5 minute was a bit of an exaggeration - if you know what you're doing, than you're safe. Fresh install, set up your connection, and immediately connect to microsoft update service, wait for all updates, reboot a dozen times till all are installed, then use security center to switch on firewall, next go for your antivir soft (not much choice there if you're looking for a free one, oh, and avoid Norton like a plague). That is, if you don't have an SP2+fairly recent updates + firefox slipstreamed into a new ISO, including an antivir.
Behind NAT, you're safe from portscans and probes, but you are not safe from attack vectors targeting unpatched IE, Outlook, etc. You _will_ be haxOred if you just install a bare windows XP, and start browsing the net (if by any chance you visit a warez site, it's 100% that you'll be infected without without you even noticing it), using Outlook, etc.
This article is troll, especially the "designed to make malware easy" part. This has nothing to do with design - it is an option that I'm quite surprised Microsoft didn't take away from Vista (if they did, you'll have an article complaining about it).
Slipstreaming is essentially remastering Vista (and XP-s) ISOs to include the latest patches/service packs, i.e. in case of XP, this allows you to have a windows install that won't get you rooted in 5 minutes after you go online (with SP2). You can also include drivers or basically anything you have installed. In other words, you can install win XP, firefox, ffmpeg codecs, a viruscanner, openoffice, etc., and then you can make a custom ISO that would install windows XP and all that software in one go! This is good if you maintain a number of PCs in a comp. lab.
This feature makes life of sysadmins a lot easier, and I'm glad MS didn't take this away - I wouldn't be surprised if the control freaks did. To turn this into a "Vista designed to make malware easy headline" is simply trolling, and article should be tagged troll accordingly. Especially since almost all operating systems have this ability (to remaster the ISOs to include updates/security fixes and 3rd party programs. Basically this is what linux distributions are about).
Nah. If Microsoft were to actually sue someone (which they won't)
Actually, if Microsoft will sue someone, it will be Novell. This is absolutely insane (on the part of Novell) - they could have just asked SFLC's stance on their contract before going public with it, and E.Moglen would have told them how this would play out. Microsoft knew this very well, they must have a whole coterie of layers looking and developments concerning the GPL and GPL v3 - that is why contract is about not suing customers for a few years, and not about not suing Novell for a few years.
Why would MS sue Novell? Because soon, FSF will change the license of the toolchain to GPL v3, which can mean this:
"Suppose GPL3 says something like, 'if you distribute (or procure the distribution), of a program (or parts of a program) - and if you make patent promises partially to some subset of the distributees of the program - then under this license you have given the same promise or license at no cost in royalties or other obligations to all persons to whom the program is distributed'."
"If GPL 3 goes into effect with these terms in it, Novell will suddenly becomes a patent laundry; the minute Microsoft realizes the laundry is under construction it will withdraw." Read the rest here
How devious is that?;) If novell cooperates with this plan, will Microsoft withdraw from the deal peacefully? If I understand correctly, the covenant is revocable, isn't it? They still can go after Novell on the basis that they violated the contract while it was in effect, by distributing MS IP infringing code to the large public (ie. not only their customers), and even though Novell's CEO now claims otherwise, this deal does suggest that MS patents cover some of the code Novell distributes. This is going to be nasty - I just wonder what Novell will do... They seem to coopoerate with SFLC now (unfettered access to Novell's top management, that's what E.Moglen said)... this is getting exciting:))
Audacity is quite good actually, I admit that. Has its own interface (doesn't feel native actually), but looks fine and is usable. There are some alternatives, but for what I need (which is not much - a few mix CDs I occasionally do) it's perfect. Not in "killer app" category though, at least not in my vocabulary.
Scribus would be one for instance, which absolutely lacks any equivalent in the free software world, and it's a good desktop publishing app on its own. Tellico is another one - and the most envied one by my windows using friends. Amarok - not a unique app, but still can find anything that comes close on any platform. And these are individual apps - I didn't even mention KDE or Koffice. I think wxWidgets and QT are simply not in the same league - I don't have anything against wx, but it is not directly comparable to what QT has to offer. Grandparent's post was simply silly, uninformed and redundant (as far as the gpl vs lgpl license meme goes whenever QT comes up). My reply wasn't any better, because this QT vs. wxWidgets is silly (and I contributed to that part). It's like sasying kde is better then fluxbox... apples and melons. Yeah.
