WindowsAndNovell
From: Fouad Riaz Bajwa bajwa [at] fossfp [dot] org Reply-To: bajwa@fossfp.org To: general@linuxpakistan.net, ubuntu-l10n-urd@lists.ubuntu.com, ubuntu-pk@lists.ubuntu.com Date: Nov 3, 2006 11:34 AM Subject: Ubuntu-Pakistan The Microsoft Windows and Novell Suse Linux Deal - What's the catch? Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled? The Microsoft Windows and Novell Suse Linux Deal - What's the catch?
(Analysis by Fouad Riaz Bajwa, FOSS Advocate, bajwa|NOSPAM|fossfp|DAWT|org)
In a recent report by CNet News (November 2, 2006) Microsoft and Novell have joined forces in a partnership mixing the world of Proprietary Windows Software with Open Source Linux towards working on harmonizing Windows proprietary software and related products on the Novell Suse Linux platform. The pact is to promote Microsoft's proprietary Windows work with Novell's Suse Linux, which is based on open-source code. On the business side, they will promote each other's products.
Within the pact, the partners have also struck a new deal on patents designed to give customers peace of mind about using Novell's OSS products. The companies will create a joint research facility at which they will build and test new products, and work with customers and the open-source community. The focus will be on three technical areas: virtualization, web services for server management, and Microsoft Office-OpenOffice.org compatibility.
Does this mean that we will see Microsoft promoting Novell Suse Linux on their marketing collateral and information dissemination networks? Will Microsoft partners and ISVs promote Linux inline with their Windows offerings? Does this also mean Microsoft is bending to Open Source and Linux in particular?
With this deal, it is now evident that Microsoft's earlier self-funded reports about Linux performance and TCO issues were definitely self populated false information. This also concludes that Oracle's Unbreakable Enterprise Linux may have shook up Microsoft on the issue about its dominance within various partnership deals with other enterprise software vendors and developers.
If Microsoft had not been bending to Open Source, it would have never gone with the Linux partnership deal on a Linux platform. Secondly, this deal also shows that Open Source with Linux in particular has overcome the six barriers to open source adoption indicated by Dan Farber in March 2004 on ZDNet. Dan had indicated that open source carried the following critical deficiencies:
- Informal support - Velocity of change - No roadmap - Functional gaps - Licensing caveats - ISV endorsements
These deficiencies seem to have been overcome during the last few years as we can see leading enterprise vendors including Oracle and Novell making major investments in open source software. Possibly defying Richard Stallman's Free Software ideology and taking into account the variable scope of open source software, this deal is making benefit of the possibilities to mix proprietary software code with open source software code.
Is this proprietary software mix with Linux code really possible? It may be possible in light of the interview given by Open Source Initiative founder Bruce Peren's in Apr 2006 to SearchOpenSource.com where he stated to a question:
SearchOpenSource.com: What are some ways to mix proprietary software
and the Linux kernel?
Bruce Perens: Try to view this in the context of a cell phone, where
the cellular provider wants to protect the way they handle the network from open source. In a phone like mine, there are actually two CPUs, so they can put everything they want to protect in the embedded CPU and put all of the open source code into the other CPU. Physically, they're both on the same chip. The General Public License (GPL) would allow that coexistence and permit the interface between those two chips. If it's a well-defined interface then it can be considered a perfectly legal demarcation between proprietary software and open source. Now, if you look at the license text that comes with the Linux kernel, there's a special preliminary to it that re-asserts that user-mode applications are OK. They are not affected by the GPL license unless they actually incorporate a GPL file. The license of the kernel does not affect the application. If that's true for the kernel in an application, it's also true for a kernel on top of another kernel. One strategy that has been used successfully in the past by IBM is to host the Linux kernel on top of another proprietary kernel, which, in itself, contains some proprietary device drivers. Invidia's strategy is interesting since it's the shakiest one. I'm not sure if it is legal. Invidia [Corp.] has made a single loadable module for their graphics kernel, which makes the graphics card work. That loadable module is operating system-independent, meaning that it runs on Windows and Linux. In addition, they have a GPL portability layer that makes that loadable module work with Linux. So it would be more difficult, given that it works on multiple operating systems, to establish in a court that it was actually a derived work of Linux. Finally, another way to mix proprietary software and the Linux kernel is to put whatever you need to be proprietary in a user-mode application, rather than in the kernel. It is possible to expose the I/O boss to a user-mode application. You don't necessarily get the real-time services you get in the kernel, but for many people, that doesn't matter. There are, of course, more elements than what I've listed.
More questions remove this confusion accordingly that:
SearchOpenSource.com: Do you think it would be realistic to worry
about patent issues?
Perens: I'm not the only one worried sick. Every small and
medium-sized proprietary software manufacturer who understands the problem is concerned because they're on the bottom. There are some other people who can, essentially, dictate terms. If we get additional software patents and standards, for example, you get a situation where Microsoft or IBM can implement a standard without a patent tax. Small-sized companies might have to pay that tax and their potential for profit would be limited. The problems in patent quality only exacerbate this. It's a bad deal and it is to the benefit of the largest companies in the world, not anyone else. Everyone should be worried in the software business. Even users should be concerned because this is going to close out their options. Will we have the so-called 'nuclear option,' where, some day we get up in the morning and read that a thousand patent suits have been filed against open source? It's still perfectly possible and it's bad news for small and medium-sized proprietary software manufacturers too. Those companies are 80% of their sector's economy.
SearchOpenSource.com: You don't think the GPL 3.0 will take care of
patent concerns?
Perens: It wouldn't address them for the proprietary companies at
all. Not everyone is using the GPL 3.0, and there's always litigation. You never know how much the judge is going to buy. The GPL 3.0 will help us with our friends – but not our enemies. Our enemies aren't putting software under GPL 3.0.
Will Microsoft and Novell struggle together to get additional software patents and standards so that the standards as a result of their partnership can be implemented able without a patent tax? If this is the case, other companies will have to pay that patent taxes reducing their profits thus this mix may worsen the patent attack regime. What will be the real impact of this deal on the FOSS Ecosystem is yet to be witnessed in due course of time but one can be sure that they will be seeing new patents imposed employing open source software development models.
Online references and further reading:
Microsoft makes Linux pact with Novell http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-6132119.html?part=rss&tag=6132119&subj=news
Six barriers to open source adoption http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/Six_barriers_to_open_sou rce_adoption.html
When to mix proprietary code with Linux http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci117 9148,00.html
Free Software Foundation http://www.fsf.org
Open Source Initiative http://www.opensource.org
Disclaimer:
The above information has been analyzed on a non-commercial basis
for information purposes only. The author takes no responsibility whatsoever of the views and material presented within the references provided and readers are encouraged to research the facts on their own where deemed necessary.
Business Analysis by Fouad Riaz Bajwa FOSS Advocate bajwa|NOSPAM|fossfp|DAWT|org Released under Creative Commons License Attribution -Share Alike 2.5 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5
– No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.25/515 - Release Date: 11/3/2006
– Ubuntu-pk mailing list Ubuntu-pk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-pk