El vie, 10-11-2006 a las 11:01 +0200, Oron Peled escribió: > On Friday, 10 בNovember 2006 01:44, Amos Shapira wrote: > > ... > > "Nay" people are just sceptic without being able to pinpoint any specific > > evidence > > Ok, I'll try to do some pinpointing. > > > On top of that - I don't buy the "Novell is selling out OpenSource" claims > > (again - I didn't see any supporting evidence to that claim so far) simply > > because as far as I understand basic copyright laws they can't - the code > > isn't theirs to give up the rights on. > > Yes, but copyright law is not the only game in town. The deal talks > specifically about patents -- Now it may be your software but you are > not allowed to use it. It is more than a patent deal. It is a patent deal to support a distribution model. It can mean that Microsoft will embed Suse as they do with Internet Explorer or something different, but the announce tells that Microsoft is paying about distribution rights( 1). In addition, 348 M$ is too much for a simple patent agreement. You cannot get this money today by suing Linux companies, users or communities.
( 1) http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6133361.html?tag=nl.e550 > > Obviously, they didn't say *which* patents they are trading (if any). > FUD has the interesting property of causing real damage even when it > deals with purely imaginary "facts". > So even if those patent threats are hollow (as I really think), > they may be doing real harm. The official announce from the Novell side( 2)tells that some open source project as Mono or Evolution, does not infringe Microsoft´s patents. It could be an important a positive milestone from the legal side. They also says that any software that infringes Microsoft´s patents will be removed from Suse so we will a clearer picture in the near future, but I sure that it will include NTFS drivers. ( 2) http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.novell.com%2Flinux %2Fmicrosoft% 2Ffaq_opensource.html&siteId=22&oId=2100-3513-6133361&ontId=3513&lop=nl.ex > > > I DO always suspect MS whenever they sign such deals (I keep remembering > > what happened to Spyglass[3], though I'm sure others can come up with more > > examples of what happens to companies/people who go to bed with MS), > > * MS knows very well how to cope with competing companies. It has > a long history of demolishing competitors -- both very large > (e.g: IBM's PC strategy with OS/2) and smaller ones (e.g: Novel > itself which dominated the PC server market until mid-90's). > For further reference, you may wish to read: > "COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT" > http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm > > * What makes Linux different is what made the "Internet" different. > There is no single entity to compete against -- no company to > buy, no single product to win, not a coherent target for FUD -- > Just some blurry target that is collectively called "Linux". > > > but so far I don't see a reason to punish a Linux company which did > > great things to advance Linux in the corporate world and DID give back > > a lot to the community (and I'm saying this as a long time Debian user). > > It's not about punishing, it's about self preservation. Regretfully, Suse > always used a mixed free/non-free platform. This means that even without > MS interference they had very good incentives to create "vendor-lockin" > to their proprietary technologies (Ariel Biener just gave excellent > example in his interesting overview of Suse+Zen+... in TAU). > > Now, with a witty-and-non-Linux-loving company messing with Novel > technology roadmap there is very real threat: Technology originating > from Novel *may* contain unknown vendor lockins (like some undisclosed > MS patents). This means such a technology is no longer free software. > > What Novel didn't understand (IMO) is that because they got an exclusive > patent deal with MS, they also got themselves isolated -- any software > originating from them *may* be tainted with patent-encumbered stuff > from MS and therefore cannot be safely mixed with others. > > Usually, people ignore the problem by saying they don't mind *using* > Suse (or RedHat, Ubuntu, whatsnot, ). > > Let's look from a different perspective: > * Ubuntu is derived from Debian (no problem, Debian is free). > * Mandrake was derived from RedHat (~6.0, no problem it was free). > * CentOS/Whitebox are derived from RedHat Enterprise Edition (free > software, but trademark changing is required). > * Who would dare to derive a commercial distro from Suse? > * What company would derive (not use) a technology based on Mono? > > So even if many people still *use* Suse, as FOSS developers we are > losing an important player which is now isolated: > * We loose (Suse and ximian contributed some important stuff). > * Novel loose (Partnerships with MS never has an happy end). > * MS moved their divide-and-conquer one step ahead. > > For the record, I don't think it's fatal, and in the end the FOSS > world is strong enough for this attack. But negative move, it is. > > -- > Oron Peled Voice/Fax: +972-4-8228492 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.actcom.co.il/~oron > ICQ UIN: 16527398 > > The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new > discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." > -- Isaac Asimov > > ================================To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL > PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Julian Daich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ================================================================To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
