such good friends!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Feb 15, 2007 7:49 PM EDT |
Maybe I'm just tired, but this seemed like a bipolar interview, almost surreal. "We didn't need to do this, but we did! We didn't need to make those deals, but we did! Here we are, whether we should be or not!" |
| swbrown Feb 15, 2007 8:01 PM EDT |
Novell: "I cut myself" |
| Abe Feb 16, 2007 5:51 AM EDT |
Quoting:"We're excited by the muted reaction to Vista,"Novell: Spare us the PR (BS) Please! We don't need you to "fight" Microsoft (Vista). All we ask is to respect the spirit of FOSS & of the GPL and don't make alliances with a convicted monopolist. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 16, 2007 6:53 AM EDT |
abe, why aren't you asking the same thing of Sun, IBM, and Intel? Why are you singling out Novell? You do realize that Sun, IBM, and Intel have all entered into "alliances" with the confirmed monopolist, don't you? Of course, maybe you've forgotten that IBM is also a confirmed monopolist (I reserve the use of the word "convicted" to criminal cases when talking about the legal arena.) Yes, IBM - that great corporation that is actually the source of the term FUD (actually it was coined by the founder of Amdahl in referring to IBM's marketing tactics). IBM - that great corporation whose corporate politics have seen the destruction of many good and decent programmers who didn't toe the line (I've worked with a few of the victims of the layoffs in the mid-90s.) IBM - that great corporation whose legal team actually wrote the playbook of courtroom tactics that SCOG and Microsoft are reading from. IBM - that great corporation who from the very start of their existence made alliances designed to squeeze out the competition through strong-arm tactics (hence the 1952 anti-trust lawsuit against IBM over punch-cards that wasn't settled until 1956.) You don't trust MS to be FOSS friendly- neither do I. But I don't trust IBM, Sun or Intel either. They are all corporations, and they will always act in what they deem to be in the best interest of the corporate body. If IBM determines that Linux is costing them more money than it's worth, they will cut ties with Novell and Redhat in a New York minute. |
| dcparris Feb 16, 2007 11:02 AM EDT |
To borrow from the prophets of old, "they have all gone whoring after other gods". In this case, their names are Washigton, Lincoln, Franklin, et. al. |
| Abe Feb 16, 2007 6:08 PM EDT |
Darren,
I didn't really want to respond to these question because of their obvious answers. But what the heck, it doesn't hurt anyone. Here it goes.Quoting:why aren't you asking the same thing of Sun, IBM, and Intel? Why are you singling out Novell?Non of them signed an agreement that included FOSS or GPLed software. Novell is the only company that did, no body else Quoting:You do realize that Sun, IBM, and Intel have all entered into "alliances" with the confirmed monopolist, don't you?Yes, I am very aware of it. That is normal business strategy. Again, non of those agreements had anything to do with GPLed software or covenant protection related to GPLed software. Quoting:Of course, maybe you've forgotten that IBM is also a confirmed monopolist (I reserve the use of the word "convicted" to criminal cases when talking about the legal arena.)No I haven't and two wrongs doesn't make it right. Besides, IBM is a different company now. Quoting:Yes, IBM - that great corporation that is actually the source of the term FUD (actually it was coined by the founder of Amdahl in referring to IBM's marketing tactics).So. what is your point? IBM is a different company now and a big supporter of FOSS who was the first to grant FOSS some of its patents for free. Quoting:IBM - that great corporation whose corporate politics have seen the destruction of many good and decent programmers who didn't toe the line (I've worked with a few of the victims of the layoffs in the mid-90s.)Again, what is your point? IBM was and may still be the big evil. What I care about is the they are supporters of FOSS and have been a good advocate for Linux. They even had TV ads for Linux. IBM might be doing so because they are benefiting from FOSS. So what, everyone else does. An isn't that what FOSS is all about? Benefit for humanity! Quoting:IBM - that great corporation whose legal team actually wrote the playbook of courtroom tactics that SCOG and Microsoft are reading from.Yes they are, so what? That was a different time and different strategy. What count is now. If tomorrow IBM does what Novell did with MS, they will get what Novell is getting. Quoting:IBM - that great corporation who from the very start of their existence made alliances designed to squeeze out the competition through strong-arm tactics (hence the 1952 anti-trust lawsuit against IBM over punch-cards that wasn't settled until 1956.)I recall that DEC and other companies had a fair chance competing against IBM. MS is leaving no chance at all for any one else to be able to compete. If IBM wrote a book about sleazy tactics, MS wrote an encyclopedia. MS copies and steals technology. IBM is an innovative company that brought many advanced technology to every one. Quoting:You don't trust MS