Re: [school-discuss] Fwd: A Landmark Announcement

[Shane Coyle <shane@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Precisely.  The way to communicate with a corporation is economically.  It is 
unacceptable behavior on Novell's part to legitimize and participate in MS 
FUD campaign, and to violate the very license that allows them to distribute 
the community's work in the first place.  I say let the big MS lump payment 
be their severance from the community.  

Now, this is the beauty of the GPL: No hard feelings Novell, Fork You!  We 
don't need them, we have the source.  Boycott Novell.

Here is a great PJ article, 
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061107194320461


-shane

On Thursday 09 November 2006 09:48, Petre Scheie wrote:
> I agree with you, that Novell's actions seem to violate section 7 of the
> GPL, which is what I alluded to in my original comment.  In my most recent
> comment, I was just pointing out that Ballmer's comments are nothing but
> FUD, which I would argue is dishonest and immoral.  And to tie that back to
> Michael's question about what he should suggest to his school where they
> have a 'full investment in Novell and MS desktops', I would propose that he
> ask his superiors the question "Why do we want to deal with vendors who are
> constantly trying to trick us and take advantage of us?"  If you had a
> 'friend' who tried to trick you into giving him money or your possessions
> every time he came over, you'd quit having him as a friend pretty quickly,
> wouldn't you?
>
> Your comment was about Novell, mine was about MS.  The behavior of both is
> dubious.
>
> Petre
>
> Shane Coyle wrote:
> > No, you are missing the point.  The GPL requires you to not limit the
> > rights of those 'downstream' of you, this deal violates that.  If I take
> > Novell's linux and redistribute it, me and my end users do not get the
> > benefit of this patent agreement - it's either negotiate for everyone or
> > noone.
> >
> > again:
> >>>  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.
> >
> > If I were to fork to SaysME Linux, I would have to pony up with MS for a
> > similar deal (like they just made an overture to redhat to make the same
> > deal), or expose myself and users to this nonsense.  Novell is in clear
> > violation of the GPL, both by letter and by its spirit.  They must not be
> > supported.
> >
> >
> >
> > -shane
> >
> > On Thursday 09 November 2006 09:08, Petre Scheie wrote:
> >> Mr. Ballmer's statement is accurate--and you'd have the same problem if
> >> you were using the patented work of General Motors or Exxon or
> >> Consolidated Martian Industries.  But that's just FUD because there's
> >> nothing suggesting that Linux *does* use any of MS's patented work.  If
> >> it did, MS would have been all over Linux a long time ago.  But they've
> >> got nothing.  All they can do is try to cast doubt, which they are good
> >> at.  But to paraphrase what someone else said, taking MS's opinion on
> >> Linux is like asking Joseph Stalin for his opinion on the US
> >> constitution.
> >>
> >> Petre
> >>
> >> Shane Coyle wrote:
> >>> OK, remember that Novell has made claims that they own the IP that SCO
> >>> says is in Linux, which submarines SCO's case- but not Novell's, so it
> >>> is not inconceivable that Novell now makes SCO's move and asks for
> >>> royalties on Linux, but with an actual case, perhaps.
> >>>
> >>> Ask Mr. Ballmer what he means by:
> >>>
> >>> "If a customer says, 'Look, do we have liability for the use of your
> >>> patented work?' Essentially, If you're using non-SUSE Linux, then I'd
> >>> say the answer is yes," Ballmer said.
> >>>
> >>> Then, read Section 7 of the GPL that you think Novell feels bound by
> >>> and would never violate:
> >>> If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
> >>> infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
> >>> conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
> >>> otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
> >>> excuse you from the conditions of this License. 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Some have said this is not a patent cross-license agreement,
> >>> technically, but this is how it is described in the SEC filing:
> >>>
> >>> Under the Patent Cooperation Agreement, Microsoft commits to a covenant
> >>> not to assert its patents against Novell's end-user customers for their
> >>> use of Novell products and services for which Novell receives revenue
> >>> directly or indirectly from such customers, with certain exceptions,
> >>> while Novell commits to a covenant not to assert its patents against
> >>> Microsoft's end-user customers for their use of Microsoft products and
> >>> services for which Microsoft receives revenue directly or indirectly
> >>> from such customers, with certain exceptions.
> >>>
> >>> So, you now have a choice- be a paying licensee of Novell Linux or be
> >>> exposed to potential litigation, how does this differ from SCOSource?
> >>>
> >>> If you want more information, checkout PJ at Groklaw.net, she is always
> >>> incredibly thorough in her research.
> >>>
> >>> -shane
> >>>
> >>> On Wednesday 08 November 2006 12:10, Chris Gregan wrote:
> >>>> I agree with Petre. It is a little early to be carving the Novell
> >>>> headstone because of a resource sharing, and patent protection
> >>>> agreement with Microsoft that is really just a press release at this
> >>>> point. I have read a ton of comments, and most clearly have no clue
> >>>> what this means. Baseless speculation. The fact are that many FOSS
> >>>> projects believe this is good for the community.
> >>>> In addition, There is one major difference between the companies that
> >>>> have made agreements in the past, and Novell/Suse. OpenSuse is free,
> >>>> and community driven. Even if Novell where to become MSNovell, there
> >>>> is no way they could stifle a community project. All the software
> >>>> being worked on is GPL'd. The GPL prevents Novell/MS from denying any
> >>>> of that stack from the public.
> >>>> I worry that this is in fact the outcome MS was looking for. They sign
> >>>> a deal, and in return, all of the users of one of their rivals,
> >>>> abandon the product simply because of a press release.
> >>>> I understand concerns, but I would not dump this highly usable, and
> >>>> well designed OS simply on the knee jerk rantings of a few pundits.
> >>>> Simply hedge the bet. Use SLES servers and Ubuntu desktops, or Red Hat
> >>>> servers and SLED/opensuse desktops, but nothing I have read, or
> >>>> discovered in the release would make me think this is the beginning of
> >>>> the end of Novell and it's commitment to FOSS.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here are some more pragmatic responses to the news:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9843352777.html
> >>>> http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2511
> >>>>
> >>>> Chris Gregan
> >>>> cgregan@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Open Source Migration Specialist/Founder
> >>>> Aptenix LLC-Desktop Solutions
> >>>> New Market, MD
> >>>> (240)422-9224
> >>>>
> >>>> "Open source, open minds."
> >>>>
> >>>> This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s)
> >>>> and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from
> >>>> disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
> >>>> recipient(s), you are notified that the dissemination, distribution,
> >>>> or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this
> >>>> message in error or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the
> >>>> sender at either the fax address or telephone number above and delete
> >>>> this message. Thank you.
> >>>>
> >>>> Petre Scheie wrote:
> >>>>> Perhaps 'hedge your bets' is a better strategy than 'boycott Novell'
> >>>>> in your case.  Most people, even non-technical ones, will agree when
> >>>>> you say that many/most companies that allied with MS eventually get
> >>>>> absorbed or stabbed in the back--in either case, they go away.
> >>>>> Considering all that MS has said about Linux, there's no reason to
> >>>>> consider this deal will be any different.  Perhaps it won't turn out
> >>>>> bad for Novell.  But what your school needs to be doing is thinking
> >>>>> strategically, such that if Novell does end up in a bad position as a
> >>>>> result of this deal, your school and its technology plan aren't in a
> >>>>> position that suddenly becomes very expensive.  The diversity of
> >>>>> Linux distributions is one of its strengths.  If one vendor does
> >>>>> something that isn't in your best interest, you can move to another
> >>>>> fairly easily.  If MS or Apple do something that's good for them at
> >>>>> your expense, and your technology plan is built around them, it's
> >>>>> difficult to change, meaning you sigh, and then increase class size
> >>>>> so you can eliminate a teacher to pay for MS's or Apple's price
> >>>>> increase.  The point is to be thinking NOW about where you want to be
> >>>>> in two or three years so that if  Novell does collapse, you can say
> >>>>> "Good thing we made those changes back in 2006 such that Novell's
> >>>>> demise/MS's tightening restrictions/price increase doesn't affect
> >>>>> us."  One could argue that this MS/Novell deal gives you a real
> >>>>> opportunity to convince your colleagues of the danger of your 'full
> >>>>> investment in Novell' and the need to move away from such
> >>>>> mono-culture, as it provides you with an occasion to remind people of
> >>>>> how these deals usually play out, and how your school should take
> >>>>> steps to make sure it's not on the short end of such an agreement.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Petre
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Michael Bendorf wrote:
> >>>>>> the other penny is for maintenance
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am a bit confused. At CCUSD#1 we have a full investment in Novell
> >>>>>> as our NOS and have MS desktops - how would I make the suggestion to
> >>>>>> "Boycott Novell"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As a personal user running Fedora and sharing Ubuntu with less Linux
> >>>>>> savvy persons wanting to get away from M$ I understand, but I have
> >>>>>> to question what this will mean from a district in the situation I
> >>>>>> find here.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have to put it out there that I am personally a peon when it comes
> >>>>>> to these decisions and have only been in the Ed. Tech. scene for
> >>>>>> about 18 months. I love it when my opinion is asked for though, and
> >>>>>> so have been thinking about what I would do if it were my choice.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Michael T. Bendorf
> >>>>>> Technology Assistant
> >>>>>> Intermediate School
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> shane@xxxxxxxxxxx 11/07/06 8:38 PM >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Simple. Boycott Novell.  They will go the way of SCO.
> >>>>>> This is MS going after Oracle's deep pockets, and Novell gets to
> >>>>>> knock out all competition and secure an up-front payment as well as
> >>>>>> ownership of the linux market, which MS will allow to remain a small
> >>>>>> healthy percentage to stave off antitrust allegations-  A nice
> >>>>>> little lapdog for MS, that they actually derive revenue from in
> >>>>>> perpetuity, nice.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> MS propped up SCO against IBM, but the sticker was IBM has never
> >>>>>> distributed linux and Novell claimed its own rights over the
> >>>>>> contested "IP"
> >>>>>> .  SCO has no case, and is rotting on the vine.  Even if Novell gets
> >>>>>> to finally see SCO in court, there will be no SCO left.  Novell has
> >>>>>> been seen by the community as a defender, and has steadily caught up
> >>>>>> to and surpassed the leader redhat in terms of enterprise linux
> >>>>>> offerings.  Honestly, SLED was probably the best enterprise distro
> >>>>>> out there, imho.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now, days after Oracle threatens to not only destroy redhat and SuSE
> >>>>>> in the enterprise space with its Unbreakable Linux and support
> >>>>>> (including indemnification from ip litigation - $chaching$), but
> >>>>>> actually threaten MS and its trainwreck Vista in the enterprise
> >>>>>> (imagine not having to upgrade all of your hardware just to run a
> >>>>>> slightly more secure OS), we hear about this Novell-MS partnership -
> >>>>>> expect them to go after the first big Oracle customer, and then when
> >>>>>> Oracle steps in on their behalf - watch out.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's my two cents, but I only get a penny for my thoughts, so
> >>>>>> where does the other penny go?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -shane
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tuesday 07 November 2006 09:18, *********|Praveen wrote:
> >>>>>>> 2006/11/7, Michael Bendorf <bendorfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >>>>>>>> So, I'm sure that some on this list run a Novell network (as we do
> >>>>>>>> at Carlinville CUSD#1).
> >>>>>>>> I am in wanting of comments/questions/concerns/opinions on this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling
> >>>>>>> You<http://technocrat.net/d/2006/11/2/9945>
> >>>>>>> By Bruce Perens
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "There are two significant announcements. First, that Novell and
> >>>>>>> Microsoft
> >>>>>>> are entering into a patent cross-license, and second, that
> >>>>>>> Microsoft is promising not to assert its patents against individual
> >>>>>>> non-commercial developers. The bad part is that this sets Mirosoft
> >>>>>>> up to assert its patents against all commercial Open Source users.
> >>>>>>> There are also some little bonuses for Microsoft, like Novell will
> >>>>>>> help Microsoft turn back the
> >>>>>>> Open Document Format and substitute something Microsoft controls.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When we say "commercial", it's interesting to note that there are
> >>>>>>> really few non-commercial users: people who only use their computer
> >>>>>>> for a hobby.
> >>>>>>> Buying something on a web site, for example, is a commercial use.
> >>>>>>> Most individuals use their computers in some aspect of making their
> >>>>>>> livelihood.
> >>>>>>> There will now be a Microsoft-approved path for such people to make
> >>>>>>> use of
> >>>>>>> Open Source, an expensive subscription to Novell SuSe Linux that
> >>>>>>> costs as
> >>>>>>> much or more than Microsoft Windows and that comes with a patent
> >>>>>>> license."
> >>>>>>> Full article at http://technocrat.net/d/2006/11/2/9945

-- 
Shane Coyle
www.edu-nix.org
---
Version II is out!
www.edu-nix.org/download/