Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org 370
l2718 writes to mention that In the wake of their recent deal with Microsoft, Novell has announced a new version of OpenOffice.org which will support Microsoft's planned Office formal, Open XML. From the article: "The translators will be made available as plug-ins to Novell's OpenOffice.org product. Novell will release the code to integrate the Open XML format into its product as open source and submit it for inclusion in the OpenOffice.org project. As a result, end users will be able to more easily share files between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org, as documents will better maintain consistent formats, formulas and style templates across the two office productivity suites."
Turnabout is fair play (Score:3, Funny)
That's not a fork (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's not a fork (Score:5, Informative)
But if you think it's FUD, blame Groklaw, not Slashdot. They're the ones who came up with the headline.
Re:That's not a fork (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's not a fork (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Grokfud for the win!
Re:That's not a fork (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if they quietly decided that ODF is unnecessary and made MS "Open" XML the default file format for their builds, that could be cause for concern.
Sure. And since Debian has its own "fork" of the Linux kernel (i.e. patches that are not yet in the main source tree), we could say that if they quietly decided Linux is unnecessary and made MS Windows binaries the default kernel for their builds, that would be cause for concern. What is lacking is any evidence that this could ever happen in reality, which is why the story is FUD.
External patches, adding support for a new file format, do not constitute a fork, any more than patching the Linux kernel to support a new device or filesystem does. I'm not sure where you get the idea they're going to make MS's formats the default.
Re:That's not a fork (Score:5, Informative)
Novell forked OpenOffice.org [novell.com] years ago. Here [novell.com] is a press release from back in March that says:
Miguel [tirania.org] has a blog entry about this too.
Ximian did it (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Groklaw may have created it, but they aren't the ones who spread it on this site.
Re:That's not a fork (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the great and powerful wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Groklaw: Open Mouth, Insert Foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Groklaw: Open Mouth, Insert Foot (Score:4, Informative)
I guess we at least learned one thing. She isn't a shill for IBM (Stallman on the other hand...)
And a _Novell employee_ complains of bias!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey now, you work for Novell, disagree with her take on the Novell/MS deal, and now accuse her of bias because of that? I don't think that's very fair at all.
Anyhow, as someone who has read Groklaw for a few years now (and submitted enough stories from there to Slashdot to prove it), I feel inclined to comment that what she posted on the Microsoft/Novell deal was based on what she does know about the deal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a non-public deal with Microsoft at this time seems, well, underhanded at best. True, Novell did let Eben Moglen inspect the deal, but they more or less had to given that Eben is in a position to sue them for breach of the GPL. The FSF has also said that the GPL v3 will not allow any deals like the Microsoft/Novell deal, so even from that we know that it may well comply with the letter of the GPL v2, but it doesn't comply with the spirit of it because it helps Microsoft keep alive the FUD of the threat of patent litigation Microsoft cultivated so clearly with the SCO dealings. And we have statements, under oath, from the people who bankrolled SCO about Microsoft's involvement.
So how to you get off saying she's writing what she did because she doesn't know the whole deal (and who's fault is that that everyone can't see the secret provisions)? Do you not think it's monumentally stupid to have secret dealings with Microsoft after just how quickly they screw over "partners"? Go read that testimony again about how Microsoft left SCO's bankrollers out to try when things turned bad.
Frankly, from everything we know about the Novell deal, Novell was stupid: stupid to allow Microsoft to use them for FUD of a patent threat, stupid to make a deal that goes against the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL, and stupid to think that we'd all just go along with this. And that's why Novell will need a forked version: because if they don't keep these things under GPL v2, they won't be able to keep that agreement with Microsoft.
Don't misunderstand, I can see what's in it for Novell--a fat sack of cash, an opportunity to be the Microsoft-blessed Linux company, and a bit of FUD to both help Microsoft hurt Linux adoption while driving anyone who won't go to Microsoft over to Novell. But I don't see why anyone should go along with it, and I don't see ANY reason to think that the non-public parts of the agreement would change one iota of this analysis.
