What about things that were discussed that didn’t make the cut?

One that we were very interested in would be running some of their toolsets on our Linux platform — Visual Studio and other toolsets. That one didn’t make the cut.

Was the perennial question of a version of Microsoft Office for Linux discussed?

Yes, that was one of the ‘toolsets’ I referred to. That one didn’t make the cut, either. As an executive, I understand that they’re protecting their franchise, and I’m respectful of that.

We don’t care whether MS ports their Office to Linux or not. We believe in Open Source, and OpenOffice. Just like FireFox on Windows, I believe this will help increase confidence in Open Source and enable a gradual migration to more open platforms.

Relying on a business emotionally is usually a bad idea; alas, it’s worse when a business chooses to make a suicidal move. It’s painful to watch. I suspect that someone was getting paid for this. And it wasn’t just Novell.

“just not when you’re a company that worked out a patent deal to your sole benefit and in violation of the GPL”

There has been no legal violation. The only violation could be the spirit of the GPL and even that is subjective at best.

@Roy

“And I used to love Novell.”

That’s a problem. You put your love in a business. Businesses make business decisions, even if they’re not popular. I don’t care what company you follow, love, work for, whatever; eventually they are going to do something you don’t like or agree with.

You choose note to comment, but you did copy and modify text from my blog as though I stated something inherently negative in it. Perhaps you missed the point: all these features were originally developed for release in SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10. They are now available on both Linux and Windows. So, what then is the issue?

I chose not to comment because I do not want to offend. I still try to set apart individuals from a more cohesive set of executives (AKA “Novell”, the company). The modifications I made were intended to make the quotes shorter and more ‘compressed’ (I thought about adding a note to indicate this and my negligence was inexcusable, in hindsight, so I appreciate your correction).

My issue is two-fold:

1. Why does Novell join Microsoft in press releases which say that Windows is cheaper? Novell knows this is false. What about “intellectual property”? Didn’t Novell say it was irrelevant?

2. Why doesn’t Novell urge Microsoft to port Microsoft Office to Linux? It goes both ways, you know. Stuart Cohen said it was inevitable, but he was pressured out of OSDL for supporting (or giving his blessings to) the Novell deal.

I have many other issues, such as Novell’s backing of OOXML. It is a format which governments do not consider acceptable. If the ZDNet article is anything to judge by, Novell is gradually becoming Microsoft’s b*tch. I have seen this happening with H-P, with Dell, with Corel, with Sybase, and with Palm. Why does Novell think that it can escape the cycle of betrayal? I cannot believe the deal was signed without an executive receiving some personal benefits. It’s a death knell. Wall Street sees this, the Linux community sees this and — quite evidently — some Novell employees who depart can see it as well. And I used to love Novell.

I’m funny like that.

I’m thankful for this site and all the rest that are striving to make sure that Windows and Linux don’t work together. And I’m sure Microsoft appreciates any attempts to thwart Novell’s OOo for Windows effort.

“Under the patent agreement, customers will receive coverage for Mono, Samba, and OpenOffice, as well as .NET and Windows Server.”

Don’t fall on the easy trap.

Do you know the cost of the VBA license (what a third-party has to pay to Microsoft in order to use the run-time legally) ? And the license is binding : to my knowledge there is no sub-licensing.

150,000$/year

The question is simple : did Novell pay that? If they did not, what have they traded in exchange?

Anyway, since 90%+ of real users in real offices use Microsoft Windows (unfortunately). Surely moving them to OpenOffice is a smart way to show them how damned good opensource has become? Gaim runs on Windows, as does Ekiga and a plethora of others. So if other communities have seen this as a sensible delivery vehicle, why can’t you?

I can go on point by point on what you replied, but it seems to me you missed the overall picture my comment was about : why only Novell is shipping this ; why the timing is so peculiar.

Second to Stephanie:
>”Novell, magically ships support for VBA macros…”
Magically? Noel Power worked on this for months prior to Novell shipping SUSE Linux Enterprise 10.
>”…(that’s a claim, it remains to be seen what it means in practice)…”
No it doesn’t. The software is released in both openSUSE and SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10. That means that it has already been seen.
>”,,,and sure enough they are going as far as shipping a Windows-only version of their own OpenOffice branch.”
This is such a vapid statement. We released the Linux version in SLE10 in July 2006. The Windows version that I note in my blog is from the same codebase. It’s no more “Windows-only” than the version you would get from the OpenOffice.org website.
“…a bastardized version of OpenOffice that loses cross-platform capabilities…”
Stephanie, please consider reading just a bit before penning such acrimonious babble. This fully cross-platform “Novell Edition” that you call a “bastardized version” is now included in non-Novell Linux distributions. Your reactionary statement indicates that you did not read the original blog post. That smacks of the damn-the-facts approach of pundits like Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly.

Lastly to Shane:
“…and {VBA Macro support] is clearly only being included under license from MS.”
Your assertion is false. We released that code long before we inked the deal with Microsoft.

Overall, if you have a gripe with Novell, misinformation and sensationalism is not the path to making your complaint heard by Novell, by Microsoft, or by the large contingency of rational-thinking people in the free and open source software community. Can we please have a better quality of debate?

–Ted

I also agree that the VBA support is much more ominous than even the OOXML, like you said there is no covenant for VBA (not even a hopelessly vague and flawed one), and is clearly only being included under license from MS.

In a nutshell,

- Microsoft claims VBA and 15 years of other legacy stuff is not part of OOXML. Yet, that does not stop them from making contradicting statements such as “100% backwards compatible documents” in OOXML.

- Microsoft’s XML covenant not to sue does not apply to anything not documented in OOXML. Such as VBA macros. Therefore any non-Microsoft party implementing this stuff is liable.

- Novell, magically ships support for VBA macros (that’s a claim, it remains to be seen what it means in practice), and sure enough they are going as far as shipping a Windows-only version of their own OpenOffice branch. One of the reasons they ship a Windows-only version I believe is because VBA macros can include import statements of WIN32/OLE/DLL libraries, therefore in the general case the run-time requires Windows.

- Novell is not sued for that infringement because it inked the evil pact with Microsoft.

- By doing so, Novell ships a bastardized version of OpenOffice that loses cross-platform capabilities, and potentially long term commitment to stability/reliability/openness, by far the greatest asset of the whole thing.

Conclusion : Novell is just a Trojan horse against OpenOffice.

Action item : forbid OpenOffice branch changes coming from Novell.