I don't agree with you - but you raised an interesting question: what would happen if everyone adopted their modell? I've been thinking about this for a week now (I'm writing a book about the history of gift giving, from the aztecs trough potlatch to free software), and it is a difficult question. It is easy to say "imagine what would happen if..." - but did you really think it through? I'm not going to go through all the details, because I'm in the middle of watching The Deadly Assassin (Tom Baker's Doctor Who:)) - but suffice to say that nothing will happen on a larger scale.
Basically, if everyone adopted trolltech's model, that would mean that all software is BSD licensed (just think about it why!) - with a twist: the community producing the software will get money from customer's whose work don't benefit the community at large. Microsoft wouldn't be able to go and steal the code (as in a purely BSD licensed world) - but it could use it... for a price. That money can than invested in the development of the software sold by paying free software developers... And that is how basically it works today if you think about it... A fairly large portion of the free software pool is developed by programmers who are actually payed for their work (or their employer lets them hack on free software in their work-hours). This is oversimplification - I really suggest that you think this through.
Still don't see your point - the price is determined by the market. If they can sell it for that much, and at the same time, they can be vastly more popular than wxWidgets (they have LOTS of customers, even though they provide a fully GPL version), that means that the pricing is just right, not ridiculous;)) QT is simply so good, that people are willing to pay that much for it (and the support you get, which I heard is excellent).
This is blatant slashvertisement. Qt's controls are all emulated, it's like using Java Swing when you can use SWT instead. Further more, it requires you to use non-standard c++ syntax together with a 'qt preprocessor'. The better choice is wxWidgets. It supports platforms, more compilers, has native controls, and it is open source.
Informative? Well, this comment could have been a lot shorter: qt suxxz, wxwidgets rulez:))
Oh, and tell me, where are the wxWidgets killer apps?
QT - Adobe, Opera, Skype, Google uses QT, not to mention free software apps (KDE and its rather huge application stack), amarok, Scribus, Koffice, etc. Yeah, good luck convincing those folks developing these apps that they made a bad choice:)))
The commercial license is a bit rediculous, though.
Why? It seems pretty popular (Adobe, Skype, Google, Opera, etc..) Trolltech's modell is an excellent example of how you can make money on free software. QT - free for free software development, pay for it if you develop commercial software. Which means they have a good revenue stream to pay some of the best coders on earth to enhance QT, which in term, serves the community (being the basis of some of the best free software apps, like scribus for instance). Nice. (oh, and as a bonus, those who pay also get some of the best support services in the industry - check trolltech's customer satisfaction:))
They work like native apps (check the comments below the article), and as far as I know, they can use native widgets as well. Skype and Opera are also written in QT (the interface) - do they look like native enough on windows or MacOS X? I've seen the windows versions of these only, they look like... well, windows programs (so consistency is not a problem, they just blend in fine the rest of the application stack on windows;))
Now you seem to be even more confused - "Novell is distributing software developed by MS" - huh ?
Where did I say that? You put that in quotation marks as if it were a word by word citation, but I never said "Novell is distributing software developed by MS." OTOH, what I said might have been confusing: "In the case of SUN-MS, the deal covered software developed by SUN & MS. In the case of Novell-MS, the deal covers software developed be MS and distributed by Novell." What I meant here is that MS develops the software it distributes, while Novell merele distributes the work of others (with a few exceptions). That's what made the Samba team pissed in the first place. This is a major difference b/w the SUN-MS, and Novell-MS deal: while in the former, both companies were the developers of the software, in the latter, one company is the developer, the other is merely a distributor (NOT OF MS software, sorry for the confusion).
Sun, on the other hand, hasn't said that Java is clean - probably because they'd be lying if they did, as Java is known to violate third party patents.
Are you saying that someone is having patent claims over java - and the issue is still unresolved?
Now the deals:
I simply don't understand what you are rambling about here. Sorry. I'm ready to admit that this is entirely my fault, but I just can't see what is your point. Previously, it was that SUN made a similar deal with MS as Novell. I pointed out the differences numerous times. Is that still your point here? I can understand this question:
And finally, you still haven't responded on the issue of the other non-MS patents that Sun licences for Java - are those patent licences GPL-compatible (ie. freely redistributable to everyone) or not ?
