OpenSUSE 10.3 is going to be released shortly, so this is probably a good time to discuss the effect of OpenSUSE on the Linux foe that is Novell (the company, not the project). To structure this argument in a convenient and digestible way, let us clarify things in a point-by-point fashion:
When you use OpenSUSE, you support SLED/SLES, which Microsoft gets a revenue percentage from
When you download OpenSUSE, you give the impression that Novell’s business is on track
As soon as you install OpenSUSE, you are most likely installing Mono (in GNOME)
If OpenSUSE succeeds in gaining market share, then truly open source Linux distributions suffer
When you choose OpenSUSE, you contribute to acknowledgment of patent infringements in Linux
There is this couple of interesting new surveys and they reveal facts which are only slightly conflicting. The first one suggests that proprietary software is perceived as equally ‘risky’ compared to open source software.
Interesting, neither open source nor proprietary software score well on “IP protection.” Either they’re both equally good or they’re both equally bad. Either way, they don’t seem to offer distinct advantages, one over the other, according to the customers surveyed.
This is reassuring to know, but have a look at this other new survey.
A concerned 40% of respondents were uneasy that open source software would leave them vulnerable to censure or litigation from commercial software vendors crying patent or trademark infringement.
These fears are unfounded, according to Andrew Katz, a solicitor at UK law firm Moorcrofts, as US patents do not apply under UK law.
“The UK is in a fantastic position. The chances of coming across patent infringement is vastly less,” Katz told delegates at a London open source event earlier this month.
This indicates that perception is unaligned with reality. This truly means that FUD has had an effect and that people’s mis/understanding and fear of the issue is exaggerated. Just recall what Microsoft did to OpenOffice.org 5 month ago, as the following new article from Microsoft’s own press reminds us.
[Q:] The Microsoft patent imbroglio earlier this year largely targeted the Linux developer community, but OpenOffice.org fell into the crosshairs as well. Is there any impact on your group?
[A:] Looked at from the other side of the Atlantic, nothing in the U.S. patent arena surprises me anymore. The bottom line for OpenOffice.org is that we know where our code has come from. All our code is open source for anyone to inspect; we have nothing to hide. If someone believes we have to stop coding because they have a patent on how developers click a mouse, then that’s fine by me — I’m afraid I’ve been in the IT industry too long to worry unduly about FUD.
The take-home message here is that real risk of software patents (mind the fact that “intellectual property” is not patents) is very low, but to some people, the perceived risk has been affected by FUD. This needs to be corrected.
This means that Microsoft can still sue individual SUSE Linux customers who are using products designed to replicate Microsoft products and that also infringe on Microsoft’s patents.
We’ve all heard about Tivoization [1, 2, 3, 4] — a GNU GPL loophole that GPLv3 will close and a behviour that will be therefore prevented. Another important (yet unrelated) issue is not the attempt to mimic Windows look-and-feel, which might be fine (Xandors and Linspire have been doing this forever), but the inclusion of bits and pieces that are legal land mines and subvert Linux, or at least its general direction.
Steve Lake (of Raiden fame) wrote a short piece on what he calls “Winux”, but he was not referring to what we repeatedly characterise as “Microsoft Linux” (most recent example, among many more). Steve was talking about making Linux installation more intuitive for long-time Windows users, who are unfamiliar with realms that are peripheral to Windows.
Bringing the comfort of Windows familiarity to promote Linux is one thing, but Mono brings to the game legal complications and it introduces Microsoft’s control over all ways forward. Mind you, the first beta of MonoDevelop 1.0 has just been released.
MonoDevelop 1.0 Beta 1 (0.16) has been released. MonoDevelop is a GNOME IDE primarily designed for C# and other .NET languages.
For those readers who have a bias toward Mono, I understand. I mean, I feel your pain. In the mean time, it might help to get off it and take a real look at what Miguel and his development team have accomplish.
The comments are worth reading as well. Linux Journal appears to have just put a wall in front of commenters by requiring login, which wasn’t the case last night. It might be an attempt at suppression of expression of dissent, but maybe it’s more to do with the recent torrent of SPAM (maddog’s article got abused/defaced). Even BoycottNovell.com was flooded by slanderous comments against me yesterday — comments that have been deleted for containing libel and repetitive personal attacks. Ah! The joys of ‘daring’ to criticise Novell… I’m by no means alone.
The comments in Linux Journals pretty much speak for themselves. As long as Novell promotes Mono as a principal the direction for Linux development, SUSE Linux is bound to become something undesirable not for reasons involving being “anti-Microsoft”, but for purely legal and technical reasons. We’ve explored and covered a lot of this before.
…Dana Blankenhorn seems to insinuate that it’s the case.
In his latest blog item, Dana compares Novell’s marketing lies to college coaches, but it’s an analogy that might not be too convincing.
And just how serious an offense is a little white lie inserted into a sales pitch, anyway? Aren’t college coaches constantly tossing around such insinuations to get kids to sign with their schools? Isn’t that what marketing is all about? Isn’t that what political ads are all about?
Is that was the case, then Novell is no longer worth trusting. If it is the case, which apparently it is, then Novell has yet again betrayed the philosophies of transparency and honesty [1, 2].
