Novell Injects MS Lawsuit Exploit Into Open Office 251
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.)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Poison pill (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
FTFA (italics are mine): (quoting Noel Power) "I also got the impression that they (Sun -- with respect to Sun's proprietary VBA support implementation) deemphasizing support for their solution. We hope to increase the pace of our upstreaming efforts and aim to have the initial effort completed in the next couple of months."
If the goal of OOo is to encourage people to migrate away from MS and towards FOSS then deemphasizing VBA support is in the b
Re:Poison pill (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Trying? (Score:2)
This novell deal just gets more code/IP into place for the eventual 'takedown'.
Advice: get and save all the code you can now, before it all goes away and leaves us with nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't they just received a check for some 350 million?
If that's not a benefit I don't know what is.
They have just been set up to be FiaSCO number 2.
My prediction: SuSE, and possibly Novell themselves, won't be around at all in five years, and I can't help but wonder which Linux distribution is going to be put on the execution block next? I suspect that all the commercial ones are going t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Simple. While the logic of the situation is obvious to anyone who knows anything about computers, The Ballmer knows he only needs to convince a judge who believes that the internet is a series of tubes through which he may attach a penis pump [thesmokinggun.com]that Micro$oft's IP has been stolen. Although, I am somewhat curious as to what the relation is between Donald D. Thompson and Jack Thomps
Re:Poison pill (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure that if you've been running SUSE it's quite convenient to continue running it. It just isn't very smart.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Poison pill (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Poison pill (Score:4, Informative)
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
*all* patches from Novell must be rejected (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and for Saturday night relief - even the mighty can be seduced by MS charm: farewell, Napoleon! [ifilm.com]
Proof or STFU (Score:5, Informative)
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_opensou
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
These aren't knee-jerk reactions. I fear it is a long and carefully planned strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Then bring on the lawsuits. I, like many other Windows turned Linux users, pirated Windows for years before going 100% Linux. and I have *no moral concerns whatsoever* about using any of the open source applications you mentioned whether or not they have been decreed to violate either one patent or a 1000 patents.
Dont need all packages (Score:2)
Dark times are coming in the 'free' world.
Re:*all* posts from "/." must be rejected (Score:5, Funny)
I am intrigued by your non-sequiturs and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re:*all* posts from "/." must be rejected (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:*all* patches from Novell must be rejected (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Thousands of Microsoft patents, or thousands of valid Microsoft patents?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thousands of Microsoft patents, or thousands of valid Microsoft patents?
The patent system is so broken.. it doesn't matter. Patents are considered valid until proven - at great expense - otherwise.
Why MS prefer patent FUD to patent WAR (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
1) that it has the copyright for all code it commits
2) that a license for the code is granted
3) that usage of all patents covering the code is granted
There is probably some other legal stuff that I have no clue about that also has to be put in such an agreement. Certain projects already require such an agreement before allowing contributions, yes it
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the GPL technically does number three. See:
Re:*all* patches from Novell must be rejected (Score:4, Interesting)
The VBA code in OO.o isn't entirely new either. There was a presentation at Linux '05 by some Novell guys on the VBA code that they had written for OO.o, and they claimed then it was very close to supporting all the functions people actually used.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:*all* patches from Novell must be rejected (Score:4, Informative)
The macro that is included as a VBA demo in the article http://www.linuxtalk.co.uk/ooo_vba/hypocycloid-de
Re: (Score:2)
And in the standard Ubuntu / Kubuntu repositories. So who do we ask to take it out again?
Ads (Score:4, Funny)
I'll pass on MS-controlled Linux, thanks...
Re:Ads (Score:4, Interesting)
Now we're screwed... (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This story is idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well but for potential patent problems affecting FOSS I bet there's no difference whatsoever between the two.
The problem is (Score:2)
MS has only got to show that its code was introduced into a FOSS application once to discredit much of the effort that the community has put together over the years. If they can show that one piece of their code was used then they can start asking how many more pieces?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The question is the origin of the patch. Since a Novell employee is involved, this action is suspect.
That's the key, a Novell employee making the patch. If MS were to go after anyone they'd have to go after Novell for releasing the patch not to a third party who uses the patch. But of course MS can't, er won't as they gave Novell a guaranty not to sue Novell.
