Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Novell Injects MS Lawsuit Exploit Into Open Office

Posted by kdawson on Sat Nov 18, 2006 02:37 PM
from the danger-will-robinson dept.
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.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Poison pill (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scsirob (246572) on Saturday November 18 2006, @02:40PM (#16898178)
    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 by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday November 18 2006, @02:44PM
    • Re:Poison pill (Score:5, Insightful)

      by marcello_dl (667940) on Saturday November 18 2006, @02:51PM (#16898272)
      (http://electrob.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday September 27, @01:42PM)
      How could SCO benefit by declaring "better to use windows than linux?" :) SCO did not benefit. Their managers probably did.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Poison pill by HomelessInLaJolla (Score:2) Saturday November 18 2006, @02:55PM
    • Re:Poison pill by weeb0 (Score:1) Saturday November 18 2006, @03:53PM
    • Re:Poison pill (Score:5, Funny)

      by iluvcapra (782887) on Saturday November 18 2006, @06:31PM (#16900120)
      (http://www.soundepartment.com/)

      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.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Poison pill by blincoln (Score:3) Saturday November 18 2006, @09:30PM
        • Re:Poison pill by Directrix1 (Score:2) Monday November 20 2006, @11:11AM
      • Re:Poison pill by cciRRus (Score:1) Sunday November 19 2006, @05:22AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Poison pill by pionzypher (Score:1) Saturday November 18 2006, @07:26PM
    • Trying? by nurb432 (Score:2) Saturday November 18 2006, @08:24PM
    • Re:Poison pill by chris_sawtell (Score:2) Saturday November 18 2006, @08:30PM
    • Re:Poison pill by rakslice (Score:2) Saturday November 18 2006, @09:37PM
    • Re:Poison pill by Foobar of Borg (Score:3) Saturday November 18 2006, @02:50PM
      • Re:Poison pill (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2006, @03:21PM (#16898550)
        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.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Poison pill (Score:5, Interesting)

          by kimvette (919543) on Saturday November 18 2006, @04:04PM (#16898918)
          (http://kim.biyn.com/)
          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.
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:Poison pill by HiThere (Score:3) Saturday November 18 2006, @05:47PM
            • Re:Poison pill by Verteiron (Score:3) Saturday November 18 2006, @10:39PM
            • Re:Poison pill by azhrei_fje (Score:2) Saturday November 18 2006, @11:48PM
              • Re:Poison pill by JohnFluxx (Score:2) Sunday November 19 2006, @09:39AM
                • Re:Poison pill by azhrei_fje (Score:1) Sunday November 19 2006, @10:44AM
                  • Re:Poison pill by JohnFluxx (Score:2) Sunday November 19 2006, @06:17PM
              • Re:Poison pill by HiThere (Score:2) Sunday November 19 2006, @11:41AM
            • Re:Poison pill by jamstar7 (Score:1) Sunday November 19 2006, @12:32AM
          • Re:Poison pill by 10scjed (Score:1) Sunday November 19 2006, @11:56AM
        • Re:Poison pill (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ray-auch (454705) on Saturday November 18 2006, @04:56PM (#16899362)
          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.
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:Poison pill (Score:4, Informative)

            by sphealey (2855) on Saturday November 18 2006, @07:10PM (#16900440)
            === 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. ===
            I have never used Groupwise, although those who have and still do say it is an excellent product. My spouse uses their web-based client for work and it seems as good or better than any web version of a featureful mail system (for what that is worth).

            As far as eDirectory, and to a lesser extent Netware goes, I would respectfully disagree. eDirectory was and still is a very very good directory product. After fighting with inActive Directory for 3 years I would tell any enterprise with a large directory that is considering migrating off eDirectory that they are nuts - stay with it until Novell gives up the last gasp.

            sPh

            [ Parent ]
            • Re:Poison pill by ray-auch (Score:2) Sunday November 19 2006, @05:29AM
          • Re:Poison pill by mr_mischief (Score:2) Monday November 20 2006, @10:52AM
        • Microsoft Novell, Word Perfect and a half billion by midgley (Score:1) Sunday November 19 2006, @08:28AM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2006, @02:40PM (#16898186)
    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]
  • Pwned Office, (Score:1)

    by anjilslaire (968692) on Saturday November 18 2006, @02:42PM (#16898196)
    anyone?
  • Ads (Score:4, Funny)

    by the linux geek (799780) on Saturday November 18 2006, @02:43PM (#16898214)
    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...
  • by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Saturday November 18 2006, @02:45PM (#16898232)
    "Unfortunately, there's no easy way of identifying whether your distro supports the VBA interoperability apart from trying some VBA code."

    Great, now I don't don't know if I'm vulnerable until it's too late. How do I disable it? Is now the time for a Linux anti-virus?
  • This story is idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CYwo1f (166549) on Saturday November 18 2006, @02:48PM (#16898250)
    (http://infoathand.com/)
    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:This story is idiotic by marcello_dl (Score:2) Saturday November 18 2006, @03:04PM
    • The problem is by Epeeist (Score:2) Saturday November 18 2006, @03:19PM
    • The word is "caution". by khasim (Score:1) Saturday November 18 2006, @03:23PM
      • Re:The word is "caution". by falconwolf (Score:3) Saturday November 18 2006, @04:08PM
      • Re:The word is "caution". (Score:4, Informative)

        by CYwo1f (166549) on Saturday November 18 2006, @04:47PM (#16899304)
        (http://infoathand.com/)
        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).

        [ Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Mexican saying. by jotaeleemeese (Score:2) Tuesday November 21 2006, @02:03PM
    • Re:This story is idiotic by public transport (Score:2) Saturday November 18 2006, @03:13PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • I'll Wait. (Score:1)

    by MBC1977 (978793) on Saturday November 18 2006, @02:49PM (#16898260)
    Even though I dislike OpenOffice, I would suggest taking a wait-and-see approach, rather than just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
  • Cut the crap (Score:5, Insightful)

    by paniq (833972) on Saturday November 18 2006, @02:54PM (#16898290)
    (http://www.leonard-ritter.com/)
    Cut the crap, this is pure paranoia. Since when exactly does every little action by Novell employees deserve an article at Slashdot?
  • 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.

  • Non-Article (Score:1)

    by the.metric (988575) on Saturday November 18 2006, @02:59PM (#16898324)
    Seriously people, this article is simply an install and usage guide, without much of a comment on the timeline etc. Since most distros ship this stuff already (e.g. Debian), and have been for a while, it would seem to me that this code was written from scratch, unless MS was handing off code to Novell before the agreement.

    So therefore we have not a copyright issue at all, but a software patent issue. Let the patent discussion begin!
  • Who cares about VBA in OOo when you can write OOo macros in Java, Python, Perl, Beanshell, and Javascript; and probably COBOL, Prolog, Lisp and Oberon as well...

    • Re:VBA? Feh.... by PCM2 (Score:2) Saturday November 18 2006, @03:08PM
      • Re:VBA? Feh.... by psykocrime (Score:2) Saturday November 18 2006, @03:13PM
    • Re:VBA? Feh.... by kenb215 (Score:1) Saturday November 18 2006, @03:15PM
    • Re:VBA? Feh.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by abirdman (557790) <abirdmanNO@SPAMmaine.rr.com> on Saturday November 18 2006, @07:28PM (#16900600)
      (Last Journal: Saturday November 30 2002, @08:32PM)

      If MS is contemplating a lawsuit (nothing in TFA indicates that), it's not because of one user coding up macros to make their lives easier. MS doesn't make (much) money from individual users, they make their money on corporations, some of which have an infrastructure investment in Excel macros (I know, I know, it's a horrible idea... but it's true). Those macros represent a huge moment of inertia for an organization to overcome before they can switch to another spreadsheet-- that's why it's "cheaper" to pay the massive licensing fees for MS Office than to change to free software. Changing platforms requires planning, controlled conversion, and meticulous testing of code that does something that in many cases no one even remembers precisely. Many users don't even know they're running macros, they just know to 1) load the spreadsheet, 2) press Ctrl-X or something, and 3) type in some new numbers. That creates a very difficult situation for someone planning to change platforms.

      If OOo includes transparent VBA support, which can be demonstrated to be reliable, much of that inertia is overcome. MS doesn't care about an individual coder who wants to write spreadsheet macros, whether they're in VBA or Haskell or Snobol or RPG-- they've already lost those users. It is very much in their interest to keep those 50-seat (or 20,000-seat) user licenses coming in. And protecting that revenue stream will pay for a lot of lawyers.

      [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2006, @03:01PM (#16898344)
    First off, this code has been around since SLED shipped, if not before. Anyone who recalls Nat Friedman showing his Spirograph under OOocalc, well, this is what they're talking about.

    Secondly, the Slashdot post seems to be confirming that the open source community has no way of validating code, and blindly accepts any code offered, assuming that there's no patent infringing code in it.

    Good job, FSF. You've managed to do what Darl couldn't-- Completely shatter the open source community, and turn them against themselves. Bravo!
  • It is time (Score:1)

    by pair-a-noyd (594371) on Saturday November 18 2006, @03:01PM (#16898352)
    to banish Novell/Suse to the Linux Leper Colony.

    Do it now while there's still time. Reject any code coming out of Novell.
    They could have been poisoning the well for months and months before this deal was made public.
    • Re:It is time by Espectr0 (Score:2) Saturday November 18 2006, @03:58PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:It is time by asuffield (Score:2) Saturday November 18 2006, @05:54PM
      • Re:It is time by sjbcfh (Score:1) Saturday November 18 2006, @07:45PM
  • by Fonce (635723) <msmunter AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday November 18 2006, @03:04PM (#16898366)
    (http://www.slashdot.org/)
    Meddle not in the affairs of Microsoft, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • What happens? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MikeRT (947531) on Saturday November 18 2006, @03:06PM (#16898390)
    (http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com/)
    All hell breaks loose for Novell, not OpenOffice. Presumably this is being done officially by them and so the blame would fall on Novell.
  • Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bssteph (967858) * on Saturday November 18 2006, @03:07PM (#16898402)
    (http://emptymatter.org/)
    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.
  • So... (Score:2, Troll)

    by diegocgteleline.es (653730) on Saturday November 18 2006, @03:08PM (#16898406)
    Now I can run pretty much any visual basic program (one of the most used languages in the Real World) under linux and hence switch many people to linux, but people prefers to title it as "novell may be doing some dirty things"

    It's amazing how one of the most wonderful news I've heard in months can become FUD. Wake up: Patents already existed before the novell-MS pact. Microsoft has been able to sue companies for years. Getting VBA compatibility is a Good Thing. I only can thank Novell for this code.
    • Re:So... by h4rm0ny (Score:2) Saturday November 18 2006, @09:38PM
      • Re:So... by zCyl (Score:3) Sunday November 19 2006, @04:33AM
  • A working solution for the problem (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2006, @03:10PM (#16898426)
    A working solution for the problem:
    boycott Novell.

    Make them understand that we do not accept the deal they've made,
    regardless of whether it complies or not with GPLv2.

    For upstream people:
    reject their patches, regardless of the content.
    Reject their feature requests.
    Create new bug report state in trackers:
    "WAITING for submitter to cancel cancerous deal with Microsoft".

    For Novell management:
    cancel the deal with Microsoft and tell us how much you are sorry.

    For Novell engineers:
    protest with management, and if you are left unheard eventually start
    looking for alternatives.

    For users:
    if you are using Suse, move away. Try other distributions, there are
    better ones btw.
    Let Novell know that you do not want to use Suse anymore because of their deal.

    Novell has put all other distributions in danger, let us not let them get away with it.

    Anonymous Coward.

  • Man. come on. One needs to be subtle when pulling a trick.

    2 days earlier novell gig, then 'linux owes us' 1 days ago, and now, this.

