Motives
So what's in it for the players?
What's Novell's motivation to enter into this agreement? Looking at the money flow, that's not hard to answer: It just got an immediate infusion of cash, its stock went up 15 percent, it got Microsoft legitimizing and promoting its software to Microsoft's own customers, and maybe it reduced the amount of time and money it will be spending on distracting lawsuits—whether pursuing or defending against them. The downside? Taking some heat (clearly more than they expected) from the open-source community, plus (tin-foil-hat on) the eventual shiv between the shoulderblades when it finds out what the deal was really about.
To Bruce Perens, Wine's Tom Wickline, and others, Novell is the new SCO. But even granting that it is, does it know it? As for Microsoft, various theories have been advanced. Steve Ballmer says Microsoft is just promoting its corporate self-interest, and I think he'd get few arguments. As for how it's promoting its self-interest, John Dvorak has a theory involving shims and Microsoft wanting to "crack" the GPL. I didn't understand it. Nick Petreley points out that it's a five-year deal and wonders what happens at the end of five years. Bruce Perens thinks Novell will help Microsoft turn back Open Document Format in favor of something Microsoft controls. And so on.
Then there's the PR angle. In Microsoft's case, PR includes trying to look virtuous to the EU courts. Look, Microsoft can say, at how we play nice with competing platforms like Novell's SUSE. Here's a tin-foil-hat theory: Microsoft can't compete against a movement, Ballmer has acknowledged. It can definitely compete against a company. So isn't it likely that this question has come up at Microsoft: Can't we somehow turn this Linux movement into a company that we can compete with?
If that question has arisen, a clear understanding of open source would suggest that the answer should be "no"; but suppose the question was asked and the answer came back "maybe." What steps would Microsoft take to effectively turn the Linux movement into a company? Would it promote one Linux supplier by giving it money and credibility, and threatening to sue the users of other Linux suppliers' software in the hope of whittling the movement down to that one company? And if the pool of sources for Linux actually did dwindle down to just Novell, does anyone doubt that Microsoft could put it out of business in a year? Tin-foil-hat off.
