[nylug-talk] are we about to lose something?

[tom1116@optonline.net]

Who says Novell is going to continue using SAMBA?

What is they use something licensed from MS?

----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Mort 
Date: Monday, November 6, 2006 1:16 pm
Subject: Re: [nylug-talk] are we about to lose something?
To: NYLUG Technical Discussion 

> geeknoob wrote:
> > Silly question:
> > Even if a Novell developer made Samba work for Novell's Suse 
> (and SLES 
> > I assume) - will they (MS or possibly Novell - in fear of 
> loosing 
> > market shares to other distro's or in fear of repercussions 
> from MS) 
> > allow said developer to open that fix/addon/patch/whatever to 
> the rest 
> > of the FLOSS community? (Regardless of the developers' 
> feelings on 
> > the matter regarding what he created.)
> > Or, better yet, because Novell users of Suse alone are 
> pardoned, will 
> > he release it, then all the other distro's be sued for trying 
> to use 
> > or expand on it?
> My feeling first of all is that looking over the terms of the 
> agreement, 
> at no time does Novell admit that there are any Microsoft 
> patents being 
> infringed(nor does Microsoft admit to infringing on Novell 
> patents), 
> they merely say that any patents relating to a broad set of 
> areas(including Samba and CIFS) that MAY be valid each company 
> grants 
> the other company(and users of that companies products as well 
> as 
> developers contributing to that company) rights to those patents.
> 
> So then, the issue comes into play that if a developer wished to 
> investigate this pre agreement, there are a host of laws 
> Microsoft could 
> swing at them. And if they do have the technology patented, the 
> developer could be sued for patent infringment(and of course, 
> even if 
> the patent isn't valid, most developers don't have the deep 
> poclets to 
> fight microsoft).
> 
> Post agreement, a developer can investigate these issues without 
> fear of 
> a lawsuit, as long as they are doing so to extend Novell's 
> version of 
> linux. After determining the cause and the possible fixes, the 
> developer can make an educated decision about what solution is 
> most 
> likely to avoid any valid patents held by both companies(for 
> example, if 
> Microsoft truely is just truncating passwords which are too long 
> before 
> encrypting them, can it really be argued that this is an 
> 'invention' 
> worthy of a patent?). Thus the developer can now realease code 
> back to 
> the open source community.
> 
> There is still the danger that Microsoft may insist that the 
> 'invention' 
> really is their IP, but that danger exists today regardless of 
> this new 
> agreement. This agreement gives developers who wish to work on 
> integration with Microsoft products the ability to do so without 
> fear of 
> lawsuits - but it does not bind the developer into recognizing 
> Microsoft's patent claims as valid.
> 
> Novell does not have the power to validate or invalidate 
> Microsoft's 
> patents. All they can do is come to an agreement which says 
> "there is a 
> chance we might be infringing, and based on that chance we will 
> pay you 
> X dollars to avoid court cases". It would be up to the courts 
> and the 
> patent office to decide whether or not a patent is valid.
> 
> Sure, Novell will work with Microsoft on their own to increase 
> interoperability. And doing so may come to them inventing 
> something new 
> which is their Intellectual Property. And as they are concerned 
> about 
> their bottom line, they may decide to release it as open source 
> or keep 
> it proprietory. But even then, the open source community 
> benefits. If 
> a company would be interested in setting up a Linux file server 
> to 
> compare cost/performance to their Windows servers today, but due 
> to the 
> password issue this is a no go - if that issue was fixed - even 
> assuming 
> Novell owns the solution - the company will now have a Novell 
> SUSE 
> server sitting in their data center. They will be able to try 
> out other 
> solutions. Maybe they will discover a cost benefit to setting 
> up their 
> web servers on Linux, instead of Windows. And since web servers 
> don't 
> require that propietary samba integration stuff, they go
> with Red Hat Linux instead for those servers.
> 
> In short, I see this arrangement as a good thing for Linux and 
> good for 
> the Open Source community. As long as the community doesn't 
> fall into 
> the trap of thinking this agreement means Microsoft is friendly 
> to them. 
> 
> As long as we drive decisions based on business needs and 
> business 
> costs, cases can be made for when Linux is appropriate, and when 
> it is 
> not. And if a particular solution requires closer integration 
> with 
> Windows than open source solutions allow, having a more well 
> integrated 
> Linux solution for those cases is a plus.
> 
> In no way do I think Microsoft is doing this out of the goodness 
> of 
> their hearts. But nor do I assume this is some trap. 
> Considering the 
> reciprocal nature of this agreement, it is possible that Novell 
> caught 
> Microsoft with their hands in the cookie jar using Novell 
> propietary 
> code designed for Linux in Microsoft products. Rather than face 
> a major 
> licensing cost, or pulling a product, Novell forced Microsoft to 
> this 
> agreement instead which nets them a ton of money, and gives them 
> access 
> to specific technologies that their own customers have been 
> saying they 
> need integrated.
> 
> Could Microsoft be digging a trap for Linux and Novell? Yes 
> they 
> could. And I wouldn't trust them at all. However, I certainly 
> wouldn't 
> turn up my nose at any discoveries made through this event 
> either(I 
> can't count the number of times I've seen people in my 
> organizationgm 
> complaining about what a failure the corporate file sharing 
> solution is 
> because some passwords don't work, and it takes them a whole 
> extra FIVE 
> minutes to change a password when it doesn't work. About how 
> this is 
> all the fault of samba and they certainly would not recommend 
> Linux to 
> their clients because of this gross failure. Is it really worth 
> alienating those people and decreasing the market share of Linux 
> just to 
> avoid 'tainted' agreements?)
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> Hire expert Linux talent by posting jobs here :: http://jobs.nylug.org
> The nylug-talk mailing list is at nylug-talk at nylug.org
> The list archive is at http://nylug.org/pipermail/nylug-talk
> To subscribe or unsubscribe: 
> http://nylug.org/mailman/listinfo/nylug-talk
>