Then again, you work for Novell. Care to tell me what private parts of the contract I'm not taking into consideration? Just what clause is in there that makes their agreement something other than a sell-out of the Linux community? What part of it wasn't intended to be used by Microsoft for software patent FUD? Even if it doesn't violate the GPL v2, what about it makes it a good idea?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey now, you work for Novell, disagree with her take on the Novell/MS deal, and now accuse her of bias because of that? I don't think that's very fair at all.
I disclosed my bias, and have on Groklaw as well in the posts I've made there.
Make no mistake, I've worked for Novell for almost 4 years; I was a customer for about 15. I grew up in IT on NetWare, and absolutely despise (note present tense) what Windows has done to IT. I've been using Linux for about 10 years now. I'm about as anti-Microsoft as you can get, and I've never made a secret about that. I've had occasion to work very closely with Microsoft consulting services on a deployment project and I've
Re:And a _Novell employee_ complains of bias!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that whenever some talks "interoperability" it is always the Open Standards following people that have to bow to proprietary ones? ODF is an open standard that Microsoft can (and should) implement easily and freely but they choose to close it up. Novell is OK with that according to their agreement. Why should proponents of open standards be forced, yes I said forced, to bow to a company that only wants to lock people into one product be it Novell's or Microsoft's?
No, the "opportunity" Novell missed here was to take a stand AGAINST software patents. Instead, they chose to perpetuate the fraud known as "method patents" and worse, made a deal with a company known for back stabbing their "partners".
There are 2 old sayings that I think apply here....
1) Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me!
2) Don't piss down my back and tell me it is raining!
It is the nature of patents. Code that Novell (or anyone else for that matter) submits to OOo Should be scrutinized to the Nth degree. After all, Novell made a covenant with Microsoft to use their "IP" (whatever the hell that is). I'm not saying Novell's developers would purposely inject bad code, but unless you are willing to get your employer to implement a verifiable "clean-room" implementation for code you are submitting, I for one would err on the side of caution. The cost of defending against patent infringement are too high not to.
B.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the "Open Standards follow
The road to hell is paved with good intentions... (Score:3, Interesting)
I fear, unfortunately, that you'll end up like so many other Microsoft "partners"
Re:Groklaw: Open Mouth, Insert Foot (Score:4, Insightful)
You won't find a news outlet completely free of bias; that just isn't going to happen. The idea of a bias-free blog (and groklaw -first and foremost- is a blog) is absurd on its' face.
As to your second claim; that it's not a reliable source of information; I would like to know why specifically you assert that their information is unreliable and what specifically they get wrong.
Or is it (as I suspect) that you simply disagree with their bias, and have a hard time seperating their bias from the accuracy of their reporting.
Re:Groklaw: Open Mouth, Insert Foot (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still waiting on the specifics of how the stories on her web log are inaccurate, I'm not in the least bit impressed with meaningless ad hominems ("shill", etc).
I can understand and respect the idea that her bias leads her to present false conclusions as facts; but so far no one has come up and said anything specific beyond "boo hoo she likes gplv3"; what I'm after is "her bias lead her to report C as Y and to report D as X".
Everyone's biased, and yes, bias can lead (but does not necessarily lead) to inaccuracys. So, let's hear the specifics
What specific facts does she gets wrong in her reporting?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Groklaw: Open Mouth, Insert Foot (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, Groklaw has both sides of the coin - a shrill, unabashedly partisan editorial policy; and an obsessive interest in collating, transcribing, and exhaustively dissecting the original sources (it's thanks to a Groklaw regular that the terms of the original BSD settlement became public, for example). Coupled with the track record of PJ's predictions in the case being not only mostly right on, but several moves ahead of the game, and I tend to take her opinions quite seriously, even when I don't agree with her.
Re:Groklaw: Open Mouth, Insert Foot (Score:5, Insightful)
So let's get this straight: You're too lazy to research the interpretations of a blog of a paralegal who up front admits that she's a paralegal and her site is full of her personal opinions on the law. You do know that she posts all legal documents from the court cases for you to read, right?
Although you haven't done any research, you're willing to dismiss her opinions because she might have a bias. That's fine. But you're also going to dismiss all the information she he accumulated like motions, orders, etc, because she has an opinion?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Groklaw: Open Mouth, Insert Foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, you manage to state the blindingly obvious and the draw a non sequitur conclusion, all in one sentence.
Yes, PJ has a definite, undisguised bias. She started her blog because she's a fan of Linux and F/LOSS. Yes, her analysis of non-legal issues is often deeply flawed and her opinions drive way too much of her analysis. She is neither businesswoman, nor software developer and doesn't understand that much of either -- more than most who aren't experts in those fields, perhaps, but much less than those who are. I wish she'd be a little more reticent to discuss issues she doesn't understand very well, and she used to be, but fame has gone to her head just a little. I see that as unfortunate but understandable.
Her analysis of the legal minutiae of the cases, however, is nearly always spot-on, and her projections of the outcomes, judges' opinions and general ebb and flow of the cases are excellent. All of which is, of course, completely unsurprising given that she *is* an expert in that area. She's not as expert as a trial attorney of course, but she's expert enough to know what she doesn't know, and frequently gets assistance from lawyers where needed. She also often pulls in assistance from experts in non-legal areas, and knows enough to recognize and use the best.
Finally, if you just want to look at Groklaw for its information content, that's absolutely unimpeachable. She collects all of the available data about the cases and presents it in its raw, unaltered glory (or lack thereof). And she's extremely good at finding relevant snippets of fact in the mass of data floating out there in the world -- which is *precisely* what she is most expert at.
If you don't like PJ's rants, ignore them. But if you discount the data collection, legal analysis and projections, you're a fool. Exactly the same sort of fool that she is when she goes off about things she doesn't understand, actually.
Um (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Um (Score:5, Insightful)
Disagree; here's why (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um (Score:5, Insightful)
If Novell can develop good plugins for Microsoft's new format, users could actually switch to OOo instead of upgrading Office. Yes, there's the patent situation, but Microsoft can't do much about interoperability as a convicted monopolist.
Chasing taillights. (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft would be happy to maintain control of the de facto "standard" in file formats. That way they can keep everyone chasing after their last update.
Instead, Novell should be looking at making it easier to migrate FROM Microsoft's standards.
Re:Chasing taillights. (Score:5, Insightful)
And interoperability does just make "it easier to migrate FROM Microsoft's standards".
No, it would not. (Score:3, Insightful)
It is trivial to test for specific cases and force "incompatibility" in all others.
And no, if you're implementing Microsoft's standards on a different platform, Microsoft still controls those standards and can keep changing them whenever they want to.
That doesn't even bring up any patents that Microsoft has on their formats.
Again, the focus should be on implementing Open/Free standards, not proprietary ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why, those dirty forkers...
All forked up (Score:5, Funny)
Now we know.
Re:All forked up (Score:4, Insightful)
- By opening up the Ximian connector for Exchange?
- By refining KDE and making it a pleasant environment>?
- By making SuSE a distro which requires very little (since 10.1 NO) tweaking to get to real work in a heterogeneous environment?
- By making the installation process so easy it's actually enjoyable?
- By submitting many, many valuable patches to the kernel?
- By submitting many, many valuable patches to OpenOffice.org?
- By making ReiserFS journaling actually work?
If this is "forking up" Linux, I sincerely hope that they continue to do so. I've been running SuSE 10.2 off and on and it's shaping up to be a wonderful distribution. The first thing I'm turning off is the Novell-style K-menu, then installing beryl (a great fork of XGL), but aside from those 10.2 is great in what I've tried so far. I still like it more than I like kubuntu (and kubuntu is great).
Novell, keep forking up Linux!
Now, what will 10.3 or 11 bring? That's a different question. Up to now Novell has made wonderful contributions to Linux as a whole, gained a lot of exposure for the environment, and as many people believe (true or not) any publicity is good publicity. Their "covenant" with Microsoft is catching the attention of many PHBs, and are more likely to seriously consider choosing something other than Microsoft thanks in part to Novell's actions. From what I see here only reactionists and zealots are attacking Novell over this rather than taking a wait-and-see approach. I'm somewhat doubtful that Microsoft will seriously try to kill Linux, but use their partnership with Novell as a learning exercise to improve the Windows platform, since if they try to break interoperability, "taint" linux, or exercise obvious patents such as the oh-so "innovative" double-click that the DoJ will be all over them, and the EU will be coming down on them very hard. Being a monopoly which was convicted of abusing their monopoly status, Microsoft still has to be very careful in how they tread where agreements such as this are concerned.
Wait and see. If next summer's release proves to be incompatible with the GPL, then it will certainly be time to jump ship.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Punctuation Abuse? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm, that reminds me of the trend of tacking on a question mark to a controversial headline in order to avoid claims of inaccuracy. The headline would be something like, "Slashdot Full of Weirdos?" and even if the article concedes that, no, only half of Slashdot posters are weirdos, so it can hardly be construed as "full" of them, the impression has still been made -- especially on the casual viewer who sees the headline, but doesn't read the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
---
"Novell, Inc. delivering hidden patent lock-ins to the Enterprise(TM)"
Re:It's hardly a "plugin". (Score:5, Informative)
If anything Novell is jumping the gun and getting ahead of the competition by including it into their version of OpenOffice before it hits upstream. I wouldn't call such a thing a fork.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The grandparent is asking a good question, while the rest of Slashdot is swallowing this FUD. The entire OO project is licensed under GPL. If Novell manages to release the translator as a dynamic plug-in then they are forking nothing. If, on the other hand, they release a fork with a built-in translator, then the translator will have to be licensed under GPL as well. How is that bad?? If they violate GPL then their fork will die overnight.
The parent is right though about the Novell's code being potential
Re:It's hardly a "plugin". (Score:4, Interesting)
This would be modular if (and only if) you could remove said link from the code and have it still work. I think the word WinDriver is appropriate here. Microsoft has, in the past, found ways to shift functionality around to break things when not doing things their way, even though "technically" they are not doing so. The hardware in a WinPrinter or WinModem doesn't change when you move it to Linux, it still functions entirely within spec, it's not its fault that Linux lacks the necessary extra code.
Alternatively, Microsoft could overload one of the Open Office functions in a way that makes Open Office run better (or appear to) with the module than without. Or they could make it flakier to use Open Document. There's a million ways they could coerce users into using their module. And, as with the browser wars, all they need is to make themselves appear needed.
Now, will this happen? I'm not sure. Novell seem suspicious of Microsoft, but the test of a trap is not whether you are suspicious of it, but whether you are caught. (Kerr Avon, "Bounty", Blake's 7) It also seems odd that - at a time the community is suspicious of the whole relationship - Novell would be doing this. It seems unhelpful for customer relationships (or anything else) to add fuel to the fire, no matter how innocent the whole thing is. There have simply been too many cases of innocent victims (users and businesses) in the past for people to simply relax. One should not be too relaxed around a vampire, even if they claim to have become vegetarian. (Vegetarian vampire ducks excluded.)
Is this a fork? I don't think it matters what it is - if it's safe, then it's helpful. If it's unsafe, it'll be lethal. The name on the bottle really doesn't count for much.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the case of readline, that would be an upstream link and I could see potential licensing issues there, as you are essentially including GPL code in a non-GPL object. Tha
Re:It's hardly a "plugin". (Score:5, Informative)
That's just completely wrong. OpenOffice absolutely loads it's filters via dlopen, etc. Here is a tutorial on how to build them: A link proving the AC is completely making crap up. [openoffice.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This deal has a lot more to it than just adding support for MS Office file formats. It must have more to do with branding. I don't un
wow (Score:2, Funny)
Re:wow to borrow from Austin Powers... (Score:2)
Watch out for the winding roads ahead, Novell... I see mshaft squirting oil on the road in your path...
But, the Powers question: can we say of Novell "It is SPITZ, or SWALLOWS, baby?..."
Bend Over Novell - this will really hurt (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't we have a week of everyone telling Novel that their deal with Microsoft wouldn't hold up to the GPLv3 and novel would have to fork everything and maintain it themselves? Now novel is accelerating the process and protecting themselves by controlling it(when and how) and it is Microsoft's doing because Novel made a deal with the devil.
Embrace, extend, extinguish (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Adolf Hitler
Yeah, that worked great for... OOOPS! Guess that strategy didn't work out so well for The Mustache.
Microsoft is having a formal, huh? (Score:2, Funny)
Microsoft's planned Office formal
Finally, a chance to wear my paper clip studs and cuff-links with a tuxedo!
The first evil spawn of Novell + Microsoft...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Novell must protect its business as an obligation to its shareholders. In the process, though, they may alienate some of the open-source community supporters to the point where countermeasures may be executed. Forks like this mean that some open-source developers and organizations may ban or license their software in such a way that prevents Novell from sharing the goodies. This in turn results in fragmentation that benefits nobody but Microsoft and its offerings.
This is a master stroke from Microsoft's point of view because this way they may sneak OpenXML into organizations that had otherwise had the sanity to abandon MS-Office and forces them to move in that direction again. Novell gets stuck in the middle, with their leadership getting screwed from both ends (open-source developers and advocates in one corner, and Microsoft in the other) while thinking that they are doing something good. In the end nobody but Microsoft wins this one.
Just say "NO" to OpenXML in an OpenOffice.org fork. Make it an optional package download, and make it a non-default setting, but don't fork the code. In fact, I'd go one step further and make it a requirement for Microsoft Office (and Office Mac) to support ODF if they want OpenXML included in any open-source product. That would make this a two-way street. Are you listening, Novell?
Cheers,
E
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Any such license could not be reasonably considered "open source." Actually, you might be able to call it open source, but it certainly wouldn't fall under "free software" and wouldn't be compatible with the GPL. So any existing GPL projects would not be able to block Novell unless Novell itself violated the GPL. Any existing BSD-licensed
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not fond of the Microsoft/Novell cross-licensing agreement, because it does seem to involve those companies playing games and creating FUD rather than actually doing something to create better software, but I don't see a reason to become paranoid that Novell is suddenly going to pervert the GPL license terms. If they tried, Novell would lose the right to redis
Re:The first evil spawn of Novell + Microsoft...? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm actually surprised that I can't find the evil considering Microsoft's been behind a lot of Novell's announcements lately. But this announcement seems more like something Novell's SUSE team has been working on.
groklaw author is not fair at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So once you download and install this plug in you make yourself a target for a lawsuit from MS. Furthermore the developers who may contribute to the plugins will also be sued (according to the CEO of MS).
Open source doesn't mean jack shit in this case. MS is laying the groundwork
Re:groklaw author is not fair at all (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is a fork necessary? (Score:2, Insightful)
Does anyone know if this changes the license for the entire product? Would they then be able to package proprietary code with it? If so this might be an attempt to not only "embrace and extend" but to gain market share from a competitor using a competitors software. (Eg. It doesn't matter if there is a free alternative, if there is a free alternative which is under their control)
Not to be contrarian (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's Another Little Thing They Can Fix... (Score:4, Funny)
Before you drink the kool-aid (Score:2)
How does Novell intend to improve compatibility
"The translators will be made available as plug-ins to Novell's OpenOffice.org product."
most likely in the extras disc just like they put the drivers for intel wireless cards in the extras
disc.
Totally Misleading Headline (Score:4, Funny)
Getting the relevant Microsoft license(s) to cooperate with a GPL license will be a new and complex Microsoft "To Serve OpenOffice.org Customers" policy.
It certainly would diffuse some of the friction between the two camps, appease gov't bodies and Microsoft has nothing to worry about from OO.org. There may be some good to come out of this....
That is of course until the "To Serve OpenOffice.org" policy is translated into plain english. When it is discovered the policy is in fact a cookbook! AHHHHHH!!!!!!
Can they please remove Java, too? (Score:2, Informative)
the solution is easy! (Score:2, Funny)
make OO the standard and fork MS.
Why did MS Change Formats? (Score:2)
Not really a fork (Score:5, Informative)
Finally, thank goodness... (Score:3, Interesting)
This actually gives OpenOffice a real chance - not only to be competitive but to offer a document format that has some power in its abilities.
Like I argued before with the whole OpenDocument controversy, the file formats and standards in play in the OSS world are just not robust enough to handle the current generation of documents, let alone even try to handle future concepts of what document storage could entail.
Whether OpenOffice takes advantage of it or not, the potential to maintain and use technologies that are standard in the MS world of documents like Ink and extended media content are now possible.
This is actually a win win for both sides of the fence. MS doesn't have to spend development money on a version of Office for the growing OSS OS world, and the OSS OS world can now freely be just as strong of a competitor in the business world. Basically, companies that can afford MS software will continue to do so, and smaller entities that cannot afford the price to buy into MS technology can go Open Source and not have to worry about document compatibility.
With Wordperfect also adding the MS Open format, the market once again has a choice in quality and price of the production product and won't have to worry about losing features based on the solution they choose.
If OpenDocument would have just been more 'open' about robust features that are covered in the MS OpenXML document specifications, we would see it be the standard everyone would be happily using.
However with OpenDocument it was quite unreasonable to expect MS to move to a document format that would stripe away 30% of the features that their products provide. I don't know why this was so hard for the OpenDocument crowd to understand, especially when MS was already in the process of creating an open standard that DID include more advanced document capabilities.
If we are lucky, now we might even see OpenOffice and Wordperfect move to add more feature rich concepts into their products to take advantage of the information they now easily read and store in the MS OpenXML format. Imagine everything from Ink to Sound and Video that are all even text searchable(via recognition), as you can already do with Microsoft Office products.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a big step in getting more businesses to accept OpenOffice.org. As you all know, it's one of the problems between the two camps with MS holding the biggest cards. By providing this plugin, it takes one more major obstacle away from businesses/governments using OpenOffice.org.
Novell SUSE is trying to set themselves up as the desktop Linux vendor, a market that Red Hat has abandoned. To do this they have to make sure that their distro plays nice with MS and other desktop offerings. It's not only a good thing, but necessary. In the medium term OpenOffice.org to be able to open and save in "OPEN" XML format. I'm self employed and if I couldn't communicate with my clients using doc format I would have to get MS Office, no way around it. I'm just happy I'll be able to stick with OpenOffice.org in the future as I'm not holding my breath of all my clients changing soon.
Feed the trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me repeat, They are not forking OpenOffice.
Hell, the sourceforge project is called "odf-converter", not "Novell's evil plan for OO.o".
Further, the only way that I could read the press release from Novell in order to interpret it as "Novell is forking OpenOffice.org" is by the sentence which refers to the current OpenOffice.org product as "Novell's OpenOffice.org". That sounds more like a marketing intern not understanding how OOo and open source works out, not a secret decision on Novell's part.
Finally, I really hate the attitude that many of those contributing to Slashdot has taken toward Novell's current projects. It's fairly one-sided. They are not violating the law. They are not violating the GPL. They are not violating the spirit of the GPL.
The point of the GPL is that anyone can take your code, change it, and redistribute it, as long as they follow the rules. You can't make a distinction between people redistributing your software who you like and those who you don't like.
There's a lot of you who are sounding like Bush-style Republicans who want free speech for themselves, but not for those saying things they don't agree with. I bet a lot of you beating up on Novell today for taking advantage of the GPL are the same who beat up on Newt Gingrich the other day when he wanted to restrict free speech on the Internet. Hypocrites.
If you don't like Novell's contributions, don't accept them; if you think Novell is trying to get OpenXML into OO.o so MS can sue RedHat for patent infringement, think again. I doubt OpenXML is any more patent-ridden than the
In other words, Novell can't paint any bigger target on Linux's back than there already is. MS and IBM have so many ambiguous patents that they can sue any Linux user for the indefinite future.
Believe it or not, Novell may just be trying to differentiate its product so people would buy it over their competitor's product. You know, effectively compete in the business world. That sort of thing.
Groklaw used to be a place where I could get a detailed analysis of legal issues I didn't understand. Now, it seems to have disintegrated into blind zealotry. Maybe they were trying to be funny in the article, and I just didn't get the joke...
Deal May Bind Novell/MS in Wierd ways (Score:3, Insightful)
If my theory holds, somebody with an itchy pen-finger wouldn't even have to wait for a Microsoft patent suit to sue the pair -- although I'd probably wait for the resolution of IBM's copyright countersuit against SCO for a possibly useful precedent.
There's usually more than one way to cat a file.
Divide and Conquer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe it's just the pessimist in me, but this sounds like a Divide and Conquer strategy to me.
With the OpenDocument format standard becoming a published ISO standard this week, [slashdot.org] who cares about Microsoft's OpenXML format? Forking OO.o just means that bugs and security problems will have to be fixed by two sources, deployed by two sources, and cause interoperability problems between users of vanilla OO.o and Novell's OO.
All to cause confusion and allow Microsoft to paint themselves in a better light than the FOSS community.
Jethro (Score:4, Funny)
We'r goin' over to Novell's. Bring the dogs, an summin that'll burn.
Forkin? Forkin? We'll givem forkin!
How is a plugin a fork? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also a limited-time agreement. The indemnity has a time limit. That means that they promise not to sue them now, but nothing is stopping them from suing them later - once they are known to possess offending products.
You know, kind of like Iraq. We knew they had WMDs at some point because we sold them the technology and much of the materials...
Re:Aha! LOTUS!!!! IBM!!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Linux desperately needs the world to see diversity in office suites. If they are addicted to ms office, but hesitant to plunge into OO.o, then maybe IBM/Lotus Development can FINALLY lay aside the sword, shields and maces for a while and try to merge the best bits of SO/OO.o/Lotus SmartSuite. OO.o DOES have some cool stuff, but it has NOT got:
-- Lotus Approach, your award-winning END-USER, non-programming-required relational database (and it NEEDS updat
Re: (Score:2)
As for speed, I hadn't noticed any.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As a previous commenter noted, there really isn't any easy way to add "modules" to OpenOffice. What Novell is doing is submitting a patch adding this (potentially patent infringing) functionality and calling it a module, despite the fact that it would have to be integrated into the source and OpenOffice would have to be recompiled in order to get the additional functionality.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the same Microsoft that a few weeks ago, claimed:
After essentially telling people they've started up a Mafia-style IP protection racket, is it any
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, actually! In Microsoft Doublespeak(TM), "open" means "patent-encumbered."
Re: (Score:3)
Um, short answer? Yes. Constantly.
Re:The system works.. (Score:4, Informative)
Its Standard proceedure for an open source development project.
They are GIVING it back to the community under the same license
as they go it.
Re:The system works.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the problem is not that Novell has decided to support it. The problem is that the standards bodies accepted it as a st