more on SUSE

[Alan Dayley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kurt Granroth wrote:
> Alan Dayley wrote:
>> Now, MS claims Linux/FS/OSS violates their "intellectual property" and
>> gets to point at the agreement as "proof" that such violations exist.  A
>> big gun in the FUD battle they constantly wage against Linux/FS/OSS.
> 
> This is the crux of the argument and it's apparently the part that I'm
> far too dense to understand.  There is a giant leap of deduction that D
> follows A without going through B and C first.
- --[clip]--
> But here's the part I'm just not seeing: How do we go from that to
> saying that this agreement somehow is a "big gun"?  Other quotes I've
> seen say it's a betrayal of the Linux community.  How?  If there aren't
> any IP issues with Linux, then the patent deal is meaningless to the
> Linux community.

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

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?
- - 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.
- - 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)

> I keep thinking that a lot of people in the Linux community are secretly
> sure that there *are* patent or IP problems with GNU/Linux and they just
> don't want the issue brought up at all.

In my mind, it is probable that there are patent issues in many FS/OSS
programs.  IMO, as a good community member, Novell should have forced
the revelation of any possible infringement rather than keep them
buried.  If Novell couldn't get them in the open where they can be
addressed, it should not have done a deal that creates fodder for more FUD.

> 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.

> 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.

All this said, I am writing this on my computer running OpenSUSE which I
very much like.  But I did not pay Novell for it and so am not under
their patent protection umbrella.  I'll not ever by a copy of SUSE again
as long as this deal stands.

Alan


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGGu2cDQw/VSQuFZYRAuSwAJ972lGzuAo8VzjiNJnz/+49gKtawQCfV96X
w3Mjd2BYDhKoL8eVKHl/U/U=
=US6M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----