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