[Sussex] Some more thoughts on the Microsoft/Novel deal

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

Ian mu wrote:
> Still think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I don't think 
> that code (any gpl code at all) is at issue, because it would only be 
> used with other code protected by the gpl and so on. I'm guessing its 
> none gpl, closed source solutions that the "partnership" is looking 
> towards.
I'll try not to flame here, but suffice to say that I've known Mr. 
Stallman personally since the mid 80's. The FSF's concern over this is 
well-founded, and the creation of the GPLv3 was aimed at avoiding 
exactly this sort of confusing mess.

Look at CIFS file sharing and the history of Samba and of Novell's 
Netware, and the history of SPF and the patent-encumbered SenderID tools 
duct-taped on top of it and leading to it effective destruction in 
Marid. Also look at the new XML format for MS Office, NTFS drivers for 
Linux, and the planned XML based WinFS originally planned for the Vista 
release. Open source development is seriously hampered by Microsoft 
legal threats and litigation. Novell has just entered an interesting 
position to have Microsoft protected tools for it, that are not under a 
real open source license of any kind. SuSE already distributes, although 
historically rather badly, non-open-source tools such as NVidia drivers 
and MS fonts.

Microsoft also has a long, long history of intellectual property theft, 
such as DOS, the Windows interface, and David Cutler and his software 
team at DEC, hired away to create NT and leading to some fascinating out 
of court settlements. An agreement not to sue about such violations  is 
of much more benefit to Microsoft.