07.10.07
Posted in Courtroom, FSF, GNU/Linux, GPL, Kernel, Microsoft, Novell, SLES/SLED at 10:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
According to InformationWeek, Novell has just found (or claims to have found) a workaround that addresses and resolves their new problem.
In an e-mail Monday, Novell’s spokesman said the company would fill the gap by distributing portions of its SUSE Linux enterprise suite that fall under the GPLv3 license directly to customers who purchased certificates that would have entitled them to receive the software from Microsoft.
If true, the situation will further complicated. Is Microsoft exempted from committing to an evolving licence? Perhaps it is a win-win situation for the FSF, but perhaps there will be more room for dispute.
A headsup from Bob is linked to own observation which talks about legal implications. Will the FSF ever face Microsoft in court? The following blogger believes it is unlikely. He provides some decent arguments to back his opinion.
Anyone waiting for Microsoft vs FSF or FSF vs Microsoft will be extremely likely to be disappointed. Besides broad campaigning against software patent, FSF offensive has mostly opted to educate, rather than legal recourse. Right now, FSF is just going to say that GPL3 settle this matter once and for all. I cannot see FSF recklessly and purposefully infringe on Microsoft’s patent to provoke Microsoft in order to test this theory. As for Microsoft, it will stick by its gun that it is not a party to GPL3 and have no obligation under GPLv3. It is not in its interest to have this theory tested either.
If I were to place a bet, I say Microsoft vs FSF is more likely than FSF vs Microsoft. Even more likely is GPLv3 is tested by Microsoft vs “someone else”. I believe the fuse for such a lawsuit is already lit. Only problem is we do not know when the bomb will explode.
Linus Torvalds is having its own problems with the FSF. As you may have read by now, Linus is again attacking those whom he calls “hypocrites”.
[Linus:] I don’t think it’s hypocritical to prefer the GPLv3. That’s a fine choice, it’s just not *mine*.
What I called hypocritical was to do so in the name of “freedom”, while you’re at the same time trying to argue that I don’t have the “freedom” to make my own choice.
See? THAT is hypocritical.
Some say this would boil up the water and lead to further tension. The consequences are yet to be seen, but some journalists seem to be blowing this out of proportion. This stance is nothing new.
Update: A source close to the FSF has just told me that the item cited here is not so reliable. The FSF might in fact take legal action after all.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FUD, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Quote at 9:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
From a recent interview:
[Linus:] “Personally, I think it’s just posturing. And if it results in more companies doing patent cross-licencing with Microsoft, I think Microsoft will be happy – that may well be the primary motivation. But I’m not a lawyer, nor do I intend to start playing one on TV (or in the tech press). So this is just my personal interpretation. The fact that Microsoft didn’t actually name any of the patents makes me think it’s just FUD and hot air.”
Source
This short item invites readers to ask Linus Torvalds further questions that will be answered. Speaking of which, earlier today I sent out our questions to Mark Shuttleworth. Most of the questions, which were proposed by our readers, are purely technical.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, GPL, Microsoft, Novell at 9:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
An article from ITWire reaffirms our suspicion that Novell’s public statement was an expression and admission of worry and doubt. Rightfully so.
Tellingly, Novell’s statement describes Microsoft’s position as being “taken unilaterally” – presumably an indication that Novell isn’t completely happy with the situation.
And there are other signs that the partners aren’t in complete harmony.
Novell insists that GPLv3 does not touch it. So does Microsoft. However, while Microsoft vows never to distribute (let alone touch) GPLv3-licensed software, Novell insists that its tie with Microsoft does not affect its (Novell’s) ability to distribute GPLv3-licensed software. The expiration day on the coupon plays a role here. It surely complicates things.
Progress on the upgrades to GPLv3 cannot be denied. Even those who were skeptical simply have to admit that hard numbers cannot be ignored. The evolving nature of the licence can only be denied by those who bury their heads in the sand.
Still, it’s [GPLv3] a good license, and I think the adoption will continue and accelerate as people grok it better. I particularly think that it will find adherents in companies and communities that have used quasi-open source licenses. It allows for reasonable attribution, for one thing, which may serve to obviate the whole MPL+attribution debate.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, Deals, GNU/Linux, Open XML, OpenDocument, Turbolinux at 4:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
From the it-could-be-worse dept.
Let’s calm down. It is not another so-called ‘intellectual property’ deal. This one is purely about document translators, but once again it involves a Linux company that turns its back on OpenDocument format, which is the ISO standard. TurboLinux is a company that was mentioned some weeks ago when discussing candidates for Microsoft deals. Now that GPLv3 is out, no company would be tactless enough to sign a patent deal (unless it hasn’t an idea what it’s doing).
From the article:
Microsoft is enlisting Linux distributor TurboLinux to help tailor work being done to translate documents between Open XML and ODF file formats for Japanese and Chinese users.
Microsoft can now brag about another company that supports its ‘monopoly enabler’. Could they sink any lower than this?
