Microsoft says software that’s licensed under a new version of a popular open source license isn’t covered by the patent protection deal it recently signed with desktop Linux distributor Linspire.
If we get this straight, and only if (that’s a big if) Microsoft’s claims are legally valid at all, Linspire faces two choices (or scenarios) now:
Linspire has no access to GPLv3-licensed software, of which there will be plenty.
Linspire achieved nothing with its deal. It is not supposedly ‘protected’. It spends money building a so-called ‘translator’ to serve a convicted monopoly abuser. It also propagates the myth that Linux requires protection and at the same time drives many of its existing customers away.
[Steinman, for Novell:] As part of our agreement, Microsoft purchased from Novell $240 million of certificates that customers can redeem for subscriptions to SuSE Linux Enterprise Server with support. Microsoft has been selling those certificates to customers as part of mixed Windows-Linux deals. Xandros didn’t get anything like that. We also have some of the unique stuff around virtualization with Microsoft. We weren’t surprised by this news. They said publicly from day one they wanted to sign up some other partners as part of their open source ecosystem.
So is this a good thing?
[Steinman:] It’s part of Microsoft’s business strategy. I think well leave it up to the market to decide. All I’m capable of commenting on is why Novell did the deal. It was important to deliver this technical interoperability between Windows and Linux. It’s been borne out by the fact that in the six months of the deal so far, Novell has invoiced $91 million of the $240 million that Microsoft committed to us in the agreement. That’s roughly 38 percent in six months of a five-year deal.
With Novell intent on moving to GPL v3, and Microsoft intent on not touching anything remotely related to GPL v3, it appears that the situations is coming to a head–one that seems likely to result in Microsoft ceasing its Linux distribution deal with Novell.
If appears likely that this 5-year partnership will have only lasted for months. Novell ought to have learned from Jim Allchin.
The United Kingdom remains one whose mindset is still align with America’s, at least as far as software is concerned. There are a few new articles that are worth mentioning.
As pointed out just weeks ago, the UK’s National Archives sidled with Microsoft in a most questionable (even controversial) of moves. Let us recognise that an issue which escapes many people’s attention is long-term preservation of information. You see this in DRM, not just in document formats. Only when people wake up and understand that their past gets erased will they actually have regrets. National Archives seems to have taken the wrong route for what appears to be Microsoft promotion. It relies on OOXML — the poison that we know as an enemy to real interoperability and competition in the market.
After a disappointing response from the UK Government, it appears as though the country does not mind lock-in. Competition is a healthy thing. It motivates. It drives innovation. OOXML kills all of this.
With a document formats monopoly (not unification), science will be hindered. But why? Why would anyone want this? The UK government is infatuated with Microsoft. Maybe they like the money, maybe they just like the ‘class’. Tony Blair and Bill Gates are friends. We already know this. The UK is not the only victim however. Look what happened in Portugal just days ago.
We have some linksaccumulated. They hopefully show how Microsoft misuses its power in the BBC, which is funded by British taxpayers. It’s part of a much broader picture. I fear that the UK will be the last nation to embrace Linux and standards, along with the United States. The rest of the world is transforming more quickly and it’ll give it a competitive advantage.
Since software patents may threaten this fundamentally important freedom, we propose that software published under the GNU General Public Licence (version 3 and above) be given immunity from prosecution from patent infringement under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act.
Forget software politics for a minute — what does the new Samba licensing mean for the version you’re actually running, and for the distribution that packages it for you? Samba maintainer Jeremy Allison explains.
Not everyone seems to understand Tivoization, but regardless, Linus Torvalds likes it. In the following video, Richard Stallman talks about Tivoization and explains his pet peeves, which you may or may not sympathise with. The part of about TiVo starts about a minute after the start.
We can’t start without a question: does Linux infringe Microsoft patents?
[Linus Torvalds:] As far as we know, the answer is a resounding “no”, and it’s all just MS trying to counter-act the fact that they have problems competing with Linux on a technical side by trying to spread FUD.
Be aware that the following article was published yesterday. Red Hat’s mindset aligns with that of Torvalds.
Microsoft: No IP Talks with Red Hat
[...]
That approach will not work for Red Hat; Cormier’s position has been, “I want to talk to the folks at Microsoft about our two operating systems and how we can work together to solve real customer problems without attaching any unrelated strings, such as intellectual property.”
Returning to the interview, have a look at the following question and answer.
What do you think about Novell and Microsoft’s agreement? Which future developments will produce? And what about Red Hat’s events?
[Linus Torvalds:] I really don’t care. You’re asking all these marketing and company questions, and the thing is, I’m not at all into it. I’m totally uninterested. What I’m into is the technology, and working together with people.
Someone seems to have hit a nerve. Alax Cox was not reluctant to just say that “Novell are [were] going to get stung by the GPLv3, and rightfully so”. This was said before the draft of the licence got amended to pardon Novell.
Radcliffe [general counsel, pro bono, for the Open Source Initiative] concludes:
“I believe that the GPLv3 is a very valuable addition to FOSS licenses and solves many of the challenges faced by GPLv2. Companies distributing FOSS should consider it and companies using FOSS should be prepared, in most cases, to accept it.”
There are some wishful-thinking claims that GPLv3 adoption is slow, but these claims are increasingly being dismissed. Some GNU software is not GPLv3-licensed yet, but the move is inevitable. It’s a classic example of preparation. Intent to upgrade includes over 5,000 projects so far. The change cannot be applied and completed overnight though.
Microsoft maintains that while it would have been easy to support the Open Document Format (ODF) natively, it had to move to MS-OOXML because this was the only way for them to offer the full features of its office suite. But if Microsoft itself is not able to represent its internal data structures in the Open Document Format (ODF) in its Microsoft Office suite, how could an external conversion program from MS-OOXML accomplish this task? The answer to both questions is that it is not possible because two things cannot be the same and different at the same time.
