Novell Responds To Microsoft's IP Claims 317
Azul writes "Ron Hovsepian, Novell's CEO, has posted an open letter to the Community, where he explicitly states Novell's disagreement with Steve Ballmer's claims of Linux infringing on Microsoft's intellectual property. From the letter: 'We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents. Importantly, our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents.'"
Re:Novell might actually be fueling MS's case ... (Score:2, Interesting)
If Novell tells customers that "we'll indemnify you against patent claims", then that brings up the distinct possibility that there may be patent-violating code in the source. It doesn't prove it, of course, and someone would have to go through the source with a fine-toothed comb and a handy patent registry (an O(n^2) operation). But it does raise the spectre of some clever code containing patented algorithms.
So if Ballmer says that Linux users may be in trouble, he's absolutely right. He's also blowing a lot of hot air, but hot, right air.
The best move would be for users to ditch distributions that do not provide patent indemnification or to seek out third-party indemnification. If anything, Novell ought to be cheering Ballmer for steering more people in their direction.
Re:trouble ahead?, trouble behind. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlike with Windows, I doubt Microsoft could pull it off though
The advocates (zealots?) wouldn't be the target market. MS would market it to the MCSEs and other who are MS-centric as 'Linux Done Right', offer full MS support, ease of installation and a sole-source supplier (MS themselves).
It would make MS billions of dollars.
Re:Give Novell a Break (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:fine print and silver (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that in the case of Judas the 30 pieces of silver were a legal requirement; had he refused the money then his evidence would have been inadmisible under the Law.
The idea was that in order to prove that the evidence was given in good faith, the witness had to accept payment.
In Novells case, I don't think this holds...
Unfortunately CEO cannot be trusted (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Novell obviously needed cash quite badly, enough to risk a PR backlash.
2. Microsoft was a key driver behind SCO and this is their next highly visible move against Linux.
3. Microsoft has linux people in-house. If they wanted linux they could make their own distro for free, plus hiring a team to add interoperability which presumably should be easy since they would be the only team on the planet with the inside knowledge of how to do that.
4. Of course, this expert knowledge would be copied by other distros if it was GPL, so they wouldn't want to do that.
5. And, they wouldn't be able to easily infect other distros a la SCO, which is another reason.
6. Finally, if they distribute GNU/Linux under GPL then they are finally saying everything is already under the GPL. (possibly including nonencumbrance by patents but IANAL).
7. Novell cannot leash the dragon once it begins to rampage. In fact, this patent agreement clearly removes potential weapons of OSS-friendly vendors like IBM against possible future SCO-like lititgation from Microsoft. It means that Novell may likely enter the role of indeminifying vendors and users against Microsoft litigation (if the patent agreement allows that).
8. Novell's CEO claims their actions prove they are honorably. I am sure he would like to think so. However if actions are louder than words, then surely this deal with Microsoft proves Novell is only in business for Novell, especially if it means all other OSS vendors get poisoned by their actions.
9. It also proves that Novell's CEO is intellectually and/or ethically unfit for his position due to his blithe ignorance of SCO and Microsoft's role in SCO, smoking gun and all.
10. The only reason imaginable is that Novell is really on the brink of bankruptcy and some threat from Microsoft would push them over the edge. Possibly Novell has some proof of OSS in Windows but who will ever know? Novell's actions cast a pall of smoke and brimstone over all OSS-related activities, projects, and products they have.
11. Unfortunately this makes me and lots of other people very scared of what may end up in Suse and strongly suggests that Novell will be Microsoft's key tool for attempting again to destroy Linux and the OSS world, no matter what Novell ever says.
12. That is why Novell cannot be trusted, and anything they ever contribute to OSS projects must be painstakingly analyzed and thrown in the garbage at the least worry. Even so, there is no way to be sure anything they offer will not be either a fragment of patentable data, or a fragment of a potential vulnerability to either access from microsoft or attack by a windows virus. It would be a much different story if Microsoft was going to provide all necessary documentation and experienced OSS programmers could plan how to interface with those APIs for best performance and security. Of course the same goes for anybody who ever thought of buying Novell or maybe making a contract with Novell. I don't see how anybody can ever trust Novell again.
Re:That's bullshit. (Score:2, Interesting)
The fact that Microsoft does not do either should tell you all you need to know about the "interoperability" bullshit.
You got a +5 for this. Nice work!
The problem is, you're wrong.
Here's the real truth:
Microsoft recently put out a set of almost 40 specifications under a new thing they've got called the "Open Specification Promise":
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx [microsoft.com]
Most of the standards revolve around XML-based web communications (SOAP, WSDL, WS-*), but there's also their Virtual Hard Disk format (VHD) that's used in their virtualization software, Sender ID related stuff (remember all the issues a couple years ago that this "standard" wouldn't fly because it wasn't free enough for open source use? no longer), and Office XML formats (2003 and 2007).
The people who cameup with this stuff can be seen in a Channel 9 interview explaining it in more detail:
http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=259
They're very explicit in stating that open-source developers working on Linux can implement these specifications that Microsoft devised without having to enter a license agreement, pay royalties, or worry about being sued for patent infringement or whatever. Jean Paoli is one of the people interviewed... he's one of the creators of XML, by the way, so you can probably imagine the scope of his personal interest in seeing XML-based standards being as widely adopted as possible. And if that's not enough to convince you, even Lawrencse Rosen (google him if you don't know the name) approves of Microsoft's OSP initiative.
Now, granted, these are not the keys to the Windows kingdom, but it's a step in the right direction, and Microsoft should be encouraged to get as many specs out into the Open as possible, as soon as possible.
Dear Novell (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's not beat around the bush on this. Your actions reek of the proprietary and closed mindset--not open source. It is clear this is a deal meant to benefit you first and foremost. While your customers may (or may not) benefit, the community at large seems to be left pissing in the wind. This is profoundly confusing since the vast majority of the Linux product you purport to protect has been written and continues to be written by that community and not your engineers.
While I'm not anyone famous, I am one of surely many decision makers looking for well supported open source solutions. I had been considering you for several projects and would have considered you in the future. Given that you push your idea of what is best for the community despite fairly blatant protests to the contrary from prominent community members, I cannot include your products in any projects until you correct your course of action.
Until that day comes, good luck making deals allegedly protecting a product with a company that has shown enormous contempt for and a desire to kill off that product. I find it overwhelmingly ironic that the market dominance you enjoyed long ago was taken by the very company with which you are now spooning. I guess you didn't learn your lesson the first time around.
Re:Deal Novell Out (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you really think that Microsoft is going to be handing us source code to their proprietary applications? Seriously? Because that's not ever going to happen and I'm not sure what makes you think that it would. I mean, this is Microsoft we're talking about. They don't even like to share source internally from what I hear, and none of us have any interest in seeing closed source in the first place.
Do you really think that any of us engineers, us "jerk-off[s] from Novell", are going to intentionally harm Linux? Seriously? The same Linux that many of us use at work and at home, the same Linux that many of us have been using for upwards of sixteen years? No, we're not going to intentionally "open the flood gates for M$ litigation" because that doesn't make any sense. I know, I know, you're enjoying the hysterics and you don't actually know what's going on so you're stirring up the pot all the same, but, really, why would we do that? Honestly, ask yourself, why would those of us who get to have the dream job of writing open source software intentionally poison Linux? Calm down.
Re:That's bullshit. (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets take AD as an example. AD is a collection of open protocols SMB (by IBM) Kerberos (by MIT) and LDAP (by U Mich) stitched together with proprietary extensions designed in part, according to members of the SAMBA organization, to deliberately to impede interoperability. I don't call that innovation I call it "embrace, extend, extinguish". But then a Windows zealot like "heir of the mess" is not really going to understand that. There are only two ways the ecosystem of networks and computer infrastructure can work. One is by open standards and interoperability, the other is by closed proprietary protocols and and a monopoly. MS has chosen the latter route and if you support it, you are explicitly supporting monopoly as your end goal.
Sun and other companies do the same dance with MS (Score:3, Interesting)
Sun Microsystems did exactly the same thing in 2004, except it took a lawsuit to get the settlement out of Microsoft.
Note especially this bit in the linked article which sounds quite a bit like the original press release: The goal of the technical collaboration between Sun and Microsoft is to improve interoperability between the companies' respective products, according to Sun.
I think it is tremendously inconsistent to be pounding Novell for this agreement and not pound Sun or any of the other many companies that have do-not-sue covenenants over patents. The only difference as far as I can tell between this most recent deal between Novell and Microsoft is the extension to end users.
The most likely scenario is that Novell is sitting on software patents (my guess is that it has something to do with Active Directory) and floated a feeler into Microsoft that they were considering a lawsuit. In return, I'm guessing that Microsoft offered to settle right up front rather than go through yet another lawsuit. On the agreement itself, there is probably a meeting of the minds. The only disagreement comes from the spin. Microsoft likes to construct deals so that they can put a their own unique spin. Like when they settled with Apple quite some time ago, instead of a simple cash payment, Microsoft bought 150M of non-voting Apple stock. On its balance sheet, Microsoft lost no money on this settlement so that they could spin to investors that they lost nothing. They're doing the same thing here by requiring that Novell return the licensing deal.
All the people out there taking a hard line against Novell ought to be taking the same hard line against Sun, IBM and Apple (just to name a few of the companies that have similar deals with Microsoft).