Slashdot Log In
Eben Moglen To Scrutinize Novell-Microsoft Deal
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Nov 09, 2006 07:44 PM
from the hard-looks dept.
from the hard-looks dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Novell is providing Eben Moglen's Software Freedom Law Center with confidential access to the legal terms of the Novell-Microsoft partnership, allowing to organization to verify if the deal is compatible with the GPL2 and GPL3 licenses. Moglen in the past has alleged that the patent license between the two companies could be in violation with section 7 of the GPL. Novell on Tuesday published a document on its website, explaining that they circumvented the GPL provisions by providing a patent license to the end user rather than between the two companies."
Related Stories
[+]
Microsoft To Announce Linux Partnership 534 comments
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Microsoft is entering into an unusual partnership with Novell that gives a boost to Linux, people familiar with the companies tell WSJ.com. From the article: 'Under the pact, which isn't final, Microsoft will offer sales support of Suse Linux, a version of the operating system sold by Novell. The two companies have also agreed to develop technologies to make it easier for users to run both Suse Linux and Microsoft's Windows on their computers. The two companies are expected to announce details of their plan today at a press conference in San Francisco. In addition, Microsoft won't assert rights over patents over software technology that may be incorporated into Suse Linux, the people said. Businesses that use Linux have long worried that Microsoft would one day file patent infringement suits against sellers of the rival software.'"
[+]
Red Hat Rejects Microsoft Patent Deal Overtures 201 comments
Geekgal writes "Red Hat has slammed the door shut on any possibility of entering into a patent protection deal similar to the one Microsoft recently announced with Novell, eWeek is reporting. While Microsoft has repeatedly said it wants to work with Red Hat and would like to structure a relationship where its customers can be assured of the same thing as Novell's customers now are, Mark Webbink, Red Hat's deputy general counsel, says 'we do not believe there is a need for or basis for the type of relationship defined in the Microsoft-Novell announcement.' Interestingly enough, Microsoft also says that it has not ruled out going it alone and providing some sort of indemnification for its customers who also use Red Hat Linux." Meanwhile, Eben Moglen, the FSF general counsel, promises that GPLv3 will explicitly outlaw deals like this. (Of course everyone's on v2, so calling the Novell deal "DOA" would be premature.)
[+]
Ballmer Says Linux "Infringes Our Intellectual Property" 820 comments
Stony Stevenson writes "In comments confirming the open-source community's suspicions, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer Thursday declared his belief that the Linux operating system infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property." From the ComputerWorld article: "In a question-and-answer session after his keynote speech at the Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) conference in Seattle, Ballmer said Microsoft was motivated to sign a deal with SUSE Linux distributor Novell earlier this month because Linux 'uses our intellectual property' and Microsoft wanted to 'get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation.'" His exact wording is available at the Seattle Intelligencer, which has a transcript of the interview. Groklaw had an article up Wednesday giving some perspective on the Novell/Microsoft deal. Guess we'll have something to talk about in 2007, huh?
[+]
Red Hat CEO on Microsoft-Novell Deal 42 comments
VE3OGG writes "The Seattle PI is running an interesting blurb from the Red Hat CEO on the current Novell-Microsoft deal that has been so lately lamented. According to Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik, the deal is 'old news.' 'Those were existing accounts and there is at least one of them that I can speak definitely that is also a Red Hat account,' Szulik said. 'So those were older engagements and we were not involved in competitive situations with those two or three years ago when they became Novell accounts.' The common client that Szulik speaks of would likely be Credit Suisse. The story also makes mention that while Deutsche Bank's chief technology officer, Clemens Jochum, praised the deal, the firm has been an early investor in SUSE from the beginning."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
So if the deal violates GPL... (Score:5, Interesting)
So if it's in violation, THEN WHAT? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
So they're claiming that since the patent license is for their end users, and not for the company, it's alright that they're distributing patented software under the GPL, because their users can still use it
They forgot one: (Score:5, Funny)
Novel has always been willing to sell the open source community and its works to anyone who is willing to pay us. We do not see Microsoft's evil undead army of lawyers any differently than we do our own customers. If you all end up in the galley of a ship pulling oars we wouldn't be suprised, but hey, you're the dickheads who keep assigning copyright to our corporate entity and that's what makes it all possible. Fuck you very much.
Battle lines (Score:5, Interesting)
Couldn't we have taken a little more time to work on these new licenses before forcing the issue to come out into the open? If Moglen decides that this is a violation of the GPL, the rules of the game will have changed for good, and it will probably only be a matter of time from there for GPL3 to gain credibility and critical mass for better or for worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Go Eben (Score:2)
Microsoft gives permission to distribute under GPL (Score:4, Interesting)
Ahhhhh (Score:2, Interesting)
So Microsoft aren't distributing but are offering a pate
Here We Go Again (Score:2)
2. The term "Free" (as in Freedom) software is further confused to the average PHB.
3. Microsoft sucks up the revenue desperately needed to grow Linux.
4. Totally free software is further equated with the price you pay. Nothing.
In europe? Shoot charlie mcgreevy, quick. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bomb Microsoft Ireland. Bomb the EPO.
Microsoft has been saying for years that developers can't earn money writing free software - well, I can, have done for years. But with their patent machinations, they're trying to make what they've said a reality, trying to make free software the domain of hobbyists only.
I think we can now all agree (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OT: 9 hours and counting (Score:2)
Boycott in 3...2....1 (Score:4, Insightful)
GPL Section 7 (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Novell as the distributor must provide the license to the recipients. Novell has no license to distribute the patents from Microsoft. Obviously this means they can not grant such a license to those they distribute the code to.
I don't see how they could possibly claim to comply.
customer problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
First I'd like to ask of the SuSE customers who frequent slashdot, were you having problems with "Linux/Windows interoperability in areas like virtualization, heterogeneous server management, and office document compatibility" which you brought to Novell's attention?
And second, exactly what were your potential concerns about any "barrier to enterprise-wide Linux adoption" that were allayed by Novell's agreement with Microsoft?
It seems that we have seen article after article and report after report that shows significant progess by the open source community in providing everything that Novell claims this agreement addresses so I'm a bit skeptical of this answer and would like to know what SuSE customers think.
Re:Reading between the lines. (Score:2)
Symantec? Also Apple did pretty well with the bailout from MS (which many people compare this to)
But, as you said; instead of stating that they want to be 'good citizens' of the open source community they've explicity said that because of the GPL they won't issue a statement saying they won't sue other distributions; and Ballmer himself has made very threatening statements regarding the choice of distributions other than Suse.
Gotta love lawyer double talk. (Score:4, Interesting)
1. doesn't violate any Microsoft patents; or
2. does violate some Microsoft patents.
If it's the first then, great, no problems, this whole deal between Microsoft and Novell (as far as the patents go) is just FUD. But, if it is the second, oh boy, things get bad then. First of all, if Microsoft decides to enforce their patents, no-one has the right to distribute this software. That means we all have to pull together and remove any patented stuff from the software, or bust the patents. But Novell thinks they have a wild card.. this deal they've signed. They think that because Microsoft will be giving Novell's customers a license to use the patents they will be able to keep distributing the software, if Microsoft allows them to. What Eben Moglen is likely to say, however, is that Novell is wrong. If Microsoft has patents that cover GPL licensed software that Novell wants to continue distributing, Novell must secure a license for anyone who receives the software from Novell not only to use the software, but also to redistribute the software. If they don't, they are in violation of the GPL and can therefore not distribute the software. Sure, no-one else will be able to distribute the software either but Novell is not in some privledged position, which they think they are.
then what? (Score:3, Interesting)
There has been a lot of folks in here commenting and asking the question about "If he finds it in violation, then what?", how about the converse question? What if Eben finds that it is not in violation?
Novell has copped an awful lot of crap over all of this. SJVN has also written an interesting perspective pointing out that Novelle is not SCO and a lot of the angst that is being directed asgainst them is quite possibly unwarranted.
You know somewhow, I can't see everyone who has bagged Novell over it coming out and saying "oops I was wrong".
So, what if Eben finds that it is compatible with GPL?
Tp
RIP Novell (Score:2)
unless you find a way to break these 'agreements'
with Microsoft.
Good luck.
re: GPL Section 7 Rebuttle (Score:5, Insightful)
Groklaw questions Novell deal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, there is a far more important question before us: Did Novell act in a way that is beneficial to the community at large or harmful. If it was harmful, then it is safe to say they did not behave in a way compatible with the spirit of the GPL and I personally find unforgivable for company that claims to be FOR us.
Re:Microsoft gives permission to distribute under (Score:2)
Re:Gotta love lawyer double talk. (Score:2)
But they get the code, right? (Score:2)
Whatever there agreement is, I assume the end user gets the code used in the product in GPL license form right?
Bingo! (Score:2)
To paraphrase you: Microsoft threatens to sue Novell. Novell, in return for not being sued, agrees to buy patent licenses NOT for themselves but for each individual customer of theirs.
Devious, devious, DEVIOUS.
Re:Gotta love lawyer double talk. (Score:3, Informative)
No, I did not say that, and that is not true. You only have to cease distributing if you're worried Microsoft is going to sue you. Even if you do stop distributing that doesn't mean Microsoft can't sue you for what you distributed in the past.
However, Microsoft may be able to get an injunction during the patent litigation to stop all non-Novell users from *running* Linux.
Yeah, and how are they going to get that? Judges don't have the power to make laws ya know. You can't get an injuction against people you havn't even sued and you can't sue "all non-Novell users". Can you please think before you say shit like that?
Now, what are the odds a judge would grant Microsoft an injunction that brought the economy to a grinding halt? Nill, I'm guessing.
How did your mind even learn human speech?
No violation here... (Score:2, Informative)
Apart from narrowing down the offered 'protection' to almost nobody, Microsoft
have given themselves the option of changing the terms at any time, which is
surely no different from having the option to sue at any time. An option they
already had.
The agreement is 100% FUD, "All hat and no cattle" -- it doesn't
violate section 7 of the GPL because, as near as I can tell it doesn't actually,
irrevocably grant anybody any rights or protection at all.
Promise not to sue (Score:3, Funny)
However IF there is a violation they promise not to sue certain people for using it.
I now think it's likely a valid loophole.
anyone looked in the nosrc directories on the mirr (Score:3, Interesting)
doesn't this violate section 7 on its face?
What is a ``license''? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the whole idea of the dodge is that Microsoft and Novell have swapped some money and--in exchange--worked out an agreement whereby they won't be suing each other and their customers for violating patents the one or the other may hold.
Would anybody care to explain how that isn't just a re-wording of the textbook definition of a license?
I mean, if you explained to the judge that all you did was hold a sharpened piece of iron alloy near the upper portion of my thorax while indicating that you desired to take possession of my wallet...well, what kind of a blithering idiot of a judge wouldn't find you guilty of mugging me?
Cheers,
b&
This S--t is Getting Ridiculous (Score:3, Interesting)
Novell does get an advantage (and legally) (Score:2, Informative)
You are right here that Novell cannot distribute the patent-infringed software either—Novell wrote that clearly on the online statement (are you anti-Novell gu
Novell buys freedom for GPLed software (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank you Microsoft! (Score:2)
Re:Battle lines (Score:2)
If Moglen decides that this is a violation of the GPL, the rules of the game will have changed for good,
Only if a court agrees with him. Which I, like many others, would hope for.
PJ said it best: [groklaw.net]
What about customers who re-distribute? (Score:2)
So it's not Novell who might break section 7, it's their customers.
Unfortunate accident. (Score:2)
"So, I know you drink water. There are a lot of sources of water in the world. But this water right here, it's special. See, you get ANY other kind of water... well, I make no promises, but accidents happen you know? Think of your family. Maybe you buy THIS water instead, no accidents, yes?"
SCO is Out, Novell is In (Score:2)
Novell is fully complient currently (Score:2)
Microsoft has promised Novell not to sue them or their customers, but there is no specific patent licenses and no mention of specific patents. Thus, they have just created a Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt situation towars other Linuxdistributors, basically getting potential customers to think "if they are doing this, there must be patents" and thus helping Novell get customers, since they are "immune".
In reality, Novell would probabl
Novell loses (Score:2)
Re:customer problems? (Score:2)
By having this agreement they can make a promise their customers they could not make before. Corporations want this promise. Home users don't.
it still doesn't matter (Score:3, Informative)
In any case, it's good to see that GPLv3 will just make such deals completely impossible.
Newsflash: MS paid to Novell... (Score:3, Informative)
BSD Zealots speak up!! (Score:2)
Impact of GPL on non-SUSE distributions? (Score:2)
I use a Fedora, but she's an avid fan of Gentoo. So the question was, when GPLv3 is released will she need to reemerge all of her Gentoo packages? If so, is there going to be a USE flag "GPLv3" or something so you can make sure the packages are compiled with GPLv3 installed... maybe you can just link them to it like you would with a library. I checked Gentoo's web forum (I w
Why so vauge? (Score:2)
Is this just msft's way of saying: "use redhat and you might be looking at a lawsuit" ??
RedHat is the company that msft hopes to kill, make no mistake about that. When Sun or msft say "Linux" they mean Redhat.