“The recently announced agreement between Microsoft and Novell has resulted in much concern that it could be harmful for Linux and other free software. However, the agreement itself, as well as its timing and comments made by Microsoft executives about it, may actually be a very good thing – and perhaps even worthy of celebration!”
Microsoft is really scared about Linux. That’s why MS started to do something against it.
Its all about marketshare!
No,they are not scared about anyone (especially Linux). They are still arrogant. And such arrogance you get only when you sit on top of the things. But then again, arrogance had IBM as well. Not like they don’t have it now as well.
They aren’t scared. They see an opportunity. Exactly what that opportunity is, is up for debate. Is it win-win? It’s probably too early to do anything other than speculate.
On one hand, it can put Linux on more people’s radar. On the other hand, they may be an attempt to control Linux.
If they keep the fight out of the courtroom, I think it will ultimately benefit all distributions by validating Linux in the eyes of management.
Whatever the case may be, Microsoft isn’t scared.
Is it win-win?
I would actually prefer lin-lin
Just a little little add, but when it comes to Linux, it’s better to say ‘install base’, since not all of Linux is marketed (and actually, not all of Windows too, considering piracy)
Yeah, in fact, the non-commercial distros are growing faster than the commercial ones.
There’s nothing good when the number is lucky 13.Well, not so many things,though. I have to admit that (based on the article) publicity (for Linux,that is) will be the most obvious advantage. What kind of publicity,well, we will see.
Many vaild points, but as i see it its not the content of the deal that gives those benefits. (ofcourse it contributes) The advantages both according to me and to the author is as far as i know in the way that this deal will open the eyes of the represented communitys and the way it brings publicity to the issue of software monopolies and intellectual property.
I dont claim that propietary software does not fit into the “linux model” (if i may call it that, even though its the wrong use of words) Because it actually fits quite well. My oppinion i just that it does not belong in the kernel.
Another good thing might be that the oss developers might be shun by the threats so they start to innovate instead of cloning windows. (as a few devs seems to want to do) Im not saying threats, trusts or pacts of this kind is good for the involved companies, but i think it will bring good things in the long term for the ones that is outside the respective os retailers.
$ attempt to be funny
and thats my 2,66 cents (Increased the amount of cents because of the inflation and vauledrop of the dollar against the euro)
— Attempt failed —
$
when will microsoft dump this retard. he has done more damage to that company that any competitor could.
in this microsft/novell IP debarcle, he clearly shows he has no conception that Linux cannot be owned, it cannot be bought, and a user CANNOT be sued for using it.
time for a metaphor..
Ford release a new car, but the seats are exact copies of the seats in a toyota, toyota sue you for sitting in that seat…
what a muppet
Edited 2006-11-28 13:22
There’s a lot that people don’t understand about patents and intellectual property as a whole, and this deal preys on those misconceptions.
It is impossible to infringe upon anyone’s IP (patent, copyright, trademark, etc.) merely by receiving, using, and/or modifying software (free or otherwise) according to the terms of the particular license. A recipient of software under a given license may assume that the distributor is legally entitled to distribute the software under that license.
If MS were to sue Novell’s customers, it would have to be for something other than intellectual property infringement. Of course, nothing in this deal says MS can’t sue Novell itself for patent infringement. That sort of agreement, however, would clearly run afoul of the GPLv2.
So, from the perspective of the end-user, the covenant is worthless but harmless. However, as much as Nat claims otherwise, this does establish a legal precedent that would aid a MS patent suit against any commercial Linux software vendor, including Novell.
It is impossible to infringe upon anyone’s IP (patent, copyright, trademark, etc.) merely by receiving, using, and/or modifying software (free or otherwise) according to the terms of the particular license. A recipient of software under a given license may assume that the distributor is legally entitled to distribute the software under that license.
That’s not quite true. Patent law generally gives holders protection against others using, producing or selling their patented work. Most cases of infringement are between holders and manufacturers or vendors though, since a) that is somewhat more pragmatic that targeting individual users and b) many manufacturers or vendors include indemnification for users of their products, for many government and large enterprise customers, this is a standard requirement for products and services purchased.
Copyright law is a little murkier and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. However, one of the basic premises of copyright in this day and age is to ensure authors or creators preserve the right to receive recompense for their work; in the case of widespread copyright infringement of clearly protected work (ie. stolen code from an application) without a clear target to take legal action against, I don’t think a copyright holder would necessarily be unable to target holders of unauthorized work. I believe there are cases where people have had pirated or bootlegged material seized without actually distributing it, but IANAL so take that with a grain of salt.
The only reason MS is able to play the IP card is because, as I mentioned, corporate and government customers are frankly accustomed to receiving indemnification from their suppliers. Even if the holder of protected works pursued individual users, manufacturers offering indemnity would ultimately be responsible anyways. IBM asserted as much in their response claiming the patent litigation should remain strictly among vendors and not target end users, since that’s self-defeating.
Which brings up the point that indemnification is only as useful as the ability of the vendor’s ability to stand behind it. Microsoft, or IBM, offering indemnity for customers of their products offers an organization a little more security than a small organization potentially lacking the resources to defend legal claims.
Microsoft is playing up that inherent fear of litigation in institutional customers, this has nothing to do with the community or even smaller companies. We can downplay the threat of IP attacks against linux, but enterprises don’t have that luxury. A threat doesn’t have to materialize into something tangible before it can be recognized.
So I agree that there’s a ridiculous amount of FUD generating from Microsoft, and I still think it’s important to remember that Ballmer has still not made a direct accusation of patent-infringement in linux. But we can’t dismiss the concerns commercial organizations have, because they’re real whether based in substance or not.
The peculiar thing about this deal is that both Microsoft and Novell already offer indemnity to their customers, so their customers already had reasonable assurance that they could not be sued or held accountable directly for infringements. I suppose that in theory this just alleviates MS and Novell of the potential costs for enforcing that indemnity should a case ever arise from it. But it sort of underscores that the patent thing was a bit of a useless add-on to the overall agreement for both parties, as Novell implied when claiming MS forced the patent relief as a condition for the agreement. I think we can see why.
So, from the perspective of the end-user, the covenant is worthless but harmless. However, as much as Nat claims otherwise, this does establish a legal precedent that would aid a MS patent suit against any commercial Linux software vendor, including Novell.
No, I don’t think it provides a legal precedent or validation of Microsoft’s claims in the eyes of the law, even the FSF’s lawyers haven’t asserted that.
Their intent is pure corporate spin; “Well Novell is playing along, and they’re a big company with lawyers so obviously they feel something’s wrong and needs an agreement for protection.” If Red Hat had played along, all the better. Microsoft would essentially be playing the large commercial organizations against the community in an effort to drive a split. Regardless, this just helps them in an effort to sow the seeds of doubt in larger organizations. They care naught about generating license fees (a drop in the bucket) or making customers legitimate. Definitely FUD, but unfortunately sometimes FUD works.
“There’s a lot that people don’t understand about patents and intellectual property as a whole, and this deal preys on those misconceptions.
It is impossible to infringe upon anyone’s IP (patent, copyright, trademark, etc.) merely by receiving, using, and/or modifying software …”
Yes, and that includes you. Why could SCO threaten Autozone into a deal then? – Because their lawyer was late in reading your wisdom here?
The use of software needs a license. If Company A didn’t license their code (containing their IP !!) to company B, B cannot license it to you, the end user. So if you use something without the consent of A, you can be sued. Very easy. And the very reason why SCO could at least offer to sell end user licenses without being laughed at. – Well, at least not for that reason…
“A recipient of software under a given license may assume that the distributor is legally entitled to distribute the software under that license.”
That is utter nonsense. By that logic, no end user could be harmed for using counterfeit MS Windows, for example, after all, what does he know..?! – The reality is very different..
You lack basic understanding of these matters, I am afraid.
“Why could SCO threaten Autozone into a deal then?”
It’s called “scare tactics” and is quite common. Autozone, rather than getting into a tedious and resource consuming lawsuit chose to give in to SCO.
Please note that in countries where frivolous litigation isn’t commonplace this would probably not work.
“That is utter nonsense. By that logic, no end user could be harmed for using counterfeit MS Windows, for example, after all, what does he know..?!”
That is completely different from patents. Are seriously suggesting that every consumer should do in-depth research of every product he or she purchases? How is it possible, at the time of purchase, for an end-user of software to know if that software infringes on any patents? This is simply not a reasonable expectation. Please give any evidence where an *end-user* of a product has been successfully sued *in court* for patent infringements in a product they had purchased.
Ballmer a muppet? Are you trying to say that someone has their hand stuffed squarely up his rectum to operate his head and neck when he’s talking in public? He and Dubya have the same problem.
Mahna, Mahna!
Novell is a business, Microsoft is a business. As linux vendors grow, they are bound to make business deals with another business in their industry.
The nature of such deals is going to be different based on a ton of variables but one thing is certain.
Novell is staking it’s future on Linux. They have not only said but have also shown that they want and are moving old netware clients onto SLED and NLD and etc.
Novell is not our enemy. MS is, but fellow linux users should not be so quick to get up in arms. Business deals between linux vendors and MS are bound to happen.
Was this piece originally written in, say, Japanese? I’m only asking because the article’s grammar and style are so poor it reads as if it might have been mangled by a Google translator.
There has been a spate of articles like this recently: Five reasons to …, Seven reasons not to …, Three reasons why …, etc. Really, you only need one reason because if you haven’t got one good reason you don’t have an argument. In this case there is a very good reason: Microsoft have formally recognized something they first ignored and then dismissed as a “cancer”.
Unforunately, though, the consensus seems to be that Microsoft are only recognizing Linux in order to extort money from it using patent FUD before making a move to crush it. There must be a high chance that (surprise, surprise) Microsoft’s crack sales team will fail to sell on a single one of those thousands of SuSE licences the deal involved.
Actually, Japanese grammar is very clean and easy to learn.
Nonetheless, you are correct about the poor editing in this article.
The author comes up with all kinds of possible scenarios and effects. That’s all nice, but if many of those are mutually exclusive, what do we have left?
When you mention “increasing publicity for Linux” as a good point for Linux, what is that Ballmer statement that only Suse Linux users are really “safe”, in effect threatening all other distros and their users?
Yet in the same time, author presents the potential dislike of Novell that might now arise, as an opportunity for Red Hat and Ubuntu!
It is beyond me how this could be called a “win-win” situation. First we had competition, now we still have it, plus the controversy. If that is a win-win situation, I don’t know what a lose-lose situation is.
I also do not believe for a second, that this deal will give “Linux” extra credibility. Linux/free software sells itself, it doesn’t need MS. Credibility is there in the minds that matter. Or maybe Google using Linux for years has been bad for Linux credibility somehow?
Then, the idea that Ballmer’s threats are positive in the sense that they make developers “aware” of the need to avoid IP infringements, is amusing for being absurd.
I do have to admit that such incurable optimism is very commendable.
I’d really love to see those patents they claim that Linux is infringing… Until then I can’t do any judgement about Novell.
I think you’re really reaching to find something good about this but it’s some well stated points and I have to give props for supreme effort in finding a silver lining in that cloud
Too much of the conversation about this deal seems to be concerned with people’s feelings of betrayal because of their great and wonderful anti-SCO hero Novell making a deal with the Satanic Empire. I have seen very little point-by-point analysis of what this implies for Open Source software. I sense that the answer might be “nothing.”
Novell has no more ownership of Linux or of the free software products it distributes than anyone else. These belong to the authors, not Novell.
And remember that Novell and Microsoft have always done business together. Novell’s core business, providing networking products for DOS and then Windows, has required a close working relationship for a very long time.
You’d think Novell would have learned their lesson from the last time they got together.
Hurray! O frabjous day! Microsoft wants to isolate Linux under a few corporate umbrellas! Yay, the world of computing is only legitimate when it’s advanced by business, not science! Huzzah! It should legally be impossible for free software to exist without the patronage of billionaires! Keep computer science in textbooks only and in the basements of the Long-haired Smellies(TM)!
While this deal isn’t the source of the above, it does underscore this philosophy, which really boils down to this question:
What is the proper balance between IP and the advancement of knowledge? And is that balance even necessary for profits to be made? Red Hat is an experiment in this.
Free software requires too much faith for guys like Ballmer: you have to trust your engineers to keep pushing the edge of innovation. These guys lack the vision necessary to see over the crest of their own fat bellies.
But I believe that with the fall of the patent system, we’ll be coming out of an age of feudalism in business.
Edited 2006-11-28 16:06
O frabjous day!
Careful, I have a patent on that phrase
Edited 2006-11-28 22:28
While I may not necessarily agree with all of the points in the article, it is nice to see something resembling a coherent attempt to analyze the deal to the point that the author even cites his references and information.
It’s a nice refreshing change from much of the FUD and hysteria that has been flying around, much of which has been based in absolutely nothing that could be referred to as factual or even insightful.
It’s a nice refreshing change from much of the FUD and hysteria that has been flying around,
The article itself dips pretty heavily into FUD, or at least slander and pejoratives. See the bit on XML file formats, for example.
Not that the author is saying this himself, but it’s amusing:
“Microsoft has been the opposite, with numerous statements that Linux (a) destroys intellectual property, (b) is mainly just a reincarnation of an obsolete operating system (i.e., UNIX)”
(a) As though destroying intellectual property destroys the knowledge too.
(b) I contend that NT is just a reincarnation of an obselete operating system too (i.e., VMS).
