Anyone interested in the Linux operating system has almost certainly heard about the Microsoft "License Agreement" with Novell to exempt Suse Linux from unstated patent infringements. If not, the high level executive summary runs like this.

The High Level Executive Summary

Microsoft has claimed for years that its software patents were being violated by the Linux operating system. What those infringements are is anyone's guess, Microsoft won't say. Linux is a open source community effort to create an alternative to Microsoft products. Initiated in Europe in the early 1990s, it spread like wildfire to the United States and beyond. ( I remember when the Slackware distribution came on about 30 diskettes, although I probably shouldn't admit to it. In fact, I was one of the "defenders" of the Coherent Unix-like operating system against the Linux invasion ... but, no hard feelings toward the victor, let bygones be bygones. This may seem like an odd aside, but it's significance will become apparent later on ).

The Linux world now encompasses about a hundred million servers and workstation users around the world. Recently a Chinese version of Linux has been gaining a lot of attention - that represents at least another 100 million potential Linux users. It's a serious threat to Microsoft's market. This would seem to indicate a long, protracted struggle in court over alleged patent infringements, incurring many $millions in expenses for Microsoft pursuing a legal case that it has a very good chance of losing.

But, things are working out in a different way.

A year ago or so, the Novell corporation 'purchased' one of the leading Linux distributions, Suse Linux. This created a great stir about the commercialization of Linux, specifically that the fruits of many thousands of hours put in to creating Linux by non-commercial, non-paid developers were being reaped by giant profit-driven corporations. Avoiding giant profit-driven corporations was one of the reasons for creating Linux, so in addition to being economically unfair, it rubbed the entire Linux community the wrong way.

And as if this were not bad enough, in November 2006, Novell ( the erstwhile 'owner' of Suse Linux ) signed a elaborate cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft. In part, the two companies absolve each other of liability for infringements, with money changing hands at a reasonable clip. Among other things, Microsoft purchased 350.000 licenses to sell ... a version of Microsoft Linux utilizing MS Longhorn technology, that is if you can believe it and some don't. Novell in its turn agreed not to include a Linux application called MONO which effectively replaces the a Microsoft .NET engine on a Linux server. Could this be a hint about a perceived patent infringement on the part of Microsoft ?

The Linux world went berserk. Of all the ultimate treacheries ever committed, this was the worst. Look around at some of the comments on Linux blog sites for a sampling of sentiment. It's running high, I can tell you. But, assuming that the legal terms of the Agreement are clear ( and they are not ), what are the implications of the deal for the future ? Is Novell admitting to infringements by the Suse Linux OS, and by further implication the Linux community as a whole ? Is Microsoft admitting that the Linux OS is a better server than its own offerings ?

What does it really mean ? While it is far from clear what this deal means in terms of future products and market position, I think that there are several outstanding features that makes the Agreement beneficial to Linux.

A Better Mouse Trap ?

First, I think that Microsoft has given Linux the biggest push toward market legitimacy it has ever received. Microsoft is admitting that Linux is a better server. Despite its garbled story about "virtualization" ( that is, the Microsoft OS running with other OSs on the same machine ), I think it is clear that MS applications will be compiled for and running on Linux platforms. Microsoft may try to confound the ability to install the Apache Web Server or other Linux applications so it will be a MS-only server, but I think the damage will be done. What do they have to offer ? They will offer a platform that is more stable, more efficient and eventually more inter-operable with industry standards than IIS. It's still going to look like Linux to the world at large, even if Linux enthusiasts know better.

As a concrete example, did IBM Unix-like AIX operating system pollute or dilute the standards of the Unix world ? No, it did not. IBM followed the Unix market because it was built on industry standards, as is Linux. I think Microsoft is doing the same. What are they buying from the deal ? I think the answer is standards.

Commercialization ? What Commercialization ?

Second, I think many Linux people underestimate the degree of commercialization of Linux in the last 5 years. Many Linux distributions are already commercial and have been for some time. Red Hat Linux was commercialized in 1999 and not much changed in the Linux world because Fedora was spun off as the free, open source version of Red Hat. The big question was, when is Red-Hat-rival Suse Linux going to go commercial ( we know the answer now ).

Another aspect of commercialization is the embrace of hardware manufacturers for distributions of Linux that are optimized to run on their hardware. The recent deal between Red Hat and IBM is yet another example if the trend.

Additionally, I would note that many Linux developers are commercial Linux developers, earning a livelihood doing software development for Linux platforms. Experienced Linux developers are in high demand and can command good salaries, even more so because of the trend toward commercialization in recent years.

The Creature from the FUDDY Lagoon

The third important aspect arises from a question. If Microsoft is trying to create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt ( FUD ) in the Linux community, what is Microsoft afraid of ? What is their FUD factor regarding Linux ?

There is the obvious answer of growing dominance of Linux in the server market, which is the main battlefield described in the Agreement with Novell. But Microsoft has another source of worry in the workstation market, what one might call 'blowback' from Linux desktop applications.

The most notable of the Linux desktop apps to invade the Microsoft space is the free OpenOffice suite, supported by Sun Systems, a name which so far has been conspicuous in its absence. Microsoft makes a lot of money on its MS Office applications and loses money every time OpenOffice gets installed. For any workstation environment from home office to personal computing, most people agree that the OpenOffice word processor and spreadsheet applications are as good as any on the market and retain at least 99% compatibility with MS Office. OpenOffice is a serious competitor for Microsoft Office. There are several other big contenders from the Linux world, such as Nvu instead of Frontpage or XAMPP instead of IIS.

So, while Microsoft is blustering about indefinable infringements ( perhaps with some merit in individual cases ), the company has a very full plate from a competitive standpoint. One possibility that is rarely mentioned in Linux circles is that the situation is other way around - Microsoft is trying to immunize itself from infringement claims by the Linux community. If so, how effective would the strategy be ? It's difficult to say. It depends largely on the letter and the law of the GPL license, a subject best left to the lawyers, not me. But there is a serious question if the Microsoft-Novell Agreement meets the conditions of GPL - just because it's open source does not mean that it is without legal limits, especially in the area of re-licensing.

Friends in High Places

Another aspect not often appreciated in the Linux world is the size and power of the companies that have adopted Linux, open source and open standards in their software. Sun Systems has been mentioned, so has IBM, although many people do not realize how long and active IBM has been in their support of the Linux community, not to mention how many of their mainframes are running some flavor of Linux these days. They have an awfully large number of patents and an awfully large legal department ...

... enough said.

The Twist of the Screw

There was an interesting twist in the Microsoft Linux Licensing story not long ago. Among the very few Acceptniks, that is Linux distributions buying into the MS process, is Xandros Linux. It is descendant of Coral Linux, which was designed to have the look-and-feel of Microsoft Windows. The applications are not identical, but the way they work is very similar, keystrokes, mouse clicks, etc. If one does not like a Linux app, one has the option of running Crossover, which takes Microsoft system code ( DLLs that you own ), loads them into memory and uses them to run the Windows application you prefer inside of Xandros.

It all works very well. I think that it is one of the easiest ways for a small business or home office to migrate from Windows to Linux. It feels very familiar to a Windows user. In fact, the value added that justifies its price is that it looks like Windows ( for the high end business system is $100, low end home $40 ). It may not be the latest in Linux software but everything is QAed half-to-death and it is a very stable and reliable Linux workstation for Windows users. However, the Xandros share of Microsoft market is so small, it does not present any real competitive potential to the MS Megalith in the near future.

A interesting detail is that the core of Xandros code is not open source. Their excellent file browser and other apps are closed source, for Xandros only. Another detail is that the Xandros CEO claims that Microsoft approached them and not the other way around. For a small company whose product is to look and feel like Windows, a five-year reprieve the threat of infringement must have seemed too good to be true. And, maybe it was, we will see.

Is Microsoft really seeking a Xandros-type model for Microsoft Linux ? Where the GPL in all this ? I think the jury is still out on the subject of Xandros, but it is an odd development and needs to be understood in a larger context than simply a Microsoft assault on Linux.

In Conclusion, Rejoice Oh Linuxland

I think there are very good reasons for the Linux community to feel satisfaction about the Microsoft-Novell Agreement. Linux has arrived, it's a threat worthy of a response. I predict that the world will witness the advent of Microsoft Linux, under whatever name it appears. I don't think Microsoft can just fool around with Linux and blow smoke about it - they have to make Microsoft Linux a reality for their own profit-driven sake.

Getting back to my odd aside about the experience of being overwhelmed by the Linux dynamo in the early 1990s and about "no hard feelings toward the victor, let bygones be bygones". I think Microsoft deserves a lot of credit for accepting their fate on this. There's no way they can fight Linux, it's too late for that. The only choice they have is to do approximately what they have done - try to adopt Linux for their own purposes and blow some smoke in the process, rather than trying to fight it directly.

So Suse is not dead, it is just entering a new phase of acceptance, maybe over-acceptance in some views ( including my own view after all is said ). Unfortunately, I have to say that Suse is probably dead to the Linux community and probably the community-driven OpenSuse distribution is dead too. OpenSuse may be the big loser in all this. The latest word is that Microsoft would exempt contributions to OpenSuse from the Agreement, but who knows. Do you trust the nice man ?

However, the bottom-line reality is that Microsoft is accepting Linux into its product line after being virtually the last software company on earth to accept it.

I guess one would have to call Microsoft a late adopter of Linux. I can only wonder what took them so long ? I've been using it for years. :-)

It's a big change, but probably a good change overall from the Linux perspective.

By the way, here's a link to a visionary website.