    Its TOO obvious to fool anyone, even supreme court judges who are totally inaware of i.t. technology.
  • by aliabadi (1018798) on Saturday November 18 2006, @03:15PM (#16898484)
    Next thing you know, some brilliant chum over at M$ is going to claim that he invented the personal computer and every manufactureer owes him a royalty back-payments for patent infringement...
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by cyberjessy (444290) on Saturday November 18 2006, @03:23PM (#16898578)
    (http://www.process64.com/)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HangingChad (677530) on Saturday November 18 2006, @03:28PM (#16898616)
    (http://www.dangercollie.com/music/)

    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.

  • by DarkOx (621550) on Saturday November 18 2006, @03:40PM (#16898720)
    Certainly Novells actions are bogus and not designed for the good of the OS community at all but we don't need to fear their code any more then code from any place else; Microsoft wants Linux out of the picture and is a fearce competitor in any market it participates in; especially is core markets like PC and micro server operating systems.

    Microsoft business is good sales are up but that is because the market is growing, others like Apple and Linux are takeing a part of the share M$ is used to haveing about 98% the writing on the wall says it won't stay that way unless something is done. Think about it we are rapidly approching the point where everyone has a PC or many and business have about as many as they know what to do with. Thats not to say people and orgainzations won't be always buying computer they will but it will be mostly a retire replace thing rather then a 1 + 1 = 2 like it has been the last 2 decades. Microsoft wants to keep 98% share. They know how to deal with traditional competitors. They can't deal with everyone and their brother producing different but mostly compatable platforms and more then the business modle IBM had around the PC could deal with the clone market. They sure can deal with RH and SUSE though. They are trying to play a patent game and ensure a finite number of traitional large corporate competition so they can do what they have always done; give away enough of their crack to get people hooked and at the same time starve the competition for revenue.

    If M$ can kill the Linux market outside of Novell watch for windows to be suddenly free(as in beer) and come with free as in beer support. M$ can give windows away; after all they have other products to sell for you to run on top of it. Most people will then see windows as cheak as suse not understadning that with suse they'd be getting all the other stuff like web,sql,office apps, to and pick windows because its familiar. That is what M$ wants; they want to be able to kill linux they way they killed Netscape, Netware and countless others. They can't manage that right now because with all sorts of basically not for profit distros, debian and small commecial distros that are selected by very specific people for specific reasons like slackware. There is no clear revenue stream to attack. The mass of people useing and developing the software remains big enough that it continues to improve and inovate to the point where it becomes dangerous to them and they cant stop it.

    Think about GNU/Linux is not quite but almost good enough to push replace windows in just about every desktop and server space it owns save a few without much pain. It does not need to be as good as windows just good enough and cheaper. Now even when those conditions are reached its still not going to be a big Linux title wave; in fact nothing at all will happen because people generally like the status quo. Ahh but what if a KILL APP was found something that you just can't do with windows but you could do easily with GNU/Linux. I don't know what that would be but at that point the war would be won over night. Windows would be a legacy platform like netware. That is what they fear.

    In the mean time though M$ played their cards wrong and so did Novel. Novel was thinking this little patent game with M$ could effectivly make them a Monopoly or part of a Oligopoly in the Linux market which while not huge would be better from their point of view then the current situation. Novel is wrong of couse because if it worked out that the developers would dry up. Nobody wants to write free code for Novel. They want to write code that the whole community can use. They do it because its fun to have your name on something that lots of people depend on. They do it because its a fun challenge and it produces a useful product for them and friends. They do it because they benifited from and OS project and feel they should give something back. They do it to show off their skills and make themsevels more marketable. They do it for all sorts of ot
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • VBA code from MS? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lpq (583377) on Saturday November 18 2006, @04:35PM (#16899174)
    (http://slashdot.org/~lpq | Last Journal: Saturday August 25, @05:30PM)
    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
  • by recharged95 (782975) on Saturday November 18 2006, @04:56PM (#16899358)
    (Last Journal: Friday September 17 2004, @04:10PM)
    In this age of OOA/OOD, why can't the code in question be encapsulated in a delegate or interface wrapped and be done with it?

    I mean it's a good compromise to allow the code to operate for those users who need it (providing the features to help F/OSS), and when/if the posion pill is used, just replace it with something more FOSS--as if the need is great someone will find an alternative to get things working [with another piece of code]--that's the beauty of FOSS: there's always a way out. This is interface programming 101. Just as long as it's not tightly coupled to the main baseline/tree, there's nothing to worry about unless some lawyer wants to twist the facts (death to all lawyers as someone said?)

    Transition from closed source to open source isn't as simple as a 'throw the old stuff away' switch over scenario. If it is, then we've been watching too many hollywood movies.

  • fork Ooo from here on (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kras (807696) on Saturday November 18 2006, @05:12PM (#16899508)
    (http://jajadatzalwel.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday July 31, @04:41PM)
    fork the further development of Ooo into a Novell (Microsoft) and a Debian fork. see how far the Microsoft influence goes, and see how far the FSF influence goes. THEN choose your pick.
  • exploit (Score:1)

    by ruffles321 (1023357) on Saturday November 18 2006, @06:02PM (#16899894)
    brilliant title
  • by Serveert (102805) on Saturday November 18 2006, @06:10PM (#16899950)
    They patented VB's "IsNot" operator.

    http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2005/02/22/real_slam s_ms_patent/ [regdeveloper.co.uk]

    Sure this may be in other distros but Microsoft probably already considers those distros as in violation of their patents, now that it's in Suse, when they start raising a stink about this patent, people can have the option to switch to Suse.

    Microsoft is being extremely evil and Suse is just playing ball with them. I'm sure the developers at Suse justify this, who can blame them, without Microsoft's money they would be unemployed. But this patch should be looked at as an omen, nothing less. Be careful, this is part of Microsoft's strategy. At this point it's a game of chess for Ballmer to see how he can abuse OSS. At this phase in the game he's planting seeds.
  • by I'm Don Giovanni (598558) on Saturday November 18 2006, @06:17PM (#16900016)
    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.


    How is this a move in the "Linux owes us" game? OO.o isn't particular to Linux. OO.o itself may be running afoul of MS (and others') patents, but this has nothing to do with Linux.
  • by haeger (85819) on Saturday November 18 2006, @06:33PM (#16900132)
    I'm sure someone will tell me why this won't work but can't OpenOffice just send a mail/letter/fax to Microsoft with a polite question about the code.
    "We've recieved this piece of code and will include this into our software. If you see any problems with this, get back to us within 90 days or we will take your silence as an acceptance and a promise not to take any action against us, legal or otherwise". Or something like that.

     

    .haeger

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by Kell_pt (789485) on Saturday November 18 2006, @07:24PM (#16900564)
    (http://www.eufinity.com/)
    I'm going to quote John Stewart at Crossfire on this one, aimed at Slashdot:
    Please, please, please... STOP. You're hurting us.

    We all know ignorance spurs fear. And granted, we should all somehow fear this Novell/MS deal. But a sensationalist headline like this, is not just F, it's not just U and it's not just D. It's a capital I, of Ignorance. PLEASE, if you're going to post something that is going to be read by thousands of people, at least try look into it before you slam a title like this.

    If you actually looked around a bit, you'd see that what has been submitted is something that has been lying around for some months now, which is actually already present in other distros. I know this is Slashdot... but again, this IS Slashdot, and it is not acceptable.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Foot, meet Bullet (Score:2)

    by FFFish (7567) on Saturday November 18 2006, @09:40PM (#16901338)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    So, Microsoft figures it's going to win by pissing off the geeks? *That* ought to be an amusing debacle.

    The public follows the geeks: it's part of the trickle-down effect. When the geeks decide they've put up with enough bullshit and that it's time to move to a real OS, Microsoft is going to go bye-bye.

    And frankly, I could not care less. Fuck Microsoft: it's been incompetent and lazy and evil for about ten years longer than it should have.

    Microsoft has jumped the shark.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by Freed (2178) on Saturday November 18 2006, @11:16PM (#16901726)

    Yes, this is a review, but some of you guys may have not thought long enough about the smoke and mirrors a