Although I’m a little late doing so, I’d like to add my voice to Amanda McPherson’s in welcoming Brian Proffitt to the Linux Foundation. Amanda is the Linux Foundation’s Vice President, Marketing and Developer Programs, and posted the official welcome on Thursday at the Linux Foundation Web site here.

As I expect just about every reader of this blog knows, Brian has been the Managing Editor of LinuxToday for quite a few years (as well as Managing Editor of various other Jupiter Media properties: LinuxPlanet, Enterprise Linux Today, AllLinuxDevices, LinuxPR, and JustLinux). If you missed it, you can find Brian’s farewell column at LinuxToday here. As he disclosed there, his new role will be to help launch the Linux Foundation’s new Linux Developer Network site and project, which Amanda has been already been working on for some time. When it launches, Brian will be its Community Manager and Editor.

I’m particularly happy that I’ll be able to continue to work with Brian, as he has been a great friend to me here, linking to hundreds of my blog entries over the last several years. It’s fair to say that many of you would never have learned of this blog but for Brian’s deciding that what I was writing here might be of interest to the Linux community. I am quite appropriately grateful for his willingness to pull what I had to say out of the fire hose of information that he had to deal with on a daily basis.

Read the rest here

Thank you to everyone for helping. Erwan has pulled it all together for us, a massive job, and he's created an index also, so you can quickly find what you are looking for, all in one place. I'll make this a permanent page, after we finish one other part of the effort, to insert links to materials referenced. Update: The permanent page is available now here.

Meanwhile, some rather odd things have been happening in OOXML/ODF land. First, Alex Brown, the convenor of the BRM, has put out a * press release* entitled OOXML will take second place following Microsoft's announcement to support ODF, says Dr Alex Brown. He says this:

According to Dr Brown, OOXML will now represent the "legacy" of MS Office documents that the world has accumulated to date, following Microsoft's announcement that its Office suite will add native support for ODF.

I’m very pleased to welcome Brian Proffitt to the Linux Foundation. Brian will be serving as the community manager and editor for the Linux Developer Network. We’re extremely lucky to lure Brian away from Jupiter Media, where he built a thriving community and reported on Linux for such publications as Linux Today and Linux Planet.

Adding a community manager for the Linux Developer Network is an  important move for us. The LDN, while not launched yet, we hope will become a central place for the community to collaborate. As Brian mentions in this excellent article in OSstatic, the LDN will be the public-facing manifestation of all things LSB, meaning it will assist developers in writing portable applications for Linux.

But that’s certainly not all it will be. We want to make it easier for application developers to target Linux in general. We have designed the LDN  to hopefully provide a central place for collaboration and problem solving across the application development community. We also hope that other Linux loving folks may join the conversation on the site. This could evolve to include driver development, embedded, mobile, Cloud computing, general Linux documentation and so on. It’s a community site, and just like Linux, its direction will be set by those who use and participate in it.

As you can see from Brian’s response on OSstatic he holds a passion and vision for LDN:

How many thousands of developers work with free and open source software? And how much excellent documentation is out there now? I look at the efforts of the volunteers on JustLinux, or Jeremy Garcia and his team on LinuxQuestions, and I think just the answers they provide end-users are great. Now imagine the same energy from volunteers for developer-oriented content, all channeling their efforts into a centralized LDN site.

Watch this space for the launch of the LDN in the coming months. We expect great things from Brian in his new role.

• Information Week: "In a decision Wednesday, Utah District Court Judge Dale Kimball, who had previously ruled that Novell, and not SCO, owns the rights to Unix, found that SCO improperly collected Unix royalties that rightfully belonged to Novell. Kimball ordered SCO to pay Novell $2.5 million in restitution....SCO may have gotten off lightly...."
• The Inquirer: "However, Judge Kimball's ruling granted Novell only a fraction of the amount it sought at trial, which was more than $20 million. He accepted SCO's argument that its licence deal with Microsoft and its SCOsource licence sales were primarily about Unixware, although those necessarily implicated SVRX licences as well."

Remember when SCO began its media blitz? Stories everywhere. The world thought it was exciting to imagine Linux on the ropes. Now, when SCO is told it behaved improperly and must pay millions, only a few even note it. No one cares about SCO in failure, except for some who feel disgust, like Matt Asay.

What a strange ride it's been. You'd think the folks that wrote all those stories about SCO eating Linux's lunch would at least place a notice on their Corrections Page: "Um. About that lunch stuff, we were totally duped by SCO. They haven't won anything. The best they can do is not lose as big as they could have."

Wait. Hold the presses. Todd Weiss reports the SCO loss as a loss in an article titled SCO loses another round in Unix fight, must pay $2.55M to Novell in ComputerWorld:

At the beginning of its massive legal fight against Linux in 2003, The SCO Group Inc. imagined a day when companies like IBM, Novell Inc. and others would pay it large amounts of cash for alleged infringements on SCO-owned Unix code.

Instead, even as those legal fights meander through U.S. courts, the tables were turned and SCO yesterday was ordered to pay $2.55 million to Novell for collecting Unix licensing revenue from Sun Microsystems Inc. that it wasn't entitled to collect.

That is what just happened. The company that told the world they couldn't wait for their day in court got it, and they lost. And there's more to come.

Anyway, we're still here, and we're not going anywhere. I know SCO is not over yet. Don't forget, the Novell litigation was a sideshow. Covering SCO is a marathon, not a sprint. The main event is IBM, still to come. And I expect SCO to have to pay through the nose to them for what turned out to be frivolous litigation, since the Order yesterday said that SCO has made no claims about UnixWare against IBM, and it doesn't own the copyrights to what it did sue IBM over.

I see everyone notices SCO got off light, and no word yet from Novell.

OK. I've read it now once through, and the big picture is this: Judge Kimball did not change anything in his August 10th order, which I was afraid might happen. He could have, had he heard anything that he didn't know when he made that order. So, SCO breached its fiduciary duty to Novell, converted funds, and so it has to pay. That is ironic, in that this case started with SCO accusing Novell of slander of title, and asking for millions in damages. Instead it has to *pay* Novell millions.

However, Judge Kimball accepted SCO's argument that UnixWare is the latest version of UNIX and that it was the foundation of all the other agreements, even though SYSV was also involved, or so SCO thought. He accepted SCO's argument that if SCO was wrong about owning the copyrights, and it was, then it's too bad for the licensees -- they just got less than they thought they were paying for, and that is a matter for them to work through with SCO. So if EV1, for example, wanted its money back, or part of it, it would have to sue SCO.

I think this is an appealable issue for Novell, but I don't know if they will bother. This was all about money, this trial, and very narrowly about whether SCO owed Novell anything from the Sun and Microsoft and SCOsource licenses. The rest was decided already on August 10th. And SCO doesn't have much money left, if any, so I would guess that if SCO appeals, Novell will raise issues it certainly can in this new order. And it's a bit hard to fit SCOsource into the APA, since it was just a strange and vague bird. But if SCO doesn't -- and to my mind the order seems designed to discourage it, since if they do appeal, they risk being found liable for even more money than now ordered -- Novell then has to figure out if it is worth it.

And better still, Mark Webbink has been named Executive Director of a new Center for Patent Innovations:

"I'm pleased to announce the new Center, which will lead the way in reforming the international patent system," said Mark Webbink, Executive Director of the new Center. "CPI will become a pioneer in the patent field, helping to create an environment of participation with patent examiners, scientists, and knowledgeable experts, thereby improving the understanding and effectiveness of patent systems. Establishing the Center for Patent Innovations was a natural progression for the Peer-to-Patent project."

By the way, there are some new applications up for review, I see. So if you know anything about booting utilizing email, client-initiated authentication, internet memory access, disambiguation in dynamic binary translation, creation of hanging protocols using graffiti-enabled devices, version control for application message models, or matching a slideshow to an audio track, this is your moment.

This is the first time the public has been involved in a project that actually can directly impact decisions by a US government agency. The press release says that the Law School has now launched a project to develop software specifically for the public to use to help improve the patent system.

You remember Mark Webbink, I'm sure. He was, for most of Groklaw's life, Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Red Hat. He's a great guy, and super competent, so this is wonderful news. Perhaps you remember he let me publish an article of his on Groklaw about understanding open source software way back in December of 2003.

What does this announcement mean to me? That all our efforts to understand patent law and how to effectively search for prior art have been for a practical purpose, so dry as a bone as the subject is, let's keep on trying. And it means the USPTO recognizes that they do need help from the FOSS community to get prior art to their examiners before damage is done. That was the stated purpose of the Peer-to-Patent project, after all.

The important part of the agreement is this: Google gets to substitute values for User IDs, IP addresses and Visitor IDs before handing the database over to Viacom. The parties will figure out next exactly how to do it so that unique values are substituted, so that you can still tell when one individual uploaded 10 zillion videos and 10 zillion individuals only 1 each. Viacom promises not to circumvent the encryption. The parties have not agreed about encrypting the records of any uploading by Google/YouTube employees in the course of their business activities, something I gather Viacom wants to get hold of as part of its quest to prove Google is responsible for infringing content, despite the safe harbor section of the DMCA:

The parties do not agree whether the arrangements contained in Paragraph 1 should extend to records reflecting the business activities of the parties' employees and agents, including whether the obligations are reciprocal.

Ah! Reciprocal. Otherwise known as tit for tat. Google would like to know what Viacom employees have uploaded to YouTube if Viacom is going to ask for the records on Google employees. So, while the parties argue about all that, the records will be encrypted and turned over to Viacom, and then within two weeks the parties will try to work out the rest, and if they fail, either party can bring the dispute to court. I think you could say they've agreed in the big picture sense that they have agreed to go after each other while leaving end users out of it, so long as they are not employees of either party.

And someone sent me encouraging news of a decision in a patent infringement case by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Muniauction v. Thomson Corporation [PDF], on the subject of obviousness. It's interesting enough that I've done it as text also, right after the short Viacom/Google stipulation.