Submitted by “The Samba Team disapproves strongly of the actions taken by Novell on November 2nd. One of the fundamental differences between the proprietary software world and the free software world is that the proprietary software world divides users by forcing them to agree to coercive licensing agreements which restrict their rights to share with each other, whereas the free software world encourages users to unite and share the benefits of the software. The patent agreement struck between Novell and Microsoft is a divisive agreement. It deals with users and creators of free software differently depending on their ‘commercial’ versus ‘non-commercial’ status, and deals with them differently depending on whether they obtained their free software directly from Novell or from someone else. The goals of the Free Software community and the GNU GPL allow for no such distinctions.”
Whatever the motivation it really does seem like Novell are taking a right royal spanking from many top-end software vendors / authors licensed under the GPL.
I’m looking forward more related parties speaking up in similar manner. Novell is really hurting its name with this business.
What has always puzzled me is why Novell has been so well accepted by the community as it has been. I’m not one to spew hate simply because a corporation is doing what a corporation is supposed to do. But I recognize when a Lion walks in and lays down next to my pet lamb.
The community is usually a little more pragmatic than is obvious with regards to their analysis of the pre-MS-deal version of Novell.
To my eye, Novell, with all their talk of “Mixed Source” was never more than an ailing corporation which saw that it might make some money off of OSS without having to buy into the concept of OSS itself.
Their recent move is dissappointing without being all that surprising… especially in view of Messman getting thrown out for not being aggressive enough in monetizing Linux.
Part of the uncritical acceptance of Novell comes from the respect that their developers deservedly command. Of course, there was also the hope that they could succeed at migrating their big Netware base to free software, say under a subscription model.
The deal is a big disappointment for me since I believe that any firm, in principle, can turn it around.
“””The deal is a big disappointment for me since I believe that any firm, in principle, can turn it around.”””
Messman might have done it, though I doubt it would ever have worked out. Hovsepian, in the current environment? No.
But hindsight is always 20/20, right?
I predict that another “well loved” corp which will become more and more problematic is IBM.
Wrong. IBM is out of this category. I think that the key point is the balance of decision power between business/technician people in the company. Aliance with MS always means business people have won. Bright example is HP. Sorry for SuSE people. Switch to Debian.
1) Invested hundred of millions in GNU/Linux.
2) They Bought SuSe in doing so saved it from total bankrupty.
3) They GPL’ed the SuSe proprietary software ( Yast )
4) Paid for XGL development.
5) Bought Ximian , made it GPL.
6) Change development method from OSS to Free software method.
7) OpenSuSe
8) etc …
I will pass responding to the rest , it would be a waste of my time , I also feel I would not be polite to someone falsely accusing my of being a zealot and falsley charactherizing me.
I would like to point out that your argument contains many factual fallacies.
Yast is *NOT* under the GPL. It’s under a restrictive license.
Can you point out the “hundreds of millions” Novell has invested?
Dude, do you bother to check your facts before posting?
http://rpmfind.net//linux/RPM/suse/updates/9.3/i386/rpm/src/yast2-x…
See “Copyright” section there.
//Yast is *NOT* under the GPL.//
Yes it is.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1552808,00.asp
“Novell Makes System Management Move With YaST
By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
March 23, 2004
Novell Inc. announced on Monday at its BrainShare tradeshow in Salt Lake City that it is releasing SuSE Linux AG’s popular, open-source system administration tool, YaST, under the GPL.”
2) They Bought SuSe in doing so saved it from total bankrupty.
Were they on the brink of total bankruptcy? I don’t remember it that way (they were doing better than mandrake I think).
3) They GPL’ed the SuSe proprietary software ( Yast )
Well, that was very nice of them, but doesn’t seem to be that much of a contribution – no other distribution seem to use it.
4) Paid for XGL development.
True – that’s probably one of their biggest contributions, even though much of the development seem to be happening elsewhere now (beryl).
5) Bought Ximian , made it GPL.
Ximian is a company – so they can’t make that GPL, can they? Basically they bought it on board, along with Miguel and friends, and mono development (which was already gpl I think).
6) Change development method from OSS to Free software method.
What do you mean? Novell didn’t use OSS development method previously. As to free software development method… that’s a vague category. But I remember that they were criticized earlier for not employing a truly free software development method – see early XGL development. In fact, the fork happened because XGL development still isn’t open enough (this is similar to the Xfree86 vs. xorg problem).
7) OpenSuSe
I don’t see this as a contribution either … they basically copied RedHAT, and provided a community distribution as a testbed for their enterprise offerings. If I remember correctly, the only difference is that SuSE didn’t provide free ISOs – but they provided free Live CDs, and the ability to do an FTP install as well – so OpenSuSE isn’t such a big deal at all.
8) etc…
Well?
I’m not a zealot either, but you overrate Novell’s contributions. I don’t mean to say that some of their work didn’t benefit the open source community, but they are not in the same league as RH as far as contributions go. (RH payed some of the brightest free software developers for years – and contributed code ranging from the kernel through GCC to glibc.) Not to mention non-commercial distros, like Debian… Or SUN, who bought an opensourced the only viable (well, koffice may be getting there in the not so distant future) alternative to MS word, and they still pay most of the openoffice developers.
Edited 2006-11-13 08:57
…
1) You dont have SUSE Financial history , so there is no way you can discuss them or remember them and you obviously cant compare them with Mandrake’s who is now Mandriva.
2) Its not a requirement to report to you if someone use the code. How would you know that no other distribution use it ? You dont even know what YAST is either.
3) XGL was completed by a paid Novell developper , Beryll is based on XGL , it would not exist without it , thats a reality not some perception of yours …
4) They own the company , they can do what they whant with its property and software …
5) To be able to compare SUSE vs Novell SuSe you would have to have known SUSE and there method. You dont. Its not a perception its a fact.
6) If you dont see it as a contribution its because you dont know what your talking about …
8) You really think I will name every single contribution from Novell for your pleasure to bash it baselessly ? Think again , its means there are other contribution that I decided where not needed to be added beyond those I already mentionned.
No your not a zealot as zealot dont exist in FS , you dont kill people because they disagree with your idea , neither does anyone in the software industry. Its an Irak term that clueless journalist and pathetic Free Software basher have been insulting FS advocate with its completely meaningless and hopefully people will stop using it.
Sorry but to be able to discuss Novell contribution you have to acknowledge reality first , you also have to know the full extent of there contribution , but hey if you feel you can replace them and do a better job be my guess.
Its not a contribution contest or comparaison , Novell did all those things I mentionned , I for one am really glad they did.
You dont understand Free Software and GNU/linux and you dont know any of the subject you commented on.
Everything Free Software is built on the shoulder of Giants.
Now you will excuse me will I pass on further replying to you in this thread , I dont see any of your point as valid , or even worth replying to beyond this point.
Don’t hold your breath on some of these parties. I think this disapproval from the Samba team shows guts and integrity that we should all strive for. Even the best intentions can end up making it difficult to speak up here. Consider how the kernel devs praised the GPLv2 as being good enough. Oops.
Edited 2006-11-13 01:22
Actually, the more people keep posting inflammatory remarks, and spreading FUD, the more sane NotParker’s going to seem.
People don’t like it when you disagree with their religion– And a number of people have embraced Free Software as a religion.
Let’s review a few facts. If anyone can contradict these (and not because you think, but because you have proof you’re willing to share), please do.
Does this agreement mention the GPL? No. Not publicly, at least. If it does, the FSF can talk about it, since they’re evaluating the license right now. My prediction is that while the FSF is seriously unhappy, they’re not going to find that Novell is suddenly in violation of the GPL.
Can Novell release open-source code that isn’t GPL’d? Why yes, they already have.
Can Novell distribute a mix of open and non-open code legally? Yes.
Can Novell distribute a mix of free and non-free code legally? Yes, assuming they have appropriate rights to distribute the non-free code. Does this trip section 7? Hasn’t so far, because none of it counts as a “derived work” of a GPL-licensed product.
Switching the linux kernel to GPLv3 (assuming you can get *all* the copyright holders to agree) changes nothing. Changing every single GPL’d package in existence to GPLv3 still changes nothing.
Finally, after the debacle involving Kororaa a few months back, the last group that should be talking about licenses that divides users by forcing them to agree to coercive licensing agreements which restrict their rights to share with each other is the Free Software Community.
For those with short memories, this was the result of a kernel developer telling the Kororaa developer (who was praised extensively for his XGL LiveCD) that he could not, under the terms of the GPL, distribute a compiled NVidia kernel module.
“Switching the linux kernel to GPLv3 (assuming you can get *all* the copyright holders to agree) changes nothing. Changing every single GPL’d package in existence to GPLv3 still changes nothing.
Finally, after the debacle involving Kororaa a few months back, the last group that should be talking about licenses that divides users by forcing them to agree to coercive licensing agreements which restrict their rights to share with each other is the Free Software Community. ”
I disagree.
I think you are also taking this out of context.
First of all, if you want to have absolute freedom, please, pick a BSD style license.
That way, you can help turn the computing industry into a free slave labor market for the corporate types.
FSF advocates A TYPE of freedom, not freedom from everything, also known as chaos. So saying that FSF is somehow subversive is a twisted and sick perspective.
The FSF specifically prevents many things, which I won’t recant here as anyone can read about them in the current GPL v2 license.
However, what V3 protects you against is the freedom to subvert the V2 license. Which essentially is what V3 of the GNU Public license is.
Specifically, you are restricted from preventing people appropriating your work, without contribution back into the community of GPL copyright holders, through the use of encryption or DRM submarine schemes.
Make no doubt. The powers that be have taken notice about this thing called GNU Software, and they want it dead in the worst kind of way. They have all sorts of subversive tactics planned one is under way at Novell, right at this very instant.
Like it or not, if the community doesn’t move to support GNU v3 as is, or something very close to it, you will quickly find lots of GNU software to run on ZERO new hardware.
They, the enemy, the closed source community, the corporate software manufacturers who believe they actually invent software and only THEY have the right to produce software, WILL obtain their goals, as long as people like YOU exist.
-Hack
First of all, if you want to have absolute freedom, please, pick a BSD style license.
That way, you can help turn the computing industry into a free slave labor market for the corporate types.
No wonder I think of you guys as cultists. This is a perfect example.
A sane person would conclude that you think:
Absolute Freedom = Slavery
In fact, the opposite is true. Binding yourself to the religion of GPL and claiming it is “free” when it clearly is not free is a sure sign you are in a cult.
You cultists are mentally ill. Get some help.
The BSD license is no more about slavery than patented software is about dishonesty.
The BSD license is the ONLY free license. And it eats you cultist up inside to the point where you keep hating anyone who isn’t a member of the GPL cult.
Edited 2006-11-13 03:22
First of all, if you want to have absolute freedom, please, pick a BSD style license.
That way, you can help turn the computing industry into a free slave labor market for the corporate types.
No wonder I think of you guys as cultists. This is a perfect example.
A sane person would conclude that you think:
Absolute Freedom = Slavery
In fact, the opposite is true. Binding yourself to the religion of GPL and claiming it is “free” when it clearly is not free is a sure sign you are in a cult.
You cultists are mentally ill. Get some help.
The BSD license is no more about slavery than patented software is about dishonesty.
The BSD license is the ONLY free license. And it eats you cultist up inside to the point where you keep hating anyone who isn’t a member of the GPL cult.
Edited 2006-11-13 07:25
you’re sounding like a broken record, as always. so lets get past the childlike name calling, and the extreme GPL proponents attempts to make it a question of moral or ethics and discuss GPL for what it really is. a software licence.
so, NotParker, do you hate the GPL itself? and if so, why? it’s just a licence, an agreement on software distribution. again, I’m talking about the actual LICENCE here, not any fuzzy movement or ethics slogans that FSF (regrettably in my opinion) has tacked upon it.
so can you stop the GPL=cultist propaganda for a post or two and discuss your views on the actual licence instead?
Make no doubt. The powers that be have taken notice about this thing called GNU Software, and they want it dead in the worst kind of way. They have all sorts of subversive tactics planned one is under way at Novell, right at this very instant.
I wish I could say that you are paranoid. But unfortunately I think you are right.
First of all, if you want to have absolute freedom, please, pick a BSD style license.
That way, you can help turn the computing industry into a free slave labor market for the corporate types.
FSF advocates A TYPE of freedom, not freedom from everything, also known as chaos. So saying that FSF is somehow subversive is a twisted and sick perspective.
Ah, so no freedom == bad, absolute freedom == slavery, only the FSF brand freedom is OK.
Are you running X-Windows? How about apache? If so, you’re contributing to corporate slavery, by your admission. Or is that *only* the BSD license, not the MIT or Apache licenses?
The FSF specifically prevents many things, which I won’t recant here as anyone can read about them in the current GPL v2 license.
However, what V3 protects you against is the freedom to subvert the V2 license. Which essentially is what V3 of the GNU Public license is.
Yes, we all know that the FSF is all about telling me what I can’t do with software I wrote. Er… wait… How’s that go again?
Actually, the GPLv3 is designed to deal with DRM, and something of a loophole in the GPLv2. One that the FSF wishes to close, and Linus doesn’t– well, actually, I don’t think he *likes* DRM, he just feels that the consumer should be smart enough to reject it, rather than legislating against it.
Specifically, you are restricted from preventing people appropriating your work, without contribution back into the community of GPL copyright holders, through the use of encryption or DRM submarine schemes.
*sigh*. You people need to do your homework. Tivo’s code was actually contributed back to the community, as required by the GPL.
You can’t modify it and run it on their hardware though. The hardware won’t run it without the code meeting a checksum. Which, even if you could, is a violation of the user agreement you agreed to when you bought the thing. You don’t like it? DON’T BUY TIVO.
They, the enemy, the closed source community, the corporate software manufacturers who believe they actually invent software and only THEY have the right to produce software, WILL obtain their goals, as long as people like YOU exist.
As a network administrator, I thank you for recognizing the importance of my job. Nobody gets anything done if the servers aren’t up, the mail system isn’t running smoothly, and the packets aren’t flowing. I don’t think that’s how you meant it, though.
Honestly, without corporate support of the GPL, and open source products, most GPL products would die by the wayside as their programmers have to get real jobs. XGL is a good example– Everyone’s praising the new and shiny graphics Linux has developed over the last year. Here’s a quote from Slashdot, however:
“Jon Smirl, one of two main developers for Xgl and Xegl (a version of X layered on top of OpenGL and rendering directly to the linux framebuffer, similar to Apple’s Quartz Extreme) is calling it quits. Citing two years of effort without pay, a shortage of interest from developers, and no hope of release for more than a year, Jon is moving on.”
That was August 11, 2005. Novell, the evil corporation of greed and slavery, hired David Reveman, who got a working prototype up and running. The community claimed Novell was going to create a closed-source fork of X, that only they could use.
Within a matter of weeks, the project was released (as planned) back into the community as open source, and everyone has benefited.
If that’s the kind of evil Novell is doing, I say the Linux community needs more evil if it’s going to prosper. Problem is, I honestly believe that the FSF doesn’t want Linux to succeed commercially.
“Finally, after the debacle involving Kororaa a few months back, the last group that should be talking about licenses that divides users by forcing them to agree to coercive licensing agreements which restrict their rights to share with each other is the Free Software Community.”
Under the Novell/MS Patent Cooperation Agreement, are not end-user customers having such coercive terms forced upon them? Also, these end-users will likely use nonfree software, which by definition precludes sharing. So the question is, “Is Kororaa like this?”
Not at all. Here the user is the Kororaa dev. Note that Samba folks are referring to the PCA, in addition to already existing licenses, etc. The Kororaa equivalent–an extra licensing agreement–does not exist. Thus, the claim is fallacious not factual.
“Switching the linux kernel to GPLv3 (assuming you can get *all* the copyright holders to agree) changes nothing. Changing every single GPL’d package in existence to GPLv3 still changes nothing.”
Since GPLv3 does not yet exist, you cannot assert this as a fact. When it does exist, Moglen has already declared that it will not allow this kind of deal. IANAL, so I will not comment further on the claim.
The import of your other assertions appears to be greatly outweighed by the fact that Novell claims to have a community and that by all appearances they have violated a social contract with this community, which includes not try to circumvent the licenses on which the community depends. These appearances of protest are sometimes ugly but on the whole understandable. I’ll take ugly free speech over ugly contractual language any day.
Edited 2006-11-13 03:45
None of the arguments you used contradicts what the Samba team says. This has nothing to do with the letter of the GPL – or the GPL itself, and it has everything to do with competition.
The problem with the Novell – Microsoft deal is that they introduced patents as a competitive tool. That’s the main problem.
You try – although in a more subtle way than NotParker – to suggest that the reason we currently dislike Novell is because for us Free Software is a religion. Probably you have no idea what religion is – you confuse enthusiasm for a development method (based on principles like free flow of information – in this case, software with full source code availability) with religion. People can be enthusiastic about many things. Being passionate or enthusiastic does not mean that whatever you believe in is your religion, or that you are necessarily biased.
Please (re)read the article – your post doesn’t address any of the points raised by the Samba team … which should be the discussion of this thread, right?
//The problem with the Novell – Microsoft deal is that they introduced patents as a competitive tool. That’s the main problem. //
That plus the fact that the patents in question (networking protocols, digital file formats and the like) should actually be open interoperable standards and not the subject of patent protection or licensing in any way at all. A true free market requires several competing products all working to a common standard – in the same way that all passenger cars are controlled in the same way, use the same fuel and operate on the same roads, and there are several competing manufacturers making cars to that standard.
