At the beginning of the week, Steve Ballmer dropped a bomb on Linux users, giving them notice that since they may be using Microsoft Intellectual property, they will have balance-sheet exposure to paying Microsoft for IP in their Linux software.
Well, "balance sheet exposure" certainly sounds pretty ominous to me, although as a software geek, I am certainly not qualified to ascertain that even if there was substance to Microsoft claims, that they would have to be accounted for in the balance sheet.
But Ballmer's FUD bomb did create a huge wave in the Linux FOSS (Free Open Source) community sparking off intense debate on licensing, the GPL, Microsoft and Novell in general.
The Linux IL community was saying things like this:
MSFT cannot give/sell Linux solutions AND claim patent infringement. That much is covered by the GPL. If they distribute GPLed code, they cannot claim that they hold patents over said code without violating section 6 of it (not imposing additional restrictions), which would revoke their license to distribute, and make them copyright violators (or, using their own terminology, pirates).
and this:
You don't have to actually listen to them. The first time that either:
1. Novell claims that it is the only one you can buy Linux from due to said deal or
2. MS sues ANYONE for Linux patent infringement Novell must, immediately, either shake loose (retroactively) from the MSFT deal or open itself up for copyright infringement claims.
In other words, I don't know what the deal is, but the GPL seems to be doing it's job ok so far.
Who would - and how could they - sue Novell for copyright infringement based on any lawsuit Microsoft initiates for Linux patent infringement? What is Novell's legal liability for anything MS does that is not clearly specified in their deal? Novell wouldn't be suing the Linux user and therefore isn't violating the GPL. Novell and Microsoft have not merged their corporate entities, so Novell has no shared liability for MS challenging the GPL.
Regarding point 1., Novell has made it clear that it has entered into an agreement with MS that shields its users from Linux litigation; it is stating a fact that resonates with business clients. It doesn't need to - and probably won't - state that MS's claims lack merit or are otherwise FUD.
The GPL has worked well, up to now. But up to now Microsoft has not become involved in the Linux market. And Microsoft is one hell of a disruptive corporate entity in the markets it enters. It can also be a legal juggernaut with bottomless pockets to drag out proceedings if it does not achieve its legal goals outright. How many years has MS's anti-trust issue dragged out?
BUT - and THIS IS A HUGE BUT - I dont think this is about the GPL. I think its about the market and positioning products versus services. Stay tuned.
