munchola writes "The Software Freedom Law Center has declared that Microsoft's patent pledge to open source developers is 'worse than useless'. SFLC chief technology officer, Bradley Kuhn, has written to FOSS developers warning them that 'developers are no safer from Microsoft patents now than they were before'. According to Kuhn: 'The patent covenant only applies to software that you develop at home and keep for yourself; the promises don't extend to others when you distribute. You cannot pass the rights to your downstream recipients, even to the maintainers of larger projects on which your contribution is built.'"
I doubt anyone here is actually surprised by this. Since when has Microsoft ever done anything truly for the good of OSS?
They created ME and Vista. I would consider the users that left Windows because of ME or the ones who might leave because of Vista, something truly good for OSS.
Ya know, believe it or not, the "we're just out to make money" mentality, is not one shared by all businesses in all countries of the world. There are many countries in which a business's first priority is to their employees, then their community, and only thirdly to themselves (many businesses in Japan, for instance). Unfortunately, American's have convinced themselves that the only way to survive in the business world is to forsake all ethicality... and so they've made that true. It's very sad.
Unfortunately, a whole lot of people have been writing code and assigning copyright over to Novell, which is now basically no better than writing and assigning copyright over to Microsoft...
But if Novell released said code under the GPL, then the genie is out of the bottle. Stick with the code that pre-dates the agreement between MS and Novell, and I think you're okay.
Because we all know how Microsoft treats those it writes contracts with... I seriously have to wonder why Novel thought that was a good idea. Are they so lacking in cash that they felt it was worth dealing with Bill G.?
Seriously...if, as CEO of a major company, Microsoft were to offer me $400 million...I would take it. If I didn't my shareholders would lynch me. The long term consequences don't matter here... all that matters is that for the next couple of years, profits go up Welcome to corporation-think This has nothing to do with feel-good, Microsoft is teh EVIL, I hug bunnies world. A corporation exists to make money for its owners period too bad about SuSE Linux... it will be seen as a victim of collateral damage
A corporation exists to make money for its owners period
Agreed. But there is a difference between short-term money and long-term money. One doesn't guarantee the other, and it takes a good CEO to tell the difference. It also takes intelligent shareholders to avoid lynching him in the meantime. I think in a lot of cases, bad business decisions can be attributed to shareholders will very short-term vision.
This is why I'm a fan of businesses going private, which, thankfully, seems to be an increasing trend these days. Even ClearChannel (Oooh, they are Teh Evil!) is trying to find buyers in order to go private. I can understand the stock market being good for some things, but in some ways, it's been the worst thing to happen to the free market ecconomy... it encourages all investments to be made for short term gains, and forsakes long term planning. Many companies have lost their way after going public. I'm re
This is some amazing shit. No one has any idea what the ramifications, if ANY are going to be from this deal and everyone is so quick to run and lynch a company who has dedicated millions of lines of code to open source projects that they make zero dollars from. This is the same Novell who along with IBM took a stand AGAINST SCO and cost those bastards millions in legal fees. This is the same Novell who is activly sueing M$ for patent violations in the MSOffice product. Shane, how many lines of code have you contributed to any open source projects? What have you done for the community that can come close to comparing to even a little of what Novell has done for Linux in the last few years. Is it really so boring up there in New York that you have nothing better to do other than sit around and stew about some shit that none of us will probably ever even be affected by? All of you armchair lawyers need to STFU and wait until something bad actually happens to the community before you start trying to crucify a fairly benevolent company, relatively speaking, who dedicates themselves daily to the Linux community. WHEN/IF something like that does happen I will be more than happy to join in the ripping of Novell's spine from their body and showing it to them, but until then can we please move on?
On the other hand, most positive contributions can be ascribed to the previous management. Hovsepian, the guy behind the deal, is the CEO now. The current 'Novell' may not at all be the same as the last one.
And with Novells long, proprietary, history it has quite some legacy to overcome.
From a cynic's point of view, "itsatrap" is proper for more situations than you might think. Any story even somewhat related to a government action, social program, corporation's product, or "press release" by anyone could get the "itsatrap" tag. That covers a lot of stories.
Yeah, well, if there was any real intent of having the tags be descriptive of the story content they would support more than one word tags. When you are restricted to one word it is hard to place anything useful other than a minor comment such as 'FUD' or "itsatrap'. Somehow I doubt anyone is ever going to search the tags for 'awellthoughtoutarticalonmicrosoftspatentpledge'.
I disagree. I enjoy reading tags that don't really help categorize the article because it's kind of like looking into the general/. consensus of the issue without diving into the comments, and they're occasionally funny as well.
Besides, it's not like the "yes" tag could ever be used to categorize an article, so it's not really "wasting" any of the tagging system's potential, if you search for, say, "Halo" articles, the "no" tag applied to "Was Halo 2 Great?" isn't going to stop it from showing up in your
Snow White a lesbian? You, sir, have just brought my fantasies with her and the delectable Miss Piggy to life! I knew reading about Linux had a benefit, but I just hadn't found it. In my dreams, I will be saluting you.
Note, this article is not talking about the deal with Novell as almost every post thus far has assumed. It mentions that deal, as something still being researched. This is about MS's recent promise/contract to not sue hobbyists for patent violations.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday November 10 2006, @03:41PM (#16798316)
It's called 'dedicating' it. No restrictions.
It shows people people that your patent was only filed to prevent other people from patenting the idea and causing trouble. People tend to look very favorably on dedications.
Microsoft has used this patent pledge to indicate that, in their view, the only good Free Software developer is an isolated, uncompensated, unimportant Free Software developer.
Novell here is stepping outside the line of fire and agreeing with Microsoft that *end users* are the ones that you must go after in any patent infringement dispute. Shades of SCOsource. Thanks for nothing, Novell. More questions: When were Novell SUSE customers asked if they wished Novell to negotiate a agreement with Microsoft on their behalf? When were Novell SUSE customers asked about the terms of said agreement? What consideration does Microsoft get from Novell's customers? Does negotiating this agreement on Novell's customers' behalf indicate that Novell assumed Power of Attorney for their customers in this matter? Did Novell truly represent the best interest of their customers using Power of Attorney? Can Novell legally assume Power of Attorney for their customers without a written grant? Do Novell customers have the ability to "opt-out" of this agreement? Is this agreement binding on customers?
Can Novell legally assume Power of Attorney for their customers without a written grant? Do Novell customers have the ability to "opt-out" of this agreement? Is this agreement binding on customers?
To be fair, these are all stupid questions. The answers are obviously no, irrelevant, and no. A contract is not binding on you if any of the following are true:
you do not receive any benefits ("consideration") from it
here's some other information on MS patents http://www.s5h.net/linux_news_reader_article_5505. html [s5h.net]. MS seem to be getting patents in huge swarms right now. it's quite sickening.
i think there should be new ammendments to prevent ms from applying for more patents. they are taking the piss, literally.
I, too, have been reading through the pledges at the Microsoft website, to figure out the exact wording and implications.
The "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Non-Compensated Developers" is indeed rather useless, because it only covers creation and local use, and specifically excludes distribution.
The "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Individual Contributors to openSUSE.org" is also not interesting,
since it covers the transfer of code from an author to SUSE, and only that and nothing else.
The "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Hobbyist Contributors" is referenced from the above one. This should be the one that is covering the community distribution part. But is missing on the Microsoft website: Either it doesn't exist at all and the reference is a mistake, or there is a reason why it was left out from the web.
Has anyone managed to find it? Why Bradley Kuhn doesn't mention it?
This seems rather much ado about nothing, from my uneducated glances over the wording.
Basically, this agreement is saying that Microsoft won't wield patents against those contributing software to OpenSuSE until after the Microsoft-Novell deal runs out or you try to wield patents against MS themselves.
But, really, what was the situation before? Either you wrote software that DIDN'T violate MS patents, or you DID and just hoped like hell that they wouldn't use their patents to sue you. There is a false s
According to Kuhn: 'The patent covenant only applies to software that you develop at home and keep for yourself; the promises don't extend to others when you distribute.
You know, I can build anything damn thing I want to with my Craftsman tool set and sell it. Sears has never had to promise that they won't sue me. I can even build, sell, and distribute competing products as long as its done under a different brand name.
