NewsForge is reporting on the recent IRC meeting that the OpenSUSE team held to answer a few questions about the controversial deal between Novell and Microsoft. The most prominent questions are highlighted and the complete IRC log is available from the article while the questions that didn't make the discussion will be posted on the OpenSUSE wiki.
Nov 27 11:20:23 Novell claims to have not acknowledged any patent infringements Nov 27 11:20:23 by Linux. But Novell is now paying a tax to Microsoft on the Nov 27 11:20:23 Linux distributions it ships. What, exactly, is Novell paying Nov 27 11:20:23 for?
Nov 27 11:21:05 We're paying for the promise that Microsoft made to our customers not to sue them
Nov 27 11:21:43 Not to sue them for *what*? For problems you don't acknowledge exist?
Nov 27 11:21:57 Well, we put together an agreement with MS to make Linux and Windows work better together Nov 27 11:22:05 Now, as everyone knows, MS has spent the last 10 years saying negative things about Linux Nov 27 11:22:11 including implying that there are IP issues in Linux Nov 27 11:22:30 It didn't make sense for us to do a partnersihp with MS on interoperability issues and still have this patent cloud hanging around for our customers Nov 27 11:22:39 and so MS asked us to put together a patent agreement as well. Nov 27 11:23:00 And so, we promise MS's customers that we won't sue them and they promise the same thing to our customres Nov 27 11:23:08 They pay us for our promise and we pay them for their promise Nov 27 11:23:24 It doesn't matter if the allegations from MSFT are true or not
Microsoft asked Novell to "put together a patent agreement" so Novell could market that protection to their customers... at a cost of $40 million from Novell.
Does Novell often pay millions of dollars for "protection" for its customers when it does not believe that the threat has any substance?
Microsoft is the one making the threats. Novell is paying Microsoft to NOT follow through on threats that Microsoft has yet to substantiate. Not to mention the patent battle that could erupt should Microsoft ever file a patent claim against anyone using Linux.
The balance of payments are by far in Novell's favor from what I've seen. I don't remember the exact numbers but Microsoft is paying far more than Novell is paying them for the patent agreement. It isn't costing Novell anything to add the patent agreement, in fact, they're making a lot of money from Microsoft by doing it. It still seems like a weird deal but Microsoft is the one paying Novell not the other way around.
The balance of payments are by far in Novell's favor from what I've seen. I don't remember the exact numbers but Microsoft is paying far more than Novell is paying them for the patent agreement.
Yes, that is correct.
Microsoft is paying hundreds of millions of dollars for SuSE support licenses. Far more than Novell is paying Microsoft.
Now, when was the last time anyone tried to buy SuSE from Microsoft? Has anyone here tried to? No?
Okay, when was the last time anyone called Microsoft's tech support about a SuSE issue? Has anyone here tried that? No?
Well, it seems that Microsoft paid a LOT of money for licenses that it will probably never use and didn't seem to need in the past. You might want to look up the history of the SCO lawsuit and see how Microsoft also paid for SCO licenses that Microsoft will probably never use and didn't seem to need prior to that.
So, it looks like Microsoft paid for Novell's signature on that "patent agreement". Novell couldn't say "no" to that big of an instant payoff.
Now, go back and read about Microsoft's other "partners" and how Microsoft treated them. There isn't any reason to believe that Microsoft is suddenly going to play nice and fair with Linux (or Novell). Microsoft's who business model is based upon their monopolistic control of the desktop.
Protection money not to indulge in a SCO style SLAPP is what it smells like. "Nice server... pity if it should get turned off by an injunction for 3 years while we hit you with a bunch of non-specific claims about it"...
Novell is paying for their customers' peace of mind. Regardless of what Novell says (or what may be true), MS says that Linux violates MS' IP, implying that MS might sue Linux coders and/or users. That makes Novell's users nervous. They want guarantees that either MS' claims are false, or MS will not sue them, even if they are true. This contract provides that guarantee.
While that does vaguely resemble mafia "protection" payments (though not as closely as many Slashdotters seem to believe), I really don't see why people are having such a hard time wrapping their heads around the reason for this deal.
This is also reminiscent of what was going on in the US during the cold war - everyone building bomb shelters, stockpiling food, etc. The reality was that none of this would have been able to keep anybody alive, had nuclear war broken out. But the fact that people thought it would put their minds at ease, and that made all the difference in the cold war.
"(though not as closely as many Slashdotters seem to believe)"
Really? I need you to elucidate that for me. Please explain how Microsoft's overtures are substantially different from "Sure is a nice business you have there. Sure would be a shame if something were to...happen to it. Like, you know, a lawsuit. Funded by Microsoft."
How is that ANY different from a protection racket?
While that does vaguely resemble mafia "protection" payments... I really don't see why people are having such a hard time wrapping their heads around the reason for this deal.
Well, I think most people aren't having problems "wrapping their heads around the deal". They see it as unethical. This is very different from not being able to understand it.
I wouldn't say I see it as unethical, on Novell's part at least. I'd say it was clueless. I believe the Novell statement is basically honest, as honest as corporate statements ever are, at least. And I read it like this:
Novell wanted a deal on interoperability. MS played along, and managed to slip them a poison pill along with it. I don't think anyone at Novell intended to be played like this - but there's obviously some serious hardcore cluelessness at the pay scales where this deal got vetted and the decis
After reading the IRC logs, what bothers me the most is that Novell doesn't even seem to consider why Microsoft is interested in this deal. They only talk about how they will work on interoperability and that Microsoft is "acknowledging" Linux. Microsoft has never been worried about getting sued by Novell over patent infringement, so what exactly do they think Microsoft's motives are? If Microsoft simply wants better integration with Linux, they have all the means to do so without pursuing any patent deals.
