Production-ready it will not be, but Mono project busy beavers expect to provide a feasibility “alpha” demonstration in about two weeks of Microsoft’s recently unveiled Silverlight on Linux, says Miguel de Icaza, vice president of developer platforms at Novell and the leader of the Mono project.
Novell is spearheading support for Microsoft’s ‘Open Web killer’ or what some call “Microsoft’s attempt to hijack the Web”. This could be another case of showing support (probably loose, incomplete, and therefore more of a symbolic gesture) to Microsoft and Silverlight. It is a case of following Microsoft’s lead on Web design decisions, then obediently following the company it ‘extends’, as a matter of principle. Just remember the Halloween Memos.
Q: The first document talked about extending standard protocols as a way to “deny OSS projects entry into the market.” What does this mean?
A: To better serve customers, Microsoft needs to innovate above standard protocols. By innovating above the base protocol, we are able to deliver advanced functionality to users.
Saying that Linux would work with Silverlight is much like the promise of full OOXML support in OpenOffice.org. Don’t buy their arguments. Novell plays second fiddle to Microsoft’s attempt to take over the Web. It enabled Microsoft to gain more control and power. Like OOXML, it is bound to fail, so supporting may be a waste of resources (time, money, image).
Novell has taught us that the ‘Trojan horse’ which strives to enter as many cities as possible is not just the prelude to patent FUD. It is also a mechanism for promoting Microsoft’s agenda. Can Novell ever decline? Well, it has truly become too Microsoft-dependent.
One worrisome aspect of Novell’s relationship with Microsoft is support for OOXML, which achieves nothing that benefits Novell (it’s an impossible mission), yet plenty that brings benefit to Microsoft (e.g. pseudo industry support). Rob Weir is now telling us that, not only is OOXML incompatible with other office suites, but it is also incomptatible with itself (urging people to ‘upgrade’, lacking proper backward compatibility). As a result, it gets rejected by some high-tier publishers. See and judge this analysis for yourselves:
It appears that Science, the journal of the America Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), itself the largest scientific society in the world, has updated its authoring guidelines to include advice for Office 2007 users. The news is not good.
[...]
Uh oh. Not only cannot you not submit files in OOXML format, but you can’t even use Office 2007 and save in the old binary formats. The choice to invent a new “Open Math Markup Language” rather then use the well-established existing standard, MathML, appears to be a serious flaw.
Of course, this type of ‘flaw’ (whether deliberate or not) is also going to affect compatibility and interoperability that involves non-Microsoft office suites. In the mean time, all one can do is reject OOXML as a matter of principle and also advise people not to use Office 2007.
Over the weekend, ComputerWorld covered Microsoft’s crusade against OpenDocument format in the US government. It’s ironic and absurd because only OpenDocument enables free access to government documents.
In a resounding victory for Microsoft Corp., bills seeking to mandate the use of open document formats by government agencies have been defeated in five states, and only a much-watered-down version of such legislation was signed into law in a sixth state.
Moments ago I spotted a shocking item in my feeds reader. It suggests that Xandros and Microsoft got together to establish a ‘protection racket’ deal. The link, however, is broken, indicating that the article was probably retracted. A quick search reveals another such observation. What is going on? GPLv3 is already resolving these problems. Are Microsoft on a last-minute shopping spree? We are relieved that Linspire didn’t cave, but what is the truth about Xandros? It seems too early to tell, but a Novell-type deal seems like a possibility, unless the article was retracted due to inaccuracy (or fabrication) of information.
Article headline: Microsoft Gives Xandros Linux Users Patent Protection
Excerpt: Redmond has signed a set of broad collaboration agreements with Linux provider Xandros that include an intellectual property assurance.
Update: whether this is true or not, I was finally able to find one site that had grabbed a portion of the text before it was removed.
Redmond has signed a set of broad collaboration agreements with Linux provider Xandros that include an intellectual property assurance.
Microsoft, shrugging off licensing moves to prevent it from repeating its controversial patent deal with Novell, has signed a set of broad collaboration agreements with Linux provider Xandros that include an intellectual property assurance under which Microsoft will provide patent covenants for Xandros customers.
