Novell about to be acquired

[mickie.kext]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10462892-16.html?tag=mncol;title

[Twitch6000]

As long as opensuse mono and moonlight stay around I don't care =].

[phrostbyte]

By a hedge fund. That makes this almost a non-story.

[Foster Grant]

By a hedge fund. That makes this almost a non-story.

Totally a story and for lots of reasons. The hedge fund is a vulture fund that (among other things) buys poor (as in no resources) third-world countries' debt and charges usurious levels of interest. Its MO when buying companies is to strip them bare and then dance over the corpse while its owner counts his money . . .


As long as opensuse mono and moonlight stay around I don't care =].

. . . and there's a possibility that it's working as a front for Microsoft.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/node/15688
http://boycottnovell.com/2010/03/04/analysis-of-elliott-singer-and-sco/

[jrusso2]

There is speculation that Microsoft is behind it.

[RiceMonster]

As long as opensuse mono and moonlight stay around I don't care =].

I agree.

[Twitch6000]

Totally a story and for lots of reasons. The hedge fund is a vulture fund that (among other things) buys poor (as in no resources) third-world countries' debt and charges usurious levels of interest. Its MO when buying companies is to strip them bare and then dance over the corpse while its owner counts his money . . .



. . . and there's a possibility that it's working as a front for Microsoft.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/node/15688
http://boycottnovell.com/2010/03/04/analysis-of-elliott-singer-and-sco/

OH noes the evil microsoft is friends with novell.. Geez kid get a life. You will learn some things.. Like microsoft isn''t evil..

[inobe]

business as usual.

[NightwishFan]

read later post, double post by accident

[Frak]

As long as they keep OpenSUSE and Mono/Moonlight alive, I don't care.

[NightwishFan]

I do not use Mono or Moonlight, so I am fine there, but I would hate to see them go for those who do use them.

OpenSUSE is a great distro, I hope it only improves.

As for Microsoft, I do not like them. However my problems with them have been few now that I am hopefully outside their net. (My work does not rely on Windows at all, so I can be 100% open source).

[lykwydchykyn]

You can talk about mono and moonlight all you want; Novell makes significant contributions throughout the entire FOSS software stack, from the kernel on up to things like GNOME and OpenOffice. It would NOT be a good thing for them to be bought and dismantled.

If this goes through, one can only hope that Suse ends up in good hands.

[PhilGil]

The article states that Novell's Linux business is one of their most valuable assets, so it's far more likely to be sold than shuttered. As the poster above me stated, I hope it end up in good hands.

[Keyper7]

+1 to the "as long as SuSE/Mono/Moonlight stay around I don't care" comments already posted.

[lykwydchykyn]

The real question is, if Suse gets sold, who'd buy it?

Novell was in a fairly unique situation when it bought Suse; it was one of the few major tech companies whose main business was its own non-Unix, non-Linux server OS (Netware). Netware was well on its way to pasture, and it was looking for something to replace it with. Enter Linux.

I don't see anyone in that position now. What major tech company would be looking to get into the Linux distro business?

[Madspyman]

The real question is, if Suse gets sold, who'd buy it?

Novell was in a fairly unique situation when it bought Suse; it was one of the few major tech companies whose main business was its own non-Unix, non-Linux server OS (Netware). Netware was well on its way to pasture, and it was looking for something to replace it with. Enter Linux.

I don't see anyone in that position now. What major tech company would be looking to get into the Linux distro business?

Open source software they can't even give away, lol.

[Tristam Green]

Open source software they can't even give away, lol.

I actually rather enjoyed NetWare 6.5 :(

[Twitch6000]

Open source software they can't even give away, lol.

Odd I am using opensuse and they basically give it away.

I find a problem with your statement ;).

[themarker0]

I have been hoping for microsoft to have a linux distro, it would be easier to convert users to general linux. Then after they see its okay, move them to other distros.

[NightwishFan]

Is that some sort of flame bait?

I have no core need to use proprietary software. My machine can function entirely without proprietary firmware. I agree to the license to use proprietary drivers for my Nvidia card, but if I removed them my machine would still function, which is all I require.

I do not need educated in open source.

[Shpongle]

I have been hoping for microsoft to have a linux distro, it would be easier to convert users to general linux. Then after they see its okay, move them to other distros.

that wouldnt happen , if it did then we would have won as Linus put it. if they were to swith to it would probably be bsd based , i dunno ?

[themarker0]

that wouldnt happen , if it did then we would have won as Linus put it. if they were to swith to it would probably be bsd based , i dunno ?

I personally don't care how it would be done, as long as there is some Unix/Linux tie to it. I know it won't happen. This puts my hopes a little higher, but again, i know it won't happen.

[mickie.kext]

I think that this hedge fund is not serious about actually buying Novell. I think they offered cash just to rise issue and make big players jump and offer more money. After all, they hold about 10% Novell and want to sell that for profit. If they actually buy, they will most definitely sell pieces all over the industry.

[Twitch6000]

Is that some sort of flame bait?

I have no core need to use proprietary software. My machine can function entirely without proprietary firmware. I agree to the license to use proprietary drivers for my Nvidia card, but if I removed them my machine would still function, which is all I require.

I do not need educated in open source.

No All I was saying is you are probably not using all open source software.

As you just said you are using the nvidia drivers. I bet you are also using the bios that came with your machine too.

I was merely pointing that out ;).

[lykwydchykyn]

I actually rather enjoyed NetWare 6.5 :(

We're still using it where I work. If Novell broke up I'm not sure what we'd do, because so far no one seems to have a long-term strategy to move off it.

[mickie.kext]

As you just said you are using the nvidia drivers. I bet you are also using the bios that came with your machine too.

I was merely pointing that out ;).

You are now basically admitted that you are a troll.

[Tristam Green]

You are now basically admitted that you are a troll.

That shows nothing, mickie. Learn the definition of the word troll before you throw it about blindly.

Twitch said to NightwishFan that he uses closed-source software somewhere in his system, whether he knows it or not.

Now, unless NWF uses a fully open-sourced BIOS that he can freely edit, he does. That's not trolling, that's telling the truth.

[23meg]

That shows nothing, mickie. Learn the definition of the word troll before you throw it about blindly.

Twitch said to NightwishFan that he uses closed-source software somewhere in his system, whether he knows it or not.

Now, unless NWF uses a fully open-sourced BIOS that he can freely edit, he does. That's not trolling, that's telling the truth.

It's off-topic, it's picking on a minor detail in order to provoke reactions, and it's coming from someone with a known track record of trolling, so it's very fair to label it trolling. That it "tells the truth" is beside the point.

As for Novell: there's a long history of speculations of their acquisition. I wouldn't be surprised if this goes down as another one.

[mickie.kext]

Troll is one who make vague or irrelevant remarks just to provoke response. He did just that and then admitted he did that.

Now, unless NWF uses a fully open-sourced BIOS that he can freely edit, he does. That's not trolling, that's telling the truth.

And who is extremist now? You people put down FSF and Stallman for being "to extreme", and at same time you troll people for using non-free BIOS.

[Tristam Green]

And who is extremist now? You people put down FSF and Stallman for being "to extreme", and at same time you troll people for using non-free BIOS.

Ugh, to quote one of last year's most hilarious films, "what do you mean, you people?"

Asking someone who says "I use 100% open-source" if they are using a closed-source BIOS is not trolling.

The sooner you understand that the better off you'll be. I'm done arguing with a brick wall, though. This whole thing is completely beside the point of the OP and the theme of the thread, which is the offer to buy Novell.

I think it could be good for Linux, I am not so sure about it being good for the interoperability agreement with MS though.

[psusi]

Private Equity firms like this make a killing buying companies and destroying them. They lay off people, cut r&d, and borrow tons of cash, pay themselves a fat dividend, then sell the company back for a profit, leaving it saddled with massive debt it can't pay. There is going to be another big credit crunch in the next few years when all the debt from the companies they have done this to over the last several years comes due, and they can't pay it.

Novel has been dieing for years. This will probably put them out of their misery.

[GMU_DodgyHodgy]

Private Equity firms like this make a killing buying companies and destroying them. They lay off people, cut r&d, and borrow tons of cash, pay themselves a fat dividend, then sell the company back for a profit, leaving it saddled with massive debt it can't pay. There is going to be another big credit crunch in the next few years when all the debt from the companies they have done this to over the last several years comes due, and they can't pay it.

Novel has been dieing for years. This will probably put them out of their misery.

That is not necessarily true. There are plenty of deals done by firms that have rebuilt the purchased company and then made it attractive for a sale. The best result is that this firm tidies up the balance sheet and streamlines the operation and then sells it to someone like IBM where the software portfolio can be better leveraged.

[GMU_DodgyHodgy]

Reading some of the trade wires - HP and IBM are rumored as potential bidders now.

This would make sense. If Novell were to go to one of those two - look for Red Hat becoming a target by the one who didn't get it and Oracle-Sun.

[Ric_NYC]

Why Microsoft Can’t Afford To Let Novell Die



Make no mistake - The hedge fund offer for Novell could effectively mean the end of the company. And Microsoft could suffer the worst, says Peter Judge
By: Peter Judge March 5, 2010
This week, Elliot Associates, a hedge fund, offered to buy Novell. The offer signals a bid to break up the company, and could be extremely bad news for open source … and also for Microsoft.
Novell has been struggling for fifteen years to find a coherent role, having abandoned its effort to destroy Micrsoft in head-on competition. In the last few years, after its successful purchase of SUSE and Ximian in 2003, it has been a leading player in open source - albeit one whose credibility is tainted for some by its support deal with Microsoft.

