Editing Novell (section)

====Legal actions and reactions====
Beginning in 2003, Novell became a key player in the [[SCO–Linux disputes]].<ref name="CW_sides_2010"/>  The case ''[[SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.]]'' revolved around the interpretation of the 1995 asset-transfer agreements between Novell and the Santa Cruz Operation, a predecessor company to [[The SCO Group]] – when Novell got out of the Unix business as part of abandoning its effort to take on Microsoft on all fronts – and a 1996 amendment that had attempted to clarify that agreement.<ref name="IW_Confusing_2003"/>  The SCO Group believed that the transfer included ownership of, and copyrights for, the source code for the Unix operating system (which they in turn claimed Linux had infringed upon).  Novell counter-sued, claiming that the asset-transfer agreements did not, in fact, transfer the intellectual property rights SCO sought.

The case attracted considerable industry and media attention, with the [[free and open-source software]] (FOSS) community solidly on the side of Novell.<ref name="CW_sides_2010"/>  There were a series of court rulings, most of which went in Novell's favor and which sent The SCO Group into bankruptcy.<ref name="SLT_Trial_2010"/>  The matter was settled finally in 2010 when a jury trial in Utah ruled that the copyrights belonged to Novell.<ref name="CW_sides_2010"/><ref name="SLT_Trial_2010"/>  (Novell made no material use of the Unix ownership once it was ruled theirs, as by then their interests were with SuSE Linux.)

In 2004, Novell sued Microsoft, asserting it had engaged in antitrust violations regarding Novell's WordPerfect business in 1994 through 1996. Novell's lawsuit was subsequently dismissed by the United States District Court in July 2012 after it concluded that the claims were without merit.<ref name="Rosenblatt_2012"/>

On 2 November 2006, the two companies announced a joint collaboration agreement, including coverage of their respective products for each other's customers.<ref name="Microsoft_2006_Novell"/><ref name="Microsoft_Ballmer"/> They also promised to work more closely to improve compatibility of software, setting up a joint research facility. Executives of both companies expressed the hope that such cooperation would lead to better compatibility between [[Microsoft Office]] and [[OpenOffice.org]] and better [[platform virtualization|virtualization]] techniques.

Microsoft CEO [[Steve Ballmer]] said of the deal, "This set of agreements will really help bridge the divide between open-source and proprietary source software."<ref name="CNET_Pact"/>
The deal involved upfront payment of {{US$|348&nbsp;million}} from Microsoft to Novell for patent cooperation and [[SUSE Linux Enterprise Server|SLES]] subscription. Additionally, Microsoft agreed to spend around {{US$|46&nbsp;million}} yearly, over the next 5&nbsp;years, for marketing and selling a combined SLES/Windows Server offering and related virtualization solutions, while Novell paid at least {{US$|40&nbsp;million}} yearly to Microsoft, in the same period.<ref name="LW_Novell"/>

One of the first results of this partnership was Novell adapting the OpenXML/ODF Translator<ref name="ODF_Translator"/> for use in OpenOffice.org.<ref name="Novell_Download"/>

Microsoft released two public covenants not to sue users of the open source [[Moonlight (runtime)|Moonlight]] runtime—a workalike for the [[Microsoft Silverlight]] rich media platform—for patent infringement. One condition common to each covenant was that no Moonlight implementation be released under the [[GPLv3]] free software license.<ref name="Microsoft_2009_Moonlight"/><ref name="Microsoft_2012_Collaboration"/>

[[Image:Novell booth at Solutions Linux 2009.jpg|thumb|left|upright=0.7|Despite controversy with some in the community, Novell persisted: its booth at Solutions Linux 2009 in Paris.]]
In contrast to the SCO case, here initial reaction from members of the free and open source software community over the patent protection was mostly critical, with expressions of concern that Novell had "sold out" and doubt that the [[GNU GPL]] would allow distribution of code, including the Linux kernel, under this exclusive agreement.<ref name="Groklaw_2006_Sellout"/><ref name="Groklaw_2006_Reactions"/><ref name="LWN_2006_Responses"/>

In a letter to the FOSS development community on 9 November 2006, [[Bradley M. Kuhn]], CTO of the [[Software Freedom Law Center]] (SFLC), described the agreement as "worse than useless".<ref name="Kuhn_2006_Letter"/> In a separate development, the chairman of the SFLC, [[Eben Moglen]], reported that Novell had offered cooperation with the SFLC to permit a confidential audit to determine the compliance of the agreement with the GPL (version 2).<ref name="Sanders_Novell"/> [[Richard Stallman]], founder of the [[Free Software Foundation]], said in November 2006 that changes coming with version 3 of the GPL would preclude such deals.<ref name="Stallman_2006_GPL3"/> When the final revision of the third version of the GPL license was decided, the deal between Microsoft and Novell was [[grandfather clause|grandfather]]ed in. A clause within GPLv3 allows companies to distribute GPLv3 software even if they have made such patent partnerships in the past, as long as the partnership deal was made before 28 March 2007 (GPLv3 Section 11 paragraph 7<ref name="FSF_GPL3"/>).

On 12 November 2006, the [[Samba (software)|Samba]] team expressed strong disapproval of the announcement{{clarify|date=December 2017}} and asked Novell to reconsider.<ref name="Samba_Novell"/> The team included an employee of Novell, [[Jeremy Allison]], who confirmed in a comment on [[Slashdot]] that the statement was agreed on by all members of the team,<ref name="Slashdot_Samba"/> and later quit his job at Novell in protest.<ref name="Groklaw_2007_Allison"/>

In early February 2007, Reuters reported that the Free Software Foundation had announced that it was reviewing Novell's right to sell Linux versions, and was considering banning Novell from selling Linux.<ref name="Finkle_Novell"/> However, spokesman Eben Moglen later said that he was quoted out of context,<ref name="LFD_2012"/> and was only noting that GPL version 3 would be designed to block similar deals in the future.