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.'"
No problem here... (Score:5, Insightful)
The one that doesn't, of course.
To me, that's like asking, "Do you want the wrench that works with the Edsel, or the one that doesn't?"
I guess if I was an Edsel mechanic, that would matter. But since the Edsel sucks, and my business isn't repairing other people's Edsel's, I really couldn't care less... Yes, I am being glib, and I understand the needs of "the Enterprise"
You are right, for you. (Score:2)
This is all oriented to the PHBs out there that have been told to "investigate this Linux thing" and are afraid to step out from under the Microsoft umbrella.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, this article is just more FUD at a time when Linux should be doing quite well. It is as if people are afraid of success or something. Most developers wouldn't care about Novell Out doing bus
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if this is for the PHB's investigating that linux thing,...
It is not. It is directed at Linux developers and if you're not one you probably don't have the requisite perspective to be calling this "FUD".Re: (Score:2)
I am a defacto linux developer. The GPL mandates this. I can take the Linux code and do anything I want with it outside what the Kernel team on Linus's project wants done. I can even do what they want too. Anyone who uses GPLed software has the ability to be a de
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To me, that's like asking, "Do you want the wrench that works with the Edsel, or the one that doesn't?"
The Edsel was a commercial failure (wikipedia says, "The car brand is best known as one of the most spectacular failures in the history of the United States automobile industry"), so...how exactly is your analogy relevant given that Windows is the dominant operating system?
Edsel = Vista (Score:3, Funny)
YADAA.... (Score:2)
"my enterprise needs computers that work and people who are competent enough to use something like pre-installed Ubuntu".
I really hate to point this out but Windows 2000 and XP do work. In an enterprise setting where they are behind a fire wall and locked down correctly Windows XP and 2K work pretty well. Add in the huge amount of custom software that many enterprises have written over the years in VB and you have a system that works well for many companies. So yes Linux
"Windows just works" only if locked down... (Score:3, Informative)
- have to forcibly reset the system every few weeks when it completely locks up - most recently this morning when I tried to do a standby and the whole system locked up
- install a new ATI driver to so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is someone forgetting Windows Millenium, the {former} bastard child of the Windows lineup?
Re:Ever had a real job? No? (Score:4, Informative)
It took very little convincing on my part to get the management to see the benefits of Ubuntu on the normal users desktops and we'll be doing a nearly-full rollout (some manager computers will remain windows) in a couple months.
The 'retraining' argument is mostly FUD as most computer users are familar enough with the desktop (any desktop) to use a "start" or "applications" menu. There's practically no difference from a user stand point between IE and Firefox and Word (pre-tabbed interface) is close enough to OpenOffice to not make much difference. Oh, and did I mention it makes my job and the manager's jobs easier by leaps and bounds due to the enormous configurability of linux? I can put exactly what the users need in the menus and lock down the machines so they can do only what they're supposed to do for their jobs.
Looks like you're the one that needs to 'grow up'.
Re: (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 developm
Funny summary (Score:2)
What's that Novell/Deal? Something along the lines of GNU/Linux?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, I would say that Novell is in absolutly the same situation. When Ubuntues and RedHats and Mandrivas and the
Re: (Score:2)
SuSE the company had a long history of straddling the fence, never quite embracing the freedom in free software. The Novell takeover seemed promising for a while, but now it's back to the old proprietary language and attitude.
I find such vendors inherently untrustworthy. Perhaps it's internal wrangling or bad habits from a long history in the proprietary business, but it makes it very difficult to extend any benefit of the doubt to them.
"There are better distros out there
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft: Because end users can no longer install their own software anymore.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and Novell should know better - they've been dicked over my Microsoft before.
Novell, to some extent - yes. SuSE - absolutely - but don't confuse the two.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would that be the gripping hand [wikipedia.org]?
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Marketing and producing (Score:4, Informative)
devils advocate (Score:2)
GPL and Intent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GPL and Intent (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather, I think the intention was a "call to action" more along the lines of publicly criticizing Novell/Microsoft, and thereby putting pressure on them.
You can agree with the GPL and the universal freedoms it provides, while simultaneously putting pressure on particular companies to not be jerks. The "when you contributed code" statement was, in my estimation, intended to imply that Novell is generating bad will among the very people it depends upon for continued software improvements. What Novell is doing may be legal, but that doesn't mean we have to like it, and sit by silently.