What other non-MS patents are you referring to? Do you have specific examples? Sun has hundreds of patents covering java - are you implying that they must license patents from 3rd parties as well? Patents that are owned by SUN that cover java now are freely redistributable - that's what GPL-ing java meant.
In the case of SUN-MS, the deal covered software developed by SUN & MS. In the case of Novell-MS, the deal covers software developed be MS and distributed by Novell. But I guess you don't really want to have an answer to your question - you simply want to repeat the same statements over and over again, that SUN made the same deal like Novell with MS, even if that assumption is patently (excuse me) false.
Actually, you can bet that there is... any software with some complexity will have patent problems. That's why software patents suck.
But you are right, this is plain posturing and FUD.
What Microsoft has been spewing is pure FUD and Red Hat knows it.
True, but not because there can't be any parts of RH (I'm referring to the entire distro) covered by MS patents... It is FUD because MS won't actually sue anyone in the near future - or it is very unlikely. What they'll do will be what I stated: they will hint at potential IP problems with linux. Now I realize that both RH and Novell are corporations, but they are different in one respect: RH got where it is now by providing a good distribution with excellent support (in fact, customer satisfaction with RH is one of the highest in the market). Novell, tries to get where RH is by introducing a new tool: patents. The free software community doesn't like patents. And now, they don't like Novell either.
LibertineR, you forget that RH already offers complete protection from any patent litigation to its customers. Basically, they want to force Microsoft's hands. MS doesn't want to sue actually, with the EU decision hanging above their heads, and countless of patents others might have (OIN, SUN, even RH), especially in the server space.
The Novell-MS "protection" is simply worthless compared to what RH has to offer. On top of that, FSF is going to release glibc/gcc/etc. under GPL v3 - which will explicitly prohibit MS-Novell deals. Which means, that in probably less than a year, Novell will be in a legal poopoo, or will remain stuck with the latest glibc that was released under GPL v2 - in other words, it will be at a technological disadvantage compared to other distroes. Actually, it is Novell whose days are numbered, not RH (especially with SUN's GPLing java, and RH owning Jboss!)
As Novell becomes THE Linux for companies with a Linux-Windows infrastructure, Red Hat will look back on this day as when they lost warp field containment and got stuck in Redmond tractor beam in search of revenue.
Bet me.
If what Ebem Moglen promises is true, and GPL v3 will prevent such deals, than in a few years, Novell will be stuck with the latest glibc/gcc/etc. released under v2. I wouldn't put any bets on Novell surpassing RH in the next few years... in fact, I wouldn't bet on it's survival either. They hoped for a short term advantage by employing patents as a competitive tool, and all they got was animosity from the community at large, and legal poopoo once software owned by FSF gets released under GPL v3. Meanwhile, SUN gpl-ed JAVA, is friendly to GPL v3 - in fact, it is participating in its creation -, and RH is the proud owner of Jboss, offers indemnification to its clients from any patent litigation, has a customer satisfaction unparalleled in the open source world (well, maybe except Trolltech's), and owns ~80 of the market. Still wanna bet?
WHY!? Why on Earth would Microsoft feel the need to offer indemnification to someone's customers in the first place?
Wrong question - because it is not what they are doing, actually. Let me translate Microsoft's offer: there are patent problems with linux. That's what Microsoft's offer means, no more, no less. A subtle, distressing and unfair FUD machine. Your question is understandable, because they offer doesn't make sense at all, unless you examine not what it says, but the message it conveys. That message is clear: linux might be encumbered with patents belonging to MS.
It is such a pity that Novell has become a partner to this for perceived short term gains. No wonder that the free software community is up in arms (ranging from groklaw through Perens to the Samba team) - MS simply tries to single out commercial linux companies to support its own FUD propaganda. They offer these distributions a new tool to compete with: patents. So far, commercial linux distributions competed on two fronts: technical excellence and quality of support and services. Even Oracle. Novell, by accepting Microsoft's offer, introduced a new tool: patents. This is against the spirit - if not the letter - of the GPL, which tries to enforce a level playing field, and was successful until the Novell-MS deal it was successful. (That's the main gripe of the Samba team with Novell. Microsoft is fishing for others now.
Well, it'd be pretty disastrous for a company with a revenue stream derived primarily from software sales, but that hardly describes Sun.
Not necessarily... Trolltech was under proessure to release QT under the GPL. They did it... did it hurt their business? Not in the slightest... in fact, they became even more successful. Ninenine has an axe to grind with free software, that's all. His "GPL'ing a product has NEVER been successful for the company or person owning it" just shows how uninformed he is.
Remember, SUN makes money on hardware.
Novell and Microsoft do not.
Not quite. MS makes money on software, yes, but Novell makes money on support, not by selling software per se. A fairly large portion of SUN's money comes also from support.
There is no conflict here - under the terms of the GPL (especially section 7) the distributor of code (in this case, SUN) forfeits the right to sue for patent infringement. That is quite clear from the preamble as well. This doesn't mean that they can't go after someone who received java under different terms (they are dual-licencing, yes?).
In other words, as long as you distribute your java (derivative) code under the terms of the GPL, you are protected. This issue was discussed in detail on osnews. See the responses to Jody's question.
I see the differences, but isn't better desktop integration and support one of the goals of java 1.6? Plus there is Trolltech's announcment about QT java bindings... But you are basically right. OTOH, I think competition will heat up in the near future, with Mono steadily falling behind (not that it is terribly popular right now). That's my prediction - which is just that, a prediction.
Sigh... The comparison is artificial - yes, it seems similar, but the differences are huge. SUN's agreement with MS didn't impact the community in any way (as in dividing it to protected, non-commercial, non-Novell free software contributors and the "unprotected" rest - Ballmer's words). Also, the agreement suggests exactly the opposite of what you imply. In other words, they went to courts than reached an out of courts agreement. This agreement (which was a standoff, and it was Novell that sued MS!) means that Microsoft might still have patent issues with SUN's IP, and not the other way around (like in the case of Mono). Read Alan's blog (if it comes back online) about the details. For now:
But the game is not over yet. That's because Microsoft may not be holding the cards that some think it's holding. At least not all of them. One need only look back at Sun's 2004 stand-still agreement with Microsoft to realize that when it comes to.Net-like virtual machine environements, the real IP holder is probably Sun. I'm not a lawyer. But I'm willing to be that there's hardly anything - probably nothing - in.Net for which prior art doesn't exist in Sun's Java or something that came before it. In fact, looking across Sun's entire portfolio of IP as well as the larger world of older intellectual property, it's quite possible that some of the other software that's often packaged with Linux that could potentially be infringing on Microsoft's IP (i.e. OpenOffice, SAMBA, and Evolution) is actually doing nothing of the sort.
So, the two agreements are only similar if you take them out of contexts (like you did) - otherwise, there are huge differences on many levels (who is affected - the community level, the pretext to the agreement - litigation against microsoft in the EU and in the US, etc.) And the situation is this:
Mono: may or may not have technology that is covered by MS patents
Java: 100% has technology that is covered by SUN's patents (which is fine) - but very unlikely (I never say anything for 100% except gravity, but as unlikely as 99.99%) that MS has patents concerning it. Even if it has, SUN, distributor of java has enough patents covering MS stuff to effectively defend itself. Can you make the same claim of Mono? Mono currently only has a covenant (that is revocable) that only protects customers of Novell.
I just found this comment pointing to this blog that explains the situation much better. Qute:
Enter Sun's open source Java decision. Novell's Mono project -- essentially a Linux-based clone of Microsoft's.Net -- was apparently a major focus of the deal. For several years now, dating back to the days before Ximian was under Novell's wing, the open source sector has been wondering if Microsoft was going to drop a shoe on Ximian-founder Miguel de Icaza's brainchild (Mono)..Net has always been a bet-the-company gamble for Microsoft. Today, the company is taking heat on every single front and it can't afford a complete cave-in on one of its most important properties. There's no way it could let a.Net clone get away with murder. Sooner or later, this was going to come to a head. Well, now it has.
But the game is not over yet. That's because Microsoft may not be holding the cards that some think it's holding. At least not all of them. One need only look back at Sun's 2004 stand-still agreement with Microsoft to realize that when it comes to.Net-like virtual machine environements, the real IP holder is probably Sun. I'm not a lawyer. But I'm willing to be that there's hardly anything - probably nothing - in.Net for which prior art doesn't exist in Sun's Java or something that came before it. In fact, looking across Sun's entire portfolio of IP as well as the larger world of older intellectual property, it's quite possible that some of the other software that's often packaged with Linux that could potentially be infringing on Microsoft's IP (i.e. OpenOffice, SAMBA, and Evolution) is actually doing nothing of the sort.
That answers your questions better than I could - but I recommend reading the entire blog post, it is rather interesting.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. There are no patent problems with java, simply because SUN chose to license it under the GPL. Java is copyrighted by SUN, and it has a large IP portfolio over java technologies (lots of patents). As soon as they switched over to GPL, they immediately granted free use of these patents to every programmer who builds on java and distributes his code under the GPL. With SUN's choice, there are no longer any patent issues with java. Now contrast this with the deal Novell stuck with Microsoft, that guarantees a 5 year revocable (!) protective covenant for novell customers (and novell customers alone, according to SteveB himself) alone. The difference is HUGE! Of course, the details of the deal are not known - there may or may not be MS IP in Mono. Saying that there are is simply FUD, but than, Microsoft and Novell agreed not to sue each other's customers for patent infringement... which reinforces the perception that there might be patents. And which is the most likely candidate from the software stack distributed by Novell? The Linux kernel? KDE? Apart from perhaps Samba, Mono is the most likely candidate for patent infringement... I think that is why Perens warns against it. But still, I must emphasize, that this is just my speculation. Don't take it too seriously (my original post was sarcastic, but./ removed the evil-comment tags). One thing is certain: since SUN decided to distribute java under the GPL, as far as patents goes, it become safe. This cannot be said of Mono, even though you cannot claim the opposite either with absolute certainty... You see what meant now?
Hah, I'm also into conspiracies:) But seriously, this is very good timing - The Novell-MS deal, which is in large part about the "protection" of Mono, and an effort to position it as the cross-platform effort of Microsoft. HAHA - that's the laughter you hear from Red Hat's headquarters right now, with their Jboss purchase and all. Their response to the MS-Novell deal was not simply hot-air it seems... they might have known this was coming. Question is: for how long? Did they know this when they bought Jboss?
Time to invest in some RH shares while they are down?
Perhaps some Microsoft patents? But that is of course, speculation - without having all the facts of the Novell-MS deal at hand, I don't want to imply anything... except that whenever mono comes up, there is always talk of patents. These might be legit concerns, or not... I don't really know. But the fact that this always comes up might be considered bad enough by some (that's why I linked Perens's post). Not to mention this recent deal between the two companies, that gave legitimacy to MS's patent claims. Mono stands out in this respect from the application stack Novell distributes... if there is any single piece of software that may have patent concerns, it must be Mono (really, what else? eDirectory?, linux? perhaps Samba..)
Oh, and I put my comment in evil-comment tags, but./ erased that... so don't take it too seriously...
Well, thanks for the correction. I always have problems with these (and english is not my native language). I knew it wasn't an acronym, but I didn't know if I should write Java or java, so I capitalized it all:) I always forget how you write names of languages in general:)
Slashdot Mirror
Behind NAT, you're safe from portscans and probes, but you are not safe from attack vectors targeting unpatched IE, Outlook, etc. You _will_ be haxOred if you just install a bare windows XP, and start browsing the net (if by any chance you visit a warez site, it's 100% that you'll be infected without without you even noticing it), using Outlook, etc.
Slipstreaming is essentially remastering Vista (and XP-s) ISOs to include the latest patches/service packs, i.e. in case of XP, this allows you to have a windows install that won't get you rooted in 5 minutes after you go online (with SP2). You can also include drivers or basically anything you have installed. In other words, you can install win XP, firefox, ffmpeg codecs, a viruscanner, openoffice, etc., and then you can make a custom ISO that would install windows XP and all that software in one go! This is good if you maintain a number of PCs in a comp. lab.
This feature makes life of sysadmins a lot easier, and I'm glad MS didn't take this away - I wouldn't be surprised if the control freaks did. To turn this into a "Vista designed to make malware easy headline" is simply trolling, and article should be tagged troll accordingly. Especially since almost all operating systems have this ability (to remaster the ISOs to include updates/security fixes and 3rd party programs. Basically this is what linux distributions are about).
Actually, if Microsoft will sue someone, it will be Novell. This is absolutely insane (on the part of Novell) - they could have just asked SFLC's stance on their contract before going public with it, and E.Moglen would have told them how this would play out. Microsoft knew this very well, they must have a whole coterie of layers looking and developments concerning the GPL and GPL v3 - that is why contract is about not suing customers for a few years, and not about not suing Novell for a few years.
Why would MS sue Novell? Because soon, FSF will change the license of the toolchain to GPL v3, which can mean this:
How devious is that? ;) If novell cooperates with this plan, will Microsoft withdraw from the deal peacefully? If I understand correctly, the covenant is revocable, isn't it? They still can go after Novell on the basis that they violated the contract while it was in effect, by distributing MS IP infringing code to the large public (ie. not only their customers), and even though Novell's CEO now claims otherwise, this deal does suggest that MS patents cover some of the code Novell distributes. This is going to be nasty - I just wonder what Novell will do... They seem to coopoerate with SFLC now (unfettered access to Novell's top management, that's what E.Moglen said)... this is getting exciting :))
Scribus would be one for instance, which absolutely lacks any equivalent in the free software world, and it's a good desktop publishing app on its own. Tellico is another one - and the most envied one by my windows using friends. Amarok - not a unique app, but still can find anything that comes close on any platform. And these are individual apps - I didn't even mention KDE or Koffice. I think wxWidgets and QT are simply not in the same league - I don't have anything against wx, but it is not directly comparable to what QT has to offer. Grandparent's post was simply silly, uninformed and redundant (as far as the gpl vs lgpl license meme goes whenever QT comes up). My reply wasn't any better, because this QT vs. wxWidgets is silly (and I contributed to that part). It's like sasying kde is better then fluxbox... apples and melons. Yeah.
Basically, if everyone adopted trolltech's model, that would mean that all software is BSD licensed (just think about it why!) - with a twist: the community producing the software will get money from customer's whose work don't benefit the community at large. Microsoft wouldn't be able to go and steal the code (as in a purely BSD licensed world) - but it could use it... for a price. That money can than invested in the development of the software sold by paying free software developers... And that is how basically it works today if you think about it... A fairly large portion of the free software pool is developed by programmers who are actually payed for their work (or their employer lets them hack on free software in their work-hours). This is oversimplification - I really suggest that you think this through.
Otherwise, I agree with Jeremy's reply
Still don't see your point - the price is determined by the market. If they can sell it for that much, and at the same time, they can be vastly more popular than wxWidgets (they have LOTS of customers, even though they provide a fully GPL version), that means that the pricing is just right, not ridiculous ;)) QT is simply so good, that people are willing to pay that much for it (and the support you get, which I heard is excellent).
Informative? Well, this comment could have been a lot shorter: qt suxxz, wxwidgets rulez :))
Oh, and tell me, where are the wxWidgets killer apps?
QT - Adobe, Opera, Skype, Google uses QT, not to mention free software apps (KDE and its rather huge application stack), amarok, Scribus, Koffice, etc. Yeah, good luck convincing those folks developing these apps that they made a bad choice :)))
Why? It seems pretty popular (Adobe, Skype, Google, Opera, etc..) Trolltech's modell is an excellent example of how you can make money on free software. QT - free for free software development, pay for it if you develop commercial software. Which means they have a good revenue stream to pay some of the best coders on earth to enhance QT, which in term, serves the community (being the basis of some of the best free software apps, like scribus for instance). Nice. (oh, and as a bonus, those who pay also get some of the best support services in the industry - check trolltech's customer satisfaction :))
They work like native apps (check the comments below the article), and as far as I know, they can use native widgets as well. Skype and Opera are also written in QT (the interface) - do they look like native enough on windows or MacOS X? I've seen the windows versions of these only, they look like... well, windows programs (so consistency is not a problem, they just blend in fine the rest of the application stack on windows ;))
Where did I say that? You put that in quotation marks as if it were a word by word citation, but I never said "Novell is distributing software developed by MS." OTOH, what I said might have been confusing: "In the case of SUN-MS, the deal covered software developed by SUN & MS. In the case of Novell-MS, the deal covers software developed be MS and distributed by Novell." What I meant here is that MS develops the software it distributes, while Novell merele distributes the work of others (with a few exceptions). That's what made the Samba team pissed in the first place. This is a major difference b/w the SUN-MS, and Novell-MS deal: while in the former, both companies were the developers of the software, in the latter, one company is the developer, the other is merely a distributor (NOT OF MS software, sorry for the confusion).
Sun, on the other hand, hasn't said that Java is clean - probably because they'd be lying if they did, as Java is known to violate third party patents.
Are you saying that someone is having patent claims over java - and the issue is still unresolved?
Now the deals:
I simply don't understand what you are rambling about here. Sorry. I'm ready to admit that this is entirely my fault, but I just can't see what is your point. Previously, it was that SUN made a similar deal with MS as Novell. I pointed out the differences numerous times. Is that still your point here? I can understand this question:
And finally, you still haven't responded on the issue of the other non-MS patents that Sun licences for Java - are those patent licences GPL-compatible (ie. freely redistributable to everyone) or not ?
What other non-MS patents are you referring to? Do you have specific examples? Sun has hundreds of patents covering java - are you implying that they must license patents from 3rd parties as well? Patents that are owned by SUN that cover java now are freely redistributable - that's what GPL-ing java meant.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=206274&cid=168 23028
In the case of SUN-MS, the deal covered software developed by SUN & MS. In the case of Novell-MS, the deal covers software developed be MS and distributed by Novell. But I guess you don't really want to have an answer to your question - you simply want to repeat the same statements over and over again, that SUN made the same deal like Novell with MS, even if that assumption is patently (excuse me) false.
Actually, you can bet that there is ... any software with some complexity will have patent problems. That's why software patents suck.
But you are right, this is plain posturing and FUD.
What Microsoft has been spewing is pure FUD and Red Hat knows it.
True, but not because there can't be any parts of RH (I'm referring to the entire distro) covered by MS patents... It is FUD because MS won't actually sue anyone in the near future - or it is very unlikely. What they'll do will be what I stated: they will hint at potential IP problems with linux. Now I realize that both RH and Novell are corporations, but they are different in one respect: RH got where it is now by providing a good distribution with excellent support (in fact, customer satisfaction with RH is one of the highest in the market). Novell, tries to get where RH is by introducing a new tool: patents. The free software community doesn't like patents. And now, they don't like Novell either.
The Novell-MS "protection" is simply worthless compared to what RH has to offer. On top of that, FSF is going to release glibc/gcc/etc. under GPL v3 - which will explicitly prohibit MS-Novell deals. Which means, that in probably less than a year, Novell will be in a legal poopoo, or will remain stuck with the latest glibc that was released under GPL v2 - in other words, it will be at a technological disadvantage compared to other distroes. Actually, it is Novell whose days are numbered, not RH (especially with SUN's GPLing java, and RH owning Jboss!)
If what Ebem Moglen promises is true, and GPL v3 will prevent such deals, than in a few years, Novell will be stuck with the latest glibc/gcc/etc. released under v2. I wouldn't put any bets on Novell surpassing RH in the next few years... in fact, I wouldn't bet on it's survival either. They hoped for a short term advantage by employing patents as a competitive tool, and all they got was animosity from the community at large, and legal poopoo once software owned by FSF gets released under GPL v3. Meanwhile, SUN gpl-ed JAVA, is friendly to GPL v3 - in fact, it is participating in its creation -, and RH is the proud owner of Jboss, offers indemnification to its clients from any patent litigation, has a customer satisfaction unparalleled in the open source world (well, maybe except Trolltech's), and owns ~80 of the market. Still wanna bet?
Wrong question - because it is not what they are doing, actually. Let me translate Microsoft's offer: there are patent problems with linux. That's what Microsoft's offer means, no more, no less. A subtle, distressing and unfair FUD machine. Your question is understandable, because they offer doesn't make sense at all, unless you examine not what it says, but the message it conveys. That message is clear: linux might be encumbered with patents belonging to MS.
