Novell Injects MS Lawsuit Exploit Into Open Office

F.M. Petain writes, "It looks like Microsoft's first move in the 'Linux owes us' game is to move a Pawn. A few days ago, a Novell programmer, Noel Power, submitted patches to add VBA compatibility to Open Office's spreadsheet module. This is great for people trying to convert the business desktop from closed source to open source, but is this gift really a ticking time bomb? What happens when Microsoft declares that the VBA code was stolen?" The patches may have been submitted only a few days ago, but the code must be considerably older; the article claims that nine distros in adition to SUSE already support the VBA extensions in their versions of Open Office. (Linux.com and Slashdot are both part of OSTG.)

Poison pill

[scsirob (246572)]

Microsoft is trying to slip poison pills into projects that endanger their cash cows... Be very, very careful!

I'm truely amazed that Novell is co-operating to let them do this. How can they benefit from Linux being threatened when their entire business is revolving around Linux these days??

Re:Poison pill

[marcello_dl (667940)]

How could SCO benefit by declaring "better to use windows than linux?" :) SCO did not benefit. Their managers probably did.

Re:Poison pill

[iluvcapra (782887)]

This is oblique, but not fully off-topic.

Maybe the slashdot icon for Microsoft should be switched from Bill the Borg to Admiral Akbar with Steve Balllamer's face photoshopped on.

Just a thought.

Re:Poison pill

[by Anonymous Coward]

1. Novell owns the LAN server market. Is too fricking stupid to keep developing and eventually is crushed by NT and Linux for servers.

2. Novell envies Microsoft so buys WordPerfect. WP for Windows is initially a pathetic joke and MS Word takes over the number 1 spot. Novell continues to piss around, WordPerfect continues to lose market share, and eventually, after WordPerfect is way, way behind, Novell sells WP to Corel (another loser company) for peanuts compared to what they originally paid.

3. Novell buys SuSE and then Ximian. Immediately moves to change SuSE default desktop to Gnome, alienating many of SuSE long time customers. SuSE continues to lose market share and the Germans wish they'd been taken over by a company that (a) isn't a building full of pussies, and (b) has a fricking clue.

4. Novell is STILL trying to sell fricking Netware. Doesn't seem to notice that nobody fricking gives two turds about Netware anymore.

5. Novell is "indemnified" by Microsoft for any IP that might be included in SuSE (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!) in return for a cash infusion to delay the inevitable. Novell is instantly ostracized (a la SCO, another Microsoft shell company) by the entire Linux community, which ironically HASTENS its inevitable demise.

Novell: One very lucky company... one time, twenty fricking years ago, when they somehow managed to produce an outstanding product called Netware... for it's time. The responsible developers apparently left shortly thereafter because it's been an embarassment to themselves and to those stupid enough to let themselves be acquired by Novell ever since.

What a bunch of maroons.

Re:Poison pill

[kimvette (919543)]

FWIW, I run SuSE (retail) for most of my office machines and for my home machine. I also run CentOS and Ubuntu. Most of the machines are going to be upgraded to SuSE 10.2. Say what you will, but not everyone is going to dump SuSE until there is a good reason to. We might go OpenSUSE this time around rather than pay for the distribution, depending on what is tainted in SuSE Retail. Given the timing, I doubt SuSE 10.2 is tainted with anything from Microsoft at this point. That might change in SuSE 10.3 or SuSE 11. Given how slowly Microsoft tends to move, it's possible that even next autumn's release won't be tainted at all with their crud.

If you're running SuSE already (10.1 or earlier) there is little reason to dump what you have, but keep your options open and reevaluate the larger distributions periodically. Given the refinement of KDE in SuSE, I'm reluctant to dump it even for kubuntu.

Re:Poison pill

[ray-auch (454705)]

4. Novell is STILL trying to sell fricking Netware. Doesn't seem to notice that nobody fricking gives two turds about Netware anymore.

Sadly in the big corporate world that just isn't true, I wish it was (would make life a lot simpler). I get asked for Netware / eDirectory / Groupwise (you missed that one) integration all the time. The people asking aren't asking for nostalgia - they are running networks with 10k+ desktops on those products right now.

*all* patches from Novell must be rejected

[by Anonymous Coward]

All patches from Novell must be rejected, as of now. As well as a statement of our standpoint wrt/ their actions, it can only be assumed that they will include a poison pill that makes Microsoft's case.

Oh, and for Saturday night relief - even the mighty can be seduced by MS charm: farewell, Napoleon! [ifilm.com]

Proof or STFU

[by Anonymous Coward]

Q4. With this agreement, will Novell include Microsoft patented code in its contributions to the open source community?

No. Novell will not change its development practices as a result of this agreement. It has always been our policy in all development, open source and proprietary, to stay away from code that infringes another's patents, and we will continue to develop software using these standard practices. If any of our code is found to infringe someone else's patents, we will try to find prior technology to invalidate the patents, rework the code to design around the infringement, or as a last resort remove the functionality.

Novell is committed to protecting, preserving and promoting freedom for free and open source software.

http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensour ce.html [novell.com]

Re:*all* patches from Novell must be rejected

[diegocgteleline.es (653730)]

All patches from Novell must be rejected, as of now. As well as a statement of our standpoint wrt/ their actions, it can only be assumed that they will include a poison pill that makes Microsoft's case

If MS/Novell releases open source code is because they want to make it opensource. That means that Microsoft/Novell would *agree* on releasing it as opensource code.

If Microsoft wanted to sue Linux companies for patent usage, he could do it without injecting any "poison pill". The patent system is so broken (even MS admits it) that Linux is very probably infringing thousand of Microsoft patents.

Re:*all* patches from Novell must be rejected

[symbolic (11752)]

The patent system is so broken (even MS admits it) that Linux is very probably infringing thousand of Microsoft patents.

Thousands of Microsoft patents, or thousands of valid Microsoft patents?

Why MS prefer patent FUD to patent WAR

[replicant108 (690832)]

If Microsoft wanted to sue Linux companies for patent usage, he could do it without injecting any "poison pill".

The point is that Microsoft doesn't want to sue at this time.

MS (like most of the big patent-pushers) does not want a Big Patent War before they get software patents passed in Europe - because the chances of getting software patents passed after a Big Patent War are slim-to-none.

European Patent Wars Heat up Again [technocrat.net]

Re:*all* posts from "/." must be rejected

[RealSurreal (620564)]

Dear sir,

I am intrigued by your non-sequiturs and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Ads

[the linux geek (799780)]

I found it vaguely amusing/disturbing that the ad I saw below the article was a Novell advertisement for "The Linux you've always wanted."

I'll pass on MS-controlled Linux, thanks...

Re:Ads

[_Sprocket_ (42527)]

That was an open letter to Steve Ballmer.

This story is idiotic

[CYwo1f (166549)]

Besides the presumptuous headline, can we please try to distinguish between VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) and VBS (VBScript, I assume). Next, it appears that the Novell programmer is simply integrating a patch into the mainline product which the other distros have been applying during their packaging procedure for some time now. Is there any evidence that the VBA code was lifted from Microsoft (ie. they're setting people up for a copyright liability), or that some aspect of the VBA implementation is patented? No? I didn't think so.

Re:The word is "caution".

[CYwo1f (166549)]

Why bother? Patent violations can exist in either. Even copyright violations can exist in either.

Of course, but how is it more likely to occur in this case than in any other open source project? Because Novell and MS are both involved (although only Novell directly)? I'm just not ready to take that as proof of poison.

Given the recent events, a higher level of caution would be advisable. Whether you agree or not.

A higher level of caution does not justify the baseless accusations present in the slashdot summary.

This module was first documented a year ago from what I can tell. See the history on this wiki page: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/VBA [openoffice.org]

While it seems that Novell does maintain and develop the code now, I'm sure somebody familiar with the ooo-build repository can track down the original author(s).

Cut the crap

[paniq (833972)]

Cut the crap, this is pure paranoia. Since when exactly does every little action by Novell employees deserve an article at Slashdot?

Require a Developer's Certificate of Origin

[belmolis (702863)]

Presumably the best defense against claims of stolen code is to do what the Linux kernel folks are doing and require contributors to certify that they have the right to provide the code. Here are the current rules [lwn.net] for submitting code for the kernel, and here is the Developer's Certificate of Origin [osdl.org]. Significant contributions should also be well publicized so that anyone claiming infringment is forced to bring it up soon, before people come to rely on it. In this case, it would then be Novell's problem, not the community's, if Microsoft claims that the code is theirs.

Microsoft is like the dragon.

[Fonce (635723)]

Meddle not in the affairs of Microsoft, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Not surprising

[bssteph (967858)]

The author's reaction, that is. A lot of the above comments are saying the article is garbage and FUD and paranoia and etc., and maybe it is, but keep in mind that for a lot of people (and probably, a lot of projects), this kind of paranoia is going to be the first thing that crosses their mind with they see patches from Novell.

"How will this possibly screw us later?"

Get used to these responses, it's the new Novell.

If you can drink wine, OOo this is fud

[cyberjessy (444290)]

After reading all the scathing criticism lately about Mono and OOo being tainted by MS patents, it leaves me to wonder why WINE never had so many skeptics (though it did have a few). With the same line of reasoning, WINE should be at a greater risk.

