Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Jan 2007 21:16 UTC, submitted by Tata Oranta
Novell and Ximian Novell's controversial pact with Microsoft reflects the desire of the number two Linux seller to position itself as a mixed-source company. Speaking to ZDNet Asia last week, Maarten Koster, the newly-appointed president of Novell Asia-Pacific, noted that the company positions itself in the market differently from its rivals. "You've got Red Hat as a pure open source company, and you've got Microsoft as a [commercial] license-based company," Koster said. "The reality is, most Novell customers run a mixed-source IT environment."
Order by: Score:
You an everyone else.
by chekr on Thu 4th Jan 2007 21:36 UTC
chekr
Member since:
2005-11-05

'Mixed Source' is a load of bs...even Microsoft includes BSD licensed code in their portfolio. They're trying to portray that their inclusion of proprietary code somehow makes them more interoperable with other market 'leaders'. Time will tell but imho this mixed source approach will offer no benefit to customers at all.

Reply Score: 5

RE: You an everyone else.
by DittoBox on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:26 UTC in reply to "You an everyone else."
DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

"The surest road to failure, is trying to please everyone."

So this is the new Novell?

Reply Score: 2

RE: You an everyone else.
by arielb on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:28 UTC in reply to "You an everyone else."
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

Microsoft uses very very little BSD code. Their policy is to write all the code themselves.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: You an everyone else.
by sukru on Fri 5th Jan 2007 06:33 UTC in reply to "RE: You an everyone else."
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

Microsoft uses very very little BSD code. Their policy is to write all the code themselves.

It's more like they like to "own" all the code themselves.

As in
* DOS
* NT
* Visio
* Speech Recognition Technologies
* UPS subsystem
* ...etc

So their policy is more like "write all code if cannot buy a company"

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: You an everyone else.
by what on Fri 5th Jan 2007 14:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: You an everyone else."
what Member since:
2006-01-04

Don't forget SQL server, which is one of their cash cows ( and a very good product, BTW ).

Edited 2007-01-05 14:18

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: You an everyone else.
by bannor99 on Fri 5th Jan 2007 20:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: You an everyone else."
bannor99 Member since:
2005-09-15

Do you mean that they wrote it themselves or that they
modified / rewrote Sybase SQL Server?

Reply Score: 1

Really?
by summadom on Thu 4th Jan 2007 21:39 UTC
summadom
Member since:
2006-08-30

Does Novell really believe that this "mixed-source" crappy explanation will fly? These guys are hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, and almost everyone else other than themselves can see it clearly.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Really?
by tomcat on Sat 6th Jan 2007 00:07 UTC in reply to "Really?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Does Novell really believe that this "mixed-source" crappy explanation will fly?

Perhaps it's a "crappy explanation" to people with very narrow minds, but Novell is fundamentally correct about IT departments running a combination of open and closed source products. Most companies don't care -- or ideological axe to grind -- when it comes to running stuff that works for them. Maybe that comes as a surprise to people who have the luxury to run one way (or none), but not the vast majority of us.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Really?
by david g on Sat 6th Jan 2007 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Really?"
david g Member since:
2005-07-08

Perhaps it's a "crappy explanation" to people with very narrow minds, but Novell is fundamentally correct about IT departments running a combination of open and closed source products. Most companies don't care -- or ideological axe to grind -- when it comes to running stuff that works for them.

You make very good points, and I find it difficult fault Novell for their mixed-source aspirations. But I have to agree with summadom: it's a pretty poor justification for the MS agreement.

Reply Score: 1

that explains...
by jacquouille on Thu 4th Jan 2007 21:49 UTC
jacquouille
Member since:
2006-01-02

... why I have mixed feelings about this company...

Reply Score: 5

linux_yogi
Member since:
2006-03-21

all we are trying to do is survive, we have no stand, we'll do anything and sleep with anyone to make money


yepp MONEY

Reply Score: 3

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

all we are trying to do is survive, we have no stand, we'll do anything and sleep with anyone to make money


yepp MONEY


Congratulations on your successful completion of Business 101. And you thought this was going to be a philosophy class...

Reply Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Congratulations on your successful completion of Business 101.

It's just a shame the execs at Novell haven't passed it themselves. The decline of Novell's revenues from Netware and their older software continues, whilst their revenues from Linux and open source software are so miniscule it isn't even funny.

Now Novell expects their closest competitor and the company who is taking customers and money from them to help them out. That's the part I do find funny.

It's a shame that you didn't read his comment a bit more thoroughly and learn Business 102, which is that it is preferable to make money from your own revenues and hard work to make sure of your own survival rather than sleeping with pimps who use you, rip you off and beat you up.

Distasteful analogy, but that's what Novell are doing unfortunately.

Reply Score: 4

embrace, extend, exhauste
by vlado on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:01 UTC
vlado
Member since:
2005-10-26

MIXED-$OURCE (MS). Now this new variation got name!

Reply Score: 5

Compromise
by g2devi on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:13 UTC
g2devi
Member since:
2005-07-09

> "Generally, my experience with these situations is that
> people will eventually compromise and everyone gets on
> with their lives,

Step 1) Novell takes over the community park and Microsoft threatens anyone who's not Novell to get out.

Step 2) The community complains and says Novell has no right to do so.

Step 3) Novell asks for a compromise -- the community has visiting rights on "Novell's Property" or becomes a tenant in "Novell's property"

Step 4) Community yells, "yeah, right"

Reply Score: 5

RE: Compromise
by tomcat on Sat 6th Jan 2007 00:19 UTC in reply to "Compromise"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Step 1) Novell takes over the community park and Microsoft threatens anyone who's not Novell to get out.

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed. Novell has no ability to take over the metaphorical community park. Either that, or Red Hat, Linspire, Ubuntu, and countless others are also squatting.

Reply Score: 1

jakesdad
Member since:
2005-12-28

Everyone is acting like this is news. They (Novell) have been saying this since they bought SUSE. Everyones eyes were to focused on the SCO lawsuit and Novell's role in that to actually see what they have been saying from the beginning. So whose fault is that? Novells? I don't think so.
They have an Open source platform to sell their services/servers on.
And for those of you that think business isnt about money, I hope your bosses or your bosses boss doesnt here you complain when your "morals/ethics" feel compromised because the company you work for want to make money to pay for the position you hold.

Reply Score: 4

2fargone Member since:
2006-02-20

That's all well and good, but the problem is Novell's deal means only those who are blessed by Novell are protected in the short term from MS, and Novell is content to sell out those Novell depends on.

Novell is going to find out this isn't public domain software. This is a golden goose and it's eggs software. Kill the goose and you don't get any more golden eggs. Fools don't know what they're doing.

It would be so different if this wasn't Microsoft. MS has repeatedly said they are manuvering to kill FOSS. It's also well known MS is going to be using patents to do so. Any patent deal, especially one this shaddy (and Novell knows it was), is suspect.

Reply Score: 4

jakesdad Member since:
2005-12-28

They never said it was public domain software. What they want to do is have an open platform to sell server services like identity management, directory services, etc. They want the OS to be commoditized but have the service applications developed their own way. I see no problem with this.

"It would be so different if this wasn't Microsoft."
And that is just an asinine way for people to look at it.
They have a large client portfolio and if you want to make money from people, you have to go to where the people are. Are you more likely to buy from a vendor that speaks ill of the competition or one that says, look around and pick what you like. Though, that doesnt always hold true considering people still by from Microsoft ;)
The patent angle in my opinion is a red herring. I think Novell licensed patents for use in their apps not in SUSE. But for apps that will run on SUSE. And if the FSF tries to steer companies from doing just that then I question their version of "free". Since I am not free to link to anything under the GPL (which is where the FSF is heading).
Microsoft on the other hand is using this "red herring" and is doing what they do best, mislead.

I look at it like this. A company(A) that makes a product that I like got access to patents from another company(B) to help make the applications that they company(A) run better on the product I like.
I see grandstanding and soapboxing from the FSF and Company(B) side and Novell is getting slapped back and forth for no reason other than they wanted to make it easier for people to run their systems.

Reply Score: 3

david g Member since:
2005-07-08

The patent angle in my opinion is a red herring. I think Novell licensed patents for use in their apps not in SUSE. But for apps that will run on SUSE.

Could be, but if so, they would have been better off applying the patent protections to only those products rather than to SUSE as a whole.

Since I am not free to link to anything under the GPL (which is where the FSF is heading).

Heading? The FSF has always been there! Only the LGPL allows you to link to non-GPL software (aside from the usual private use exceptions).

I see grandstanding and soapboxing from the FSF and Company(B) side and Novell is getting slapped back and forth for no reason other than they wanted to make it easier for people to run their systems.

Granted, that's probably what they intended and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here - I mostly admire Novell as a company. But they way they've executed this strategy is just atrocious.

Reply Score: 2

milles21 Member since:
2006-11-08

Again missing the point if there is no infringing code this is a non issue everyone is talking about the deal just keep infringing code from the distro . Everyone is making a way bigger deal than this is if there is nothing to sue over then there is no lawsuit. If I don't have a dollar then I can't hand you one common sense!

Reply Score: 3

jakesdad Member since:
2005-12-28

I could care less what MS thinks they got from Novell... Im more interested in Novell being able to work with MS patents. That is the point I am making.
SUSE linux was always about mixing closed and open software, case in point: yast wasnt always GPL, until Novell put it there.

Reply Score: 1

walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>Again missing the point if there is no infringing code this is a non issue everyone is talking about the deal just keep infringing code from the distro <<

Why is msft making a deal not to sue novell over infringing code, if there is no infringing code?

The very fact that such a deal was made certainly implies that there could be infringing code, does it?

Does that not strengthen msft's fud that Linux is a legal minefield? Does that not cause a certain amount of uncertainty to people who don't know better? Is that an not a typical under-handed msft tactic? And is novl not conspiring with msft in that under-handed tactic?

Furthermore, even if there is no infringing code, that doesn't mean that msft won't sue. The scox lawsuit is entirely merritless, and that case has been going on nearly four years so far. The scox-scam has probably cost IBM about $50 million so far. No problem if you are IBM, but what if you are not? Would you want to risk a lawsuit from msft? Even if the lawsuit were completely merritless?

Reply Score: 2

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Why is msft making a deal not to sue novell over infringing code, if there is no infringing code?

The very fact that such a deal was made certainly implies that there could be infringing code, does it?



Assuming guilt because one refuses to prove their innocence is a road favored by zealots. You've been reading too much Groklaw.

Does that not strengthen msft's fud that Linux is a legal minefield? Does that not cause a certain amount of uncertainty to people who don't know better? Is that an not a typical under-handed msft tactic? And is novl not conspiring with msft in that under-handed tactic?


No, it doesn't. The outrage from a particular segment of the community is responsible for validating Microsoft's unfounded accusations and these people are aiding Microsoft's FUD campaign. Judging from the number of Fortune 500 organizations running linux (predominantly Red Hat) prior to the announcement, I'd say that Microsoft's fictional legal threats had minimal impact in the past. Judging from Microsoft's refusal to actually use the phrase "patent" in favor of the legally-insubstantial phrase "intellectual property" I'd say that even Microsoft isn't convinced their legal threats against free software carry any weight. Judging from the fact that Microsoft was unable to directly dispute Novell's assertion that the patent covenant is not directed at GPl software, I'd say Microsoft's legal threats are empty.

But judging from people like yourself, that insist on propagating the FSF FUD that this deal somehow jeopardizes GPL software and continue to feed the audience-hungry tech-industry media outlets that keep bringing this issue to the forefront in some sort of anti-Novell campaign simply helps validate Microsoft's FUD, and aids their campaign in achieving a level of success that I would not have thought possible.

Reply Score: 4

walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>But judging from people like yourself, that insist on propagating the FSF FUD that this deal somehow jeopardizes GPL <<

FSF fud? Excuse me but the CEO and president of msft very specifically threatend the entire F/OSS community with lawsuits, and he based those lawsuits specifically on this deal. So just who is fudding who?

Reply Score: 1

IanSVT Member since:
2005-07-06

So just who is fudding who?

Easy, both.

Reply Score: 1

beware
by dvdragon on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:32 UTC
dvdragon
Member since:
2006-12-21

Beware Novell. There is only one Lord of the OS and he does not share power!

Reply Score: 4

On marketingspeak
by Buck on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:37 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

I like my source stirred, not shaken.

Reply Score: 4

I don't have a problem with proprietary
by 2fargone on Thu 4th Jan 2007 22:57 UTC
2fargone
Member since:
2006-02-20

and I invite Novell to make as much use of it as they want. What I do have a problem is their benefiting from a community they're intentionally hurting by making what a community has work hard for to be negotiated away by a relatively new community memeber who doesn't speak for the whole community. I'm on enough mailing lists and read enough forums to know Novell has angered many FOSS programmers, programmers Novell relies on for software and support. Novell hopes, no, depends on the belief this is all going to settle down and go away. Yes, some of the fury will die down, but it's not going to go away, ever.

What I would like to hightlight is what will happen IF anything bad for FOSS does happen because of this, what reprocussions it could mean for Novell. It seems logical to me if something negative does happen, Novell won't only have to deal with lack of support, but those very programmers Novell has insulted will more than likely start working against Novell.

Just think about it. If Microsoft is able to capatilize on this, there's a big group of programmers out there who just might take it out on Novell.

And here is Novell's biggest flaw, and it's clearly illustrated here. They don't get they're using FOSS/OSS software. If they screw Red Hat and the rest of the FOSS community to benefit themselves, they're screwing themselves because Red Hat and the FOSS community is Novell's software suppliers. After that sinks in, seems like a pretty stupid move now, doesn't it?

Just boggles my mind. Short-sighted and greedy, a very dangerous combination.

Reply Score: 5

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""It seems logical to me if something negative does happen, Novell won't only have to deal with lack of support, but those very programmers Novell has insulted will more than likely start working against Novell."""

If Free Software is really as Free (with a capital 'F') as we're always going on about it being... what are Free Software authors going to do? Insert a retroactive clause that says you can only use it if you aren't Novell? Or whomever else we happen to dislike this week?

If it's Free, it's Free. If it can be used arbitrarily as a weapon, it is not Free... but just a bunch of fancy, high-sounding rhetoric.

These claims that "the programmers will turn against the heretic" are the best argument I can think of for BSD-like licenses... and I'm a GPL fan.

Reply Score: 2

Community divide again.
by milles21 on Thu 4th Jan 2007 23:30 UTC
milles21
Member since:
2006-11-08

There are several companies that operate in a mixed sourced operation, yet the bashing is aimed toward Novell so hypocritical. Novell this and that but may of these same people praise their contributions and use theme everyday. Evolution, exchange connector, banashee, mono, beagle, f-spot, gnome. Please don't quote the oh this was developed by Ximian the fact is that they are part of Novell now and those key players are still contributing.

It amazes me the GPL v2 is fine until some so-called FOSS leader have a problem with it. An yes I use so-called because I contribute quite a bit of code to numerous projects yet they do not represent my view at all and attempt to speak for an entire community or change the way an entire community uses software that we contribute to based on their own views.

Now I ask who is in the wrong if I am contributing to samba and now because of someone issues with Novell you attempt to semi-shut them out based on their views. What if my distro is Novell are you not indeed hijacking my code and using it however you want without consulting me and organizing it under your preferred license. Even Linus doesn’t agree with the revisions of GPL v3. We are talking about the man whose very kernel we use in our so-called favorite distros is in agreement that it removes more rights than it grants.

This is not about GPL this is really about being against Microsoft, and people wanting to oppose anything associated with them. Everyone is saying oh Linux is enterprise ready and CIO’s need to be open minded and explore Linux benefits, but if it doesn’t interoperate with their already MS investment then why would I want to. Bottom line customers want interoperability and want communications between vendors and in each environment each OS has it’s place and this is a company decision.

My personal feeling is that the community is being taken for a ride by the FOSS people who claim they are trying to protect us. Again Linux is at a point where everyone has contributed code it is no longer fair to the developers to take their code and revise under some new license with 100% consent. Who knows maybe they would have given their efforts to a different project had that known that someone would hijack it and revise it and limit their choice.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Community divide again.
by magiconair on Fri 5th Jan 2007 00:06 UTC in reply to "Community divide again. "
magiconair Member since:
2007-01-04

It is only partially against MS as the real problem is choice and interoperability. As long as there is no true interoperability you don't have a real choice. There is no point buying interoperability from MS or from any vendor. It has to be a given in a connected world. You achieve this by creating open standards, documenting and adhering to them. Then everybody can have their own implementation and if Microsofts is the best for my needs then I'm more than happy to pay them.

But MS won't play by that rule. They are still trying to lock in the customer. Therefore to offer a true alternative the Open Source community has to stand together until MS opens up its protocols and by that permits true interoperability. At that point you can have any normal business deal you want and compete on a technical level. But we're not there yet and that's why this Novell-MS deal is bad.

I'm not a native English speaker but I think the saying goes "We must all hang in there together as we're otherwise hanging together"

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Community divide again.
by linux-it on Fri 5th Jan 2007 11:36 UTC in reply to "Community divide again. "
linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

Milles hits the nail on the head. exactly how I feel about it.

the FSF and the community divided again, caused the FUD to amplify again and again.

Companies want this, they need interoperability. the patent stuff is just useless for MS.

as if I get sued as Mazda has a patent issue. The user doesn't get claimed.

the FSF and the community helps MS and may destroy all the stuff so far. If we are at a tipping point, let's tip over to the right direction and not back, like what FSF and some of the short sighted community people want.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Community divide again.
by david g on Fri 5th Jan 2007 21:22 UTC in reply to "Community divide again. "
david g Member since:
2005-07-08

There are several companies that operate in a mixed sourced operation, yet the bashing is aimed toward Novell so hypocritical. Novell this and that but may of these same people praise their contributions and use theme everyday.

Liking some of Novell's actions while disliking others is not hypocrisy. Rather, it's evidence that Novell is terribly conflicted about it's position in the market and community. That's a fault of Novell, not others.

It amazes me the GPL v2 is fine until some so-called FOSS leader have a problem with it.

What FOSS leader has a problem with GPL2? Or do you mean the loopholes that unscrupulous community members are attempting to exploit?

hijacking my code and using it however you want without consulting me and organizing it under your preferred license

I don't see your point. You are concerned that someone will relicense your GPL2 code under GPL3? If it happens, it's only because you consented to assignment of copyright or by using the optional clause "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

Bottom line customers want interoperability and want communications between vendors and in each environment each OS has it’s place and this is a company decision.

Unfortunately for Novell, this is about more than just customers. It's also about the community developers that have worked hard to make the software they sell. Apparently, they haven't quite figured this out yet.

Again Linux is at a point where everyone has contributed code it is no longer fair to the developers to take their code and revise under some new license with 100% consent.

That's exactly the point, isn't it? Many developers feel Novell has essentially released the code under a new license by violating the spirit of GPL2 (at least, the spirit of GPL as they interpreted it at the time they signed on to write GPL code). But in your opinion this is perfectly acceptable? Sounds pretty hypocritical.

Edited 2007-01-05 21:23

Reply Score: 3

I Predict
by shotsman on Thu 4th Jan 2007 23:36 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

That there will be a big exodus of OSS ADvocates from Novell. in the next couple of months.
Just like Jeremy Allison, there are people with views who currently work their who are sending their CV's out as we speak.
As each bit of detail comes out about the new Novell post the Microsoft deal the more it appears that they have
1) Sold Out
2) Gone over to the Dark Side
3) Done a SCO and taken their fourty pieces of Silver
4) Got Blinded by the big $$$$$ signs.
You can choose any or more than one from the above list.
They really differentiated themselves from RedHat.
I hope that some of the vitriol that is expounded here and on other forums towards RH can now be directed at Novell. As Novell say, RH is a PURE OPEN SOURCE Company. I hope they keep that stance.
Microsoft would love nothing better to bankrupt RH and buy all their patents((which RH have promised never to use against OSS users) for 1c on the Dollar. Then they would deluge every OSS distributor and user with $1M law suits.

Reply Score: 4

desktop linux will be mixed source
by buff on Thu 4th Jan 2007 23:52 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

Desktop Linux really has to be mixed source to work well. This is the reality. People that are used to Windows don't want to have to install video decoders and Nvidia drivers during an installation. People need to get over this. It is not the end of Linux. There can be distributions with pure open source applications and there can be mixed distributions where proprietary and open software is blended together. Both users can be satisfied here. Those that want just GPL'd source can use a non-desktop distribution if they don't care about mp3 and mpeg decoding and can be satisfied without 3D acceleration.

Edited 2007-01-04 23:54

Reply Score: 3

pedromatiello Member since:
2005-07-13

Just to point a few mistakes:

- There are FLOSS mpeg/mp3 encoders/decoders. They aren't included in most U.S. based distributions because of software patent issues.

- Many 3D cards have free (as in freedom) drivers. Yes, they are slower and most cards are not supported, so it's not for everybody, but, at least, it's possible to have 3D acceleration and a pure free-software system.

Above all that, I agree with the point you made. We have a lot of distributions out there and each one can pick the one he likes most. Everybody is happy.

Reply Score: 2

Opensource only, wich one ?
by foez on Fri 5th Jan 2007 03:24 UTC
foez
Member since:
2005-08-29

Wich usable desktop is opensource only ? I mean, your a fool if you dont use libdvdcss, multimedia codecs and nvidia drivers on a linux desktop.

Reply Score: 1

h times nue equals e Member since:
2006-01-21

Wich usable desktop is opensource only ? I mean, your a fool if you dont use libdvdcss, multimedia codecs and nvidia drivers on a linux desktop.

libdvdcss is licensed under the GNU GPL v.2, and is therefore open source[1]. The reason why many distributions shy away from providing this library has nothing to do with potential closed source problems but more with the fear, uncertainy and doubt caused by very streched interpretations of the DMCA and similar regulations.

As for codecs:

libavcodec/ffmpeg is licensed under a mix of GPL and LGPL licenses[2]
libmad is licensed under the GPL [3]
faad/libfaad is covered by GPL and LGPL licenses [4]
xvid is covered by the GPL [5]
x264 is covered by the GPL [6]
ogg vorbis / theora et al are licensed under BSD and/or GPL terms [7][8]

etc.

Non-DRM wma and wmv (v.9) inside ASF containers as well as mp4 within the quick-time container can be played back by the ffmpeg package mentioned earlier.

There is a plethora of open source / free software codecs available to choose from and - again - problems regarding the legal safeness of this codecs do not arise from their open source nature primarily, but are again a result of fear, uncertainy and doubt introduced by software patents (where enforceable) and DMCA-style laws.

Ad NVIDIA driver:

Although in an early stage, the noveau project at freedesktop.org aims at implementing an open source 3d - NVIDIA driver. This will take time and sadly, given the closed specifications of the NVIDIA hardware, will most likely result in an perpetual catch-up cycle.


Both my virtual and my real desktop are very useable (my real desktop is messy, though) and both of them are not encumbered by properitary audio codecs or binary drivers (currently using ati128 and intel based video cards and Atheros based wifi cards).

Am I a fool ?


[1] http://developers.videolan.org/libdvdcss/
[2] http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/legal.html
[3] http://www.underbit.com/products/mad/
[4] http://www.audiocoding.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4
[5] http://www.xvid.org/FAQ.14.0.html
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X264
[7] http://www.vorbis.com/faq/#flic
[8] http://www.theora.org/theorafaq.html#14

Reply Score: 3

zsitvaij Member since:
2006-06-14

...
faad/libfaad is covered by GPL and LGPL licenses
...


Minor correction: as of 2.5, FAAD is as unusable as cdrecord after it's license change.

Some of the issues were already fixed, when we decided to apply the patch for good, in upstream CVS; unfortunately Ahead/Nero (the company behind FAAD) used GPL as base license, but adding an advertising clause that is by all means incompatible with GPL, which disallows using newer versions of the library in GPL-licensed projects, while the GPL requirements disallow using the library for more shallow-licensed projects.

We all hoped that Ahead would have cleaned up this situation before the release of a newer version of FAAD, but they instead persited in their choice even in release 2.5, even if their forums had at least a couple of threads on this topic.

Some time ago me and Tony (Chainsaw) got in a discussion because I forgot to close the bug about bumping FAAD with the text about the license, so he bumped it without knowing that (FAAD is still advertised as 'GPL2 licensed' from upstream, although the copyright notices on the source files says otherwise). To clear up the situation, after closing the bug with a blurb about the need for a proper licensing in FAAD2, I’ve mailed Free Software Foundation, hoping they would be able to take care of contact Ahead and clean up the issue or at least lobbying for that; the answer was to mail Ahead: «We would encourage you to raise your concerns with Ahead, just as other distributors have already done.» .


http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/articles/2006/12/20/lets-he...

Please consider writing an email to Ahead to correct this oversight. The template and the full post is avaliable at the link.

*EDIT*: minor corrections.

Edited 2007-01-05 19:36

Reply Score: 1

h times nue equals e Member since:
2006-01-21

It has been some time since I last checked the faad project, so I wasn't aware of this recent developments. Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention !

I will email them a modified version of the template email from the blog (in fact, I'm a customer of Ahead, perhaps this helps :-) )

Cheers

Reply Score: 1

A few things
by IanSVT on Fri 5th Jan 2007 04:11 UTC
IanSVT
Member since:
2005-07-06

First of all, I think milles21 and jakesdad hit on some very important subjects. The FSF shouldn't speak for everyone, nor should anyone believe they do. Also, Novell has been very active in providing open source code and jobs for open source coders. Let's not forget about the Unix wars and how Novell basically ended all that by allowing *BSD to come into being. Even Jeremy Allison, who some people champion as thumbing his nose at the evil corporation, enjoyed working at Novell and was and is lucky that he can do what he loves and get paid for it. Hell, we should all be lucky to be able to do that. His views and Novell's actions went in a different direction, so he left.

Jeremy Allison might be a very talented programmer, but don't think for a second that Novell doesn't have plenty of very smart programmers. You can't build, maintain, and improve something like eDirectory with a bunch of dummies. His leaving isn't a massive blow that Novell can't move on from.

Which leads to my next point. Novell has been a mixed source company since they first put Bash and Apache into NetWare. Even before the Microsoft deal they had lots of proprietary products that formed the base or interacted with their open source stack. What is OES Linux? It's SLES with proprietary bits such as eDirectory, NCP, NSS built right into it. More mixed source. I'll say this much, given the option of using a "true open source distro" like Ubuntu or an "evil mixed source" Open Enterprise Server as the backbone server OS in my server room I'll take OES in a second. That's not because I am a champion for proprietary software, but because it's what would work best for me. The FSF has done and continues to do plenty of good, but they can't speak for everyone in every situation.

To further that last point, I'll give you an example from personal experience. I use many of Novell's mixed source products. If Novell went up in a ball of flames tomorrow like many here would like to see, would I then go 100% open source? Not a chance. In fact, it would probably swing the other direction. We would be 99% Microsoft in our server room. In my situation, there are no open source answers to GroupWise(even with version 7's bugs) or ZenWorks. Only Microsoft based platforms have those. Sorry, OpenExchange looks spiffy, but it's not the answer yet. I think that's a more common situation among current Novell customers than people believe.

In the end, time will tell. I still really think Novell management dropped the ball and erred in a big way with how they handled this deal and should be nailed to the wall for that. They didn't talk to their in house open source people about the deal. That's a major management blunder. How could you not get their opinion or concerns. It's like building a car and not getting your engine and transmission techs involved.

One final point, anyone who thinks Novell is the next SCO, give me a break. Stop believing everything you read on Slash and Groklaw. SCO is in the position they are in because their product line brings nothing over the competition. Novell is having issues because their manangent doesn't know what to do with some fabulous mixed source products. It's completely different.

Reply Score: 5

RE: A few things
by david g on Fri 5th Jan 2007 21:28 UTC in reply to "A few things"
david g Member since:
2005-07-08

If Novell went up in a ball of flames tomorrow like many here would like to see, would I then go 100% open source? Not a chance. In fact, it would probably swing the other direction. We would be 99% Microsoft in our server room.

I think most people would prefer that Novell straightened up their act.

Reply Score: 1

RE: A few things
by walterbyrd on Sat 6th Jan 2007 03:07 UTC in reply to "A few things"
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>One final point, anyone who thinks Novell is the next SCO, give me a break<<

Sorry, but since the scox-scam is winding down, msft needed a new b!tch, that that b!tch is novl.

Novl is now exactly like scox. Novl took msft money, and declared that only novl's linux distro is legal. That is exactly what scox did - to the letter.

Novl is now conspiring with msft's bullsh!t litigation scam against linux, just as scox did.

Reply Score: 1

Mixed source...
by merkoth on Fri 5th Jan 2007 13:11 UTC
merkoth
Member since:
2006-09-22

And this is supposed to be a good idea? Drawing an imaginary line at some point of your codebase and saying "Well, up to here, we're open source. The rest is closed source."

Us simple users aside this is, IMHO of course, really really confusing for their customers. There are some parts that can only be get from Novell and some you can get wherever. And free. Hmm... WTF?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mixed source...
by IanSVT on Fri 5th Jan 2007 13:29 UTC in reply to "Mixed source..."
IanSVT Member since:
2005-07-06

Again, this is nothing new. As a customer, if you really care about using open source software, you'll actually take the time to do your homework and see what products are open source, mixed source, or closed source. Even then, I'd venture to guess that most customers don't care that much.

Reply Score: 2

Here, this will clear everything up
by walterbyrd on Fri 5th Jan 2007 15:14 UTC
walterbyrd
Member since:
2005-12-31

Take a look at this, and the entire msft/deal will make sense. Execs don't care if the kill their company, as long as they make their loot before going on to the next "job."

Last 10 Insider Actions for Novell, Inc Next Transactions
Date Name Shares Transaction Historical Quote
12/04/2006 COLLEEN A OKEEFE
Senior Vice President-Worldwide Services 200,000 Award of Stock
*** Undefined Type ***

12/04/2006 COLLEEN A OKEEFE
Senior Vice President-Worldwide Services 100,000 Award of Stock
*** Undefined Type ***

11/01/2006 CLAUDINE B MALONE
Director 312 Award of Stock
*** Undefined Type ***

11/01/2006 FRED CORRADO
Director 130 Award of Stock
*** Undefined Type ***

11/01/2006 JAMES D ROBINSON
Director 2,083 Award of Stock
*** Undefined Type ***

11/01/2006 FRED CORRADO
Director 520 Award of Stock
*** Undefined Type ***

11/01/2006 CLAUDINE B MALONE
Director 1,250 Award of Stock
*** Undefined Type ***

11/01/2006 JOHN PODUSKA
Director 1,666 Award of Stock
*** Undefined Type ***

11/01/2006 JOHN PODUSKA
Director 416 Award of Stock
*** Undefined Type ***

11/01/2006 JAMES D ROBINSON
Director 520 Award of Stock

Reply Score: 2

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Take a look at this, and the entire msft/deal will make sense. Execs don't care if the kill their company, as long as they make their loot before going on to the next "job."

Before you conclude everyone's in it solely for the loot, do you happen to know how long those execs been with Novell? I find it perfectly reasonable that those same people believe that the Novell/MSFT deal will increase share prices over the long haul -- and that's their primary motivation.

Reply Score: 1

What is the value?
by Damind on Fri 5th Jan 2007 17:22 UTC
Damind
Member since:
2006-06-08

Why should we use Novell SUSE?
Where is the value?
The support cost more than the other players.
What is OES? it cost more that it needs to.

Novell lost it's way a long time ago and it does not seem they will ever come back.

We use Novell Netware right now, full Novell shop but as time passes we ask our self those questions and is yet to find an answer. Not even our 3 Novell sales reps can answer us.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What is the value?
by milles21 on Fri 5th Jan 2007 19:54 UTC in reply to "What is the value?"
milles21 Member since:
2006-11-08

Well I am not critcizing you but that is your issue if you cannot find the benefit however as for me I see that there are tons of reasons

1. More applications are available for SUSE than Netware
2. The ability to customize Linux is more than Netware, while still having a enterprise directory system to manage your resources.

3. You talk about support however compared to MS support Novell's is penny's on the dollars. Yes you can say redhat is cheaper however Redhat does not offer the type of Apps that Novell offers with the capabilities that Novell offers on their platform. ( identity Manager, edirectory, zenworks)

The benefit is that you can now have Novelkl services on a os platfor that you can develope for. As for your Novell reps I will go on record and say that Novell reps have not been well informed on the benefits of Linux in general and are short sighted on the move

Reply Score: 1

Novell Doesn't Get It
by segedunum on Fri 5th Jan 2007 23:10 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Novell has tried for some time to peddle this both source thing for a while, and it just can't work. You can't promote open source software on the one hand and then say "Right, no further. This is proprietary". What happens if Red Hat's directory server becomes an awful lot more popular and well used than eDirectory. Will Novell knee jerk to that as well?

It just creates conflicts in the minds of your users and customers, not too mention the support angle. What can I freely install on different machines, and what can I not? People used to have that problem with YaST. A company like Red Hat has no such problems because they're very clear on where the lines are drawn.

Additionally, keeping a lot of their software closed makes absolutely no business sense either. In the minds of a lot of IT people, Novell and their software is now dead - whether it be closed or not. The key is not that Novell isn't making the money they once were out of their software, it's that people are now not even using it either. Properly open sourcing a lot of their software would ensure that more people started using Novell software again, and they wouldn't lose any money because the support side of their business is still very large.

Novell have to be brave and clever to arrest their continuing slide and turn it into a flat line and an upturn, and they're not doing it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Novell Doesn't Get It
by tomcat on Sat 6th Jan 2007 00:13 UTC in reply to "Novell Doesn't Get It"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Novell has tried for some time to peddle this both source thing for a while, and it just can't work. You can't promote open source software on the one hand and then say "Right, no further. This is proprietary".

Of course you can.

What happens if Red Hat's directory server becomes an awful lot more popular and well used than eDirectory. Will Novell knee jerk to that as well?

There's no reason why Novell can't pursue a phased move from closed-to-open source. It may not make sense to open source their directory services because it's selling reasonably well, but that may not be true in a couple years. Point is, they can make that decision when they come to it.

It just creates conflicts in the minds of your users and customers, not too mention the support angle. What can I freely install on different machines, and what can I not? People used to have that problem with YaST. A company like Red Hat has no such problems because they're very clear on where the lines are drawn.

It's not as difficult as you're trying to portray. The licensing terms are pretty clear.

Additionally, keeping a lot of their software closed makes absolutely no business sense either. In the minds of a lot of IT people, Novell and their software is now dead - whether it be closed or not. The key is not that Novell isn't making the money they once were out of their software, it's that people are now not even using it either. Properly open sourcing a lot of their software would ensure that more people started using Novell software again, and they wouldn't lose any money because the support side of their business is still very large.


No offense, but I trust Novell to decide and run its own business more than some random guy on the Web.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Novell Doesn't Get It
by segedunum on Sat 6th Jan 2007 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Novell Doesn't Get It"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course you can.

No you can't. It gives an utterly confused and inconsistent message to your customers, not to mention the 'what you can and can't install without a license' type of confusion.

Novell gives out enough confusion as it is.

It may not make sense to open source their directory services because it's selling reasonably well

Considering that its usage has been declining for some time now to the point that many people don't even know that Novell is still around, I think not. That's what is killing Novell.

It's not as difficult as you're trying to portray. The licensing terms are pretty clear.

For customers trying to deploy software, and certainly with Red Hat, you need a consistent message. A message of "We're using open source software so you can deploy it everywhere without a license and pay for support" on the one hand, and "Oh, that doesn't apply to this, this or this bit of software" on the other just creates yet more confusion and barriers to people using your software and then handing over money for it.

This isn't an idealogical argument, but one rooted in the kinds of messages you give out to your customers. Red Hat has a clear message there, Novell doesn't. If Novell didn't like that then they shouldn't have got involved with open source software.

No offense, but I trust Novell to decide and run its own business more than some random guy on the Web.

Forums exist for people to give their views and opinions, so if you don't want to listen to some random guy then you're in the wrong place ;-). No offence, but that comment is absolutely worthless. If you're going to write a response, by all means do so, but don't let your frustration get the better of you.

Quite frankly, I trust what many Novell customers have been telling Novell for years in order to run their business rather than Novell themselves or some random Novell fanboy who can't even defend them properly.

Edited 2007-01-06 00:52

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Novell Doesn't Get It
by tomcat on Sat 6th Jan 2007 04:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Novell Doesn't Get It"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

No you can't. It gives an utterly confused and inconsistent message to your customers, not to mention the 'what you can and can't install without a license' type of confusion.

You've made the mistake of assuming that customers will even care. Customers are much more nuanced than you believe. They're already used to a variety of licensing models -- both open and closed source -- and this is no different.

This isn't an idealogical argument, but one rooted in the kinds of messages you give out to your customers. Red Hat has a clear message there, Novell doesn't. If Novell didn't like that then they shouldn't have got involved with open source software.

Totally disagree. Novell is simply leveraging open source for things that make sense -- and then choosing closed source for other things. I'd hazard a guess that you primarily don't like it because you think that Novell is pimping the open source movement. Which they are, in a way, but as I pointed out above, customers can weigh the advantages/disadvantages of Novell's offerings on their merits. Throwing ideology into the mix won't make any difference.

Forums exist for people to give their views and opinions, so if you don't want to listen to some random guy then you're in the wrong place ;-).

Of course. Everyone has a right to an opinion. But that doesn't change the fact that I trust Novell to know its business and its customers better than you -- or some random guy on the Web.

Quite frankly, I trust what many Novell customers have been telling Novell for years in order to run their business rather than Novell themselves or some random Novell fanboy who can't even defend them properly.

You don't know what many Novell customers have been telling Novell for years. You don't speak for them. And, as above, I trust Novell to know its customers better than anyone on OSNews.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Novell Doesn't Get It
by segedunum on Sat 6th Jan 2007 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Novell Doesn't Get It"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You've made the mistake of assuming that customers will even care.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Not having all the software you ship licensed in a unified way simply makes life more difficult for your customers. It's that simple.

They're already used to a variety of licensing models -- both open and closed source -- and this is no different.

By different software vendors. Having one vendor trying to ship you some open source software you can use anywhere, together with a bunch of proprietary components that you can't, simply isn't worth the hassle.

Totally disagree. Novell is simply leveraging open source for things that make sense -- and then choosing closed source for other things.

Which makes life more difficult for their customers.

...but as I pointed out above, customers can weigh the advantages/disadvantages of Novell's offerings on their merits.

And many of them quite clearly have ;-).

Throwing ideology into the mix won't make any difference.

I'm not........as I'd stated.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. But that doesn't change the fact that I trust Novell to know its business and its customers better than you

You trust Novell to know its business and customers better than many of its customers? You don't know what's been going on at all, do you?

Considering that Novell's business has been declining steadily for a number of years now, and a move to Linux and open source software hasn't arrested the slide, and they've made a rather silly deal with their closest competitor to try and get them to stop taking customers and revenue away, then your faith is simply misplaced.

There's just no evidence at all that your trust, or anyone elses', is justified, so your cop-out statement is pretty meaningless.

You don't know what many Novell customers have been telling Novell for years.

Errrrr, yes I do, considering that I work with quite a few Novell customers and I keep my ear to the ground regarding what many have said about things like Novell's disastrous half-move from Netware to Linux.

And, as above, I trust Novell to know its customers better than anyone on OSNews.

Feel free to go away then, because you quite clearly don't know.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Novell Doesn't Get It
by tomcat on Sat 6th Jan 2007 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Novell Doesn't Get It"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

No, that's not what I'm saying. Not having all the software you ship licensed in a unified way simply makes life more difficult for your customers. It's that simple.

Assuming that the benefits outweigh the difficulty of deployment, it won't matter.

By different software vendors. Having one vendor trying to ship you some open source software you can use anywhere, together with a bunch of proprietary components that you can't, simply isn't worth the hassle.

Your opinion. IT managers don't simply flip a switch to make a decision. It's more complicated than that. It depends entirely upon the cost-benefit of the offering. Novell has the best directory services product on the market. MS and open source alternatives just aren't as good; hence, customers have to weigh the benefit against the complexity of deployment. And I totally disagree that deploying, for example, Novell's Directory Services as a closed source product would be much more difficult than if it were open source. Odds are, those same customers are already using a variety of closed source products such as Exchange, Office, Windows, Lotus Notes, etc -- so it's not going to be a stretch to get them to add another closed source product to the mix.

Considering that Novell's business has been declining steadily for a number of years now, and a move to Linux and open source software hasn't arrested the slide, and they've made a rather silly deal with their closest competitor to try and get them to stop taking customers and revenue away, then your faith is simply misplaced.

Novell's slide hasn't been due to a lack of understanding of its customers. Novell is trying to find a niche to sell into. Its file/print services server market has largely been taken over by Linux/NT/Win2K/Win2K3. Novell did what amounted to a Hail Mary pass when it originally decided to open source some of its products, glom onto SUSE Linux, and try to take a slice from Red Hat. But, fundamentally, that was due to changes in market conditions. Novell clearly understood where its customers were going, but it's been struggling with the ironies of the open source software market: How to sell into a market where you give away the source code for free.

Novell knows that it can't compete with Microsoft anymore. It's way outgunned. So, Novell is putting all of its chips on Linux and, in the process, they're trying to preserve what few revenue-generating products they have left. Novell's agreement with Microsoft was meant to indemnify Novell's customers from patent infringement (a near zero-cost solution for Novell, I should add), while sowing fear, uncertainty, and doubt over the remaining Linux market. That isn't a bad strategy since most corporate customers are very risk-averse and might be more inclined to go with Novell, if it shields them from patent infringement. Red Hat's revenues are pretty small, and its ability to actually indemnify customers is questionable.

There's just no evidence at all that your trust, or anyone elses', is justified, so your cop-out statement is pretty meaningless.

I don't know what more evidence is required than the fact that Novell knows its own financial condition, has access to all of its employees and partners, it knows who its customers are, and it has marketing data to justify its investments. Contrast that with ... what ... a dude who lives in his parent's basement and thinks that he knows it all. Sheesh.

Errrrr, yes I do, considering that I work with quite a few Novell customers and I keep my ear to the ground regarding what many have said about things like Novell's disastrous half-move from Netware to Linux.

Non-sequitor. Logical fallacy. That's like saying "none of my Asian friends like sushi; therefore, Asians don't like sushi." What you have is anecdotal and doesn't translate to the wide audience of ALL Novell customers.

Feel free to go away then, because you quite clearly don't know.

Nah. Somebody has to point out when you're wrong.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Novell Doesn't Get It
by segedunum on Sun 7th Jan 2007 15:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Novell Doesn't Get It"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Assuming that the benefits outweigh the difficulty of deployment, it won't matter.

The benefits don't outweigh the advantages. The usage of Novell's software like eDirectory is simply declining. There's no point in keeping it proprietary.

Your opinion. IT managers don't simply flip a switch to make a decision. It's more complicated than that.

That's exactly the way IT managers work. If one vendor makes it too hard to deploy their software then they're simply not going to get very far. How do you think Microsoft got to where they are?

Leave the house and go and work in IT some day.

Novell has the best directory services product on the market.

That's neither here nor there. The usage of it is declining, as is the revenue from it.

Novell's slide hasn't been due to a lack of understanding of its customers.

That's such a silly sentence. "Our revenue is declining, many customers have complained about our botched moves with Linux and Netware and many customers are leaving (admitted by our CEO) - but none of that is due to our lack of understanding!"

Cobblers. Every decline is down to a lack of understanding of customers and the market.

...and try to take a slice from Red Hat. But, fundamentally, that was due to changes in market conditions.

And that's been an utter disaster.

...but it's been struggling with the ironies of the open source software market: How to sell into a market where you give away the source code for free.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with that. You're bringing the free software argument into it.

None of Red Hat's customers care directly that the software they're using is completely free, and it's not as if they're going to somehow rip Red Hat off in the way you're implying someone might do with Novell, but they feel the benefits of it. It doesn't stop them from continuing to pay Red Hat, and the evidence for that is their bottom line. Do you not understand that?

You're implying that Novell needs to be afraid of going completely open source when it is exactly what they need. They're clearly mucking something up, because their revenue isn't going up.

Novell knows that it can't compete with Microsoft anymore. It's way outgunned.

It has to compete with Microsoft. There's no other option. No one lasts continually backing themselves into corners and pretending they don't compete with Microsoft.

So, Novell is putting all of its chips on Linux

Their Linux revenue is miniscule.

they're trying to preserve what few revenue-generating products they have left.

Absolutely pointless. The usage of that software is declining, has been for some years and the revenue from that software is continuing to decline so there's nothing to protect by keeping it proprietary.

Red Hat's revenues are pretty small

Red Hat's revenues will continue to climb, and as Novell's customers continue to leave it won't be long before they overtake Novell. Novell is on a downward spiral, and there's no growth in what they're doing.

...and its ability to actually indemnify customers is questionable.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know what more evidence is required than the fact that Novell knows its own financial condition, has access to all of its employees and partners, it knows who its customers are, and it has marketing data to justify its investments.

Novell's revenue is declining, and it's CEO has admitted they are losing customers. Novell could have access to all the tea in China, but it doesn't alter the fundamental facts available to hand.

Contrast that with ... what ... a dude who lives in his parent's basement and thinks that he knows it all.

Oh, the usual basement argument ;-). Reverse psychology ;-).

Non-sequitor. Logical fallacy. That's like saying "none of my Asian friends like sushi; therefore, Asians don't like sushi." What you have is anecdotal...

Yet another cop out statement. I suggest you get on to some Novell and Netware forums and meet some Novell customers before commenting.

Besides, you're trying to argue something by telling me that not all Novell's customers hold my views when you're actually arguing absolutely nothing. Novell's revenue and customer base is declining. Those are facts. Clearly most of their customers are not happy.

...and doesn't translate to the wide audience of ALL Novell customers.

Where's the evidence that it doesn't translate to all, or most, of Novell customers?

Novell's revenue is continuing to decline, and Ron Hovsepian himself has admitted that they have lost customers in several few interviews. Novell's customer base is declining and their revenue is going down. That is all that matters.

Having a meeting with your bank manager about your poor financial position, and then trying to argue that not all customers are unhappy isn't going to help you, is it? To him or her, quite clearly the vast majority of your customers are not happy.

Nah. Somebody has to point out when you're wrong.

Son. You're so far off base and so clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about (falling back to basement comments, a dead give away, and trying to thread the eye of a needle in order to argue absolutely nothing) it isn't believable. You haven't met a Novell customer in your entire life.

Go do something else in that basement you think I'm living in ;-).

Reply Score: 2