06.13.08
Gemini version available ♊︎OpenSUSE “Marketing Team” Announced
For background and context, see this previous post.
Later came the following message, which was posted by the administrator of Free Software Daily:
“And to those who think they can get away with multiple accounts: I know who you are! I suggest you stop now so that I don’t have to start banning IPs. If you can find some real friends to support your opinion great but don’t bring all of your pretend friends along to the debate.”
An OpenSUSE Board member had a couple of OpenSUSE submissions hit the front page of the site (which is rare). Just a few hours ago the following announcement came up in the OpenSUSE mailing lists. It came from a Novell employee, Joe ‘Zonker’ Brockmeier, who is also the Community Manager of OpenSUSE.
[opensuse-announce] openSUSE Marketing Team
Do you have a passion for Linux and a desire to promote openSUSE?
Would you like to paint the world’s desktops openSUSE green? If so,
the openSUSE marketing team wants you!
[...]
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Needs Sunlight said,
June 13, 2008 at 4:35 am
“Joe ‘Zonker’ Brockmeier, who is also the Community Manager of OpenSUSE.” Hmm. That explains a bit.
He’s also an editor and author on several forums…
Root said,
June 13, 2008 at 4:47 am
He only signed up for the job of Community Manager on February 1st.
Francis said,
June 13, 2008 at 7:15 am
You are again insinuating something for which you have zero evidence for (and for which I know to be untrue as far as I can see): you are suggesting that some openSUSE people really have the time, effort, or cheek to create multiple accounts on the website. Perhaps thinking this offers you some consolation for the fact that a lot of individuals apparently really dislike the content and approach of this website?
I could equally easily note that I’ve seen — in countless places — people suggesting that you create multiple accounts on many websites in order to do something similar. I wouldn’t do this though, because I have no EVIDENCE for it. One person’s wild idea isn’t evidence, you know.
Great to see the openSUSE stories being well-received on FSDaily. From the reaction of people’s comments on there I see that they’re more interested in hearing about open source SOFTWARE than ramblings and FUD (just what I’ve seen). For sure there will be a lot more submissions to there in the future I hope.
Balzac said,
June 13, 2008 at 9:09 am
Francis,
Licensing issues are very important, not just the software its self. Microsoft is making arrangements to collect what amounts to a tax on software users, based on the threat of patent claims. Novell has become a vehicle for this strategy to tax us all. Look how Microsoft relates to Novell and Linspire:
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/collab/linspire/customer_covenant.mspx
Covenant to Customers
Published: July 5, 2007 | Updated: July 5, 2007
Microsoft, on behalf of itself and its Subsidiaries, hereby covenants not to sue a Customer of Linspire for infringement under Microsoft’s Covered Patents…
…
However, Client Offerings do not include (i) any portions of products that comprise or include … GPLv3 Software or Other Excluded Products
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/patent_agreement.mspx
Patent Cooperation Agreement – Microsoft & Novell Interoperability Collaboration
Published: November 2, 2006 | Updated: July 5, 2007
Microsoft, on behalf of itself and its Subsidiaries (collectively “Microsoft”), hereby covenants not to sue Novell’s Customers and Novell’s Subsidiaries’ Customers for infringement under Covered Patents of Microsoft…
So, I suppose the rest of us can look forward to the threat of lawsuits because we haven’t made arrangements to pay Microsoft an arbitrarily imposed tax on ideas?
Here’s what Redhat did:
http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/11/43190
Linux Vendor Red Hat Settles Patent Suits, Says It’s Protecting the Open Source Community
Bruce Perens
Wed Jun 11 14:04:00 -0700 2008
“This is very different from patent agreements made by Novell and other Linux distributions with Microsoft, which protect their own customers exclusively, excluding the Open Source community that develops their software.”
It’s obvious to those who are paying attention what Microsoft is doing with Novell. Also, it’s clear there is a close relationship between Novell and openSUSE.
I am not supportive of the openSUSE project because I worry that Novell will get openSUSE to put code into their work which Microsoft will later claim belongs to them.
I hope the Linux Kernel maintainers are watching any code offered up from openSUSE and Novell with great concern since the deal with Microsoft went down. I don’t care how nice the software is, I don’t want to be taxed by Microsoft!
Victor Soliz said,
June 13, 2008 at 9:30 am
So, you insist openSUSE is open source, did you happen to read their EULA?
Balzac said,
June 13, 2008 at 9:46 am
Francis,
Licensing issues are very important, not just the software its self. Microsoft is making arrangements to collect what amounts to a tax on software users, based on the threat of patent claims. Novell has become a vehicle for this strategy to tax us all. Look how Microsoft relates to Novell and Linspire:
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/collab/linspire/customer_covenant.mspx
Covenant to Customers
Published: July 5, 2007 | Updated: July 5, 2007
Microsoft, on behalf of itself and its Subsidiaries, hereby covenants not to sue a Customer of Linspire for infringement under Microsoft’s Covered Patents…
…
However, Client Offerings do not include (i) any portions of products that comprise or include … GPLv3 Software or Other Excluded Products
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/patent_agreement.mspx
Patent Cooperation Agreement – Microsoft & Novell Interoperability Collaboration
Published: November 2, 2006 | Updated: July 5, 2007
Microsoft, on behalf of itself and its Subsidiaries (collectively “Microsoft”), hereby covenants not to sue Novell’s Customers and Novell’s Subsidiaries’ Customers for infringement under Covered Patents of Microsoft…
So, I suppose the rest of us can look forward to the threat of lawsuits because we haven’t made arrangements to pay Microsoft an arbitrarily imposed tax on ideas?
Here’s what Redhat did:
http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/11/43190
Linux Vendor Red Hat Settles Patent Suits, Says It’s Protecting the Open Source Community
Bruce Perens
Wed Jun 11 14:04:00 -0700 2008
“This is very different from patent agreements made by Novell and other Linux distributions with Microsoft, which protect their own customers exclusively, excluding the Open Source community that develops their software.”
I don’t even like the idea of legitimizing software patents through defensive patent strategies to protect the public, much less an aggressive patent strategy like what Microsoft and Novell are doing. It makes me think it’s time for more software civil disobedience.
It’s obvious what Microsoft is doing with Novell. Also, it’s clear there is a close relationship between Novell and openSUSE. Is it true that a Novell employee is also community manager of openSUSE?
I am not supportive of the openSUSE project because I worry that Novell will get openSUSE to put code into their work which Microsoft will later claim belongs to them.
I hope the Linux Kernel maintainers are watching any code offered up from openSUSE and Novell with great concern since the deal with Microsoft went down. I don’t care how nice the software is, I will not be taxed by Microsoft.
RyanT said,
June 13, 2008 at 10:04 am
Victor, I have read their EULA. All it is is the GPL and some stuff about any of the proprrietary/dodgy stuff you might use/install from the repositories. Roy here took a very specific sentence or two of it out of context.
RyanT said,
June 13, 2008 at 10:28 am
Just to clarify:
“The Software is a collective work of Novell. You may make and use
unlimited copies of the Software for Your distribution and use within
Your Organization. You may make and distribute unlimited copies of
the Software outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive
no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software
with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service). The
term “Organization” means a legal entity, excluding subsidiaries and
affiliates with a separate existence for tax purposes or for legal
personality purposes. An example of an Organization in the private
sector would be a corporation, partnership, or trust, excluding any
subsidiaries or affiliates of the organization with a separate tax
identification number or company registration number. In the public
sector, an example of Organization would be a specific government
body or local government authority.
The Software is a modular operating system. Most of the components
are open source packages, developed independently, and accompanied by
separate license terms. Your license rights with respect to
individual components accompanied by separate license terms are
defined by those terms; nothing in this Agreement (including, for
example, the “Other License Terms and Restrictions,” below) shall
restrict, limit, or otherwise affect any rights or obligations You may
have, or conditions to which You may be subject, under such license
terms.”
“OTHER LICENSE TERMS AND RESTRICTIONS
The Software is protected by the copyright laws and treaties of the
United States (“U.S.”) and other countries and is subject to the
terms of this Agreement. The Software is licensed to You, not sold.
The Software may be bundled with other software programs (“Bundled
Programs”). Your license rights with respect to Bundled Programs
accompanied by separate license terms are defined by those terms;
nothing in this Agreement shall restrict, limit, or otherwise affect
any rights or obligations You may have, or conditions to which You may
be subject, under such license terms.
Novell reserves all rights not expressly granted to You. You may not:
(1) reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software except
and only to the extent it is expressly permitted by applicable law or
the license terms accompanying a component of the Software; or (2)
transfer the Software or Your license rights under this Agreement, in
whole or in part.”
All it defines is that whatever programme you use is subject to the individual licensing of that programme and not necessarily the same one you agree to with openSUSE when you first get it. The rest of it is bog standard legal speak (like any rights you do not have being reserved, as with every company) and clarifying certain things so they don’t get bitten on the arse for something that is not necessarily their responsibility (again, bog standard stuff).
The stuff about another service doesn’t stop derivative distributions and the like as far as I can tell, it just states that you can’t resell openSUSE itself as your own product (the same as the GPL as far as I know).
RyanT said,
June 13, 2008 at 10:49 am
Balzac:
All the agreement does, again, as far as I can tell. is state that MS can’t sue Novell customers for patent infringement (which in itself is right, but I’m guessing MS bullying convinced Novell that this was necessary), and that they shall respect and avoid any patents MS has.
On it’s own, the agreement is actually pretty agreeable, apart from exclusivity to the Novell customers. The critical part is whether those patents would have stood up if Novell hadn’t either been seemingly bullied or given up quickly (to an extent the same with Red Hat), not the overall conspiracy that has come about with MS sneaking code in or this or that – I’m against Silverlight/Moonlight because of MS trying to get it’s own web standard, but in themselves they really don’t seem any different than the open implementations of Java or Flash. On their own, at least to me, they seem reasonable – we should be against them because of the potential standards that MS could get its hands on, not for some MS sneaking code in conspiracy.
Chris said,
June 13, 2008 at 11:26 am
Dear Victor, just for you I will say it one more time:
The reason for the paragraphs Roy and his fan boys try to base their case on were included into the BETA EULA because certain german magazines repeatedly distributed BETA releases as FINALS and thereby implied that the overall software quality was pretty bad.
Here you can see the current 11.0 EULA (which will again change and probably included the paragraphs you guys try to base your case on as soon as 11.1 development starts):
http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/SL-OSS-factory/inst-source/EULA.txt
Then the 11.0 EULA probably can be seen here:
http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/11.0/repo/oss/EULA.txt
And here is the 10.3 EULA:
http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/10.3/repo/oss/EULA.txt
Feel free to point out any possible restrictions you see in those FINAL EULAS!
Last but not least I would like to say that I’m really amazed how brainwashed / paranoid some of you folks are. Some years ago Roy misunderstood some simple facts and started to build his case based on his assumptions. And since then there barely a single day goes by without him adding more “facts” based on earlier “facts” as proof to his house of cards made out of misinformation and FUD which is basically founded on one misunderstanding.
Also, in Roys little world, it for sure can’t be true that finally loads of people are sick of his site & his conspiracy theories / little pamphlets and it just has to be a single Novell employee who sits somewhere in the basement and gets paid to do nothing but create loads of accounts on digg & fsdaily to run a “smear campaign” against this site.
SO GET REAL FFS!
The problem is not the MS Novell deal cause this one is completely irrelevant for FOSS & Linux but simply the american patent law which is IMHO one of the most retarded laws in the world. So please stop to see a plot behind everything & concentrate on the real problem or get help.
Thanks.
Chris said,
June 13, 2008 at 11:29 am
test
Chris said,
June 13, 2008 at 11:30 am
Dear Victor, just for you I will say it one more time:
The reason for the paragraphs Roy and his fan boys try to base their case on were included into the BETA EULA because certain german magazines repeatedly distributed BETA releases as FINALS and thereby implied that the overall software quality was pretty bad.
Here you can see the current 11.0 EULA (which will again change and probably included the paragraphs you guys try to base your case on as soon as 11.1 development starts):
http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/SL-OSS-factory/inst-source/EULA.txt
Then the 11.0 EULA probably can be seen here:
http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/11.0/repo/oss/EULA.txt
And here is the 10.3 EULA:
http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/10.3/repo/oss/EULA.txt
Feel free to point out any possible restrictions you see in those FINAL EULAS!
Last but not least I would like to say that I’m really amazed how brainwashed / paranoid some of you folks are. Some years ago Roy misunderstood some simple facts and started to build his case based on his assumptions. And since then there barely a single day goes by without him adding more “facts” based on earlier “facts” as proof to his house of cards made out of misinformation and FUD which is basically founded on one misunderstanding.
Also, in Roys little world, it for sure can’t be true that finally loads of people are sick of his site & his conspiracy theories / little pamphlets and it just has to be a single Novell employee who sits somewhere in the basement and gets paid to do nothing but create loads of accounts on digg & fsdaily to run a “smear campaign” against this site.
SO GET REAL FFS!
The problem is not the MS Novell deal cause this one is completely irrelevant for FOSS & Linux but simply the american patent law which is IMHO one of the most retarded laws in the world. So please stop to see a plot behind everything & concentrate on the real problem or get help.
Thanks.
PS I’m wondering why it doesn’t show my comment also the test works?
Chris said,
June 13, 2008 at 11:31 am
Dear Victor, just for you I will say it one more time:
The reason for the paragraphs Roy and his fan boys try to base their case on were included into the BETA EULA because certain german magazines repeatedly distributed BETA releases as FINALS and thereby implied that the overall software quality was pretty bad.
Here you can see the current 11.0 EULA (which will again change and probably included the paragraphs you guys try to base your case on as soon as 11.1 development starts):
http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/SL-OSS-factory/inst-source/EULA.txt
Then the 11.0 EULA probably can be seen here:
http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/11.0/repo/oss/EULA.txt
And here is the 10.3 EULA:
http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/10.3/repo/oss/EULA.txt
Feel free to point out any possible restrictions you see in those FINAL EULAS!
zoltan said,
June 13, 2008 at 5:14 pm
The EULA is absolutely fine. I am also quite amazed to read that most people on this site don’t seem to have any idea how big the contributions are that Novell makes to Linux and GNU projects. If you want to boycott Novell, don’t forget to stop using Evolution and OpenOffice — oh; and the Kernel, too, of course…
Saul Goode said,
June 14, 2008 at 2:06 am
RyanT wrote:
Translation: Aside from the fact that it’s not Free, it’s Free.