Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Fri 18th Jul 2008 23:29 UTC, submitted by Dale Smoker
Legal The convoluted case of SCO v. Novell dealt a heady blow to the SCO Group Wednesday, with United States District Judge Dale Kimball ordering the company to pay $2.5 million to Novell for improperly claiming, and collecting royalties for, the Unix operating system.
Thread beginning with comment 323653
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Coral Snake
by Coral Snake on Sat 19th Jul 2008 04:34 UTC
Coral Snake
Member since:
2005-07-07

Don't know what to make of Novel. They seem to be doing good things for Linux and F/OSS on the SCO front but Bad things for Linux and F/OSS on the Microsoft front.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Coral Snake
by OSGuy on Sat 19th Jul 2008 06:41 in reply to "Comment by Coral Snake"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

Signing a contract with Microsoft does not make a company a bad company. All they want to do is protect their customers -- may be they believe there are patent violations in the open source world? I don't know. Novell is a commercial company and Linux without the support of commercial companies such as Novell and IBM will not prevail.

Lets see what happens if MS decides to threaten legal actions? Novell customers would be protected and by saying customers, I mean big organizations that heavily utilize Novell's Linux based tools. Now is that a bad thing or good? You be the judge.

Edited 2008-07-19 06:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE: Comment by Coral Snake
by theTSF on Sat 19th Jul 2008 11:46 in reply to "Comment by Coral Snake"
theTSF Member since:
2005-09-27

It business. There is nothing wrong with working with Microsoft in term of patent protection. It is very common. You can be competitors and have strategic alliances at the same time. This Microsoft is pure evil concept only hurts the Open Source movement as it really turns off the moderates out there, who don't have these strong feelings. Yea I don't care much for windows but I like office. Or I don't like paying for office but I like windows....

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Coral Snake
by mabhatter on Sun 20th Jul 2008 06:43 in reply to "RE: Comment by Coral Snake"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

"It business. There is nothing wrong with working with Microsoft in term of patent protection. It is very common."

The problem is that such "protection" is a golden collar on everything you do later. Microsoft didn't settle with the EU over opening file formats until they had these patent deals in their pocket... then settled with the EU that the interoperability requirements should be "protected" as IP... creating a new patent threat that didn't exist in the EU or USA before the agreement! Novell is now bound by the outcome of the agreement and can't/won't challenge Microsoft's change to the basic rules of the game.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by Coral Snake
by tweakedenigma on Sat 19th Jul 2008 13:32 in reply to "Comment by Coral Snake"
tweakedenigma Member since:
2006-12-27

In my dealings with the people at Novell, I have found them to be the types to act in good faith. Look at it this way they are now working with MS on interoperability so perhaps it is Novell that is using Microsoft for their own gains and not the other way round as we often think.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Comment by Coral Snake
by trenchsol on Sat 19th Jul 2008 14:23 in reply to "Comment by Coral Snake"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

It is almost two years since the initial deal between Novell and Microsoft. What happened ? What har has come to Linux users ? To Microsoft customers ? I don't see any.

Only thing I noticed recently is that I am able to write VB.Net program on Linux and run it on Windows. I am able to deploy ASP.NET web application on Apache. I think that 2 years ago it worked with C# only. Yes, recently I had need for that, and, to my surprise, it worked. As far as I am concerned it's a good thing.

On the other hand, SCO threat was removed couple of years ago. Destroying SCO doesn't mean much to Linux any more.

I think that original post was more about ideology and politics, and less about computers and IT.

DG

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Coral Snake
by Coral Snake on Sun 20th Jul 2008 02:27 in reply to "RE: Comment by Coral Snake"
Coral Snake Member since:
2005-07-07

Actually I believe I'm more of a moderate as far as software licensing politics goes. Here is my view:

Operating systems:
In general I believe these should be under the GNU GPL or similar licensing with exceptions for linking system calls into proprietary programs in order to prevent one company monopolies that can dictate to other software and computer manufacturers on what their products should be like Microsoft does. (This is why Linux is my favorite OS.)

GUI, TUI, Game Programming and other programming libraries:
These should be under GNU LGPL, BSD or MIT style licensing or in the Public Domain to allow their use in both F/OSS and proprietary software on equal terms. (My favorite ones here as far as licensing goes are wxWidgets, FLTK, GTK, SDL, ncurses and the fox toolkit,)

Applications:
My view is that application level software can be either proprietary or F/OSS at the determination of the developer as long as it uses open standards for the documents it saves to prevent Microsoft style dictatorship.

So as you can see I'm not a Stallmanite or a Microsoftie in my software politics but somewhere between the two.

Reply Parent Score: 2