What Would You Do If Canonical Signed A PLA With Microsoft?

[Mark76]

Personally I'd switch to Debian and burn an effigy of MS (our MS, not theirs) in protest :p

But, given that Canonical is British and not American (and therefore not subject to the USA's crazy patent laws), I doubt we have to worry about such an occurence :D

[sarah.fauzia]

Well, I'm using Arch Linux, but if I was still using Ubuntu, I'd take that as a cue to switch to Arch :P

[Crafty Kisses]

If this were to happen, which I highly doubt ever will. I'd either go with Gentoo, Sabayon or Arch.

[hatten]

I would shrug my shoulders and keep using arch.

[lukjad]

Personally I'd switch to Debian and burn an effigy of MS (our MS, not theirs) in protest :p

But, given that Canonical is British and not American (and therefore not subject to the USA's crazy patent laws), I doubt we have to worry about such an occurence :D
What is this PLA?

[RazVayne]

I'd drink the blood of a puppy.
Meaning...bussiness as usual.

Oh,and Arch +1

[Swarms]

It actually depends on what would happen. If Ubuntu kept heading in the same direction, or Ubuntu would improve in a good way. I wouldn't be upset then.

[dspari1]

I already switched to Sabayon a while back, so it wouldn't make a difference to me, but I would imagine that people would switch to something like Fedora or Mint.

[I-75]

What is this PLA?

I would like to know too....

[Mark76]

Patent Licencing Agreement

[lukjad]

Patent Licencing Agreement
What exactly would be patented, and what difference would that make? It's really hard to answer not knowing...

[samjh]

I would shrug my shoulders and keep using arch.

As a very recent Arch convert, I'd do the same. :)

[Mark76]

What exactly would be patented, and what difference would that make? It's really hard to answer not knowing...
Have you not paid any attention to the Novell saga?

Or Tom-Tom, more recently.

[Corelogik]

Switch to something else. Most likely Debian since Ubuntu is derived from there and it would be the most "familiar".

[Tibuda]

What exactly would be patented, and what difference would that make? It's really hard to answer not knowing...

Samba, NTFS/FAT32, Wine, MS Office formats in OpenOffice, double-click...

[lukjad]

Have you not paid any attention to the Novell saga?

Or Tom-Tom, more recently.

No, I never cared really, but I didn't know what really was going on.


Samba, NTFS/FAT32, Wine, MS Office formats in OpenOffice, double-click...

If the double click was patented, then I would switch to one that wasn't. But I don't see that happening. :)

[gnomeuser]

While I doubt that will ever happen since Microsoft prefers cross license agreements and Canonical has nothing to bring to that table. I think it would be a good thing to have interoperability agreements with more OS vendors. I would warmly welcome such agreements with Apple and Microsoft, I think despite the bad press, Novells deal with Microsoft has done both user groups a lot of good and has brought Microsoft closer to the Open Source communities even making them part of them in certain cases, letting them ship and support Open Source software in their releases or releasing their own code as Open Source.

I think it would be a good thing, I rightly despise software patents but I love interoperatibility and if this is what it takes I am for it. I think it would serve the users of all three platforms if the respective vendors would find ways to cooperate. Currently this involves patent agreements, that is an unfortunate situation, I doubt it will be be the case forever. Microsoft is starting I suspect to get tired to losing million dollar patent infringement suit after suit, I predict that within 5 years they will officially put their weight behind a favorable patent reform proposal. The political climate in several places is also changing towards a more sane approach.

So I would welcome it, with open arms indeed. I personally would create a huge banner to hang on my house thanking Microsoft and Canonical.

As an additional benefit all the annoying Microsoft whiners and Mono haters would hopefully leave the forums making them a much more pleasant place to be.

Win-win scenerio.

:popcorn:

[sujoy]

i'd wonder why that happened and open up a thread at the arch forums :P

[Mark76]

While I doubt that will ever happen since Microsoft prefers cross license agreements and Canonical has nothing to bring to that table. I think it would be a good thing to have interoperability agreements with more OS vendors. I would warmly welcome such agreements with Apple and Microsoft, I think despite the bad press, Novells deal with Microsoft has done both user groups a lot of good and has brought Microsoft closer to the Open Source communities even making them part of them in certain cases, letting them ship and support Open Source software in their releases or releasing their own code as Open Source.

I think it would be a good thing, I rightly despise software patents but I love interoperatibility and if this is what it takes I am for it. I think it would serve the users of all three platforms if the respective vendors would find ways to cooperate. Currently this involves patent agreements, that is an unfortunate situation, I doubt it will be be the case forever. Microsoft is starting I suspect to get tired to losing million dollar patent infringement suit after suit, I predict that within 5 years they will officially put their weight behind a favorable patent reform proposal. The political climate in several places is also changing towards a more sane approach.

So I would welcome it, with open arms indeed. I personally would create a huge banner to hang on my house thanking Microsoft and Canonical.

As an additional benefit all the annoying Microsoft whiners and Mono haters would hopefully leave the forums making them a much more pleasant place to be.

Win-win scenerio.

:popcorn:
Why does Linux default to double click for opening folders and executing applications, anyway?

Did Apple patent single click?

BTW, I'm not talking about licencing technology that Microsoft genuinely originated but licencing technology Microsoft claims to have originated, but has yet to furnish any proof of authorship (those parts of the kernel it says infringe on its patents).

[tubezninja]

Did Apple patent single click?

Actually, they double-click, too.

[pwnst*r]

While I doubt that will ever happen since Microsoft prefers cross license agreements and Canonical has nothing to bring to that table. I think it would be a good thing to have interoperability agreements with more OS vendors. I would warmly welcome such agreements with Apple and Microsoft, I think despite the bad press, Novells deal with Microsoft has done both user groups a lot of good and has brought Microsoft closer to the Open Source communities even making them part of them in certain cases, letting them ship and support Open Source software in their releases or releasing their own code as Open Source.

I think it would be a good thing, I rightly despise software patents but I love interoperatibility and if this is what it takes I am for it. I think it would serve the users of all three platforms if the respective vendors would find ways to cooperate. Currently this involves patent agreements, that is an unfortunate situation, I doubt it will be be the case forever. Microsoft is starting I suspect to get tired to losing million dollar patent infringement suit after suit, I predict that within 5 years they will officially put their weight behind a favorable patent reform proposal. The political climate in several places is also changing towards a more sane approach.

So I would welcome it, with open arms indeed. I personally would create a huge banner to hang on my house thanking Microsoft and Canonical.

As an additional benefit all the annoying Microsoft whiners and Mono haters would hopefully leave the forums making them a much more pleasant place to be.

Win-win scenerio.

:popcorn:

great post, and my thoughts exactly.

[Mark76]

Actually, they double-click, too.

Cool.

Everyone switch to single click! :D

[0per4t0r]

Debian. Closest thing to Ubuntu.

[zurack]

Samba, Wine, MS Office formats in OpenOffice,

In all respect them products have nothing to do with Canonical, they are third party software.

[zurack]

Cool.

Everyone switch to single click!

:D We already have in kde

[Tibuda]

Cool.

Everyone switch to single click! :D
That's the first thing I do in Gnome when I install Ubuntu. Nothing to do with patent FUD, but I just like it.


In all respect them products have nothing to do with Canonical, they are third party software.
Canonical ship them with Ubuntu (OpenOffice) and the kernel itself (FAT32/NTFS).

You can remove Wine from that list.

[.Maleficus.]

I would shrug my shoulders and keep using arch.
^^^ This one.

[growled]

I'd switch in an instant, probably to Arch.

[Kareeser]

[On switching to single click]
That's the first thing I do in Gnome when I install Ubuntu. Nothing to do with patent FUD, but I just like it.

It's certainly your perogative, since all the settings in Ubuntu are essentially optional :)

For me, I'd give Fedora a shot, since it looks interesting. I also like what they have going with RHEL, and using Fedora as a test-bed.

If that didn't work out, then I'd probably shift to Debian. :)

[calrogman]

Debian Lenny, I've already installed it in a virtual machine, so I know what I'm doing.

[monsterstack]

While I doubt that will ever happen since Microsoft prefers cross license agreements and Canonical has nothing to bring to that table. I think it would be a good thing to have interoperability agreements with more OS vendors. I would warmly welcome such agreements with Apple and Microsoft, I think despite the bad press, Novells deal with Microsoft has done both user groups a lot of good and has brought Microsoft closer to the Open Source communities even making them part of them in certain cases, letting them ship and support Open Source software in their releases or releasing their own code as Open Source.

I think it would be a good thing, I rightly despise software patents but I love interoperatibility and if this is what it takes I am for it. I think it would serve the users of all three platforms if the respective vendors would find ways to cooperate. Currently this involves patent agreements, that is an unfortunate situation, I doubt it will be be the case forever. Microsoft is starting I suspect to get tired to losing million dollar patent infringement suit after suit, I predict that within 5 years they will officially put their weight behind a favorable patent reform proposal. The political climate in several places is also changing towards a more sane approach.

So I would welcome it, with open arms indeed. I personally would create a huge banner to hang on my house thanking Microsoft and Canonical.

As an additional benefit all the annoying Microsoft whiners and Mono haters would hopefully leave the forums making them a much more pleasant place to be.

Win-win scenerio.

:popcorn:

Interoperability is great and all, but I still don't see why it needs absurd patent licensing agreements. Red Hat made an interoperability agreement with Microsoft without any such nonsense. If pathetic covenants such as Novell's shafting agreement are not the way of the future, as you say, then why on earth welcome them now?

Microsoft previously stated that a patent indemnification pact was the only way they'd consider working with open source companies. Red Hat basically showed everybody how bogus that was. They accepted no compromise, and they reaped the benefits.

An interoperability agreement without any sort of patent agreement is a win-win. Anything else would be a copp-out.

[oomingmak]

Cool.

Everyone switch to single click! :D
YAY!!

I've been saying this for years (but not because of patents). Hence my ongoing frustration with this (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=121113).

6 years and counting ...

[lukjad]

Why does Linux default to double click for opening folders and executing applications, anyway?

Because single clicks are just annoying. ;)

[oomingmak]

It's certainly your perogative, since all the settings in Ubuntu are essentially optional :)
Provided those options exist.

How do I single click to launch a program from the add / remove dialog after it's just been installed?
How do I single click to browse through a folder tree in a file / open or save as dialog?

What annoys me is that double-clicking is forced onto users even when they don't want it.

[MikeTheC]

If double-clicking became patented (somehow), I would immediately switch to double single-clicking. :o :) ;)

[gn2]

~ Canonical is British ~

Where do you get that idea from?
The Isle of Man isn't part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kindgom).

As Canonical operates within the USA and has business premises there, I would be surprised if it's operations within the USA were not affected by USA law....?

[Mark76]

The Isle of Man is one of the British Isles :p

[Clyssus]

I think I might give Fedora a go or maybe even Mandriva...

[Ewingo401]

I would switch with the quickness. Probably either Debian, Sabayon, Arch, or Fedora.

[gnomeuser]

Interoperability is great and all, but I still don't see why it needs absurd patent licensing agreements. Red Hat made an interoperability agreement with Microsoft without any such nonsense. If pathetic covenants such as Novell's shafting agreement are not the way of the future, as you say, then why on earth welcome them now?

Microsoft previously stated that a patent indemnification pact was the only way they'd consider working with open source companies. Red Hat basically showed everybody how bogus that was. They accepted no compromise, and they reaped the benefits.

An interoperability agreement without any sort of patent agreement is a win-win. Anything else would be a copp-out.

And yet look which deal is actually producing fruit. With Novell they are sharing compatibility testing, they are doing work on UIA (user interaction accessibility) together. Novell and Microsoft are actually doing work that benefits users and companies with mixed environments.

With RH all Microsoft has done is join the same specification group for one specification. No fruits have come of this, it is in essence an agreement on paper with no real work being done (or at least none worth making any fuss over to this day). Lots of companies make agreements like that, what makes the Novell-Microsoft one stand out is that there is actual cooperation going on.

You also didn't read the post, I rightly despise software patents and work against them where I can. However they are currently a reality and it seems to get the parties to work together there is a business reason in cross licensing. If that brings people the to tables and causes deals they will make good on then I think that is a useful tool. I don't think Red Hat's approach from a business sense it obviously unproductive, they need to realise that they have to work with other vendors and starting out any talk with "screw software patents and whomever requires them to work with us" really does cut them off from a lot of cooperation that would be beneficial to their customers. There is such a thing as taking down the system from within.

