FSF says Novell could be banned from selling Linux

The open-source community criticized Novell for partnering with Microsoft. Now the Free Software Foundation is reviewing Novell's right to sell new versions of Linux.

The story "FSF says Novell could be banned from selling Linux" published February 3, 2007 at 9:30 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.

[Commander_Spock]

Don't you like it....

... when the Microsoft and Penguinista guys lob torpedoes, grenades, chairs... at each other! Here this article states in part; "The community of people wants to do anything they can to interfere with this deal and all deals like it. They have every reason to be deeply concerned that this is the beginning of a significant patent aggression by Microsoft," Eben Moglen, the Foundation's general counsel, said on Friday.

The foundation controls intellectual property rights to key parts of the open-source Linux operating system.

Novell angered members of the open-source community that develops Linux and other free software programs in November when it entered a wide-ranging business deal with Microsoft..."; the fact that Novell may very well still have patent rights to the Linux Code-base may if fact raise "intellectual property" issues where the Linux Operating System is concerned for all we know. The best alternative as is always being recommended by Commander_Spock for Riding clear of DIABLO is the "OS/2" Operating System now being called eComStation. (Version 2.0 is due out soon)!

[t8]

r u a talkbot?

OS2 is dead.

[lesfilip]

Commander_Spock is a talkbot, not human

Have a nice day!

[JunkSiu]

How open really is about open software?

Such announcment from the FSF make me feel my understanding of the GPL in the past is false. Before this, my basic understand(I did not go into detail of reading the whole GPL):

- GPL allow everyone to use, change and enchance the source code as they way see fit, as long as one also provide their source code along with it and also give credit to original author.

But with what FSF is doing now, seems totally changing that base line.

[Marcus Westrup]

I think I see the problem

If Novell developers are working with a mix of open source (Linux) and propriety code (Microsoft), there is too much chance of a crossover. From a legal point of view, once a developer sees code they are tainted by it.
So, a few years from now, Microsoft can make the claim that their code has "somehow" (wink wink) been released in to the Linux community, tainting a great many projects. Then we are back to the same F.U.D. mess that SCO caused.

[extinctone]

Hypocrits

"Software just wants to be free" -- Unless of course they want it to not be free.

[William Squire]

Childish Backstabbing Tantrums

Anybody considering serious business activities should read a clear warning in this. FSF and Novell were nothing short of best friends when Novell wanted to help IBM avoid prosecution for possible illegal activities related to Linux. Now that Novell is looking at a lucrative deal with FSF nemesis, Microsoft, the tables have turned.

Basing your business on Linux in any way shape or form, subjects you to this type of reactionary childish behavior from FSF. Caution and skepticism are the rule of the day when it comes to Open Source.

Once considered the underpinning of FREE software, FSF now appears to utilize a fascist approach to controlling the companies that can use and work with Linux.

It is disgusting, to say the least.

At one point, FSF representatives could be heard preaching the benefits of Linux and OpenSource - suggesting that it will reach every corner of the globe and provide untold opportunity and freedom for all.

Today? Not so much.

FSF has no interest in releasing Linux in any sort of truly "free" scenario. Countless OpenSource supporters have explained to me that I was "free" to build my own code and include it with my own Linux distro. They told me... I was not restricted in my use of Linux or any other OpenSource code, so long as I obeyed the GPL rules - which have never forbid anybody from writing software to work with, or run on, Linux.

Apparently, this is not true if you are in any way related to Microsoft. Worse - it is clear that FSF will turn on ANYBODY they simply do not like.

The Holy War has begun. Call it the FSF Jihad.

There is nothing "free" about it, unless FSF has decided that you are free. Otherwise, it is a call to arms for all the OpenSource supporters to work against and derail perfectly legal business activities. Attack the ideas. Attack the jobs. Attack the contracts. Attack the patents. Attack discussions, thoughts, partnerships, and anything else that does not comply with FSF's vision for Linux and Free Software.

Free?? Hardly. Clearly, this looks more like a discriminatory hegemonic strategy for domination. And you are only allowed to act "free," if FSF decides that they like you.

Scary.

FSF needs a dose of reality so that perhaps they will remember what "Freedom" really is. America is free. Capitalism is about free trade. OpenSource has always been at odds with capitalism - an argument that is nearly impossible to oppose once you know the facts. Yet, OpenSource supporters have long held that they wield a new and better kind of "free."

Clearly, they do not. This new freedom they promote is much closer to fascist socialism.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=ba8daaf5-09c5-4ca4-a4a7-c4c9e34e4f9c" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=ba8daaf5-09c5-4ca4-a4a7-c4c9e34e4f9c</a>

[mortis9]

stupid from the get go.

You obviously missed the entire point of this story. The issue at hand is indeed quite pertinent to the survival of both the FSF and Linux. The intermingling of open and closed source material leads inevitably to copyright and patent infringement. This legal nightmare could destroy any future for Linux or anything else under the GPL (that doesn't allow intermingling of close and open source software).

That nonsense tangent you went on, ridiculing the FSF as fascist (which no doubt is a word you're incapable of defining based on your usage of it), is just non-sense. They are making a viable and reasonable response in order to protect Linux. After all, that's what they're supposed to do.

[Michael Grogan]

fascist socialism?

If you had a clue about the definition of either fascist or socialist you would know that fascist socialist was a contradiction in terms as the two are entirely antithetical.

[BroWren]

You've missed the point

For all the ranting you did about capitalism, you should know that There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch, and whether the cost for software is charged is dollars or conformance to an ideal, there is a price for either. Novell's trying to dance around its debt to those who gave it the software it sells in the first place. It's no different than if they had promised the programmers money, then failed to pay them.

By the way, adding patent encumberances to GPL code and then distributing it is not a perfectly legal business activity. It's copyright infringement, no different than if someone was shipping hacked copies of Windows. Novell doesn't own Linux any more than I own the copy of Vista I just bought - we've merely licensed it from its original authors. And if Novell ships with MS patent licenses, they've encumbered Linux, and are breaking the law.

You say, "I was not restricted in my use of Linux or any other OpenSource code, so long as I obeyed the GPL rules," but I don't think you care about the second part of that sentence. Linux and GPL code AREN'T public domain, they aren't freeware, and you are required to follow the rules if you want to use them. If you want total, absolute control, with no need to repay the community for its work, maybe you should be using BSD licensed code instead. Keep in mind, though, that you get what you pay for...

[kevinchin5]

FSF was Misquoted...

Apparently Eben (from FSF) was misquoted. According to Eben Moglen, "This is a story being hyped by the Reuters guy who wrote it."

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2089965,00.asp" target="_newWindow">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2089965,00.asp</a>

[i_made_this]

who cares what FSF says?

Their stance on the Novell MSFT deal seems like an eight year old's pout in an industry of serious adults. Their current position holds water only if SUSE remains open-source, which is an extremely unlikely scenario. The SUSE operating systems, much like the Linux-based ones expected from Google in a couple years, will most probably be proprietary products.

[myanderson]

what?

SUSE Linux was, is, and will continue to be Open Source as it is based on the Linux kernel protected by GPL. Anything else just wouldn't be SUSE Linux. If there was a new OS generated and called proprietary, it wouldn't be based on the Linux kernel and would just not be SUSE Linux. Spectualtion is the minds creative way of trying to understand what you cannot.

[scotthi]

FSF Actions

Novell is a public company and should not be controlled by any orginization. So, who cares what the FSF might do by their actions. The FSF is acting like a union that has gone astray. I say Novell "tell them to shove it".

[WJeansonne]

IP rights? What a joke!

These jokers have been trying to subvert our constitutional rights to intellectual property rights for years and now they want to assert them? Give me a break!! I hope Novell sues the living sh** out of them and sends the socialized software idiots (or more succintly--socialists) back to the underground where they belong.