This should be the same with software, in order to create a software free market. Microsoft are trying to make it so that Microsoft are the one and only possible supplier to the software market. If that is impossible and regulators get in their way, they seek to set up a “puppet” competitor and to make money for jam (via patent royalties) out of that competitior’s customers in any event.
Novell are complicit in the anti-free-market-economy play by Microsoft. People are moving to FOSS software and open standards in an attempt to avoid such rip-offs, and are finding out how difficult Microsoft is trying to make such a move away from Microsoft. This does not speak to the quality of Microsoft’s product, but rather it speaks to the effectiveness of Microsoft’s attempts at complete lock-in to date.
//You can see why Big Software wants a locked in and proprietary world. It may not be in society’s interest, but it is in theirs. Its about securing rents. They need lockins. The world the large software companies would like to take us to is one in which we pay rents for access to computing, and an incentive to do this, is that it is the only way of being sure we can access our own data. //
Exactly. This has hit the proverbial nail right smack on the head.
Edited 2006-11-13 09:23
“People don’t like it when you disagree with their religion– And a number of people have embraced Free Software as a religion. ”
What?!?? You don’t actually believe this nonsense do you? I’m a very enthusiastic advocate of F/OSS but I would hardly consider it “my religion.” I use it and wholeheartedly endorse it because it’s free, powerful, and based upon wide collaboration instead of some huge corporate entity that decides for me. When this ceases to be, then i’ll find something else. End of story.
I think Windows fanboys get so defensive because they know deep down in their sub-consciouses that they’ve been duped into spending thousands of dollars for crappy software. That deep seated and repressed anger exhibits itself in the form of flaming open source advocates.
Stop calling people cultists and grow up!
Edited 2006-11-13 14:42
I think Windows fanboys get so defensive because they know deep down in their sub-consciouses that they’ve been duped into spending thousands of dollars for crappy software.
Actually I think we feel guilty for not having to limit our software choices based on a nutbar cult that thinks BSD licenses are slavery and proprietary software is unethical.
We love choice. You hate choice.
So sometimes all those choices makes us feel like westerners visiting Eastern Europe during the cold war … with all those giant posters of Richard Stallman staring down at us to try and make us feel guilty for not limiting ourself to software infected by the GPL virus.
“””
///I think Windows fanboys get so defensive because they know deep down in their sub-consciouses that they’ve been duped into spending thousands of dollars for crappy software.///
Actually I think we feel guilty for not having to limit our software choices based on a nutbar cult that thinks BSD licenses are slavery and proprietary software is unethical.
We love choice. You hate choice.
“””
Well, I’d say that both of you sound like nut-cases.
I would agree that many Windows users pay too much.
And Bruce, I can see, vividly in my imagination, those Stallman posters staring down at me. That’s a fun comparison. Though I would be more inclined to compare him with the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5e/Khomeini.jpg/16…), who was such a fixture in the news programs back in my youth.
People can use OSS software when it is most appropriate, and proprietary software when it is most appropriate.
True, some of us will work harder to make OSS software appropriate to the situation… but that’s a personal choice.
Relax and start *speaking to* each other instead of *talking at* each other. Please.
Edited 2006-11-13 18:34
People can use OSS software when it is most appropriate, and proprietary software when it is most appropriate.
I have been repeatedly told proprietary software is unethical by the cult memebers.
Sure, every once in a while a cult member pretends to be reasonable in order to present a saner face … but its all bull.
The cults excommunication of Novell and mono on this site contradicts what you are saying.
Your propaganda-mongering is beginning to get boring. Why don’t you just write a script that randomly posts comments with combinations of the words:
‘Microsoft rules’, ‘excommunication’, ‘cult’, ‘cult’, ‘cultists’, ‘cult’, ‘zealots’, ‘cults excommunication’
I’m(I don’t speak for other people, and you should realise that the most vocal minority don’t speak for me, or the rest of the community) not attempting to excommunicate Novell. I know a senior-programmer at Novell and I know that there is a lot of good coming out of that place. I also know that Novell made a risky move with their ‘deal’ with Microsoft, and that while this might be ‘a good thing’ experience leads me to be cynical.
I ALSO know that Microsoft has a big, well-earned, reputation of fighting dirty in the business world, so I’m worried that this is a potentially lethal move by Microsoft to stamp-out the competition of Linux by Litigation, FUD, or some other method.
I’m(I don’t speak for other people, and you should realise that the most vocal minority don’t speak for me, or the rest of the community) not attempting to excommunicate Novell.
If there really were sane people in the cult, they would mod down and attack the “vocal minority” with the same energy they spend attacking me.
I see zero evidence that the “vocal minority” is actually the minority.
If there really were sane people in the cult
THERE IS NO CULT. I’ll keep it simple for you:
It’s a community.
the extremist members make valid points , that’s why they don’t get modded-down.
These ‘extremeists’ are sometimes are a bit agressive about their point-making.
Microsoft are a monopoly. According to you, only .4% of the market run Linux, Maybe 4% of computers run Mac OS, perhaps a maximum .6% other OSs. I say that a 95% share is a Monopoly. Microsoft have been successfully litigated against for anti-comptetitive business practices several times.
Against this sort of competition, a certain ammount of plain-speaking is justified.
I see zero evidence that the “vocal minority” is actually the minority.
Actually, there IS evidence. In fact, it is a well-known fact that any community will have those who are significantly more extreme (read zealous) than most people, examples: Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Muslims, Pro-choice, Fathers-for-justice…
Obviously, you are a Closed source extremeist. Otherwise, you wouldn’t try to single-handedly attack a community that has only grown because Microsoft squashed every other alternative. (Either that, or you’re under the pay of Microsoft)
Obviously, you are a Closed source extremeist. Otherwise, you wouldn’t try to single-handedly attack a community that has only grown because Microsoft squashed every other alternative. (Either that, or you’re under the pay of Microsoft)
As I said, there is no such thing as a sane member of cult. Prompt them a bit and the insanity boils out of them.
I invite anyone to judge for themselves, take a look at the 463 comments left by NotRedmond and try to find a reasoned, non-deflamatory comment. Go on, I challenge you
http://www.osnews.com/usercomments.php?uid=7674
I invite anyone to judge for themselves, take a look at the 463 comments left by NotRedmond and try to find a reasoned, non-deflamatory comment. Go on, I challenge you
Please. Read them all. See which ones were modded down just because I didn’t kiss the *ss of the cult.
I generally come down in the middle of the road on this whole issue, and even I think you’re a troll.
This is why you get modded down:
“the Firefox trainwreck destorys us all..”
“OSS fanatics are like Russians during the cold war”
“makes us feel like westerners visiting Eastern Europe during the cold war”
“I think you should pull your head out of your *ss. ”
“the insane to indulge in their anti-Microsoft conspiracy theories”
“Lying is a bad way to start an article.”
“GPLv3 wants to recreate dll hell.”
“stole its IP”
“Linux has zero chance of catching Windows.”
“Linux is way more bloated.” [than Vista] hahaha -ed.
“Are all OSS fanatics this cheap? ”
“Java is a con game”
“Security by design? Linux? OSS? I laugh!”
“Of course OSS stole IP. Thats what they do! ”
“What a load of bull you are spewing.”
“Nah nah nah nah … nah nah nah na”
“25,000 bounty to the family of suicide bombers for killing lots of jews.”
“OSS lie … Debian’s been cracked.”
“making stuff up to cover up incompetence”
“OSS fanatics” “OSS crybabies” “Linux fanatcis” “cultists” “cults” “cult” “cult” “unethical” “hypocracy” “cultists” “Communist” “cultists are all hypocrites” “excommunicated” “cultists” “cult” “cultists” “cultist” “cultists” “slavery” “mentally ill” “Slavery” “cultist” “cultist” “cultists” “cult” “cult” “nutbar cult” “cult” “cult” “cult” “cultist” “cult” “cult members”
“You cultists are a laugh!”
“Stop behaving like a cult”
“tiny little heads of OSS fanatics explode.”
“Firefox is old and tired and full of security holes.”
“they stole the Mosaic code”
“Picking a distro is a crap shoot.”
“Firefox is a sieve.”
“another bullsh*t myth”
“open source is thievery. ”
“How long have you lived on Fantasy Island?”
“OSS is just a loony cult.”
“excommunicated” “excommunicated” “excommunicated for dealing with the Devil”
“You really know nothing”
“ignorant anti-Microsft FUD”
Not to mention your penchant for re-posting inaccurate propaganda multiple times, just to get a less-bad rating.
“I have been repeatedly told proprietary software is unethical by the cult members.”
This is a bullshit statement and you know it. If this happens to be true in your case, then you’re consorting with idiots.
“Sure, every once in a while a cult member pretends to be reasonable in order to present a saner face … but its all bull.”
And how many cults have you had personal experience with; from which you draw this conclusion?
You’re the zealot around here, and apparently a moron. Let it go before you give yourself a nose bleed.
This is a bullshit statement and you know it. If this happens to be true in your case, then you’re consorting with idiots.
Thats what I keep saying. Only I call them cultists on this site.
I tired to be polite. I was modded down anyway. I tried to be factually with references. I was called a liar. Thent he cultits got really worked up and their version of the truth cam out:
BSD license = slavery
proprietary = unethical
Novell is evil
mono is evil
blah blah.
Stop behaving like a cult and I’ll stop pointing out the similarities.
“””Sure, every once in a while a cult member pretends to be reasonable in order to present a saner face … but its all bull.”””
NotParker,
I don’t doubt that you’ve been told many times that proprietary software is unethical.
I’ve heard that line many times myself. I disregard it.
I keep saying that a lot of us OSS guys are not crazos.
You keep saying that the fact that you still hear *some* people shouting the FSF Fundumentalist party line proves me wrong.
I don’t see where those two statements really connect.
I believe that the OSS community has something to contribute to the world.
I’m not sure what you believe. That OSS software is dangerous?
That is more extreme than my feelings about proprietary software.
Again, I prefer OSS. But when things go beyond preference and one starts feeling that this or that method of softwate development is actually “dangerous”… that’s when I start wondering if I am dealing with a fanatic.
I’m not sure what you believe. That OSS software is dangerous?
Mostly I believe that a cult that attracts so many extremists is dangerous.
Lets say I worked for a company with a lot of trade secrets and propietary methods and patents.
Would I hire a fanatic who believes those things in the software world are evil and unethical to help run a computer infrastructure where those items are stored or discussed in email?
No. Because I would have a valid fear that the fanatic running the servers might decide to forward email discussing a deal with say … Microsoft or Novell … to the press or to some other fanatics in their cult.
How can I tell the difference between a sane open source user and a fanatic? I can’t.
Edited 2006-11-13 20:35
“””How can I tell the difference between a sane open source user and a fanatic? I can’t.”””
NotParker,
I would disagree with that. You can tell, usually.
Sometimes it can be difficult, though. Honestly, I wonder if you are not an anti-fsf fanatic, based upon the fact that you so consistently go so far out of your way to provoke FSF fans. The jury is still out on that one. I haven’t decided.
But yours is one of those cases where it *is* difficult to tell. There is enough reasonableness in your posts that I give you the benefit of the doubt. (I hope that’s not unnecessarily offensive; I’m being honest with you.)
I’m sure that we have plenty of people on *our* side of the fence that are hard to call.
We may (or may not) also have more than our fair share of, err, shall we say, overly enthusiastic supporters?
They are quite a vocal minority. They are the one’s that get noticed. And quite frankly, you, Bruce, intentionally attract them with your provocative posts. (No, it’s not just luck of the draw.) But, you are not alone. Ronaldst, among others, also engage in baiting tactics. I wish such baiting was less successful, but “them’s the breaks”.
There is also that schism (real or imagined) between OSS and FS. (Personally, I think that there are relatively few who don’t have a foot in both camps.)
I consider myself to be more OSS than FS, BTW. I find the freedom aspect appealing, but the practical advantages are very important to me. Linux is a darn good fit for my needs.
So, if you are sincere (and I am still going on that assumption), I would suggest that you curtail the baiting and be on the lookout for signs of sanity among our number.
One of my psychology instructors, long ago, remarked once about something that one of *his* instructors told him (long ago). He said: “I don’t know if seeing is believing. But I *do* know that believing is seeing.”
You might just be surprised if you turn a less jaundiced eye upon our rather diverse community.
I believe that you stated that you think I’m just pretending to be reasonable. I hope you will reconsider.
We don’t have to agree. But it would be nice to have, at least, mutual respect.
What do you say to that?
Sincerely,
Steve Bergman
Edited 2006-11-14 19:31
“We love choice”
if the We includes users of Microsoft products, then you’ve got a problem. Microsoft have been convicted several times for anti-competitive business practices and monopolistic behaviour.
Their OEM license prevents (and makes it uneconomical) for OEMs to install other OSs on the manchines they sell. MS have a long history of using dubious business practices to squash opposition.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/74734/go-founder-to-revive-antitrust-ca…
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index_licensing.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index_contempt.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index_intuit.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
Their OEM license prevents (and makes it uneconomical) for OEMs to install other OSs on the manchines they sell.
1) I can buy a PC from Dell without Windows on it.
2) I’ve personally bought hundreds of machines without Windows on them from various manufacturers (we buy Windows from a reseller to get our K12 discount).
3) You have to be not kind of stupid if you can’t buy a PC without Windows on it if you really want to.
I don’t know all the ins-and-outs of this issue because Microsoft classifies all information about OEM System Builder licenses as ‘Trade Secrets’…
But (before US litigation) the OEM agreement meant that Microsoft charged OEMs for each Processor they sold, ALSO they prevented ANY other Operating System from being installed on the same machine that Windows was.
This meant that OEMs wanting to sell Linux/BeOS/’OS/2’ Machines had to pay for an OEM Copy Windows for each non-Windows machine that they sold. THAT is anti-competitive, anti-choice behaviour.
I can’t find a current OEM license because it is a ‘Trade Secret’ BUT the fact that you still can’t easily buy a pre-installed linux OR a dual-boot machine hints at the fact that Microsoft is applying pressure.
You mentioned dell… Nearly every page on the Dell website has the tag-line: Dell recommends Windows(R) XP Professional.
I’m sure it’ll soon say ‘Windows Vista Professional Plus’
Also, a popular, well-respected technology news site did an interesting piece about Dells token ‘open-source’ effort, read this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/06/dell_open_pc/
I’ve personally bought hundreds of machines without Windows on them from various manufacturers (we buy Windows from a reseller to get our K12 discount).
Then you’re probably breaking the licence agreement. In another anti-competitive move, the Microsft VLK1.0 agreement for Volume license customers states that a VLK licence is an UPGRADE licence only, and can only be used on a machine that already has a valid windows licence. I expect the microsoft black-ops people to storm your school forthwith.
<off-topic>I also note that the Volume licence for Windows Vista is even more restrictive and needs every installed copy to check-in to a licensing server twice a year or it will cripple itself. Microsoft’s move to more freedom seems to be going backwards
.</off-topic>
BUT the fact that you still can’t easily buy a pre-installed linux OR a dual-boot machine hints at the fact that Microsoft is applying pressure.
Its actually an indicator that .4% of the market is so small it isn’t worth it for Dell to support Linux installs.
But if you want one from Dell, try here:
http://www.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/desktops_n?c=us&c…
Then you’re probably breaking the licence agreement.
See. Your hatred of Microsoft makes you delusional.
The organizations I work for never bought Windows licenses from Dell or any other OEM on purposes. Only when staff wandered down to a computer store and bought a PC did that happen.
In another anti-competitive move, the Microsft VLK1.0 agreement for Volume license customers states that a VLK licence is an UPGRADE licence only, and can only be used on a machine that already has a valid windows licence.
Thats completely false. And it makes you look like an idiot.
I also note that the Volume licence for Windows Vista is even more restrictive and needs every installed copy to check-in to a licensing server twice a year or it will cripple itself.
People were abusing the VLK’s. And actually, Vista VL can be activated in 2 ways:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/resources/vol/default.mspx
KMS isn’t really difficult and won’t be difficult for us to impliment. We already have a server running WSUS that computers check in with all the time for updates. Havint them check in every once in a while for the VLK is not an issue.
Thats completely false. And it makes you look like an idiot.
From the volume licensing website: windows XP download page:(We have a standard Schools 3 agreement)
https://licensing.microsoft.com/eLicense/L1033/ProductDetail.Asp?SKU…
By checking this box, I acknowledge that I may install this full version of Windows only on desktops for which my organization has acquired:
A qualifying operating system license1 AND a Volume Licensing Windows upgrade license for this version, or
A full license for this version of Windows through an OEM or from a retail source (Full Package Product)
1See the Product List for details
ANY OTHER INSTALLATION OF THIS SOFTWARE IS IN VIOLATION OF YOUR AGREEMENT AND APPLICABLE COPYRIGHT LAW.
Unfortunately, MS have removed the actual page from the licensing site that describes this licence restriction, but you should have got a letter re-iterating this clause with your last CD pack.
Even by your anti-Freedom standards, .4% is low, The figures I’m used to seeing are 2-4% market share. (that’s 10 times what you claim).
But if you want one from Dell, try here:
Read the article that I linked to first for the counter-argument.
