On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 09:06 +0100, Anselm Lingnau wrote: > Yes, but IBM doesn't come up with weaselly constructions to work around the > GPL in order to get hand-outs from Microsoft.
Excuse me? IBM's history is full of Microsoft cronnism, even today. > »Intellectual property« is something that IBM understands very well Yes, it's also one of their major money makers. Several pro-Linux companies know that. > 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. Actually, it has a lot to do with protecting AIX. Just ask IBM's customers who try to buy Linux/x86_64 solutions from HP over Power/AIX. You think SCO's bad with its contracts! ;-> > 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«. "Tainted" has nothing to do with it. This "tainted" work is thrown about by people like myself with_out_ any legal understanding whatsoever. Who says IBM doesn't have the rights to it in _its_ cross-license agreements with Microsoft, hmmm? (hint, hint, hint ;-) And for that matter, if Sun is the copyright holder on OpenOffice.org and funds the majority of full-time developers, isn't it "tainted" as well? Especially if those same developers are working on the OpenXML module? Are you going to answer those questions? Or just keep spewing the rhetoric and FUD? And what makes your FUD "better" than Ballmer's? > The problem with the Novell-Microsoft deal is the credibility that it > gives to FUD-mongers such as Steve Ballmer, Who is a fool, so _engage_ people in _intelligent_ debate why he is. Just like Darl McBride's comments and their lawsuits over _contracts_ with IBM, Autozone and Chrysler. _Engage_ in _intelligent_ discussion. Don't be one of the whining McCarthies that pull the "guilt by association." You'll get 10x as far with business leaders if you can _explain_ the legal situation, the marketing, the rhetoric. You do *NOT* return FUD with FUD, it only shows you have *NO* interest in respecting the intelligence of the person you are talking to. > 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. Business contracts, and their terms, are often private. Does that mean everything IBM signs is "evil" too? You're making conspiracy theories out of nothing. You're taking no time to care about the real business aspects. That Novell, like Sun, has other products to consider. That IBM, in the same regard, *ALSO* has the same. ;-> Oh no, IBM can't do any wrong! They aren't in bed with MS too. NOT! > See the violent backpedaling on the part of Novell that no, Backpedaling, yes. Why? Because the Linux community is _rabid_. Sun hasn't come out and direct said, "Get off Novell's back, we're behind this too and *WE* own OpenOffice.org!" Why? Because the Linux community would re-focus its rabid attack on them. Hell, even Caldera-SCO had legitimate complaints on IBM from 2000 to early 2003, and this was further explained by Ransom Love in late 2003. Even Linus, ESR, Perens and others called it a "contract dispute" after the original March 2003 filing. And had the rabid Linux community not demonized Caldera-SCO, and stopped to realize that it was a contract dispute, SCO would have _not_ been able to augment their lawsuit and "PR campaign" in May 2003 to implement the total BS they did (which is when Linus said "SCO's smoking crack," *NOT* before the change when he said it was "a contract dispute"). *WE*, the _rabid_ Linux community with our FUD spewing, rhetoric filled _hate_ for "corporations" *GAVE* SCO that avenue. Had we followed the professional lead of Linus, ESR, Perens and others, then SCO wouldn't have been able to do such, because the IT media would have been _better_ informed. But no, the rabid nature of the Linux community as a whole knows little of the concepts of business contract law, exclusive rights, non-competes, procedures to terminate a contract (which is where I think SCO has IBM, based on what I read in the Monterey contract), etc... -- things in the Monterey contract that Caldera-SCO was suing over. > they don't think there is anything to worry about, etc. So why enter > into that part of the deal to begin with? Because they produce eDirectory and Mono, and they want to "tear down the walls" for their own developers when it comes to interoperability. It's why Sun has the same for Sun One and Java. It's why IBM has the same for its plethora of business solutions, let alone their consulting division is still _heavily_funded_ by Windows. > If Microsoft really believes that Linux violates MS patents then > let them sue. That's the thing, that has *NOTHING* to do with Novell's license. Instead of practicing McCarthyism, try explaining that. ;-> > The fact that this hasn't happened yet (even without weaselly > »covenants not to sue«) should tell us something Yes! It does me too! And that's why I don't have to stoop to blaming Novell for Microsoft's non-sense. Novell fully came out and _dispelled_ MS' BS too. And MS' legal had to say Novell was right. Or did you miss that? In other words, Ballmer came _very_close_ to committing _libel_. And MS legal probably has him gaged right now (in a sense)! > -- 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, I will tell you again, *HOW* was SCO able to do that? Because people *LIKE*YOU* were "rabid" in your "attack" on SCO. Instead of sitting down, dismissing SCO's claims, leaving it to a contract lawsuit (with terms that do *NOT* apply to Linux, *ONLY* IBM), *YOU* made it about Linux IP. And people *LIKE*YOU* gave SCO that avenue! Ignorance, assumption, hate ... guilt by association ... > (and MS has been on the receiving end of IP lawsuits, and losing, > much more often than they would like). Yes! And that's what we need to proliferate! That's what I did in my blog about MS products being regularly found in violation of 3rd party IP. Of course, it's very likely that Linux will be as well. Which is why we need very "GPL friendly" companies like HP, Novell, Red Hat, Sun and others to use _their_ IP to protect Linux. Novell has done this. Your "McCarthyism" aside, you don't appreciate one ounce of that. > 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. Let them! As I said, the #1 way IBM can earn my trust is if they take their *MASSIVE* IP portfolio and use it to *DEFEND* Linux. I'm sure they haven't to this point because it would open up some of their IP for use by competitors under the GPL. That *SCARES* them (just like Caldera's plans to GPL Monterey did ;-). Microsoft is only a 800lbs. software gorilla. IBM is the 8,000lbs. IP gorilla. > 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. Anti-trust aside, if Microsoft wants an IP war, they will lose, we agree! So educate people on that! Don't spew anti-Novell rhetoric! > 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. Microsoft can say what it wants. But Microsoft can*NOT* answer for another company. Novell can, and has, dispelled those comments. And Microsoft _legal_ had to budge that Ballmer was wrong. > 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. That's pure McCarthyism. In fact, you can not only say the same about Sun, but IBM as well. Do you know how many contracts IBM has with Microsoft? Do you know how many IBM systems interface with the _core_ designs of Microsoft software? Ignorance combined with McCarthyism is _dangerous_. > In spite of all the nice things they've done they're not going to > out-Red Hat Red Hat anytime soon. Well Red Hat is in a category all by itself. Red Hat is virtually the _only_ company that doesn't have anything to fear from the GPL v3. Red Hat shares 100% of its code and IP. That's the difference between "GPL Friendly" companies and a company like Red Hat, "GPL Absolute": "The Five Types of 'Linux' Corporations" http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2006/11/five-types-of-linux-corporations.html But wait, wasn't Red Hat "the Microsoft of Linux"? I'm confused! See what I mean about 97% of the Linux community? ;-> > 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. Agreed! But does that mean Novell is "evil"? Does that mean Novell has been "bought off"? NO! It merely means that Novell, like Sun and IBM -- hell, even HP -- have to deal in the "real world." Novell has eDirectory, Sun has Sun One. Novell had Mono, Sun has Java. Etc... > 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. I like that, "bumbling idiocy" -- because it's what the Linux community is _guilty_of_ in this entire affair! *WE*, the Linux community (at least 97% of it), have been "treating" Novell, Sun and countless other companies with "bumbling idiocy." > 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; Oh, God forbid, a Linux company who wants to make itself "more attractive" to companies! My God, oh, IBM doesn't do that in the same way, by signing IP agreements, no, never. ;-> > 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. And thus, the _ultimate_issue_ is exposed ... This isn't about "winning." It's about "community." Versus, brand names, hatred of companies or their agendas, etc... I thought *I* left that with commercial software? Oh, duh, that's right, 97% of the Linux community still wants to have all those wars of bigotry and products (now projects) and the overall non-sense that accompanies it. Then again, that explains your attitude with LPI as well. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) is about pure, individual choice. It's the furthest ideal from communism. Unfortunately too many Linux advocates practice McCartyism. _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
