<snip>
> More questions: When were Novell SUSE customers
> asked if they wished Novell to negotiate a agreement with Microsoft on
> their
> behalf? When were Novell SUSE customers asked about the terms of said
> agreement?
...
<snip>
> Did
> Novell truly represent the best interest of their customers using Power of
> Attorney? Can Novell legally assume Power of Attorney for their customers
> without a written grant? Do Novell customers have the ability to "opt-out"
> of this agreement? Is this agreement binding on customers? "
> Who gave Novell rights to decide on behalf of you just because you
> happened
> to buy a Novell product?????
FACT : At the end of the day, a corporation's primary goal is to make money
and take care of their self interest. In their spare time/expense they would
probably want to do charity/social work(for various reasons). Thus Novell by
default can do what it wants under the prescribed laws.
The only way this can change is if a majority stock holder(by the way i
don't who owns how much of Novell, but that data can be got from the U.S -
S.E.C) decides a motion to oppose a company decision and gets enough share
holder votes with him. Yes, the Novell ``user" does not and CAN NOT decide,
its the share holders CAN, and if and only if they have a majority. If they
don't, then whatever was done is done.
If users are unhappy with the company policy, they can certainly
complain(about a major business decision) but that is effective only if they
have enough numbers to impact Novell's revenue. Even if that does happen,
its all on the company business guys to see where ``more revenue" comes from
and thus take a decision. Its about where the $$$ and the more $$$ comes
from. So if the more $$$ is coming from M$ . . . need i say more.
Also, if one play's with corporate fire, one must be ready to get burnt.
Let me make one thing very clear. i don't oppose all commercial
organisations. But it is very naive on anyone's part to think that all of
them would be selfless in terms of protecting value systems, integrity and
freedom at the cost of profits.
Moreover if a person is using some free(as in freedom)
software(partially/wholly developed by a commercial organisation), that
organisation takes a decision which the customer is not happy with, and
he/she doesn't have shareholder clout - there's really little to do in terms
of changing that company's policy.
What one can do is, STOP using that software and use alternatives. If there
are components that are unavailable then use what is available and develop
what is not. Is it difficult: YES, Is it going to be a path of pain: YES, Is
it even possible: YES!!!
The GNU project set out to do that and succeeded and getting most of the
stuff needed, and over a period of time other people(Linus, etc etc etc.)
and communities(BSD, ASF etc etc etc.) also contributed and at the end of
the day, a working system did emerge. i think that says it all.
It's Stallman and the printer all over again. Stallman wasn't a Xerox
majority share holder and his efforts in getting the driver source code did
not bear fruit, so he did what had to be done.
The only question is are the users of Novell products going to do the same?
Only time will tell.
Regards,
- vihan