to be FOSS friendly- neither do I.I am glad we agree on one thing. What do you know, we have something in common! Quoting:But I don't trust IBM, Sun or Intel either. They are all corporations, and they will always act in what they deem to be in the best interest of the corporate body. If IBM determines that Linux is costing them more money than it's worth, they will cut ties with Novell and Redhat in a New York minute.Hay, we have two things in common. Why stop! Like I said, IBM is hugely benefiting from FOSS and specifically from Linux. It revived its mainframe systems and selling lots of hardware because of Linux. Why would they want to drop it? Edited: Darren, Since you haven't responded to my post yet, it is fair to make one more addition on the difference between Novell & the rest. One big difference is Novell supporting OOXML, which no other company is supporting other than couple software developing groups that were hired by MS, for a fee, to develop translator add-ons between OOXML and ODF. Sun, IBM etc... are all supporting ODF and doing their best to stop OOXML from gaining ISO standard status. MS is back to its old ways of extend and exterminate. Novell is helping MS in this effort. I ask you, why is Novell doing that, Is this a good thing? Isn't Novell working against FOSS? |
| swbrown Feb 16, 2007 7:50 PM EDT |
> Non of them signed an agreement that included FOSS or GPLed software. Novell is the only company that did, no body else Or more specifically, attempted (and succeeded) to circumvent the intent of the authors of that software. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 18, 2007 7:22 AM EDT |
Novell isn't supporting OOXML - they may have provided functionality for OpenOffice to be able to read OOXML, but that is not the same as supporting it. Now think about why they would want to do such a thing. In the real world, most businesses are going to be using MS-Office (and they will for some time to come). By creating a OOXML support, they ensure that OpenOffice users (people like their internal salesforce) will be able to communicate with potential customers that are still using MS-Office. Now as to swbrown's accusation: > Or more specifically, attempted (and succeeded) to circumvent the intent of the authors of that software. Name ONE *specific* instance where this happened. Name the patent and the software package. Unless you can do that, such a thing that you're stating did *not* happen. Edited: IBM is *not* FOSS-friendly - if they were, then they would have assigned all those patents over to the public domain, instead of simply granting a non-exclusive license to the world (which could potentially be revoked.) Sun is providing an ODF plugin for MS-Office - this shows their true anti-FOSS colors by supporting Microsoft. |
| Abe Feb 18, 2007 9:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:Novell isn't supporting OOXML - they may have provided functionality for OpenOffice to be able to read OOXML, but that is not the same as supporting it Darren, Please let us not split hairs. May be you should read, or re-read if you already read it before. http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?stor... It is a great read. Please pay close attention to the section quoted below Seriously though, let us not argue for the sake of argument. There is a ton of material on the Internet, which enlightened me and could enlighten you too, and there is no need for me to cite it all for you. Just Google for "Novell supports OOXML", sit back and relax reading to your hearts content. Quoting: Novell: "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. "Sun gave OpenOffice.org and continue to support it and just recently announced that they are releasing a plug-in, not only for OOXML like Novell is planning, but for all MS Office formats. Why is Novell cooperating with MS directly instead of FOSS in their effort to create a conversion when Sun already is in the process of releasing a plug-in to every one? Why restrict it to OOXML only like MS is doing? May be because MS wants it so they force users of previous MS Office apps to purchase MS Office 2007 that is OOXML based? If it is going to be a perfect conversion, Novell must be planning to use MS OOXML Schema patents and that is not in compliance with the GPL. Since their agreement with MS, Novell can't be trusted any more. they are pursuing their own interest ONLY and let everyone else be damned. That is not the purpose, intention, spirit of FOSS and certainly not its way of progressing either. Quoting:Edited: IBM is *not* FOSS-friendly - if they were, then they would have assigned all those patents over to the public domain, instead of simply granting a non-exclusive license to the world (which could potentially be revoked.) IBM doesn't have to open their patent silos to be FOSS-friendly, they did the next best thing to keep their business protected from other companies patents (especially MS) and assured FOSS users of any IBM patent risks. They made a promise not to sue FOSS for any IBM patents and gave away a portion. I think this is about all a commercial company can do just to show its support and be a friend. Darren, would you agree that the US should give all its nuclear arsenal to the UN while every other country who has theirs to retain them? I didn't think so. Friend or not, what is important is to see each by their actions and deduct from them. And may I finish this with a closing proverb, which I don't recall the source, "the enemy of my enemy could be a friend", which applies perfectly in this situation. |
| swbrown Feb 18, 2007 1:17 PM EDT |
> Novell isn't supporting OOXML - they may have provided functionality for OpenOffice to be able to read OOXML, but that is not the same as supporting it. So Novell smoked but didn't inhale? > Now as to swbrown's accusation: > > Or more specifically, attempted (and succeeded) to circumvent the intent of the authors of that software. > > Name ONE *specific* instance where this happened. Samba, Jeremy Allison. > Sun is providing an ODF plugin for MS-Office - this shows their true anti-FOSS colors by supporting Microsoft. By undermining Microsoft's document lockin that prevents people from adopting Free Software alternatives? You know, like SUN's OpenOffice.org? Umm, yeah, ok. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 18, 2007 2:03 PM EDT |
swbrown, I was very specific and you only answered half, so if you'll be so kind - what licensing has Novell entered into w/ regard to Samba? As for Sun - they are making it so MS can have their MS-Office meet emerging state requirements for ODF based software. Sun is making it so people don't have to migrate from MS-Office. You can't have your cake and eat it too - for every criticism this crowd brings against Novell, I will be able to show that it is just applicable to IBM, Sun, and/or Intel. So let's just stop the irrational Novell-bashing, shall we? It's just divisive of FOSS supporters, and it causes a diversion of efforts in promoting FOSS. It just adds to the FUD fodder for organizations like MS to point to, saying "look at the bunch of crackpots those 'free software' zealots are!" Most people are wary of zealotry, thank goodness. |
| swbrown Feb 18, 2007 2:10 PM EDT |
> swbrown, I was very specific and you only answered half, so if you'll be so kind - what licensing has Novell entered into w/ regard to Samba? I was pretty specific as well, "Or more specifically, attempted (and succeeded) to circumvent the intent of the authors of that software." So are you arguing Allison's intent re Samba's licensing was not circumvented? Even though he's saying it was? Quoth Allison: "that even if it does not violate the letter of the licence, it violates the intent of the GPL licence the Samba code is released under, which is to treat all recipients of the code equally." Seeing as we're talking about /Allison's/ intent, I can't see how it's possible to argue his intent was not circumvented when he believes it was, at least, without first convincing Allison. > As for Sun - they are making it so MS can have their MS-Office meet emerging state requirements for ODF based software. Sun is making it so people don't have to migrate from MS-Office. When did this become about killing Microsoft Office? The goal is to prevent Free Software from being locked out, and if people start saving in open formats, guess what? Goal achieved. > You can't have your cake and eat it too - for every criticism this crowd brings against Novell, I will be able to show that it is just applicable to IBM, Sun, and/or Intel. So let's just stop the irrational Novell-bashing, shall we? This is your problem - you can't see the difference. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 18, 2007 3:54 PM EDT |
I'm saying Allison is blowing smoke - until he serves a cease and desist letter to Novell with specific licensing for specific patents identified. Period. Put or shut up. He says Novell circumvented his intention - ok ... prove it. Identify with specificity the nature of the circumvention. He doesn't even know all the details of the MS-Novell covenant. On my mention of Sun - I was told that Novell is acting against FOSS by supporting OOXML in OpenOffice. I was pointing out that Novell is *not* acting against FOSS, but if anything Sun is - they are promoting further use of non-FOSS software with their ODF plugin for MS-Office. At least Novell's plugin means the possibility of more widespread use of OpenOffice. The problem is that the anti-Novell crowd sees differences that aren't there. |
| Abe Feb 18, 2007 5:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:I was told that Novell is acting against FOSS by supporting OOXML in OpenOffice.I guess this is pointing to what I said. I think you missed my whole point point. What I meant is supporting the OOXML standard and its schema only for MS Office 2007 only and not including MS Office before 2007. There is a difference there. |
| swbrown Feb 19, 2007 5:24 PM EDT |
> He says Novell circumvented his intention - ok ... prove it. Identify with specificity the nature of the circumvention. Is it that hard to read his quotes? If he's saying it's against his intent, then, well, it's against his intent. You can't really argue against that, it's his perspective. It's against my intent as well, as I have GPLed code in SUSE. It opens a path to classic UNIX destructive behavior by allowing one entity to profit from freedom by attacking that freedom given to others. Section 7 is intended to prevent this scenario with patents, but the indirection used by Novell circumvented it. It's why we want GPL3 to close that hole, as it's our intent that not be allowed for the good of the software and to not repeat the mistakes of UNIX. This isn't rocket science, and you can find quotes by lots of significant people to that effect. > On my mention of Sun - I was told that Novell is acting against FOSS by supporting OOXML in OpenOffice. I was pointing out that Novell is *not* acting against FOSS, but if anything Sun is Sun's work allows the non-Free to author Free. Novell's work allows the Free to author non-Free. Clearly, Sun's work is in the interest of Free Software, as it eats away at the document format lockin that keeps Free Software marginalized and Frees communication in the same way internet protocols are Free regardless of if the software speaking them is Free. Novell's work does the opposite, as it grows the document format lockin by directly authoring more non-standard documents and encouraging their creation by others. That's not helpful, but I don't really consider it significant either, unless they are planning to use their same patent indirection around the GPL2 to add parts of OOXML that are restricted by patents to OpenOffice.org - then I'll be really pissed off. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 20, 2007 6:14 AM EDT |
It's one thing to say the moon is made of green cheese. But it is quite another to prove it. Allison claims that the MS-Novell deal circumvents his intent in using the GPL v2. Ok. That's the claim. But as with the claim about the moon and its composition, there needs to be proof. He claims that Novell is circumventing his intent by not providing equal protection to downstream users. OK - where specifically is this occurring. For each claim, there must be supporting evidence. So far, not a single critic of the MS-Novell deal has been able to point out one single instance where any freedom was lost by any user of GPL software. And that includes the great and infallible Jeremy Allison. The deal has existed for 3 months. Prof. Moglen claimed on February 2 that we would see some big decision come from FSF on this whole issue with Novell in 2 weeks. That decision is overdue - so far, all I've seen is a lot of smoke blowing. It is time for the Novell bashers to put up or shut up. Provide real evidence and not just "reasoning". It's one thing to claim that Tux was assassinated but it's a whole other thing to prove it. |
| jdixon Feb 20, 2007 6:40 AM EDT |
> He claims that Novell is circumventing his intent by not providing equal protection to downstream users. Based on the information we have available, Novell customers are now covered by an agreement which they are not authorized to pass on to other people. I think the facts are clear as to that. Allison's position is that this circumvents his intention to provide equal protection to downstream users. I agree that the agreement is not the great evil some make it out to be, but Allison is the only person qualified to speak to his intent, and he has done so. He may be mistaken about the nature of the agreement, but there can be no denying that by his understanding, the agreement violates his intent. Do I like the agreement? No; and since I have no desire to be covered by such an agreement, I won't use Novell's products. In all fairness, the odds of my doing so were slim to start with. This agreement is simply the final nail in the coffin. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 20, 2007 7:15 AM EDT |
You know how far your arguments would get in a court of law? Without any specifics (and Allison et al have provided none) you'd get nowhere. Oh wait, if you argued it like SCOG, I suppose you'd be able to stall for a few years before being tossed out on your ear (figuratively speaking). So what I'm going to continue to say is "Where's the beef?" So far, "Novell did this!!! Novell did that!!!" and so far no has answered when asked "Where did they do this? Where did they do that?" I keep getting more of "He said they did it, so they must have, because he wrote package X". That doesn't answer the need to be specific. What it does show is that FOSS supporters are just as willing to make accusations without backing them up with specific evidence as the enemies of FOSS such as SCOG. And that has to stop. The deal is over 3 months old. No one has yet produced a single concrete instance of any anti-FOSS actions on the part of Novell (creating a OOXML plug-in for OOo doesn't count since it actually fosters further adoption of FOSS software.) And claiming that the MS-Novell covenant is anti-FOSS just doesn't cut it because the covenant doesn't take away anyone's freedom with regard to FOSS software. Where's that big decision we were promised by Prof. Moglen? Or was he just blowing smoke when he said it would happen in 2 weeks? |
| Abe Feb 20, 2007 10:15 AM EDT |
Darren,
You are hopeless to get convinced because you refuse to be convinced. You just keep going in circles. Go back and read the previous posts again and again and you will find the answers to your "new" questions. No one is talking about the legality. Legally, Novell and MS found a loop hole and that is what we all are talking about. This loop hole has to and needs to be plugged. We are talking about a contract that many people don't like because it endangers FOSS. We don't need to give you a proof because you are just an atom in the FOSS Ocean. Pretty much don't count for anything. RMS & Moglen authored GPL2 and happen to believe that Novell & MS contract doesn't comply with the intent of the GPL2. They, along with many other people, all believe that the contract is contradictory to the GPL spirit. So, they are writing GPL3 to remedy this situation. When will GPL be ready? Well, when it is ready. What ever you say is irrelavent. If you like GPL3, fine, help yourself and use it, it you don't, tough, do not use it. It is as simple as that. END OF STORY. |
| jdixon Feb 20, 2007 10:49 AM EDT |
> You know how far your arguments would get in a court of law? Allison isn't arguing in a court of law. Everyone admits that the Novell/Microsoft deal is legal. Everyone admits that it's outside the scope of the GPL as currently written. It also acts counter to the intent of the people who wrote and at least some of the people who use the GPL. I know that if I were a programmer using the GPL, it would be counter to mine. > Without any specifics (and Allison et al have provided none) you'd get nowhere. I just gave you the specifics. The coverage provided by the Microsoft agreement cannot be transferred. This is counter to the intent of the GPL to treat all users equally. If you can't understand or accept that, as Abe said, there's no point in continuing the conversation. And the worst of it is that I'm largely on your side in the discussion. :( |
| DarrenR114 Feb 20, 2007 11:02 AM EDT |
I am not hopeless to be convinced, but you and a couple of others refuse to rise to my level of "proof": that is provide specific software package (which in this case Samba has been put forward) *AND* an applicable patent. So far, no one has done so. Ipso facto, the circumvention isn't real. This isn't even addressing the issue that I've asked which freedom of the "seven software freedoms" has been violated by the MS-Novell. Again, no answer. Allison is infallible? He also went on record to say that the deal is not about interoperability, but the information that has been put out by the parties to the deal contradict his public statements. So how can I trust his assessment that the deal circumvents his intent, when he can't even give an accurate depiction of the deal. It is obvious he doesn't understand the full nature of the deal because he can't even get what the objective of the deal correct. That's what it will take to convince me. When someone shows me that I'm wrong with actual evidence, then fine, I'll admit I'm wrong. But here in this issue, no one has shown any PROOF that Novell is Anti-FOSS or that the deal "violates the spirit" or "circumvents the intent" - only a bunch of opinion that has no basis in fact. And the problem is that a small faction is letting this deal, which has yet to be shown as negative for FOSS, cause more division. What should be happening is that the people who are dissing Novell without proof should stop talking about Novell and advocate the positives of Linux, and FOSS in general, and get at least one new Linux user each month. edit: Don't forget to register those new Linux users: http://counter.li.org/ I registered years ago when they first started it, but didn't stay "active" and so had to re-register. |
| swbrown Feb 21, 2007 1:59 PM EDT |
> Allison claims that the MS-Novell deal circumvents his intent in using the GPL v2. Ok. That's the claim. But as with the claim about the moon and its composition, there needs to be proof. He has to prove it was his intent? lol. Remember what you were trying to argue against? "Or more specifically, attempted (and succeeded) to circumvent the intent of the authors of that software.". If he says it was against his intent, it was against his intent, period. That's not what you are now trying to argue against, you're trying to change the argument. > For each claim, there must be supporting evidence. So far, not a single critic of the MS-Novell deal has been able to point out one single instance where any freedom was lost by any user of GPL software. You're trying to change the argument again, the problem isn't that it takes away freedom directly, it's that it creates a situation where it's profitable to attempt to take away freedom, so is much more likely to happen. It's taking away a RESTRICTION. Like I said, "It opens a path to classic UNIX destructive behavior by allowing one entity to profit from freedom by attacking that freedom given to others. Section 7 is intended to prevent this scenario with patents, but the indirection used by Novell circumvented it.". If you don't like that restriction, fine, license your own code under the BSD rather than the GPL. We didn't, we used the GPL. > For each claim, there must be supporting evidence. Like your claim Novell's market cap is much larger than Red Hat's? :) You seem rather anxious to defend Novell even to the point of it being ridiculous.. > It is time for the Novell bashers to put up or shut up. Provide real evidence and not just "reasoning". Have you intentionally not been listening to anyone for the last few weeks? I have to wonder why you're so anxious to defend Novell.. |
| swbrown Feb 21, 2007 2:07 PM EDT |
> I am not hopeless to be convinced, but you and a couple of others refuse to rise to my level of "proof": that is provide specific software package (which in this case Samba has been put forward) *AND* an applicable patent. So far, no one has done so. Ipso facto, the circumvention isn't real. Stop building strawmen. Even without ANY valid patents, this allows Microsoft to litigate while Novell is immune. This would be profitable for Novell, as it would force customers to them. This gives Novell a profit motive to cause, or allow, Free Software's freedom to be attacked. "Liberty or Death" has become "Liberty or Death or Novell". This is EXACTLY the kind of attack on Free Software's freedom that section 7 is intended to prevent. It's the major advancement over the BSD license, and what has kept the community strong. Since Microsoft and Novell claim to have bypassed section 7 with their deal, we are now vulnerable to this kind of attack. If you don't get this, you are indeed hopeless. |
| Abe Feb 21, 2007 3:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:"Liberty or Death" has become "Liberty or Death or Novell". swbrown: To be more specific, I would say "Liberty or Death" has become "Novell or Death". Doesn't that remind us of a monopoly saying "MS/Windows or Death"!!!. It sure seems like Liberty has been totally removed as a choice. Fat chance in H*LL for the MS-Novell alliance. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 21, 2007 4:22 PM EDT |
They haven't bypassed section 7 and if you don't get that you never will. Even without the MS-Novell deal, there was always the same level of threat against FOSS developers and users. What this deal actually does is force MS to sue Novell directly if they want to file suit over a patent. Which is better Redhat's "indemnity promise" or Novell's contractual obligation to stand in my place in court? If MS decides to sue me for some IP I got from using Redhat, Redhat will pay the costs, but I still end up spending my time in court. If MS decides to sue me for some IP that I got from SLED, then they have to take Novell to court instead. |
| swbrown Feb 21, 2007 6:09 PM EDT |
> They haven't bypassed section 7 and if you don't get that you never will. They've stated they have! They have a FAQ with a topic "How is this agreement compatible with Novell's obligations under Section 7 of the GPL?" that states they have! Eben Moglen himself looked at the agreement for weeks and decided it does bypass section 7! RMS agrees! At this point, are you really serious or just trolling? > Even without the MS-Novell deal, there was always the same level of threat against FOSS developers and users. No, now there is a DIFFERENT level of threat - threat against Novell vs. threat against the world. Novell not only gets a free pass to watch its partner sue to destroy the rights of others to software it can distribute immune, but they PROFIT if that happens. If section 7 was in effect, this would destroy Novell's business as well and they would have to fight it. Liberty or Death has been circumvented. That's one of the reasons we license software under the GPL, and it's been circumvented. If you don't understand why this is dangerous to Free Software, you're blind. The fewer people that have to stand up to defend Free Software, the more likely it will be harmed. Getting people to stand together against an adversary is the essence of the GPL. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 22, 2007 6:33 AM EDT |
Novell does NOT get a free pass - MS can sue them over the same IP rights that you're so worried about. The customers of Novell don't get a free pass - they simply have Novell as a shield. No one is getting a free pass. Novell's customers simply have been granted deeper pockets to resist pariahs like Microsoft and SCOG. Novell does NOT profit if MS sues customers of Redhat, or Debian users. How exactly is being COMPATIBLE with section 7 of GPL v2 a circumvention of the license again? As for trusting the pronouncements of Professor Moglen, we were promised by him that a "ruling" from the FSF board would be announced a week ago (Feb 15, 2007). Where is that "ruling"? Shouldn't he at least made a follow-up announcement if there was a delay? He verified that the quote was correct with another journalist. Since I can't trust him in this, how can I possibly trust him in any other pronouncement regarding the MS-Novell covenant? |
| jdixon Feb 22, 2007 6:51 AM EDT |
> How exactly is being COMPATIBLE with section 7 of GPL v2 a circumvention of the license again? It's not. It's a circumvention of the intent of the copyright holder. The copyright holder has stated so, and he's the only person qualified to determine such. Why you can't take his word as to what his intent was is beyond me. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 22, 2007 7:00 AM EDT |
Because Mr. Allison has also stated two things:
1. He doesn't know all the details of the deal.
2. He made the claim that the deal is not about "interoperability" whereas everything made public about resulting developments from that agreement show that the agreement is about nothing BUT interoperability. Edited: Besides, Allison's "strawman" argument isn't even valid since offering protection against lawsuits is *not* one of the software freedoms intended (as stated by the author of the GPL) nor does it restrict in any way against the freedom of the endusers to do what they want with the Samba software. If Mr. Allison has some other "intent" then he should have clearly outlined it in further licensing, prior to releasing Samba under the GPL. As Mr. Stallman has so eloquently pointed out on numerous occasions, the GPL is intended to foster software freedom. Mr. Stallman has even outlined what those software freedoms are. The MS-Novell deal in no way removes or restricts any of those freedoms with regard to the Samba software package. Therefore, there is no circumvention of the intent of the GPL, since the intent is clearly software freedom as defined by the seven software freedoms. What Mr. Allison is yelping about is really unspecified intent on his part. He has never outlined anywhere that organizations distributing Samba should not be allowed to become proxy defendants in lawsuits, acting on behalf of their customers. If that was his original intent, then he should have licensed Samba to specify such. If that only became his intent *after* learning about the MS-Novell deal, then he has no reason to continue squawking. |
| jdixon Feb 22, 2007 7:13 AM EDT |
> 1. He doesn't know all the details of the deal. He doesn't need to know all the details to determine that a specific detail violates his intent. > 2. He made the claim that the deal is not about "interoperability" whereas everything made public about resulting developments from that agreement show that the agreement is about nothing BUT interoperability. That is entirely a matter of individual judgment. You don't know all the details of the deal either, and probably fewer details that he does. Why should we value your judgment over his? I will also point out that he was most likely referring to the deal from Microsoft's viewpoint, not Novell's. Microsoft and Novell have admitted that their views of the deal differ. For Microsoft, it appears that the IP sections of the deal are far more important than the interoperability sections. |
| dinotrac Feb 22, 2007 9:17 AM EDT |
>Non of them signed an agreement that included FOSS or GPLed software. Novell is the only company that did, no body else Says who? Says you? I can almost (but not guaranteed) that you are dead wrong. For one thing, their consulting arm does a lot of work with GPL'd software (hint -- they support Linux, including Linux on the mainframe). It's been years since I looked at an IBM support contract, but I would be shocked if it does not contain provisions that provide more or less the same kind of protection that the Novell agreement purports to provide. Better, actually, because the world's largest IT patent portfolio happens to belong to none other than IBM. |
| Abe Feb 22, 2007 9:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:I can almost (but not guaranteed) that you are dead wrongCite one example and I am willing to admit I am wrong right here on LXer. Quoting:HopelessDidn't I say he is hopeless before? Guys, He keeps going in cirlces. Save yourself time and drop it |
| dcparris Feb 22, 2007 4:15 PM EDT |
Well, if nothing else, The Microvell deal has certainly spurred discussion. Over 60 posts on one thread, plus several other threads devoted to the topic, plus threads in which somehow this deal became the topic of discussion. I can honestly say that I have never seen a topic bring so many people together to talk about one thing for so long. :-) /me goes back to dark cave... |
| tuxchick Feb 22, 2007 4:41 PM EDT |
don, I think it's a sign that the deal and what novell and microshaft have said about it are deliberately vague, ambiguous, and full of doubletalk, to the point that a rational analysis is not possible. Hence all the circular 'blind men describing an elephant'-type discussions. Which in itself is telling- when they can't say what's what in simple, direct language it means the truth is ugly. |
| dcparris Feb 22, 2007 4:45 PM EDT |
:-) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!