There is a whole lot of bad aspects in this deal than there are good. The worst will be on Novell though.
Even if the unthinkable patent deal wasn’t in place, the core benefits like virtualization would only be offered as a proprietary option to Novell customers. The only thing everyone might recieve is improved Open Document compatability. But more importantly, *improved* threats of litigation from our boys a Redmond HQ.
Thankfully we dont need such a deal to get decent virtualization. I believe we can already run Vista from VMware and Zen on GNU/Linux. I’m sure we’ll eventually see Longhorn Server supported as well.
Microsoft still considers Linux a cancer but promises not to say so if a Linux vendor pays them millions in royalties. Thats right; SUSE linux isn’t a cancer but Red Hat and all others are until Microsoft recieves $40+ million from each vendor.
The funny thing is SUSE linux is on track of becoming the least desirable Linux distribution, especially by the time the GPLv3 is rolled out and adopted by the vast majority of the FLOSS community.
Finally some information that may show that it’s not too bad after all.
So far, many people of the linux community help MS to kill Novell; also the FSF doesn’t really understand it and if they persist in the new GPL v3, it may harm linux and novell more than you think.
people should use their brains instead. There may be good points.
Seems like the agreement removes the threat of retaliation against The Mono Project. Mono might even be the main reason for the agreement because it gives Microsoft “BINARY” compatibility (OK, precompiled IL compatibility). That means that in many cases you can take a .Net 1.1 app right out of Visual Studio 2003 and plop it on a suitably equipped Linux OS and you are done. (Real life is harder than this but so it goes with Java, also.)
Mono was GPL long before Java which is why it is included in Fedora and Ubuntu. Now Java is trying to head this off. They can no longer be the odd man out. Particularly since there are all kinds of cool bindings to GTK, Mono is becoming the ‘other’ default language for Gnome. With KDE’s licensing issues ($2,000 per corporate developer, yeah, right) and Microsoft’s strong position with corporate developers makes a bad place for Java to be in right now.
Imagine, make a VB.Net app in Windows, run it on Linux. You have got to admit it makes the VB6 -> VB.Net poison pill easier to swallow. VB-ers on Linux. What a development!
Just my 2 cents.
Reason #1 – one less corporate distro once Novell goes out of business!
YYYyEEEAAaaaaYYYYY
“Reason #1 – one less corporate distro once Novell goes out of business!
YYYyEEEAAaaaaYYYYY!”
I modded you up as you should not have been modded down in the first place!
“Yes, this comment includes personal attacks/offensive language”
not offensive
“Yes, this comment is off-topic”
on topic
“Yes, this comment is spam or includes advertisements”
no ads
“Yes, I disagree with this user/opinion”
I do disagree with your opinion. MS NEEDS competitionto stay out of the monopoly courts. Here in europe where council after council seem to be switching to linux they have to remain compatible or lose the stranglehold they currently have.
i wish people would use the mod down system as it was intended, its happening to often
“Yes, this comment is off-topic”
on topic
No, it wasn’t on topic. It was trolling and yet another attempt at sh!t-disturbing.
He made an inflammatory statement given the nature of the thread, offering absolutely nothing in the way of context or explanation and then followed it up with his usual surprise and implied a big, “who, me?” when finding himself modded.
It’s basically symptomatic of a growing problem on this board. There’s nothing wrong with posting counter-opinions, disagreeing with content, disputing claims, stating your mind etc. as long as it’s in context, on-topic and not intentionally flame-baiting just to see what kind of a response you can generate. It’s sad that you have to read through 20 posts of juvenille attention-seeking crap back and forth in order to find interesting or informative opinions.
Still, I didn’t mod him. A point wasted on a troll is a point that can’t be given to somebody worth modding up, so I have to save my negative mods for the really obnoxious posts.
The one thing I will agree with is that mod points are often abused on well written or well argued posts simply because people disagree with the poster’s opinion. That’s a shame. (I’ve also got a pet peeve with people who criticize or insult a poster’s grammar or spelling, it seems intolerant of the fact that many participants here come from countries where English is not the national language, but I digress…)
And OT trolling deserves a neg.
If you are going to mod it down, at least post a rebuttal! I thought it was a good reason!
Well your patent calls on my intellectual property but I am not about to sue you…………….yet
An excellent overview of Linux’s emergence into the commercial sector. If you have been looking for a single article to clarify the tactics used by and against Linux these past few years then this article will please you.
Linux will continue to be embraced by individuals and the commercial sector because it is recognized as an innovative entity that continually recreates itself when faced with new challenges. It’s greatest strength is it’s freedom of expression.