Microsoft-Novell take open-source software alliance to China
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft and Novell have announced they were expanding their alliance in
| making patent-protected and open-source programs interoperable into the hot
| China market.
|
| The firms said on Sunday they are putting "particular emphasis" on China
| because increasingly sophisticated businesses rely on combinations of
| software based on Microsoft's Windows operating systems and non-proprietary
| Linux systems.
`----
http://news.theage.com.au/microsoftnovell-take-opensource-software-alliance-to-china/20080421-27ir.html
"Non-proprietary," eh? Software patents in China?
It's amazing what Novell tells the press in this article.
Recent:
Sun’s Phipps: Novell Has a Big Problem
,----[ Quote ]
| To get Sun’s side, I talked to the company’s chief open source officer, Simon
| Phipps, on Wednesday. He certainly didn’t pull any punches. In response to
| Hovsepian’s suggestion that Sun’s open source strategy — balancing open
| source and commercial interests — isn’t right, Phipps says:
|
| Novell’s got a big problem. What they’re doing is trying to sell open
| source software as if it was proprietary software. The comment that Mr.
| Hovsepian made seems to be projecting Novell’s malaise onto Sun, but we
| don’t have that malaise. We ship a completely free piece of software that
| anyone can download and use without any restrictions.
`----
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/osb/?p=357
A company turns the Microsoft-Novell case into an open source business model
,----[ Quote ]
| Everybody seems to agree that software patents are bad: because of patent
| trolls, because the patent system is broken and overwhelmed or because they
| threaten FOSS. In short, people don’t want to pay for Linux.
|
| Yet even pro-open-source companies are making this argument that they have to
| build a patent portfolio so that to be able to defend themselves, just in
| case. Hey, even open source communities have adopted this “I’m forced too”
| stance.
|
| Therefore it was only a matter of time before an open source company decides
| patents could be used to solidify open source dual-licensing schemes. Imagine
| the deal between Microsoft and Novell erected into a widespread open source
| dual-licensing scheme. Scary.
`----
http://blog.milkingthegnu.org/2008/04/patent-based-op.html
Tasky, another good tool, another bad idea
,----[ Quote ]
| Because it's written in C#. And guess what? Copyright (C) 2007 Novell, Inc.
|
| [...]
|
| No word about dependencies. No word about Mono. Nothing alarming in the Goals
| section.
|
| [...]
|
| Now you know. In that f--ing Novell's Hackweek they could have started a new
| project in a different way — but no, they wanted it in Mono!
`----
http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2008/02/29/11/09/37-tasky-another-good-tool-another-
It's tiresome to stick to a few principles, or: Mono is FUD
,----[ Quote ]
| As a final note, it would be nice if the new Fedora Project Leader would make
| a public statement on Mono. Heck, Max could too know whether Red Hat is not
| shipping Mono with RHEL because of patents, because it's wrong to do it,
| because they don't want to support it, or because they don't support it yet.
`----
http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2008/02/25/08/52/11-it-s-tiresome-to-stick-to-a-few-
OpenSolaris, Gobuntu, and be careful who you kiss
,----[ Quote ]
| I read the agreement between Xandros and Microsoft, and one of the excluded
| products was Mono, so Microsoft promises to not sue Xandros over their
| distribution but excluding Mono and a few other products, i.e. they reserve
| the right to sue over Mono. I wonder if this is an interesting preview of on
| what basis they want to fight the free world.
|
| Interestingly, the Novell deal seems to be different, Mono is not excluded
| from the Novell deal. So Microsoft seems to be promising not to sue Novell
| over Mono, but keeps the option open for Xandros. Weird but true.
`----
http://commandline.org.uk/2007/be-careful-who-you-kiss/
Miguel, Mono and Microsoft
,----[ Quote ]
| is Mono's role in the deal that of a hook to make customers write
| .NET applications because they can be run on Linux - only to find
| later on that they are armless or legless because of a change in
| the .NETspecifications, a change which Microsoft decides not to
| make public?
|
| [...]
|
| And here we have an individual who decides to replicate one of
| the proprietary company's development environments - for reasons
| best known to him alone - and keeps telling people that the reason
| he's doing it is so that he can pull people over from the
| proprietary company's side to his side!!!
`----
http://www.itwire.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11081&Itemid=1091
|
|