[directhex]

I don't think the OP's question is actually possible - the terms of GPLv3 have a date cut-off for Novell-style customer indemnification, and it's not possible now for Canonical to offer patent indemnification without offering it to the world & his wife too

[Giant Speck]

I'd laugh because regardless of which distro you are using, Novell is still one of the largest contributors to the Linux kernel itself as well as major Linux projects such as GNOME, and Novell is already in an agreement with Microsoft.

[SuperSonic4]

I'd shrug my shoulder say meh and carry on in arch

[dragos240]

If it happened. TheN goodbye ubuntu!

[gnomeuser]

I'd laugh because regardless of which distro you are using, Novell is still one of the largest contributors to the Linux kernel itself as well as major Linux projects such as GNOME, and Novell is already in an agreement with Microsoft.

second largest single identifiable corporate contributor (http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9907485-16.html) - but still the point remains 11% of the new kernel code, as of that counting is from Novell employees. Run as people might they will still be enjoying the benefits of companies that make such deals to get away from those deals entirely the only way is to run away from Linux all together.. FreeBSD might make a good home for these people.

[samjh]

@ gnomeuser:

Novell's contribution isn't 11%. It's 8.9%. Red Hat contributes 11.2% according to that article. ;)

I do not agree that the Novell-MS agreement has resulted in better contributions by Novell. In fact, the only contribution to have come directly from that agreement is the implementation of non-standard portions of MS .NET into Mono. There is a problem with that: because Novell-MS only provides patent litigation protection for Novell's users, the users of other Linux distros or projects are still exposed to possible future patent litigation from MS. It's no wonder that Mono has been a flop in enterprise IT.

There are others like MS Office XML formats, but they are open standards which did not arise from the Novell-MS agreement. Evolution's MS Exchange capability existed well prior to the agreement, so it doesn't count either.

Novell would have been able to make as much contribution as they are doing now, without the patent protection agreement with MS. Novell merely used the agreement in an attempt to beat down other Linux distributions (effectively claiming that Novell's Linux is the only legally valid Linux) and place themselves in a legally advantageous position in the event of patent actions by MS against Linux and related projects.

Don't get me wrong. I think Mono is technically meritorious and have no personal issues using Mono-developed software (I think MS did a very good job with .NET and C# particularly). But issues are more complicated for businesses when there are legal uncertainties.

Red Hat and IBM are able to make equal or greater contributions to Linux than Novell, even without a patent agreement. Is it any wonder that people are cynical and disgruntled about Novell's patent agreement?


Where do you get that idea from?
The Isle of Man isn't part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kindgom).

As Canonical operates within the USA and has business premises there, I would be surprised if it's operations within the USA were not affected by USA law....?

Canonical is registered as a company in the Isle of Man, but its operational headquarters is in London. It has operations in the Canada and US as well, but its paid developers are based largely in Europe. You are right in saying that Canonical's US operations are governed by US laws (as well as any local or state laws).

Having said that, any contracts entered into between MS and Canonical will be bound by the jurisdictional clause in that contract (eg. "This agreement is protected by applicable US Federal laws..." or "This agreement is protected by application laws of the United Kingdom..."), and such contracts have global effect, not merely local. If such a contract is made and is bound - for example - by US Federal laws, then even if it is challenged in the UK, US Federal laws will be used to the best of the UK court's ability. Vice versa if bound by UK laws but challenged in the US.

[Giant Speck]

I do not agree that the Novell-MS agreement has resulted in better contributions by Novell.

That's not quite what I'm trying to say.

I'm trying to say that people boycott and actively avoid Novell, one of the top contributors to the Linux kernel, simply because of their relationship with Microsoft. It doesn't matter if Microsoft has anything to do with those contributions because people often ignore them when talking about the Novell/Microsoft agreement. The only way to truly boycott Novell would be to completely stop using Linux altogether.

[samjh]

Oh, my post was directly mostly at gnomeuser. Sorry, Giant Speck. :)

I don't subscribe to the "boycott Novell" movement. :) In fact, I severely dislike the Boycott Novell website and the garbage it spews forth. Novell SHOULD be contributing as much to Linux and FOSS as they are doing, considering how much money they're earning from them!

[gnomeuser]

@ gnomeuser:

Novell's contribution isn't 11%. It's 8.9%. Red Hat contributes 11.2% according to that article. ;)


Wow that was impressive grid reading fail. My bad, 8.9%, however those numbers at from Apr. 2008 I don't know what their contribution levels are now for the kernel. They do also maintain large parts of OpenOffice, Mono, GNOME, KDE and the toolchain. I would estimate that a significant of any machine is running code directly maintained by Novell. I think the argument stands, if you do not support this deal and consider it destructive to Linux you're options include deleting most of your systems functionality or moving to another os. Otherwise you are very actively enjoying the benefits of this deal.



I do not agree that the Novell-MS agreement has resulted in better contributions by Novell. In fact, the only contribution to have come directly from that agreement is the implementation of non-standard portions of MS .NET into Mono.

You would be wrong, there are also advancements in virtulization, samba windows domain compatibility and many other areas. Look at what work they put into SLED11 to interoperate with Windows and you will see that a lot of the work they do with Microsoft is extends beyond Mono. Making it out to be solely about Mono is at best inaccurate. We've also gotten things like OpenXML support in OpenOffice and Novell have been a significant contributor in correcting the specification even prior to being issued for ISO certification. In the same vein Novell and Microsoft are now working together on accessbility technologies and APIs that are cross platform and will open computing better to disabled people. All of that you get under legitimate OSI approved licenses.

We do hear most of the Mono and Moonlight related improvements, but I suspect that has more to do with the fact that the contributors are regular Free Software community members. Their blogs are on things like planet GNOME, so as a community we might be more apt to noticing their work. They are good at telling us about everything they do, showing screenshots of progress and writing up explanations. That is not the case for many other teams working on interop. projects within Novell, e.g. I happen to know what the UIA team is up to but only because I am currently reviewing the work for inclusion in Fedora and one of the developers is the submitter so naturally a bit of research has been needed. It's never the less very cool, abide less sexy than spinning cubes, new controls for web technologies and so on, it's very hard to make accessibility sexy and exciting but it is important and significant work

Regardless you are wrong in stating it is solely Mono improvements coming out of this deal, it is much wider.

[Mark76]

Is there any chance of Mono and Moonlight being "extended" so that they mysteriously stop working fully in Linux?

[stwschool]

Double-click is likely to be pretty-much unpatentable. I certainly remember my ancient Atari 520STFM using it (1989) and my Amiga did too. It's a standard way of interacting with a computer and frankly it's been used for donkeys years, just as things like dragging the title bar to move Windows around the screen (ST and Amiga, and beyond), maximise and minimise buttons, etc. All have prior implementations before Windows got near it.

[directhex]

Double-click is likely to be pretty-much unpatentable. I certainly remember my ancient Atari 520STFM using it (1989) and my Amiga did too. It's a standard way of interacting with a computer and frankly it's been used for donkeys years, just as things like dragging the title bar to move Windows around the screen (ST and Amiga, and beyond), maximise and minimise buttons, etc. All have prior implementations before Windows got near it.

If only prior art mattered to the morons at the US patent office

[gnomeuser]

Is there any chance of Mono and Moonlight being "extended" so that they mysteriously stop working fully in Linux?

They are both open source projects.. the mere idea is absurd beyond contemplation.

[monsterstack]

And yet look which deal is actually producing fruit. With Novell they are sharing compatibility testing, they are doing work on UIA (user interaction accessibility) together. Novell and Microsoft are actually doing work that benefits users and companies with mixed environments.

With RH all Microsoft has done is join the same specification group for one specification. No fruits have come of this, it is in essence an agreement on paper with no real work being done (or at least none worth making any fuss over to this day). Lots of companies make agreements like that, what makes the Novell-Microsoft one stand out is that there is actual cooperation going on.

You also didn't read the post, I rightly despise software patents and work against them where I can. However they are currently a reality and it seems to get the parties to work together there is a business reason in cross licensing. If that brings people the to tables and causes deals they will make good on then I think that is a useful tool. I don't think Red Hat's approach from a business sense it obviously unproductive, they need to realise that they have to work with other vendors and starting out any talk with "screw software patents and whomever requires them to work with us" really does cut them off from a lot of cooperation that would be beneficial to their customers. There is such a thing as taking down the system from within.

What I'd really like to is what on earth is wrong with standing up for your beliefs? If software patents are so bad that you have to say it twice, I just don't see why we should welcome them. There may well be some corporate benefits to Canonical's customers, but I think Canonical have done well enough so far without that stuff. I know you aren't saying that Red Hat are about to disappear with their extremist view, but nobody can say that they aren't doing so well. It is so rare to see any sort conviction in business. I think that they should be commended for standing up for their principles. I just don't see these agreements as a necessary evil, however troublesome life can be without them.

And consider that Canonical (along with Red Hat and others) have been campaigning against software patents in Europe, and have already submitted an excellent amicus curiae (http://www.epo.org/patents/appeals/eba-decisions/referrals/pending/briefs.html) [epo.org] brief to that effect. To just go right ahead and sign an agreement would be the most stunning example of hypocrisy the world of free software has ever seen.

I understand and appreciate your points about Novell's agreement bearing fruit (expanded on in your later post as well), but how about when things don't work out so well? Microsoft's terrible butchering of ODF's support springs to mind. The support for ODF in Office 2007 SP2 is so bad it's a joke. Considering that Microsoft funded development of a third party plug-in (hosted (http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter/) on Sourceforge, no less) to do the same job--that's actually pretty good--tells you all you need to know. They can interoperate with ODF documents, they just don't want to. Why should they? That would mean they have to compete on features rather than lock-in. A great many people consider MS Office to be superior to OpenOffice anyhow, so competing that way wouldn't be very difficult. As it stands at the moment, Microsoft's actions have been no less than cowardly.

I also appreciate the amount of effort put into getting OpenOffice compatible with MS Office docs. Even so, what use is being able to open not-very-well-formatted MS-OOXML documents in OpenOffice if Microsoft's support for ODF is lacking? It doesn't give anybody a reason to use ODF.

Microsoft can and have used their patents aggressively against free software, and I don't need to list the other ways they have tried to destroy free software over the years. I honestly think that any interaction with them should involve a very long barge-pole; they should not be given any leverage. If Microsoft want and need interoperability as much as they say they do, then we should make sure it's on our terms, not theirs.

[gnomeuser]

What I'd really like to is what on earth is wrong with standing up for your beliefs? If software patents are so bad that you have to say it twice, I just don't see why we should welcome them. There may well be some corporate benefits to Canonical's customers, but I think Canonical have done well enough so far without that stuff. I know you aren't saying that Red Hat are about to disappear with their extremist view, but nobody can say that they aren't doing so well. It is so rare to see any sort conviction in business. I think that they should be commended for standing up for their principles. I just don't see these agreements as a necessary evil, however troublesome life can be without them.


I talk about Red Hat serving their customers. Many of whom work with mixed environments. By aggressively refusing to deal with companies that require a patent agreement for one reason or another, of any kind they are cutting their users off from the benefits of such deals. I don't personally care about speculations of Red Hat are going away, they are doing good business currently, I care about their customers not being forced into inferior situations of support which Red Hat are doing by not working with companies like Microsoft. In the same vein Novell has probably done more to show Microsoft the benefit of Open Source than anyone else the last few years, precisely because they are capable and willing to sit down with them.



And consider that Canonical (along with Red Hat and others) have been campaigning against software patents in Europe, and have already submitted an excellent amicus curiae (http://www.epo.org/patents/appeals/eba-decisions/referrals/pending/briefs.html) [epo.org] brief to that effect. To just go right ahead and sign an agreement would be the most stunning example of hypocrisy the world of free software has ever seen.


Red Hat already file and own patents, people also called that hypocritical. They provide a patent license under very reasonable terms to Free Software development. I see nothing wrong with that, I also see nothing wrong with Red Hat serving their customers by sitting down with other vendors to make interoperability improve. If that currently requires a patent agreement then I welcome that temporary inconvienience, I also do not see anything hypocritical in saying the current system needs changes but while it is in place we can at least use it productively to serve users by bringing companies together and work together.

The results speak for themselves, Novell being willing to deal with Microsoft has gotten something out of this and as users we got something. Red Hat has an agreement on paper that will likely never amount to anything.



I understand and appreciate your points about Novell's agreement bearing fruit (expanded on in your later post as well), but how about when things don't work out so well? Microsoft's terrible butchering of ODF's support springs to mind. The support for ODF in Office 2007 SP2 is so bad it's a joke. Considering that Microsoft funded development of a third party plug-in (hosted (http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter/) on Sourceforge, no less) to do the same job--that's actually pretty good--tells you all you need to know. They can interoperate with ODF documents, they just don't want to. Why should they? That would mean they have to compete on features rather than lock-in. A great many people consider MS Office to be superior to OpenOffice anyhow, so competing that way wouldn't be very difficult. As it stands at the moment, Microsoft's actions have been no less than cowardly.


Clearly you do not appriciate the point as you ignore it. As for Microsofts ODF implementation it is done by the spec, incompatibility with OOos implement is most likely due to a fault spec (historically ODF has never been a well written spec with many undefined areas). To get a compatible implementation one basically has to ignore the spec and read the OOo source code (which as we can agree is not the point of a specification).

If you go to my signature, my blog contains several postings on OpenXML and ODF, I remain of the opinion that both are inferior standards to solve the problem and should not have been ISO certified. The whole point of a standardization is having ONE standard not multiple, and both have problems. OpenXML is merely much more well defined where ODF is vague and undefined and near impossible to implement correctly without reading the OOo source (which unsurprisingly is not an option for many).

I think the only way to resolve the issue is to dump both and merge the good bits of both specs. It will take time and put us back at least a year but if we are to have open standards, let it be good open standards.



I also appreciate the amount of effort put into getting OpenOffice compatible with MS Office docs. Even so, what use is being able to open not-very-well-formatted MS-OOXML documents in OpenOffice if Microsoft's support for ODF is lacking? It doesn't give anybody a reason to use ODF.


It's not anyones job to tell people what format to use, it is our job to ensure that when Microsoft releases an open standard (something that in itself is great progress, not to mention that they gave us the specs for most of their old formats) that users and use them. How do you expect a company that already has their infrasctructure based on a MS Office solution with tens of thousands of files in OpenXML or just have a business reason to stay with OpenXML to switch to Free Software if we are not providing them with the tools to work with them.

We cannot bully users into using our open format because we are upset with the other guys open standard. They should just work and moralizing needs to be left at the door, all you get to do is set the default for what you ship - be that odf or openxml. Personally I use the old .doc format still as that is much more compatible with the users I interact with.



Microsoft can and have used their patents aggressively against free software, and I don't need to list the other ways they have tried to destroy free software over the years. I honestly think that any interaction with them should involve a very long barge-pole; they should not be given any leverage. If Microsoft want and need interoperability as much as they say they do, then we should make sure it's on our terms, not theirs.

Microsoft have now in the span of their lifetime used their patents aggressively 3 times, once against a hardware vendor that used Free Software in their products. The doomsday scenerio of Microsoft attacking a Linux vendor just has not occured and history being any lesson will never happen. They lack a business reason to do so, it would hurt some of their biggest clients who amazingly run these mixed environments.

[monsterstack]

Can't really comment on the stuff about Novell convincing Microsoft to be more open, and there are all sorts of ways of looking at Red Hat's patent promises. Still, I do have a few issues with your statements about the ODF debacle:


Clearly you do not appriciate the point as you ignore it. As for Microsofts ODF implementation it is done by the spec, incompatibility with OOos implement is most likely due to a fault spec (historically ODF has never been a well written spec with many undefined areas). To get a compatible implementation one basically has to ignore the spec and read the OOo source code (which as we can agree is not the point of a specification).

If you go to my signature, my blog contains several postings on OpenXML and ODF, I remain of the opinion that both are inferior standards to solve the problem and should not have been ISO certified. The whole point of a standardization is having ONE standard not multiple, and both have problems. OpenXML is merely much more well defined where ODF is vague and undefined and near impossible to implement correctly without reading the OOo source (which unsurprisingly is not an option for many).

To conform with the spec and yet somehow fail to be at all useful can be used as an argument to diss the spec, sure. I really don't know how good or bad the spec is. I followed the links to your blog and read a few things. But there's one thing you fail to mention: that the Cleverage Plugin (http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/) [sourceforge.net] has Microsoft's and Novell's backing and has absolutely no problem with ODF Documents. Take at look at its Licence:



* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
*
* * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* * Neither the name of copyright holders, nor the names of its contributors
* may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
* without specific prior written permission.


It's a pretty basic BSD Licence. Microsoft can just copy and paste the source directly into Office and relicense it any way they wish. The spec may well be all sorts of awful, but Microsoft already have the code they need to interoperate. Why haven't they used it?


Microsoft have now in the span of their lifetime used their patents aggressively 3 times, once against a hardware vendor that used Free Software in their products. The doomsday scenerio of Microsoft attacking a Linux vendor just has not occured and history being any lesson will never happen. They lack a business reason to do so, it would hurt some of their biggest clients who amazingly run these mixed environments.

Attacking a vendor outright, no. I agree; it would be suicidal. But rattling their lawyer sticks at free-software, however periodically, should be enough to make us all extremely suspicious of their motives.

[oomingmak]

If double-clicking became patented (somehow) ...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn5072-microsoft-gains-doubleclicking-patent.html

[Xbehave]

I recently had a debate with somebody "from microsoft" on slashdot, and he did point out that microsoft signing a deal waving the right to sue novell over moonlight patents, in NO way affects non-novell users, so novell users get safety and the rest of us can either be 100% safe and download moonlight from novell or be 99% and ignore the patent issue entirely (as gnash users do).

"I herby waive my right to sue all previous posters for libelous comments in this thread", doesn't mean i could have sued you originally.

So if ubuntu thought it was a good idea to sign a PLA with MS then i wouldn't really care, it doesn't hurt any other distros and if they actually released some software (like novell do with compiz, moonlight, etc or RH with glibc and so much other core stuff) would actually help other distros.

[bakedbeans4life]

If you make a deal with the Devil, common sense dictates you assume at some point the Devil will collect, and on his terms.

[ghindo]

I'd laugh because regardless of which distro you are using, Novell is still one of the largest contributors to the Linux kernel itself as well as major Linux projects such as GNOME, and Novell is already in an agreement with Microsoft.+1

This thread is so full of FUD, I would not at all be surprised if it gets locked soon.

[linsux]

My only question is: Why

Seriously, why would changing your preferred distro and going to all the trouble of it just to spite the company? Linux will never take off as a Desktop OS if you keep boycotting stuff because they don't follow your ideals exactly!

[bakedbeans4life]

My only question is: Why

Seriously, why would changing your preferred distro and going to all the trouble of it just to spite the company? Linux will never take off as a Desktop OS if you keep boycotting stuff because they don't follow your ideals exactly!

Would you trust Microsoft implicitly? Well would you?

[kc3]

haha, well being as Microsoft would find SOME way around the license or put something stupid in the OS that's not under the GNU license and start charging $150 a copy than I'd DEFINITELY switch lol, maybe Fedora or Gentoo?

And to be honest, I would say it's unlikely BUT not too far of a possibility as Linux becomes more popular on netbooks and mobile devices

[Xbehave]

Would you trust Microsoft implicitly? Well would you?
No, but if you actually read the document, your no worse off. You don't have to trust them. IMO they couldn't sue novell anyway, but even if they could, they signed away that right in order to help mono compete with java.
They are playing nice with Microsoft and developing an OPEN-SOURCE alternative to flash, even if Microsoft go evil on them, the code will still be out there!

Its like banging my head against away, what part of novell didn't sign anything that allows them or anybody else (not that they even could) to be sued, all they did was sign a guarantee that they would play nice with microsoft.

The PLA is like me saying "i waive the right to sue anybody for what they say in this thread",
if your not in this thread then you don't care
if you don't think i can sue you anyway, youve lost nothing
if you think that i could sue you, then now i can't

[Keithhed]

I may be faulted for this, but...
If it helped the OS to be better than what is the problem? as long as the core ideals aren't compromised then what is the issue? Hatred for a software manufacturer? I'm happy to have software that does what it says it does.

[linsux]

Would you trust Microsoft implicitly? Well would you?

It's an OS, not someones life.

[ushimitsudoki]

Not that I think it is likely, but I would be severely disappointed with any "Novell-like" deal between Canonical and Microsoft. Personally, I would move to another distribution.

Keithhed:

If it helped the OS to be better than what is the problem? as long as the core ideals aren't compromised then what is the issue?

I see what you are saying here, and I guess this kind of goes to what you think "the core ideals" are. (And what exactly "better" means as well!)

I think a lot of people want Linux/Ubuntu to be a "no-cost version of Windows". I don't know exactly what they consider "core" about Linux/Ubuntu - I don't know that they have "ideals" in relation to operating systems or software, much as I don't really have "ideals" in relation to dental floss or notebook paper.

I lean more to the "Free Software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) is the core ideal" side. Because I consider exclusive agreements incompatible with this core ideal, I can not support them, or those that enter into them.

Ideals are important in Linux/Ubuntu (and operating systems and software) in general in a way that is not true for dental floss and notebook paper, though - Linux/Ubuntu are directly dependent on the ideals of Free Software.

(Put a bit crudely this is why people who say things like "it's just an OS" can be ignored. It's not just an OS - at least not at the level where discussion is meaningful; just like the Super Bowl is not "just a game" to the two teams playing in it! Imagine how credible you would take a commentator in a pre-SuperBowl show shruging and saying "Why all the fuss? It's just a game!")

[neo_1in]

What would i do?
I would beat the OP with a stick for putting this idea out.

[eragon100]

Be happy because Ubuntu might include technologies that make it easier to interact with MS products without any fear of patent suits :D

A.K.A. I am happy as long as my computer works better :)

[Dr. C]

It really depends on the terms of the the PLA.

If the PLA provides a patent license from Microsoft for the downstream distribution of Free Software under common FLOSS licenses including GPL V3 then Canonical deserves nothing but praise, but something tells me that Microsoft will never agree to these terms.

[gletob]

I'd go to fedora.

[ml2mst]

I will switch instantly to (probably) Debian, been there done that. I used SuSE Linux since version 6.1 (October 1999) used it as my main distro, up until Novell signed this PLA with Microsoft.

I seriously hope, this will never happen, because Ubuntu is so darn easy to configure and maintain. ;)

[Swagman]

If your going to dance with the Devil you'd better make DAMN sure you're going to enjoy dancing to THEIR tune


FOREVER

[Xbehave]

I lean more to the "Free Software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) is the core ideal" side. Because I consider exclusive agreements incompatible with this core ideal, I can not support them, or those that enter into them.
I fail to see how being safe while developing software that may be patent encumbered is against the core ideal. If you don't agree software patents, work against them but shooting yourself in the foot by not risking doing anything because of patents is just shooting yourself in the foot. Exclusive deals have no effect on anybody else, they just protect you and your users at no cost to the rest of the FOSS community. The alternative to PLAs is to live in an unsafe legal climate, sure nobody has sued gnash YET, but your safer (and more compatible) on moonlight because you have guarantees not to be sued.


(Put a bit crudely this is why people who say things like "it's just an OS" can be ignored.
Feal free to ignore linus then, I think linux is just an OS done right, part of it being superior is BECAUSE its free software.


Developing software is not against free software ideals
Dealing with the Microsoft is not against free software ideals
Protecting your users is not against free software ideals
.'. PLA are not against free software ideals

[Screwdriver0815]

I would wait to see what this PLA is about and what the consequences are. But I think that signing this PLA would be like icing on the cake as there were already strange news reg. Ubuntu:

1. this kernel development-not-participate-thing

2. Ubuntu one being proprietary

3. Launchpad being prop. but released to free after some comments...


So I think I would switch to Debian, when they have KDE 4.2 in their stable release, or to Mandriva.
Debian because it is slightly similar to Ubuntu
Mandriva because it is even easier to configure than Ubuntu or Debian

[ushimitsudoki]

I fail to see how being safe while developing software that may be patent encumbered is against the core ideal. If you don't agree software patents, work against them but shooting yourself in the foot by not risking doing anything because of patents is just shooting yourself in the foot. Exclusive deals have no effect on anybody else, they just protect you and your users at no cost to the rest of the FOSS community. The alternative to PLAs is to live in an unsafe legal climate, sure nobody has sued gnash YET, but your safer (and more compatible) on moonlight because you have guarantees not to be sued.