Anyway not that I think any of these will face any problems,
1. Anti-Trust - It will be difficult for MS to pull of anything close to killing a small competitor out of business using patents.
2. Massive attrition at Microsoft - All things being equal, people tend to work for saner, lesser-evil companies. There is a certain pride in it, and I don't fancy a lot of people saying - Yeah I work for SCO! (I just dug this interesting article from Paul Graham about MS Patents [paulgraham.com])
3. MS has benefited from interoperability, and cross-technology support for years (Remember how Word had Word perfect emulation modes and shortcuts). I don't think patents cover those APIs too.
4. And piss off the large clients??
5. Total loss of good-will and PR disaster.
6. Can OIN (Open Innovation Network) patents be used against Microsoft?
7. Only a tiny fraction of Mono and OOo will ever fall under the patenttotine, and those will no doubt be re-written and re-implemented the same weekend.

Odd behavior from MSFT is the norm

[HangingChad (677530)]

If MSFT is going to try and litigate Linux they're going to try it with or without Novell. OpenOffice is compatible with a lot of file formats, including PDF export. If this was some attempt to poison an open source code base it's both clumsy and ineffective.

Unless Ballmer is completely stupid...and I wouldn't necessarily rule that out...then you have to believe the SCO litigation-by-proxy is seen internally as a huge, embarrassing mistake. If anything the whole fiaSCO actually highlighted how strong Linux is from an IP standpoint. SCO demonstrated that attacking Linux is bad business, and the reaction of the open source to community to an attack from MSFT could be even more extreme.

In my opinion Ballmer is bluffing. It would be stupid for MSFT to launch a direct attack against Linux. More likely this is their own clumsy way of trying to cut a deal, handicapped by naturally poor corporate execution and their ego driven CEO. You don't have to look any farther than Zune to see another glaring example of ego inspired faltering execution. Ballmer wanted to grab a piece of the iPod market because he doesn't like Jobs and had they been anyone but MSFT they might have succeeded. This same group isn't going to be any more effective or execute any better against Linux. So don't give them the satisfaction of going off the handle and every bit of drool that comes out of Ballmer's mouth.

VBA code from MS?

[lpq (583377)]

From the original article, it seems the code predates the Novell-MS agreement. That would suggest it didn't come from MS. So why is this a problem?

Can the other distros (which the article claims had previously added the code) add MS compatibility code and have no problem, but when Novell adds the same code, they'll be accused of adding MS-supplied code?

Hopefully Novell will clarify their standing with MS such that any code released by Novell under the GPL is truly free GPL code.

Another area is the restriction that Suse development is limited to hobbyist development only. Commercial developers get no protections when using GPL code from SuSE. Sounds like SuSE may have shot themselves in the foot.

-l

A touch of reality from an openoffice.org hacker

[ikeleib (125180)]

The RTFA is an accurate statement of fact. The summary on slashdot is not. Facts of interest:

• Noel, who not a MS schill and is actually a very nice guy, has been working on this for a long time and this code has been shipping with ooo-build for a long time. The ooo-build code is in gnome-cvs, and you can peruse the history youself if you like. The patches are in the patches/src680 directory. You probably are interested in the ones with the vba- prefix.
• ooo-build is a build wrapper that also applies patches. You can select which patches you want and which patches you don't. Most Linux distros use ooo-build to build their packages. Thus these patches go through evaluation by most distros for their "freeness" (DFSG and others). All patches in ooo-build must have a JCA (Joint Copyright Assignment) signed, which amongst other things requires that the contributor actually own the copyright of the code in question.
• This code is all LGPL. For those that are not familiar with the LGPL, here is a snippet

  For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Library 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 Library.

  As the joint copyright holder (see above), this means Novell.
• For the last time, Openoffice.org is not mostly Java. It's almost entirely C++.
• Openoffice.org is a very challenging project and is in need of good hackers. For all the bashers on slashdot who say that it is too bloated or too old, I invite you to help. Few free software projects enable you to have your code literely run by millions of people all over the world. If you want to help, jump on #openoffice.org or #go-oo or one of the mailing lists and dive in.

Re:Stolen posts.

[EvanED (569694)]

Wrong. If Novell can distribute it, then everyone else can. If everyone else can't, then neither can Novell, though for different reasons. (If everyone else can't distribute it because of patent issues, then Novell can't distribute it because the GPL doesn't grant distribution rights if you can't or don't license the patents too.) This means that if MS sues another distro over patent issues, and the offending code is traced to Novell, then everyone ELSE who has code in the kernel can then sue Novell for brach of contract/copyright violation, especially if they continue to distribute the code themselves. (Depending on the outcome of the case mentioned a couple days ago.)