Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 08:40 AM EST

Perhaps the 1st of many ... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Pogue Mahone on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 08:44 AM EST

Off topic stuff here please. With links, if you can.



---

--

I'm not afraid of receiving e-mail from strangers - see my bio. for addresses. I

*especially* like encrypted and signed messages :-) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 08:45 AM EST

I laud people who put ethics above convenience, but I hope this does not cost

him too much in the short term.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: reddsman on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 08:45 AM EST

Here's a man who is willing to stick to his convictions. He believes the deal

is wrong and staked his career on it. Kudos to Jeremy for having the guts to do

what he feels is right. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: spiff on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 08:51 AM EST

I briefly met Jeremy Allison a couple of years ago at a Linux Expo in London,

and I listened to him on the GPL3 discussion panel at the London Linux Expo a

couple of months ago (just days before the Novell/MS pact was announced).



At that time, and again today, he strikes me as an extraordinarily talented,

smart and very principled person. He's made a clearly very difficult decision,

and has stuck to the principles he believes in.



I thank him for that, and I hope that others will make the similarly difficult

but necessary decisions.









spiffx [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 08:53 AM EST

He makes a point about MS's EULA vs Novell's GPL violation that would be very

hard to argue against. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Stumbles on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 08:57 AM EST

I applaud Mr. Allison for his decision and he is absolutely correct. His

analogy about legally circumventing the Microsoft EULA is dead on and

it is exactly what Novell has done with the GLPv2.



---

You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 09:01 AM EST

I read this comment on OSNEWS and it spoke volumes to me and it really helped to

understand just how insidious this deal between Novell and Microsoft.







Sigh........



By segedunum on 2006-12-21 13:07:31 UTC



Given that Microsoft is taking market share and customers away from Novell, and

Novell's CEO has admitted it, can anyone give a good business reason as to why

Microsoft would want to sell Novell's own distribution? The answer is, there

isn't, apart from the ulterior motives already discussed. It should also be

noted that Novell is actually paying royalties to Microsoft for those SLES

licenses.



Hovsepian basically sold his company for a measly few hundred million, and

Microsoft moved a bit closer towards what they always wanted - a distinction

between the free distributions and open source community and a licensed version

of Linux blessed by them.



I'm also not getting this interoperability thing in any way shape or form;

probably because it doesn't exist. There was nothing in the current version of

SLE that was written in any way with the help of Microsoft, Microsoft is not

moving towards using ODF, Microsoft contributed no code towards Samba (and has

actively slapped down some Microsoft engineers who've tried to help in the past)

and has done nothing about virtualising Windows under Linux.



Hovsepian said in an interview that interoperability and virtualisation was a

problem, and they lost customers to Microsoft because of it (hey, Microsoft is

going to help Novell win customers back!), but I see nothing that Microsoft is

helping with. We, and Novell, have had the option of VMware for years, and Xen

will run Windows - it's just that it can't do it without the aid of some

hardware, which is coming along. Novell should just have done a deal with VMware

for the time being. Can anyone point to some projects Microsoft has started and

some code Microsoft has contributed to make this famed interoperability happen?



If not, then Novell got absolutely nothing out of this deal. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 09:03 AM EST

Chris DiBona and Leo Laporte of FLOSS Weekly did an interview of Jeremy back in October. The guy has a terrific sense of humor and made for an entertaining show -- I listened to it twice on my commutes.



FLOSS Weekly Episode 14 [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: DaveF on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 09:09 AM EST

If any are required.



---

Imbibio, ergo sum [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 09:26 AM EST

Look, Novell, look! Look what you've gone and done! You're back in the

spotlight again for all the wrong reasons!



---

I would rather stand corrected than sit confused.

---

Should one hear an accusation, try it on the accuser. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 09:41 AM EST

Bravo, Mr. Allison. Here's a guy who stands by his morals. We need more people like him. Novell needs to get rid of all of the Microsoft apologists -- including and especially those twits from Ximian. [ Reply to This | # ]



I have learned... - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 12:46 PM EST

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 09:42 AM EST

After reading the limitations placed on developers who code for Novell, does he really have a choice if he wishes his code to continue to be under the GPL? He's made some very good points with regards to the license, Novell's breach and the analogy with regards to MS EULA. I'd be interested in finding out his take on the limitations that are being placed on any developer who agrees to code for Novell. RAS [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 09:44 AM EST

... you must "treat all recipients of the code equally".



For example it specifically says "if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee" ... "and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee". So you can charge different recipients different prices.



Also you could be rude to some recipients and polite to others. You don't need to provide documentation in all their native languages. Etc.



Jeremy Allison is basically right about the patent issue, but there's no reason to believe that "the intent of the GPL licence the Samba code is released under ... is to treat all recipients of the code equally". It's about freedom, not equality, and these are never the same - giafly. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 09:49 AM EST

Usually if you working on a project and your employer make a decision you can't

reconsile your self with and you resign, you have to leave behind any cool stuff

you wrote.



Since Samba is GPL there is no question that he can take it with him. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 09:51 AM EST

I hope we can get Nat and Miguel back from the dark side too.

Hope it's not too late.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 10:08 AM EST

It's good when those who can afford to stand up in such a way do. Not many

people do.



Then again, not many can afford to.



Not everyone doesn't have to work for a living and can promote free and open

source software, and the wonderful religion that is has become.



I'm surprised this guy isn't being labeled a capitalist pig sellout for having

getting paid in the first place. Funny how that works. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: daWabbit on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 10:18 AM EST

I feel bad that any person should have to suffer for the actions of [what once

was] a firm forming a part of the FOSS community. I can only hope that Mr.

Allison does not have to suffer overly for his principled stand.



Jack



---

"There ain't no reason I should work this hard when I can live off the chickens

in my neighbor's yard" -Bruno Wolfe [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 10:33 AM EST

I didn't think they should feel that bad. I mean, I am just not going to use

Novell's software. But other than that, I wasn't really going to look at them in

moral terms .... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 10:50 AM EST

You know, it's nice and fuzzy that JA sticks to his

"convictions"...but JA himself acknowledges that Novell is ok by the

letter of GPL v2. So where's the problem? He answers that question, saying

they are pariahs to the community. The reality is obvious - there is no

violation of the GPL, just bad PR caused by FUD over the deal. For that, PJ and

other notables in the community are to blame. I don't expect this message to

survive. But I ask PJ and all in the community to seriously consider the

possibility that Novell has not acted wrongly, but rather, that her/we in the

OSS community have self-destructed over this one and caused the ensuing

mess...and it need not have happened. Sometimes the best approach to dealing

with a move that you don't agree with (esp if it doesn't violate the letter of

the GPL) is to just let it be.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 11:16 AM EST

There are times when "doing the right thing" means doing something

that carries a cost - I expect it will not be all that great in this case,

considering the qualifications of the individual involved. I congratulate Mr.

Allison for taking what he judges to be the morally correct course of action,

and wish that more had the intestinal fortitude to do the same in similar

circumstances.



To business: Hire this man, he has a strong sense of morality and will do the

right thing for you as well as for your customers and suppliers. [ Reply to This | # ]



Tiny point of contention. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 22 2006 @ 02:37 PM EST

Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 11:19 AM EST

The MS Exchange example highlights something interesting about the GPL and the nature of FLOSS software. We have no trouble imagining a company of whatever size reacting if they found that their licensing or contracts were at all disadvantageous to their goals (which is usually making money.) We have a harder time imagining what will happen when the GPL is violated, because there's no entity behind it. Remember, the FSF makes the license, but not the software. It's the copyright holders that must act in a legal sense. The fact that Novell and other pundits cry foul when the licensing changes to protect the interests of the copyright holders should be surprising. A company would act the same way. The difference is that companies normally just trade in money. If you want a proprietary company to change their licensing agreement with you so that you can bundle their software with your own to sell it, if you give them enough money and negotiate the specifics, it's very likely they'll agree. But what people who contribute to FLOSS want is not really money, but the freedom aspect to be unchanged. And since this is the very thing that Novell and other companies want, there's no deal that can be made. What surprises me is how business keeps forgetting the fairy tale of the golden goose. The goose was killed to try to get all of the eggs at once, and it was found to be empty. It wasn't the goose that people wanted, it was the eggs. So why do companies make the same mistake, over and over again? How do they forget how this software became so powerful and useful in the first place? How it continues to grow and evolve, at an astounding pace? It's the libre part of the license that make this possible; it's a world of programmers adding to it, probably on a 24/7 basis worldwide, because they want it shared and free. If you remove that, you've killed the goose. And all you get is a nice goose dinner for that one evening, and no more eggs afterwards. I hope that Novell enjoys their roasted goose banquet right now. My advice to them is to save the leftovers, because that's all they're going to be eating going forward. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 11:42 AM EST

In the event that he is pointed here and reads this, I would just like to extend

my best wishes to him in his future endeavors. If nothing else, he has proven

to be an upstanding member of the community.



As for Novell, I still wonder if this whole thing wasn't Microsoft's idea to do,

well, exactly what it is doing--divide the community? It would certainly

explain a few things... Not that it excuses it, but I wonder...



Whatever else, Microsoft has proven adept at killing its competitors time and

again, via means legal and illegal alike. I have sincere doubts that it has

ever or will ever stop the practice of killing them off. I even remember

objecting to one of the anti-trust settlements I ended up being a party to due

to an old copy of Windows 98 in that the settlement did *NOTHING* to halt the

injury. There wasn't even a vague promise of changed behavior in the future...

it was as if they'd bought a license to monopolize things for the last six or so

years with the implication that we could have exactly the same settlement in

another six with absolutely nothing changing. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: MrCharon on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 12:00 PM EST

How did Novell feel when Microsoft found a loop-hole with the Netware license, that allowed the Netware Gateway Service to be used to bypass having to buying User-Licenses for each user. See Benefits of Using GSNW (Microsoft TechNet) ---

MrCharon

~~~~

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 12:02 PM EST

""Do you think that if we'd have found what we legally considered a

clever way around the Microsoft EULA so we didn't have to pay for Microsoft

licenses and had decided to ship, oh let's say, "Exchange Server"

under this "legal hack" that Microsoft would be silent about it - or

we should act aggr[i]eved when they change the EULA to stop us doing

this?""



well said - this really nails the point.



I guess everything is okay as long as you are trying to improve you stock and

please the board of directors.



these companies have to learn that FOSS has it owns board of directors and that

is the community. and the gpl is our EULA. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 12:26 PM EST

Many people applaud Jeremy Allison's resignation from Novell. Regretably I

don't. I don't see that a consciencious like Jeremy had any choice. And that

is why I am not applauding, because he had no choice. It should never have come

to this point.



Since I am recently out of work too, I can sympathize with Jeremy. Undoubtedly

since his talent is so much greater than mine, hopefully he will land someplace

much more in agreement with his principles. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mm on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 12:36 PM EST

Hmm, so he's leaving because of the -perception- that Novell has violated the GPL. Good job to Groklaw and everyone else who has no clue what the real agreement was about, and who instead just assume the worst becase it involves Microsoft. Granted, if Allison doesn't even know the full details, then he shouldn't jump ship quite yet either, particularly given Novell's past. We so easily forget (or ignore) the possibility that Novell could have discovered something that would take years upon years to litigate to receive damages, in the end receiving less in damages, factoring in costs of litigation, than they can get right now with a quiet agreement with Microsoft. Novell probably isn't allowed to tell even their full staff about it, much less the public. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? I have read something before that said if you have a grievance with someone, you approach them first to try to resolve it. If that fails, you come back with a friend. If all else fails, you make your claims public. For all we know, Novell could have Microsoft by the jewels because of some Novell patent that -Microsoft- is violating, and Microsoft might expect it to take five years to get the offending methods of concepts out of their products. Do you think Microsoft would agree to keep this out of the courts if it were made public? Think about all of the other private settlements following lawsuits, and how they will never see the light of day. What I'm stressing is that WE DO NOT KNOW what the full agreement is about, so we shouldn't make assumptions, particularly if we are very high-profile individuals or organizations. "Do you think that if we'd have found what we legally considered a clever way around the Microsoft EULA so we didn't have to pay for Microsoft licenses and had decided to ship, oh let's say, "Exchange Server" under this "legal hack" that Microsoft would be silent about it - or we should act aggr[i]eved when they change the EULA to stop us doing this?" Microsoft would not be silent, but they could not do anything about it. Microsoft can yell at me all they want, but if I have not done anything wrong, they can take a hike. It would come to a point of "put up or shut up". If I really enjoyed distributing/selling Exchange under such a situation and if my customers were satisfied or even happy, then I should be upset after Microsoft changed their license to prevent such a thing. I would be losing a part of my business revenue, and my customers would be losing a product or service that they found beneficial. But again, we don't know if that's the same situation we are now facing with Novell and Microsoft. Note that because some people whine about Anonymous posts, I have created an account (which I -very- rarely ever do anywhere, nor do I normally accept cookies) so that PJ can have the option to contact me directly, if she so wishes. I will probably not log in again, but my posts can be recognized by my writing style, my IP addresses (home and work) and my sig. -M [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: dnhuff on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 12:36 PM EST

There is a larger issues which our society has yet to address, we can see it

both in software and religion.



If you can't license your own software with restriction to keep all the rights,

how can you make a living?



The same question in religion is, If God's manifestation for today has re-newed

religion and abolished the clergy, how will those in the clergy make a living if

they were to accept the new revelation?



Just how would Microsoft be able to continue employing good, creative people if

they did not own the fruits of their labors?



The answer is similar to the answer in the abortion discussion -- don't ever get

in the situation where this becomes a question.



In a very real sense: Don't expect to make a living from creating software (for

its own sake.) People and companies that do useful things create software as a

by-product, they make their living from the things they do, not the software

they create. Those (relatively) few, true software artists, may get by, as

artists have always done, but that life will never satisfy the business person.

Microsoft and others have a real challenge, how to do something useful beyond

creating software, so that they can make their living from that and not the

software.



Just the same as preachers now have a great challenge, how to lead people to God

(and make a living) when He has abolished their profession.



---

'O Son of Spirit! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice;' --

Baha'u'llah [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: gfolkert on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 01:22 PM EST

Those in Novell proper, Ximian, SUSE and others.



There have a been a few so far that have left, but Jeremy Allison is the biggest fish so far. There are a few that have significant impact on the Linux Kernel, many on Gnome, Evolution, Mono...



In fact, the tendrils affect nearly every Linux distribution and many core packages, at this point.



The fallout has of yet to really begin, this is just the pre-cursor.



I commend Jeremy for doing what he thinks is right. Though, I think Novell has really gotten the beast into an agreement to which it doesn't realize it cannot pull back from without HUGE HUGE costs (in legal and other fundamentals).



Microsoft in short will be driving MANY computer buyers and users to Linux, mainly due to the Vista effect. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 01:28 PM EST

SMB originated at IBM and IBM has a lot of good lawyers should Microsoft decide

to start some legal fight. That would be great day for Groklaw and popcorn

companies! :) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 02:05 PM EST

You seem to be saying that you have no moral or ethical responisbility to

understand the intent of a law or license and abide by that. All that is

necessary is that you don't break the letter of the law.



I don't agree with you. I believe we are charged with the moral and ethical

responisbility to live by the plain clear intention of the law. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 02:06 PM EST

quote from a Linux forum:



"it's a bit similar to what Pamela Jones did when she was criticized about

taking a job working to offer IP protection (or something like that). Key people

in the FLOSS community showing that its values are really important to them,

that's pretty inspiring." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 02:15 PM EST

Twenty eight years ago the Supreme Court gave a recipe for the elimination of

software related utility patents - go to Congress:



The mathematical formula involved here has no substantial practical application

except in connection with a digital computer. It may be that the patent laws

should be extended to cover these programs, a policy matter to which we are not

competent to speak. . . If these programs are to be patentable, considerable

problems are raised which only committees of Congress can manage, for broad

powers of investigation are needed, including hearings which canvass the wide

variety of views which those operating in this field entertain. The

technological problems tendered in the many briefs before us indicate to us that

considered action by the Congress is needed., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584

(1978).



An organized campaign by the tens of thousands of open source community members

to influence representatives in Congress to restrict the scope of 35 U.S.C. Sec.

101 is the only hope to eliminate the evils of software related utility patents.

Pursuing relief through a copyright license will *never* work -- that is an

illusory legal dream.

[ Reply to This | # ]



The problem is... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 06:16 PM EST Already solved - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 07:17 PM EST

- Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 06:16 PM EST

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 02:45 PM EST

Thanks Jeremy !



- from an anonymous admirer, only one of many.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 03:43 PM EST

It's inspiring to see a brave man take a stand for what he believes in.

Hopefully his stand will stiffen the spines of those around him and Novell will

be coerced into doing the right thing.



-JK [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 04:45 PM EST

restated, if you're not willing do "die" for anything, then what are

you living for?



It's almost funny, but when you think about it, the people in the past have been

much smarter than the so-called "programmers, chemists, engineers, poets,

novelists".. and I can go on and on...



think about it, the people who are afforded "smart" status today

couldn't hold a candle to the scientists and other intellectuals of even 50

years ago. In other words, do you think that just because you created a

computer game on a chip that you're "smart"???

that is too funny for even a comeback.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 04:50 PM EST

Jeremy starts with Google in the new year according to an interview with Mary

Jo Foley!



J

[ Reply to This | # ]



Jeremy going to work for Google - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 05:17 PM EST

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 05:45 PM EST

If the deal infringes on Jeremy's sense of honor then thats good enough for me,

I don't need to see the "confidential" contract.



It's refreshing to see morals and self worth overcome the money of power.



The future is empowering customers not suing them. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 05:46 PM EST

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 05:57 PM EST

Authored by: Archipel on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 06:25 PM EST

I don't understand why this whole agreement thing is so bad for the linux

community? It seems indeed like everyone is against this whole thing. I am very

much afraid that both Samba and GPLv3 will hurt Novell and thereby Suse Linux,

but that's because of the bad PR.



