Novell already submitting MS code to Open Office!

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Smilin
Finally, if MS actually does do something to piss you off and you go off on some pro-piracy rampage be sure you have no illusions about your moral position (aka don't go off all holier-than-thou when the opposite is true).

In all fairness, he never said anything about a pro-piracy rampage. Last I heard it wasn't an offense not to report piracy, even if it is dishonourable.

The last time MS struck a deal like this was with Apple. It breathed life back into the company and is probably the reason they are even around today. Both Novell and MS have great lawyers. If one party was ripping off the other the deal wouldn't have happened. All these *nix guys are getting so bent about this whole thing with little to no facts. The backlash to all this is tainted with the stench of zealotry. It was a COOPERATIVE agreement. Everyone should see it as healthy *adult* "plays well with others" behavior

I think you're missing what most linux people are concerned about here. Nobody's worried that ms is going to screw novell over. They're worried that ms is going to use novell to screw the rest of the community over. Like, for instance, if microsoft happened to claim patents on this new code we're discussing. Obviously they wouldn't sue novell or people that get openoffice from novell. However, if that code gets back into the main oo tree, then microsoft could sue other people down the line for using it. That's just an example, I think people are more worried about samba than oo.

First, sorry about my rampage. This whole leap to the worst possible conclussion mentality surrounding all this has irritated me.

Actually, yea it is a crime to not report piracy. In criminal court, failing to report any crime is a crime in itself. In civil court you could also be held liable for the crime itself if you allowed it to happen. Depends on the circumstances of course.


As far as everyone worrying what MS is going to do here... who cares? You aren't going to end up on the wrong end of MS lawyers unless you really truly did something wrong. Even then you might get away with it just so MS doesn't have to deal with the bad PR that would follow (even if they were in the right!).

If patented MS IP gets back into the main OO tree then yea that would be bad. Who are you going to blame though? Microsoft? But again .. who cares? Just don't do that and it won't matter.

Here is what I think people are *really* worried about. Open Source carries this inherit risk. If someone steals code (or a patented idea) then you build something off of it, you've stolen it too. So you have to either review all of the code yourself or trust that everyone before you was honorable. For your own personal use it's probably a safe bet that everything is just fine. If you run a business and have the livelyhood of thousands of employees to think about then safe bet or not, it's best not to bet at all. That's what everyone is worried about. So far there seems to be this real apathy for doing anything about it. Nobody wants to spend the effort to be sure things are done right. Nobody wants to certify anything. Everyone is just too smitten with the fact that they have 'free beer' to work hard to ensure they *keep* 'free speech'. Freedom never comes for free but the open source community somehow thinks it does.

Do worry about the cops someday busting through your door? Of course not. Does the guy down the street with the garage full of stolen goods and a meth lab? You bet. The dude will be paranoid for his entire life even if he never gets caught.

So with samba: Is there cause to be worried? Is everyone sleeping ok at night? If there is nothing to worry about don't worry.

Personally, I don't like the Novell & MS deal. I applaud Novell for standing up to ensure their customers are free from potential legal entanglements. In the long term it will help OSS immensely. I also applaud MS for stepping up to play well with competitors. In the long term it will benifit their customers. My take on it: 1) keep customers happy 2) Crush competitors unless it interferes with #1. Interoperability between *nix and MS is doing just fine without this deal. I think in this case MS could have accomplished #1 and #2 without the deal.

 

[drag]

well what can happen (which is the dooms-day) potentionally is this:

The GPLv3 will have explicit patent language forbiding companies that distribute GPL'd software from retaining their patents on the software.

So say I take a bunch of GPL'd code from the GNU project, stick it in a product and add my own sauce, and then turn around and sell the resulting product to Alice. Later on Alice turns around and lets Bob use the source code from that.
I can not go and sue Bob for patent infringement based on the software that I distributed myself. If I did that then I'd loose the right to redistribute somebody else's GPL'd code. (this doesnt' apply to non-GPL software I may want to sue him over, of course)


well that's built into the GPLv3 licensing. If I don't give license to use the software then I loose the license myself.

But that is explicite language. Now depending on the jurisdiction (different countries have different laws regarding this stuff; but lets just assume it's all U.S.A.) the GPLv2 works that way also. The GPLv3 language is mostly just mostly to clearify the position.

So if I take somebody else's GPLv2 software and then give/sell it to you to use I can't go and then sue you for using it and then still be able to redistribute the GPLv2 software. The GPLv2 is strong copyleft license which means that I can't just add new restrictions on it's usage if I want to use it myself.

BTW But if I was to use something like the BSD or MIT license then I could do that. I could give you software to have and then sue you under patent law for using it. This is because they aren't copyleft licenses and I can add new restrictions and even though they allow for copyright licensing... copyright law and patent law are two entirely unrelated things even though they seem to be closely related. They are not.

This is what Novell currently does for MP3 licensing. They have a open source MP3 codecs which they redistribute under the MIT license. Now this allows you to copy and edit the source code all you want, but you can't use it unless your a customer of Novell (or you download it from Fluendo S.L.'s website) the MP3 patent licensing they bought rights to don't extend to other users and other uses.

So hence you have open source software, but you can't use it legally (unless you download it from Fluendo or get it from Novell) because copyright licensing doesn't apply to patent licensing.


But in the GPL it does because your not allowed to add new restrictions and patent licensing would be new restrictions.

This is what Steve Balmar is talking about when he says that the they way the GPL works he can't just blanket sell Novell rights to use the patents. This is because Microsoft wants to reserve the ability to sue people who use GPL software who got it from Novell, but are not Novell customers. If they give Novell license to use the patents then that can put them in a very weak position in a court since MS is well aware how open source software works.

So this is why Novell and Microsoft both strongly say 'this is not a patent licensing agreement.' Because Novell doesn't want to violate the GPL and Microsoft doesn't want to weaken their legal hold over the patents.

(BTW this is also why it is dangerious to use source code from Microsoft. If you use it in ways that they don't aprove of then it's likely that even though you have copyright license you don't have patent license and they can still sue you. Of course as long as you only use it on Windows operating systems then you'll be fine.)



Now the dooms-day scenerio for Novell is this:
Say that this is realy is a patent licensing agreement that covers GPL software.

This means that since only Novell's customers are protected then this effectively means that Microsoft and Novell are adding additional restrictions on GPL'd software, which is a violation of it's license.

Redhat owns a large number of copyrights on big portions of the code that Novell is using under the GPL.

Microsoft then decides to sues Redhat for patent violations.

Redhat then turn around sue Novell in retaliation for copyright violations (and probably sue both Novell and Microsoft for their own patent violations that Redhat has control of through the OIN which would get IBM involved and would get Novell involved in sueing Microsoft, and get HP involved in suing Microsoft, etc etc) Novell would then loose the right to redistribute Linux.

It would be like WW1 were everybody has all these agreements to sue the enemy whomever it may be.

I think that this is very unlikely though. I don't think that Microsoft's lawyers and Novell's lawyers are this stupid to put themselves in a position like this and they are safe under U.S. law against something like this happenning.

I don't know the details of the agreements or the likelihood of this working out or anything like that since I am not a lawyer. But this is what people like those folks from SAMBA are scared of.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Smilin
As far as everyone worrying what MS is going to do here... who cares? You aren't going to end up on the wrong end of MS lawyers unless you really truly did something wrong. Even then you might get away with it just so MS doesn't have to deal with the bad PR that would follow (even if they were in the right!).

There's a lot more that can go wrong than legal entanglements. There is obviously potential for a lot of strife within the open source community over this. Some people obviously are ready to disown Novell right now. Some people will wait for the first little kafuffle over actual intellectual property. Some people will claim to the end that Novell's contributions are well-intentioned and ought to be used. There could be a huge amount of fighting over anything that comes from Novell. I don't think there's any doubt that some of the code will be unfit for general distribution so then there's a range of possibilities from the extreme of forcing Novell to fork everything and leave the community for good, to setting up a complex filtering system to judge what is and isn't acceptable to take back (and who's gonna pay for such a system?).

If patented MS IP gets back into the main OO tree then yea that would be bad. Who are you going to blame though? Microsoft? But again .. who cares? Just don't do that and it won't matter.

Easier said than done.

Here is what I think people are *really* worried about. Open Source carries this inherit risk. If someone steals code (or a patented idea) then you build something off of it, you've stolen it too. So you have to either review all of the code yourself or trust that everyone before you was honorable. For your own personal use it's probably a safe bet that everything is just fine. If you run a business and have the livelyhood of thousands of employees to think about then safe bet or not, it's best not to bet at all. That's what everyone is worried about.

Isn't that what I just said above (in a nutshell?).

So far there seems to be this real apathy for doing anything about it. Nobody wants to spend the effort to be sure things are done right. Nobody wants to certify anything. Everyone is just too smitten with the fact that they have 'free beer' to work hard to ensure they *keep* 'free speech'. Freedom never comes for free but the open source community somehow thinks it does.

Sorry to be rude, but you've got this dead wrong and you're being pretty insulting to people that work hard for software freedom. The fundamental idea here is that most open source people don't recognize software-based intellectual property as valid. Sure, we abide by the law as much as possible, but that's just so we don't get sued (if I may use 'we' here, for the sake of argument). But at the end of the day, we do not think that microsoft should be allowed to sue us for implementing certain technologies. There are a few slackers who just want free-as-in-beer stuff but please do not mistake unwillingness to engage with the patent system with apathy.

Personally, I don't like the Novell & MS deal. I applaud Novell for standing up to ensure their customers are free from potential legal entanglements. In the long term it will help OSS immensely.

No, it absolutely will not. Open source (or at least the sizable faction of it that is concerned with freedom of some form or another) has nothing to gain from anything that is covered by intellectual property. It simply cannot be used freely and without a team of lawyers.

I also applaud MS for stepping up to play well with competitors. In the long term it will benifit their customers. My take on it: 1) keep Novell's customers happy 2) Crush competitors unless it interferes with #1. Interoperability between *nix and MS is doing just fine without this deal. I think in this case MS could have accomplished #1 and #2 without the deal.

Fixed. Most of the linux community doesn't give a sh|t about Novell's customers. Nor do they care about crushing any competition (unless it's microsoft of course, but clearly this does not help in that department). The community (at least the one that is bashing ms/novell right now) does not exist for the sake of propping up greedy corporations. Sometimes there are nice, symbiotic relationships between the two, but this will not be one of them.

Sorry if I've repeated anything in drag's post. I couldn't work up the nerve to read that short book so I wrote my own

 

[drag]

I don't anybody in the 'linux community' (as in people who actually contribute and work on it for a living) wants to see Microsoft crushed.

If Microsoft pulled a Sun Java and GPL'd their system next week I can garrentee you that they would have a crapload of very positive attention from otherwise Linux developers.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: drag
I don't anybody in the 'linux community' (as in people who actually contribute and work on it for a living) wants to see Microsoft crushed.

Fair enough, I just didn't like my chances of making such a claim to Smilin There are certainly enough people who spout about how everything must be designed to replace ms; whether they be contributors or trolls I don't usually bother to find out.

 

[drag]

Well Linux developers who work on Gnome or KDE and such are out to compete with Windows on the desktop and there are others that compete with Microsoft on the server.
There are other people who beleive that closed source software is simply immoral and would like to see usefull free software alternatives so that people can't break their dependance from propriatory stuff.
Then there are yet other people that don't have respect for Microsoft and don't mind ridiculing them when the opertunity arises.
Then there are a whole bunch of people that simply don't give a crap about MS one way or another.

So everybody has their own reasons. But nobody is going to devote their lives to free software and spend nights and weekends working on open source software just because they dislike Microsoft. Even if they dislike them A LOT. Who would do that? I suppose there are a handfull of psycos out there that do that, but those people are scary and probably smell bad.

If somebody realy hates MS they probably would just use a Mac and then complain about other people not using a Mac also.

 

[Shamrock]

hmm, this is interesting...it isnt about the the OOo code, but it's about the agreement.

Microsoft is disagreeing with Novell that there is patent infringed code.

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8308472991.html

According to a Microsoft representative, "Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents. The agreement between our two companies puts in place a workable solution for customers for these issues, without requiring an agreement between our two companies on infringement."

 

[drag]

hilariousness.

"Suppose GPL3 says something like, 'if you distribute (or procure the distribution), of a program (or parts of a program) - and if you make patent promises partially to some subset of the distributees of the program - then under this license you have given the same promise or license at no cost in royalties or other obligations to all persons to whom the program is distributed'."

"If GPL 3 goes into effect with these terms in it, Novell will suddenly becomes a patent laundry; the minute Microsoft realizes the laundry is under construction it will withdraw."

Funny stuff.

Maybe I didn't understand this before.

Basicly when the GPLv3 comes around then all free software developers have to do (Redhat, GNU, Samba, individuals, etc) is buy a copy of Suse Linux from Novell and then they are protected and people using GPL'd code they make that has a smattering of Novell-Suse-copied code in it, then they are protected from Microsoft's patents.

Pretty sweet deal on that one, I think. Buy a copy of Suse, gain immunity from Microsoft forever if you stick some Suse code in your GPL'd project.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/20..._moglen_on_microsoft_novell/print.html

When you read what this guy says make sure to realise that he is "Professor of Law & Legal History" at Columbia Law school.. so he takes the very long term viewpoint in all of this.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: kamper

So far there seems to be this real apathy for doing anything about it. Nobody wants to spend the effort to be sure things are done right. Nobody wants to certify anything. Everyone is just too smitten with the fact that they have 'free beer' to work hard to ensure they *keep* 'free speech'. Freedom never comes for free but the open source community somehow thinks it does.

Sorry to be rude, but you've got this dead wrong and you're being pretty insulting to people that work hard for software freedom. The fundamental idea here is that most open source people don't recognize software-based intellectual property as valid. Sure, we abide by the law as much as possible, but that's just so we don't get sued (if I may use 'we' here, for the sake of argument). But at the end of the day, we do not think that microsoft should be allowed to sue us for implementing certain technologies. There are a few slackers who just want free-as-in-beer stuff but please do not mistake unwillingness to engage with the patent system with apathy.

Although you clearly didn't like what I said I think part of the reason it stings is it's true. I believe both IBM and Novell have offered to imdemnify their customers against copywrite and patent infringement right?. Has anyone else? An individual programmer making sure he puts only his own ideas into code is the right thing to do and I'm sure he does this. For the kernel and the most common Linux apps there are also checks provided to be sure this happens. That's very noble but it's not enough to really defend the 'speech' part of free software. Money has to go where the mouth is. People are running businesses on this stuff and making their own changes in good faith. It only takes one bad apple to ruin everything and when it does accountability (outside of Novell or IBM) goes running for the hills.

I most certainly do regard an unwillingness to engage with the patent system as apathy. It's the law. I can certainly sympathize due to the sad state our patent system, but until it changes those are the rules of the game. Play or don't. Just because you do not think someone should be allowed to sue you when you use their patented technology doesn't mean it works that way. "Most open source people don't recognize software-based intellectual property as valid" doesn't cut it. I personally don't think our income tax system is valid either. Want to see me tell that to the IRS?

Again, I know the patent system is far from perfect but it's what we are stuck with right now. It's painful and costly for corporations who can afford lawyers and doubly so for those that can't.




FYI: no..I didn't find it rude. I'm relatively neutral about the whole thing but I realize this is a passionate topic for a lot of people. Also, please be aware that, as always, my views here are my own and do not represent MS.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Some Open Source/Free Software developers take patents seriously...