Microsoft Gets Novell Docs Before OSS Community

flydpnkrtn sends in an InformationWeek article arising out of Novell's SEC filing yesterday, asking: "Is this just more Novell-bashing material? Or is this no big deal? And of course this type of thing runs contrary to the 'spirit of the GPL'..." "Under its controversial alliance with Novell, Microsoft is entitled to receive key technical documentation from the Linux distributor even if that documentation is not generally available to open source software developers, according to a Novell document."

Their documentation

If the documentation belongs to Novell, they can burn it for all I care.

Re:Their documentation

Maybe Microsoft is the only one that wanted it.

I don't see any problem with this.

Novell and MS are perfectly entitled to collaborate in any fashion they like as long as it doesn't violate the licenses of products that are not their own intellectual property e.g. GPL-licensed software they are distributing as part of their product offerings.

If Novell wants to share documentation athat they themselves have written or compiled with MS in preference to others, then I can't see any reason for outrage or controversy. Please, theres plenty of reasons (mostly, the patent-related reasons), to condemn Novell's actions, but I can't see this is any basis for negative feeling towards Novell at all.

If youre talking about community-contributed documentation, then wouldn't it already be out there?

If youre really worried, slap a 'all rights reserved by the copyright holder. Permission is granted to read or redistribute this work except to the companies Novell or Microsoft' disclaimer on everything you publish.

 

Re:I don't see any problem with this.

The problem here IS that Microsoft appears to be collaborating with Novel

Since the quote directly mentioned virtualisation, I would imagine that this related to the work Novell are doing to create a compatibility layer between the Vista hypervisor and Xen, allowing guests from one to run on the other.

Re:I don't see any problem with this.

"Novell and MS are perfectly entitled to collaborate in any fashion they like"

We are also free to use whatever products we like. We are free to choose against a product only that we don't like the chairman (or should I say "chair man") of the company, or if we don't like what companies they make deals with. I personally don't like Microsoft so much, therefore I won't use Suse and any product that come from Novell as long as they make deals with Microsoft.

Don't Think This is Relevant

I don't think this is quite as it looks. The documentation this refers to is probably for Novells proprietary products, such as Zenworks, their virtualisation management stuff etc. That's really what Microsoft is most interested in Novell giving them a leg up on - whereupon Microsoft will spit Novell out and start eating even more of their customers.

It won't affect the open source community one jot, but it's just further evidence as to how tight a grip Microsoft (Novell's number one competitor who wants to put them out of business remember) has on Novell's very small and inconsequential nads. Novell never ceases to amaze me with their incompetence unfortunately, and if they want to flush themselves down the toilet then that's entirely up to them.

Re:Don't Think This is Relevant

if Novell took a GPLed software and wrote documentation for it, should the documentation be under the GPL?

Well, I don't think all the books that have been written about Linux are GPL, are they? It is still illegal to redistribute these... I would consider these books to be documentation.

Ian

And the point is?

And the point is? Sorry to disappoint some people, but noone really owes you anything just because you're waving an OSS banner.

Seriously, have a look through the GPL sometime, or read RMS's rhethoric about freedom of speech and such. The idea was that noone can steal _your_ code and put it in a closed source program. Ok, so the GPL 1 and 2 went a bit further and demanded the source and rights to whatever code _they_ contributed to that program too, but I figure it's a fair trade. I show you mine, if I you show me yours. GPL 3 is already treading on grounds some of us consider borderline, but still, ok. But none of them says you have a right to everything _else_ someone wrote or touched.

If Novell wants to sell some of its own documentation to MS, in exchange for whatever they wish, that's that. It's their docs, they can give it to whoever they want, or to noone whatsoever. Just because Novell also has a linux distro, doesn't mean you suddenly have a sacred right to everything else they have.

SCO / MS / Novell / IBM etc.

The only company that hasn't barfed all over my sugar coated Linux puffs is fscking Dairy Queen. I'm beginning to think it's us - the guys with Tux toys on our desks ... err I heard... WE are the people that just seem to like to find fault and complain. Who cares if Novell shares documentation or toilet paper with Microsoft. I just want to enjoy compiling drivers again for X because of the eleventh kernel update this week. Why do I have to be bombarded with yet another theoretical bad news story about my beloved OS? I'm going to stick my head in the sand now and not worry if Microsoft understands how to run Suse virtually or whatever, hell I hope they learn something about how to run virtual hardware because Virtual PC sucks.

Spirit of the GPL?

It goes against the "spirit of the GPL" like the TestDriven.NET guy went against the "Ethos of Microsoft's EULA". The software development world sure likes it's intangibles!

Re:Spirit of the GPL?

Whenever somebody invokes the "spirit of the GPL", that's usually because the GPL doesn't actually say what somebody wants it to say, typically over the use of the word "free".

Re:Spirit of the GPL?

Whenever somebody invokes the "spirit of the GPL", that's usually because the GPL doesn't actually say what somebody wants it to say, typically over the use of the word "free".

And you've missed the meaning of the word 'spirit'.

The GPL is not an end in itself. It is the mainstay of an attempt to protect the Four Freedoms [fsf.org]:

"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software."

(Emphasis mine.)