It seems that Microsoft's true motive was shown only a few days after the deal when Ballmer continued to throw FUD about patent issues regarding Linux. Only now, he can claim that Novell has acknowledged the patent issues in an effort to make the claims appear to be more legitimate.
I keep reading this. Seriously, I am going to go over to one of the many patent registry websites and search for Microsoft patents and post one or two that Linux violates if you people don't stop parroting this shit. There is absolutely, positively, no doubt that any given Linux distribution violates at least a few of Microsoft's patents. That's the whole freakin' reason why patents on software is a dumb idea. It is also the reason why Microsoft will never enforce their patents as you can say the same thing about Microsoft's products and IBM's patents. STFU about Linux not infringing on Microsoft's patents.
Wasn't there initially a patent on the double-click? I'm beginning to think that we need to seriously rethink the patent process on the whole.
There is a world of difference in lifting an entire screenplay, design document, or chunk of source code, and using the same small idea. We shouldn't allow patents on small, trivial concepts. But people have patents on trivial things.
I have no doubt whatsoever that various distros infringe on some small patents. And I also have no doubt that Microsoft stole countles
Meh, copyright on source code is pointless too. Here's one of those unspoken ideas: take random open source project that is under a license you don't like. Study it. Once you understand it, think of 20 ways you could improve it. Rewrite it from scratch. How long does it take? Well, ask the OpenBSD team, they've done it half dozen times already. That asshat Darren Reed's ip filter was rewritten in under a week. How the hell can you do that? Well it really aint hard, you just gotta work. Whenever you run into one of those annoying problems that take ages to solve the first time you're writing a piece of software, just look at the original work. So long as you're not copying the text, just the ideas, copyright doesn't apply.
Does this mean a patent system would be better? Hell no. So what then?
copyright on source code is pointless too. Here's one of those unspoken ideas: take random open source project that is under a license you don't like. Study it. Once you understand it, think of 20 ways you could improve it. Rewrite it from scratch... Whenever you run into one of those annoying problems that take ages to solve the first time you're writing a piece of software, just look at the original work. So long as you're not copying the text, just the ideas, copyright doesn't apply.
There is indeed nothing wrong with this, quite the contrary. However, this process only works for software at a very local scale. As soon as you get into complete systems with massive internal dependencies, copyright becomes a very effective protection. After all...
That... ip filter was rewritten in under a week. How the hell can you do that? Well it really aint hard, you just gotta work.
Exactly. People are allergic to work, that is what makes copyright on source code so effective. Do you feel like rewriting GCC just to skirt the copyright?
I think there's a crucial difference between copyright and patent, because copyright does not stand in the way of your creating a similar program if you are willing to do the work, while patent does.
QuantumG is correct. There are simply so many software patents, on so many fundamental principles, that no non-trivial software program could exist that was licensed by all patent holders with claims reading on the algorithms used. This is regardless of whether it is proprietary or Free Software.
Why don't we do that. Why don't we put together a web site that lists all of MS patents and then declare open season on them. Let's invalidate all of them by digging up prior art. This is a fantastic opportunity for the OSS community to launch an DDOS on MS patents.
Once MS sees it's patents start being picked apart by the community they will start to panic, it will be fun to watch.
"That's a great idea, until it becomes obvious that viewing so many patents makes you an ineffective contributor to open source projects."
Right. So the developers don't read the site. This will be a way for people who do not code to contribute to OSS.
"Here's one (of many) example of Linus' views on patents on LKML"
I don't think people respect Linus as much as they used to. He totally messed up the bitkeeper situation, he rejected the GPL3, and he has said nothing about the threats by MS to sue linux developers, distributors and users. You would think that he would at least condemn Ballmers remarks but not a peep.
It's clear that linus doesn't get IP. He doesn't care and he thinks everybody is like him. Maybe the one good thing to come out of all this will be that linus learns to care about the threats of patents, DRM and licenses but somehow I doubt it. He will remain uncaring I am sure.
7,143,340 - a patent on the MVC pattern applied to tables in GUI. I know both the Qt and gtk+ toolkits do that. 7,139,894 - that patent covers just about any interprocess communication that transmits "configuration information". 7,131,112 - and here's a patent which covers basically every revision control software ever written (cvs, svn, git, etc)
That's 3 of 5873. Go to this page [uspto.gov], enter "Microsoft" into Term 1 and select "Assignee Name" for Field 1 if you wanna see the list.
They clearly state that they are paying up to prevent frivolous lawsuits. Furthermore, in their GPLv3 conversation, they go on to say that Redhat and HP offer the same protection, only they are agreeing to pay for the legal costs if their customers are sued. Read the whole article first.
Red Hat and HP are offering to help you if you get sued by a patent holder who is not them. In contrast, Novell has this friend "Big Mike" who was going to beat you up, but Novell made a deal with him so that Big Mike will now promise not to beat you up. Hopefully everybody can see the difference.
Ok true, but I don't see how the situation can be improved with GPL v3 and not affect Redhat Et all.