I think this shows a difference of understanding on several points, I will try to show quickly why I do not agree.

First, I disagree with the premise that the "exclusive deals" protect "you and your users". One of the main points of the legal trickery of the Microsoft-Novell deal is that they only agreed not to sue each other's users, explicitly leaving open the possibility to sue each other - this removes the "you" from "you and your users".

Second, I disagree that there is "no cost" to the rest of the FLOSS community. An exclusive arrangement by definition must exclude some parties, and through that exclusion applies a cost to those parties. This is common enough in business, to be sure, yet I would argue it is nonetheless contrary to the concepts of Freedom and Openness.

Third, I disagree that agreements promote a safe legal climate - in fact, I would argue quite the opposite: they add an air of legitimacy to Microsoft's patent infringement claims. This is, in fact, specifically mentioned by some parties as why they will not enter into such agreements with Microsoft.

Fourth, Moonlight is a very bad example here - much worse than mono - because Moonlight:
1. Is ONLY covered if you download it directly from Novell.
2. Is ONLY covered for commercial released versions 1.0 and 2 (*)
3. Is ONLY covered on "non-mobile" platforms.

Fifth, the argument that people should "not be scared" or "not live in fear" or "not risk doing anything" is a false dichotomy. The choices are not limited to "use Mono/Moonlight" or "do nothing at all", nor do all technologies present the same level of risk.

Sixth, "guarantees not to be sued" are worthless if the guarantees are attached too unacceptable restrictions. I can guarantee you all the money you want, so long as you agree you don't want any - but that's not much of a guarantee, is it? You are pretty much guaranteed not to be sued by anyone so long as you agree to behave exactly how they want. Again, not much of a guarantee.

There are other related arguments, but this is already too long. I hope it briefly illustrates why I have issues with PLAs in general, and the Novell-Microsoft deal specifically.

(*) This just changed to list Moonlight 2 some time in the last few days.

[billgoldberg]

Why would I switch if Canonical made a deal with MS?

Why?

Some of you guys really have it out for MS, it's getting ridiculous.

[Xbehave]

Third, I disagree that agreements promote a safe legal climate - in fact, I would argue quite the opposite: they add an air of legitimacy to Microsoft's patent infringement claims. This is, in fact, specifically mentioned by some parties as why they will not enter into such agreements with Microsoft. No it doesn't, if i say i promise not to sue you, it doens't mean
1) i could sue you anyway
2) i could sue anybody else for saying what you've said
the idea that it has other legal consequences is just FUD spread by people like boycott novell


Second, I disagree that there is "no cost" to the rest of the FLOSS community. An exclusive arrangement by definition must exclude some parties, and through that exclusion applies a cost to those parties. This is common enough in business, to be sure, yet I would argue it is nonetheless contrary to the concepts of Freedom and Openness.
FLOSS community without this deal = no software
FLOSS community with this deal = software they can use
FLOSS community if novell developed the software with ms help = software they can use


Fifth, the argument that people should "not be scared" or "not live in fear" or "not risk doing anything" is a false dichotomy. The choices are not limited to "use Mono/Moonlight" or "do nothing at all", nor do all technologies present the same level of risk.
If your going to use something that could possible infring on MS/adobe patents (e.g watch videos on youtube), you can not talk to MS/adobe all you want but they can still attack you. So your choices are "develop possibly infringing software" or "do nothing at all". You can either develop that software with (moonlight) or without help (gnash) it doesn't matter, if there are legal grounds for an attack then you gain safety, if there are not then you gain cooperation, in neither scenario do you lose anythng)


Sixth, "guarantees not to be sued" are worthless if the guarantees are attached too unacceptable restrictions. I can guarantee you all the money you want, so long as you agree you don't want any - but that's not much of a guarantee, is it? You are pretty much guaranteed not to be sued by anyone so long as you agree to behave exactly how they want. Again, not much of a guarantee. Its up to canonical/novell to decide if the deal is worth it but a legally valid agreement to not sue somebody is much better than an assumption (gnash).


1. Is ONLY covered if you download it directly from Novell.
2. Is ONLY covered for commercial released versions 1.0 and 2 (*)
3. Is ONLY covered on "non-mobile" platforms.
If you don't get it from novell, you are no better/worse off
If you get version 3, you are no better/worse off
If you get a mobile version, you are no better/worse off

Sure if novell had godlike lawyers or had negotiated a better deal they should have got protections for every user, of every version on every platform, but there lack of doing that doesn't make the deal bad for the rest of the foss community, we still get to use & modify the software, while under no more legal threat than gnash/swfdecode/etc users but with a much better product (GIVEN TO US by novell)

[don_quixote]

Switch to Debian in an instant. MS' patent claims are a bunch of hooey.

[monsterstack]

No it doesn't, if i say i promise not to sue you, it doens't mean
1) i could sue you anyway
2) i could sue anybody else for saying what you've said
the idea that it has other legal consequences is just FUD spread by people like boycott novell

Fud or no fud, it's still a cowardly move. They're selling insurance. Old-school, Mafia-style insurance. Personally, I think it's downright shameful. Don't just take my word for it, here's what Mark Shuttleworth thinks:


Source [mybroadband.co.ca (http://mybroadband.co.za/nephp/?m=show&id=6672)]:
Microsoft is asking people to pay them for patents, but they won’t say which ones. If a guy walks into a shop and says: “It’s an unsafe neighbourhood, why don’t you pay me 20 bucks and I’ll make sure you’re okay,” that’s illegal. It’s racketeering. What Microsoft is doing with intellectual property is exactly the same. It’s a great company and I have great admiration for it, but this was not a well considered position.

Yeah, all right, Shuttleworth isn't as angry about the Novell deal these days, but I think his point remains valid. Look, the fact that people are entering into licence-agreements with Microsoft in the first place is enough to suggest that Microsoft's patent claims could have some legitimacy, which is something I think most people here can agree on. So logic goes, then, that buying yourself a licence pact will protect you. I admire Novell and what they've done for free software, but I too don't think this was the best move. I think it's repulsive. It's inherently exclusive as others have noted and completely against the principles of free software.



If your going to use something that could possible infring on MS/adobe patents (e.g watch videos on youtube), you can not talk to MS/adobe all you want but they can still attack you. So your choices are "develop possibly infringing software" or "do nothing at all". You can either develop that software with (moonlight) or without help (gnash) it doesn't matter, if there are legal grounds for an attack then you gain safety, if there are not then you gain cooperation, in neither scenario do you lose anythng)

There are so many things in open source software that walk the line as far as legal threats go. Wine, Samba, ReactOS, COM in Firefox/Thunderbird/etc. Hell, I can probably infringe on a patent with one line in a terminal (http://www.wikipatents.com/6226674.html) [wikipatents.com]:


ping -c 1 $HOSTNAME && printf "\nsuccess\n"

If the situation is as bad as all that, why haven't the Samba guys leapt at the chance to get at some plush patents? The last I heard, they don't even want to touch them. The Wine devs are notoriously fidgety about who gets to modify the code (i.e. nobody who has seen the Win32 API source code). What difference is a mystery patent agreement going to make? As far as I can tell, it's just a really lousy way to get developers and companies to pay for the privilege of making software work properly. It's no problem for Novell and its employees, but how about your average start-up? How can they get a look-in if they have nothing to offer a company like Microsoft? If the Samba team and others can work around the patents, then why do they need to sign up to such an agreement?

These debates always seem to focus on FUD. So let's talk about FUD for a moment, shall we? Can anybody give me a good reason why the finer points about Novell's deal are shrouded in mystery? Microsoft claimed years ago that Linux infringes on hundreds of Microsoft's patents. Nobody even knows what these patents are and what they do or how well they'd stand up in court. How is anyone supposed to believe these patents are genuine when Microsoft won't even tell us what they are?

So long as it all remains a mystery, it's legal vapour which Microsoft can use to extort money from free software developers. The patents remain a mystery because Microsoft then force them to sign non-disclosure agreements. gnomeuser rightly said earlier in the thread that Red Hat's "screw you and your patents" (paraphrased, not a quote) attitude is not the best decision to make business-wise. Where he and I probably disagree is why this is: because Microsoft's extortion creates fear, uncertainty, and doubt for those who don't sign up to licensing-pacts. Microsoft don't have to flex their legal wrath all that much; just having such deals in the first place is enough. That's what FUD is. Textbook definition for it, really.

If we had full-disclosure of the patents, I expect most of them would cease to be a problem. You want proof? How about Andrew Tridgell's patch for the VFAT patent problem (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/1/280) [lkml.org], which was written as soon as the details of Microsoft's lawsuit against TomTom emerged. We won't get full disclosure, of course, because Microsoft's FUD is too delicious and valuable to drop. All Novell did was make Microsoft's pathetic claims legitimate.

[LinuxGuy1234]

As I use Gentoo and Ubuntu, I think I'll go Gentoo-only.

[LowSky]

Doesn't Ubuntu have a few components that were develped by Novell in recent years?
And don't forget Silverlight which is becomeing a hot new web standard (LOL)
so technically there is not getting away from Microsoft.

[cprofitt]

Personally I'd switch to Debian and burn an effigy of MS (our MS, not theirs) in protest :p

But, given that Canonical is British and not American (and therefore not subject to the USA's crazy patent laws), I doubt we have to worry about such an occurence :D

Crazy talk!

Would you do the same if they signed a deal with Apple to keep using CUPS?

[monsterstack]

Crazy talk!

Would you do the same if they signed a deal with Apple to keep using CUPS?

I'd burn an effigy of Ubuntu, for signing a licence to a patent that doesn't exist.

[abhiroopb]

I use Ubuntu because its a good OS that does what I need. If I had to pay for it I would continue using it providing it remains open sourced.

[SirBismuth]

It really depends on the terms of the the PLA.

If the PLA provides a patent license from Microsoft for the downstream distribution of Free Software under common FLOSS licenses including GPL V3 then Canonical deserves nothing but praise, but something tells me that Microsoft will never agree to these terms.

Yes, if this happen, I MIGHT stay with Ubuntu. But, in the extremely unlikely event that Canonical did this, I would switch to Debian, due to the familiarity with it, while experimenting with other OSes until I found one I liked.

B

[Khakilang]

What they do I believe is their problem. What I do with my computer is my problem. Therefore I stick to what I know and disregard the rest. I will only switch if the OS screw up and cause a lot of problem. What they do I believe they are intelligent enough to make certain decision for the better of the user.

[MelDJ]

become a devil (use FreeBSD)

[keiichidono]

Shrug and keep using Arch Linux. Nothing else comes close.

[Exodist]

While I doubt that will ever happen since Microsoft prefers cross license agreements and Canonical has nothing to bring to that table. I think it would be a good thing to have interoperability agreements with more OS vendors. I would warmly welcome such agreements with Apple and Microsoft, I think despite the bad press, Novells deal with Microsoft has done both user groups a lot of good and has brought Microsoft closer to the Open Source communities even making them part of them in certain cases, letting them ship and support Open Source software in their releases or releasing their own code as Open Source.

I think it would be a good thing, I rightly despise software patents but I love interoperatibility and if this is what it takes I am for it. I think it would serve the users of all three platforms if the respective vendors would find ways to cooperate. Currently this involves patent agreements, that is an unfortunate situation, I doubt it will be be the case forever. Microsoft is starting I suspect to get tired to losing million dollar patent infringement suit after suit, I predict that within 5 years they will officially put their weight behind a favorable patent reform proposal. The political climate in several places is also changing towards a more sane approach.

So I would welcome it, with open arms indeed. I personally would create a huge banner to hang on my house thanking Microsoft and Canonical.

As an additional benefit all the annoying Microsoft whiners and Mono haters would hopefully leave the forums making them a much more pleasant place to be.

Win-win scenerio.

:popcorn:


Very well thought out post. +1

IMHO it would depend on the agreement. But really other then WMA and WMV what really could M$ offer? Patent Wise that is.. So IDK.. Its subjective to say the least.