- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Novell is Now the New SCO
|
|
|
Comments (55)
35 earlier comments in the full thread.
tc -
Yes. They wouldn't, because there is no money in it, and it is ridiculously expensive to go after end-users on a toaster.
Going after corporations for their use of software is a different matter.
Which may be a clue for me...
I've been trying every which way to come up with a good way to illustrate why I don't think this can be a GPL problem, and maybe this is the clue I need.
I would bet that Microsoft already has an informal convenant not to sue individual linux users. Not published, terms not disclosed, but, somewhere, someway, somehow, I suspect Microsoft management has made it a business policy not to sue individual linux users just because it's expensive and brings needless bad karma.
That could be thought of as a covenant not to sue, a very secret "Hey guys!! don't worry, we're not going to sue you, but we don't actually want you to know"
Hmmm. Doesn't sound as good as I hoped it would. Darn. Back to the drawing board.
Yes. They wouldn't, because there is no money in it, and it is ridiculously expensive to go after end-users on a toaster.
Going after corporations for their use of software is a different matter.
Which may be a clue for me...
I've been trying every which way to come up with a good way to illustrate why I don't think this can be a GPL problem, and maybe this is the clue I need.
I would bet that Microsoft already has an informal convenant not to sue individual linux users. Not published, terms not disclosed, but, somewhere, someway, somehow, I suspect Microsoft management has made it a business policy not to sue individual linux users just because it's expensive and brings needless bad karma.
That could be thought of as a covenant not to sue, a very secret "Hey guys!! don't worry, we're not going to sue you, but we don't actually want you to know"
Hmmm. Doesn't sound as good as I hoped it would. Darn. Back to the drawing board.
Me: scratching my head at last dino comment!
A "secret covenant" not to sue??????? Come on, dino!
Microsoft may have made a secret desision not to sue but that isn't the same thing as a covenant, at all, at all. They can go back on that decision and get away with it. A covenant is "between me and thee". meaning it is at least known about by the two parties. So what good is a secret covenant?
Glad to see you are re-evaluating it, dino.
A "secret covenant" not to sue??????? Come on, dino!
Microsoft may have made a secret desision not to sue but that isn't the same thing as a covenant, at all, at all. They can go back on that decision and get away with it. A covenant is "between me and thee". meaning it is at least known about by the two parties. So what good is a secret covenant?
Glad to see you are re-evaluating it, dino.
dek -
Well, a covenant is between me and somebody. It can benefit "thee" even if it is between me and "he".
Which doesn't help me much at all for the moment. Sigh. I used to be so much better at this.
Well, a covenant is between me and somebody. It can benefit "thee" even if it is between me and "he".
Which doesn't help me much at all for the moment. Sigh. I used to be so much better at this.
From what I understand there is no IP licensing going on with this contract. Novell and MS exchanged money for a promise not to sue each others customers for IP violations for the next 5 years. I haven't seen anything specifying what customers these would be and the limitations of the covenant are.
But if this is the case then it has nothing to do with the GPL, or distribution of any kind. The only time a problem would come is if Novell put some of MS' IP into one of the projects they are working on. It almost seems like a support contract. If I wanted i could go buy SLED with a 1 year support contract and in that contract Novell promises to help when I have problems with their software. Then I could install SLED onto my friends computer. If I do install SLED onto a friends computer he would not be covered by my support contract. If he wanted support from Novell, he would have to buy his own contract.
This Novell MS deal has this same feeling, right now. If you buy SLED from Novell then you get a promise to not be sued by MS. But if you don't buy it from Novell then you don't have that promise. If I am just using OpenSUSE and have not actually ever purchased something from Novell, then it seems I would not be covered by this covenant because I am not a Novell customer.
I may have misunderstood what I have read, if so please clarify misunderstanding.
But what about a corporation that buys a support contract for one computer and then uses a different distrobution for every other computer. The corporation is a Novell customer so if MS finds something in Linux, Mono, OO, etc. that does infringe, MS won't be able to sue them, even though they are using a different distrobution, because they made a covenant not to sue Novell customers.
Read the whole commentBut if this is the case then it has nothing to do with the GPL, or distribution of any kind. The only time a problem would come is if Novell put some of MS' IP into one of the projects they are working on. It almost seems like a support contract. If I wanted i could go buy SLED with a 1 year support contract and in that contract Novell promises to help when I have problems with their software. Then I could install SLED onto my friends computer. If I do install SLED onto a friends computer he would not be covered by my support contract. If he wanted support from Novell, he would have to buy his own contract.
This Novell MS deal has this same feeling, right now. If you buy SLED from Novell then you get a promise to not be sued by MS. But if you don't buy it from Novell then you don't have that promise. If I am just using OpenSUSE and have not actually ever purchased something from Novell, then it seems I would not be covered by this covenant because I am not a Novell customer.
I may have misunderstood what I have read, if so please clarify misunderstanding.
But what about a corporation that buys a support contract for one computer and then uses a different distrobution for every other computer. The corporation is a Novell customer so if MS finds something in Linux, Mono, OO, etc. that does infringe, MS won't be able to sue them, even though they are using a different distrobution, because they made a covenant not to sue Novell customers.
boomboom --
I could swear I saw something from Novell to the effect that OpenSuse users and developers were covered, but I can't remember where.
As usual, I could be wrong. ;0)
I could swear I saw something from Novell to the effect that OpenSuse users and developers were covered, but I can't remember where.
As usual, I could be wrong. ;0)
> I could swear I saw something from Novell to the effect that OpenSuse users and developers were covered, but I can't remember where.
One of the press releases clearly said somesuch about OpenSUSE developers. I don't think it mentioned users.
One of the press releases clearly said somesuch about OpenSUSE developers. I don't think it mentioned users.
@dino "Well, a covenant is between me and somebody. It can benefit "thee" even if it is between me and "he"."
I don't have any problem with that. It's just it sounded like you were saying that M$ had a "secret covenant" known only to themselves but no one else was in on it -- least of alll the FOSS community. THAT caused me some head scratching because that's not my idea of a covenant. That's more of a secret decision which can easily be forgotten.
I don't have any problem with that. It's just it sounded like you were saying that M$ had a "secret covenant" known only to themselves but no one else was in on it -- least of alll the FOSS community. THAT caused me some head scratching because that's not my idea of a covenant. That's more of a secret decision which can easily be forgotten.
dek -
That's why I went back to the drawing board.
All this thinking is hurting my head.
That's why I went back to the drawing board.
All this thinking is hurting my head.
dino, it's OK. Anything Microsoft-related induces headaches.
If they do mention OpenSuSe developers then it is most likely in Microsoft's best interests that Novell mention said developers. I'd say Microsoft has a vested interest in developers if they want those covered in the 'covenant'.
What it is? No one knows...but it smells awfully fishy.
What it is? No one knows...but it smells awfully fishy.
If Novell is the new sco, then who is the old sco that Novell is battling in court?
>If Novell is the new sco, then who is the old sco that Novell is battling in court?
Is this where the idea for the TV show "The new adventures of the old Christine" came from?
Is this where the idea for the TV show "The new adventures of the old Christine" came from?
> I don't have any problem with that. It's just it sounded like you were saying that M$ had a "secret covenant" known only to themselves but no one else was in on it -- least of alll the FOSS community. THAT caused me some head scratching because that's not my idea of a covenant. That's more of a secret decision which can easily be forgotten.
I thought Dino's point was that MS had promised themselves they wouldn't sue individuals. He was trying to sort of paint the picture using the idea of a covenant. Kind of like if I promise myself that I won't eat that whole platter of barbecue. The barbeque doesn't know it. The other people who might want some of the barbecue don't know it. But I promised myself I wouldn't, and the other people benefit. The benefit for the barbecue is dubious, of course.
Hopefully, this helps to confuse you further and add hunger to headaches. ;-)
I thought Dino's point was that MS had promised themselves they wouldn't sue individuals. He was trying to sort of paint the picture using the idea of a covenant. Kind of like if I promise myself that I won't eat that whole platter of barbecue. The barbeque doesn't know it. The other people who might want some of the barbecue don't know it. But I promised myself I wouldn't, and the other people benefit. The benefit for the barbecue is dubious, of course.
Hopefully, this helps to confuse you further and add hunger to headaches. ;-)
See, I told you- typical Microsoft evasions and doubletalk. It is not their way to be straightforward and honest. You're not supposed to understand it.
> Kind of like if I promise myself that I won't eat that whole platter of barbecue.
Sure you did. We know all about you and barbecue. Pictures don't lie.
Sure you did. We know all about you and barbecue. Pictures don't lie.
Let me see if I can dig up that shot of me and my legs again for you. ;-)
'"Let me see if I can dig up that shot of me and my legs again for you."
Haven't we suffered enough? ;-D
Haven't we suffered enough? ;-D
>Haven't we suffered enough? ;-D
Hey...the shot's not all bad. I seem to remember there being a very attractive plastic pig in the picture.
Hey...the shot's not all bad. I seem to remember there being a very attractive plastic pig in the picture.
a very attractive plastic pig in the picture.
True, I'd forgotten about the pig. ;-)
True, I'd forgotten about the pig. ;-)
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
I believe so, yes. However, unless they give you some chance to make things right first (i.e., by stopping use of the toaster and shipping it to them to prove non-use), I think a court would take a dim view of any significant liability on your part. Dino would know better than I do.