Oh, it's no problem for Red Hat and HP. It's only a problem for people who own the patents in question or people who have made a deal with the owners of the patents. People who indemnify do so by reimbursing your damages out of their own pockets or through an insurance company, and they do so regardless of whose patents got you in trouble.
There is a fundamental difference between indemnification and what N
Even if Linux is completely clean with regards to Microsoft patents, and I do believe it is so,
there is still a threat of a lawsuit. There always is. It would be unsuccessful, but it
still would be very inconvenient, annoying and expensive for those that get hit.
Even if Novell doesn't believe that this threat is worth any action, it's enough if its customers,
or potential customers (like those presently being Windows-only) do perceive that threat as impo
The business world is concerned. I have been getting calls from Novell stock analysts, for example. Having the people who write and own the software turn upon Novell is a big deal to them. And they've watched SCO, and the last thing they would have wanted Novell to do would have been to follow in SCO's footsteps.
A few Nov 27 11:43:05 <Nat_> We are collaborating with Microsoft on a few different interop areas Nov 27 11:43:27 <Nat_> We'll be adding Open XML support to OpenOffice, building a virtualization shim to run SLES optimized on Veridian and Vista on Xen Nov 27 11:43:44 <Nat_> We'll also be working together on WS-Management Nov 27 11:43:46 <Nat_> All this code will be released open source Nov 27 11:43:47 * cboltz (n=cboltz@88.134.58.13) has joined #opensuse-project Nov 27 11:43:51 <Nat_> so everyone gets that, and can benefit from it Nov 27 11:44:33 <Nat_> (By the way, in that process, we don't plan to add MS-patented code to our contributions) Nov 27 11:44:42 <Nat_> (Our policy on that is unchanged -- and MS didn't give us the right to do that anyway!)
Hm, wow, I'm convinced. So what was the point of the deal then? Either you'll be contributing code that you couldn't have before, meaning no one else who doesn't have a similar MS deal can use, or you'll be contributing code that you could have easily added previously anyways. I don't get it.
#1. They hack them out the way Team Samba does (yay Team Samba!!!)
#2. They read the specs that are published
#3. They "clean room" the specs.
#4. They read the specs that they've just purchased the rights to.
Anyone have any other ways?
Now, which way are the Novell coders going to use to get specs... that does NOT involve a potential software patent issue with Microsoft?
If you're thinking "Novell just partnered with Microsoft and Microsoft can share their specs with Novell now"... that's the easiest way for Microsoft to get their software patents into Linux.
And anyone who thinks that Microsoft wants to play nice with Linux has NOT been reading the history here.
You seem to be confusing trade secrets with patents. You can't use the "clean room" approach to avoid a patent issue. Either interoperability can't be acheived without violating MS patents or it can be. Whether Novell coders do or do not get specifications is irrelevent to the patent issue. You don't need to know anything about how Amazon implemented their one-click functionality to violate the one-click patent.
At SuSE (now part of Novell), we have implemented a number of open-source drivers based on specs
we based on documentation received under some kind of contract, including
NDAs.
We always made sure that the contract contained a clause that we're free
to use any information we received this way to implement and distribute a driver
under the terms of the GPL, and that the other party knows about that and agrees
to it. This implies that there either are no patent claims on that code, or that the relevant
paten
What in the world is "MS-patented code" or "patented code" in the first place?
Code which practices an algorithm or other technique which is claimed in a patent owned by MS. And MS knows it, and now it's in your program. Sounds risky.
On the other hand, Novell may have done Free Software a great service.
All those who lambasted RMS for the explicitness of GPLv3 may now have to reconsider their opposition. This includes organizations like Red Hat and OSDL, who called the FSF approach "extremist."
Thanks to some opensource proponent (was it the FSF?), MS knows where to look to find infringing code in the kernel! Someone did an analysis (to prevent software patents, which was not going to work in the U.S.) to convince every linux user that patents were bad by demonstrating how the linux kernel potentially infringed on 200+ patents. You're going to say "potential," but NO opensource developer will have the $ to defend themselves against MS. I predict MS is going to start suing like a motherfucker and linux is going to go away.
Even if Microsoft manages to pull off a spectacular legal coup d'état, I predict that their success in European and Asian courts will be... less than spectacular. Linux isn't going away anytime soon, and when it does go away it will be for technical reasons (i.e. 100+ years from now they finally rewrite the OS from scratch), not legal reasons.
I was able to attend the meeting this morning and feel the text of this slashdot story is a little misleading.
People who are unable to attend can post their questions in the wiki before the meeting (the wiki link in the article). The questions in the wiki were reviewed during the meeting, and many were addressed. Some, however, were not specifically addressed as they were answered during the live Q&A earlier in the meeting. Therefore, all of the questions (live and on the wiki) were addressed in one way or another.
That being said, I think it was great to hear from Nat directly.
This think reads like it was scripted by the PR department.
Also, I notice that they had things rigged so that they could censor any questions they didn't like. (Reasonable, an open forum would have been a mad house, but not exactly a process that builds trust.)
They also didn't say anything about which of their customers could redistribute what. The short answer appears to be "We aren't interested in developers."
Kinda makes you think that half way through the log you'll see:
<DeveloperBob> Look, it's really not a big deal. This is just business stu.. RUN YOU FOOLS, IT'S A TRAP!!! *** DeveloperBob has left IRC <DeveloperSteve> ok, so next question please...
5. This deal does not violate GPLv2.
Eben Moglen read our agreement and hasn't said a thing about GPLv2
violation. It's abundantly clear that he doesn't think there is any.
