OSNews

I mean, from face value, the whole concept of paying $348 to Novell, and then for Novell to just pay a portion of it back seems rather pointless given MS could have just paid less in the first place (basic present value math).

It's called investment-return. If Novell needs lots of capital for squashing RedHat (or something) then it expects to make a return on the money. Some(Most?) of this return will then be passwd back to Microsoft.

the FSF people think its all about them.. They dont realize when they start dictating the rules they are no better than the Proprietary companies... No matter who they are.

and whom, from the FSF have dictated anything? please enlighten me

Are you joking?

How could the FSF do things like Vendor Lock-in, one of the main concepts of many proprietary companies? Just by setting up their rules they hope other people apply, too? Sure not.

The FSF is important as it has a critical watch on this stuff. Nothing less and nothing more - it can't prevent Novell from doing this deals or someone from _not_ using their new GPL version.


All the FSF does, wether you call it rules or not, are in fact nothing more worth than suggestions. And that's because the FSF gave away most of their rights (on the GNU software, that is) in the first place!

Just makes me wonder - can the FSF be guilty of vendor Lock-Out?

I mean, maybe there's no vendor lock-in...But...

I don't think his blog was harsh at all. From his blog

"In Novell's world, if I write something and GPL it, Novell will try to convince customers to buy support from Novell instead of from me (the original author) because of some nebulous, unspecified, almost-certainly-bullshit "IP issues" hinted at by Microsoft and legitimized by Novell for the price of $348 million."

Sounds right on the money to me.

Because what they are doing it trying to make GPL software friendly for Novell customers and unfriendly to the community.

Because what they are doing it trying to make GPL software friendly for Novell customers and unfriendly to the community.

That is pretty broad, could you give some kind of supporting logic for this opinion?

Are people walking around saying: "Well if MS isn't planning to sue Novell then I am going to quit using GPL"

At worst it could create a "grass is greener on the Novell side cause we are oh-so-afraid of MS suing us for using Linux" but if the sky rocket sales figures for SCO's Linux license are any indication I really don't think many companies are afraid using Linux would somehow become a legal liability.

The biggest problem is Novell uses the community's software but acted in a very negative way towards the community.

"At worst it could create a "grass is greener on the Novell side cause we are oh-so-afraid of MS suing us for using Linux" "

You answered your own question. The spirit of the GPL is sharing. How does this work with that spirit? If I take a copy of OpenSUSE and gut it, rebrand it as my distro, where's my protection? And as a patent violation, I can't even legally posess that software let alone use or distribute it. But not if I'm a Novell customer (because Novell has a short term no sue covenant with Microsoft (and what does Novell think is going to happen at the end of that SHORT TERM?! )) which may or may not be a violation* of Clause 7 of the GPL, a license Novell accepted to use the community's software.

That's what's wrong.

*If it is a violation, then Novell is screwed. If not, then MS can't use this FUD in the future because if they do, it'll prove this was a GPL violation and MS would be open to Novell suing them (cause you can bet Novell will never admit this was a patent license).

All in all, it's a community and Novell did something that was very anti-community. They shouldn't be too surprised the community in general is upset.

The spirit of the GPL is sharing. How does this work with that spirit? If I take a copy of OpenSUSE and gut it, rebrand it as my distro, where's my protection?

You don't get any protection. The GPL grants you rights to the source code, which you've got.

The GPL dosen't grant you rights to any agreements between companies.

Because what they are doing it trying to make GPL software friendly for Novell customers and unfriendly to the community.

That is pretty broad, could you give some kind of supporting logic for this opinion?

They are allowing Novell to violate (alleged) patents (we haven't actually heard of ONE yet that Linux may be violating, which is odd considering the descriptions of patents are in the public domain) using code distributed under the GPL - the distribution whereof therefore cannot be restricted - whilst threatening other Linux companies over the same patents.

That's a bit like saying Person A is allowed to violate law 1 but Person B isn't, isn't it?

Not only that, but I can point to at least one patent that MS are violating if they haven't paid Apple a licence to use it - the patent for zooming (maximizing and minimizing) a window. So they are in breach of patent law already, but want to sue others for the same?!

What I'd like to know is exactly how MS thinks it is not violating Section 7 or any other of the GPL - "No we aren't" is not an argument. MS is also being much more tight-lipped on specifics than Novell - which may well be an indication that they know they've screwed Novell and/or the wider Linux community over, and they aren't telling. Indeed, if they haven't and their intent is honest, then they gain nothing by hiding it and everything, including credibility in the FOSS community, from showing their hand. OTOH, if they remain tight-lipped, they throw the Linux community into consternation, which, again, is clearly something they want to do given that they are picking and choosing who is going to be "allowed" to create "open source" software. Note to Ballmer: If you get to pick and choose, it isn't open source.

At worst it could create a "grass is greener on the Novell side cause we are oh-so-afraid of MS suing us for using Linux" but if the sky rocket sales figures for SCO's Linux license are any indication I really don't think many companies are afraid using Linux would somehow become a legal liability.

As to the SCO case, there were three ways in which that situation differed from this:

1. SCO was pointing to code and saying this-or-that violates copyright (not at first, but they were forced to point to any in court);

2. Over the course of however many years it's been, SCO hasn't been able to demonstrate a single copyright that Linux violates - in fact it's pretty clear that the concepts it was claiming had been violated were actually either in the public domain, or not owned by them.

3. MS is in the enviable position of being sneakier than SCO and yet (somehow) having more credibility. They aren't saying "We're taking RH or Xandros or someone else to court for violating our patent on {fred,barney,wilma}" - they're saying "Linux violates (some vague, unspecified, possibly not even valid) patents and if you're not Novell, we're going to sue your asses for it." Yet even if all the patent-violating code they allege the existence of does exist, and even if none of it was created by Novell, Novell are still liable under the GPL because they have been distributing that code and, under the GPL, must cease and desist in distributing any GPL'ed code that anyone else cannot distribute because it inviolates patents.

This is exactly the same situation whereby the SCO case was dead in the water, because they had been claiming that there was code which violated their copyrights which other people had been distributing under the GPL (which, by the way, they were claiming was "unconstitutional"), and yet they had themselves been distributing said code under the so-called "unconstitutional" GPL.

This being the case, the only thing that could make Novell "not liable" is, surprise surprise, an army of lawyers from some big company.

They are allowing Novell to violate (alleged) patents (we haven't actually heard of ONE yet that Linux may be violating, which is odd considering the descriptions of patents are in the public domain)

Strange, I've heard of 27...

http://news.com.com/Group+Linux+potentially+infringes+283+patents/2...


What I'd like to know is exactly how MS thinks it is not violating Section 7 or any other of the GPL - "No we aren't" is not an argument

Novell has loads of code that is not GPL'd, some of it is in SLED. If Novell want to add software tainted with MS patents to their distro, they can, they just use a licence without a Section 7 equivalent, or even a propriety licence. If they already have software that is not GPL'd and is MS patent tainted then they are protected against MS suing them and their customers.

I think it was probably MS that went to Novell and not the other way around.

Except that Novell clearly admitted that it went to MS first.


This would only violate GPL if Novell included proprietary software, I don't think there is any clause against "lets agree not to take each other to court over IP patents".


Except for GPL clause 7 that prevents patent cross licensing which is what a promise not to sue actually is.

Except for GPL clause 7 that prevents patent cross licensing which is what a promise not to sue actually is.

The promise not to sue does not cover Novell itself from being sued by MS, or MS from being sued by Novell.
Only Novell customers from being sued by MS, and MS customers from being sued by Novell.
No cross-licensing of patents there.

"Except that Novell clearly admitted that it went to MS first."

Please provide a source.

"Except for GPL clause 7 that prevents patent cross licensing which is what a promise not to sue actually is."

I found this here:
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensource.html


Q1. How is this agreement compatible with Novell's obligations under Section 7 of the GPL?

Our agreement with Microsoft is focused on our customers, and does not include a patent license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft to Novell (or, for that matter, from Novell to Microsoft). Novell's customers receive a covenant not to sue directly from Microsoft. We have not agreed with Microsoft to any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL and we are in full compliance.

PS GPLv2 can be located here if you are interested in reading that section: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/info/GPLv2.html

Edited 2006-11-08 14:03

Doesn't this mean that Novell customers will break the GPL? If Novell are being sub-contracted by Microsoft to sell patent licenses, then Novell customers will break section 7?

Here is all of GPLv2 Section 7
Source: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/info/GPLv2.html

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.


So to answer your question, Novel could not distribute something covered by a software patent to customers in the first place without breaking GPL. I have to parse through it again, but I think I missed where it says Novell can't continue distributing patent free GPL software.

Edited 2006-11-08 14:12

Section 7 of the GPL reads,

"For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."

If Novell's customers can't redistribute the patent grant to other users, then Novell itself can't distribute the software to its customers.

I'm not a GPL expert, but isn't it the case that Novell's customers aren't subject to GPL unless they make code "derived" from Novell's and distribute it to the public?

"Except that Novell clearly admitted that it went to MS first."

Please provide a source.

http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/press-conference_transcript.h...

" QUESTION: How long have these talks been going on about this agreement, and who initiated it, essentially? Did Novell go to Microsoft, or Microsoft go to Novell, or did you just sort of get together spontaneously? How did that work?

RON HOVSEPIAN: How it happened was I reached out to Kevin Turner in the April timeframe, the COO of Microsoft"

The argument that since the customers are getting the patent benefits, the GPL is not being violated is weasel wording. GPL mandates that everybody gets the same benefits.

http://lwn.net/Articles/208186/

Edited 2006-11-08 15:29

The patent protection is void of meaning. All Microsoft has to do to stop Novell is to sue somebody else, and then Novell cannot distribute anything without violating the GPL.

Novell is paying $200 million for nothing.

Then this won't affect the other distros like most of you are bitching, case closed.

Of course it will affect other distributions.

Many will think of Novell as a safe choice what it actually isn't. This will affect other distributions. Also, the patent protection does not include other distributions - this affects them too.

In the end, this means Microsoft has been given a great stranglehold on Linux and Open Source in general.

The only good thing to come from this, is that Europe may become a much greater center in the FLOSS-world.

Many will think of Novell as a safe choice what it actually isn't.

If companies were not afraid of using Linux in the first place, they are unlikely to be afraid now.

As I have stated in the past, the number of companies that went out and purchased an SCO Linux license (about 3) should give you an idea of how many are afraid of using Linux for IP reasons.

You are grasping at straws here.

Don't underestimate the GPL. Neither Novell or MS can distribute something as GPL and then claim they have proprietary rights to it later on. If Novell drops the ball, the community will take their contributions and move on.

Have you read Havoc's blog thoroughly? He makes very good points. I agree that Novell has a) provided ammunition to Microsoft's FUD machine (just read Ballmer's interview to see how they'd like everyone to believe that there's MS IP in Linux and every Linux business should pay them to receive "protection") and b) has secured an unfair advantage for themselves ("look, we're the only one protecting you against MS").

So yes, shame on Novell on both counts.

rehdon

unfair advantage if there is no threat there is no advantage. If there is not any infrindging IP then there is nothing to worry about. That is grade school attitude unfair advantage when you own such a small piece of the Linux Market.

There is no ammunition This deal is the same as health insurance proividers protecting the customers or doctors in that case. Unfavorable business decision yes unfair no!

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).

It’s like screw that any company that works with Microsoft is evil.

That's how the GPL-haters are painting it, yes. In reality, there are clear paths to complying with the spirit of the GPL which MS are not taking. So of course they are getting heat from "the open source community" who, of course, use Linux because it is a viable open source solution.

There are those who have always spread the FUD that "you can't make money off open source Linux", despite the fact that Redhat et al. have been doing that for years - BUT Novell seemingly haven't been able to.

Now, tell me, is that because of a problem with open source or because of a problem with Novell?

So now they go to MS and together they say "yes - you can make money from open source! By making it proprietary!" It's AT&T Sys III all over again.

As for openSUSE, if they make a clear statement that they will do what they can to prevent any code involved in the deal getting into openSUSE (and thus possibly infecting other Linux distros), then I will be the first to switch back. But I will NOT use them if I see them as a backdoor to get MS-patented code into Linux and thereby stop the whole show.

I agree with you on the perspective of Opensuse and ensuring that code involved in the deal does not make it into the project. I feel that will likely be a given seeing how this is really an enterprise deal. I however think we must not lose site of the goal and not always react with our emotions. The Novell deal does not change Linux and there really needs to be some differentiation between the distros more that package version.

I Think as a consultant and contributor the deal is a healthy on one that now allows some CIO security (No I am not implying patent infringement but commitment) Like it or not CIO's base their budgets on interoperability and that unfortunately means MS will be involved whether it is the organization or the customers.

I think it is time we accept that everyone will not be a Redhat just as HP is not a Dell. Dell has one model, HP has another, before recently Dell was all intel , HP were both AMD and intel. The model does not affect the end goal bring a great product to the end user. Novell and Redhat same goal bringing a great Linux product to the end user.

The Novell deal does not change Linux

That remains to be seen.

I Think as a consultant and contributor the deal is a healthy on one that now allows some CIO security (No I am not implying patent infringement but commitment) Like it or not CIO's base their budgets on interoperability and that unfortunately means MS will be involved whether it is the organization or the customers.

Linux has always been well happy to interoperate with MS (and anyone else) which is why Linux or its apps can read FAT, .doc files, use DOS partitions, read Amiga filesystems, and so on. The three barriers to interoperability with Microsoft, as Andrew Tridgell demonstrated in court, have always been: 1. Microsoft. 2. Microsoft. 3. Microsoft. Now they are saying that yes, you can interoperate, but only if you're Novell.

I think it is time we accept that everyone will not be a Redhat just as HP is not a Dell. Dell has one model, HP has another, before recently Dell was all intel , HP were both AMD and intel. The model does not affect the end goal bring a great product to the end user. Novell and Redhat same goal bringing a great Linux product to the end user.

The question is not whether Novell or Microsoft is or will be or should be a Redhat or a Debian. It is whether MS is still MS and as such will attempt to bring about the defeat of anyone who can challenge MS. What we have so far on this forum is MS's apologists saying "MS is changing and is no longer the predatory company it once was", MS's detractors saying "Well it might change. But so far it's the same. And here's the evidence," and MS's apologists saying. "No it isn't. No it isn't! NO IT ISN'T!!!".

Edited 2006-11-08 16:11

As for your "That remains to be seen" comment Novell does not own Linux so again it does not change Linux. Also Linux is a kernel not the applications that run on top of it. No one is saying MS has change what they are saying is that collaboration is the key to the success of Linux.

Again I support the community I am a opensource advocate but I recognize the need for colaboration and also see the benefit in it. Everyone is so critical of Novell well yeah they opened this but they did not open edirectory. Again they are well within there right and they are a bridge company in itself having both opensource and proprietary applications.

Being a Redhat leaves your model vulnerable to Oracle Linux tactics and influences your revenues if say MS said well we now offer support for red Hat Linux. You need a effective collaboration plan and distinctive edirectory offering to set yourself apart) The big picture is Novell is still Novell they are still providing SUSE still contributing to the community.

SLES10 was such an advance for integration and now people want to throw it out because of their business model sound like the same people who criticize Red Hat when they change their model those same people are now praising red hat for their commitment Again community flip flop makes ordinary advocates such as myself question the value of community when they attempt to abandon great distros based on business model when they are not in violation of the GPL

As for your "That remains to be seen" comment Novell does not own Linux so again it does not change Linux.

It doesn't matter if Novell don't "own Linux" if the MS/Novell partnership manages to proprietarize their version of Linux.

Also Linux is a kernel not the applications that run on top of it. No one is saying MS has change what they are saying is that collaboration is the key to the success of Linux.

On the contrary, plenty of people on this forum are saying MS has changed.

Again I support the community I am a opensource advocate but I recognize the need for colaboration and also see the benefit in it. Everyone is so critical of Novell well yeah they opened this but they did not open edirectory. Again they are well within there right and they are a bridge company in itself having both opensource and proprietary applications.

I have no problem with Novell not opening eDirectory. I have no problem with cooperation. I do have a problem with moves that look suspiciously like "We will collaborate, but only with those whom we trust" which in the end, in such a lopsided partnership, is not really any different with "we will not collaborate".

Being a Redhat leaves your model vulnerable to Oracle Linux tactics and influences your revenues if say MS said well we now offer support for red Hat Linux. You need a effective collaboration plan and distinctive edirectory offering to set yourself apart)

Putting conditions on interoperability leaves everyone else vulnerable.
The big picture is Novell is still Novell they are still providing SUSE still contributing to the community.

SLES10 was such an advance for integration and now people want to throw it out because of their business model sound like the same people who criticize Red Hat when they change their model those same people are now praising red hat for their commitment

Some of those people will no doubt say that although RH have a strong commitment to the GPL, RH dropping desktop Linux has done nothing but hinder desktop Linux. The two opinions aren't contradictory, since anyone (including businesses) is capable of doing one thing right and another wrong.

Again community flip flop makes ordinary advocates such as myself question the value of community when they attempt to abandon great distros based on business model when they are not in violation of the GPL

We haven't yet seen whether that's the case. Considerable doubt remains (outside of Redmond and Waltham) over whether code contributed by MS-Novell will be compatible with the GPL and/or subject to patent litigation.

Being a Redhat leaves your model vulnerable to Oracle Linux tactics and influences your revenues if say MS said well we now offer support for red Hat Linux. You need a effective collaboration plan and distinctive edirectory offering to set yourself apart) The big picture is Novell is still Novell they are still providing SUSE still contributing to the community.

Actually, the thing everybody overlooks about the Red Hat/Oracle thing is that companies basing a business model entirely on OSS are effectively committing to having to provide the best possible level of support for customers. They will live and die by whether customers feel they are receiving value for their contract fees. If customers can go somewhere else for what they feel is a better value for an otherwise identical product, then all the more power to them. It keeps Red Hat honest and innovative. That's precisely what we need, and that's the benefit of commercial OSS software.

Vendor lockin, proprietary techniques etc. subvert that ideal and give vendors the ability to cut corners in acquiring customers without necessarily needing to provide the best value. Once you've committed yourself to a proprietary platform, there is absolutely no incentive for the vendor to improve that platform or level of service until the point at which the cost involved in migrating to a new platform becomes viable. In most cases the competitive nature of the free-market often takes care of itself in this regard, but such is not necessarily the case with Microsoft.

And that's the whole drub with Microsoft, they're not opposed to linux as much as they're opposed to the thought of enterprises truly embracing the concept of an OSS-driven software model where core technologies are commoditized and vendors differentiate over the level of service, support and innovation they can provide.

Red Hat has built a successful OSS model despite the fact that you can clone and distribute Red Hat products as CentOS and now Oracle do. That alone is implicit validation that organizations value service and support over license fees. Would Microsoft be able to survive by allowing free-distribution of Windows and Office, even under a non-GPL type license, and rely strictly on customers finding value in paying for service and support? They're beginning to wonder themselves, hence their non-commital exploration of service/subscription based services.

I'd like to see a model where the majority of software I rely on was OSS. Not because I have a fundamental opposition to proprietary software, I sell it for a living, much of it running on linux. I don't think proprietary has to equal lockin and lack of choice, which is what I'm really opposed to. I believe more in a free market and the right to vote with my wallet than I do in robbing others of the right to profit from creating something others may find value in. But I'd like to see an OSS model in commercial software because I believe it would ultimately force vendors to work their asses off in delivering value for my hard earned money, rather than taking it for granted. I don't mind paying, I just want value, and I'm not sure I'm necessarily receiving it in a world where large monopolistic organizations can play havoc with patent laws and standards to try and rob me of my ability to find uncompromising value. Yes, I'm a free market idealist that way but I think there is a reasonable balance between OSS and proprietary software that can benefit all.

So let Oracle support Red Hat. They are hardly the first vendor to bundle a cloned version of RHEL with their linux-based software to diminish the impact of license fee for the proprietary software running on top of it. Red Hat has survived, and will continue to survive as long as their customers receive value. And if somebody can do Red Hat better than Red Hat can, well then natural market forces will come into play and level everything out.

This is where Novell has failed, in building a true OSS-based services delivery model as they ultimately wanted to do, at least not one that could compete with Red Hat's brand value. So in the absence of successfully competing on service/support, it's only natural that they would fall back towards strategies that are more closed and proprietary than open. Linux will remain free regardless, and the market will ultimately decide whether Novell succeeds or fails, as it should.

I couldn't agree more. The only thing I'd add is that it is not the whole "community" but rather a portion of it that seems so "upset." I for one think this was an incredibly smart move on Novell's part and perhaps even on Microsoft's part though for entirely different reasons of course. There is also a certain amount of irony criticising Microsoft for working towards better interoperability with a Linux vendor. Kinda makes me chuckle at those are are frothing at the mouth with anger or becoming paralyzed with fear.

I couldn't agree more. The only thing I'd add is that it is not the whole "community" but rather a portion of it that seems so "upset." I for one think this was an incredibly smart move on Novell's part and perhaps even on Microsoft's part though for entirely different reasons of course.

I think it's "probably not" a smart move on Novell's part. Definitely a smart move on Microsoft's.

There is also a certain amount of irony criticising Microsoft for working towards better interoperability with a Linux vendor. Kinda makes me chuckle at those are are frothing at the mouth with anger or becoming paralyzed with fear.

Well, you see, for the FOSS community, Linux is kinda sorta not the point. The point is ensuring interoperability for all players, so that none can dictate. Linux has just been FOSS's biggest strategic weapon on that front with the possible exception of the Net and/or Firefox. If that changes, we'll have to find another one.

Well, you see, for the FOSS community, Linux is kinda sorta not the point. The point is ensuring interoperability for all players, so that none can dictate. Linux has just been FOSS's biggest strategic weapon on that front with the possible exception of the Net and/or Firefox. If that changes, we'll have to find another one.

As was mentioned above, edirectory, groupwise, zenworks; all are proprietary and closed source products which Novell has been offering on Suse and Redhat for years. However, you can't run either on Gentoo, Ubuntu, Debian. Where was all the uproar about this years ago?

I think you know why there wasn't any: Novell doesn't have much of a history of turning competitors' products against them (or if it does, most people don't know about it). MS certainly does.

It's highly likely that if MS DOES fork Linux, it will be the only vendor to do so - although it may increase the likelihood of others following suit. But even one fork (a la AT&T Unix vs BSD) is one too many in my opinion and, I suspect, in the view of many others. This is precisely the problem with UNIX that Linux was supposed to avoid, and why so many people have been getting on the bandwagon. It's also why so many people are suspicious of the whole MS-novell-fud-licensing("covenant")-patent-lawsuit-thang.

"There is also a certain amount of irony criticising Microsoft for working towards better interoperability with a Linux vendor"

I can't see where the irony is. What the community hopes for is for interoperability with the community, not Linux, and most certainly not a linux VENDOR. Interoperability is very easy to achieve you just adhere to published standards, and if you must re-invent the wheel so as to make slightly elliptic that you publish the focal points for everyone to be able to use, and not by signing "no-sue" agreements. Simple as that.

Excuse the irony ... pun intented.

spelling edit

Edited 2006-11-08 19:35

//I can't see where the irony is. What the community hopes for is for interoperability with the community, not Linux, and most certainly not a linux VENDOR. Interoperability is very easy to achieve you just adhere to published standards, and if you must re-invent the wheel so as to make slightly elliptic that you publish the focal points for everyone to be able to use, and not by signing "no-sue" agreements. Simple as that. //

Exactly.

If Microsoft really wanted interoperability with Linux, all they needed to do was have a look at the code in Linux systems (Samba, Linux, Mono & OpenOffice) and submit a few modifications to those projects.

Presto! Instant interoperability, at zero cost.

What this deal really seems to be about is that Microsoft has gone out of their way to obscure things so that Samba, Linux, Mono & OpenOffice can not fully interoperate with Microsoft products. Microsoft have made a deliberate secret here, to PREVENT interoperability.

So now, what Microsoft/Novell want to do, is to put some proprietary binary layer of code in SuSe Linux to achieve the interoperability that Microsoft themselves deliberately prevented by obscuration, and they want to charge Linux users a license fee for that binary layer.

This isn't about interoperability per se. It is about Microsoft finding a way to derive an unearned revenue stream from Linux via their customers' desire for interoperability.

I thin Microsoft is creating second apple from Novel...soon you'll see microsoft buying whole lot of Novell shares and then give Novel all freebies that makes linux - windows interoperatibility(sp) top notch and ensure novel crushes any chances for other linux companies to grow while decoying their monopoly by having a "strong competant" that they net money from tough.

Linux isn't Unix.

Go check Groklaw for more information on SCO Group (formerly known as Caldera Linux) vs. Novell - and of course checking out Novell vs. SCO Group at the same time.

There is nothing in the SCO cases to be worried about, since any Unix code in Linux would be free for use anyway.