Summary: Bad signs appear as Attachmate puts SUSE aside but continues to ‘hoard’ UNIX rights, dissociating one’s importance to the other
ATTACHMATE has been ensuring that it can maintain its status as a proprietary software company. Executives who were committed to a different agenda were mostly removed, expelled, or simply left. Mono developers were fired without exception and SUSE was relocated and relegated to Germany, where developers are now dependent on funding from Microsoft. What is actually left in Attachmate which is “open source”? Even Vibe was axed as we had predicted all along; it was in part based on Free software from Google (Wave).
Attachmate, a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner, is putting new people in charge and the Deccan Herald (insisting on just Internet Explorer or Netscape even in 2011) speaks about the spinoff called SUSE, which is basically partly funded by Microsoft now (to help put Microsoft tax on GNU/Linux servers). Attachmate is also the ‘owner’ of early UNIX copyrights, according to this latest report which adds:
“Novell’s board of directors adopted a resolution approving the sale, which specifically mentioned the copyrights were to be retained by Novell,” the judges said in the opinion.
This was the second time the appeals court ruled on this case. In the first appeal it reversed a lower-court ruling in Novell’s favor and sent the case back. After a two-week trial, the jury ruled Novell owned the copyrights. SCO appealed.
A spokeswoman for Linden, Utah-based SCO, Chantell Ferrin, didn’t immediately reply to messages seeking comment.
There is also a derailed analysis behind an apparent paywall at Lexology. We are still not sure what Attachmate will do with these copyrights. It is not as though the company has any commitment to Free software or to UNIX. Given the amount of time and money Novell has invested in this case, it is rather unlikely that UNIX will just be left there to rot and bring no revenue to Attachmate, even if through a sale. Unlike Novell, Attachmate has no need to keep up appearance and keep UNIX away from enemies of Linux. Will these be sold to IBM maybe? Or perhaps to some foe of Red Hat? This is a question that has generally bothered us since 2007 and we wrote about it many times before. We must pay attention to Attachmate’s actions and statements. █
Summary: Apple adopts SCO-like tactics against Linux and rebuttals are posted to show Apple’s nerve
NOT so long before Android was born, Rubin had escaped Microsoft's destructive hand (Rubin is like the Torvalds of Android) and Apple is currently trying to spin what Android really is, pretty much in the same way SCO tried to spin what Linux was, claiming fraudulently (without evidence) that Linux had been derived from its (actually Novell’s) UNIX. As a little reminder, the SCO case seems to be just about over:
Legal experts at Groklaw said that, technically, SCO can ask the US Supreme Court to hear a further appeal, but the specialists expect that such a motion would most likely be rejected without a hearing by the US Supreme Court.
Those who keep an eye on an anti-Android lobbyists will notice a new pattern of FUD. Apple is trying to claim that Android started or was conceived at Apple and the best rebuttal we’ve found so far can be found here. It says:
Apple which lost its case against Android in Europe seems to be getting desperate. Anti-Android propaganda machine now wants the press to believe that Android started at Apple. Why? Just because Andy Rubin, Android creator, once worked at Apple.
The claim is laughable as Andy was a low-level engineer at Apple between 1989-1992, with seemingly no access to the core projects. That was the time when Apple did not even have a clear future, let alone having any concept of the iPhone or the iPad.
It’s sounds more ludicrous because even if there is remotest of the remote possibility that Apple was even thinking of any such device in 1989 it would be extremely secretive about it and someone as low as Andy would never have access to it.
Big companies don’t work the way these propagandists want us to think. Do you think ever engineer at Microsoft gets access to the entire code of Windows 7? No. They get to see only one or two unrelated parts of it. It’s like working at Boeing and all you get to see is a nut. You can’t get inspiration of 747 from a nut, or can you?
Just like SCO, Apple is losing to Linux, so we expect to see many lies being spread. We sure need to counter those. Muktware does a decent job. █
Summary: Novell (Attachmate) owns UNIX copyrights, but it is also the source of Microsoft’s “Linux tax” (through SUSE) — a tax which it markets as patent assurance
A federal appeals court has upheld a jury verdict and a lower court ruling in a trial that found Novell Inc. — not The SCO Group — owned the copyrights to the Unix computer software operating system before 1995.
The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the jury’s verdict from last year in a lawsuit filed by SCO in 2004 as part of its broader efforts to sue IBM over alleged use of Unix code as a model for parts of the rival Linux operating system.
The court upheld the verdict against SCO, saying “ample evidence in the record supported the jury’s verdict and Novell’s position.” It also upheld rulings in Novell’s favor by U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart, who presided over the trial.
This is all very nice. However, to lose sight of the fact that Novell is now being used by Attachmate (via SUSE) to pay Microsoft for GNU/Linux regardless of copyrights would not be wise. The main problem has shifted along with Microsoft’s strategy.
The Register joined YouTube on the 9th of May (2011) and it reminds of us those ads disguised as “content” which it did back in the days for Novell and Microsoft A day or so ago it uploaded this video which characteristically spins a patent deal as collaboration. Viewer should beware and see if they can spot the spin. Novell is not the “good guy”. Like in many wars, both sides can be “bad guys”, ass Zinn (a former bombardier) once explained. █
Summary: A look at what Attachmate does with Novell’s side affairs having passed software patents to Microsoft (via CPTN)
ONE THING we keep reminding readers is that Attachmate, a proponent of proprietary software and prominent Microsoft partner, neglects Novell after it gave Microsoft the patents and did almost nothing to utilise Novell’s assets. As an aside, the OpenSUSE project is still very quiet for known reasons, with the exception of cyclical posts like People of OpenSUSE, milestone announcements (very low-profile these days), Weekly News (latest), and flash-player alerts (because Adobe’s software is shoddy). The Mono trap which is banshee (patent-encumbered) is still spreading through OpenSUSE (one of the first distributions to adopt it, if not the first) and we cannot help wondering what the future has in store. Novell is no longer around and Attachmate distanced itself from this project, on which it still has trademarks. Attachmate in general is a very mysterious entity with mysterious funding sources [1, 2, 3].
Groklaw‘s PJ (Pamela Jones) is still around; she is watching Novell’s case against SCO — a case which Attachmate has not halted based on this assessment. It is interesting that, as far as we know, no interviewer has yet asked Attachmate about the court cases against Microsoft and SCO. Attachmate has made no statement about it either, just as it hardly names OpenSUSE or makes a plan for another SLE* release (maybe 12 would be expected, as SLE* 11 contains old packages).
Enterprise software supplier Attachmate has announced the appointment of Norman Rohde as Vice President of Sales for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Attachmate specializes in software solutions for terminal emulation, legacy modernization, managed file transfer, and enterprise fraud management.
Considering news like this, what are the chances that Attachmate will stick to Novell’s strategy with court cases and OpenSUSE? We will definitely keep an eye open. █
Summary: PR campaigns against GNU/Linux and where these are coming from; a quick rebuttal to them is presented here
Disinformation is being disseminated and it must also be countered before it spreads further. Why is it that Sophos (which we recently mentioned as it had hired a manager from Novell) says MyDoom “became widespread in no time, which was particularly concerning for software firm SCO – whose website it targeted with a distributed denial-of-service attack from infected computers as part of a civil war between different factions of the Linux community”?
SCO was a faction of the “Linux community”? Hardly. And in any event, this is a case of disinformation as well.
This was posted quietly in a blog a couple of days ago and Groklaw rebutted by writing: “First, MyDoom doesn’t affect Linux computers, only Windows. Both Hyponnen and Symantec reported in August of 2004 that it was not Linux folks behind MyDoom. It was professional spammers in Eastern Europe.”
We happened to have cited a profane post the other day — a post from someone who now says that the “Linux desktop is at the edge of a cliff now. It’s up to us to decide whether we would save it or push it over the edge.”