[RavingEniac]

Corporate Greed #97

Many corporations are so greedy that they would charge you for the air you breath if they could figure out a way to do it. Volunteer community efforts to create and upgrade free software is just wonderful in my opinion. It beats the heck out of handing control of software development and use of hardware to some corporation-hired high priests accountable to nobody except the leading ripoff artists of the world.

[jp10293847]

You are completely incorrect

Care to support your opinion with fact? The open source community has not been trying to subvert anybody's constitutional rights. Open source is simply a different model for licensing and generating revenue that revolves around quality of service rather than locking customers into proprietary software. There is nothing socialist about it. If anything, it's an answer to the lack of competition in our supposedly 'free market'.

[Anon-Y-mous]

"Sell" Linux? I thought Linux was free?

How can you ban someone for selling something that is supposed to be free?

I don't get it. So yer saying that it really isn't "free" and that I have to pay someone to sell it to me and provide assistance? How can that be fair? Free should be free!

Guess I'll stick with buying "pay-for" software free after rebate. At least then I know it's really free.

[Gayle Edwards]

Nice "FUD", or should I say ignorance...

First... "free" as in "Free Speech" (and under the control of the "end-user"). Not, "free" as in "Free Beer".

You should have known that... Not knowing that, WELL-KNOWN explanation, is nearly inconceivable,

...Unless, that is, youre ignorance was intentional.

Second... "Novell" is actually being attacked for violating the basic "legal requirements" (and fundamental philosophy) associated with "Open-Source software". Put simply, they ("Novell") are being criticized for making a, potentially-destructive "deal" (also highly-questionable, under the "Open-Source software license agreement"), with the single greatest opponent of "Open-Source" software (as, effectively, self-proclaimed by "Microsoft") ...with a company, by the way, with a long-history of, repeatedly, unabashedly-implementing the deceptive, and aggressive, approach referred to as, "Embrace, Extend, and Eliminate").

Third, I hate to break this to "Anon-Y-mous", but, you ARE "paying" for support... whether you get, it or not, ...regardless of whether you buy "Open-", or "Closed-", "source" software. So, why pay more for, much more costly, "closed-source software", which refuses to allow many basic "Freedoms"? ...or, why support the intentional-dilution of the most successful challenger ("Open-Source") to a failing business-paradigm (I.E. Monopolistic, perennially "licensed", and controlled, ..."Closed-Source", software)?

Finally, as someone who has been in the computer field for decades... and, as a member of a business that is a registered "developer", we have many awfully good deals on many, many, software-products. But, I havent seen any OS-licenses, from "proprietary" companies, that actually allow truly "free" ownership (complete "user", and developer, control)... Or, use on as many PCs as we wish.

So... Clearly... "Proprietary", ISNT... "FREE".

[WJeansonne]

Good Point, Dude!

Couldn't have said it better myself. :-)

[gggg sssss]

novell clueless

Novell should have disappeared from the face of the earth long ago. There was a point to them with Netware 3.1 before MS got into networking. When God (or was it IBM) invented samba, there was absolutley no reason for Novell's continued existence. Please make them go away. Can't imagine who is still spending almost a billion dollars a year for their crap.

[alegr]

SMB

Are you saying you're grateful to MS for inventing SMB protocol, which was much better than piece of crap NFS, that *nix had?

[alegr]

Politburo in action

Where the GPL says that you can sell Linux as long as you obey what the Secretary General of Politburo of the Communist Party.. oops FSF with the Great Leader Stallman says and is happy with you?

[NewsReader_]

Who's the bully now?

This just goes to show how anyone can abuse power.

Microsoft does stuff like this and gets sued. FSF does it and gets praise.

What a crock.

[jp10293847]

Yeah, nice try

We all know this is an anticompetitive move by Microsoft. Microsoft is afraid (and rightly so) that if viable alternatives exist, nobody will buy their product.

[myanderson]

Propigation

I believe that the reactions to the Novell deal are premature and deliberately used to continue further discomfort with a deal that could potentially heal the difficulty with interoperability with Microsoft software. Novell is attempting to bridge the wide gap that has long been the deciding factor in many homes and corporations when it comes to Windows versus Linux. As for certain speculation that Novell "SELLS" linux, it is not true. If readers were to actually 'read' the articles, they'd see that the software is free but customers are paying for maintenance and tech support. Two of the many goals of the Microsoft-Novell deal are to enhance visibility of Linux as well as Open Source software in general to the public as being interoperable with the consumer-majority-leader, Microsoft, as well as a crucial and safer building blog for the corporate enterprise and infrastructure stability. By coupling Novell, or any other open source vendor, with Microsoft, it allows for a greater acceptance of Open Source as being a viable alternative to the ever-popular Windows OS. Both Microsoft and the Open Source community agree that Open Source is the future and this deal will allow the bridge to be forged and crossed without much difficulty. The irony is that the media is making it out to be as if Novell has ignored general practice and is only looking to gain profit. Look further at the goals before tossing a stone and perhaps you'll see a more appropriate reaction within yourself.

[myanderson]

A further note...

...if Open Source is free and non-proprietary, how in the heck can the FSF decide to ban anything? They don't own it, they can't own it. And besides, Novell would have to first sell it before they can be banned from selling it. I happen to know for a fact you can get SLES/SLED 10 for free. Payment is only accepted for annual maintenace, upgrade protection, technical support, media (physical CDs and packaging if not electronically downloaded, and the daggum'd hat if you want one! Do your homework before you buy into such propigation.

[myanderson]

Let's talk patents...

...the only patent related details of the Novell-Microsoft deal were to force Microsoft not to pursue legal action against anyone with ANY Linux distribution because of the implications that Linix Disti's utilize aspects of proprietary Microsoft code. This is a loophole that MS hasn't yet looked into, but if done the right way, could mean legal action against the end-users (corporations and home users). The deal basically said that Microsoft would not attempt legal prosecution against SUSE customers. Other than saying "Don't screw our customers over" there is not a single patent related issue in the Novell-Microsoft deal.

[Captain-Atari]

Maybe Techs/Eng like you should disappear

It's people like yourself who are ignorant to what a decent networking ecosystem is supposed to be. Microsoft networking technology has always been inferior to NetWare. Active Directory is fancy junk superior only to it's raggedy predecessor. The original NT server environment was really only appropriate for small business (under 20 nodes). Short sighted technically challenged IT managers fell for the marketing hype and low ball prices and implemented this crap in their enterprises often ignoring their network engineering staff only to raise the cost of doing business and opening themselves up to the bottomless pit of security and reliability demons.

I've used both Netware and Microsoft products side by side for 20 years and I have yet see Microsoft out do Novell technically in any aspect of Networking technology other than sales. Sales don't impress me. Crack and crystal meth are both selling well across the USA but I'm not buying that crap either.

[527nrhpd]

Ok, maybe you're right, BUT...

...as an end user, I've used Lotus Notes, Novell Groupwise, and Microsoft Exchange versions of corporate email. Neither of the other two can hold a tiny candle to Exchange...not even in the same universe as far as I am concerned. I've never had so many lockups on my computer (interestingly enough, much more powerful ones than MS Exchange clients) with Novell and Lotus Notes. Personally, even if you gave me both of them for free, I'd pay for and use Exchange through Outlook 100000000000000000 times before I glanced at the free stuff. I realize this is a bit different than the behind the scenes server environment, but the email client is the 2nd most important part of a corporate server setup, in my opinion, after the CRM package, so I guess setting up a Novell server and running MS Exchange would be more hassle than just setting up Windows Server 2003 (super easy on any PC made after 2000), and rolling...maybe there's more work keeping it patched, etc. due to Window's issues...really though, the freaking thing almost does that itself these days, so what's the big deal?

[gggg sssss]

NLM

No NLMs for a start. What a stupid implementation of a stupid concept. MS got it right. Even IBM in teh early 80's had better support fo rdoing things with their servers. DEC had more of a clue. Novell got its start by being cheaper and simpler than SNA and that POS DECNET