooker."

See and as Software is like Sex; it's best if it is free... You should know what to do!

Re:Dang.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's '.GIFs'. ;-)

Correction - why Novel sold (everyone) out

[btarval]

"I don't like Novell cozying up to M$ any more than anyone on /., but I understand why they're doing it - they're customers want compatibility guarantees and protection from IP disputes."

IMO, you are helping Novell out by repeating this myth. The main reason why Novell sold everyone out is because they were cash strapped. Novell was in serious debt, and that $350 Million from Microsoft offered them a way out.

Anything they said about customers was just at best secondary, and likely just a convenient excuse. If it was really an issue with customers, you'd see a lot more of these deals being signed.

And I also take issue with your reliance on legislators for a fix. It would be an uphill, long term battle. By which time Microsoft could rule the commercial world.

A better approach is to boycott Novell and to educate everyone WHY Novell should be boycotted. And combine this with Software Patent reform. But I won't hold my breath for the latter.

Re:Correction - why Novel sold (everyone) out

[mrfantasy]

One thing that you'll always hear about Novell is that they're NOT in debt. They're revenue is falling, yes, but even with some of the financial hijinks they've pulled recently, they still have a lot of cash and very little debt. It used to be no debt when they were a Utah company with a eerily Mormon philosophy of not having any debt.

yea, the bigger picture ..

[rs232]

'Why does Dell have to purchase Suse Linux Enterprise Server certificates from Microsoft?'

It's to pollute Novell Suse with Windows and get people used to the idea of 'purchasing' SuSE Linux licenses from Microsoft. Not a lot of revenue in the mean time but ultimatly it will open up an avenue to buying out Novell and then suppressing non-Microsoft Linux.

billg: look see Novell is paying us revenue to sell SuSE, must be something in the litigation claims :)

Hey, Novell: being f***d over by MS the once shame on MS, being f****d over the twice shame on you.

Re:Am I missing somethign???

Oh grow up.

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

GP: Dell has agreed to buy Suse Linux Enterprise Server certificates from Microsoft

P: SUSE has become MS Linux. Thanks a lot, Novell.

That's the way business works in the real world.

You subcontract to a subcontractor who subcontracts to a sub-subcontractor who subcontracts to a sub-sub-subcontractor who subcontracts to... until eventually the circle is completed and someone subcontracts the final assembly to a different division within your very own company.

If you really want your precious little GPLv2'd operating system to come down out of the ivory tower and make a run for it in the real world, then you're going to have to get your hands dirty with this thing called "The Free Market".

The upside being that when it's all said and done, you get to enjoy this thing called "Profit" as a result.

Re:Oh grow up.

[pallmall1]

If you really want your precious little GPLv2'd operating system to come down out of the ivory tower and make a run for it in the real world, then you're going to have to get your hands dirty with this thing called "The Free Market".

Microsoft doesn't seem to think that linux is "little," and neither does Novell. If they did, they wouldn't have spent so much legal time trying to find a way to circumvent the GPL terms meant to preserve the integrity of the community system in which linux and the applications which run on it were developed.

There is no "ivory tower." That along with the "that's the way business works" lecturing is just a bunch of self-justification and rationalization often used to attempt to marginalize the opinions of those who do not want to "get their hands dirty" for the sake of a quick buck or anything else. What you try to characterize as an ivory tower is better characterized as a prison cell in the tower holding a falsely accused person. This could not happen if the market were truly free.

There's always people around who think that profit can justify anything. That is why there's going to be a GPL v3, and why eternal vigilance is required from the open source community. Sometimes it's easier to get your hands dirty by doing nothing than to keep them clean by washing after a hard days work. Dealing with people like you just makes the scrubbing time a little longer.

Re:Mod Parent UP

[BlackSnake112]

get the Penquins marching!

you have never seen Batman Returns....

Another choice?

[Stu101]

I've just read the article and if it adds Suse in addition to Redhat, that means that on quite a lot of hardware you will have the choice of Redhat, suse and ubuntu. That is in addition to M$ stuff. So thats a whole lot of choice. 3 potential linux's leaving the factories installed.

Dell - wake up !

[unity100]

You were just about to score a MAJOR open source gig with the ubuntu thing, not only making you a pioneer in a new field of linux on mass market desktops, but also endearing you to the ominously large developer community that works on open source.

do not just scratch all your gains with one stupid deal with microsoft/novell misfortune. even novell regret it since 2 days after they signed it.

Microsoft Linux Enterprise Server certificate ..

[rs232]

'Microsoft is purchasing and redistributing Suse Linux Enterprise Server certificates under the deal'

So basically certain companies are paying Microsoft to use their own SuSE software. What Novell are doing is legitimizing MS claim to Linix IP rights. A precident of gigantic and enormous consequences. Novell basically gave away their business under vague threats of IP violations. I can see what Microsoft got out of the deal, but I can't for the life of me see what Novell gets out of it.

An analogy, I'm the CIO of Corleone olive oil business and out of the blue the New Jersey Mob phones me up and say I am violating their patented recipe . But they say, lets do a deal, we'll promise not to sue and give you the rights to continue to distribute our patented recipe and in return we'll purchase 'certificates' to distribute Corleone olive oil.

Next thing I know people are ringing me up asking why they should be paying me for New Jersey olive oil. Before ya know it I am out of the olive oil business. The Jersey crew offer to buy out my business at a rock bottom price and to let me stay on as CEO, if I don't go squealing to the the FEDs. Years later people would ask me why I gave away the family business to a shister extortionist - without raising a finger.

Re:This Is Getting Fun

[apokryphos]

Probably useless speculations as all drafts of the GPLv3 have no direct effect on Novell; see http://www.novell.com/prblogs/?p=310.

Re:Microsoft Linux Enterprise Server certificate .

[DogDude]

Novell is going to own the most popular Linux distribution in a few years. That's not too shabby of a deal. I fail to see what you're failing to see about this deal. Novel/SUSE becomes the only version of Linux that MS officially supports to work with Windows, SUSE becomes the most popular distribution used in commercial settings by a large margin, and Novell laughs all the way to the bank.

Re:Mod Parent UP

[mhall119]

Would be nice if we could get an actual statement and maybe even an interview with Michael Dell here.

Quite right, between this, and Dell's decision to offer Ubuntu on desktops, it's about time for an slashdot interview with Michael Dell. Any idea how to get this started?

Look....

[Savage-Rabbit]

....so why look a gift horse in the mouth (even if it is one of the four horses of the apocalypse)? Because it probably has apocalyptically bad breath?

And this is news because?

[ansak]

Okay. So it's news. Someone else has officially jumped into the plutonium-laced hot tub built by MS & Novell. But folks, Dell has been a Microsoft shill for so long that this really isn't that surprising. The only aspect of this story whose betting outcome was in doubt until now was how long before they joined it.

Meanwhile, be sure not to use breakpoints or linked lists unless you're running on Dell hardware, or running an operating system from Microsoft or Novell. Especially now that you know that there are patents out on them -- paying a bill three times is three times as annoying. Oh yeah. That's the kind of world I wanted this to end up being. (Note: this paragraph was meant to be sarcasm and satire, without sufficient connection with legal realities to be taken as advice or even a valid warning)

cheers...ank

Re:Free as in Freedom, good sir

[notamisfit]

No, just free as in beer. They're more than happy to support binary-only wireless drivers, and binary only video drivers will be coming soon. It's their prerogative, and I'm sure many of their users thank them for it, but to call themselves "Free Software" or anything remotely close is hypocritical.

Re:Free as in Freedom, good sir

[ericrost]

It's ridiculous to call the software they produce and distribute free as in beer. They contribute upstream, they release all their source, they give redistribution rights, they don't discriminate on field of endeavor.

They are allowing FREEDOM (ie use the software you need if none that support the 4 freedoms are available). Isn't it less free to turn your nose up at something than to inform your users of the licensing issues, let them know they won't get support, and let them use their computers the way THEY see fit?

What definition of FREEDOM do you have that restricts users rights to use something in the name of "freedom"?

That, in my estimation, is freer than a restrictive definition of freedom. Freedom should never take rights away, only add guarantee that you won't take them away from others.

Will SuSe become the "Windows ME" of nix?

[StealthyC]

... Forget what I was going to say.

Ubuntu/Dell may not be Dead

[GroundBounce]

Read the article - This deal affects Suse Linux Enterprise Server. This is no surprise; Microsoft has acknowleged that Linux has market strength on servers, and knows it must coesist with Linux in that space. MS, however, would not support adoption of Linux on desktops, which this deal doesn't address. No one can know for sure, but if Dell still has any intention of addressing the desktop Linux market demand, they may still use Ubuntu to do this independent of this MS/Novell deal.

As they say, be careful what you ask for

[Anonymous Coward]

You may get it.