Isn't it great that even Microsoft finally admits that linux is becoming

dangerous for it? They finally realize that even they, with all their money,

can't stand up against a community of thousands or even millions of programmers.

All they can do to survive is provide interoperability, but that's also the

thing linux needs.



I hate having to emulate a whole PC in VMware just to run some tiny little

application for Windows on my PC, and I'm not the only one. If this deal is

going to solve that problem, I honestly can't see anything wrong for the linux

community.



I also disagree with the fact that the Novell-Microsoft agreement is violating

the idea behind the GPL. The GPL is about giving everyone the possibility to

alter software and to distribute it under the same terms. And yes, there is a

part of it concerning patents, but Novell is not breaking it. Not even it's

idea.



There was no agreement between Microsoft and Novell about not sueing each other.

Microsoft promised to to sue Novell's customers for patent infrigement. That

doesn't mean Microsoft can't sue Novell for doing so. And look at the irony of

this, how could Microsoft sue Novell's customers for something Novell could

never implement in it's software? That would only be possible if Novell had maid

some mistake nobody noticed, but even then and without the agreement, I don't

think Microsoft would sue Novell's customers but Novell itself. This fud is just

about an extra guarantee granted to Novell's customers, not about a significant

fact. Red Hat and other OSS companies might not have this guarantee, but that

doesn't mean their customers have or Red Hat itself has to be afraid of being

sued from Microsoft. Red Hat has just the same rights as Novell, neither can

break any of MS's patents.



All this agreement brings to linux is goodness, except for all this FUD of

course. Look at all the improvements that can be made now. Wine can become even

better, the same counts for mono and OpenOffice.org. Samba too would benefit

alot, if they weren't so much against this agreement. And all of Microsoft's and

Novell's interoperability changes. Novell's changes would be licensed under the

GPL, so again, what's the problem?



I must say I'm very disappointed in this community. I do have respect for your

views, but please don't think your opinion is the only right one. I'm not saying

mine is, but please wait a while before you condemn Novell. It takes time before

these agreement can have effects, so please wait and see. The agreement has only

been made about one month ago.



What concerns Jeremy Allison, I'm very sorry to hear that he's leaving Novell,

but if he believes he's doing the right thing, then he should be doing it. This

does not mean I agree with him about the whole agreement, but it means that I do

agree that you can't work against your principles.



Oh, and for those that wanted to ask, I don't work for Novell or Microsoft. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 07:15 PM EST

What Mr. Allison did makes perfect sense. It's nice that he's found employment

elsewhere right away. He was obviously concerned, and rightly so, that the

agreement between Microsoft and Novell was holding not just him, but Novell and

SuSE, back. Which it will. Affecting Mr. Allison, as well as Novell in a way

where there will be less community involvement, less momentum, and so forth.

Novell will be less "involved" in many of the ways that matter. There

is no doubt about this.



On the other hand, the agreement is clearly not in violation of the letter of

the GPLv2, and depending on what happens with GPLv3, the smartest move may be to

prevent Microsoft from distributing coupons - in other words - Microsoft should

be encouraged to extend patent pledges of one form or another as an olive

branch. Using gplv3 as a weapon against Novell specifically is going to make it

harder for the license to gain the required traction. (just my opinion, folks).





Classifying Microsoft as a redistributor would probably be a very effective way

of dealing with things, then they would be encouraged to extend patent promises.

I totally understand where Jeremy is coming from, and I appreciate what he's

saying, but ultimately what needs to happen is for Microsoft to join the ranks

of IBM, Novell, Red Hat, and any other corporation that has decided to extend

patent pledges of some sort or another towards GPL-licensed material. Obviously,

Microsoft has major concerns about this, but they need to get over it and get

with the program. Dream on, right? Yeah, probably.



But in any case, one can see clearly what MS and Novell were doing, and one can

also see clearly what Jeremy, and the Samba team, and Mr. Shuttleworth, and so

many other folks are doing.



It's almost like a fork. Xemacs vs emacs all over again, sort of. Except this

time it's more like gplv2 vs gplv3 (but not really). On the one hand, gplv3 IS

gpl every bit as much as gplv2 -- it just CLARIFIES and EXPLAINS gplv2. It's not

a different license. Well, OK, it's a "different" license, but it's

not really anything more than a clarification of the concepts and principles

embodied in gplv2.



It's wierd - because when I first heard of this collaboration between SuSE and

Microsoft, I was excited, because I thought that people would be more willing to

accept Linux. And to that end, there's probably still a lot of folks who feel

that way, and feel that it's a good thing. Let's face it - there's only ONE

Microsoft. Microsoft IS an instance. The only instance of itself you'll ever

find. It's more efficient to realize that and not be afraid of 10,000

Microsofts, because there is only one.



On the other hand... the point of view being presented by many seriously devoted

members of the "community" makes perfect sense as well. At best, the

patent protections are completely unnecessary. Any code coming from Novell might

be suspect. There's no reason that Red Hat or anyone else should pay protection

money to anyone.



If I didn't know any better, I'd say that philosophically, ethically perhaps,

conceptually, in terms of licenses but not really licenses so much but the

concepts underlying the need for them in the first place perhaps, what we have

is a huge "fork" of sorts, a collosal shift, the evidence of which is

not manifested in any physical object such as a license. You could say it's v2

vs v3, but that's not it, really. If you try for a physical manifestation of

this metaphysical "fork" in the v2 vs v3 argument (which isn't really

an argument as I said before, just more of a clarification of v2), it won't

really work, because v3 just clarifies v2 anyway. It's not a "fork".

Not meant to be one, anyway. Most people in the "community" don't

believe v3 will cause a fork, anyway. V3 is just a clarification.



So that's the thing - you can choose. You have that choice. You can go with

Novell, or you can go with Red Hat. What we have is undeniably real, but yet

there are no real physical objects that serve as a manifestation of that shift.

Perhaps other than blogs, comments, mailing list posts, and so forth.



Here we have one time in history where we can make our voice heard, where people

are genuinely interested in what other people have to say. Taken together, all

the posts, all the blogs, all the comments - this is the evidence - these are

the physical manifestations of what has become a giant, strange, metaphysical

"fork" of sorts. You won't see it if you don't have an open mind. But

it's there, if you look. And the choice is yours.



Strange, huh?



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: PolR on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 10:08 PM EST

Anyone knows why Google might need a top level Samba hacker? I can't think of a

reason but I bet they are *not* looking for a high caliber sysadmin.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Google? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 22 2006 @ 04:45 AM EST

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 11:19 PM EST

Every one at Novell should also quit. What a sell out to Microsoft. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 21 2006 @ 11:35 PM EST

In other news this week, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols reports that SUSE co-founder Hubert Mantel has returned to Novell after a year away.

SUSE co-founder Hubert Mantel is back in the saddle at Novell. Back in November of 2005 when the well-respected chief maintainer of the SUSE Linux kernel left Novell, he said in an email announcing his resignation that "This is no longer the company I founded 13 years ago."

In the DMO interview, Mantel explained that he had come back because, "I had more than one year of time to think about my future and came to the conclusion that the thing I'm most interested in still is Linux. Also I do have many good friends at SuSE and I really like to work with and for Linux."

When asked in an interview with DMO about the Novell deal with Microsoft, he had this to say:

6. What do you think about the Microsoft/Novell deal?

I think it is a good thing especially for the users. If you think some years back, Linux was not taken seriously. Now even Microsoft acknowledges that it exists and will not go away. I understand that many people don't like it as Novell is collaborating with the "evil empire". But I don't like this way of thinking; we are not working against somebody, but we are working FOR Linux. Fundamentalism always leads to pain. What's important is that Linux is free and will remain to be free. The source code is open to everybody, this is what counts for me. Some people seem to be torn in an interesting way: On one hand they want "world domination", at the same time they don't like the feeling that Linux has grown up and needs to deal with the real business world out there. We have a saying here in Germany that goes along the lines of "wash me, but do not make me wet". If you want Linux to succeed, you cannot live in your own separate universe.

He also had this response to a question about his thoughts on the future of open-source software:

9. In your opinion, what will be open-source's future?

Linux and open source have grown up, it has entered mainstream. I think that open source and proprietary software will co-exist. While I prefer open source, I do understand that there also exists software where the source code is not freely available. And this kind of software always will exist. For me it is important to be able to choose. Competition is always good. Noone knows how the world would look like if Linux and open source would not exist. I think it already changed the IT world in a big way.

--bystander1313 [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 22 2006 @ 11:12 AM EST

While I respect Allisons decision I know one thing this will make me think long

and hard about. Whether or not to hire Open Source software contributors and

developers. if they cant seperate religon and politics from business affairs,

do I really want them working for me? The answer sadly is no. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bigbert on Friday, December 22 2006 @ 07:12 PM EST

"Notwithstanding any of the above, if you break the spirit of the GPL even

though you are technically within the letter, then this license is revoked and

copyright applies. You may NOT impose restrictions on people you distribute this

software to, so DO NOT GET CUTE!"



---

LnxRlz! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 24 2006 @ 03:57 AM EST