Should Novell Be Banned From Selling Linux?

[jsmidt]

I actually am not against them selling Linux. But given they may be by the Free Software Foundation : http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/03/0921201&from=rss I was wondering what the Ubuntu Community Thinks.

EDIT: The poll should read "Free Software Foundation" not "Linux Foundation"

[Gerard Barberi]

Yes, they should give it for free.

[Kernel Sanders]

To restrict them would directly contravene what Linux and open source represents.

[Adamant1988]

They have every right to sell their product so long as the source code is made available and they follow the rules of the GPL. Notice that they provide their product for free, without support, in the form of OpenSuse.

[melancholeric]

The Linux Foundation has nothing to do with this. The Free Software Foundation is (kind of) banning Novell.

Or rather, they're moving everything they own the copyrights of to the GPL version 3, and that pretty clearly bans the MS / Novell type of patent agreements. Consequently, Novell couldn't distribute software licensed under GPLv3.

[DarkOx]

Let me see if I have this straight. The Free Software Foundation is attempting to restrict another entity's ability to redistribute software?

Er... irony much?

[bastiegast]

What the...? They trying to stop novell from selling Linux. What's wrong with them? Why attack your friends? Novell has done great things for linux, like making deals with companies like Real for opensource wmv playback(heard something about that a while ago).

[melancholeric]

Let me see if I have this straight. The Free Software Foundation is attempting to restrict another entity's ability to redistribute software?

Er... irony much?

For violating the GPL. If you can't distribute it under the GPL, then you don't distribute it. Simple, isn't it?

[BWF89]

For violating the GPL. If you can't distribute it under the GPL, then you don't distribute it. Simple, isn't it?
When has Novell ever violated the GPL?

[LinuxHeroNumber1]

They should be banned for this reason:

Companies need to be sent a message that you can't put Linux at risk by pushing the envelope. If Novell gets away with this, others will keep stretching the interpretation of the GPL until it has lost all power. They will just say, "precedent shows this should be okay too since Novell was able to interpret the GPL this way so so should we." This really puts Linux at risk if not stopped.

The standard needs to be set and the line drawn to keep the GPL safe.

[hk_2999]

Actually, I think banning Novell from selling Linux is a part of Microsoft's plan all along.

Of course, we shouldn't aim at Novell too much. They have done a lot for Linux. Even Mozilla partnered with MS to develop FireFox for Vista right?

[ZylGadis]

This is a piece of FUD. Read a bit more into that, please. The FSF is not going to ban anybody from anything; they will just move all GNU software to GPL3, which I think is the right thing to do. Having in mind some of the text considered for GPL3, Novell will indeed be unable to distribute GPL3 software unless it revokes the Microsoft deal.

But that is a side effect. I don't think the FSF is out to ban anybody specific from anything specific - they simply have an ideology they follow. RMS has proven time and again that he looks further in the future than anybody else at that level and with that power.

[mips]

To many zealots around ](*,)

If you ban novell you hurt linux. MS must be smiling when they hear crap like this.

The saying "Divide and conquer" is ringing loudly in my ears.

[G Morgan]

They can't stop Novell from distributing old copies. Lets be straight about this, if they move the GNU userland to GPL3 the GPL2 version will be forked and all the contributions will go here.

[melancholeric]

When has Novell ever violated the GPL?
They haven't so far, but they will be violating the GPL v3.

They're perfectly free to distribute anything that's released under GPL v2 though.

[Adamant1988]

If this is the kind of intervention we're going to be seeing from the FSF then frankly, I'd rather go back to Windows.

"Your free to do whatever you want with this, as long as we agree with it"

No thanks.

Novell made a business decision that helped them get ahead, heaven forbid they work with Microsoft (who owns, what, like 40% of Apple?)

[rai4shu2]

Novell's CEO needs to pay for his screw up, not Novell itself.

[EdThaSlayer]

Novell brings more Linux users doesn't it?
The more linux users=more linux hardware drivers=happier linux users.
I still wonder what Novell has violated in the GPL(just saying they violated isn't what I really want to hear).

[%hMa@?b<C]

Novell brings more Linux users doesn't it?
The more linux users=more linux hardware drivers=happier linux users.
I still wonder what Novell has violated in the GPL(just saying they violated isn't what I really want to hear).
they are not violating the GPLv2 but they are violating the GPLv3. In my opinion, GPLv3 is too strict, v2 is really all that is nevcessary

[Adamant1988]

they are not violating the GPLv2 but they are violating the GPLv3. In my opinion, GPLv3 is too strict, v2 is really all that is nevcessary

I couldn't agree more. The GPLv3 is horrible, I'm not the only one who believes so.

[Wolki]

I still wonder what Novell has violated in the GPL(just saying they violated isn't what I really want to hear).

This is the relevant part, I think:


If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

Current wisdom seems to be that the Novell deal does not actually violate the letter of this, as they don't distribute Microsoft patent licenses with their operating system, but a promise for Microsoft not to sue (that seems to work pretty similar to a patent license). In other words, they found a loophole in the license, and the GNU guys want to fix it now.

[MissSusieSnow]

Hi Everyone. Could somebody please explain to me the difference between GPL version 2 and 3? I haven't been able to understand the difference. Thank You.

[darkhatter]

this is over now...just let the thread die....

[cowlip]

"I don't care, whatever The Linux Foundation Decides"

Shouldn't that be the "Free Software Foundation"?

Obviously the GPL2 isn't good enough if patent protections like these don't violate the letter of the license, unless we want tainted code, a SUSE monopoly, and lots of suing all around. One only needs to look at the Bitkeeper and other problems that show the FSF is more often right than not. Lest we forget that MICROSOFT is the one who stops interoperability :D

[ssam]

According to a recent Reuters report, the Free Software Foundation's (FSF) board was going to be looking into Novell Inc.'s rights to continue selling its version of the Linux operating system. That, however, is not actually what will be happening.

Eben Moglen, the Software Freedom Law Center's executive director and an FSF board member, explained: "This is a story being hyped by the Reuters guy who wrote it."

The Reuters quote was: "The community of people wants to do anything they can to interfere with this deal and all deals like it. They have every reason to be deeply concerned that this is the beginning of a significant patent aggression by Microsoft."

"What he actually asked me," said Moglen in an email interview, "was 'Is it true that some members of the community want GPLv3 to keep Novell from distributing future versions of GPL'd software?' I said, 'Yes, the Free Software Foundation is opposed to the deal, and is thinking about what to do; there will be a new draft soon [of the GPLv3]" (GNU General Public License Version 3).

Therefore, "The actual quote he prints is entirely accurate, but his lede destroys the context and is making unnecessary waves."


http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6837365670.html

[encompass]

Linux is Freedom... Just because novell makes a deal with MS doesn't mean they are doing something wrong.
Should Cononical nolonger be alowed to produce ubuntu because they have made a deal with nvidia? No but they have made a deal. They are using there drivers even when nvidia won't open them. Clearly showing that Ubuntu doesn't want to support open source.
Same thinking to me.

[melancholeric]

Hi Everyone. Could somebody please explain to me the difference between GPL version 2 and 3? I haven't been able to understand the difference. Thank You.
Not much. One thing is that they now have a clause to prevent Tivoization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization), and they changed the clause 7 on patents to "fix" the "loophole" in v2.

The version 2 said something like, if you need a license for patents or similar in order to distribute it, you can't distribute it at all. The loophole was that it didn't apply to the recipients of the program.

Microsoft promised to not sue Novell customers; if they had promised to not sue Novell it would have been a license violation too.

I can't explain it too well, but if you understand legalese here's a nice comparison of the two:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060118155841115

Note that that's a bit outdated, I checked the latest draft and it didn't say anything about DRM. That's the part about tivoization, by the way. The later draft makes it much more clear.

[cowlip]

Linux is Freedom... Just because novell makes a deal with MS doesn't mean they are doing something wrong.
Should Cononical nolonger be alowed to produce ubuntu because they have made a deal with nvidia? No but they have made a deal. They are using there drivers even when nvidia won't open them. Clearly showing that Ubuntu doesn't want to support open source.
Same thinking to me.

GNU/Linux is under the GPL and Novell has a found a way to violate the spirit of the license, therefore it must be closed. If Canonical violates the GPL, they would lose their right to distribute Ubuntu as well, because then they are denying their users freedom. As is, the Novell agreement leaves employed Linux coders (a large chunk) open for litigation.

[IYY]

Here's the Novell-Microsoft plan as I see it:


Microsoft pays Novell (notice it's not the other way around, so clearly MS is the one who will profit).
Microsoft promises not to sue Novell when Novell infringes on Microsoft patents.
Novell takes existing GPL-licensed software, and adds changes that directly infringe on Microsoft patents.
To comply with the GPL, Novell releases the source-code of these changes.
However, despite the GPL license, no one is actually allowed to modify, redistribute or possibly even recompile this code because Microsoft has only promised not to sue Novell and their clients.
At this step, there are two options. Either projects like Samba and Evolution buy this trick and commit the changes to their source (allowing Microsoft to sue them out of existence) OR each project splits into a Free and Pseudo-Free (Novell) branch. The Pseudo-Free branch is allowed to take any code they like from the Free branch, but not the other way around. In this case, the Novell product becomes a far superior choice and it becomes the standard business distribution.
Since Novell is the Linux distribution of the business, it also becomes the home distribution, since we already know from studying OS history that people like to install the familiar at home.
Microsoft now pretty much owns the dominant Linux distribution. By "owns" I mean, after the contract ends, they can choose to stop the "do not sue" promise and destroy Novell's new empire. Since Novell doesn't want that, they will do anything Microsoft asks.
Microsoft wins, yet again.


Steps 1 and 2 have already happened. Step 3 is certain to come soon (otherwise, what was the purpose of the "do not sue" promise?).

The moral of the story is this: the whole point of Free software is to allow others to redistribute and modify the code. This right disappears entirely if the code is patented.

[bastiegast]

Here's the Novell-Microsoft plan as I see it:


Microsoft pays Novell (notice it's not the other way around, so clearly MS is the one who will profit).
Microsoft promises not to sue Novell when Novell infringes on Microsoft patents.
Novell takes existing GPL-licensed software, and adds changes that directly infringe on Microsoft patents.
To comply with the GPL, Novell releases the source-code of these changes.
However, despite the GPL license, no one is actually allowed to modify, redistribute or possibly even recompile this code because Microsoft has only promised not to sue Novell and their clients.
At this step, there are two options. Either projects like Samba and Evolution buy this trick and commit the changes to their source (allowing Microsoft to sue them out of existence) OR each project splits into a Free and Pseudo-Free (Novell) branch. The Pseudo-Free branch is allowed to take any code they like from the Free branch, but not the other way around. In this case, the Novell product becomes a far superior choice and it becomes the standard business distribution.
Since Novell is the Linux distribution of the business, it also becomes the home distribution, since we already know from studying OS history that people like to install the familiar at home.
Microsoft now pretty much owns the dominant Linux distribution. By "owns" I mean, after the contract ends, they can choose to stop the "do not sue" promise and destroy Novell's new empire. Since Novell doesn't want that, they will do anything Microsoft asks.
Microsoft wins, yet again.


Steps 1 and 2 have already happened. Step 3 is certain to come soon (otherwise, what was the purpose of the "do not sue" promise?).

The moral of the story is this: the whole point of Free software is to allow others to redistribute and modify the code. This right disappears entirely if the code is patented.

Nicely thought. But I think your forgetting one thing: MS can kill a business, they can't kill open source. Can they kill Samba? Yes they can sue them, but the code is everywere, it won't die, even if they have to continue illegally . Now this would get MS a (even more) bad reputation and free software would be getting a lot of attention from the world. I don't think MS will do that.
Again they might be out to kill Novell, that would hurt linux, but If they're lucky our friends from the fsf will separate novell and linux themselfs

[IYY]

Nicely thought. But I think your forgetting one thing: MS can kill a business, they can't kill open source. Can they kill Samba? Yes they can sue them, but the code is everywere, it won't die, even if they have to continue illegally . Now this would get MS an (even more) reputation and free software would be getting a lot of attention from the world. I don't think MS will do that.
Again they might be out to kill Novell, that would hurt linux, but If they're lucky our friends from the fsf will separate novell and linux themselfs




But I think your forgetting one thing: MS can kill a business, they can't kill open source. Can they kill Samba?

No, MS can't kill open source. However, they can knock it back far enough for it to take years to regenerate. If everyone starts using Novell, and it will have some features that make it incompatible with all other distributions, the other distributions will be "dead" in the practical sense.


Yes they can sue them, but the code is everywere, it won't die, even if they have to continue illegally.

Sure, they will still be developed by enthusiasts and we'd keep using them, but you can forget about fixing "Bug #1". It will be the 90's all over again.


Now this would get MS an (even more) reputation and free software would be getting a lot of attention from the world. I don't think MS will do that.

I don't think you understand the exact nature of Microsoft's and Linux's respective reputations. Microsoft is seen as the "safe choice", as compatible and reliable. Linux is seen as a hacker operating system, in danger of getting sued by larger companies (largely due to Microsoft's FUD techniques). Another large law suit related to Linux would make any business think twice before switching to it, fearing that the entire infrastructure may disappear in a year or two. In terms of publicity, Linux cannot afford another lawsuit.

[melancholeric]

Here's the Novell-Microsoft plan as I see it:


Steps 1 and 2 have already happened. Step 3 is certain to come soon (otherwise, what was the purpose of the "do not sue" promise?).

The moral of the story is this: the whole point of Free software is to allow others to redistribute and modify the code. This right disappears entirely if the code is patented.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but part 2 hasn't happened: Microsoft never promised to not sue Novell. They did promise to not sue Novell customers.

And that pretty much makes the entire plan unplausible: Novell isn't willingly going to infringe on MS patents (or any other patents for that matter) any more than what they already have.

[bastiegast]

I don't think you understand the exact nature of Microsoft's and Linux's respective reputations. Microsoft is seen as the "safe choice", as compatible and reliable. Linux is seen as a hacker operating system, in danger of getting sued by larger companies (largely due to Microsoft's FUD techniques). Another large law suit related to Linux would make any business think twice before switching to it, fearing that the entire infrastructure may disappear in a year or two. In terms of publicity, Linux cannot afford another lawsuit.

I do understand the reputation MS and linux have. And from a business point of view I agree, a company will think twice before using software they could be sued for.
I do think however, linux' reputation and status has changed a bit over time. And if respected projects like samba get sued by MS it will generate a lot of fuzz MS can't use. Don't forget a lot of companies rely on linux software (actually half of the web relies on it) and linux is backed by some large companies like IBM. Will it do any good to MS if they mess with that?

Btw. I meant "bad reputation" in the part you quoted last, corrected it.

[IYY]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but part 2 hasn't happened: Microsoft never promised to not sue Novell. They did promise to not sue Novell customers.

From what I have read, you are wrong and such a promise has indeed been made. Microsoft has promised not to sue Novell for patent infringement. Of course, I can be mistaken in this, so correct me if I am wrong as well.

Anyway, for me the dead giveaway that this deal is harmful for Linux is the fact that Microsoft paid for it. "We'll pay you, and we won't sue you" sounds too good to be true, doesn't it?

[melancholeric]

From what I have read, you are wrong and such a promise has indeed been made. Microsoft has promised not to sue Novell for patent infringement. Of course, I can be mistaken in this, so correct me if I am wrong as well.

Anyway, for me the dead giveaway that this deal is harmful for Linux is the fact that Microsoft paid for it. "We'll pay you, and we won't sue you" sounds too good to be true, doesn't it?
I had to check this.

http://www.novell.com/news/press/item.jsp?id=1196&#038;locale=en_US


The patent cooperation agreement enables Microsoft and Novell to give customers assurance of protection against patent infringement claims. It gives customers confidence that the technologies they use and deploy in their environments are compliant with the two companies’ patents.

As part of this agreement, Microsoft will provide a covenant not to assert its patent rights against customers who have purchased SUSE Linux Enterprise Server or other covered products from Novell, and Novell will provide an identical covenant to customers who have a licensed version of Windows or other covered products from Microsoft.

“Both companies had to think creatively about how to create an intellectual property bridge between the two worlds of open source and proprietary software,” said Brad Smith, senior vice president and general counsel of Microsoft. “This bridge is built on respect for the innovations of each company and the open source community, and a passion for what we can deliver for our customers together.”

Emphasis mine.

[TBOL3]

If Novel get's banned, then why not Redhat, or any other vertions of Linux.

On of the many reasons I like OSS and CC share alike-atribute, is that you can re-make, re-use, and re-distribute.

[cowlip]

I
I had to check this.

http://www.novell.com/news/press/item.jsp?id=1196&locale=en_US


The patent cooperation agreement enables Microsoft and Novell to give customers assurance of protection against patent infringement claims. It gives customers confidence that the technologies they use and deploy in their environments are compliant with the two companies’ patents.

As part of this agreement, Microsoft will provide a covenant not to assert its patent rights against customers who have purchased SUSE Linux Enterprise Server or other covered products from Novell, and Novell will provide an identical covenant to customers who have a licensed version of Windows or other covered products from Microsoft.

“Both companies had to think creatively about how to create an intellectual property bridge between the two worlds of open source and proprietary software,” said Brad Smith, senior vice president and general counsel of Microsoft. “This bridge is built on respect for the innovations of each company and the open source community, and a passion for what we can deliver for our customers together.”

Emphasis mine.

It does mean that patented code can be included in SUSE though, no? Individual, non-commercial contributors to openSUSE are covered under the covenant. And I think that companies have discretion on when to sue when they have patents; only trademarks must be protected. Think EOLAS promising not to sue Netscape when they sued Microsoft over browser plugins.

Nevermind the FUD-cloud covering a Linux that you must pay royalties to (for "protection") Microsoft to in order to use in a "commercial" environment.

[melancholeric]

I

It does mean that patented code can be included in SUSE though, no? Individual, non-commercial contributors to openSUSE are covered under the covenant.
I believe the press release at microsofts website said something to the effect that all non-commercial oss hackers are kinda sorta covered.

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/faq.mspx


Q. The press release indicates Microsoft is also pledging not to assert its patents against individual, non-commercial open source developers. How is this connected to Novell?

Microsoft and Novell felt it was important to establish a precedent for the individual, non-commercial open source developer community that potential patent litigation need not be a concern. Microsoft is excited to more actively participate in the open source community and Novell is and will continue to be an important enabler for this bridge. For these reasons, both Novell and Microsoft felt it was appropriate to make this pledge for Microsoft not to assert its patents against the non-commercial community.

There was also something about individual non-compensated developers: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/community.mspx

Also, according to the microsoft press releases, the patent agreement only concerns Samba, Mono, and OO.org. This might mean that Novell can distribute GPL v3 versions of everything else but those.

Now, Samba will upgrade their license to 3 as soon as possible, so Novell would have to just fork the last GPLv2 version. Mono is their own product and will (probably ... ) stay under GPL v2. No idea about OO.org.

Other than that they should be fine. It doesn't seem like ms ever even implied that say the kernel violates their patents, it really was about those three things.

Still, the users, apart from Novell customers of course, might theoretically get into trouble. Not that I'm personally very worried. But I can't see anything in this agreement protecting me.

[cowlip]

Good looks, thanks melancholeric :) Yeah it's interesting how everything was "non-commercial". MS really wants that tax on Linux in the business don't they?

[darkhatter]

If they ban Novell, whats to stop them from banning Canonical.....or any other company that isn't pure GPL. I think the FSF is trying to help, but no one "owns" Linux and that should never change

[cowlip]

If they ban Novell, whats to stop them from banning Canonical.....or any other company that isn't pure GPL. I think the FSF is trying to help, but no one "owns" Linux and that should never change

I dunno what "pure GPL" has do with it (unless you mean violating the spirit/soon to be letter of a license that lets you use software for free with some obligations on your part to ensure that freedom for others). If someone started re-selling Microsoft Windows in their shop for free because they found some loophole in their EULA, should Microsoft just let em sell it out of the kindness of their heart? Of course not.

[qwerty12345]

I think Linux needs Novell more than Novell needs Linux.

[IYY]

I think Linux needs Novell more than Novell needs Linux.

"Linux" doesn't need anything. Linux is a kernel.

The Free Software Foundation certainly doesn't need Novell.

Ubuntu users don't particularly need Novell, since it's a competing distribution.

[o_fortuna]

Novell being a "competing distribution" is a bad way of putting it -- Novell isn't trying to destroy Ubuntu, and Ubuntu isn't trying to destroy Novell. Novell hires tons of programmers to work on Linux. They sponsor Beagle, Evolution, Banshee, and Mono, and they have lots of people who are improving Linux every day. There's no doubt that Linux is better because of them. I don't think Novell is evil or that they are trying to destroy Linux. It's doubtful that the FSF wants to destroy Novell. They just want to destroy the deal they made (and make it clear that other such deals wouldn't work out).

[RAV TUX]

I voted "No".

[kevinlyfellow]

I do not see anything wrong that Novell did. I don't think they should have done it, but it was not wrong. Novell will be punished by microsoft. Many people are up in arms about it because its a deal with microsoft. No one ever complained when red hat promised indemnification for any customer sued for patent infringement, but when novell makes a deal with microsoft who promises not to sue for patent infringement it becomes a big deal??? The execs at microsoft must be pretty happy right now... they've turned a hero into an enemy

[rai4shu2]

The big deal is that you aren't supposed to patent GPL'd software or do business in such a manner that relies on the notion that GPL'd software is somehow violating a patent. GPL'd software is supposed to be *free* from all that software patent nonsense.

This is a big deal because software patents are destroying the industry, and Microsoft is using this to their advantage. The problem is obvious.

[slimdog360]

here is a great little movie I love watching, google video lets you download it for those who wanted to.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7941901498664355924

its 'pirates of silicon valley' for those in the know.

[kevinlyfellow]

The GPL is supposed to prevent people from distributing software in a way that is restrictive. Novell is not distributing software in a way that is restrictive and it does not intend to. If it does, then it will be in violation of the GPL. I do not see this in the same class of issues as tivoization, since they do not prevent anyone from modifying their code. If they include known patented software in code they release, then I do have a problem with that, because then they are directly endangered the community. I do not expect that they will do this and I am pretty sure that it would not be allowed. If someone can explain how this deal will restrict the use of GPL'ed software, then I will change my mind.


The big deal is that you aren't supposed to... do business in such a manner that relies on the notion that GPL'd software is somehow violating a patent.

Is redhat doing that by providing indemnification to its customers?

I agree, patents are a terrible terrible thing (in both software and in non-software fields). I do not see how novell is evangelizing software patents, nor is it sending any different a message than Red Hat does. It wants to tell potential customers that there is no chance of getting sued by microsoft for patent violations. It is now written in stone that they will not be and that is what some businesses need. I do not see how this is a threat to GPL software (aside from the fact that microsoft is involved which means that Novell is going to get screwed).

[deanlinkous]

Novell can do anything it wants with code and not worry about patent issues with MS. Anyone coding downstream is at risk because any code that novell touches could be infringing and novell does not need to worry but it could have dire consequences for the downstream coder....

So yes, this is a problem. Yes, novell has lent some support to patents and the idea that their may be infringing code already in linux and if not they will be sure to have some in it by the end of the year unless nobody works downstream of novell.

[kevinlyfellow]

Novell can do anything it wants with code and not worry about patent issues with MS.

No they can't, not without violating the gpl


For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

[Sunnz]

I still don't understand what's the loop hole in GPL2?

Doesn't it allows the recipient to do whatever they want to it? So technically, in order to release anything under GPL2, you must first make it patent free? No?

Anyway, I voted no. GPL 2 or 3, as long as Novell does not violate it, they should be free to sell it.

[melancholeric]

I still don't understand what's the loop hole in GPL2?

Doesn't it allows the recipient to do whatever they want to it? So technically, in order to release anything under GPL2, you must first make it patent free? No?

Anyway, I voted no. GPL 2 or 3, as long as Novell does not violate it, they should be free to sell it.

No, the GPL definitely does not allow the recipient to do what they want with it. (Fortunately...)

Consider the following scenario: Company ABC violates company XYZ's patents in their program that they're distributing under the GPL. So, the companies come to some kind of agreement on what to do with it and as a result ABC pays some cash to XYZ and gets patent indemnification in return so they can keep distributing it.

This would be a clear violation of the GPLv2, I guess because no one else would be able to distribute the program without the risk of ligitation. But this is not exactly what happened.

Novell and MS got around this by applying the indemnification only to their customers, not the companies themselves. This does violate the spirit, if not the letter of GPLv2 -- and the end result is pretty much the same as in the example scenario: only novell customers can use Samba, OO.org, or mono without the (theoretical) risk of lawsuits.

This is the loophole fixed in GPLv3.


Not that MS would be daft enough to start any lawsuits. Too much hassle, too high stakes, very bad PR and the risk of losing. Besides, they'd probably end up having to fight Red Hat, Novell, Sun, Oracle, IBM, Intel, HP, FSF, groklaw, the Linux Foundation, etc.

IBM alone spent 1 billion dollars on Linux. In 2006. And their patent portfolio is massive and they wouldn't hesitate to sue MS on infringing on their patents if needed.

[Sunnz]

Novell and MS got around this by applying the indemnification only to their customers, not the companies themselves. This does violate the spirit, if not the letter of GPLv2 -- and the end result is pretty much the same as in the example scenario: only novell customers can use Samba, OO.org, or mono without the (theoretical) risk of lawsuits.

I think this is the key part which I do not understand - if Novell themselves is to infringe the patents in their code base, so how can they legally distribute patented code without permission from MS?

BTW, what is considered as "Novell Customers"? The SuSE (including OpenSuSE?) userbase? Computer users with a copy of Windows License?

[melancholeric]

I think this is the key part which I do not understand - if Novell themselves is to infringe the patents in their code base, so how can they legally distribute patented code without permission from MS?

BTW, what is considered as "Novell Customers"? The SuSE (including OpenSuSE?) userbase? Computer users with a copy of Windows License?
It's not that Novell is willingly and knowingly infringing on MS patents. According to MS Linux infringes on their patents, according to Novell it doesn't.

So, they can distribute the code whereas Red Hat, or Canonical, or anyone else. No one has ever said Microsoft won't sue Canonical (or Novell) for patent infringements. (And MS has implied they're all infringing on their patents and they just might take action any day. I'm not holding my breath just yet though.)

(Actually, that was probably what MS originally planned: scare the fsck out of commercial Linux distributors and make them pay "protection money". That's why they offered to make a similar agreement with Red Hat too. That'd be the only way for MS to make money on Linux. Maybe they've finally realized Linux isn't going anywhere and want their piece of it too.)

And I believe "Novell customers" means people who've paid for the commercial version of SuSE.

[Sunnz]

So, we can forget about the novell-branch thing talked about in this thread - Linux has already infringed MS's patents somehow, according to MS.

And GPLv3 is suppose to be patent-free to counter the "FUD of MS patents"?

[melancholeric]

So, we can forget about the novell-branch thing talked about in this thread - Linux has already infringed MS's patents somehow, according to MS.

And GPLv3 is suppose to be patent-free to counter the "FUD of MS patents"?

The GPLv3 won't magically remove the supposedly patent-infringing code. It just makes the Novell-MS type of deals impossible. And consequently, makes it impossible for Novell to distribute software under GPLv3. (Or atleast Samba, OO.org and mono -- if I understood the press releases correctly the patent indemnification thingie is only about these.)

There really isn't a way to counter the FUD. Microsoft isn't specifying in any way what things exactly are infring on which patents, they just say that Linux infringes on their patents. Then they throw around some idle lawsuit threats.

And that's exactly what they want: they do not want Linux developers to "clean up" the supposedly infringing code, and they definitely do not want to test the validity of their claims in the court.

[dvarsam]

I actually am not against them selling Linux. But given they may be by the Free Software Foundation : http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/03/0921201&from=rss I was wondering what the Ubuntu Community Thinks.

EDIT: The poll should read "Free Software Foundation" not "Linux Foundation"

Should Novell Be Banned From Selling Linux?

It is NOT a matter of "YES" or "NO"...
It is a matter of what has bee agreed/signed in the contracts from those 2 companies involved in the agreement...!!!
I guess this is why the Free Software Foundation is trying to decide...
For some reason, I feel that when somebody offers you money, they are looking/want something from your...
What IF Microsoft wants to copy/embed (or has already done that) Linux Code into their New OS - Vista?
Maybe this is what they are paying Novell for...
What do you think?

IMHO the FSF wants to know what has been signed & discuss the implications of that in the whole Linux Community!
I find that "fair", since Novell is a part of the Linux Community...
Novel must be a "fair" player & NOT "destroy" the Linux Community with their personal/Suse decisions...
We are all "fighting" for Linux & we don't want any "lunatic" come & tear all these efforts appart!!!

Thanks.

[Quillz]

There's no reason Novell shouldn't be allowed to sell Linux. The whole point of the GPL is free as in freedom, not free as in free beer. Yes, they sell SuSE, but they also have made the source code freely available, which evolved into openSUSE.

Just like how Red Hat sells their own distro, but they sponsor Fedora Core.

[maxamillion]

Lets evaluate this from a positive side of things .... what has Novell really done?

Well, they signed a contract so that they can walk into a business meeting and say "hey, look ... we have Microsoft on our side" and what do the big businesses like to see on their computers? Microsoft. Why? because that's all they know.

In my opinion, this was a wise business tactic (from a conceptual point of view) and I say more power to them. Was it a good idea? probably not because it will more likely than not come to hurt them in the long run, but I understand why Novell did it.

Not only that, but did we all forget that Novell has been in the linux business for a very short time but had been in the Netware business for roughly a decade and for that decade they played nice with Microsoft .... this isn't a new thing, people are just upset because now they are running around waving a Tux flag instead of a Netware branded one.

[rai4shu2]

I think GPL v3 will be a good thing. At that point, Novell will have to choose whether they want to provoke MS or the Linux developers who actually produce their software. I think Linux and Novell will adopt GPL v3 and tell MS if they want their money back they can sue for it. At that point, if MS does sue they might get some of their money back from Novell several years from now, but they lose right now in terms of PR and credibility, which considering their shaky ground with Vista is probably not a good idea.

I'm not liking the legal implications but it isn't time to hit the panic button yet, IMHO.

[Adamant1988]

Novell is in a tight pickle with this deal, but this just goes to show what happens when you "violate the spirit" of the GPL. Again, I'll say, "You can do what you want with this GPL software, as long as we agree with it".

[melancholeric]

some thoughts on this ...

Novell is not SCO. Quite the opposite, they sued SCO soon after that mess started. They're not out to hurt linux in any way.

They also know who they're dealing with and what happens to those who "deal with" MS. They were fully aware of the risks. They still have an unresolved lawsuit with MS going on.

Why did they make the pact anyway? They needed the money.

Also, one thing from the article:

Linux sales accounted for 5 percent of the $967 million in revenue that Novell reported last year. The deal with Microsoft has turned into a far bigger cash generator as it calls for Microsoft to make two upfront payments totaling $348 million.
So um, they're going to lose some 50 million dollars a year if they can't sell linux any more. Big deal.

And I think the patent indemnification thingie expires in three years. Now, three years may seem like an eternity in the linux world, but SuSE is mostly used in corporate settings, and whereas ubuntu users might be more than happy to upgrade twice a year, corporations, well, not so much. So at worst this might mean one release of SLES is cancelled or shipped with older versions of some programs. Because they can still distribute software released under GPLv2.

Seriously, the more I think of this the less of an issue it seems. Now, when MS starts with the lawsuits, and they won't, I'll get worried.

[ice60]

i always think of the FSF as being somekind of left-wing wacky militant group. hold on a second, they are a left-wing wacky militant group :lolflag:

i was trying to find something linus wrote about GPLv3 which sounded fairly level-headed. i haven't re-read it, but i think this was the post -
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/448894/focus=450619

[tagginannie]

What the...? They trying to stop novell from selling Linux. What's wrong with them? Why attack your friends? Novell has done great things for linux, like making deals with companies like Real for opensource wmv playback(heard something about that a while ago).

Well in case you not yet heard Novell is now partners with M$ and you it wont
take them long to gain compleat control

Suzy:KS

[darkhatter]

Well in case you not yet heard Novell is now partners with M$ and you it wont
take them long to gain compleat control
Suzy:KS

ok you need to review the deal, cause thats not how it goes...

they aren't partners

[deanlinkous]

ok you need to review the deal, cause thats not how it goes...

they aren't partners
Uh, I am not sure how you define "partner" but I would consider it accurate...

[darkhatter]

Uh, I am not sure how you define "partner" but I would consider it accurate...

I guess you consider it a "partner" but their still competing...

from what I've seen around the forum, and your gnu avatar tells me that saying anymore will be a waste of my time.

[deanlinkous]

I guess you consider it a "competing" but their still partners...
:)
companies need to tread very lightly when it comes to free software, novell did a double foot stomp over and over. Companies trying to control free software essentially makes free software, not free....then what was the point in the first place.

[tehhaxorr]

**** the FSF, what a load of ****, Some people just want an OS that works, not some ******** religion to go with it.

Things like trying to cut down one of Linux's most influencial and trusted promoters just dosen't make sense.

[deanlinkous]

without that b******t religion you would not have free software,
it was and always will be a ethical issue - to use free software and not appreciate that is like appreciating applejuice and telling someone to take away those b******t apples....
:D

[randomnumber]

I think that they should be allowed to do what they want while they keep to the regulations the software they are using in their OS.

I also think that statements should be made against the agreements of ms and novel. That the contract means nothing but trouble to Linux and that the contract implies circumstances that do not exist.

I think that the Linux community needs to keep a file on software that MS has stolen from Linux. It seems to me that MS is gearing up for another lawsuit.

It is interesting that MS seems to open the idea of lawsuits when they are the only one who would end up paying in any major lawsuit.
For example.
Possibility one
They sue Ubuntu for a lots of money.
Ubuntu dissolves without paying.
People behind Ubuntu make another distribution.
MS looses millions in lawsuit and angry customers.
Possibility Two
Ubuntu win counter suite
MS is forced to pay
MS raises price of it products again.

Perhaps I am wrong. If you think so, say so.

[FyreBrand]

I guess you consider it a "competing" but their still partners...
:)
companies need to tread very lightly when it comes to free software, novell did a double foot stomp over and over. Companies trying to control free software essentially makes free software, not free....then what was the point in the first place.Does that apply to the FSF too or are they not subject to that as well?

I voted no.

[Adamant1988]

I guess you consider it a "competing" but their still partners...
:)
companies need to tread very lightly when it comes to free software, novell did a double foot stomp over and over. Companies trying to control free software essentially makes free software, not free....then what was the point in the first place.

By your logic, the FSF should be saying "My hands are tied" instead of saying "Let's think about punitive actions" Please.

[saulgoode]

By your logic, the FSF should be saying "My hands are tied" instead of saying "Let's think about punitive actions" Please.

The "free" in Free Software references the freedom of the end user. There is nothing hypocritical in restricting the actions of distributors in an effort to protect those freedoms -- indeed that is the expressed purpose of GPL restrictions.

Personally, I find the Novell-MS deal meaningless from a GPL standpoint: if unlicensed, patented property is distributed as part of the SuSE offering then it becomes a violation of the license and any MS-SuSE "covenant" is worthless; if there is no unlicensed content then nothing is being offered.

[deanlinkous]

Protecting free softwares "freedom" is not a form of control, it is assurance that it cannot turn into the ftp program on windows....

Or did you not know that ftp on windows was BSD code?

Free software needs protection to remain free and the GPL provides it - nothing else.

[Adamant1988]

Protecting free softwares "freedom" is not a form of control, it is assurance that it cannot turn into the ftp program on windows....

Or did you not know that ftp on windows was BSD code?

Free software needs protection to remain free and the GPL provides it - nothing else.

Haha, interesting song you should listen to. It's called "The Airport Song" by Guster. Listen to the lyrics very very carefully, that's what you just reminded me of.


Yes, I knew that windows took the BSD code, I have no problem with it. They needed it, and it was there, and they were able to do it legally. Just the same as Novell stood to make some good ground through this deal, the difference is that the FSF looked down on this and said "Oh no, this is awful, let's make it so this whole thing can never happen". Personally, I don't see how the whole deal restricts or even threatens Linux at all, but thats me.