For those who still believe and insist that cries about Novell's deeds are unjustified, here comes another rather compelling way of presenting the situation. A day ago we showed that Novell had served as Document Freedom Day's black sheep. It turns out that were were not alone in noticing this. Have a look: [via LinuxToday]

I just hope it's a better kind of help than C#, OOXML, and a barely-working Silverlight clone. Unless you have some grand scheme for making software patents go away?

Miguel, you're a smart person and I respect what you've done. But your current infatuation with All Things Microsoft is, frankly, scaring me and a lot of other people. I didn't switch to Linux so I could have Microsoft technologies in my face.

More importantly, watch what chromatic says in reference to an issue that was raised earlier, its context being OSBC 2008 and downstreaming of code/binaries.

Don't Work Downstream from Redmond

[...]

This is my problem with Microsoft’s patent pledge, with the Microsoft-Novell deal over codecs for Monopolight, and just about everything coming out of Redmond except for the pretty words of the open source interoperability lab.

Discriminatory distribution clauses are contrary to the four freedoms of software. Couching that discrimination in the language of business ($40 billion in annual revenue seems like a pretty fair return for $7 billion in annual research to me) and waving the tired old tatters of the flag of innovation doesn’t make that discrimination right, and it doesn’t hide it very well.

Whether we have Microsoft impose its unique rules and interpretation upon our own licences or not, with things like Moonlight around, Microsoft simply passes its own licences to us, which essentially beats the whole divide. It works well for Microsoft (and Novell, which claims to have received exclusive 'protection'). Why else would Miguel denounce the Novell/Microsoft deal, the context being Moonlight very specifically?

Can anybody not see this yet? ⬆