Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Red Hat Rejects Microsoft Patent Deal Overtures

Posted by jamie on Thu Nov 16, 2006 09:30 AM
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.)
+ -
story

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.'"
[+] Is the Microsoft/Novell Deal a Litigation Bomb? 342 comments
mpapet writes "According to WINE developer Tom Wickline, the Microsoft/Novell deal for Suse support may one day control commercial customers' use of Free Software. Is this the end of commercial OSS developers who are not a part of the Microsoft/Suse pact?" From the article: "Wickline said that the pact means that there will now be a Microsoft-blessed path for such people to make use of Open Source ... 'A logical next move for Microsoft could be to crack down on 'unlicensed Linux' and 'unlicensed Free Software,' now that it can tell the courts that there is a Microsoft-licensed path. Or they can just passively let that threat stay there as a deterrent to anyone who would use Open Source without going through the Microsoft-approved Novell path,' Wickline said." Bruce Perens dropped a line to point out that most of the content actually comes from his post.
[+] Dvorak On Microsoft/Novell Deal 218 comments
zaxios writes, "John C. Dvorak has weighed in on the recent Novell-Microsoft pact. Among his insights: 'Microsoft has been leery of doing too much with Linux because of all the weirdness with the licenses and the possibility that one false move would make a Microsoft product public domain at worst, or subject to the GPL at best.' But now, 'the idea is to create some sort of code that is jammed into Linux and whose sole purpose is to let some proprietary code run under Linux without actually "touching" Linux in any way that would subject the proprietary code to the GPL.' According to Dvorak, it's only a matter of time before Linux is 'cracked' by Microsoft, meaning Microsoft figures out a way to run proprietary code on it."
[+] Eben Moglen To Scrutinize Novell-Microsoft Deal 102 comments
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."
[+] Microsoft Interested In More Linux Deals 256 comments
eldavojohn writes "Microsoft has announced that it would be open to more deals similar to the one it just made with Novell. 'We will love to put that kind of agreement in place with anyone who distributes Linux software, Red Hat, whoever else,' Steve Ballmer told India's Economic Times. Considering the recent reactions to the Microsoft Novell deal, it would be interesting to see who else takes them up on the offer. Novell is due to receive USD $348 million in up-front payments. Will Red Hat cash out on this offer if it feels the impending pressure from Oracle's Linux? Will non-profit Linux distributions attempt to make deals with Microsoft?"
[+] Samba Team Urges Novell To Reconsider 472 comments
hde226868 writes "The team responsible for Samba has just asked Novell to reconsider its recent patent agreement with Microsoft, arguing that the agreement is a divisive agreement, effectively splitting the open source movement into groups with and without commercial status. Samba argues that with this move Novell is disregarding the will of the people who write the software sold by Novell and that Novell has 'no right to make self servicing deals on behalf of others which run contrary to the goals and ideals of the Free Software community'."
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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • If I wasn't running Kubuntu they would get my business.
  • WHY!? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aussie_a (778472) on Thursday November 16 2006, @09:35AM (#16869064) Journal
    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.

    WHY!? Why on Earth would Microsoft feel the need to offer indemnification to someone's customers in the first place? Why not just, y'know, not sue them without making some big announcement? How is it possible that we've entered a time when a software company saying "We've decided NOT to sue someone" will actually create positive PR?
    • Re:WHY!? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Thursday November 16 2006, @09:42AM (#16869154)
      Because Microsoft wants to turn Linux into a platform for its products -- a last ditch effort to try and marginalize FOSS. First, they sign a deal with a few prominent Linux vendors, claiming that they will indemnify only those particular distros. Then, having given all the big enterprise Linux users a reason to switch over to those distros, Microsoft starts publishing software for those distros specifically, keeping it all closed of course. Finally, after a few years, Linux has become a platform for proprietary products...and is no longer a threat to Microsoft. By ensuring that only major Linux vendors are in on it, Microsoft helps sideline other FOSS projects, killing the culture of openness and freedom and limiting choice. Notice that no overtures have been made for non-commercial distros or distros that are popular among home users: Microsoft is not threatened by them. It's about the server market, and about Microsoft's continuing inability to maintain more than a 30% market share.
      • And the worst part?

