11.28.06
Posted in Fork, FUD, GNU/Linux, GPL, Microsoft, OpenSUSE, Ubuntu at 1:00 pm by Shane Coyle
Don’t think for a second that Microsoft isn’t howling over the Linux community’s apparent fragmentation over this deal, with the OpenSUSE and Ubuntu camps now publicly trading barbs (and both are right), and admittedly, this site has been somewhat vocal as well.
All Microsoft wanted from this deal was a little bit of FUD-munition and a friendly competitor to roll out at all of their European Interoperability dog and pony shows to show the EC they are “reformed”, so this public infighting is just icing on the cake over in Redmond.
Of course, what Microsoft still doesn’t get, the strength of Open Development is that EVERYTHING happens in public, even the “family business” and arguments. Fragmentation is healthy, the huge litany of available linux distributions ensures that none of the “leaders” can rest on their laurels. I saw someone’s comment the other day (Digg? Slashdot? Don’t recall, sorry) which was fantastic: it’s “Darwinism for Desktops”.
The amazing thing about the GPL is the fact that it has been able to govern the distribution and development of such diverse and amazing quality software, while bringing together peoples and companies of varying motivations – some folks want to take Linux and dominate the Desktop market, some just want a system in their home which is Free and under their control.
Over its lifespan, as with any legal document, loopholes have been discovered and exploited, but for the most part the GPL in its current form has been remarkable and prevented many from seeing the real imminent threat. Novell-Microsoft has changed that, and I urge you to participate in the GPL3 discussion.
One positive consequence of the Novell deal is the clear signal that it has shown to the rest of the corporate IT world: the responsiblilities a company must assume to be a part of a “Community”, deciding to participe in Open Source as opposed to Proprietary development, as noted by Dana Gardner:
Based on the Microsoft-Novell deal and its fallout, the entire industry is getting a close look at how open technology communities and companies work, according to Gardner.
“The notion that a vendor can have a secret or fuzzy pact with another vendor doesn’t work when the community is instant and global and seamless,” he said. “You need to be pretty open and thoughtful about your announcements.”
The same factors served to minimize recent industry concerns about Microsoft’s vague claims of intellectual property rights to Linux, which were the cause of some disharmony between the two software giants last week.
“If you’re going to work in a community, you need to recognize you’re exposed,” Gardner said. “Sleight of hand doesn’t work, and ambiguity will be exposed and discussed.”
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, GPL, KDE at 1:42 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Here are the prophetic words of Bruce Perens, as expressed in Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution (1st Edition January 1999).
The Open Source Definition
Bruce Perens
[...]
Efforts to hurt us from inside are the most dangerous. I think we’ll also see more attempts to dilute the definition of Open Source to include partially-free products, as we saw with the Qt library in KDE before Troll Tech saw the light and released an Open Source license. Microsoft and others could hurt us by releasing a lot of software that’s just free enough to attract users without having the full freedoms of Open Source. It’s conceivable that they could kill off development of some categories of Open Source software by releasing a “good enough,” “almost-free-enough” solution. However, the strong reaction against the KDE project before the Qt library went fully Open Source bodes poorly for similar efforts by MS and its ilk.
Source
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FUD, OpenSUSE at 12:43 am by Shane Coyle
The OpenSUSE folks held a chat/meeting earlier on IRC to discuss the MS/Novell deal, responding to most of the questions were Nat Friedman and Andreas Jaeger. Topics ranged from the level of involvement that the technical staff had in the deal, to Mark Shuttleworth’s letter, the apparent brilliance of Microsoft, GPL3 and whether Novell can or will fork every package, and of course the whole Patent Pledge fiasco.
Q: Novell claims to have not acknowledged any patent infringements by Linux. But Novell is now paying a tax to Microsoft on the Linux distributions it ships. What, exactly, is Novell paying for?
Nat Friedman: We’re paying for the promise that Microsoft made to our customers not to sue them.
Q: Not to sue them for *what*? For problems you don’t acknowledge exist?
Nat Friedman: We put together an agreement with Microsoft to make Linux and Windows work better together. Now, as everyone knows, Microsoft has spent the last 10 years saying negative things about Linux, including implying that there are IP issues in Linux. It didn’t make sense for us to do a partnersihp with Microsoft on interoperability issues and still have this patent cloud hanging around for our customers, so Microsoft asked us to put together a patent agreement as well. And so we promise Microsoft’s customers that we won’t sue them and they promise the same thing to our customers. They pay us for our promise and we pay them for their promise. It doesn’t matter if the allegations from MSFT are true or not. People can sue each other anyway, and a patent lawsuit is very expensive to defend against.
Q: How did you come up with the value for the “promise” that Microsoft made?
