Slashdot Log In
Novell Responds To Microsoft's IP Claims
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:38 PM
from the just-can't-help-themselves dept.
from the just-can't-help-themselves dept.
Azul writes "Ron Hovsepian, Novell's CEO, has posted an open letter to the Community, where he explicitly states Novell's disagreement with Steve Ballmer's claims of Linux infringing on Microsoft's intellectual property. From the letter: 'We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents. Importantly, our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents.'"
Related Stories
[+]
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?
This discussion has been archived.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.
trouble ahead?, trouble behind. (Score:4, Insightful)
Driving that train, high on cocaine.
Casey Jones is ready, watch your speed.
Trouble ahead, trouble behind
And you know that notion just crossed my mind.
With a beginning like this, who knows? They got the O.J. special and book release canceled!
Goodness, if the heads of the two "agreement" corporations are on pages so far apart for this deal, how can this possibly work? Reminds me of the IBM/Microsoft marriage for work on OS/2, which Microsoft continued to claim was blissful right up until the time they got enough ideas for their own Windows replacement and unceremoniously dumped IBM. Too bad, too... OS/2 (while not my fave) was a pretty decent system for its time.
Rule of thumb... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft ALWAYS shafts their partners.
I've watched it happen repeatedly with big-name and little-guy companies here in the valley, and seen news of it elsewhere.
Cutting a deal with Microsoft is an invitation to big trouble and I fail to see how companies keep falling for it. (Perhaps there IS something to the PHB stereotype.)
Cutting a deal with Microsoft for (limited) licensing of their patents is an invitation to accusations of IP infringement - and the first shoe has just dropped.
But (like reading Microsoft source code) it's also an invitation to accidentally contaminating the open-source code base with actual Microsoft IP.
I expect THAT to be the second shoe - with Microsoft first FUDding up the customers, then going after Linux ala SCO, but with their ducks correctly aligned before filing the first suit.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:trouble ahead?, trouble behind. (Score:4, Informative)
Casey Jones is ready, watch your speed.
Is this a commonly misheard lyric or something? It's "Casey Jones you better watch your speed.".
The lyric as you wrote it doesn't even make sense.
Parent
Woot! Woot! Clue Train in the distance (Score:5, Insightful)
How many company's have entered into collaborations, with Microsoft, that did not end up with a rectal aperture far exceeding that of goatse? How many did? So, do you actually fell that lucky? Talk about a long shot. Well, I'm sure you are all busy packing your golden parachutes, and will be long gone before the fecal matter hits the rotary device.
Parent
Re:trouble ahead?, trouble behind. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlike with Windows, I doubt Microsoft could pull it off though
The advocates (zealots?) wouldn't be the target market. MS would market it to the MCSEs and other who are MS-centric as 'Linux Done Right', offer full MS support, ease of installation and a sole-source supplier (MS themselves).
It would make MS billions of dollars.
Parent
They already did: it's called Bee Esss Deee (Score:4, Insightful)
Given re-invention of code, or code I can 'steal', I'll look at good code and glean the best from it any time. So did Microsoft. So did IBM. So did Novell. It's the sincerest form of flattery, after all.
Parent
What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:trouble ahead?, trouble behind. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm glad it's working out for both of you.
Parent
Novell might actually be fueling MS's case ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"In this agreement, Novell and Microsoft each promise not to sue the other's customers for patent infringement. The intended effect of this agreement was to give our joint customers peace of mind that they have the full support of the other company for their IT activities."
If Novell did not believe that Linux users were accountable to Microsoft for using these technologies, why would they look to protect these users? Sure, it's great to offer this indemnification clause for the largest of corporate clients (who have at least some reason to be cognizant of the risk of MS litigation), but by doing so he seems validate Ballmer's views.
I can see it now
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If was posted @ http://www.wservernews.com/ [wservernews.com] back on Friday?????
Here we go again. SCO part II only this time it a direct attack. Not a proxy attack.
Novell is a pawn in the action.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I can think of at least 348 million reasons why...
Re:Novell might actually be fueling MS's case ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the Novell guys probably realized there was some bad PR potential, but didn't see anything particularly bad in the agreement and saw lots and lots of greenbacks, plus the opportunity to use MS as a distribution channel. This seemed like a sweet deal when they looked at it. I just don't think they realized quite how negative the reaction would be.
Parent
Re:Novell might actually be fueling MS's case ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider the symmetry of the contract:
Novell and Microsoft each promise not to sue the other's customers for patent infringement
Therefore, using your assertion, it must be equally true that Microsoft is admitting that stollen Novell code is in Microsoft's codebase.
;-)
Parent
Re:Novell might actually be fueling MS's case ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Novell might actually be fueling MS's case ... (Score:5, Informative)
Two-things: You're correct, there are few "original" ideas. And I would say any idea that isn't original (or is blatantly obvious) shouldn't be patentable. Technically you're not supposed to be able to patent an obvious or non-original idea, but regular slashdot readers will remember a litany of patent cases where the idea was obvious, unoriginal, or described something so broad and vague as to preclude all possible competition. If that rule was enforced, I wouldn't have a problem with software patents. But you actually make the point of the GP-poster who I think was pointing out (correctly) that there are WAY TOO MANY patents for software being issued, to the point that it is stifling creativity rather than encouraging it.
Secondly... You're comparing apples and giraffes... A patent for a TV-set is a patent for a device and the device alone... and not even for the whole device, but for parts of the device... They don't have a patent on the idea of viewing video over a cathode-ray-tube, they have a patent on an implementation of technology to ACHIEVE the viewing of video over a device in your home. If you can create a TV-set that works without the patented technologies you would be free to sell it without any license from anybody. This is as it should be--if your TV-set works better than the patented model then the patent has achieved its goal--it allowed the orginal inventor to get something for his work, while enticing you to evolve the tech to the next level. The key is, you have to PRODUCE something that WORKS in order to get a patent.
Software patents, as they've been used to date, are doing just the opposite. Software patents are being granted for basic, "helloworld.c" implementations of broad and complex concepts... "Software" developed not to create a marketable or usable product, but for the pupose of acquiring a patent that can later be used to hijack a successful competitors profits. "Oops, we realized a patent we filed a few years back might apply to your product. Please pay us several billion dollars." The patent-related-extortion of RIM comes to mind... Rather than create real products and patenting the original/unique components of THOSE products, they're instead setting up dozens or hundreds of projects whose goal is to achieve a patent, and not to actually bring any workable product to market. Instead of giving consumers access to MORE technology, as more of these bogus astroturf patents get filed, the effect is actually opposite: Innovators who can't afford to pay high licensing fees (or patent-search fees to an attorney) simply can't relase their products in any way that they can easily profit from, for fear of being sued into destitution by an "inventor" (whose "invention" was written as a fifty-line C program by a CS-grad student) who suddenly comes out of the woodwork waving a patent your search didn't find, and wanting half of your profits.
In fact, the RIM case should really underline the absurdity of the patent-situation in the software world, because the patents RIM was sued over were eventually invalidated, but RIM still was out several hundred-million from a settlement they made, and from attorneys fees. Even INVALID patents can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars with the right lawyer and low-enough ethical standards for yourself. THAT stifles competition, and THAT is just plain broken.
Parent
Re:Novell might actually be fueling MS's case ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but... I wouldn't expect the people who buy the televisions I build to be liable for the patent infringement I do.
In no sane world should the _users_ of Linux systems be liable for patent infringements. The individual people who committed the infringing code may be, but the users shouldn't be. Simply possessing the infringing source code shouldn't be counted as infringing.
Parent
Re:Novell might actually be fueling MS's case ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Linux's marketshare is growing faster than MS's. (Score:3, Insightful)
That MIGHT be reasonable ... if Linux's marketshare was flat or declining.
... but that doesn't
But Linux has been seeing double digit growth for years now. Linux server sales are growing faster than Microsoft's server sales. Sure, Microsoft has a larger share of the market right now so it doesn't take as much for Linux to grow faster
Deal Novell Out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Deal Novell Out (Score:5, Insightful)
For some reason this really tickles my funny bone.
Parent
Re:Deal Novell Out (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you really think that Microsoft is going to be handing us source code to their proprietary applications? Seriously? Because that's not ever going to happen and I'm not sure what makes you think that it would. I mean, this is Microsoft we're talking about. They don't even like to share source internally from what I hear, and none of us have any interest in seeing closed source in the first place.
Do you really think that any of us engineers, us "jerk-off[s] from Novell", are going to intentionally harm Linux? Seriously? The same Linux that many of us use at work and at home, the same Linux that many of us have been using for upwards of sixteen years? No, we're not going to intentionally "open the flood gates for M$ litigation" because that doesn't make any sense. I know, I know, you're enjoying the hysterics and you don't actually know what's going on so you're stirring up the pot all the same, but, really, why would we do that? Honestly, ask yourself, why would those of us who get to have the dream job of writing open source software intentionally poison Linux? Calm down.
Parent
That's bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has 100% access to the source code for Windows AND for Linux. If Microsoft wanted "interoperability" then Microsoft is in the best possible position to just do it.
And Microsoft can release any specs at any time so Linux could implement "interoperability" improvements.
The fact that Microsoft does not do either should tell you all you need to know about the "interoperability" bullshit.
Parent
Let me get this straight. (Score:5, Insightful)
So Microsoft has released the specs to allow Linux to interoperate with Windows? Tell me more
So by "interoperate" you mean
And by "you're wrong" you mean
Come back when Microsoft opens up NTFS or Active Directory, okay? Or even when Microsoft has 100% support for ODF, as a default option, out of the box.
Like I said, Microsoft has access to all of the Linux code AND all of the Microsoft code.
Microsoft can open any spec it wants, whenever it wants.
Any other talk about "interoperability" is pure bullshit.
Parent
Is there a legally binding agreement not to sue if (Score:3, Insightful)
Having a patented spec be visible doesn't make it open, and is SURE doesn't make it free.
Re:That's bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)
There's nothing funny about it - it makes perfect sense even if you believe that Microsoft doesn't innovate. One of the reasons people say that Microsoft doesn't innovate is that MS has a history of buying or in some cases acquiring in more underhanded ways, innovations from other companies. In such cases, there may be innovations that one would want to interoperate with, but they don't originate with MS. Secondly, the desire to interoperate with MS software has nothing to do with whether MS software is innovative. So long as significant numbers of people use MS software, other people will have an interest in interoperating. For example, I may have to deal with documents that people send me in MS Word format, but that doesn't mean that I think that there is anything innovative or otherwise attractive about that format. I'm stuck with other people's choices.
Parent
Re:Deal Novell Out (Score:5, Informative)
Sort of.
It's been known for a while that to help out with the lawsuit SCO recieved a massive cash injection to the tune of $40 million or so from Baystar Capital. Baystar is a VC company that controls a lot of Microsof money.
Since the time of the investment until a few weeks ago, the offical line was that Baystar acted on its own, and the fact that it was Microsoft capital being used to bankroll SCO's legal team was a mere coincidence.
But then maybe a month ago, the court heard testimony that not only did Microsoft know about Baystar's investment into SCO, but that the investment was at least encouraged (at worst, ordered) by Microsoft.
You can find all the relevant court documents, commentary, and links on Groklaw.
Not quite a smoking gun, but very compelling evidence that Redmond was putting its money where its mouth was, at least in a roundabout and obfuscatory way. There are no serious suggestions that what Microsoft did is actionable, yet it is pretty clear that they were up to their same old dirty tricks
Parent
What the fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you signed a deal with Microsoft
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Here's a free clue, you idiot. That last company that talked about "protecting" end users from being sued was
You might want to look at how beloved they are at the moment.
So in other words... (Score:5, Funny)
fine print and silver (Score:4, Insightful)
they've sold the community for 30 pices of silver.
Re:fine print and silver (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that in the case of Judas the 30 pieces of silver were a legal requirement; had he refused the money then his evidence would have been inadmisible under the Law.
The idea was that in order to prove that the evidence was given in good faith, the witness had to accept payment.
In Novells case, I don't think this holds...
Parent
Agree and Disagree? (Score:4, Insightful)
Empty words (Score:4, Insightful)
Novell can say all it wants, but you can't fool everybody all the time. This makes this company look either totally naive and stupid, or blatant liars.
Encouraged... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft Bites Back - MS PR response to this (Score:5, Informative)
Groklaw's reaction ... (Score:5, Informative)
In that case, with all due respect, you should not have signed an agreement called a patent cooperation agreement that gives Microsoft the opportunity to say the things Mr. Ballmer has been saying. I believe that is obvious now. And you should have considered the GPL, its importance to the community, and considered what paying royalties means in that context. And we hope you will fix this.
And MS
Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents....
We at Microsoft respect Novell's point of view on the patent issue, even while we respectfully take a different view. Novell is absolutely right in stating that it did not admit or acknowledge any patent problems as part of entering into the patent collaboration agreement. At Microsoft we undertook our own analysis of our patent portfolio and concluded that it was necessary and important to create a patent covenant for customers of these products. We are gratified that such a solution is now in place.
Corporate Mentality (Score:5, Insightful)
What the suits didn't understand is that while Linux is moving more and more into the corporate space, at its core it is still a community driven project. They drastically underestimated that community's dislike and distrust of Microsoft.
Good luck to them trying to serve both masters.
question about the threat (Score:5, Informative)
I really like a lot of what Novell has done on the desktop, and some of the mono desktop apps are pretty terrific. But I sort of feel like I ought to be moving toward KDE now, and distancing myself from anything mono.
The question I have, though, is about the patents. Either MS has patents that can be used to attack linux or they're pulling another SCO on us.
So much of the argument against Novell hinges on the fact that they're enabling MS with this deal. As I understand the argument, it says that corporate customers will buy Novell, to be safe from potential lawsuits. If MS can pick off a critical mass of commercial users who are willing to pay, they can start to sue other people without damaging relationships with their large corporate customers. Even non-novell customers will have a way out -- they can buy Novell.
If MS has these patents, do we really believe that fear of alienating their customers is enough for them to refrain from suing people? Couldn't they sue IT companies -- linux companies, IBM, etc., without damaging their relationships with large corporate customers? And aren't those large customers so locked in that they really don't have anywhere to go if they're alienated, anyway?
To me, this really isn't about Novell. I don't pay them, and I don't code for any projects, so I understand that they don't really care about me. It would be irrational for them if they did. But this sort of burns the bridge to Novell and mono as far as I'm concerned. That's done.
But how big is this threat? Is this the beginning of legal threat spanning years and years. with fronts opening up in legislatures, in anti-trust enforcement agencies around the world, etc.?
Is this real, or is this a bunch of baseless stuff that's going to dog us for years?
If a free OS that's built from scratch by volunteers can't be allowed to exist in the current intellectual property law environment, what then? Does this mean we either have to give up and finally take on the intellectual property framework at some really fundamental level?
Re:question about the threat (Score:4, Insightful)
Err, wouldn't Microsoft suing IBM over patent infringement be the legal equivalent of shooting themselves in the foot with a bazooka? IBM, according to their own website (http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2006/01/2006_01_10
Parent
Somebody who is doing something about it... (Score:4, Informative)
Alright that's the legal piece. There's also www,boycottnovell.com [boycottnovell.com] and the Samba disapproval. Other links and ideas welcome.
Dead Licence Sketch (Score:5, Funny)
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(Novell does not respond.)
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?
Novell: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Praline: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Novell: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this Linux Distro what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
Novell: Oh yes, the, uh, the Novell OpenSuse Linux...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. According to the terms of the GPL you can no longer distribute it, that's what's wrong with it!
Movell: No, no, it's uh,... part of the service agreement.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a violation of the GPL when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Novell: No no it not violated, it's , it's cirumvented'! Remarkable OS, the Suse Linux, idn'it, ay? Beautiful eye candy with GLX
Mr. Praline: The eye candy don't enter into it. your in violation of the GPL.
Novell: Nononono, no, no! it's just slightly cirumvented!
Unfortunately CEO cannot be trusted (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Novell obviously needed cash quite badly, enough to risk a PR backlash.
2. Microsoft was a key driver behind SCO and this is their next highly visible move against Linux.
3. Microsoft has linux people in-house. If they wanted linux they could make their own distro for free, plus hiring a team to add interoperability which presumably should be easy since they would be the only team on the planet with the inside knowledge of how to do that.
4. Of course, this expert knowledge would be copied by other distros if it was GPL, so they wouldn't want to do that.
5. And, they wouldn't be able to easily infect other distros a la SCO, which is another reason.
6. Finally, if they distribute GNU/Linux under GPL then they are finally saying everything is already under the GPL. (possibly including nonencumbrance by patents but IANAL).
7. Novell cannot leash the dragon once it begins to rampage. In fact, this patent agreement clearly removes potential weapons of OSS-friendly vendors like IBM against possible future SCO-like lititgation from Microsoft. It means that Novell may likely enter the role of indeminifying vendors and users against Microsoft litigation (if the patent agreement allows that).
8. Novell's CEO claims their actions prove they are honorably. I am sure he would like to think so. However if actions are louder than words, then surely this deal with Microsoft proves Novell is only in business for Novell, especially if it means all other OSS vendors get poisoned by their actions.
9. It also proves that Novell's CEO is intellectually and/or ethically unfit for his position due to his blithe ignorance of SCO and Microsoft's role in SCO, smoking gun and all.
10. The only reason imaginable is that Novell is really on the brink of bankruptcy and some threat from Microsoft would push them over the edge. Possibly Novell has some proof of OSS in Windows but who will ever know? Novell's actions cast a pall of smoke and brimstone over all OSS-related activities, projects, and products they have.
11. Unfortunately this makes me and lots of other people very scared of what may end up in Suse and strongly suggests that Novell will be Microsoft's key tool for attempting again to destroy Linux and the OSS world, no matter what Novell ever says.
12. That is why Novell cannot be trusted, and anything they ever contribute to OSS projects must be painstakingly analyzed and thrown in the garbage at the least worry. Even so, there is no way to be sure anything they offer will not be either a fragment of patentable data, or a fragment of a potential vulnerability to either access from microsoft or attack by a windows virus. It would be a much different story if Microsoft was going to provide all necessary documentation and experienced OSS programmers could plan how to interface with those APIs for best performance and security. Of course the same goes for anybody who ever thought of buying Novell or maybe making a contract with Novell. I don't see how anybody can ever trust Novell again.
Dear Novell (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's not beat around the bush on this. Your actions reek of the proprietary and closed mindset--not open source. It is clear this is a deal meant to benefit you first and foremost. While your customers may (or may not) benefit, the community at large seems to be left pissing in the wind. This is profoundly confusing since the vast majority of the Linux product you purport to protect has been written and continues to be written by that community and not your engineers.
While I'm not anyone famous, I am one of surely many decision makers looking for well supported open source solutions. I had been considering you for several projects and would have considered you in the future. Given that you push your idea of what is best for the community despite fairly blatant protests to the contrary from prominent community members, I cannot include your products in any projects until you correct your course of action.
Until that day comes, good luck making deals allegedly protecting a product with a company that has shown enormous contempt for and a desire to kill off that product. I find it overwhelmingly ironic that the market dominance you enjoyed long ago was taken by the very company with which you are now spooning. I guess you didn't learn your lesson the first time around.
MS needs to listen, Ballmer needs to retire... (Score:3, Insightful)
The sad part of this is the 'business' model that Ballmer and his crew use as an Ideal are at the heart of almost every failed and every skin crawling activity MS has done.
MS was a good company at various times after the past 30 years, but if you notice those fleeting moments, Ballmer and his 'ideals' were the recessive thought mechanism in the company at those times. The 'older' Gates ideals and people emulating him are a lot less likely to hae ever pulled a lot of the crap MS has done in the past 15 years.
This new Linux scare from Ballmer is just another mark in the 'oh crap he did not say that' box. I'm sure there are technologies in Linux that come from MS, even if you take distributions that read FAT32 drives, but on the same note, MS has also taken a lot from the *nix community and it would be so petty to drive the market into this type of war.
Ballmer's words remind me of Oracle's CEO (Ellison) a few years back, at every event or launch, instead of telling us how great their software was, he spent most of the time complaining about MS,and yet MS's products were slammin them in the market because they just worked better. If he or his people would have just spent more time making their products 'better' then could of actually been on stage showing us how much better they were, rather than only pitching how awful MS was.
Maybe ol' Steve is a nice guy, but he is just not helping MS. MS needs to put back in power 'idealists' that believe in 'consumers first' thought and not how they can squeeze the extra nickels out of their business models.
Even look at Vista, in a lot of ways it is a revolutionary OS if you look at the intelligence it implements and the architecture, yet marketing and the 'business' people don't get the genius from the development teams, and will have trouble selling it.
This is evident with the marketing and business people creating five freaking versions of Vista for consumers. It creates more confusion and is less profitable and could hurt the 'standard windows' base because of the differences. It would have been better for MS to have just added $20 to the cost and do only one version. In fact the Vista release like XP is in contradiction to the 'design' ideals of the NT group in having a shared code base to 'reduce confusion'. (Of course the code base is still shared, but the confusion is artificially added by the business and marketing people.)
My two cents for today...
$400M to say we got nuthin. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has lawyers. Lots of them. If they have IP that's infringed and they know it, they have to sue to protect it or they lose it by neglect. If they had something, the money would have gone the other way. So, they haven't got cause for a suit or they'd have to sue.
What Microsoft does have is a fat wad of cash. That is exactly what a company like Novell that backdated Waaay too many stock options needs. The bonus is Novell gets $400M to promise to not sue a company they've got no grudge against.
The sad part for us is that Novell must now and forever be a leper. They've done great deeds in the past. There was great hope for their future. They're trying to fight the FUD now but you can't unring the bell. A shame they had to get weak kneed in the end. It's also sad Ballmer gets to say things like "Gee, that's a nice linux webserver you got there. Be a shame if one of our IP lawyers had to have it admitted as evidence." Makes you wonder if he was shaking down kids for their lunch money in school. I hope Novell's development teams have litte trouble finding honest work before the end.
The upshot is that we've got $400,000,000 worth of proof that Microsoft's got nothin. Nothin, that is, except a metric ton of coupons good for one free SLED install they couldn't unload even as wrappers for free ice cream cones. Can you imagine the sales call? "Yeah, I got this coupon for a Linux install we can sell ya, but after five years if you're still running it we have to sue ya. Oh, and our BSA thugs will be around regularly to make sure you don't exceed your linux quota, k?" They'll have to paper the halls of One Microsoft Way with expired coupons. The companies that adopt Linux under Novell's indemnity will discover that Linux is rock solid, swift and sweet. When they realize Microsoft's always had nuthin, they'll migrate painlessly to a distro that's less tainted. Perhaps this is the dirty trick that convinces them to get all the way out of business with these creeps.
I blame Ransom Love for this whole mess, because he killed Unix. Him and all the chowderheads that think this indemnity nonsense has more value than six inches of used dental floss. It's a bad thing to be mugged at the point of a lawyer. It's cowardly to be blackmailed with lawyers that have nothing.
Here we go again. (Score:4, Informative)
The deal is done. Live with it. At least Novell tries to answer the questions people have. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. People asked that they wanted the details of the deal, so they gave them. They gave a lot of promises.
The IRC meeting will most likely also just be a lot of copy-cats yelling: Yes, but you signed a deal with M$ and we are so anti-M$ that we don't care about anything else.
So instead of yelling that it is so bad, come up with a realistic alternative what you want and what questions you want answerd. Be at the IRC meeting and/or see that your answers are asked on the site if you can't be there.
It is very much fun to react emotionaly, yet it is only spreading the FUD further, no matter who started that FUD.
The useal links:
http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse-announ
http://dev-loki.blogspot.com/2006/11/call-to-dump
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4287912423.html [linux-watch.com]
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2168151/novells
http://en.opensuse.org/Meetings/Status_Meeting_20
Re:Give Novell a Break (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Give Novell a Break (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Give Novell a Break (Score:5, Insightful)
You can bet that Novell is only coming out with this "open letter" because of the pressure they are feeling. Contracts being canceled or not renewed, bile and bad PR everywhere, FSF lawyers looking into filing suits, etc. They are probably getting the most pressure from SuSE developers, who can't be at all happy about being periahs.
The best step for the OSS community would be for Microsoft to document their protocols and formats. For instance if we had documentation on how NTFS lays out the filesystem we'd have a safe r/w driver in under a month. This Novell-MS deal is bunk. The European trustbusters have already done more than this deal ever will.
Parent
What "right direction" is that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is under the GPL.
Is the "right direction" for Linux to become a little bit proprietary?
If not, Microsoft has 100% access to the source code. Microsoft can be as "interoperable" with Linux as they want to be. Any time they want to be.
Microsoft can release whatever specs it wants, whenever it wants.
Now, why don't you go listen to Ballmer talking about how Linux users owe Microsoft money before you start talking about the "right direction" and "working together"?
Parent