Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Perens Rains on Novell's Parade

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the umbrella-sales-up-five-percent dept.

Patents 277

unum15 writes "This week is Novell's Brainshare conference. They are touting the Microsoft covenant not to sue as 'good for consumers'. However, Bruce Perens decided to take this opportunity to 'rain on Novell's parade'. Perens read a statement from RMS affirming the GPLv3 would not allow companies to enter deals like this and continue to offer GPLv3 software. Perens even goes as far as to suggest this move is an exit strategy by Novell. There are also audio and pictures of the event available."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

On Novell being obtuse (5, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#18431949)

I have a feeling that he'll be commenting here soon, so "Hi Bruce!" :-)

What Novell did is not illegal but it is a matter of bad faith, Perens contended. The result could doom Novell to becoming a Microsoft subsidiary, he said, because Novell does not write its own software but gets it instead from those small independents.

Hovsepian scoffed at that scenario. "Them [Microsoft] buying us? I think that's deep in the conspiracy theory bucket."

Is it just me, or did Hovsepian intentionally misunderstand that statement? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I read your statement to mean that Novell would effectively become a subsidiary to Microsoft without actually being bought out. Much in the same way that Microsoft "Partners" tend to exist only so long as it amuses Microsoft. When Microsoft grows tired of them, they do something that completely undermines the trust and business model of those partners. (See: PlaysForSure, OS/2, Sybase, Spyglass, Citrix, etc.)

It amazes me that companies still fall for that trick, but there you go. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Bye Novell, it was nice knowing you. :-/

Re:On Novell being obtuse (5, Insightful)

CRiMSON (3495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432095)

What amazes me is the fact that this will be the second time Microsoft will have done it to Novell. You'd have thought they would of learned something.

Re:On Novell being obtuse (4, Interesting)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432257)

It's typical modern American capitalism. Short term gains don't necessarily mean long term pains... at least not for the CEO involved. Take the million+ dollar bonus, cash out stock options, run/quit/get fired, and who cares if the company dies later.

Re:On Novell being obtuse (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433197)

You'd have thought they would of learned something.
Would've or would have, but never would of. Jesus.

Re:On Novell being obtuse (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433387)

What amazes me is the fact that nothing in the current draft of the GPLv3 forbids novell-microsoft deal. This means they are intending to insert something that doesn't exist or are actualy trying to keep people on microsoft's products. I'm willing to bet that if pushed, this will be shown in court and the GPLv3 will end up destroying/fracturing yet another portion of the FOSS comunity.

I guess to some, it doesn't matter as long as they get their 15 minutes of fame!

Re:On Novell being obtuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433571)

The current draft of the gpl v3 is where?
The latest version I can find would practically speaking prohibit any IP holding company from "conveying" code under it.

Re:On Novell being obtuse (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18434199)

Here [fsf.org]

It would only prohibit them from conveying something they owned a right to this way. When you download a distro, you have to pass the rights they gave you along with the right you have to the code/software with it. The novell-microsoft deal doesn't count unless the covers pattented work is submited by Novell. The microsoft-novell deal doesn't give novell the rights that microsoft owns. Otherwise, you are giving all the rights you hold over it.

Re:On Novell being obtuse (1)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433515)

What amazes me is the fact that this will be the second time Microsoft will have done it to Novell. You'd have thought they would of learned something.

Maybe Novell is looking for a $10-billion pay-day ten years down the line when they eventually sue Microsoft for breach of contract or anti-trust violations.

Re:On Novell being obtuse (2, Interesting)

iPaul (559200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432291)

Simple, if you don't want to answer the other person's point, simply concoct a straw-man argument to respond to. I'm sure he understood the comment quite clearly and probably accepted the situation in the back of his mind. I expect this is the role he's sized up for his company, to be Microsoft's "loyal opposition." I wonder, to what extent, Microsoft leaned on Novell by suggesting a list of possible infringing software and let Novell do the math?

in other news .. (1)

jb.cancer (905806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432467)

M$ buys out seats to Novell's /BrainShare/ conference ...

Re:On Novell being obtuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18432891)

What Novell did is not illegal but it is a matter of bad faith, Perens contended.

Gee, what about all of Perens' posts here claiming that Novell *was* doing something illegal? Where he never seemed able to cite any violation when people called him on it?

Does Perens even pretend to have a job any more? Who has the time to go to a conference to "read a statement from RMS"?

Re:On Novell being obtuse (5, Interesting)

robyannetta (820243) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433169)

Every day that goes by, I keep thinking that this Microsoft/Novell deal is nothing more than a prelude to Microsoft outright buying Novell who will then offer some cheap-ass Linux desktop solution.

With Novell owning the original Unix IP, Microsoft may then eventually have the upper hand. That's a SCARY thing...

Re:On Novell being obtuse (1)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433659)

Is it just me, or did Hovsepian intentionally misunderstand that statement?
Not that you would know anything about intentional misunderstandings.

It amazes me that companies still fall for that trick
It's deplorable that people still pull it. The explanation is all about creating debt.

Re:On Novell being obtuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18434293)

So much FUD. Novell has beaten MS at every legal turn. They have one of the best legal teams in the nation. Let's remember that MS is paying Novell WAY more than Novell is paying MS. As some have speculated it's likely to keep Novell from revealing what they know about the whole SCO/MS relationship.

Novell has been "bye-bye", "dead", "going under" as long as Apple. They aren't going anywhere. SLED and SLES are the best operational Linux desktop and server systems on the market for actual working mixed environments. Now don't go off and say "but you can do anything with such-n-such distro" because YOU and I can...but not Joe Schmo sitting at his desk that wants to know how to get to his Win2K Server files or open up his PowerPoint documents ("WTF is Impress?"). Those users don't want to hear about distros, compiling, kernals, nor any of that...they want a full, legit desktop to operate when they sit down and login. SLED does that.

