06.13.07
Posted in GNU/Linux, GPL, SUN at 8:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It appears as though, partly due to Sun’s increased pressure, Linus Torvalds might (just might) one day consider a dual-licensed Linux kernel. Have a look at this article.
One solution to the debate about whether the Linux kernel should migrate to the almost-complete GPL version 3 (define) is to have the Linux kernel dual-licensed under GPL versions 2 and 3.
There’s more on this topic in the following thread:
[Linus:] “So they [Sun] want to use Linux resources (_especially_ drivers), but they do *not* want to give anything back especially ZFS, which seems to be one of their very very few bright spots)…”
The gist of it all is that OpenSolaris puts pressure on Linus. Jonathan Schwartz has just posted an open letter in his blog. He invites Linus over for dinner.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.12.07
Posted in Database, FUD, GNU/Linux, GPL, Microsoft, Oracle, Patents, Red Hat at 9:42 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Groklaw takes a look at the utter disrespect and arrogance Microsoft has shown ever since it began its assault on Free software. A long discussion follows, as one might expect.
So when Microsoft says it respects other people’s intellectual property, what everyone is thinking is, That’s not true. Microsoft doesn’t respect the GPL, and that’s other people’s property. Microsoft is just trying to kill off a competitor. Again.
Also worth quoting is the following exchange of words between SJVN and Woodford. The analogies and predictions will probably surprise you.
Warming up to his theme, Woodford continued, “So far Microsoft hasn’t revealed any legitimate claims of intellectual property infringement. Their strategy appears to be to coerce weak players in the Open Source space to fold. This is reminiscent of the play made by SCO a few years ago, which some say was financed by Microsoft. Maybe that was just their trial run.”
Then, he launches his main assault on the partnership, “I’m reminded of Neville Chamberlain waiving his agreement with Hitler in the air and declaring peace in his time. Linux vendors should be reminded that, if you give your lunch money to a bully, the bully does not go away. Who will have the cohones to just say no? The Linux community may not like the answer, but the only name that comes to mind is — Larry Ellison.”
Let us look at this scenario more closely. Back in March, Oracle joined the Open Invention Network, which is prepared to fight for Free software, if this ever becomes a necessity.
Here is another recent assessment, which seems to touch on some important amd related issues. It made a lot of sense at the time (posted in April).
What If Oracle’s move against Red Hat was not about Red Hat at all? What if it was in response to the Microsoft threat?
Mark Shuttleworth made the point that the difference between $0.00 and $0.01 is huge, at least perceptually. Whatever Oracle’s Windows market share today, that share will undoubtedly fall over the next few years as SQL Server continues to gain market share.
Oracle therefore needs to shore up its market share on Linux, which becomes easier the lower the price of Linux becomes. Price aside, tying Linux into the Oracle database and applications in a similar way to how Microsoft ties its products into Windows makes a lot of sense.
Red Hat, then, could be a casualty in a larger fight: the fight between Oracle and Microsoft.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Formats, Microsoft, Novell, Office Suites, Open XML, OpenDocument at 9:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
You might still recall a long discussion which contained plenty of anti-ODF lobbying examples. Among the outcomes, two CIOs in Massachusetts lost their job, simply because they supported truly open standards on behalf of their State. At the end, Microsoft’s arm was on top.
The end of this story is not a happy ending. As a news article revealed yesterday, implementation of plans that are based on legistlation have been nearly scraped. It would be interesting to know how great a role Novell played in Microsoft’s political arguments in favour of monoculture and lockin.
And Microsoft itself lobbied heavily against the original open formats policy after it was announced by the ITD.
[...]
The slower-than-planned adoption of ODF in Massachusetts appears to have influenced state legislators in Texas who recently quashed a bill calling for the use of open document formats — one of five such proposals that have been defeated or shelved in the U.S. this year following strong opposition from Microsoft and its allies in the IT industry.
Some of the more recent lobbying examples, accompanied by Novell’s blind obedience, have done the industry no favours. Citizens of Massachusetts, for example, might still be forced to purchase Microsoft Windows and the latest Microsoft Office in order to access vital information.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, Patents at 8:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
BetaNews editors have apparently found a nice slant. They decided to describe the revised system for patent applications as an ‘Open Source’ approach. Would it not be ironic if one of the biggest victims of this system turned out to have justified and assisted that very same broken system? Here is how it works:
The goal is to expedite the discovery of “prior art” – creations that existed before the applicant for a patent claimed he invented them. If successful, the Peer-to-Patent Web site could become a kind of SourceForge for intellectual property integrity.
Herein, there seems to be a gentle implication that an open source approach simply works better. It assists innovation and combats duplication. Reviewers realise and acknowledge this. Meanwhile, over here in Europe, an internal document has been leaked. It reveals that even those who are inside the system are overly skeptical. Have a look at this article from The Register:
European Patent Office (EPO) staff have “worryingly low” levels of trust in the organisation’s highest governing bodies, according to a leaked internal document entitled Governance of the EPO: a staff perspective.
As pointed out the other day, Microsoft too had realised that software patents are a bad idea. It was only later when the idea suited them better that they had a change of heart. Suddenly, as a giant, abuse of monopoly power seemed appealing. Have a look:
The [patent] sceptics say there is no scientific evidence that proves a link between innovation and patents. Besides, extended patent periods provide an opportunity for rent-seeking (through royalties). Also, while it has been argued that patents facilitate competition by encouraging the entry of start-ups, the critics opine that they mostly create short- or long-term monopolies.
Isn’t hypocrisy a funny thing? The same goes for deadlocks in the industry. Patents lead to a cyclic trap where small businesses are abolished while large one can grow infinitely strong.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.11.07
Posted in Google, Novell, Office Suites, Ron Hovsepian, Security at 8:15 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
This post is a small collection of observations. There are a few recent stories that probably should not escape without comment.
Noorda Doubts Them, Schmidt Doubts Them, Hovsepian Welcomes Them
A recent story about Google-Microsoft antitrust affairs reminded us that Schmidt had raised antitrust concerns about Microsoft when he worked at Novell. Mr. Noorda never trusted Microsoft either. In fact, he even supported Linux back in the 90s, under Novell’s own umbrella. So why is it that Mr. Hovsepian ignored all the warning signs and entereed a partnership that makes him excessively dependent on Microsoft? Could it be all about personal reward? The deal continues to seem absurd and it continues to be denounced by many people who are in the business of selling Open Source software.
And Speaking of Google…
This was mentioned before, but it is worth repeating that Novell’s redacted disclosure potentially revealed some secret strategies at Microsoft.
Start-ups are emerging on the back of the movement making use of open source and the open source inspired AppExchange from Salesforce.com. Google and Yahoo are pushing their SaaS word-processing, spreadsheet, and related productivity tools.
[...]
Recent documents relating to Microsoft’s open source patent agreement with Novell suggest it is thinking about making Office available as a software service over the internet.
The Insecurity Complex
Movell gets a mention for being one among 8 worthy stocks which represent security software. A story that we caught the other day could leave Novell a little bashful though.
When Conners started his job in November 2004, there was no reliable way to find, update or patch the hospital’s desktops. Having a system that is planned and implemented properly is “like throwing darts in the dark,” he says. The shortcoming was attributed to a shaky implementation of Novell’s ZenWorks, which couldn’t always verify that a security patch or a software update had reached its destination because ZenWorks had been improperly installed. According to Conners, the hospital’s I.T. staff had rushed to install it—in what felt like a weekend, he says—without documenting processes and procedures at a time when the hospital was growing fast. Novell says it wasn’t involved with installing ZenWorks at the hospital and didn’t find out about the problems until after they occurred. Novell adds that the hospital declined its offer of services to fix the problems.
“Declined Novell’s offer,” the article said. So should you.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Novell, Xandros at 7:41 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It has become clear (probably even to Xandros) that deals with Microsoft are simply a bad idea. Why are companies still fooled and why do they fail to learn from history? Perhaps some companies are desperate for anything that looks promising, or perhaps they just think alike (the ‘Microsoft mindset’). Does Xandros now deserve the name “Xandrosoft”. Evidence suggests that it may be so. DistroWatch Weekly sets the record straight and explains why Linux would be fine even without Xandros.
But even before this deal, Xandros had never been a community player (it has failed to release a single piece of its own software under a free licence) and the only raison d’être of this Canadian company was to profit from free software. And while its first two releases of Xandros Desktop brought some interesting advancements into desktop Linux, the company later abandoned its innovative spirit and desktop enthusiasm to focus on business Linux instead. Disappointing, to say the least, from a company that held so much promise in its early days….
The same cannot be said about Novell, which has clearly contributed a fair deal (e.g. Compiz, SLED’s GNOME and KDE menus). Why are they escaping Free software though? Is it greed, confusion, or a combination thereof?
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, GPL, Interview, Novell, Xandros at 6:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Nobody likes change. Change leads to concessions. It can abruptly end existing relationships, then give way to new (yet unforeseen) relationships.
In the context of the Linux kernel, TiVo serves as a good example of companies which gain control at the expense of the consumer and/or developer. Meanwhile, emerging (and constructive) threats such as OpenSolaris play a role as well. So what will it be? According to some of the most recent correspondence on the issue, Linus Torvalds has softened a little. To quote an article which covers this:
Writing on the Linux Kernel Developers mailing list yesterday, Torvalds responded when a developer wrote that he (Torvalds) “was quite impressed with the toned down version of the final draft of GPLv3.”
Recently, Alan Cox made remarks that seem to suggest that he is more fond of the GPLv3 than Linus is. Consider, for example, the interview which was published yesterday. He realises that GPLv3 is needed in order to protect Free software. Going about a month back, Alan expressed his support more explicitly:
Open source guru Alan Cox has voiced his support for the controversial version 3.0 of the GNU General Public Licence in an exclusive podcast interview with Computer Weekly.
It was shortly before this interview that Linus looked at an older draft of GPLv3 and said that he was “pretty pleased”.
Linus Torvalds, leader of the Linux kernel project and a major figure in the open-source programming movement, said Wednesday he’s “pretty pleased” with changes in a third draft of the General Public License (GPL) released Wednesday.
Perhaps it is only a matter of time. If that’s the case, then not only will access to GNU be denied. This is bad news to Microsoft and possibly to Novell and Xandros as well.
Linux seems to be getting cozier with GPLv3 . It is too early to make predications though.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Site News at 6:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Earlier today, the site got some visual makeover and a general cleanup treatment. The Web site’s goals were also specified in a new static page. Shane is meanwhile working on a new domain whose name is SueMe Linux (mind the footer).
We invite you to participate using comments, to which we regularly respond. We also wish to stress that we will happily publish your contributions if you mail us something like an essay. We have done this before and want content to be driven by the audience, not just a couple of editors.
Thank you for reading this.
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