Samba Team Urges Novell To Reconsider

hde226868 writes "The team responsible for Samba has just asked Novell to reconsider its recent patent agreement with Microsoft, arguing that the agreement is a divisive agreement, effectively splitting the open source movement into groups with and without commercial status. Samba argues that with this move Novell is disregarding the will of the people who write the software sold by Novell and that Novell has 'no right to make self servicing deals on behalf of others which run contrary to the goals and ideals of the Free Software community'."

whee

It's SCO all over again.

Re:whee

Sure does seem like it and frankly I have not been able to work my brain around the notion this agreement DOES NOT violate some aspect of GPLv2. And maybe, just maybe that's what Microsoft was REALLY after.... to get Novells right to distribute GPL code revoked. If that were to happen it seems to me it would put a big hurt on Novell. Microsoft is not known, nor has it been known NOT to stab a company in the back or setup a chain of events that in the long run damages or distroys it's competitor.

Re:whee

from my understanding, this shouldn't violate V2 of the GPL as it does not mention patents; however, I think there is a potential problem in it for Novell in that they will via the GPL be providing people with a license to indefinitly copy and distribute a program to which they via contract with MS have limited access to distribute. The question I have is what happens to Novel in five years when they've given everyone the right to redistribute the software under GPL 2? Providing a second contract for the patents would violate GPL 2 as that inherently would violate the clause preventing additional restrictions.

As an alternative, Novel could provide compatibility plugins under a different license and do a hybrid distribution much as exists with commercial distributions on the market. In a business sense, this is very powerful as it would give novel the ability to gain traction and provide a much needed service - a linux environment with better windows compatibility. OVer the course of this five years, it could in theory strengthen the adoption of linux amongst the crowd that need windows compatibility for smooth day to day function. What happens in five years is that they will have linux systems in their environment that hopefully are deeply embedded enough that transitioning back to windows quickly would be a challenge. In such a setup, they will be more free to transition to an environment w/o windows present.

I personally think this deal is not as big an issue as it is made out to be. What it does point out is the dangers of patent pacts to small businesses and independent inventors. I think that eliminating patent pacts as being anticompetitve is necessary to force competition. Of course this will just heighten the worries and abuse of the patent system, but maybe that abuse will force the big corps into supporting patent reform instead of using patent arseonals to smother the competition.

Sadly to say IBMs response to SCO largely reflects their abuse of the patent system. SCO attacks and they respond with countersuits using their massive stockpile of patents. While in this case, sco may be deserving of annhiliation - the method used is still that of a bully.

Attacking this deal is missing the target completely. Businesses will do what they need to to compete. Rules need to be changed to adapt to a changing environment. All this attention should be more strongly focused on patent reform and a stronger lobby needs to be made to see it happen.

alright, done ranting... if you got this far, you can go about living your life as u were.

GPL Version 3

There's a simple way to make Novell uncompetitive: release your code under the GPL version 3. What's touch and go in version 2 is clarified in version 3.

Novell, most likely, won't be licenced to use your code. You get the additional benefit of community defence against future antisocial and free-riding behaviour.

Re:whee

Considering that MS, Novell, and SCO have been interwined for 20 + years, Yes. Keep in mind that Novell owned SCO at one time and sold it off to Caldera. Of course, Caldera was a start-up from who? Novell's own Ray Noorda. Now, I liked Ray, but the whole Novell, SCO, Caldera is an inbred world. The best thing that Novell could have done was kept the SUSE team together for diversity. But they dismantled the group. What is left now, is a group that is trying to figure out how to take over the number one spot from Redhat without regard to the long term impact of the linux world. These guys think very short term. Once they increase the value of the company, they will break it apart and sell it off. Remember what happened to SCO? Same thing.

Re:whee

(chronology and events altered slightly for creative license)

Microsoft introduced Xenix, spun it off and begat Santa Cruz Organization -- The Old SCO(tm) and it was good; an affordable x86 Unix environment.

Novell was a very proprietary company which improved their products v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y ('80s through mid '90s) so SCO a group of engineers and execs left Novell and begat Caldera. Caldera bought DR-DOS after the Windows incompatibility fiasco (deliberate sabotage by Microsoft), declared that "OSes want to be free" and opened up their DOS source for all to see. Caldera begat Free DOS, and it was good.

Novell saw their market declining due to interoperability problems introduced by Microsoft, and by utilities introduced by Microsoft which were promoted for use for bypassing Novell's per-seat restrictions. Novell examined their positions, saw that Unix had a strong future, so they bought the IP for Unix, assigned SCO as the license broker for Unix IP, and saw that it was good.

Caldera looked upon the Free DOS and their gaining a decent following, and declared that open source looked promising, so they introduced a Linux distribution that was a bit ahead of its time. They looked upon their package management and update download-equipped open-source Linux operating system and saw that it was good.

Santa Cruz Organization saw its Unix product's future shrinking, and even with their 5% comission on Unix licensing they could read the writing on the wall for their core product, so they sold the "SCO" name and Unix products and contracts to Caldera, and thought all was well. The New SCO renamed Caldera Linux to SCO OpenLinux and claimed that it was good, and all was well.

Enter the serpent who goes by the name Darl McBride; a sneaky if not clever demon who felt that he could tempt investors to take a bite from his fruit of profit. He declared that Linux Stole SCO Code and thart SCO in fact owns the IP to all Unix-like OSes. In doing this the serpent indeed deceived them and got them to take a nibble with his declaration that Linux infringed upon his Unix IP and that all Linux users must pay him $699/processor/Linux box. Linux users grumbled to the Lord.

The serpent bit AutoZone's and Daimler Chrysler's heels, took them to court, and the judge did stomp on the serpent's head, crushing it, and rendered its vemon harmless. Linux users rejoiced, singing "O where is SCO's sting?"

Serpent McBride of SCO, relentless in his evil, pursued Lord Novell and Lord IBM into court. The courts did chuckle, but granted the serpent access to the throne. McBride shouted "I will own Linux! I will own Unix! Users will bow down to me and I will be like the most high Novell!"

Linux users, seeing through the deception, grumbled to the Lord, and proclaimed "Woe unto SCO, for they are evil and their king Darl McBride shall surely perish." The Lord IBM and The Lord Novell heard their grumbling and took offense at SCOs actions. They dragged SCO back into court, presented their counterclaims, saw SCO's stock plummet, and it was good.

Re:I'd mod you up if I had points

Yes, but I feel at least one important factor is missing in it, he failed to mention the red dressed archangle Pamela and her heavenly troops who rose from nowhere to hit SCO's litigation with facts and research.
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2005 0515115448782 [groklaw.net]

A few corrections

Microsoft introduced Xenix, spun it off and begat Santa Cruz Organization

Actually, MS was going to trash Xenix, when a father-son team went looking for something to do. They decided to make an offer to MS for Xenix who said something for nothing is good. It was not an active spin-off from MS.

Novell bought USL (Unix System Labs) long before Caldera came along. They also bought the rights to DR-DOS before Caldera. In fact, when Novell engineers started up with a Linux group, ppl such as Dvorack ripped Novell for even looking at Linux. So the engineers convinced Ray to spin them off and back them. Ray quit Novell and spun off all the Linux and DR-Dos work with a new company called Caldera (which became 2 companies for IPO purposes; but I forget what the name of the embedded one was).

Novell then sold the rights to re-sell Unixware to original SCO. Note, that does not include the IP (supposedly). SCO then merged Unixware and sco unix.

As SCO saw the future, they sold this same Unix rights and the name to Caldera. Caldera kept the Caldera Name for about 1-2 years. Once McBride cut a deal with MS and Sun, they switched back to SCO name and started their infamous Linux crap.

BTW, I used all of these environments at one time, including MS Xenix.

samba

just like the samba team, I don't think that this agreement with microsoft will bring good fruits. what I like about the open source movement is that it provides you with software that allow you to go to sleep at night without worry. the software that will result from this agreement will be everything except that.

Re:Opposite

I can't have some hacked together stuff that that may or may not interact well.

If this is the case, then you're definitely using the wrong solution. MS only interacts well with MS (if even then..interoperability in MS solutions isn't universal or without its' own problems), with only a few exceptions. Even those exceptions are usually a result of the work of people outside of MS, reverse engineering things with, at the very least, no help from MS...that is, if MS doesn't actively work through multiple means to impede or halt any such efforts outright.

One of F/OSSs' main strengths is the ability to interoperate without artificial barriers for the sole purpose of increasing corporate profits, lock-in, and marketshare.

There are F/OSS alternatives available already to accomplish everything you've cited. I know, I've done it. A few minutes' googling will usually result in multiple F/OSS apps/systems/OSs, etc to accomplish a given task. That you chose the MS solution is just that; *your* choice.

However, saying that you have no choice in order to stay in business and/or avoid firing employees is disengenuous. There *are* choices, you just *chose* not to avail yourself of them. Citing "peace of mind" and "interoperability" as reasons is facetious, as it has been widely acknowledged that both qualities are present in spades with current non-MS approved/certified F/OSS solutions.

If you're so concerned about the welfare of your employees, perhaps the money you could save using F/OSS solutions could be used to hire more employees or increase benefits/pay rates of current workers.

Just my 0.02

Strat

Why are you posting here?

From your description, you're a prefect client for Microsoft.

So if there's no time or money to be wasted, and time is money, why are you wasting time on /.?

Instead of wasting time here, you would (more logically) be better off spending time on various Windows tech forums. You'll want to learn MORE about the systems that you use right now than spending time chatting about systems that you aren't going to use. (And you've detailed the reasons that you aren't going to use them.)

Strange how that works.

Re:Opposite

"At your expense"? Like, what, exactly? If you wrote any OSS code, and gave it away, then there is no expense for you if it is used by Microsoft or anybody else.

OBLIG: In other news

"Samba argues that with this move Novell is disregarding the will of the people who write the software sold by Novell and that Novell has 'no right to make self servicing deals on behalf of others which run contrary to the goals and ideals of the Free Software community'."

In other news the sun is hot, water is wet, and... wait... yes, I taste spit in my mouth!

Come on now, what part of Microsoft + Patent + Open Source is anywhere close to what "open" source should be?

They have every right.

'no right to make self servicing deals on behalf of others which run contrary to the goals and ideals of the Free Software community'

Actually they have every right to do whatever they like as long as it is within the law. There is nothing specific in the GPL that says they cannot make a deal with Microsoft. The only thing that will stop companies from doing things like this, is if they lose customer support. If you don't like it, don't buy their products.

Re:They have every right.

The thing is now every code that comes out of Novell is now suspect. if Novell contributes code to Samaba the deal provides MSFT a recourse to attack Samba and use the Novell deal as the scape goat. Even if the code in question wasn't what Novell donated.

It's not about it being against the GPL, it's provide MSFT with an excuse, and an attack point with which to target open source developers.

Novell donates, code to firefox, and now Microsoft can sue the mozilla foundation for patent infringements, because of that, unless of course the mozilla foundation coughs up some money of course.

Re:They have every right.

So if this agreement can allow Linux and MS to finally actually talk to each other,

The only thing that has ever stopped Linux and MS from "finally actually talk[ing] to each other" is Microsoft. Every protocol and file format that Linux and Linux software uses (except 3rd party proprietary stuff that just happens to run on Linux) is open and published. Further, copyrights aren't infringed by code that re-implements an interface (see "abstraction, filtration, comparison") so Microsoft has always been free to write code that interoperates with Linux kernel and applications.

The fact is, Microsoft has deliberately gone out of its way to change file formats and protocols to make such interoperation as difficult as possible.

- - - -

Because they said they wouldn't in the agreement.

Bwa ha ha ha!! LOL! This is Microsoft we're talking about. Besides which, they reserved the right to revoke that agreement any time they want.

Remember Vader's lines: "I am altering the terms of our agreement. Pray that I do not alter them again." Or as an MSFT exec said to Bob Metcalfe of 3com after MSFT screwed 3com on OS/2 LAN Manager: "You made a mistake, you trusted us".

See also the fable of the frog and the scorpion (and variations thereof).

Re:They have every right.

Uh, the idiomatic "right to ..." phrase typically means "moral justification to ...".

Re:They have every right.

The particular patent deal that they made is against section 7 of the GPL and also other parts of the license.

Novell is attempting to create a loophole in the license with a legal fiction. By paying Microsoft to make a covenant to Novell's users directly, instead of to Novell, they are attempting to get us, and whatever judges eventually rule on this, to believe that no patents are being licensed even though the effect is the same as if they were being licensed.

There is also the matter of the spirit of the license. By violating that, they are making a clear "screw you" gesture to everyone whose code they are running. There are now a lot of angry people who will now go out of their way to get business to go elsewhere than Novell. Have you noticed that SCO's business went completely down the tubes? Novell's going to have a hard time avoding that.

Bruce

Tomorrow...

The code is already out there, the developers can't take it back.

Actually, some of the developers may indeed take it back through the courts. That is yet to be decided. But even if they don't take it back, a lot of those developers will go to GPL3 just because of this. Including important stuff like the C library and GCC (which FSF owns). And it's already been made clear that GPL3 will close this loophole.

Bruce

Re:They have every right.

Nobody with any sense in the free software world has touched Mono

Right, that is why Debian GNU/Linux was the first [debian.org] to not only package Mono, include it in the distribution [debian.org] but also write a spec [debian.org] describing how packages using Mono can integrate right into the core of the system.

I won't go into how the gtk-sharp toolkit [mono-project.com] is one of the best maintained and most active language bindings for the gtk+ GUI toolkit incuded in GNOME today.

Free Software developers who haven't touched Microsoft Windows in years or who come from a completely UNIX background are happily writing desktop applications, system daemons and web applications using Mono today.

So, Bruce Perens, what on earth are you talking about?

Re:They have every right.

There is no non-trivial software program that does not infringe a granted patent. I am not kidding. If you enforced them all, the whole software industry would grind to a halt.

Bruce

Re:They have every right.

Actually they have every right to do whatever they like as long as it is within the law.

That's a tautology. In other words, "they have the right to do what they have the right to do." It doesn't really mean anything. Regardless of whether Novell has the legal right or not, or the moral right or not, your sentence means the exact same thing. Which is to say, it has absolutely no bearing on what the SAMBA team wrote.

I suspect they weren't talking about legal rights, but right in the sense of "moral or proper". Such as, "you have every right to be mad at me for what I did".

And no, Novell has *NO RIGHT* to do what it appears they are doing, even if they have every legal right to do it. The sentence is not contradictory because the word "right" is being used in two different ways. If you are still having a hard time with that, imagine I wrote, "it's wrong of Novell to do what they appear to be doing, even if it's entirely within the law". The two sentences mean the same thing.

Let's consider this from Novell's posistion...

Bags of money or making nice which geeks who aren't even on their payroll....

Yeah, sure. I see 'em doing what the samba teams says. Yep. Sure thing. Uh-huh.

Stop your bitching

Novell has 'no right to make self servicing deals on behalf of others which run contrary to the goals and ideals of the Free Software community'."

Bullshit. First, Novell isn't making deals on behalf of others. Second, Novell have every right to make the deal they made -- if the Samba folks don't like it, they should have said so in their copyright license. They didn't.

Also, from the Samba post: "The goals of the Free Software community and the GNU GPL allow for no such distinctions."

Guess what? It doesn't forbid such distinctions either.

Listen up, folks: nobody cares about your intent. The law is about the wording of the document. That sucks, but that's how it is right now. If you don't want people to do certain things with your code, SAY SO AHEAD OF TIME, IN THE LICENSE.

Re:Stop your bitching

"First, Novell isn't making deals on behalf of others."

well, yes, they did. the deal was done on behalf of Novell's customers. the deal is specifically designed to indemnify Novell's customers from patent lawsuits brought by Microsoft. thus, Microsoft can pursue a patent suit against Samba, but if you bought a Microsoft approved distribution you won't be penalized.

Re:Stop your bitching

you are also correct. however, the downside here is that if users, especially businesses, feel a need to take advantage of this "protection" then Novell has succeeded in delegitimizing other distributions. i'm no GPL geek, so I don't know specifically what the license has to say on this, but if programmers or vendors are forced to question their rights to code or distribute then we've lost something.

Re:Stop your bitching

Actually, the Samba developers did say you couldn't do this in their copyright license. Novell is deliberately attempting to make a loophole in that license. It's sort of a "screw you" gesture from Novell to Samba to abuse their license that way.

Bruce

Re:Stop your bitching

The purpose of section 7 of the GPL (and the rest of the GPL, which reinforces section 7) is that we must all hang together or we will surely hang separately. It's written to prohibit any one party from making a patent deal that the rest of the community will not benefit from. Novell's deal surely, clearly, inarguably violates the spirit of that - and that's a very clear message to the people who gave Novell that license. I contend that it also violates the letter.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Stop your bitching

Bullshit. First, Novell isn't making deals on behalf of others. Second, Novell have every right to make the deal they made -- if the Samba folks don't like it, they should have said so in their copyright license. They didn't.

I agree wholeheartedly. What should have been said is that Novell, by making this deal, is behaving against the ethics of Open Source and Free Software. Microsoft is a perfectly legal company... and has engaged in behavior that many consider highly unethical. Thus many people think poorly of their business dealing. This is a matter of ethics, not a matter of law or rights.

Ethics is part of business. I know I've had the opportunity to screw over my business partner many times in the nine years we've been working together. I'm sure he has as well. We have both behaved as ethically as we possible and we trust each other. The same goes for the companies that we have brokered deals with. We behave in an ethical manner and we receive business because of our reputation. Microsoft has partnered with many companies and subsequently screwed them over. That should be a consideration when dealing with them, and Novell -- as an OS/FS company -- is now dealing with them. This will certainly chill relations with the people who develop the product they sell, and likely some customers. Dealing with unethical people or companies does impart a certain taint to you and your product. That is what is occurring here, not a violation of law.

Just because you have a right to do something does not make it right to do.

--
Evan

What's the problem?

I don't see what the big problem is. If you've written software, you've probably released it under a license. Neither Novell or Microsoft can legally break that deal.

So, what's the problem?

MS trying to nudge Linus towards GPLv3

This is just Microsoft trying to get Linus to reconsider and try and move the kernel to the GPLv3.

Move along.

WHAT??

This can only be a good thing for Linux.

Maybe now well be able to have proper hardware drivers.

If MSFT wants to sink alot of money into a Linux distro, then all the power to em. If it means ill be able to run Unreal 2007 and halo2 on linux with native support, and autocad and other CAD programs.

I would like to see a unified package system for Linux as well. Its just a pain in the ass having to compile programs from one system to another. especially when working in the server room wher i just want things to work the best they can without fuss.

I'm surprised, actually, that MSFT didn't do something like this earlier. It would sure put a choke hold on Apples Unix dominance with sound/music/video industry.

Although it might just be an early response to Vista. It very well could be the biggest flop that MSFT has released since ME.

..shudders.. I feel dirty for even mentioning ME

Profit model isn't working

I think an agreement like this and Red Hat's recent problems indicate that the business model that has been touted for open source isn't sustainable. Ultimately people won't pay you money for something that they get for free elsewhere. If, in fact, Linux becomes more mainstream, all distros will be easier to use and greater customer experience will greatly reduce the need for the kind of hand-holding that Red Hat provides.

Re:Profit model isn't working

> Ultimately people won't pay you money for something that they get for free elsewhere.

oh I don't know, it has worked for hookers for thousands of years for much the same reasons people will pay for OS: service level agrements and a no quibble contract

Re:Profit model isn't working

And at least with a hooker you KNOW you're getting screwed.

For Novell, it's all about the money

At a philosophical level, Novell probably didn't want to sign the agreement with Microsoft either ... heck, Microsoft basically destroyed them as a leading software provider. But they're in an unenviable position of trying to turn a profit. That's the double edged sword of large companies getting in the open source game. On one side, they offer massive resources that can champion and push forward technologies that groups working in their spare time cannot. On the other, they must find a way to recoup some of those expenses, which sometimes lead them down the path that we've all worked hard to stay off (namely, software patents, commercialization, and closed sourcing parts of their product).

Unfortunately I think we'll just have to deal with some closed source Linux programs and some software patents for technologies that required massive investment. The key is to pick our battles - e.g. to ensure that the entire Linux kernel, and all "typical" programs are open source and protected under the GPL (or other similar license).

Novell destroyed themselves.

At a philosophical level, Novell probably didn't want to sign the agreement with Microsoft either ... heck, Microsoft basically destroyed them as a leading software provider.

Novell destroyed themselves.

The only thing that Microsoft did was release WinNT without the license broadcast that NetWare boxes did. I could use one license and setup 1,000 WinNT boxes on a network. If I used the same license on 2 NetWare boxes on a network, they'd broadcast their license codes, see that they were duplicates and shut both boxes down. "Piracy" gave Microsoft the edge.

After that, it's been 100% Novell fuck ups.

Why buy SuSE when for a LOT less money you can just hire Linux developers to write the code/apps you want? You spent $210 MILLION.

Okay, you own SuSE now, why is it easier to run GroupWise on Windows than on Debian? Microsoft is a bigger threat to your existence than Debian.

Why haven't you ported the look and feel of you NetWare apps (inetcfg, nwconfig, etc) over to SuSE?

Service Pack 6 for NetWare 6.5 is over 800MB. Compressed.

But they're in an unenviable position of trying to turn a profit.

As is every other company out there. McDonald's manages it, yet their costs have got to be higher than cooking healthier food, yourself, at home.

On one side, they offer massive resources that can champion and push forward technologies that groups working in their spare time cannot. On the other, they must find a way to recoup some of those expenses, which sometimes lead them down the path that we've all worked hard to stay off (namely, software patents, commercialization, and closed sourcing parts of their product).

No. The problem is when closed source companies don't bother to understand the Open Source environment and believe they can treat it the same as their closed source products.

Which is exactly what Novell is trying to do.

Instead, Novell should have spent a one tenth of the money they spent on SuSE and paid lots of programmers to port Novell's money-making products (GroupWise, eDirectory, ZENworks, etc) to Linux. Go ahead. Try to get eDirectory running on Ubuntu. It's pretty easy on SuSE, but damn hard on Ubuntu.

Unfortunately I think we'll just have to deal with some closed source Linux programs and some software patents for technologies that required massive investment.

Oh really? You mean like Oracle? Their stuff is still closed. Yet they seem pretty happy with running it on Linux.

This message posted with 100% Ubuntu Edgy Eft.

Where's Linus durring al of this?

Where's Linus durring al of this? I mean he's vocal as all hell when the GPL3 drafts start floating around, but on this he's silent?!

Okay, maybe this is just a guess.

I know you are asking yourself, self, how could this happen?

Novell executives were asking themselves, "How can a million dollars worth of bad publicity with a small advertising budget?" "That's it! We'll show a profound disregard for the Free Software community."

These must be the same guys who bought WordPerfect.

--
Summary of Bush administration corruption [futurepower.org].

Answer from Novell

You will be exterminated.

Next step in evolution

Isn't this just the next step in Open Source evolution? I find it hard to believe that no one saw this coming. Imho it was just a matter of time before the community got screwed by commercial interests. It will be interesting to see what the future will bring. Maybe this turns out to be alright (doubtfully) or maybe this is the beginning of a new age of open source development. I for one will be sitting on the edge of my chair and follow the steps of evolution.

you can't put it back in the horse

I don't believe that Novell can just simply "reconsider" they have entered into a contractual agreement and for good or bad have to abide with the terms or breech the contract. From what I have read it will end in five years. Besides, we all know that the patent clause is simply FUD. It may be lame that Novell did it this way, but you have to admit it was a clever way to get MS to fork over ~300 Million for nothing. The flip side is that it will help keep Novell in business which in turn will help Samba since Novell contributes. I have to admit that in the age of FUD, the tone of the Samba press release was rather nice though. Kudos for that.

A little confusion

I am still trying to figure out why I should give a damn what Novell does? So Novell has this nice new agreement with Microsoft. Since I don't use Suse, Netware or anything Novell makes that I signed a legally binding agreement for I am not bound by anything Novell does. Novell's agreement can't trickle back the Linux programmers, because the programmers agreeed to the GPL, not the Novell agreement. If you do use something Novell has, then remove it, and keep your project moving without it. If Novell adds code to your project, and you are under the GPL, then they must agree to the GPL legally. If Microsoft wants to sue "commerical" opensource what was stopping them before this agreement? What stops them after this agreement? Its an agreement between Novell, who does not own a majority of GNU/Linux, and Microsoft, who does not own a majority of GNU/Linux. I didn't sign the agreement, none of the other open-source people signed the agreement, Novell signed the agreement. Let Novell agree to this, tell them to shove this software up their ass, and get another distro. Thats competition.

You are not legally bound by what Microsoft and Novell does.

Selex

Re:A little confusion

You are completely missing the point. It's not that the agreement between Novell and MSFT has resulted in any immediate damages to end users, it is that the agreement raises the specter of litigation to all non-Novell Linux distributors and their clients. FUD. Microsoft is trying to drive a great big wedge in the open source community by appointing Novell, the distributor with the least market share, as the "approved" Linux distributor. Balmer himself said that everyone else is open to legal action as they're not covered by this bogus cross patent licensing. Just because you Joe-six-pack might not wind up in court doesn't mean that enormous damage hasn't been done to the community as a whole.

Boycott Novell. If you have servers on SuSe, move them to another distro.

Hmm?

Isn't it possible for the author of any GPL'ed software to revoke a distro's ability to include it in said distro? I thought I'd heard this happening before, but can't seem to Google a reference...

If enough authors did this to any one distro in protest...

it's just cash

I think reality is, novell wasn't making a penny on linux and suse, in fact most likely losing money hand over fist. They have already replaced some C** folks. I think MS cash infusion was about their only hope.

I don't like what they did, I think it might not even be legal, it is certainly a blow to open source, but once a company is driven by stockholders who demand endless money in perpetuity, and to have that amount actually increase, for their one time "capitalist" investment...this is what happens.

I also don't think (I cannot emphasize this enough really) software as a stand-alone business is going to survive, not in any huge big way really..there is no need. 40 years ago to a few years ago, yes, now..nope.

    Software as part of a normal business, sure, in house tweaking and customizing, yep, but stand-alone it is headed the way of the dinosaurs. Open source is about designing,building and *sharing* of tools freely and Freely, whereas USING those tools within another legit business is where the long term cash with software is.

Divide your enemies

Microsoft is just now getting around to "art of war" type tactics: divide your enemies. "He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks." They're trying to divide the open source movement's spirit.

Everything up to this point has been driven by hubris on their part. Now, they're finally serious about fighting open source.

This is gonna be fun. :)

A right

Actually, they do have a right.

But we have a right to stop using their products.

Personally, I'll wait a little bit to see what the consensus opinion of this deal is. If, after some thought and discussion, the community decides that Novell's actions are harming Linux, then I will take this into account in my career (as a software developer).

A micro-SCO?

Is there any chance do you think that this could lead to Microsoft launching a series of micro-SCO type initiatives now that their investment in SCO didn't work out? What I mean is that I'm curious about just what that money is going toward. Did M$ threaten Novell with any specific patents or vice versa? Sure Microsoft has a few good engineers maybe, but as far as I can tell most of their efforts over the years have been exremely nasty. I find it hard to believe that anything good will come of this, rather I am waiting for the first embrace/extend shoe to drop as Novell starts spouting some ludicrous SCO-like FUD under the guise of supporting the community. Hasn't M$ just bought a bitch to whip who appears a little friendlier to users and developers than SCO did? Maybe Novell will end up writing some cool Vista software but I could care less, I'm staying away from that racket. Novell buying SUSE to sell out to Microsoft is an ultra-cynical move and they deserve to get thoroughly lambasted in every public venue. I'm looking toward hearing about employees jumping ship from Novell as soon as the shit begins to hit the fan. Of course this is a very effective way for Microsoft to get rid of a competitor; it is very good at pulling the rug out from under its friends. I am just wondering if Novell was that dumb or if M$ had some really good FUD to scare their investors with.

This had to happen

I feel its so much better that it happened now, Fail-Fast is always better. Good to have answers early on.

If we don't want such things to happen, why don't we move to more restrictive licenses? Should we actually expect people (or even worse, corporations) to always act in good faith, even when there is no obligation to do so? Why not put it all down in paper then. IM(H)O, Open Source still has not found a balancing act between pragmatism and staying true to the cause. Which is why we have issue with GPL v2 and v3. The deal (according to Eben Moglin) violates GPL v3, but v2-v3 debate is now more like a 50-50 split.

Lets all go GPL v3, or shut up.

Anyway, it is not that I found something terribly wrong with the deal. Mainly because it changes _nothing_ for existing users. It is just that Novell customers get an additional benefit. Meanwhile the Open Innovation Network still protects Open Source patents,
the Mono team still maintains that the have not violated any patents, good news for getting Open-Office to open Word 2007 XML files (and more compatibility) and some other. But on the other hand, it does create a division and give Novell somewhat an unfair advantage.

Which GPL are they reading?

Furthermore, the GPL makes it clear that all distributors of GPL'd software must stand together in the fight against software patents.

I can't seem to find that line in my version of the license.

What?

'no right to make self servicing deals on behalf of others which run contrary to the goals and ideals of the Free Software community'

Since when?

Is Novell paying Microsoft to go out and scare

Red Hat users?

http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/298991.htm [sys-con.com]

Novell Tuesday night outlined the financial terms of its pact with Microsoft in an SEC filing. Then, rather than let the press stumble over it, the company sent around a press release explaining the filing.

Meanwhile, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was in India and told India's Economic Times how he'd love to cut a similar deal "with anyone who distributes Linux software, Red Hat, whoever else."

Microsoft is going to pay Novell $240M upfront for those 350,000 SUSE Linux Enterprise Server subscription vouchers it said it would distribute in the next five years. It could sell them too. CIBC World Market did some back-of-the-envelope calculations and says the number implies an annual ASP per SLES subscription of roughly $685.

Microsoft is also supposed to spend $60M between now and January 1, 2012 marketing Linux-Windows virtualized scenarios and spend another $34M on the dedicated sales force it puts in the field.

For all of Ballmer's talk of a similar deal with Red Hat, it appears that Novell has a three-year exclusive on the virtualization-through-certificate program. Novell notes that IDC projects the market for virtual machine software will be worth $1.8BN by 2009.

Microsoft is also going to pay Novell $108M upfront under their shiny new "patent cooperation agreement" and Novell in turn will pay Microsoft at least $40M over five years - something like $8 million a year - "based on percentages of Novell's Open Platform Solutions and Open Enterprise Server revenues" - OES being Novell's mixed NetWare/Linux package and Open Platform all its Linux stuff.

Novell was at pains to explain that it wasn't paying Microsoft patent protection since the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the keeper of the GPL flame, at the mere mention of a patent agreement last week, started protesting that Novell couldn't - under section 7 of the GPL - distribute Linux if it was acknowledging patent infringement.

Novell claims it doesn't acknowledge that Microsoft has IP in Linux but the way the Microsoft and Novell attorneys sidestep the issue is by having Microsoft promise not to sue the SUSE customer, leaving Novell out of the equation.

Novell spokesman Bruce Lowry declined to explain exactly what Novell is paying Microsoft the $40M for or what Novell patents Microsoft is interested in. It's "just the way the deal was financially structured," he said. Whether that satisfies FSF attorney Eben Moglen remains to be seen. Novell is still negotiating with him, Lowry said.

Novell also posted a new FAQ trying to address the flood of questions it's been getting about the Microsoft deal from the open source community. In it, it says the $40M is "for Microsoft's covenant directly to Novell's customers."

So is Novell paying Microsoft to go out and scare Red Hat users?

In a canned statement, Novell general counsel Joseph LaSala said:

"Many people want to know whether this agreement is compatible with Novell's obligations under the GPL, especially section 7. This was an important consideration for us as well. Under the patent cooperation agreement, Novell's customers receive directly from Microsoft a covenant not to sue. Novell does not receive a patent license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft, and we have not agreed with Microsoft to any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL. Our agreement does not affect the freedom that Novell or anyone else in the open source community, including developers, has under the GPL and does not impose any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL. Therefore, the agreement is fully compliant with the GPL."

There are exceptions to the "won't sue" covenants that aren't spelled out.

Rumor - underscore rumor - has it that Microsoft did the Novell deal because Novell threatened it with IP, which might explain why Microsoft is paying

The patents are the real problem

Under American patent law, if you use a product made by a company that did not have a license to a necessary patent, you can be sued, not just the company.

An implication of the Microsoft-Novell agreement is that Microsoft could sue any Linux (or Samba?) user who did not buy it through Novell. It major lawsuits start happening and Microsoft wins the lawsuits, Linux will disappear from corporations in America, or they'll all go through Novell. If Linux isn't open, there's no point in using it.

Melissa

Can't they just. . .

Can't they just inform Novell that they no longer have the right to distribute Samba under the GPL, but instead must either fork it or work out commercial licenses with the Samba code contributors (good luck with working out a deal with each copyright holder)? Other project teams could do the same, and Novell will have a hard choice to make:

  1. Fork each project where distribution rights have been and choose to fork, becoming incompatible in the near-to-mid future

  2. Reconsider the deal, pull out, and work with Redhat, Canonical, IBM, et al, ensuring compatibility, and create a strong front against Microsoft's monopoly. They could also form clean room reverse engineering teams where binaries are decompiled and notes are taken on the architecture, then hand those notes (but NO decompiled code examples) to the open source developers. This way. legal, clean-room implementations of Samba, wine, etc. can be created WITHOUT tainting of GPL and BSD code by Microsoft.

Um...

that should be "self-serving" (as it is on the samba.org page). "Self-servicing" is what you do at the porn sites.

Question - What Positives Are there?

I see a lot of negative comments (and seeing that I use Windows based systems exclusively, but am learning Linux just to have second skillset) this does not really affect me, but I am curious (from a business standpoint) if there are any positives that can come from this? Granted, I know people use past performance to dictate their decisions, but until I get a balanced understanding (meaning BOTH pros and cons), one can't just make the arguement all things MS bad, and all things Linux good.

Regards,

MBC1977,
(US Marine, College Student, and Proud Parent!)

Novell should know that we will avoid them

and avoid them like hell. Anything done under such debatable license, and anything done in conjunction with microsoft, i would avoid like hell.

Microsoft is not trustable in my opinion, in regard to freedom of anything. This is no 'j00B micro$oft eviLLaZ' type of thought - it is based on practical reasons : microsoft have never been a trustable ally in matters related to openness, freedom, and it is fat chance that they will - with all those shareholders.

So, i would avoid them like hell, and advise all my colleagues to do so always.

Samba team - What can I do?

You have my highest respect. Tell me.

Interoperability puzzle

So the deal to enhance interoperability ends up alienating the experts in the Samba project who are all about...interoperability?

This dog don't hunt.

poor opensuse...

I wish someone could salvage [opensuse.org] opensuse [opensuse.org] from Novell's [now dirty] hands...

This could also push users to Open Solaris

http://www.opensolaris.org/os/ [opensolaris.org]

Microsoft is on the attack and they have a HUGE war chest! So a quick duck out of the way of this impending doom may just be Solaris. Whooo 'da thunk?

Now my memory is a bit vague ... How much did Novell pay for SUSE?....hummmmm ..... let be think ..... maybe I'll Google it....Yep just as I thought!

Guess Novell is just trying to bail out of a bad decision.... which of course will ruin one of the top distros.

You have to live in order to...

fight tomorrow.

It is wonder that Novell has survived this long without distinctive product, and with every other major IT business providing similar solutions. This deal allows Novell to live as company, and perhaps invest this cash into something for the future.

Is Novell business to protect GPL for free, or to profit?

Finally acquisition of SuSE paid off for them. Conspiracy theorists could claim that this was planned from start by Microsoft and Novell.

I would too sell somebody else's property for hundred millions of dollars.

So what, says Novell

Why should Novell listen to the Samba team? It's too late, the deal is done, and anyway, by doing the deal, Novell has shown that it doesn't get the whole Open Source/Free Software thing.

Novell is dead. Weep for them and move on.

it doesn't matter

I don't see why people get so upset about this. The agreement is pretty meaningless as far as open source is concerned. Microsoft probably made it in order (1) to spread FUD, (2) maybe actually get involved a little with Linux, and (3) to get cross licenses for Novell's patents. It's not like it's a huge amount of money for them, but it does help Novell, and Novell has actually contributed positively for the time being.

How many times?

I mean, how many times does Novell have to sit on the brink of bankruptcy before they get it?

Microsoft's interests are money

I don't think Microsoft has intentions of being the next SCO. They just want a way to control some foothold of open source deployment. In process Novell is happy to get some solid sales going from their SUSE investment even if they piss off the open source world.

I don't see this as a dividing tactic but just a money making one. It's not as if half of the open source community is going to jump to proprietary software just because of one deal.

By open source, should be for open source

There is something repulsive about a company whose value derives from the free contributions of thousands of people turning that value into profit for a few people. There oughta be a law. There probably isn't. And if there is, it's probably on the wrong side.

to which Novell responds

"meh" with a shrug

boycott Novell

There are probably enough people who don't like this to start a Novell boycott.

Many people who read slashdot are consultants or know consultants and these people are actually closely connected to those who control the purse strings.

If Novell goes bankrupt over this then we can be assured other companies will notice.

Does Microsoft have purchased Novell?

Have you noticed that Microsoft has purchased 70 000 coupons for SUSE Linux Enterprise Server maintenance and support per year and that Novell has 50000 customers

Check this on:
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq.html [novell.com]
http://www.novell.com/news/press/item.jsp?id=1199 [novell.com]

Is there an error on these numbers??
I know, that a customer can have more than one license, but some customers don't have purchased the SUSE Server. So... Microsoft has bought a number of licences that is similar to the currently base-installed?
And then you have that Novell will pay Microsoft a royalty fee depending on sales... The movement seems to be more than just a patent issue, don't you think?
Any comments on the Database camp?

Microsoft always the clever tactitions

I'd imagine that Novell were coerced into this agreement by Microsoft, who adopted a strategy of "Agree to this, or we go after you". They know full well that such an agreement will have massive effect on Novell's reputation within the Open Source community, and $300 million for a big dent in the commercial reputation of Linux is from Microsoft's perspective a good deal. Matt

Burn her! Burn her! She's a witch I tell you!

In all fairness, having spent some time around Samba team members... who have wanted to forge a close working relationship with Microsoft for a long, long time... it's just a strange response.

With regards to patents... let's see.. what has the Samba team or anyone else in the free software movement done to try to eliminate the current US patent system? Answer: NOTHING

Well... there are a few "sit ins" and some (not Samba) have learned to speak Welsh... but those are just simple protests and really haven't had any effect.

Novell sees patents as something current... something with some legal bindings... and low and behold... that's 100% true! You can hate patents, loathe patents, detest patents... but at the end of the day, when you are served notice of patent infringement, what are you going to do? Is it going to magically disappear??

I don't like the Novell+Microsoft deal either. So... I'm guessing that the Samba team (again, who has done NOTHING to effect any change on the patent system) must have a wondrous idea of how solve the problem. Maybe the Samba team has offered to pay the legal fees for any and all software developers working on the Samba project who are doing Samba development or other open source code development? I guess I don't know the answer to that.

Novell really believes they did something good (really). IMHO, "good" and "Microsoft" don't belong in the same sentence. But I do understand why Novell felt it was necessary. Even if we disagree with Novell's "solution" (if it's even a solution), we can at least say that something was attempted to protect individuals (even if it turns out to not be so effective).

Personally, I would love to see it all work out for Novell... but the open source community needed a witch... Microsoft has proven to be inflammable. Time to torch Novell and see if this witch will burn. And... if Novell is the open source witch... I guess we should all celebrate the torching. Fedora flambe anyone? This could be fun. Gives new meaning to ESR's Scorched Earth philosophy.

Ok. I must be missing something

If I understand the agreement correctly, the only thing it affects is virtual machines. You can run SuSE on a Windows based VM and vice versa. Thats it. You would think that deals like this have never existed before. There are TONS of propriatary commercial software that runs on Linux that has a "Only supported on x". For years there was no option other than Red Hat for commercial software on Linux is you wanted support from the software company.

This states that SuSE is the only supported version of Linux running in Windows VM, and that Novell is protected if you are using something like Xen to run Windows on a SuSE box.

Microsoft gets to pick its poison when it comes to Linux running in VMs and Novell gets the antidote.

boycot

i think i agree with what ive seen so many others saying lately, boycot all novell crap

Spirit? Ethics?

Come on, we are talking about corporation here.

So, next version of GPL will forbid distribute covered product by company? It is that right?
Or I missing here, is there something so very important about FUD and PR, we can't address without change of license?

Free?

What happened to all that "free as in speech" freedom that is supposed to go with FLOSS, Linux, and the GPL?

Re:full disclosure

Yeah well I work for Novell. So what do you have to say about that ?

I can say this statement was agreed upon unanimously by the Team.

Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.