Over a week ago, speculations arose with regard to software patents, followed by some clarifications. This issue is discussed further in the following short article, which is aptly titled "Microsoft: Never Really Helping Open source".

Schafer says that Microsoft is never going to extend the patent protection on ClearType to all of the Linux community, and adds that he has lost all hopes, now "with all the anti-Novell/Microsoft clauses in the GPLv3 dealing with patent protection and the essential prohibition on it". He opines that that FSF and GPL's conviction to ideals may in fact stunt the growth of open source and Linux. The need is the two worlds to find a common ground so that the user does not suffer.

This sounds like criticism of the GPLv3. Schafer opines that there are better solutions to the problem which this deal introduced, but does the headline not contradict this? It is clear that the Novell/Microsoft deal had nothing whatsoever to do with helping Linux. It was about harming Linux as a whole. A few months ago, Microsoft's CEO explicitly said that the deal was primarily about patents, not interoperability. Novell will continue to deny this, or even "agree to disagree", but this neither changes the facts, nor can it change intent.

I will shortly post a collection of links which discuss licensing issues a little further. Hopefully, folks like Schafer will ultimately agree that there are no better choices and GPLv3 is actually a very good thing. Meanwhile --and only yesterday in fact -- Rob Enderle who regularly shills for Microsoft, took their next punch at GPLv3. It's just part of a long series of punches with a clearly malicious goal in mind, namely the spreading of disconfirmation. They try to create a bogus legal cloud, which will loom over GPLv3, scaring developers and lawyers alike. If you just follow the money, you will find that these attacks consistently come from Microsoft and its ilk, which unfortunately includes Novell now.