        There aint a damn thing anyone can do about it. Money talks.

        • There aint a [got] damn thing anyone can do about it.

          Get these mother f'in .nets off this mother f'in linux?

      • Re:WHY!? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ookaze (227977) <ookaze@mail . o o k a z e.fr> on Thursday November 16 2006, @10:17AM (#16869642) Homepage
        Then, having given all the big enterprise Linux users a reason to switch over to those distros, Microsoft starts publishing software for those distros specifically, keeping it all closed of course

        Where is the problem exactly ?
        Especially since you can install these binaries in any Linux distros, just by creating a custom package. Just like some distros did for firefox binaries.
        This doesn't make the OS closed at all.

        Finally, after a few years, Linux has become a platform for proprietary products...and is no longer a threat to Microsoft

        Why is it not a threat anymore ? It runs lots of proprietary products and all the FOSS products, and yet, you magically believe that it would no longer be a threat ?
        It would be a far greater threat on the contrary : that's exactly what some company deny us now, and what people are asking for.

        By ensuring that only major Linux vendors are in on it, Microsoft helps sideline other FOSS projects, killing the culture of openness and freedom and limiting choice

        Which is BS. I fail to see how what you say ensure anything.
        Oracle was available on RH only, it didn't sideline any FOSS database project at all, Oracle even had to buy some afterwards !!
        It didn't kill culture of openness and freedom either. That's complete wishful thinking on your part, that goes contrary to factual evidence.

        Notice that no overtures have been made for non-commercial distros or distros that are popular among home users: Microsoft is not threatened by them. It's about the server market, and about Microsoft's continuing inability to maintain more than a 30% market share

        But MS has no valuable patent on the server side where it matters for Linux OS. So what you're saying seems like nonsense to me.
        • Re:WHY!? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ewhac (5844) on Thursday November 16 2006, @12:13PM (#16871446) Homepage Journal
          Where is the problem exactly ?
          Especially since you can install these binaries in any Linux distros, just by creating a custom package. Just like some distros did for firefox binaries. This doesn't make the OS closed at all.

          Try installing ClearCase [ibm.com] on anything other than RedHat or SUSE. Things may have improved in the last few months, but SUSE only received official support just over a year ago. Prior to that, it was RedHat only. If you were/are a Debian user, you were essentially SOL.

          Linux distros can, in fact, be marginalized by precisely the kind of half-baked support Microsoft plans.

          Schwab

            • Re:WHY!? (Score:5, Informative)

              by ewhac (5844) on Thursday November 16 2006, @01:44PM (#16872954) Homepage Journal
              I'll use small words.

              ClearCase is proprietary; source code is not available. That means any quirks in ClearCase that depend on a particular distribution can't be fixed at the source level, and you have to rely on the vendor for support. This support is often perfunctory at best, and most commonly non-existent.

              The most obvious quirk is the location of various config and library files. Sometimes, even the app's installation directory is different (/opt versus /usr/local versus administrator-established).

              A less-obvious quirk is kernel dependencies. ClearCase ships with a kernel filesystem module (no source code). Again, things may have improved in recent months, but it used to be all you got was a binary module which was compiled against a specific kernel -- namely, a "standard" RedHat kernel with RedHat-specific mods. If you had recompiled the RedHat kernel, or you weren't running a RedHat kernel at all, then you were SOL, and couldn't use the kernel module (which, in the instance of ClearCase, is fairly crippling to its use).

              This is exactly the kind of nonsense Microsoft thrives on.

              Schwab

        • Microsoft doesn't want to release proprietary software for anybody's Linux distro.

          What they want is to make Linux non-free. They want to scare IT managers into only using commercial distros that don't cost much less than Windows. You see, they know that their whole TCO argument is bogus. Windows is probably not cheaper TCO-wise in many situations today, and in the future, the argument will become less and less valid, not more so.

          But if they can make sure that businesses (think they) have to buy Linux to
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        I think it's more of Microsoft looking for another player to embrace. In about 6 months it will be time for the last stage of this disease. But unlike you I don't believe that Linux will ever be a platform for proprietary products. The RTFM culture with proprietary make it easy software? HA!