Nat Friedman: I have no idea how they did that. In general, when it comes to patent questions, you look at two things:
1. The patents that the patent holder has.
2. The business over the person who wants patent protection or coverage.
And the dollar amount is usually a function of these two values. So, for example, you might only hold one patent, but if you sue company X for infringing your one patent, and company X makes $1 billion/year in revenue based on their product that infringes your patent, then even though you only have one patent, you can extract a lot of money from company X.
So I’m guessing the team that put together the deal considered both the Microsoft and the Novell revenue. You notice that the balance of payments is heavily in Novell’s favor. Microsoft is giving us much more money than we are giving them.
Novell has a few hundred patents, and Microsoft has thousands. So you can guess that the quality of the patents and the revenue streams of both companies were considered.
Now, let us contrast these statements against those of Microsoft, lets see if we have an agreement yet on the deal structure and signifcance… On the day of the deal, at the press conference with Novell CEO Ron Hovsepian apparently within earshot, Brad Smith, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Microsoft Corporation, stated the following:
…on the patent side, we dealt with both of these sides of the equation. We dealt with the need for an up-front balancing payment, a balancing payment that runs from Microsoft to Novell, reflecting among other things the large relevant volume of the products that we have shipped. And you’ll see, as well, an economic commitment from Novell to Microsoft that involves a running royalty, a percentage of revenue on open source software shipped under the agreement.
So, Novell is saying they are paying for a promise by Microsoft not to sue its customers for patent infringement, a promise that is tied to revenue derived from the ongoing sale of open source software by Novell, but it’s not a patent cross license you see? No, neither do I, as the saying goes, if it walks like a duck…if it quacks like a duck… you can be reasonably sure it’s a duck.
Also in the discussion were a few mild potshots, one at the Ubuntu folks which I found uproarious, and another statement about folks who are dividing the community by shunning Novell (who might they be?):
Q: Do you fear openSUSE developers will migrate to other distributions, as proposed by Shuttlesworth? Why/why not?
Adrian L: I do not fear Shuttleworth, because people who fear that openSUSE might violate GPL will not go to a distro which actually is doing it. 
Of course there is always a risk that people will switch because of decisions, but there is also always the chance that others switch to because of this reason in the opposite direction.
I would love to keep quoting, but you can head over to see the transcript for yourself, another really interesting remark was by Nat Friedman regarding the apparent ineptitude of big bad Microsoft and their legal department, recalling their Lindows trademark infringement debacle and essentially saying that the community should not fear such a bumbling company. But, the question should also be posed, why partner with such a bumbling company?
Also of note was the previously mentioned request by Jason Matusow at Microsoft for input on amending the Patent Pledges, please let Microsoft know how they can correct the problem. It is as simple as running ‘s/customers/everyone/’ against the document, or as stated by Eben Moglen:
“Microsoft should take back the patent promise to Novell customers or extend the promise of patent safety to everyone, not just Novell customers,” he said.
Until Novell repudiates the deal and corrects their actions, I will continue to shun Novell.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.27.06
Posted in Action, Novell at 1:23 pm by Shane Coyle
Novell will be appearing at an upcoming forum hosted by The Cape Information Technology Initiative (CITI), the highlight is an opportunity to question Novell directly over the current Microsoft deal.
Answering questions on this deal in any venue is difficult enough, but it is rather interesting to see who is behind the event (link is mine):
The morning will round up with a discussion over the FOSS Forum and the direction which it will take in 2007. Established as a joint initiative between CITI, the University of the Western Cape and Government, this forum aims to foster FOSS growth in the Western Cape and beyond. Development and skills enhancements are key areas of focus.
I can only hope that Novell can still make it, and am hoping a reader or two from the region can attend and provide a report of the event. Anyone who plans to attend and would like to report on the conference here at boycottnovell.com, please email me shane < at > edu-nix.org.
Information from the article regarding the conference registration:
The event takes place at 44 Wale Street, Cape Town from 8am until noon on Thursday December 7.
Programme
08h00-08h30 – Registration
M08h30 – Welcoming address Viola Manuel, executive director, CITI
09h00 – Novell Microsoft deal presentation and Q&A by Peter Hunter, regional manager, Novell
09h45- 10h15 – Tea break
10h15 – Company presentations
11h15 – The FOSS Forum presented by Viola Manuel, executive director, CITI
11h30-12h00 – Discussion on ways forward for the FOSS Forum in 2007
To book email leigh.holt@citi.org.za, or call 021 409 7000. Reservations must be made by Tuesday December 5. Space is limited and early reservations are recommended to guarantee your seat.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FUD, GPL, Patents at 1:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
For the past couple of weeks, this blog has been filled with rants and accusations which were backed by proof. I thought that, for a change, we should also refer you to a more positive analysis. And yes, you’ve guessed it, there’s a snag to this so-called ‘positivity’. it’s akin to looking at the bright side of an irreversible disaster.
13 Reasons to Celebrate the New Microsoft-Novell Pact
[...]
“Among the reasons that Linux and other free software, as well as their users, could benefit from this agreement are:
[...]
(7) The agreement and accompanying threats are already having a beneficial effect on free software licensing. This is by helping to clarify the final wording of the GLPv3…
(8) The agreement will serve as another example to developers of Linux and other free software about the dangers of becoming entangled with Microsoft…
(9) The agreement and accompanying threats could put pressure on Microsoft to reveal the specific patent violations that it is claiming ..
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Action, Boycott Novell, FUD, GPL, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Novell, OpenSUSE, Patent Covenant at 12:40 pm by Shane Coyle
As RMS and others have been pointing out, the loophole for Novell in this deal is that MS is giving their patent offer to Novell’s customers (the actual wording is those copies for which Novell has received revenue, with a definition to include upgrades). So, as a Novell Customer you enjoy the benefits of the MS Patent Pledge as a result of Novell’s deal with Microsoft. Great for you, but one problem: you may not be able to redistribute GPL code now.
Think about it, if Section 7 doesn’t apply to Novell since they are not receiving the patent covenant – but the customers who are receiving it. By supporting Novell, you accept these new conditions imposed by Microsoft, you may not be able to simultaneously adhere to the MS Patent Pledge and the conditions of the GPL, since any distribution outside of giving back to OpenSUSE.org is disallowed by the MS Patent Pledge.
Novell customers may have to thank Novell for entering into this agreement with Microsoft on their behalf, their little loophole for attempting to circumvent the GPL. Eben Moglen says that not Novell but its customers may be violating the GPL if they redistribute the software:
[If] the patent license Microsoft has granted to Novell customers only extends to Novell customers, then Novell customers cannot redistribute the software freely. According to Moglen, this may violate the terms of the license.
The community needs to turn its back on Novell and SUSE, DO NOT USE, BUY, REDISTRIBUTE or HOST NOVELL or SUSE. Boycott Novell.
Please, as I have stated before, do not think that I have any animous towards the folks in the OpenSUSE community, just get a new name and website (you can keep the code, it’s GPL).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deals, GPL at 11:31 am by Shane Coyle
Richard M Stallman has spoken, and apparently he believes that the Novell-Microsoft deal is in compliance with the GPL2. Stallman also vowed to ensure that GPL3 does not allow for such discriminatory deals:
“What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent license, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play,” he said. “Instead, Microsoft offered a patent licence that is rather limited to Novell’s customers alone.”
“It turns out that perhaps it’s a good thing that Microsoft did this now, because we discovered that the text we had written for GPL version 3 would not have blocked this, but it’s not too late and we’re going to make sure that when GPL version 3 really comes out it will block such deals,” he added.
As stated by Bruce Perens: “It is abundantly clear that Novell and Microsoft took the time to engineer a circuitous legal path of issuing covenants to each other’s customers, rather than licenses to each other, in order to circumvent Novell’s earlier agreement with the community of GPL software developers.”
Whether or not Novell is adhering to the letter of the GPL2, it is certainly not abiding by its spirit, as is outlined in the preamble to the GNU General Public License:
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone’s free use or not licensed at all.
Do not support the company that turned its back on the community for a short-lived stock boost, Boycott Novell.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deals, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 6:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The folks at Groklaw have just identified a Sun/Microsoft transcript, which used to reside on Microsoft’s Web site back in 2004. Fortunately, the text is still stored in the Web Archive and it’s a real eye opener. Have a look.
STEVE BALLMER: No, there’s a few things. First, we put in place — we deal with all of the antitrust matters. That has to — just so we have a foundation to move forward.
Second, we put in place what I’d best describe as a patent regime between the two companies that serves as a framework to make — to ensure that we don’t run afoul of one another in ways past or forward-looking that would be problematic to the technical collaboration.
Third, we agreed on specific technical collaboration as it relates to how you make servers and clients talk to one another across the network. And each of these is long and detailed and certainly the detail of that is best probably gone through with the key teams on both sides and there are folks here from both Sun and Microsoft who can do that. But there are things that need to get licensed in terms of making these things plug together over the network. There’s a licensing framework that’s put in place for that.
So I’d say that’s the elements and then if you take a look at the payment, some of the money is to resolve our antitrust lawsuit. Some of the payment takes a look back and says let’s make sure we are clean with respect to one another on patents. Some of it is forward-looking in terms of how we work together from a patent perspective. And then some of it is forward-looking, us to Sun and Sun to us, in terms of the licensing of key intellectual property that relates to making these things plug together and interoperate well over the network.
Deja vu anyone? The sheer resemblance between the two deals was mentioned before. Ever since, Sun Microsystems has moved closed to the GPL. They have recently selected the GPL for Java, one of their CPU designs, and they already speak about applying the same type of licencing transformation to Solaris. Meanwhile, on the contray, Novell seems to be going in reverse, back to its proprietary roots. It has escaped in persuit of temptation—short-term gains and egocentric existence.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA