zz[Various responses to Microsoft/Novell]

completist · 发表于 2006-11-4 09:41:31

http://lwn.net/Articles/207559/
难道Novell又成了开源世界里的又一叛徒？

Various responses to Microsoft/Novell
[Posted November 3, 2006 by corbet]
Quite a few people are trying to figure out what the newly-announced partnership between Microsoft and Novell really means. Here's a selection of postings:
* "I think we're seeing the beginning of the end of Linux, much the way IE was the beginning of the end of Netscape, SQL Server was the beginning of the end of everyone else's desktop database system, and Excel and Word and a good deal more also succeeded in co-opting technology and product options in the marketplace: The ever-tightening embrace of Microsoft eventually assimilates everything that it touches." Josh Greenbaum, ZDNet.
* "Microsoft just said 'uncle' on Linux. They had to save face, so they did it behind a smoke screen of indemnification malarky. The bigger story is that the software game has changed to one of a battle between the 'friends of Linux.'" Dana Gardner, ZDNet.
* "As long as I work on the Fedora Project, Fedora will never compromise on the essential liberties of FOSS nor will it betray the community. But the price of liberty is not free, nor is it comfortable. And unfortunately, some 'leaders' of our community are willing to compromise liberty for short-term convenience. I am disgusted by people like this, and by Novell's betrayal of the community today." Warren Togami.
* "Excuse me while I go throw up. I gather Microsoft no longer thinks Linux is a cancer or communism. Now it just wants a patent royalty from it. Wasn't that kinda SCO's dream at first?" Pamela Jones, Groklaw.
* "Clearly, this news will help Novell...for a few months. But every time partners have tried to prop up Novell (like IBM's investment a few years back), the market has voted Red Hat. Steve Ballmer's vote is not going to stem Red Hat's rise." Matt Asay.
(Log in to post comments)
Bruce Peren's take
Posted Nov 3, 2006 14:47 UTC (Fri) by subscriber scottt [Link]
here .
From the comments:
"Microsoft is bragging in their press release that they found a way around the GPL by "using a covenant", probably a covenant not to sue, we'll have to see the details. Whatever way they do it, they are at least circumventing the spirit of the license, and possibly the letter. Shame on Novell for helping them do that. And doesn't this remind you why we need a GPL3. "
Bruce Peren's take
Posted Nov 3, 2006 16:25 UTC (Fri) by subscriber jsarets [Link]
The GPLv2 makes it clear that code cannot be distributed under the GPL if the recipient would need to acquire any additional licenses (with or without royalties) not granted by the distributor in order to redistribute under the same terms. The gray area here is whether offering an optional service that includes non-transferrable membership in a patent covenant with Microsoft necessarily implies that such protection is required to use and distribute the covered software without violating Microsoft's IP.
If Microsoft asserts that some or all SUSE Linux software infringes on its IP, then Novell cannot distribute this software under the GPL, regardless of its deal with Microsoft. If Microsoft is bluffing and doesn't intend on following this announcement by, say, suing Red Hat, then it stands to question whether Novell's decision to license Microsoft IP necessarily implies that their software infringes this IP. If it does, then Novell would be violating the GPL by distributing this software. If it doesn't, then it isn't clear that the GPLv2 prohibits this deal. It isn't illegal to sell excessive insurance policies, and it wouldn't seem illegal to sell unneeded patent protection for unencumbered GPL software.
The lesson from the SCO case is simple: before we cede ground, implicitly admit that our free software stack is encumbered, and start paying for licenses, we need to know what we're infringing. Novell wants to apologize to Microsoft on behalf of the Linux community for stealing their IP, but we have nothing to apologize for... besides Novell's shameful disregard for the principles of free software and the GPL that governs much of its distribution.
Bruce Peren's take
Posted Nov 3, 2006 17:23 UTC (Fri) by subscriber ghelmling [Link]
Which really raises the question of what the value of this is to Novell and why they even entered into this agreement?
Doesn't this essentially give Microsoft a "remote kill" switch over Novell's Linux business? All they have to do is file a patent infringement lawsuit against anyone for using the Linux kernel and they put Novell in violation of the GPL...
Just like Sun.
Posted Nov 3, 2006 17:49 UTC (Fri) by guest NZheretic [Link]
April 6, 2004 Did Sun Have to to Choose "Between Shame and War"?
April 14, 2004 A 'Very Good Thing' for whom? Microsoft's MCPP
November 29,2004 The conflict between MCPP and Open Source
Finally Sun's James Gosling on February 3, 2005 Java creator questions Sun/Microsoft pact.
SuSE's death
Posted Nov 3, 2006 17:39 UTC (Fri) by subscriber rvfh [Link]
Didn't we kinda know from the start that SuSE was doomed when Novell bought it? We tried hard to believe in it, but really, annoucement after annoucement, things were not looking good.