In case this ever escalates, a new tag, “Turbolinux”, has just been created. I’ll have to go wash my hands now.
Update: Rob Weir has just identified some more serious flaws in OOXML. It’s part of a series of problems. To quote the summary:
As I’ve shown, in the rush to write a 6,000 page standard in less than a year, Ecma dropped the ball. OOXML’s spreadsheet formula is worse than missing. It has incorrect formulas that, if implemented according to the standard may cause loss of life, property and capital. This standard is seriously messed up. And shame on all those who praised and continue to praise the OOXML formula specification without actually reading it.
Read that last sentence again. Read it? I might as well add here that Mr. de Icaza, who is not exactly a fan of this Web site, left a comment a couple of days ago (again). Whether you know it or not, de Icaza is a supporter of OOXML. He works at Novell.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.09.07
Posted in Courtroom, FSF, GNU/Linux, GPL, Kernel, Microsoft, Novell, UNIX at 11:14 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Don Marti, a long-time journalist who covers Linux, seems convinced that Novell is not in a very miserable position.
Sam Hiser says Novell is in a lose-lose situation, but that’s not necessarily the case. The kernel is staying GPLv2. (Linus Torvalds deciding not to take his 10,000 copyright holders and go v3 is like the driver of an 18-wheeler “deciding” not to do donuts on my lawn.)
That leaves development tools, which Novell can always split out into a separate product, the way the Unix vendors did, and a bunch of utilities, which are not moving fast enough to be a problem to maintain.
Forking options aside, Novell seems to be redefining and spinning what GPLv3 and MIcrosoft’s response actually mean. As Heise puts it:
Novell welcomed and supported the new GPL version and was planning to include GPLv3 software in its distribution, it was said. There were no provisions in the final version of GPLv3 that would prevent Novell from doing so, the company declared.
I am not a lawyer and my understanding of the licence is limited. In these circumstances I just count on the judgment of those whose words I trust. Matt Aslett is one of them and he now opines that these endless arguments could be heading towards the courtroom.
The legal ramifications of Microsoft’s GPLv3 position
[...]
I previously noted that Microsoft was attempting to portray itself as the victim. Talk of being misrepresented and bound fits the picture.
If the FSF ever confronted Microsoft over GPLv3 misinterpretations and disagreements, then it would be interesting to see Novell’s involvement. It would probably maintain a bystander status. Novell is not quite so fond of the FSF and the sentiments seem mutual. This is despite the fact that Novell benefited from the FSF’s mercy (when GPLv3′s draft was rewritten). Remind yourselves that this was only done in order to be used against Microsoft, not necessary in order to favour or assist Novell. Even Alax Cox had something to say about this.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in ECMA, Europe, Formats, IBM, ISO, Microsoft, Open XML, OpenDocument, Petitions, Standard, XPS at 8:15 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
According to the following bit of information, ECMA does not exactly operate like a standards body should. Have a look (emphasis mine):
Global Graphics’ chief technology officer Martin Bailey has been appointed by standards development body Ecma International to chair a new technical committee that will work on producing a formal industry standard for the XML Paper Specification (XPS), the new print and document format introduced by Microsoft with Windows Vista….
Global Graphics has played a prominent role in the development and launch of the XPS specification from the very start. A recognized expert in interpreting, rendering and converting PDLs, Global Graphics’ leading edge expertise and engineering capability were factors in the Company being chosen by Microsoft in 2003 to provide consultation services on the XPS specification as well as develop a prototype and a print reference XPS RIP for Microsoft.
Now, can you see how approval is won at ECMA? There is not much of a chance of a proposal being rejected, is there? As we said yesterday, ISO seems to have lost its way as well. It is becoming a little assimilated to ECMA, which can be referred to as a Coin-in-the-Slot Standards Organization. Once again, Microsoft’s allies are in the committee, so there is little room for independent judgment. ECMA truly looks like a production line that passes on proposal s– however poor they may be — to the ISO, then boasting some ‘pseudo acceptance’ by an industry-for-industry consortium.
Andy Updegrove and Bob Sutor are among those who try to explain to high officials why poor Microsoft-centric standards must be rejected. You can assist resistance to OOXML adoption in MA.
Preparing such comments is time consuming, but it is also important. I took several hours to do so yesterday, and have just sent them to the ITD just now. You can to, and I hope that you will. The ITD’s comment address is standards@state.ma.us, and the deadline is next Friday. If you’re a believer in open standards, please don’t let that deadline pass without making your thoughts known.
More information can be found here. According to Newton (of Alfresco), Microsoft has just taken its battles to the United Kingdom as well. It continues its lobbying campaign with an XML du jour and a twisted definition of “open”.
With OOXML and XPS, Microsoft has chosen to not work with existing standards, but to create new ones, as they have in their recent announcement on Web3S instead of working with the rest of the industry on the Atom Publishing Protocol. In the case of OOXML, this is a logical move on Microsoft’s part, since it is an evolution of Microsoft’s XML strategy started with the Microsoft Office 2003 version and ODF will be a technology diversion from that strategy. With Microsoft controlling 90% of the office productivity tools market and OOXML being the default file format for Microsoft Office 2007, OOXML is likely to be widely-used.
