Novell: To Love or Hate

[Sepero]

I want to publicly comment on this story, and more importantly, the community replies to it that I just read at:
http://justlinux.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2006-12-08-018-26-OP-CY-LL "Which Road To Take?"

Up until now, I have been pretty much silent on the whole MS/Novell issue (not that my opinion matters to many people anyway). But after reading the Completely Bogus things people are saying about Suse, I have to speak up.
(As a side note, I do not use Suse, nor have I ever recommended their distro.)


Although I support the GPL 200%, I'm partially with Brian (the editor), on this. I see a lot of what looks like _Bunk_ talk on the story replies. I'd like to address and reply to them specifically. Posts implying the following:

"With the MS/Novell deal, MS might now sue other distros". How does the MS/Novell deal change anything in regards to that? MS could do that with or without a Suse partnership. Bunk talk!

"MS could get Suse to release Free Software which MS holds patents to". AGAIN, they could have done that with or without the partnership. Have you seen the MS installer that was released as FOSS a couple years back? Do you know if that has patents on it? (I doubt anyone does.) More Bunk talk.

"MS partnering with Novell is a loop_hole in the law". What the hell? That violates nothing. The loop_hole is being able to have patents on Free Software. This has nothing to do with the MS/Novell deal. Bunk talk.

"All MS has to do is SUE just one or two high profile coders and MOST of the rest will run for cover". Are you kidding me? If MS sued someone like Linus, the whole-freaking community would be in an uproar. And they would all stand right beside him, like soldiers prepared for war!

"Microsoft AND Novell collaborated to create a devious circumvention which I believe violates both the spirit and the letter of the GPL". OMG! AGAIN, they could have done that with or without the partnership. MS does not need Novells permission to give them "Patent Protection". Enough Bunk.



Now let's have some REAL talk.

"Freedom is not free". This is exactly true. You must work for it, and occasionally fight for it. There are others who are trying to take it from you constantly.

"The GPL3 is needed". Also true. Currently the GPL2 does not address the problem of FOSS that also has patents on it. GPL3 should attempt to rectify this.


For me, it's about FREEDOM. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people are being blinded by their love/hate for Suse or Microsoft to see this. The last thing I have to say is that I hope that the FSF takes PLENTY of time revising the GPL3. Because if people get too emotional, and release the license too soon or with ridiculous clauses, it could be very bad for ALL of FOSS.

Sepero

[XiaoKJ]

IF M$ sued linus, I'm fly over to America to help in whatever way I can. Its going to be mad to do anything like that.

Anyway, the odds of that happening is as good as nil --- BGates is a clever man, and he would fight a court case he knows he can't win.

Finally, Novell is a company and the management played a card. Stupid or not, the shareholders will decide. We don't have a say in any of this, except state why its stupid and why people should not buy their STOCKS right now.

my 2 cents

[EnigmaOne]

I suggest you spend some time reading groklaw.net--for starters. Most of the other commentary that I'm thinking of is linked-to from the microsoft-novell articles there. You are not seeing this for its nuances of microsoft's historical predatory practices.

SCO was merely a phase 1 attack, and information gathering period.
novell is a phase 2 attack, where microsoft is implementing what they learned from the SCO fiasco.

My opinion is that this is all about encumberment and an end-run around ODF. The fact that ODF exists as an ISO standard at all, endangers microsofts vendor lock-in on their proprietary document formats. OpenXML, fresh out of ECMA, and novells support of it, will confuse the PHBs and delay the market move to ODF.

Looking at office, there is only a clear path of migration away from ODF in the supported document scheme. microsoft is blocking the migration path to ODF by their plugin scheme and lackluster tools.

This is the way it has always been with microsoft, and novell is now complicitous in directly harming the adoption of Open Standards by folding OpenXML support into their fork of OpenOffice.org.

Like microsoft, I am actively removing anything novell or SuSE-related, and moving the customer to something with a Fedora or Debian flavor to it.

[retsaw]

"The GPL3 is needed". Also true. Currently the GPL2 does not address the problem of FOSS that also has patents on it. GPL3 should attempt to rectify this.Actually it does, from the preamble for the GPLv2 Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.However the MS/Novell agreement does not specifically refer to any particular patents or GPL software, so it doesn't violate the letter of the GPL. Should Novell knowingly add patented code to GPL software they would then violate the GPL, so I don't think they'll do that. What I think this was is an attempt by Microsoft to generate more FUD regarding FOSS software now that the SCO case is coming to an end, and for Novell's part I think theywere hoping it would generate more business for them from those who were worried about possible patent issues, though if that was the plan it is looking like it has backfired given all the anti-Novell sentiment it has generated.

I don't really see any point worrying about this since we can't do anything about it short of campaigning to get software patents abolished. I wouldn't go as far as saying anyone should not use SUSE or Novell software, but I would recommend something else instead because of this.

[je_fro]

The way I see it, M$ just killed its first Linux competitor...

[EnigmaOne]

"We need to slaughter Novell before they get stronger...This really isn't that hard. If you're going to kill someone, there isn't much reason to get all worked up about it and angry. You just pull the trigger. Any discussions beforehand are a waste of time. We need to smile at Novell while we pull the trigger."--Jim Allchin, microsoft {ref: GrokLaw.net}

[quip]

"We need to slaughter Novell before they get stronger...This really isn't that hard. If you're going to kill someone, there isn't much reason to get all worked up about it and angry. You just pull the trigger. Any discussions beforehand are a waste of time. We need to smile at Novell while we pull the trigger."--Jim Allchin, microsoft {ref: GrokLaw.net}

You do know that this particular quote is over 15 years old, right? I think that battle has been decided a long time ago. Also, while Groklaw is a great resource, it shouldn't serve as the sole source of anything, including FOSS business.

I'm not here to defend Novell, but I do believe that people are making too much out of this. At the most, it is some FUD. Also, the ODF issue will be unaffected; MS can support it or not. Just because something is an open standard, ratified by an international body, doesn't mean it will become an "industry standard". The best way to get ODF adopted is to get it to be seen as important, and why.

With respect, I must state something that I think many linux users/ethusiasts/propenents forget from time to time: Just because software (or any product) is better/faster/whatever, doesn't mean it will be widely accepted. Keep in mind that for linux to stay around, and keep improving, it needs visibility and smart people being paid to work on it. The Novell pact does both of those things.

Before you bash Novell too much, please keep this in mind.

[Sepero]

retsaw, I think GPL3 could do more, but good point about the patent thing in GPL2.


EnigmaOne, the purpose of this thread was not to justify MS/Novell. The purpose was to say that the MS/Novell deal has little or nothing to do with the GPL3.

People seem to want to somehow modify GPL3 to prevent MS from making deals with Linux companies. I believe that is a distraction of what Free Software is really about.

The purpose of the GPL is not to discriminate against MS, but instead to be equal in granting Software Freedom with all individuals or companies. Be they MS, Apple, Sun, IBM, Redhat, Novell, etc.

[retsaw]

GPLv3 should stop this sort of thing Richard Stallman has said that they are modifying the GPLv3 to prevent it specifically because of the MS/Novell deal. I'm not sure if they will be able to do this effectively though because Novell could claim the deal does not relate to the GPL software they distribute while spinning it to imply that it does.

However this is not a distraction from what Free Software is about since Free Software is all about maintaining the freedom of the software and the use of patents can take that freedom away.

[Sepero]

Why should the GPL3 try to prevent MS from granting "Patent Protection" to certain companies. Like I said before, MS really doesn't even need an agreement to grant "Patent Protection" to anyone.

As far as I can see, this is completely outside the scope of GPL.

[ladoga]

I think main reason for MS-Novell deal was just to threat the RH customers.

Legally it changes nothing, but I guess what MS hopes is that threatening will make people uneasy about choosing RH in business and that they'd choose SuSE instead as it has paid it's protection money to MS.

They aren't flinging those threats for nothing.

[EnigmaOne]

You do know that this particular quote is over 15 years old, right? I think that battle has been decided a long time ago. Also, while Groklaw is a great resource, it shouldn't serve as the sole source of anything, including FOSS business.

Yeah. I even still have my original Novell DOS 7 floppies, too. $79.95 from Egghead Software. Some of us watched the ms-DRI bit happen as it happened.

Some of microsoft's tactics happen to work, and Allchin's comments are the embodiment of the kind of criminality endemic to Redmond...the kind of tactics microsoft still uses today.

IMHO, anyone who believes differently is just a bit out of touch with what's really going on, and doesn't pay much attention to history.

[quip]

Yeah. I even still have my original Novell DOS 7 floppies, too. $79.95 from Egghead Software. Some of us watched the ms-DRI bit happen as it happened.

Some of microsoft's tactics happen to work, and Allchin's comments are the embodiment of the kind of criminality endemic to Redmond...the kind of tactics microsoft still uses today.

IMHO, anyone who believes differently is just a bit out of touch with what's really going on, and doesn't pay much attention to history.

I'm not disagreeing with this, I'm just saying that I don't think it is that relevant to the discussion. Yes, Microsoft is not nice. Yes, their tactics were illegal and unethical. Yes, they were successful, and still use many of them today. My point was that the agreement did not take place 15 years ago, and should be analyzed from a different viewpoint, while keeping your thoughts in view, too.

Novell made a business decision that raises the stature of linux in many people's eyes (rightly or wrongly) and increased their bottom line. These kind of decisions (the one Novell made) need to be made from an analytical point of view. While Novell might be "sleeping with the enemy", they are walking away with a much better deal than MS did, IMO.

[zeroth]

At first I was a little excited about the agreement. I though it would be great to make better interoperability with windows and linux -- then I determined it wasn't such a great idea. then MS went out and claimed linux violated their patents or something -- that really pissed me off. IBM's blessing further confused me in the matter.

after all the pushing and pulling, I've come to this simple conclusion:

You don't sleep with the enemy; Microsoft is no friend to free open source software, and never can be. I've flushed all respect for Novell, and so should you.

[zeroth]

Novell made a business decision that raises the stature of linux in many people's eyes (rightly or wrongly) and increased their bottom line. These kind of decisions (the one Novell made) need to be made from an analytical point of view. While Novell might be "sleeping with the enemy", they are walking away with a much better deal than MS did, IMO.

Novell opened the doors for actual software patents owned by MS to be pushed into free software -- its already happened with Open Office. its a ticking time bomb, after 5 years, MS is going to butt-rape openoffice, and likely others, and there's going to be some ripping of code out of it. the "interoperability" is useless because its not permanent.

[EnigmaOne]

The point is, despite the ms-DRI thing being done for 15 years, microsoft hasn't changed their strategy at all. They've simply become more subtle about it. The predaciousness is the same, and they should continue to be treated accordingly.

Novell made a business decision that raises the stature of linux in many people's eyes (rightly or wrongly) and increased their bottom line. These kind of decisions (the one Novell made) need to be made from an analytical point of view. While Novell might be "sleeping with the enemy", they are walking away with a much better deal than MS did, IMO.

Chasing perception is often a strategy that will result in a mammary gland entangled in the proverbial wringer; and that seems to be what novell is doing with this move.

On the surface, it does look like novell walked away in better stead than ms; however, in such deals, microsoft has been the historical winner; because of their predacious culture, and because of their long-term strategy: Encumber and destroy the competition.

The novell g***** looks like a single move with two benefits for microsoft--tie-up a competitor, and negatively impact the rate of adoption of ODF. ODF is where microsoft is taking a global beating, losing their lock-in hold on the market; which makes their novell move strategically desirable for ms. In the long-term, novell will lose something they didn't think was on the table at the time the deal was struck.

A lot can happen in five years and, given microsoft's history, I don't think the future harbors much good for novell from microsoft.

[Sepero]

I'm mostly in agreeance with what quip has been saying. Let's hit on some key quotes here:The predaciousness [of MS] is the same, and they should continue to be treated accordingly.True.

While Novell might be "sleeping with the enemy", they are walking away with a much better deal than MS did, IMO.This I do not know. I heard something about Novell having to pay additional money for every time MS helps sell Suse. Either way, little to none of this concerns Linux or the GPL.

You don't sleep with the enemy; Microsoft is no friend to free open source software, and never can be.Neither is Apple. I agree 100%. You can't threaten to sue FOSS projects and think we're all just going to keep playing nice.

Novell opened the doors for actual software patents owned by MS to be pushed into free software -- its already happened with Open Office.No offense zeroth, but this looks like more _bunk_ to me. Where's the proof for "it's already happened". Send me a link or copy of the code that MS has "already" put in OpenOffice. So many people are acting as though MS has already put thousands of lines of pantented code into OO. So far, I haven't seen anything.

Also, Novell did not "open the doors for patents owned by MS to be pushed into FOSS". This is the exact same kind of pure _bunk_ that I was talking about in my original post.

MS does NOT, and did NOT need an agreement with Novell to contribute to FOSS. MS has contributed software to SourceForge before without the help of Novell.

[Sepero]

If I was MS, and I wanted to destroy OO, I wouldn't be waving a huge flag at the FOSS community pretending to be friends with Novell.

Instead, I would funnell money to another company, similarly to SCO. Then I would have THAT company "contribute" my secretly patented code into OpenOffice.

Think about it.

[quip]

The point is, despite the ms-DRI thing being done for 15 years, microsoft hasn't changed their strategy at all. They've simply become more subtle about it. The predaciousness is the same, and they should continue to be treated accordingly.

Ok, whatever; I'm not saying they shouldn't be suspected. However, if a company that contributes a lot to open source, and produces a very nice major distro is in serious need of some cash, then they have to explore all options. Additionally, if they are losing clients because of worries of interoperability (which they have stated that they have), then they have to resolve that issue. Should they have kept doing the same thing that was pointing them down the tubes?


Chasing perception is often a strategy that will result in a mammary gland entangled in the proverbial wringer; and that seems to be what novell is doing with this move.

On the surface, it does look like novell walked away in better stead than ms; however, in such deals, microsoft has been the historical winner; because of their predacious culture, and because of their long-term strategy: Encumber and destroy the competition.

Again, see above.

The novell g***** looks like a single move with two benefits for microsoft--tie-up a competitor, and negatively impact the rate of adoption of ODF. ODF is where microsoft is taking a global beating, losing their lock-in hold on the market; which makes their novell move strategically desirable for ms. In the long-term, novell will lose something they didn't think was on the table at the time the deal was struck.

Really? Microsoft is already taking a "global beating" with their office suite? News to me...

ODF has the potential to give MS fits; however, what do you think everyone with a copy of Office will do if MS includes the open standard in office? Will they still switch to OO, or KOffice, etc.? Writing a little plugin for their office suite would have cost a lot less than the deal they made, and then what would be the difference between the two? A lot more, that's what--and the other stuff is what will move people to OO, not a file format.


A lot can happen in five years and, given microsoft's history, I don't think the future harbors much good for novell from microsoft.

Possibly. We'll see. I'm not doubting that statement; I really don't know. However, the easy thing to do is to bash Novell for not strictly adhering to our ethos, while neglecting to realize that they have a business to run, and sometimes, the present is a sacrifice for the future. However, as you state, the future might be good or bad for them.

[quip]

I've flushed all respect for Novell, and so should you.

"So should I"? Easy, now... ;)


Novell opened the doors for actual software patents owned by MS to be pushed into free software -- its already happened with Open Office. its a ticking time bomb, after 5 years, MS is going to butt-rape openoffice, and likely others, and there's going to be some ripping of code out of it. the "interoperability" is useless because its not permanent.

Could you provide an example of the MS patents that Novell has unwittingly forced onto the OO developers? Because that is the only way I can see your statement making any sense. Otherwise, even if they have used MS patents that MS did not contribute willingly (which again I have not seen), then the SUSE version of OO would be the only one affected--and protected.

If not, then let's chalk this up to FUD.

the "interoperability" is useless because its not permanent.

Again, this rests on the basis of what I inquired about above.

[je_fro]

...if a company that contributes a lot to open source, and produces a very nice major distro is in serious need of some cash...
They didn't make suse...they BOUGHT it pre-fab. Novell has been grasping at straws for a long time, and when they threw their hat in the linux ring, I thought they needed watching. Well, IMO, they've shown me all I need to see...
I won't be suprised if we see SCO II - The Revenge arise from this...

[quip]

They didn't make suse...they BOUGHT it pre-fab.

True, but are you saying that they have contributed nothing before or since their purchase?

Additionally, they are currently a producer of a major distro, and that was what I was referring to. Should have been more specific, I guess.


Novell has been grasping at straws for a long time, and when they threw their hat in the linux ring, I thought they needed watching. Well, IMO, they've shown me all I need to see...
I won't be suprised if we see SCO II - The Revenge arise from this...

Again, maybe we will. I just think they are taking too much crap for this. I am adopting a "wait and see" approach, both for the wisdom of their decision to partner up with Microsoft, and of their future in general.

I think they did what they felt was best for their business. If the worst turns out to be true, then they will die by the sword they attempted to live by, and we can all burn them then.

[XiaoKJ]

If the worst turns out to be true, then they will die by the sword they attempted to live by, and we can all burn them then.
I just thought this was memorable.

[EnigmaOne]

Microsoft is already taking a "global beating" with their office suite? News to me...
News to me too, but that's not what I said, either.

The not insignificant global move toward ODF is what is giving microsoft fits, particularly in view of the fact that they are at least a year away from an ISO ruling on their Open XML non-standard. They are only just out of ECMA on that one, and the road ahead with ISO is not going to be the cakewalk they've had until now on this issue.

The word, carried by the tides, has it that it is likely that their bid at an ISO-approved OpenXML standard is a waste of time. This probably pisses-off a lot of key people in Redmond.

The Novell deal stands as the only logical attack at the same issue ms has been foaming at the mouth since the Mass. adoption of ODF.

microsoft has two strategic locks on the market, which precludes entry and participation by competitors, on something other than microsoft's own terms:
(1.) The OEM windoze distribution channels.
(2.) The near-ubiquity of ms Office document formats.

The Novell deal is is a strategic move on the part of microsoft to preserve #2.

I really don't think you're seeing this for the chess game that it is.

[Sepero]

Just for the record, I do not condone what Novell did. In fact, I consider myself pretty much nuetral, because I really couldn't care less about Novell. What I care about is Free (Liberated) Software. I would not use MS XP if they 'gave' it away. (And I will NEVER pay the MS tax again, even if the exact same Linux system costs more.)

It bothers me that so many people gladly accepted FOSS directly from MS on SorceForge, but accepting it through Novell is now somehow worse...

My common sense tells me that MS is a constant threat, with or without Novell.

[quip]

News to me too, but that's not what I said, either.

I must have misunderstood you, then. In the interests of staying on topic I'll not ask how.


The not insignificant global move toward ODF is what is giving microsoft fits, particularly in view of the fact that they are at least a year away from an ISO ruling on their Open XML non-standard. They are only just out of ECMA on that one, and the road ahead with ISO is not going to be the cakewalk they've had until now on this issue.

...snip...

microsoft has two strategic locks on the market, which precludes entry and participation by competitors, on something other than microsoft's own terms:
(1.) The OEM windoze distribution channels.
(2.) The near-ubiquity of ms Office document formats.

The Novell deal is is a strategic move on the part of microsoft to preserve #2.

I really don't think you're seeing this for the chess game that it is.

My point above is that just because something is a recognized standard, does not mean that it will become a widely-used, or industry standard. I do not think that people are going to use alternative office suites just because they were the first to natively support ODF, especially since MS is currently in the process of supporting it in their own office suite.

To tell you the truth, I am not exactly sure why MS made this deal. Then again, I don't think they have been doing very well in any facet recently, which has been well documented. What do they have to gain?

1. A guarantee of interoperability can only increase the amount of requests for machines without Windows pre-loaded. People unfamiliar with linux could now have some help migrating some of their machines to linux, and not worry about compatibility issues.

2. Again, I do not believe that ODF alone will speed adoption of FOSS office suites. It will open the door, however, and now potential clients who haven't tried OO or Koffice or whatever will be further encouraged to do so, since they will have some hand-holding with their migration.

3. This will raise the profile of linux in areas where it might not have been seen as a viable option.

4. This was a business deal that one company made to improve their bottom line. A company that supports an open version of itself (openSUSE) and other software projects (such as Xgl).

5. The patent issue is a non-issue. If Novell did include any patents that they shouldn't, will Debian be affected? Will Slack be affected? Will OpenOffice be affected? Only if they blindly accept code pushed upstream by Novell. I don't think the developers of those projects are likely to do that. The only company that would be liable would be Novell, and then they would have to eat it, not everyone else. This also does not even consider what would happen if/when the "misappropriated" or whatever patents were released under GPL software licenses? Wouldn't that change their license as well, if Novell had Microsoft's ok? I don't know, so I'm just asking...

[je_fro]

To tell you the truth, I am not exactly sure why MS made this deal.
Here's one reason: http://boycottnovell.com/

Novell has signed their own death warrant...How they must have smiled in Redmond when the deal was struck....
('Tis the season, so think of the Grinch wringing his hands with delight...)

[quip]

After glancing at the site you linked to, I can only assume that you were referring to the following, listed under "Why Boycott?":

“If the Microsoft corporation, whether it wishes to be part of this ecology in a genuine and sincere sense or not, if it succeeds in getting one distribution to pay royalties for the distribution of free software, other distributions will do so. They will have to.

Why will they have to? Intimidation? Bullying? What legal reason will compel them?


That will then succeed in marching the commercial sector away from the non-commercial sector, and Microsoft then will be able to use its patents to sue to block the development of software in the non-commercial sector without the fear of suing its own customers, which is the force that now constrains them from misbehavior with their patent portfolio.”

I guess I am just missing something here, but I have always wanted to be informed. Other than just "Microsoft is never nice" arguments (which I have not disagreed with), could someone inform me as to

1. Why other linux distributors, and indeed all FOSS projects, will have to pay the extortion money?

2. How MS will sue linux companies that do not accept any modifications SUSE makes into their software?

I'm not trying to argue for Microsoft or for Novell or for anybody, really. It's just that while I realize MS is very adept and has a long history of giving to anybody and everybody in the behind, I don't see how this agreement forces everything to unfold as people are saying.

[EnigmaOne]

I do not believe that ODF alone will speed adoption of FOSS office suites.
It won't and it's not supposed to.

It's the document standard that matters, not the productivity suite that may or may not support it.

[je_fro]

1. Why other linux distributors, and indeed all FOSS projects, will have to pay the extortion money?

2. How MS will sue linux companies that do not accept any modifications SUSE makes into their software?
Because if one company caves in and pays "protection money" that's bad for everyone...

MS can blacken the skies with lawyers anytime or any place they wish, but they can't launch lawsuits for no reason...if that's later shown to be the case, then MS will get sanctioned by the court. If, however, they can show cause, they're off the hook (i.e. they acted in "good faith"). Even though Novell has "agreed to disagree" about patent issues, the fact they are paying MS for their IP can be construed as some "admission" of infringement. It may take awhile...their strategy is likely very long term, but I believe MS is looking to sue and shut linux down for good.

[quip]

Because if one company caves in and pays "protection money" that's bad for everyone...
I would agree that it sure doesn't help. However, depending on how several things play out, it might be a non-factor when looked back upon in 5 years. I don't think anyone can say with any certainty right now.


MS can blacken the skies with lawyers anytime or any place they wish, but they can't launch lawsuits for no reason...if that's later shown to be the case, then MS will get sanctioned by the court. If, however, they can show cause, they're off the hook (i.e. they acted in "good faith"). Even though Novell has "agreed to disagree" about patent issues, the fact they are paying MS for their IP can be construed as some "admission" of infringement.

Which is what I've been saying (or trying to). MS can't just up and sue without some semblance of infringement; at least not successfully, and not without consequence.

As to Novell paying for IP, it might be splitting hairs, but my understanding is that they did not pay for IP, they paid for indemnity for their customers. While one could argue that looks like an admission of guilt, I suppose one could also argue that if Novell actually thought that they were using MS patents (the basis of the "paying for IP argument"), they would have bargained for indemnity for themselves along with their customers.


It may take awhile...their strategy is likely very long term, but I believe MS is looking to sue and shut linux down for good.

I think they might try...I don't think they will be successful. I think that place is a cluster__ right now.


It won't and it's not supposed to.

It's the document standard that matters, not the productivity suite that may or may not support it.


Ok, I believe we are now going in circles. :D I have enjoyed the dialogue, and I think we all have had our say, and stated our position. I am going to respectfully bow out before this thread extends way beyond its usefulness. It's been fun...

[zeroth]

No offense zeroth, but this looks like more _bunk_ to me. Where's the proof for "it's already happened". Send me a link or copy of the code that MS has "already" put in OpenOffice. So many people are acting as though MS has already put thousands of lines of pantented code into OO. So far, I haven't seen anything.

I was referring to Novell's fork of OpenOffice, though that doesn't directly affect the OpenOffice project. I was mistaken.

Also, Novell did not "open the doors for patents owned by MS to be pushed into FOSS". This is the exact same kind of pure _bunk_ that I was talking about in my original post.

Its not so much that "Novell opened the doors for patents owned by MS to be pushed into FOSS", but this is what I think:

First MS acknowledges Linux, shows that it seems to have respect for it and seemingly attempts to help -- this is good for MS's PR.
Second, MS Claims that Linux violated MS patents, with their good PR as a aura of innocence.
and Finally, It's all going to end up in court like SCO.