[opensuse] Last Week we had a discussion on IRC and another one is planned.
Novell is making an effort to get us to understand the agreement. Take a
look at the IRC log from last week.
Take a look here
http://en.opensuse.org/Meetings/Status_Meeting_2006-11-08/transcript
There will be an other session probably next week.
--
Boyd Gerber
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 14:02, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
Novell is making an effort to get us to understand the agreement. Take a look at the IRC log from last week.
Take a look here
http://en.opensuse.org/Meetings/Status_Meeting_2006-11-08/transcript
There will be an other session probably next week.
Thanks for that link. I would think if there were real concern on Novells part they would just publish the agreement in full, and produce detailed FAQs about it and all the hidden clauses, rather than resorting to an IRC channel for pete sake! -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 14:02, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
Novell is making an effort to get us to understand the agreement. Take a look at the IRC log from last week. http://en.opensuse.org/Meetings/Status_Meeting_2006-11-08/transcript
There will be an other session probably next week.
Thanks for that link. I would think if there were real concern on Novells part they would just publish the agreement in full, and produce detailed FAQs about it and all the hidden clauses, rather than resorting to an IRC channel for pete sake!
They are but I think they are going the extra mile to assist us with our
concerns. At a conference last week the gave us a URL. See this message.
http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2006-11/msg00270.html
Which also gives reference to the general site and FAQ/Annoucements.
I really think Novell has tried to keep us informed and up to date. I
understand the....
Hope for the Best, expect the Worst, and take what ever comes.
Sorry for the /rant
Maybe we need to keep informed. But we all really need to wait and see
what happens. Only time will really tell if this is good/bad. We do have
to remember that everyone needs to make a livinng. Not everything is
being done for free. This world is not a Utopia. Money does have a place
in what happens. Even Linus is paid by a company. So that does have an
influence. For better or worse, someone has to pay for the CD/DVD's and
the distro. This world does not do everything for free for everyone. So
let's grow up a bit and see what happens. The truth is the only way to
make use truely free.
I am a bit a shamed at the way the OSS community is/has been acting. I am
a member of this community. With all the FUD MS does. There really is a
lot from the OSS world as well. Look at the /. crowd. There are many
followers that really do not think for themselves. They do not look for
the truth of what is going on. They blindly follow.
The sad point is what has happend to thought, understanding and truth.
Are we all just lemings rushing to the cliff? This is the real world.
Nothing is truely free. Someone has to pay for the Net, the server, the
equipment, Hardware, electricity, food, ... Do you grow/hunt/provide
everything for your self? Maybe you make/made everything, design of your
system, your mother board your case,,.. even the batteries for your solar
power system that provides the power you use. So you did not pay anything
to any one. I really doubt it. We all rely on someone or something and
we pay for it. So we have to let Novell make money to pay the OSS workers
they have. If not I really doubt that all this would be done for free and
gratis. OSS is a great way of doing things, but someone some where pays
for our privliges. It not where would we be.
rant/
I have just had enough of all the complaining. Let's be a little more
realistic and live in this world of the evil money that has to be paid.
--
Boyd Gerber
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 15:25, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
I am a bit a shamed at the way the OSS community is/has been acting.
I'm not sure its your place to be ashamed of the community. The community is looking out for itself and the GPL
The sad point is what has happend to thought, understanding and truth. Are we all just lemings rushing to the cliff? This is the real world. Nothing is truely free. Someone has to pay for the Net, the server, the equipment, Hardware, electricity, food, ... Do you grow/hunt/provide everything for your self? Maybe you make/made everything, design of your system, your mother board your case,,.. even the batteries for your solar power system that provides the power you use. So you did not pay anything to any one. I really doubt it. We all rely on someone or something and we pay for it. So we have to let Novell make money to pay the OSS workers they have. If not I really doubt that all this would be done for free and gratis. OSS is a great way of doing things, but someone some where pays for our privliges. It not where would we be.
An excellent flow of consciousness rant. But not particularly on point. Nobody objects to Novell getting money from Microsoft, and nobody cares about Novell giving money to Microsoft except for the rabid few who would Nuke Redmond if they thought they could get away with it. What people DO care about is the GPL and a few notable folks in the FOSS community think this agreement is not in compliance with or designed to undermine the GPL and FOSS in general. Novells promise of money to Microsoft based on the SALES OF FOSS software, while at the same time declaring that there is no infringements in Suse is confusing at best, disingenuous, and possibly in direct violation of the GPL. Failure to come forth Publicly with the details at least to the extent they concern community property is unsettling. This problem is one of Novell's own making. Not something unfairly dumped upon them (like Oracle's usurpation of Red Hat). That's what the debate is about. Not making money. Until these issues are settled openly and publicly you can expect a certain amount of discontent. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 03:44:27PM -0900, John Andersen wrote:
Novells promise of money to Microsoft based on the SALES OF FOSS software, while at the same time declaring that there is no infringements in Suse is confusing at best, disingenuous, and possibly in direct violation of the GPL.
What sales of GPL software? What they sell/give away/deal with is the SLES and SLED upgrades. If I want to download SLES, I just do so. If I want to have updates, I must go to Novell and get a licence *for those updates*. Now imagine that I want for whatever reasons 70.000 licences, I am sure that Novell will make a specific deal with me as well.
Failure to come forth Publicly with the details at least to the extent they concern community property is unsettling. This problem is one of Novell's own making. Not something unfairly dumped upon them (like Oracle's usurpation of Red Hat).
No, it is FUD spread by OSS people or rather anti-M$ people. Questions like 'should we ban Novell for 5 years' are spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Not Microsoft who says that Linux is the competition.
That's what the debate is about. Not making money. Until these issues are settled openly and publicly you can expect a certain amount of discontent.
They ARE setteling this openly. Much more openly then any deal I have ever seen made. They have an FAQ. They answer questions. And still people are not content, because in the end, no matter what Novell will do, they areupset because they had a deal with 'the other side'. So now they are in the process of getting together a special IRC session to answer questions. When was the last time you saw that happening after a deal? All the FUD I have seen has come from OSS-people. All this stupid stuff is not winable for Novell, because people have made up their mind. No matter what Novell will say or do, it won't be good enough. So what PRECICELY would you want Novell to do now. Be as specific as posible. Do you want them to print out the contract and give it to you? Do you want them to nullify the contract? What details do you want to see specificaly? Do you think these demands are reasonable to what you normaly would ask after a deal, or are they just fueled by all the FUD that is going on? houghi -- To have a nice mailinglist experience, follow the guidelines below:
Please do not toppost. Please turn off HTML Read http://en.opensuse.org/Opensuse_mailing_list_netiquette Read http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
It looks like in all these discussions the point is missed. I'll try to put the questions which concern me the most: 1. I see what Novell gets from this deal. I still do not see the MS benefit? Since when are they charity? Or since when they are software retailer, not software manufacturer? Does someone knows another competitors product, which MS sell as part of their offerings? 2. Do Novell realize that with this agreement it helps MS to spread its FUD (for the patent infringements in the linux code)? 3. Do Novell realize, that accepting this FUD, it destroys its own foundation? Will there be SUSE at all, if the competition in the field was not as open as possible? Is SUSE possible if there were no so many components, developed by other vendors? Now, with that agreement, the message to business users is: if you do not use SUSE, you may be sued by MS. Every big business manager will play safe - thus killing the competition - and the innovation. One may argue and support Novell's move as much as she wants, but without Novell revealing the _real_ parameters of the deal - the MS benefit, etc., concerns will exists. They may state as much as they want that there are no patent problems in SUSE, but then why in first place they signed such a clauses? And ... "to protect our customers from being sued for something which does not exists" sounds plain ... unconvincing. -- Svetoslav Milenov (Sunny) Even the most advanced equipment in the hands of the ignorant is just a pile of scrap. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 02:58, Sunny wrote:
want that there are no patent problems in SUSE, but then why in first place they signed such a clauses? And ... "to protect our customers from being sued for something which does not exists" sounds plain ... unconvincing.
Why does Red Hat do it then? Have you read their indemnification plan lately? They promise their customers that if they are sued for code shipped from Red Hat, they will assist in the law suit (I believe the wording they use is 'step into their shoes'). I don't really see a significant difference here, they also give their customers a guarantee that they won't have to fork out legal fees If you have potential (large) customers or partners who tell you they worry about these things, what should you do? Just say 'hey, we're sure there's no problem, no part of this code is infringing'? Do you think many people will bet their lawyer's fees on that, when they hear FUD from all over that there are problems? Blame the people who spread the FUD in the first place instead --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 11/14/06, Anders Johansson
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 02:58, Sunny wrote:
want that there are no patent problems in SUSE, but then why in first place they signed such a clauses? And ... "to protect our customers from being sued for something which does not exists" sounds plain ... unconvincing.
Why does Red Hat do it then? Have you read their indemnification plan lately? They promise their customers that if they are sued for code shipped from Red Hat, they will assist in the law suit (I believe the wording they use is 'step into their shoes'). I don't really see a significant difference here, they also give their customers a guarantee that they won't have to fork out legal fees
If you have potential (large) customers or partners who tell you they worry about these things, what should you do? Just say 'hey, we're sure there's no problem, no part of this code is infringing'? Do you think many people will bet their lawyer's fees on that, when they hear FUD from all over that there are problems?
Blame the people who spread the FUD in the first place instead
Yes, and there is the difference - RedHat does this by themselves - we sell you software - we'll help you if there is a problem - plain and fair. Novell - on the other hand - says: We sign an agreement with the people who started this FUD, so they will not go after you. If they [Novell] were so sure they do not have patent problems, why just not promise the same as RH to their customers? And still besides this question, actually what for Novell are paid for by MS??? What does MS receive, except the weakening of the community. Divide and conqueror! -- Svetoslav Milenov (Sunny) Even the most advanced equipment in the hands of the ignorant is just a pile of scrap. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 17:12, Anders Johansson wrote:
If you have potential (large) customers or partners who tell you they worry about these things, what should you do? Just say 'hey, we're sure there's no problem, no part of this code is infringing'?
How does extending protection the Novells own employees and home programmers (as long as they do not contribute the Open Source) do anything for large customers? -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:58:32PM -0600, Sunny wrote:
It looks like in all these discussions the point is missed. I'll try to put the questions which concern me the most:
1. I see what Novell gets from this deal. I still do not see the MS benefit? Since when are they charity?
They are not. I asume that they think they can make money of of this or at least not looose money. Remember that this deal is about servers and SLES. On all other levels the game is still on.
Or since when they are software retailer, not software manufacturer?
Since they think they can make money out of it. Or at least think not to loose money.
Does someone knows another competitors product, which MS sell as part of their offerings?
No. Sometimes there has to be a first. Also they do not sell it. They give it away. Ain't that fun. M$ is buying your licence for a year. Perhaps they rather have 50% of the market instead of 0%
2. Do Novell realize that with this agreement it helps MS to spread its FUD (for the patent infringements in the linux code)?
What FUD is Microsoft spreading. Again, the only real FUD I see comes from OSS people. They spread the Fear about any deal with Microsoft. The Uncertainty of what this might do to OSS and the Doubt of the real goals.
3. Do Novell realize, that accepting this FUD, it destroys its own foundation? Will there be SUSE at all, if the competition in the field was not as open as possible? Is SUSE possible if there were no so many components, developed by other vendors?
There is no FUD to be accepted from Microsoft, because they are not spreading it. It is the OSS people that are spreading the FUD.
Now, with that agreement, the message to business users is: if you do not use SUSE, you may be sued by MS. Every big business manager will play safe - thus killing the competition - and the innovation.
No, the message is if you are SUSE we won't sue you. You are thinging OR/OR and that is not the case. I have an agreement with my neighbour that I do not steal his car. Now what you seem to asume that I suddenly start steal everybody elses car.
One may argue and support Novell's move as much as she wants, but without Novell revealing the _real_ parameters of the deal - the MS benefit, etc., concerns will exists.
Why must Novell reavel the benefits of Microsoft? Would that not be up to Microsoft to tell what their benefits are? Say you and I have a deal about making a software program together. How would you know what the benefits are for me?
They may state as much as they want that there are no patent problems in SUSE, but then why in first place they signed such a clauses?
To be absolutely and utterly sure. Same as the agreement I have with my neighbour not to steal his car.
And ... "to protect our customers from being sued for something which does not exists" sounds plain ... unconvincing.
Why? I have seen these kind of things in EULA and contracts lots of times. But whith writing that and dismissing it upfront means that you actualy are not interested in any real answers. houghi -- To have a nice mailinglist experience, follow the guidelines below:
Please do not toppost. Please turn off HTML Read http://en.opensuse.org/Opensuse_mailing_list_netiquette Read http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 11/14/06, houghi wrote:
1. I see what Novell gets from this deal. I still do not see the MS benefit? Since when are they charity?
They are not. I asume that they think they can make money of of this or at least not looose money. Remember that this deal is about servers and SLES. On all other levels the game is still on.
Or since when they are software retailer, not software manufacturer?
Since they think they can make money out of it. Or at least think not to loose money.
I'm just being careful when the wolf says that from now on he is changing his behavior. There should be some rationality behind such a move, and "not loosing money" is a weak point to defend before your shareholders and directors. They are in the business to make money, not to "not loose money".
Does someone knows another competitors product, which MS sell as part of their offerings?
No. Sometimes there has to be a first. Also they do not sell it. They give it away. Ain't that fun. M$ is buying your licence for a year. Perhaps they rather have 50% of the market instead of 0%
I kind of do not believe in the altruistic motives in the corporate world. They already has a "good" share on the server market. They need more of their systems, not others. They own the desktop.
2. Do Novell realize that with this agreement it helps MS to spread its FUD (for the patent infringements in the linux code)?
What FUD is Microsoft spreading. Again, the only real FUD I see comes from OSS people. They spread the Fear about any deal with Microsoft. The Uncertainty of what this might do to OSS and the Doubt of the real goals.
You seem to forgot: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39174372,00.htm
3. Do Novell realize, that accepting this FUD, it destroys its own foundation? Will there be SUSE at all, if the competition in the field was not as open as possible? Is SUSE possible if there were no so many components, developed by other vendors?
There is no FUD to be accepted from Microsoft, because they are not spreading it. It is the OSS people that are spreading the FUD.
Did they? Look above.
Now, with that agreement, the message to business users is: if you do not use SUSE, you may be sued by MS. Every big business manager will play safe - thus killing the competition - and the innovation.
No, the message is if you are SUSE we won't sue you. You are thinging OR/OR and that is not the case. I have an agreement with my neighbour that I do not steal his car. Now what you seem to asume that I suddenly start steal everybody elses car.
My point is - if I'm not going to steal the car, there is no need to make such an agreement. If I'm afraid of the other party's actions - i.e. they will steal mine, ok, there are lows and low enforcements. Translation: if I do not violate your patents, there is no need to get in such an agreement, because if you violate mine, I'll sue you.
One may argue and support Novell's move as much as she wants, but without Novell revealing the _real_ parameters of the deal - the MS benefit, etc., concerns will exists.
Why must Novell reavel the benefits of Microsoft? Would that not be up to Microsoft to tell what their benefits are? Say you and I have a deal about making a software program together. How would you know what the benefits are for me?
Because when you enter such a controversial agreement, you need to be clear about all parameters. Right now, what we know is - MS are paying big bucks to Novell for nothing. Novell in turns says that MS is not going to sue Novell's customers. Charity? MS? heh, I wish ...
They may state as much as they want that there are no patent problems in SUSE, but then why in first place they signed such a clauses?
To be absolutely and utterly sure. Same as the agreement I have with my neighbour not to steal his car.
And ... "to protect our customers from being sued for something which does not exists" sounds plain ... unconvincing.
Why? I have seen these kind of things in EULA and contracts lots of times. But whith writing that and dismissing it upfront means that you actualy are not interested in any real answers.
Actually your example is not correct, because the agreement is that MS will not sue Novell customers as well. So - it looks like more as "protection business" as in the old Chicago times. Translation: We will not steal cars from your parking lot, so your customers are safe. But we do not promise this to your competitors. And this is while there is a good and working law against stealing.
houghi
Cheers -- Svetoslav Milenov (Sunny) Even the most advanced equipment in the hands of the ignorant is just a pile of scrap. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Actually your example is not correct, because the agreement is that MS will not sue Novell customers as well. So - it looks like more as "protection business" as in the old Chicago times. Translation: We will not steal cars from your parking lot, so your customers are safe. But we do not promise this to your competitors. And this is while there is a good and working law against stealing.
I agree with that. Patent protection with Novell will hurt all FOSS/FLOSS community and developers. I do not want that... Goksin Akdeniz -- www.enixma.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Goksin Akdeniz wrote:
Actually your example is not correct, because the agreement is that MS will not sue Novell customers as well. So - it looks like more as "protection business" as in the old Chicago times. Translation: We will not steal cars from your parking lot, so your customers are safe. But we do not promise this to your competitors. And this is while there is a good and working law against stealing.
Hello ? Wake up ? This is already the case since quite some time. Since software patents are legal in some countries (especially the US, obviously). The software patent portfolios are racketing already. What did you think it was for ?
I agree with that. Patent protection with Novell will hurt all FOSS/FLOSS community and developers.
Oh my. *plonk*
I do not want that...
Neither do we, neither does Novell.
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
Neither do we, neither does Novell.
I suppose it is the case. On the contrary such agreements only hurts FLOSS/FOSS. The community has a tradion backing to UNIX days which in short can be expressed with the term "rebellion". Such characteristic of a tradition leads to bashing of companies or anything like M$-Novell agreement. M$ can not sue Novell for any patent infringement as long as the code is developed free of M$. In fact in a software company only some can view the all sourcecode not all employees. So a deal such as Novell-M$ does not make sense. In the case of SCO, m$ supported SCO and lawsuit between IBM and SCO is not settled yet. Even for the Wordperfect for between Novell and M$. Novell and M$ declares not to sue each other but rest is still is not clear. I am not happy with that agreement. I will wait and see. Goksin Akdeniz -- www.enixma.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Goksin Akdeniz wrote:
Neither do we, neither does Novell.
I suppose it is the case. On the contrary such agreements only hurts
You "suppose" ? I mean, please turn your brains on for a few seconds. Novell's business is - - Linux - - identity products Why on earth would Novell want to hurt FOSS development ?
FLOSS/FOSS. The community has a tradion backing to UNIX days which in short can be expressed with the term "rebellion". Such characteristic of a tradition leads to bashing of companies or anything like M$-Novell agreement.
Heh. So, how much of a rebellion is - - Sun's Solaris (Sun has a somewhat similar agreement with MS since April) - - IBM's AIX (wow, rebellion) - - HP's HPUX (HP is one of the biggest MS sellers and partners in town) ?
M$ can not sue Novell for any patent infringement as long as the code is developed free of M$. In fact in a software company only some can view the all sourcecode not all employees.
No, as long as the code is free from patent infringements. Please just read - - the FAQs: * http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq.html * http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensource.html - - what AJ has to say about it: http://andreasjaeger.blogspot.com/2006/11/opensuse-and-microsoft.html (especially about SUSE's QA process against patent infringements)
So a deal such as Novell-M$ does not make sense. In the case of SCO, m$ supported SCO and lawsuit between IBM and SCO is not settled yet. Even for the Wordperfect for between Novell and M$.
Get real. Anything that makes money and more sales makes sense for Novell, as for any business. If Novell goes bankrupt, how much good is it for (open)SUSE ? And how much good is it for FOSS ? Remember Novell is a big sponsor of many FOSS projects.
Novell and M$ declares not to sue each other but rest is still is not clear.
No, that is wrong.
MS guarantees not to sue Novell *customers*
MS can still sue Novell and Novell can still sue MS.
Geez, just *read* the stuff.
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
I mean, please turn your brains on for a few seconds.
I failed to express my ideas on agreement briefly sure not but not brain does not need a kickstart. Thanks for your suggestion. I do admire your contributions for OpenSUSE but not your attitude and language.
Heh. So, how much of a rebellion is - Sun's Solaris (Sun has a somewhat similar agreement with MS since April) - IBM's AIX (wow, rebellion) - HP's HPUX (HP is one of the biggest MS sellers and partners in town)
The rebellion is the character of old UNIX development and hacker culture. Not a part of corporate culture. So the ones you mention above are not original UNIX developers.
Geez, just *read* the stuff.
I do read stuff, with exceptions: Blogs. So, here is my point: Read Eric Steven Raymond's books. Goksin Akdeniz -- www.enixma.org
On 11/14/2006 06:55 PM, houghi wrote:
No, the message is if you are SUSE we won't sue you. You are thinging OR/OR and that is not the case. I have an agreement with my neighbour that I do not steal his car. Now what you seem to asume that I suddenly start steal everybody elses car.
Very apt analogy. If my neighbor approached me with a proposal for a pact regarding car-stealing, I would respectfully decline and treat that neighbor with extreme circumspection thereafter. If I found out that two of my neighbors had such an agreement I would treat them cordially, but would watch my belongings carefully when we all got together for a block party. Saill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Saill White wrote:
On 11/14/2006 06:55 PM, houghi wrote:
No, the message is if you are SUSE we won't sue you. You are thinging OR/OR and that is not the case. I have an agreement with my neighbour that I do not steal his car. Now what you seem to asume that I suddenly start steal everybody elses car.
Very apt analogy.
If my neighbor approached me with a proposal for a pact regarding car-stealing, I would respectfully decline and treat that neighbor with extreme circumspection thereafter.
If I found out that two of my neighbors had such an agreement I would treat them cordially, but would watch my belongings carefully when we all got together for a block party.
http://www.comics.com/creators/wizardofid/archive/images/wizardofid200611111... ;-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
James Knott wrote:
Saill White wrote:
On 11/14/2006 06:55 PM, houghi wrote:
No, the message is if you are SUSE we won't sue you. You are thinging OR/OR and that is not the case. I have an agreement with my neighbour that I do not steal his car. Now what you seem to asume that I suddenly start steal everybody elses car.
Very apt analogy.
If my neighbor approached me with a proposal for a pact regarding car-stealing, I would respectfully decline and treat that neighbor with extreme circumspection thereafter.
If I found out that two of my neighbors had such an agreement I would treat them cordially, but would watch my belongings carefully when we all got together for a block party.
http://www.comics.com/creators/wizardofid/archive/images/wizardofid200611111... ;-)
:-) :-) Most apt. -- If you really want to know, you won't ask me. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Nov 15, 06 03:55:25 +0100, houghi wrote:
One may argue and support Novell's move as much as she wants, but without Novell revealing the _real_ parameters of the deal - the MS benefit, etc., concerns will exists.
Why must Novell reavel the benefits of Microsoft? Would that not be up to Microsoft to tell what their benefits are? Say you and I have a deal about making a software program together. How would you know what the benefits are for me?
N and M agreed that the exact terms of the deal are confidential. So none of the two can publish any details without approval from the other. Nobody saw the actual contract, at least not the managers I could ask. sigh, Jw. -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de wide open suse_/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (____/ /\ (/) | __________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Juergen Weigert
On Nov 15, 06 03:55:25 +0100, houghi wrote:
One may argue and support Novell's move as much as she wants, but without Novell revealing the _real_ parameters of the deal - the MS benefit, etc., concerns will exists.
Why must Novell reavel the benefits of Microsoft? Would that not be up to Microsoft to tell what their benefits are? Say you and I have a deal about making a software program together. How would you know what the benefits are for me?
N and M agreed that the exact terms of the deal are confidential. So none of the two can publish any details without approval from the other.
And this is quite normal for such contracts... Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
On 11/15/06, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Juergen Weigert writes:
On Nov 15, 06 03:55:25 +0100, houghi wrote:
One may argue and support Novell's move as much as she wants, but without Novell revealing the _real_ parameters of the deal - the MS benefit, etc., concerns will exists.
Why must Novell reavel the benefits of Microsoft? Would that not be up to Microsoft to tell what their benefits are? Say you and I have a deal about making a software program together. How would you know what the benefits are for me?
N and M agreed that the exact terms of the deal are confidential. So none of the two can publish any details without approval from the other.
And this is quite normal for such contracts...
When someone receives money for nothing (Novell), and no one even tries to explain for what, then something is fishy. I do not want to know how much money exactly is the price, but I would like to know what about is that deal. It is not clear now. From their statements it appears that there are no patent violations, there are no any problems, but MS will pay X money to Novell, Novell will pay Y, and X
Y, i.e. Novell receives some money for nothing. Again, I do not care how much money Novell gets, but I would like to know what MS are buying. And until they actively hide it behind a bunch of buzz words, which say nothing I will continue to be suspicious.
-- Svetoslav Milenov (Sunny) Even the most advanced equipment in the hands of the ignorant is just a pile of scrap. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Wed, 15 Nov 2006, by houghi@houghi.org:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:58:32PM -0600, Sunny wrote:
2. Do Novell realize that with this agreement it helps MS to spread its FUD (for the patent infringements in the linux code)?
What FUD is Microsoft spreading. Again, the only real FUD I see comes from OSS people. They spread the Fear about any deal with Microsoft. The Uncertainty of what this might do to OSS and the Doubt of the real goals.
I think "we" have a bloody right to ask questions, be uncertain and doubt everything that's been going on. At least _I_ think I have that right, after using and supporting Linux (and distro-makers) for 10 years and counting. If you think that we *don't* have a right to ask questions and be critical about "our" OS (and the company that puts it all together) then you seem to be just what MS wants for _its_ customers.
3. Do Novell realize, that accepting this FUD, it destroys its own foundation? Will there be SUSE at all, if the competition in the field was not as open as possible? Is SUSE possible if there were no so many components, developed by other vendors?
There is no FUD to be accepted from Microsoft, because they are not spreading it. It is the OSS people that are spreading the FUD.
Nonsense, MS is still spreading lots of FUD, if not about Linux then about other products (even their own if it suits them).
Now, with that agreement, the message to business users is: if you do not use SUSE, you may be sued by MS. Every big business manager will play safe - thus killing the competition - and the innovation.
No, the message is if you are SUSE we won't sue you. You are thinging OR/OR and that is not the case. I have an agreement with my neighbour that I do not steal his car. Now what you seem to asume that I suddenly start steal everybody elses car.
And what if that neighbour promises you to provide camouflage smoke so you can do whatever you want, as long as you don't touch his car? Would that come any closer to what's going on?
One may argue and support Novell's move as much as she wants, but without Novell revealing the _real_ parameters of the deal - the MS benefit, etc., concerns will exists.
Why must Novell reavel the benefits of Microsoft? Would that not be up to Microsoft to tell what their benefits are? Say you and I have a deal about making a software program together. How would you know what the benefits are for me?
Novell is claiming to be open and honest about this, whitholding facts doesn't fit in that claim.
houghi
Did I say welcome back already? :-) Theo -- Theo v. Werkhoven Registered Linux user# 99872 http://counter.li.org ICBM 52 13 26N , 4 29 47E. + ICQ: 277217131 SUSE 9.2 + Jabber: muadib@jabber.xs4all.nl Kernel 2.6.8 + See headers for PGP/GPG info. Claimer: any email I receive will become my property. Disclaimers do not apply. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 16:05, houghi wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 03:44:27PM -0900, John Andersen wrote:
Novells promise of money to Microsoft based on the SALES OF FOSS software, while at the same time declaring that there is no infringements in Suse is confusing at best, disingenuous, and possibly in direct violation of the GPL.
What sales of GPL software? What they sell/give away/deal with is the SLES and SLED upgrades. If I want to download SLES, I just do so. If I want to have updates, I must go to Novell and get a licence *for those updates*.
Why am i having this discussion with you? You seem to have no clue what is in the agreement: From: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov06/11-02MSNovellPR.mspx Quote: Under the patent cooperation agreement, both companies will make upfront payments in exchange for a release from any potential liability for use of each other’s patented intellectual property, with a net balancing payment from Microsoft to Novell reflecting the larger applicable volume of Microsoft’s product shipments. ****Novell will also make running royalty payments based on a percentage of its revenues from open source products.**** ---- end-quote emphases added = ****
That's what the debate is about. Not making money. Until these issues are settled openly and publicly you can expect a certain amount of discontent.
They ARE setteling this openly.
Nonsense.
Much more openly then any deal I have ever seen made. They have an FAQ. They answer questions. And still people are not content, because in the end,
Because in the end they DODGE the questions.
So what PRECICELY would you want Novell to do now. Be as specific as posible. Do you want them to print out the contract and give it to you? Do you want them to nullify the contract?
Handing out assignments are we? Yours is to GO RE-READ what is printed on Novell's website and Microsoft's website.
What details do you want to see specificaly?
I want to see the justification of why Novell is paying microsoft a percentage of what it makes on supposedly Non infringing code. I want to see just which Microsoft patents Novell is using and in which OSS packages they are inserting this use to justify these payments. I want to see why Microsoft is paying Novell huge chunks of money for use of WHAT? I want clarification on just how it is that Microsoft will not Sue Suse developers for infringements (which by Novell's assertion don't exist anyway) but no other developers in the OSS get this protection. Further, I would like to see Novell repudiate this whole idea of protecting only SOME developers (of code which Novell insists does not infringe), but only if they work for Novell or stop contributing work to Open Source Software community. Extend it to everybody, or take it off the table. If there are infringements, take it to court to get cease and desist orders. No back room deals. If there is no infringements then why buy into that whole game? http://news.samba.org/announcements/team_to_novell/ -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 03:13, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 16:05, houghi wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 03:44:27PM -0900, John Andersen wrote:
Novells promise of money to Microsoft based on the SALES OF FOSS software, while at the same time declaring that there is no infringements in Suse is confusing at best, disingenuous, and possibly in direct violation of the GPL.
What sales of GPL software? What they sell/give away/deal with is the SLES and SLED upgrades. If I want to download SLES, I just do so. If I want to have updates, I must go to Novell and get a licence *for those updates*.
Why am i having this discussion with you? You seem to have no clue what is in the agreement: From: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov06/11-02MSNovellPR.mspx
Quote: Under the patent cooperation agreement, both companies will make upfront payments in exchange for a release from any potential liability for use of each other’s patented intellectual property, with a net balancing payment from Microsoft to Novell reflecting the larger applicable volume of Microsoft’s product shipments. ****Novell will also make running royalty payments based on a percentage of its revenues from open source products.**** ---- end-quote emphases added = ****
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensource.html Q5. Novell's November 2 press release states that, "Novell will also make running royalty payments based on a percentage of its revenues from open source products." Are these payments for a patent license to Novell? No. Novell has no license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft under this agreement. The payments are for Microsoft's covenant directly to Novell's customers. ***By the same token, Microsoft's customers receive the same covenant from Novell in return for payment from Microsoft to Novell.*** --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 17:21, Anders Johansson wrote:
Q5. Novell's November 2 press release states that, "Novell will also make running royalty payments based on a percentage of its revenues from open source products." Are these payments for a patent license to Novell? No. Novell has no license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft under this agreement. The payments are for Microsoft's covenant directly to Novell's customers. ***By the same token, Microsoft's customers receive the same covenant from Novell in return for payment from Microsoft to Novell.***
Don' t you find it ODD that microsoft never mentioned that last bit? Why would two companies agree to exchange huge sums of money unless ONE OR THE OTHER was actually infringing? If one wanted to hazard a guess as to which party WAS infringing it would be he who pays the most, with the counter-payments just a smoke screen. Why not start with a simple statement that there IS no infringement and forget the money till there IS infringement? -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 17:21, Anders Johansson wrote:
Q5. Novell's November 2 press release states that, "Novell will also make running royalty payments based on a percentage of its revenues from open source products." Are these payments for a patent license to Novell? No. Novell has no license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft under this agreement. The payments are for Microsoft's covenant directly to Novell's customers. ***By the same token, Microsoft's customers receive the same covenant from Novell in return for payment from Microsoft to Novell.***
Don' t you find it ODD that microsoft never mentioned that last bit?
Not really. Ballmer also said that MS is open to such deals with other Linux distributors, forgetting it's an exclusive deal with Novell. I'm not sure it's very interesting to listen to MS.
Why would two companies agree to exchange huge sums of money unless ONE OR THE OTHER was actually infringing? If one wanted to hazard a guess as to which party WAS infringing it would be he who pays the most, with the counter-payments just a smoke screen. Why not start with a simple statement that there IS no infringement and forget the money till there IS infringement?
Read here:
http://dev-loki.blogspot.com/2006/11/call-to-dump-suse-linux-wtf.html
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
What sales of GPL software? What they sell/give away/deal with is the SLES and SLED upgrades. If I want to download SLES, I just do so. If I want to have updates, I must go to Novell and get a licence *for those updates*. ... I want to see the justification of why Novell is paying microsoft a percentage of what it makes on supposedly Non infringing code.
I want to see just which Microsoft patents Novell is using and in which OSS packages they are inserting this use to justify these payments.
I want to see why Microsoft is paying Novell huge chunks of money for use of WHAT?
Who says the payment if for infringing code? Maybe the payments are to get virtual machines both ways. Maybe to get access to inside details to provide better inter-operability? Maybe it is for a start in a new direction? Only time will tell in this.
I want clarification on just how it is that Microsoft will not Sue Suse developers for infringements (which by Novell's assertion don't exist anyway) but no other developers in the OSS get this protection.
I know a lot of business have hesitated because of what Microsoft has said. Maybe this was MS's way to allow the OSS community to self destruct. I see much more FUD from inside our community than any thing MS has done since the annoucement. Maybe they realized that we are our own worst enemy. Why do they need to do any thing other than annouce an agreement. We are shooting ourselves much better than they ever could have done. Just look at all the fuss inside the community. It we are going to condem inter-opability then we need to codem Samba, Mono,.... After all they are not our protocols. But there was a need to have inter-opability. We have to co-exist. After all Linux is not the dominate OS. I see this agreement as a means for Novell to get larger companies to consider using Linux. After all if one Linux will run on windows or Linux will allow windows to run on Linux it is a really bad thing. Right? This is a big bad result according to everything being said against the agreement. I think MS saw the bigest enemy and it was ourselves. They just have to sit back and see all the in-fighting. The best thing we all can do is stop condeming each other and see what happens this would then be a better result. Sure we all have concers, but why don't we wait till they happen and then shell out the condemnation. The MS looses in there bringing down Linux or maybe they have finally realized that they have to make peace. Only time will tell in that matter.
Further, I would like to see Novell repudiate this whole idea of protecting only SOME developers (of code which Novell insists does not infringe), but only if they work for Novell or stop contributing work to Open Source Software community.
Extend it to everybody, or take it off the table.
From what I have heard MS is willing to talk with other Linux Distro's, but after all the Novell is evil, they can not then make a deal or come under the same condemation. We are our worst enimies on this. MS does not have to do anything. We will hang ourselves.
If you have a good question ask it on the provided link on the Novell
site. Maybe your question will be posted with an answer. Ranting hear is
not going to get the Suites to hear it, but asking at the right place may
just get a response. Maybe even the IRC channel may provide some more
information. But lets not let MS win by turning us against ourselves?
Let's ask our questions, be cautious, and see what happens. We can all
trust MS to be MS, but why can't we trust each other to be a bit more into
the OSS philosiphy. And see if we can not convice some of the Business
types to take up our philosiphy? I had not intended to add fuel to the
fire just to provide a notice that we are able to ask more questions to
other's higher up the corperate chain.
- --
Boyd Gerber
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 15:25, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
I am a bit a shamed at the way the OSS community is/has been acting.
I'm not sure its your place to be ashamed of the community. The community is looking out for itself and the GPL
Do you really think the old SUSE troops would allow it? I would be willing to bet that should Novell be dumb enough to make such a mistake, (which I really doubt) a law suit would be filed with-in 24 hours. Something like that could not go un-noticed. With all the griping,... I would give dieing in a plane crash better odds of happening. Novel has dine some really dumb things but the chance of a GPL violation I think is not even possible.
Nobody objects to Novell getting money from Microsoft, and nobody cares about Novell giving money to Microsoft except for the rabid few who would Nuke Redmond if they thought they could get away with it.
Do you really think that? It is the money possibly going to MS that is fueling all this. The rabid MS is evil and anything from MS or NDIH (Not Done I Here--OSS) is evil.
What people DO care about is the GPL and a few notable folks in the FOSS community think this agreement is not in compliance with or designed to undermine the GPL and FOSS in general.
I like the GPL 2, but I really disagree with some of the GPL 3 as it currently stands. What about the LGPL is it a total blaspenme? The LGPL allows commercial use, it has to be totally evil? Right? What about the BSD licences evil? Right? It all come back to sharing and money!
Novells promise of money to Microsoft based on the SALES OF FOSS software, while at the same time declaring that there is no infringements in Suse is confusing at best, disingenuous, and possibly in direct violation of the GPL.
What FOSS sales? They are for Sales of SLES or SLED? What is wrong with paying for leads/Support contracts? AH that is illegal or evil? Right? You can not make money for support! Right? You are not allowed to pay someone for selling your product? Right? How many retailers would or people would give away HW/SW? You should not have to pay for anything!
That's what the debate is about. Not making money. Until these issues are settled openly and publicly you can expect a certain amount of discontent.
Right it is not about the money that may be paid to MS? Novell and all
the developers are really dumb and will violate the GPL! Sure we need to
be cautious? But really, with all the GPL watch dogs? Novell will pull
the wool over our eyes and violate everything! Sorry but I really can not
see any of the developers loosing their basic philossiphy(BAD SP).
/Sarcasim on
So let's see what happens, after all the sun is going to explode tomorrow
and will all be dead by a plane crash! Just about as likely!
Sarcasim off/
--
Boyd Gerber
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 17:14, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
Do you really think the old SUSE troops would allow it? I would be willing to bet that should Novell be dumb enough to make such a mistake, (which I really doubt) a law suit would be filed with-in 24 hours.
Does anyone know what ever happened to Hubert Mantel? -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 17:14, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
Do you really think the old SUSE troops would allow it? I would be willing to bet that should Novell be dumb enough to make such a mistake, (which I really doubt) a law suit would be filed with-in 24 hours.
Does anyone know what ever happened to Hubert Mantel?
Search the archives of all the lists. It was posted to one of them, if I
remember right or do a Google search. I know that some Linux press also
posted what he is doing. I just do not remember where it was posted at
the moment.
--
Boyd Gerber
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 20:28, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 17:14, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
Do you really think the old SUSE troops would allow it? I would be willing to bet that should Novell be dumb enough to make such a mistake, (which I really doubt) a law suit would be filed with-in 24 hours.
Does anyone know what ever happened to Hubert Mantel?
Search the archives of all the lists. It was posted to one of them, if I remember right or do a Google search. I know that some Linux press also posted what he is doing. I just do not remember where it was posted at the moment.
The question was posted not out any real interest in his whereabouts, but merely to point out that "old SUSE" troop" haven't got a great deal to say about what goes on in Novell. Sorry if I was referentially opaque to you. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
What I really think is lost in all this is that the customers really want
stuff to just work. They do not buy into all the OSS philosiphy. I think
we often forget the unless people use the OS, we are not going to really
make a change in who is the best OS. I think many are looking for
something better than MS provides. I thin they are tired of all the MS...
All they really want is something that works and works well. We need to
provide that for them.
One good thing that has come because of all the MS problems is people no
longer expect a perfect product. I remember when, it there was a bug or
something did not quite work they way they thought it should, you heard
about it till you either changed the program or made an exception and
changed your program to work they way they wanted it. We now do not have
to provide the smallest fastest, bug free code possible. Some problems
are expected, and a tolerence for giving time to make changes has become
acceptable. So that is a benefit I see coming from MS and their bad code.
We now have open code that may be review by anyone. I think this makes
for better programs and OS.
--
Boyd Gerber
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 16:44, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 15:25, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
Nobody objects to Novell getting money from Microsoft, and nobody cares about Novell giving money to Microsoft except for the rabid few who would Nuke Redmond if they thought they could get away with it.
You write that like there's something wrong with that line of thought. :P -- kai www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com a turn signal is a statement, not a request --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 11/14/2006 03:45 PM, John Andersen wrote:
Thanks for that link. I would think if there were real concern on Novells part they would just publish the agreement in full, and produce detailed FAQs about it and all the hidden clauses, rather than resorting to an IRC channel for pete sake!
Actually it would be great if the execs who put together the deal DID resort to an IRC channel. Everyone present was just as clueless about the real motives as we all are. I think we all pretty much have a sense that "customers demanding interoperability" were perhaps not the only driving force behind the deal. Maybe the top execs will show up at the next meeting. That would be great. Meanwhile, if a bunch of smart engineers are still quite confused about the meaning of a simple business deal, maybe it's because they are missing some data. I am hoping that Mr. Hovsepian, Mr. Jaffe and the other insiders respect their own employees enough to fill them in on what they were REALLY thinking. No matter what the truth is it's better than a whitewash. I would not continue to work for people who tried to feed me stories about a deal that may have profound implications for something that I've worked passionately on. Saill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 17:49, Saill White wrote:
On 11/14/2006 03:45 PM, John Andersen wrote:
Thanks for that link. I would think if there were real concern on Novells part they would just publish the agreement in full, and produce detailed FAQs about it and all the hidden clauses, rather than resorting to an IRC channel for pete sake!
Actually it would be great if the execs who put together the deal DID resort to an IRC channel. Everyone present was just as clueless about the real motives as we all are.
If you're so distrustful of the motives of the executives, then why would you care what they wrote in an IRC chat? Face it, people do not and cannot know each other's minds. One speaks, the other listens and decides whether to believe what was said or not. In the end, the contracts and licenses are what matter, not what one person says or another person believes was the reason for entering into them.
...
Saill
Randall Schulz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 11/14/2006 06:33 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 17:49, Saill White wrote:
Actually it would be great if the execs who put together the deal DID resort to an IRC channel. Everyone present was just as clueless about the real motives as we all are.
If you're so distrustful of the motives of the executives, then why would you care what they wrote in an IRC chat?
Do YOU believe that the main factor in the decision was customer demand for interoperability?
Face it, people do not and cannot know each other's minds. One speaks, the other listens and decides whether to believe what was said or not.
Exactly. But sometimes discourse has a ring of truth to it. Most everything said on this list has it. There may be a great deal of dissent, but everyone is speaking his or her mind, openly and freely. That is why reading this is fascinating. Reading Mr. Jaffe's blog or listening to Mr. Hovsepian's podcast is boring as hell. There is no realness, only spin. It's not the whole truth and I believe you know that as well as I do. Contrast this with the IRC conversation. That is honesty. And ask yourself, if this is a Good Thing, why weren't the Novell developers, those closest to the community, involved from the beginning?
In the end, the contracts and licenses are what matter, not what one person says or another person believes was the reason for entering into them.
The parties entering into contracts and licenses remain in control of how they want to amend or enforce them in the future. The intent is of paramount importance.
Randall Schulz
Saill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 19:37, Saill White wrote:
...
Do YOU believe that the main factor in the decision was customer demand for interoperability?
I have no idea, nor do I care.
Face it, people do not and cannot know each other's minds. One speaks, the other listens and decides whether to believe what was said or not.
...
And ask yourself, if this is a Good Thing, why weren't the Novell developers, those closest to the community, involved from the beginning?
I don't find this whole topic to be something worth getting worked up over. No decision-maker at Novell cares what I think. Nor do I care to try to prevail upon them. I buy one copy of each release of SuSE Linux so they don't care whether I walk away. Frankly, they'll have to degrade their distribution to drive me away. So far, no other distribution comes close to SuSE's quality and range of package and hardware support. Until there's a better choice, I'm staying with SuSE. Also, now that I have a couple of Macs, I care much less about media support on my Linux boxes. And I don't play games, so that's a moot point for me.
In the end, the contracts and licenses are what matter, not what one person says or another person believes was the reason for entering into them.
The parties entering into contracts and licenses remain in control of how they want to amend or enforce them in the future. The intent is of paramount importance.
Well, then, unless you're going to start bugging their offices, phones and email, you're out of luck. You'll never know it.
Saill
Randall Schulz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 11/14/2006 08:02 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 19:37, Saill White wrote:
The parties entering into contracts and licenses remain in control of how they want to amend or enforce them in the future. The intent is of paramount importance.
Well, then, unless you're going to start bugging their offices, phones and email, you're out of luck. You'll never know it.
Hmm, bugging is one approach, but I think first I'd try asking nicely for the whole story, until they relent. If I were interviewing them in a podcast I would openly question the half-truths. If I ran into them somewhere, say at the Novell holiday party, I would ply them with eggnog and have a chat with them human-to-human about their hopes and fears. Saill
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 20:27, Saill White wrote:
On 11/14/2006 08:02 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 19:37, Saill White wrote:
The parties entering into contracts and licenses remain in control of how they want to amend or enforce them in the future. The intent is of paramount importance.
Well, then, unless you're going to start bugging their offices, phones and email, you're out of luck. You'll never know it.
Hmm, bugging is one approach, but I think first I'd try asking nicely for the whole story, until they relent. If I were interviewing them in a podcast I would openly question the half-truths. If I ran into them somewhere, say at the Novell holiday party, I would ply them with eggnog and have a chat with them human-to-human about their hopes and fears.
Yeah... That's what restraining orders are for.
Saill
RRS --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 23:02, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
Novell is making an effort to get us to understand the agreement. Take a look at the IRC log from last week.
Take a look here
http://en.opensuse.org/Meetings/Status_Meeting_2006-11-08/transcript
There will be an other session probably next week.
I'm afraid that a lot of people have already made up their minds. I think it would take Novell giving away all the millions of dollars they're getting to free software organisations before they would even be listened to. People aren't looking at the $400+ million Novell now have to develop Linux and FOSS, they look at Balmer's aggressive statements and decide on that basis. Once the 'patent' word was used, rational discussion went out the window for a small but vocal minority, alas. Cheers Pete -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Pete Connolly a écrit :
Once the 'patent' word was used, rational discussion went out the window for a small but vocal minority, alas.
do you think really most of the world cares of this discussion? this is just plain time vasted jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://dodin.org/mediawiki/index.php/GPS_Lowrance_GO -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 11:31, jdd wrote:
do you think really most of the world cares of this discussion?
this is just plain time vasted Discussion is never time wasted.
-- Kind regards, M Harris <>< -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (18)
-
Anders Johansson -
Andreas Jaeger -
Basil Chupin -
Boyd Lynn Gerber -
Goksin Akdeniz -
houghi -
James Knott -
jdd -
John Andersen -
Juergen Weigert -
Kai Ponte -
M Harris -
Pascal Bleser -
Pete Connolly -
Randall R Schulz -
Saill White -
Sunny -
Theo v. Werkhoven