        What Linux has and Microsoft is drooling over is developers, developers, devel... Who else would waste their time learning Linux? It's a case of the eagle hunting the fly. I actually think that Microsoft will pull a fast
      • Because Microsoft wants to turn Linux into a platform for its products

        Between multi-core CPU chips and virtualization, Windows is looking like a big loser in the enterprise. Why not shrink the server "farm" to a "garden", run Linux, and stick it to the man?
        Linx on the desktop and OpenOffice remain tomorrow's threat, but the fact that XP is Vista's chief competition is undeniable. And what about the costs of developing Vista? It would be interesting to see how much the profit margin has really shrunk fo

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I have been saying for some time now, IMHO, Microsoft is preparing for the day when the operating system is purely commodity, and the real money is in the apps, which need to change more than the os does, since they run on TOP. That day isn't too far away, and Linux is proving it.

        MS is hedging their bets, simple as that. If Linux DOES gain a foothold on the desktop soon, MS apps will run on it. If Linux ever became the most popular OS for servers, then workstations, then home system, then MS apps will ru
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          Plain simple: YOU are wrong. THAT is never happening

          Wow. Your skills at debate are astounding. Too bad there isn't a +1, Nuh uh! just for you.

    • Re:WHY!? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by muellerr1 (868578) on Thursday November 16 2006, @09:42AM (#16869162) Homepage
      I think what they mean to do is sell the indemnification directly to Red Hat users. Maybe the RIAA should think about doing that, too. That wuld just make it easier to know who to sue--anyone whose indemnification 'subscription' expired.

      Though the government used to call behavior like that 'racketeering' and 'extortion'.
      • Microsoft are scared, really scared. If they can't get some leverage in the linux world, then they lose their monopoly. Can you list how many products Microsoft have released outside of a monopoly position that have made money?

        Offering indemnification regarding other peoples products is crazy, unless they need to in order to hold their position as market leader. They can only be hoping to stir up more doubt.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      As has been said in many posts in many venues since the Novell announcement, the fact that these companies felt the need to declare that such indemnification is necessary for the protection of Linux-using companies, so then Microsoft will feel the need to extend such indemnification to Linux customers of companies that don't sign agreements with it. It is by declaring such a blanket indemnification that they imply to the world that such indemnification is needed, and that without it the Linux-using compani

    • Three years (Score:5, Interesting)

      by overshoot (39700) on Thursday November 16 2006, @09:53AM (#16869306)
      WHY!? Why on Earth would Microsoft feel the need to offer indemnification to someone's customers in the first place?
      Read the coverage of the Microvell deal -- the "promise not to sue" expires in three years.

      First, get them dependent on MS technologies such as Mono, then tell them time is up and they have to pay or get sued into oblivion.

      "Nice little enterprise IT setup you have here. Pity if a court slapped an injunction on it."

    • Re:WHY!? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by molnarcs (675885) <molnarcs@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Thursday November 16 2006, @10:05AM (#16869456) Homepage Journal
      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 [samba.org] with Novell. Microsoft is fishing for others now.

    • The "indemnification" only extends to M$ customers. It's kind of stupid to promise not to sue your own customers, but the threat is really aimed at companies who are about to dump their shit all together. The idea being conveyed is that M$ might forgive your cheating heart if you keep paying them. As Bruce Perens pointed out [slashdot.org], M$ is effectively selling Linux licenses. It might not look like a sale now, because they are offering thirty pieces of silver to a select few, but the deal is to recognize M$'s bo
  • by LibertineR (591918) on Thursday November 16 2006, @09:35AM (#16869068)
    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.

    • by div_2n (525075) on Thursday November 16 2006, @09:43AM (#16869172)
      I'll bet you a cookie. Do you really think Microsoft reps are going to promote another company's products let alone a Linux product? Think again.

      I'll throw you a cross bet--this is just one more link in the FUD chain for Microsoft to suggest Linux has "intellectual property" problems and, more specifically, it has patent issues.

      Microsoft shops that want to deploy Linux must have something very specific in mind. I'd wager they'll use whatever they think is best. It may very well be Suse, but that will probably be for reasons that have nothing to do with Novell and Microsoft forging some sort of strange and obscure patent deal.
      • Microsoft if anything, is pragmatic. If they can squeeze the market down to a few Linux vendors that either play well with Windows or don't, that can leverage .NET or not, that can integrate into an Active Directory solution or not, you think they wont help market that?

        How many companies and vertical markets does Microsoft have to kill off before some of you get it?

    • 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.

      I think you swapped "Novell" and "Red Hat" in that sentence.

      Rich.

      • No, I am saying that Microsoft is giving vendors a choice now to either assimilate or they will whip out their cutting beam and start fucking up your ship. Too many fail to realize the sheer power of money on the thinking of executives. Red Hat will be re-thinking this decision.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          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 [redhat.com]. On top of that, FSF is going to release glibc/gcc/etc. under GPL v3 - which will explicitly pr

      • and owns ~80 of the market.

        A WHOLE 80 SERVERS!? ... shit man... that's like 95% of the market ;-)

        /ducks

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          You are recirculating the same argument you had yesterday. I have already answered your question, remember?

          http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=206274&cid=168 23028 [slashdot.org]

          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

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            And I refuted your non-answers.

            Now you seem to be even more confused - "Novell is distributing software developed by MS" - huh ? This is about patents, not copyright. It matters not at all who developed the software - patent liability doesn't care. And what MS software is Novell shipping ???

            Note that I have never claimed that the deals are exactly the same - they clearly aren't - but what I am interested in is what is the difference that makes one deal ok by the GPL and the other an (alleged) violation.

            T
  • Easy to do. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Thursday November 16 2006, @09:37AM (#16869088)
    Hilf, who has been touring Europe since the announcement, admitted that there's been a lot of negativity about the deal in the open-source community. "Our intention with this deal was not to create a problem, but rather to solve one," he said.

    As such, Hilf is trying to be more clear about the company's true intentions and trying to translate all the legalese around the deal into something that a layman can understand.

    That's easy to do.

    Simply explain to them why Ford would pay hundreds of millions of dollars to Chevrolet for an agreement not to sue Mom (who drives a Chevy) for violating Ford's patents.

    There, that shouldn't be so difficult, right?
    • But mom uses Ford gasoline to drive to church and back, and Chevy isn't licensed to provide compatibility with Ford gasoline. They think they've gotten it to work, but there's not been a real review of the system, and Ford might still manage to win in a patent dispute.

      You wouldn't want mom to miss bible study...would you?
  • by Rhett's Dad (870139) * on Thursday November 16 2006, @09:38AM (#16869100) Homepage

    Good for them! I admit I've been one of the complacent ones over the last several years, feeling like Red Hat was the Linux business big dog, and that I was a hipper hacker for spreading my use/support around to other distros. No more...

    The big company I left this year was one of those whose IT bureacracy monsters that would not sanction open source, so informed and competent programmers had to use it in the dark. My new company is a Red Hat user, and I'm more proud of that today than I was yesterday. Shame on me for yesterday...

    I'd like to teach the world to sing "Red Hat Is The Way"...

  • So Essentially ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Thursday November 16 2006, @09:42AM (#16869152) Homepage Journal
    Let me get this straight, essentially Microsoft has successfully divided the Linux community in twain [slashdot.org] by making some sort of psuedo-deal with Novell. The details of which are pretty shady and the specifics are hard to find. Both companies are using generic speak to describe the deal they've sealed. Except that it's not sealed yet as there's still some tweaking yet to be done [zdnet.com]. And now people are spreading all kinds of rumors and the SAMBA group is upset at Novell and suddenly it's like I'm back in high school again and Microsoft asked Novell to go to the senior prom--but we all know he only did that because Novell will put out in the back seat of Microsoft's dad's Cadillac. Everyone else is pissed.