And copyrighted? Why do you suppose that the people running OpenOffice.org have access to Microsoft's source code for comparison?
Or are you b
Nope. (Score:2)
Nope. Microsoft could go after anyone distributing/selling their property. Not just Novell. Not just the one employee at Novell.
It doesn't matter how it originally got in there, as long as it was not Microsoft who directly put it in there.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry. This is emphatically not true. The copyright office does not require that whole programs be submitted for the copyright to be registered.
C//
copyrights (Score:2)
I'm sorry. This is emphatically not true. The copyright office does not require that whole programs be submitted for the copyright to be registered.
Are you sure? If I wanted to copyright a book, or an article or song, I have to submit the whole text. Though I haven't had anything copyright registered, I used to write a lot and was a member of two writers groups that did have published members. If the whole thing isn't submitted then how can you prove someone else infringes?
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
YES.
http://www.copyright.gov/register/literary.html [copyright.gov]
On the above page, click "deposit requirements". On it you will find:
"Computer Programs: One copy of identifying portions of the program (first 25 and last 25 pages of source code) reproduced in a visually perceptible form, together with the page containing the copyright notice, For details please see Circular 61, Copyright Registration for Computer Programs."
This is all academic, you understand. You are not required to register copyright to be
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link. I see for software only "first 25 and last 25 pages of source code" are needed. That would be sufficient for some programs but for larger bodies of work, if you don't submit the compleated code how can you prove someone else is infringing your copyright though, especially if there's hundreds of pages. Someone can change the pages sunmitted and use the rest as is.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
C//
Re: (Score:2)
Although that was how it used to work, it's no longer true [wikipedia.org] (as of 1989, when the United States signed the Berne Convention ). Nowadays, every single thing you write is automatically copyrighted. This Slashdot post is copyrighted. Your Slashdot post is copyrighted. The note you jotted down on a Post-It(TM) is copyrighted. Your grocery list is copyrighted. Everything on the Internet (except that which is explicitly released to the Public Domain, created by the government, or so old that its copyright expired)
Re: (Score:2)
Although that was how it used to work, it's no longer true [wikipedia.org] (as of 1989, when the United States signed the Berne Convention ). Nowadays, every single thing you write is automatically copyrighted. This Slashdot post is copyrighted. Your Slashdot post is copyrighted. The note you jotted down on a Post-It(TM) is copyrighted. Your grocery list is copyrighted. Everything on the Internet (except that which is explicitly released to the Public Domain, created by the government, or so old that its co
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just wondering why everyone is saying that part of the agreement is that Microsoft won't sue Novell when the Novell has clearly stated that "does not include a patent license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft to Novell (or, for that matter, from Novell to Microsoft). Novell's customers receive a covenant not to sue directly from Microsoft."
You're right, my mistake. MS is not going to sue endusers of SuSE not Novell itself. However my understanding of patents is that an IP owner has to go after
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the case. A patent holder can go after anyone and everyone (at anytime, in no particular order) that "exercises" (uses) the patent, whether they bought the infringing device/software from somebody else or not. It's just that the patent holder is more likely to win worthwile amounts of
Re:The word is "caution". (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly? I'd say 03:37 PM -- Thursday November 02 2006 [slashdot.org]. The moment we learned Novell was about to sell its soul and add the community as desert.
Re: (Score:2)
Require a Developer's Certificate of Origin (Score:4, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The subsequent users of said code now can easily point to the person who put it in. At least it's documented. The best part is, anyone can take the code out. Even if they took you to court, you simply argue that you have already removed the code. (Shows that you mean to comply with the court's actions)
All fud, no action.
Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
"How will this possibly screw us later?"
Get used to these responses, it's the new Novell.
So... (Score:2, Troll)
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: (Score:2)
Well if Open Office starts using VBA macros routinely, then VBA becomes the de facto standard for these spreadsheet packages. That's bad in and of itself if you feel (as I do) that there are better languages. But it's even worse when you consider how this will work in practice. We will have a standard over which we have no control (it's Microsoft's), and which Open Office will always implement in an inferior way. Microsoft can always break compatibility with the addition of a few more bits and pieces as th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no need for that. Open Office can assimilate compatibility with MS Office, AND it can go beyond. For me, major turning points were when Open Office started supporting HTML editing and PDF exports as standard features out of the box. In addition, I've frequently found Open Office to have better support for old MS Office formats than new versions of MS Office.
Scripting should be no different than the file format capab
A working solution for the problem (Score:2, Interesting)
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 yo
Please Microsoft, not THAT obious !!! (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
just yesterday ms (balmer ?) was able to say something like "linux owes us" just out of the blue,without any solid stuff around. so this wont be anything that will be exploitable by ms lawyers you say ?
Re: (Score:2)
just yesterday ms (balmer ?) was able to say something like "linux owes us" just out of the blue,without any solid stuff around. so this wont be anything that will be exploitable by ms lawyers you say ?
MS can claim all they want but to make it stick they have to prove it first. Then IBM et alia can demand they show what lines infringe on MS IP. Even if it didn't end up like SCO, there may be a good possibility MS is violating the GPL or other OS licenses by having incorporated OS into MS products. Tha
Re: (Score:2)
They had more than forty billion dollars in cash last time I looked, so I think a lot more than "a bunch of claims" need to be brought to drain that warchest.
If you can drink wine, OOo this is fud (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
No need to fear -- and what M$ is really up to (Score:3, Interesting)
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
VBA code from MS? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
That's a start. Now they should do the honorable thing and shoot themselves in the head..
fork Ooo from here on (Score:2, Insightful)
Be careful - MS has patents on visual basic (Score:2)
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
What's this have to do with Linux? (Score:2)
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.
Why not ask Microsoft? (Score:2)
"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.
Ignorance and news title (Score:2)
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 ac
Foot, meet Bullet (Score:2)
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.
A touch of reality from an openoffice.org hacker (Score:5, Insightful)
The RTFA is an accurate statement of fact. The summary on slashdot is not. Facts of interest:
I haven't changed yet (Score:3, Interesting)
While running an update this morning I noticed that the "Mono implementation of ASP.NET" was being updated. Why the fsck should I need this on a desktop machine?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no troll... I'm just saying "who cares?"
Yeah, there are a few people out there who need to move Microsoft -> OOo who
might care about this; but I think it's more important that OOo support more open solutions and encourage new users to develop
their macros / scripts in something other than VBA. Sure, this might be
Re:VBA? Feh.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Novell can implement all sorts of Microsoft-patented ideas, hand it to and if that project is distributed by a commercial distro, then the distro can be sued by M
Re: (Score:2)
The first emphasized thing is an instance of the second.
Re: (Score:2)
If Novell stops distributing code as soon as it hears about an actual Microsoft patent claim (or some other legal machinery that prevents it's customers from exercising their full GPL rights), then it won't be liable f
Re:Stolen posts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your Honor, exhibit A (Score:2)
>>validating code, and blindly accepts any
>>code offered, assuming that there's no
>>patent infringing code in it.
>>
>Of course it hasn't. Are you willing to
>pay the lawyers? Patents are stupid and
>most of OSS developers just ignore it,
>because if we cared about respecting
>patents we would need to shut down most
>of the OSS software.
That's not much of an argument.
Br
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much *any* software of even medium complexity violates numerous patents. That's the crux of the whole software patent debate -- most software patent claims tend to be very broad, covering very basic issues, and software is so complex it pretty much *has* to overlap these claims in multiple directions.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that novell's involvement with linux software is just too big now. Novell has Mono, GTK, OO.org, GNOME developers and lots others.
Boycotting novell would mean boycotting gnome, gtk, openoffice and virtually every distro out there.
Re: (Score:2)
SuSE was born in the Linux Leper Colony. This is the company who, until recently, produced only proprietary software - specifically, every one of the tools they created for their distribution, most notably yast, were closed-source.
They appear to be merely returning to their roots.
This is OOo you're talking about. (Score:3, Interesting)
I was considering using OO to convert some Word files to OpenDocument awhile ago. I ended up choosing AbiWord, because AbiWord can be run in a commandline mode to do that translation, whereas OO requires an X server and a VB-like macro to automate the process -- and the macro must be embedded in a file, and installed through the OO GUI