Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Nov 2006 22:56 UTC
Novell and Ximian "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.
Thread beginning with comment 179749
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: But ...
by tomcat on Wed 8th Nov 2006 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE: But ... "
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

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.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: But ...
by molnarcs on Wed 8th Nov 2006 01:06 in reply to "RE[2]: But ... "
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

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?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: But ...
by somebody on Wed 8th Nov 2006 01:43 in reply to "RE[3]: But ... "
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

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.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: But ...
by somebody on Wed 8th Nov 2006 01:11 in reply to "RE[2]: But ... "
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

(: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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: But ...
by mabhatter on Wed 8th Nov 2006 01:50 in reply to "RE[2]: But ... "
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

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".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: But ...
by tomcat on Wed 8th Nov 2006 22:03 in reply to "RE[3]: But ... "
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1