As our Saturday postings regulatory show, Novell contributes a fair deal to Linux and open source. However, there is a bit of s “robber baron” mentality here. Novell believes that it is acceptable to exploit Linux, sucking up its advantages at the expense of those who make Linux possible. Then, it throws contributions back at Linux and hopes for forgiveness. It’s the equivalent of ‘charity’ to a baron that steals from the poor or exploits the poor to make a fortune. Microsoft is on the same boat.
Novell’s management is either totally foolish or bribed (we’ve observed some financial oddities, e.g. [). This Microsoft/Novell relationship is skin-deep and there’s a lot that remains to be explored and understood. To Novell, the deal is about Novell. To Microsoft, it’s about destroying Linux.
That these claims also could be taken to mean that Novell is developing a non-standard Linux, one that is skewed only towards working with Windows, appears to have escaped Novell.
In other words, Novell has an “in” with Microsoft which Red Hat does not; Utah and Redmond are in bed together and Red Hat is an intruder.
Novell is quite clearly hoping that the long silence about the deal will slowly come to mean that people have accepted it and chosen to, in the words of Iraq invasion apologists, “move on.”
Do you hear that, Francis? People don’t forget. They just speak less.
Overall, it’s a good article from Sam and it is worth reading in full.
You are probably aware by now that whenever the issue arises, Novell and Microsoft have the tendency to talk about “intellectual property”, not “patents”. Are there any trademarks and copyrights involved in the deal? Are there any basic rights involved, or does it all boil down to software patents. which are only honoured in north America, Australia, and Japan? Legally speaking (but IANAL), differences in the systems across the world makes “patents” a weaker term than “intellectual property”. The following perspective offers some food for thought.
Full article: Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It’s a Seductive Mirage by Richard Stallman
It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks— three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—into one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term did not arise by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely…
In the news you’ll find yet another patent case being spun as a case of “intellectual property”, which very well relates to the above observation. It appeared just a day ago.
The amount of compensation is believed to be the highest in China in an intellectual property rights case, the paper said.
Convincing us that we have willingly given away our data and that those who now possess it have the right to use it, Moglen proposes voluntary data collectives as the answer.
In the following video, a statement is being made. Quoting of other people is a fundamental right, which is sometimes taken away.
Quotation rights have been universal ever since the written language developed. It’s absurd to disallow the ancient right to quote in the name of intellectual property. It’s anti progress, anti democracy and anti civilization too.
Isn’t quoting an individual akin to mimicking behaviour of software only for interoperability purposes? There is no way around it because misquoting a person is analogous to incompatibility and partial compatibility.
To Mono’s founders, the proprietary/open-source battle was less important than issues of co-existence and the most appropriate platform for the job. According to Justin Steinman, Novell’s director of product marketing for Linux and open platform systems, and the man in charge of selling Mono to the world, “Mono essentially enables you to run .net applications on Linux,” giving you the choice of developing for either platform knowing that it will run on both.
Interestingly enough, the article defends Mono proponents while dismissing opposition to it as being “anti-Microsoft”. Mind you, they use negativism; not “pro-open standard”, not “anti-patents”, not “freedom advocate”, or even “fair competition proponents”.
“Remember that Microsoft has no commitment for Mono.”The article quotes Justin Steinman, whose “night job” (that’s what he calls it) now involves both Microsoft and Novell. This type of duality in role and responsibilities is similar to Miguel de Icaza’s role at Novell, but Miguel describes a duality in a different way, namely: “I have two positions, and one is speaking as the person managing the Mono team, and then there is another answer speaking as a Novell vice president.” It wasn’t long ago that he spoke about OOXML being a “superb standard”.
In any event, remind yourselves why Mono is risky, unlike GNU/Linux and open standards (Novell will try to convince you otherwise, using perceived risk as an ‘advantage’).
“…Mono’s role in the deal that of a hook to make customers write .NET applications because they can be run on Linux – only to find later on that they are armless or legless because of a change in the .NET specifications, a change which Microsoft decides not to make public?”
Remember that Microsoft has no commitment for Mono. It can pull the carpet from underneath Mono’s feet at any time, so again, as a Mono-reliant customer, you’re left at Microsoft’s mercy.
If you seek evidence of what might come, then read the following.
I read the agreement between Xandros and Microsoft, and one of the excluded products was Mono, so Microsoft promises to not sue Xandros over their distribution but excluding Mono and a few other products, i.e. they reserve the right to sue over Mono. I wonder if this is an interesting preview of on what basis they want to fight the free world.
Interestingly, the Novell deal seems to be different, Mono is not excluded from the Novell deal. So Microsoft seems to be promising not to sue Novell over Mono, but keeps the option open for Xandros. Weird but true.
Do not use OpenSUSE or even download OpenSUSE. Many SUSE developers have already left the building. Meanwhile, Novell is hiring .NET developers.
Steve Lake (of Raiden fame) 
The comments in Linux Journals pretty much speak for themselves. As long as Novell promotes Mono as a 
You are probably aware by now that whenever the issue arises, Novell and Microsoft have the tendency to talk about “intellectual property”, not “patents”. Are there any trademarks and copyrights involved in the deal? Are there any basic rights involved, or does it all boil down to software patents. which are only honoured in north America, Australia, and Japan? Legally speaking (but IANAL), differences in the systems across the world makes “patents” a weaker term than “intellectual property”. The 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA