Jeremy Allison (of Samba fame) has resigned from Novell in protest over the Microsoft-Novell patent agreement, which he calls ‘a mistake’ which will be ‘damaging to Novell’s success in the future’. His main issue with the deal, though, is “that even if it does not violate the letter of the licence, it violates the intent of the GPL licence the Samba code is released under, which is to treat all recipients of the code equally.” He leaves the company at the end of this month.
Stand up for what you believe in. I applaud you. Good man.
PS I hear you’re starting w/ Google in the NY. Nice to know you’re not going to be stuck for work. Good luck!
Stand up for what you believe in. I applaud you. Good man.
PS I hear you’re starting w/ Google in the NY. Nice to know you’re not going to be stuck for work. Good luck!
Not to knock him, but he bailed and commented on it after Google hired him. That’s not as commendable as walking out on Novell. Pragmatic, yes. Ballsy? no.
It means ballsy yes, stupid no.
Yeah, the resign in protest thing isn’t as effective when you wait a month either…
Why?
Because he didn’t protest himself to poverty?
Because he was smart enough to find a new job before leaving Novel?
Would you have done anything different?
– Gilboa
Bravo Jeremy, you’re both very brave, and a man of morals. Keep up the good work with Samba, you’ve done a brilliant job.
Very best wishes,
Dave
Now there goes a man with principles, I salute you sir.
If Jeremy has realised that this agreement is not in the spirit of the GPL, then what do we make of the Linux kernel developers, especially Linus Torvalds, who do not find issue with it? I think it speaks volumes about how the Linux kernel developers have now been bought out by corporate interests (and their anti GPL v3 stance).
Dave
then what do we make of the Linux kernel developers, especially Linus Torvalds, who do not find issue with it? I think it speaks volumes about how the Linux kernel developers have now been bought out by corporate interests (and their anti GPL v3 stance).
Not so fast. First, I don’t know if any of the Linux maintainers work for Novell, thus they can’t resign from Novell if they don’t. Second, the Linux kernel maintainers may truly believe this isn’t a problem. I personally disagree with them, but we have a right to disagree with each other.
We’re supposed to be lauding JA for using his mind and speaking it, not for being Blair to our Bush.
I’m merely indicating the point that Jeremy is able to realise how dangerous the Microsoft/Novell deal is, and how it breaks the spirit and intent of the GPL.
Sure, the Linux kernel developers might not think that it doesn’t break the spirit of the GPL, but in all honesty, they’re at odds with the wider community. Doesn’t that really make you question their motives? And to be honest, I think that I rightly have the right to question the intent and morals of the current Linux kernel developer community.
I also think it’s quite fair to draw a parallel between what Jeremy sees is wrong and right, and what the kernel developers feel about the very same issue (they see no problem with the Microsoft/Novell deal as a generalisation). I can only reiterate that this is worrying.
Dave
Sure, the Linux kernel developers might not think that it doesn’t break the spirit of the GPL, but in all honesty, they’re at odds with the wider community.
That may be true, but they’re still allowed an opinion. I don’t remember them saying that it doesn’t break the spirit. But I DO remember Stallman saying that it doesn’t contravene the letter.
Doesn’t that really make you question their motives?
I question the decisions of the LKD’s on many an occasion, not always publicly. But since I have no evidence that they’re being bought off, for now I’ll shut it on the issue.
And to be honest, I think that I rightly have the right to question the intent and morals of the current Linux kernel developer community.
Which makes you sound as if you’re saying you have more right than I do. Why is that?
I didn’t say you didn’t have the right. You choose not to question the differences in views between Jeremy and the LKD, I choose to question them. Nothing more and nothing less. Your initial post almost implied that I shouldn’t dare question the LKD.
Yes, the LKD are allowed an opinion, but we can also discuss whether the wider community feels that their opinion is what we want.
Yes, Richard said that the Microsoft/Novell agreement, as is, doesn’t break the GPL v2. Note he said break. Note that the FSF does not feel that Microsoft or Novell are following the intent or spirit of the GPL with this agreement. And note, that the FSF is glad that this deal happened now, because they’re modifying the draft GPL v3 to make sure that it can’t happen in the future.
As Jeremy pointed out, just because you can find a [legal] loophole doesn’t make it morally right to abuse it.
Linux has always been about community, but of late it’s gone into different directions, with different ideals, and I personally find those ideals very worrying for the wider community. Many of the voices don’t speak out on their thoughts, I do.
Dave
didn’t say you didn’t have the right.
I didn’t say you said that. I said it sounded like you thought you had MORE rights than I (or others) do.
Your initial post almost implied that I shouldn’t dare question the LKD.
If you read that into it, then you’re reading more into it than was intended to be written.
Linux has always been about community, but of late it’s gone into different directions, with different ideals, and I personally find those ideals very worrying for the wider community. Many of the voices don’t speak out on their thoughts, I do.
As to the last, you have that right – as do I – and we both use it to death! As to the first, I believe you are wrong on this point. I can remember friction over this or that issue from long before Linux was on MS’s radar. But we hang together for the greater good.
Linus and many of the kernel developers have different motives than the Free Software crowd, nobody has ever made any secret of this. Just because their motives are different doesn’t make them wrong.
Linus wants to make the best possible kernel and make sure it is as useful as possible to as many people as possible, beyond that he is largely apolitical. This has always been the case, why should it all of a sudden become worrying now?
Ever heard of robert love? Last I checked… he wrote inotify much of the hotplug infrastructure… a few books on kernel programming… etc.
http://rlove.org
I hadn’t, but even if I had heard of him before Microvel, the following sentence would be enough to “disendear” him to me:
I wrote a book, Linux Kernel Development, a tour de force on hacking and understanding the Linux kernel, now in its second edition. You should help feed my starving family and buy a copy or two and carry them with you everywhere you go.
Self-aggrandisement is uncool, even if you are a genius.
Make that “especially if you’re a genius”.
Yes – how dare he not lie about his own abilities in order to make you feel better?
Yes – how dare he not lie about his own abilities in order to make you feel better?
I’m not asking him to lie, only to make sure his head is small enough to get through the door.
Not that we should expect you to understand this.
I’m not asking him to lie, only to make sure his head is small enough to get through the door.
Perhaps he was expecting that his statement would be read by those with functioning irony detectors?
Robert Love’s Linux Kernel Development is IMHO the best-written text on Linux 2.6.x kernel internals, highly recommended. He is also one of the principle architects of the O(1) scheduler and kernel preemption.
Linux is a meritocracy, and its success has encouraged the free software movement at large to follow suit. Self-aggrandizement is cool (and necessary) in a meritocracy.
Being a free software developer means putting yourself out there, for better or worse, much like a celebrity. Most successful free software developers try to avoid the philosophies and the politics because it’s too easy to rub someone the wrong way. The only sure way to please you users is to get back to the roots of the movement: release early, release often.
Expect some more Novell employees to leave over the patent covenant, but not before they find greener pastures elsewhere (as anyone who’s experienced Google’s burrito bar will attest). Smart people don’t just quit being paid to do what they love, even if they feel like they’re going down in a sinking ship.
Luckily, the market for established Linux developers is very strong and flexible. Google (for example) has built an empire based on creating an ideal environment for developers and then hiring the best away from their biggest competitors. In a similar way, Linux developers will eventually flow to whatever company offers the more appealing overall experience.
I agree with everything you said except this:
Linux is a meritocracy, and its success has encouraged the free software movement at large to follow suit. Self-aggrandizement is cool (and necessary) in a meritocracy.
Self-aggrandizement is NOT necessary (or cool) in a meritocracy unless the competition is between self-aggrandizers. But the competition in Linux is between coders. If your code or your documentation speak for themselves, you’ve no need to self-aggrandize.
Notice that I didn’t say “no need to advertise”, or “no need to promote”. Self-aggrandizement is either of those + arrogance.
Leave self-aggrandizement to Microsoft where it belongs. They’re much better at it anyway
Edited 2006-12-22 10:56
And I fail to understand your point?
Dave
I personally disagree with them, but we have a right to disagree with each other.
Damn, this one was on topic:) At the moment I read this, the famous “We agree that we disagree…” from MS answer to Novell popped in my brain and is there to stay for today:)
As far as I can work out, the ‘Covenant’ doesn’t break the GPL, or the spirit of it, but it is worthless.
Only if MS successfully sues any distro for Patent abuse, then Novell cannot legally continue distributing Suse under the GPL, unless they remove the patented code from Suse.
I beg to differ, but then I’ve always been a FSF that does not care about corporations. You might want to also consider that the FSF WILL be changing the GPL v3 draft to make agreements like the Microsoft/Novell one invalid under the GPL.
I’m quite happy to see FSF utilities suddenly upgraded to GPL v3 and Novell not being able to use them because of this ‘patent agreement’. It will send a clear message to the corporations that the GPL is not to be messed with. I don’t care about Linux becoming ‘mainstream’, or ‘popular’, or ‘popular with business’. I couldn’t care one bit less. What I do care is that the GNU/Linux operating system wholly remains within the community, and that that community abides by the GPL, and the spirit of the GPL. I value GNU/Linux because of the values that the FSF extolls, nothing more and nothing less.
I couldn’t care less if Novell did this type of deal with AT&T – it’s still wrong, no matter who they do the deal with. My comments aren’t so much anti-Microsoft based, but simply based on the fact that, like Jeremy, I believe that the spirit of the GPL has been broken by the agreement, and that Novell should realise this and ditch the agreement. Period. I see no such value in this agreement, other than for potential Suse users. I see many negatives for every other single distribution out there.
I can only hope that software patents in the US are abolished entirely, that would be a good step forward to all of this nonsense, and would open up TRUE competition.
Dave
I agree, I don’t like (software) patents, and wish America would see sense on the issue. However, given that Software patents exist, I can’t see that a covenant not to sue is (in its self) a bad thing.
AWESOME!
I see he got work line up first before he quit his job.
Real bravado!
Most people at his level have at least five offers on the table at any given point of time so even if he’d just grabbed his hat and gave the traditional two word exit interview it’s doubtful he would have gone half an hour without any prospects. Tech is hot again here.
Edited 2006-12-21 23:02
Brave and smart. I don’t know if he has a family or not, but my first concern would lie there. Principles be damned.
This man said “this is wrong”, got another job and left.
I think he deserves the applause he is receiving here. This isn’t one of those things that are life and death. It’s not like a grenade came in, and he had to jump on it to save his comrades.
And I am sure he stewed over it awhile as well before coming to his decision.
Again, he decided this was wrong, he decided to leave, so he found a job and left. That’s pretty righteous.
Maybe he’s got a family or a house that needs paying off… I wouldn’t leave one job without having another first, neither would any sane person. When your out of school, and your voice has broken maybe your manage to get a girlfriend *laughs* , some kids and your see why people don’t just quit jobs without having another lined up.
“Maybe he’s got a family or a house that needs paying off… I wouldn’t leave one job without having
another first, neither would any sane person. When your out of school, and your voice has broken
maybe your manage to get a girlfriend *laughs* , some kids and your see why people don’t just quit
jobs without having another lined up”
I quit a job six months ago without another one lined up. I haven’t worked since, by choice. I have a mortgage, but no family. The point is, this isn’t insane. There is a concept called “saving money” that can allow people to do what I did.
I mostly did this because I wanted to start my own business, but I decided to have a good long sabbatical first.
Maybe I’m weird but I’m amazed how people are so scared about losing or quitting jobs. I guess the statistics about most people (especially Americans) not saving any money are true. That is why most people never build wealth.
Regarding the topic, I think it was fine what Jeremy did and I would probably do the same thing in his place.
Since the average small business goes into red ink for the first three to five years I think your plan may just quailify as insane, quit slacking, get to work and don’t believe everything you hear about Americans.
its easy to ‘resign in protest’ when you KNOW you have another job waiting for you
So what? It’s even better: he managed to both make a statement to Novell and ensure he could make a living. Denying loyalty is key here. In addition, do you really think that a person like Jeremy Allison wouldn’t be able to find a good job for himself anyway?
OTOH, he could have just stayed in his current one.
Resigning in protest when you know you have responsibilities to others than yourself which you will be unable to fulfill by resigning, is just selfish.
Lets not forget that when RMS left the AI Lab, he was offered the use of its facilities gratis.
Edited 2006-12-21 23:07
I think you’re missing something fundamental.
He believed that by staying, he will be unable to fulfill his responsibilities to the Samba community — converting Samba from GPLv2 to GPLv3 in order to keep it free from free riders and patent poachers.
If he has these beliefs, it would be self of him *not* to resign.
True enough, but that doesn’t solve the immediate problem of how to resign if you don’t have another job to go to. Of course, in this instance, that happily doesn’t apply to him.
No it’s not. Try saying that when you have a family and a house. It is not the same thing. He walked out on principles alone.
Did he resign before or after he got offered the new job? If it was after and he was leaving anyway then his action loses some of its point.
Subject says it all. I respect people who stand behind what they believe in.
Mr. Allison leaves one company that has many patents (and appears to be moving away from the idea of patents) to another that is actively creating more and more patents??
Jeremy must be pro-patent after all. Probably upset that Novell isn’t more pro-patent.
Not sure what motivates Mr. Allison. I’m going to guess he’s just a hot-head. Mad because Novell did a deal with Microsoft (didn’t matter what kind of deal).
Mr. Allison leaves one company that has many patents (and appears to be moving away from the idea of patents) to another that is actively creating more and more patents??
Jeremy must be pro-patent after all. Probably upset that Novell isn’t more pro-patent.
Not sure what motivates Mr. Allison. I’m going to guess he’s just a hot-head. Mad because Novell did a deal with Microsoft (didn’t matter what kind of deal).
OK, name one company that ISN’T creating software patents (hint: even Redhat is doing it, if only for protective purposes). If there are none, then the only way he could choose not to support a company is by not working. Do you seriously think that would improve the situation?
In contrast, he is moving to a company that is not “circumventing” the GPL and is openly releasing this and that as FOSS.
Mr. Allison leaves one company that has many patents (and appears to be moving away from the idea of patents) to another that is actively creating more and more patents??
Jeremy must be pro-patent after all. Probably upset that Novell isn’t more pro-patent.
Not sure what motivates Mr. Allison. I’m going to guess he’s just a hot-head. Mad because Novell did a deal with Microsoft (didn’t matter what kind of deal).
Why do I get the feeling that cjcox is NotParker or at least new NotParker? One being suspended few days ago and one posting his first post at the same level of intellectual misinterpretation of his own twisted misinterpretation called thoughts.
For gods sake…
What would patents have in common with JA working for some company? I guess you think it goes like this:
[company]: We’d like to hire you
[JA]: How many patents do you own?
[company]: A lot…
[JA]: Well, company XYZ that offered me job, has 34534 patents. Can you beat this number?
No, it doesn’t matter deal was with MS, otherwise he wouldn’t spend better part of his life to work on interoperability with their systems.
No, he’s not hot head, if you’d know a little bit about JA, you’d know that he’s everything but that.
btw. congrats to Jeremy on having stance and personality
Mr. Allison leaves one company that has many patents (and appears to be moving away from the idea of patents) to another that is actively creating more and more patents??
Exactly!
And
* Google supports the chinese governments’ censorship
* Google releases the “google search bar” which should be better called “google spy bar” since it loves to — indeed — “search” your computer but phone home to google and tell them about what it found out.
* they release a lot of proprietary software.
In contrast:
* Nearly every software company does so: software patents + proprietary software (even most of the FLOSS companies, as mentioned in other postings here)
* Google has its “Summer of Code” which I think is a great contribution to the community
* Google releases some great FLOSS projects from time to time (like its Web developer kit)
So I think, all in all, this whole thing shouldnt be seen to black and white. See also my posting below.
sorry, posted twice
Edited 2006-12-22 12:29
I wish you luck, Jeremy.
and many many fruitfull years
to samba development team.
Ned
This sounds more like a lame excuse to leave the company than the fact that its Microsoft. He had a job offer first before he quit the current one otherwise he’d still be with Novell. I find it funny how he didn’t quit when this agreement was first mentioned and hit the press. That doesn’t exactly speak volumes of this “stand up” type of guy. If he really wanted to quit based on this protest he would have done it a month ago. Its more like he was just using this as a scapegoat so he could leave and not be ridiculed. Sorry, I just don’t buy the reasons he states.
This sounds more like a lame excuse to leave the company than the fact that its Microsoft. He had a job offer first before he quit the current one otherwise he’d still be with Novell. I find it funny how he didn’t quit when this agreement was first mentioned and hit the press.
Well, he did speak very soon, and he said he’ll wait for the time when he’ll actually knew what this agreement was about.
A lot of guys at Novell don’t know what this deal is about (at least when I talked to them, they didn’t know what to say), this was the deal made by upper management, not work class.
btw. Guys like JA always have few offers, hell… even I do. If I’d quit my business now I can start tomorrow in a company of my choice (there’s at least five permanent proposals I know about). One call and here is new employment for me. I guess JA has at least me*10
Edited 2006-12-21 23:43
He’s set a pretty awesome example, imho.
Mr Allison must have been in a very difficult position anyway. As the head of Samba, he is first in line to have to explain all about this mysterious “interoperability” between the two OSes which the Novell-Microsoft deal makes such a song and dance about – and of which so far there has been absolutely no sign at all. Why should he stand in line at Novell to take the rap? I think he testified at the recent EU vs Microsoft hearings over just this subject, and even if that’s incorrect he will know what the inside score is anyway. His action hardly suggests we’ll be seeing Microsoft “open up their protocols” hoho any time soon.
Until MS ditches the SMB protocol.
If they do that they will seriously p**s of users of Older versions of Windows( 2000, XP) and their famed ‘interoperability’ claim goes up in smoke faster than a redmond barbie.
It will also IMHO probably start up EU Legal action against MS. After all, they were forced to open up all sorts of stuff in the past year. IANAL but I wonder if they did this they might just be in violation of thr EU ruling and thus in contempt of court ans liable to many millions of Euros a day in fines.
OTOH, the geeks amongst up might secretly like them to do this but i would not like to bet on it though
It wouldn’t affect interoperability at all, they would roll out the update via windows update rendering the use of SMB not necessary. Sure some organizations would still use it but they will do like they do with anything else promote the new standard as standard. Any one heard of Office compatibility pack sounds like a solutions to me. As far as the opening up as long as they show proof of NSS support or ZFS support they will be fine. Again Samba is not the end to all some people would like to belive it is but really it’s not have you forgotten about NFS , Windows services for unix, and need I remind you that ZFS, NSS are open source
OK, Samba developer leaves and the SUSE creator returns, so what is the message here?
Well he leaves Novell cause the MS deal but he goes to Google who is prolly the main MySql user who is a SCO hugger
http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=4327F9E8-7568-4447-B…
Remember SCO?
So what is the moral here?, if there us any.
Edited 2006-12-22 00:06
Well he leaves Novell cause the MS deal but he goes to Google who is prolly the main MySql user who is the an SCO hugger
http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=4327F9E8-7568-4447-B…..
Remember SCO?
So what is the moral here?, if there us any.
[sarcasm] Don’t talk if you don’t know about the thing you tried to talk about??? [/sarcasm]
But, please explain…
Google was using MySQL from beginning, MySQL signed deal last year. Who is doing wrong here? Google or JA? I bet you think Google should stop using and rework all thir solutions as soon as deal was signed. But, what has using MySQL from forewer to do with MySQL signing a deal later still beats me?
Well this guy was working on Novell before the deal too and he left.
Well this guy was working on Novell before the deal too and he left.
Sorry, you’ll have to do it better. You didn’t answer my questions.
Question nr.1
What would using MySql for ages have in common with MySql signing a deal with SCO last year.
Question nr.2
Should Google stop using MySql and put work into abandoning MySql?
Question nr.3
Why would Google being guilty for something MySql signed long after they started using it?
I mean, you use computers. A lot of chips is used for warfare to power/control weapons. By following your deduction, you personally and only you are guilty for all the dead in wars after computing started just like you would be pressing trigger.
It’s kinda easy for him to talk. He already had a job at Google waiting for him.
The “beliefs” thing sounds more like “Stick it to the Man” grandstanding than a break-up necessitated by serious flaws on the part of Novell which hurt any of his productivity.
Plus, since Samba reverse-engineers Microsoft’s protocols (SMB?), the result of which is used by Novell and others, it was obvious that they’d be royally-pissed by any cooperative dealings with MS by one of their major corporate clients, with whom they had a vested interest.
Hence, this is just a withdrawal of that vested interest, in order to steer as clear of MS as possible, due to the aforementioned reverse-engineering. Any touching contact between Samba and MS would give Samba a major fit of allergies.
That’s the only reason I can see for resigning from Novell: being connected to a project that involves any MS networking IP (the type that Steve infamously referred to).
I don’t see any morals behind this (and refuse to. Morals are for Bible-thumpers). Instead, I see the glaring pragmatics behind this resignation, and wish him luck at Google (the archetypal dream job at the moment).
/has used both OpenSuSe and Ubuntu, neither of which could cooperate with my desktop.
/hearts GoboLinux
/uses WinXP
I am absolutely not sure, what to think about this — and, again again again, this MS/Novell thing in general. Is it really such a bad thing?
I mean, okay, I am absolutely no fan of software patents. But this is not the main part of the deal. The main part is about interoperability and paying money from him to him and so on. And these kind of deals are what companies simply do. IBM, HP, google, … do have software patents, too. And they have patent deals (maybe not with Microsoft), too. IBM is the manufactor of the MS XBOX, Sony Playstation, Nintendo microprocessors…
So what is *so* evil about that? Is Microsoft the devil? Of course, they are no FLOSS company and, I guess, will never be. Of course, they do have a monopoly and abuse it. But a lot of the FLOSS companies (Red Hat, IBM, HP, google, Sun, …) do earn money with proprietary software, too. How would you have reacted, if the deal was between Novell and, let’s say, Apple? Apple is widely accepted in the FLOSS community. From a “moral point of view”, are they better than MS?
To me, only two points count.
1.) Neither Novell nor MS, nor anybody else (except some lawyers introducing software patents) can do *anything* about the freedom of FLOSS-licensed software; simply because that is the idea behind FLOSS and therefore these licenses are constructed to guarantee this (especially copylefted licenses like the GPL when it comes to derative works). So what counts, is the license and the quality of the software.
2.) Although I like FLOSS and GNU/Linux, I am aware that Microsoft, Apple, … are very important and they won’t disappear too soon. So, if we want FLOSS and Linux to be successful, why do we need this “either you are a FLOSS or a Microsoft guy” decision? There are so many people out there wanting a good interoperability between Windows and Linux — so why can’t we accept that it is given to them? I think, everything which is good for the user, is good for us. They way I see it, both Linux and Windows will only benefit from a better interoperability between each other. There is no such thing as the Anti-MS-war, at least not a war with guns
At the end of this posting, I would like to quote Hubert Mantel from his recently posted interview “I’m back at Novell” (http://www.datamanager.it/articoli.php?idricercato=17639):
6. What do you think about the Microsoft/Novell deal?
I think it is a good thing especially for the users. If you think some years back, Linux was not taken seriously. Now even Microsoft acknowledges that it exists and will not go away. I understand that many people don’t like it as Novell is collaborating with the “evil empire”. But I don’t like this way of thinking; we are not working against somebody, but we are working FOR Linux. Fundamentalism always leads to pain. What’s important is that Linux is free and will remain to be free. The source code is open to everybody, this is what counts for me. Some people seem to be torn in an interesting way: On one hand they want “world domination”, at the same time they don’t like the feeling that Linux has grown up and needs to deal with the real business world out there. We have a saying here in Germany that goes along the lines of “wash me, but do not make me wet”. If you want Linux to succeed, you cannot live in your own separate universe.
I am absolutely not sure, what to think about this — and, again again again, this MS/Novell thing in general. Is it really such a bad thing?
Yes. Read on.
I mean, okay, I am absolutely no fan of software patents. But this is not the main part of the deal. That’s the idea. When was the last time you saw a get out clause that was not in small print? It’s in small print for a reason.
The main part is about interoperability and paying money from him to him and so on.
1. Microsoft is getting paid for something they have no rights to, did not create, and are not involved in.
2. The interoperability problems have never been from the Linux side, since Linux code is open, but from the MS side, since their code isn’t and their idea of “complying with” protocols is everyone else’s idea of “changing” them.
And these kind of deals are what companies simply do. IBM, HP, google, … do have software patents, too. And they have patent deals (maybe not with Microsoft), too. IBM is the manufactor of the MS XBOX, Sony Playstation, Nintendo microprocessors…
Software patents would make it impossible for free software products to exist. Also, the GPL prohibits companies from doing exclusive deals with a subset of parties who deal in GPL software.
So what is *so* evil about that? Is Microsoft the devil? Of course, they are no FLOSS company and, I guess, will never be. Of course, they do have a monopoly and abuse it. But a lot of the FLOSS companies (Red Hat, IBM, HP, google, Sun, …) do earn money with proprietary software, too. How would you have reacted, if the deal was between Novell and, let’s say, Apple?
Exactly the same, if the deal had been the same. The problem is not the company, it’s the deal. The only reason it’s giving MS/Novell such a bad name is that it’s a typical Microsoft tactic.
Apple is widely accepted in the FLOSS community. From a “moral point of view”, are they better than MS?
Yes, because they comply with the licence. Although, they do it by using BSD licenced stuff.
1.) Neither Novell nor MS, nor anybody else (except some lawyers introducing software patents) can do *anything* about the freedom of FLOSS-licensed software; simply because that is the idea behind FLOSS and therefore these licenses are constructed to guarantee this (especially copylefted licenses like the GPL when it comes to derative works). So what counts, is the license and the quality of the software.
No, what counts is what company has the better lawyers.
2.) Although I like FLOSS and GNU/Linux, I am aware that Microsoft, Apple, … are very important and they won’t disappear too soon. So, if we want FLOSS and Linux to be successful, why do we need this “either you are a FLOSS or a Microsoft guy” decision?
We don’t. Microsoft have forced us into it, since the year dot and now, for the reasons I’ve explained.
There are so many people out there wanting a good interoperability between Windows and Linux — so why can’t we accept that it is given to them?
As if MS are really going to help with “interoperability between Windows and Linux”. They never have so far, and since the deal – where are the specs?
Edited 2006-12-22 02:29
MS likes to play hardball.
The only people who I’ve met who can play hardball better than MS is the FLOSS community. They know NOT to give MS any sort of leverage. This deal gives MS some leverage into EEE open source through Novell, using the fulcrum of patents. MS can identify “blessed” and “pirate” versions of Linux, thus containing the movement under a few corporate umbrellas, which would be a wise move for MS since they are quite adept at destroying companies, but not movements.
Unfortunately for MS, though, the fastest growing Linux distros are community ones, not corporate, and I think they also had counted on Red Hat accepting the patent offer too. Red Hat has some balls, but they also know that to make that sort of deal with MS would cause a huge rift in the FLOSS community between the corporations and the hobbiests.
Red Hat is smart enough to know that real innovation comes through a dialogue between both.
Its good to see someone standing up for whats right. I cant wait for the MS class action suit to begin. We need to grow teeth and claws to prove to MS that we will not go down without a fight.
You know, my first thought here is: “Good for him.” And my second thought is, “if I wanted to hire FOSS programmers would this bother me that they are more likely to resign over political and business issues?”
And my second thought is, “if I wanted to hire FOSS programmers would this bother me that they are more likely to resign over political and business issues?”
Well if you’re used to being sneaky and having people sit down and take it, yes. (Microsoft and Novell all but admit they’ve been sneaky).
But then success in business should come from ability to come up with good products and customer service, not ability to be sneaky.
Pardon me, but the responsability for business decisions is on employer, not employees. Employee should not let herself/himself to get involved in illegal activity, but for the rest, the decision, responsability and the consequences are on employer. This is not supposed to be a communism with “working councils”.
DG
And pardon ME, but if employers are going to act like having a conscience doesn’t matter, then employees are going to have to do it for them.
I don’t think so, because everybody has their own view of right and wrong. Where would it take us ? Every employee would enforce her/his on policy.
You obviously don’t approve Microsoft-Novell deal. Do you hold other Novell employees responsible ? Or Microsoft employees ?
Well, if someone abslolutely can’t live with employers policies, then the best way is to resign, like mr. Allison did. But, he should not expect Google to make business the way he wants them to. If he does, he would, most likely, be dissapointed again.
DG
I don’t think so, because everybody has their own view of right and wrong. Where would it take us ? Every employee would enforce her/his on policy.
Well, unless they enforce policy by consensus. Or majority vote. As you suggest, however, if they don’t agree with a company’s policy they can resign (which is what Allison did).
You obviously don’t approve Microsoft-Novell deal. Do you hold other Novell employees responsible ? Or Microsoft employees ?
Well, unless they’re going to claim the tooth fairy did it. And I choose to believe them.
But, he should not expect Google to make business the way he wants them to. If he does, he would, most likely, be dissapointed again.
That’s hypothetical. The fact that Novell made a decision he didn’t agree with, isn’t.
I don’t believe that you will ever have the opportunity to see an enterprise being driven by the consensus of employees. That could happen on Debian project, and even they have problems with that. No offense, but you are probably not in a situation to need to work for living.
Well, unless they’re going to claim the tooth fairy did it. And I choose to believe them.
I find your views as extreeme. They will not get you very far. I don’t see the point in continuing this discussion.
DG
I don’t believe that you will ever have the opportunity to see an enterprise being driven by the consensus of employees.
Which is why you and I both pointed out, that employees can resign if they disagree with a company’s position. It’s not as if Allison’s the first, and he won’t be the last.
No offense, but you are probably not in a situation to need to work for living.
No offense, but to avoid giving offence you need to stop making intentionally derisory comments and prefacing them with “no offense”.
I find your views as extreeme.
Well, since I view employees as people and not as chattels to be used and abused at your whim, I’m not surprised you do. I was about to say the same about you.
Get over it, trechsol! If you don´t feel like working for a company for any given reason, then you´re entirely within your rights to say “Be damned!” and look for something else. I´ve done it in more than one occasion.
It´s not a matter of trying to push your ethics (or morals as you put earlier) onto the upper management since he probably could not do it anyway. It can happens for any reason: salary disputes, bad relationship with co-workers or managers, etc.
And any responsible person who has a family to feed would have another job lined up before resigning his current one. That´s just good sense.
Get over it, trechsol! If you don´t feel like working for a company for any given reason, then you´re entirely within your rights to say “Be damned!” and look for something else. I´ve done it in more than one occasion.
I agree, I’ve changed 5 IT jobs befor starting my own business. But, I am not talking about was it right or wrong, but is it wise or not.
Can you expect companies to do the work the wat you want them to ? Are the moral objections important enough to make you leave the company, if you are satisfied with other things ?
I admitt that I would stay with the company.
DG
Many people forget that NSS is open Source Open Enterprise Server 2 which is based on SUSE 10 will use NSS as a method of sharing files and folders. This whole SMB thing will be a non-issue if MS dumps the smb protocol. Which speculation says appears they may lean towards in future. Whether samba is GPL 3 will be irrelevant at that point then you can just integrate it to SLES 10.
Apparently people really thinks that the lack of SMB will kill Novell if anything them collaborating with MS will yield tighter integration of some new protocol and make SUSE the preferred choice and leave samba developers hacking once again
Any company should be glad to get rid of such employee. He should take his ideals home, and deal with them in his own free time. On the job, he was supposed to do what he was payed for.
Conclusion: if you really want a job done, don’t mess with idealists.
DG
Any company should be glad to get rid of such employee. He should take his ideals home, and deal with them in his own free time. On the job, he was supposed to do what he was payed for.
All right, so where is your line in the sand?
Anyone working in any corporation has to just switch off any perceptions regarding what “doing the right thing” means – in order to become an utterly a-moral apparatchik?
Conclusion: if you really want a job done, don’t mess with idealists.
Hire robots.
Hire robots.
No, hire professionals.
DG
It’s always easy to have principles but if he had, he would have resigned almost instantaneously after the deal was closed. If you make a statement, do it at the right moment, not later.
I understand he’s got new work so the cashflow will be flowing after all. Makes me wonder if it really was a principle after all. Like someone else stated: maybe hot headed.
Besides, there is a growing group of popele that sthart to understand that actions like this, without much thinking, is in fact a way how MS can amplify the FUD (simply by waiting how the linux community does it’s “job”).
The *real* problem will be the FSF and the upcoming GPLv3 that may cause problems. In real life, peple really like the idea about the interoperability; most don’t give a damn about the patents stuff as they feel it’s worthless (and so far: it is).
We’re at a point where tere may be done a lot of damage from inside the linux community and we all should try to counter that, by thinking with you head instead with your stomach.
It should be seen pragmatically instead of idealistic. We’ve all seen that some distributions are too idealistic causing them not to be used a lot outside home.
Edited 2006-12-22 09:23
Well, he thought about it a bit, watching how things were working out, and then he published an open letter requesting Novell to get out of this deal. Then he gave them some time, and when it was obvious they were sticking to their policy of covering up, he quit.
By then, he did have another job lined up for him, which is quite pragmatic, a value you seem to endorse.
I have come to the conclusion that it’s best to ignore them and their doing. I am using a Linux operating system (Debian) and Linux software. Microsoft plays no role in my life and never will. It’s all a matter of choice and decision.
There never was any substantial reason for Novell to come up with that shabby agreement. Never.
And… nobody cares.
I’ve defended Novell over this more times than not, but I’m completely fine with him quitting. He has an idea about how things should go, his employer went against those, and he decided to stick to his guns and left. Nothing wrong with that. Sometimes you just have to part ways.
Again, Novell made a business decision which will have lasting PR related issues in the open source community. Time will tell if there are any legal implications and if the OSS community and blogosphere were right after all or were all inferring things that weren’t there. It’s a shame to see him go, but don’t think for a second that Novell didn’t have good engineers before him and continue to have good engineers.
Can someone explain to me the difference between samba and mono from a philosophical level? Mono, since the deal between Novell and Microsoft, has been derided heavily by posters on this site. How does the mono org do anything differently than Samba? Aren’t both reverse engineered platforms? Aren’t both apparently using Microsoft’s “standards” as their own? How is samba, by continuing to mimic Microsoft’s SMB, not lending credence to Microsoft and their technology any less than Novell willing to work with OpenXML or Mono with .Net?
This is a serious question and not flame bait.
Edited 2006-12-22 20:53
I guess nobody really has to use Mono for anything, but if you want interoperability with Windows machines, Samba makes things very easy for you (not very philosophical). It might also have to do with the kind of people behind these projects, Miguel de Icaza for Mono versus Jeremy Allison (and Andrew Tridgell) for Samba. It seems to me they are on different ends of the spectrum with regards to Free Software.