SuSE running Gnome was a killer for me, as SuSE was really associated to KDE from the beginning. Xgl developped outside of the community was also a stab in the back IMO, showing that Novell was not interested in working with the community, but more in spite of it, and the GPL.
I think it's time to either fork SuSE to give it back its soul, or leave it to rot and use its competitors instead (personally, I didn't touch it ever since Novell bought it).
SuSE's death
Posted Nov 3, 2006 18:58 UTC (Fri) by guest beoba [Link]
Not to be a jerk, but why comment on Novell's influence on SuSE if you haven't used it since Novell bought it? (or am I misunderstanding your last sentence?) I haven't used it, so I don't have any strong opinions about it in either direction.
SuSE's death
Posted Nov 3, 2006 19:17 UTC (Fri) by subscriber drag [Link]
When people say stuff like 'give back suse it's soul'.. they realy mean 'get rid of Gnome and go back to KDE'.
As far as I am concerned Novell was a good thing for Suse.
For instance they open sourced YAST. (which unfortunately was too late to save it in terms of more widespread usage)
SuSE's death
Posted Nov 3, 2006 21:43 UTC (Fri) by subscriber rvfh [Link]
Yes, that's exactly what I meant: SuSE and KDE always were like the two fingers of the hand :-) Putting Gnome as default on SuSE feels like if Ubuntu was changing to KDE and creating a new Gubuntu project for Gnome users. It would lose its soul IMO (and that's from a Kubuntu user!).
SuSE's death
Posted Nov 3, 2006 21:58 UTC (Fri) by subscriber rvfh [Link]
Sorry if I was unclear in my previous post; I was not commenting about user experience, only decisions taken by Novell for SuSE, which are public and reported in this wonderful news site.
I suppose I am not the only one to be of the opinion that Novell killed SuSE's soul, having read about a number of ex-SuSE managers leaving after the 'merge'...
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell
Posted Nov 3, 2006 15:31 UTC (Fri) by subscriber jamesh [Link]
Don't forget Jeff Merkey's take:
Well,
It's official. Microsoft and Novell will now fork Linux.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell
Posted Nov 3, 2006 16:06 UTC (Fri) by subscriber frazier [Link]
"Microsoft gets to wear the white hat and look benevolent, which is not the way they're usually cast in the tableau."
-Laura DiDio
More "insight" from Laura DiDio in this Seattle Times article.
Does this protect Mono from Microsoft?
Posted Nov 3, 2006 16:22 UTC (Fri) by guest xylifyx [Link]
and does it influnce its use in Open Source
Does this protect Mono from Microsoft?
Posted Nov 3, 2006 21:15 UTC (Fri) by subscriber gravious [Link]
Ah hah! There was always this lingering suspicion of Mono running afoul of some MS .Net patent mines. Novell is invested heavily in Mono - this makes tons of sense for them. Also they were one of the first to indemnify against SCO and now they can claim that they are indemnified against the MS patent horde. On principal I think everyone in the Open Source community would rather commit hari kiri than cut a deal with Bill Gates and his minions but we must realise that Novell has been in this business a long time and that they have a lot of assets to protect.
Though I do not use Suse I have seen nothing that would indicate Novell is anything but keen on expanding it's role in the Open Source world. I think caution is wise but the amount of nay-sayers on LWN is a bit depressing at times. Oracle/RedHat - good riddance RH! MS/Novell - good riddance Novell! Just remember all the passionate Open Source/Free Software people these companies employ - they must have some influence on their future directions. Let's not keep yelling "The sky is falling!" every time a commercial deal is struck.
I genuinely believe nothing can stem the flow of one of the most altruistic movements I know. Between the Open Content and Open Source we will pry the fruits of our labour from the greedy hands of those whose sole aim in life is the headlong pursuit of Mammon. You know, their is no end to this struggle (I believe that fervently!) We are just a continuation of any movement that values collaboration/cooperation and sharing more than proprietary gain. Nobody walks blindfolded into a deal with MS these days unless they missed the last 15 years of computing which Novell obviously have not considering they swallowed up arguably the second best distribution out there - barring the rise of Ubuntu.
In other news, have you seen MS has shared source[1] all 3.9 million lines of the new Win CE? Now _that_ is news and a genuinely competitive move to cut off Linux in the embedded space
whaddya reckon?
Anthony
1: http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS6932977445.html
Too much pessimism
Posted Nov 3, 2006 16:43 UTC (Fri) by subscriber josh_stern [Link]
First of all, there isn't enough info in the annoucements to say what significance this really has and everyone commenting should admit this up front. One key question is what, if any, special feature the SuSE distro will end up with as a result of this and the answer is that we don't know, so not much can be said.
That said, my take is that what this and the recent Oracle move are really about is large companies looking with envy at all the money IBM is making in services by leveraging their Linux connection. Oracle and Microsoft want in on that action and its future growth. That is basically a good thing for Linux.
Will Novell survie?
Posted Nov 3, 2006 16:53 UTC (Fri) by guest chel [Link]
INAL, but statistically chances of surviving a partnership with Microsoft are minimal. The deal will at least give more insight in the power of GPL. GPL terms may have as a result that downloading a Suse free distribution gives you imunity against MS patent claims.
Novell can no longer legally distribute Linux, SAMBA and OpenOffice.org
Posted Nov 3, 2006 16:58 UTC (Fri) by guest NZheretic [Link]
Novell has put itself into a legal position where it can no longer distribute any GPL licensed products that infringe on any Microsoft patents covered by the Microsoft-Novell agreement. This includes the Linux kernel, SAMBA and OpenOffice.org.
The GPL Preamble clearly states :-
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
Section seven of the GPL license clearly states :-
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.
Novell does not hold all of the copyrights to the Linux Kernel,SAMBA or OpenOffice.org ( Novell uses and distributes the latter under the terms of the LGPL not SUN's commercial license ), and Novell cannot legally distribute those same GPL licensed products under any license but the GPL. Also any more restrictive terms is a clearly a violation of the GPL!
Both Novell and IBM, in their legal briefs in there cases against the SCO Group, have made it repeatedly clear that the more restrictive SCO IP EULA is a violation of the terms of GPL license. The same GPL license which Caldera, Old SCO and the SCO Group was granted the right to distributed the copyrighted products in the first place.
Novell is in no position to argue that it now has the right to grant it's customers exlusive rights to use the GPL'ed technology that infringes Microsoft's patents. That is a clear violation of section seven of the GPL.
A “covenant not to sue” is just another name for a "license"
For example : The Licensor is agreeing that it will not sue the Licensee for infringement of Licensor’s patent. Just changing the terms used for "Licensor" and "Licensee" does not change the fact that it is plainly clear that the agreement represents a license.
I'm sorry Novell, you have been screwed by Microsoft almost exactly the same way Sun was screwed by Microsoft, but will it take almost a year for you to realise it?
you are premature, I think
Posted Nov 3, 2006 17:13 UTC (Fri) by subscriber JoeBuck [Link]
If Microsoft were to sue someone for patent infringement, and Novell were then to say that paying Novell customers have a patent license, at that point it seems clear that Novell could no longer legally distribute the "infringing" work. But this has not happened yet. We don't know the exact terms of the deal.
All that is needed is the threat of a lawsuit : Declaratory judgment
Posted Nov 3, 2006 17:33 UTC (Fri) by guest NZheretic [Link]
The SCO Group did not directly threaten Redhat, but the just the threat by SCO to Redhat's customers was enough for Redhat to bring a case before the courts.
Also, unlike SCO lawsuit and most patent cases, it would be a lot easier for a copyright holder of the GPL'ed source to demonstrate actual ownership and request a Declaratory judgment.
All that is needed is the threat of a lawsuit : Declaratory judgment
Posted Nov 3, 2006 18:38 UTC (Fri) by subscriber Ross [Link]
Actually I recall them naming Red Hat specifically as a company that (supposedly) was benefiting from the alleged infringement. I also remember one of the company officers said something like "there will be a day of reckoning" for Red Hat. I'm sure you can find some similar quotes in Groklaw's quotes database or on the Web in general...
Nothing much has changed
Posted Nov 3, 2006 17:14 UTC (Fri) by guest irios [Link]
It is still too early to rip our clothes and run screaming naked in the streets. More than anything it looks as though Microsoft has secured the use of some of Novell's patents (most likely in identity management) in exchange for promising to leave Novell alone and giving them some money. These patents could've really rocked Microsoft's boat if things became nasty.
In exchange for that, Novell can assure their customers that they are safe from any action against them coming from Microsoft, which many customers will see as a Good Thing. This is a just covenant between Novell and Microsoft, with a personal promise not to sue, and has nothing to do adding or substracting conditions to the GPL; I'm sure that any of Novell's lawyers understands the GPL at least as well as any of us, and knows much better than risking their rights to the code trying to keep others from distributing the same works.
So, if I'm a large business and I buy SLED or SLES today, I know that I'm safe from Microsoft, because Microsoft has just promised so. If I buy the same stuff from Red Hat or Ubuntu, then I've got no promise, just as nobody had it last week.
And somebody has mentioned this above, and I couldn't agree more: by no means will Microsoft wield a software patent against a competitor until software patents are approved in Europe. Somehow I would like them to attack right now, because that would make software patents way more likely to be defeated here in the EC for good.
Royalties has changed
Posted Nov 3, 2006 17:35 UTC (Fri) by subscriber kh [Link]
Why do I want to purchase SUSE if a portion of my payment is going to be a royalty paid to Microsoft? I would be happy with royalties sent to the FSF, or ODSL, but I want to support free and open standards, formats, and protocols, not patent encumbered ones. This does not seem to help interoperability at all to me.
Nothing much has changed
Posted Nov 3, 2006 20:45 UTC (Fri) by subscriber rfunk [Link]
So, if I'm a large business and I buy SLED or SLES today, I know that I'm safe from Microsoft, because Microsoft has just promised so.
Nope. As soon as Microsoft goes after Red Hat for patent infringement in GPL code, Novell loses the right to distribute the same code. So as a Novell customer you lose support for that code.
Nothing much has changed
Posted Nov 4, 2006 0:39 UTC (Sat) by subscriber mjr [Link]
As soon as Microsoft goes after Red Hat for patent infringement in GPL code, Novell loses the right to distribute the same code. So as a Novell customer you lose support for that code.
IANAL, but since anyone can claim anything, wouldn't it have to stand up in court first? (Settling with less than GPL friendly terms would of course disqualify the settler from distributing, but I don't think others, including Novell, should be affected in this case.)
In the end, the result is the same though if one of these claims goes through trial. Novell just bought some time to react at the expense of a lot of goodwill. That loss is well deserved.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell
Posted Nov 3, 2006 17:31 UTC (Fri) by subscriber jwb [Link]
I'm really interested in the idea that Microsoft has licensed patents to me. OpenSUSE and SLES (or whatever they are calling it these days) both ship my code. According to the press release, contributors to OpenSUSE and SLES are granted license to Microsoft patents. That is dandy indeed. Which patents? I'm planning to violate the heck out of them as soon as I find out.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell
Posted Nov 3, 2006 20:55 UTC (Fri) by subscriber nim-nim [Link]
The covenant is there :
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/community...
Note that for the OpenSuse part you're only covered as a developer if your contribution is integrated in SLES. Also, it seems users of the OpenSuse packages are not covered. Definitely using the same code through another distro is off-limits.
Does this taint any Novell contributed code?
Posted Nov 3, 2006 19:34 UTC (Fri) by guest kornak [Link]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding, code contributed by
Novell is potentially tainted by implication? Never mind the emotional
taint that will affect their product. I think this just might be the
worst business decision they have ever made.
Does this taint any Novell contributed code?
Posted Nov 3, 2006 21:53 UTC (Fri) by guest kornak [Link]
It also occurs to me that Microsoft by implying that they might sue is
enough to threaten the Linux market. They could not in reality risk it since
they risk closer scrutiny of their own chain of code ownership. The threat
is all they need to de-stabalize the market.
Red Hat's Initial response (*NEW* indemnification)
Posted Nov 3, 2006 20:01 UTC (Fri) by subscriber dowdle [Link]
Red Hat posted a piece on their website regarding the Novell/Microsoft announcement. It is rather good reading actually. Not much new though other than the following:
Q: Has anything changed about Red Hat's Open Source Assurance program?
A: While customers have long purchased with confidence from Red Hat, Red Hat will now provide indemnification as an additional protection in its Open Source Assurance program.
Q: What does the additional protection cover?
A: The indemnification further protects against intellectual property infringement claims.
Q: How do customers obtain additional information and sign up?
A: Further information about the program and how to enroll will be provided shortly on redhat.com.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell
Posted Nov 3, 2006 20:14 UTC (Fri) by subscriber danieldk [Link]
And things are getting less pretty:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2050848,00.asp
"Such talks would be a good idea, Ballmer suggested, since now only Novell's SUSE Linux customers are the only Linux vendors that have any assurance that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement."
"The distributors of other versions of Linux cannot assure their customers that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement. "If a customer says, 'Look, do we have liability for the use of your patented work?' Essentially, If you're using non-SUSE Linux, then I'd say the answer is yes," Ballmer said."
Did Novell open the box of Pandora? I guess that we'll see.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell
Posted Nov 3, 2006 20:59 UTC (Fri) by subscriber nix [Link]
Microsoft, the Mafia, what's the difference? Increasingly little in terms
of business methods, that's clear. Business by threat.
Charming.
Various responses to Microsoft/Novell
Posted Nov 3, 2006 20:32 UTC (Fri) by guest petegn [Link]
Does anyone know of a way to remove the Suse license from Novell before it's too late ....
Novelle have been nothing but bad news from day1 now they are selling out to that twat gates and his bunch of W*****S there has got to be a way to stop this once and for all (leagaly of course ;_) know what i mean)
as if that ever bothered me i dont think so gimme a nuke I'll stop the rot dead in it's tracks ... :~)

复制代码

		自动登录	找回密码
密码			注册