Thanks a lot, Alex, for all the feedback that helps me see where the post was deficient. I won’t link here (not without expressing the flaws in the anchor).

This site is not meant as a biography on Novell. It’s intended to highlight potential problem areas and maybe even help anticipate adverse developments that may come our way. With limited information accessible, there are going to exist over-reactions and misleading conclusions. At the same time, we all know that a failure to prove something doesn’t mean that something did not happen, so we want to stay awake and keep theories on the table.

In this specific case, I think that the press release you mentioned should be brought to the reader’s attention [RS wrote up a blurb at the top pointing in this general direction]; however, the press release, while full of possibly great promise (it is vague), is still short on results. I would agree that the EFF partnership with Novell is definitely something to keep an eye on.

If RS writes up something else on this topic that is more formal, he now has even more material to work with.

That isn’t a misunderstanding, it’s a point of contention.

I know you’d like to think that you’re in no way responsible for what you write, and it doesn’t matter what you say, but it does. You’re harming the free software community, please stop it.

At the very least, you owe it to your readership to either spend a few minutes doing basic research on what you write, or put a large warning on the top of the site that you a. don’t do any research and b. rarely read the articles before you post them (both of which you’ve admitted on more than one occasion). It’s dishonest otherwise.

*There’s* the misunderstanding.

To be honest, I’m not surprised that you’d never seen that Novell PR before; it’s not like you’re ever going to read such things on this site.

In terms of OIN, I think you have to look at the global picture. You can want to see an end to software patents but still want to put in place the means to defend yourself against them. Novell (et al) have actually gone further than that: they set up OIN to defend the *community*. If Microsoft sue a Linux developer, OIN has to respond with a counter-suit. The existence of OIN does nothing to promote software patents; if anything, it helps make the case that they are not useful, because freely licensing them to all makes clear that Novell (et al) are not interested in the economic rights to the patents.

You will not find any serious anti-patent campaigner who thinks that OIN is a bad idea.

In terms of hating free software: I didn’t name Roy; I said “people”. I view people who twist the good work of companies and developers into mean words as hating free software.

It’s fair to criticise anyone in the community, including Novell, for the things that they do wrong. It’s unfair to criticise people for the things that they do right, though.

Unfortunately, all this site does is post criticism of any type. It’s not all fair criticism; in fact I would worry that the majority of it is unfair criticism. With an article as problematic as this one, it’s extremely disheartening to see the author take no steps to correct it. People coming here will believe what they are reading is true, and that is sadly far from the truth.

I want to make my position clear. I appreciate having amicable discussions. I do understand this website bothers you, but I value a lot of what gets put here.

Roy, not making it clear boycottnovell.com was a blog may have lead to unnecessary pain for all sides.

>> At the end of the day, this article stated that Novell loves software patents when in fact it helps the EFF bust them and purchases potentially harmful patents so that it can donate them to the free software community.
>> Having that opinion is “fine” in so far as we can’t stop people hating free software. But to dance around the issue when presented with facts is pretty sad.

You can’t seriously hang around here and think RS hates free software.

You presented a very interesting press release. I hadn’t seen that link before. The patent issue might be one where Novell can help itself while also really helping us.

Though I am encouraged in reading about what Novell might do, the situation today remains that IMO Novell is fairly clearly hurting FOSS through their extensive helping hand towards Microsoft (even excluding patent issues). I understand it’s just business for them, but that is besides the point.

A press release without details and about future plans could be nothing more than a delay tactic PR episode aimed at FOSS developers (they are in need of these) or could turn out to be but an exaggeration of what ultimately comes to pass [..new just-in-time CEO leads to project cancellation].

It’s expected that Novell has to try and win over developers. Two things to look for: (a) will anything of real value come out of this joint effort with the EFF and (b) will they keep massaging Microsoft’s back and keep their fate bolted to Microsoft’s ship?

A Novell that smiles for the cameras (think of philanthropist* Bill Gates) and dutifully keeps employees (paid through Microsoft provided funds) hanging around EFF workers could end up being useless. It might even be hurtful. The press release was full of pleasing sounding generalities. It wasn’t full of results.

>> .. deny that contributing these patents to OIN is a good thing .. called OIN “harmful” even though it protects free software ….

I think this was covered. If the OIN increases the odds that sw patents be kept in the books in any but the most watered down form, then it hurts FOSS. That is an opinion I share with RS, and I roughly explained that a few times in earlier comments.

Novell’s talk is always about how change will not come in any meaningful way any time soon. Having that be the case helps their business, but it hurts FOSS. They attempt to rationalize in public that they are simply trying to do the only thing that can really be done since Microsoft will remain in control for a long time. “Patents won’t change,” you’ll also hear them say.

What will or will not happen is not something I can predict. What I do know is what is or isn’t acceptable to me as a user and developer. I don’t own a Ferrari. I did not apply to work at Novell or at Microsoft. I don’t accept patent or Microsoft rule for an indeterminate period of time.

The inevitability of software patents helps many large commercial players besides Novell. The inevitability of Microsoft’s dominance helps Microsoft and Novell and some others. I don’t accept either of these.

I am not sure if the OIN is involved in this, but the project to help weed out bad patents is a horrible one. It simply ensures that after doing a bunch of free R&D for these patent companies, they then can tell the investment and business world that they own something that is unlikely to fail in court. In only increases the strength of their hand after us having wasted huge amounts of time. And this hand can be used against us [this might be negotiable].

I won’t take a position that contributions to/from the OIN are absolutely a mistake, but you should now have a clue that I am not likely to be very impressed with Novell’s efforts unless and until they help achieve significant patent reform. Short of abolishing software/business/etc patents across the board, I am not sure what I would find an acceptable consolation prize. …Well, keeping the system broken and with the big guys taking losses is fine with me for the time being.

And as already stated, don’t let this patent storyline distract from this: http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-09-08-026-35-RV-SW-0001

And don’t forget that Novell might simply be working the EFF into accepting as an achievable goal (significantly) less that what is just. I think that R&D should be rewarded, and it can be. In the FOSS world, the fit learn to leverage the community.

Anyway, if it makes IBM, Novell, and others feel happy to get some brownie points by using their patents to defend FOSS (and the horrible system), then that is fine, but some brownie points only works so long as no legit FOSS business or project gets seriously hampered, and it doesn’t equate with a free ticket to ride Microsoft.

..just remembered that RS clearly stated that patent trolls are not affected by OIN. I think we all recognize why. So Novell’s past patent contributions are possibly marginal in the big picture.

[Software patents help the big guys. I am not necessarily against this if FOSS is protected, but FOSS must be protected. This must be so, even if these companies have a change of heart/management tomorrow. I could accept this scenario since it would help to eliminate closed source software which means users would generally be more empowered. Plus, the low profile, not widely distributed closed source software is not going to become a target.]

The above are my opinions. IANAL. The conditions are what would satisfy me and possibly no one else. YMMV. Etc.

Thanks for your balanced comments, but I think at this point it’s too late – the comments are as bad as the article.

So far I’ve seen Roy deny that contributing these patents to OIN is a good thing, deny that Novell even donated them to the OIN, he called OIN “harmful” even though it protects free software and admitted that he deliberately omits information from readers and that he was unwilling to spend time on anything which could praise Novell.

At the end of the day, this article stated that Novell loves software patents when in fact it helps the EFF bust them and purchases potentially harmful patents so that it can donate them to the free software community.

Having that opinion is “fine” in so far as we can’t stop people hating free software. But to dance around the issue when presented with facts is pretty sad. Talking about “average quality” of articles on this site is like taking depth readings from a cesspit imho.

I understand the reader might think these are 39 still usable against FOSS. That I didn’t think that when doing the mini review is possibly because I had been reading the comments already.

It’s also questionable to use only an example where Novell donated all of those patents.

An update at the top of the blog that clarifies all of this might be useful. And better yet would be to give examples of other patent acquisitions that they still have. [Roy, ask for help in IRC?]

I think it’s always a possibility that Novell might use patents directly against FOSS, but this is true for almost any company. In fact, it seems unreasonable at this point in time that Novell would add more gasoline by attempting this. It also doesn’t make that much sense if they are going to deal in GPLv3 sw. Any old troll could just as easily be used.

OTOH, SCOX case suggests that should Novell fail/give up with FOSS (something that must always be considered about those partnering with Microsoft), they could easily return completely to their closed source roots and then go on the attack (GPLv3 would be no issue if the Linux business was abandoned or marginalized). That is what SCOX did I believe. Also, like SCOX, Novell has particular insight and dealings with Linux/FOSS and with anti-FOSS “IP” environments. Novell’s possibly still existing financial woes (maybe much worse than they let on as other boycottnovell write-ups have suggested) further increases the likelihood that they might decide to pull a SCOX. Add that they own significant UNIX copyrights (but there was a “promise” not to sue.. directly).

It seems that (for now) Novell is trying to play the good cop in a good/bad cop routine. They have to be willing to go along and support the bad cop, but they want to otherwise personally try to keep their hands as clean as possible.

I don’t let the proverbial driver of the get-away car get off the hook. They may get less time, but they are not innocent and did help pull off the crime more successfully. In some cases, the driver may have played an extremely important role, possibly one that few others could have played, in which case they are that much more responsible for actually participating.

Novell is not stupid. They are getting close to Microsoft in ways that leverage Microsoft’s bullying and patents in their favor. They actively help spread and/or secure Microsoft’s monopoly dominance and advantages. For some words on mono/dotnet, see http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2008-09-08-026-35-RV-SW-0001 .

Roy, maybe provide a quick update comment saying there may be problems with that analysis or adjust it somehow. Maybe specifically invite the reader to read these comments in order to get an alternative viewpoint.

I’m not sure what is best for this site. Roy has tasked himself with quite a job that as is is very useful. Improvements would always be welcomed by the community but would be extra taxing. At what point is the average quality of the postings good enough or not good enough?

As I keep pointing out, stating that Novell bought the CommerceOne patents and then stating that Novell could use patents against free software is unfair and misleading: we’ve both agreed now that Novell cannot use those patents.

You can claim Novell is the next SCO if you like, but to stop misleading people you should also point out that they could not do that with the CommerceOne patents since they have donated them to OIN.

Thankfully people have a chance to read the truth in the comments…

This is not a journal paper. Not every word and possible interpretation needs to be scrutinised to death.

You compared Novell to SCO in both the second and fourth paragraph. Were those criticisms also completely unrelated to the CommerceOne patents?

When you said that Microsoft could, in theory, use Novell to assert patents against free software, why did you put that immediately under the CommerceOne story (where you claim you already knew that Novell had donated those patents to free software)? You don’t think a reader would infer that you’re suggesting Novell could use the CommerceOne patents against free software?

That’s attacking Novell. You attack them even though the patents you explicitly refer to were *donated* by Novell to the cause of free software:

“I’d go further and say that OIN can be a little harmful”.

Your words, Roy.