The goal of having Linux preinstalled on computers has been perverted and twisted into this. This is a very sad day for open source. Novell's already starting to be minimized by their "ally." Nothing good will come of this. At the very least, it continues the "Microsoft tax" mentality. At the worst, it gives M$ the (sorry for using this word) leverage they want in twisting the truth and invalidating Linux as a platform.

And the way folks on Slashdot are reacting, it's a necessary evil to get Linux on computers... Sorry, people, you are wrong. It hasn't been preinstalled on any major vendor's PCs up till now and it's still got the market share it does. It will continue to be installed by end users.

Think about it - do you want M$ to be in charge or your preinstalled version of Linux?

This is a very dark day. Laugh at me now, but in a few years, remember you read this....

Re:As they say, be careful what you ask for

[mgiuca]

Not laughing. I agree with everything you said. It is a dark day - or at the very least, it ends that little hope we had that Dell were on our side.

Incidentally, what's wrong with the word "leverage"?

Re:Free as in Freedom, good sir

[DJCacophony]

Does Ubuntu Linux cost money? No, which makes it free as in Beer. That's not to say it isn't ALSO free as in freedom, but obviously Dell doesn't care about the latter, so I was simply addressing the former. The only reason Dell would offer Microsoft/Novell Linux over the free-as-in-beer Ubuntu Linux, is if Microsoft paid Dell executives kickbacks for doing so, and Novell gave Microsoft a cut of their profits.

This must be the "Embrace" step.

[Shohat]

Ok, Microsoft always seems cute during the "Embrace" step of the plan. The other two are the fun ones though.

Aha!

[jav1231]

That's one way to avoid pissing off Mr. Gates: insure he wins no matter what. Which is pretty-much his business philosophy.

Re:Free as in Freedom, good sir

[ericrost]

I would certainly agree that it IS free as in beer. I was just saying that Ubuntu itself could also be considered free as in freedom. No argument here, please move along :)

Re:Nope - True Freedom is only embodied in...

[ericrost]

Yes, the GPL does require that, it also is the reason you have the GPL code to make your "intellectual property" out of. You are receiving, in the form of GPL'd code, the hard work of thousands of developers who are saying, we can make money other ways that restricting a field of human endeavor to those who have the money to pay for knowledge and tools, and in fact, this model provides a MORE information and knowledge based economy than the locked down, NDA'd, proprietary model.

Imagine an economy where you get paid for the skills you have, not the skills you could afford to buy. Where your competitive advantage comes from hard work, not connections. Where you make a decent living by providing support and deployment to others who do not have the time nor the inclination to master those skills.

Proprietary lockin is not necessary to have an information economy, nor is it necessary to have commercial software development (Novell, IBM, etc.)

Please come to understand free software and the free software development model before you throw uneducated stones.

Re:Microsoft Linux Enterprise Server certificate .

[rs232]

'Novell is going to own the most popular Linux distribution in a few years. That's not too shabby of a deal. I fail to see what you're failing to see about this deal'

NovelSOFT Linux is *NOT* Open Source. Tell us precisely what Novell got out of the deal. MS and Novell exchange paper and MS gets NOVL to agree that NOVL is violating MS intelluctual property in Linux.

'Novel/SUSE becomes the only version of Linux that MS officially supports to work with Windows'

Exactly, easier to crack the one chesnut at a time. Ms can also use the agreement to dissuade people from doing business with other Open Source companies. For instance get Novell to trash Redhat amd agree the Windows has lower TCO than Linux.

'SUSE becomes the most popular distribution used in commercial settings by a large margin'

And if that happens MS launches a takeover/merger, results being real Open Source being reduced to the non-profit sector. If SUSE don't take off, then no great loss, just the exchange of a few vouchers. A Win/Win for you know who.

'and Novell laughs all the way to the bank'

That's what this guy thought too ..

Re:Microsoft Linux Enterprise Server certificate .

[mormop]

"What Novell are doing is legitimizing MS claim to Linix IP rights."

Not exactly. What Novell are doing are giving an unproven hint at some vague possibility that MS may have some IP claim over Linux. The only thing that could legitimise MS's claims over IP is for MS to explicitly state which parts of Linux are infringing and provide proof of infringement.

Until they do this their claims are at best FUD and at worst an act of fraud. In the UK at least, there's a criminal charge of obtaining funds by deception. Dunno about the states but maybe someone should call Microsoft's bluff and force them to show what kind of hand they're really holding.

Any chance of Ubuntu supported on servers

[billtom]

In all these Dell linux announcements, has anyone heard anything about Ubuntu becoming a supported configuration for Dell servers? (Supported by Dell, I mean.)

I don't care if they come with ubuntu

[drinkypoo]

I'm happy to scrape off whatever OS they installed, and install Ubuntu myself. Especially because you know Dell would just find some way to crap it up anyway, so even if they do install Ubuntu, I'm not using their install.

I predicted this two months ago

[pieterh]

On Digital Majority: ...If Dell announce that they will support Novell/SuSE, rather than the obviously more popular choice of Ubuntu, they will be expressing Redmond's preference, not that of their surveyed public. If Dell support Novell/SuSE, they do it with Microsoft's blessing, and this will be a second step towards a MS-Linux. The first step was, of course, Microsoft's deal with Novell.

Exchange == ripoff

[Black-Man]

I was talking 2 an Exchange sys admin. He told me 50K for a user license. Since you need 4-5 instances for a reasonable size company... 250K per year. That's just the user license. Support is extra as is the OS. What a racket. It resemebles the Unix companies in the 90s.

Offtopic my beard!

[ericrost]

This in a thread about Dell distributing Certificates for SUSE.. sorry freedom is a vital topic to this conversation.

The OSS community should be reading this as ...

[raxhonp]

... Microsoft's acknowledgment of Ubuntu being a threat.

Where?

[alienmole]

I really want to know where you guys get all this free beer. Where I live, beer costs money!

Wha?

[Tarlus]

...but it is likely to put a stop to the OSS community's celebration of them distributing Ubuntu. The OSS community is celebrating the fact that a Linux distro is getting commercial recognition, I dunno why this would stop it. Were there people in the OSS community celebrating because they really thought that Dell would stop distributing Windows all together??

Jeez, I hope nobody was that dense.

Re:This Is Getting Fun

[Locutus]

this could be just the fracturing of the market Microsoft is waiting for. They'll have a couple of years getting some of their big customers accepting Microsoft/Novell/Suse Linux and then BANG, GPL3 starts showing the fracturing of the GNU/Linux market. Microsoft will be sitting on the sidelines saying, "I told you so. Put your wallet down right here and come back to mama."

Businesses need to stay away from Novell/Suse Linux. IMO.

LoB

Re:Microsoft Linux Enterprise Server certificate .

[Locutus]

remember, Novell did not even know anything about Microsofts IP stuff until very late( last minute ) in the negotiations. Novell thought it was all about existing patent claims they had against Microsoft and thought they were going to be getting interoperability between MS Windows and Novell Suse at the middleware and virtualization levels.

The patent protection claims were added last minute and we now know they were the actual target for the deal for Microsoft. What's this called, "the bait and switch" racket? Microsoft lawyers are not dumb, it's just that the lawyers sitting across from them think always think they themselves are smarter. It has never ever worked out that way. Ever. IMO

LoB

Since the Novell/Microsoft deal is utterly

[Master of Transhuman]

irrelevant to anybody with a brain (which leaves out the FSF fanatics, of course), this Dell deal is irrelevant to anything as well - except possibly that it might indicate Dell is more interested in distributing Linux than it was previously.

OTOH, as others have suggested, it may simply be that Microsoft made noises at Dell about the Ubuntu deal, so Dell's lawyers came up with a way to blunt that somewhat.

In the end, it's all corporate bullshit and means nothing to anybody else.

"Dude, you bought a Dell" (with or without Ubuntu) is still relevant.

Re:Unspoken message: No Ubuntu on Dell servers...

[Locutus]

because acting like the RIAA and going after home users would make for some bad press for Microsoft and you're not going to get much putting a billion dollars worth of lawyers against a home user. Now, line those lawyers up against Home Depot, Lowes, Manny-Moe-Jack, etc and there's gold be squeezed out of them. The press and public wouldn't be so concerned with this since it doesn't look like a David vs Goliath kind of battle.

I'm with you on how Mark Shuttleworth must feel. But he didn't get "owned", he's been "had" since being "owned" would imply a takeover or massive lost of control. He's just not going to get much out of this.

There is definitely something bad going on here. Just the fact that Microsoft added the patent protection section to the Novell deal at the last minute and then turned around and proclaimed it the primary purpose for the agreement tells you they have a nasty plan being brewed. Heck, seeing the press say that "Microsoft announce....Linux deal...." is enough to step back and ask WTF is going on.

LoB

Re:This Is Getting Fun

[BootNinja]

If the software does not specify a certain version of the GPL, then you are free to use any of them. If you specify a GPL version number, then you are also free to allow the "or any later version" clause as well, but it is not necessary. In fact part of the reason people were so terrified about GPLv3 being possibly incompatible with GPLv2 was because the Linux kernel does not have the "or any later version" clause, so it will always be locked to GPLv2 unless Linus can track down each and every contributor to authorize the change.

However, as I understand it, this shouldn't affect your notion that the v2 fork will be absorbed back into v3 code.

kill off Linux?

[falconwolf]

This should be read as the first nail in the coffin of linux. There is no way that MS will let any other distribution but suse exist; and only then for as long as it takes to kill off ubuntu, etc.

And pray tell, how will this kill off Linux? There's just no way MS can kill linux. They may, just may, gain control over one of the distros but there are many others. Hell even Larry Elison's company Oracle is releasing thier own compleat servers with software, the OS being based on Redhat. If Balmer and/or Gates wants to start a fight Elison may just throw them off his yacht while sailing in the Americas' Cup. And if perchance MS were to start slapping lawsuits on Linux venders or users over "patent violations" then I wouldn't be supprized if MS was slapped with lawsuits as well. And while MS can handle a couple of lawsuits at once it can't handle a bunch of them, and there are literally thousands of programmers who have contributed code to Linux.

Falcon

Re:This Is Getting Fun

[jimicus]

If the software does not specify a certain version of the GPL, then you are free to use any of them. If you specify a GPL version number, then you are also free to allow the "or any later version" clause as well, but it is not necessary.

True. But all the GNU tools (including glibc, GCC) and everything which has had copyright assigned to the FSF will move to GPLv3. The Samba team has also expressed interest in moving to GPLv3, and Samba is mostly developed by a fairly small, close-knit team.

Therefore, once GPLv3 comes about, all future versions of any software which adopts GPLv3 will say "GPLv3 (optional: or later)".

If the Novell deal really does mean what a lot of people on /. are taking it to mean, Novell/SuSE will have no choice but to fork a huge amount of the software in their distribution because they won't be able to include the more recent GPLv3 versions.

That's a big enough problem as it is. If a major component of their distro (such as... oh, the Linux kernel) ever requires a version of GCC or GLIBC which (coincidentally) was released after GPLv3, then they'll also have to patch that.

Re:Free as in Freedom, good sir

[cHiphead]

Personally, free as in beer is like an improved 'FREEDOM', I mean, free beer!? Hell yeah, I'm there.

Cheers.

Ron Paul

[falconwolf]

Ron Paul in '08 - A true small government republican

Ron Paul gets my vote, again. I'm registered no party affiliation now but when the primaries roll around I'll switch to Republican just so I can vote for him then, then I'll switch back afterwards.

Falcon

Re:I can hear the screaming now!

[Locutus]

Some people are "bitching" or discussing this because there is no way in hell that Microsoft is doing this for the money they'll get from Linux/Novell/etc. They have a plan to stop the migration and growth of Linux and opensource software and this Microsoft/Novell/Suse deal is the cornerstone of this plan, with Dell being another brick in the cog in the plan.

This is not good for Linux and open source software and any deal with Microsofts backing can be. THIS is why it is being discussed IMO and there is great reason it should be discussed for the foreseeable future. As good as it may seem to be for Linux drivers etc in the short term, there is a tripping point/stone being put inplace by Microsoft and it needs to be identified. Remember BayStar? People didn't keep quite about that and sure enough, it was eventually found out that Microsoft was behind it and BayStar backed out the best they could.

So people, don't lay down and wait for the Microsoft to screw over Novell and its Suse Linux customers. Something or someone will leak out the plan behind this "madness" eventually. IMO

LoB

Re:Microsoft Linux Enterprise Server certificate .

[falconwolf]

Novel/SUSE becomes the only version of Linux that MS officially supports to work with Windows

However MS has publically stated it will make similar agreements with other Linux venders.

Falcon

Re:I can hear the screaming now!

[FlyingGuy]

Come on man, don't you see, they can't stop it, it cant happen! They have been trying to stop it, but they are failing at every turn. They might think they are setting up Novell or Dell, but it just does not matter! Why, because everything Novell does, with the exeption of their own propriatery add-in products like NDS or ZenWorks, goes right back to OpenSuse.

Look how far Novell has pushed OpenOffice! They arguably have the best fork out there and they push everything back to OpenOffice.org. You have some of the best coders in the business working at Novell, working on OpenOffice, Kernel fixes, NSF fixes, File System Fixes, TCP/IP stack fixes, Security Fixes and it ALL gets pushed into OpenSuse and its all GPL so it can be flowed into Unbunto, Debian, RedHat, SlackWare pick any of them, they can all benefit when the kind of money Novell is spending and dragging out of Microsoft.

Dell will make Suse Better with better Driver Support, all kinds of things.

Microsoft does not understand that THEY are the pawn in this game, not the king.

If YOU push code into SUSE and its GPL they can't take and then not re-contribute. If its truly killer code that say makes IPV6 a cakewalk or makes EXCHANGE look even more pathetic then it is or makes GIMP completely overshadow anything that Adobe is doing or MicroSoft or even Novell for that matter, its going to win.

Use your mind, not your emotions and we CAN win.

You CAN download SLED and SLES for FREE ( as in beer and speech ) INCLUDING everything that Novell adds into it. grab a copy, load it up, see whats happenign with it. If you dont like then keep using which ever disto you like, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Patent reform is comming, Copyright reform is comming, its only a matter of time. We CAN and WILL win.

Re:I can hear the screaming now!

[Locutus]

I'm not concerned with who currently uses Linux( geeks mostly ) but those businesses who are falling for the Microsoft/Novell/Suse trap. Those are the ones who have been so concerned about patents and indemnification that they'll fall into Microsofts trap and believe they're making the right choice. One possible problem with the rosy picture you painted is that when GPL v3 ships, Novell can only fork everything that migrates to GPL3. If OpenSuse does not follow, it'll no longer be Suse based. So now there's this huge fork in the software with Novell Suse on one side and the few million business users who followed Microsoft into this trap. And as you mention, innovation is happening all over in the OSS side but Novell and its customers are kinda left out of it. Those customers are not going to think they've made a good choice in Linux and will probably migrate back to Microsoft Windows. These are the fortune 1000 or more who are buying into the Novell Suse trap Microsoft is building. Those businesses will NOT go back to Linux or OSS for another 10 or more years after being burned one.

No doubt Linux will survive and we will still be able to do the stuff we're doing now. But, it'll be branded by business as a niche and bad business to mess with. Microsoft will continue to dominate and dictate what comes with a computer and what software is most commonly used. They'll continue to leverage that power to extend software so it only works well or at all on Windows.

Microsoft does not say the "L"-word without plans to bury it. Then Novell/Suse deal(s) are part of their plan. IMO

LoB

Re:Can you hear the Death Knell?

[FlyingGuy]

If I had a dollar for everytime someone said, "Novell is Dead" I would be richer then Bill gates.

They have a Market Cap of 2.4 BILLION

Yep they are gonna be broke by the end of the year. Microsoft will own SUSE & DELL too!

Any other stupid predictions??

Open Source Crowd-WTF?

[mwarndt]

Look at this way: Finally, Linux is making some headway, and people are complaining. Please look at the big picture. Today, Dell is using the Novell/MS Linux. Tomorrow, another large scale manufacturer will use Ubuntu...maybe HP? Believe it or not, competition makes the world spin, and it's about time the open source community realizes it. As Mick Jagger said, "You can't always get what you want...sometimes you just might find you get what you need."

Re:Open Source Crowd-WTF?

[mgiuca]

Looking at the big picture, as you suggest, does this not make you a teensy bit worried that in a few years time, we'll all be running Linux and Microsoft will be getting patent royalties for every copy sold, without having ever disclaimed a patent?

I'm using Linux because I don't want to pay Microsoft.

Alas, no.

[btarval]

Here ya go. This is just one of the links from that time. The google search was trivial:

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS7235986827.html

Note the following:

"Novell, it appears, may need those funds. This news comes just one day following rumors, still unconfirmed by Novell, that the Linux company had laid off some employees. In addition, Novell announced on Nov. 6, for the third time, that it was extending its deadline to get the holders of its Convertible Senior Debentures to not demand immediate payment of the total $600-million owed in 2024.

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. demanded the early payment in full when it claimed that Novell had defaulted on its payment agreement by not turning in its July 31 quarterly earnings report to the SEC in a timely fashion.

This, in turn, had been caused because Novell, like many other technology companies, has delayed its financial reports while it audits its past stock option practices."

dude,

[mistahkurtz]

you're getting a shell?

Wow this article isn't biased at all

[mgiuca]

"Novell's open-source Linux platform".

This article gives the reader the distinct impression (read: presents as fact) that Linux is a program created by Novell. In fact it distinctly hints at the fact that there are in fact two operating systems in existence: Microsoft Windows and Novell Linux.

It's a good thing those two are finally working together to make the world a better place. For great justice.