LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - News
User Name
Password
Linux - News This forum is for original Linux News. If you'd like to write content for LQ, feel free to contact us.
All threads in the forum need to be approved before they will appear.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 12-04-2006, 01:34 PM   #16
nbjayme
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 77

Rep: Reputation: 15

Hello

"rather says "you shouldn't have entered into such an agreement for commercial purposes"

It would be more general to say that though. Which makes no one can offer Linux commercially (but not closed source). But the letter says:

"As the agreement stands today, it betrays the authors of the software you re-market and their users worldwide for Novell's sole commercial benefit."

The keyword is "sole" - meaning only Novell may profit from the hardwork of FOSS authors as expressed in the agreement between Novell and Microsoft. This is what have been pointed out in my first post of this thread about "Unpaid Developers". That FOSS developers have no right to create a business ecosystem around their contributed codes to openSuse/Suse.

I hope that helps.

 
Old 12-05-2006, 11:10 AM   #17
MensaWater
LQ Guru
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Atlanta Georgia USA
Distribution: Redhat (RHEL), CentOS, Fedora, CoreOS, Debian, FreeBSD, HP-UX, Solaris, SCO
Posts: 7,815
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662
It doesn't help because instead of saying "you don't have the right to have entered such an agreement" he words it as a complaint against doing things for commercial reasons. As I said originally it is unlikely a for profit business is going to buy into that view no matter how many people sign the petition.

My main problems with what he wrote isn't the idea of protesting the agreement which as I'm all for. The problems are that as worded (my read/characterization/opinion) it makes the concession I originally noted and attacks the agreement not from a legal (no right) standpoint but from an iffy moral (commercial is bad) standpoint.

Most of the discussion here seems to go to intent of the document and I'm willing to assume it was well intentioned. My comments are based on the ideas that lawyers who spend their time doing things like defining what "is" means would be able to read it the way I did and therefore use it as amunition against Open Source rather than its presumed intent as a defense of Open Source.
 
Old 12-05-2006, 05:32 PM   #18
nbjayme
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 77

Rep: Reputation: 15
hello jlighter,

"It doesn't help because instead of saying "you don't have the right to have entered such an agreement" he words it as a complaint against doing things for commercial reasons."

I wouldn't think about bruce perens being against going commercial, so long as, it does not go against the FOSS Licenses or ecology so to say. If he was, he would have been against RedHat and other commercial distros.

The agreement states that Microsoft will protect Novell customers only, and further on, only "unpaid" FOSS developers are free from any lawsuit but if a FOSS developer would create income stream from his/her contribution he/she would be in danger.

to wit:

"As the agreement stands today, it betrays the authors of the software you re-market and their users worldwide for Novell's sole commercial benefit."

One can go commercial in GNU/Linux but if one does it by betraying the FOSS developers ---> that is another case.

I hope that helps.

 
Old 12-05-2006, 10:21 PM   #19
MensaWater
LQ Guru
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Atlanta Georgia USA
Distribution: Redhat (RHEL), CentOS, Fedora, CoreOS, Debian, FreeBSD, HP-UX, Solaris, SCO
Posts: 7,815
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662
I think you're missing the point. I am not disagreeing with the intent of the letter but rather its wording.
 
Old 12-06-2006, 06:14 PM   #20
rickh
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM USA
Distribution: Debian-Lenny/Sid 32/64 Desktop: Generic AMD64-EVGA 680i Laptop: Generic Intel SIS-AC97
Posts: 4,250

Rep: Reputation: 62
Here is Bruce Perens's follow-up article
 
Old 12-08-2006, 08:23 PM   #21
horusfalcon
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Distribution: PCLinuxOS 2007
Posts: 12

Rep: Reputation: 0
If I may pour some oil on these waters...

I was on one side of just such a discussion on another forum recently. Everybody had real trouble with separating fact from opinion, and things got icky-sticky for a while there. No one was blameless, especially me. I *was* the grasshopper that's always wrong in arguments with a chicken, though, and my reputation on that forum has suffered even though I believe I was correct in my assertions, etc., etc, and especially, etc.

This Novell-Microsoft thing is a big thing. It's not one that I, as a user of OpenSuSE 10.0, was happy to see.

Mr. Perens is an insightful human being, and is trying to make a difference.

None of us are lawyers if I read it rightly.

Let's be careful and continue to respect one another as we have so far, please.

Thanks,
horusfalcon
 
Old 12-22-2006, 08:45 PM   #22
StarsAndBars14
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Location: Tennessee
Distribution: Fedora Core 12
Posts: 49

Rep: Reputation: 15
I find it funny that the first people who are protesting this are usually the ones who want Microsoft, as well as all major hardware vendors and all ISP's, to play well with Linux.

This is a two way street, people.
 
Old 12-23-2006, 11:26 AM   #23
MensaWater
LQ Guru
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Atlanta Georgia USA
Distribution: Redhat (RHEL), CentOS, Fedora, CoreOS, Debian, FreeBSD, HP-UX, Solaris, SCO
Posts: 7,815
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662Reputation: 1662
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarsAndBars14
I find it funny that the first people who are protesting this are usually the ones who want Microsoft, as well as all major hardware vendors and all ISP's, to play well with Linux.

This is a two way street, people.
I don't quite understand that. The reason for the protest is the perception that MS's intent in this is not "cooperation" but "coercion". i.e. The perception MS wants to sue based on patents to eliminate "open source" and bring it back into the "pay us royalties" realm.

If Microsoft wanted to "cooperate" they'd just embrace the standards and might even go open source themselves. Look at all the issues it took for them to say they'll support the "open document" format and that's just to say it. Given the way they rode roughshod over Sun's Java to make their own non-compliant Java and going so far as to fight Sun in court over it I have my doubts about how well they'll embrace that "standard".

There should be no wonder that people really doubt MS's intentions as being anything good.

Last edited by MensaWater; 12-23-2006 at 11:27 AM.
 
Old 12-23-2006, 02:21 PM   #24
horusfalcon
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Distribution: PCLinuxOS 2007
Posts: 12

Rep: Reputation: 0
You're right about this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlightner
I don't quite understand that. The reason for the protest is the perception that MS's intent in this is not "cooperation" but "coercion". i.e. The perception MS wants to sue based on patents to eliminate "open source" and bring it back into the "pay us royalties" realm.

If Microsoft wanted to "cooperate" they'd just embrace the standards and might even go open source themselves. Look at all the issues it took for them to say they'll support the "open document" format and that's just to say it. Given the way they rode roughshod over Sun's Java to make their own non-compliant Java and going so far as to fight Sun in court over it I have my doubts about how well they'll embrace that "standard".

There should be no wonder that people really doubt MS's intentions as being anything good.
Let's not forget that Microsoft's answer to anything they couldn't just sue into the ground or buy out has always been to first "embrace" and then "extend". "Embrace" as in embrace the standard, analyze it, see what is good about it, and then "extend" as in add on to it functionalities, features, and sometimes downright traps which make their version of it incompatible with the standard from which it was grown. MS Java is a case in point, but only a recent one. This has been MS's modus operandi for a long time now. I see no reason for them to change now - this strategy has been too successful for them. Their whole reason for .NET was to exclude, not to include. Unless and until they endure a paradigm shift of major proportions, they will continue to pervert open standards for their own ends.
 
Old 12-23-2006, 04:48 PM   #25
Lsatenstein
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Montreal Canada
Distribution: Fedora 26 (Russian RFRemix DVD version)
Posts: 299
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 58
Microsoft and threats. I am willing to bet a thousand dollars to one dollar that there is code in Microsoft XP, MS office, and other MS software that came from Open Source General Public License software.

There should be a tit-for-tat, that if MS threatans to sue Linux distros, that linux distros sue Microsoft. The cost to Microsoft, to replace code in 490 million computers would really correspond to the cost to replace what the court would judge to be linux code, supposedly to be in violation of MS patents, and installed without cost in freely available distributions.

As I don't believe in software patents, I see all this fuss caused by less than astute Novell executives. I am afraid of using Novell now, or any other Novell software variations because I fear that Novell will potentially implement MS trojan gifts
 
Old 12-24-2006, 03:04 PM   #26
horusfalcon
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Distribution: PCLinuxOS 2007
Posts: 12

Rep: Reputation: 0
Beware of geeks bearing gifts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lsatenstein
Microsoft and threats. I am willing to bet a thousand dollars to one dollar that there is code in Microsoft XP, MS office, and other MS software that came from Open Source General Public License software.

There should be a tit-for-tat, that if MS threatans to sue Linux distros, that linux distros sue Microsoft. The cost to Microsoft, to replace code in 490 million computers would really correspond to the cost to replace what the court would judge to be linux code, supposedly to be in violation of MS patents, and installed without cost in freely available distributions.

As I don't believe in software patents, I see all this fuss caused by less than astute Novell executives. I am afraid of using Novell now, or any other Novell software variations because I fear that Novell will potentially implement MS trojan gifts
This is one reason I have stopped at SuSE 10.0, as it is "pre-alliance". I probably will shift to Fedora unless this mess is sorted out quickly. One of the strengths of the FOSS community is that one has choices... since everyone can contribute, anyone can distribute.

In diversity, there is strength. Novell should've known better: they've bedded down with Microsoft before.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Microsoft-novell patent agreement betrays the Open Source ... LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 11-27-2006 04:03 AM
LXer: Protest Letter for Novell LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 11-23-2006 07:54 PM
LXer: Protest the Microsoft-Novell Patent Agreement LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 11-22-2006 10:54 PM
LXer: Microsoft Statement on Novell Agreement LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 11-21-2006 07:21 AM
LXer: HP, Novell sign new open-source agreement LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-15-2006 03:16 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - News

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration