Biz & IT —

A visual timeline of the Microsoft-Novell controversy

Linux.Ars returns with an illustrated guide to the Microsoft-Novell deal and …

A picture is worth a thousand words

Following the recent deal between Microsoft and Novell, prominent industry figures and numerous members of the open-source community have expressed criticism and concerns. As the controversy has unfolded, the debate has become increasingly antagonistic and confrontational. From dubious intellectual property claims to accusations of appeasement, corporate executives have succeeded in obscuring the facts and reducing the entire debate into a cheap PR conflict.

Are you having trouble following the controversy? Don't worry, you are not alone. The issue itself is complex, but behind the curtain of obfuscation generated by accusatory press releases, irate corporate blog entries, and bizarre petitions, one will find a rather simplistic flame war. For your edification and amusement, we have translated the entire debate into the colorful patois of the average Internet message board and produced an informative visual guide that will illuminate the facts and show you what our favorite confrontational corporate executives are really saying.

It all started at a press conference in early November when Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and Novell CEO Ronald Hovsepian announced that their companies planned to work together to improve interoperability and increase the viability of enterprise virtualization technology. As part of the deal, the two companies created a controversial patent indemnification pact: both companies agreed not to sue each other's customers. Perceived as an admission that the Linux operating system could potentially include Microsoft's intellectual property, critics voiced concerns that Microsoft planned to use the deal to spread misinformation about Linux and open-source software.

Red Hat's corporate secretary Mark Webbink responded to the deal by predicting that Red Hat would "be the dominant player" in the Linux market in one year and that "by that time there wont be any other Linux players." Webbink argued that the deal represented a contradiction for Novell and that the company had "gone off the road a bit" by deviating from a commitment to "freedom and collaboration."

As part of the deal, Microsoft bought $240 million worth of SUSE Linux subscriptions for redistribution, a major financial windfall for Novell. Microsoft also vowed to invest $34 million over five years to create a sales force to promote combined Linux/Windows solutions and an additional $12 million a year for other marketing costs. Standing side-by-side at a corporate press event, Hovsepian and Ballmer shake hands. According to Hovsepian, the two "came together" to focus on giving customers more options and the ability to easily manage and operate a mixed Linux/Windows environment. According to Ballmer, the deal would "really help bridge the divide between open-source and proprietary software."

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer offered to extend the indemnification offer to any Linux distributor willing to fork over a one-time licensing fee. Linux distributor Red Hat declined, condemning the offer as an "innovation tax" and arguing that it would "isolate communities and limit upstream adoption." In response, Microsoft expressed an interest in providing its own indemnification services for Red Hat customers.

Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz criticized the Microsoft/Novell deal, and characterized as "nonsense" the assumption that royalties have to be paid to safely use open-source software. According to Schwartz, "Those that say open source software can't be safe for customers—or that commercially indemnified software can't foster community—are merely advancing their own agenda. Without any basis in fact." Asking if the deal was a result of "drugs in the soda," Sun executive Simon Phipps accused Novell of "affirming software patents", setting "a precedent that open source distributors owe Microsoft money, slander[ing] GNU/Linux as derivative and encumbered, and much more." In response to criticism from Sun executives, Novell developer Miguel de Icaza points out that Sun "signed a similar agreement" with Microsoft in 2004.

Validating the concerns of the open source community members who spoke out against the deal, Ballmer argued that Linux "uses [Microsoft's] intellectual property." Ballmer still hasn't produced any evidence to substantiate his dubious claim, and open source advocates are quick to point out that various Microsoft representatives have been making similar claims without evidence since at least 2004.

In an attempt to distance itself from Ballmer's remarks, Novell issued an open letter to the open source community asserting that the agreement "is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property," and that when the company "entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents."

Microsoft quickly shot back, and issued its own statement saying that the companies "agreed to disagree" about potential infringement and the alleged presence of Microsoft's intellectual property of Linux.

After the public disagreement between Microsoft and Novell, Red Hat executive Mark Webbink decided to fan the flames with a blog entry accusing Novell of appeasement, drawing an analogy between the Microsoft/Novell agreement and the Munich Agreement of 1938 which surrendered a portion of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany without the authorization of the Czech government. Webbink's blog entry marks the fulfillment of Mike Godwin's hypothesis that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

In response to the deal, Mark Shuttleworth took advantage of growing distrust of Novell and tried to convince OpenSUSE developers to join the Ubuntu community. In a message posted to the OpenSUSE mailing list, Shuttleworth claimed that "the position taken by Novell leadership in their contract with Microsoft is hugely disrespectful of the contributions of thousands of GPL programmers and contributors to SuSE," and described Ubuntu as "one option" for developers who were "looking for a new place to get involved that is not subject to the same arbitrary executive intervention." After significant public backlash from members of the Ubuntu and OpenSUSE communities, Shuttleworth issued a public apology.

Now that the steady stream of accusations has died down, the implications of the deal are beginning to become more apparent. Although Ballmer validated the critics' concerns with unsubstantiated patent infringement claims, the claims themselves haven't negatively affected Linux adoption. Microsoft has been making baseless claims about Linux since 2004, and it seems apparent at this point that few outside of the Linux community really take those claims seriously. It is ironic that the Linux community itself raised the profile of Ballmer's patent infringement assertion and perpetuated its relevance with such a vehement response. Regardless of the motivations behind Ballmer's actions, the most detrimental consequence of the entire deal and subsequent fallout is the fragmentation that has resulted from the prevailing divisive attitude that it has engendered in members of the Linux community.

The success of the Linux operating system is largely predicated on the collaboration of the Linux development community, and this petty squabbling impedes that collaboration. What the corporate executives of these companies have declared, with stentorian vehemence, is that they are all abundantly willing to abandon collaboration and take advantage of each other whenever it is convenient.

I don't object to criticism of the deal, because frankly, it seems obvious that Ballmer vindicated the critics, and in retrospect, trusting Microsoft was not wise. I'm not passing judgement on the opportunism of the executives who used criticism of the deal as a means of promoting their own corporate agenda. It's human nature and commonplace. The point I'm making here is that, in the end, the mutual criticism and petty bickering doesn't further the interests of the Linux community and that the negative consequences of the Microsoft/Novell deal will continue to escalate as long as it serves as a catalyst for distrust within the Linux community.

Channel Ars Technica