Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Nov 2006 11:24 UTC
Novell and Ximian Microsoft will pay Novell USD 348 million up front, but Novell will return USD 200 million of that amount over five years. The specific numbers came in an a filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission made by Novell late Tuesday. "The financial commitments Microsoft is making as part of this agreement are significant," company CEO Ron Hovsepian said in a statement. In related news, Microsoft has denied that its patent deal with Novell is in breach of the GPL or will automatically spread Microsoft's patent protection to other Linux distributions.
Thread beginning with comment 179912
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So in other words...
by siki_miki on Wed 8th Nov 2006 13:10 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

It seems as a probable outcome to me that Microsoft and Novell will develop closed-source applications for their Linux, which will be responsible for claimed interoperability with Windows, and vice versa. This will effectively prevent other linux competitors from reusing the same i.e. they will do this to obtain advantage over other distributions like RHEL or Ubuntu Server, in their bid to conquer the market.

So, in other words, possibly no more contributions to *NEW* projects like Mono or Samba, instead they will start developing their own proprietary stuff for many aspects and be limited by MS agreement.

And, btw., what happened to much lauded documentation that Microsoft this year released to EU commission? Will they finally publish it for everyone to read?

Reply Score: 4

RE: So in other words...
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 8th Nov 2006 18:19 in reply to "So in other words..."
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Those docs were never meant to be published openly. They were just meant to be available to European businesses on Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory licensing terms. The whole EU case was never about open-sourcing SMB/CIFS networking, which is why I think it was such a waste (they forced MSFT to produce a huge wad of docs that no one is seriously going to read, because it's always been easier to just build your own client-side redirector than to figure out someone else's complicated RPC protocol).

Reply Parent Score: 1