Red Hat has now embraced a desktop system, which is great, it lends more competitiveness to the marketplace. Frankly GPL3 is the dumbest idea to ever hit the OS community. It hampers any chance of actually having Linux become a viable user system for anyone but IT staff. If you want to get Linux into the common workplace and home you do NOT lock it into a box that says "FSS players only." No company will go for that, it's just another form of restrictiveness and frankly goes completely against OPEN-Source. Hence why Linus is not supporting it along with a lot of others.

The way to beat Microsoft isn't to sit in a basement looking at your Ubuntu screen and going "Whee...I've beaten MS!" It's to get every other user to say "Hey, this works nice, it works with all the MS stuff I've known for 20+ years...I could use this!"

I'm out (2, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432235)

I'm glad I sold my Novell stock soon after their parnership with Microsoft. Statements like Perens' nail the lid on the coffin for me. Novell had such potential with their government contracts, name recognition, and experience. But their management's been hurting the company for years. It's all downhill now.

Re:I'm out (-1, Troll)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432267)

I'm glad I sold my Novell stock soon after their parnership with Microsoft.
This is why Linux users make shitty stock brokers.

Re:I'm out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18432529)

Let's see, 5 years ago the stock was at $4. In 2003 they bought Suse. Now it's at $7.13. I won't be calling you for stock advice.

Re:I'm out (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432787)

Well that's very obtuse. I didn't tell you the price or time at which I bought it. Only when I sold it. I sold it at $7 for a profit.

GPLv3 (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432603)

I've heard about how linux, the kernel, won't be licensed under version 3, so it wouldn't matter. But I'm really skeptical.

If the software owned by the FSF moves to GPLv3, will *any distributor of a complete OS be able to enter into a deal like the Novell/MS one? Does it really matter whether linuz remains v2 when so many critical components will be v3?

Re:GPLv3 (1)

hansonc (127888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432821)

Like I said below. All novel has to do is fork all the FSF projects now while the licensing says GPL Version 2 or later. It's not like 'ls' or 'cd' changes all that often.

Re:GPLv3 (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432905)

Right now Novell has a complete OS and it's licensed entirely under GPL v2 and other open licenses. That will continue to be true after the FSF finally finishes writing the holy scripture, err, GPL v3. The odds that Novell would be unable to keep up after a required fork are pretty high. Every major OSS app has been funded and managed, or written in it's entirety, by a private enterprise.

Re:GPLv3 (1)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433029)

linux, the kernel, won't be licensed under version 3, so it wouldn't matter.

Yes it will. As pieces outside of the kernel migrate to GPLv3 Novell will hit a roadblock having to rely on GPLv2 branches. Someone might still maintain those, but maybe not, making that much more work for Novell. Novell will still have to share its code with the community, but the community won't have to share their code with Novell. Which makes me happy a little.

Re:GPLv3 (0)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433595)

If the software owned by the FSF moves to GPLv3, will *any distributor of a complete OS be able to enter into a deal like the Novell/MS one? Does it really matter whether linuz remains v2 when so many critical components will be v3?
The GPLv3 as it is currently writen doesn't forbid anything like this. And if it did, it would be the dumbest thing ever. There are two main reasons for this.

1: If the GPLv3 code places any further restrictions on GPLv2 code, it is incompatible with the GPLv2 license and cannot be used. The GPLv2 license has been around first so it will take supreamecy. So, it the FSF automagicly changes thier licenses to GPLv3 and use this to place restrictions on the GPLv2 licenses distbuted with it, then they won't be able to include thier software with anything inclucing the GPLv2. And it doesn't matter what exceptions the GPLv3 has, It is a matter of compatibility with v2.

2: This is probably the most stupid of why it is stupid i cannot believe they havn't thought of it before making statments like this. If this is true, Microsoft could simply wait for the FSF to change over to the GPLv3 license with this restriction and then issue a blanket exemption to lawsuits to anyone who got their code directly form the FSF but not allow it to follow to downstream providers. This will make the FSF lose it's right to use GPLed software. Imagine them wanting that to happen!

Now, to expand a little, Microsoft could do this to any distribution or project that is sees as threatening. So when a distro becomes popular enough, thye pop the promise not to suit and then they have effectivly beaten that threat becuase they cannot use free software any more.

We need to follow the bank accounts and other expsense records of these people saying this. No one is beyond approach given the right circumstances. All it does is tell companies who are thinking of switching because of vista to go ahead an count on vista!. Microsoft coulod buy a marketing program like this. Unless they already have!

War is peace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18432241)


Perens read a statement from RMS affirming the GPLv3 would not allow companies to enter deals like this


Hooray for Phreedom!

Re:War is peace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18432391)

Monopoly is choice?

Re:War is peace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18432405)

Yeah... kind of an oxymoron with respect to OSS, isn't it. The code is free as in beer, and free as in speech, but you can't do *that* with it, or *that*, or *that over there*.

Re:War is peace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18432543)

The code isn't free, the user is. Idealy all users of the code in question are free, that is what copyleft licenses try to insure. Everyone gets the same freedoms with the GPL.

Re:War is peace (1, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432921)

The code is free as in beer, and free as in speech, but you can't do *that* with it, or *that*, or *that over there*.


Even free speech involves responsibilities.

^ Why is parent modded flamebait? ^ (3, Insightful)

Anti-Trend (857000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18434223)

Even free speech involves responsibilities.

Why is the parent modded flamebait? This seems pretty reasonable to me. When the constructors of the US Constitution drafted the first amendment, I'm sure that yelling "fire!" maliciously in a crowded public building wasn't what they had in mind. Instead, it's a specific type of freedom which has a few limitations. However, these limitations are important to preserve the function and spirit of said rights. The same goes for the GPL.

By releasing code under the GPL, I'm saying effectively, "you can have my code for free, and even change whatever you want, provided you don't restrict anyone else from doing the same." The BSD license allows the author to say, "use whatever you like, and you can close up my source code and not share with anybody if you want to." If that license is more attractive to you, than by all means, release your code under the BSD license instead of GPL. But like me, many people want the guarantee of the continuing freedom of the code they release. For those of us who feel that way, the GPL is exactly the right license.

Re:War is peace (2, Insightful)

iPaul (559200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432491)

GPL =/= do whatever you like. The GPL is actually a restrictive licensing agreement. It governs how you use the product, how you can realease something based on that product, what you can incorporate that product into, and in some cases how you release what you create with that product. People confuse GPL == Free as in beer == Do as you will. GPL has built in protections to ensure that anything derived from the GPL is also encumbered the same way as the GPL. Note that *I like the restrictions* GPL puts on code, derivative works, and how it can be used. I'm not an expert, but if you want complete freedom, I think the BSD license is actually a more liberal license than GPL. If Novell is doing something that violates the GPLv3 license, they are welcome to switch to software licensed under different, less restrictive licenses. However, until then, if I release something under GPL I want it to stay under GPL in every sense of the word. That includes vendors falsley claiming customers need to buy a license in order to use my code or use something that uses my code.

Re:War is peace (5, Informative)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432649)

GPL doesn't restrict anything. Copyright laws do. GPL, as the L in the initials says, is a license that exempt you from the no-distribution no-derivative-work limitations that is the core of the copyright concept, as long as you agree with the GPL conditions. How can people distort that simple reality and say GPL restricts freedom is a mystery to me.

It is simple as that. Without GPL, fair use aside, you cannot (legally) use, you cannot derive, you cannot distribute. With GPL, as long as you grant the same rights when you distribute, you can. Now tell me again, how GPL restricts any freedom? How can a license to restrict a freedom that you didn't have in the first place?

Re:War is peace (1)

iPaul (559200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433077)

As a license, the GPL uses copyright law so that it can be enforced. Copyright law allows authors who publish software under the GPL to enforce their rights against companies that steal their code by incorporating the code into products or derived works without making the source available, publishing their patches, etc. You own the copyright on your work unless you assign it to someone else. The GPL is a tool that allows you to license your work for use by other parties. I think the notion of the GPL being a free license and an unencumbered license is the confusion. I look at the GPL as a license the same way I look at other licensing tools. If Novell is violating the GPL in their licensing arrangement with MS, there is open source software available under other licensing regimes.

You could put your work under a different license that allowed users to modify and re-distribute the software in any manner they would like, with or without source code, having to release their changes, etc. That are less encumbered licensing options than releasing it under the GPL, which prevents the licensee from engaging in certain behaviors. The GPL is a great license. I would like to see people treat it just as seriously as they do the license they received for buying Windows or Oracle. Just because they did not pay a dime to acquire the source code, should not mean they can disregard the GPL and claim end users need to purchase additional licenses to use the software.

Re:War is peace (2, Insightful)

bnenning (58349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433135)

GPL doesn't restrict anything. Copyright laws do. GPL, as the L in the initials says, is a license that exempt you from the no-distribution no-derivative-work limitations that is the core of the copyright concept, as long as you agree with the GPL conditions. How can people distort that simple reality and say GPL restricts freedom is a mystery to me.

Well said.

It is simple as that. Without GPL, fair use aside, you cannot (legally) use, you cannot derive, you cannot distribute.

Actually, you don't need a license to merely run software you've legally acquired. See 17 USC 117 [bitlaw.com] . That's why the copyright lobbies keep making the inane argument that when you walk into a store and exchange money for a product, you don't actually own anything.

Re:War is peace (5, Insightful)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433323)

GPL doesn't restrict anything. Copyright laws do.

A lot of people would disagree with that. Hell, the GPL [gnu.org] disagrees with that:

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

See? "restrictions". Just because they are lesser restrictions than the default case of "no rights at all", that doesn't mean they ain't restrictive.

I'm a big fan of the GPL myself, but let's try not to sacrifice accuracy to zealotry here.

Re:War is peace (4, Insightful)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433897)

See? "restrictions". Just because they are lesser restrictions than the default case of "no rights at all", that doesn't mean they ain't restrictive.

That's semantics. GPL doesn't restrict anything that you would be able to do with standard copyright law. Copyright law says you can't do A, B, C, D and E. GPL says you can now do A, B, C. How is that restricting?

Notice, I'm not denying GPL has more conditions than BSD or Public Domain. All I'm saying is that has one goal, to make sure any software and all its derivatives under that license will be able to be freely run, studied, derived and distributed. They never hid that goal, it is the GNU manifesto, for god sake. If they could simply say that, in a clear and unambiguously way, such confusions would never exist in the first place. But because of the likes of Tivo, Novell and others, that will try to find a loophole and release derivative works without granting those rights, FSF has to created this tangled network of legalese, to close as many holes as they can.

Re:War is peace (5, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433943)

"Restrictive" is not the opposite of "free" though, which is what the GGP was implying.

I am not free to own slaves. Am I restricted, or is everyone else more free? The answer is everyone is more free because nobody can own slaves.

Similarly, the GPL only restricts your ability to restrict others. This means the fewest restrictions for all. Isn't that the most freedom possible? Free to do anything but take freedom from others.

The GPL's restrictions are only anti-free to those who think only of themselves. The GPL is not for them.

Re:War is peace (1)

Locklin (1074657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433817)

Real freedom always has one restriction -you are not free to infringe on other people's freedom.

Thats the only restriction the GPL(v2 or v3) sets out to enforce.

Re:War is peace (1)

B2382F29 (742174) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432657)

It governs how you use the product,

No it does NOT. Go read the GPL. It governs distribution, you can use it any way you like as long as you don't distribute it. (Contrary to e.g. an EULA)

Re:War is peace (1)

iPaul (559200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432789)

Sorry, I was being a little loose with my English. This is what I mean, by example:

If you use a GPL product as part of a wireless router product, for example, and make changes to the source support your wireless router, and you do not release those changes you can be in violation of the GPL.

Sorry for the confusion.

Re:War is peace (3, Informative)

B2382F29 (742174) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432981)

Then you are distributing the binary inside the router. That is distribution. You can modify it without releasing the sources as long as you only use it in-house. Microsoft could run Linksys Routers with a heavily modified Linux firmware and would not be required to release the source as long as they don't sell/distribute it.

Re:War is peace (1)

bnenning (58349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433171)

If you use a GPL product as part of a wireless router product, for example, and make changes to the source support your wireless router, and you do not release those changes you can be in violation of the GPL.

No, you're in violation of copyright, and you can't invoke the GPL as a defense. If the product was released under standard copyright without the GPL, you'd still be in violation and you wouldn't have the option to comply by releasing your code.

Re:War is peace (1)

quarrelinastraw (771952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432705)

I think you're confusing freedom with not having rules. Being free doesn't mean being able to do whatever you want, that's called anarchy. Freedom always has "restrictive" like the GPL for software, the Bill of Rights for political rights. It would be foolish to argue that we aren't free politically because there are restrictions on, say, whether the government can force us to quarter soldiers. So yes the GPL has restrictions, but that's WHY it's free, since all of those rules are to ensure the freedom of the sourcecode. The BSD has fewer restrictions, which makes it less free.

Re:War is peace (1)

radarjd (931774) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432857)

Freedom always has "restrictive" like the GPL for software, the Bill of Rights for political rights. It would be foolish to argue that we aren't free politically because there are restrictions on, say, whether the government can force us to quarter soldiers

I don't think that's an appropriate analogy. The Bill of Rights restricts the government, not me. The Bill of Rights prevents the [federal] government from passing laws on certain things. The GPL, on the other hand, most certainly does restrict the individual who wants to further distribute the software.

So yes the GPL has restrictions, but that's WHY it's free, since all of those rules are to ensure the freedom of the sourcecode. The BSD has fewer restrictions, which makes it less free.

Curious. Does that mean that items in the public domain are _not_ free? And by further implication, would you argue that some copyright law is better than no copyright law?

Re:War is peace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433033)

That is the most ass-hatted double speak I have ever heard. Is the kool-aid really that tasty?

Re:War is peace (1)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433935)

I think you're confusing freedom with not having rules. Being free doesn't mean being able to do whatever you want, that's called anarchy.

Assuming you're American (and my most humble apologies if you aren't), you've been brought up to believe that you have freedom, which is why I think you're making this statement. Anarchy is freedom, what you have is certain freedoms tempered by rules. I'm not saying this is a bad thing - one man's freedom is another man's oppression, so rules are necessary for the functioning of normal society. I suspect these are the kinds of rules you're talking about that are encapsulated in the GPL, and your use of the word 'freedom' is only the political definition of the word that you've grown up with.

Just to underline my point, you talk about fewer restrictions making the BSD [licence] less free. One of the definitions of the word 'freedom' in whatever dictionary Apple uses for its Dictionary.app is:

freedom

noun

  • ...
  • unrestricted use of something : the dog is happy having the freedom of the house when we are out.
  • ...

Re:War is peace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433607)

We always need boundaries in order to protect our freedom...

You are confusing the freedom that we want (freedom to use/re-use/edit/customize/whatever) to ABSOLUTE freedom (were others can take our software and remove our ability to edit/access them)

Re:War is peace (2, Insightful)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432599)

and exactly what are "deals like this"? An agreement between two companies not to sue each other's customers -- at least that's what has been made public so far. Is the hidden "all your base" clause not revealed until you buy Suse? Since the deal, so far as I know, does not inhibit or put additional restrictions on Linux, I don't see how GPLv3 gets involved. Can anyone tell me?

Re:War is peace (2, Informative)

unum15 (695402) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433059)

In his speech Peren compares the deal to a protection racket. Novell has hired MS(yes I know the money goes the other way around) to be their goon. MS is going around telling people, "pay Novell or something bad may happen to you".

unum

Software Patents in US are the problem (5, Informative)

schwaang (667808) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433477)

Finally this thread is getting somewhere.

Copyright law is the mechanism by which GPL works, but SOFTWARE PATENTS are the real issue here, as Bruce explains very well in his talk.

The "protection racket" is about the patents that MS implies Linux infringes on. And as Bruce points out, pretty much any non-trivial software probably infringes on someone else's software patents.

That's because software patents in the USA have been doled out too easily. They are absurd.

What's worse, Bruce explains, there is actually a _penalty_ for trying to figure out if your own software infringes. Because if you can be shown to have infringed on a patent you actually know about, the damages are tripled.

Small companies and individual software developers are at the biggest risk. Because big companies have portfolios of patents that they routinely cross-license, thereby protecting themselves from each other. The small guys are locked out. And of course, little guys don't have the money to maintain a legal defense even when they are totally in the right, forcing them to settle.

Software patents in the US are the problem.

Re:War is peace (1)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433153)

...I don't see how GPLv3 gets involved. Can anyone tell me?

Of course not. Well, someone might, but no one here. First of all, perhaps 1/10% of all slashdotters understand the ramifications of GPLV2, let alone V3. Second, mentioning that Microsoft will be involved with Linux in some way creates such overpowering waves of cognitive dissonance in most slashdotter's minds that all reason is overwhelmed and the mind is reduced to repeating a mantra of "bad...bad...bad..."

Is the hidden "all your base" clause not revealed until you buy Suse?

We use Novell and Suse here where I work, and although the EULA says that I will have to give up my firstborn for telling you this, the kid's a brat so here goes: Bill Gates doesn't get all your base, only half [twoguys.org] .

Re:War is peace (2, Interesting)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433797)

and exactly what are "deals like this"?

The GPL says you can't distribute anything covered by its terms unless the people you distribute to have the rights to distribute passing on all the rights you passed on to them. So whatever benefits I confer when I give you a GPL program, they have to also apply when you give a copy to someone else. It's to stop some sneaky tricks that could otherwise be used to effectively take a project proprietary.

So, under this clause, Novell couldn't buy a licence from MS (assuming there is in fact any basis for a licence) that would benefit their customers unless the same licence also applied to recipients further downstream. Or at least they could - but that would contravene the terms of the GPL, which would mean Novell had no licence to distribute at all.

So, instead of MS giving Novell the rights directly, they've made a deal where they grant them to Novell customers, rather than Novell making the grant. It's a technicality used to evade the intent of the licence. If that doesn't sound so bad, imagine (as Jeremy Allison pointed out) Microsoft's likely response if someone found a clever loophole and used it do distribute MS Office without paying MS for the privilege.

The reason they went to all this trouble is so that Novell can try and pressure people into buying only from them, and so MS can get a cut of the income from Linux. Basically Novell is the skinny kid standing by the school gate saying "see my big friend over there? Well he promises not to beat you up, but only if you give me all your lunch money" Except that Microsoft is muttering under its breath "unless I really feel like it"

So that's what they're going to stop when they say "deals like this"

HTH

Re:War is peace (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18434111)

The GPL says you can't distribute anything covered by its terms unless the people you distribute to have the rights to distribute passing on all the rights you passed on to them. So whatever benefits I confer when I give you a GPL program, they have to also apply when you give a copy to someone else. It's to stop some sneaky tricks that could otherwise be used to effectively take a project proprietary.
corect nbut used entirly wrong in supporting the GPLv3 novell problem. You can only give rights you have to give. Novell doesn't have the right of microsoft not suiing their customers. Microsoft is the only who can have or give this right. Unless novell adds something that has the pattent to it, this doesn't even come into effect. But the license already has provisions about pattents and such. Novell has never shown they were intending to violate that.

Think about it this way. If the FSF switched everything to the GPLv3, All I would have to do is promise not to suit their customers but not extend the promise to downstream providers. Now under your interpretation of the GPLv3, the FSF has lost their right to distribute GPLv3 code. This isn't or at least shouldn't be the intent of the GPLv3. The only way it can be enforced is if you, hold the patten rights or whatever and then give the promise not to suit. Novel doesn't own the rights to microsoft's pattent so them not giving the right is perfectly expectable.

Something else would be the GPLv2 code it is distributed with. If it places further restrictions on current GPLv2 code, as this interpretation would, It cannot be distributed together. Exceptions aside or not, the new GPLv3 cannot wrangle something into the system by claiming an exception but then enforce the restriction without triguring the GPLv2 clause of no further restrictions! The Two licenses are incompatible and will creat some expensive legal challenges. Besides fracturing the compunity even more, It is likely to drain some distro's into recievership to their craditers. This too, i don't belive is an indended result of the GPLv3 or this interpretation.

Re:War is peace (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18434383)



My copy of GPLv2 says: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope." So my reading would have been that patent infringement lawsuits were not covered. As for whether Novell can buy a license which protects their customers from infringement lawsuits, that's one for the lawyers.

My copy of the GPLv2 says nothing about "passing on" rights. In fact, it says that the people who get a copy from you get their license to distribute from the original copyright holder and not from you. In fact, once they have a copy, you aren't involved anymore, so any deal that you make with some third party can't affect their use of the software.

The section I think you are referring to is: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." I don't see anything in the Novell deal that is imposing furhter restrictions.

You say "The reason they went to all this trouble is so that Novell can try and pressure people into buying only from them" Wow. I'm glad you know all the details of the deal, the intent of the two companies and the legal rules that apply. Thanks for sharing that.

Re:War is peace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18434117)

sure, the patent covenant [microsoft.com] that Novell has accepted on behalf of their customers and opensuse developers (do they even have the legal right to make a deal on their behalf?) puts additional restrictions on redistribution and makes distinctions between uses and source of the code(commercial vs. hobbyist) and also grants additional rights to some developers which they cannot pass on [boycottnovell.com] , in violation of GPL v2 Section 6 (in my opinion). The question is, do you accept the terms and conditions of the ms community commitment by being a Novell/SUSE user/developer/customer?

Re:War is peace (1)

utlemming (654269) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433609)

The FSS's problem with the deal is that it means that Novell is saying that Linux is not free.

Forgive my obvious stupidity, but doesn't putting any restriction, including the GPL make the software not free?

And no, I am not trying to troll. I just can't figure out why this is such a hot issue.

Re:War is peace, Novell is Minitrue (2, Interesting)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 7 years ago | (#18434137)

Complete freedom is impossible. If you have free speech, I can't have the freedom to duct-tape your mouth closed and break your typing fingers just because I don't like what you're saying.

Just like the US Constitution, as amended, enshrines some rights (like freedom of speech) and bars others (arbitrarily duct-taping mouths shut), the GPL enshrines some rights and not others. The freedoms the FSF are interested in are the freedoms to use and modify software, and redistribute as you like. If you receive GPLed software, you are granted these freedoms, and denied the ability to restrict these freedoms for others. (You also have all the freedom granted by copyright law; the GPL allows you to do things copyright law would normally forbid, rather than forbidding things copyright would normally allow.)

The FSF objects to Novell claiming by implication that Linux is encumbered by Microsoft's patents, meaning that nobody has the right to modify or redistribute Linux without Microsoft's permission, meaning that Linux is not Free Software by their definition.

"Rain on the parade" ?? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18432293)

Only a handful of reporters attended Perens' briefing, whereas nearly 6,000 people from 83 countries packed a Salt Palace ballroom to hear Novell President Ron Hovsepian and other executives describe the company's newest technological offerings. [from the linked Salt Lake Tribune article]

Sounds to me that Perens showed up at the parade under bright, sunny skies and attempted to use a half-broken toy squirt gun. "No, really, its rain, trust me!"

People hold high expectations on Novell (5, Interesting)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432417)

People hold high expectations on Novell, and I really don't know why. Of course they "bought" Suse [slashdot.org] in 2003, the Mono project, and some other free software projects. but Novell was, is and will always be a proprietary software company. They don't care about Free Software, they are not into it for the ideals. Back them they saw an opportunity to make money off free software, so they invested, made some money but, in the end, they would dump everything in a heartbeat and partner with Microsoft if it is more profitable for them.

And that's the beauty of Free Software. They can dump Linux and Free Software all they want, if they do, as fast as it takes, a fork for all projects that they are personally involved (Suse, Gnome, Mono, from the top of my head) will pop up and continue almost as nothing has happened.

And I really wish that happens. I don't like the way they are handling Gnome, ignoring completely the community in order to satisfy Novell's aims and goals (mostly, appease to Windows "converted" users. The recent created Gnome Control Panel is a copy of Windows Control Panel, except that it is slow and cluttered like Win 3.11 Program Manager). That, and things like bundling Mono, pfff. But that's another subject, that doesn't belong here.

Just a heads up. Novell has done nothing to deserve your trust. Don't look surprised when they finally misbehave.

That's the problem with Novell. (4, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432523)

They did not understand Free / Open Source software.

They paid $210 million for SuSE. Why?

The more intelligent approach would be to hire developers who would submit patches that you wanted to the various projects that you're interested in.

Then you Open the protocols that you control that you want to see more widely adopted. And pay developers to incorporate those protocols.

Novell had the idea that it can acquire Linux by buying Linux distributions and projects. When this didn't pay out, Novell decided to "partner" with Microsoft in search of some more money.

Re:That's the problem with Novell. (1)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432731)

Here [newsforge.com] is a possible answer, in an article from 2003, the time of the announcement of the buyout:

Investors seem to think Novell (NOVL) was wise to buy SuSE. Novell stock spiked to $8.80 soon after the purchase announcement hit the wires, and closed the day at $7.33, up 21.16% from the previous day's $6.05 close.

Not that different than when AOL and Time Warner merged. Company makes a risky move, investors like, shares go up, someone sells and profits, company sinks, board changes, company makes a risky move ...

Re:That's the problem with Novell. (2, Insightful)

killjoe (766577) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432819)

"They paid $210 million for SuSE. Why?"

If you look at it's history it has a spectacularly bad record of buying software and technologies for no apparent reason and then selling them at a loss when they don't know what to do with them.

It's really one of the most badly managed companies around.

Re:People hold high expectations on Novell (1)

iPaul (559200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432729)

I agree completely. Their first interst is making money. However, they've built their brand in recent years as being friendly to open-source developers. I would like to see their reputation as an "open-source friendly" company evaporate as a result of this deal. I would like to see projects notify Novell to stop shipping their code in the Novell distro - because they're violating GPLv3. I don't want to other vendors to cave to Microsoft. Part of it is ignorance and people confuse GPL with "giving it away," and consequently have little respect for something for which they did not pay money. I would like people in the industry to understand that GPL is a choice of license, but just as important and valid as a closed source license. As far as cow-towing to the preceived need to make it all "Window friendly," I agree. Who's interested in a clone of what you already have?

Re:People hold high expectations on Novell (5, Insightful)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432947)

I have to disagree with ya there. Sure, they are a commercial company and their goal is to make money. Big Surprise! However, in this effort, they have contributed a substantial amount of code to the kernel, gnome, and numerous other projects. I'm as uneasy about a deal with MS as anyone, but to start bashing them because they are a commercial company and they contribute to Linux is a bit short sighted.

I don't like the way they are handling Gnome

If you do not like, what they have done with gnome, then you can contribute or use KDE, XFCE, twm, etc.

appease to Windows "converted" users

Are you kidding me? Softening the transition (which is an option btw, you can change this), would be a smart move for all linux developers. If we create a completely foreign system, then it is that much harder to get people to use, promote and contribute to linux. Otherwise we are left with a select few and linux stays in the basement.

bundling Mono, pfff

I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of users that are locked in because they rely on .NET apps. If you supply mono, then there is a better opportunity they can transition their current custom apps and use linux.

Novell may not be my favorite Linux company, but you can't discount the contribution because of unfounded "fears" about "some day they will ruin linux". If they walked away today, I would at least say "Thank you for all that you had contributed". Without companies like, IBM, Novell, RedHat, Canonical and others, linux would still be where it was at 5-6 years ago. Today it is a viable alternative to MS Windows for the desktop, and is replacing Solaris, AIX and HP-UX in record numbers.

It's all about .NET, C# and the CLR (4, Informative)

mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433713)


People hold high expectations on Novell, and I really don't know why. Of course they "bought" Suse in 2003, the Mono project, and some other free software projects. but Novell was, is and will always be a proprietary software company.

It's all about Mono.

While C# certainly doesn't have nearly the installed code base that Java has, ".NET" is pulling even with [and might even have surpassed] "J2EE":

J2EE, 8244 jobs [dice.com]

.NET, 9384 jobs [dice.com]

As much as everybody loves to hate the guy, Ballmer was 100% correct when he said that it's all about "developers, developers, developers", and if you think ".NET" isn't the hottest thing in the programming market right now, then, well, you've been asleep at the wheel for the last five years.

Mono is the ace up Novell's sleeve; with the Microsoft agreement, they are assured that they've got something that Red Hat doesn't have, that Oracle won't have [with the upcoming "Oracle" Linux], and that even IBM or Sun wouldn't have, if they were to roll their own Linuxes, which is to say: An ironclad guarantee that their flavor of Linux will play nice with .NET.

The fat fuck needs to STFU (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18432509)

EOM

Obligatory Groklaw Link (2, Interesting)

giafly (926567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432547)

With so much FUD in the air, I am glad we get our own reports like this, with audio, so we can reach our own conclusions [... Anonymous:] The biggest mistake SCOG has made, and MS is continuing to make from the very begining of targeting Open Source: It's a community the likes of which has never formed before. It's a community without Country borders. A community that chooses to communicate and protect itself the world-wide.
Groklaw [groklaw.net]

Re:Obligatory Groklaw Link (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 7 years ago | (#18434399)

The biggest mistake SCOG has made, and MS is continuing to make from the very begining of targeting Open Source: It's a community the likes of which has never formed before. It's a community without Country borders. A community that chooses to communicate and protect itself the world-wide.
Coders Sans Frontieres!

Is anything Novell offers under GPL3? (2, Insightful)

Cr0w T. Trollbot (848674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432575)

Yeah, Microsoft is evil, Novell stupid, etc. etc., yadda yadda, but is anything Novell offers actually released under GPL3? Linus has stated he intends to keep the Linux under GPL2. If Novell isn't offering anything released under GPL3, why should they care?

- Crow T. trollbot

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3? (1)

hansonc (127888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432689)

Oh crap I agree with Cr0w T Trollbot. What's this world coming to when a troll makes sense?

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3? (3, Informative)

Alioth (221270) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432725)

Because all the GNU tools that Linux depends upon (most significantly the entire toolchain they rely on to build the software) _will_ be GPL3 when GPL3 comes out. This means they either have to spend money to maintain the old GPL2 tools themselves or find alternates. No alternative currently exists for gcc which is free software.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3? (2, Interesting)

Doctor Memory (6336) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433343)

No alternative currently exists for gcc which is free software.
I find it hard to believe there are no other OSS/free C/C++ compilers. Yes, I know GCC does more than C/C++, but what more would you need to build the kernel and userland? If the hammer came down, I'm sure it wouldn't be too much trouble to pick up some other compiler and put the work into it to get it to fit in the spot GCC left behind. I mean, GCC's an impressive piece of software, sure, but it's not like you couldn't get another compiler if you had to.

Actually, now that I think about it, why even worry? What improvements are they going to put into GCC anyway? Additional back-ends for new architectures, some bug fixes, but it's not like C or C++ are going to undergo any radical evolution that'll require massive changes.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433589)

Ah, but you forget about all the tools that make a kernel useable. There's at last count 5.316 GNU packages - all moving to GPK 3. And the vast majority of them are included in most every Linux distro - including SuSE. It's not just GCC. It's make. configure. bash. gpg. parted. awk. autoconf. binutils, coreutils, fileutils - you know - all the stuff that operates in userspace outside the kernel?

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433661)

Ahh.. but if the GPLv3 packages place further restrictions on the GPLv2 licensed software it is being included with, you will find 5.316 GNU packages without a kernel to operate on.

It isn't a matter of what the GPLv3 says, it is a matter of what the current GPLv2 says. They cannot exempt around this with wording in a new license!

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3? (1)

deKernel (65640) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433977)

Oh how can you say that. Hurd is just around the corner........oh wait.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433733)

The GNU debate depends ENTIRELY on the state of the finalized version of GPLv3.

If it is not to corporations' liking (i.e. respects their IP rights and ability to deal those rights freely) then the GPLv2 fork will be the stronger because of it.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433017)

You say that as if Novel is offering much at all. Others are, Novel is mostly packaging them.

GPL 3 (2, Insightful)

hansonc (127888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432583)

Why am I starting to get the feeling that outside of the FSF no one is going to adopt v3?

So what? Novell just goes ahead and forks all the FSF stuff now and leaves the licensing as GPL 2 they're well within their rights not to accept a more restrictive (to them) license.

Re:GPL 3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18432783)

Why am I starting to get the feeling that outside of the FSF no one is going to adopt v3?


And Samba?

Oh yeah, anyone outside of the FSF and Samba.

Novell just goes ahead and forks all the FSF stuff and Samba now and leaves the licensing as GPL 2.

Re:GPL 3 (5, Interesting)

Alioth (221270) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432785)

That will put them at a significant competitive disadvantage to the likes of RedHat. They will be saddled with maintaining old versions of very complex software (like the entire gcc toolchain, plus binutils and the like) - whereas companies who are not pariahs will just continue using the latest GPLv3 versions of this software. Novell's costs will therefore be significantly higher since they can no longer benefit from the work of the actual package maintainers themselves.

Re:GPL 3 (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433723)

Why is it that people think Novel will be the only ones maintianing a fork? It sounds reasonable to belive that other companies like Tivo and such would be just as interested.

So, lets say we have a GPLv2 comercial fork. Is that bad? I mean competition is good right?

This doesn't even goto mention that the GPLv3 doesn't ocme close as it is currently writen to doing this. Novell has nothing to worry about useing the GPLv3 software. Likewise the FSF and anyone who uses the GPLv3 have more to worry about the GPLv3 than Novell, Tivo or even me.

Re:GPL 3 (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433361)

"Why am I starting to get the feeling"

Because you're not looking close enough?

Samba seems like they'll be moving and even Sun has sounded positive. Most anyone who's made an informed decision to use the GPLv2 is likely to move as v3 is merely a continuation of the exact same policy, updated to handle new issues.

The linux kernel is an exception; not particularly surprising as Linus has never been particularly aligned with the FSF ideas (witness the former choice of a non-free versioning system...).

Novell is free to fork. But that'd basically mean they'd be maintaining on a one-way street; anything they update on v2 forks can be adopted by v3 projects, while they could use nothing of the v3 licensed code.

In a way Novell and MS has done the FSF a favour by pointing out this particular loophole before GPLv3 was released.

nothing good? (2, Interesting)

nanosquid (1074949) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432721)

The conclusion of the meeting? Nothing good is coming from this deal between Microsoft and Novell.

My understanding is that, as part of the deal, Microsoft is actually distributing SuSE Linux.

Doesn't this mean that they themselves are distributing the software they might be claiming patents on? And doesn't that mean that, for practical purposes, have given up their right to assert the patents against any GPL'ed software that is part of SuSE Linux?

I'm sure this wasn't Microsoft's intention, but it looks to me like it's a result of this deal.

Re:nothing good? (1)

rongage (237813) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432843)

No - you don't "give up the right to assert a patent" through inaction. You are thinking of trademark where if you don't vigorously defend your trademark, you can and often will loose it.

A patent can only become unenforceable by either reexamination from the USPTO, federal court decision, or definitive action from the patent holder itself (like a covenant not to enforce or a donation to a third party, etc).

You can hold a patent and do nothing with it for years, then all of a sudden decide to enforce it. Perfectly legal - think UniSys and the LZW patent covering the GIF format.

Re:nothing good? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433669)

But by distributing a patent implementation under the GPL then allows for further distribution under the same terms of the GPL.

Re:nothing good? (1)

nanosquid (1074949) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433775)

No - you don't "give up the right to assert a patent" through inaction.

That's correct. The point you're missing is that Microsoft has actually acted: they have distributed the software under the GPL themselves (that's part of the Novell/Microsoft agreement, and Microsoft is actually required to distribute the software). It looks like Microsoft therefore has granted transferable rights to all applicable intellectual property to the recipients of the software.

Distribuiting Coupons (1)

Mariner28 (814350) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433823)

Doesn't the agreement call for Microsoft to distribute coupons redeemable for SuSE licenses? If so, then they're legally not distributing GPL software.

IANAL, etc...

Re:nothing good? (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 7 years ago | (#18434321)

It looks like Microsoft therefore has granted transferable rights to all applicable intellectual property to the recipients of the software.
i think they acknowledge that the recipients of the software from MS and Novell have rights to it. the question is if MS distributing SuSE has impact on MS's claims against people using a version of Linux that they haven't indemnified

Bruce WHO? (-1, Flamebait)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432881)

Bruce Perens


Bruce WHO? He brought a PR team to record and publicize the event and "what this guy does" doesn't even make the slug?

Re:Bruce WHO? [oblig response coming] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433557)

/. response #3 "You must be new here..."

Re:Bruce WHO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433579)

Perens is an idiot. He's become irrelevant and is now nothing but a media troll.

Re:Bruce WHO? (1)

andyr0ck (847274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18434451)

and to prove your commitment to your views you couldn't be arsed putting your name with that comment then? nice. :-)

Re:Bruce WHO? (1)

unum15 (695402) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433691)

He didn't have a very big room. Barely enough for the reporters who showed up. Bruce's "PR Team" consisted of four volunteers. One of which read about it on Technocratti the other three of which were contacted by a Debian Developer at Bruce's request. I at first thought he wanted more people, but when I found out he didn't I waited to contact SLLUG(marc is a novell employee btw), PLUG, OALUG, and FSLC. (I didn't bother with utaug, uphp, or up because I figured most of them would be on atleast one of the LUG lists). If he ever comes to town to stage a protest we'll get the message out before hand. unum

rain??? (1)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432889)

Rain??? It's more like a long deserved vitamin and asparagus saturated PISS!

right on. (1)

Deadbolt (102078) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432973)

Fight the good fight, brother. This deal stinks, and we need to let people know how much it stinks.

But does the GPL3 really prevent these deals? (2, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433089)

As far as I understand, Novell hasn't licenced or acknowledged any Microsoft patent regarding Linux. It was just an agreement not to sue. Novell still doesn't have any explicit right to distribute infringing code. Strictly speaking, if Novell were aware of a patent, they wouldn't be legally permitted to distribute under the patent terms. However, Microsoft would be powerless to stop them through legal means.

The current GPL3 draft doesn't seem to prevent this type of agreement.

Re:But does the GPL3 really prevent these deals? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433779)

lol.. Thank you for a voice of reason. For some reason, i can't help but feel a sigh of relief when reading someone's post who has actualy read the GPL draft and understand what is says.

Microsoft and archair attorneys (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433643)

In case anybody has somehow forgotten... Microsoft went from not existing, to becoming the #1 software producer in the world inside of 25 years. They're one of the smartest, largest, and most profitable companies in the world. Call me crazy, but I'd bet that they have a pretty damn good team of lawyers that had this whole situation figured out a long time before anybody in the public ever caught wind of the MS/Novell deal. You guys can debate about what you think that the law says all you want, and even "PR whore" Bruce Perens can wave his hands around and predict the demise of Microsoft, but I find it very, very hard to believe that Microsoft would make as large a mistake as Bruce and his GPL buddies seem to think that they did.

Re:Microsoft and archair attorneys (1)

JonJ (907502) | more than 7 years ago | (#18434071)

This isn't Microsofts problem, it's Novells. If they don't comply with the GPLv3, then they will not be able to distribute SUSE. Microsoft won't care, they sell Windows.

Anyone wondering if Novell is.. (3, Interesting)

lordmage (124376) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433769)

Going to do a reverse and say they did give all licensing to SCO?

Microsoft lackey Novell Exec "My bad, Here is the papers that say we did give them all UNIX licenses"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?