Submitted by Novell has partnered with the Software Freedom Law Center to ensure that its partnership with Microsoft does not violate any terms of the General Public Licence. “The SFLC has been offered cooperation by Novell sufficient to permit a confidential audit to determine whether the licence provisions of the GPL have been complied with,” SFLC chairman Eben Moglen told vnunet.com.
It appears they’re now officially in damage control mode. What’s surprising is that they seem to be surprised at the general responce their announcment has recieved, but to me the responce should have been a no brainer.
SUSE isn’t dead yet and in truth, Novel will likely release a killer Enterprise desktop when the agreement starts bearing fruit, but their reputation is toast. In the open source community, where you don’t get a paycheck for all your hard work, your reputation is pretty much all you have. Novell is learning this the hard way for the ump teenth time.
The most interesting part is that Microsoft doesn’t appear to be doing any damage control at all.
I guess they just don’t care. I’m sure they will survive if they don’t have the FOSS community onside – they have already done that all these years, after all – but the fact that they don’t, and aren’t making any attempt to get it onside, is telling. My bet is this is their end-run around Linux. Linux stands or falls depending on what happens in the next five years at Microsoft.
And more worryingly, in the last week I haven’t seen anything to suggest that the openSUSE people are doing damage control, either. They seem to be lying down and taking it.
Edited 2006-11-09 18:10
Is more like:
“The community” – I hate you MS, you are evil.
MicroSoft – It’s allrigth, I can live with that.
No, it’s more like:
Microsoft: We’re announcing a deal to distribute Linux.
Community: Whoa, great! But hang on, what’s the details?
Microsoft: >Gives suspiciously vague details on seemingly oddly one-sided agreement<
Community: Ah, typical.
No, actually, it was:
Novell: We’re going to try to improve our market share, and improve interoperability between linux and Microsoft. Oh, and we’re not going to sue each others’ customers for 5 years.
Community: Traitors! Scum! It’s a plot to destroy linux! Linux is doomed! Microsoft will eat your babies!
FSF: This is clearly a violation of section 7 of the GPL, regardless of the fact that we haven’t read a single line of the legal documents. Obviously, Novell is about to lose its right to distribute software under the GPL.
Perens: You can’t have my compiler! Die, scum!
Petreley: Boycott Novell! Format your hard drives!
Lyons: Linux is doomed, Novell just signed it’s own death warrant.
Dvorak: Ha! I told you linux was doomed! Next up, world domination! Unlimited Rice Pudding!
Well, ok, I’ll grant you… I might be making up the last bit (or plagarizing), but it’s not like people *really* listen to Dvorak anyhow.
Whilst your biased interpretation of events overdramatizes and distorts just about all the community reaction, one point you’ve missed in particular does deserve attention:
Under the GPL, there is no way the effect of a patent lawsuit on one company which distributes GPL-violating software can be limited to just that company, since all companies which distribute said code must cease and desist distributing it. By the same token, no company can be given immunity from said lawsuits by anyone – except themselves, namely, by ceasing to distribute said software, as described.
Edited 2006-11-09 18:57
Whilst your biased interpretation of events overdramatizes just about all the community reaction, one point you’ve missed in particular does deserve attention:
Err, no. I’ll grant some hyperbole, of course, since I’d have to use Slashdot as a reference for the eating babies bit, but by and large, I feel I posted a fairly accurate summary.
As for biased, of course I’m biased. In my case, I like to think I’m biased towards neutral, but most folks, especially ones who feel like posting on here, are probably biased.
Under the GPL, there is no way the effect of a patent lawsuit on one company which distributes GPL-violating software can be limited to just that company, since all companies which distribute said code must cease and desist distributing it. By the same token, no company can be given immunity from said lawsuits by anyone – except themselves, namely, by ceasing to distribute said software, as described.
But it’s a mythical lawsuit. It doesn’t exist. It’s perfectly legitimate to mix GPL and non-GPL software, and distribute the result (even with patent encumbered code), as long as you avoid the derivative work clause.
I’ve said it before… In order for section 7 to apply, someone has to put patent infringing code into a GPL-licensed product, and that product then has to be distributed by someone who is immune to being sued over that infringement.
Novell’s users are not distributors. Novell is. And Novell isn’t immune to lawsuit from Microsoft– Novell’s users are.
So you can quote section 7 until the sun explodes, but it simply does not, will not, apply.
Anything else is either FUD, or a mistake caused by not paying attention.