Instead, he and Richard are using the community energy to try to get
people to adopt the previously-controversial GPLv3 (which we support
also)
Hey, this is actually a cool way to get GPLv3 accepted. Reading over the log, and seeing their responses, I feel a bit better about the deal. I'm still suspicious but I'm no longer at the point where I am ready to remove openSuSE from my system and install debian.
I really hope this works out, Novell has done a lot of great things in the past and I would like to see them continue their good work.
(The Vercotti brothers enter. They wear Mafia suits and dark glasses.) Dino: (Terry Jones) Good morning, Colonel. Colonel: Good morning gentlemen. Now what can I do for you. Luigi: (Michael Palin) (looking round office casually) You've... you've got a nice army base here, Colonel. Colonel: Yes. Luigi: We wouldn't want anything to happen to it. Colonel: What? Dino: No, what my brother means is it would be a shame if... (he knocks something off mantel) Colonel: Oh. Dino: Oh sorry, Colonel. Colonel: Well don't worry about that. But please do sit down. Luigi: No, we prefer to stand, thank you, Colonel. Colonel: All right. All right. But what do you want? Dino: What do we want, ha ha ha. Luigi: Ha ha ha, very good, Colonel. Dino: The Colonel's a joker, Luigi. Luigi: Explain it to the Colonel, Dino. Dino: How many tanks you got, Colonel? Colonel: About five hundred altogether. Luigi: Five hundred! Hey! Dino: You ought to be careful, Co1onel. Colonel: We are careful, extremely careful. Dino: 'Cos things break, don't they? Colonel: Break? Luigi: Well everything breaks, don't it Colonel. (he breaks something on desk) Oh dear. Dino: Oh see my brother's clumsy Colonel, and when he gets unhappy he breaks things. Like say, he don't feel the army's playing fair by him, he may start breaking things, Colonel. Colonel: What is all this about? Luigi: How many men you got here, Colonel? Colonel: Oh, er... seven thousand infantry, six hundred artillery, and er, two divisions of paratroops. Luigi: Paratroops, Dino. Dino: Be a shame if someone was to set fire to them. Colonel: Set fire to them? Luigi: Fires happen, Colonel. Dino: Things burn. Colonel: Look, what is all this about? Dino: My brother and I have got a little proposition for you Colonel. Luigi: Could save you a lot of bother. Dino: I mean you're doing all right here aren't you, Colonel? Luigi: Well suppose some of your tanks was to get broken and troops started getting lost, er, fights started breaking out during general inspection, like. Dino: It wouldn't be good for business would it, Colonel? Colonel: Are you threatening me? Dino: Oh, no, no, no. Luigi: Whatever made you think that, Colonel? Dino: The Colonel doesn't think we're nice people, Luigi. Luigi: We're your buddies, Colonel. Dino: We want to look after you. Colonel: Look after me? Luigi: We can guarantee you that not a single armoured division will get done over for fifteen bob a week. Colonel: No, no, no. Luigi: Twelve and six. Colonel: No, no, no. Luigi: Eight and six... five bob...
" I think people have overreacted to this deal
I guess because it involves the words "Microsoft" and "patents" "
BECAUSE, NAT, WE'VE GOT A FUCKING LAWSUIT THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER THREE FUCKING YEARS ASSERTING THAT THERE IS FUCKING INFRINGING IP IN LINUX AND IT HAS BEEN NOTHING MORE THAN VACUOUS STATEMENTS BACKED UP BY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING SINCE FUCKING 2003! AND NOW YOU IDIOTS SIGNED A FUCKING CONTRACT THAT IS BEING SPUN BY MICROSOFT THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH INFRINGING IP IN LINUX! WELL, FUCK YOU! WHERE THE FUCK HAS NOVELL BEEN FOR THE PAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS? I FUCKING SWEAR THAT HOVESEPIAN CAN FUCKING MESS UP MAKING A FUCKING PEANUT BUTTER SANDWICH!
In what feels like 10 years of participating on Slashdot, I have never come upon a post which makes its point so excellently, and also contains so many F-words. Those two things have been mutually exclusive. Until now.
Do me a favor. Take your anger here [techp.org] for a moment and help me out, if you haven't done so yet. But no F-words there, please, it would detract from the document. Even if Novell tosses it off, it's point is already made to a lot of Novell users and VARs and investors and the press. They've been calling me.
Novell has not provided any useful precedent or other legal ammunition that ANYONE can use in ANY court case. We didn't acknowledge that there are any MS patents infringed by Linux. So this court case you're screaming about is totally unaffected by the Novell/MS deal. Microsoft has been spreading FUD that Linux infringes MS IP for years -- nothing changed in that respect here. Another point I want to make. Open Source Risk Management is a company that makes its money by selling insurance on Linux IP infrin
"The deal essentially says that a lawsuit can happen but novell customers or noncommercial devlopers will not be sued."
Which means that everyone else is left swinging in the wind. It means that members of OSDL are not protected because they are paid. Correct me if I am wrong. It means that every author that accepts a paycheck from his regular programming job is a target if he writes software that Microsoft doesn't like.
And it doesn't even have to be something that infringes. Just the threat of a lawsuit in a strongly worded letter from a Microsoft lawyer makes many people retract projects, because they simply can't afford to go up against a giant like Microsoft.
Oy, there is so much wrong with your assumptions that I don't know where to finish up.
"If you listen to microsoft's fud and take it as truth thats *your* fault."
I am not worried about _my_ ears. I am worried about the FALSEHOOD AND LIES that Microsoft is spreading around to be picked up by every PHB, Purchasing manager, and uninformed internal corporate lawyer. Novell has just signed a deal that _endorses_ Microsoft's behavior and agrees with their POV.
Get the facts, indeed.
*grumble*
-- BMO - SuSE Linux from versions 6.1 to 10 and no further.
Everyone here knows what happens to people/companies that do a deal with MS... they very quickly become deceased or owned. This simply means the final end of Suse and Novell. MS will do this one distribution at a time... or have we not learned anything from their past behavior?
Surely, it is not just me that sees this as the first step in MS owning Linux? I KNOW how paranoid that sounds, but lets get real and deal with past history, real fact, actual behaviors...
I really don't care how this gets modded, it must be said that a tiger doesn't change it's stripes, so why is MS doing this? out of kindness, or out of a desire to own Linux? While that may be paranoid at this point, look at what they stand to gain if one distribution owns up to IP issues? It will tie up all the other distributions in litigation...
I have to say, personally, I find all this 'love fest' rather dangerous indeed
People keep saying this, but there are counterexamples.
In 1997 Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple. The deal also involved a promise from Microsoft to make Office available on Macintoshes, and there was a patent agreement as well. Bill Gates appeared on the big screen at MacWorld to jeers and shouts. People said Apple had done a deal with the devil and was dead. But in fact the deal gave Apple the money and the breathing room to build itself up and they are far from dead now (though not the most open company in the world, obviously).
In 2004 Sun did a deal with Microsoft, were paid $1 billion, and signed a patent agreement with MS as well. This month they announced they are GPLing Java.
So while I agree that MS is a dangerous company and you have to be careful when you do anything with them, it's simply not true that doing a deal with them is always fatal.
Q: Novell claims to have not acknowledged any patent infringements by Linux. But Novell is now paying a tax to Microsoft on the Linux distributions it ships. What, exactly, is Novell paying for?
Nat Friedman: We're paying for the promise that Microsoft made to our customers not to sue them.
Q: Not to sue them for *what*? For problems you don't acknowledge exist?
Nat Friedman: We put together an agreement with Microsoft to make Linux and Windows work better together. Now, as everyone knows, Microsoft has spent the last 10 years saying negative things about Linux, including implying that there are IP issues in Linux. It didn't make sense for us to do a partnersihp with Microsoft on interoperability issues and still have this patent cloud hanging around for our customers, so Microsoft asked us to put together a patent agreement as well. And so we promise Microsoft's customers that we won't sue them and they promise the same thing to our customers. They pay us for our promise and we pay them for their promise. It doesn't matter if the allegations from MSFT are true or not. People can sue each other anyway, and a patent lawsuit is very expensive to defend against.
This "our customers" language is typical of Novell's statements surrounding this issue. They constantly speak of their customers but do not speak of the wider impact on the FOSS community itself. This might sound like a non-customer asking for a handout, but the fact remains that the majority of Linux developers and users are not associated with SUSE or Novell. The fact also remains that Novell relies on the FOSS community for its development. Therefore, a patent lawsuit that caused, say, X or kernel development to be halted or altered would affect Novell as well, even though MS could claim that they have not violated the agreement.
It goes without saying that Ballmer's statements have caused harm to the FOSS community and that many more people were exposed to Ballmer's statements than Hovespan's.
I think the reason that RMS and Moglen are so incensed about this agreement is obvious. This agreement to create a de facto ownership of Linux by suing anybody who competes with Novell. If MS sues successfully for patent infringement in Application A, Novell can continue to use it without being sued, but no one else can. In this way, they can become the only non-MS people to be able to use it in consequence of their "get out of jail free" card. It is an end run around the GPL.
Both MS and Novell benefit from this. Novell destroys its competition in the Linux arena and becomes the only "legitimate" Linux vendor. MS reduces its competitors to one complacent one which it can dispatch at its lesiure or use to prove that MS is not a monopoly.
In light of this, Novell only has two options if it truly believes in FOSS:
Require MS to agree not to sue any FOSS project for patent infringement.
Back out of the deal and admit Novell did not have the consent of all of its developers when it entered this contract.
Whether Novell sees this future or not, it is screwing the Linux community. And garbage like this [novell.com]:
Ubuntu's open week sounds like a really good idea. I'm just surprised that it is done to get users away from openSUSE as Mark Shuttleworth announced on the opensuse mailing lists.
Mark, let me reiterate that the openSUSE community and the Ubuntu communities share the same goals. We might put different emphasis on some of them, so let me speak just about one where I see a different focus.
. ..
Mark, I'd like to invite you to discuss what possibilities we have to work together against the domination of Microsoft on the desktops and servers - instead of fighting against each other.
What is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft asked Novell to "put together a patent agreement" so Novell could market that protection to their customers
Does Novell often pay millions of dollars for "protection" for its customers when it does not believe that the threat has any substance?
Microsoft is the one making the threats.
Novell is paying Microsoft to NOT follow through on threats that Microsoft has yet to substantiate.
Not to mention the patent battle that could erupt should Microsoft ever file a patent claim against anyone using Linux.
WTF?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at what Microsoft is paying for. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, that is correct.
Microsoft is paying hundreds of millions of dollars for SuSE support licenses. Far more than Novell is paying Microsoft.