The article suggests that the BBC article on digital preservation may have been nothing but a publicity stunt. There are some prior incidents where Microsoft did questionable things in the United Kingdom. It ‘faked’ support for OOXML and got slammed by the Open Source Consortium, with which I’m sort of affiliated.
The petition is an attempt to make it appear that Open XML has “pseudo-grassroots” support, argues Mark Taylor, the founder of the Open Source Consortium.
This action followed a very suspicious petition, set up by nobody but Microsoft. Keep your eyes open and see how these things develop. There’s little honesty in process.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents, SCO, UNIX, Windows at 7:02 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
As you may already know, Microsoft’s goal is to make Linux more expensive. The deals with Linux distributors have other effects (including document formats, interoperability costs, and so forth), but one key goal is to make Linux an operating system that is no longer free. Alternatively, the goal is to at least ‘cripple’ all versions (distributions) of Linux that are not paid for. Microsoft wishes to receive money no matter whose product you buy, even where rival software developed by volunteers is concerned.
A few hours ago, the following exhibit from the Comes vs Microsoft case came to my attention. It illustrates yet another method devised by Microsoft for making Linux more expensive than Windows [PDF].
OEMs are forced to forfeit all discounts otherwise earned if they ship any “naked machines” to consumers. This heightened restriction, which (on information and belief) continues to the present, prohibits PC users and PC retailers from buying and installing lower priced or better quality operating systems of their choice.
This is a very large document. It’s a petition which is definitely worth reading if you wish to know more about Microsoft’s history of anticompetitive practices. Remember that Microsoft settled this case very quickly and had these exhibits virtually removed from the Web (later to realise that Groklokian had already grabbed complete mirrors).
Let us carry on and see what Microsoft is doing at present. There are shades of SCO. A few weeks back, a deposition of Darl McBride was analysed to find that he had dreams about making billions out of Linux, based on unsubstantiated claims and FUD. If you take a look at this new short article, then surely you’ll see the similarity between SCO’s tactics and Microsoft’s latest tactics.
SCO’s tactics in this fiasco have been to try to scare corporate Linux users into buying SCO’s protection licenses to avoid possible future litigation and creating a smoke screen of doubt in the Linux market.
So there you have it. Microsoft and SCO are not only financially connected. They are mentally connected, as well. If you buy Xandros, Linspire, or SUSE Linux, then you simply help Microsoft get its way.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, GPL, Microsoft, Novell, Samba, SLES/SLED at 6:40 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Attempts to make GPL reception a disaster have apparently failed. With Samba and other projects now confirming their upgrade to GPLv3, it seems rather obvious that Microsoft will lose access to some very valuable Free software.
The Samba team will continue to provide security fixes to the GPLv2 versions, but new features will be added only to the GPLv3 versions, the team said.
The Free Software Foundation has already released a number of elements of its Gnu’s Not Unix (GNU) project under GPLv3, including the widely used “tar” command for compressing and decompressing files.
As a quick recap, Microsoft escapes the GPLv3, arrogantly denies any involvement with it, and wishfully thinks that its monovalent plans will prevail. The matter of fact is that support for GPLv3 is growing. Groklaw explains why Microsoft is knee-deep in trouble (and it knows it).
Bug fixes is code, folks. Ditto revisions, enhancements, localizations, updates, upgrades and modifications. Now tell me Microsoft, had they not run for the exit, wouldn’t have been distributing software under GPLv3, let alone conveying or propagating. Puh lease.
I think after reading all this, you can see why the company decided to try to scrape the Novell vouchers off of its shoes like toilet paper stuck to the bottom. But with the vouchers having no expiration dates, I really wonder if what they have done is enough. So when I read Microsoft’s statement that it isn’t bound by GPLv3, I’d call it hopeful optimism that the changes they’ve announced will help them retreat from what would inevitably have been a huge GPLv3 impact. I read it as saying, *Now* we aren’t bound, any more, because we stopped doing what we were doing that would have bound us.”
Who would wish to buy ‘Microsoft-approved’ Linux at this stage? Those who defected are likely to end up with a crippled and out-of-date versions of GNU, among other pieces of software which can be compromised.
Off-topic side notes:
- If you spot any errors, please say something so that we can correct them. Personally, I write these posts quickly, so typos and grammatical errors are always expected
- Any parallels between this Web site and Groklaw are probably the result of involvement in both. The sites are by no means affiliated (or siblings) though.
Update:: with growing support and at least 5,000 on the path to GPLv3, one might wonder about speed of adoption. According to this article, the new licence is being embraced quite quickly.
GPLv3 attracts 116 projects in first week
The third version of the General Public Licence (GPLv3) has been adopted by 116 open source projects in its first week of operation, according to an overview compiled by software risk management firm Palamida.
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