Well, seeing as you bring it up (Score:2)
Given that the license is largely the brainchild of Richard Stallman who has emphasized again and again that what's interesting to him is FREEDOM I'd say that the license is explicitly and intentionally designed to promote that freedom. I highly doubt that the propping up of patents which restrict that freedom was part of the intent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the intent seems fairly clear, and Novell don't even bother denying that they sought to deliberately subvert that intent. I guess it only matters if Novell care whether or not they piss off the people who are developing the majority of the code they sell. But to that extent, it certainly does matter.
The licese is explicitly and intentional
Most important quote from the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Need I say more. This deal is a shame.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPLed code is written and released under a license that says it is Perfectly OK for anyone else to use for anything and for anyone else take advantage of. If Novel had done this and the only thing making the ordeal bad is the Idea of Patents, then I think whoever wrote the code should have made sure they didn't violate any patents. The GPLv3 doesn't do anything to fix this either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
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.
Competition is good (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
If they wanted to contribute code to a kernel that wouldn't hurt Red Hat, they should have released it under some license that would prohibit competition against Red Hat.
What Ms. Jones doesn't seem to realize is that competition between software companies is a good thing. It leads to more innovation and a better end-user experience (after all look at Microsoft Word. We had only one major office suite and we have the same interface for over 10 years with minimal changes between 98, 2000 and 2003. OOo comes
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think they key was "from Microsoft's perspective".
I'll grant that it's not phrased with her usual clarity, but I don't think she was trying to suggest that RedHat sales were somehow irrelevant, or had gone away.
Truth or troll? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair to Microsoft programmers, they weren't just trying to design a power-off button. They were told to design a power-off button that wouldn't work with Linux [lockergnome.com], a much harder task.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> I'm amazed so many people listen to it.
As with slashdot, you gotta pick and choose.
Groklaw's articles following the SCO lawsuits are second to none. Okay, the lawyers and judges involved might have better seats, but otherwise you want to go with Groklaw. A bit of bias, sure, the odd bit of self-referential hyperbole, but generally things are well done.
Groklaw's coverage of more general "community" issues..
Re: (Score:2)
This is the first Groklaw article I've read and if this hyperbole is typical of its offerings I'm amazed so many people listen to it. This is of the quality one would typically find in a slashdot rant. I thought groklaw was actually a well respected website.
I tend to agree with you. Another response to you claims that PJ's analysis is respected -- and that might be true of the people who agree with her opinion before she writes it. I think her analysis is sometimes correct, and sometimes not. I think you have to remember it's her blog -- she's not an attorney.
Re:Competition is good (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It is when it comes to covering the SCO case. They not only post blow-by-blow detail with the source legal documents themselves, they've scored a few scoops, like being the first to dig up the purchase agreement between Novell and SCO (which for those not following along, is what ultimately hung SCO). Even with those stories though, you have to ignore much of the taunting tone of the analysis.
And it's not that groklaw's ever been dispassionate,
Re: (Score:2)
While I will agree tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What Ms. Jones doesn't seem to realize is that competition between software companies is a good thing.
Sure, but misrepresenting the capabilities of competitors' products is not a good thing. Novell's statement leads you to think that other distributions does not interoperate with Windows at all, which is patently false. Instead of claiming that no other distribution "works with Windows", they could argue about their improved integration with Windows domains and group policies.
Neither are Mac sales.
IIRC, Microsoft owns some 5% or so of Apple. :)
I thought groklaw was actually a well respected website.
It mostly is. Groklaw is a blog, which means that PJ will post her view as com
The great thing about Open Source... (Score:3, Interesting)
The big picture (Score:5, Insightful)
- the threat of a free OS commoditizing what they worked so hard to keep unique in Windows
- the emerging of accepted open standards that turn Microsoft's proprietary alternatives against themselves and wall them from the rest of the world
- the emerging of plenty of companies ready to deliver free OS components and support to Microsoft's corporate customers (which will directly affect Microsoft's bottom line and the industry trends in adoption of Windows)
Microsoft's business strategists have done a careful and detailed analysis of their situation and arrived at the infamous "patent deals". They have drawn the decision chart and figured, there's no way for them to lose, no matter how the market or their competition moves.
Possible outcomes & side effects:
- The patent threats split Linux community and cause unrest in corporate clients who consider adopting Linux for their servers or even desktops.
- Novell and the other distros in the patent deal are rejected by the community and Microsoft eliminates one of its more dangerous competitors should Linux' adoption really take off. -OR-
- Red Hat and the other distros OUT of the patent deal get destabilized and abandoned by the corporate clients and Microsoft gets to "coown" the Linux code together with Novell by means of the patent implementations all over the code. They can't just buy Novell now since it'll destabilize their Windows brand, and cause antritrust lawsuits. But should Windows go down next 5-10-15 years, you can be sure Microsoft will be talking to merge with Novell and offer their Linux distro with all the windows IP in it.
In essense Microsoft either gets to split the OSS movement, eliminate some of their stronger competirors, and improve the Windows brand and adoption, or gets a second route to quickly enter the market with Linux OS should Windows go horribly down, by utilizing all their Windows IP inside the Linux system.
What about standards:
- Where Microsoft has their own standard opposed to an open competing standard, they try to promote it to a full standard (OOXML, Exchange server integration with SUSE, ActiveDirectory integration with SUSE etc., XPS)
- Where Microsoft doesn't have their own standard, they adopt the publicly accepted standard, and extend it in attempt to create added-value dialect (RSS with own extensions in IE7,
So Novell's deal helps Microsoft make better penetration of Microsoft standards and technologies as something that comes standard with Linux. We're talking about Mono, Moonlight, Exchange integration, Samba integration and all those technologies which might have alternatives outside the Microsoft world.
This is marked to the public outside as interoperability effort. It sure is improving interoperability, but at the cost of putting more and more MS IP in Linux's distributions.
So was Novell wrong to sign the deal? If they had the pure intention to move the OSS community and help Linux as a whole, it was wrong. But as a company that competes against *OTHER* Linux distro companies, it was half right.
Right now if you see above all the outcomes from this deal (which are all good for Microsoft) there's 50/50 about who will survive (the non-patent deal Linux companies, or the patent deal Linux companies). Novell and RedHat are on the opposite sides of a gamble that'll play out in the next years.
While they're the gamble players, Microsoft is the casino. Never mind who wins, the casino always wins. Good job, MS
A bigger picture... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Old colonial plan (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The citation is in this netcast (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.peapodcast.com/msc-oss-sig/index.html#osssig-2007-09-26-18-00-48 [peapodcast.com]
http://www.peapodcast.com/msc-oss-sig/MTLC-MS-Novell-2007-09 [peapodcast.com]
Another non-issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares if Novell wants to run attack ads against Red Hat? Where does it say in OSS that companies built on it have to love each other?
If the ads don't help Novell's pocketbook, they'll go away. If they do help, a Linux company get more business and Linux gets into more shops. That's a plus for Linux. If the ads work, Red Hat will try to become more interoperable with Windows. That's also a plus for Linux.
At the moment, some companies running Linux and Windows want interoperability. Eventually they're going to see that it's a waste of time and money - i.e., that Windows is a waste of time and money - and they might as well switch to Linux entirely. Then the issue becomes moot - and Linux wins again.
The problem with PJ is that she's too much into the adversarial nature of law. Everything is a big moral issue and needs to be fought over.
Ignore all of this. It's a non-issue. Microsoft is still losing against Linux and will continue to do so for the next ten or fifteen years until there is no Microsoft.
Relax and enjoy the show.
Re: (Score:2)
proof please .. (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't it curious that the entire SCO/Microsoft legal team hasn't been able to come up with any evidence for this. But you carry on not commenting on the article and engage in a dishonest and personal attack - TROLL !!
was: Re:Self-serving
Re:Self-serving (Score:4, Informative)
But never mind that. Thing is that IBM has a standing relationship with Novell to sell and market SuSE. They also happen to have a similar relationship with Red Hat. But IBM tends to push SuSE more for high-end enterprise stuff than they do Red Hat. I think it boils down to YaST vs. Anaconda/Kickstart. Whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Just kidding. I was going for +1 Funny with my first post rather then a +1 Serious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Self-serving (Score:4, Informative)
Why would any uninterested party say anything about anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't mean to.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It seems like a lot of the tech writers in big media don't bother doing the type of digging that PJ is known for and instead wait for her to do a most of the real work before they decide whether or not to voice their own opinions.
Strike the bit about "deciding whether or not to voice their own opinions" and you perfectly describe the "blogging" community.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't mean to.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the thing that particularly set her off was Novell's Justin Steinman claiming that "the community was no longer upset about the deal" (quoting PJ, not Steinman). She disagrees, and I think the intention of the article was to bring to a wider audience the way Novell are misrepresenting the situation.
And I have to say, I think it's an valid point. I won't claim that we've been unanimous in condemning Novell, but to claim all the objections are yesterdays news smacks of either deliberate deception, or a worrying detachment from reality.
Either way, it reflects poorly on Novell.
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: (Score:2)
If you were attempting to consult for me, I would laugh you out of my office.
Re:I don't mean to.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to have replied to some post other than mine, but attached it to my post.
I said nothing about patent protection for Novell or its users.
I did say:
Are you saying that the interoperative software you speak of will not be part of the Novell Linux Distro? Or that it will not contain any code that users would need patent protection for using? If the interoperative software wasn't part of the distro or didn't use Microsoft owned patented techniques, why would the end users need patent protection.
I believe that the selling point of the deal is that the code will be available with the Novell distribution and that it will contain Microsoft patented techniques, thus requiring protection for Novell's users. I mean if it doesn't, then what is the point of the agreement?
The deal is ambiguous. It delivers unknown benefits and may or may not be extended beyond the original 5 year window. This ambiguity raises a cloud of uncertainty around the Novell Linux distro. It is better to avoid it than use it at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
mmm... and no company I work for will ever order a SuSE product while I have any sway over the decision. Nevertheless, if Novell are to see a slump in sales (and I think they will, once MS stop pumping money into the deal) then I'd like for them to understand the cause and effect involved.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are benefiting themselves at the expense of everyone else.
They are also helping to perpetrate one of the most damaging varieties of anti-Linux FUD.
They are encouraging the idea that Linuxen are not interchangeable and fundementally the same.
They're trying to make it out like the GPL doesn't apply to them.
Re:oh, shut the fuck up (Score:4, Insightful)
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" par
Re: (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.
We The people; E Pluribus Unum (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL is about as communist as:
"We The people"
or
"E Pluribus Unum"
Ever here of an old fashioned frontier barn raising?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Stanley Motor Carriage Company would like to take this time to talk to you about a growing concern for all of us. As you might have heard several NEW companies such as, Ford Motor Company, are selling horseless carriages based around the internal combustion engine. Did you realize that the internal combustion engine would be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be libel...
Of course back in 1920 who knows what would have held up in trial, but that is probably a line more likely to be said by the Stanley salesman with a nod and wink.
Just using the obligatory auto analogy to illustrate how marketing has always worked.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way that statement would be untrue is if it were an engine mounted in the rear. Then it would be thousands of explosions behind the driver.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. And just as soon as Novell get of their arses and write their own operating system, they can market it however they like without fear of criticism.
But until that glorious day should come, I would urge them to show a little more respect for the people whose hard work makes it possible for them to bring a product to market.
Re: (Score:2)
As for those who made it? Novell/SuSE has planted a lot of code there. You would think that someone wanting respect from a company over code that company wrote would be willing to give some respect in it's own right. I Imagine that if the Free so
Re: (Score:2)
Free software doesn't enter into it. They are free to do as they please within the terms of the licence. However, they might nevertheless be wise not to aggravate the community of developers who produce so much of the code they sell. And if t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bewildered might eb a better word then baffled. If those programmers don't want thei
Re: (Score:2)
From your use of the phrase "ranting GPL sycophants" I'm guessing that you don't spend much time reading Groklaw. Do yourself a favour - go lurk for a week or three. I doubt we'll convince you of anything, but you might get enough background to at least come up with a plausible smear.
And I don't care how much code Novell have contributed. They can take their code and try running it withou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are confusing marketing [google.com] with fraud [google.com].
Its an understandable mistake considering the level of fraud that is used in marketing but they are still not the same thing.
Red Hat usually does put forth an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)