Now, when was the last time anyone tried to buy SuSE from Microsoft? Has anyone here tried to? No?
Okay, when was the last time anyone called Microsoft's tech support about a SuSE issue? Has anyone here tried that? No?
Well, it seems that Microsoft paid a LOT of money for licenses that it will probably never use and didn't seem to need in the past. You might want to look up the history of the SCO lawsuit and see how Microsoft also paid for SCO licenses that Microsoft will probably never use and didn't seem to need prior to that.
So, it looks like Microsoft paid for Novell's signature on that "patent agreement". Novell couldn't say "no" to that big of an instant payoff.
Now, go back and read about Microsoft's other "partners" and how Microsoft treated them. There isn't any reason to believe that Microsoft is suddenly going to play nice and fair with Linux (or Novell). Microsoft's who business model is based upon their monopolistic control of the desktop.
Parent
It's a Protection Racket for God's sake (Score:3, Insightful)
The Mob only wishes there were smooth enough to pull off crap like this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's make Novell a similar offer (Score:5, Funny)
This offer is also open to any other companies who want to take me up on it.
Parent
Re:What is this? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
While that does vaguely resemble mafia "protection" payments (though not as closely as many Slashdotters seem to believe), I really don't see why people are having such a hard time wrapping their heads around the reason for this deal.
This is also reminiscent of what was going on in the US during the cold war - everyone building bomb shelters, stockpiling food, etc. The reality was that none of this would have been able to keep anybody alive, had nuclear war broken out. But the fact that people thought it would put their minds at ease, and that made all the difference in the cold war.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? I need you to elucidate that for me. Please explain how Microsoft's overtures are substantially different from "Sure is a nice business you have there. Sure would be a shame if something were to...happen to it. Like, you know, a lawsuit. Funded by Microsoft."
How is that ANY different from a protection racket?
Re:What is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I think most people aren't having problems "wrapping their heads around the deal". They see it as unethical. This is very different from not being able to understand it.
Bruce
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe the Novell statement is basically honest, as honest as corporate statements ever are, at least. And I read it like this:
Novell wanted a deal on interoperability. MS played along, and managed to slip them a poison pill along with it. I don't think anyone at Novell intended to be played like this - but there's obviously some serious hardcore cluelessness at the pay scales where this deal got vetted and the decis
Re:What is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that Microsoft's true motive was shown only a few days after the deal when Ballmer continued to throw FUD about patent issues regarding Linux. Only now, he can claim that Novell has acknowledged the patent issues in an effort to make the claims appear to be more legitimate.
Parent
Re:What is this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm beginning to think that we need to seriously rethink the patent process on the whole.
There is a world of difference in lifting an entire screenplay, design document, or chunk of source code, and using the same small idea. We shouldn't allow patents on small, trivial concepts. But people have patents on trivial things.
I have no doubt whatsoever that various distros infringe on some small patents. And I also have no doubt that Microsoft stole countles
Re:What is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this mean a patent system would be better? Hell no. So what then?
Parent
Re:What is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is indeed nothing wrong with this, quite the contrary. However, this process only works for software at a very local scale. As soon as you get into complete systems with massive internal dependencies, copyright becomes a very effective protection. After all...
That
Exactly. People are allergic to work, that is what makes copyright on source code so effective. Do you feel like rewriting GCC just to skirt the copyright?
Parent
Re:What is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
Parent
Let's be clear about software patents (Score:4, Informative)
Bruce
Protest the Novell-Microsoft Patent Agreement [techp.org].
Parent
Re:What is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Once MS sees it's patents start being picked apart by the community they will start to panic, it will be fun to watch.
Parent
Re:What is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. So the developers don't read the site. This will be a way for people who do not code to contribute to OSS.
"Here's one (of many) example of Linus' views on patents on LKML"
I don't think people respect Linus as much as they used to. He totally messed up the bitkeeper situation, he rejected the GPL3, and he has said nothing about the threats by MS to sue linux developers, distributors and users. You would think that he would at least condemn Ballmers remarks but not a peep.
It's clear that linus doesn't get IP. He doesn't care and he thinks everybody is like him. Maybe the one good thing to come out of all this will be that linus learns to care about the threats of patents, DRM and licenses but somehow I doubt it. He will remain uncaring I am sure.
Parent
Re:What is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
7,143,340 - a patent on the MVC pattern applied to tables in GUI. I know both the Qt and gtk+ toolkits do that.
7,139,894 - that patent covers just about any interprocess communication that transmits "configuration information".
7,131,112 - and here's a patent which covers basically every revision control software ever written (cvs, svn, git, etc)
That's 3 of 5873. Go to this page [uspto.gov], enter "Microsoft" into Term 1 and select "Assignee Name" for Field 1 if you wanna see the list.
Enjoy.
Parent
Dumbass (Score:3, Informative)
What Red Hat and HP offer is not the same (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, it's no problem for Red Hat and HP. It's only a problem for people who own the patents in question or people who have made a deal with the owners of the patents. People who indemnify do so by reimbursing your damages out of their own pockets or through an insurance company, and they do so regardless of whose patents got you in trouble.
There is a fundamental difference between indemnification and what N
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Novell (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Novell (Score:4, Insightful)
Bruce
Parent
Either we got nothing or you got nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hm, wow, I'm convinced.
So what was the point of the deal then?
Either you'll be contributing code that you couldn't have before, meaning no one else who doesn't have a similar MS deal can use, or you'll be contributing code that you could have easily added previously anyways.
