Microsoft Gets Novell Docs Before OSS Community

flydpnkrtn sends in an InformationWeek article arising out of Novell's SEC filing yesterday, asking: "Is this just more Novell-bashing material? Or is this no big deal? And of course this type of thing runs contrary to the 'spirit of the GPL'..." "Under its controversial alliance with Novell, Microsoft is entitled to receive key technical documentation from the Linux distributor even if that documentation is not generally available to open source software developers, according to a Novell document."

Their documentation

[allthingscode]

If the documentation belongs to Novell, they can burn it for all I care.

I don't see any problem with this.

[ikekrull]

Novell and MS are perfectly entitled to collaborate in any fashion they like as long as it doesn't violate the licenses of products that are not their own intellectual property e.g. GPL-licensed software they are distributing as part of their product offerings.

If Novell wants to share documentation athat they themselves have written or compiled with MS in preference to others, then I can't see any reason for outrage or controversy. Please, theres plenty of reasons (mostly, the patent-related reasons), to condemn Novell's actions, but I can't see this is any basis for negative feeling towards Novell at all.

If youre talking about community-contributed documentation, then wouldn't it already be out there?

If youre really worried, slap a 'all rights reserved by the copyright holder. Permission is granted to read or redistribute this work except to the companies Novell or Microsoft' disclaimer on everything you publish.

 

And the point is?

[Moraelin]

And the point is? Sorry to disappoint some people, but noone really owes you anything just because you're waving an OSS banner.

Seriously, have a look through the GPL sometime, or read RMS's rhethoric about freedom of speech and such. The idea was that noone can steal _your_ code and put it in a closed source program. Ok, so the GPL 1 and 2 went a bit further and demanded the source and rights to whatever code _they_ contributed to that program too, but I figure it's a fair trade. I show you mine, if I you show me yours. GPL 3 is already treading on grounds some of us consider borderline, but still, ok. But none of them says you have a right to everything _else_ someone wrote or touched.

If Novell wants to sell some of its own documentation to MS, in exchange for whatever they wish, that's that. It's their docs, they can give it to whoever they want, or to noone whatsoever. Just because Novell also has a linux distro, doesn't mean you suddenly have a sacred right to everything else they have.

Re:Don't Think This is Relevant

[mangu]

I agree, because even if Novell gives them documentation on open source software, well it's also available elsewhere to everybody else. The only point I wonder is this: if Novell took a GPLed software and wrote documentation for it, should the documentation be under the GPL?

Anyhow, the only sad thing about all this Novell affair is that they abducted what was an excellent Linux distribution. Suse saved my day a few times because it was one of the best distros from the POV of hardware compatibility.

Re:I don't see any problem with this.

[ajanp]

Well, apparently it isn't so much if Novell wants to share the documentation with Microsoft, they apparently have to share it with them (regardless of whether or not they decide to share it with the rest of the open source community).

A copy of Novell's technical collaboration agreement with Microsoft attached to the filing shows that Novell must provide Microsoft with certain documentation related to running SUSE Linux virtually -- on an exclusive basis if necessary. "If any such Novell Management Information is not publicly available, it is provided for Microsoft's internal reference use only," the agreement states.

Under the deal, Novell must provide to Microsoft documentation relating to the tools used to manage Novell's SUSE Linux operating system on virtual servers "whether or not Novell Management Interface Information is available publicly in the open source community," the document states.

Seems more like Novell got the short end of the stick on that one considering Microsoft has complete access to all documentation relating to SUSE's virtual servers and the rest of the open source community can get the scraps of whatever Novell decides to give them.

Re:Spirit of the GPL?

[One Louder]

Whenever somebody invokes the "spirit of the GPL", that's usually because the GPL doesn't actually say what somebody wants it to say, typically over the use of the word "free".

Re:I don't see any problem with this.

[at_slashdot]

"Novell and MS are perfectly entitled to collaborate in any fashion they like"

We are also free to use whatever products we like. We are free to choose against a product only that we don't like the chairman (or should I say "chair man") of the company, or if we don't like what companies they make deals with. I personally don't like Microsoft so much, therefore I won't use Suse and any product that come from Novell as long as they make deals with Microsoft.

Re:Spirit of the GPL?

[grcumb]

Whenever somebody invokes the "spirit of the GPL", that's usually because the GPL doesn't actually say what somebody wants it to say, typically over the use of the word "free".

And you've missed the meaning of the word 'spirit'.

The GPL is not an end in itself. It is the mainstay of an attempt to protect the Four Freedoms [fsf.org]:

"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software."

(Emphasis mine.)

Collectively, they represent what many people call the spirit of the GPL. Admittedly, that's a bit of a back-asswards expression, but it'll do.

Novell and Microsoft undoubtedly have undermined the Four Freedoms through their patent indemnification tapdance. Likewise, the agreement to share information preferentially undermines the Four Freedoms as well. The patent agreement subverts the freedom to copy and distribute software, and preferential distribution of documentation subverts the freedom to study the software, which is a necessary precursor to the other three.

Maybe Microsoft can really use this documentation

[Eric Damron]

Maybe Microsoft can use this documentation as a road map on how to write docs... God knows Microsoft has been "unable" to provide useful docs to the EU despite being told that they must.

I know, my karma will burn for that one...

Seriously though if they want to share the documentation that they paid to create with Microsoft and not the Open source community that's their right. They must realize, however, that everything they do or don't do impacts the perception that the Open Source community has of them.

Personally I hope that Novell comes back to the community. Right now they're playing with the Devil. Microsoft has a reputation for back stabbing their partners. From talking to Novell representatives I can honestly say that they don't appear to realize the seriousness of the Microsoft/Novell deal. Their hoping it will give them a sales advantage over Redhat. That's too bad too. I think Novell was positioning itself to be the dominant Linux provider but they just blew it with the Microsoft deal.

What they don't seem to get is that one of the things that is so attractive about doing business with Open Source companies is their perceived ethics. They don't try to find reasons to sue you. Well unless their name is SCO and we all see where that pig is headed. This deal seems to send the message "Buy from us or my buddy here will punch you." Not what I would call ethical.

Oh well wait and see I guess.

Strategy becomes clearer

[Anonymous Coward]

Most enterprise IT shops have mixed environments. As much as MS would like to push out the other vendors, it has been largely unsuccessful and has encountered pushback.

This latest revelation seems to paint the MS strategy as, "If you must have linux in your shop, then use SUSE and run it virtually on top of an MS solution. We promise to play nice with SUSE, but only them."

If customers buy into this approach and help SUSE become the dominant distro in the Enterprise, then MS might take some of that hoard of cash it is sitting on and buyout Novell.

While buying out every linux distro/support company is infeasible, trying to use MS's mass to prop up one and later purchase it does seem plausible. Especially, if it can assist that company in producing and addicting large customers to proprietary linux to MS (and vice-versa) solutions which it will later add to its IP Portfolio.