Actually, GNU/Linux on the desktop grew in the sense that it is ‘integrated’ into motherboards and Google preinstalls it on Chromebooks. The quote the introduction of this post which we do not agree with and also a rebuttal:
A few days back I wrote a somewhat controversial article called, “The Linux desktop experience is killing Linux on the desktop”. While many readers seem to have grasped the true purpose of the article, a lot of people claimed that it was nothing but FUD (a favorite term of many people in the Linux community, who would rather ignore existing problems than face/acknowledge them).
If you’ve read my last post and generally agree with it – don’t bother reading this one. It’s basically more of the same – in greater detail and with less profanities.
People in the Linux community… the real Linux community… go on as always and life does too.
That latter post from Pete does not say exactly what he responds to, but it is probably a combination of things, including the trolls who insinuated that proprietary software from Adobe getting a lukewarm response from GNU/Linux users is somehow indicative or something. The whole “AIR” news was initially somewhat of a PR move for Adobe to join the Linux Foundation. The whole “AIR” experiment has been failing on all platforms, not just GNU/Linux. Wait until all platforms are dropped.
When it comes to GNU/Linux on the desktop, not much has changed. When it comes to the desktop, a lot is changing. People move to smartphones and mobile devices, sometimes at the expense of the desktop. Linux and Android do very well in those new form factors, where they are ubiquitous and unstoppable (Apple and Microsoft now resort to using software patents against these). █
Summary: SUSE is no longer investing in Mono, AttachMSFT might invest in the SCO trial, and SCO’s Sandy Gupta works for Microsoft, harming Red Hat and selling Microsoft’s proprietary software/malware for Linux
ATTACHMSFT has not been saying much about its plans. It drops some clues every now and then, but none of this amounts to contractual commitment. SUSE’s managers mentioned they would support Mono, but the following article contradicts it somewhat. “New Suse director swears off Mono,” is how our reader describes it, quoting:
Brauckmann confirms that SUSE is no longer investing in the project, but quickly added that SUSE would be supporting any commercial customers using Mono that have support contracts. “The rest of the SUSE roadmap stays intact,” Brauckmann says. “No other products will be changed.”
Groklaw is more active than ever, especially in the News Picks section where Pamela Jones is very omnipresent (and who can blame her? It is hard to let SCO and Microsoft just carry on their attacks without immediate rebuttals). She quotes from this article, concluding: “This is the first positive sign I’ve seen, in that Ralf Flaxa provided a declaration in support of IBM against SCO back in 2006.”
She seems to believe that the SCO case will carry on and quoting this Desert News article, she notes that “David Bradford, if you recall, testified for Novell against SCO at the most recent jury trial.” To quote:
Still, he said he has “high hopes” for the future of Novell in the wake of its acquisition by The Attachmate Group.
The dust is settling in Attachmate’s purchase of Novell, with Attachmate officially announcing the leadership and organization of its new SUSE business unit on May 18. But despite management assurances, SUSE users remain concerned about the future care and feeding of their Linux distribution of choice.
Nils Brauckmann, the unit’s new president and general manager, pledged “to build a dedicated and focused SUSE business unit, strengthen the SUSE brand with the SUSE logo and get the SUSE message to customers, alliances and the media, and align resources.”
Novell’s account uploads in YouTube are still for proprietary software [1, 2, 3], so this is probably where AttachMSFT is heading. SCO was the same after the Caldera days.
Speaking of the SCO case, Groklaw says that bankruptcy hearings are still being delayed, which probably serves SCO pretty well because Novell is in a state of turmoil/disarray at the moment , just like SCO. Is somebody buying time?
The bankruptcy court has cancelled the hearing scheduled for next Monday, May 23rd, and rescheduled any open matters from that hearing for June 17 at 2:30 p.m. The bankruptcy court has also issued a new Omnibus Hearing Order setting the dates for future hearings. In addition to the June 17th session, hearings are now scheduled for July 18, 2011 at 2:30 p.m., August 15, 2011 at 11:00 a.m., and September 12, 2011 at 10:30 a.m.
SCO and Microsoft would love to tax such things. They also try to tax CentOS using proprietary software addons, as we explained earlier in the week. The other day we showed a post from Microsoft about the subject, but what we did not notice was its author (link rel=”nofollow”ed). “Sandy Gupta of SCO infamy, who tried to persuade the court that ELF is copyrighted by SCO and no one can use it without infringing SCO’s rights, now invites people to run CentOS under Microsoft HypeV control. What a bad idea,” put it our reader, who basically paraphrased Groklaw. The original wording from Jones: “OMG. Look who posted this. It’s Sandy Gupta of SCO fame or infamy, depending on your point of view. Remember his code collage trying to persuade the court that ELF is copyrighted by SCO and no one can use it without infringing SCO’s rights, and how Dr. Brian Kernighan called Gupta’s copyright analysis “indefensible”? When he first went to Microsoft, Gupta was Director, Technical Competitive Strategy of the Server & Tools Division. Gupta’s now General Manager of Marketing, Open Solutions Group, Microsoft. Frankly, that makes me start wondering if anything will ever really come of this CentOS announcement, or whether it’s so much marketing.” Gupta now received big paychecks from Microsoft ('pulling an O'Kelly', the usual way). █
“[Microsoft's] Mr. Emerson and I discussed a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would ‘backstop,’ or guarantee in some way, BayStar’s investment…. Microsoft assured me that it would in some way guarantee BayStar’s investment in SCO.”
Resumen: Groklaw 2.0 será administrado por el profesor Webbink, que está afiliado con el Software Freedom Law Center
Pamela Jones se retira después de 8 largos años en Groklaw y le damos las gracias por todo el trabajo duro[http://techrights.org/2011/05/14/gracias-a-groklaw/]. He aquí su último mensaje[http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110513165421803] (más probable) sobre SCO. Esto demuestra que incluso después de 8 años en la sala de SCO no ha muerto. Esta empresa es objetable aún contando los centavos y obtener un poco más que provienen de fuentes misteriosas. Pamela escribe:
Por lo tanto, vamos a ver. Eso es quince años, llevar a la …. wow. Blank Rome dice que se le debe un total de $ 652,612.55, si mis matemáticas son correctas, y que les gustaría ahora el 80% de las tasas y todos los gastos pagados, para un total de $ 523,695.85. Eso no es sin contar los proyectos de ley de Ocean Park. ¿Qué significa que SCO todavía dejó de pagar sus cuentas? Sólo Dios sabe, pero aquí están los últimos informes mensuales operativo SCO presentó a finales de febrero, cuando SCO Operaciones lista de 779.827 dólares en efectivo en el banco a finales de ese mes.
Estoy pensando después de la SCO paga Blank Rome y Ocean Park, lo que habrá de sobra para Yarro y LeapTide o cualquier otra persona? Sin todas las cifras, ¿quién puede decir, pero sospecho que esto podría explicar su repentina aparición en la escena. Estoy pensando que esto podría ser interesante.
Espere. ¿Quieres decir que … Yarro y la banda hizo todo esto para nada?