OK, then, what is this bit about “users of other distributions not being protected from lawsuits”?
What makes MS think they can dictate users’ choice of distro?
What makes them think they can sue the users of other distros for violations of patents perpetrated by those distros’ producers? Is that even legal?
What makes them think anything in the GPL allows them to protect the users of Novell Linux and not of other distros?
And since when are you trolls so worried about MS FUD?
On please twenex we’ve already been though this…
Novell have no intentions in creating GPL’d software with patent infringing code nor do them believe that any GPL’d code already in SuSE infringes any MS patents.
The patent agreement has nothing to do with GPL’d code.
Just take your time and read the Novell FAQ, all of it not just Q1, it goes all the way up to Q8.
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensource.html
Novell have no intentions in creating GPL’d software with patent infringing code nor do them believe that any GPL’d code already in SuSE infringes any MS patents.
Err I guess you’ve been living under a rock for quite a while now. One word, mono. Now shut up.
You better repost that. I don’t know who it was aimed at but you weren’t quoting me.
No, I was quoting the farry tale,
get the f*** out of here.
get the f*** out of here.
Yep, that’s about the strength of your argument so far. It may even be a little more credible than you have been to date.
No, actually, it was:
Msft: give us money, or we just might have to sue you; and it doesn’t matter if msft is right or wrong. Msft is a $300 billion company that can ruin just about anybody with a lawsuit.
Linux is a collection of software which is driven by, written by, and supported by the community, and most of the folks in that community don’t really care for the most part what Microsoft does either except in terms of protocol/filesystem/document compatibility.
I don’t use Linux myself because I hate Microsoft, but more because it does things I can’t do with MS products on my existing hardware, and it does them at a lower cost than Windows would if it could.
Edited 2006-11-13 16:16
>>The most interesting part is that Microsoft doesn’t appear to be doing any damage control at all. <<
I think that’s a good point.
IMO: msft doesn’t depend on good will. Msft perfers to force it’s users, which is an easy enough thing for a monopolist to do.
I hate msft. But I use windows because nothing else will run my hardware or software. I am sure I will have to upgrade eventually, no matter how much I still hate msft.
IMO: msft doesn’t depend on good will. Msft perfers to force it’s users, which is an easy enough thing for a monopolist to do.
I hate msft. But I use windows because nothing else will run my hardware or software. I am sure I will have to upgrade eventually, no matter how much I still hate msft.
I still maintain that if this deal is kosher (in other words, unless MS is truly trying to screw over any Linux that isn’t from a whipping boy of theirs), they have nothing to lose by doing pro-FOSS community damage control, and everything to gain. The business community are already won over, it seems, but by and large for the last 16 years they have not shown any tendency to be sceptical of Microsoft anyway.
Edited 2006-11-10 01:35
Finally my submission isn’t chucked!
Yet another article about Novell. I know, I know.
Not much meat to it but the interesting part is that Moglen finally noticed that they managed to skirt v2 rather nicely.
the interesting part is that Moglen finally noticed that they managed to skirt v2 rather nicely.
Tut, tut. He suspected it all along. He just needed to know the full details (or the fullest details he could twist Novell’s arm to reveal) before committing himself.
Why is everyone ranting about this without actually reading what Novell are saying about the agreement. The patent agreement has nothing to do with GPL’d software, Novell do not believe Linux infringes MS patents, Novell have to intention of introducing any code. Section 7 does not even enter into it.
Is it really that difficult to understand?
Edited 2006-11-09 19:16
Novell do not believe Linux infringes MS patents,
So why are they backing a company that says it does?
Well, if MS says Linux is violating patents shoul we believe it?
of course not, just you.
Edited 2006-11-09 19:24
That has nothing to do with what I was asking in the comment you responded to.
Or maybe you don’t want to understand it.
Do you have life insurance ?
Do you really think you’re going to died during its term ?
So why do you have life insurance ?
That’s the wrong analogy.
The analogy you should be making is someone “selling” “life insurance” on the basis of “if you don’t pay, you may be at risk of us killing you”. I don’t know any life insurers who threaten to kill customers, either potential customers or customers of other life insurers.
No that analogy is wrong as it suggest that it’s Novell threatening to sue its customers.
I suppose you could argue that point of view from MS’ point of view, but I see MS as the fatal accident/disease waiting to happen rather than the insurer. And don’t go down the deliberate accident / infection route either as even without the agreement MS could sue someone infringing MS patents.
The only thing the agreement changes is that Novell can use MS patents in their propriety products.
It’s difficult to understand how it can indeed be the case if MS aren’t singing from the same songbook. With the two companies’ history, it’s perfectly possible that MS is setting up Novell to get shafted, and Novell are falling for it.
Well, maybe the diabolical plan of MS is to let the community gut their corporate enemies.
The diabolical plan:
1. Find financially weak GNU/Linux vendor.
2. Offer tempting cash injection of chump change (348 mil.).
3. Close deal with blah blah IP provisions.
4. Let FL/OSS community crucify and burn the financially weak GNU/Linux vendor.
5. Find next financially weak GNU/Linux vendor to be killed by their own kind.
MS is not cozying up with the community, they are exercising a divide and conquer strategy. Let the “fanatics” kill “our” business “partners”. Such a scenario doesn’t need a “damage control” program. Such a strategy depends on as much damage as possible.
After Novell there is a Mandriva, a LinSpire, a Xandros. Funneling a little revenue towards these companies with promise not to sue, having no real worth to MS, is enough to make these companies lepers in the community.
Plus MS has a new FUD campaign on the cheap. Who isn’t afraid of the Big Bad American Software Patent?
Edited 2006-11-10 16:12
>>
Novell do not believe Linux infringes MS patents . . .
Is it really that difficult to understand?
<<
Yes. Why is novell interested in an agreement not to be sued for patent violations, if novell doesn’t believe there are patent violations?
Because what matters is not what Novell believes but what the customers believe.
Telling your customers that ‘with us you’re 100% safe, with our competitors we believe you’re safe too but we don’t know for sure’ seems to be a good sell pitch.
FUD sell. But I wonder why so many people are so offended by it?
It’s not like Novell was the only one to use FUD against its competitors..
Probably because in this case, it’s what Ballmer described as “high rhetoric”. MS has always used “high rhetoric” (“linux is a cancer”, etc.) but now he is bullshitting people into thinking they have stopped, which since they haven’t is actually twice as bad.
Well, one less excuse for the trolls.
It’s funny cause is true.
Let’s suppose that Novell has managed to find a loophole, by having Microsoft give the patent grants directly to Novell customers rather than Novell. Doesn’t that mean that if you’re a Novell customer, your license terminates if there’s ever a patent issue? Maybe it’s Novell customers, and not Novell, that have a legal risk.
And would this loophole continue to exist in GPL v3? I guess most of the GPL software Novell distributes is GPL v2 OR NEWER. Hope for their sake that they’ve checked with that.
Also I’m wondering wich exact Microsoft patents are there in the Novell/Suse operating systems, wich they are reffering to..? I read there’s none in mono, so this makes me wonder…
Where as the Software Freedom Law Center in regard to the GPL is concerned there the professionnal official experts on the subject and not pundits.
I am sure that anyway this come out we will be subjected to the usual GPL bashing and name calling from the usual GNU/Linux and GPL haters.
I am sure that anyway this come out we will be subjected to the usual GPL bashing and name calling from the usual GNU/Linux and GPL haters.
It’s telling (and for the moment, comforting) that Sun is reportedly going to GPL some “versions” (if that isn’t the right term, I’d like to know what is!) of Java. MS is coming out as probably the only big software company that is totally opposed to the GPL.
(Corel and Adobe aren’t that big; most people probably only see Adobe products that are related to PDF, Flash and Photoshop, two of which can be downloaded for free and one of which is probably vastly more popular as an illegally pirated product than as a legal, paid for one.)
(Yes, Microsoft are totally opposed to open source – “shared source” is a distraction; insofar as they can be believed, Novell have said that any contributions MS make to SUSE Linux will be proprietary; by effectively giving the finger to any Linux company but Novell, and then giving out “coupons” which you can take to Novell to get SUSE Linux, they are offloading the consequences (good or bad) of distributing and producing GPL’ed code to companies other than themselves.)
Keep repeating that to your self till becames the truth, like:
“If you constantly repeat a lie It will eventually becomes the truth”.
Then help me understand which part(s) are not true. I need evidence, preferably backed up by statements not from yourself – not simple denials.
Well I need evindece too backing up all the FUD you have been spreading, I forgot, ain’t nothing but speculation.
So instead of the asked-for evidence you slip from flat-out, baseless denials to insults?
Your credibility is slipping, and you’re dragging down the reputation of the people you support with it.
Oh I Forgot the kind of saint you are.
I didn’t say I was a saint. I said I’ve backed up everything I’ve been saying with what I consider to be relevant quotes from the GPL, etc. You people who think MS is saintly (or is NOW saintly) don’t post any evidence, you just slander the people who disagree.
A little tip: There are smidgens of evidence that MS is cooperating with other vendors. They don’t in my view amount to evidence that MS isn’t trying to pull one over on Linux users, but they do exist. It’s about time you GPL/Linux/free software/free thinker-haters started quoting them. It might give you credibility with the other side.
Im asking evidence that proves MS will sue the other distros or Novell after 5 years not only speculations.
Get your head out of you ass.
More insults! No credibility.
More FUD zero credibility.
http://andreasjaeger.blogspot.com/2006/11/opensuse-and-microsoft.ht…
The posts that claim this is much ado about nothing are lacking. They are especially ridiculous when you consider that Moglen himself (lawyer behind the GPL licenses for those who do not know) is suggesting that MS and Novell are trying to get around the GPL.
Forget about looking at a crystal ball and consider the facts we already have:
1. Novell is enabling the monopoly MS, the biggest enemy of FOSS, to resume FUD that SCO will not spew much longer.
2. Novell is party to an agreement with the tacit message that you develop FOSS for others at your peril, unless it is for Novell/MS.
3. But most outrageous is that Novell has tried at all to run around the GPL, a license that is used by about three of every four FOSS projects. Had we not read for ourselves the other firm making the attempt, we could surely guess it would be MS.
Novell could change; after all, even MS could reform itself one day. For the foreseeable future, however, they cannot be trusted and alternatives to their products and projects are looking good right now. This sentiment is real and widespread–e.g., Sun is going to rub Novell’s nose in it with the GPLed Java.
It is mandatory in your cult to spread FUD?
Why rely on ad-hominem? Do you have a real argument? I commented on the posts themselves. How can you know my affilations? At least try to make your insults original.
so you mean IT IS mandatory, yep, that’s what I thougt.
Let’s try being civil. Do you have a problem with the facts I spelled out? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, Its all FUD and speculation.
Could you be more specific? Any correction of the three facts might put Novell in a better light.
No thx, I won’t fall in that trick.
Im sure you know.
You won’t fall into the “trick” of participating in an actual, reasoned debate? Heh. That is rich!
Lets suppose I itemise each one of your points and destroy each one of your statements with proves, you simple won’t believe anything, not even with proves and you’ll reply with links to quotes from meaningless people or start writing about history and spirit, etc. etc, Then I'll reply again with proves destroying all your new statements and you again won’t believe it because your arrogance won't allow it and you’ll reply again with meaningless statemens, so why don’t we save that and assume the obvious, you are troll spreading FUD, period.
Edited 2006-11-09 22:55
Let’s look at just the third fact, i.e., that Novell has tried to get around the GPL.
Moglen’s statements imply as much. However good or bad the guy may be, he is the lawyer behind the GPL. If you consider such a person in this context to be meaningless, if that is all we have to go on, then we will have to agree to disagree about the wisdom of dealing with Novell.
FUD so often intensifies with money, e.g., MS is an astroturf poster child (see Wikipedia). The lopsided balance of money in this debate shows which side to look for the FUD.
Wake me up when Novell really violates GPL license, a work around is not a violation, so, as you see, you are just spreading FUD.
How is a simple fact–their workaround–FUD? Moreover, you claimed that you could “destroy” this fact. Please, enlighten me.
Sure, as long you point me what is wrong with a work around to the GPL.
Edited 2006-11-10 00:06
First, by your previous response you already have suggested that they have tried to work around the GPL. So you apparently concede this fact.
This workaround is wrong in many ways. I will spell out an obvious way: Novell positions itself as a company with a “community”, i.e., a subset of FOSS users and developers. The community relies on the GPL for 3/4 of what it does. Novell, with the help of a monopoly that has always been opposed to the GPL, works around what the community relies on people not working around. Even if you oppose the GPL, you can still see how by this attempt Novell has wronged this community in a fundamental way. Of course, MSFT trying it is not shocking at all.
Novell has squandered good will; but perhaps that makes sense given their new “partner”.
No point fighting. Mitarai’s an MS fanboy or stooge of some kind.
But note they have no real argument, just “No”. “FUD”. “GPL extremists”. “MS haters”. Etc.
Didn’t you just said Insults=No credibility?
Get out of here hyprocrit.
No, the MS stooges do not have a real argument.
Since your in a cult and its mandatory for you to spread FUD , you assume others are like you ?