EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

05.22.07

Helping Linux by Cloning Novell SUSE and Redistributing?

Posted in Fork, GNU/Linux, Novell, OpenSUSE, SLES/SLED at 5:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

It should be very obvious by now what Microsoft intends to achieve with Novell-type deals. This new article says it loud and clear.

Instead of slaughtering open source with patent lawsuits, injunctions and damage claims, it appears the goal is to milk, or bleed, open source software companies through licensing, and indemnification deals. You can’t say there’s anything secret or hidden about that strategy.

The following article suggests an excellent solution which relates to a previous (and very recent) one. Have a look and see what you think.

Microsoft’s legal war chest is greater than the gross national products of numerous nations. They can, at will, become the RIAA of the operating system and user software worlds.

[...]

My strong suggestion is a very easy one, if you believe that it’s time for Microsoft to put up or shut up: Make your own Linux distro and publish it.

[...]

Then publish it; send the info to distrowatch.com. You’ll get no money for it, but you’ll be one of a few million people for Microsoft to sue. Since they’ll be forced to stop making innovative software and spend money on litigation, quality will suffer for a little while. Then it will get better again.

As you may know, Shane has its own educational Linux distribution, but is it time for FreeSUSE? SUSE Linux without the litigious burden and without any affiliation or relation to Novell? CentOS and Oracle (among others) did this with Red Hat, but in terms of obligation to a third party, there was none.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

11 Comments

  1. mcintosh said,

    May 22, 2007 at 6:48 am

    Gravatar

    >>Since they’ll be forced to stop making innovative software and spend >>money on litigation, quality will suffer for a little while.

    This sentence is hilarious. They’ll be forced to *stop* making innovative software???? When did they *start*??? I used to think that the simple menu style of the old DOS MS-Word was innovative (or at least infinitely superior to the Wordperfect way of making the user play Twister with his/her fingers for special functions)… until someone pointed out that Word had only copied EMACS.

    mcinsand

  2. akf said,

    May 22, 2007 at 9:19 am

    Gravatar

    I think the critical stuff is not the SuSE distribution as such, but their compatiblity software, ie. the OOXML converter and Mono and their planned replacement for silverlight and stuff like that.

    I don’t suppose to boycott them completely, but at least be sure not to get dependent on them.

    You can use software written for Mono, but writing software for Mono also means writing software for windows. But writing software for windows “.Net” most often doesn’t mean that it will also run on Mono. “Compatiblity” is a one way road as far as Microsoft is concerned.

  3. Francis said,

    May 22, 2007 at 10:16 am

    Gravatar

    > How does FreeSUSE sound?

    How does please read some FAQs sound?

    > SUSE Linux without the litigious burden and without any affiliation or relation to Novell?

    Remind me why you think it’s justified then to use the Linux kernel, GCC, KDE or GNOME? Again, please refer to the FAQ.

    It’s becoming very clear and apparent that you guys (or, at least Roy) are completely blinded on this issue and are simply not willing to listen to any reason. If you were, then you would join us for discussion, but that’s apparently not the case. =)

    Who needs to consider another perspective when you’re infallible? Right.

    I have just finished watching Google’s How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People, and it’s increasingly intriguing how fit a description this site (and a few others in the so-called community) is of that very talk title. Take some time to watch it, kick back, read, and please think. :)

  4. gpl1 said,

    May 22, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    Gravatar

    I’m glad you seem to be happy about MS-Novell Francis, but the people who contributed the code under the auspices of the four freedoms, like Red Hat, are not. GPLv2 Section 7 is still unproven especially considering the Dell/Microsoft/Novell deal, yet GPlv3 is the path of least resistance.

  5. Francis Giannaros said,

    May 22, 2007 at 7:31 pm

    Gravatar

    gpl1,

    Arguments like that just aren’t going to cut it. The GPLv2 violation isn’t “unproven”, it’s completely false. See the link I provided to get a statement from even RMS on the deal. As for the GPLv3, well, check the FAQ again. Playing the legal game means playing by the rules; saying it violates the “spirit” of something that’s quite clearly written down is only asking for trouble.

    Red Hat contribute great code, and I’ve got nothing against them. Novell contribute an awful lot too, so let’s not forget that. Still, I would extend the same comment towards Red Hat.

