Comment Missing the point of the agreement (Score 1) 553
Novell has not, AFAIK, agreed that Microsoft is right. The basic conversation sounds like it was:
MS: I'll sue you
Novell: We'll fight you and win
MS: No you won't
Novell: Yes we will and you'll get lots more bad press
MS: What would it take to have us make nice in the market place, as our business users need/use Novell sw?
Novell: $$, lots, and an agreement not to sue us or our users. In return we'll make nice-nice.
No agreement on Novell's part that patent claim is valid, or precedent. As I see it this may actually be a win for the good guys. Now I suspect I'll be called a moron like other posters have. Don't really care, since I know I'm not one. That said, here's my opinion on the GPL (you may want to stop reading if you are really in love with the GPL/FSF beyond reason):
GPL is a similar concept to unions. GPL served its purpose at one time, but now that open source (GASP..not captialized version) software is mainstream GPL is not needed, and is in fact harmful. How many companies do you think will now have second thoughts about basing their products on Linux after this stunt by the FSF? How far do you think open source would have gotten without the support of companies like Novell, IBM, and others? What do you think would happen to open source software if companies started categorically disallowing its use in any aspect of work?
You want free software? Let the authors make it free, which most if not all the other open source licenses out there do (I personally prefer Apache for its freedom and for its recognition within the commercial environment). OMG, someone could re-sell my software: well, yeah..it's free to everyone, not just academics. If someone wants to packages my sw up, maybe add value or bug fixes, and sell it, and I've released it as open source, more power to them. They could even make modifications and sell those without contributing them back to the world at large. Again, yeah..the company wrote their software and added it to yours, just because yours is free shouldn't mean mine has to be free, unless you plan on paying my grocery bill.
The idea that only certain licenses are allowed to call themselves open source, that the term Open Source actually has a definition that lawsuits have been threatened if it's not used correctly (rumour, I've not seen the threats myself), and that the FSF can do what they are talking about doing, are all signs of software that is under dictatorial control, not sw that is free. Interesting point to make here: dictatorial control is usuually established or maintained in order to either keep from losing something of value or to gain something of value. My first thought is always to ask how much money is involved: i.e. how much does the FSF make every year from fees, or how much do the leaders make from speaking engagements, books, etc, that are the result of them being at the ehad of the FSF? How much of that is donated to open source projects, and is it only donated to projects that toe the party line?
Please don't take that as an accusation, but rather a question. Blind faith is never good, and if we cannot question the FSF and their motives, and get answers that make us warm and fuzzy inside, then why are we following them?
I'd love to give you details on how I personally have helped the open source movement, but it would involve giving details on the practices of past and present employers. which I won't do. So feel free to assume I am a MS wonk and rabidly anti-open-source, you'll be very wrong on both counts, but isn't that freedom what it's all about anyway?
MS: I'll sue you
Novell: We'll fight you and win
MS: No you won't
Novell: Yes we will and you'll get lots more bad press
MS: What would it take to have us make nice in the market place, as our business users need/use Novell sw?
Novell: $$, lots, and an agreement not to sue us or our users. In return we'll make nice-nice.
No agreement on Novell's part that patent claim is valid, or precedent. As I see it this may actually be a win for the good guys. Now I suspect I'll be called a moron like other posters have. Don't really care, since I know I'm not one. That said, here's my opinion on the GPL (you may want to stop reading if you are really in love with the GPL/FSF beyond reason):
GPL is a similar concept to unions. GPL served its purpose at one time, but now that open source (GASP..not captialized version) software is mainstream GPL is not needed, and is in fact harmful. How many companies do you think will now have second thoughts about basing their products on Linux after this stunt by the FSF? How far do you think open source would have gotten without the support of companies like Novell, IBM, and others? What do you think would happen to open source software if companies started categorically disallowing its use in any aspect of work?
You want free software? Let the authors make it free, which most if not all the other open source licenses out there do (I personally prefer Apache for its freedom and for its recognition within the commercial environment). OMG, someone could re-sell my software: well, yeah..it's free to everyone, not just academics. If someone wants to packages my sw up, maybe add value or bug fixes, and sell it, and I've released it as open source, more power to them. They could even make modifications and sell those without contributing them back to the world at large. Again, yeah..the company wrote their software and added it to yours, just because yours is free shouldn't mean mine has to be free, unless you plan on paying my grocery bill.
The idea that only certain licenses are allowed to call themselves open source, that the term Open Source actually has a definition that lawsuits have been threatened if it's not used correctly (rumour, I've not seen the threats myself), and that the FSF can do what they are talking about doing, are all signs of software that is under dictatorial control, not sw that is free. Interesting point to make here: dictatorial control is usuually established or maintained in order to either keep from losing something of value or to gain something of value. My first thought is always to ask how much money is involved: i.e. how much does the FSF make every year from fees, or how much do the leaders make from speaking engagements, books, etc, that are the result of them being at the ehad of the FSF? How much of that is donated to open source projects, and is it only donated to projects that toe the party line?
Please don't take that as an accusation, but rather a question. Blind faith is never good, and if we cannot question the FSF and their motives, and get answers that make us warm and fuzzy inside, then why are we following them?
I'd love to give you details on how I personally have helped the open source movement, but it would involve giving details on the practices of past and present employers. which I won't do. So feel free to assume I am a MS wonk and rabidly anti-open-source, you'll be very wrong on both counts, but isn't that freedom what it's all about anyway?
