Ok, this is strange... Novell and MS?

[Variable]

Did Novel pull itself out of the dust bin of OS's or will it get swallowed up in a few years I wonder.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15536233/

[PrntRhd]

Novell has IBM backing, so I don't see them selling out to MS. Microsoft has to make nice to open source to blunt the continuous fines by the EU for antitrust, at least that is my take on this.

[PrntRhd]

A different take on this:
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/11/pig_freezes_ove.html;jsessionid=BJF1OR4KNEWKWQSNDL PCKHSCJUNN2JVN
and
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9843352777.html

[deddard]

I think these two are on the button - MS wants people to cosy up to one version of Linux, and then snap it up a few years from now.
At the same time, they want to frighten others away from Linux, but the problem is that a lot of things can backfire.
If Novell decide to get snooty with Linux, then others could equally use the law (even without patents) to start kicking Novell around.

I don't know what the original wording was when Linux was released as Open Source, but I've no doubt that it could be used to batter anyone who wants to apply limiting patents to any version of Linux.

The biggest problem is that any of us could re-engineer a copy of Linux (with any permissions necessary from the owner of a particular verison) and call it our own - then MS would have to sue everyone....

[pave_spectre]

I don't know what the original wording was when Linux was released as Open Source, but I've no doubt that it could be used to batter anyone who wants to apply limiting patents to any version of Linux.

The GPL generally specifies that any Software derived from other software that was released under the GPL must also be released under the GPL, and source code provided upon request. I forget the exact wording but that is the general gist.

Other licenses like the LGPL, and BSD Licnses are somewhat more lenient when it comes to giving credit and developing closed source software.

A list of Free Software Licenses can be found HERE (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html)

[mjc]

The biggest problem is that any of us could re-engineer a copy of Linux (with any permissions necessary from the owner of a particular verison) and call it our own - then MS would have to sue everyone....

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

[Variable]

The interesting bit to me, was how the author (obviously not a fan of MS) couched the sentence about MS having the ability to sue Linux. It looks to me, like he feels they could have a point...

Here is what I think is going on and thus begins my sermon.

Now, I know the "I hate MS" fan club is big around here, and that leads a lot of people down the misbegotten path of believing they are smarter than MS. But let's just think about... what MS may be thinking. I will use two well known quotations first:

"The best defense is a strong offence" and "if you can't beat em, join em"

If MS could saddle up to the Open Source market and make nice with a (let's face it) weak player in the market who is in decline and make them a player again, relieve pressure from monopoly claims by saying "look... here is our Open Source partner, their Servers and OS and our Server and OS work together in a beautiful symbiotic whole-foods kind of way. You want to be a long haired anti-establishment type but, still play the corporate game? Then you can go Novell." Can't we all just get along?

Now, once that partnership is working well and several hundred million are spent on world wide advertising - about the partnership and what Novell can do. We sic the MS flesh-eating, blood sucking, legal vampires on the hapless Linux companies, eeking out a modest profit supporting Open Source software. Who cares if they win or lose, MS is strong and has a lot of money. Can you say the same about Open Source based companies?

The strategy weakens MS enemies and strengthens MS, gives choice to consumers, gives a legitimate partner in the Open Source arena, bails out a grateful company on the slow boat to obscurity and ultimately gives MS more revenue streams. Pure Genius.

I think I want to work with Ballmer. Bet they have the most interesting meetings discussing high level strategy sitting around some beautiful location power gaming reality. It is all very Sun Tzu and 1st board stuff isn't it? I know what many of you will be thinking. But for you Americans, is it possible to root for an American company winning in the global market anymore? We are so guilt ridden by success now. It's like many people have to root for the underdog, be counter culture, just for the sake of it. Socialism doesn't work for the masses folks; it fosters stagnation and slow growth. It doesn't work in the real world and it won't work in cyber space. Star Trek is not real. Business is cut throat and survival of the fittest. A company cannot wait for some graduate student in Belgium to solve their driver problem.

Government cannot control a free market. They can make rules, but if they are not as smart as free market companies, they always be “a day late and a dollar short” and we all know that the best and brightest go into government jobs right?

The rules governing the future of IT are the same rules governing animals facing global warming - evolve or die.

Thus endeth my sermon. Please shoot any holes you see in my logic. But as I have said in other posts, only time will tell who is right and wrong. None of us will remember these posts in 5 years.

[PrntRhd]

Ballmer has made statements in the past that there are "238 software patents" that Linux "may have" infringed upon, actually 288 from the controversial study he quoted.
Still there is NO patent, NOT ONE that anyone has ever gone to court over with Linux and won.
The earlier skirmish with SCO suing everyone in the Linux community is not going well for SCO who it seems was backed by MS in the effort.
A repeat action against Novell would be seen as a repeat of the SCO case and would likely draw court sanctions against whoever MS was backing this time, so an accommodation this time with Novell does not mean a whole lot for anyone else in the Linux camp. I suspect Red Hat is the real target now.

[PrntRhd]

Now Novell and Microsoft are disagreeing on what it was that they agreed upon:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=LAFKBYJQZQFM2QSNDLOSK H0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=195900187

[mjc]

Sometimes you're the windshield...

sometimes you're the bug.

[Variable]

"Novell should know that they have no right to make self-serving deals on behalf of others which run contrary to the goals and ideals of the Free Software community," the group's statement said.

Says who?

The article seems to be about Novell trying to make nicey nicey with the Open Source people vis-a-vis their deal with the "devil". The deal is still going though. There must be some scrambling going on with Free Software Foundation if they are trying to amend their GPL... But since MS is staying tight lipped about their plans, it leaves those with worries to scramble to shore up their defence doesn't it. IF the fears are unfounded there is no need to change anything.

I would say the MS plan is developing perfectly.

[PrntRhd]

Well, Red Hat has said "whatever Ballmer is selling", they are not buying.

Microsoft has used open source code in developing several of their own products, so they may be more ready to threaten to sue than actually go to court.