Groklaw Guts the Novell/Microsoft Deal

walterbyrd writes "Pamala Jones, at groklaw, totally rips apart the Novell/Deal patent protection deal. From the article: 'Justin Steinman reveals that to market their SUSE Linux Enterprise Server against Red Hat they ask, "Do you want the Linux that works with Windows? Or the one that doesn't?" It's just appalling. Let me ask you developers who are kernel guys a question: When you contributed code to the kernel, was it your intent that it be used against Red Hat? How about the rest of you developers? Is that all right with you, that your code is being marketed by Novell like that? I also have questions about antitrust issues, with Microsoft being Novell's partner in such deals and sales pitches. Nothing speaks louder about Microsoft's true determination never to be actually interoperable than this conference.'"

Comments

Classic Microsoft - Shades of the Apple deal

[he1icine]

Classic Microsoft - leverage a partnership with a company seen as your enemy, yet try to do so to keep them at the mercy of the guys in Redmond. That's why MS has always tried to do with Apple - prop them up so they can be seen as viable, but make them your bastard stepchild anyway. This is just a more appalling trespass as they managed to get Novell in a position to market the hard work of thousands of contributors, who simply wanted a free viable alternative for those not wanting to be held to MS's will, in a way quite opposite of the motivation of that work.

I've always liked SUSE as a distro, but once the Novell deal went through, I knew it was only a matter of time until the sour taste was just a little too sickening, making it unconscionable to fathom dealing with them for the foreseeable future. There are better distros out there anyway.

I don't grok Novell's motivations

[capnkr]

On the one hand, there is the M$ deal.

On the other hand, there are the Good Things that Novell has done, and does, for GNU/Linux and F/OSS.

On the third hand, there is me, and others like me, that I'm sure wonder about the MPD that Novell exhibits. To whit: I understand and agree that Open-solution based entities should be willing and able to work with proprietary companies. But it seems that in this instance Novell is going about that the completely wrong way, with the completely wrong company.

It's like there is Novell Darkside, and Novell Lightside, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Maybe these are just the actions of a corporation that is so large that the different divisions inside of it are unaware of what others are doing, a la Sony.

Re:I don't mean to..

[NickFortune]

I think the thing that particularly set her off was Novell's Justin Steinman claiming that "the community was no longer upset about the deal" (quoting PJ, not Steinman). She disagrees, and I think the intention of the article was to bring to a wider audience the way Novell are misrepresenting the situation.

And I have to say, I think it's an valid point. I won't claim that we've been unanimous in condemning Novell, but to claim all the objections are yesterdays news smacks of either deliberate deception, or a worrying detachment from reality.

Either way, it reflects poorly on Novell.

GPL and Intent

[JerryLove]

Let me ask you developers who are kernel guys a question: When you contributed code to the kernel, was it your intent that it be used against Red Hat?

I know it's a small piece of a bigger article: but since when does it matter what someone who submitted something to GPL intended their code to be used for. The licese is explicitly and intentionally designed to allow open-source code to be used for any purpose by anyone, as long as it's credited and open-source. I'm sure there's someone out there who wrote code who thinks cell-phones cause cancer and dislikes his LINUX code running on a cell; or someone who'se pissed about millitary research done on LINUX clusters, or most anything else. It's a really baseless argument intended to appeal more to emotion than reason; and I have to say that I'm prone to dismissing the author based on just such an example.

Microsoft Platform Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Before, Linux was this cloud we didn't get. I was high-fiving everyone I could find when Novell bought SuSe. We already won once against Novell." Martin Taylor, Microsoft General Manager of platform strategy link

Re:Competition is good

[NickFortune]

What Ms. Jones doesn't seem to realize is that competition between software companies is a good thing. It leads to more innovation and a better end-user experience

That largely depends on how they compete though. If I compete with you by blowing up one of your offices, that doesn't improve the quality of my software, and does nothing for the end user. If you compete back by killing my top developers, the only innovation we're going to see will be in weaponry.

You can see this in Microsoft: world class PR machine, but in terms of software... well, they can't even design a power-off button without five years of committees, meetings, and focus groups.

all sales are Microsoft sales to some degree now.

Except they're not.

mmm... you cut that paragraph a little too short, I think. Here's a longer section:

He actually says that before this deal, a customer wanting Linux would go 100% Linux. Microsoft was out of the picture. Now that the deal is in place, Microsoft gets to stay involved with Novell on the sales calls, staying in the picture, and don't forget that Novell is paying Microsoft, so I guess you could say that from Microsoft's perspective, all sales are Microsoft sales to some degree now.

Keep on like that, and you'll have to change your handle to "quotes_out_of_context"

This is the first Groklaw article I've read and if this hyperbole is typical of its offerings I'm amazed so many people listen to it. This is of the quality one would typically find in a slashdot rant. I thought groklaw was actually a well respected website.

Go read some of the legal research. Look at how closely the Groklaw analyse the legal filing in the SCO case. Look at the care they take to be accurate. That's why PJ is so widely respected. For her hard work and dedication to defending free software from a threat against which of the Linux hackers wouldn't have known where to start.

Granted, when she moves off law and on to wider subjects, she can sometimes go a bit over the top. I don't think she has in this particular article, but even if she did - I figure all that hard work earns her the right to voice the occasional opinion.