Slashdot Log In
Dvorak On Microsoft/Novell Deal
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:55 AM
from the they-all-wear-party-hats dept.
from the they-all-wear-party-hats dept.
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."
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?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Dvorak On Microsoft/Novell Deal
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 218 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Meta-flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Meta-flamebait - Yes (Score:5, Informative)
There is nothing to figure out. You can run proprietary software on Linux today. Look at Oracle.
Re:Meta-flamebait (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.hyperlogos.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 18, @08:19PM)
I couldn't agree more. Dvorak has been proven to be an asshat so many times I can't begin to count them. I mean read this paragraph:
We already have something like that. It's called Java. Java hasn't put Linux to the torch. What makes Dvorak think that Microsoft will be able to do it?
Re:Meta-flamebait (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Meta-flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Meta-flamebait (Score:5, Interesting)
They're not just flamebait, they're flamebait on purpose. The purpose of the dvorak flamebait articles is generating clicks on the articles in question, and generating the ad revenue linked with those clicks. This has even been admitted by dvorak (or one of the dvoraks, since it's likely to just be a name they assign to writers), and this admission of guilt [slashdot.org] has appeared on slashdot.
The key thing to learn about this is to never, ever, browse to a dvorak article, because that is exactly what they want you to do.
Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.saynotocrack.com/ | Last Journal: Friday February 09 2007, @03:02AM)
Is this Microsoft's intent? Unfortunately, probably not. I don't see them providing users with the ability to get rid of their Windows PCs
Who knows, the end result will be interesting for sure.
Re:Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://stylus-toolbox.sf.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 15 2007, @11:50AM)
There is absolutely no reason why Microsoft can't write code that runs on Linux and still have it be proprietary.
Absolutely no reason at all.
The kernel is GPL, yes, but Linus' license modification clearly states that closed source code can run on the Linux kernel and shall not be considered a 'derivative work'.
Tons of proprietary code runs on Linux with absolutely no GPL issues: Oracle, Veritas Netbackup, WordPerfect, StarOffice (pieces are proprietary), etc.
As for toolkits, GTK+ is LGPL. Meaning Microsoft could target closed source GUI applications for GTK+ with no issues. QT is GPL unless you make arrangement$$$ with TrollTech.
As for desktops, some parts of GNOME are GPL, others are LGPL. Gotta be careful there, but if you just link against GTK+ and not GNOME libraries, Microsoft should be okay.
Re:Hmmm .... Microsoft Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://seenonslash.com/ | Last Journal: Friday May 11 2007, @04:02PM)
So this is a play at the corporate market to retain control while use of virtualization grows.
I call bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
He has no idea of what he is talking about. Of course one can already run proprietary code in Linux. Many libraries are available under the LGPL instead of GPL. This deal does not change much to that fact.
It's a trap! (Score:4, Funny)
why are we publicizing this FUD? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/dazed1/)
Bullsh*t. By putting this on the front page of
Doesn't proprietary code already run it? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure many people can run MS Office in Wine. Now why you'd want to is another matter
Can I mod his comment -1 (not so insightful)?
Dvorak once again shows his cluelessness (Score:5, Informative)
(http://lindkvis.blogspot.com/)
2. Nothing at all is stopping you from running proprietary code on a GNU/Linux system, as long as the GPL license on the GNU/Linux parts of the system is honoured. You can easily use the Linux kernel, the GNU Tools and put a proprietary graphical system on it or just running proprietary software packages. Apple uses quite a few GNU tools, yet keeps Aqua closed, and lots of vendors have released proprietary software packages for Linux.
run proprietary code on it? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.lulu.com/zotz | Last Journal: Sunday December 17 2006, @11:19AM)
Gee, everyone else knows how to run proprietary code on linux. MS can't be too swift if they can't figure that.
