“Often cast as the peacemaker in free software disputes, Bruce Perens is on the warpath. When we caught up with him, he wasn’t in a mood to be charitable to Novell. On Friday the Utah company, which markets the SuSE Linux distribution, revealed that it was entering into a partnership with Microsoft. Redmond would pay Novell an undisclosed sum in return for Novell recognizing Microsoft’s intellectual property claims. Novell received a ‘Covenant’ promising that it wouldn’t be sued by Microsoft.“It’s a case of ‘Damn the people who write the software'”, he told us. “Novell is in a desperate position – it has a smaller share of the market than Debian,”” he told The Register. Update: Novell responds to community’s questions: here, here and here. Update 2: Havoc Pennington’s take.
Heres a bit of history on suse. I do think the article is getting somewhere. I believe Novell is really struggling, and they’re eventually going to fall this time.
I wasn’t around much novell networks when the ‘thing’ was netware. I did hear about netware losing market share and there were several problems surrounding the netware protocol. Everybody seemed to be very disappointed at what happened and switched to other protocols. Microsoft did support the NetWare protocol in several of their windows versions, yet novell seemed to fail anyway.
When Novell bought SuSE, first thing came to mind, “Oh, they’re trying to recover from their loss by buying a company.” Before, SuSE was really good, but I knew tons of people switching from SuSE because of Novell purchasing them. Everyone was like, “Oh god, they’re going to ruin another product.” Which in turn has become true from the recent events.
Okay, next we have Novell funded projects and funding in to mono. Great. I’m just curious what they get out of it. If you go to the mono page, you can pay for support, which is cheap. No real type of profit here. The largest consumer I can think of is the makers of Second Life.
I scoffed at this too because I truly didn’t believe the funding was in the interest of the community. It is in every business to earn income, however there is an image one must keep. When you have customers, it is very important to look like a good guy, not a corrupt businessman.
When they fired the CEO and hired a new one. I did listen to the conference, and one of the main reasons they canned him is the lack of emergence in to open source. One can’t completely blame the CEO, but there always has to be a fall guy.
What does this history tell me? Novell has been struggling for years trying to make a profit. Personally I’d be curious what an investigation on the reported profits would result.
** please full in the history where needed, I don’t look at every detail in novell**
Edited 2006-11-07 23:15
I wasn’t around much novell networks when the ‘thing’ was netware. I did hear about netware losing market share and there were several problems surrounding the netware protocol. Everybody seemed to be very disappointed at what happened and switched to other protocols. Microsoft did support the NetWare protocol in several of their windows versions, yet novell seemed to fail anyway.
I was, in fact I made a lot of money selling it. And the Novell guys scoffed when Microsoft stated their aspirations for NT ever becoming a strong platform in the server room. Many revisionists like to claim Microsoft somehow illegally manipulates the law every time they knock off a strong competitor, but that ignores the fact that many of those former number ones (Netware, Netscape, WordPerfect, Lotus 123, Real… the list goes on) basked in the glory of their marketshare, considering themselves untouchable, and scoffed at the thought of Microsoft ever knocking them out. Sometimes companies fail because of bad decision making, it isn’t *always* Microsoft’s fault, though it’s popular to criticize them.
When Novell bought SuSE, first thing came to mind, “Oh, they’re trying to recover from their loss by buying a company.” Before, SuSE was really good, but I knew tons of people switching from SuSE because of Novell purchasing them. Everyone was like, “Oh god, they’re going to ruin another product.” Which in turn has become true from the recent events.
Fair enough, Novell’s track record with acquisitions is less than stellar but at the same time those acquisitons were often made as part of a desperation maneuver to counter Microsoft rather than an intelligent, well-thought out strategy.
Suse was actually a smart acquisition, despite what the Ximian guys like to think, it became the basis for their enterprise platform and brought them existing marketshare as the number 2 distribution. Suse certainly gained a much higher profile than it had, and the latest versions of both corporate SLED and community openSuse are among the most popular distros out there. Ironically their only serious misstep so far with Suse was the package management fiasco in Suse 10.1, which was a very public symptom of their mono campaign, and maybe is a first step towards destoying the distro.
Okay, next we have Novell funded projects and funding in to mono. Great. I’m just curious what they get out of it. If you go to the mono page, you can pay for support, which is cheap. No real type of profit here. The largest consumer I can think of is the makers of Second Life.
Novell’s original gameplan with mono was to create a .Net compatible framework that they mistakenly saw as one of the biggest obstacles to enterprise adoption of linux. The idea was that if mono succeeded it would lead to enterprise license sales.
With mono’s licensing Novell clearly reserves the right to license it in a non-GPL manner (contributors are required to assign copyright for that purpose), so maybe they’re making some sort of licensing fee from other vendors but if they are, I’m not aware of it and I don’t think anyone else is.
When they fired the CEO and hired a new one. I did listen to the conference, and one of the main reasons they canned him is the lack of emergence in to open source. One can’t completely blame the CEO, but there always has to be a fall guy.
Novell’s biggest problem was their inability to reinvent their salesforce to match their new aggressive opensource strategy. They had an old-school sales force that was used to collecting contract renewals for legacy Netware installations and was utterly unable to find this new market for linux customers, falling back instead on transparently migrating them to linux via OES in such a manner that customers didn’t need to know if they were running linux or netware. They talked the talk and stepped up with the development resources, but they utterly failed in terms of marketing and sales support. Novell has vision but lacks the willingness to take the risks and make the investments to follow through entirely.
As for the morale, I had a buddy that worked at Novell last year and left after a year or so to work at another vendor because of the utter lack of sales strategy. He said that most of the sales force he worked with, particularly on the enterprise side, were 10+ year employees killing time waiting for their packages. Novell did pay well, and had some decent perks, among them the fact that no-one left empty handed after being laid off or downsized.
What does this history tell me? Novell has been struggling for years trying to make a profit. Personally I’d be curious what an investigation on the reported profits would result.
See above paragraph. Nothing to investigate in the profits other than the same backdated options BS all of the tech companies are going through. It’s simply bad management leading to minimal growth and reduced profitability. Which is why the new CEO took the easy route and signed a deal with MS that at least guarantees decent cash flow for Novell over the next five years. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was put in that role specifically to close that deal, and leaves within the next year or two clutching a very lucrative seven-figure golden parachute.
** please full in the history where needed, I don’t look at every detail in novell**
You should. It’s an epic story with heroes and villains, drama and comedy, glorious victories and tragic downfalls. But I hope this helps.
Edit: One of many typos.
Edited 2006-11-08 06:45
“But the FSF owns the C library and the compiler outright.”
I thougt free software was “free”?
Now I find out its owned by someone? And revenge can be taken against heretics like Novell. Or anyone who annoys the high priests.
I’m distraught.
Edited 2006-11-07 23:16
thats right, the FSF owns the copyright, BUT
you can still own a copy of the work, with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities as described by the LGPL and GPL.
so whats the problem? it is free software
I thougt free software was “free”?
And it is.
Now I find out its owned by someone? And revenge can be taken against heretics like Novell. Or anyone who annoys the high priests.
Yes, and you’re just as much owning that piece as the people who have written it. That is as long as you conduct with GPL rules.
The moment you break the copyright law on GPL, (still) valid owners can use GPL against you in court.
Have you ever questioned your self why companies treat GPL as “viral” license? Because it is free and in the same time they are limited on how they can use it.
I’m distraught.
I hope this explanation cleared things for you.
You’ll notice Perens didn’t specify how Novell is violating GPL — because he’s fundamentally wrong. Novell and MS agreed not to sue each other. Novell in now way acknowledged that any particular code contains patent-infringing IP. It doesn’t have to do that. That isn’t necessary in order to have this truce with MS.
Novell in now way acknowledged that any particular code contains patent-infringing IP.
So, the mutual patent protection agreement is about … what?
“Under the patent agreement, customers will receive coverage for Mono, Samba, and OpenOffice as well as .NET and Windows Server.”
This is a direct acknowledgement of the possibility of MS patents in some opensource software that isn’t even developed at Novell. The only way it could be more direct if Novell made a statement that openoffice.org is infringing on Microsoft’s patents. Did you expect them to do that? I guess unless you see such a statement, you won’t accept the fact that the quoted passage is< an acknowledgment of the existence of patent infringing IP. Why would you need such a deal otherwise? Why does this only apply to Novell customers?
So, the mutual patent protection agreement is about … what?
Yeah, exactly. Imagine, Novell customers will be protected against … “what?”.
No more silly walking into the store and buying … “what?”. No more fear to be sued against … “what?”
Ok, let me be serious and explain. Or at least, what is my opinion about what was said in FAQ. There is a lot of FUD and Novell which probably made Novell harder to sell Linux. People wanted indemnification (even though they didn’t even know against what), and that is one way to get them what they wanted.
This is a direct acknowledgement of the possibility of MS patents in some opensource software that isn’t even developed at Novell.
Nope, in FAQ, they deny that possibility. And I for one am prepared to give them benefit of the doubt until this thing becomes more public, when either Novell put out concrete facts or other side shows evidence of foul play.
Personally, I would much rather see I was right than wrong.
//“This is a direct acknowledgement of the possibility of MS patents in some opensource software that isn’t even developed at Novell.”
Nope, in FAQ, they deny that possibility. And I for one am prepared to give them benefit of the doubt until this thing becomes more public, when either Novell put out concrete facts or other side shows evidence of foul play.//
Agreed that there is no “acknowledgement of the possibility of MS patents in some opensource software”.
Don’t know about giving Novell the benefit of the doubt, though.
http://linux-blog.org/index.php?/archives/172-Novell-is-Now-the-New…
“What should have happened? Novell should have called for Microsoft to take the club OUTSIDE and include everyone. There are licenses that protect Microsoft’s proprietary pieces and intellectual property yet still allows them to share things.”
IMO, that is why Novell don’t have any benefit of the doubt.
Don’t know about giving Novell the benefit of the doubt, though.
http://linux-blog.org/index.php?/archives/172-Novell-is-Now-the-New…..
“What should have happened? Novell should have called for Microsoft to take the club OUTSIDE and include everyone. There are licenses that protect Microsoft’s proprietary pieces and intellectual property yet still allows them to share things.”
IMO, that is why Novell don’t have any benefit of the doubt.
Blog you mention was written based on the first assumption.
I on the other hand am giving Novell benefit of the doubt, we will know truth very soon anyway.
Now look from the other side. MS is the only one spending cash here. So? Why not take the chance and MS money. If FAQ is true, then they haven’t bought anything but food to feed their FUD machine. They would produce FUD anyway, they would spew non-sense anyway. Why wouldn’t other party earn money from it?
Nicest example are Linux sites. Which commercials do you see? Microsoft. Go on linuxtoday.com, what do you see? Microsoft. I guess, by your logic they should decline the offer and not earn money. You can’t eat idealism, you can’t fund linux out of nothing. So, if MS wants to spend cash on it? I say welcome. I will gladly ignore their Server commercial on linuxtoday.com so they keep the site up for me to read it.
Update:
As I said we will now it soon, now Groklaw posted article about their SEC filling.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061107194320461
Although I plan to wait for more opinions than Groklaw on this one. They were too biased in the first one.
Edited 2006-11-08 02:27
It is hard to give them the benefit of doubt when they write something like this:
“The financial commitments Microsoft is making as part of this agreement are significant,” said Ron Hovsepian, president and CEO of Novell. “This will help drive Linux more rapidly into the enterprise and government arenas, broadly expanding opportunities for Linux and open source.”
This is hilarious if you think about it. Does Ron Hovsepian really think that anyone would believe this? That Microsoft struck a deal so Novell can gain marketshare in precisely those sectors that are most important for Microsoft (government and enterprise arenas)?
“Nope, in FAQ, they deny that possibility.”
Of course they deny it – what did you expect, really? That they would say: yup, we think that linux might have IP issues with MS? Of course they don’t write that down, because they don’t intend to alienate free software developers completely… The deal itself directly implies that MS might have patent claims in various important free software projects. Is that really hard to understand? Or is it just me (and well, some of the most important figures of the open source movement) who see a problem with the Novell deal?
(:and if you look my post was the first saying and pointing to explanation why Novell didn’t break:)
Nah, I don’t need explanation:) That was just my way how to politely kill NotParkers wish to start troll thread again. He posted almost the same topic all over MS-Novell threads and always people fallen for it. And it seems I wasn’t the only one to get this idea.
they are distributing GPL’d software MS is saying it “might” claim but not passing their patent “rights” Microsoft is granting along with the code to their customers that might distribute the programs… that’s a violation.
Essentially, they are skirting the clause by not specifying which claims MS might be making… so just like SCO the are fueling FUD and complicit with the “Man”.
they are distributing GPL’d software MS is saying it “might” claim but not passing their patent “rights” Microsoft is granting along with the code to their customers that might distribute the programs… that’s a violation.
If MS had enumerated the specific patents that it feels Novell might be violating, you might have a point. But MS hasn’t done that. So, consequently, Novell doesn’t know, exactly, which patents it would need to pass along. It has about as much relevance to the GPL as Novell and Microsoft agreeing that the sky is blue.
Dear Mr. NotParker:
You are a troll as shown by every single post on every single linux thread that you have ever posted. Your posting history also demonstrates this.
Therefore, your facetious question needs to be taken in this light as well. You did not really mean to raise an honest question about the c libraries or the compilers mentioned in the article.
It is known and has been known for ages that GPL software is copyrighted and that its license allows redistribution, modification and use if you abide by it. If you don’t, you may no longer redistribute the software. Is this so hard for you to grasp?
Of course, not, which is why you were trolling as your record on this site very clearly points out.
Dear Mr. NotParker:
You are a troll as shown by every single post on every single linux thread that you have ever posted. Your posting history also demonstrates this.
You cultist are pathetically thin skinned.
You rage about Microsoft. You lie about Microsoft. Its pathetic. And if someone points out your lies – they are a troll.
If someone says something nice about Microsoft – they are a troll.
The truth is the cultists are the trolls. They are obnoxious, hate mongers who have a tiny, tiny presence on the desktops of the world … but they act like they are on a mission from god.
They also have no sense of humor. They don’t like opposition of any kind. And for the most part they are appallingly igorant about Microsoft software.
I tried polite and factual. I was modded down maliciously. No wonder you think every post of mine is annoying. Almost all are modded down, no matter how well referenced – so you and the cult don’t have to read them.
Edited 2006-11-08 18:20
Almost all are modded down, no matter how well referenced – so you and the cult don’t have to read them.
Oh no, we still read them. That is the fun part,well maybe not as fun as the modding down part but still a lot of the fun.
edit – oops almost forgot to mod you down for being off topic.
Edited 2006-11-08 19:05
edit – oops almost forgot to mod you down for being off topic.
You mean you modded down the items below:
You cultist are pathetically thin skinned.
You rage about Microsoft. You lie about Microsoft. Its pathetic. And if someone points out your lies – they are a troll.
If someone says something nice about Microsoft – they are a troll.
The truth is the cultists are the trolls. They are obnoxious, hate mongers who have a tiny, tiny presence on the desktops of the world … but they act like they are on a mission from god.
They also have no sense of humor. They don’t like opposition of any kind. And for the most part they are appallingly igorant about Microsoft software.
I tried polite and factual. I was modded down maliciously. No wonder you think every post of mine is annoying. Almost all are modded down, no matter how well referenced – so you and the cult don’t have to read them.
I think that it is too early to tell what will happen. Is MS going to be true to their past and use Suse as a tool to beat on the other distributions and spread FUD (see Zune and Play for Sure for a good example of screwing others for their benefit)? Or are we we going to see the new MS that wants to work with Firefox to make it more compatible with Vista, works with Zend to make PHP work better on windows, the other part of the agreement that talks about making the two offices talk better, etc?
Will the real MS please stand up?
I think that it is too early to tell what will happen. Is MS going to be true to their past and use Suse as a tool to beat on the other distributions and spread FUD (see Zune and Play for Sure for a good example of screwing others for their benefit)? Or are we we going to see the new MS that wants to work with Firefox to make it more compatible with Vista, works with Zend to make PHP work better on windows, the other part of the agreement that talks about making the two offices talk better, etc?
All those moves are perfectly consistent with each other and with doing damage to Linux. If, for example, a crap Vista version of Firefox surfaced, but the version of Firefox on Linux was good, it (along with other things, of course) could be the start of a migration to Linux. Microsoft certainly wasn’t, and isn’t, going to invite the Firefox developers to improve Firefox on Linux, whether they have signed deals with any Linux distributor or not. After all, the reason why people run Windows is because it’s where all the apps are; if Linux had all the business apps, and all the games, Windows would be nowhere, because it’s technologically inferior and uneconomic in comparison. A Linux application “ecosystem” as healthy as Windows’ is would also remove the “advantages” of having one company control the whole software architecture.
As for anti-Linux FUD from MS, it was around before, it’s around now, and it’ll be around in future. Microsoft is also vulnerable to claims of patent infringement; for example Apple has patents on aspects of GUI technology that Windows uses. They (probably) cannot afford to launch a patent “hot war”, so instead they will use “patent-FUD”.
“After all, the reason why people run Windows is because it’s where all the apps are; if Linux had all the business apps, and all the games, Windows would be nowhere, because it’s technologically inferior and uneconomic in comparison. A Linux application “ecosystem” as healthy as Windows’ is would also remove the “advantages” of having one company control the whole software architecture. “
Perception.
There are over 20,000 packages in the Ubuntu repositories.
All free. All available for download. All guaranteed malware-free.
That is a far healthier application availability “ecosystem” than that on Windows, from an end-user perspective.
Who could afford 20,000 packages on their Windows system?
Who seriously installs all 20,000 Ubuntu apps on their system? Besides, I don’t think you’re going to get very far saying 20,000 free apps when Windows ALSO has tons of homebrew free (and even Free) software out there. How much do they do? Well… probably a lot more than I think.
//Besides, I don’t think you’re going to get very far saying 20,000 free apps when Windows ALSO has tons of homebrew free (and even Free) software out there.//
There is no resource available for Windows that gives people access to 20,000 free applications all via the one common searchable interface, and all guaranteed to contain no malware.
There is nothing comparable in the Windows “application ecosystem” to rival this. Nothing comes even close.
If you go searching for “free applications” for Windows on the web, not only will you encounter a horribly haphazard “interface”, but after installing just a few you are bound to end up with adware at the least, if not far worse malware.
Read my lips. 20,000 packages for Ubuntu Linux, all installable via the same interface, all searchable in the one place with descriptions, and all guaranteed to be add free and malware free, and all available at zero cost.
The Windows “ecosystem” for applications isn’t a patch on this.
I’ll suspend the “War on Windows” >/sarcasm< for a moment and point out that quantity isn’t superior to quality, and even if it were, isn’t the (no doubt estimated) total number of Windows apps supposed to be in the 300,000 range? And if, as I suspect is likely, there were more apps around for DOS in its heyday, that would mean DOS is a better OS than Windows! There aren’t that many people around who would make that claim today!
Besides, where Windows currently wins is in apps that are end-user, desktop, or vertical-applications (as I believe they’re called – is that the same as bespoke?)
Currently a lot of the Linux apps I can get my hands on are as good, better-quality, or better value for money than the equivalent Windows apps; but that isn’t true for the needs of every user.
//I’ll suspend the “War on Windows” >/sarcasm< for a moment and point out that quantity isn’t superior to quality, and even if it were, isn’t the (no doubt estimated) total number of Windows apps supposed to be in the 300,000 range? And if, as I suspect is likely, there were more apps around for DOS in its heyday, that would mean DOS is a better OS than Windows! There aren’t that many people around who would make that claim today!
Besides, where Windows currently wins is in apps that are end-user, desktop, or vertical-applications (as I believe they’re called – is that the same as bespoke?)
Currently a lot of the Linux apps I can get my hands on are as good, better-quality, or better value for money than the equivalent Windows apps; but that isn’t true for the needs of every user.//
If I ignore your strawman arguments (“War on Windows” and “quantity is superior to quality” … neither of which I was getting at) and I ignore your unwarranted sarcasm, then the gist of your response here is correct.
However, the gist of what you are saying in no way invalidates the very reason why I brought this topic up in the first place, which was to counterpoint the following perception:
“After all, the reason why people run Windows is because it’s where all the apps are”.
I still feel that pointing to 20,000+ no-cost, searchable, malware-free packages all installable via the one common interface is a perfectly valid counterpoint to this demonstrably false perception.
There are in fact far, far more viable packages available for Linux than any user could possibly ever hope to use. Not only are they “viable” in the sense that they are guaranteed to do no harm to your system, they are also more accessible to ordinary users to install than are the vast majority of Windows apps.
Windows is not where ALL the apps are.
If I ignore your strawman arguments (“War on Windows” and “quantity is superior to quality” … neither of which I was getting at) and I ignore your unwarranted sarcasm, then the gist of your response here is correct.
The “war on Windows” comment was in reference to other things I’ve been accused of in this item. And in no way was I saying that “quantity is superior to quality”.
However, the gist of what you are saying in no way invalidates the very reason why I brought this topic up in the first place, which was to counterpoint the following perception:
“After all, the reason why people run Windows is because it’s where all the apps are”.
I still feel that pointing to 20,000+ no-cost, searchable, malware-free packages all installable via the one common interface is a perfectly valid counterpoint to this demonstrably false perception.
saying “it’s where all the apps are” does not mean that no other OS has any apps, unless you interpret it in the most literal sense – which plainly isn’t the one I was getting at. Nor does the fact that any distribution has access to 20.000 apps invalidate the fact that in Windows there are more apps, serving more varied needs
There are in fact far, far more viable packages available for Linux than any user could possibly ever hope to use. Not only are they “viable” in the sense that they are guaranteed to do no harm to your system, they are also more accessible to ordinary users to install than are the vast majority of Windows apps.
Obviously no Linux user is going to use all 20,000 apps. The fact that no Windows user is going to use all estimated 300,000 apps either in no way invalidates the fact that for Windows there are more apps, and their uses are more varied.
Windows is not where ALL the apps are.
The intent of my statement was quite plainly that for Windows there are more apps, and there uses are more varied.
There is no resource available for Windows that gives people access to 20,000 free applications all via the one common searchable interface, and all guaranteed to contain no malware.
Who cares if you have access to 5,123 eMacs clones, or 5,254 desktop managers?
DOwnload.com or Tucows.com have more than 20,000 applications each.
You know, free software isn’t new. In the early days of the web you had to go to Strouds to keep up with all the new apps. Thats was something like 1992/1993.
OSS; The cult that thinks it invented “freedom”.
//Who cares if you have access to 5,123 eMacs clones, or 5,254 desktop managers?//
Faulty generalization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
//DOwnload.com or Tucows.com have more than 20,000 applications each. //
Does not address the comment to which you are responding, to whit: “There is no resource available for Windows that gives people access to 20,000 free applications all via the one common searchable interface, and all guaranteed to contain no malware.”
Neither DOwnload.com nor Tucows.com have those attributes.
Actually they do have a single searchable interface (one for each site), and one of them (TuCows) does guarantee no malware.
I just went to Tucows.com and searched their system for ‘text editors’ (something Linux is oft-criticized for having too many of) for Windows and got 2,010 hits (333 freeware, 12 Open Source). As for malware-free: http://www.tucows.com/about
Download.com also had an easy-to-find search system that returned 644 text editors (only 169 are actually free vs free to try, though); and C|Net/Download.com makes no guarantee about the accuracy of the description or the product…
These are obviously not the same as a package manager- I get a list of links to file download pages that link me to .exe files; I don’t get a description and then the software downloaded and installed with all dependencies managed. Also, some of this software is not guaranteed, and not all of these programs are genuine freeware; a lot are shareware.
Edited 2006-11-08 04:17
//(TuCows) does guarantee no malware.//
This very much depends on your definition.
My definition of malware would include adware and “call-home-ware”.
This is, of course, an entirely debatable view.
If I take this definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware
“Malware is software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system without the owner’s informed consent. It is a blend of the words “malicious” and “software”. The expression is a general term used by computer professionals to mean a variety of forms of hostile, intrusive, or annoying software or program code.”
… then I would include adware as malware on the basis that (to me) it is annoying and intrusive. I’d wager that adware would nevertheless be included in Tucows collection on the basis that it is not (supposedly) malicious.
I’d imagine that a lot of Tucows’ software is ad-sponsored and/or collects information and sends it to some statistics/marketing agency.
Incidentally, that would qualify such software as malware under this definition also:
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=malware&gwp=13
As I say, it very much depends on your definition.
Oh, in terms of package manager and ease of availability.
Then yes, Linux is much better. I was just pointing out that 20,000 free apps in and of itself isn’t a convincing argument.
And some on each side are inevitably bound to be redundant/shoddy… and on the Windows side, no longer available or working. Having someone in charge of packaging the software for your version cuts down on that.
//Then yes, Linux is much better. //
Agreed.
//I was just pointing out that 20,000 free apps in and of itself isn’t a convincing argument. //
It is a perfectly valid point to raise against the false perception that “Windows is where all the apps are”. This is just not so. There are in fact far more viable useable applications available for Linux than any end user could possibly ever use. There is no shoratge of apps for Linux.
Therefore, this is a perfectly valid argument to use to counter the false “FUD” perception that there is somehow a shoratge of apps for Linux, and that (presumably) users won’t move to Linux because they won’t be able to run some type of application. That argument is utterly wrong, and 20,000+ packages proves it to be wrong.
Therefore, this is a perfectly valid argument to use to counter the false “FUD” perception that there is somehow a shoratge of apps for Linux, and that (presumably) users won’t move to Linux because they won’t be able to run some type of application. That argument is utterly wrong, and 20,000+ packages proves it to be wrong.
If none of these 20,000+ packages provide the RIGHT applications, there is definitely a shortage of the RIGHT applications.
I tried to find usable programs for electronics schematics, layout, and things like that. That can import/export ORCAD schematics and layouts. I didn’t find anything that comes even close to ORCAD, even if I don’t take into account the import/export requirement.
//I tried to find usable programs for electronics schematics, layout, and things like that. That can import/export ORCAD schematics and layouts. I didn’t find anything that comes even close to ORCAD, even if I don’t take into account the import/export requirement.//
This is true for some vertical-market applications.
For the particular case you mention, this is about it:
http://www.geda.seul.org/index.html
However, there exist other vertical-market areas in which Windows is the platform with a dearth of really viable solutions.
Here is one such area:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_platform#Cross-platform_programm…
‘Who could afford 20,000 packages on their Windows system?’
I think you should ask yourself who would want 20,000 programmes on their system.
Not many. People aren’t going to use Linux just because you tell them there are 20,000 free programmes available. I know people who have been using Windows for about a decade and have never installed any programme, they just use what came with windows.
I’m a web designer, I use a computer every day, but to me a computer is just a tool, it’s not my life or my religion.
It doesn’t matter how many free beta and half finsihed GUIless apps there are available for Linux… until Adobe starts seling Linux versions of their apps (along with the Macromedia ones) and I can open an MS word file and have appear exactly they way the person who sent it to me intended I’m not switching to Linux. Without these things I wouldn’t be able to work… and although I haven’t done any scientific studies I’d bet that i’m not the only one.
//I think you should ask yourself who would want 20,000 programmes on their system.
Not many. People aren’t going to use Linux just because you tell them there are 20,000 free programmes available. I know people who have been using Windows for about a decade and have never installed any programme, they just use what came with windows. //
Agreed.
There are more than enough applications. No-one is ever going to use 20,000+ applications.
Therefore, the original argument, against which this point was originally raised, is very effectively refuted by this observation.
The original argument was that “people wouldn’t use Linux because all of the applications were available for Windows”. The point that there are 20,000+ packages for Linux, thoroughly covering every conceivable application area, more applications than anyone could possibly ever use, perfectly refutes that original claim.
“until Adobe starts selling Linux versions of their apps (along with the Macromedia ones) and I can open an MS word file and have appear exactly they way the person who sent it to me intended I’m not switching to Linux.”
This is of course your choice. You are saying that you have hopelessly locked yourself in to a single source supplier.
Given the poor behavior that your supplier exhibits, especially to its end customers, and given your workload and overhead in trying to keep your systems “clean”, I do feel very sorry for you.
Edited 2006-11-08 07:25
These are the apps I use for work because there is nothing better. Im not locked in, these are industry standard apps that i have to use. Asking me to use a non-insdustry standard app just because it’s free or opened sourced is like a programmer being asked to use f++ instead of C++ just becuase it’s open and free. Anyway whenever a new programming language gets a posting here all the programmers leave comments saying it looks nice but they aren’t going to switch from <insert industry standard programing language here>.
There are for example programs that would allow me to make vector images under Linux, I then have the problem that my clients don’t have this product or OS. Or I can’t find any printing shop that has them. Either way it causes me nothing but trouble, I then maybe need an app to convert formats… naturally some data gets lost… it just not realistic to expect people to work like this. I really do want to use linux becuase but can’t at the moment.
Linux is always trying to create clones of other apps, apps that have made markets for themselves already. This is pointles, I think. Unless everyone, clients, businesses all adopt Linux on mass overnight no one is going to want to be the one to to get out of the existing process first and use Linux. If they do they will lose their clients or if they are a client not find anyone who has a compaible software.
I know there are similar apps to Adobe’s under linux, but please have you tried them? Compared to what adobe offers, they’re very primative and unrefined. Also I don’t have time to learn a new programme, it’s tools and icons.
Edited 2006-11-08 14:15
These are the apps I use for work because there is nothing better. Im not locked in, these are industry standard apps that i have to use.
You are not locked in, but can’t use something else because of reason X. Absurdly contradictive.
There are for example programs that would allow me to make vector images under Linux, I then have the problem that my clients don’t have this product or OS. Or I can’t find any printing shop that has them. Either way it causes me nothing but trouble, I then maybe need an app to convert formats… naturally some data gets lost… it just not realistic to expect people to work like this.
Are you advocating that GNU/Linux apps be more like Windows apps? No, clearly not, because of this:
Linux is always trying to create clones of other apps, apps that have made markets for themselves already. This is pointles, I think.
So what is it? Clone to the last dot or go our own way? You can’t have both.
I know there are similar apps to Adobe’s under linux, but please have you tried them? Compared to what adobe offers, they’re very primative and unrefined. Also I don’t have time to learn a new programme, it’s tools and icons.
So its just you giving in to your own inertia. You don’t actually know that these programs are unrefined, as you don’t take the time to learn how to use them. You just use what you already know and learned. As such, you will never be a market target for GNU/Linux, because you’ve dismissed it out of hand for something that you just know and works the way you’ve gotten used to.
I really do want to use linux becuase but can’t at the moment.
Bzzt. The wrong way around. You can use GNU/Linux, but simply don’t want to. All the reasons you’ve stated just tells us you’ve become accustomed to the MS world and you don’t see a reason to change something that is already comfy.
You go for status quo.
Try reading my post again.
‘Are you advocating that GNU/Linux apps be more like Windows apps? No, clearly not, because of this:’
I would be locked in if their was an alternative, there isn’t, so I’m not. Also I choose to use these apps since they are THE BEST available from everything I’ve tried.
‘Are you advocating that GNU/Linux apps be more like Windows apps? ‘ I wasn’t advocating anything… just read what’s there, not what you want to read.
‘So its just you giving in to your own inertia. You don’t actually know that these programs are unrefined, as you don’t take the time to learn how to use them. You just use what you already know and learned. As such, you will never be a market target for GNU/Linux, because you’ve dismissed it out of hand for something that you just know and works the way you’ve gotten used to. ‘
This is a stupid comment. Of course there different, they wouldn’t be a different programme if they were the same! Also I don’t have the time to learn new programmes, maybe you do, and if you do maybe you should try and find more clients, or get some children and see if you have more time then I to learn 5 or 6 photoshop clones. I also I don’t want to spend anymore time using a computer than I have to.
‘zzt. The wrong way around. You can use GNU/Linux, but simply don’t want to. All the reasons you’ve stated just tells us you’ve become accustomed to the MS world and you don’t see a reason to change something that is already comfy.’
I’ve become accustomed, yes, but because they are the standard. And no, things aren’t the wrong way round, I can’t use Linux, even if I want to. Again, please don’t read what isn’t there.
Is MS going to be true to their past and use Suse as a tool to beat on the other distributions and spread FUD
You don’t have to wait for that, it is already happening:
The distributors of other versions of Linux cannot assure their customers that Microsoft won’t sue for patent infringement. “If a customer says, ‘Look, do we have liability for the use of your patented work?’ Essentially, If you’re using non-SUSE Linux, then I’d say the answer is yes,” Ballmer said. “I suspect that [customers] will take that issue up with their distributor,” Ballmer said. Or if customers are considering doing a direct download of a non-SUSE Linux version, “they’ll think twice about that,” he said.
There. And Novell knew exactly that this would happen. In fact, that’s the point of the whole deal – to achieve an edge in a competetive market. The problem with this is that so far, competition between various vendors was based on two things: technical excellence and quality of support. Now we have a patent flag as well. This is bad for linux, and bad for FLOSS in general – and I just hope that it will be bad for Novell.
Scare tactics.
The problem with Novell is that they came into the Linux game thinking they were the big dog, thinking they will toss a bit of money here and there, and then end up owning the Linux scene. But because they did not understand Linux, they ended up destroying a perfectly good distribution.
Novell’s biggest mistake was their failure to understand the market. They failed to understand that what enterprise customers really wanted was a standard Linux distribution that worked with 3rd party applications, had a long life time, and that had a company behind it that enterprises can go to with their problems. Enterprises did not want a Linux leader, they wanted a company that was part of the Linux movement. Because Novell did not understand this, and because Novell wanted to own the Linux movement, they tried to gain marketshare by differentiating themselves from everyone else. So rather than offering standard Linux with solid support, they tried to stuff Mono, Ximian, XGL, Reiser, and their proprietary products down people’s throats. Enterprises wanted a standard supported Linux distribution but Novell only had the “new and improved SuSE” to offer.
Edited 2006-11-07 23:41
…except you seem to be forgetting that prior to novell buying them, SuSE (or however they spelled it) was already pushing reiser (it’s only now that novell seems to be considering going standard with ext instead), YaST was _not_ GPL (re-licensing it was one of the first things Novell did post-aquisition), and they already were known as a distro with an ambiguous position regarding “free software” and what that means.
Sure, it was pretty before, and came with nice thick manuals and tons of software, but to me it’s really only after Novell picked them up that they’ve become a serious distro to contend with.
I thought as well that this was the end. It’s not. There’s a new ruling class at Microsoft. They have
changed. Believe me people learn from mistakes!
Microsoft stated that they need to work together with open source projects. It’s for their and our benefit. I always say, if you don’t like it the GNU/HURD OS project still needs help!
Are you high? Seriously… If you really believe that Microsoft is all-of-a-sudden all lovey dovey towards the open source community because their “ruling class” has changed then I want some of whatever it is you’re smoking. On second thought, no I don’t. The leaopard cannot change its spots. Making a deal with Microsoft is like making a deal with the devil. Novell has sold its soul. If nothing else, the negative backlash of their betrayal will see their fortunes dip even further and when MS is tired of waiting for the turn-around, they’ll delive the death blow themselves. So long Novell, it was nice knowing you. (P.S. Thanks for XGL!!!)
Novell has sold its soul. If nothing else, the negative backlash of their betrayal will see their fortunes dip even further and when MS is tired of waiting for the turn-around, they’ll delive the death blow themselves. So long Novell, it was nice knowing you. (P.S. Thanks for XGL!!!)
Well, even before their FAQ about the deal I wasn’t sure. But now I’m even more questioning my self if people (including me) jumped on the conclusion too fast. And I wasn’t really worried after more facts popped up even before their FAQ.
Novell only lacks two things to explain, primary choice OIN or MS and labeling linux with FUD stickers after the original announcement went trough. Although FUD stickers seem to be silenced, we can surely expect them from MS, it is a real PR WMD-FUD.
I thought as well that this was the end. It’s not. There’s a new ruling class at Microsoft. They have
changed. Believe me people learn from mistakes!
I believe you mean “some people learn from mistakes”; others clearly don’t. Microsoft certainly have; Novell arguably haven’t.
The fact that MS has “learnt from its mistakes” does NOT inevitably mean “it has learnt to cooperate with the FOSS community (or anyone else)”. It could just as well mean, “It has learnt from its mistakes on trying to combat Linux, and is now trying to subvert it by appearing to co-opt it”. The Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact comes to mind: [Appear to] make peace with your enemies now, so that you may be in a stronger position to declare war on them later.
Microsoft stated that they need to work together with open source projects. It’s for their and our benefit.
They also stated they needed to work together with IBM to create OS/2. And with Sendo, and so on.
Microsoft may mean it this time. But it is far, far too early to tell. And given the fact that the CEO is currently one-half of the two man team that crushed CP/M, OS/2, et al., I’m not hopeful.
I always say, if you don’t like it the GNU/HURD OS project still needs help!
If this deal turns sour, it may well spell a new beginning for the HURD, hopefully under GPL3 to avoid all this patent nonsense (to borrow someone’s apt phrase) that will cause trouble (if trouble there will be) in the first place.
Also, Linus Torvalds will go from open-source hero to Most-Hated Dupe. Even more so than Miguel de Icaza (if he is a dupe and not a mole).
Edited 2006-11-08 00:21
NotParker (for I do believe he is the Unknown Downmodder): Yes, you hate Linux. You hate anyone who does not hate Linux. We get it. Now get over yourself already. There are plenty of people who will mod these posts up again at least to 1 point, so it’s not worth the bother. Get out more.
There are plenty of people who will mod these posts up again at least to 1 point, so it’s not worth the bother. Get out more.
Guess someone characterized you as you’re making personal/offensive on Microsoft and egotripped to the place where he is Microsoft. Damn, I hate those who mod down by preference instead by rules.
It a real shame people can’t understand what Voltaire meant when he said “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.”
Guess someone characterized you as you’re making personal/offensive on Microsoft and egotripped to the place where he is Microsoft.
I don’t quite uhnderstand that statement. If you’re alleging that I claimed he was an MS proxy, I clearly did no such thing.
Damn, I hate those who mod down by preference instead by rules.
Continually banging on about the same tired old things ad infinitum and modding down anyone who disagrees with you wherever possible is what I consider trolling to be. I think if you asked the site admins whether I continually mod down pro-MS stuff just because it is pro-MS, they would say that I don’t. NotParker, otoh, does this to pro-Linux responses. Trolling is something I consider as spam. I therefore have marked most of the comments where he does this as such. There are certain comments which he makes which I do not consider trolling, ergo I have not modded them down.
It a real shame people can’t understand what Voltaire meant when he said “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.”
I also have the right to tell someone to stfu already if they go on, and on, and on, and on, and on….
Trolling is something I consider as spam. I therefore have marked most of the comments where he does this as such.
Thats an out and out lie. You mod me down continuously just because it annoys you to have somewhere express any view even remotely pro-Microsoft.
And thats one of many reasons I refer to the “cult”. You cult members hate to have your world view challenged, but you enjoy nothing more than to spew venom and hate towards Microsoft despite the fact that Linux users are a tiny minority (less than 1%).
Edited 2006-11-08 01:14
NotParker:
perhaps we do hate microsoft, because they are the company in the world history, that has, and continue to develop the most unstable and insecure software.
and perhaps, because they are a company that actively spends millions of dollars every year trying to do everything they can to annoy us?
why do you think we hate microsoft? do you think its like: “hey! microsoft is a fair competitor, which simply has the largest market share, lets spite them for having a technically sound and very good product!!!!!!”, perhaps you should think again.
Thats an out and out lie. You mod me down continuously just because it annoys you to have somewhere express any view even remotely pro-Microsoft.
No, it annoys me that someone can be so vitriolic; you accuse me of same, but compared to you, oh boy, am I a rank amateur.
And thats one of many reasons I refer to the “cult”. You cult members hate to have your world view challenged, but you enjoy nothing more than to spew venom and hate towards Microsoft despite the fact that Linux users are a tiny minority (less than 1%).
Right, so because there are over a billion Chinese we should all move to Shanghai. Or because there are vastly more Muslims than Christians or Jews we should all try to make at least one pilgrimage to Mecca.
…but you enjoy nothing more than to spew venom and hate towards Microsoft despite the fact that Linux users are a tiny minority (less than 1%).
Maybe I’m the only one that sees the irony of ridiculing the insignificance of linux users in a thread discussing Microsoft’s validation of linux in their enterprise strategy.
Really, you’re not much better than those you mock when it comes to spewing irrational venom.
Really, you’re not much better than those you mock when it comes to spewing irrational venom.
In your opinion … but since the OSS venom spewers outnumber me 10 to 1 I feel I have to keep up my end of the discussion.
One thing I’ve established is the cultists have no sense of humor even when I quote the “Life of Brian” which does a great job of mocking the kinds of “discussion” where Novell and Miguel de Icaza are essentially excommunicated!
Splitters! (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Life_of_Brian)
Can’t you see the irony in attacking me for calling you guys cultists when you are in the midst of excommunicating someone! And accusing them of heresy and impurity!
Nobody Expecte the Linux Inquisition! (http://people.csail.mit.edu/paulfitz/spanish/script.html)
Edited 2006-11-08 06:15
Can’t you see the irony in attacking me for calling you guys cultists when you are in the midst of excommunicating someone! And accusing them of heresy and impurity!
“You guys”? Don’t lump me in there. I’m an OSS supporter but am very often equally tired and frustrated by the incessant rhetoric out of many zealous voices from the FSF down-with-Microsoft at-all-costs side.
Keep it interesting. Maintain a little style, and quit repeating the same things over and over. Pick your battles and don’t battle FUD with FUD, otherwise you simply come off sounding like nothing more than a coherent (or sober) version of Moulineff babbling about traitors and thieves.
In retrospect, I’ll even mod you up simply for the Life of Brian reference. I’m feeling generous.
NotParker (for I do believe he is the Unknown Downmodder):
I don’t mod anyone up or down. I think I did once months ago. I freely allow any moderators to confirm or deny the above statement.
You, on the other hand, have stated quite categorically that you love to mod me down.
That makes you a hypocritical weasel.
Yes, you hate Linux. You hate anyone who does not hate Linux.
Actually, I hate those who spend much of their time spewing venom at anyone who: uses Microsoft software; who does not think Microsoft is the Devil; who does not kiss the *ss of OSS.
I do enjoy pointing how much of the OSS movement behaves like a cult, how much it revels in hating Microsoft and I like to mock the hypocrisy of its stances to PDF, ODF and OpenXML.
And I really enjoy mocking those who profess to want “open standards” but think Microsoft is EVIL for submitting OpenXML and .NET to ECMA and think anyone who uses those standards has made a pact with the DEVIL.
Edited 2006-11-08 01:10
blahblah
That makes you a hypocritical weasel.
Actually, I hate those who spend much of their time spewing venom at anyone who: uses Microsoft software; who does not think Microsoft is the Devil; who does not kiss the *ss of OSS.
I do enjoy pointing how much of the OSS movement behaves like a cult, how much it revels in hating Microsoft and I like to mock the hypocrisy of its stances to PDF, ODF and OpenXML.
And I really enjoy mocking those who profess to want “open standards” but think Microsoft is EVIL for submitting OpenXML and .NET to ECMA and think anyone who uses those standards has made a pact with the DEVIL
And these are the reasons why I needed just copy/paste summary about you right from your comment
That makes you a hypocritical weasel.
Edited 2006-11-08 01:24
NotParker (for I do believe he is the Unknown Downmodder):
I don’t mod anyone up or down. I think I did once months ago. I freely allow any moderators to confirm or deny the above statement.
Fine, we’ll let them settle it, shall we?
You, on the other hand, have stated quite categorically that you love to mod me down.
That makes you a hypocritical weasel.
You continually make posts which are off-topic, slanderous, or just plain trolling. That gives anyone the right to mod you down. As for being a “hypocritical little weasel,” or any other, such pseudo-sophisticated, slanderously libellous drivel you can come up with: takes one to know one.
Actually, I hate those who spend much of their time spewing venom at anyone who: uses Microsoft software;
I may spew venom at MS, but not at MS users.
You clearly have an inferiority complex about this if you believe what you wrote to be the case.
who does not think Microsoft is the Devil; who does not kiss the *ss of OSS.
In my view closed source software is unethical; you in turn have stated several times you believe OSS is unethical. I do not however spend time “spewing venom” (I seem to remember you using that phrase once before; how original of you to use it again) at people who disagree with me on this point. I also seem to remember your recent complete silence when called on your tactics (if that isn’t all too grand a name for your underhandedness) by another OSnews reader.
I do enjoy pointing how much of the OSS movement behaves like a cult,
You appear to be eager to form a closed-source cult of your own.
how much it revels in hating Microsoft
which is, admittedly, the epitome of a company that has no ethics; that is nothing to do with its being a closed source software company in itself.
and I like to mock the hypocrisy of its stances to PDF, ODF and OpenXML.
Since you’ve been corrected on this, and other points, many times over, it would appear you simply enjoy mocking those with whom you disagree. Kindly grow up.
In my view closed source software is unethical
Of course you do. You belong to a cult! All non members are heretics! Thats how all cults work. The “other guy” is EVIL … UNETHICAL … etc etc.
You continually make posts which are off-topic, slanderous, or just plain trolling.
Nonsense. I post stuff that annoys you because you are in a cult. As you’ve admitted, just by using Microsoft software and operating systems I am “unethical”. Of course you have to claim I’m “trolling”. In your mind anything pro-Micorosft is “unethical”.
And I stand by my comments on hypocrisy. Cult members aregue over and over that PDF is open. Its patented and copyrighted and contains DRM. But in the fight against EVIL, Adobe is sort of on your side. And the enmy of my enemy is my fried.
Blah blah blah … Microsoft is evil etc etc.
Boring.
Or you could just… stop paying attention to notParker.
I don’t agree with him most of the time either, but he’s still entitled to his opinion.
If it’s really trolling it’ll be modded down. If it’s wrong someone will point out the correct answer.
Anyway, this is supposed to be about Microsoft and Novell. I’ve already said everything I want to say on the issue thus far in the FIRST of these series of articles, so I won’t repeat it here.
Edited 2006-11-08 02:20
NotParker wrote:
“I do enjoy pointing how much of the OSS movement behaves like a cult, how much it revels in hating Microsoft and I like to mock the hypocrisy of its stances to PDF, ODF and OpenXML. ”
I too dislike those who categorically take the side of either FOSS or Microsoft no matter what. it’s funny though that you would like to mock those ‘cultists’, since you are one of them.
well about the only poster I (and I’d imagine many other folks here) see who pretty much consistently in almost every linux discussion that comes up feel the needs to spew some negative insult towards a certain OS and it’s fans is, well, you. Look, I like Linux. Really I do. In fact, I make my living largely supporting it in a large university environment. But guess what? I’m typing this comment from IE7 on an XP box at home, that I also happen to really enjoy using as well. Your comment about the OSS “community” just doesn’t hold water when you actually work with this stuff. Sure you can find your usual slashdotesque comment on the net about “Windoze Sux” “MS blows” blah blah blah. But does that mean all those fortune enterprises running their companies backends on Linux, all those supercomputers across the world, those root name servers, etc., you really think their admins are folk who’ll talk like that? And that the CEOs of said companies will buy that type of argument? Or are those comments more likely coming from some kid runing his counter strike server on a linux box?
Did a penguin bite and give you rabies or something? You really seem to be dripping in venom towards, an OS… That’s kind of sad really.
Edited 2006-11-08 01:26
Given that a major motivation for Linus Torvalds choosing a penguin to represent Linux was that he was bitten by one as a child, maybe being bitten by a penguin would do NotParker some good! 😉
“And I really enjoy mocking those who profess to want “open standards” but think Microsoft is EVIL for submitting OpenXML and .NET to ECMA”
There isn’t anything wrong with OpenXML and .NET in and of themselves.
The problem is the fact that these supposedly “open” standards call up supporting functionality that is not open, in fact proprietary and Windows-only, and that is their failing.
As just one example … ODF relies on SVG and SMIL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
“Many of the components it is built on (such as SMIL for audio and multimedia and SVG for vector graphics)”
… which in turn are open W3C standards.
In contrast, the supporting functionality that OpenXML and .NET rely upon are sometimes Windows-only proprietary functions. ActiveX is but one example of a Windows-only OOXML dependency.
For more information, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_office_document_formats_debat…
I don’t think Microsoft is EVIL here. They are, however, seeking to obscure that their “alternative open standards”, while in theory are open for anyone to implement, are in fact only open for anyone to implement for a Windows platform.
This is clearly in Microsoft’s best interest (and Microsoft I suppose are entitled to act in Microsoft’s best interest), but none of that changes the fact that we as end users should look to our own best interests also … and given Microsoft’s attempts to continue lock-in to Microsoft platforms, our best interests as end users is clearly served by avoiding OOXML.
Edited 2006-11-08 01:34
Ethics aside (I pretty much agree with most reactions from the community), it must be uncomfortable to be a customer of their enterprise Linux products. While the patent convenant buys a little temporal protection (for only five years at the moment, and with possibilities for Microsoft to bail out), it is dangerous license-wise with two possible turns this could take:
– If Novell did not “work around” section 7 of the GPL correctly, they may lose their right to distribute a lot of GPL-ed software.
– Even if this does not happen, developers may relicense software under a license with stricter rules when it comes to patenting. And there are some major organisations that do copyright-assignment, that can apply a new license to their software for new versions.
If the second scenario happens, Novell may lose permission to distribute some essential software. As a result it will not be able to distribute their enterprise distributions with newer software, or provide customers with updates that use newer versions[1].
IANAL, but my estimation is that customers have less protection and more uncertainty since the deal.
[1] I haven’t looked well enough at GPLv3 yet, but if it’s anti-patent clauses are stronger than GPLv2, they may possibly be out of the league when it comes to GNU software that is relicensed.
Ethics aside (I pretty much agree with most reactions from the community), it must be uncomfortable to be a customer of their enterprise Linux products. While the patent convenant buys a little temporal protection (for only five years at the moment, and with possibilities for Microsoft to bail out), it is dangerous license-wise with two possible turns this could take:
Nah. Actually, it’s quite the opposite. Novell’s customers gain the certainty that they won’t be sued by MS for patent infringement. Neither Novell nor Microsoft have to assert any particular code as infringing on any particular patent. So, the issue of the GPL is a red herring.
Nah. Actually, it’s quite the opposite. Novell’s customers gain the certainty that they won’t be sued by MS for patent infringement. Neither Novell nor Microsoft have to assert any particular code as infringing on any particular patent. So, the issue of the GPL is a red herring.
Novell has offered IP indemnity for their enterprise linux platforms ever since the SCO debacle began, so this isn’t really ground-breaking and not likely to sway customers any more than before. Besides which I think the red herring in all this is the concern that a company like MS would actually go after users of a patent-infringing product rather than the producer, when has that ever happened and what would the likelihood of success be? That simply goes beyond FUD into the realm of near-infinite improbability. After all, we’re not talking about something concrete like copyrighted code being illegally distributed or unlicensed software, unless there’s something Novell really isn’t telling us.
Anyways, I still say it’s all about protecting the questionable mono bits, but the way I see it is if enterprise IT customers choose to deploy it for mission critical applications after experiencing Novell’s own failure to make it work effectively for Zenworks, well then patent litigation is the least of their worries. They’ll be more concerned with their employment status.
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensource.html
Perens is wrong with hooping on GPL violation. Novell explains it clearly and I have to say it is a neat trick
I’m only sorry they haven’t answered where would they stand if MS would sue some Linux company regarding OIN.
But their explanation is still very vague.
Update from their FAQ:
Q5. Novell’s November 2 press release states that, “Novell will also make running royalty payments based on a percentage of its revenues from open source products.” Are these payments for a patent license to Novell?
No. Novell has no license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft under this agreement. The payments are for Microsoft’s covenant directly to Novell’s customers. By the same token, Microsoft’s customers receive the same covenant from Novell in return for payment from Microsoft to Novell.
It is only “no sue” agreement between MS and Novell customers and Novell and MS customers, but companies can still sue one another. Guess this explains my previous wish on OIN, although I still wish they would clear it up with example everybody is interested: If MS sues Linux company, where will Novell stand.
Edited 2006-11-08 00:04
This “covenant not to sue” sounds more like a “cover for a paid royalty licence”. After all, it has all the right attributes, except the name.
If it looks like a dog and smells like a dog, it probably is a dog.
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16415&comment_id=179756
Damn, I hate when going trough your comments by following thread messes up where you’re answering.
After all, it has all the right attributes, except the name.
Nope, one is missing. They can still sue each other and as they said no licenses were transfered.
In case of paid royalty license, company gets covered, not users.
This is why I say Novell should put it in writting where it would stand if MS would sue some Linux company.
Look a little bit from the other side. If no licenses were transfered, then MS is not having rights to Novells OIN patents by promise only, which would mean any OIN licensee could use them in court.
And since OIN is the owner of IP licenses in question, Novell would probably have to notify them about licensing those to MS.
If it looks like a dog and smells like a dog, it probably is a dog.
Even if it meows?
They can still sue each other and as they said no licenses were transfered.
So in the phrase “covenant not to sue”, the words “covenant” and “sue” are relevant but the word “not” is not? Not.
This is why I say Novell should put it in writting where it would stand if MS would sue some Linux company.
Since Novell clearly made this deal for their own benefit (which is their right), if MS were to sue some Linux company, Novell would plainly stand by, since MS has made it quite clear that it retains the right to sue other parties over things which it has promised NOT to sue novell over. Or do you really think that MS would sue RH, Novell would sue MS, and then MS and Novell would just go back to business?
Look a little bit from the other side. If no licenses were transfered, then MS is not having rights to Novells OIN patents by promise only, which would mean any OIN licensee could use them in court.
Why is it that every other big OS vendor besides Apple and MS has demonstrated a clear willingness to “play fair” by FOSS standards? Do MS and Apple hold some magic technique for making proprietary software better than FOSS software, to which they and only they are privy?
And since OIN is the owner of IP licenses in question, Novell would probably have to notify them about licensing those to MS.
I don’t get this. OIN holds patents, not licences; if OIN hold them then MS does not have a right to sue over them unless it enters into an arrangement with OIN, not Novell.
If it looks like a dog and smells like a dog, it probably is a dog.
Even if it meows?
Au contraire, it’s howling like a wolf. Which is a type of dog.
Edited 2006-11-08 01:45
They can still sue each other and as they said no licenses were transfered
So in the phrase “covenant not to sue”, the words “covenant” and “sue” are relevant but the word “not” is not? Not.
Funny, by saying I cut the words out, you’ve cut the words out.
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensource.html
Read Q5.
They said they both bought only “covenant not to sue others customers”
You’re pretty quick on jumping the gun.
Since Novell clearly made this deal for their own benefit (which is their right), if MS were to sue some Linux company, Novell would plainly stand by, since MS has made it quite clear that it retains the right to sue other parties over things which it has promised NOT to sue novell over. Or do you really think that MS would sue RH, Novell would sue MS, and then MS and Novell would just go back to business?
Good question. But I wonder if it is true. MS never promised it won’t sue Novell, MS promised it won’t sue Novells customers, which is completely different. And so did Novell. It is customers only related.
I don’t get this. OIN holds patents, not licences; if OIN hold them then MS does not have a right to sue over them unless it enters into an arrangement with OIN, not Novell.
You’ve misunderstanded me here. It wouldn’t be MS suing over those patents, I said that other party could still sue MS over them.
Read Q6 in article
Au contraire, it’s howling like a wolf. Which is a type of dog
Nope, so far you just wanted to hear them howl. Even if they would meow, you still claim they howled.
At least read the FAQ carefully and then say they howl.
There are for me some unresolved questions. For example, it appears there is some (material) variation of content between the versio of the letter about this that appears on MS and Novell’s website. They don’t even agree on whether MS is a party to it. Also, Novell may say they comply with Section 7 of the GPL, but do MS? And do the lawyers? And what about Section 4, which was raised as a concern in one editorial.
Don’t know. But, let me give Novell benefit of a doubt again. Damn, I’m very forgiving today:)
Lets speculate it has nothing to do with Linux. It might as well not have. SCO is going under and Novell will be owner of certain SysV rights again (as it looks now, Novell always was, since they never transfered rights to SCO). Both know that, hell, whole world knows that.
MS is/was selling/bundling Services for Unix, which would rightly fall in the category where MS would have to license it from Novell anyway.
p.s. could you post link for MS version of document?
Edited 2006-11-08 02:57
“p.s. could you post link for MS version of document?”
Kurt Pfeifle (pipitas) wrote about the differences on his blog:
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2507
Thanks! I hadn’t got to that yet – I needed some sleep!
IANAL (nor anything remotely close to a lawyer) but you know what it sounds like to me?
To me it sounds exactly like Novell is implying: “MS has the right to sue other Linux companies and their customers. We need this agreement because otherwise MS could rightfully sue our customers too.”
Which, of course, is a very bad move.
I’ve always been pro open source but thought guys like Perens and Stallman were completely irrational about some things. But these are no longer completely rational times are they? After this I’m just not positive I can trust a “corporate” linux vendor anymore and I’m done with shady, might have legal issues, software*. Bring on the Debian or other completely free OS.
*For the record, I hated mono from the beginning. Not necessarily for the free software perspective but from the why the hell would you want to run windows code on a linux box perspective.
What does MS have and is willing to offer to the linux community that would make SuSE sell out like this? Was this just to destroy Mono?
No, actually MS would love customers to use Mono. It solidifies .NET as a standard in the ‘nix space and gives MS a way to argue a migration path from Linux to Windows.
No, actually MS would love customers to use Mono. It solidifies .NET as a standard in the ‘nix space and gives MS a way to argue a migration path from Linux to Windows.
My sarcasm detector must be acting up because it’s not blinking. Seriously, you’re kidding, right?
Look, I’m not saying that Microsoft’s migration dreams of moving customers from Linux to Windows are realistic — but I guarantee that there are marketing wonks in the Redmond burroughs that believe any Mono adoption steals mindshare from Java or PHP or whatever-wasn’t-invented-by-Microsoft.
To me the greatest tragedy in all this is that Novell is dragging down one of the greatest distros. When Novell showed up at Suse’s door with a wad of cash and an offer, Suse should have told them to take a hike, and remained free and German.
To me the greatest tragedy in all this is that Novell is dragging down one of the greatest distros.
Only as far as the fringe zealots and ideologues are concerned…
Microsoft didn’t get to where it’s at right now all by itself. It’s big break was making a deal with a company that wasn’t generally liked – IBM.
And this was a surprise how? Perens was fired from HP for Microsoft bashing. Thats right folks, ol’ bruce hates Microsoft. Take a look at this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/09/09/hp_fires_microsoftbaiting_p…
Just because you hate MS doesn’t mean you’re wrong. Plenty people have liked MS and been duped. People tend to take a sudden dislike to other people who dupe them. Except Novell, apparently. What a bunch of goldfish.
Edited 2006-11-08 00:31
Just because you hate MS doesn’t mean you’re wrong. Plenty people have liked MS and been duped.
But in this case, he is wrong. Plus, he hates MS.
You can’t know he’s wrong unless you work at MS. And if you do work at MS: If they have changed and he is wrong, you would say it. But if they haven’t and he is wrong, then you would still say “he is wrong”.
I’ll believe MS have changed for the better when I see it; NOT before. Once bitten, twice shy.
But if they haven’t and he is wrong,
Oops! If they haven’t and he isn’t wrong.
Just because you hate MS doesn’t mean you’re wrong.
Just because you hate MS doesn’t mean you’re right.
We’ve seen nothing but pure fearmongering and ad hominem in these Novell/MS threads — Microsoft is the evil empire, Novell is Judas, Linux is being crucified, anyone who wants hard evidence is a dupe or a moron, et cetera.
Microsoft has spent 20+ years employing various anti-competitive tactics. This supposed “new face” of Microsoft is months old at best, so the jury’s still out. And the FUDMeister still spinneth.
Microsoft has spent 20+ years employing various anti-competitive tactics.
Of course you would say that. You think all closed source software is unethical. But in fact, Microsoft has spent 20 years competing. And manyof their competitors shot themselves in the foot.
The classic anti-Microsoft lie is that poor old Netscape was wiped out because Microsft gave away IE … when the truth is, Netscape stole Mosaic from the University of Illinois and gave it away for free to destroy all the companies that legally licensed the code from Spyglass (the designated company). And Microsoft won the browser war because IE 4 was better than Netscape 4 and Netscape 5 imploded and IE 5 was fantastic.
//You think all closed source software is unethical.//
Not at all. There is a vast selection of ethical, quality closed-source software available on the market.
There is just one attribute common to all closed-source software … and that is that as an end user you have no reliable way to evaluate what is in any given piece of closed-source software, no way to ascertain if it is in fact ethical and quality and value-for-money.
One is forced to look at peripheral attributes of the software to try to evaluate closed-source software. One has try to ascertain if:
(1) the software has good functionality,
(2) the software is good value for its price,
(3) the software competes on its merits with other products and performs well in comparison, and
(4) the software supports documented, open standards so that in using it I can viably move to a competing product if circumstances warrant it, and I can interchange my data with other colleagues who may use a competing product.
Most Microsoft software is characterised by being closed source, by “scoring” relatively well in considerations (1) and (2) above, but failing utterly in considerations (3) and (4) above.
Most Microsoft software is characterised by being closed source, by “scoring” relatively well in considerations (1) and (2) above, but failing utterly in considerations (3) and (4) above.
Then I would have to say you are very ignorant.
Point #3: Since Microsoft doesn’t give aways its server tools, the billions in revenue totally contradicts what you say. Maybe you could come up with specific examples – but you are biased anyway.
Point #4: There is no point arguing #4 if you think as you do about point #3. You are hopelessly biased.
When it comes to value I always keep this in mind: Most people would rather pay 5$ for a pirated CD of Office or Windows even when they can run Linux or OpenOffice for free.
Most people, when they buy a PC with Linux installed on it, replaces that install with a pirated copy of Windows. (Gartner study).
Microsoft software is great value for the money.
And it was Twenex who thinks all closed source software is unethical. I happen to think most cultists agree with him.
> Most people, when they buy a PC with Linux installed on > it, replaces that install with a pirated copy of
> Windows. (Gartner study).
And some go out of their way to get a refund for the OS they don’t want.
http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2006/110706-dell-windows.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5388863.html
Just to back up my reference.
“Around 80 percent of the time, Linux will be removed for a pirated copy of Windows. Pirated copies sell for around $1 in the streets of Shanghai and other cities in Asia and Eastern Europe, but can also be bought in stores selling brand name PCs.”
“Point #3: Since Microsoft doesn’t give aways its server tools, the billions in revenue totally contradicts what you say. Maybe you could come up with specific examples – but you are biased anyway”
My point #3 was:
(3) the software competes on its merits with other products and performs well in comparison
Microsoft server software does not compete on its merits. Microsoft tries its utmost to ensure that its server software is required by customers who have installed its Windows clients, by making the protocol an obscured trade secret and making its clients incapable of being served by anything other than a Microsoft server.
Therefore, Microsft servers do not compete on their merits as file servers or print servers. They rely on the preponderance of client machines being Windows machines.
A Linux server, OTOH, makes every effort to support many different kinds of clients. Unlike a Windows server, it can act as a file and print server for a Winows client, for a Mac client or for a Linux client machine. A Linux server beats a Windows server hands down as a web server or a firewall or router machine. It therefore beats the Windows server on two fronts, both compatibility and performance. It also is unencumbered by CALS.
There is a specific example for you, made on the very same software you tried to use as a counterpont.
“Point #4: There is no point arguing #4 if you think as you do about point #3. You are hopelessly biased.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
“Examples
* “You can’t prove your views, so you aren’t able to argue with me.”
Just because you think it so does not make it so.
PS: I modded you down for the “ignorant” attempted insult. If you left this sort of rubbish out of your posts, you might actually have some credibility. Keep including it, and most readers will not see what you have to say.
Edited 2006-11-08 04:57
Microsoft server software does not compete on its merits.
Sql Server?
ISA Server?
Exchange?
Biztalk?
… and more
None of it competes on its merits?
You are off your rocker.
//Sql Server?
ISA Server?
Exchange?
Biztalk? //
AFAIK, all of those use obscured protocols. They are explicitly designed to talk exclusively to Microsoft client software.
In order to “compete on merit” the software would have to be designed to exchange data in an open format, in order to serve data to “generic” clients.
A server is supposed to do that. Only Microsoft server products fail utterly in this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in#Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfectly_competitive
“Equal access
All firms have access to production technologies, and resources (including information) are perfectly mobile.”
//Sql Server?
ISA Server?
Exchange?
Biztalk? //
AFAIK, all of those use obscured protocols. They are explicitly designed to talk exclusively to Microsoft client software.
I’ll confidently stick with the confirmed assumption you are ignorant.
ISA Server is a firewall/proxy+
Exchange uses SMTP/POP/MAPI (you get to choose)
Biztalk is all about talking to other types of systems with standard protocols like HL7.
SQL Server is ANSI compliant.
They all compete on their merit and they do very well.
You just don’t know what you are talking about.
//Exchange uses SMTP/POP/MAPI //
I’ll stick with this one as it is the one that causes the angst.
Exchange only uses SMTP/POP/MAPI on the WAN side. On the LAN side of Exchange, it is designed to serve Windows clients exclusively … Outlook specifically.
There is but one or two products I know of which are not Windows clients but which can work (sometimes) with exchange, due to the obscured protocol … that is Eviolution exchange.
http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Communications/Email/Evolution-Excha…
Exchange on the server is extremely difficult to work with for non-Windows clients.
Therefore, Exchange does not compete on its merits. It works exclusively in a Windows environment, on a Windows domain/LAN. It does not even try to compete as a client-platform-agnostic server.
Any server product which truly is competing on its merits would have the attribute that it was client platform agnostic. That attribute would enable customers to have mixed client platforms on their LAN, allowing for free competition for provision of different clients for different roles.
Windows server products largely work only with Windows clients. This is a showstopper shortcoming for any customer who is seeking to avoid lock-in to a sole source supplier for their IT infrastructure. It is a good enough reason to completely reject many Windows server products.
Exchange only uses SMTP/POP/MAPI on the WAN side. On the LAN side of Exchange, it is designed to serve Windows clients exclusively … Outlook specifically.
You’ve topped yourself.
Exchange works just fine as a POP server on the WAN or LAN. I mean, I wouldn’t necessarily buy it for that functionality, but it works just fine.
And Outlook Web Access works in a browser.
Your comments are very ignorant about how Microsoft software actually works.
“Therefore, Exchange does not compete on its merits.”
Of course it does since there are competitive products … but in many peoples eyes they are less useful.
The Oulookchange combinations is a fantastically useful tool that works on 97% of PC’s with a “fat client” and works on any PC with OWA.
You really know nothing about it … except the usual ignorant anti-Microsft FUD.
Tsk tsk. So sad.
The winning feature of Exchange (the only reason the most corporate customers use it (apart from MS anti-competitive practices)) is the Outlook integration and the Calendaring features. The Exchange connector in Outlook is the best way to manage emails on a LAN. You cannot get all the functionality of Outlook OR Exchange without using both.
Before sending off for your commission cheque from Microsoft HR, read:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6368
From a group of Programmers who tried to implement Exchange features in OSS software. They managed it, but then they are some of the best of the best working at IBM budgets. Does this sound like an open system to you? :
…In the Internet Mail Only mode, Microsoft uses a completely different and undocumented application program interface (API) with a limited feature set. Without an Exchange server, Outlook doesn’t function in the Corporate Workgroup mode at all and has a limited set of features….
…Microsoft leaves the binary object undocumented. So most of the MAPI properties programmers tag wind up as binary code they would not recognize. To make matters a little more complex, Microsoft embeds the binary property code in a large array of null binary data, thus hiding it…
PS: I modded you down for the “ignorant” attempted insult.
Tough. It was accurate. You’ll never admit it … being a cult member. You might get excommunicated!
//Tough. It was accurate.//
No, it was not. I have provided many links backing up what I have said on this thread, and you have provided none.
That puts you immeasurably well ahead of me in your level of ignorance.
> Most people, when they buy a PC with Linux installed on > it, replaces that install with a pirated copy of
> Windows. (Gartner study).
First, Windows Vista is going to be extremely difficult to pirate with all the WGA features and activation codes.
Second, some people go out of their way to get a refund:
http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2006/110706-dell-windows.html
Plenty companies make closed-source software, and yes, I do think that is unethical. But I don’t badmouth them the way I badmouth Microsoft. Why? Because not all of them make abominable software at high prices, lie to their customers, and crush all opposition. Then again, it’s blindly obvious nothing at all is ever going to change your mind, so keep on lying to yourself.
It’s really quite pathetic.
There isn’t yet any hard evidence that Microsoft have changed. And since the “auld enemy” to use a Scots expression was using anti-competitive tactics, if they haven’t changed that means this agreement is yet more deception.
Unlike many of the posters here, I think I’m on both sides of this whole issue. On the one hand, I’m a supporter of open source software, whether it’s GPL, BSD, whatever. I think the whole idea of open source produces much better quality software. You have a very high quality developer talent pool with OSS. I support that, and a deal with Microsoft puts a level of worry of future legal trouble.
On the flip side, I’m a Novell customer. Despite the idea that Novell is a dead company, they still manage to crank out some very good software. They are the best in class with their identity management software, and their workstation/server management software. Someone said that Suse would be better off without Novell. I’m not so sure. Novell introduced things like groupwise, edirectory, and zenworks that do not have any equal in the open source world. Fedora Directory Service is probably 10 years behind eDirectory. True, you can’t run these thing on your spare machine and see any benefit(well, technically, you can), but in the business world, these tools are extremely valuable.
The comparions between Novell and SCO are somewhat off base. SCO has old products with almost zero technical advantage of its competition. Novell has products that do not have much competition. They can still be a successful company without litigation, which SCO can’t.
When I first heard this announcement, I thought Novell shot themselves in the ass and turned their back on the open source community. I was actually upset, at least compared to my normal close to comatose state, with the annoucement. I still think Novell absolutely dropped the ball with the PR of this announcement. I don’t even think they have a working PR/Marketing department, but that’s been the case for years. At this point, I’m in a wait and see mode.
Looking at the possibility of this agreement does carry one hope. If I can supplant MS Office with Open Office, then I’m just about to the state where I can dump Microsoft. That will save me $12,000 per year in licensing. If linux ends up in no danger over this deal, and people like Bruce Peren’s stomp their feet, and I can save that money per year, I’ll be damn sure that this was a good deal.
I guess we’ll see though…
Edited 2006-11-08 04:19
what a load of drivel.
SUSE is among the very finest of releases, in my opinion; it is the best.
Just imagine the status of Linux, if Section 7 of the GPL is not present. All the tough works dated from 1991 would have been killed by lack of a single section in the license.
Richard Stallman (GNU GPL) is far better than anyone in protecting Free/Open Source Softwares.
In Software Industry, a piece of code is a junk until it gets protection and support with interested people using a good license like GPL.
Corporations like IBM, Microsoft, Novell, … are famous for Business decisions which will try first to help out the software, then suck profit out from that, bring another competitive product which they will own and kill the original one.
History:
even SCO is seems to fight with Linux, the actual fire of the problem is,
IBM was agreed with SCO to do “Monterey Project”, a large 64bit OS Project.later cunningly left SCO, since profit was better from Linux rather than SCO UNIX.
The betrayal is the main cause for the SCO-IBM Lawsuit.
IBM,a large supporter of Software Patents which is/will_be the main killer of Free/Open Source Projects at any time(may be tomorrow or next) will kill Linux, if it finds anything else very profitable.
IBM, bought and killed Informix, a database which might be a problem for their DB2.
Microsoft, sameway killed CP/M (Digital Research), using QDOS, and made MSDOS.
Novell, sameway bought and killed DR-DOS(family of CP/M)
These companies are purely profit minded rather than Free/Open Source philosophies.
He may be right to some extent, and may be wrong to another. Still, from what I see all this Novell-MS performance, one line in Novell’s announcement is enough for me to take a comfortable distant position: Microsoft to allow […] the freedom to continue open source development. Allow ? Whoa, hold your horses.
Does MS Need Novell to Get Interoperability?
Microsoft doesn’t need to work with Novell on Linux/Windows interoperability. The code is right out there for anyone to see, on the Linux side, and has been for a decade and a half. Microsoft has its own developers that I’m sure are capable of looking at assembly code and C and APIs and figuring out how to interoperate with them. There’s the WINE project that has made great strides in getting Windows apps to run on Linux, and SAMBA that has tried hard to make heterogeneous Linux/Windows networks a reality. So, If Microsoft doesn’t *need* to work with Novell and enter into a patent covenant, one is left to wonder…what exactly are they *really* trying to do.
While MS engineers and developers are most certainly capable of looking at asm and C code, there may be legal implications in doing that.
API’s have a tendency to leave things unclear at times (yes, even in Windows), so only using API’s to determine what needs to be done is not that good an option either.
At least economically it makes more sense to work together with the “other side” so that both sides can agree on what things mean.
If Novell customers have been worried that MS may go after them regarding eventual patents that may cover some part of Linux or other software that is included with their Linux distribution, the patent covenant makes it clear that MS will not go after them if any such patents are found. The same goes for MS customers that are worried about Novell.
//While MS engineers and developers are most certainly capable of looking at asm and C code, there may be legal implications in doing that. //
No.
GPL code is copyrighted code. Under copyright law, anyone may look at the code (just as anyone may read a copyrighted book), but one is restricted as to what one can do when it comes to copying the code.
In the case of the GPL, it gives anyone a license to copy and modify the code, provided that the code and any modifications remains visible to everyone … ie. provided that the code remains licensed under the GPL.
There is most decidedly no restriction on looking at the code & studying it.
“Legal implications” pertaining to restrictions about looking at and studying code apply to code which is patented or trade secret. Neither of those apply to Linux and/or any other GPL code.
//At least economically it makes more sense to work together with the “other side” so that both sides can agree on what things mean. //
Literally many thousands upon thousands of programmers worldwide contribute meaningfully to GPL code repositories. They do this collaboration over the Internet, mostly via mailing lists and discussion forums. Why should it be the case that only Microsoft programmers need to “work together” in a different way?
Edited 2006-11-08 10:21
There is most decidedly no restriction on looking at the code & studying it.
I wouldn’t be so certain about that without consulting a lawyer first.
Literally many thousands upon thousands of programmers worldwide contribute meaningfully to GPL code repositories. They do this collaboration over the Internet, mostly via mailing lists and discussion forums. Why should it be the case that only Microsoft programmers need to “work together” in a different way?
The world contains more developers than those employed by Microsoft and those that work on Open Source. Lots “work together” in the same way.
Of course, if no money is involved at all, the concept of working together because it’s more economical fails, but that was just one reason anyway.
//I wouldn’t be so certain about that without consulting a lawyer first. //
Pfft. Utter rubbish.
There is no restriction on Microsoft engineers looking at Linux and/or Samba code, and contributing some modifications back to those projects under the GPL. Same story for Mono or OpenOffice projects.
That would have the result of making Linux and Windows interoperate better.
If that were truly Microsoft’s goal, it could have been done at insignificant cost ages ago.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
Some quotes from the GPL itself:
“By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software–to make sure the software is free for all its users.”
“We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.”
“You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program’s source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.”
“You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)”
Edited 2006-11-08 11:50
There is most decidedly no restriction on looking at the code & studying it.
For closed-source software companies, particularly one with as big a bullseye painted on them as Microsoft, there is a legitimate concern in that paid developers may inadvertently copy the code they are studying, tainting the product and opening them up to claims. OSS projects often employ a clean-room technique when reverse engineering or working on interoperability to eliminate possible claims of stolen or copied code. Even large linux developers like HP or IBM will seperate their OSS and proprietary developers, you can’t mix and match without running the risk of code taint.
For Microsoft’s sake it’s safer and easier to let the OSS guys provide the information rather than try to dissect it themselves. That’s about the only single part of this ridiculous agreement that makes sense.
“There is most decidedly no restriction on looking at the code & studying it.”
//For closed-source software companies, particularly one with as big a bullseye painted on them as Microsoft, there is a legitimate concern in that paid developers may inadvertently copy the code they are studying, tainting the product and opening them up to claims. OSS projects often employ a clean-room technique when reverse engineering or working on interoperability to eliminate possible claims of stolen or copied code. Even large linux developers like HP or IBM will seperate their OSS and proprietary developers, you can’t mix and match without running the risk of code taint.
For Microsoft’s sake it’s safer and easier to let the OSS guys provide the information rather than try to dissect it themselves. That’s about the only single part of this ridiculous agreement that makes sense.//
“Tainting” is only a problem if it is Microsoft’s purpose to look at the open source code with a view to modifying Microsoft code.
That was not the context under which this conversation arose.
This thread is about the Microsoft/Novell deal. As a part of that deal, Microsoft stated that their desire in making the deal was “to improve interoperability between Microsoft & Linux”.
My point was, Microsoft could have done that for next-to-zero cost at any time simply by submitting a few code changes to Linux or to Samba or to OpenOffice or to Mono.
In this scenario, “there is a legitimate concern in that paid developers may inadvertently copy the code they are studying, tainting the product and opening them up to claims” does not apply, since the developers in question are not tasked to modify Microsoft code, but instead they are tasked to modify the open source code.
As long as the aim is “to get interoperability”, and the flow of code is from Microsoft engineers –> Open source applications, then there is no “tainting”.
So no, in the final analysis, even this “single part of this ridiculous agreement” makes no sense.
Slight correction … it only makes sense in the light of “Microsoft trying to establish a revenue stream from Linux without having done any of the work to make Linux”. Viewed in that context, where Microsoft gets to deliberately obscure interoperability protocols, then gets to charge everyone for keeping them obscured by labelling that obscuration as “IP” … then it all makes sense.
Edited 2006-11-08 22:34
more details are out, and it seems that this IS a classical sellout. And it seems that Novell is (was) in a deep sh**.
“It seems the company is receiving an up-front payment of $348 million from Microsoft, for SLES subscription certificates and for patent cross-licensing. Microsoft will make an upfront payment to Novell of $240 million for SLES subscription ‘certificates’ that Microsoft can use, resell, or distribute over the term of the agreement. Regarding the patent cooperation agreement, Microsoft will make an up-front net payment to Novell of $108 million, and Novell will make ongoing payments totaling at least $40 million over five years to Microsoft.”
So, MS bought A LOT of SLES software
Wonder where they will put it, I somehow can’t picture MS sales guys reselling it. The deal is on for only 5 years, during which Novell will pay 40mil $ to MS. MS will pay Novell 348mil $, which leaves Novell in a plus of approx 308mil $. What’s in it for MS? Well, probably the right to say just things like this:
“Microsoft made it clear that only SUSE users and developers, as well as unsalaried Linux developers, are protected. ‘Let me be clear about one thing, we don’t license our intellectual property to Linux because of the way Linux licensing GPL framework works, that’s not really a possibility,’ said Microsoft chief executive, Steve Ballmer. ‘Novell is actually just a proxy for its customers, and it’s only for its customers,’ he added. ‘This does not apply to any forms of Linux other than Novell’s SUSE Linux. And if people want to have peace and interoperability, they’ll look at Novell’s SUSE Linux. If they make other choices, they have all of the compliance and intellectual property issues that are associated with that.”
That’s coming directly from MS CEO, so please, don’t accuse me of spreading FUD. Mono is dead now. I’m kinda feeling sorry for the guys with good intentions that were very enthusiastic about it, but, plenty of people (including myself) told them so, when it all started. The final nail in the Mono coffin will be hit soon, with Sun opensourcing their Java implementation under GPL (micro edition, standard edition, enterprise edition).
http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml;?articl…
“Patent Cooperation Agreement”
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, November 07 2006 @ 08:21 PM EST
Let me get this straight:
If you use your code with our patents, and we use our code with your patents, then we will not sue your customers for using our patents if you do not sue our customers for using your patents.
But we are not saying that you can use our patents, and you are not saying that we can use your patents. How our patents got into each others’ software shall remain confidential.
Nevertheless we will pay you $300 million, for allowing our customers to use our software and not be sued for using your patents and you will pay us $40 million for allowing your customers to use your software and not be sued for using our patents.
We may threaten your customers and you may threaten ours. Together we can threaten everyone.
So we don’t give you permission to distribute your software with our patents, but you can.
You don’t give us permission to distribute our software with your patents, but we can.
That complicated GPL is irrelevant.
Want to play doctor?
Edited 2006-11-08 09:35
Seeing the crazy rounds of name calling and end-of-worldian crap flying back and forth bemuses me. Get over it; both sides will you?
And someone tell that Groklaw person their brand of sarcastic sideline swiping is very boring.
I think it is basically a way for MicroNov to create a linux that is, for all practical purposes proprietary.
I think that MS believe they can make novell the de facto standard commercial linux in five years using shared technology that other linux(s) will not be able to use. Also MS will use IP/Patent threats to keep any business from choosing anything besides novell linux. Then in five years MS will really only have one linux company to destroy at that time.
Novell thinks that with MS help it can become the de facto standard linux in five years and then go head to head with MS.
People have to pay the MS tax for buying a computer from a PC seller like Dell, HP and so on… even if they don’t intend to use Microsoft Products….. and now people have to pay MS so they get a covenant (that maybe they didn’t ask for) so MS agrees not to sue them?
So…. you don’t want to pay MS tax? Want a short answer? Don’t buy SuSE…. I’d go even further: don’t even use openSuSE. There are plenty of good free (speechwise, beerwise, without MS tax) waiting for you to use them. Welcome to the jungle. 😀