Bryan J. Smith wrote: > And what really has to end is the "guilt by association." Even IBM has > broad contracts and licensing agreements with Microsoft. Why? > > IBM *STILL* makes most of its money consulting on Windows. ;->
Yes, but IBM doesn't come up with weaselly constructions to work around the GPL in order to get hand-outs from Microsoft. »Intellectual property« is something that IBM understands very well and is quite religious about -- consider how JFS was re-implemented for Linux based on the OS/2 code base rather than that of AIX. If IBM wanted an MS »OpenXML« import/export filter for OpenOffice.org they would probably go right ahead and code one from the ECMA spec (they could raise the small army of developers required to do it if they really wanted to) rather than even give the semblance of tainting the code base with Microsoft »IP«. The problem with the Novell-Microsoft deal is the credibility that it gives to FUD-mongers such as Steve Ballmer, who take the appearance that some not-really-disclosed deal involving patents has been going on between the two as a tacit admission that there actually *is* something to deal about, hence that there must be some issues worth fighting over. See the violent backpedaling on the part of Novell that no, they don't think there is anything to worry about, etc. So why enter into that part of the deal to begin with? If Microsoft really believes that Linux violates MS patents then let them sue. The fact that this hasn't happened yet (even without weaselly »covenants not to sue«) should tell us something -- if only that vague threats make for much better FUD than actual lawsuits, especially those that you lose, as the SCO folks have found out to their chagrin (and MS has been on the receiving end of IP lawsuits, and losing, much more often than they would like). There are those who believe that MS is just waiting for software patents to somehow be slipped into EU law before launching the equivalent of global thermonuclear warfare on Linux. I'm not convinced. Linux is now in a happy position where an attempt to litigate it into oblivion would only get Microsoft into trouble for antitrust practices. In fact one likely consequence of the Novell-Microsoft deal is that Microsoft can now tell the EU commission »look how we're really interested in interoperability -- we even work with our main competitor to ensure it« in order to do an end-run around the specification publication problems that they have in the EU. The other problem with the Novell-Microsoft deal is that it shows us that Novell is not the all-singing all-dancing open-source-grokking company whose image it tries to project. In spite of all the nice things they've done they're not going to out-Red Hat Red Hat anytime soon. IMHO, the fact that Microsoft was able to land this deal with Novell rather than Red Hat derives directly from the different outlook that the two companies have on free software in the grand scheme of things. Red Hat has drawn its share of flak in the past, but never for the sheer amount of chutzpah combined with apparent bumbling idiocy that Novell has been treating us to recently. Ron Hovsepian and friends are basically trading off Novell-SUSE's street credibility within the community in order to make its products more attractive to companies; it will be interesting to see who wins in the long run, but so far I'm fairly sure, personally, that it won't be Novell. Anselm (This is my personal opinion and not that of Linup Front GmbH.) -- Anselm Lingnau ... Linup Front GmbH ... Linux-, Open-Source- & Netz-Schulungen Linup Front GmbH, Postfach 100121, 64201 Darmstadt, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED], +49(0)6151-9067-103, Fax -299, www.linupfront.de _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