These covenants, which are almost identical to the patent agreement and covenant not to sue that Microsoft signed with Novell last November, will ensure that the Xandros Linux technologies customers use are compliant with Microsoft’s IP, David Kaefer, Microsoft’s General Manager for IP and Licensing, told eWeek
The collaboration agreements between Microsoft and Xandros, which are valid for five-years and will be announced June 4, also cover a set of technical, business and marketing commitments designed to give customers enhanced interoperability and more effective systems management solutions, he said.
Under the agreement, Microsoft and Xandros will focus on five primary areas over the next five years: systems management interoperability, server interoperability, office document compatibility, sales and marketing support, and IP assurance.
This looks eerily similar to Novell’s deal, sans the exchange of money and patents. Also worth mentioning is the following educated guess:
Based on eWEEK’s now-disappeared headline, it sure looks like Xandros may have gone the Novell route and signed a patent-protection deal with Microsoft. (The other possibility is eWEEK believed Xandros was ready to sign on the dotted line, but didn’t. My educated guess is there is a deal and eWEEK jumped the gun in publishing the “exclusive” story. Guess we’ll find out for sure in a few more hours.)
With each passing week, and unfilfilled threat, it becomes more and more apparent that Microsoft’s intention is to keep the community focused on collective sandbag-piling and allow Microsoft to catch-up technologically, rather than risk testing their spurious software patents in a court of law.
I contend that we should not wait for Microsoft to (finally) file a software patent infringement case against a Free Software developer or user, I believe that one of us should sue a Free Software developer or user. No, I haven’t been drinking.
In the few occasions where companies have been unable to reach amicable licensing terms (or, avoid court, at least), and tech industry giants do find themselves in court bickering over their software patents, they are usually very very careful to present the court with a very narrowly construed legal question rather than risk a ruling on the overall legality of software patents.
For instance, in MS v ATT the parties simply wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the applicability of U.S. patents abroad, and stipulated that such activity would be infringing if within the U.S. to avoid the software patent legitimacy question – or, more accurately, the answer.
Despite this very narrow question before the Supreme Court, it seemed apparent that Justice Scalia was telegraphing to all interested parties just how things would go if he were ever to have the question of software patents before him…
MR. OLSON [For Microsoft]: The ‘580 patent is a program, as I understand it, that’s married to a computer, has to be married to a computer in order to be patented.
JUSTICE SCALIA: You can’t patent, you know, on-off, on-off code in the abstract, can you?
MR. OLSON: That’s correct, Justice Scalia.
JUSTICE SCALIA: There needs to be a device.
MR. OLSON: An idea or a principle, two plus two equals four can’t be patented. It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable device.
So, my idea is simple – a Free Software developer or company with at least one software patent covered by the EDU-Nix Dual Mode CD sues me (be gentle, I’m broke), and we will pose the question directly to the court:
Are Software Patents Legal?
I, unlike Microsoft et al, am looking forward to the answer.
“GPLv3 ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs. It doesn’t forbid DRM, or any kind of feature. It places no limits on the substantive functionality you can add to a program, or remove from it. Rather, it makes sure that you are just as free to remove nasty features as the distributor of your copy was to add them,” he continued.
“Tivoization is the way they deny you that freedom; to protect your freedom, GPLv3 forbids tivoization,” wrote Stallman, who is known for his uncompromising views favoring free software.
Professor Moglen says more on the purpose of GPLv3 in the following short segment of his recent interview with
These points are very important because Microsoft and Novell are likely to argue that GPLv3 is nothing but a well-targetted vendetta. They could call it a nasty sting rather than an evolutionary step that protects developers who embrace an upgraded licence.
From the Microsoft-affiliated press comes the following short article, which simply cannot escape one’s attention. Here is the punch:
Why is Microsoft cranking the rudder hard over? They aren’t talking, but I’m guessing it comes down to General Public License (GPL) version 3. GPLv3 is still in the formative stages, but it could prohibit mixed marriages like the one between Microsoft and Novell. If GPLv3 happens, Microsoft’s lever into the corporate Linux market could get frozen. Novell (and by extension, Microsoft) will have to comply with its terms to take advantage of component technologies developed under the license. Unable to do that, Microsoft will be left with an aging (and ultimately incompatible) flavor of Linux.
