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 179794
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

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

Reply Parent Score: 1