  6. Roy Schestowitz said,

    May 22, 2007 at 9:57 pm

    Gravatar

    Regardless of the licences, the fact remains that many developers do not want Novell (Microsoft) accessing their code. Novell has knowingly dishonoured the spirit of Free software, all for self financial benefit (at its own admission).

  7. Francis said,

    May 23, 2007 at 5:42 am

    Gravatar

    You’re quite clearly ignoring everything I’ve said and still continue making the same baseless and ridiculous claims. But anyway, let me say it again:

    * Talking about the “spirit” of a legal document and license is nonsense!

    You’re dishonouring the free software spirit by clearly embodying all the traits of a poisonous person in the community (see the video above).

    You also have no real interest in discussion, or in your veracity anymore. That’s the thing: if your position is justifiable, facts can speak for you. Yet you choose to hide behind negative headlines and baseless stories will ill-formed and gratuitously speculative comments in a huge majority of the blog posts here. You’re invited by some openSUSE community members to discuss these issues, and you quite patently refuse. How curious.

  8. Roy Schestowitz said,

    May 23, 2007 at 6:10 am

    Gravatar

    I have a great deal of trust when it comes to Opensuse, but I don’t trust Novell’s management. They have proven in the past that they cannot be relied on. They thrive in secrecy and self benefit (selfishness).

    As we have said before, Opensuse might suffer due to Novell’s decisions. The blog BoycottSUSE (blogspot) is no more. I don’t know who ran it.

  9. Shane Coyle said,

    May 23, 2007 at 9:02 am

    Gravatar

    the opensuse.org people, unfortunately, are very much in the middle of this; this is because MS and Novell made a deal on their behalf that specifically singles out opensuse.org contributors as beneficiaries of a discriminatory patent peace deal that bestows non-redistributable rights to them in violation of S6 of GPL2.

    I said before, keep the code – its GPL, just get a new website and name. The easiest route to short circuiting MS’ attempt to circumvent Free Software is to take away Novell’s customers, since then there will be no one to accept MS’ patent covenant.

  10. Francis Giannaros said,

    May 24, 2007 at 4:07 am

    Gravatar

    No Shane, you’re glossing over the issue here. Please stop claiming that there is any GPLv2 violation, because you know _just_ as well as me that there is no such thing. openSUSE is still and always will be freely distributable.

    You say it’s a discriminatory patent peace, but like I’ve said countless times, nothing else has been added for everyone else. Novell’s customers have protection, but this doesn’t imply that others in the Linux community can _now_ be sued whereas they couldn’t before. That’s nonsense. Novell is one of the very founding members of the OIN ensuring and helping protect all of the others in the Linux community, so the point is still not holding.

    That’s right — openSUSE code _is_ GPL, which is exactly why it’s freely distributable. I can guarantee you that no sane person in the openSUSE community would ever really fork it. You both grossly exaggerate the effect of this. Most people in the openSUSE community have actually done their research on this issue (since there’s FUD from all sides), and hence pretty much know the truth behind the smokescreens you (and others) put up.

    Of course the shame again is that you’re not going to answer this and the discussion will end again because there’s the silly frenzy of posting on here. Once again, you decline to join any of us for a discussion, which is pretty much the most telling point I’ve seen since I’ve been on here. People will very cautiously avoid anything in which they might be demonstrated to be wrong :)

  11. Shane Coyle said,

    May 24, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    Gravatar

    Rather than reprint verbatim my GPLv2S6 argument, it is here.

    Have you read the MS Commitment to the Community that Novell accepted on OpenSUSE.org contributors’ behalf? It puts restrictions on redistribution of the code, and distinctions between commercial and non-commercial distribution and also grants non-redistributable rights to those contributors and Novell "customers".

    Just because FSF isn’t going the litigation route doesn’t mean it isn’t there, and should MS ever decide to sue anyone but Novell, S7 of GPL2 will be revisited.

    So, why not update the FAQ you always push to include Steinman’s admission that Novell does have an IP license associated with this interoperability deal, with terms we all do not know but we do know that Novell engineers are looking at MS source which is really scary.

    Go back through my submissions, feel free to pick each apart in the comments – I subscribe to the comments RSS feed and will be happy to respond to any cogent arguments. I cut you a break this one time, next time bring some facts to refute my speculations.

What Else is New


  1. Links 19/6/2018: Total War: WARHAMMER II Confirmed for GNU/Linux, DragonFlyBSD 5.2.2 Released

    Links for the day



  2. More Media Reports About Decline in Quality of European Patents (Granted by the EPO)

    What the media is saying about the letter from Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald and Vossius & Partner whilst EPO communications shift attention to shallow puff pieces about how wonderful Benoît Battistelli is



  3. Beware Team UPC's Biggest Two Lies About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    Claims that a Unified Patent Court (UPC) will commence next year are nothing but a fantasy of the Liar in Chief, Benoît Battistelli, who keeps telling lies to French media (some of which he passes EPO money to, just like he passes EPO money to his other employer)



  4. Diversity at the EPO

    Two decades of EPO with 16-17 years under the control of French Presidents (and nowadays predominantly French management in general with Inventor Award held in France almost half the time) is "diversity at the EPO"



  5. Orrin Hatch, Sponsored the Most by the Pharmaceutical Industry, Tries to Make Its Patents Immune From Scrutiny (PTAB)

    Orrin Hatch is the latest example of laws being up for sale, i.e. companies can 'buy' politicians to act as their 'couriers' and pass laws for them, including laws pertaining to patents



  6. Links 17/6/2018: Linux 4.18 RC1 and Deepin 15.6 Released

    Links for the day



  7. To Keep the Patent System Alive and Going Practitioners Will Have to Accept Compromises on Scope Being Narrowed

    35 U.S.C. § 101 still squashes a lot of software patents, reducing confidence in US patents; the only way to correct this is to reduce patent filings and file fewer lawsuits, judging their merit in advance based on precedents from higher courts



  8. The Affairs of the USPTO Have Turned Into Somewhat of a Battle Against the Courts, Which Are Simply Applying the Law to Invalidate US Patents

    The struggle between law, public interest, and the Cult of Patents (which only ever celebrates more patents and lawsuits) as observed in the midst of recent events in the United States



  9. Patent Marketing Disguised as Patent 'Advice'

    The meta-industry which profits from patents and lawsuits claims that it's guiding us and pursuing innovation, but in reality its sole goal is enriching itself, even if that means holding science back



  10. Microsoft is Still 'Cybermobbing' Its Competition Using Patent Trolls Such as Finjan

    In the "cybersecurity" space, a sub-domain where many software patents have been granted by the US patent office, the patent extortion by Microsoft-connected trolls (and Microsoft's 'protection' racket) seems to carry on; but Microsoft continues to insist that it has changed its ways



  11. Links 16/6/2018: LiMux Story, Okta Openwashing and More

    Links for the day



  12. The EPO's Response to the Open Letter About Decline in Patent Quality as the Latest Example of Arrogance and Resistance to Facts, Truth

    Sidestepping the existential crisis of the EPO (running out of work and issuing many questionable patents with expectation of impending layoffs), the PR people at the Office choose a facts-denying, face-saving 'damage control' strategy while staff speaks out, wholeheartedly agreeing with concerned stakeholders



  13. In the United States the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Which Assures Patent Quality, is Still Being Smeared by Law Firms That Profit From Patent Maximalism, Lawsuits

    Auditory roles which help ascertain high quality of patents (or invalidate low-quality patents, at least those pointed out by petitions) are being smeared, demonised as "death squads" and worked around using dirty tricks that are widely described as "scams"



  14. The 'Artificial Intelligence' (AI) Hype, Propped Up by Events of the European Patent Office (EPO), is Infectious and It Threatens Patent Quality Worldwide

    Having spread surrogate terms like “4IR” (somewhat of a 'mask' for software patents, by the EPO's own admission in the Gazette), the EPO continues with several more terms like “ICT” and now we’re grappling with terms like “AI”, which the media endlessly perpetuates these days (in relation to patents it de facto means little more than "clever algorithms")



  15. Links 15/6/2018: HP Chromebook X2 With GNU/Linux Software, Apple Admits and Closes a Back Door ('Loophole')

    Links for the day



  16. The '4iP Council' is a Megaphone of Team UPC and Team Battistelli at the EPO

    The EPO keeps demonstrating lack of interest in genuine patent quality (it uses buzzwords to compensate for deviation from the EPC and replaces humans with shoddy translators); it is being aided by law firms which work for patent trolls and think tanks that propel their interests



  17. Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald and Vossius & Partner Find the Courage to Express Concerns About Battistelli's Ugly Legacy and Low Patent Quality

    The astounding levels of abuse at the EPO have caused some of the EPO's biggest stakeholders to speak out and lash out, condemning the Office for mismanagement amongst other things



  18. IAM Concludes Its Latest Anti-§ 101 Think Tank, Featuring Crooked Benoît Battistelli

    The attack on 35 U.S.C. § 101, which invalidates most if not all software patents, as seen through the lens of a Battistelli- and Iancu-led lobbying event (set up by IAM)



  19. Google Gets Told Off -- Even by the Typically Supportive EFF and TechDirt -- Over Patenting of Software

    The EFF's Daniel Nazer, as well as TechDirt's founder Mike Masnick, won't tolerate Google's misuse of Jarek Duda's work; the USPTO should generally reject all applications for software patents -- something which a former Commissioner for Patents at the USPTO seems to be accepting now (that such patents have no potency after Alice)



  20. From the Eastern District of Texas to Delaware, US Patent Litigation is (Overall) Still Declining

    Patent disputes/conflicts are increasingly being settled outside the courts and patents that aren't really potent/eligible are being eliminated or never brought forth at all



  21. Links 13/6/2018: Cockpit 170, Plasma 5.13, Krita 4.0.4

    Links for the day



  22. When the USPTO Grants Patents in Defiance of 35 U.S.C. § 101 the Courts Will Eventually Squash These Anyway

    Software/abstract patents, as per § 101 (Section 101) which relates to Alice Corp v CLS Bank at the US Supreme Court, are not valid in the United States, albeit one typically has to pay a fortune for a court battle to show it because the patent office (USPTO) is still far too lenient and careless



  23. Buzzwords and Three-Letter Acronyms Still Abused by the EPO to Grant a Lot of Patents on Algorithms

    Aided by Microsoft lobbying (with its very many patent trolls) as well as corrupt Battistelli, the push for software patenting under the guise of "artificial intelligence" ("AI") carries on, boosted by Battistelli's own "Pravda" (which he writes for), IAM Magazine



  24. The United States is Far Better Off With the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), So Why Do Lawyers Attack It?

    The anti-PTAB lobby (which is basically the pro-troll or pro-litigation lobby) continues to belittle and insult PTAB, having repeatedly failed to dismantle it; in the meantime PTAB is disarming several more patent trolls and removing from the system patents which were granted in error (as well as the associated lawsuits)



  25. Links 12/6/2018: Neovim 0.3 and Wine 3.10

    Links for the day



  26. Corrupt Benoît Battistelli Promotes Software Patents in IAM's Patent Trolls-Funded Event in the United States

    With less than 3 weeks remaining for Battistelli's term he engages in gross revisionism, lobbying, and even looting of the patent office



  27. The EPO's 'Expert' Georg Weber is Still Advocating Software Patents in Europe (But He Disguises Them Using Buzzwords)

    The EPO's overzealous support for software patents continues unabated while the European Parliament looks the other way; this is part of the plan to expand patent scope in Europe and flood the continent with low-quality patents (causing a ruinous litigation boom like in China)



  28. Battistelli's EPO is Outdoing North Korea When It Comes to Propaganda and Abuses Against Staff

    Battistelli’s ‘scorched Earth’ approach — his sole legacy at the EPO — has left many workers in mental breakdowns (if not dead), but to celebrate the ‘Battistelli years’ three weeks before the end of his term the Office issues new propaganda material (pertaining exclusively to the Battistelli years, 2010 to 2018) while Battistelli-leaning media offers ‘cover’



  29. IPBC, a Patent Trolls-Funded Event of IAM, is Advancing the Attacks on Section 101/Alice

    Andrei Iancu preaches to the litigation 'industry' in an event (lobbying opportunity) organised by the patent trolls' lobby, IAM



  30. PTAB Carries on Undeterred and Unabated, Courts Are Becoming Less Tolerant of Low-Quality Patents

    With the shift away from the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) and with PTAB applying growing levels of scrutiny to patents the likelihood that abstract patents will endure at the patent office or the courts is greatly diminished


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts