Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Dec 2006 19:57 UTC, submitted by Chuck Talk
Novell and Ximian "OrangeCrate is pleased to announce an interview with Justin Steinman, Director of Marketing for Novell. Novell has announced a major deal with Microsoft in the last few weeks that has caused some in the community to question the validity of the deal announced, and has already been characterized by Microsoft as somehow verifying that Linux violates Microsoft's intellectual property. While I disagree with that statement from Steve Ballmer, I do understand that it is only fitting to offer Novell the chance to speak directly to the questions we all want addressed."
Permalink for comment 188064
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: shame
by molnarcs on Tue 5th Dec 2006 00:13 UTC in reply to "shame"
molnarcs
Member since:
2005-09-10

I jumped on this interview hoping it would elay all the fear mongering going on and clarify the bits that many of us find troubling. Instead I found yet another ambiguous press statment, just in the format of an interview..

Exactly. And the interviewer did everything in his power to suck up to the guy. From TA:

I'd like to start out by asking a tough question. I know that there is quite a bit of furor surrounding the recent Microsoft and Novell agreements. Many people have been shocked by the agreements, some see any agreement with Microsoft as inherently bad (especially given their penchant for deals that are eviscerated as soon as they make them), others are busy proclaiming that Microsoft bought Linux (something they can't do)...

This is soo typical - he basically presents the anti Novell/MS deal side through posting extreme views found on various message boards, not the real issues presented by the Samba team, the FSF, or groklaw. Though question my ass. The purpose of the GPL is to guarantee the same rights for every recipient. Novell successfully worked around this purpose, by entering a deal where MS grants indemnification directly to the customers of Novell (and not to Novell per se). The purpose of such a deal is to work around the letter of the GPL, and Novell knew full well what it is doing (otherwise they would have worked with Moglen & FSF before the deal, not with Microsoft lawyers). Thanks to this deal, if you are a user of free software, being a Novell customer makes a difference patent-protectionwise. Even if it is BS, every time Novell advertises SuSE with this deal, it emphasizes this difference (and provides free ammunition to Ballmer & Co. to spread FUD about linux). Discussing this would have been a "tough question", not citing random message board rants.

I understand what Justin is. He is payed by Novell to defend the deal, and there is nothing new in what he has to say (in other words, he carefully avoids the real problems of this deal, just like Nat Friedman & co. did a week ago): it's BS. But the interviewer?

Reply Parent Score: 5