Hedge fund bids for Novell


Elliot Associates’ bid to buy Novell emerged this week and amounts to a rather low offer for a company which has $1 billion in the bank. Elliot has a reputation as a “vulture capitalist”, and is expected to simply break the company up, sell the parts and pocket a profit if the deal goes through.
But is that really the most likely result? There’s a fascinating explanation of the hostile-bid process on the Standards Blog of technology lawyer Andy Updegrove, which outlines several possibilities, and makes the point that “one of the companies that may have the most to lose if Elliott acquires Novell is Microsoft”.
Elliot is in a position of strength, and can effectively try to force Novell’s board to agree to the bid, because they all have a legal liability, and might face a shareholder revolt if they turn down a good bid. Alternatively, Elliot can wait for the price of Novell shares to go up (inevitable, given it has offered money for it) and then simply walk away. It could then sell the eight percent of the company it already owns for a profit, and leave the Novell board the task of convincing the world it’s not a lame duck.

...




http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/comment/why-microsoft-cant-afford-to-let-novell-die-5681

[mickie.kext]

I am more concerned of them turning Novell to SCO. Remember, Novell is real owner of UNIX copyrights that SCO was posing. SCO was idiot threatening with empty gun, Novell has it loaded. Hedge fund will try to cash in like SCO tried.

I hope IBM buy Novell, break MS deal and contribute Mono to GNU project. There is no better way to stick it to MS than let FSF control Mono.

As for SuSE, I do not see it going anywhere but history. If IBM buy it, they will probably still support Mainframe build for some time and relocate rest of R&D and support staff to RHEL and AIX. IBM is Red Hat's partner and it will gladly remove competition. In the end I think it is good thing. Linux haters usually moan about fragmentation. One rotten fragment is about to be gone, we are all better off.


If Novell were to go to one of those two - look for Red Hat becoming a target by the one who didn't get it and Oracle-Sun.

It is unlikely that anyone is going to buy Red Hat. It worths over 10 bilon right now and it is just to important as independent company. Takeover would diminish its value.

[GMU_DodgyHodgy]

I am more concerned of them turning Novell to SCO. Remember, Novell is real owner of UNIX copyrights that SCO was posing. SCO was idiot threatening with empty gun, Novell has it loaded. Hedge fund will try to cash in like SCO tried.

I hope IBM buy Novell, break MS deal and contribute Mono to GNU project. There is no better way to stick it to MS than let FSF control Mono.

As for SuSE, I do not see it going anywhere but history. If IBM buy it, they will probably still support Mainframe build for some time and relocate rest of R&D and support staff to RHEL and AIX. IBM is Red Hat's partner and it will gladly remove competition. In the end I think it is good thing. Linux haters usually moan about fragmentation. One rotten fragment is about to be gone, we are all better off.

It is unlikely that anyone is going to buy Red Hat. It worths over 10 bilon right now and it is just to important as independent company. Takeover would diminish its value.

An IBM buy would make sense and also allow them to shut SCO down for good as IBM would be too big a target for SCO. I am not sure they would kill Suse Z9 build - it is actually a great piece of software that runs like greased lightening on the mainframe.

IBM is also interested in re-establishing itself on the desktop - hence major investments in its Lotus suite of software - better integration with the cloud and increased involvement in Open Office.

If this series of events ends in the right way - it could go along way towards strengthening Linux in the market place.

[Tibuda]

There is no better way to stick it to MS than let FSF control Mono.

It would be the worse thing that could happen to Mono and its applications. We already know FSF take on Mono (http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono), and it is not good.

[Ric_NYC]

I am more concerned of them turning Novell to SCO. Remember, Novell is real owner of UNIX copyrights that SCO was posing. SCO was idiot threatening with empty gun, Novell has it loaded. Hedge fund will try to cash in like SCO tried.

I hope IBM buy Novell, break MS deal and contribute Mono to GNU project. There is no better way to stick it to MS than let FSF control Mono.

As for SuSE, I do not see it going anywhere but history. If IBM buy it, they will probably still support Mainframe build for some time and relocate rest of R&D and support staff to RHEL and AIX. IBM is Red Hat's partner and it will gladly remove competition. In the end I think it is good thing. Linux haters usually moan about fragmentation. One rotten fragment is about to be gone, we are all better off.



It is unlikely that anyone is going to buy Red Hat. It worths over 10 bilon right now and it is just to important as independent company. Takeover would diminish its value.



Good points.

[psusi]

That is not necessarily true. There are plenty of deals done by firms that have rebuilt the purchased company and then made it attractive for a sale. The best result is that this firm tidies up the balance sheet and streamlines the operation and then sells it to someone like IBM where the software portfolio can be better leveraged.

That's what they like to CLAIM they do, but they really just cut costs and increase prices to boost short term profitability to make the company look good, then sell it for a profit after sucking all the cash out they can and leaving it in debt. All the cuts to r&d, product quality, and laying off key personnel look good in the short term, but catch up with the company eventually, long after the PE firm has laughed all the way to the bank with their cash.

[lykwydchykyn]

I hope IBM buy Novell, break MS deal and contribute Mono to GNU project. There is no better way to stick it to MS than let FSF control Mono.


I thought the FSF's whole objection to Mono is that they believed it implemented patented technology and didn't want free software to be subject to lawsuits as a result of its use. If my understanding is correct, the FSF wouldn't WANT mono.

[Tibuda]

I thought the FSF's whole objection to Mono is that they believed it implemented patented technology and didn't want free software to be subject to lawsuits as a result of its use. If my understanding is correct, the FSF wouldn't WANT mono.

