If you don't want Novell using your software, don't make it free.
You must think my software was a gift, and you're confusing "gift" and "free".
My software is shared with everyone, with several pages of rules enforcing that sharing. Novell engineered a way to contravene those rules in bad faith.
Sorry, the agreement that comes with your software requires them to pay Hula developers how, exactly?
The agreement doesn't require them to do that. That's just walking out on your frends for money. And I suppose you're going to tell me there's nothing bad about that, because it's not breaking the law.
The agreement does, however, require that they not create a tiered environment of patent rights on my software. Which is what they are trying to do.
Is "welsh" an ethnic slur? On people from Wales? Sorry. I didn't know.
people are free to do things you don't like with it
Yes, when I wrote the Open Source Definition, I made sure that it would be OK for you to use Open Source even if the author didn't like your politics. This was because of a license I'd seen from UC Berkeley on the Spice circuit simulation program, which prohibited the police of South Africa from using it. And still did, 10 years after apartheid was over and said police were probably Black.
But this case is different, becuase Novell and Microsoft have created a legal fiction of covenants rather than licenses in order to do what my license prohibits.
If you don't like Novell, just don't use their products.
Telling me not to use Novell's products if I don't like them ignores the fact that I'm one of the guys who wrote "their" products. I doubt you can install that system without using my software. And thus I'm one of the people who just got screwed because Novell and Microsoft colluded to engineer a way for Novell to welsh on the agreement that comes with my software.
No need to... imply that they're criminals.
Except that they've just chosen to ally with an authentic convicted anti-monopoly law violator, found so by more than one jurisdiction. And their collusion with that law violator is engineered to reinforce the monopoly.
Per the service agreement that customers are signing up to with Red Hat, they would be forced to "obtain the rights necessary for a customer to continue its use of the software without interruption".
And this is fine, as long as they obtain those rights for everyone. If they don't, their ethical position would be as bad as Novell's, and I'd be complaining as I am at Novell.
There are a lot of things I'd attribute to ignorance. But taking 1/3 Billion dollars to welsh out on a contract with less-well-off folks, no. Novell had enough money to do the best possible due diligence, if they wanted to.
I don't think there's anything illegal about Novell dropping its support for the Hula project, but it's another sign that they've welshed out on their former friends for money. About the best we could do in response would be to continue the project and get it deployed in the enterprise.
Ok true, but I don't see how the situation can be improved with GPL v3 and not affect Redhat Et all.
Oh, it's no problem for Red Hat and HP. It's only a problem for people who own the patents in question or people who have made a deal with the owners of the patents. People who indemnify do so by reimbursing your damages out of their own pockets or through an insurance company, and they do so regardless of whose patents got you in trouble.
There is a fundamental difference between indemnification and what Novell is doing. And an ethical difference too.
I don't think patents should be applicable in software,but unfortunately I'm not in charge of writing the laws.
You don't feel very empowered, do you. Not many of us do. But that's what democracy was supposed to be for. This is a problem we have to solve.
What in the world is "MS-patented code" or "patented code" in the first place?
Code which practices an algorithm or other technique which is claimed in a patent owned by MS. And MS knows it, and now it's in your program. Sounds risky.
He may have one valid point, though. The difference between knowing infringement, and unknowing. Knowing infringement carries treble damages, unknowing only simple damages. I think it might be more difficult to claim unknowing infringement on code that comes from Novell now.
The business world is concerned. I have been getting calls from Novell stock analysts, for example. Having the people who write and own the software turn upon Novell is a big deal to them. And they've watched SCO, and the last thing they would have wanted Novell to do would have been to follow in SCO's footsteps.
In what feels like 10 years of participating on Slashdot, I have never come upon a post which makes its point so excellently, and also contains so many F-words. Those two things have been mutually exclusive. Until now.
Do me a favor. Take your anger here for a moment and help me out, if you haven't done so yet. But no F-words there, please, it would detract from the document. Even if Novell tosses it off, it's point is already made to a lot of Novell users and VARs and investors and the press. They've been calling me.
While that does vaguely resemble mafia "protection" payments... I really don't see why people are having such a hard time wrapping their heads around the reason for this deal.
Well, I think most people aren't having problems "wrapping their heads around the deal". They see it as unethical. This is very different from not being able to understand it.
I think there's a crucial difference between copyright and patent, because copyright does not stand in the way of your creating a similar program if you are willing to do the work, while patent does.
