Novell Makes Linux Driver Project a Reality

apokryphos writes "Novell have relaunched the Linux Driver Project by dedicating well-known kernel developer Greg KH to work on the project full-time. Greg KH writes: 'My employer, Novell, has modified my position to now allow me to work full time on this project. Namely getting more new Linux kernel drivers written, for free, for any company that so desires. And to help manage all of the developers and project managers who want to help out...They really care about helping make Linux support as many devices as possible, with fully open-source drivers.'"

Cool

I'm not sure how much just one developer can do, but props to Novell nonetheless.

Re:Cool

I'm not sure how much just one developer can do, but props to Novell nonetheless.

Never fear, because he's not doing all the coding himself. According to the link in the article, he's had over 100 volunteers to help him out. If he's good at managing them, then 100 talented coders could certainly make a large impact!

Re:Cool

Novell done nothing of the sort. They disclaimed any knowledge of patent problems with linux and done so to the point that microsoft had to issue a statement that they disagree with Novells position.

The entire patent protect was for the stuff Novell created that used MS stuff in order to make linux and windows work together. That was the stated goals and reasons from day one. MS offered to cover Novells customers for everything and they didn't turn it down.

I firmly believe that everyone throwing a fit about their partnership knew this to be the case. It is just that there was this license that people didn't like being tossed around and they needed to get support for it. And that is why they came out on several occasions claiming the New GPL version 3 license would stop Novell's deal with Microsoft when there was nothing in the text at the time indicating it would. The entire FUD campaign surrounding that was cooked up to get support for the GPLv3 it seems.

However, even if we disagree on this, I commend you on your second statement about one action doesn't define a company. I'm not a big Novell Fan or anything. I just hate to see the injustice surrounding the entire situation. Novell got a raw deal in what couldn't be anything but self serving for MS and the FSF. In almost anything else I can remember Novell being associated with Linux and free software on, they brought value to the table in more ways then one. Novell has been a big benefit to the Linux community if for nothing else, their stand against SCO when they could have turned a blind eye and let IBM take it all the way. That doesn't seem like someone wanting to hurt Linux or Free software. This move to rekindle the driver program seems contrary to any wishes to hurt linux or F/OSS too.

I'm wandering if having a big name company like Novell behind the push would make hardware manufacturers a little more comfortable about sharing the stuff necessary to make this happen. If I remember correctly, they didn't have that "big name" support the first time around.

Re:Cool

Novell's seen ther linux income grow to $250 million the last quarter, and that includes $100 million of licensing directly from the MS deal.

As you point out, they're spending countless millions in the SCO case, and it looks like "the money's all gone" in the $25 - $30 million they owe SCO. They also put out a decent linux (hey, it configures all 3 video cards in my box first time around, I'm impressed) and they contribute heavily to linux development.

Then I look at the people slagging them - they all have agendas. FSF wrt the GPLv3, (esp. when actual cases prove that the GPLv2 isn't broken), and the buy-in to MS fud from the community at large. Its a wonder they don't just pull an Apple and say "with friends like this, f*** it - lets grab a copy of BSD and put our efforts into that instead."

Its the same with SUN - "SUN is eviiil" - even though we really like the free stuff like OpenOffice (Sun paid $50 million for StarOffice, then released the code) and Java.

Re:Cool

Stop trolling, and educate yourself.

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

"Under the patent agreement, both companies will make up-front payments in exchange for a release from any potential liability for use of each others patented intellectual property, with a net balancing payment from Microsoft to Novell reflecting the larger applicable volume of Microsoft's product shipments. Novell will also make running royalty payments based on a percentage of its revenues from open source products."

Novell is paying for being liable for using Microsoft patents, and will also make running royalty payments. If no one violated these patents, then why pay for protection?

It sets a legal precedent that apparently you weren't aware of. Google can help you out with that. So stop the personal attacks and shouting, and please read up on the issue.

Re:Cool

potential liability

Call the bluff.
Your question is akin to asking "why buy insurance?".
Neither company has perfect information, and they can make a lot of money out of acting as if there were significant risk, and then doing all of this legal ballet to mitigate the risk.
It's a belief system. And if your faith is insufficient to make the subjective leap, quaff the kool aid, take the magic pill, then you can join the rest of us in the crowd that find the whole thing just a tad bit whiffy.

why pay for protection?

It's either a marketing campaign or a cookbook, my friend.

Re:Cool

It's more sinister than that.

Microsoft has designed a tollbooth on general Linux usage without naming even a single patent. Novell's agreement with them set the precedent for acknowledging MS vague claims and actually implementing the tollbooth.

It is MS' insurance policy against Windows being pushed aside on the desktop by Linux; they will still get the revenue stream, even if they don't deserve a penny. When Windows sales really start flagging, just watch them start dragging Ubuntu distributors into court.

Novell should not be trusted, even if only for inept greed.

Re:Cool

This was a cross-licensing deal that had NOTHING to do with any patents in linux. Read the bottom - its about Mono (which has nothing to do with linux) and virtualization technologies:

Q. By making it easy to run Windows virtualized on Linux, isn't Novell undercutting its own Mono project, which shares a similar goal?

Mono provides developers a way to run applications designed using Microsoft .NET technologies to run on Linux and other platforms. Its main focus is the Linux desktop, where Mono has been leveraged to build a series of new services, including search, music playback, and more. Virtualization focuses on maximizing the value of server hardware by running multiple operating systems. It is used for server consolidation, workload balancing and other corporate needs. So while both approaches are designed to give customers flexibility in their IT systems, their focuses are quite different.

Q. What does the patent agreement cover with regard to Mono and OpenOffice?

Under the patent agreement, customers will receive coverage for Mono, Samba, and OpenOffice.org as well as .NET and Windows Server. All of these technologies will be improved upon during the five years of the agreement and there are some limits on the coverage that would be provided for future technologies added to these offerings. The collaboration framework we have put in place allows us to work on complex subjects such as this where intellectual property and innovation are important parts of the conversation.

Now lets see ... is MONO part of the linux kernel? Nope. Is Samba part of the linux kernel? Nope. Is OpenOffice part of the linux kernel? Nope. Is .NET part of the linux kernel? Nope. Is Windows Server part of the linux kernel? Nope. And those last two are what Microsoft is paying Novell for (which is why the net flow of money is from Microsoft to Novell, and not vice verse. Microsoft uses a LOT of Novell's IP).

So, there is not a SINGLE part of the agreement that has anything to do with linux, and most of it is money from Microsoft for Novell IP in Windows Server and .NET.

Not a single Microsoft patent in linux, and the agreement doesn't say otherwise. The only one saying so is Balmer, and the "useful fools" who believe what he says; show ONE Microsoft patent in linux. Microsoft has had a year to do it. They can't. Neither can you; the deal was not for "patent coverage for linux."

Re:Cool

I agree entirely. I think that most of the people in the FOS community completely misunderstood the deal (an some purposefully trolled this misunderstanding)

I worked for Novell until late 2004, well before the Microsoft patent issue. Novell's main business areas then and now are not SUSE incenses, but solutions for platform management and identity management. Both areas require a strong interoperability with Microsoft products, as most big companies have and will continue to have mixed environments. That's is the core of the deal: make possible a better integration between linux and Microsoft product. Just see the recent annoucement about a join laboratory.

it is for sure that some people in the FOS community would prefer to see Microsoft products just vanish from the enterprises, but this is unlikely to happen any time soon, so Novell must take a more conservative approach and accept that they are here to staly for some time. But don't get me wrong: Novell people never liked Microsoft and this is marriage for convenience and unfortunately business are like this.

I think it would be a sign of maturity that the FOS community accepted the facts of life.

Good to hear - as long as they stay clean..

On one side I'm happy to hear of this effort, OTOH I'm concerned that this is one of the vendors with an alliance to a multiple convictions monopolist.

As drivers are pretty much kernel level activities I would like to see assurances that such development is clean and cannot be used to manufacture truth behind the nebulous IP infringement claims which have stopped in countries where you can't make such statements without having to prove it (which says IMHO a lot in itself).

So, IMHO the news deserves a welcome with caution..

Re:Good to hear - as long as they stay clean..

I bet employees of Novell will read your post and shake their heads.. maybe mutter the word "Slashdot" with an explicative prefixed.

But this is what your management has done to your brand. Congratulations.

Re:Good to hear - as long as they stay clean..

I bet employees of Novell will read your post and shake their heads.. maybe mutter the word "Slashdot" with an explicative prefixed.

And they would be right. The enormous and irrational bias on /. against anything even remotely affiliated with Microsoft is pathetic and reflects very poorly on the people of the free/open software community. Although I expect most of the complainers have never actually written a line of open source code.

Re:Good to hear - as long as they stay clean..

I agree that there is an anti-Microsoft bias, but I think it is duly appropriate with respect to Novell.

I am 98% a Windows user. I have Microsoft certifications, own an MSDN license, and use it and develop on it. But I have an interest in other OS's: There's an aging Linux partition on my system and a Mac on my wife's desktop. I'm not Microsoft hater, nor an apologist. But the Novell-Microsoft deal outrages me. Novell signs a cross-licensing deal, then claims that they don't infringe on any of Microsoft's patents. Then they claim that they are going to make their Linux more Microsoft friendly, which implies that they will put Microsoft patents into open-source Linux. It's like each sentence that comes from the collective mouth of Novell conflicts with the previous, and the next. All appearances imply that Novell is going to try and poison Linux and try to remain the only one standing because of the patent deal. And Microsoft is using Novell to spread FUD. Even if I have the exact plan wrong, something sinister is going on here.

There's a real reason to hate Novell these days. Maybe even a good explanation of what they are trying to accomplish would change my mind. But for now, I'm avoiding Novell.

Success Stories?

Just curious, but where is the list touting the manufacturers that stepped forward and provided documentation (and consequently which new hardware is supported). Be nice to see what progress this campaign has made and is continuing to make.

Also it would be nice to get a list going of which hardware I should look forward to.

Re:Success Stories?

Sorry, The NDA has forbidden the release of manufacturer names. :)

Great idea -- FOSS-friendly promotion wiki

> where is the list touting the manufacturers that stepped forward and provided documentation

That's an excellent idea. A simple wiki page would suffice, providing links to each manufacturer, their open docs page, and their sources page, if any. Use a wiki so that people can add their own entries, and so that the admin can revert abuse easily.

As the list grows, people would start looking there before buying equipment, and to not be listed on it would become a problem for manufacturers by giving their competitors a boost. Don't list manufacturers who don't offer this, as listing them in red might get their lawyers agitated. Omitting them is enough.

Oh, and provide links below it to one or two products produced by each of these friendly manufacturers ... ie. free advertising. They rub our backs, we rub theirs.

To those who criticise those who criticise Tom Tom

Here is an example of a for profit company giving something back. Novell may not be on everyone's favorite list, but there are plenty of companies that actually see the potential for profit by doing things that are helpful. I was personally annoyed at how 9/10 posts in the TomTom thread were simply "they make more money by not being good citizens" posts, and yet those posters intentionally ignored how doing good things can lead to a stronger bottom line, even if the path is not as direct, by building community interest. Anyway, I'm going to make it a point to shun penny wise and pound foolish companies here on out. Start flaming.

Timing

What with so many people disgusted with Vista compatibility issues, there is a real opportunity here.

Heck, even when people "downgrade" (upgrade?) to XP, I've heard there can be missing or broken driver issues with some new hardware. Companies figured they would only write Vista drivers for certain new parts.

Linux has made many advances in "average Joe" usability. Combine that with hardware compatibility so good that Linux "works out of the box" BETTER than windows, and Windows starts to look a lot less like it's worth all that money. This could be huge for "mainstream" users.

Here's hoping that the next computer my Grandmother gets is windows free.

Novell always supports opensource

Novell always hires GPL developers on part-time basis for developing small Linux projects which are eventually release with GPL licenses (because they're developed with GPL software anyway). Many freelance GPL developers here (China and Hong Kong) support their living by taking these jobs.

So it isn't much a news at all. Anyway, gratz Greg. ^_^

Ths bit sounds fishy...

We are a group of Linux kernel developers (over 100 strong) and project managers (over 10) that develop and maintain Linux kernel drivers. We work with the manufacturers of the specific device to specify, develop, submit to the main kernel, and maintain the kernel drivers. We are willing and able to sign NDAs with companies if they wish to keep their specifications closed, as long as we are able to create a proper GPLv2 Linux kernel driver as an end result.

So let's say, there's a driver that goes like this: ...
1. Read from input buffer
2. Check for DRM
3. Verify if hardware and OS is 'trusted'
4. Transfer to output buffer ...

Now, the GPL2 license might allow rewriting the driver minus steps 2 and 3; but since Tivoisation is not illegal, the new kernel could be disabled by the hardware / firmware. It would appear that Novell is assisting unscrupulous hardware vendors to participate in the 'Linux movement' without abiding by the spirit of the GPL.

Re:Ths bit sounds fishy...

Exceot that once you have released a driver under GPL v2, then anyone can hack it to remove the DRM check. Tivo-isation is about how the hardware behaves, not the software.

To me, driver problems in Linux are much lesser

..nowadays than just 3 years ago. However, I don't have any particularly egzotic hardware, or need for top-speed from my graphic card (you can tell I am not into 3D gaming).

However, where I do feel the pain is, when Linux doesn't recognize my soundchip. That drives me bonkers, and it's still a running concern. I guess Linux users are not into music that much. I just tried booting the newest Xubuntu live CD, and my otherwise puny soundchip wasn't detected. (worked fine on the laptop, though, so it's hit and miss) I hope Novell's efforts will bring at least a small improvement in this area.

Still not the Right(TM) way

As much as I applaud the driver initiative by GregKH, this development approach is flawed, because a handful of developers has neither the throughput nor the expertise needed to write high-quality drivers for the great many devices of vastly different kinds that are released every day. The people who made a device know its ins and outs better than a kernel developer, because that's what they specialize in; they can squeeze more performance out of it. Therefore, drivers should be developed by the manufacturer of the device in consultation with kernel developers, not vice versa.

Still, even this kind of collaboration on the manufacturers' part is better than pretending that Linux doesn't exist at all.

Re:Still not the Right(TM) way

Having worked both directly with hardware developers (as an embedded systems developer) and with kernel development, this is not quite that clear to me. In some cases, the hardware knowledge side is the most important; in others, the kernel side. Mostly, the kernel side of things is harder to learn than the hardware side, though, so the kernel development skills is the important side. Also, kernel developers often have more experience with working with different kinds of hardware, so they will know how to trick around the particular piece.

And, importantly: For a LOT of the hardware on the market, what's important is the chipset used, not wiring around it. And the "hardware manufacturer" has often only done the wiring.

Eivind.

Damn you Novell!

$SUBJ. Can you please drop that agreement with you-know-who so we can kinda like you again.

Wireless drivers!!!

How many poor laptops out there that are forced to use ndiswrapper to deal with those annoying broadcomm based chips? I know I'm one of them, and unfortunately my hardware (HP pavillion zd7000) locks me to the vendor-allowed chipsets and thus gets really pissy if I put a decent card like an Intel IPW2200 in here.

NovellSoft?

O.K., this is a belated post, but none the less... am I the only one who thinks it's odd that not so long ago Novell cowed to MicroS**ts bullying and inked a deal? And now they assign ONE worker to help develop drivers to make Linux more compatible with more devices? What good would it be if somehow they design it in such a way that it's only compatible with Novell's distro? Sorry, but even if I am way off, Novell has lost ALL credibility with me.

Documentation

Also make sure they disclose documentation so that _all_ free OSes can have free drivers, not just linux.

Is it the year of Linux at last?

I've been using one flavour of Linux or another for years now and every few months someone says "this is the year of Linux" or some such and everytime we see a decent improvement but nothing like the improvement that would be needed to really cement Linux's position.

I'm starting to wonder, however, if we have actually finally turned the corner. Dell with Linux PCs, AMD / ATI promising open source drivers now this announcement as well as a myriad of others. This is starting to sound like the last few big companies holding out are finally thinking there is something worth looking at with Linux. Ok, it's still small time compared to Windows support but it's a fine start.

Perhaps it won't happen this year but I could see Linux making some good growth in late 2008 through 2009

The only thing we need now is one desktop environment rather than two. Sigh. I've given up even caring which on wins anymore I just wish we had one decent one.

Good start but .....

This is a good start, but I would prefer to see the problem tackled from the other end. That is, I would like to see it made law that manufacturers must release specifications that would enable a competent programmer to create a driver for any hardware device they manufacture, if they want to be allowed to sell it at all. They shouldn't necessarily have to include a printed copy in the box if it would adversely affect the cost, but they should be obliged to supply it gratis to anyone who can prove that they own the hardware. Then you get it both ways. The purists get Free and Open Source drivers, and the "I don't care as long as it works" brigade (I bet they'd start caring pretty bloody quick, if the manufacturer suddenly stopped supporting the product with even closed binary-only drivers) get something that works.

And before someone whinges that this will lead to copying, allow me to say a big fat "screw you!" If what you make can be copied so easily and cheaply, then it's not so special. In a genuinely free market, it's the buyer who decides how much something is worth.

I believe this might even actually be the law in some parts of Europe. If so, perhaps they need to start enforcing it.

amazing

Get over yourselves, this is a good thing at a time that may be most crucial. Vista has been widly viewed as bad. And unless Microsoft comes out with something new in the next 2 years the Linux/Mac community has all that time to show the regular Windows users why they should switch to Linux/Mac.

Mac is winning, not because it's better but because of Linux is an incoherent mess of dozens of distribution with no clear reason why to select one over the other.

You want mom and pop and aunt Rose to use it? Well here is your chance. don't fuck up!

drivers shmivers

Did SuSE fix installation, yet? The last time I tried it (10.0,10.2) it was still a pain in the neck. It was querrying the comapany server everytime I tried to change packages.

Free?

I doubt that.

Sequel to scox-scam?

Now that scox is as good as dead, I guess msft needs another bitch company to continue msft's FUD campaign.

Msft has made it very clear that they intend to attack Linux from a legalities angle. Msft had alluded to that even before the scox scam. It's a good strategy for msft, after all msft can put Linux out of business. The scox-scam was a great FUD bargain for msft, but that scam is waning.

There are a suspicious number of strongly pro-novell posts on slashdot. Essentially, the posts re-state the novell party line: "this is all interoperability" and "why on earth would you be suspicious of this deal?" and "slashdotters are just too negative about msft to be objective."

Why be suspicious?

1) Msft's history: msft does not do interoperability. Msft wants to own the standard. Monopolizing the standards is central to msft's very successful business model. Msft's recent shenanigans with OOXML, and defiance of the EC, and the scox-scam, reveal msft's true motives and tactics.

2) Miguel de Icaza is sneaky little msft worshipping turd.

3) Why all the secrecy? Why not spell out these supposed patent violations? Why not spell out the terms of the deal? Why not specify exactly what they mean by interoperability?

4) This deal has too much in common with the scox-scam. During the scox-scam, both scox and sun boasted having the only *legal* version of Linux. Sound familiar? And msft behind all three companies, what a coincidence.

Novell advocates keep saying that it's about interoperability, but that makes no sense, if msft wants to interoperate, what's stopping them? Why do they need this sneaky deal?

Novell apologists read

This is a threat to open source, since Novell may just add duhbious terms to the drivers' licenses. Or purpotedly add MS code to them so they are the only ones able to legally distribute them.

Some stuff before the Novell apologists come to bash me:

• Thanks to Novell's deal, the only distro able to legally include moonlight is SUSE enterprise, you are right, not even OpenSUSE, and they say moonlight is open source, sure it is licensed open source but due to 'patent issues' only novell can distribute it, Don't believe me? It is something that both Miguel Icaza and a Novell guy called Bruce have publically accepted, hope a google
• Novell is now actively being a predator spreading FUD and lies about other distros and faking numbers to show how their "superior windows integration" (which is null) is a competitive advantage.
• Novell has accepted MS' proposal of effectively turning Linux into a windows program, so that people can easily migrate their Linux servers to MS' servers, they have accepted that only Linux is going to be virtualized, and 0 virtualization of windows on Linux, Yeah, this is the "open source supporter" Novell, turning Linux into a second class operating system.
• Novell is actually the only company that will support OOXML, oddly enough not even MS would support it if it was approved as an standard, fun?

Denying that Novell's deal is a threat is like denying water is composed of Hydrogen , if you prefer Novell over Linux and open source, friging accept it, but we are growing tired of people that keep their blind Novell fanboyism and pretend they do not want to destroy Linux for their own convenience, they want to make their own propietary, MS dependent OS out of open source projects.

Dear Novell...

...many thanks for the wooden horse.

We are of course grateful that you've finally come around to our way of thinking but as I'm sure you're already aware, we had the advantage and would have won eventually.

Anyway, we're now off to celebrate to excess with lots of wine and eager ladies. Hope there are no hard feelings.

P.S. Take no notice of Helen and Cassandra, we think your gift is beautiful.

Oh, lighten up, I'm just kidding.