See. Your hatred of Microsoft makes you delusional.
The organizations I work for never bought Windows licenses
The K 12 ‘organisation’ will have an MBA/Schools x License, THAT IS A LICENSE AGREEMENT and it was that that I was talking about.
By checking this box, I acknowledge that I may install this full version of Windows only on desktops for which my organization has acquired:
A qualifying operating system license1 AND a Volume Licensing Windows upgrade license for this version, or
A full license for this version of Windows through an OEM or from a retail source (Full Package Product)
Right … You can download the media, but you have to acquire a legal license before you can install.
If you have software assurance you can upgrade. If you don’t have software assurance you need a full license.
Do you have reading problems?
Just because you have the media doesn’t mean you have a license to install.
We get the VLK media for all Microsoft products, but we can’t legally install untill we buy a license through our reseller.
Are you now trying to PROVE you are an idiot instead of just hinting at it?
The K 12 ‘organisation’ will have an MBA/Schools x License, THAT IS A LICENSE AGREEMENT and it was that that I was talking about.
We have a Select license and we buy our software via a reseller who gives us the Academic discount.
So let me get this straight, you buy computers without a Microsoft Windows XP license, you then buy a VLK subscription with Microsoft, then you buy separate Windows XP retail licenses for each workstation?
Why? Even with educational discounts that works out more expensive.
then you buy separate Windows XP retail licenses for each workstation?
Some schools have a K12/Campus agreement where they pay by the FTE staff.
Some, like us, are Microsoft Partners with a Select agreement. We get the VLK media. We still have to buy each individual license.
I’d prefer the K12/Campus agreement, but powers above chose not to.
The Academic discount is a very good deal. Its not close to retail.
I think Windows fanboys get so defensive because they know deep down in their sub-consciouses that they’ve been duped into spending thousands of dollars for crappy software.
Bah. The fanboys get their software off of bittorrent. You don’t honestly think they’re paying Microsoft for the products they hold dearly? They’re often the first to whine about WGA and threaten to take their “business” somewhere else.
It’s like listening to the kids bash the Gimp and brag about how much better Photoshop is, as if they a) actually use more than 5% of the functionality and b) actually pay for it. They simply can’t grasp that people might want to search for an alternative way of doing things for reasons beyond price, since it’s much easier to use warez for “free”, right?
Actually paying for things out of their own hard-earned after-tax income can often put a new perspective on things, including the value equation. Moving out of their parents’ basement and having to pay bills might mean that new copy of Vista Ultimate hot off the presses has to wait when they don’t have time to surf all the boards looking for patches and hacks to get it working.
It would be interesting to see how much they gush and bash the alternatives if they actually had to pay for it.
DUH!
For Novell to make this deal shows a profound disregard for the relationship that they have with the Free Software community.
Could not have said it better myself.
Its a fine statement, but this is the start of a war about who controls information. Think about Mathematica: is it a program? An encyclopedia? A textbook? A bit of them all? Same thing is happening everywhere in PCs. Its about locking down content to platforms, or not. If MS really gets away with this one, the war may take a long time to end, but it will be over.
So, its going to take more than manifestos. People are going to have to sue and withhold permission to use. And we are all going to have to dump Suse right away. Pity, it was getting to be a fine distro.
Debian is the right choice.
Is Jeremy Alison about to leave Novell?
http://samba.org/samba/news/articles/low_point/tale_two_stds_os2.ht…
For Novell to make this deal shows a profound disregard for the relationship that they have with the Free Software community. We are, in essence, their suppliers, and Novell should know that they have no right to make self serving deals on behalf of others which run contrary to the goals and ideals of the Free Software community.
They certainly didn’t ask any of their end users if they minded if Novell negotiated on their behalf, either.
If Novell/MS were doing this for interoperability, alienating interoperability experts like the Samba folks makes you question what this deal is really about!
When the Microsoft Kissup’s infect Open Source: Mono.
“””When the Microsoft Kissup’s infect Open Source: Mono.”””
IIRC, it should take 6 months to a year for Novell to recover. Then again, this being MS-Mono, it could be fatal.
From the article: “Using patents as competitive tools in the free software world is not acceptable.”
That’s what I’ve been saying here on osnews and elsewhere about the Novell-MS deal. Free software and companies providing free software solutions so far competed on technical excellence and quality of service. Novell and Microsoft muddied the water by raising the patent flag.
Many tried to deny that Novell did something bad, saying this deal means nothing, or it is unlikely that MS will go after RH, and those who were disappointed or felt betrayed by the deal were GPL-zealots, paranoid, etc. Some even cited Novell’s own FAQ as proof (lol)
“The patent agreement struck between Novell and Microsoft is a divisive agreement. It deals with users and creators of free software differently depending on their “commercial” versus “non-commercial” status, and deals with them differently depending on whether they obtained their free software directly from Novell or from someone else.”
We may speculate all day about what the deal exactly means, what MS will or will not do (can or cannot do), and these are important questions… but whatever answer you may come up with, will be difficult to prove. There is on undeniable fact that is immediately obvious if one reads the agreement (and even Novell’s FAQ, announcments, etc.): that Novell (with the help of Microsoft) are using patents as a competetive tool, and”using patents as competitive tools in the free software world is not acceptable.”
This is one of the most elegant and concise summary of the problems (at least of my perception of the problems). I was never quite sure how this deal violates the GPL (but I don’t denied the possibility either, for IANAL and don’t have all the details at hand). What I like about the Samba team’s announcement is that they find one of the few* problems of the deal that is absolutely undeniable even without knowing all the details.
[*] For me, this was the single most important problem, but I wrote “few” because they may be others as well.
I hope some of the people reading this are from businesses that use patents to protect their intellectual property.
I hope this makes them think twice about allowing cultists and cult software into their data centers before the cult members start giving away their IP in areas not related to software.
Don’t let the infection spread!
NotParker,
Why do you act this way? You know well enough that most Linux users and advocates are not cultists, though such certainly do exist and are exceedingly vocal.
You obviously have a lot of data at your command and could contribute a lot of valuable constructive criticism. We could use some more of that, Bruce.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I would like to hear more “Hey, you guys could improve your software by…” posts from you.
This confrontational stuff back and forth doesn’t really do anyone any good.
Edited 2006-11-13 00:28
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
I wonder what event left him so traumatized, that he now obsessively writes irrational posts attributing irrational, obsessive behaviour to others.
“””I wonder what event left him so traumatized, that he now obsessively writes irrational posts attributing irrational, obsessive behaviour to others.”””
Possibly comments like these.
Like I say, these back and forth attacks don’t do any of us any good.
We don’t all have to agree. But we might all enjoy sharing an olive branch for a bit. And in so doing, we might just learn a bit about one another.
Agreed (and modded up).
The point I was trying to make with the post above is that we may not have to learn about the motivations of one another in public, which is the effect of asking “why do you act in a way I can’t explain, explain yourself” someone like NotParker in a public forum.
The way group dynamics work, he is on the losing side. If he replies to your question for his motivation with another post about the cult, he’s just setting himself further up for ridicule and pain, but now no longer on the subject at hand, but instead about his motives.
Since you had asked about his motives, I thought that posting something which mildly discourages a reply from him would keep him away from taking the bait and going down that path.
Edited 2006-11-13 02:18
OK.
And I will withdraw the “why do you act that way” part of my post. It was a bit unfair.
You do make a good point about it all being public, though. It would be nice to be able to private message people with whom we disagree, but who demonstrate that they know what they are talking about.
This is usually where Thom says, “We’re already doing things perfectly here at OSAlert and the policy will not change!”
But it really would be nice to be able to work things out in private.
The point is that NotParker is a good guy who happens to hold a different opinion about OSS than we, the choir, do. But why should that inhibit our ability to exchange ideas and *constructive* criticism?
I still welcome Bruce and suggest that we all take a step back and listen for a bit.
You know well enough that most Linux users and advocates are not cultists, though such certainly do exist and are exceedingly vocal.
I think the threats of excommunication on this site directed at Novell and mono and Miguel de Icaza totally prove you wrong.
Tell you what, if you the people on this site quit acting like they are a member of a religious cult, I’ll stop calling them on it.
As I said:
“I hope some of the people reading this are from businesses that use patents to protect their intellectual property.
I hope this makes them think twice about allowing cultists and cult software into their data centers before the cult members start giving away their IP in areas not related to software.
Don’t let the infection spread!”
I mean what I said. You people with your hatred of all non-GPL software and hatred of Microsoft and hatred of Novell and mono and Miguel are very, very dangerous!
What do you think about those of us who simply prefer OSS (not necessarily GPL) software, and who simply dislike Microsoft without hating them?
Are we dangerous?
You can contact me at:
[email protected]
if you care to.
What do you think about those of us who simply prefer OSS (not necessarily GPL) software, and who simply dislike Microsoft without hating them?
Based on the number of posts that I’ve had modded down recently, I’d say the FSF folks hate you, because you’re trying to sell them into slavery.
At least, that’s what *I* was accused of.
I don’t see your modded down posts, but based on what I read, you have unreasonable bias against the FSF. There is no evidence that they are anti-commercial, in fact, they encourage commercial use of free software on their website.
What they do is to make sure that the free software ecosystem stays healthy. Sometimes this creates conflicts with commercial vendors. Red-Hat always managed to work with FSF to resolve those conflicts, and they are still playing by the rules. What rules you may ask? Well,so far, competition among linux distributions (be it commercial or community distroes) was based on two factors: technical excellence and quality of support. (this is just one rule, I don’t mention the more obvious ones). The Novell-Microsoft agreement uses patents as a competitive tool – that’s the problem most of us have with Novell currently. That is clearly stated by the Samba team as well.
Now, you may have been modded down because in each of your posts you try to present those who are disappointed by this deal as zealots, although you do it in a more clever way than NotParker. You present the FSF as an extremist cult as well, using wild exaggerations, while failing to address any of the issues raised by the Samba team. Obviously, you have an axe to grind with the FSF, which is fine by me, even if I don’t understand your reasons, and I don’t agree with you… but others may dislike if you call them zealots or imply that they are FSF cultists. This is speculation of course – I didn’t mod you down or something (usually I don’t mod down anyone who at least tries to provide some content in their posts, unless they c & p or repeat the same thing over and over without engaging in an intelligent conversation).
The FSF is not a cult, those who are dissapointed are not zealots, and I’m a FreeBSD user
Which means that I accept and even admire the choice FreeBSD developers made when they choose a more liberal license than the GPL. At the same time, I recognize the importance of the GPL, as well as the function FSF has as the guardian of freedoms presented in the GPL. I don’t perceive them as a cult or something – they’re just doing their job. There is no evidence that their actions are in any way detrimental to commercial success of free software (like you try to imply in one of your previous posts). Even though they had disagreements with RH, they worked it out, and RH is the most successful commercial free software company. Or to mention another: trolltech. FSF kept bugging them till they released QT under the GPL, and that’s fine, everyone benefited from it – and they didn’t go bankrupt or something. There is no evidence that FSF is anti-commercial. They simply try to maintain a balance between commercial interests and community interests (which in the long run, also has commercial benefits), and they seem to be doing a fine job.
On a side note: JAVA is now GPL, and I believe that FSF had a great role in convincing SUN to GPL java. This is again, a good thing imho.
Edited 2006-11-13 09:53
There are groups in the computing and IT world that display signs of cult behaviour, but I don’t think the GPL people are among them. What is true is that the debate is political in the wide sense, and that people feel strongly about it, as they do about many political issues that have wide effects on society.
The difficulty NotParker is having is due to his reasonable perception that companies in the software business have to make money, and that the model in which the product is financially free but support is charged for may not be viable, at least not on a general scale.
The difficulty the other side has is that they can see a world today in which companies can make money from software, they don’t like or approve of it or where it is going, and they can’t see any alternative to this than the GPL.
The reason they dislike this world, which is really typified by Microsoft and Apple, is the social consequences. Companies are driven to secure their IP to protect the rents from it. As they do this, they limit more and more the access of users, which basically means everyone, to computing and content (which are increasingly the same thing). Once they have done this, they charge a rent in the economic sense. So we have Office, which will only run on Mac or Windows, and the key Exchange component, which will only run on Windows. This protects the Windows rents from Linux/Unix. Or look at the recent testimony of the Samba group to the EC. We have OSX tied to Apple branded hardware. This protects Apple’s rents from OSX. We have iTunes/iPod, where you can only play the iTunes music on an iPod, or the various subscription models for DRMd music.
An acquaintance who works for a small trade association told me of a classic instance of this sort of problem. The member database had been put by a consultant working from home on a recent version of Access. The only way to bring it to the Admin computer was to upgrade to the latest version, which would have meant upgrading the hardware also. The data was theirs, but they could not get at it without paying a fee to Microsoft. He used mdbtools.
Its a tiny example, but it is the kind of thing which is widespread. This is what led BECTA in the UK, by no stretch of the imagination cultists of any kind, to favor mandatory open standards. Its what’s at issue in Massachussets.
As the Guardian recently advised, never key any data into a program unless you know how you’re going to get it out. But without the OpenSource threat, what incentives does a company have to let you?
You can see why Big Software wants a locked in and proprietary world. It may not be in society’s interest, but it is in theirs. Its about securing rents. They need lockins. The world the large software companies would like to take us to is one in which we pay rents for access to computing, and an incentive to do this, is that it is the only way of being sure we can access our own data. The fact that all of them acting in this way as individuals will be decreasing the size of the pie, while fighting to get a bigger bit of it, is something they cannot help.
Now people feel strongly that they do not want this, and they see no alternative but GPL. When one of the largest proponents of the lockin model and proprietary formats in all its forms in effect announces a plan to favor one formerly OpenSource supplier over all others by promoting ‘interoperability’ with it, and exempting it alone from the threat of patent suits, of course people feel strongly. What they see coming towards them is the alternative providers being knocked off one at a time until at the end of the day you pay tax to access your own data on someone else’s terms. You is not just people. Its schools, museums, everyone.
There are many other problems in the world, nuclear proliferation, peak oil, terrorism, disease and so on. But it is freedom of information that has been the unique invention of the Western democracies, its been the foundation of our material progress, its our best hope for a better life in future, and the MS/Novell deal is not being done to defend it!
It is not cultlike behaviour to find this a fundamentally important topic or cluster of topics, and its not irrational or cultish to choose the GPL side of the debate – despite its real drawbacks. It has drawbacks, OK. But they are not to do with the limitations of freedom of information. If you have to choose, and if you see the situation in these terms, there is only one way to jump.
Edited 2006-11-13 07:10
The only way to bring it to the Admin computer was to upgrade to the latest version, which would have meant upgrading the hardware also. The data was theirs, but they could not get at it without paying a fee to Microsoft.
Just another bullsh*t myth designed to FORCE people to use the GPL.
A typical move from the cult. The cult wants to forbid competition. The cult wants BSD licenses outlaw. They want Novell excommunicated for fealing with the devil.
No sensible business should have anything to do with a cult that would give away company secrets for ideological reasons.
No sensible business should have anything to do with a cult that would give away company secrets for ideological reasons.
____________________________________________
The interesting question is, how did it ever happen that to get access to my own data on my own computer, I need to do something that would be called getting hold of another company’s secrets?
In my youth, source code was routinely put into escrow as a condition of purchase. GPL from a user point of view does essentially the same thing.
The only way to bring it to the Admin computer was to upgrade to the latest version, which would have meant upgrading the hardware also. The data was theirs, but they could not get at it without paying a fee to Microsoft.
Just another bullsh*t myth designed to FORCE people to use the GPL.
A typical move from the cult. The cult wants to forbid competition. The cult wants BSD licenses outlaw. They want Novell excommunicated for fealing with the devil.
No sensible business should have anything to do with a cult that would give away company secrets for ideological reasons.
//The difficulty the other side has is that they can see a world today in which companies can make money from software, they don’t like or approve of it or where it is going, and they can’t see any alternative to this than the GPL.
The reason they dislike this world, which is really typified by Microsoft and Apple, is the social consequences. Companies are driven to secure their IP to protect the rents from it.//
Almost it, but not quite.
This particular brouhaha is all about Microsoft trying to obscure their protocols and formats and make money thereby. This is not in any way a meritorious invention worthy of patent protection, and people can see Microsoft trying to make money for jam, trying to lock people in, and ripping people off.
Also, at the same time, Novell is trying to make money off software not written by Novell. It is not Novell’s “IP” to sell.
That is the big problem. Big companies trying to rip people off in the name of “IP”, all the while covering up the fact that the money people are expected to pay has not been earned by those companies.
Even worse, rip-off schemes such as these tend to stifle real innovation and fine people who are trying to innovate a way around the rip-off.
That is where the opposition feeling comes from. There is purely and simply no element of “cult” or “religion” about it. Just plain and simple resistance to big companies trying to rip people off.
Edited 2006-11-13 09:09
//Now people feel strongly that they do not want this, and they see no alternative but GPL. When one of the largest proponents of the lockin model and proprietary formats in all its forms in effect announces a plan to favor one formerly OpenSource supplier over all others by promoting ‘interoperability’ with it, and exempting it alone from the threat of patent suits, of course people feel strongly. What they see coming towards them is the alternative providers being knocked off one at a time until at the end of the day you pay tax to access your own data on someone else’s terms. You is not just people. Its schools, museums, everyone.
There are many other problems in the world, nuclear proliferation, peak oil, terrorism, disease and so on. But it is freedom of information that has been the unique invention of the Western democracies, its been the foundation of our material progress, its our best hope for a better life in future, and the MS/Novell deal is not being done to defend it!
It is not cultlike behaviour to find this a fundamentally important topic or cluster of topics, and its not irrational or cultish to choose the GPL side of the debate – despite its real drawbacks.//
I would have modded this post up, but it was already at 5.
The difficulty NotParker is having is due to his reasonable perception that companies in the software business have to make money, and that the model in which the product is financially free but support is charged for may not be viable, at least not on a general scale.
The amazing thing is when they forget about commercial successes like MySQL or Trolltech. In other words, it’s not always an either/or choice. Trolltech is one of the most successful opensource companies, and their model benefits everyone. Lots of money from closed source developers, which they use to fund support people as well as programmers working on QT – which, in turn, benefits KDE and the QT based application stack … which is getting HUGE btw (Scribus, Koffice, Tellico, Amarok, etc..)
You know well enough that most Linux users and advocates are not cultists, though such certainly do exist and are exceedingly vocal.
I think the threats of excommunication on this site directed at Novell and mono and Miguel de Icaza totally prove you wrong.
Tell you what, if you the people on this site quit acting like they are a member of a religious cult, I’ll stop calling them on it.
As I said:
“I hope some of the people reading this are from businesses that use patents to protect their intellectual property.
I hope this makes them think twice about allowing cultists and cult software into their data centers before the cult members start giving away their IP in areas not related to software.
Don’t let the infection spread!”
I mean what I said. You people with your hatred of all non-GPL software and hatred of Microsoft and hatred of Novell and mono and Miguel are very, very dangerous!
The article speaks of the generalities involved: proprietary vs. open, for/against software patents. But they do not talk of any specifics.
Are there any detailed items in the agreement where there is contention? I’m thinking that there are not. This seems likely more of a philosophical and emotional position rather than a point-by-point analysis. I thoroughly despise software patents, but I’d still like to see more discussion, less politics.
I have also checked at Groklaw, but even they do not argue the details. I’m not saying that it is either good or bad. But I’d rather see more than just the repulsion with Novell (our erstwhile anti-SCO hero) dealing with the Satanic Empire.
Cold, clinical analysis is always better than emotion. Let the Type A people stay out of Open Source.
Cold, clinical analysis includes legal and ethical issues. However, having been happily married for a long time, I will have to disagree with you that emotions are always worse in discussions.
In any case, differing assumptions are often overlooked as the real source of tension.
Are there any detailed items in the agreement where there is contention? I’m thinking that there are not. This seems likely more of a philosophical and emotional position rather than a point-by-point analysis. I thoroughly despise software patents, but I’d still like to see more discussion, less politics.
You won’t, not any time soon. The SFLC, Software Freedom Law Center, is currently looking over the agreements. Novell has offered to let them review the documents to see if they have violated the GPL.
While no official report has come out yet, on Thursday, Bradley Kuhn, CTO of the SLFC posted a letter saying the Microsoft Patent Pledge had such a narrow scope as to be useless.
Since the agreement only lasts for 5 years, it would be foolish for *anyone* to put their trust in the patent pledge of either side, unless you’re simply buying time to remove infringing code from your product– And I really do believe Microsoft is using it for just that– To remove any code that infringes on Novell’s IP from Microsoft products.
I don’t expect the full report, with specifics, to appear until maximum possible damage has been done to Novell over this one. And no, I don’t think that’s coincidental.
Since the agreement only lasts for 5 years, it would be foolish for *anyone* to put their trust in the patent pledge of either side, unless you’re simply buying time to remove infringing code from your product– And I really do believe Microsoft is using it for just that– To remove any code that infringes on Novell’s IP from Microsoft products.
How is this bad? Isn’t that the right thing to do?
If not then why so much whining.
I think Novell is doing a good thing and it will allow them to ship a better product than their competition like RedShit or Oracle.
It is definitely better for Linux to have at least 1 good distribution than 100 crappy ones. I hope Novell succeeds in their edeavour and i wish them best.
Novell doesn’t care about what Samba thinks or kiddies that won’t be buying anything from them anyway. In the real world (not OSAlert fantasy world), rational decision makers (not the OSAlert basement dweller), don’t care about your religion.
“Novell doesn’t care about what Samba thinks…”
That’s why I think Samba lead developer Jeremy Allison
may be preparing his departure either from Novell (his
current employer) or from Samba.
http://us1.samba.org/samba/ftp/slides/ad-integration.pdf
That maybe true. But they might start caring when Samba and others stop supporting anything Novell does.
//That maybe true. But they might start caring when Samba and others stop supporting anything Novell does.//
Not only that, but it sends a clear message to Novell that Samba will not allow a closed-source derivative. Samba are “telegraphing” to Novell that Novel will not be able to negotiate a separate license with Samba and then release a modified closed-source Samba which works better with Microsoft’s networking software … which seems to have been Novell’s intent.
Samba are saying this bit isn’t going to fly. Samba is not going to “dual-license” to Novell. If Novell want to release something that works better than current Samba, Novell are going to have to get the whole enchilada (equivalent networking code) from Microsoft.
This development alone could easily kill the whole deal from Novell’s point of view.
I doubt that Novell even intended to make proprietary samba version/alternative.
Besided Samba team is working on AD server (and of course client) functionallity, I doubt that Novell can produce something better in short time.
In other words, Samba will be full AD compatible LDAP and Kerberos5 server (incorporating Heimdal fork modified to provide extensions that Microsoft uses) and thus be a single solution for managing both Unix and Windows servers as a domain controller. Good for businesses which now have to buy expensive Windows 2k3 Server to get that functionallity.
Of course this is not the full picture as Microsoft offers some collaboration software like Exchange, but they’re being chopped one piece at the time and there are in fact alternative solutions (just that the problem is, as always, how to interoperate with MS software – it’s their way of screwing competition).
Edited 2006-11-13 15:08
Good for businesses which now have to buy expensive Windows 2k3 Server to get that functionallity.
But bad in general because it continues to support the idiotic domain controller model. That model was old and broken when NT 4.0 came out.
“I think Novell is doing a good thing ..”
Really?
And do you think November “peace treaty” between Microsoft and Novell are something new and surprising?
Just have look at this archived article at Microsoft PressPass:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/nov04/11-08novellpr.m…
So, noooooooo!
Novell is just one more greedy and profit houngry bastion of commercial software.
In related news, Moslem leaders deny the Holocaust
happened
well, the title says all
Interesting to see how this all unfolded. Novell sort of became an overnight sensation in the Linux world, like Ubuntu did. And now they have made a decision, that if most people have their way, will be the end of Novell SLES/SLED. Kinda makes you wonder if Ubuntu will also have a similar fate, or if they have better leadership and direction.
Novell has had proprietary products running on Linux for three years now. I can’t, for instance, run GroupWise on openSuse. But I can on RedHat enterprise. Why, all of the sudden, is it a big deal that there will be another proprietary hook into a Linux distro? Is it because it’s Microsoft, or is there more to this that I’m not seeing?
This is an honest question.
The Reg had their take on the Samba letter (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/13/samba_novell_patent_warning…), and among the commentary I like this part:
Microsoft is correct when it says free software destroys the foundations of capitalism and private property, but when it makes such a claim, it only makes itself look foolish and lazy. Free software doesn’t destroy capitalism or property, it just makes lazy people try harder. There is plenty of money to be made for the foreseeable future in advancing from the baseline drawn by standards committees and free software projects- because the software itself is but a small part of the value chain. So when an IBM (or a Microsoft complains) that it isn’t in control of the entire process, one can only reel at the misplaced ambition.
It isn’t hard to do better than free software – if one has a little ingenuity and wit. But such qualities appear to be strangers to Microsoft – and it wants to defend its prosperity on the grounds of “illegality” – and not what’s “legitimate”.
To paraphrase, free software makes lazy developers of closed software work harder, and if a closed source company can’t produce and support better software than the FOSS community can, they should find a new line of work.
FOSS doesn’t destroy the ability for companies to derive revenue streams, it simply forces them to rethink how to do so.
I don’t consider myself part of the FSF camp, gratefully so after seeing some of the tiresome rhetoric and dogma raised by this announcement. I’ve always viewed OSS as being a pragmatic development mechanism and one that I think raises the bar and can force closed companies to become more competitive. I’m quite comfortable living in a mixed source world as long as I can choose what works best for me, instead of having others decide. I’ll educate myself and look after my own freedom, thank you very much.
Too many view it as an all or nothing battle, with everything being black and white. It is not now nor will it ever be. I am quietly reassured by the fact that I believe the vast majority of people in the OSS communities are a quiet majority that is somewhat more moderate and realize that eventually a balance will have to be released. The smart and innovative vendors have nothing to fear from free and/or open software. Only the lazy and ineffective ones do. I don’t see that as a bad thing.
Who, exactly, does the SAMBA foundation think it is? Are they really so delusional that they think after reading a news blurb put up by a member of the SAMBA team that Novell is going to say “oh! hold on Microsoft! Some small group of developers told us to not do this deal, so here’s your 348 MILLION dollars back and lets call this whole thing off, ok?”
Get real.
Either they’re entirely delusional at SAMBA (which I doubt) or they’re just adding words to the news entry that make themselves sound foolish.
You think so? How far do you think SLES/SLED will go if they were forced to pull samba from their distro? How bout when gplv3 releases and they get some other small things like gcc and glibc pulled? Will they listen then, even when their “enterprise” distro is no longer capable of booting?
Either they’re entirely delusional at SAMBA (which I doubt) or they’re just adding words to the news entry that make themselves sound foolish.
Well, Novell makes an announcement about patent relief, Windows interoperability and then specifically mentions Samba as one of the focus products under this agreement.
With the cloud of FUD this agreement has raised, it’s nice to see one of the interested parties speak up and make their position clear without doubletalk or ambiguous statements. Novell certainly hasn’t.
It serves to remind the community that the Samba organization was not involved in any aspect of this deal, and does not in any way endorse the *implication* of patented work entering the project. It also serves to indirectly remind their userbase that Novell does not own the project and is prevented by the GPL from modifying, tainting or otherwise “improving” the project in a non-compliant manner, regardless of patent assurances.
What does the Samba foundation think it is, you ask? Simple. The owners of Samba. That gives them an important say, whether you agree with it or not. I doubt they expect Novell to reconsider, but it sends an important message to everyone else. Remaining quiet would have been irresponsible.
Of course Sun hasn’t made their position clear yet either with regards to Novell’s assertions, and they own the code of OOo that was also mentioned. But then again, their decision to GPL Java probably speaks louder than words.
With the cloud of FUD this agreement has raised, it’s nice to see one of the interested parties speak up and make their position clear without doubletalk or ambiguous statements.
A simple “we disapprove” would have sufficed. That’s my point. No need to add the downright ridiculous appeal to undo the deal. Just makes them seem either delusional or silly.
It serves to remind the community that the Samba organization was not involved in any aspect of this deal,
Pardon my asking, but who could have possibly been under that impression? Novell CERTAINLY doesn’t consult SAMBA when determining what business decisions it will make.
That gives them an important say, whether you agree with it or not. I doubt they expect Novell to reconsider
Yet, the title of their news blurb is “Samba Team Asks Novell to Reconsider” and that’s exactly what they ask. I’m not saying they’re WRONG in their evaluation of the deal, but it makes the organization sound a bit silly, which was, again, my only point.
edit: too much silly, not enough ridiculous.
Edited 2006-11-13 17:27
//With the cloud of FUD this agreement has raised, it’s nice to see one of the interested parties speak up and make their position clear without doubletalk or ambiguous statements.
A simple “we disapprove” would have sufficed. That’s my point. No need to add the downright ridiculous appeal to undo the deal. Just makes them seem either delusional or silly.//
Samba are neither delusional not silly. The Samba team behind this wbesite: http://us2.samba.org/samba/ are the copyright holders of the only code that currently runs on Linux that comes anywhere close to interoperating with Windows server.
The MS/Novell announcement specifically mentioned the following keywords: “mixed-source”, “protection of IP”, “patents”, “interoperability” and “Samba”. The only way to get that combination of things to work is for Novell to obtain a separate license from Samba in order to be allowed to release a modified version of Samba as a closed-source derivative.
Samba are telling Novell “no deal”. Samba are saying “we are not going to license Samba to you under any terms other than the GPL”. Samba are saying “we will not be complicit with the deal with Microsoft”.
This means that Novell will not be able to release a closed-source version of Samba that “interoperates better with Microsoft servers but also respects Microsoft’s so-claimed IP”.
Hence, it is entirely reasonable of Samba to say to Novell “please reconsider”.
//It serves to remind the community that the Samba organization was not involved in any aspect of this deal,
//Pardon my asking, but who could have possibly been under that impression? Novell CERTAINLY doesn’t consult SAMBA when determining what business decisions it will make.//
And that was a huge mistake on Novell’s part. Novell effectively made an announcement that they were going to merge MS code with Samba and release a Novell-SLED-exclusive-closed-binary version, and Samba have told them “no you aren’t, not with our code”.
//Yet, the title of their news blurb is “Samba Team Asks Novell to Reconsider” and that’s exactly what they ask. I’m not saying they’re WRONG in their evaluation of the deal, but it makes the organization sound a bit silly, which was, again, my only point.//
It is not Samba but rather your point which turns out to be silly.
Edited 2006-11-13 22:33
//Who, exactly, does the SAMBA foundation think it is?//
The Samba foundation are the owners of the copyright to Samba code.
The Samba foundation are therefore the people who get to say exactly what terms Samba code is, and is not, licensed under.
Not Novell. Novell have no say here. Novell cannot take Samba and make any sort of Novell-SLED-only version of it. Regardless of what deals Novell think they have made with Microsoft.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/13/samba_novell_patent_warning…
“To Novell, this is a reminder that it doesn’t actually own its free software “stuff”. It’s not Novell’s right to gave or take away important moral decisions – such as whether you get sued or not for patent infringement (a career-wrecking lawsuit).”
Edited 2006-11-13 22:48
I have been reading a lot of the commentary about this deal since it was announced. And someone mentioned that maybe this deal is to let MS fix some infringing code. Remember when MS payd SCO a “licensing” fee? I now wonder is they weren’t paying for something in their Services for Unix package. Now that it is obvious SCO is going to lose, maybe it has come to light that MS payed the wrong people for the rights. If Novell is really the owner of that IP, then MS would be in trouble. Maybe this deal covers their ass and gives them 5 years to get the infringing code out of SFU or other software. I code be completely off on this one, but it does make me wonder.
You know well enough that most Linux users and advocates are not cultists, though such certainly do exist and are exceedingly vocal.
I think the threats of excommunication on this site directed at Novell and mono and Miguel de Icaza totally prove you wrong.
Tell you what, if you the people on this site quit acting like they are a member of a religious cult, I’ll stop calling them on it.
As I said:
“I hope some of the people reading this are from businesses that use patents to protect their intellectual property.
I hope this makes them think twice about allowing cultists and cult software into their data centers before the cult members start giving away their IP in areas not related to software.
Don’t let the infection spread!”
I mean what I said. You people with your hatred of all non-GPL software and hatred of Microsoft and hatred of Novell and mono and Miguel are very, very dangerous!
<rant>I don’t like *.Net OR Mono, because I don’t like interpreted languages, not because they’re proprietary or because Microsoft is trying to undermine the C++ name with their ECMA fast-track application for C++/CLI. My experience with .Net programs has shown them to be far less performant than byte-compiled programs. Also, the thing that microsoft is Really good at comes into play: Microsoft is excellent at making it easy to do things badly. Almost anyone can write a .Net program, all the managed libraries all have easy interfaces. This means that the quality of the progams tends to be lower, because people who don’t understand all the concepts and technologies can hack a tool together quickly and not test it, and it’ll work. Untill the brain-damaged code crashed during a vital task, and you’re stumped.</rant>
First of all, if you want to have absolute freedom, please, pick a BSD style license.
That way, you can help turn the computing industry into a free slave labor market for the corporate types.
No wonder I think of you guys as cultists. This is a perfect example.
A sane person would conclude that you think:
Absolute Freedom = Slavery
In fact, the opposite is true. Binding yourself to the religion of GPL and claiming it is “free” when it clearly is not free is a sure sign you are in a cult.
You cultists are mentally ill. Get some help.
The BSD license is no more about slavery than patented software is about dishonesty.
The BSD license is the ONLY free license. And it eats you cultist up inside to the point where you keep hating anyone who isn’t a member of the GPL cult.
Poor NotParker, all the fanatical OSS Linux zealots are gonna hunt you down and convert you with brain washing. Better hide out in a bomb shelter or something. And don’t even think about getting online. You probably will get hijacked by one of the 70% of web servers that run apache. Course they stole that idea from MS. Damn Dirty Apes. Viva La Revolution! Down with Microsoft!
You probably will get hijacked by one of the 70% of web servers that run apache.
You missed the news? Most of those are running parked domains for large hosting companies. Each UNUSED domain is counted as an Apache site.
Apache – The preferred webserver for doing nothing!
Fortunately Novell’s agreement with MS is only temporary. I hope they will never renew it.
Browser: NCSA_Mosaic/2.7b5 (X11;Linux 2.6.18-1.2849.fc6 i686) libwww/2.12 modified