Cooking With Linux

Re: What's the go with OO and Go-OO?

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:49:58 -0500

From: "Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier"

Patrick wrote:

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:28 AM, elliott-brennan

wrote:

>> > > I'm not certain of my position on this. I don't

>> > > feel informed enough particularly about the Mono et Mono :) issues...I'm suspicious of Novell and anyone who cosies up to large corporation on the

>> > > type of terms apparently in play, ie. to 'protect'

>> > > Novell users. This splinters the ability of other

>> > > groups to stand up and take a position.

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:49:58 -0500

Joe B wrote:

>> > >I'm not sure I understand this statement. Could you clarify?

>> > >I understand some of the concerns around Novell's deal with Microsoft, but you appear to be saying that this somehow affects the ability of >other groups to "take a position," which I don't get.

Hi Joe,

I guess the best way to describe my position would be as follows:

***WARNING****

Lengthy explanation follows

***WARNING****

My view of Novell's deal revolves around the concept of 'The Prisoner's Dilemma'

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2007/12/legal-theory--6.html

Unfortunately (but not unsurprisingly) I wasn't the first to think of this.

The problem for all the companies that Microsoft threatens is this:

MS is a big company with $US30+ billion in muscle.

If all the companies/groups/organisations threatened by MS with 'IP infringement' allegations over the use of Linux refuse to sign up for 'protection', they all suffer the consequences roughly equally; their business may be affected negatively but their actions support each other as they can point out that many others deny the truth of these claims - each acts as a support to the other.

It is often said in international relations that countries have shared interests but no friends. Businesses often operate the same way.

Not knowing who else MS has approached and what they're offering, each group holds similar concerns:

- If no one signs up, we're all in the same boat.

- If one signs up, the rest of us are at a disadvantage.

- If I sign up, I'm advantaged.

- What if Microsoft sues only me? What if the others don't take a stand with me? I don't have the money to defend myself, so I'd best get in now and be protected.

...BUT you don't know what the rest are intending to do. Public statements are one thing, action is another.

If one of them signs up, they gain a perceived advantage (I can tell my customers they're safe from the wolf), something the 'hold-outs' can't.

PJ of 'Groklaw' outlined this concern 18 months back. You can find her argument here:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070930081040440

In summary she posits the same conclusion I would, or more accurately, I suspected what she wrote :))

Novell claims Microsoft don't have a case, but sign up for 'protection'. They then broadcast you can use SUSE, with the claim 'Our Linux works with Microsoft' (see Groklaw article).

Novell uses this deal to attack Red Hat in the market place - their words, not mine "Justin Steinman reveals that to market their SUSE Linux Enterprise Server against Red Hat they ask, "Do you want the Linux that works with Windows? Or the one that doesn't?" (see Groklaw article)

SUSE have taken the deal with Microsoft, bought protection and use that to their advantage - they've taken the 'me-for-me' approach in the prisoner's dilemma but it doesn't always pay off in the long run.

Red Hat, Canonical etc are faced with a competitor who, though claiming MS has no real case for claiming IP infringements against Linux, have bought protection from being sued by MS and can present this as being protection for their users that business users of RH and Canonical don't get - and they apparently have.

This in turn places pressure on other Linux service sellers/distro creators to obtain a similar deal to both create a more level playing-field and avoid being the sole target in the cross-hairs of a large corporation like Microsoft. There is sufficient evidence to show that companies like MS have exploited these conditions to their advantage over the whole of capitalisms history (and beyond).

Whether individuals think "I wouldn't do that" doesn't matter, because in these situations businesses and groups AND individuals are often more concerned with the consequence of what the 'other' does and what the bigger party may do to them.

By the way, the Groklaw article about the ethics of this is very interesting.

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:49:58 -0500

From: "Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier"

>> > >By the way -- the idea that Michael is taking a hard line on Sun with regards to OpenOffice.org on >>behalf of Novell is somewhat misguided. Whether

you agree with Michael's position or not, it's his >>>> >> >>position and not something he's been asked to put forward by anyone else.

Byfield didn't say that Meeks was paid by anyone, what he states is "You can't help wondering whether, consciously or unconsciously, Meeks worked back from his conclusions -- and whether his conclusions are biased by his loyalty to Novell and Go-OOo." In fact, in his article Byfield states each side has some valid points to make. Overall I found his article rather even handed.

As for Michael Meeks. I don't know him. I've read about him and read interviews with him. He seems like an okay type of person, rather friendly in fact...but I don't know him.

The issue of a perceived conflict of interest is quite easy to establish, though an actual expression of it is not so easy to prove (I know this from professional experience - I investigate complaints against staff in a rather large state government department).

Meeks works for Novell. Meeks is involved with OO and Go-OO. Novell involves Go-OO in their product. Meeks is paid by Novell - he doesn't have to be 'paid' to make a comment because he's already a 'personality'.

To be fair, accusations of bias are easy to make and hard to disprove. Check out all the 'bias, bias, I call bias' comments here:

http://boycottnovell.com/2009/01/09/interview-with-charles-h-schulz/

What can anyone say in response to 'prove' their position?

My view of such things is 'biased' by the following example, which is drawn from sociological (my post-grad research area) perspectives on the pervasive invisibility of power

(Margaret Sargeant's "The New Sociology for Australians" is a good primer for such things)

I'm Rupert Murdoch. I need a new Editor for a newspaper. I don't employ him or interview him, my underling's underlings do this.

Now, I employed my most senior managers personally. I chose people I know think like me and see the world the way I do. They employ people similarly. So while the effect may be reduced as the distance from 'top' increases, it has an effect all the same - this is more so in private enterprise than elsewhere.

Meeks was employed to do a job, but he also gets to speak about the projects he works on. If he said things that Novell were very unhappy with they would certainly 'speak to him' about this. They pay him money and they don't want him losing them money.

Now, Meeks may well have chosen to work for Novell because he likes their general disposition towards the market and FOSS. He may well agree with what they do. He may well believe that what he says about Novell, OO, Go-OO and Sun is purely his own reasoning, but proving such an absolute would be difficult. That is, it would be difficult to prove that his employment had no influence on views.

It would be easier for him to prove this if he had made frequent public comment criticising some position or action of Novell. I'm not aware of any, but then I don't follow him assiduously - there are far too many other people for me to stalk! :)

I'm happy to read anything anyone can point to where he has made negative comments about Novell.

To conclude I don't have a clearly defined position about this matter, but I do have concerns about the often insidious influence of large corporations like Microsoft.

Sorry for the long response.

Regards,

Patrick

-- Registered GNU/Linux User 368634

If you are using Ubuntu or Debian, then the version of OOo that you are using _is_ Go-oo, there is no need to change anything.

I am trying to cover this topic quite often recently, being part of the OOo community from ages and a strong OOo advocate.

Michael is right asking Sun to share project's control, and even if Extensions make it easier, we urgently need a foundation. Sun has some reasons to not do it apparently, but they never told us about it.