Alan Dayley wrote:
> This is an interview with Bruce Parens fresh from his press conference
> at Novell's Brain Share. He states it much better than I could and
> directly answers your question.
>
> http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail1765.html
> Report from an attendee at the meeting:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070320130321622
I couldn't find a transcript of the interview but the summary from
groklaw includes the two main points:
1. "[I]t sets up the possibility of an extortion racket using patent law
and doctrine"
2. "Microsoft appears to believe they have purchased a new license on FUD"
Honestly, these both still are assuming some direct causality that I'm
just not seeing. Yes, MS is using the deal as a FUD machine. So? MS
has used the GPL itself as a FUD machine for years and we don't think
the GPL is bad. Just because one party is using a deal as an excuse to
be bad (as if MS ever needed an excuse), that doesn't mean the deal
itself is intrinsically bad.
The possibility of an extortion racket is very real. I would be very
surprised if MS *doesn't* try it since it's well up their alley. But
again, how does this deal facilitate that? If they try to use this in
court as a "proof" that there are patent violations then they will be
laughed out of there. The deal is *far* too general to have any real
meaning in a court-room setting.
> My nutshell understanding:
> - If Novell knew there were no patent problems with Linux, why in the
> world are they paying about $40-million dollars a year to MS over the 5
> years of the agreement? The amount of the payment is based on
> percentages of their "Open Platform Solutions and Open Enterprise Server
> revenues" What are they paying for? Just patent problems in their own
> code?
The official word is that that is for the virtualization technology.
Whether you believe that or not depends largely on how much you trust
the Novell CEO to tell the truth, I guess.
> - MS has pledged not to sue "non-compensated" developers
> (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/community.mspx). But,
> this only applies if your contribution is included in SUSE and if you
> don't give the contribution to anyone else.
> -- They (MS and Novell) cut FS/OSS off at the knees with patents
> restricting who and how developers "may" contribute code.
> -- They (MS and Novell) are stating that community code development is
> dangerous for developers.
> -- They (MS and Novell) are stating that the non-corporate, if you will,
> development is unacceptable.
All things that MS is actively doing and using the deal to justify it.
We are seeing a peek into the upcoming MS strategy to dealing with OSS.
But again, just because MS is using the deal in this way doesn't mean it
actually matters. MS could just as easily be doing this without the
deal. What will matter is what happens when this hits the courts.
> - Novell stated in the past that they would use their patent and
> copyright holdings to defend Linux/FS/OSS. That now seemingly only
> applies to their paying customers.
> - Novell has now removed their web pages that supported the Linux/FS/OSS
> community and countered the MS "Get The Facts" campaign.
> (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061119163021490)
Huh... didn't know that they removed that page. I can't say I'm happy
about that :-(
> > All that said, I think the patent part of the deal was a good deal for
> > Novell. MS (Ballmer in particular) is definitely spreading a lot of FUD
> > about how Linux is infringing on so many (completely unspecified)
> > patents. Like it or not, this is keeping a lot of people away from
> > using Linux (obviously MS's goal). Since one avenue into Linux is
> > "protected", though, they can safely get into Linux without worrying
> > about MS chasing them down. Without the deal, I'm sure that those
> > people would have chosen some other path... likely with MS.
>
> Maybe it is a good deal for Novell. It is at the cost of turning their
> back on the community that creates most of their product. I don't see
> how it can be a good long-term deal for them unless the patent issue
> becomes a far stronger practical problem than it FUD-ed to be. I don't
> see that happening because the holders of software patents gain more by
> not having them tested than if they were scrutinized in the open.
I disagree that this deal shows the Novell has completely turned their
back on the community. Novell is still one of the leading companies
that pay OSS developers on a variety of projects (KDE, X, Linux, etc).
And this deal (IMO) doesn't affect the community at all.
I will not deny that the deal has caused Novell to lose the support of a
very vocal part of the OSS community. Clearly a lot of people are very
pissed about this.
> > Now if Novell was licensing specific patents from MS (like for CIFS or
> > SMB) to protect their products than I'd be screaming bloody murder. But
> > I haven't yet seen anything to be upset about.
>
> They won't release specifics because if they do, there is no point to
> the deal for either MS or Novell. If the specific patents were revealed
> and debunked or written around, "Novell Linux" would no longer be
> special since the patent protection would no longer be needed. Novell
> doesn't want the patent problem solved because they gain from it.
True enough.
Kurt
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)