Jeremy Allison Resigns From Novell In Protest 344
walterbyrd writes to alert us to word from groklaw.net that Jeremy Allison has turned in his resignation at Novell. "The legendary Jeremy Allison (of Samba fame) has resigned from Novell in protest over the Microsoft-Novell patent agreement, which he calls 'a mistake' that will be 'damaging to Novell's success in the future.' His main issue with the deal, though, is 'that even if it does not violate the letter of the license, it violates the intent of the GPL license the Samba code is released under, which is to treat all recipients of the code equally.' He leaves the company at the end of this month. He explained why in a message sent to several Novell email lists, and the message included his letter to management."
Excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Intent doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
He chose to release his software under a license that permitted this sort of behavior, and now he's complaining when people actually engage in this sort of behavior.
Re:Excellent! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Excellent! (Score:3, Insightful)
The worst part is that the bastardized Novell/Microsoft hybrid would probably the best-working version. (Hey, who better than microsoft to know the backward-compatibility quirks of Samba/CIFS?)
Re:Excellent! (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems it was part of the strategy and so far, it appears to be working. Good for Microsoft.
On the other hand, I wonder what Novell will ever to right with Open Source Software.
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm with you, pal. When I consider Steve Ballmer's comments [nwsource.com] regarding this deal, it stinks to high heaven. There's no way Novell or Microsoft will ever square this deal in my eyes in light of those patent threats made by the CEO of Microsoft. Novell's proper reaction should have been to turn right around and drop the deal once they heard what that creep was spouting. "Undisclosed balance sheet liability" my arse.
No matter what Novell does, they still look to me to have been bullied into this agreement. Most likely MS came to Novell threatening legal action and this is how they settled it. We weren't inside, and we'll never know, but that's what this whole thing feels like to me.
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)
To the above ACs who feel that delcaring that Novell is not technically breaching the letter of the contract means that the contract is not breached, do some reading up on contracts. The words are open to interpretation - with the goal of divining the intent of the parties. Knowingly misconstruing the meaning of a contract to evade its obvious intent is a breach of contract - according to Englo-American juris prudence.
-GiH
Not a lawyer, just a student.
Re:I don't understand this... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have large customers (people who spend money on software AND use Open Source) who run Windows and Linux side by side. Their NUMBER ONE complaint has been lack of interoperability.
Precisely. Users will think this is great, but it's not users who are writing the software being abused. Large users in particular (I work for a very large corporate user of Linux) will think this is great, because they're already paying for their support contracts and are basically seeing Linux as a commercial OS anyway - that's true in their case, because they're paying for support and restricting themselves to supported configs etc.. But it's the people writing the code that are objecting to their labour being used in this way, not the end users.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Excellent! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand this... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem here is that it does violate the spirit of the GPL. Rather than granting all users freedom, they're granting users freedom only if they've purchased a specific distribution. The GPLv3 will more than likely fix this, but for now we're stuck with the GPLv2 allowing actions such as this.
Oh, and just how is Microsoft going to be fostering interoperability? I haven't seen yet where they've adopted any of our open protocols or open formats. I don't see them working with developers of free software products to help them inter-operate with Microsoft software. All I've seen so far is that Novell is going to be making an OpenXML plug-in for OpenOffice, and OpenXML is a standard in name only, also completely avoiding the intent of what it means to be a standard.
Re:Excellent! (Score:2, Insightful)
Er, so basically, you want the Samba team to treat Novell differently to other recipients of the code... because Novell don't treat recipients of the code equally?
Re:I don't understand this... (Score:3, Insightful)
MS said they won't file suit against hobbyist developers. They didn't say anything about developers who are paid to work on Linux by companies other than SUSE.
Jeremy Allison has been quoted many times about some of the problems of making SAMBA work with Microsoft's SMB. Many of these problems have been because Microsoft do not (perhaps that should be "did not") want operability between Windows and Linux. As the founder of the SAMBA project, he's in an invidious position for precisely the reason you state when you talk about customers who complained about interoperability and who now want to switch to SUSE.
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure that's the case; certainly, Allison's position sounds as if it is that the deal violates at least the spirit and possibly the letter of the license. Certainly, a high profile group of suppliers of GPL software included in Novell's Linux offerings raising the specter of litigation and license violations over the deal would undermine the primary purpose and destroy the value of the deal, which was, after all, to help Novell sell its commercial Linux products by removing uncertainty associated with them stemming from the specter of litigation over the IP violations.
If there is a cloud of GPL-related potential litigation seen surrounding Novell, all its done is traded one potential source of litigation for many potential sources of litigation.
Pretty simple actually (Score:3, Insightful)
Good on him, it is his code!
