Samba Team Urges Novell To Reconsider 472
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'."
OBLIG: In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Stop your bitching (Score:1, Insightful)
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:They have every right. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Stop your bitching (Score:5, Insightful)
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:They have every right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stop your bitching (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They have every right. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Profit model isn't working (Score:5, Insightful)
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:whee (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stop your bitching (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:Opposite (Score:2, Insightful)
A little confusion (Score:2, Insightful)
You are not legally bound by what Microsoft and Novell does.
Selex
Re:Opposite (Score:4, Insightful)
it's just cash (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:They have every right. (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
This had to happen (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:For Novell, it's all about the money (Score:3, Insightful)
It looks as though Hovsepian has went for this in an attempt to provide a pathetically weak selling point (customers won't get sued - yer!) and to get his hands on a few hundred million which will make Novell's upcoming financial results not look completely disastrous. If that latter point is indeed true, then that really is truly sad, because it means that Novell are simply hopping from one quarter of financial results to another, trying to make them look good, trying to get worried investors off their backs and trying to maintain the ridiculous overheads that they still have as a company.
Re:Opposite (Score:3, Insightful)
The patents are the real problem (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Opposite (Score:1, Insightful)
Are you sure you want to do that?
You want it to work right out of the box, WITHOUT FIDDLING, and you're using Microsoft software. If you wanted it to work 'out of the box', at least use a Mac.
Novell destroyed themselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can't they just. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:MS trying to nudge Linus towards GPLv3 (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again it could just be a lame attempt to get into the linux community which microsoft has avoided for so long. Just don't turn your back on Microsoft and let them stab you.
Re:Can't they just. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't retract the terms of a license. All you can do is issue future versions under a new license.
Why are you posting here? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Yay for Microsoft indeed....
Re:Opposite (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Novell should know that we will avoid them (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:They have every right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
Re:They have every right. (Score:3, Insightful)
GNOME would be fine without Novell. But IMO the GNOME team should discuss the issues with some good attorneys and think about whether or not it should be accepting Novell code from hence. If GNOME has to litigate a patent later on, it doesn't want to have Novell testifying about the patents it knew about as a member of the development team and creating treble damages for knowing infringement where we would otherwise have had simple damages. And no doubt there are other legal risks.
Bruce
Re:Opposite (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:whee (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:They have every right. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Opposite (Score:3, Insightful)
Likewise, if I donate my time and effort to an open source project, I want that effort to help others who can make honest use of my code (yes, including Microsoft), but I don't want it to be used as a cudgel against others (or, even, against my own efforts!), the way getting entangled with this Novell+MS plan has the potential to do (and given MS's past history, there's absolutely no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt).
Re:Opposite (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope to god you are not using MS software then.
it doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MS trying to nudge Linus towards GPLv3 (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft's interests are money (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Opposite (Score:3, Insightful)
Then it is clearly up to the person not to give away their efforts in the first place. When you give away code anyone can benefit - nambla, shin-ri-kyo, the pope, or nelson mandela -- anyone. If a person isn't prepared to let everyone use the results of his work, he shouldn't be giving it away in the first place. Just because he may not have thought through the implications beforehand is no excuse.
But there's more than just my past expense, there's my present and future expense. Will I want to further contribute to a project that I now know is going to be used against me?
That's circular reasoning, since there is no additional expense incurred by MS's use, by definition it is not being used against you. MS's benefit is not your loss, it is not a zero-sum game.
Re:A little confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
We've been using SuSE for a few versions now, and honestly, I think SELS 9 is a great server distro and SLED 10 is an absolutely fantastic desktop distro. But no, we won't be buying any more licenses from Novell. We got burned by Redhat by the licensing/pricing change circa RH9 too, so It'll be 100% - non-commercial - from here on out. Vendors, making money is easy - produce what people need, provide an agreed service for an agreed price, and don't shaft your customers. Why can so few American companies manage this?
Alas poor SuSE! I knew him, Horatio; a distro of infinite operability, of most excellent configuration: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at it.
Re:They have every right. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing that stops Linux and MS from talking is Microsoft.
Well... and the GPL. Much the same thing that gets in the way of Nvidia and ATI releasing source drivers. Under more liberal licenses, Microsoft wouldnt have an issue with interop, but if its GPL, they cant so easily add support, without having to make themselves exposed to GPL.
Frankly, the GPL is the best and worse thing that ever happened to linux. Yes, Microsoft takes more then there fair share of blame for not co-existing, but the zealot RMS takes far more. Its like he structures the license specifically to keep corporate interests away from FOSS. GPL3 is even worse.
Re:I'd mod you up if I had points (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=200
Re:They have every right. (Score:3, Insightful)
An MS-sanctioned Linux will not succeed by being better (oh! that I wish it would). It will succeed (if it succeeds) by exploiting weaknesses which have little-to-nothing to do with the quality of the software. They will leverage their relationships with their current customers, they will create incompatible forks of existing projects, they will use proprietary modules/plug-ins/etc to make it so that only the MS version is actually useful, and so on.
Certainly, these are all sharp business practices. I can't fault their acumen on that aspect. What I fault is that by building up their own business, they tend to have an overall detrimental affect on the culture as a whole.
As for why you should care, that depends on your morality. Should you care about the effects of your actions if those effects don't directly affect you?
Fortunately, I have confidence that open source is stronger than Microsoft, in the long run. If MS tries too hard to subvert Linux, they will fail miserably. If they actually put reasonable effort to work well with the open source community (like, to various degrees, IBM, Apple, Sun and others do), they will likely be little more than a nuisance, or perhaps even a productive member of the community (although the last part is doubtful).
You're mostly right that OSS, itself, doesn't necessarily make the world a better place. But the open source process and community enables and encourages the creation of software and sharing of software, which encourages and enables people to make the world a better place.
FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a totally illogical and ignorant statement. Whether or not someone is in violation of a patent has *nothing* to do with who wrote their code. Such an idea totally confuses patents and copyright.
I can't believe the amount of bullshit that's been posted on slashdot since the novell microsoft deal. The deal is something that in no way shape or form puts microsoft in any position to threaten the open source movement (how could it?!), if anything it does the exact opposite. Yet, since it happened slashdot has been filled with fear mongers and bigots who can do nothing but spew shrill and incoherent microsoft bashing, and "deal with the devil" arguments.
The reasons that microsoft has been allying with various opensource companies like Novell and Xensource, and releasing open source software (wtl, wix, etc) are entirely clear and make total business sense. There's no need to construct some legally impossible and nefarious scheme about microsoft trying to sue open source companies, especially considering that part of the legal agreement microsoft made with Novell was to *not sue based on patents*.
Re:GPL Version 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad this happened. Is this enough to stop bitching whenever Stallman does something new? He's right, again. He's got brains and sure knows how to use it. Linus, are you following this? Accept GPL3, release kernel under it and everything will be sweet. Only bastards like Novell will end fucked-up.
Re:They have every right. (Score:3, Insightful)
What? You must be either joking or ignorant. The GPL covers program code, not communication protocols or file formats. There is nothing stopping Microsoft from implementing file formats and protocols from Linux, unless they try to take existing GPL code that does this and incorporate into their products. That would expose them to the GPL.
Re:Opposite (Score:3, Insightful)
Err - you and I cannot be thinking of the same Microsoft here. I've spent the whole of my professional career supporting Microsoft solutions and just as GNU/Linux have problems so do Microsoft's applications. But on to the next part...
Ah! Now I see what you really like about Microsoft's products - the "tight" integration of their business applications. This is probably the one thing that keeps businesses from switching. I have to admit that having nearly all of their business apps integrate with Office decently is a nice feature. It works most of the time. MS has had more than a few problems though. Overall, I will agree with you that there are many linux applications that aren't tightly integrated and could use a bit of polishing, but there are many, many programs that despite not being a tightly integrated family of apps, they DO get the job done and do it VERY well.
Re:They have every right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just get fuckin over it. Mono is here to stay, like it or not. Maybe let's trop SAMBA too? Potential legal minefield. Potential IP violation.
People WANT. USABLE. LINUX. NOT RELIGIOUS AND ETHICALLY RIGHT PRODUCT. They want openness, but not religiously.
Which part of this text you don't get it?
Re:This could also push users to Open Solaris (Score:1, Insightful)
No man, you got it all wrong.
It's Joerg Schilling and his magentic personality that's going to draw people towards OpenSolaris in their millions!
My scenario is, I think, more plausible than yours.