"Two months ago, the Brazilian Linux community gathered around BR-Linux invited Novell to answer 10 questions sent and selected by the users, about the company's stance on Linux, open source, licenses, document formats and other subjects." "Novell has been very consistent on this issue and we have publicly stated that we do not believe that Linux infringes on any Microsoft patents. That being said, our agreement with Microsoft takes the patent issue off the table for customers. We have simply made the patent issue a non-event as part of a customer buying decision."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
This is not true. They've persistently said that Microsoft have no grounding on that point at all.
Then the deal wasn't necessary.
So really it just makes Microsoft look silly.
You're just exceptionally naive if you believe that. All that's happened is that Microsoft have managed to create the impression amongst Novell's customers, and corpote customers elsewhere, that Linux and open source software infringes on Microsoft's patents and property.
Which part of Novell getting a lot of money, boosting its Linux engineering team significantly, selling more copies of SUSE Linux Enterprise, growing stocks... is Novell looking "naive"?
Which part of Novell getting a one-off payment to give Microsoft what it wants, Novell getting very little in the way of the interoperability we've all heard of and selling copies of SLES through Microsoft, where part of the agreement is that these servers have to be members of a Windows domain with Windows servers, did you fail to understand?
Member since:2007-01-18
The deal was business.
While it's no pie in the face of Bill Gates, I'd say Microsoft's barrage of IP infringement claims with no evidence to back it up might have stirred the turd pot, but over all has had little effect (in the big picture). A lot like SCO's claims. As you remember SCO got a few licensees when they took on Linux, but it wasn't long before people just laughed at them.
I truly think that Novell had the best intentions (in the business sense), but Microsoft being Microsoft tried to spin the agreement into something it wasn't.
Member since:2007-05-05
> Then the deal wasn't necessary.
Again, false by experience. Look how many customers Novell gained when they got it. When you've got billions of dollars (Wal-Mart, etc) then you're a big target. Having a _guarantee_ is a huge help.
If you weren't so bent on taking the customer patent protection negatively you'd see it doesn't do any harm.
> You're just exceptionally naive if you believe that. All that's happened is that Microsoft have managed to create the impression amongst Novell's customers, and corpote customers elsewhere, that Linux and open source software infringes on Microsoft's patents and property.
That's what _some_ vocal "poisonous" people in the OSS community have been saying. The reality is the direct opposite.
> You're just exceptionally naive if you believe that.
If you think this is something new then _you_ are being exceptionally naive. MS have been spreading FUD about Linux for years; this is old news. Trying to bend the Novell-MS deal to be negative because someone can use erroneous reasoning to get....an erroneous conclusion is not just strange but pointless.
> Which part of Novell getting a one-off payment to give Microsoft what it wants, Novell getting very little in the way of the interoperability we've all heard of and selling copies of SLES through Microsoft, where part of the agreement is that these servers have to be members of a Windows domain with Windows servers, did you fail to understand?
A payment is suddenly bad because it's one-off? It wasn't exactly a small payment either. And thinking that they were "bought out" or "sold their soul to the devil" (and similarly pointless emotive statements) are just nonsense. No-one has to "sell out" when money is suddenly involved.
Novell have got _plenty_ in the way of interoperability with virtualisation and document formats. It's pretty impossible to argue that it has been negative on _technical_ grounds. Without it they would obviously be doing worse.
> of the agreement is that these servers have to be members of a Windows domain with Windows servers, did you fail to understand?
I've never heard this, but even if it's the case, I'm interested in hearing why you think this could possibly be negative. Adoption of Linux in a company is suddenly bad if they want to choose to keep using Windows servers as well? Come on guy. :-)
Member since:
2007-05-05
It's "Novell" by the way, not "Novel". Anyway:
> Novel cried foul, but hasn’t actually done anything to stop or reverse the damage (fear) they have helped Microsoft spread.
This is not true. They've persistently said that Microsoft have no grounding on that point at all. So really it just makes Microsoft look silly.
> Novel may have been naive
Which part of Novell getting a lot of money, boosting its Linux engineering team significantly, selling more copies of SUSE Linux Enterprise, growing stocks... is Novell looking "naive"?