Your Input Requested
One of the key elements in the Novell / Microsoft Collaboration announcement from last week was a patent covenant that was intended to provide non-commercial, individual open source developers with the coverage necessary for them to develop code without concern of infringing any of Microsoft's patents. (Before you go too far, please be aware that we are getting rid of the "hobbyist" label - there have been many comments about this. Also, this blog posting is not about the openSUSE.org covenant.) While the idea was solid, the execution seems to have missed the mark a bit. There has been much written in the past few days in the blogosphere about this, and many questions have been raised about what is or is not covered by the existing covenant. I think it important for the community to know that Nat Friedman and Miguel de Icaza from Novell have been extremely clear with us that the existing covenant is not good enough - they are being excellent advocates for OSS developers. Nat, I'd like to thank you publicly for your cogent arguments and for the cooporative approch you have taken on this so far.
At this point I am working with a broad range of folks both inside Microsoft, at Novell, and in the community. That said, the real voice of the community is...well...from those of you I don't know. I have to tell you that the issues with getting this covenant right are incredibly complex and there are real concerns on all sides. Our design goal is to get language in place that allows individual developers to keep developing. We are not interested in providing carte blanche clearance on patents to any commercial activity - that is a separate discussion to be had on a per-instance basis. As you comment, please keep in mind that we are talking about individuals, not .orgs, not .com, not non-profits, not...well, not anyone other than individual non-commercial coders.
As comments come in, and as we continue down the path of driving this to resolution (I hope quickly), I will provide greater clarity around our thinking and the issues at hand. Remember, I am not a lawyer - I am a business guy looking to find a workable solution for all parties.
I look forward to your comments. I think we should be able to find a really smart approach to this.
*******
Updating from my flight to Barcelona:
Someone forwarded me this link from Bradley Kuhn at the Software Freedom Law Center. I have crossed paths with Brad in the past and he is a very bright guy. Clearly, our philosophical approach to software differs, but I respect his intellect and think that this criticsm should be recognized by us. I don't agree with everything he says in this post, but it is in the direction of things that I need keep working to address.
Comments
Anonymous
November 12, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 12, 2006
TAG - thanks for the comment. We have to separate two things. The openSUSE.org covenant is for ANY developer (even professionally compensated for that work) to contribute to the openSUSE.org code base. The covenant terms apply to that activity. The individual covenant is for any OSS development, for any project, done in any geography - as long as it is done non-commercially. We want to get the covenant to the point where it is clear that even if the code ends up being used in a commercial sense, the individual who did the work remains covered by the covenant - only the entity that is bringing the code to market commercially is responsible for clearing that product for use (like ANY other commercial entity bringing a product to market). TAG, I hear you about OSS development that the meritocracy element is built upon the quality of the code you create and the accpetance of that code by a project maintainer. I disagree that "generic" is a requirement although broad benefit is important. My view of the issues we are looking to deal with (not there yet) are getting code, modifying code, generating new code, using that in binary form for yourself, and then distribution considerations. Keep the comments coming. - JasonAnonymous
November 12, 2006
I must say that I find this very confusing. For example, I am currently developing an open-source desktop middleware bridge, and I'll be developing some related open-source software later on. The result will be fully open-source under the modified BSD license. At the same time, I have a sponsor for the initial work, and I am being compensated for developing it on their time frame and for integration in their closed-source product. Now it happens that all of this - the product, my open-source bits, and the applications operate on the Microsoft Windows platform exclusively. (The product is in Java and I suppose it could run elsewhere, but not with the open-source bits which are very much native-Windows exclusive and accessed via JNI.) I very much doubt that I will be receiving a letter from Microsoft about any of their intellectual property, especially patent claims, that my code happens to cross over. I also doubt that the commercial user of the software under the usual BSD provisions, or even the users of the binaries only, will receive any such letters or notices. I think that's the practical matter. Yet, as is often the case, this effort by Microsoft and Novell raises the specter of potential infringement and also attempts to segregate classes of individuals for purposes of the covenant. I find it hard to pass myself safely through the cookie-cutter of the non-commercial individual. Any way I squirm around, I think I come out of it dismembered. Now, that is only raised because the covenant exists, which is an odd thing, since absent the covenant I am simply living beneath Microsoft's radar, attention, and -- I think -- intentions. But now that the covenant is on the table, I'd like it to apply to me, of course. But in truth I don't think it does. And while I'm not that much concerned, I don't know about users of the code I've released into the open-source world, even though everything I do seems to be perfecctly appropriate and aligned with all licenses that I possess for use of Microsoft development tools, deployment of compiled code, release of source code (but no proprietary libraries and I don't do redistributables at all), etc., etc. Of course, patents are a whole different beast and even doing a search for claims that might be infringed in my work is enough to make the whole project unaffordable and not doable in the timeframe required. This is one of those odd conversations that has a chilling effect even though the covenant takes nothing away. Yet it is a reminder of an exposure that individuals like myself can do little about (other than leave the field, I suppose, or do what I do and stay confident that I am both highly unlikely to have crossed any lines and am also an unpromising target for any serious litigation.)Anonymous
November 13, 2006
Dear Jason: You don´t pronounce the words "Free Software" anywhere on your page. Why? Linux is about FREEDOM not just about cheap open source code. Is there a policy of words you cannot pronounce imposed on you by MSFT? Regards.Anonymous
November 13, 2006
Are you going to sue E-Week for libel, or were Ballmer's words accurately rendered? If they are accurately rendered, he is higher up than you and I find them offensive and would negate anything you could possibly say or do. Even if I take a SUSE release and - under my rights under the GPL - create a GPL only derivative, Ballmer's quote implies people downloading or distributing even such a GPL-only version not from Novell (and do I have to pay them to be considered a customer) are potentially liable. Say and do what you want, but whom should I believe, you or Ballmer? http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2050848,00.asp?kc=EWEWEMNL103006EP17A The distributors of other versions of Linux cannot assure their customers that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement. "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 said. "I suspect that [customers] will take that issue up with their distributor," Ballmer said. Or if customers are considering doing a direct download of a non-SUSE Linux version, "they'll think twice about that," he said. eWEEK.com Special Report: Enterprise Wars: Linux vs. Windows However, Ballmer did not say whether Microsoft had any plans to file patent infringement suits against other Linux distributors. Competing Linux vendors "are certainly welcome to get involved to quickly provide these covenants not to sue," he said. These vendors have other incentives besides pressure from their customers and the worry about legal action, Ballmer noted. The collaboration agreement demonstrates there are other factors "in which our technical cooperation is a definite advantage to Novell," Ballmer said.Anonymous
November 13, 2006
You are asking for something impossible. A Zen Koan. Which software can written that can both be covered under a patent and yet be distributed under the GPL? I can't think of anything. When I write something, I'm specifically not going to restrict it by use or user. That means a .org or a .com or a .mil could use my code. What you are saying is that you want to be able to sue some users or those who might get paid to create a derivative work of my code if it happens to do something you have a patent on. If you have such a patent, I don't need your covenant, I need you to tell me NOW so I can remove or otherwise quarantine the offending code. If anything in any GPL software is something you would assert a patent on, please tell the community NOW. Or place the patents in some kind of escrow structure that will not sue any developer or USER of any software covered under an opensource license - MIT, BSD, or GPL. If you did that, I would trust you, but then there might be GPLed media players using some Microsoft patented codec technology. So I doubt you would do that. But only that would suffice - I don't know that I speak for the community, but if you post this comment, you might get some yeas or nays on this idea. Feel free to do what you will with other proprietary software vendors. But you cannot restrict the modification or redistribution of any GPL source or binary. That is the important thing. And a threat to sue (per Ballmer) under any circumstance is a restriction. We don't want your patents. Tell us where they are and we will remove them. Or assign free and unlimited use of ANY current or future Microsoft held patent to the FSF or other agreeable organization without restriction (Eblen Moglen can probably come up with terms he would find acceptable). And try to have your CEO avoid threatening comments.Anonymous
November 13, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 13, 2006
TZ - thanks for the comments. I don't expect you to discount the words of the CEO of my company. He tends to be an expressive guy. At the same time, I think it important to listen to the myriad of voices that make up Microsoft. We have >65K employees, and most of the are bright, thoughtful, and talented. Our culture is one of participation and individual contribution - thus, the voices you hear in our thousands of bloggers are critical to understanding what is happing in such a dynamic, large organization.Anonymous
November 13, 2006
TZ - Second comment - more substantive in nature (I hope). The following sentences are very interesting to me as this is what we are trying to accomplish (in essence): "You are asking for something impossible. A Zen Koan. Which software can written that can both be covered under a patent and yet be distributed under the GPL? I can't think of anything." I absolutely am looking for us to find a way to work with the situation you lay out above. The GPL is an important license, but is only one of many. There are literally countless permutations of licensing structures outside of the FLOSS structures. We want to create a mechanism for individuals that attempts to account for the myriad of licensing choices out there. The Individual covenant is about enabling developers, not blocking them. There have been many suggestions of patent escrow possibilities in the past relating to how commercial software patenting behaviour could better mix with FLOSS. Also, patent pools and now covenants. To me, when we start having a hard time answering a question is when I know we are hitting on the right issue. As for your comment about no restrictions and the GPL, I think you need to consider your comment carefully. ALL licenses represent a collection of restrictions. There is a philosopical foundation for the restrictions imposed by the GPL that you happen to agree with - but reach outside of your own POV for a moment ("walk in another man's shoes" as I believe Atticus Finch once said), and let's see if we can find a solution that is respectful of the diveristy of views out there. To us, software patents are useful as a mechanism to incent commercial innovation. Our shareholders look for year over year growth, and the generation of strong returns on their investments. We are also interested in respecing past and future business models as well as the IP of others. I hear you on the license terms and your desire to see if we can make the impossible possible.Anonymous
November 13, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 13, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 15, 2006
Geez, sounds to much like the bully saying "Give me your luch money and I promise not to beat you up."Anonymous
November 15, 2006
I'm afraid I haven't had enough time to read all the comments on this yet. I intend to post a more full and reasoned discussion on my blog, and I'll certainly post here with a link to it when I do. But there's one core principle at work here which I think is important for you to understand as far as why I don't think you can succeed at your goals while still being acceptable to the community. It's absolutely core to the community's belief that discrimination against ANY field of endeavor is contrary to the ethos of open source. The OSD and DFSG both include requirements to this effect, and it's the FSF's "freedom zero": A (copyright) license which includes a "no commercial use" clause cannot ever be considered Open Source or Free Software. And while I accept the technicality that this isn't a license at all, it comes down to the same thing: the protection offered is only on a "no commercial use" basis. The community that concluded that commercial restrictions in licenses were absolutely unacceptable is simply not going to turn around and decide that a patent covenant with that caveat meets their requirements. As you know from my earlier posts I originally was in favor of this agreement - I thought that the issues I was seeing others complain about were simply poor implementation or bad marketing and would be resolved quickly. But your posts have made it clear that that's not it at all - being incompatible with the spirit of open source and free software is inherent in the design goals of this agreement from Microsoft's perspective. Unfortunate, but I'm writing this one off as unwinnable. I don't see any sign that MS is likely to backtrack on the parts that really matter...Anonymous
November 15, 2006
Jason, I don't see how any developer who uses the GPL, and builds on existing GPL work, can count on any agreement from you, no matter how you word the terms. The problem is that there is quite specific language in the GPL that states "if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program". So, if the developer counts on a promise that applies to that developer personally, but not to every recipient of that developers' code (that is, not just Novell/SuSE but also Red Hat), it isn't worth anything and might even cause the developer to forfeit his own right to copy or modify the covered work. For original work (not much is totally original since open source software is an ecosystem) modifying the promise so that the individual developer is not sued for the activity of others she distributes code to could help, but there are still problems with GPL section 7. My advice is just to forget the whole thing. Microsoft is already constrained from suing individual developers by politics, at least in the short term: bad publicity will pretty much guarantee no software patents in the EU. If you want to contribute specifc patents on a case-by-case basis to the open source community, perhaps in exchange for access to patents put into the pool by other actors, that would help.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
To show its sincerity, MSFT should pledge an end to its "black ops" against Linux and the Open Source community. Specifically, no more support for SCO-type lawsuits. And, it would be helpful if Microsoft would publish a public apology for its financial support of the SCO Group in early 2003, the support that enabled the lawsuit to go forward. And, a public pledge disavowing the SCO Group's current lawsuits and pledging no further financial support for same . . .Anonymous
November 15, 2006
The way to communicate with a corporation is economically. It is unacceptable behavior on Novell’s part to legitimize and participate in MS FUD campaign, and to violate the very license that allows them to distribute the community’s work in the first place. I say let the big MS lump payment be their severance from the community.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
What is with the 5-year life of the covenant? Why only 5 years? If Microsoft is really trying to build a long-term relationship with OSS, how can anyone take it seriously if all bets are off in 5 years. Also, your comments about openSUSE... you indicate that all openSUSE development is covered by the patent covenant. Fine... But Novell has stated clearly that openSUSE absolutely does not contain any MS patent material. So the only reason to have such a covenant is to allow MS patent material to be introduced to openSUSE from this point on. Does MS plan on pursuing patent litigation on openSUSE and its derivatives once the 5-year covenant has expired... assuming that MS patent material has found its way into the openSUSE code based on this covenant?Anonymous
November 15, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 15, 2006
Microsoft sees the community's out-cry about the imo back room deal ?; and to say the deal its "complex" is a sidestep of the fact that Novell and Microsoft did not care about how "complex" it was when the thought not include the community and users alike in the loop, as well as in the details of this deal. Is Microsoft now aware that support for Novell is at risk, aware of the loss of that community, that users also may through the mixed mix of information will make the choice to move to another distro as well. Where does this stop, all the careless actions of large corporations with only a monopoly in mind. I moved to Linux years ago, desktop ect, I have enjoyed the change so that nothing Microsoft does, will allow me to go back. Microsoft is already out at my house, Novell-SuSE can now join Microsoft out the door.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
I'm trying to think of an example where Microsoft's proposed policy would be useful, and honestly I can't think of anything. If I end up violating a patent inadvertently (which I suspect happens on a daily basis), I'm going to stop distributing the software as soon as I become aware of the offending patent. I think that will probably be enough to limit the legal damages, and honestly Microsoft wouldn't get much benefit from going after me anyway. Their legal fees would be more than they could squeeze out of me. So I'm not actually concerned about my personal liability. If Microsoft hopes that this policy would encourage me to keep the patented code in my work, in hopes of squeezing money out of some deep-pocketed .com, they're dreaming. Any code I release is intended to be used. In return I gain from the ecosystem that springs up around the work. The system doesn't work if MS can tax anybody who uses my code. No ecosystem would develop, so it's in my interest to get rid of the patented code. This is true with or without the policy, so what's the difference? ... Ami.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 15, 2006
I would love to give you my input, but I try not to use profanity on a page that might be archived somewhere. Microsoft's motivation is pure evil FUD. It's purely to make Linux users worried that they might get sued. So you and your evil minions should stop pretending to reach out to the community and leave us the h*ll alone.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
The real question is whether or not this signals a fundamental shift in Microsoft's patent policy. Up until now Microsoft has used patents defensively. A covenant not to sue is only valuable if there is a likelihood that Microsoft is going to start suing developers that use its patents. That's the real question. If Microsoft isn't going to open up the patent litigation floodgates then this entire discussion is moot, and the entire topic can be categorized safely as FUD. If, on the other hand, Microsoft is going to start suing developers over patent issues then every developer on the planet has a stake in the issue whether they develop Free Software or not. Microsoft has a lot of patents, and while today Microsoft might only be interested in stemming the tide of Free Software tomorrow they might very well be interested in putting a stop to the sort of software that I write. At some level every developer on the planet is at least potentially in competition with Microsoft. So what's the real scoop. Is Microsoft likely to actually unleash its attack lawyers, or is this just more posturing on Microsoft's part.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
Let me be clear. I write GPL'd code because I want to give to the community. I want my works to be freely distributable. Indeed if what I write is encumbered by Microsoft's patents it can not be included in GPL'd work as it violates the license. Novell has been working on Mono; a dot-net compatible framework. And we were told that Microsoft wanted this as a standard and was helping Novell with this effort. Now I find that this agreement covers Mono! This is not a good thing. This tells me that Microsoft set Novell and the OSS community up to take a fall. If Microsoft feels that Mono violates its patents and they are serious about cooperating with the open source community they should be clear about what parts are in violation and after the OSS community has removed the offending code Microsoft should give their blessings. Until that happens I would NOT suggest that anyone writing for Linux do so using the dot-net technologies. I perfectly happy using Java thank you very much.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 15, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 15, 2006
Dear Jason, Microsoft knows that the FLOSS-community deeply distrusts the company - history has given the community all reason to do so. Microsoft cannot expect full cooperation from said community until MS makes truly meaningful moves towards the FLOSS community. moves that are NOT surrounded by 15 layers of lawyer-speak. It's not very difficult, you know. Just two moves for starters:
- Where are those MS Patents, so they can be removed.
- Mr. Ballmer should learn to mind his language.. Good luck.
Anonymous
November 15, 2006
Yes please I have a comment. Please restrict your business activities to solving the problems of your customers and refrain entirely from attempting to control or interfere with the dissemination and application of knowledge as it will prove harmful to the continued growth of the community of which you are an integral part. This is not a philosophical difference but rather a historical observation which you ignore at your own peril. Yours Respectfully, AntoineAnonymous
November 15, 2006
<quote>Also, The market capitalization of Linux-based commercial activity reaches into the billions of dollars now. Seems to me that this is more than being about "liberty," "freedom," or "open."</quote> There is nothing more important than protecting "Freedom" and "Liberty". There's the riff. You say more than, I say less than. -TheronAnonymous
November 15, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 15, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 15, 2006
I'm wondering exactly which patents MS is talking about not suing over. Which patents are potentially infringed in Linux? Which portions of Linux or Suse infringe these patents? Which of these patents might be discredited with prior art or scenes a' faire material?Anonymous
November 15, 2006
A few months ago a Microsoft representative, whose job it was to counter OSS, told me that "if they [MS] wouldn't deal with OSS, they would lose the battle." Does a monopolist that has 50 billion dolars in cache in the bank and a formidable profit margin has in interest in aiding a competing offering that can be redistributed and used free of charge? No Microsoft has an interest in killing it. Your corporate mouthpieces have to spin faster, Jason, way faster, undoing their lobotomy might be an idea as well, their spin is way too transparant.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
To paraphrase: "Richest software company on Earth promises not to sue individuals with no money." Excuse me if that's not overly surprising, you'd probably be spending more on lawyers than you'd get out of the poor saps on the receiving end.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
Honestly, I don't see this as helping any open source project. This moves seems like an attempt to separate SUSE, MONO and all other Novell owned products from the rest of the open source community. This is just an attempt to segragate and extort. I quote Benjamin FRanklin who said 'If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately'. I just never thought Novell would gladly weave their own noose and wear it as a necktie.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
Jason, a very common view is that, once again, Microsft is spreading FUD regarding patent violations in Linux. If you have a serious patent claim then the way to deal with it is not to make a vague non-specific patent agreement with 1 company representing say <5% of the installed base. What you would do is say to the major players: 'You are infringing patent 123456. Either buy a license or stop contravening our patent and pay us damages'. Can you explain why this deal is not $100M of FUD?Anonymous
November 15, 2006
Jason, I am intrigued by your suggestion that your CEO tends to be an "aggressive guy". Well, is he the one the major say in the direction of the company or am I mistaken? Time and time again Microsoft has demonstrated be an extremely aggressive and greedy company, yet technologically very challenged. Your appear to be a part of the "softening image" effort, which seems only self-serving.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
The obvious (and necessary) things to improve about such a lawsuit statement are as follows. Don't make false promises. That is, do not tell people you're agreeing not to do something without making it binding. Refraining from doing something as long as you feel like is a hollow promise, only true until you feel like doing so. Any such proclamations which aren't binding are very close to lies. Protect people in a meaningful way. Agreeing to not sue individuals who never distribute their code is meaningless. How would you ever know they were infringing your patents if the code was never distributed? Moreover, what would the value of such undestributable code be? Start with these two. If you can't meet at least that level, don't make empty gestures. They only earn you ill will.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
Hi Jason, I guess you can try to spin this any way you want but unless Microsoft shows that it can be trusted nothing good will come out of this. Unfortunately that's how it works. Earning trust is way harder than losing it. Frank (Germany)Anonymous
November 15, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 15, 2006
I don't mean to be rude, but this whole thing just seems like a useless bunch of FUD. A "promise not to sue individual developers" carries no weight. Promise or no promise, Microsoft won't take any interest in me coding away in my basement because (a) the economic impact is negligible and (b) how will they find out? But if I develop some useful code and start distributing it under an open-source license, well then all of a sudden I'm an "organization", not an "individual developer," and the promise doesn't apply to me. So basically, I don't care one bit what Microsoft does or doesn't promise to me as an "individual developer."Anonymous
November 15, 2006
You also say that FLOSS is a more appropriate term than Free Software. You don't understand that, for all practical purposes, FLOSS is the same as Free Software is the same as Open Source Software is the same as Software Libre. The differences are a matter of emphasis and personalities, not substance. Especially in the realm of equal rights of use and redistribution.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 15, 2006
When you say "non-free" do you just mean "non-gpl"? Or what? Free software is software that is re-distributable (that's the difference between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech for software). Believe me, more than 50% of software in linux distros is freely re-distributable. Of course, once you move on one of your presumed patent infringements (so far - you've shown as much as SCO has) then the gpl will go into effect and your partner Novell (if not you) will be in a tight spot.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
Honestly, the best solution would be to rescind it. The vast majority of the GPL community already doesn't trust Microsoft, and weasel-worded agreements aren't going to change things any. (Even if it isn't intended to sound weasely, once the word "sue" enters the picture, it's not hard to come to that conclusion.) As things stand right now, Novell ends up looking like a traitor, Microsoft's reputation doesn't improve, and the whole "SuSE doesn't contain any MS-patented code, but they promise not to sue anyway" thing looks more like a trap than anything else. to be sussinct: this helps neither you nor Novell, and alienates the people you're (supposedly?) trying to make nice with. If you really want to get the GPL crowd on board, be specific, say exactly which patents are available to GPL projects in general, not "non-commercial developers." I'd be surprised if anyone takes you up on that, outside of for compatibility's sake; doing so runs counter to the typical FLOSS developer's desires. I really can't see GPL developers falling over themselves to implement some other person's patent. We want to make our own stuff.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 15, 2006
Thanks for promising not to sue me. My open source contributing friends and I may also agree not to sue you either. It would be just as relevant. This is just so much FUD. Like others have said, if there is patent infringement, point it out and the code will be removed/altered to no longer infringe. Simple... no lawyers needed.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
It appears from the comments by Microsoft employeesthat thethat the intent is to divide and conquer by imposing the idea of non and commercial to OSS developers. The GPL allows no such distinction, and anyone who tries to license their software with such a distinction, cannot use the GPL or for that matter the BSD license. To the OSS community this means that if Novell includes a notice of this covenant with distribution of GPLed software, they are in violation of the terms of the GPL and may be sued. The easiest option for the community, is to boycott OpenSUSE and the SLE products, until this anti GPL restrictive covenant is removed. I would also recommend removing and mono and anything else contributed by Novell since the new CEO became an executive.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
The Patent Covenant is basically useless. It provides nothing to Novell customers, nothing to Microsoft customers, and nothing to either company that is of any value. I strongly suspect people at both companies thought it would generate some positive press, and there's nothing like free advertising. But that's all. So I'm going to continue doing things my way, developing both commercial and non-commercial software, and ignore this deal. BTW - you know how you can tell a company is in trouble? They start talking about "Intellectual Property" rather than working on selling product. It's happened before, and it will happen again.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 15, 2006
You can't make right what you have done wrong, and now you have to live with it.Anonymous
November 15, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 16, 2006
I think that Microsoft is not trustworthy because in the past Microsoft make this partnership with Apple and stole all ideas! It's MY opinion. Best regards, Renato S. Yamane BRAZILAnonymous
November 16, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 16, 2006
Ubuntu rocks! Stay free, folks! ;)Anonymous
November 16, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 16, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 16, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 16, 2006
"Remember, I am not a lawyer - I am a business guy looking to find a workable solution for all parties." Well I already have a workable solution....I have not had anything to do with Microsoft, and now I will not have anything to do with Novell. Neither corporation has anything I need or want.Anonymous
November 16, 2006
Microsoft must extend this type of guarantee, without the needing of deals and money transactions, to any open source/free software project and open some documentation on proprietary file formats and protocols, without the need of any non-disclosure agreements, doing this the community, I'm not sure about Bruce Perens, will appreciate.Anonymous
November 16, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 16, 2006
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." - Thomas Jefferson Patenting ideas won't work. It looks like it will, but in the end, people won't accept it. "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete stand-still today." - Bill Gates: (1991) It won't happen this year; it won't happen this decade - but ultimately Microsoft is on the wrong end of history. You can't keep wacking everyone down, because someone else will just pop up in their place. FLOSS is not a business model - it's a method. You make a distinction between "commercial" and "non-commercial" thinkers - absurd. f=ma <-- Patents Pending Sorry Microsoft - it was nice pickings for you while it lasted. It's almost over. We aren't going away, and nothing will stop us, and it has nothing to do with money or legal threats. Just get the picture: - FLOSS is not a business model, it's a method - and your model of how all this works is disappearing... because it was never correct in the first place.Anonymous
November 16, 2006
My suggestion is simple: slim Microsoft down, and lose the anachronisms from the last century like Ballmer. Get back aboard the cluetrain, and continue where the unconditional patent covenant from last time left off. I mean, come on, does it make you proud to work for a company whose CEO tries to bully individual open source developers??? That's silly beyond belief.Anonymous
November 16, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 16, 2006
Greetings Jason, If Microsoft wants to make itself appear less odious to the Open Source and Free Software communities, one thing it could do, is to accept the return of unwanted and unused Windows licences and refund the money with no questions asked. This applies in particular to laptops of all kinds. Do you think that's even remotely possible?Anonymous
November 17, 2006
"please keep in mind that we are talking about individuals, not .orgs, not .com, not non-profits, not...well, not anyone other than individual non-commercial coders" We are keeping that in mind. Because it is that distinction that is already fundamentally anti-Open Source. Let's just say, if not malice it's certainly in indication of a total lack of interest in finding a workable "solution". Which makes this stricly a PR excercise, with no substance whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft is still only interested in annihilation, not co-existence, until proven otherwise.Anonymous
November 17, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 17, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 17, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 17, 2006
17/November/2006: "...Steve Ballmer Thursday declared his belief that the Linux operating system infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property..." See more in: http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;839593139;fp;16;fpid;1 I repeat: MICROSOFT IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY!! Best regards, Renato S. Yamane BRAZILAnonymous
November 17, 2006
"This pledge is personal to You and does not apply to the use of Your Original Work by others or to the distribution of Your Original Work by You or others." Software that cannot be distributed is not software worth developing.Anonymous
November 17, 2006
I almost feel sorry for Microsoft. It tried sooo much sooo hard. It tried mudslinging: "cancer", "communism" and all that. It failed. Than it tried their Get The Facts Campaign, you know, its "facts based" compare apples to oranges, measure Microsoft in centimeters and Linux in inches and Microsoft comes out on top Microsoft sponsered, oops independent, studies. It failed. Than it tried the SCO Group litigation. You know, millions of lines of precious, sacred and holy intellectual property being stolen, millions of lines that are nowhere to be seen. It failed. And now this.. the SCO Group 2, fully enhanced and fully repackeged! I'm running scared, really scared.. I mean, it can't be that there are sacred and holy Microsoft Inventions, great inventions on my server farm, can't be. Or.. well I'd better pay up! And quickly! We all now how good the US patents system is. We all now how rock solid, innovative and non-obvious Microsoft patents are. VFAT for instance, that one alone is worth half a billion. Or using xor to do color mixing, Einstein could never have thought of that, but the Super geniuses at Microsoft lab did! What? Billions of dollars! I'll pay my share right away!Anonymous
November 17, 2006
There is a certain irony in all this. It is the immense stupidity with which Microsoft deals with Open Source. The irony being that Microsoft is blind to its own stupidity, as witnessed by the pride some executives seem to have in finally having found a loophile, I'll correct myself, having had to spent a lot of creativity into building a bridge, to a copyright license. Microsoft seems to think that OSS is its worst enemy. Microsoft worst enemy, however, is Microsoft itself.Anonymous
November 17, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 17, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 17, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 18, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 18, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 20, 2006
I feel Jason should give us an explanation about what he thinks the word "Free" in "Free Software" means when he says that most distributions have more than 50% non-free software. Then we might be able to disabuse him of his misconceptions. Jason, care to explain why your definition of "free" is different from the Free Software Foundation's or Debian's?Anonymous
November 25, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 27, 2006
I am personally opposed to deal with Microsoft, simply because you guys cannot be trusted. But let's put that aside and simply look at the deal you made with Novell: "please keep in mind that we are talking about individuals, not .orgs, not .com, not non-profits, not...well, not anyone other than individual non-commercial coders" Can you name me one program in any linux-distribution which has been written by one single developer? I certainly can't. 99% of all Free software is written in a project, and the covenant does not apply to projects. Your promise not to sue is worthless, as it covers almost nobody.Anonymous
November 27, 2006
Jason, I see a common thread here... Do you?? Or are you blind? No one trusts Microsoft.. Can you believe that? What an eye opener. Hey boy's this is a mighty big game. You're never going to win by extortion. Start playing fair. Join IBM and support the Open Source Community. It will be a win win situation and nobody looses. Keep you patents, show some good faith and share. Oh, and knock off the FUD. A million Open Source programmers can't be wrong.. Well Mr. Ballmer what's it going to be?Anonymous
November 28, 2006
I am surprised that there are only negative comments on the deal when viewed in relation to Novell's involvement in Mono. Would a "no sue" deal not protect SuSE owners (aka developers) working on WCF or similar API ports for Mono? What I would like to see is some real substantive commitment to cooperation, for instance, by a formal cooperation to bring a working .NET runtime to Linux and OSX. Microsoft must realize that this will only be feasible in a "free software" context (e.g. building upon a runtime that is not burdened by absurd license restrictions, software patents and similar). I'm surprised that Microsoft is not eager to support these ports, as .NET development strengthens it's hold on developers and associated tools. But perhaps Java is not sufficient of a threat for Microsoft to consider such a move, which would be sad.Anonymous
November 28, 2006
The openSUSE.org covenant is important. The conditions of this covenant in my opinion come close to violating the letter of GPLv2, specifically Section 7. Is nobody working on revising it?Anonymous
November 28, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 28, 2006
Make it clear exactly what you think is infringing. Otherwise no matter how you tweak the wording, it still looks like a "if you don't pay our partner protection money we might light a fire on your company like SCO did -- look how much that cost IBM". Simply list the copyrighted content or the patents and point to where the infringing code is - and then we can decide if we want to license them from your or Novell or avoid them (probably by buying Windows instead).Anonymous
November 29, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 29, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 29, 2006
Probably the only way to do it is to go through the patents - to actually go through the patents and say - here are 25 patents, or here are 50 patents, or here are 500 patents - or whatever - however many -- and then explicitly say -- these are OK for GPL. One thing I've learned from reading in the blogosphere about this that I find interesting is the concept of dual, even triple- or quad- licensing. In other words, if you want to use our code in closed source, for-profit, proprietary software products, and protect them via trade secrets law, and not contribute your changes back to us, then you can buy or license our code from us for a reasonable amount of money -- however, if you want the very same code for free, you can't lock it up, you have to distribute the source, you have to give your derivative works back to us (the community), etc... In other words, if you don't like viral, then you can give us money and it won't be viral anymore. Or something like that. What I'm trying to say in this train of thought is that there are pros and cons, in many people's minds, about the GPL. And individual's or an organization's or a corporation's choice to use the GPL has an up side (free code) and a down side (open source, can't use trade secrets law, changes the patent picutre, have to contribute code back). It's also not a BSD license, which is somewhat sort-of closer to public domain. There's no reason for a carte blance type thing. You just go through your patents, identify 25 or 50 or 200 or whatever - however many - that fit the right criteria. What criteria? Patents that you would not mind people using in GPL stuff. It may only represent 1% of your portfolio. Maybe even less than that - that's not important - it this process - go through, identify which ones you don't mind for GPL only, and then say these are ok for GPL. Or we don't care if you use them for GPL. Because, remember -- the GPL has pros and cons. So it's not like you're really giving it away - it's more like you're getting specific performance instead of money. That's the one way - simply go through the patents, and identify which ones you don't mind being used for the GPL -- which is not all milk and honey and the promised land but requires real sacrifices from anyone who uses it. Trade secrets law may not be perfect, but for some companies, it's all they got... In light of the "agreement" that everyone is talking about, that is sort of a catch-22, isn't it? You can't really extend it out if it's not specific - you've got this one option of saying "promise extends to all of GPL" -- which is what some folks are implying is necessary if you're going to give a promise like that to Novell. But the promise to Novell appears to be "any patent" (correct me if I'm wrong) - so Microsoft is leary of extending out "any patent" for "any GPL". Especially if you've got Zunes, and Xboxes, and so forth going on, which have little to do with an enterprise operating system. Novell doesn't "do" mp3 players, right? Nor does Red Hat. Microsoft diversifies, so they can't carte blanche everything like that. Makes sense to me. There must be a way to clarify which types of patents "might" apply to something like the "agreement". Or, perhaps, clarify it, sort of after the fact, so you can extend it out to everyone. This is just for the gplv3 compliance, thing, but that's another issue entirely. It's really too soon to tell anyway. Irrespective of the gplv3, there is probably no reason that Microsoft couldn't go through their patent portfolio and pick out those patents, however many, that they would be willing to promise to not enforce for GPL software (GPL only) -- because, remember, GPL is a two-way street, so it's OK -- it should be ok with shareholders as well. That would be my suggestion. Just select certain patents. Or somehow find a way to classify which patents apply to GPL "computers", or "PCs", and which patents have to do with other stuff, diversified stuff, Xboxes, etc... that need protecting. It's a complicated situation, but I think the most important thing to remember is that the GPL requires sacrifices from both sides, so it's not like you're giving all your IP out the public domain for anyone to use. You could even suggest for the gplv3, to clarify the situation, so that people using GPL couldn't take advantage of a company who extends patent promises. I don't think anyone wants it to turn into a "carte blanche" situation (well, at least the good guys don't). There's got to be a way to work this.Anonymous
December 03, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 02, 2007
Microsoft at its finest.. lies spin, lies more lies, spin and more spin. Working for this company defines you as a piece of dirt, Jason, yes you Jason, Oh, wait, i'll take that back, comparing you to dirt is an insult to tapeworm excrement. My apologigies to tapeworms.Anonymous
February 03, 2007
This excuse for a company has the propaganda cancer in every single nerve cell and vein. It is one big cancer. Remove the tumors and nothing is left. Not even a skeleton. Just a void. If Microsoft has to be credited for inventing it is that it took propganda to the next level. And Microsoft will receive chemotherapy, or it will die of its self infested tumors. Either way, Microsoft is doomed. The fun part is that Microsoft is not aware it is killing itself. It really requires to be an MBA to be that stupid and blind. And Microsoft is full of MBA's.Anonymous
February 03, 2007
Would Jason be fair enough to include the url?Anonymous
February 21, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 08, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 17, 2007
You don't need to worry, Balmer, you don't need be awake at night, you don't have to have any doubts about Microsofts's future: it will be destroyed.