Why use Novell code anymore?

[Animortis]

Something that I wonder about is why would any Linux project willingly use Novell code anymore?

With the Microsoft-Novell pact in place, Novell has room to carelessly include Microsoft code in open-source projects without regard for what it means for the other projects that use said code. Why would any project utilize their contributions?

The Linux kernel, for example, could be stuffed full of proprietary Microsoft code, Microsoft could watch it happen since Linux code is open-source and theirs isn't, wait for the taint to spread like a virus, then begin suing every Linux company out of existence. Once those companies are off the market thanks to said lawsuits, they could buy up Novell and squash Linux for good. (Or, at least, until someone purifies its code and starts the movement over again.) Even if free projects are left standing, without Canonical or Red Hat, Linux would never have the corporate backing to take over the desktop market.

Novell would be okay with this since their product wouldn't be affected, and would gladly leave its competitors open to lawsuit so they can take over the Linux market. Novell and Canonical are the only two major Linux companies with any probable chance at taking the Linux desktop for themselves. This possibility would be very important for Canonical and the Ubuntu community to counter.

OpenOffice.org now supports Visual basic coding, as I understand it, thanks to Novell additions via their pact. I think the primary OpenOffice.org team should adamantly reject any code contributed by anyone who is linked to Novell in order to prevent this important project from losing control of its own code and keep it entirely FLOSS.

No Novell code should ever be accepted. The close-source nature of Microsoft's proprietary code mean we'll never know when they don't add MS code to Linux. Novell has an interest taking over Linux through patent lawsuits and commoditize the uncommoditizable by exterminating everyone using the code. Microsoft wants to stomp Linux, its most powerful competitor to come along in a decade, and keep itself in the dominant market position. It'll then absorb or squash Novell and leave Linux a footnote in OS history, like OS/2.

Without any of this, the open-source nature of our preferred OS is assured to become the international standard and push proprietary operating systems into a Mac-style niche market.

[Circus-Killer]

you know what the funny thing is? i was against novell taking over suse. and years later, well, i never thought this deal would happen, but i knew something bad would come of it. novell has a habit of doing themselves injustice. its not the first time novell have harmed themselves.

[tbroderick]

Something that I wonder about is why would any Linux project willingly use Novell code anymore?


I think you are being a little paranoid. Novell will not include Microsoft code into the GNU/Linux kernel. They would be opening themselves up to a massive lawsuit as well as shooting themselves in the foot. Novell has a vested interest in the success of GNU/Linux.

[dbbolton]

i don't like novell, but i don't think anyone is exactly going to find internet explorer on suse anytime soon.

[Henry Rayker]

Wait...aren't all contributions sort of...errr...documented. This tidbit came from Novell, this from whoever and so on?

If you know that the code in question was injected by Novell, they are at fault if it is proprietary code. This should be the case, regardless of any agreement between them and Microsoft. If anything, I think the agreement works as a filter: anything that comes through them should have been approved by MicroSoft.

[23meg]

The Linux kernel, for example, could be stuffed full of proprietary Microsoft code,Kernel developers aren't stupid; they won't sit down and watch this happen. Actually they've been paying special attention in their coding to avoiding patent issues since SCO began filing patent lawsuits.


No Novell code should ever be accepted. The close-source nature of Microsoft's proprietary code mean we'll never know when they don't add MS code to Linux.That's valid for every proprietary software company: they could sneak in with their "agents" into any group of developers, inject their patented code or features into any project, and then sue. You don't need a pact with MS to do it.


Without any of this, the open-source nature of our preferred OS is assured to become the international standard and push proprietary operating systems into a Mac-style niche market.So if it weren't for the MS - Novell pact, we had already guaranteed our top place in the desktop market, but now that they've made the pact, we have an obstacle? Doesn't sound convincing to me.

[seeklinux]

I am not sure you guys are getting the point. You may not know you are inserting MS patented stuff when you do it. If you working on MONO stuff or stuff to support MS interoperability it would seem logical to assume there is an increased possibility of infringement.

Just about anything put in could infringe somebody's patent, but the more you deal with Windows stuff, if only for interoperability, the higher the risk seems.

There are a zillion SW patents out there and even if you could look at all of them, someone of them are so generic that you can't tell if they would infringe or not. It is prudent to stay out of areas that are more likely candidates for infringement, or look skeptically at sources which might not be as concerned about the possibility of infringement.

[DoctorMO]

*sigh*

Once again you guys fail to know the difference between software copyright and software patents.

The original post talks about software copyright, because it's it's Microsofts 'code' then it's Microsofts copyright and Novell will be committing copyright infringement to re-release the code as GPL regardless of any patent convent not to sue their customers bull locks.

The patents problem is one where a patent only covers _how_ you do something; not what the end result is and if there is no way to support that thing without infringing the patent then there are grounds upon which the patent can be made invalid for obviousness.

Someone could sanitise lame of patented methods, or innull any remaining patents and we would never have any problems playing mp3s on linux by default.

Someone could not do anything to microsofts dll codecs for wmv since it's their copyright.

[seeklinux]

Well, I do know the difference between copyrights and patents, since I have had to apply for patents (as required by my company).

Novell could easily insert code that was not copyrighted, but infringed MS patents, again not necessarily intentionally. The uproar with respect to the Novell-MS agreement is about patents, not copyrights. So maybe the discussion is mixing both, and while both could be a concern, the patent issue, to me anyway, looks like the greater concern.

[Animortis]

I realize I have a paranoid view on this, but I am genuinely concerned since Novell has no reason not to submit legally bad code for other distros to use.

They have no reason to care, so every piece of submitted code by the Novell teams would have to be double-checked before using it in any project. If a project is loyal to Novell anyway, then every single distro wanting to use their GPLed software would have to do a source-code check for patent infringement that those coders couldn't care less about committing.

It's bad. Novell should be isolated.

[darkhatter]

:confused: I know for a fact you know nothing about this topic](*,) . Novell can't release Microsoft code, no one can.](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

[DigitalDuality]

d

[darkhatter]

^
they can with permission from MS.

MS's wet dream would be forking the linux kernel..

that's the fear that's scared business away via FUD since linux's inception..and when you look at Novell/MS and you look at the GPL3 and the things the GNU project will put under the GPLv3, you're looking at exactly the fears business had about linux.

I hate to sound paranoid... and i'm not wholly backing a Stallman perspective here, but i think Novell should be isolated.. and i'm not talking about on home machines, but in the public and private sectors. It's going to hurt linux adoption. Mark my words.

by providing better support for Linux and windows :confused:

[Animortis]

Even if MS never says, "Go ahead, put some code that blatantly violates our proprietary stuff into the kernel, we won't sue you and we might help drive some of your competition off the market" the fact that Novell isn't thinking "How can we write this without violating a patent?" anymore just says they're not trustworthy to me.

[tubasoldier]

Although I am not normally this extreme I will have to agree on this point. The reason I agree is merely because of Novell and their history. Look at what they have done.
They made decent networking software...Then they screwed it up.
They bought Word Perfect... I learned to type on Word Perfect. But it is now considered a "second rate" office suite. It still has all the functionality and in some cases more than MS office. Novell screwed it up.
Novell used to own the code for UNIX. Yep, the whole SCO thing. They owned that code and sold it to SCO. WHY? Because they were after money and they screwed it up.
Novell has purchased SuSe Linux. It will only be a matter of time before Novell's dirty hands dip it into the mud.

Novell has a bad history of ruining everything they put their hands on. They make enough money off of a product to stay in business and then do something stupid. Everything they have had their grubby hands in has been squeezed of every cent they could get out of it before discarding it.

[tbroderick]

Novell has a bad history of ruining everything they put their hands on. They make enough money off of a product to stay in business and then do something stupid. Everything they have had their grubby hands in has been squeezed of every cent they could get out of it before discarding it.

But Novell is not GNU/Linux.

[tubasoldier]

But Novell is not GNU/Linux.

That is true. But that does not mean that they won't treat SuSe like they treated everything else. Linux will go on long after they abandon it. I'm just saying that having Novell in the Linux world may give it more press and therefore more usage. However, Novell has never been able to keep a good product good. They have a history of bad moves. I'm not going to start trusting them now just because they bought a Linux distro.

[DigitalDuality]

d

[Henry Rayker]

I think it boils down to this:

If Novell knowingly distributes code that violates M$'s patents without M$ knowing, any and all blame will be directed back to Novell. They knowingly released code under a license which violated the original license.

If the same thing happens, only M$ knows about it, their patents are void. Intellectual Property is only valid if the owner takes reasonable efforts to keep such things protected.

I know it mixes the argument, but think of it this way: if Coca-Cola were to distribute their "secret formula", they would have no grounds on which to sue someone for producing and distributing drinks based on the formula. There is a reaason it's a secret. However, if someone steals the formula, distributes it and someone makes and produces a soda based on this formula (without knowing it was stolen), the worst that can happen to them is their soda will be pulled from the market; the brunt of the legal recourse will fall on the thief. If the thief, however, discloses that it is stolen, both parties will be legally responsible for their actions.

[weasel fierce]

Given how much Novell has benefited from other open source projects,why would they do something that would effectively estrange themselves from this ?

[darkhatter]

The GNU projects (basically a good portion of linux..with the exception of the kernel) is going to be GPLv3. Meaning, it can't mingle with proprietary software.


how did you come to that conclusion, once again GPLv3 is hurting all the commercial users. Novell will fork every project that goes GPLv3 Red Hat was worried too so they will most likely work on those projects. I can't find the article I need to google it again. Ubuntu is closed source drivers in their kernel (not just the video drivers).