You do understand that the Novell hackers frequently contribute code to many open source projects such as xorg, gnome and the Linux kernel. If you truly wish to separate yourself from whatever Novell touches you will have a hard time doing so and keeping a competitive modern desktop. Also it's totally unfounded that Novell is going to start injecting Microsoft IP into their code submissions.
But if you are still designed on isolating Novell from the rest of the community I suggest you get on the devel mailing lists and argue for a fork. AFAIK no one other than the vocal minority at Slashdot has suggested such a thing.
It's not the actual contract but it answers some relevant questions. Notable highlights.
Our agreement with Microsoft is focused on our customers, and does not include a patent license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft to Novell (or, for that matter, from Novell to Microsoft). Novell's customers receive a covenant not to sue directly from Microsoft. We have not agreed with Microsoft to any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL and we are in full compliance.
Q3. Is this agreement an admission that Linux products from Novell infringe Microsoft patents?
No.
Patent concerns did not drive our entry into this agreement. Novell makes no admission that its Linux and open source offerings infringe on any other parties' patents. Our position has not changed as a result of this agreement.
Q4. With this agreement, will Novell include Microsoft patented code in its contributions to the open source community?
No. Novell will not change its development practices as a result of this agreement. It has always been our policy in all development, open source and proprietary, to stay away from code that infringes another's patents, and we will continue to develop software using these standard practices. If any of our code is found to infringe someone else's patents, we will try to find prior technology to invalidate the patents, rework the code to design around the infringement, or as a last resort remove the functionality.
Novell is committed to protecting, preserving and promoting freedom for free and open source software.
Q8. What does this mean for Mono and its inclusion in non-SUSE distributions? Does Mono infringe Microsoft patents?
We maintain that Mono does not infringe any Microsoft patents. This agreement does not impact the rights and abilities of other distributions to bundle and ship Mono.
Novell is the leading contributor to Mono and we remain committed to the Mono project. Mono is a community project with many constituents and collaborators from companies, universities, governments and individuals.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when the majority of the slashdot community is easily manipulated by FUD from both sides. You are right there is no patent licensing deal between MS and Novell making this entire 'GPLv3 incompatibility' issue moot.
Patent indemnification is not patent licensing. Every major corporation that deals with FLOSS has patent indemnification clauses including Red Hat, IBM and HP.
Q4. With this agreement, will Novell include Microsoft patented code in its contributions to the open source community?
No. Novell will not change its development practices as a result of this agreement. It has always been our policy in all development, open source and proprietary, to stay away from code that infringes another's patents, and we will continue to develop software using these standard practices. If any of our code is found to infringe someone else's patents, we will try to find prior technology to invalidate the patents, rework the code to design around the infringement, or as a last resort remove the functionality.
Novell is committed to protecting, preserving and promoting freedom for free and open source software.
Let me translate Microsoft's offer: there are patent problems with linux.
There are no patent problems with Linux. Some have suggested that it's the opposite; Novell threatened Microsoft with IP and Microsoft in return paid Novell $108M in their so called "patent deal". What Microsoft has been spewing is pure FUD and Red Hat knows it. But since the Microsoft FUD has been so effective, Red Hat must come out with it's own. Don't be fooled, Red Hat, Novell, etc are all corporations with shareholders and they will do whatever it takes to turn a profit. This is pure propaganda on both sides to gain mind share from the sheepish consumers.
I don't want to defend Osama bin Laden but he did issue a fatwa in 1998 listing all his grievances. Plus he has offered a truce several times. I think though you are missing the larger point. History is not a science in which you can determine who is ultimately right and wrong. The people who survive and create the power structures thereafter are those who write the histories and those histories reflect their biases.
Surely if we Americans had lost the Revolutionary War, George Washington would have been looked upon as a traitor and a rebel. He would have been hanged and the fickle masses would have cheered it.
You do understand that Mono includes a separate *ix stack different than the Microsoft stack. You could code in a *ix environment with Mono without even touching the Microsoft compatibility stack. The original comment of "If you choose mono, you choose an indirect control of microsoft all over your code." is either unaware of this or was specifically talking about the Mono implementation of C#/CLI. Which of course was standardized via ECMA/ISO along similar measures that happen with any other programming language.
The Star Wars snipe is somewhat accurate in that people are making judgments along the lines of "everything Microsoft does is evil because Microsoft is evil". Therefore if you are using something touched by Microsoft you are going to be in some sort of trouble (Microsoft is the dark side). Even though in this case the Mono implementation of C#/CLI is in the same predicament as someone who wants to implement their own C++ compiler. The idea that there is a difference between the two is not based on facts but qualitative judgment.
Just because something can be abused doesn't mean that something should be banned. The argument you laided out could apply to guns, technology, cars, etc. It's a weak argument and if we were talking about something like guns or technology; you would have been modded down to oblivion.
A responsible journalist reports the facts. Larry King or CNN didn't say Melhman was gay; they reported that Bill Mahr said Mehlman was gay. However removing this statement is not good journalism because you are hiding the facts. What about the Ted Haggard story? They reported it on CNN (and other news outlets) and they were not sure if it was true or not.
It's funny you mention Hillary Clinton being a lesbian. There is a book out claiming just that. According to your standards journalists should not report that this book exists.
I don't think you get it. Being gay is not a 'charge'.
Maher was the one using it for political advantage (trying to paint Mehlman as hypocritical). If the charge is true, it would be newsworthy, but WE HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER IT'S TRUE. That is the point. We don't know the truth and neither did CNN, so it was irresponsible to air it.
So CNN shouldn't air undetermined claims about political figures? They do it all the time. Do you watch CNN?
But why is calling someone gay such a terrible declaration? People on TV accuse others of all kinds of things but they rarely get censored for it. Yet when someone suggests someone else is gay they censor it? Also can you really "accuse" someone of being gay? Normally "accuse" is attached to doing something wrong. It just reflects society's judgment that being "gay" is wrong or odd. Imagine someone "accused" someone else of being straight would there be the same reaction?
I used to think the exact same thing. When Bush won the 2000 election I thought to myself "Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same, it doesn't really matter, what's the worst thing that can happen?"
But anyway I hope this election is a return to our past of American Pragmatism. Let's vote for people who are near the center and work together to solve problems; vote for solutions rather than political ideology.
Yes, exactly, the point is to scare people into the arms of Novell Linux. And I'm saying it's FUD and bullshit while Slashdot is actually buying into it.
The Linux development stack and the Microsoft development stack are so far apart I doubt there is very little shared code amongst them. Unless MS was filing patents for linked lists and quicksort I doubt there will be any problems. But the burden of proof is not on me. If anyone can find patents that Microsoft owns that apply to Linux I'll reconsider my argument.
First off press releases are not a good source for information. It's basically an advert for the company. I read the specific PR regarding patents and it doesn't say what you claim. But it does say they will not pursue lawsuits over intellectual property they own in Novell's products. So my question for you is what intellectual property does Microsoft own in Novell products other than certain parts of Mono? And cite sources please.
Mr. Ballmer is talking specifically to shareholders who think this Novell deal is going to lead to Microsoft releasing portions of their intellectual property to OSS. Which means to the average MS shareholder, "Oh I better sell my stocks".
Of course to the average Slashdotter, who doesn't RTFA or does any research, this means Microsoft is going to start suing other Linux companies that aren't blessed by Microsoft. But again how can Microsoft sue over patents when they don't own any in regards to the Linux kernel or Linux development stack. Even Wine is safe from Microsoft. It's just some portions of Mono which deal with.NET and Windows.Forms. Perhaps some other technologies as well that have to do with Microsoft Office.
And honestly trusting press releases for good information is a waste of time. Doesn't Bush send out PR every day saying how good things are going in Iraq?
As much as I like to bash Microsoft, this whole "Microsoft is the next SCO" is bullshit. The only possible patent infringement going on is in the Microsoft compatibility stack of Mono. This is seperate from the Mono CLI and compiler which is under the Ecma. And also different than the Linux stack which includes Gtk#.
Microsoft is basically saying "If you want to run your ASP.NET app with open source software then Novell is your only choice". Microsoft is not saying "Novell Linux is the only safe Linux distro from Microsoft lawsuits" because Linux is inherently safe as long as you don't run Microsoft's crappy.NET software on it.
So today we have secured a peace of mind for Novell customers that might have been worried about possible patent infringements open source deployments. This matters in particular for Mono, because for a long time its been the favorite conversation starter for folks that find dates on Slashdot.
He's talking about things like ASP.NET deployments using mod_mono and similar setups using the Microsoft compatibility stack. If you use Ecma 334/335 Mono like what is used within GNOME for things like beagle and f-spot; you are not potentially infringing on Microsoft's patents.
The fundamental purpose of Copyright law is to allow for individuals to profit from their intellectual property. This does not imply having complete control over how their works are distributed. It seems that in the history of copyright law it was assumed that in order to profit from one's intellectual property the individual or publisher must have control over its distribution. However modern times have illuminated the fact that this is not the case. The very existence of other models where one does not control distribution and at the same time allows for the creator to still profit shows the precedent set by "hundreds of years" of copyright law needs to be changed.
John Stuart Mill would argue that even wrong ideas serve an important purpose.
It's important to clarify what you mean by purpose. No man can tell where all paths may lead and what are going to be the future consequences of any action. Then there exists the intractable problem of what harm an action may do unto others and what is the amount of damage done.
But also there is the idea that purpose is something larger than what man can understand. It does not necessarily include a higher being but normally God is involved. The conclusion that things happen for a reason and there is some higher purpose to all our actions.
The first notion of purpose described in the first paragraph means that even "wrong" ideas at the time can achieve a noble goal in the future. There is a certain level of uncertainity and randomness involved. However it does mean that one should be tolerant of all ideas. If something is ultimately false it should be challenged and not to be ignored because it is possible it may serve some unknowable positive end.
The latter formulation of "purpose" puts the participant in a position of inaction. A rational human being becomes handicapped by their own finiteness. If things are designed to happen or meant to be why should one take action at all? Why challenge untruths when they may serve some larger purpose unknowable to us all? This is ultimately a very dangerous idea.
Slashdot Mirror
You do understand that the Novell hackers frequently contribute code to many open source projects such as xorg, gnome and the Linux kernel. If you truly wish to separate yourself from whatever Novell touches you will have a hard time doing so and keeping a competitive modern desktop. Also it's totally unfounded that Novell is going to start injecting Microsoft IP into their code submissions.
But if you are still designed on isolating Novell from the rest of the community I suggest you get on the devel mailing lists and argue for a fork. AFAIK no one other than the vocal minority at Slashdot has suggested such a thing.
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensour ce.html
It's not the actual contract but it answers some relevant questions. Notable highlights.
Our agreement with Microsoft is focused on our customers, and does not include a patent license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft to Novell (or, for that matter, from Novell to Microsoft). Novell's customers receive a covenant not to sue directly from Microsoft. We have not agreed with Microsoft to any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL and we are in full compliance.
Q3. Is this agreement an admission that Linux products from Novell infringe Microsoft patents?
No.
Patent concerns did not drive our entry into this agreement. Novell makes no admission that its Linux and open source offerings infringe on any other parties' patents. Our position has not changed as a result of this agreement.
Q4. With this agreement, will Novell include Microsoft patented code in its contributions to the open source community?
No. Novell will not change its development practices as a result of this agreement. It has always been our policy in all development, open source and proprietary, to stay away from code that infringes another's patents, and we will continue to develop software using these standard practices. If any of our code is found to infringe someone else's patents, we will try to find prior technology to invalidate the patents, rework the code to design around the infringement, or as a last resort remove the functionality.
Novell is committed to protecting, preserving and promoting freedom for free and open source software.
Q8. What does this mean for Mono and its inclusion in non-SUSE distributions? Does Mono infringe Microsoft patents?
We maintain that Mono does not infringe any Microsoft patents. This agreement does not impact the rights and abilities of other distributions to bundle and ship Mono.
Novell is the leading contributor to Mono and we remain committed to the Mono project. Mono is a community project with many constituents and collaborators from companies, universities, governments and individuals.
And here's the actual agreement from Microsoft.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when the majority of the slashdot community is easily manipulated by FUD from both sides. You are right there is no patent licensing deal between MS and Novell making this entire 'GPLv3 incompatibility' issue moot.
Patent indemnification is not patent licensing. Every major corporation that deals with FLOSS has patent indemnification clauses including Red Hat, IBM and HP.
Q4. With this agreement, will Novell include Microsoft patented code in its contributions to the open source community?
r ce.html
No. Novell will not change its development practices as a result of this agreement. It has always been our policy in all development, open source and proprietary, to stay away from code that infringes another's patents, and we will continue to develop software using these standard practices. If any of our code is found to infringe someone else's patents, we will try to find prior technology to invalidate the patents, rework the code to design around the infringement, or as a last resort remove the functionality.
Novell is committed to protecting, preserving and promoting freedom for free and open source software.
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensou
Let me translate Microsoft's offer: there are patent problems with linux.
There are no patent problems with Linux. Some have suggested that it's the opposite; Novell threatened Microsoft with IP and Microsoft in return paid Novell $108M in their so called "patent deal". What Microsoft has been spewing is pure FUD and Red Hat knows it. But since the Microsoft FUD has been so effective, Red Hat must come out with it's own. Don't be fooled, Red Hat, Novell, etc are all corporations with shareholders and they will do whatever it takes to turn a profit. This is pure propaganda on both sides to gain mind share from the sheepish consumers.
I don't want to defend Osama bin Laden but he did issue a fatwa in 1998 listing all his grievances. Plus he has offered a truce several times. I think though you are missing the larger point. History is not a science in which you can determine who is ultimately right and wrong. The people who survive and create the power structures thereafter are those who write the histories and those histories reflect their biases.
Surely if we Americans had lost the Revolutionary War, George Washington would have been looked upon as a traitor and a rebel. He would have been hanged and the fickle masses would have cheered it.
You do understand that Mono includes a separate *ix stack different than the Microsoft stack. You could code in a *ix environment with Mono without even touching the Microsoft compatibility stack. The original comment of "If you choose mono, you choose an indirect control of microsoft all over your code." is either unaware of this or was specifically talking about the Mono implementation of C#/CLI. Which of course was standardized via ECMA/ISO along similar measures that happen with any other programming language.
The Star Wars snipe is somewhat accurate in that people are making judgments along the lines of "everything Microsoft does is evil because Microsoft is evil". Therefore if you are using something touched by Microsoft you are going to be in some sort of trouble (Microsoft is the dark side). Even though in this case the Mono implementation of C#/CLI is in the same predicament as someone who wants to implement their own C++ compiler. The idea that there is a difference between the two is not based on facts but qualitative judgment.
Ah sorry that I mischaracterized your argument. However even though you were *IMPLICITLY* arguing for gay marriage it wasn't very *EXPLICIT*.
Just because something can be abused doesn't mean that something should be banned. The argument you laided out could apply to guns, technology, cars, etc. It's a weak argument and if we were talking about something like guns or technology; you would have been modded down to oblivion.
A responsible journalist reports the facts. Larry King or CNN didn't say Melhman was gay; they reported that Bill Mahr said Mehlman was gay. However removing this statement is not good journalism because you are hiding the facts. What about the Ted Haggard story? They reported it on CNN (and other news outlets) and they were not sure if it was true or not.
It's funny you mention Hillary Clinton being a lesbian. There is a book out claiming just that. According to your standards journalists should not report that this book exists.
I don't think you get it. Being gay is not a 'charge'.
Maher was the one using it for political advantage (trying to paint Mehlman as hypocritical). If the charge is true, it would be newsworthy, but WE HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER IT'S TRUE. That is the point. We don't know the truth and neither did CNN, so it was irresponsible to air it.
So CNN shouldn't air undetermined claims about political figures? They do it all the time. Do you watch CNN?
But why is calling someone gay such a terrible declaration? People on TV accuse others of all kinds of things but they rarely get censored for it. Yet when someone suggests someone else is gay they censor it? Also can you really "accuse" someone of being gay? Normally "accuse" is attached to doing something wrong. It just reflects society's judgment that being "gay" is wrong or odd. Imagine someone "accused" someone else of being straight would there be the same reaction?
mod parent up
It was Robert McNamara all over again. Rumsfeld and McNamara even look the same.
I used to think the exact same thing. When Bush won the 2000 election I thought to myself "Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same, it doesn't really matter, what's the worst thing that can happen?"
But anyway I hope this election is a return to our past of American Pragmatism. Let's vote for people who are near the center and work together to solve problems; vote for solutions rather than political ideology.
XGL is already a dead project and you can thank Red Hat, Nvidia and Intel for that.
Yes, exactly, the point is to scare people into the arms of Novell Linux. And I'm saying it's FUD and bullshit while Slashdot is actually buying into it.
s/very little/any
The Linux development stack and the Microsoft development stack are so far apart I doubt there is very little shared code amongst them. Unless MS was filing patents for linked lists and quicksort I doubt there will be any problems. But the burden of proof is not on me. If anyone can find patents that Microsoft owns that apply to Linux I'll reconsider my argument.
First off press releases are not a good source for information. It's basically an advert for the company. I read the specific PR regarding patents and it doesn't say what you claim. But it does say they will not pursue lawsuits over intellectual property they own in Novell's products. So my question for you is what intellectual property does Microsoft own in Novell products other than certain parts of Mono? And cite sources please.
Mr. Ballmer is talking specifically to shareholders who think this Novell deal is going to lead to Microsoft releasing portions of their intellectual property to OSS. Which means to the average MS shareholder, "Oh I better sell my stocks".
.NET and Windows.Forms. Perhaps some other technologies as well that have to do with Microsoft Office.
Of course to the average Slashdotter, who doesn't RTFA or does any research, this means Microsoft is going to start suing other Linux companies that aren't blessed by Microsoft. But again how can Microsoft sue over patents when they don't own any in regards to the Linux kernel or Linux development stack. Even Wine is safe from Microsoft. It's just some portions of Mono which deal with
And honestly trusting press releases for good information is a waste of time. Doesn't Bush send out PR every day saying how good things are going in Iraq?
As much as I like to bash Microsoft, this whole "Microsoft is the next SCO" is bullshit. The only possible patent infringement going on is in the Microsoft compatibility stack of Mono. This is seperate from the Mono CLI and compiler which is under the Ecma. And also different than the Linux stack which includes Gtk#.
.NET software on it.
Microsoft is basically saying "If you want to run your ASP.NET app with open source software then Novell is your only choice". Microsoft is not saying "Novell Linux is the only safe Linux distro from Microsoft lawsuits" because Linux is inherently safe as long as you don't run Microsoft's crappy
So today we have secured a peace of mind for Novell customers that might have been worried about possible patent infringements open source deployments. This matters in particular for Mono, because for a long time its been the favorite conversation starter for folks that find dates on Slashdot.
He's talking about things like ASP.NET deployments using mod_mono and similar setups using the Microsoft compatibility stack. If you use Ecma 334/335 Mono like what is used within GNOME for things like beagle and f-spot; you are not potentially infringing on Microsoft's patents.
The fundamental purpose of Copyright law is to allow for individuals to profit from their intellectual property. This does not imply having complete control over how their works are distributed. It seems that in the history of copyright law it was assumed that in order to profit from one's intellectual property the individual or publisher must have control over its distribution. However modern times have illuminated the fact that this is not the case. The very existence of other models where one does not control distribution and at the same time allows for the creator to still profit shows the precedent set by "hundreds of years" of copyright law needs to be changed.
John Stuart Mill would argue that even wrong ideas serve an important purpose.
It's important to clarify what you mean by purpose. No man can tell where all paths may lead and what are going to be the future consequences of any action. Then there exists the intractable problem of what harm an action may do unto others and what is the amount of damage done.
But also there is the idea that purpose is something larger than what man can understand. It does not necessarily include a higher being but normally God is involved. The conclusion that things happen for a reason and there is some higher purpose to all our actions.
The first notion of purpose described in the first paragraph means that even "wrong" ideas at the time can achieve a noble goal in the future. There is a certain level of uncertainity and randomness involved. However it does mean that one should be tolerant of all ideas. If something is ultimately false it should be challenged and not to be ignored because it is possible it may serve some unknowable positive end.
The latter formulation of "purpose" puts the participant in a position of inaction. A rational human being becomes handicapped by their own finiteness. If things are designed to happen or meant to be why should one take action at all? Why challenge untruths when they may serve some larger purpose unknowable to us all? This is ultimately a very dangerous idea.