How is Ubuntu affected by the Novell/MS deal?

[Russell McOrmond]

Alan Pater wrote:
> In their latest faq on this, Novell says that they are not violating
> Section 7 of the GPL because it is their customers who get the
> protection, not Novell.


   The language that has been chosen is the source of the problem.  What 
Novell is offering Microsoft customers, and what Microsoft is offering 
Novell customers, is not a "license" for the patents but a promise not 
to sue.  This ends up forming part of the conversation about 
indemnification rather than the conversation about licensing.

   What Microsoft and Novell are doing around patents in this deal isn't 
actually all that different than what Novell, RedHat, IBM, etc are doing 
in http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/ where they promise not to sue 
each other or their customers for patent violations under specific 
conditions.


   There are a lot of things Novell could have done to avoid the 
perceptions formed since the announcement.   While they now put this in 
a "FAQ", pretty much every question listed there could have been 
anticipated with a tiny bit of forethought.


   My hope is that Canonical will learn from Novell's mistakes, and if 
they work out deals with large patent holders to protect their customers 
they will do it (and word it) in a smarter way.


One question you got into:
> Apart from that, what if the customer is Redhat, or Debian, or Ubuntu?
> Then they would be covered, right?

   Why would they be covered?  This is for software patents which are 
infringed (or not) when the patented information/mental process is 
carried out.  This means it is the people who run the software, not the 
author or distributor, that would be infringing.  That said, we should 
never trust an author or distributor of software that doesn't also 
extensively run (and test) their software.

   This is one of the many practical problems with software patents, and 
why software copyright (where the onus is on the author and distributors 
to deal with licensing issues) is just so much better.



> upstream developer? Covered, right? But that all just gives MS more
> cred to say that Linux includes MS patented software, which has never
> been shown to be true.

   We just need to be armed with facts when we are asked this by people 
wanting to adopt FLOSS and/or Linux.  Unlike other initiatives that 
specifically spell out what patents are involved, this one doesn't 
actually indicate there are any patents involved at all -- just the fear 
that there might be patents and lawsuits.   The fact that the deal is 
about reducing fear, this deal is about indemnification and not licensing.

P.S.  CLUEcan.ca would like to be able to do research and policy work in 
this area, and are looking for membership and various resources towards 
that goal.

-- 
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
  rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/

  "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
   manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
   portable media player from my cold dead hands!"