Hubert Mantel Returns to Novell

Krondor writes "Hubert Mantel, SUSE Co-Founder, has confirmed in an interview with Data Manager Online that he has returned to employment with Novell. When asked why he left Novell to begin with, Hubert responded that he was 'burned out' and 'following unpleasant experiences with our investors needed some time off.' Slashdot had reported previously Hubert's departure from Novell approximately one year ago shortly following Novell's acquisition of SUSE and subsequent layoffs. Hubert also provides his opinions on the Novell-Microsoft Agreement, which he characterizes as 'a good thing.'"

Explanation, please

[Brandybuck]

Some please explain the controversy over the MS/Novell deal to me. It seems that in everyone's rush to bemoan the fate of all mankind, the actual specifics of the problem have been lost. So after several weeks of trying to sort it out, I now humbly ask clarification. No snarky comments please, I'm being serious.

My understanding is that this is an indemnity deal. Microsoft says it won't sue Novell over patents. While this may be interpreted as a statement of intent to sue non-Novell distros, that still doesn't explain attitude towards Novell. Shouldn't they be considered equivalent to shopkeepers who knuckle under and pay protection fees to the mob? At most they should be treated as cowards, and not as traitors who have sold out the future of Linux.

And what's the big deal with the GPL? I've turned it upside down and inside out, and I can find no restriction against entering into indemnity deals. Not even in spirit. Microsoft may not sue Novell if it incorporates patented code into GPL sources, but the GPL licensors certainly will! So again, what's the problem?

I'm coming to the conclusion that this is merely MDS. Microsoft Derangement Syndrome. It's the mere mention of the name "Microsoft" that has everyone foaming at the mouth. I greatly suspect that if the exact same deal had been made with IBM (who owns more patents than Microsoft ever will) no one would even be batting an eye. It's for these reason I've not asked this question before, out of dread that I would be flamed to oblivion. So please take a step back, count to ten, and calmy explain why Novell is so evil for entering into this agreement.

Glimpse of light in the dark here

[tulare]

Maybe (hopefully, please, PLEASE let it be so) this means SuSE will return to its roots as a kickass KDE desktop distribution... as someone who for various reasons has preferred KDE for many years now, SuSE's looming turn toward Gnome was a real bummer for me.

Re:Mantel doesn't address issues on MS/Novell

[kripkenstein]

His explanation seems very weak to me:

"What's important is that Linux is free and will remain to be free. The source code is open to everybody, this is what counts for me."

'Open' source code that is under Microsoft patents, and therefore isn't free-to-use - or, more to the point, is free-to-be-sued-for-using - isn't really 'free', I would say. And how is Linux "still free", if Novell needs to pay Microsoft to keep it that way?