Microsoft seems to be forgetting all those nice shareware programs built for Windows th
Why now, at this point in time are Linux developers being threatened in this way? Why not last year? Why not two, five years ago?
I reckon they are terrified about Vista... They're terrified it'll be a dead loss with millions jumping ship to Linux. They're trying to fence of Linux from their ex-customers in advance of it's release.
Instead, Microsoft has used this patent pledge to indicate that, in their view, the only good Free Software developer is an isolated, uncompensated, unimportant Free Software developer.
This from the man who believes [omnipotent.net] that the GPL is the only FOSS license with the right to exist.
Mr. Kuhn, you are every bit as much a part of the problem as Microsoft are themselves. In fact, you are moreso. At least Microsoft do not try and pretend to be anything other than what they are. You are not one micron less a fascist...merely from a different direction.
You can take your warped, cultic distortion of the word "freedom," and cram it where you feel most appropriate. You and Richard Stallman are open source's answer to David Miscavige and L. Ron. Hubbard, respectively. You are the proverbial scorpion on Linux's back.
Some who use Linux with the total inability to think for themselves may delude themselves that they need to use your brain and Stallman's in leiu of their own. I am not among such people, and I defy, reject, and repudiate both you, Stallman, and the entirely *false* freedom which the FSF stands for. You would have us reject Microsoft as our masters, only to install yourselves in their place.
You do not speak for everyone who uses open source. You most certainly do not speak for me.
This is getting worse than Zune news. No one writing about this knows any more of the details than what was released to the press.
I know it is not normal to RTFA, but if you did you'd see it was a press release about the license MS released with regard to their promise not to sue open source hobbyists over patent violations. It is not about the Novell deal, despite the fact that every comment thus far (except my previous one) seems to be assuming otherwise. So people do know more than was published in the press release, just not about what you seem to have thought this article was about.
See, I'm right, we are getting so much of this crap it is all muddled up in my head.
Actually I did attempt to read the article but saw the word Novell in the first sentence and decided that I'd had my fill of reading about the sky falling.
But maybe I'll go read it now. Or maybe I'll just wait a few minutes for the next actual "Microsoft/Novell Deal" submission to pop up and recycle my original comment.
In this case, R(ing)TFA may have been a mistake, as I can see where you could get your misunderstanding from it. If you go to the source [softwarefreedom.org], though, you'll see this is part of the Novell deal. The actual letter starts:
Last Thursday, Novell and Microsoft announced a new collaborative effort involving both licensing and technology. The Software Freedom Law Center has been following the situation, and as its CTO, I've held a particular interest in how it will impact Free Software developers. One result of the
there is going to be some changes in Novell, and I know that people are going to think that that would then mean that they are in Microsoft's pocket
Yeah. Once upon a time people said the same about Macs though, in the pre-OSX days... It took a while, but look at what Apple did after that. I'm not a Mac user myself, but from the little I know, it looks like they did pretty well. Maybe thats what will happen here too.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday November 10 2006, @04:12PM (#16798696)
Business and hippies don't mix. It's like oil and water.
The point is, open source people _aren't_ hippies. They've been running successful businesses for years now. But microsoft wants them to be hippies, wants the world to believe them to be - and now, is trying to make them be, using software patent monopolies to shut down open source businesses. The message is "if you're a hippie hobbyist coder, we won't sue you. But dare to build a business, and we will". Remember, patent and copyright monopolies DESTROY free market capitalism. Microsoft, like most large software corporations, are absolutely terrified of a true free market in software.
"hippy and communist" are just wrong when applied to free software folk: "Raging gun-nut libertarian" is far more accurate. Microsoft are playing with fire.
"Remember, patent and copyright monopolies DESTROY free market capitalism. Microsoft, like most large software corporations, are absolutely terrified of a true free market in software."
Bingo. A point I have been trying to make for what seems like ages.
There are no free markets when it comes to goods protected by copyrights or patents. With copyleft you can perhaps get close to a free market in those goods.
Pretty sneaky, huh? Maybe you (and the other lemmings in your group) should try to do some reading once in a while. Your knees have got to be getting tired from all of that jerking.
Do you think that's enough? I think this is at least a triple duh. I might even go so far as to skip right over quadruple duh and put it into the pentupal duh category.
I wouldn't call it a sextuple duh, though. That's just being silly.
No. US Patent Law does not make any such distinction or exception for private home use. You can be infringing if you mass produce 100 billion copies to sell, or if you just "practice" the art in the privacy of you own home. Granted, the likelihood of any bad consequences for infringing (or even anyone finding out you're infringing) are not at all equal. But I think this commonly held misconception might be one reason why the general public sees nothing wrong with patents...they think it only applies if yo
Surprised? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
They created ME and Vista. I would consider the users that left Windows because of ME or the ones who might leave because of Vista, something truly good for OSS.
Parent
Why should they? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Who, how much, for which projects? Not saying you are wrong, just curious.
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
But if Novell released said code under the GPL, then the genie is out of the bottle. Stick with the code that pre-dates the agreement between MS and Novell, and I think you're okay.
Oh, and stop contributing code to Novell.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Or are you talkig about Novell's employees?
Because we all know... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The long term consequences don't matter here... all that matters is that for the next couple of years, profits go up
Welcome to corporation-think
This has nothing to do with feel-good, Microsoft is teh EVIL, I hug bunnies world.
A corporation exists to make money for its owners
period
too bad about SuSE Linux... it will be seen as a victim of collateral damage
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. But there is a difference between short-term money and long-term money.
One doesn't guarantee the other, and it takes a good CEO to tell the difference.
It also takes intelligent shareholders to avoid lynching him in the meantime.
I think in a lot of cases, bad business decisions can be attributed to shareholders will very short-term vision.
Re: (Score:2)
Not as far as most fund managers are concerned, and they have the most power in real investment world.
They want short term ROI, or they sell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boycott Novell (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Boycott Novell (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
And with Novells long, proprietary, history it has quite some legacy to overcome.
Ok... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides, it's not like the "yes" tag could ever be used to categorize an article, so it's not really "wasting" any of the tagging system's potential, if you search for, say, "Halo" articles, the "no" tag applied to "Was Halo 2 Great?" isn't going to stop it from showing up in your
DUH (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:DUH (CNN Edit) (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the Novell Deal (Score:5, Informative)
Note, this article is not talking about the deal with Novell as almost every post thus far has assumed. It mentions that deal, as something still being researched. This is about MS's recent promise/contract to not sue hobbyists for patent violations.
Re:Not the Novell Deal (Score:4, Interesting)
Meaning the stuff they would never know about to sue for in the first place. Gee they won't sue you for stuff they don't know you did, how generous
Parent
There's already a (correct) way to open a patent. (Score:3, Informative)
It shows people people that your patent was only filed to prevent other people from patenting the idea and causing trouble. People tend to look very favorably on dedications.
For isolated, uncompensated, unimportant developer (Score:5, Informative)
Groklaw also raised questions about Novell's deal [groklaw.net]:
Re:For isolated, uncompensated, unimportant develo (Score:2)
To be fair, these are all stupid questions. The answers are obviously no, irrelevant, and no. A contract is not binding on you if any of the following are true:
huge number of patents (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
no they are not literally taking the piss,
they are however patenting methods and means of urine extraction.
ignore all comments above, i should be sleeping
Patent Pledge for Hobbyist Contributors missing? (Score:4, Interesting)
The "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Non-Compensated Developers" is indeed rather useless, because it only covers creation and local use, and specifically excludes distribution.
The "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Individual Contributors to openSUSE.org" is also not interesting, since it covers the transfer of code from an author to SUSE, and only that and nothing else.
The "Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Hobbyist Contributors" is referenced from the above one. This should be the one that is covering the community distribution part. But is missing on the Microsoft website: Either it doesn't exist at all and the reference is a mistake, or there is a reason why it was left out from the web.
Has anyone managed to find it? Why Bradley Kuhn doesn't mention it?
One question comes to mind, (Score:2)
People need to vote with their pocketbook and put Novell out of business, ASAFP.
So... (Score:2)
Basically, this agreement is saying that Microsoft won't wield patents against those contributing software to OpenSuSE until after the Microsoft-Novell deal runs out or you try to wield patents against MS themselves.
But, really, what was the situation before? Either you wrote software that DIDN'T violate MS patents, or you DID and just hoped like hell that they wouldn't use their patents to sue you. There is a false s
This is why software patents are stupid (Score:2)
You know, I can build anything damn thing I want to with my Craftsman tool set and sell it. Sears has never had to promise that they won't sue me. I can even build, sell, and distribute competing products as long as its done under a different brand name.
Microsoft seems to be forgetting all those nice shareware programs built for Windows th
Hmmm, why do this now? (Score:3, Interesting)
I reckon they are terrified about Vista... They're terrified it'll be a dead loss with millions jumping ship to Linux. They're trying to fence of Linux from their ex-customers in advance of it's release.
Evil on one side, evil on the other (Score:3, Insightful)
This from the man who believes [omnipotent.net] that the GPL is the only FOSS license with the right to exist.
Mr. Kuhn, you are every bit as much a part of the problem as Microsoft are themselves. In fact, you are moreso. At least Microsoft do not try and pretend to be anything other than what they are. You are not one micron less a fascist...merely from a different direction.
You can take your warped, cultic distortion of the word "freedom," and cram it where you feel most appropriate. You and Richard Stallman are open source's answer to David Miscavige and L. Ron. Hubbard, respectively. You are the proverbial scorpion on Linux's back.
Some who use Linux with the total inability to think for themselves may delude themselves that they need to use your brain and Stallman's in leiu of their own. I am not among such people, and I defy, reject, and repudiate both you, Stallman, and the entirely *false* freedom which the FSF stands for. You would have us reject Microsoft as our masters, only to install yourselves in their place.
You do not speak for everyone who uses open source. You most certainly do not speak for me.
Re:Enough (Score:5, Insightful)
This is getting worse than Zune news. No one writing about this knows any more of the details than what was released to the press.
I know it is not normal to RTFA, but if you did you'd see it was a press release about the license MS released with regard to their promise not to sue open source hobbyists over patent violations. It is not about the Novell deal, despite the fact that every comment thus far (except my previous one) seems to be assuming otherwise. So people do know more than was published in the press release, just not about what you seem to have thought this article was about.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I did attempt to read the article but saw the word Novell in the first sentence and decided that I'd had my fill of reading about the sky falling.
But maybe I'll go read it now. Or maybe I'll just wait a few minutes for the next actual "Microsoft/Novell Deal" submission to pop up and recycle my original comment.
Actually, it IS part of the Novell deal (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No kidding (Score:5, Interesting)
The point is, open source people _aren't_ hippies. They've been running successful businesses for years now. But microsoft wants them to be hippies, wants the world to believe them to be - and now, is trying to make them be, using software patent monopolies to shut down open source businesses. The message is "if you're a hippie hobbyist coder, we won't sue you. But dare to build a business, and we will". Remember, patent and copyright monopolies DESTROY free market capitalism. Microsoft, like most large software corporations, are absolutely terrified of a true free market in software.
"hippy and communist" are just wrong when applied to free software folk: "Raging gun-nut libertarian" is far more accurate. Microsoft are playing with fire.
Parent
Re:No kidding (Score:4, Insightful)
Bingo. A point I have been trying to make for what seems like ages.
There are no free markets when it comes to goods protected by copyrights or patents. With copyleft you can perhaps get close to a free market in those goods.
all the best,
drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954 [ourmedia.org]
Sayings - Deterred Bahamian Novel
Parent
You got it backwards. (Score:2)
Pretty sneaky, huh? Maybe you (and the other lemmings in your group) should try to do some reading once in a while. Your knees have got to be getting tired from all of that jerking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly do I have backwards? Are you claiming that copyrights and patents create or enhance Free Market Capitalism?
You will need to bring some serious arguments and lots of whatever to put that case across.
Oh, and those ad hominum references to lemmings don't work too well.
all the best,
drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954 [ourmedia.org]
Sayings - Deterred Bahamian Novel
Re: (Score:2)
You're right...
...we need more hippy coders!
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that's enough? I think this is at least a triple duh. I might even go so far as to skip right over quadruple duh and put it into the pentupal duh category.
I wouldn't call it a sextuple duh, though. That's just being silly.
Re:Patents don't protect that anyway - wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
But I think this commonly held misconception might be one reason why the general public sees nothing wrong with patents...they think it only applies if yo