Esperamos poder interactuar con el profesor Webbink, cuya función será, aparentemente, para realizar un seguimiento de los casos de patentes y ofrecer un sólido análisis[http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110515173831922]. Para citar último mensaje de Pamela:
Así que pensé acerca de quién sería la persona adecuada. Ahora que el campo de batalla se ha desplazado SCO de atacando a Linux a Microsoft usando patentes en contra de ella y de los servidores a los móviles, me di cuenta de que Groklaw necesita un abogado en el timón. Así que le pedí a Mark Webbink si llevaría a cabo en este papel, y estoy encantado de decir que él ha aceptado. Él es el nuevo editor de Groklaw a partir de hoy. Mark era asesor general de Red Hat, como usted sabe, y él está en el tablero del Software Freedom Law Center. También es profesor de derecho, que lo voy a explicar es una pieza vital de lo que él ha planeado. Mark es un profesor visitante en la New York Law School, donde dirige el Centro de Innovaciones de Patentes, supervisa la Peer Para proyectar la patente se ejecutan con la Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de EE.UU., ha estado activo en la búsqueda de la reforma del sistema de patentes de EE.UU., y enseña de licencia de patentes . Además, Mark es un asociado principal conferencia en la Universidad de Duke Facultad de Derecho, donde enseña de propiedad intelectual (patentes, derechos de autor, marcas registradas y secretos comerciales) de concesión de licencias. Mark tiene acceso a los estudiantes de derecho en las facultades de derecho y muchos otros. Además, Mark se ha mantenido interesado e involucrado en el Software Libre y de Código Abierto y relacionado con cuestiones de propiedad intelectual y es autor del capítulo sobre el derecho tecnología de EE.UU. incluyó en un libro que pronto será puesto a dispisición del público, acerca de derecho del Software de Código Libre y Abierto.
¿Qué hay de SCO?
Profesor Webbink está en contra de las patentes de software[http://techrights.org/2007/10/21/webbink-software-patents-ip/] y no es amigo de Novell[http://techrights.org/2007/05/05/mark-webbink-on-trust-oracle-and-novell/]. Con el ya fallecido Novell subiendo algunos videos[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zayZDaISjvQ&feature=youtube_gdata] y OpenSUSE lanzando apenas posts[http://news.opensuse.org/2011/05/14/opensuse-weekly-news-issue-175-is-out/], queda por ver lo que realmente va a pasar en el caso SCO/Novell. █
[Update: Mark Webbink has asked to clarify that he is no longer associated with Red Hat]
Excellent appointment
Summary: Groklaw 2.0 will be managed by Professor Webbink, who is affiliated with the Software Freedom Law Center and Red Hat
Pamela Jones is retiring after 8 long years in Groklaw and we thank her for all the hard work. Here is her last post (most likely) about SCO. It shows that even after 8 years in the courtroom SCO is not dead. This objectionable company is still counting the pennies and getting some more from mysterious sources. Pamela writes:
So, let’s see. That’s fifteen, carry the one…. wow. Blank Rome says it is owed a total of $652,612.55, if my math is right, and they would like now 80% of the fees and all the expenses paid, for a total of $523,695.85. That’s not even counting the bills from Ocean Park. What does SCO still have to left to pay its bills? God only knows, but here are the last monthly operating reports SCO filed as of the end of February, where SCO Operations listed $779,827 in cash in the bank at the end of that month.
I’m thinking after SCO pays Blank Rome and Ocean Park, what will there be left over for Yarro and LeapTide or anyone else? Without all the figures, who can say, but I suspect this might explain their sudden appearance on the scene. I’m thinking this could get interesting.
Wait. You mean… Yarro and the gang did all this for nothing?
We look forward to interacting with Professor Webbink, whose role will apparently be to keep track of the patent cases and provide sound analysis. To quote Pamela’s last post:
So I thought about who would be the right person. Now that the battlefield has shifted from SCO attacking Linux to Microsoft using patents against it and from servers to mobiles, I realized that Groklaw needs a lawyer at the helm. So I asked Mark Webbink if he would take on this role, and I’m thrilled to tell you that he has accepted. He is the new editor of Groklaw as of today. Mark was General Counsel at Red Hat, as you know, and he is on the board of the Software Freedom Law Center. He is also a law professor, which as I’ll explain is a vital piece of what he has planned. Mark is a visiting professor at New York Law School where he runs the Center for Patent Innovations, oversees the Peer To Patent project run with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, has been active in seeking reform of the U.S. patent system, and teaches patent licensing. In addition, Mark is a senior lecturing fellow at Duke University School of Law where he teaches intellectual property (patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret) licensing. Mark has access to law students at those law schools and many others. In addition, Mark has remained interested and involved in free and open source software and related intellectual property issues and he is the author of the chapter on U.S. technology law included in a soon to be released book on free and open source software law.
Darl McBride for CEO at Apple?