QuantumG is correct. There are simply so many software patents, on so many fundamental principles, that no non-trivial software program could exist that was licensed by all patent holders with claims reading on the algorithms used. This is regardless of whether it is proprietary or Free Software.
Red Hat and HP are offering to help you if you get sued by a patent holder who is not them. In contrast, Novell has this friend "Big Mike" who was going to beat you up, but Novell made a deal with him so that Big Mike will now promise not to beat you up. Hopefully everybody can see the difference.
They seem to be so proud about having engineered this really circuitous granting of promises to each other's customers instead of to each other so that they could (maybe) fit within the letter of the GPL2 by a hair. They should be feeling shame for having screwed their partners that way. Because there's no question that they're way outside of the intent of the agreement that they entered with thousands of GPL programmers.
My open letter to Novell is still available for you to sign. There are 2245 signatures from angry people as I write this. That is an unprecedented number for anything like this, and shows a tremendous depth of anger in the Free Software community over this deal.
Aw darn. That'll teach me to bypass "preview". Here it is again, with the typo removed.
What I don't find is any wording that would prevent a third party from providing indemnity to those users, which is what Microsoft is doing.
Microsoft is not providing an indemnity. They are providing a promise not to sue regarding their own patents.
In contrast, companies that provide indemnities, like Red Hat, are not the holders of the patents that they are protecting you from.
So, Microsoft in this case is sort of like the extortionist who makes you pay protection money so that they won't break your store window. What Red Hat and other companies who indemnify are doing, in contrast, is much more benign because Red Hat's not out to hurt you, they're giving you some support if a third party not affiliated with Red Hat attacks you.
What I don't find is any wording that would prevent a third party from providing indemnity to those users, which is what Microsoft is doing.
Microsoft is not providing an indemnity. They are providing a promise not to sue regarding Ki>their own patents. In contrast, companies that provide indemnities, like Red Hat, are not the holders of the patents that they are protecting you from. So, Microsoft in this case is sort of like the extortionist who makes you pay protection money so that they won't break your store window. What Red Hat and other companies who indemnify are doing, in contrast, is much more benign because Red Hat's not out to hurt you, they're giving you some support if a third party not affiliated with Red Hat attacks you.
That is not yet determined. And regardless, going to that length to engineer a loophole in a contract with someone else is a show of egregious bad faith.
Regarding BSD, it would be funny to watch Novell attempt to wedge an entire other C library into their product and have everything keep working. But although BSD is a worthy system, I suspect that a lot of BSD developers are watching this situation and re-asessing their own take on licensing. After all, they face the same patent problems as everyone else, and with less protection than anyone else.
It's odd that this would make you lose "what little faith you have in free software", given that the other side of the argument is the one exercising bad faith. It doesn't sound well-reasoned, or perhaps there's something that would sway you in that direction that you aren't telling us about.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Calm down! I mean, this is an important issue, but you're going a bit far with an internet petition.
Gee, I'm glad you said that. I was just getting my Tactical Nuclear Weapon ready, and I looked at your message and thought, Gee, is this going too far? Can't we try to love each other? So, I went outside, hugged a tree, and felt much better. We'll forgo the really drastic means for now. But internet petitions are really just symbolic. The real weapon is the fact that a lot of us will never recommend Novell again for an enterprise deployment, and will not license our software so that it's usable along with the patent covenants. The petition is just an indication of our sentiment.
Slashdot Mirror
Freedom 0: the freedom of anyone who is not a Novell customer to run the program. This seems to apply to Freedom 2 and 3 as well.
Bruce
You must think my software was a gift, and you're confusing "gift" and "free".
My software is shared with everyone, with several pages of rules enforcing that sharing. Novell engineered a way to contravene those rules in bad faith.
Bruce
The agreement doesn't require them to do that. That's just walking out on your frends for money. And I suppose you're going to tell me there's nothing bad about that, because it's not breaking the law.
The agreement does, however, require that they not create a tiered environment of patent rights on my software. Which is what they are trying to do.
Is "welsh" an ethnic slur? On people from Wales? Sorry. I didn't know.
Bruce
Yes, when I wrote the Open Source Definition, I made sure that it would be OK for you to use Open Source even if the author didn't like your politics. This was because of a license I'd seen from UC Berkeley on the Spice circuit simulation program, which prohibited the police of South Africa from using it. And still did, 10 years after apartheid was over and said police were probably Black.
But this case is different, becuase Novell and Microsoft have created a legal fiction of covenants rather than licenses in order to do what my license prohibits.
Bruce
Telling me not to use Novell's products if I don't like them ignores the fact that I'm one of the guys who wrote "their" products. I doubt you can install that system without using my software. And thus I'm one of the people who just got screwed because Novell and Microsoft colluded to engineer a way for Novell to welsh on the agreement that comes with my software.
No need to ... imply that they're criminals.
Except that they've just chosen to ally with an authentic convicted anti-monopoly law violator, found so by more than one jurisdiction. And their collusion with that law violator is engineered to reinforce the monopoly.
Bruce
And this is fine, as long as they obtain those rights for everyone. If they don't, their ethical position would be as bad as Novell's, and I'd be complaining as I am at Novell.
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
I don't think there's anything illegal about Novell dropping its support for the Hula project, but it's another sign that they've welshed out on their former friends for money. About the best we could do in response would be to continue the project and get it deployed in the enterprise.
Bruce
Oh, it's no problem for Red Hat and HP. It's only a problem for people who own the patents in question or people who have made a deal with the owners of the patents. People who indemnify do so by reimbursing your damages out of their own pockets or through an insurance company, and they do so regardless of whose patents got you in trouble.
There is a fundamental difference between indemnification and what Novell is doing. And an ethical difference too.
I don't think patents should be applicable in software,but unfortunately I'm not in charge of writing the laws.
You don't feel very empowered, do you. Not many of us do. But that's what democracy was supposed to be for. This is a problem we have to solve.
Bruce
Remember, we have software patents in the U.S. because of a lawsuit brought by IBM.
Bruce
Code which practices an algorithm or other technique which is claimed in a patent owned by MS. And MS knows it, and now it's in your program. Sounds risky.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Do me a favor. Take your anger here for a moment and help me out, if you haven't done so yet. But no F-words there, please, it would detract from the document. Even if Novell tosses it off, it's point is already made to a lot of Novell users and VARs and investors and the press. They've been calling me.
Bruce
Well, I think most people aren't having problems "wrapping their heads around the deal". They see it as unethical. This is very different from not being able to understand it.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Protest the Novell-Microsoft Patent Agreement.
Bruce
My open letter to Novell is still available for you to sign. There are 2245 signatures from angry people as I write this. That is an unprecedented number for anything like this, and shows a tremendous depth of anger in the Free Software community over this deal.
Bruce
What I don't find is any wording that would prevent a third party from providing indemnity to those users, which is what Microsoft is doing.
Microsoft is not providing an indemnity. They are providing a promise not to sue regarding their own patents.
In contrast, companies that provide indemnities, like Red Hat, are not the holders of the patents that they are protecting you from.
So, Microsoft in this case is sort of like the extortionist who makes you pay protection money so that they won't break your store window. What Red Hat and other companies who indemnify are doing, in contrast, is much more benign because Red Hat's not out to hurt you, they're giving you some support if a third party not affiliated with Red Hat attacks you.
Bruce
Microsoft is not providing an indemnity. They are providing a promise not to sue regarding Ki>their own patents. In contrast, companies that provide indemnities, like Red Hat, are not the holders of the patents that they are protecting you from. So, Microsoft in this case is sort of like the extortionist who makes you pay protection money so that they won't break your store window. What Red Hat and other companies who indemnify are doing, in contrast, is much more benign because Red Hat's not out to hurt you, they're giving you some support if a third party not affiliated with Red Hat attacks you.
Bruce
That is not yet determined. And regardless, going to that length to engineer a loophole in a contract with someone else is a show of egregious bad faith.
Regarding BSD, it would be funny to watch Novell attempt to wedge an entire other C library into their product and have everything keep working. But although BSD is a worthy system, I suspect that a lot of BSD developers are watching this situation and re-asessing their own take on licensing. After all, they face the same patent problems as everyone else, and with less protection than anyone else.
It's odd that this would make you lose "what little faith you have in free software", given that the other side of the argument is the one exercising bad faith. It doesn't sound well-reasoned, or perhaps there's something that would sway you in that direction that you aren't telling us about.
Bruce
Gee, I'm glad you said that. I was just getting my Tactical Nuclear Weapon ready, and I looked at your message and thought, Gee, is this going too far? Can't we try to love each other? So, I went outside, hugged a tree, and felt much better. We'll forgo the really drastic means for now. But internet petitions are really just symbolic. The real weapon is the fact that a lot of us will never recommend Novell again for an enterprise deployment, and will not license our software so that it's usable along with the patent covenants. The petition is just an indication of our sentiment.
Bruce
That should read "entire burden".