    The "alternative to Microsoft" community is divided and all Microsoft had to do was dump $500 million on Novell & play some mind games with them about possible suits if they didn't take this deal. Masterfully done, Microsoft. Once again, your business strategy is state of the art while your technology doesn't really have to be.
  • by pugdk (697845) on Thursday November 16 2006, @09:45AM (#16869192) Homepage
    Eh? I don't get it. So Micro$oft want us to pay them for Winblows even if we don't use it, so we don't get sued? Sounds like Micro$oft wants people who use Linux in their business to obtain a Micro$oft license to do so.

    In other words, Micro$oft want us to pay a Micro$oft tax for using something that has nothing to do with them. I got two word for you Bill Gates: Piss off.
  • It's a good indicator of just how toxic that "offer" from Microsoft is that they're willing to go unilateral on it.

    Red Hat refuses to take the "pill" so Microsoft "forces" it on them? This is something good?

  • by Sr. Zezinho (16813) on Thursday November 16 2006, @09:49AM (#16869250) Homepage Journal
    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they provide indemnification."

  • by Medievalist (16032) on Thursday November 16 2006, @09:53AM (#16869314)
    Meanwhile, Eben Moglen, the FSF general counsel, promises that GPLv3 will explicitly outlaw deals like this.
    Up till now everybody's been saying "GPLv3 is too complex and restrictive for actual use, GPLv2 has proven its worth and we're going to stick with that".

    But I'm guessing GPLv3 just got a big boost in popularity. I wonder if the FSF is going to send Ballmer a thank-you note?
  • Even if in the long run, it might be your demise, you have not sold out yourself and your users to Microsoft. For that, you have our gratitude—mine and of those who'll see in the future that in spite of all odds, you made the right choice.
  • Thank goodness these guys didn't get into bed with M$ too. There is still hope. Won't be doing any business with Novell/Suse in the future though....
  • Thank you, RedHat. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lethyos (408045) on Thursday November 16 2006, @10:07AM (#16869486) Journal

    Accepting any deal of the sort from Microsoft is tantamount to giving legitimacy to a corrupt system and buying into blackmail.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Thursday November 16 2006, @10:23AM (#16869742) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft is SOOOOO stupid in that matter.

    It is evident that due to their corporate heritage/understanding, they still think that they can manipulate the whole world by dealing with a number of big corporations.

    So, novell, red hat and similar will succumb to their schemes, and we, millions of developers, system admins, it managers will oblige by them ? duh ?

    am i missing something here ? we 'the people' in the field were the ones to make linux come to where it is today, not the single handed effort of any company. zillions of our contribs made linux come to this point.

    not only that, but we as a whole are the bulk of the community that will advise our top brass, decision-makers, bugdet planners, policy-makers in our corporations and workplaces as to what should be the best course to take.

    we did not oblige by microsoft crap then, and you can easily deduct that we will never do. and you can guess that our advice/move on that matter would be to avoid more microsoft crap.

    we will just scratch anybody who deals with microsoft to that kind of harmful extent, and build on something new. im not putting a prophecy here - im talking about the social dynamics and previous experience - new distros can be done, new platforms can be put together, even now-obscure operation systems/platforms may rise to prominence.

    this is the power of people. microsoft has rowed against the river before, got carried away with it, STILL trying to do as such. do not make the same mistake again. and as for novell, we are already wary about you.

    do not take these as the babblings of a fanatic - this is being spoken from bitter experience with these stuff and a great deal of practical concerns.

    red hat has the go for now.
  • by mythz (857024) on Thursday November 16 2006, @10:26AM (#16869768)
    This fiasco clearly shows the ideals of these two 'opensource' companies. Redhat is driven by both the idealism of open source and basis its revenue model on the value proposition and technical superiority of its products.

    Novell on the other hand is a stagnated giant, it only turned to Linux in a bid to generate some revenue to comabat the decline in its directory sales. Novell is clearly driven by profit as is demonstrated by this deal with MS. With this deal Novell is no longer just competing on the strength and value proposition of its products, it has created an artificial barrier (FUD / illusion customer protection) where they are now hoping customers will consider their products of greater value as it has this 'added' protection. If Novell really believed in open source and not as just a way to make profit it would have open sourced NDS a long time ago simarily to what redhat had done with its acquisition and opensourcing of Netscape directory services.