The article makes it clear that Microsoft had plans which involve making big money out of software which volunteers are building. This is not new; and neither is the fact that Microsoft hates GPLv3 with passion. In fact, only yesterday, John Carroll who is a Microsoft employee that blogs at ZDNet had his own punch at the GPLv3 sandbag. The usual suspects take turns.
The same old story about exploiting and punishing ‘free labour’ is very resminiscent the story told by Groklaw today. It’s focused on a smaller company which you may know as SCO.
But the SCO dream as I see it is simply this: they’d like those volunteer Linux programmers, who didn’t charge one thin dime for their wonderful code, to, in effect, support SCO for life, based on alleged, but not specified, “infringement” that no one is allowed to fix. Does it get lower than that?
PJ’s article goes far beyond this and it is definitely worth reading. But the ‘take home’ message is that by following and reinforcing some elements of guilt, be it plagiarism or software patents, both Microsoft and SCO were hoping to get partial ownership of Linux and use it to cash in. Eben’s video interview, which we mentioned last week, is finally available on the Tube. It is worth embedding here because it is a perfect fit in this context.
Again , this isn’t anything new. Microsoft wants to control Linux (and yes, it already makes a lot of money out of SUSE Linux). GPLv3 will ends that.
Another new article does some maths and tells us some disturbing finanical figures.
In the two quarters since its hackles-raising deal with Microsoft was signed in November, some 49,000 SUSE certificates have been activated. They are worth $91 million. That’s 38% of the five-year $240 million agreement, which has no cap. Microsoft could buy more.
Unless of course the GPLv3 intervenes and the tentative grandfather clause currently protecting the deal gets dropped.
As a side note, pardon my poor writing style and the many errors. I imagine that my focus on pace (at the expense of quality) is sometimes easy to see and I can only beg you to correct me or expand where possible. This way we can make the most out of this (hopefully informative) Web site, which strives to keep abreast of all the events and glue them together through hyperlinks, shallow analysis, and a pinch of speculation.
Having defeated some concerns about comment spam, we have just opened all the items for feedback. Help us make this a good resource for those who do some research. Site traffic is at an all-time high.
Microsoft gets a portion of the money earned through GNU/Linux sales. In general, this is not news. Neither are the extortions. But have a look at this:
Playing with the numbers, SUSE sales without Microsoft had an invoice total of $11 million compared to the $29 million figure reported. The remainder of that sum is Microsoft.
To its credit, Novell has tried to diversify a bit by sealing SUSE Linux deals with SAP and Dell. Novell executives didn’t provide details on those two deals. But it’s unrealistic to think that either SAP or Dell can deliver the big numbers Microsoft can.
As a result, Microsoft is essentially SUSE Linux’s biggest reseller.
That’s one helluva blind spot considering the GPLv3 risk that Novell laid out in its annual report. Perhaps, that’s why 38 percent of the Microsoft deal’s value is completed already. With the GPL final looming Novell could be on the clock. Microsoft may also be on the clock as it rushes to sell SUSE Linux certificates before the new GPL.
As we mentioned before, this explains why Microsoft is in a great hurry trying to get these coupons done with.
Over at Business Review Online, Matt Asslet dissects the latest developments which accompany the publication of a final GPLv3 draft. He makes it clear that Novell and Microsoft have not escaped the wrath of the Free software foundation.
This had already been predicted but I didn’t want to cover it until the Free Software Foundation made it official, which it has done with the publication of the last call draft of the GPLv3, but it appears that Microsoft’s plan to restrict its patent covenant to SUSE Linux users has backfired.
In recent weeks Microsoft has tried to paint itself as the victim of a concerted effort by the free software community to sabotage its agreement with Novell.
Shane replies and refutes the assumption/prediction that a legal threat can be born out of this conflict. In fact, only yesterday in The Register, MySQL AB’s CEO fired a warning shot at Microsoft, addressing their most recent threats.
Microsoft must work with, not against, open source otherwise it risks sacrificing developer support and credibility among customers – even Windows loyalists.
Remember how persistently we stressed that Microsoft loathes GPLv3 and fights it very aggressively? Now we know why. The same Grand Plan which began 3 years ago when Windows Longhorn got scrapped, patents were lined up before the USPTO’s front door like cannonballs, and then the Novell deal came, is finally being intercepted at its very root. This may be the final destination for a failed plan to eradicate Free software from planet Earth.
Send this to a friend 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA