OpenSUSE Opens Up to Questions About the Microsoft Deal 288
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.
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.
protection racket (Score:2, Insightful)
If I walked into an office and told them they needed to pay me cause there's a possibility the place might get robbed
I'd be in jail so fast it would make my head spin.
Isn't this pretty much what MS has done here?
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?
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.
Re:What is this? (Score:1, Insightful)
In addition, what exactly is the correlation between the the RIAA's idiocy and Microsoft's threats? There is a world of difference between distributing copies of someone elses copyrighted work and distrubuting copies OF YOUR OWN WORK!
I'm still not sure what to think of this Novell/Microsoft deal, but each time Novell representatives open their mouths they seem to add more ammo to the "stinks" conclusion.
burnin
Re:Novell (Score:2, Insightful)
I've lost count of the number of people calling for a boycott, or reporting that they have switched away from, or are in the process of switching away from Novell products.
I think that it is essential that this is continued. The community is the strength of FOSS. If we cannot stand together against what in essence is a form of corporate blackmail Microsoft will continue to drive wedges into the community. It's classic divide and conquer tactics.
We need to continue to spread the truth about this deal so that people have the information they need to see it for what it is, and shun Novell for he traitor in our midst that they have become. Hopefully Novell will come to their senses and abandon the deal. If not, the boycott needs to be as absolute as we can make it. We cannot allow stabbing the entire community in the back to be profitable. Currently, Novell is the new SCO, and should be treated as such.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061103
http://technocrat.net/d/2006/11/2/9945 [technocrat.net]
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/20061109a.htm
http://news.samba.org/announcements/team_to_novel
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.
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is this? (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 countless ideas from innovators before them.
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
Re:What is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this mean a patent system would be better? Hell no. So what then?
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:What is this? (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?
It does not matter what Novell's motivations were (Score:2, Insightful)
This deal was a trojan from the start. Before the ink was even dry Ballmer was screaming that they were finally getting economic return from the use of their IP in Linux and that anyone not using Suse will have an 'undisclosed balance sheet liability'. There was not a peep about how great this deal is that it now allows MS and Suse operating systems to work better, which was meant to be the *purpose* of the deal anyway.
Re:What is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
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
"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]:
Re:Think about that for a moment. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Novell (Score:4, Insightful)
Bruce
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.
very well said (Score:4, Insightful)
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:What Red Hat and HP offer is not the same (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 Novell is doing. And an ethical difference too.
I don't think patents should be applicable in software,but unfortunately I'm not in charge of writing the laws.
You don't feel very empowered, do you. Not many of us do. But that's what democracy was supposed to be for. This is a problem we have to solve.
Bruce
Re:What is this? (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 decision made. As evidenced by the fact these people STILL don't see what the big deal is.
Re:What is this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Having said that, I will not argue that the deal is all roses and doesn't have any negative sides. I, working for SuSE, do certainly feel those. But I would like you to understand that there were good reasons for it, and that there is no need to search for dark ulterior motives on Novell's side.
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?
Re:What is this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not knowing the existance of a patent and inventing the same idea on your own is one thing. Knowing a patent exists and writing code that violates it is another.
The other side of that coin: actually trying to avoid patents would make you code one line of code a year. Your productivity would drop to something pointless.
Here's one (of many) example of Linus' views on patents on LKML: http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/8/11/155 [lkml.org]
Re:What is this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's the flaw in your logic. Microsoft never said their claims that Linux violates Microsoft's IP. In fact Steve Balmer AFTER they signed the agreement said Linux violates Microsoft IP. What the agreement says, according to Balmer, is that Novell admits Linux violates Microsoft's IP and agreed to pay Microsoft money for that IP and by paying Microosft for Microsoft's IP, Novell customers will not be sued. The rest of the linux community is fair game for lawsuits.
Do you understand now.
Moron.
Re:What is this? (Score:3, Insightful)
150 Millions for license deals? 15 millions for lobby campaigners and the problem will soon be gone, forever, on a worldwide scale.
Lobbying is the only way to stop the dangerous legal machinery. And it works pretty well as the European debate has shown.
And by the way: Novell-MS patent deal is no defense against bad laws [digitalmajority.org]
Re:What is this? (Score:3, Insightful)
When has Microsoft EVER worked with GPL'ed products for interoperability? I'll give you a few decades to research that and feel quite confident you won't find an example.
So if interoperability with GPL'ed products isn't on their agenda, what is? Don't think too hard. Look at Ballmer's comments only a few days with the announcement out of the gates for clarity.
I'd say [Novell} was clueless.
I don't think clueless even scratches the surface of the level of ineptitude required on Novell's part to make them innocent in this deal. Egregious incompetence comes close, but even that seems to fall short IMO.
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.
Re:What is this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bruce