Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Microsoft to face challenge over Linux licenses
Reuters ^ | Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:33 AM GMT140 | David Lawsky and Sabina Zawadzki

Posted on 11/20/2006 10:28:45 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach

RUSSELS (Reuters) - Supporters of PC operating system Linux are preparing to counter a recent deal penned by Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) which establishes for the first time the principle of paying the software giant for the operating system, whose license requires it to be free.

Microsoft signed a deal with Novell, one of the providers of Linux, in which Novell paid it a lump sum in return for a guarantee that Microsoft would not sue Novell's clients for what it calls a violation of its own patents in the Linux program.

The prospect of a drawn-out legal battle with Microsoft, an experienced litigator, could push users of Linux into the hands of Novell (NOVL.O: Quote, Profile, Research) and away from dominant Linux provider, Red Hat (RHAT.O: Quote, Profile, Research), which does not have such a deal with Microsoft.

Although Linux is free, providers of the system offer the software with packaging, documentation and -- most important -- installation and maintenance, so any client shift from Red Hat would cost it money.

"Either customers desert Red Hat to go to Novell, to get safety, or Red Hat will be forced into a similar deal with Microsoft," said Eban Moglen, a professor at Columbia Law School and founding director of the Software Freedom Law Center in New York.

Moglen, one of the pioneers of free software, said Microsoft's deal skirts the requirements of the GNU General Public License, used by Linux and other free programs, which requires the software to be given away.

He and others have started work on updating the license to close the loophole by saying a promise not to sue, such as the one given by Microsoft, would be automatically applicable to everyone.

That would effectively flip Microsoft's agreement on its head and guarantee that no one would face a suit from Microsoft if anyone were protected.

"A clause like that would not be difficult to get community agreement on these days," Moglen said, adding that a change could be ready in weeks or months.

LIABILITY?

Under the Novell deal, in which both companies agreed not sue each other's clients for patent violation, Microsoft agreed to pay Novell $348 million, while Novell pays Microsoft $40 million, on the basis that Novell has fewer customers.

Microsoft says it has patent rights to some of the technology in Linux, although it has never said exactly what those rights might be or what patents are involved.

Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer said if customers bought Linux from anyone but Novell, they could face trouble.

"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 told eWeek.com recently, referring to the Linux system sold by Novell.

"I suspect that (customers) will take that issue up with their distributor," Ballmer said, adding that if customers considered doing a direct download of a non-SUSE Linux version, "they'll think twice about that."

Microsoft makes the Windows operating system, for which it charges billions of dollars a year, but Linux has been a thorn in the software giant's side because it is freely available.

Linux was created, maintained and improved by volunteers working under a license requiring that it be freely available for copying, modification and improvements.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: linux; microsoft; novell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 11/20/2006 10:28:47 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
FRom Groklaw:

Novell Speaks - Updated

***********************8AN EXCERPT ******************************

Monday, November 20 2006 @ 08:34 PM EST

Novell has posted a letter to the community. Here's, to me, the heart of it:
Our interest in signing this agreement was to secure interoperability and joint sales agreements, but Microsoft asked that we cooperate on patents as well, and so a patent cooperation agreement was included as a part of the deal. In this agreement, Novell and Microsoft each promise not to sue the other's customers for patent infringement. The intended effect of this agreement was to give our joint customers peace of mind that they have the full support of the other company for their IT activities. Novell has a significant patent portfolio, and in reflection of this fact, the agreement we signed shows the overwhelming balance of payments being from Microsoft to Novell.

Since our announcement, some parties have spoken about this patent agreement in a damaging way, and with a perspective that we do not share. We strongly challenge those statements here.

We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents. Importantly, our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents.

Our stance on software patents is unchanged by the agreement with Microsoft....In closing, we wish to be extremely clear that Novell is committed to protecting, preserving and promoting freedom for free and open source software. We recognize that the community of open source developers is essential to all our activities in Linux, and we welcome dialog with the community as to how we can continue to work together toward these common goals.

Ron Hovsepian
Chief Executive Officer
Novell, Inc.

In that case, with all due respect, you should not have signed an agreement called a patent cooperation agreement that gives Microsoft the opportunity to say the things Mr. Ballmer has been saying. I believe that is obvious now. He didn't even wait until the ink was dry. And you should have considered the GPL, its importance to the community, and considered what paying royalties means in that context. And we hope you will fix this.

Update: Microsoft has now responded. You can read it in full on David Berlind's blog. It's a very odd response:


2 posted on 11/20/2006 10:31:09 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3

fyi


3 posted on 11/20/2006 10:32:13 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Trying very hard to understand all of this.

Bottom line, the way I'm reading all of this, is that Microsoft is laying claim to patents for code that is within Linux, without ever being specific about what exact code that might be...and is trying by any means to muscle in on controlling Linux over the long haul. Am I close?


4 posted on 11/20/2006 10:38:06 PM PST by EternalVigilance (The RINO presidential field says it has "solutions"..."solutions" are solids watered down to nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

If so, sounds like a replay of the SCO effort....I'm confused also....


5 posted on 11/20/2006 10:44:15 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
This thread might be somewhat related:

Toppling Linux

It's about the GPL and GPL2 ...

6 posted on 11/20/2006 10:49:48 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Balmer is an fn punk... if he's so sure of this then he should post the code for everyone to see. bastard


7 posted on 11/20/2006 11:01:14 PM PST by Cinnamon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I just gotta say it again.. sorry

Balmer you bastard!


8 posted on 11/20/2006 11:03:24 PM PST by Cinnamon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon
A very threatening bastard!
9 posted on 11/20/2006 11:09:12 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Ballmer deserves Ken Lay's fate.


10 posted on 11/21/2006 2:56:32 AM PST by bigdcaldavis (Xandros : In a world without fences, who needs Gates?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Novell is now caught between a rock and a hard place, on one hand they're so broke they had to go into an agreement with Microsoft simply for the dollars, on the other hand their primary customer base is so anti-Microsoft they could be destroyed anyway. Bottom line, another American Unix company pays the piper for involving themselves with Linux and open source. Sun, Silicon Graphics, SCO, Cray, Novell, the list continues to grow of companies who are now shadows of their former selves. Even IBM is about to be passed by HP as the world's largest computer company. Microsoft? Still leading in profits, at record levels most every quarter.


11 posted on 11/21/2006 6:02:36 AM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; chance33_98; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Bush2000; PenguinWry; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; ...

12 posted on 11/21/2006 1:16:01 PM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

How is this different than what SCO was trying to force upon IBM, other than the fact that SCO is now Microsoft and IBM is now all Linux distros, except for Novell?


13 posted on 11/21/2006 2:19:20 PM PST by marvlus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
another American Unix company pays the piper for involving themselves with Linux and open source. Sun, Silicon Graphics, SCO, Cray, Novell

How many times do I have to set you straight? Sun, SGI and Cray lost it because they couldn't keep pace with the hardware from Intel and AMD, not because of OS competition. It used to be that about the fastest thing you could have on your desktop was a Sun SPARC or an SGI MIPS, but not anymore -- it's an Intel or AMD.

Novell was screwed before it started playing with Linux. First by Microsoft, then successively by itself.

And you have it backwards with SCO, because it wasn't a UNIX company that got involved with Linux, it was a Linux company that got involved with UNIX.

And Windows itself ships with open source software, so you lost your argument there.

14 posted on 11/21/2006 2:34:31 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marvlus
How is this different than what SCO was trying to force upon IBM

For one, SCO v. IBM isn't about any SCO patents. The big difference is that Microsoft actually makes software that people want to buy, while the SCO case is a sad attempt by a failing company to use jackpot justice to rescue itself from its own mismanagement. Even among people who want to use traditional UNIX, the reputation of SCO's product compared to Solaris or others is not very good.

15 posted on 11/21/2006 2:38:42 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; marvlus

Thanks,...good explanation.


16 posted on 11/21/2006 6:24:25 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Novell claimed they'd indemnify licensees against suits related to the Enterprise product of the SuSE linux dist. a number of years ago.

Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer said if customers bought Linux from anyone but Novell, they could face trouble.

You don't need to purchase linux. The question is who can be sued for providing or receiving support.
17 posted on 11/21/2006 6:36:33 PM PST by Gene Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
and another thing:

"I suspect that (customers) will take that issue up with their distributor," Ballmer said, adding that if customers considered doing a direct download of a non-SUSE Linux version, "they'll think twice about that."

I think people may think twice about a statement that sounds like a threat.
18 posted on 11/21/2006 6:44:27 PM PST by Gene Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
How many times do I have to set you straight? Sun, SGI and Cray lost it because they couldn't keep pace with the hardware from Intel and AMD

LMAO you're actually agreeing with me since Linux ran on Intel and AMD, but most Unix did not.

And Windows itself ships with open source software, so you lost your argument there.

Hilarious!

19 posted on 11/22/2006 5:01:03 AM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
LMAO you're actually agreeing with me since Linux ran on Intel and AMD, but most Unix did not.

I'm not agreeing since it's about the hardware, and not the software. No comment on SCO being a Linux company?

Hilarious!

Do you dispute my statement that open source software ships with Windows?

BTW, where's that apology?

20 posted on 11/22/2006 7:37:07 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson