Open Source - do you understand ?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| louwp Dec 15, 2006 8:36 AM EDT |
Hi, I must admin that I fail to understand this irrational reaction to the Novell-MS deal. As I understand it SuSE is Open Source - so whatever Novell does they cannot un-OpenSource SuSE. Especially now that they have cut openSuSe loose from its corporate. So why this fear of TheDeal? Novell can fork Suse they can stop distributing SuSe. But we will still have all the innovations they and others have built into the OpenSource world. The worst Novell can do is NOT make openSuSe work better with MS software. Please correct me if I'm wrong or missing something but I still the TheDeal can only help OpenSource in the long run. Cheers |
| jdixon Dec 15, 2006 8:51 AM EDT |
> As I understand it SuSE is Open Source - so whatever Novell does they cannot un-OpenSource SuSE. No, it's not. SuSE is a distribution, and it contains both open and closed source products. OpenSuSE is the fully open source version. The base upon which SuSE is built is open source, but the distribution itself is not. I believe that Novell has officially renamed the product to SUSE, BTW, capitalizing the u. I prefer the old name, and still use it most of the time. There are fully open source distributions: Fedora, OpenSuSE, Debian, and Slackware, to name a few. Slackware, from memory, is open source but not Free software, as it includes XV and Sun's Java. I can't speak for the others, as I haven't used them as much. |
| dcparris Dec 15, 2006 8:55 AM EDT |
Oh sure, it will bring a few more customers in the short term. I don't question that. It might be good to some extent. But I also worry that it might bring us further into patent issues, rather than helping to eliminate them - which is the reason so many of us are opposed to software patents. It certainly didn't help that Ballmer stirred up the hornets' nest by doing exactly what we expected as a next move. In other words, by Novell signing the agreement, they have given Microsoft that much more power. As for OpenDocument, Novell should have stfiled that. Make Microsoft interoperate with us for a change. That's really the bottom line. We've always had to play by their rules. It's time for a change. And the only way to make that change happen is if we all stand together. |
| tuxchick Dec 15, 2006 9:01 AM EDT |
Given the thousands of words and dozens of articles that have been written, I don't understand how anyone can pop up and ask "So what's the big deal." Color me suspicious. A good starting point is Groklaw, which indulges in the rare habit of backing up articles and opinions with facts: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061203015212989 PJ sums it up nicely: "1. Novell agrees to violate the clear intent and spirit of the GPL in an attempt to comply literally with the words but not with the actual known purpose of the license to make money off of code Novell didn't write and doesn't own. So instead of trying to prove the GPL isn't binding, they just kick it to the curb and step over it and dare the community to do something about it? 2. puts a FUD legal cloud over Linux (this time a patent cloud) or in any case an "IP" cloud, as per Steve Ballmer's vague wording -- and was Darl McBride's less vague?; 3. makes Novell's Linux cost more, because it has agreed to pay Microsoft royalties, whereas SCO asked for money for its license;" |
| dinotrac Dec 15, 2006 9:09 AM EDT |
TC - >I don't understand how anyone can pop up and ask "So what's the big deal." Color me suspicious. My feelings are SO hurt. |
| jdixon Dec 15, 2006 9:14 AM EDT |
> I must admin that I fail to understand this irrational reaction to the Novell-MS deal. Oh, and as for the reaction to the deal, it's fairly easy to understand. First, a stipulation, which most here will agree with: Microsoft is an evil entity which cannot be trusted. Individual Microsoft employees may or may not be trustworthy, but the company as a whole has demonstrated on a repeated basis that they are completely untrustworthy, with absolutely no understanding of what the term corporate ethics means. Now, the facts of the deal as we know them: Novell has apparently agreed to pays Microsoft money for each copy of SuSE sold (exact details of that are still unknown), with no reasons for the payment specified. Microsoft, in return, has paid Novell a much larger sum of money and has agreed not to sue Novell customers. They have agreed to work together to make Windows and SuSe work together better, and Microsoft has received a comparatively large number of SuSE licenses to use as they see fit. Now, interoperabiltiy is interests of both Microsoft's and Novell's customers, so that portion of the deal makes sense for both parties (though, IMO, this would be the