    Now I have to ask what is with the 3 year exclusive deal with MS? Surely this is not a restriction MS has imposed on itself? This must've been a directive from Novell, which makes me think that Novell is more than a puppet in this MS sponsored charade.
  • GPLv3 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by metamatic (202216) on Thursday November 16 2006, @10:27AM (#16869782) Homepage Journal
    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.)

    Yeah, Novell might decide to fork the entire GCC toolchain, the standard C libraries, the file utilities, the shell, the bootloader, and go it alone maintaining the entire system without the benefit of the Linux community. Yeah, that'll work well for them.

  • by radarsat1 (786772) on Thursday November 16 2006, @10:46AM (#16870058) Homepage
    Does anyone have a list of Microsoft patents that affect GNU/Linux?
    Like, what exactly are they providing indemnification for?
    And how many of them likely have plenty of prior art that could be used to fight in court?
    Are there any that we should specifically be worried about?

    Additionally, another thing I don't get about this is that by making this Novell deal, they seem to be indicating that they are willing to sue customers of other distros for patent infringement. But since when do CUSTOMERS get sued for patent infringement? Last I checked it was only the vendors of infringing products that could get sued for patent infringement.
    • by jotaeleemeese (303437) on Thursday November 16 2006, @12:01PM (#16871266) Homepage Journal
      If you are server tomorrow with a lawsuit from MS to stop using Linux, you have to ask you the following:

      -Do I have the poclets fto fight them?
      -Do I have the time to fight them?
      -Do I have the energy to fight them?

      note that the validity of any possible patents is completely immaterial, in a litigation systems in which money talks, the threat of being sued is enough to do whatever you are told to do if you don;t have the resources to defend yourself.

      And of course MS will not go after the big players first (banks, oil companies, software producers, Hollywood studios), no, that would be an even battle.

      They will go after the little guy, the one they can crush. That creates a climate of uncertainity in which Linux will be questioned instead of prised because the bully would be out to get you.

      If MS had any decent intentions they would have launched an interoperability panel with the mantainers of the 5 or 6 most important Linux distributions and teams working on Samba, Mono, Cedega, OpenOffice.org and other parties interested in making interoperability work. They would have alos announce that no patents would have been used against any Linux software.

      There was no need of this nonsense, but the only kind of relationship that MS understands is the one in which they are the abusive party.

      I wish I could say lets give them the benefit of the doubt, but the way I see things is pretty obvious they are positioning themselves for a legal battle. They must be careful, they may be bitting more than what they can chew.
  • by sesshomaru (173381) on Thursday November 16 2006, @11:00AM (#16870264) Journal
    Here's Cringeley's tak on it:

    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2006/pulpit_200 61110_001188.html [pbs.org]

    Relevant quote from Cringely article:

    We saw this happen before when 3Com tied its fortunes to Microsoft in the late 1980s with the lamented 3Com-Microsoft LAN Manager network operating system, which was ironically Microsoft's answer to Novell at that time. Then 3Com CEO Bill Krause felt the only way to compete with Novell was through an alliance with Microsoft. So 3Com bought its way into the relationship, ended up doing all the work (MORE THAN all the work if you count recoding Microsoft blunders), then had to BUY ITS WAY BACK OUT when the product failed.
    After that deal was over and the blood had dried, 3Com founder Bob Metcalfe claims that a Microsoft exec told him, "You made a fatal error, you trusted us."
    I still think Microsoft is less evil than Sony though... but only just.
  • Novell in a corner? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by greylion3 (555507) on Thursday November 16 2006, @12:51PM (#16872130) Homepage
    Just a thought here; if the rest of the Linux world moves on to GPLv3, does that prevent Novell from updating SuSE?
    Has Novell effectively run itself into a corner with the MS-deal?
    • Perhaps naively , but it:

      I agree with your "naively" there.

      1) appeared MS gave Novell money now, for Novell making payments later;
      2) MS will help sell [Suse] Linux -- that means MS is distributing and bound by GPL2 code;
      3) MS promised no patent attacks on Linux software used by Novell. This means the _SOFTWARE_ is free -- the promise wasn't protecting Novell users, per se, but the Linux software. Any other distro th