Groklaw Guts the Novell/Microsoft Deal 267
walterbyrd writes "Pamala Jones, at groklaw, totally rips apart the Novell/Deal patent protection deal. From the article: 'Justin Steinman reveals that to market their SUSE Linux Enterprise Server against Red Hat they ask, "Do you want the Linux that works with Windows? Or the one that doesn't?" It's just appalling. Let me ask you developers who are kernel guys a question: When you contributed code to the kernel, was it your intent that it be used against Red Hat? How about the rest of you developers? Is that all right with you, that your code is being marketed by Novell like that? I also have questions about antitrust issues, with Microsoft being Novell's partner in such deals and sales pitches. Nothing speaks louder about Microsoft's true determination never to be actually interoperable than this conference.'"
Re:I don't mean to.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Classic Microsoft - Shades of the Apple deal (Score:5, Interesting)
I've always liked SUSE as a distro, but once the Novell deal went through, I knew it was only a matter of time until the sour taste was just a little too sickening, making it unconscionable to fathom dealing with them for the foreseeable future. There are better distros out there anyway.
I don't grok Novell's motivations (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, there are the Good Things that Novell has done, and does, for GNU/Linux and F/OSS.
On the third hand, there is me, and others like me, that I'm sure wonder about the MPD that Novell exhibits. To whit: I understand and agree that Open-solution based entities should be willing and able to work with proprietary companies. But it seems that in this instance Novell is going about that the completely wrong way, with the completely wrong company.
It's like there is Novell Darkside, and Novell Lightside, and ne'er the twain shall meet.
Maybe these are just the actions of a corporation that is so large that the different divisions inside of it are unaware of what others are doing, a la Sony.
Marketing and producing (Score:4, Interesting)
While I can't defend what Novell is doing here, I do want to point out that after buying SuSE, they created an open-source community project around a distribution that was one of the most closely kept. The openSUSE project now releases free SUSE downloads - something SUSE had been against. Novell also bought Ximian which I think has a great reputation in open-source development and Novell has been continuing the work that they have done.
Is it possible that Novell needs this marketing to overcome the fact that it is a late entrant? Maybe, judging by the other things that Novell has done (opening up a formerly closed distro and continuing important work on open-source projects) it is ok to forgive them for this highly annoying example of stupidity? Maybe I'm just naive and this actually is a bigger deal.
Re:Excellent Attitude (Score:5, Interesting)
If Microsoft wanted to try to control Samba development, they may have done so. But I'd expect Google to run with the network storage work, now, with Jeremy in place.
Microsoft Platform Strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
Much ado about nothing... (Score:3, Interesting)
For a hospital where I consult, for instance, we have decided to go in with PACS-One deployed on top of Cent OS, not even RedHat. Other corporates will do likewise, once they understand what benefits Linux can bring them. This is a very transient and pyrrhic victory for Microsoft-Novell, and rightly so.
The great thing about Open Source... (Score:3, Interesting)
GPL is pure communism (Score:2, Interesting)
By making you redistribute your changes under the GPL, that's what the GPL does. The BSD license is libertarian: "Do what you want with this."
Software is probably the only place in the universe such a theory could work, too. Because you can make a copy of software and leave the original intact. You can't do that with any other type of resource, so the "from each according to his abilities" and the "to each according to his needs" parts of communism fail - demonstrably and miserably.
But because in the software world, making a copy doesn't disturb the original in any way, that concept does not fail at all - it actually works really well. All because one can take a software resource without actually taking it from someone else.
Re:Competition is good (Score:5, Interesting)
That largely depends on how they compete though. If I compete with you by blowing up one of your offices, that doesn't improve the quality of my software, and does nothing for the end user. If you compete back by killing my top developers, the only innovation we're going to see will be in weaponry.
You can see this in Microsoft: world class PR machine, but in terms of software... well, they can't even design a power-off button without five years of committees, meetings, and focus groups.
mmm... you cut that paragraph a little too short, I think. Here's a longer section:
Keep on like that, and you'll have to change your handle to "quotes_out_of_context"
Go read some of the legal research. Look at how closely the Groklaw analyse the legal filing in the SCO case. Look at the care they take to be accurate. That's why PJ is so widely respected. For her hard work and dedication to defending free software from a threat against which of the Linux hackers wouldn't have known where to start.
Granted, when she moves off law and on to wider subjects, she can sometimes go a bit over the top. I don't think she has in this particular article, but even if she did - I figure all that hard work earns her the right to voice the occasional opinion.
Yes... (Score:4, Interesting)
I want a Linux that works with Windows.
But if I invest in Novell's (Suse) Linux(TM), will my Windows work with Linux? Or will I have to buy the Novell version of Windows for that to happen?
Those of us old enough will remember when Microsoft had certain licensing deals with Compaq, and if you bought a Compaq server, you also had to buy Compaq Windows NT, which was quite a bit more expensive than the Redmond version. If you tried to get around this by just buying the server and installing Microsoft's Windows NT, you'd find yourself with a dead machine - the BIOS actually checked the Windows version, and if it didn't have the Compaq magic number, would refuse to continue loading it.
I can foresee a time when Windows will check to see if it is connecting to an "authorized machine" - presumably, to improve security - and that it will simply fail to connect to a Linux box, unless it is running an MS-approved version. (aka, Suse).
The only reason why Microsoft tolerates Novell is because they realize that Linux has replaced UNIX in a lot of corporate environments. As soon as Linux becomes widely used on the desktop, Microsoft will treat Novell as they've treated all of their past partners. Novell seems not to understand this - they can market their version of Linux only to the extent that Redmond blesses it, and that is truly sad.
Re:I don't mean to.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I have decided not to waste my time condemning Novell over the deal, however I no longer recommend their distributions to clients.
When clients ask for SuSE or Novell Linux I usually explain that Microsoft and Novell have signed a 5 year deal that allows Novell to use some Microsoft patented code in their Linux Distro. There is no telling if the deal will be renewed at the end of the 5 years or if users will have to start paying a license fee to either Novell or Microsoft. Novell and Microsoft have kept details of the deal a secret, but these details could incur costs for users. It is impossible to know what will happen.
I tell them that because of this ambiguity over the deal I no longer recommend Novell SuSE Linux as this could leave my clients in a legally questionable situation.
So I recommend Red Hat because they indemnify their users against legal harm and debian because their commitment to open source guarantees that any legally questionable code will be removed or replaced
Re:Ever had a real job? No? (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, my, where to begin?
First, why do you assume everyone in his business space has been using Windows successfully for over a decade?
Second, why do you assume that the "entire user base" must be retrained?
Third, why is it more realistic to stay with Windows than to switch to an alternative that offers a competitive advantage?
For the first, a few areas not dominated by Windows "for over a decade" would included computer animation (SGI Irix held that title 10 years ago), open source software development (Linux succeeded Unix, with no Windows era at all), and pretty much any embedded device (e.g., medical equipment - where the first Windows-powered cardiac stress tester was inflicted on me just last year, and it crashed after 30 minutes of jogging and breath-holding, forcing me to start the test over after the technicians did the three-fingered salute). Just because your business space has been Microsoft's profit center for over a decade doesn't mean that's been the reality for the rest of the universe.
For the second, major transitions in the market virtually never follow a "big bang" model. Windows replaced Unix in the engineering space over a period of at least 10 years - but in small steps, such that the engineers picked up their new skills in small batches and often by self-training. Same with desktop publishing (where Macs are still a potent force) and education (ditto). It's even true with Window's succeeding DOS in the general purpose business desktop space, where each Windows release (3.0, 3.1, 95, and 98) saw another fragment of the market switch. Thus, the retraining was very gradual and manageable. Why would a theoretical transition to Linux be any different?
For the third, Linux offers market advantage today in modest but growing markets. I'm very aware of this in my own job, where we've replaced several hundred Windows-based engineering desktops with Linux desktops because the 4 GB limit of 32-bit desktop Windows is inadequate for the applications, and only on Linux is a 64-bit version of the application available. The proposed Vista migration just makes this problem worse, as the OS consumes even more desperately needed RAM. As a side benefit, the new Linux computers are not bogged down with constant virus scanning, so the applications themselves run almost twice as fast on the same hardware - and that's a benefit upper management understands all too well. The success of this transition has led to proposals for transitions in other business areas - where it makes sense, and where a competitive advantage can be demonstrated.
And yes, I'm a 25+ year continuously employed veteran of the computer market, starting before IBM conquered the world with DOS. Would you care to compare "real job" credentials? ;-)
Linux replacing Windows in the business space is as much of a long shot today as Windows replacing Unix in the engineering space was in the early 1990's - yet the latter happened, incrementally but inexorably. I wouldn't bet my career against Linux if I were you - it's showing a remarkably similar pattern as previous successes such as (say) Windows itself.
Those "kids" you dissed today may well have the last laugh.
Re:Most important quote from the article (Score:3, Interesting)
Novell can to IBM's corner when SCO group was asserting claims and attacking linux. What your describing wouldn't be a problem outside the minds of people thinking about it.
Novell, redhat, and Microsot all know that as soon as they make it known that a specific piece of code touches another patent, that it would be removed and replaced or worked around in some way. If something is violating a patent owned by someone else, it is a problem more serious then "someone could get away with it". And truthfully this is what the argument boils down to, it is a "But they might get by with it and we will have to do something".
Now, outside worrying about someone who might get to do more then someone else, do you seriously think that any large open source company is going to knowingly infringe on a patent?
Re:GPL is pure communism (Score:3, Interesting)
BSD is more like communism/dictatorship: I give you my work - you can take it and improve it and give nothing back. You gain from my hard work.
Interoperability and Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
Citation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone have a citation for this quote? There is no link to it from Groklaw. I searched Google for both the quote, and also for Justin Steinman to see if I could find it printed anywhere. I could not find anything. Other than Pamala Jones' I cannot find anyone elses reporting this statement. I do remember an article [slashdot.org] last week, but in it Mr Steinman does not say that Red Hat does not work with windows, only the Suse is reccomended by Microsoft. Saying he is dissing Red Hat is quite a jump from there.
lens of suspicion (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, Novell is presenting the main thrust of the Microsoft-Novell deal as being interoperability. But another way of stating the same thing is "embrace, extend, and extinguish". Microsoft has focused on competing with Open Source. In typical Microsoft fashion competing with Open Source means destroying Open Source. Part of Microsoft's attack on Open Source is that Microsoft paid Novell to participate in a plan to embrace, extend, and extinguish Open Source. Open Source is a producers co-operative and Novell is a member of that co-operative. If this attack succeeds in destroying the Open Source co-operative then Novell will end up in the position of having no product to sell.
Open Source has no choice but to defend itself against Microsoft's attack. In particular we have to defeat the Microsoft-Novell agreement. If Novell insists on hugging Microsoft then Novell runs the danger of becoming collateral damage in the war between Microsoft and Open Source.
Since Novell is being paid to help Microsoft embrace, extend, and extinguish Open Source then all of Novell's actions become suspect. Novell actively campaigned for OOXML in the fight between ODF and OOXML. Novell tried to get one of their employees appointed as head of standards at the Linux Foundation. Novell is actively introducing Microsoft proprietary standards into Open Source code in the Mono project and the Xen project. And there is the major problem that the Microsoft-Novell agreement is an attempt to use Microsoft's patent portfolio as a bludgeon to impose a Microsoft tax on all of the other distributions starting with Red Hat as the first intended victim.
Novell has contributed a lot to Open Source. But since the Microsoft-Novell agreement we are forced to view every Novell action through the lens of suspicion. As an example:
Novell has recently announced that a Novell employee will be paid to work full time on coordinating projects to write open source device drivers for Linux. On the face of it that is a great idea and a valuable contribution by Novell to Open Source. On the other hand the Microsoft astroturf gang made an effort about two years ago to promote the idea of writing Linux device drivers to Windows interface standards. That way the same driver could be used in both Windows and Linux. We ignored the idea.
So now we have to question Novell's motives in paying to support Open Source device driver projects. We cannot blindly trust Novell to be acting in Open Source's best interest instead of carrying out their embrace, extend, and extinguish obligations under the Microsoft-Novell agreement. Are they working on device drivers in a good faith effort to contribute to Open Source or are they trying to introduce device drivers written to Microsoft proprietary standards into the kernel?
----------------
Steve Stites