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. Patents Roundup: Bad Quality (USPTO), Bad Analysis (India), Bad Microsoft, Bad Actors (Trolls), Bad Scope (Software Patents), and the Ugly

    A mishmash of news about patents, mostly regarding the United States, and what can be deduced at the moment



  2. Links 26/6/2016: IceCat 38.8.0, Wine 1.9.13

    Links for the day



  3. With UPC Dead for Battistelli's Entire Remaining Term, No Reason for the EPO or the Administrative Council to Keep Battistelli Around

    Thoughts about what happens to the EPO's leadership after 'Brexit' (British exit from the EU), which severely undermines Battistelli's biggest project that he habitually used to justify his incredible abuses



  4. Links 24/6/2016: Xen Project 4.7, Cinnamon 3.0.6

    Links for the day



  5. Benoît Battistelli Should Resign in Light of New Leak of Decision in His Vendetta Against Truth-Telling Judge (Updated)

    Benoît Battistelli continues to break the EPO's own rules, not just national laws, as a new decision helps reveal



  6. Fake Patents on Software From Fake Australian 'Inventor' of Bitcoin and the Globally-Contagious Nature of EPO Patent Scope

    News from Australia regarding software patents that should not be granted and how patent lawyers from Australia rely on European patent law (EPO and UK-IPO) for guidance on patent scope



  7. Patent Lawyers Love (and Amplify) Halo and Enfish, Omit or Dismiss Cuozzo and Alice

    By misinterpreting the current situation with respect to software patents and misusing terms like "innovation" patent lawyers and others in the patent microcosm hope to convince the public (or potential clients) that nothing in effect has changed and software patents are all fine and dandy



  8. Looks Increasingly Plausible That Battistelli is Covering up Bogus and/or Illegally-Obtained 'Evidence' From the EPO's Investigative Unit

    Why we believe that Benoît Battistelli is growingly desperate to hide evidence of rogue evidence-collecting operations which eventually landed himself -- not the accused -- in a catastrophic situation that can force his resignation



  9. As Decision on the UK's EU Status Looms, EPO Deep in a Crisis of Patent Quality

    Chaotic situation at the EPO and potential changes in the UK cause a great deal of debate about the UPC, which threatens to put the whole or Europe at the mercy of patent trolls from abroad



  10. Another Demonstration by European Patent Office (EPO) Staff on Same Day as Administrative Council's Meeting

    SUEPO (staff union of the EPO) continues to organise staff actions against extraordinary injustice by Benoît Battistelli and his flunkies whom he gave top positions at the EPO



  11. Links 23/6/2016: Red Hat Results, Randa Stories

    Links for the day



  12. Interview With FOSSForce/All Things Free Tech

    New interview with Robin "Roblimo" Miller on behalf of FOSSForce



  13. Links 22/6/2016: PulseAudio 9.0, GNOME 3.21.3 Released

    Links for the day



  14. IP Europe's UPC Lobbying and the EPO Connection

    The loose but seemingly ever-growing connections between AstroTurfing groups like IP Europe (pretending to represent SMEs) and EPO staff which is lobbying-centric



  15. EPO “Recruitment of Brits is Down by 80%”

    Letter says that “recruitment of Brits is down by 80%” and "the EPO lost 7% of UK staff in one year"



  16. The Conspiracy of Patent Lawyers for UPC and Battistelli's Role in Preparing by Firing People

    The parasitic firms that lobby for the UPC and actually create it -- firms like those that pass money to Battistelli's EPO -- are doing exactly the opposite of what Europe needs



  17. Patent Lawyers, Having Lost Much of the Battle for Software Patents in the US, Resort to Harmful Measures and Spin

    A quick glance at how patent lawyers and their lobbyists/advocates have reacted to the latest decision from the US Supreme Court (Justice Breyer)



  18. Links 21/6/2016: Fedora 24 and Point Linux MATE 3.2 Officially Released

    Links for the day



  19. Supreme Court on Cuozzo v Lee Another Major Loss for Software Patents in the United States

    Much-anticipated decision on the Cuozzo v Lee case (at the highest possible level) serves to defend the appeal boards which are eliminating software patents by the thousands



  20. As Alice Turns Two, Bilski Blog Says 36,000 (Software) Patent Applications Have Been Rejected Thanks to It

    A look back at the legacy of Alice v CLS Bank and how it contributed to the demise of software patents in the United States, the birthplace of software patents



  21. EPO Self-Censorship by IP Kat or Just Censorship of Opinions That IP Kat Does Not Share/Accept (Updated)

    ree speech when it's needed the most (EPO scandals) needs to be respected; or why IP Kat shoots itself in the foot and helps the EPO's management by 'sanitising' comments



  22. Caricature: Bygmalion Patent Office

    The latest cartoon regarding Battistelli's European Patent Office



  23. Links 21/6/2016: GNU/Linux in China's HPC, Linux 4.7 RC4

    Links for the day



  24. Under Battistelli's Regime the EPO is a Lawless, Dark Place

    How the EPO's Investigative Unit (IU) and Control Risks Group (CRG), which is connected to the Stasi through Desa, made the EPO virtually indistinguishable from East Germany (coat of arms/emblem above)



  25. New Paper Demonstrates That Unitary Patent (UPC) is Little More Than a Conspiracy of Patent 'Professionals' and Their Self Interest

    Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna's latest paper explains that the UPC “expert teams” are in fact not experts but people who are using the UPC as a Trojan horse by which to promote their business interests and corporate objectives



  26. Money Flying to Private Companies Without Tenders at Battistelli's EPO (by the Tens of Millions!)

    Extravagant and cushy contracts to the tune of tens of millions of Euros are being issued without public scrutiny and without opportunities to competition (few corporations easily score cushy EPO contracts while illusion of tendering persists -- for small jobs only)



  27. Patent Examiners and Insiders Acknowledge Profound Demise in Patent Quality Under Battistelli

    By lowering the quality of patents granted by the European Patent Office Battistelli hopes to create an illusion of success, where success is not measured properly and is assessed by biased firms which he finances



  28. Jericho Systems Threatens Alice, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Threatens the Patent Trial and Appeal (PTAB)

    A look at the two latest threats to those who helped put an end to a lot of (if not most) software patents in the US



  29. How the Halo Electronics Case Helps Patent Trolls and How Publications Funded by Patent Trolls (IAM for Instance) Covered This

    A Supreme Court ruling on patents, its implications for software patent trolls, and how media that is promoting software patents and patent trolls covered it



  30. Patent Lawyers' Fantasy Land Where Software Patents Are Suddenly Resurrected Even When They're Not

    A quick glance at where the debate over software patents in the United States stands and how profiteers (such as patent lawyers) not only mislead the public but also bully the messengers


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