The-Source.com

eWeek Europe has an interview with Joe Brockmeier, the OpenSUSE community manager, entitled Microsoft ‘Has Acknowledged The Enterprise Role Of Linux’.

Let’s take a look at some of the more interesting points the article raises, starting with a very misleading statement on the original Microsoft/Novell collaboration:

At the time Brockmeier’s role didn’t exist, and thanks to poor communications from Novell, people with a negative view of the deal “carried the day”, even though plenty of people supported it.  “Even Eben Moglen [Columbia law professor and founder of the Software Freedom Law Center] approved of the deal and said it was compliant with the GPLv2 licence agreement.”

First, this paragraph implies that Eben Moglen supported the Microsoft/Novell deal – flatly untrue, but perhaps we can just chalk this up to the author’s word choice.

Second is the direct quote though that states Mr. Moglen approved of the Microsoft/Novell deal, which is a very strange word choice indeed for the man who co-authored the GPLv3 and positioned it explicitly as a method to “kill the Microsoft Novell deal“.

In fact, the GPLv3 rationale has an entire section specifically devoted to the Microsoft/Novell deal (section 3.4.4), where it recognizes the “basic harm” of the agreement, says that they “take the threat seriously and have decided to act to block such threats, and to reduce their potential to do harm.”

That is not “approval” in the sense most people mean it. It is much more accurate to say that the Microsoft/Novell deal may have not violated the letter (only the spirit) of the GPLv2, Mr. Moglen recognized this, and constructed the GPLv3 to specifically prevent such shenanigans.

An Old Favorite

This is a clear distortion that Novell has constantly trotted out. They used the same sort of misdirection on the now-removed OpenSUSE Novell Microsoft FAQ, where they selectively quoted RMS:

There was significant research into the details of the agreement by the FSF, and as Richard Stallman has said: “Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play,”

And in context:

However, there’s another way of using software patents to threaten the users which we have just seen an example of. That is, the Novell-Microsoft deal. What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a patent licence that is rather limited to Novell’s customers alone.

It turns out that perhaps it’s a good thing that Microsoft did this now, because we discovered that the text we had written for GPL version 3 would not have blocked this, but it’s not too late and we’re going to make sure that when GPL version 3 really comes out it will block such deals. We were already concerned about possibilities like this, namely, the possibility that a distributor might receive a patent licence which did not explicitly impose limits on downstream recipients but simply failed to protect them.

What if one company pays Microsoft for a patent licence where Microsoft says “Alright, we won’t sue you, but we’re just not making any promises about your customers if they redistribute it”. We had already written a downstream shielding provision into GPL version 3 saying that if you convey the program, and you are benefitting from a patent licence that is not available, that does not extend to the downstream users, then you have to do something to shield them.

This is, it turns out, inadequate in two ways. First of all, “shielding them” is vague. We’re replacing that with a specific list of methods, and second, once again it assumes that the distributor has received a patent licence, so the Microsoft/Novell deal cunningly does not give Novell the patent licence, only Novell’s customers.

Well, now that we have seen this possibility, we’re not going to have trouble drafting the language that will block it off. We’re going to say not just that if you receive the patent licence, but if you have arranged any sort of patent licensing that is prejudicial among the downstream recipients, that that’s not allowed. That you have to make sure that the downstream recipients fully get the freedoms that they’re supposed to have. The precise words, we haven’t figured out yet. That’s what Eben Moglen is working on now.

This is a prime example of the dishonesty of Novell apologists and mouthpieces. There’s a lot more that could be said about this one bit, but let’s move on.

Batting 2 for 2

No sooner do we digest that tidbit, than we are offered another. This time, Mr. Brockmeier would have us believe:

Novell was the first company to get Microsoft to acknowledge Linux as a contender in the market

Um, no. We have emails from Bill Gates himself discussing battling Linux as early as 1999. Steve Ballmer too, in 1999. And virtually every year after that.

But, again, I suspect “acknowledge” is a weasel word here, like “approved” was earlier.

The implication of this quote – that Novell has somehow brought Microsoft to Jesus over Linux – is laughable in the extreme. Novell has done nothing but serve Microsoft’s best interests since the Microsoft/Novell deal.

• Novell has constantly spread the “intellectual property peace of mind” talking point whenever it gets the chance.
• Novell has spent enormous resources endorsing and spreading Microsoft technologies like .NET and Silverlight.
• Novell has constantly downplayed legitimate concerns around the Microsoft deal.
• Novell has turned out Microsoft evangelists-by-proxy.

Finally, the last bit to deal with here:

“Once you get to the point where Microsoft feels the need to deliver Linux to its customers, you have a huge tacit acknowledgement that Linux is suitable for the enterprise,” he says. “That’s an enormous thing that I don’t think Novell has gotten enough credit for.”

This is, of course, laughably self-delusional, but I think it shows where Novell wants to take the narrative: that they are somehow responsible for the success of Linux in the enterprise, something that could only happen by the way with Microsoft’s support.

The reality of the situation is that Linux is a robust, effective platform that is widespread, and that organizations – commercial and governmental – are tired of Microsoft lock-in, poor options and high prices; Microsoft has little choice but recognize customer demand. Novell may deserve some credit on behalf of its Linux offerings, but much of that is offset by it attacks on other Linux vendors (mainly Red Hat), and its insistence on undermining non-Microsoft technologies in favor of Microsoft-technologies.