Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Nov 2006 18:26 UTC
Novell and Ximian "Someone just asked me whether, now that Novell's become buddies with Microsoft, I'll be turning away from Novell/SUSE as one of my favorite Linux distributions. My answer is no. I'm sticking with SUSE Linux on both my desktops and servers. Here's why."
Thread beginning with comment 179481
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: GPL
by elsewhere on Tue 7th Nov 2006 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: GPL"
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

I don't see that anywhere.

What was said in this deal, as I understand it, is that Microsoft & Novell would work together to give SuSe Linux interoperability with Windows in terms of development platform (via Mono), networking & domain logon (via Samba) & OOXML (via OpenOffice).

This does not say that these areas currently infringe on any patents. It does say that after they have had the "Windows interoperability treatment", that Microsoft then feels SuSe then needs to license some Microsoft patents.

For myself, I think this is rubbish. It should not be possible for Microsoft to deliberately obscure interoperability protocols, then charge another platform for interoperating.

But regardless, I see nothing yet which amounts to an admission (let alone even a solid claim) that current Linux in any way violates any Microsoft patents.


Part of the agreement is that MS and Novell are providing patent coverage for each other's customers. That's an inference that there is concern about patent infringment, which while not a legal admission is fairly convincing.

The problem and reason for the FUD slinging is that nobody knows exactly what the hell Novell is paying those royalties for. Is it a blanket payment amounting to corporate extortion? Is it solely for the questionable patents involved in mono's windows stack? Is it for patents MS feels are infringed by GPL products or technologies Novell is shipping (which would constitute a GPL violation but is speculation without knowing that for sure) ? Nobody except Novell and MS know.

So rather than clearing anything up, they've basically created an ambiguous cloud now that creates a safety zone for Novell customers against real or imagined patent infringmenets.

The Windows-interoperability is smoke and mirrors. Novell would likely have ported OpenXML to OOo2 anyways, just as they developed the macro patches for SLED. The EU is already in the process of bitch slapping MS over protocol interoperability problems faced by projects like Samba or commercial competitors. That's all publicity, little more. If any of those mods for integration required patent licensing, they would violate the product licensing (Samba is GPL, OOo2 is LGPL with Sun owning copyright assignment for all code). So the payment has nothing to do with that.

Everything is still speculation until more details are made evident. But I can't help thinking that Novell has turned unsubstantiated FUD against the mono project into possibly substantiated FUD. Mono is hardly at an entrenchment point for it to be a decisive factor over Red Hat for the majority of organizations, and by effectively closing it off in favor of their own paid customers as a fully-fledged Windows-like development framework, Novell has shot themselves in the foot and neutered the project as far as other distributions will be concerned.

Be interesting to see more depending upon how much info each company has to provide for the SEC filings on this.

Personally, I'm quite happy with my mono-free openSuse and I'll stick with it for now. Heck, in Suse 10.2 they've eliminated the zmd-dependency for KDE users, giving them a much needed mono-free package management framework. Good stuff.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: GPL
by hal2k1 on Tue 7th Nov 2006 22:25 in reply to "RE[4]: GPL"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

"Part of the agreement is that MS and Novell are providing patent coverage for each other's customers. That's an inference that there is concern about patent infringment, which while not a legal admission is fairly convincing.

The problem and reason for the FUD slinging is that nobody knows exactly what the hell Novell is paying those royalties for. Is it a blanket payment amounting to corporate extortion? Is it solely for the questionable patents involved in mono's windows stack? Is it for patents MS feels are infringed by GPL products or technologies Novell is shipping (which would constitute a GPL violation but is speculation without knowing that for sure) ? Nobody except Novell and MS know.

So rather than clearing anything up, they've basically created an ambiguous cloud now that creates a safety zone for Novell customers against real or imagined patent infringmenets.

The Windows-interoperability is smoke and mirrors. Novell would likely have ported OpenXML to OOo2 anyways, just as they developed the macro patches for SLED. The EU is already in the process of bitch slapping MS over protocol interoperability problems faced by projects like Samba or commercial competitors. That's all publicity, little more. If any of those mods for integration required patent licensing, they would violate the product licensing (Samba is GPL, OOo2 is LGPL with Sun owning copyright assignment for all code). So the payment has nothing to do with that.

Everything is still speculation until more details are made evident. But I can't help thinking that Novell has turned unsubstantiated FUD against the mono project into possibly substantiated FUD. Mono is hardly at an entrenchment point for it to be a decisive factor over Red Hat for the majority of organizations, and by effectively closing it off in favor of their own paid customers as a fully-fledged Windows-like development framework, Novell has shot themselves in the foot and neutered the project as far as other distributions will be concerned.

Be interesting to see more depending upon how much info each company has to provide for the SEC filings on this. "


See: "Novell-MS: Why This Deal Will Backfire For Both Sides" for an interesting viewpoint, not dissimilar to yours, but which reaches a different conclusion.
http://www.linuxtoday.com/it_management/2006110701826OPLL

The consensus seems to be that there is no actual infringement in Linux at this time, and that Microsoft are pushing the "IP protection" line of FUD in a not-too-subtle attempt to get unearned payment from Linux users for "interoperability" with their platform.

The speculated outcome according to the article linked above is:
" [Loser] Novell will develop libraries to tie their Linux offerings and MS together and will have to pay Microsoft royalties for their NDA agreement to do so. Novell will (have to) do this as add-on standalone software that is not distributed under the GPL license. This may prove difficult because the very software they may need to modify to succeed is GPLed software (OpenOffice.org, Samba, etc). Any hooks added (if not already there) to those software bases must be signed off and under the GPL, otherwise they will not get into the respective trees. As long as the GPLed code bases are not tainted with non-GPLed code then who cares what Novell does with their junk.

I do urge all GPLed projects to go back and review any submissions coming from Novell since their acquisition of SUSE to ensure the code is properly signed off. When all is said and done, Novell will gain very little and possibly lose more from this deal with Microsoft.

[Loser] Microsoft will gain a pittance in royalties from Novell. And, by its own admission Microsoft has given Linux the mass credibility it has tried to negate for years... checkmate!

[Winner] Linux! The core GNU, KDE, Linux, et al trees are still managed by principled people and every Linux distributor needs them. I doubt they will allow years of hard work and the community at large to be tainted. Red Hat and other non-Novell distributions will flourish through defections from Novell-linked projects.
"

Reply Parent Score: 0