Actuallyy GNU have an implementation of the ecma specs for .NET: http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/

[Ric_NYC]

I think Novell was the first company to have that strange "patent deal" with Microsoft.

Let's see Microsoft's next move to protect that deal (whatever it is).

[Wiebelhaus]

Wow , this sucks.

[GMU_DodgyHodgy]

Wow , this sucks.

Too early to tell that.

[lykwydchykyn]

Actuallyy GNU have an implementation of the ecma specs for .NET: http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/

Right, but theirs doesn't implement the bits that are considered risky, no?

[mickie.kext]

It would be the worse thing that could happen to Mono and its applications. We already know FSF take on Mono (http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono), and it is not good.

FSF will never kill any piece of free software, and Mono is free software. That article do not say nothing against Mono itself.


FSF's concern about Mono is that company controlling Mono could give in to Microsoft's threats and either agree to pay royalities for mono, efectively making software depended on Mono proprietary - or admit that mono is not legal anymore and make apps that depend on it illegal as well.

If FSF itself control Mono, you can rest assured that they will not give in to Microsoft. FSF does not have to deal in order to protect its business and it is immune to vague threats and FUD that Microsoft uses to get its way with smaller companies. SFLC would murder Microsoft on court.

[zekopeko]

I am more concerned of them turning Novell to SCO. Remember, Novell is real owner of UNIX copyrights that SCO was posing. SCO was idiot threatening with empty gun, Novell has it loaded. Hedge fund will try to cash in like SCO tried.

I hope IBM buy Novell, break MS deal and contribute Mono to GNU project. There is no better way to stick it to MS than let FSF control Mono.

Mono is already in good hands. Putting it under FSF control would be counter-productive and probably disastrous to the project.

[zekopeko]

Right, but theirs doesn't implement the bits that are considered risky, no?

I don't know of any project that uses dotGNU or what ever its called.

Parts that are considered risky aren't really used by apps. Its mostly Windows specific bits that Novell thought would be nice to have so they can better sell Mono.
Linux apps use ECMA standard stuff + Linux specific bits.

[lykwydchykyn]

I don't know of any project that uses dotGNU or what ever its called.

Parts that are considered risky aren't really used by apps. Its mostly Windows specific bits that Novell thought would be nice to have so they can better sell Mono.
Linux apps use ECMA standard stuff + Linux specific bits.

I don't either. I'm just pointing out that I don't think the FSF wouldn't WANT control of Mono. I'm not suggesting their feelings on it are right or wrong, relevant or irrelevant.

[zekopeko]

It is not and never was in good hands, Novell was Microsoft's bitch and now is about to become dead bitch. In this point in time, Mono exist only because M$ needs it and it is free just because Microsoft needs it free. When .NET adoption gets high enough, they will not need Mono and and they will kill it or put price on it. Only way to prevent that is having independent and unbiased party to protect it. That would be FSF.

What are you talking about? FSF is one of the most biased and dependent parties out there. MS can't kill Mono since it released the spec under RAND-Z terms. Anybody can implement .NET by using that spec, just as FSF tried and failed to do. Who uses dotGNU? I don't know of any widely know FOSS project that uses it. So they failed to make anything of it. Contrast that with Ximians and later Novells control over the project which is nothing but a success story.

[mickie.kext]

What are you talking about? FSF is one of the most biased and dependent parties out there.

What are U talking about? FSF is depended on what?

[forrestcupp]

I love how someone says that there is speculation that Microsoft is behind this, so everyone assumes Microsoft is behind it. ;)

And chalk this thread up to one more way to introduce arguments about Mono.

[lykwydchykyn]

I love how someone says that there is speculation that Microsoft is behind this, so everyone assumes Microsoft is behind it. ;)

And chalk this thread up to one more way to introduce arguments about Mono.

I missed the part where everyone assumed Microsoft is behind this?

[Ric_NYC]

I like the part where Microsoft is the "good guy" and the FSF is the "bad one".

[Hwæt]

I am more concerned of them turning Novell to SCO. Remember, Novell is real owner of UNIX copyrights that SCO was posing. SCO was idiot threatening with empty gun, Novell has it loaded. Hedge fund will try to cash in like SCO tried.

Linux is not based on UNIX, nor does it use any copyrighted material from it. SCO has failed countless times to prove that there is any UNIX derived code in Linux. SCO sued IBM because it accused them of injecting UNIX code into the Linux source tree, which has never been proven.


FSF will never kill any piece of free software, and Mono is free software. That article do not say nothing against Mono itself.

...I have to agree with you here, as the FSF wants mono to be available to developers, yet not required by default because it would make Linux a potential target for lawsuits from MS, in theory.



FSF's concern about Mono is that company controlling Mono could give in to Microsoft's threats and either agree to pay royalities for mono, efectively making software depended on Mono proprietary - or admit that mono is not legal anymore and make apps that depend on it illegal as well.

...Novell owns the copyrights to Mono, and can simply change it to a license which does allow royalties to be paid, such as the CDDL, which is the same open source license which OpenSolaris is licensed under. You can open source something and charge royalties for it. Don't go on some Internet forum and act like you know everything about U.S. copyright and patent laws, because evidently, you don't.

Furthermore, patent infringement is not a federal crime. It is a civil issue between two or more parties.



If FSF itself control Mono, you can rest assured that they will not give in to Microsoft. FSF does not have to deal in order to protect its business and it is immune to vague threats and FUD that Microsoft uses to get its way with smaller companies.

Individuals are able to be taken to court over patents. Just because you're not a company doesn't mean that you can't be sued over patent infringement. The FSF is not immune to any sort of patent suit.



SFLC would murder Microsoft on court.

On what grounds? Novell owns all the patent ICBMs, such as patents on XML and networking.


It is not and never was in good hands, Novell was Microsoft's bitch and now is about to become dead bitch.

...They are not Microsoft's bitch. Microsoft and Novell made their patent deal to give their potential customers more peace of mind, and there's nothing wrong with that. Their agreement simply gave Novell's customers immunity from MS patents, MS immunity from Novell's patents, and gave Microsoft a small percentage of the proceeds from SLED/SLES sales. The agreement did not give Microsoft any say in Novell's affairs.



Only way to prevent that is having independent and unbiased party to protect it. That would be FSF.

The FSF is not unbiased in the least. They are a special interest group.

[zekopeko]

What are U talking about? FSF is depended on what?

Depended on the funding by those same companies selling or providing "unethical" and "illegitimate" closed source software.

https://my.fsf.org/donate/patron/

I wonder how many companies on that list give ALL of their software under FOSS terms.

[zekopeko]

I missed the part where everyone assumed Microsoft is behind this?

Zealots have tunnel vision.

[mickie.kext]

Linux is not based on UNIX, nor does it use any copyrighted material from it. SCO has failed countless times to prove that there is any UNIX derived code in Linux. SCO sued IBM because it accused them of injecting UNIX code into the Linux source tree, which has never been proven.

I know that. But hedge fund can still sue and make bad PR about Linux, and Novell has 10x more credibility about UNIX than SCO.




...Novell owns the copyrights to Mono, and can simply change it to a license which does allow royalties to be paid, such as the CDDL, which is the same open source license which OpenSolaris is licensed under.


That is exactly why I think that Mono is not in good hands. When you have to pay for royalties, it is not free software anymore. When it gets encumbered, it is better to die. FSF would fight to invalidate Microsoft patents on court (or would develop workaround) while Novell would bow to Microsoft and put price on Mono.


You can open source something and charge royalties for it. Don't go on some Internet forum and act like you know everything about U.S. copyright and patent laws, because evidently, you don't.

When you charge patent royalty for something, it is not open source anymore because feedom to freely redistribute is taken away. You can't put price on open source and still call it open source. Plain and simple. When did I say I know everything about copyright law?



Individuals are able to be taken to court over patents. Just because you're not a company doesn't mean that you can't be sued over patent infringement. The FSF is not immune to any sort of patent suit.
I am not saing that FSF can't be sue, I say that they would not make sneaky deal in order to avoid being sued. They would strive to make Mono independent of Microsoft patents, and if they still get sued they will fight back. Novell would just do whatever Microsoft asks. Dont forget, I am talking about hypothetical situation where IBM acuires Novell and spins off Mono to FSF.


On what grounds? Novell owns all the patent ICBMs, such as patents on XML and networking.

Umm, not Novell, IBM.


...They are not Microsoft's bitch. Microsoft and Novell made their patent deal to give their potential customers more peace of mind, and there's nothing wrong with that. Their agreement simply gave Novell's customers immunity from MS patents, MS immunity from Novell's patents, and gave Microsoft a small percentage of the proceeds from SLED/SLES sales. The agreement did not give Microsoft any say in Novell's affairs.
That deal assumes that Microsoft has patents on Linux which is not true. It also tries to put a price on open source which is worse than killing it. There is lots of things wrong with that.

[mickie.kext]

Depended on the funding by those same companies selling or providing "unethical" and "illegitimate" closed source software.

https://my.fsf.org/donate/patron/

I wonder how many companies on that list give ALL of their software under FOSS terms.
That is pure crap. Donations are voluntary and FSF does not do anything to promote any of those companies. FSF never licences any code outside of GPL to any company, and never gives slacks to anyone breaking GPL.

[Tibuda]

When .NET adoption gets high enough, they will not need Mono and and they will kill it or put price on it.
Microsoft doesn't need Mono to get a high adoption of .NET. They can have 95% of the market with only their .NET implementation.

[zekopeko]

That is exactly why I think that Mono is not in good hands. When you have to pay for royalties, it is not free software anymore. When it gets encumbered, it is better to die. FSF would fight to invalidate Microsoft patents on court (or would develop workaround) while Novell would bow to Microsoft and put price on Mono.

When you charge patent royalty for something, it is not open source anymore because feedom to freely redistribute is taken away. You can't put price on open source and still call it open source. Plain and simple. When did I say I know everything about copyright law?

So FSF would valiantly protect Mono from all threats but Novell would just rollover and do everything MS wants?
Novell is a far better protector for Mono then FSF could ever be.
You see Novell has patents that are ICBMs in the patent world. If MS did try it would feel that through a multi-billion dollar lawsuit. Not to mention that they are part of the OIN whose members have vast patent portfolios that can be used to counter-sue.
FSF on the other hand doesn't have patents that it can use to protect


I am not saing that FSF can't be sue, I say that they would not make sneaky deal in order to avoid being sued. They would strive to make Mono independent of Microsoft patents, and if they still get sued they will fight back. Novell would just do whatever Microsoft asks. Dont forget, I am talking about hypothetical situation where IBM acuires Novell and spins off Mono to FSF.

Here is the strategy on how Mono deals with patents from their website:


For people who need full compatibility with the Windows platform, Mono's strategy for dealing with any potential issues that might arise with ASP.NET, ADO.NET or Windows.Forms is: (1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless.

So please explain what part of that you think FSF could do better?


Umm, not Novell, IBM.

You are wrong. Novell has patents on some essential stuff. Here is one (group of them): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_One


That deal assumes that Microsoft has patents on Linux which is not true. It also tries to put a price on open source which is worse than killing it. There is lots of things wrong with that.

You are wrong again. The deal doesn't state that. It boils down to "IF you infringe our patent, not that we think you do, you and your costumers are in the clear". It's just legal talk to make costumers feel all nice and protected.


That is pure crap. Donations are voluntary and FSF does not do anything to promote any of those companies. FSF never licences any code outside of GPL to any company, and never gives slacks to anyone breaking GPL.

Here is a quote from Stallman himself:


These are worthy causes, but I would not encourage anyone to use
non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause.

Hypocritical much wouldn't you say?

In summary, your entire hypothetical situation is based on "FSF is so awesome" while the reality is that a far better steward to Mono is and was Novell.

[mickie.kext]

So FSF would valiantly protect Mono from all threats but Novell would just rollover and do everything MS wants?
Novell is a far better protector for Mono then FSF could ever be.
You see Novell has patents that are ICBMs in the patent world. If MS did try it would feel that through a multi-billion dollar lawsuit. Not to mention that they are part of the OIN whose members have vast patent portfolios that can be used to counter-sue.
FSF on the other hand doesn't have patents that it can use to protect
You apparently missed that Novell is about to go under. Dead company cant protect Mono.



You are wrong. Novell has patents on some essential stuff. Here is one (group of them): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_One

I said IBM because I was talking about IBM buying Novell. Novell can not sell itself to IBM and still own patents, can it?


You are wrong again. The deal doesn't state that. It boils down to "IF you infringe our patent, not that we think you do, you and your costumers are in the clear". It's just legal talk to make costumers feel all nice and protected.
And what about Canonical's and Red Hats customers who use same software under same GPL licence terms? They are left hand and dry. So they need also to license Linux from Microsoft, and Microsoft can continue pretending to own Linux. That is same thing that SCO was dreaming about.



Here is a quote from Stallman himself:

Hypocritical much wouldn't you say?

And what he did wrong there? If money if offered to support free software, he should and will take it. But FSF does not make any comitment to those companies and FSF's only commitment is to Free Software.


In summary, your entire hypothetical situation is based on "FSF is so awesome" while the reality is that a far better steward to Mono is and was Novell.


If you would feel better, scrap FSF and put Eclipse foundation or Apache foundation. But those are hardly neutral because corporations have a say there. That is why I said FSF.

[Hwæt]

I know that. But hedge fund can still sue and make bad PR about Linux, and Novell has 10x more credibility about UNIX than SCO.

And the hedge fund somehow has more credibility than Novell, IBM, Oracle, and RedHat?



That is exactly why I think that Mono is not in good hands. When you have to pay for royalties, it is not free software anymore.

Actually, it is Free software. Free software is software that you can edit and redistribute. When companies sell open source software, they just sell the binaries. Take a look at RedHat. It costs money to get RHEL, but you can get the source code for free from them.



FSF would fight to invalidate Microsoft patents on court (or would develop workaround)

Oh really? Yes, I'm sure the FSF can do a much better job of suing Microsoft than the OIN can with their billion dollar patent portfolio.



while Novell would bow to Microsoft and put price on Mono.

You don't seem to understand royalties correctly. Microsoft demanding a royalty for Mono doesn't mean that you pay it, it means that the company distributing it pays it. If what your suggesting was the case, then OpenSolaris would cost money.



When you charge patent royalty for something, it is not open source anymore because feedom to freely redistribute is taken away.


Yes it is open source. You can charge royalties for an open source product. You don't seem to understand that Open Source simply means that the source code is open for modification. It doesn't mean that it is able to be redistributed. A prime example is the software that these very forums are running.

Plus, the freedom to redistribute isn't necessarily taken away, as Novell would be paying Microsoft for distribution rights, and therefore footing the bill as they are now.



When did I say I know everything about copyright law?


You sure are acting like you do. You don't even live in the United States!



I am not saing that FSF can't be sue, I say that they would not make sneaky deal in order to avoid being sued.


Legal fees are expensive, and the FSF isn't a multi-billion dollar corporation that can afford too many lawsuits.



They would strive to make Mono independent of Microsoft patents


Really? Because they've done such a good job of making sure that their current software doesn't infringe on patents. The GNU project in the 1980s and early 1990s was a patent-infringing hotbed.



Novell would just do whatever Microsoft asks.


Then why haven't they already done so by suing Linux into oblivion and shutting down their Linux distribution?



Dont forget, I am talking about hypothetical situation where IBM acuires Novell and spins off Mono to FSF.


Now why would IBM do that?



It also tries to put a price on open source which is worse than killing it. There is lots of things wrong with that.

Okay, then that means that RedHat is evil as well, since it costs money to get a hold of RHEL binaries.

[Hwæt]

You apparently missed that Novell is about to go under. Dead company cant protect Mono.

Yes it can, a prime example is SCO. Who, despite entering bankruptcy, is still engaged in 4 open lawsuits.



I said IBM because I was talking about IBM buying Novell. Novell can not sell itself to IBM and still own patents, can it?


Yes, it can.



And what about Canonical's and Red Hats customers who use same software under same GPL licence terms?


Canonical is based in Great Britain, where the United States patent laws do not apply. There are no software patents in Great Britain, making it impossible for Microsoft to even harm Canonical. Patents aren't worldwide, kiddo.

RedHat, like Novell, has the OIN backing it, which would be able to sue Microsoft into oblivion if it even threatens it. Novell only took the patent deal to give its customers, whom are not protected by the OIN, peace of mind. The GPL, by the way, doesn't say that distributors can't pay royalties or enter patent agreements, it just says that distributors can't charge patent royalties themselves, and must give a world-wide, royalty-free license to patents that they own which have been included in the software.



If you would feel better, scrap FSF and put Eclipse foundation or Apache foundation. But those are hardly neutral because corporations have a say there. That is why I said FSF.

Those foundations have erm... Apache and Eclipse to worry about. They couldn't care less if mono was lost.

[zekopeko]

You apparently missed that Novell is about to go under. Dead company cant protect Mono.

Could you point me to where it say that Novell is "going under"?



And what about Canonical's and Red Hats customers who use same software under same GPL licence terms? They are left hand and dry. So they need also to license Linux from Microsoft, and Microsoft can continue pretending to own Linux. That is same thing that SCO was dreaming about.

Its people like you that give power to things with no power. Red Hat and Canonical are fully aware that there is a certainty they are infringing patent by distributing any FOSS software. Thats why they offer patent indemnification.
So that deal (MS-Novell) is of no relevance to any part of FOSS. The deal doesn't name specific patents but makes a blanket statement in the eventuality that one of them is infringing patents of the other.



And what he did wrong there? If money if offered to support free software, he should and will take it. But FSF does not make any comitment to those companies and FSF's only commitment is to Free Software.

Do I really need to spell it out? I guess I do.
RMS said "...I would not encourage anyone to use non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause."

So he doesn't think its ethical to receive money that was made by using proprietary software but takes money from companies that make money from proprietary software. Let me remind you that he is el presidente of FSF.

So he is hypocrite in this regard. And yet people praise him for consistency. :sigh:


If you would feel better, scrap FSF and put Eclipse foundation or Apache foundation. But those are hardly neutral because corporations have a say there. That is why I said FSF.

FSF is in no way neutral. They have an agenda. I would rather see Mono under the Mono foundation which board members are part corporate, part community then have it under FSF.

[Frak]

It's off-topic, it's picking on a minor detail in order to provoke reactions, and it's coming from someone with a known track record of trolling, so it's very fair to label it trolling. That it "tells the truth" is beside the point.

As for Novell: there's a long history of speculations of their acquisition. I wouldn't be surprised if this goes down as another one.
It was from a quote that a person made some time ago that said "If you use Linux, you don't need a BIOS".

It wasn't trolling. He was trying to make a joke.

[mickie.kext]

Wow, so much funny quotes on one place:P.


And the hedge fund somehow has more credibility than Novell, IBM, Oracle, and RedHat?


Why do you think that?


You don't seem to understand royalties correctly. Microsoft demanding a royalty for Mono doesn't mean that you pay it, it means that the company distributing it pays it. If what your suggesting was the case, then OpenSolaris would cost money.
Royality costs can be paid by original distributor, but what if someone else downstream want to distribute too (modified or unmodified copies)? He must also pay royalty! So it is not free to redistribute, hence it is not free as in freedom. It is just free of charge, if that. FLOSS and royalties do not go together, there is no way you could pull that argument.



Okay, then that means that RedHat is evil as well, since it costs money to get a hold of RHEL binaries.

This is a funny statement. Everything that Red Hat does is FLOSS. They just sell support bundled with binaries. Source is available totally royalty free and they do not use any software that might require royalties in future (like mono for example).



Yes it can, a prime example is SCO. Who, despite entering bankruptcy, is still engaged in 4 open lawsuits.


SCO do not protect anything. It attacks Novell, IBM and Linux. If they have protecting something, that something would be long dead by now.




Yes it is open source. You can charge royalties for an open source product. You don't seem to understand that Open Source simply means that the source code is open for modification. It doesn't mean that it is able to be redistributed. A prime example is the software that these very forums are running.

Plus, the freedom to redistribute isn't necessarily taken away, as Novell would be paying Microsoft for distribution rights, and therefore footing the bill as they are now.



If right to redistribute is not royality free, it is not open source. vBulletin is not open source. Look at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBulletin), it says proprietary. If licence is not OSI approved, software is not open source - end of story.



You don't even live in the United States!

Why is that relevant???

The problem with this whole argument is that people here are jumping and moaning at mention of FSF. Someone says FSF and all haters start bashing with half truths and lies.

[zekopeko]

This is a funny statement. Everything that Red Hat does is FLOSS. They just sell support bundled with binaries. Source is available totally royalty free and they do not use any software that might require royalties in future (like mono for example).

Please stop bashing Mono. Mono is in less legal danger then some other parts of FOSS. Its also under the protection of OIN but you keep ignoring that part.



Why is that relevant???

Because software patents aren't your problem. Basically the entire software industry isn't inovating as much because the US legal system is broken in various ways.


The problem with this whole argument is that people here are jumping and moaning at mention of FSF. Someone says FSF and all haters start bashing with half truths and lies. It was just hypothetical

Perhaps you could point where half truth and lies were said about FSF? And those of us that responded that FSF isn't the best optionfor Mono in your hypothetical scenario provided fact based opinion why we think that.

[mickie.kext]

Do I really need to spell it out? I guess I do.
RMS said "...I would not encourage anyone to use non-free software even to get money to give to a worthy cause."

He do no encourage anyone to do so. And he is not using propriatary software to give money for worthy couse. He did not say anything for receiving money from proprietary companies.

And link for that statement would be nice...

[Hwæt]

Why do you think that?


You suggested it, not me.

"I know that. But hedge fund can still sue and make bad PR about Linux, and Novell has 10x more credibility about UNIX than SCO."




Royality costs can be paid by original distributor, but what if someone else downstream want to distribute too (modified or unmodified copies)? He must also pay royalty! So it is not free to redistribute, hence it is not free as in freedom.


You are incorrect. Sun has to pay royalties, yet anyone can distribute OpenSolaris with changes added to it. It all depends upon the agreement between the two companies.

Want proof?
Exhibit A (http://www.belenix.org/)
Exhibit B (http://www.nexenta.org/)

And there are many more OpenSolaris-based operating systems where that came from. All of which, use technology which Sun, now the Oracle Corporation, pays for.



This is a funny statement. Everything that Red Hat does is FLOSS. They just sell support bundled with binaries. Source is available totally royalty free and they do not use any software that might require royalties in future (like mono for example).


You seem to have misunderstood what I said. They are selling binaries. Try to get a free binary from RedHat, you won't be able to.

To charge money for something is practically the same thing as charging a royalty.



SCO do not protect anything. It attacks Novell, IBM and Linux. If they have protecting something, that something would be long dead by now.


I misread your original comment. My point was that companies can still muster legal strength even when they're on their last leg.



If right to redistribute is not royality free, it is not open source. vBulletin is not open source. Look at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBulletin), it says proprietary. If licence is not OSI approved, software is not open source - end of story.


You're not understanding this correctly. Perhaps it's because your first language is not English and you don't get the semantical meanings of some of our words.

Open Source means that the source code is "open", i.e. you can edit and recompile it. It does not automatically imply that you have the right to redistribute it. By definition, all it means is that you can view the source code and edit it.

Free (as in freedom) and Open Source software is what you're thinking of. Why do you think that you say "FOSS"? It's because FOSS means Free and Open Source software, while OSS just means Open Source Software. Read up a bit on "free as in freedom" vs. "free as in free beer". The English word "free" means "freedom" and "free as in price".



Why is that relevant???


Because our laws do not even apply to you, and you don't even have to worry about anything. Patents only go as far as the United States' borders, with the exception of some extended through an international treaty. Even if "the big bad Microsoft" shut down Mono in the United States, that would not make it illegal in places such as the UK, for example.



The problem with this whole argument is that people here are jumping and moaning at mention of FSF. Someone says FSF and all haters start bashing with half truths and lies.

Here in the Southern U.S., we have a saying:

"That's the pot calling the kettle black"

You sir, are calling the kettle black. Seriously, BoycottNovell is one of your sources. Could you come up with something even more biased? Are you going to start reading us stories about the evils of the Democratic Party from Fox News next?

[zekopeko]

He do no encourage anyone to do so. And he is not using propriatary software to give money for worthy couse. He did not say anything for receiving money from proprietary companies.

And link for that statement would be nice...

You fail at two thing. Logical thinking and google-ing.

He might not have said "taking money from proprietary companies is bad" but he did say "giving money earned by using proprietary software is bad". So in essence he is willing to take "dirty" money as long as it benefits him and his agenda.

If you have a half-decent browser you can select that quote and google it.

[Sef]

locked. This thread is going nowhere.