Not like he has to work very hard at finding a new job anyhow.
Re:I don't understand this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft says it will sue users of Samba, but not if they give Microsoft money by being a customer of Novell (because a portion of the SUSE warantee agreement goes to Microsoft directly).
By doing this, Novell is violating my copyright and the copyright of every contributor to free software by redistributing my software to people who do not have the ability to redistribute my software (with all rights they received therein). The GPL expressly forbids this, both in intent and in letter.
Novell is now saying that when I said anyone they distribute my software to must be given the same rights to redistribute that Novell has, and be told as such, that I really didn't mean it. While the GPL says this means Novell no longer has the right to redistribute my software, I strongly suspect they think it doesn't say that either.
Winnowing The Herd (Score:3, Insightful)
As has been said before, Microsoft is trying to narrow its Linux competition to one or two then eliminate them later. The influx of corporate politics and big money/power stands to poison the whole notion of bazaar-style development. Big-Money has a way of doing that. Look at Debian and dunc-tank. That's hardly big money and it's already affected volunteerism at that project.
As is often the case, there are just a couple of people who carry such a strong sense of principals, that they choose a more uncertain path over a more predictable one that is the result of having more flexible principals.
I for one admire his sense of conviction.
Re:Excellent! (Score:4, Insightful)
Novell isn't using their patents/IP to FUD against open source, they are using their partner Microsoft's patents/IP to FUD against open source. A technicality perhaps, but still wholly unacceptable.
The GPL is no longer sufficient for many coders (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA
I think this sums up both the reason why the GPL community is mad at Novell even if they didn't technically violate GPLv2 and why there is a need for GPLv3.
Some are saying that the community has no right be mad at Novell because they aren't technically in violation of the GPL. Fine for them. But many of those that contribute code to GPL projects do so because they believe in the intent of the GPL, which is that all who receive the code are to be on the same legal footing as all others regardless of how they receive it. If the GPLv2 is no longer sufficient to provide this guarantee, then changes are needed. And it is perfectly valid for Eben Moglen to craft the changes to plug specific legal-loophole, zero-day exploits in the GPLv2 such as this Microsoft-Novell deal.
Novell keeps trying to make this deal smell rosy by talking up the interoperability part of the agreement. Are they really so stupid that they do not see that the interoperability part of the deal is not what has GPL supporters upset? They could have made any number of deals with Microsoft to work on interoperability without trying to destroy the foundation of the GPL.
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft couldn't care less if Apple Macs were all the rage in schools early on because that wasn't one of their markets. Schools aren't as comparatively profitable as businesses. Once Microsoft had conquered the business world, they then started paying attention to schools and libraries and took those markets away from Apple. If the Apple platform actually started to make major inroads in server rooms, office suites, groupware and provided a killer alternative to Exchange, MS would be actively trying to take them down a few pegs again. Many Linux distros are doing exactly that and that's why taking Linux down a few pegs is a necessity to MS. MS doesn't want Linux dead. They just want it to smell funny. Probably something like pee. (I keep doing that)
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)
If MS/Novell create a better samba derived from the samba team's GPL code, they *must* provide access to the source code. Any improvements MS/Novell make to samba are guaranteed to become available to us, and they can never take it away.
Re:Excellent! (Score:2, Insightful)
Programmers don't want to get stuck on some obscure file locking issue for instance and realize they have to rewrite 50k of code just to handle it. So the less they know about the gotchas the more error checking, hooks, and gestalt they put in. This gets really ugly though when there isn't a well-defined goal (ie 'filesharing with windows') because coders go crazy making it overly generic and flexible.
Won't revoke rights; Samba team too good for that (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, in the past, the Samba team has demonstrated a professionalism that has put their detractors to shame, and I hope they can continue to uphold their standards. Witness what they said to SCO when SCO accused the evil Samba team of spreading the deadly plague of Open Source (all the while distributing Samba with their SCO Linux). Here's the letter from Samba to SCO:
Translation: "Up yours, SCO." But they say it in such a way that it will carry weight in business circles. In the same way, Allison's resignation makes a clear statement.
It would be a mistake to do otherwise; if the Samba team says, "Well, then I *un*-give you the code! Nyaah nyaah!", it would epitomise in the minds of executive decision-makers that Open Source is run by a bunch of immature J.Random Hackers From China who will revoke your license at the slightest provocation.
One only hopes that Novell will show some more understanding of how much turd they have now placed their foot in, and make some public gesture to show the IT world that OSS is alive and well. Sort of like what EV1 did. Novell's done a lot of good for OSS. I hope they continue.
Re:I don't understand this... (Score:2, Insightful)
How is Novell violating your copyright because of something another company said?
If there were no deal and MS said 'we'll sue everyone, but not Novell 'cause we like their funky green lizard', would Novell still violate the GPL by redistributing?
Now if MS comes out and points out copyright violations in GPL code, Novell can't legally distribute it regardless of the deal...
I've RTFA and I think the guy is saying he feels marginalized by the community because the company he worked for 'made a deal with the devil'.
Re:Excellent! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that's not what he's saying. You're close, though. What he's saying is that even if Novell is not violating the GPL, under which Samba is released, it still is not upholding the true intent of the license.
There's a difference. The actual statement is a hypothetical. Your version is an assertion.
Re:This makes me a sad Panda (Score:3, Insightful)
Ballmer promptly started spewing once this deal was signed that customers of other Linux distros were at risk [somebody shut him up shortly afterwards]. This provides MS a wonderful FUD opportunity now that the SCOX farce is winding down. This implies that Linux actually infringes on Microsoft patents somehow without openly admitting it, and that Novell paid them off to stay legit. All of which is anathema to the FOSS movement that created this code to start with.
If Stevie B actually thinks there's patent violations in Linux, let him bring them forward. If not, he should STFU and try competing on the merits of his company's products. Oh wait...
Re:Excellent! (Score:3, Insightful)
Then they'll just link to an external library that hides all the new functionality.
Re:is he tainted now? (Score:4, Insightful)
And why the developer community is so seriously dead-set against it. Any code contribution by Novell at this point has to be considered suspect against MS claims of infringement that Novell/its customers are supposedly safe from, but the rest of us are wide-open to.
It's not about copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Putting your money where your mouth is (Score:3, Insightful)
So this leader of a popular software development project goes and gets his name splattered all over the web tied to an account of how strong his integrity is?
You can't buy marketing like that :-)
Utter rubish (Score:2, Insightful)
Allow me to disprove your contention; it's quite simple. This deal has been such an utter P.R. disaster for Novell that they have had several P.R. opportunities to try to explain themselves. Not once has there ever been any hint of a statement that this deal was either a mistake, or that they were forced into it.
Your "feelings" about this deal are seriously misguided. If this were indeed the case, Novell would have at least dropped some hints in this direction. Please quite trying to justify this deal by making excuses for Novell.
My impression of Novells' actions and statements is that this deal is all about greed, not fear.
Re:Novell would be the one with the fork. (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally Gentoo rocks my world and I run it on all the boxen at home as well as on a few Xen VMs here doing some fairly important stuff (syslog for our network switches routers and firewall for example). The only thing that makes me run "supported" Linux distros are product requirements. Oracle's management package MUST run on RedHat Linux Enterprise for example. Can't get away from that... So if these companies eventually start dictating that only the "one true" Novell Linux is the only supported one, I'll be stuck. And you know there are going to be people who will see the Microsoft "blessing" of a Linux distro as meaning that it's got a higher level of quality over non-blessed distros regardless of the truth.
It's not LGPL (Score:5, Insightful)
The beauty of the GPL is that they cannot do that. That's why I support the GPL over all other licences, its track record to this day has been perfect in keeping free source free.
Re:Excellent! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's not LGPL (Score:3, Insightful)
The spectre of litigation (Score:3, Insightful)
An honest litigant dosen't need to use these tactics, they are the techniques of the abuser and the oppressor company, but they work, and there are lawyers who will do this for Microsoft, RIAA, and other sources of pain and suffering.
Microsoft would be willing to bear these costs, because they see a need to confront the open source movment NOW before Google shows the world how to get run everything through a web browser, and open office winds up sitting in front of technical evaluators at middle sized companies. Putting the stink of this kind of litigation - branding open source software as an illegal movment which steals and cheats the system, will drive buisiness back towards main stream solutions. As of right now, MS is the only show in town that qualifies.
This is another in a long chain of life altering moments that you should probably write about in your diary - today I saw MS launch the second stage of its war on linux.
-GiH
What about Nat Friedman? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please sign the Open Letter to Novell [techp.org]. I'd like to get that over 3000 signatures at least today. It's at about 2950 now.
Thanks
Bruce
I think that THAT is the reason for this "deal". (Score:4, Insightful)
EXACTLY. And if you'll look at the SCO case, you'll see the exact same thing. SCO sued a couple of its own customers NOT because they were using Linux but because they did not comply 100% with the contract they had signed with SCO.
When Microsoft comes in for an "audit", they're not doing it to help you. They're doing it because they want more money out of you. And the only way to get more money out of you is to "find" that you are not "in compliance" with the agreement you signed.
Which is why it would be smarter for people to avoid Novell products which Novell is paying a ROYALTY to Microsoft for if you're looking to reduce your exposure to Microsoft lawsuits and/or reduce your costs to Microsoft.
Re:I don't understand this... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Windows was in the Data Center first (except for mainframe and Unix...but hang with me for a minute)
2. Linux is the newcomer to the corporate world.
3. Companies are not going to dump their Windows environment for Linux, just because Microsoft has, admittedly, made no effort to integrate with Linux. We would be foolish to believe Gates / Ballmer would say "you know, it would be great if we could make our OS work with this new, free OS that is our direct competition." If they did, they would have their shareholders up in arms. My last company made great strides in integrating Linux into their corporate environment, but when you have a gazillion Exchange servers, you're not going to dump that. Just isn't going to happen. Same with SQL servers...not going to win that one either.
4. Now, Ballmer decides he can't beat Linux or Open Source decides that perhaps it is time to work together, because the customers are telling them they need to do so. Great. But don't expect him to change over night. Sure...he can say "all Linux users are fair game..." but what are the odds of that happening? Surely he's seen the fiasco that is the SCO lawsuit. He's not that stupid.
Look...if it were up to me, everyone would run Linux on the desktop and the server. I've done it for years, and with the exception of my work laptop, I'm either running Linux (Debian & SUSE) or Mac OSX. But it isn't up to me. IBM said they were going to switch everyone to a Linux desktop. They didn't. Novell said everyone was going to use a Linux desktop. A lot do, but not everyone. The plain and simple fact is that Microsoft is the world's largest software manufacturer. Ballmer is charged with protecting its interests. The Open Source lab and the deal with Novell are a good step. But as I said, we can't expect him and the ship that is Microsoft to change course over night. It takes time. Companies and individuals will also change over time, and more Linux will show up on the desktop and server. When I work with friends setting up businesses I recommend and help them implement Open Source software. But that is from the ground up. Trying to get bigger companies to make that change isn't easy, and they will stay with what they have because of what it would take to switch.
Come up with a tool that will seamlessly migrate Windows desktops and server to Linux with little to no down-time, and you'll be a Billionaire...guaranteed, and this discussion won't happen, because everyone will run Linux, because they can, and it won't hurt in the process of changing over.
Re:Excellent! (Score:2, Insightful)
And here I was thinking freedom included the freedom to do that which others might not approve of... instead, it's apparently "freedom to use this code in a manner in which we see fit".
That is correct (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you have is Microsoft offering
Microsoft has never been known for playing fair and it's time for the entire world to work hard to simply make them irrelevant. Don't implement standards that are not truly open. Don't support Microsoft in ANYTHING they do. Demand that they be held accountable for their continued antitrust violations. Microsoft needs to be broken into at least three separate companies in order to level the playing field. This can easily be justified by their continued lawless actions and the effects those actions have on the IT world.
Re:It's not LGPL (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally think it's a tactic that shows signs of desperation; you can bet they've spent a lot of lawyer-years brainstorming ways to attack Free software, but it looks like they've got something here in the short term. It would be a dangerous move to be seen to endorse Linux even slightly, and shipping software to run on it would certainly do that -- but most of all I think it'd increase the exposure of Windows admins to Linux / Free software, which just increases the rate of attrition of MS mindshare. So in a couple more decades, OSes will be seen as far more of a commodity, and minimal, streamlined feature sets with straightforward modular components. And will include an old .au file of a man saying "My name is Linus Torvalds, and I pronounce it 'Lee-nuhx' :)
Re:Won't revoke rights; Samba team too good for th (Score:2, Insightful)
Except, that's not ad hominem because it's directly related to the issue at hand. Pointing out that even SCO doesn't really agree with their own arguments if you look at their behavior doesn't create the standard logical fallacy of an ad hominem [wikipedia.org] attack.
Re:Of course they can (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course they can (Score:3, Insightful)
a) It doesn't work retroactively and far more important
b) It will no longer be GPL
There's no such thing as "GPL with my extra requirement", then it's not GPL or even GPL-compatible. If you're lucky it's still OSI-definition "open source", but I think that would even disqualify it as that.
stop spreading FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no rational reason anybody has demonstrated why SuSE shouldn't be able to ship Samba under GPL v3. So, please, stop spreading FUD.
Re:Putting your money where your mouth is (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't feel too bad for him. He's moving to google http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=170/ [zdnet.com] which I'm sure isn't too bad for his career or his bank account. It's easier to have strong principles when you have a safety net. I've always found a job offer from a competitor to be the perfect opportunity to get things off my chest followed by a resignation.
GPL3 is expressly incompatible with Novell deal (Score:3, Insightful)