Perhaps more is meant by "run on it"???
all the best,
drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954 [ourmedia.org]
Sayings - Deterred Bahamian Novel
CC BY-SA
Sounds familiar.... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~Himring/journal/179579 | Last Journal: Saturday August 18, @11:20AM)
"Under the patent cooperation agreement, Novell's customers receive directly from Microsoft a covenant not to sue. Novell does not receive a patent license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft, and we have not agreed with Microsoft to any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL. Our agreement does not affect the freedom that Novell or anyone else in the open source community, including developers, has under the GPL and does not impose any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL. Therefore, the agreement is fully compliant with the GPL,"
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4685037869.html [linux-watch.com]
That reminds me of another, historical, agreement:
"Under the treaty, England receives directly from Germany a promise not to attack Poland. England does not receive a promise not to attack Germany, and we have not agreed with Germany to any condition that would contradict the conditions of previous treaties. Our agreement does not affect the freedom that Poland or any other country in Europe, including France, has under previous treaties and does not impose any condition that would contradict the conditions of such treaties. Therefore, the treaty is fully compliant with all previous treaties."
Sincerely,
Neville Chamberlain
Re:Sounds familiar.... (Score:4, Interesting)
> Too bad that most Americans wont get it.
You certainly don't, considering that you didn't even reference the right war.
Or was I just treated to a demonstration of Dvorak's journalism technique?
Read COPYING (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://ettlz.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 12 2006, @06:53PM)
i.e., what nVidia and ATi have been doing for years now?
Nevertheless: Not In My Kernel.
Proprietary code runs on Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday October 31, @08:33AM)
It's the license, stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.creimer.ws/ | Last Journal: Friday January 26 2007, @12:40PM)
Comparing the GPL and Vista EULA, Microsoft is winning the weirdness license war hands down.
Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://pdatabase.dyndns.biz/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 04 2005, @11:50AM)
What, like writing a program and distributing it as a binary-only for-pay title?
It's only GPL if you use someone else's code. Why in the fucking hell are we still hearing stupid shit like this in 2006?
It's the Dvorak Clown! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.dittobox.net/)
That's not a group of words we see very often when coupled with that man's name.
Re:There is an old saying (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://aqpeag.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday April 21 2007, @05:39AM)
The only way they can do that in this case would be to destroy access to the toolchain...because without the toolchain, nobody can create new distributions.
This is where, as much as it pains me to admit it, with the GNU/Linux stuff, in a way RMS is right. The GNU project is very much the centre of gravity where Linux is concerned, because it is how Linux propogates itself.
Microsoft *could* sink Linux if it took out the FSF...but the good news there is that the FSF is very well protected by public opinion. If there is one thing Stallman genuinely *is* extremely good at, it's at least developing the appearance of holding the moral high ground. ESR was right when he wrote that Stallman has a thirst for martyrdom...Stallman recognises the power that martyrdom contains. He uses Gandhi's scorpionic [allaboutfrogs.org] tactics extremely well.
Who is this guy? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.linuxplatform.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 16 2003, @04:31PM)
Linux will be cracked (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday January 28 2007, @05:20PM)
Pssst! Hey Guys, seems you missed the memo, all of that stuff is available in CVS or SVN anonymously! You don't need to crack anything, it's all there, you don't even need a Password. We actually want you to use it, we'll even let you help us make it better for everyone if you want.
So what? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.houghi.org/)
Novell is even in the process of making the code more vanilla and has ripped out non-OSS stuff from the kernel, even though this might mean some hardware won't run anymore.
Also read the following:
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensou
It is fun/sad to see that the FUD is coming only from people who are 'pro OSS'. I start to think they are not pro anything. They are just anti M$.
For all those who think that Novell is suddenly the anti-christ, understand that they support more then just one OSS project:
http://en.opensuse.org/Novell_Supported_Projects [opensuse.org]
Should I bother to RTFA? (Score:3, Informative)
(http://kim.biyn.com/)
Also, last I checked, there is [sun.com] already proprietary [nero.com] software [adobe.com] for [zend.com] Linux [adobe.com] already [mainconcept.com] and GPL hasn't stopped them due to any viral "tainting."
(Yeah I know one of those is going GPL soon but isn't yet)
Then there are those which skirt the GPL and where the legality is questionable, such as NVidia's and ATI's video drivers.
Open source "at best" (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.a4fs.net/blog/)
BTW when he says "Microsoft has been leery of doing too much with Linux because of all the weirdness with the licenses" I think it's pretty hilarious because:
-(obv) he's projecting his own confusion about licenses onto microsoft
-(also obv) he and his ilk are the creators of the confusion b/c they love writing columns about what they do not understand
-Sorry