It is such a pity that Novell has become a partner to this for perceived short term gains. No wonder that the free software community is up in arms (ranging from groklaw through Perens to the Samba team) - MS simply tries to single out commercial linux companies to support its own FUD propaganda. They offer these distributions a new tool to compete with: patents. So far, commercial linux distributions competed on two fronts: technical excellence and quality of support and services. Even Oracle. Novell, by accepting Microsoft's offer, introduced a new tool: patents. This is against the spirit - if not the letter - of the GPL, which tries to enforce a level playing field, and was successful until the Novell-MS deal it was successful. (That's the main gripe of the Samba team with Novell. Microsoft is fishing for others now.
Not necessarily... Trolltech was under proessure to release QT under the GPL. They did it ... did it hurt their business? Not in the slightest... in fact, they became even more successful. Ninenine has an axe to grind with free software, that's all. His "GPL'ing a product has NEVER been successful for the company or person owning it" just shows how uninformed he is.
Remember, SUN makes money on hardware. Novell and Microsoft do not. Not quite. MS makes money on software, yes, but Novell makes money on support, not by selling software per se. A fairly large portion of SUN's money comes also from support.
In other words, as long as you distribute your java (derivative) code under the terms of the GPL, you are protected. This issue was discussed in detail on osnews. See the responses to Jody's question.
I see the differences, but isn't better desktop integration and support one of the goals of java 1.6? Plus there is Trolltech's announcment about QT java bindings... But you are basically right. OTOH, I think competition will heat up in the near future, with Mono steadily falling behind (not that it is terribly popular right now). That's my prediction - which is just that, a prediction.
So, the two agreements are only similar if you take them out of contexts (like you did) - otherwise, there are huge differences on many levels (who is affected - the community level, the pretext to the agreement - litigation against microsoft in the EU and in the US, etc.) And the situation is this:
- Mono: may or may not have technology that is covered by MS patents
- Java: 100% has technology that is covered by SUN's patents (which is fine) - but very unlikely (I never say anything for 100% except gravity, but as unlikely as 99.99%) that MS has patents concerning it. Even if it has, SUN, distributor of java has enough patents covering MS stuff to effectively defend itself. Can you make the same claim of Mono? Mono currently only has a covenant (that is revocable) that only protects customers of Novell.
I hope this clarifies my position.That answers your questions better than I could - but I recommend reading the entire blog post, it is rather interesting.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. There are no patent problems with java, simply because SUN chose to license it under the GPL. Java is copyrighted by SUN, and it has a large IP portfolio over java technologies (lots of patents). As soon as they switched over to GPL, they immediately granted free use of these patents to every programmer who builds on java and distributes his code under the GPL. With SUN's choice, there are no longer any patent issues with java. Now contrast this with the deal Novell stuck with Microsoft, that guarantees a 5 year revocable (!) protective covenant for novell customers (and novell customers alone, according to SteveB himself) alone. The difference is HUGE! Of course, the details of the deal are not known - there may or may not be MS IP in Mono. Saying that there are is simply FUD, but than, Microsoft and Novell agreed not to sue each other's customers for patent infringement... which reinforces the perception that there might be patents. And which is the most likely candidate from the software stack distributed by Novell? The Linux kernel? KDE? Apart from perhaps Samba, Mono is the most likely candidate for patent infringement ... I think that is why Perens warns against it. But still, I must emphasize, that this is just my speculation. Don't take it too seriously (my original post was sarcastic, but ./ removed the evil-comment tags). One thing is certain: since SUN decided to distribute java under the GPL, as far as patents goes, it become safe. This cannot be said of Mono, even though you cannot claim the opposite either with absolute certainty... You see what meant now?
Time to invest in some RH shares while they are down?
Oh, and I put my comment in evil-comment tags, but ./ erased that ... so don't take it too seriously...
Well, thanks for the correction. I always have problems with these (and english is not my native language). I knew it wasn't an acronym, but I didn't know if I should write Java or java, so I capitalized it all :) I always forget how you write names of languages in general :)