11.22.06
More Confusion on the Nature of the Agreement
CNet has a wide-ranging interview with Bill Gates, in which he touches partially on the Novell deal and Open Source / Free Software. Here is an interesting quote:
We’re also letting Novell give something that you get in the commercial model, but you rarely get otherwise, which is the indemnification, just like we always do with every copy of Windows. So we’re pioneering some things here.
Let me get this straight - Novell is providing the indemnification? I thought the brilliance here was the fact that MS was providing the indemnification, therefore sidestepping the GPL2?
So far, I have yet to hear any two people who should have knowledge of the deal’s significance give the same story. We have Ron’s perspective and Microsoft’s official response, Steve Ballmer’s view on what the deal means, and David Kaefer’s spin on what Steve said, and now Chairman Gates.
PJ at Groklaw made a great point the other day about a meeting of the minds as a requirement for a valid contract, with each passing day I wonder if there was ever even a meeting of the executives.
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.