Colour me unimpressed.

So Novell are trying to write drivers that would potentially benefit only them (and the other meretricious Linux distributors that signed agreements with MS) while in the other hand would expose other Linux distros to MS's patent trolling threats.

Please probe me unnecesarily pessimistic and show me that they are releasing these drivers under GPL3...

Re:Does that mean we can nominate any device?

The project is for developing drivers with manufacturer support. So if you can get the manufacturer of your favourite device to work with the developers then, sure, you can 'nominate' that device.

Re:I'm not complaining about /.'s ad policy, but..

I don't know. I don't have an ad-blocker, I do, however, have NoScript on and I don't allow offsite scripts to run on a site (unless I can see its for very important functional reasons). There's no reason except laziness to not host the ads locally (or parse it into the page in perl (?)) or to try to give someone cookies to track them with. So unfortunately for slashdot, I no longer see its ads.

r200/ati

I'm not sure exactly what this references, but if it's anything like my experience (hp laptop with mobile chipset based on R200) it was the sinking reality that - if ATI windows drivers were bad - ATI linux drivers were *really* bad.

However, there's been a fairly noticeable improvement in ATI drivers since the AMD merger, which might coincide nicely with the fact that I noticed AMD posting linux-development jobs when I was checking various job boards. Overally, the trinity isn't bad. Intel is good at providing specs and getting nice drivers out there (and card performance is doing better in the i9xx series), NVidia has generally been decent for drivers, and ATI is not too bad either now. You can grouse that they're not open-source, and yes in some cases buggy, but over time I've seen a lot of improvement in this area.

not the case

If that is indeed what worries the original poster then he can res assured, from the project's FAQ:

Q: How are you going to write a GPL driver by signing an NDA? Is it going to require a binary blob or some other way of obfuscating the code?

A: No, not at all. I have written many drivers after signing NDAs with companies. They are usually signed either to keep information about the device private until it is announced at a specific date, or to just keep the actual specification documents from being released to the public directly. All code created by this NDA program is to be released under the GPL for inclusion in the main kernel tree, nothing will be obfuscated at all.

Re:not the case

Having written one or two drivers for a completely irrelevant toy operating system of mine (making me just marginally less incompetent to comment on this thread), it is very helpful to have datasheets that actually describes the operation of a given device, instead of just something like a list of it's registers and their meaning. Even descriptions of sequences of commands required are not always helpful without understanding the internal workings of the device. The resulting code ofcourse has to take all relevant device details into account, but the code itself is typically not sufficient to figure out anything beyond what the original code has at least attempted to take into consideration, if even that (ofcourse any sample code is invaluable when trying to decipher datasheets but that's another issue).

So based on what little I understand about the whole subject, I'd say letting somebody develop a driver under NDA and just releasing the driver source instead of all the documentation is likely to keep a LOT more details about the device essentially secret, even if the code itself was pretty decently commented with remarks about the particular implementation (assuming ofcourse that said internal documetation isn't duplicated in the comments).

Ofcourse that DOES have the effect that anybody willing to improve the driver functionaly in regards to the device would need the same documents under NDA (or reverse-engineer the relevant details, which might be easier with a working driver to tweak), but at least a source driver let's the kernel developers deal with things like driver API changes internally. Say, you want to change the protocol by which drivers reserve IO resources because you've found a new, totally fair way to do that. Now, with binary drivers you can either break the drivers or implement workaround wrappers. Source drivers, you can simply change the driver code yourself without having a clue what the driver actually does. :)

Re:I'm not complaining about /.'s ad policy, but..

Because you have misconfigured your advertisement-blocker. Now, move back six spaces and miss a turn.

Re:Just great...

I think a tear a joy just dripped off of my face!

Novell trying to bust GPLv3

That was my initial reaction, but then I poked around on the project wiki [linuxdriverproject.org] and noticed that they were specifically trying to get GPLv2 licensed drivers. Then I remembered [blogspot.com] that Greg K-H was one of the developers who tried to fuck up the release of GPLv3 and the bits all clicked into place. This is Novell trying to ensure that they have a supply of GPLv2 drivers available so that they can continue their filthy pact with Microsoft which will be finished [news.com] if most people release their work as GPLv3.

Re:Just great...

Why? Probably because you don't know that those specs were under an NDA and these newer specs aren't.