Microsoft-Novell deal highlights difference between Free Software and "open source"
gerloff
|
Lunedì, 06 Novembre 2006
|
Much has been written already about the deal between Microsoft and Novell, and I don't need to replicate it here. Just now, Andrew Orlowski posted a piece on The Register (yes, I know, don't worry: some day I'll get back to citing other sources again) that describes how this tie-up logically follows precisely that "open source" path which the Free Software community keeps refusing to set foot on.
Free Software advocates have always insisted that "free" and "open"
were two movements loosely aligned, and that the Johnny Come Lately
"open source" term was just a media-friendly marketing moniker. The
"open source" lobby replied with some annoyance that this was an
unimportant semantic issue.
Now, however, that distinction is painfully apparent, and Microsoft
is exploiting it to the full.
The money that Microsoft is paying to Novell will likely turn out to have been a clever investment:
Microsoft wanted this agreement so badly it's agreed to pay an
unspecified sum to Novell for the Covenant. This might strike you as
odd - and you'd be right. Companies that license intellectual property
do so in the expectation that they receive a royalty, rather than dish
one out. But the downstream benefits to Redmond are enormous. Novell
has handed it a priceless legal filip, and as it begins to collect
royalties from other businesses that use Linux, it'll doubtless see it
as a worthwhile down payment.
SuSe GNU/Linux, anyone?
Further reading:
Groklaw: Novell sells out
Groklaw: MS FUDs like SCO, Red Hat Responds, and Novell/MS Transcript Available
Dana Gardner, ZDNet blogs: Microsoft and Novell: Fox marries chicken, both move into henhouse
Bruce Perens: Novell-Microsoft: What They Aren't Telling You
...and so on...
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