Collectively, they represent what many people call the spirit of the GPL. Admittedly, that's a bit of a back-asswards expression, but it'll do.

Novell and Microsoft undoubtedly have undermined the Four Freedoms through their patent indemnification tapdance. Likewise, the agreement to share information preferentially undermines the Four Freedoms as well. The patent agreement subverts the freedom to copy and distribute software, and preferential distribution of documentation subverts the freedom to study the software, which is a necessary precursor to the other three.

Someone tell me why.....

... do people suspect wrong doings of such corporate things? And why do such Corporations continue to commit wrong doings of such things?

Spirit of GPL...

is getting hackneyed. Anyway, what a for-profit corporation does with its partners can't destroy the 'spirit of GPL.'

that's quite common

It's quite common for people developing FOSS to share documentation and code non-publicly before a public release. There is nothing wrong with that, and it's an important part of FOSS. If the software falls under the (L)GPL, the recipient can, of course, redistribute it, but can choose not to. Under Apache or BSD, the developer can impose additional restrictions and prevent the recipient from redistributing the code.

Maybe Microsoft can really use this documentation

Maybe Microsoft can use this documentation as a road map on how to write docs... God knows Microsoft has been "unable" to provide useful docs to the EU despite being told that they must.

I know, my karma will burn for that one...

Seriously though if they want to share the documentation that they paid to create with Microsoft and not the Open source community that's their right. They must realize, however, that everything they do or don't do impacts the perception that the Open Source community has of them.

Personally I hope that Novell comes back to the community. Right now they're playing with the Devil. Microsoft has a reputation for back stabbing their partners. From talking to Novell representatives I can honestly say that they don't appear to realize the seriousness of the Microsoft/Novell deal. Their hoping it will give them a sales advantage over Redhat. That's too bad too. I think Novell was positioning itself to be the dominant Linux provider but they just blew it with the Microsoft deal.

What they don't seem to get is that one of the things that is so attractive about doing business with Open Source companies is their perceived ethics. They don't try to find reasons to sue you. Well unless their name is SCO and we all see where that pig is headed. This deal seems to send the message "Buy from us or my buddy here will punch you." Not what I would call ethical.

Oh well wait and see I guess.

Strategy becomes clearer

Most enterprise IT shops have mixed environments. As much as MS would like to push out the other vendors, it has been largely unsuccessful and has encountered pushback.

This latest revelation seems to paint the MS strategy as, "If you must have linux in your shop, then use SUSE and run it virtually on top of an MS solution. We promise to play nice with SUSE, but only them."

If customers buy into this approach and help SUSE become the dominant distro in the Enterprise, then MS might take some of that hoard of cash it is sitting on and buyout Novell.

While buying out every linux distro/support company is infeasible, trying to use MS's mass to prop up one and later purchase it does seem plausible. Especially, if it can assist that company in producing and addicting large customers to proprietary linux to MS (and vice-versa) solutions which it will later add to its IP Portfolio.

       

Man, you people take things too far...

Novell, markets and sells SuSE Linux.

Novell also markets and sells, Netware, GroupWise, ZENWorks, IDM, iChain and a laundry list of other products that are not and never will be open source. With the cross licensing deal, I would think MS has access to documentation on this, and Novell will probably NEVER release any of these documents to the open source community, since none of these products are open source.

Get over it people. Linux isn't what it used to be. It means big business to Novell and Redhat. If you want to run a feel good Linux, run Debian. If you want to run a Linux you might run into in a Fortune 500 company, run SLES 10 or RHEL.

You've really got to love...

...all this talk about the "spirit" of the GPL. It's so deliciously subjective. It allows the cultic whackjobs who advocate using this type of language to make up just about any kind of arbitrary, unwritten rule that they might want, and then claim that adhering to said rule is necessary to adhere to the "spirit" of the GPL.

That's the point of such language; to try and claim that the terms specifically set on paper in the license aren't all parties to the license have to comply with, but that there are a whole heap of additional, unwritten stipulations which said parties have to agree to as well, one of which being the general worship of Richard Stallman as God.

I'm wondering why I still post here, actually...I haven't used Linux for weeks, now. As much as I used to love the operating system from a purely technical point of view, I've been completely repelled from using it thanks to the FSF and the army of mindless zealots that follow it. I wonder if that's happened to many other people, recently.

If this were ANY two other companies...

This happens all the time and is only a big deal because so many FOSS people are p.o.'d at Novell right now. I'm not sure if Novell got duped or not; but, I do know that their strategy is appealing for managing our data centers. The interoperability and support that Novell can offer is appealing to our senior managers and has the potential to drive more linux adoption across our enterprise. We really NEED the MS/Linux operability promised by Novell - now if they can deliver. BTW, the same SEC filings from Novell show a paltry $19 Million in Linux related revenue. It's a very small piece of the revenue pie at the moment; but, the ongoing success for Novell hinges on the success of Linux too.

MS planning to steal more ideas from Linux?

Consider the first to file patten law changes MS is trying to pass. Add that MS patten attorneys get first crack at developments. Add that those developments may not be "publicly available" in time to establish prior art. I could be wrong, but this could cause some problems...

Re:Possible Scenario

s/possible/probable/g