I don't get it.
Think about that for a moment. (Score:5, Insightful)
#1. They hack them out the way Team Samba does (yay Team Samba!!!)
#2. They read the specs that are published
#3. They "clean room" the specs.
#4. They read the specs that they've just purchased the rights to.
Anyone have any other ways?
Now, which way are the Novell coders going to use to get specs
If you're thinking "Novell just partnered with Microsoft and Microsoft can share their specs with Novell now"
And anyone who thinks that Microsoft wants to play nice with Linux has NOT been reading the history here.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We always made sure that the contract contained a clause that we're free to use any information we received this way to implement and distribute a driver under the terms of the GPL, and that the other party knows about that and agrees to it. This implies that there either are no patent claims on that code, or that the relevant paten
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Code which practices an algorithm or other technique which is claimed in a patent owned by MS. And MS knows it, and now it's in your program. Sounds risky.
Bruce
Another Take (Score:5, Insightful)
All those who lambasted RMS for the explicitness of GPLv3 may now have to reconsider their opposition. This includes organizations like Red Hat and OSDL, who called the FSF approach "extremist."
Who's the extremist now?
Stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clarification: Questions in the wiki (Score:3, Interesting)
I was able to attend the meeting this morning and feel the text of this slashdot story is a little misleading.
People who are unable to attend can post their questions in the wiki before the meeting (the wiki link in the article). The questions in the wiki were reviewed during the meeting, and many were addressed. Some, however, were not specifically addressed as they were answered during the live Q&A earlier in the meeting. Therefore, all of the questions (live and on the wiki) were addressed in one way or another.
That being said, I think it was great to hear from Nat directly.
-m
Scripted by PR? (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, I notice that they had things rigged so that they could censor any questions they didn't like. (Reasonable, an open forum would have been a mad house, but not exactly a process that builds trust.)
They also didn't say anything about which of their customers could redistribute what. The short answer appears to be "We aren't interested in developers."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
*** DeveloperBob has left IRC
<DeveloperSteve> ok, so next question please...
Real reason for deal revealed! (Score:4, Interesting)
Eben Moglen read our agreement and hasn't said a thing about GPLv2 violation. It's abundantly clear that he doesn't think there is any.
Instead, he and Richard are using the community energy to try to get people to adopt the previously-controversial GPLv3 (which we support also)
Hey, this is actually a cool way to get GPLv3 accepted. Reading over the log, and seeing their responses, I feel a bit better about the deal. I'm still suspicious but I'm no longer at the point where I am ready to remove openSuSE from my system and install debian.
I really hope this works out, Novell has done a lot of great things in the past and I would like to see them continue their good work.
rofl (Score:3, Funny)
Dino: (Terry Jones) Good morning, Colonel.
Colonel: Good morning gentlemen. Now what can I do for you.
Luigi: (Michael Palin) (looking round office casually) You've
Colonel: Yes.
Luigi: We wouldn't want anything to happen to it.
Colonel: What?
Dino: No, what my brother means is it would be a shame if... (he knocks something off mantel)
Colonel: Oh.
Dino: Oh sorry, Colonel.
Colonel: Well don't worry about that. But please do sit down.
Luigi: No, we prefer to stand, thank you, Colonel.
Colonel: All right. All right. But what do you want?
Dino: What do we want, ha ha ha.
Luigi: Ha ha ha, very good, Colonel.
Dino: The Colonel's a joker, Luigi.
Luigi: Explain it to the Colonel, Dino.
Dino: How many tanks you got, Colonel?
Colonel: About five hundred altogether.
Luigi: Five hundred! Hey!
Dino: You ought to be careful, Co1onel.
Colonel: We are careful, extremely careful.
Dino: 'Cos things break, don't they?
Colonel: Break?
Luigi: Well everything breaks, don't it Colonel. (he breaks something on desk) Oh dear.
Dino: Oh see my brother's clumsy Colonel, and when he gets unhappy he breaks things. Like say, he don't feel the army's playing fair by him, he may start breaking things, Colonel.
Colonel: What is all this about?
Luigi: How many men you got here, Colonel?
Colonel: Oh, er
Luigi: Paratroops, Dino.
Dino: Be a shame if someone was to set fire to them.
Colonel: Set fire to them?
Luigi: Fires happen, Colonel.
Dino: Things burn.
Colonel: Look, what is all this about?
Dino: My brother and I have got a little proposition for you Colonel.
Luigi: Could save you a lot of bother.
Dino: I mean you're doing all right here aren't you, Colonel?
Luigi: Well suppose some of your tanks was to get broken and troops started getting lost, er, fights started breaking out during general inspection, like.
Dino: It wouldn't be good for business would it, Colonel?
Colonel: Are you threatening me?
Dino: Oh, no, no, no.
Luigi: Whatever made you think that, Colonel?
Dino: The Colonel doesn't think we're nice people, Luigi.
Luigi: We're your buddies, Colonel.
Dino: We want to look after you.
Colonel: Look after me?
Luigi: We can guarantee you that not a single armoured division will get done over for fifteen bob a week.
Colonel: No, no, no.
Luigi: Twelve and six.
Colonel: No, no, no.
Luigi: Eight and six
My Rant. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess because it involves the words "Microsoft" and "patents" "
BECAUSE, NAT, WE'VE GOT A FUCKING LAWSUIT THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER THREE FUCKING YEARS ASSERTING THAT THERE IS FUCKING INFRINGING IP IN LINUX AND IT HAS BEEN NOTHING MORE THAN VACUOUS STATEMENTS BACKED UP BY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING SINCE FUCKING 2003! AND NOW YOU IDIOTS SIGNED A FUCKING CONTRACT THAT IS BEING SPUN BY MICROSOFT THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH INFRINGING IP IN LINUX! WELL, FUCK YOU! WHERE THE FUCK HAS NOVELL BEEN FOR THE PAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS? I FUCKING SWEAR THAT HOVESEPIAN CAN FUCKING MESS UP MAKING A FUCKING PEANUT BUTTER SANDWICH!
I hope that's plain enough.
Goddamn, they _still_ do not get it.
--
BMO
This is unusual (Score:5, Interesting)
Do me a favor. Take your anger here [techp.org] for a moment and help me out, if you haven't done so yet. But no F-words there, please, it would detract from the document. Even if Novell tosses it off, it's point is already made to a lot of Novell users and VARs and investors and the press. They've been calling me.
Bruce
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It was hand crafted from rare woods, with each syllable hand rubbed with fine oils to bring out the grain.
"Take your anger here for a moment and help me out
Done.
--
BMO
very well said (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Your rant (Score:3, Interesting)
Novell has not provided any useful precedent or other legal ammunition that ANYONE can use in ANY court case. We didn't acknowledge that there are any MS patents infringed by Linux. So this court case you're screaming about is totally unaffected by the Novell/MS deal. Microsoft has been spreading FUD that Linux infringes MS IP for years -- nothing changed in that respect here.
Another point I want to make. Open Source Risk Management is a company that makes its money by selling insurance on Linux IP infrin
Re:My Rant. (Score:4, Insightful)
Which means that everyone else is left swinging in the wind. It means that members of OSDL are not protected because they are paid. Correct me if I am wrong. It means that every author that accepts a paycheck from his regular programming job is a target if he writes software that Microsoft doesn't like.
And it doesn't even have to be something that infringes. Just the threat of a lawsuit in a strongly worded letter from a Microsoft lawyer makes many people retract projects, because they simply can't afford to go up against a giant like Microsoft.
Oy, there is so much wrong with your assumptions that I don't know where to finish up.
"If you listen to microsoft's fud and take it as truth thats *your* fault."
I am not worried about _my_ ears. I am worried about the FALSEHOOD AND LIES that Microsoft is spreading around to be picked up by every PHB, Purchasing manager, and uninformed internal corporate lawyer. Novell has just signed a deal that _endorses_ Microsoft's behavior and agrees with their POV.
Get the facts, indeed.
*grumble*
--
BMO - SuSE Linux from versions 6.1 to 10 and no further.
Parent
wow, is it just me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely, it is not just me that sees this as the first step in MS owning Linux? I KNOW how paranoid that sounds, but lets get real and deal with past history, real fact, actual behaviors...
I really don't care how this gets modded, it must be said that a tiger doesn't change it's stripes, so why is MS doing this? out of kindness, or out of a desire to own Linux? While that may be paranoid at this point, look at what they stand to gain if one distribution owns up to IP issues? It will tie up all the other distributions in litigation...
I have to say, personally, I find all this 'love fest' rather dangerous indeed
Re:wow, is it just me? (Score:5, Interesting)
People keep saying this, but there are counterexamples.
In 1997 Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple. The deal also involved a promise from Microsoft to make Office available on Macintoshes, and there was a patent agreement as well. Bill Gates appeared on the big screen at MacWorld to jeers and shouts. People said Apple had done a deal with the devil and was dead. But in fact the deal gave Apple the money and the breathing room to build itself up and they are far from dead now (though not the most open company in the world, obviously).
In 2004 Sun did a deal with Microsoft, were paid $1 billion, and signed a patent agreement with MS as well. This month they announced they are GPLing Java.
So while I agree that MS is a dangerous company and you have to be careful when you do anything with them, it's simply not true that doing a deal with them is always fatal.
Parent
"Our Customers" (Score:3, Insightful)
This "our customers" language is typical of Novell's statements surrounding this issue. They constantly speak of their customers but do not speak of the wider impact on the FOSS community itself. This might sound like a non-customer asking for a handout, but the fact remains that the majority of Linux developers and users are not associated with SUSE or Novell. The fact also remains that Novell relies on the FOSS community for its development. Therefore, a patent lawsuit that caused, say, X or kernel development to be halted or altered would affect Novell as well, even though MS could claim that they have not violated the agreement.
It goes without saying that Ballmer's statements have caused harm to the FOSS community and that many more people were exposed to Ballmer's statements than Hovespan's.
I think the reason that RMS and Moglen are so incensed about this agreement is obvious. This agreement to create a de facto ownership of Linux by suing anybody who competes with Novell. If MS sues successfully for patent infringement in Application A, Novell can continue to use it without being sued, but no one else can. In this way, they can become the only non-MS people to be able to use it in consequence of their "get out of jail free" card. It is an end run around the GPL.
Both MS and Novell benefit from this. Novell destroys its competition in the Linux arena and becomes the only "legitimate" Linux vendor. MS reduces its competitors to one complacent one which it can dispatch at its lesiure or use to prove that MS is not a monopoly.
In light of this, Novell only has two options if it truly believes in FOSS:
Whether Novell sees this future or not, it is screwing the Linux community. And garbage like this [novell.com]: