On Feb 16, 10:26 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Is there a secret story behind the Novell/Microsoft deal?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The basic skinny is that some renegade Microsoft employees who
> | believe in open standards and open source approached Microsoft
> | lawyers with a scheme to disarm the Microsoft patent portfolio.
> | They got together with geeks and lawyers at Novell to make this
> | happen. At some point, sales guys and management at one or both
> | companies saw this as an opportunity for Novell to make money,
> | and for Microsoft to manipulate the Linux market. They wrested
> | the process away from the people who originated it, and the end
> | result was the abominable deal that went forward.
The irony is that Novell did not have the legal authority to make any
deals with regard to Linux. Keep in mind that there are thousands of
contributors who have published under open source licenses, some of
which expressly forbid any form of nondisclosure agreement.
Novell might have given Microsoft some nonenforcement agreements with
regards to Netware, but if Microsoft thought that the deal with Novell
was a green light to pirate Linux, they could be in for a nasty
surprise.
My guess is that Microsoft wanted to keep Novell out of the desktop
market long enough for Vista to "take root". Keep in mind that Novell
had deals with HP, and may have been working on deals with Dell,
Toshiba, and Lennovo as well. Microsoft knew that if Vista initial
launch didn't go well, that the OEMs might consider flipping to
Novell. The secret deal with Novell, combined with carefully timed
and placed "leaks" of it's "possible contents" has made these OEMs
more wary, less willing to jump into the sack with Novell.
Instead, the critics are saying "I'd rather have a Mac". When they
could be saying "I'd rather have SUSE SLED than Vista".
> | Ironically, according to this story, people like Steve Ballmer
> | were totally unaware of what was going on until the deal was
> | sealed. So all of the posturing that Steve Ballmer has done
> | since the deal is after-the-fact FUD-mongering.
Maybe this is one of the reasons that Microsoft wanted the Iowa case
settled. What if the plaintiffs had ordered the disclosure of the
deal with Novell. If it was "much ado about nothing" it might have
lost it's FUD factor. When given no information, people's natural
instinct is fear.
> | It didn't sound credible to me, at first, but my source is
> | reliable, and the people to whom he refers fit perfectly
> | into this scenario.
The problem is that in the absolute lack of information about the
contents of the secret contract pretty much leaves everything open to
speculation. The source may have been fed information, then given the
opening to feed it to Peterley. It could be an ugly mess.
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000184
|
|
