Novell and Microsoft Build A Bridge

re: Novell and Microsoft Build A Bridge

Jeroen Frijters — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:44:23 GMT

This is great news! Congratulations and thanks.

There's a Novell Idea: The Microsoft/Novell Q&A

tecosystems — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 11:42:14 GMT

Before I begin attempting to parse the Microsoft / Novell news from the day, I'd like to set expectations appropriately. More specifically, I need to lower them. I'll be taking a comprehensive look at the announcement from multiple angles as...

re: Novell and Microsoft Build A Bridge

Matt Asay — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:42:30 GMT

With all due respect, Jason, this is a load of crap. I've written on it <a href="http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2006/11/ballmers_new_we.html">here</a>, but it bears repeating: if Microsoft were interested in promoting customer interests and Linux, it would have partnered with Red Hat (which, of course, doesn't need Microsoft to succeed). This is a cynical, Linux-defeating move (as well it should be - that's what Ballmer gets paid to do, and has a clear fiduciary duty to boost Windows and kill Linux).

Save the nice words about an "epoch" agreement. The only thing that is epoch about this is how badly Novell must be hurting to let its biggest competitor promote its software, because it apparently can't on its own.

Accord de collaboration Microsoft et Novell, OpenXML everywhere !

Neodante's blog — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 21:33:14 GMT

Microsoft et Novell ont annoncé, via les voix de Steve Ballmer et de Ron Hovsepian, president et CEO

re: Novell and Microsoft Build A Bridge

jasonmatusow — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 05:14:50 GMT

Matt - you and I are not in agreement on your assessment of the deal with Novell. I've read your posting, and as usual you show how smart you are. I think though that you have missed some pretty key points. I'm too tired to answer now, but I will get to it.

a) This IS good for customers - they are telling us that in no uncertain terms ALL OVER THE WORLD at this point. Our sales staff is hearing positive statements about both the tech and IP sides of this deal.

b) As Steve said in the press conference, we have be speaking with many in the Linux community and we are open to all discussions.

...

there is more...we'll chat.

Microsoft Novell deal analysis

Microsoft News Tracker — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:32:10 GMT

The seemingly startling nature of the Microsoft Novell Linux alliance deal announced on Thursday was bound to produce a variety of reactions. Below is a selection of those I found most relevant. Readers will recall my own assessment that the deal basi..

re: Novell and Microsoft Build A Bridge

Rick — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:15:30 GMT

Sounds great. But the best of both worlds sees Microsoft disappear completely.

re: Novell and Microsoft Build A Bridge

Jono — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 05:39:43 GMT

Perhaps an understandable amount of cynicism in some quaters I guess but some pretty immature comments posted here - c'mon guys, you can do better than that.

From the standpoint of someone running a mixed MS/Novell environment this is a really interesting turn of events and it will be interesting to see how it pans out over the next few months.

re: Novell and Microsoft Build A Bridge

Wesley Parish — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:11:40 GMT

Jason, there's quite a sizeable uncertainty about what Microsoft's patents cover. But there's a general agreement that Novell, having distributed GPLed software - the Linux kernel, the GNU utilities, the kde and Gnome desktop environments, etc - is in breach of the GPL if it has agreed to distribute GPLed software under the further restrictions that the Microsoft patent agreement implies - since Ballmer has clearly stated that this set of agreements only applies to Novell. The only way Novell can avoid the community backlash if this is indeed the case, is if Microsoft agrees to extend the patent agreement to all other Linux distributors, indifferent to whether or not they are commercial entites or not.

So, does this patent agreement have anything to do with anything that's released under the GPL and the LGPL?

Or, put it another way, if Microsoft has specifically agreed to share its patents that may (or may not) cover GPLed software, with Novell and with Novell only, for the specific purposes of covering GPLed software, it then becomes guilty of inducing Novell to commit massive copyright infringement. Not a very advisable position, if you ask me, considering Microsoft's prior massive investment in criminalizing copyright infringement.

re: Novell and Microsoft Build A Bridge

Free to innovate — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:00:54 GMT

I am sorry but suggesting that in some way Microsoft is going to somehow help out Novell with Linux is ludicrous. We all fully know that M$ is out to crush Linux and FOSS in any direct or devious way possible. M$ is trying to do serious damage to the GPL. M$ is trying to do serious damage to Redhat. Anyone who believes that there will anything positive from M$ having control of Novell, is in need of a cat scan! M$ will never change: embrace, control, lock-in, profit and destroy, such are the methods of this fearless monopoly without ethics. As Rick said above, the best of both worlds means M$ goes away, and leaves the world to become a much better place.

re: Novell and Microsoft Build A Bridge

jasonmatusow — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 06:21:00 GMT

Please read my response to some comments on the posting about the website discrepency as there are some answers there that apply to these comments.

Hi Wesley - there is no problem with the GPL in this deal. I'll ask you for some patience in my responding to this as it is a long answer and merits a full posting on it. I hear you that this is a matter of critical importance to discuss - but not on a comment response.

For "Free to innvate" - thanks for the comments. I doubt there is much that I can say to allay your fears. I will say that since 2001, I have been party to all of our internal strategy around FLOSS. We have never been anything but completely straight forward in that entire time about our motivations and our concerns. For commercial providers of software, the GPL presents challenges - true. I was a lead author (with some really great attorneys) on the Microsoft Community License which is our reciprocal license because there are real benefits to that model of licensing. We have projects out under GPL-like licenses, and feel that there are really important reasons why the Mozilla-style reciprocal grants are better than the GPL. We have increased transparency on core products, extended OSS project on complementary tools and components, and how support a thriving OSS community at our CodePlex site. Yet for all of that, we are going to build Windows, and sell it. We will build Office, and sell it. We beliver our products offer superior value to our competitors - and that competition in the market place is healthy and good.

Keep the comments coming - hold our toes to the fire. That is all good.

- Jason

Novell and Microsoft teaming up on document interoperability

Brian Jones: Open XML Formats — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:33:43 GMT

I'm sure by now most folks have read the news on the collaboration agreement between Novell and Microsoft.

[Open XML] Liste des blogs sur le sujet

Blog de Neodante (Julien Chable) — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:58:57 GMT

Après une liste des liens sur le format Open XML, voici quelques blogs intéressants autour de ce sujet,

Interoperability - Interoperability as a question of power and market dominance

Confluence: Interoperability — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:55:47 GMT

Interoperability Interoperability as a question of power and market dominance Interoperability tends to be regarded as an issue for experts and its implications for daily living are sometimes underrated. The case of Microsoft vs....