Some time ago we criticised the ISO in a series of posts. The closer you look at it, the more justified our suspicions seem. A Groklaw member points to some items in Portuguese, then providing translations and explanation. On the face of it, some iffy thing — or shall we call it “corruption” — can easily be spotted.
[PJ: OpenXML.info is reporting (in Portuguese, but a Groklaw member translates for us) that the person who is head of the ISO technical committee about to vote on Microsoft's Ecma-376 wouldn't let IBM and Sun representatives in, claiming there was no room! This, if true, is ridiculous. And here is a second source reporting the same thing, also in Portuguese. So in the US, we hear reports of packing the TC. Now, it's weeding out those who are not likely to vote a certain way desired? Is this how standards get "approved"? I don't recall ODF having to play such games. Here is the rough translation:]
Portugal, and more concretely, its national organization of certification IPQ is a member “O” (observator) of ISO/IEC for the voting of OOXML (ISO DIS 29500).
WARNING: the first meeting of the Technical Commission “Language for document definition” was on Monday 16 of July. The vote was delayed. Representatives of IBM and Sun were not allowed to attend because there “was no available space in the room”
Dear G [Sun Microsystems] due of restricted number of members of the CT (Commissao Tecnica) that can attend the scheduled meeting room to host the meeting, we cannot, in this stage, accept your proposal of integration of the CT.
With my best regards,
D [Microsoft as president of the Technical Commission]
More on Portugal and MS’s role in approving its own “standard”
More details are emerging from Portugal regarding the kerfuffle there over Ecma-376. If you read Portuguese, here you go — just click on the link. I asked a Groklaw member to do a rough translation, and if you see ways to improve it, sing out, but it gives a bit of the history of how this committee that has no room for Sun or IBM (see previous News Picks item) was formed and how it happened to choose a Microsoft representative to be president of the committee that decides whether to “approve” Microsoft’s submission as a “standard”. Unless I’m missing something, it appears to have been set up so Microsoft can “approve” itself. Now that’s handy. Here’s the translation of the part about how Microsoft is represented on this committeee with no room for IBM or Sun:]
I was present on the meeting of the Technical Commission (CT) created to award the ISO standards in the area of structured documents (in Portugal)
A Technical Commission (CT) did not exist when ISO 26300 (Open Document) was submitted neither when there was a submission of OOXML (ECMA 376, potential ISO 29500) for the the fast track, and that was the reason why Portugal did not submit any opinion nor had any right to vote. We expect that now, with the pressure made and the CT created there would be right to vote.
The CT was created by the Computing Institute, in which is delegated the responsability for the norms of the IT sector; a delegation granted by the Portuguese Institute of Quality (IPQ), the point of contact of ISO in Portugal. Its creation is motivated mainly by the pressures and availability of some people when the proposal for fast tracking of OOXML and a neccessity to avail now the OOXML as standard ISO and as a Portuguese National Standard
In the meeting they were present:
2 persons from II (Instituto de Informatica [Computing Institute])
1 person from the local government (Alentejo
region)
1 person from Jurinfor [Jurinfor is a Microsoft partner]
2 persons from Microsoft
1 person from Primavera [Primavera is a Microsoft partner]
1 person from ISCTE
2 persons from Assoft [reportedly, most members of ASSOFT are Microsoft partners]
1 person from the Inst. Informatica da Seg Social [Computing Institute of the Social Welfare Department]
1 person from the Inst. Tecn. Informacao da Justiça (eu) [Technical Institute Information of Justice (eu)]
The meeting dealt basically with the bureaucracy details of the creation of the CT. It didn’t go into details of OOXML; that discussion will be held in the next meeting, on July 16th about 14:30 in the II [Instituto de Informatica, I assume]
The CT, thus, was composed of 8 vocal elements, one representative for each of the organizations present. The II [Instituto de Informatica] is arranging and hosting the initiative and is a not-named representative.
The 8 vocals will readily follow to the election of the president of the CT. There was 1 candidate in the place (Miguel Sales Dias, from Microsoft). I did not present my candidature but made myself available in case the rest of representatives deemed it neccesary — informed not adequate since to begin with, as a member of the OpenDocument Alliance, I had a conflict of interest.
The vote results were 7 votes in favor of Miguel Sales Dias, of Microsoft, who was designated to preside over the CT, and a (1) blank vote.
It was decided to adopt consensus as the form of adoption of any proposed norm, following to majority vote in case there is no consensus in the CT and if there is a strong opposition to submit any norm.
We must not let such information go unnoticed (yes, I quoted this verbatim and in full, but PJ would not mind because we’ve been working on News Picks for a very long time). Only yesterday we witnessed another case where Microsoft and its partners overwhelm and stuff ballots. This is no justice.
As significantly, Rob reports that a very dramatic increase in the membership of V1 was observed in the months leading up to the vote – most of whom were coincidentally were representatives of Microsoft business partners, and the great majority of whom voted as a block in favor of advancing the specification in a manner that would permit, and against any vote that would prevent, final approval as an ISO/IEC standard.
Second, and extremely interesting to me, Express Edition runs on Ubuntu. Why does this matter? Well, for one thing it shows Ubuntu’s stablity and performance. But on an even more interesting note, take a look at Open-Xchange’s management team, and in particular its CTO, Jürgen Geck. You might remember that he was the CTO at Suse….Or check out Open-Xchange’s co-founder and EVP of engineering, Martin Kauss. Yep, he was a Suse guy before, too. The list goes on….
Content is available under CC-BY-SA