first time in recorded history that Microsoft has shown any concern for their "customers"). The rest of the deal is more suspect. The perfectly rational assumption is that Novell is paying off Microsoft to leave their customers alone, while Microsoft is buying SuSE licenses for internal use and use by their customers. The only reason anyone can see for Novell paying off Microsoft is if they believe SuSE violates Microsoft patents. Novell has denied this, but has offerred no other reasonable explanation. So, Novell has made a deal with a completely untrustworthy company which seems to admit to patent violations in their distribution. In the process, they have saddled their customers, without their explicit request or approval, with an agreement with same completely non-trustworthy company; and the agreement is non-transferable. That seems like more than enough to upset people to me. Since I don't use SuSE, the agreement only affects me insofar as I own Novell stock (which I do, though only 15 shares, so I have no real vested interest). However, since I don't trust Microsoft, I'm unwilling to be party to any such agreement, and therefore I will never use SuSE, or recommend it to others. |
| tuxchick Dec 15, 2006 9:19 AM EDT |
Sorry, dino. Here, have a nice glass of Sliwowicz, you'll feel better. Well no, probably not better- I doubt you'll feel anything. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 15, 2006 10:01 AM EDT |
It seems to me that the Novell bashers, including the ones posting on this thread, are forgetting is that Novell doesn't just have SUSE to sell. There is still the very real Netware Client for MS-Windows. There is a very real possiblity that something inside the Netware Client may be infringing on an MS patent. We don't know. What we do know is that *Novell* has explicitly stated that they do not believe *any* SUSE code infringes on MS IP. You can take MS's word for it, or you can take Novell's word - you just have to decide who has proven more trustworthy. As for PJ's article, while Groklaw has had a history of posting facts to back up claims, there is considerable disagreement even there that she provided any facts to back up these particular claims. To re-inforce my point that she doesn't always provide "facts" to support her articles, she also published a entry on Groklaw about how Novell was "forking" OpenOffice.org. Zero facts and a bunch of supposition. It was something I would have expected from the likes of SCOG. So, what I'd like to see beyond the posting of PJ's conclusions is the posting of the evidence to support those conclusions. I have yet to see any real offering of evidence to support the ongoing castigation of Novell with respect to the MS-Novell deal. |
| tuxchick Dec 15, 2006 10:17 AM EDT |
" You can take MS's word for it, or you can take Novell's word - you just have to decide who has proven more trustworthy." Is this a joke? While Microsoft is the world champion of deceit and backstabbing, I don't find Novell's public statements on the deal to be particularly credible either. They don't even agree on what they agreed to. You call this business? I call it "they're both full of it." The bigger question is will it hurt Linux and FOSS in some way? I don't believe it will, but that doesn't mean Microsoft isn't going to try, or be able to inflict some short-term damage through sheer force of tidal waves of bullstuff. How about doing your own homework? Plenty has been already been written about the Novell/Microsoft deal- try reading what has already been written. |
| dinotrac Dec 15, 2006 11:07 AM EDT |
>The only reason anyone can see for Novell paying off Microsoft is if they believe SuSE violates Microsoft patents. Novell has denied this, but has offerred no other reasonable explanation Excuse me, but that's not true, and I take exception to being called no one. First, Novell is not paying off Microsoft. Look at the agreement. Microsoft is paying off Novell. It's the net that matters, and the net is big-time in favor of Novell. Second, people make agreements and issue documents every minute of every day to solve problems they don't even have. They do it for a very simple reason: they need something from somebody else who wants to be reassured that the problem doesn't exist. Don't believe me? Spend some time at a title office. |
| tuxchick Dec 15, 2006 11:29 AM EDT |
oo grrr title insurance. Now I'm mad. Speaking of legal ripoffs... |
| bigg Dec 15, 2006 11:42 AM EDT |
This is getting to be an old topic, but you want to know what is the problem? The problem is that Ron Hovsepian is the CEO of Novell, and he is dumber than Steve Ballmer. My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with the deal, but RH is completely incompetent and did his best to give the impression that there is something wrong with the deal. Would be better off with Rumsfeld running day-to-day operations at Novell and John Kerry working PR. Whether Novell's payments are a problem depends on the exact contract. We have never been given much information about the details, but Microsoft's statement on its website that Novell has never admitted IP infringement indicates that Novell didn't do anything wrong. I have no problem with the deal now (unlike the weeks after the announcement). |
| dinotrac Dec 15, 2006 12:08 PM EDT |
>The problem is that Ron Hovsepian is the CEO of Novell, and he is dumber than Steve Ballmer I would pick one nit in that Steve Ballmer isn't stupid. Oh, I wish he were. I REALLY wish he were. Ballmer is a nasty SOB, but not stupid. The jury's out on RH, but early returns are not encouraging. |
| bigg Dec 15, 2006 12:42 PM EDT |
I guess I've always thought of Ballmer as more of a mob boss or a thug who'd break your legs if you got in his way, rather than someone who'd make you say, "Gee, I wish I'd have thought of that." |
| dcparris Dec 15, 2006 1:04 PM EDT |
Ballmer is the Pat Robertson of Microsoft. |
| tuxchick Dec 15, 2006 1:06 PM EDT |
wow don, I have to give you the trophy for savagery. No way to top that! |
| dcparris Dec 15, 2006 1:31 PM EDT |
Thank you, TC. I learned my savagery in West Virginia. I would recommend it to anyone. Not that I recommend learning savagery, but if you just must, go to West Virginia. ;-) |
| jdixon Dec 15, 2006 2:00 PM EDT |
> I learned my savagery in West Virginia. I would recommend it to anyone. I'll second that. The people of West Virginia are largely good, honest, and as hard working as they have to be :), but you don't want to cross them. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 15, 2006 2:07 PM EDT |
Do my homework? I *have* read plenty of what has been written. I've read about Eben Moglen's statement that the deal does NOT violate the GPL. I've read about the so-called forking of OpenOffice.org by Novell with the plug-in (which will be Open Source just like the rest of Novell's contributions of code on Sourceforge.) Considering that Novell has a lot of proprietary code related to Netware that runs on MS-Windows, do you have any proof that the money paid by Novell to MS isn't for any of that? What I have yet to see is any *evidence* of any patent encumbrances on the part of Novell on SUSE. In short - Don't just tell me that Novell can't be trusted - SHOW me. So far the public statements that people claim are contradictory have yet to be proven to be so. If you *assume* that Novell is paying for patent protection in SUSE, then yes, they are contradictory. But you have no evidence to turn your assumption into proof. And considering the existence of Novell's proprietary tech that has nothing to do with SUSE, that assumption tends to become weaker. |
| jdixon Dec 15, 2006 2:19 PM EDT |
> Excuse me, but that's not true, and I take exception to being called no one. And rightly so, too. I apologize. Dino is definitely someone. We'll leave the details to him to expound upon though. I doubt I could do them justice. :) > First, Novell is not paying off Microsoft. Look at the agreement. Microsoft is paying off Novell. It's the net that matters, and the net is big-time in favor of Novell. Well, I acknowledged that in my analysis. Hower, much of Microsoft's payment can be accounted for by the SuSE licenses. Most of the remainder can probably be considered payment for the interop work, since the very idea of Microsoft employees performing successful interop work is laughable. That leaves the patent agreement portion. Microsoft is not paying a fee to Novell for every copy of Windows sold. Novell is paying a fee to Microsoft for every copy of SuSE sold. To misquote TC, if looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. If Novell isn't paying off Microsoft, they're doing a very good imitation of it. > Second, people make agreements and issue documents every minute of every day to solve problems they don't even have. Agreed, and it seems likely that's what this is all about, an effort to reassure corporate customers that they won't get sued for using Novell's Linux. The fact that it plays into Microsoft's hands on the PR front is simply ineptitude on the part of Novell management. > Steve Ballmer isn't stupid. No, he's not. He seems to be well above average intelligence. It's a shame he never learned anything about ethics in his studies. Of course, he probably took the same course I did. The primary text book was "Situational Ethics". A total waste of time, but it got me a B in a required core class. > The jury's out on RH, but early returns are not encouraging. The evidence submitted so far is not in his favor, but we'll see. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!