Slashdot Mirror

• This is in line with a previous poster's assertion that the SCO case is really about damaging the GPL. (I actually don't believe that, unless the conspiracy theorists are right, and Microsoft is behind all of this.)
• Where local laws demand certain warranty / liability rights on the part of consumers, there could be issues with the GPL (but IANAL).
• However, if this German law professor is so concerned about being able to hold someong liable for problems with software, why hasn't Germany or the EU gone after Microsoft for damages relating to one or more of the various, costly security holes in its products.
• Finally, although the article points it out, it bears repeating ... the study by the German law professor was sponsorred by an organization (VSI) that represents proprietary software vendors.

Stowell admitted that his company was still providing Linux source code and security patches on its Web site in order to fulfill support contracts with customers, but he disputed Kuhn's claim. "If our IP [intellectual property] is being found in Linux and that's being done without our say, then I don't think that the GPL can force us not to collect license fees from someone who may be using our intellectual property," he said.

IBM's complaint echoes Kuhn's criticism. SCO has included GPL code in its Linux products

This is the key to the confusion from my perspective: SCO has included GPL code in its Linux products. SCO is not seeking any injuctions for anything Linux but the core UNIX codes. Sounds very confusing, but according to what I'm reading, like it or not SCO has the right to charge. Now back to the rest of what was said: and "by so doing, SCO accepted the terms of the GPL," the complaint says. By seeking licensing fees, SCO is in breach of the license, it says.

Let's look at makeshift diagram:

[ ORIG.UNIX.CODE ] = item1 (SCO's Intellectual property)

[ LINUX.CODE ] = item2

Now if SCO is selling 2 which contains elements of 1, SCO has the right to do so since it's their intellectual property. Now SCO is claiming item2 contains portions of item1 and is redistributing item2 without permissions for the portions taken from item1 (which is their Intellectual Property). They don't seem to be complaining about whether item2 is sold or wanting credit for item2, they want compensation for the portions being used it's that simple. There is so much distortion in this matter, and all these so called "Open Source Movements" are going to end up backfiring on everyone.

IBM and SCO should know better than getting into this whole mess, and IBM is equally guilty. For starters it just shows an extreme amount of corporate immaturity, it shows that the Open Source community cannot get their act right. So why would a company want to choose a product which has an uncertain future? Sure MS may suck at times, but at least you don't hear this juvenile crap from their camp.

Didn't get placed. Is it just me who thinks that mandrake only is news for the slashdot editors when they have financial reports, or when the words mandrake and bankrupcy are found in the same sentence?

I bet Mandrake is still the number one distribution measured in both install base and ease of use. It certainly has been number one over the last few years. Now Infoworld claims theyre the top enterprise linux as well. Slashdot's editor pretty much like any other publication seems to wants to see Linux as a battle between RedHat & Suse with the real geeks using debian or gentoo. Maybe its part of this silly punish the French campaign?

gah!

[peeve mode off (not really)]

Another, similarly detail-lacking article is here.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/08/07/HNibmlaw suit_1.html

Do you think when survey company X does some kind of cost assessment of how much spam costs companies every year (I believe the last estimate I read was in the $5bil range) they include the time spent reading about how much time is spent thinking about spam? hmm some interesting spam cost sites:
vircom's cost calculator
info world

I can see how you (kylef, thebatlab et al.) would misread and misunderstand the post, but if you bothered to read the articles - the IDG article in particular - you would plainly see they are the sources of the quoted sections.

Choose your edition.

It seems that you're the only one here putting words in someone's mouth.

I was thinking earlier today how cool it would be if SuSe were to sue SCO in Germany ...

You can read lots more about this by choosing from the links in the rejected post below. Also, it's important to note that EAL2 is NOT the highest Common Criteria certification level. The Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation v2.1 describes the security assurance requirements and EALs in detail. For a look at the details read about the Evaluation Assurance Levels at NIST.

IBM, SuSE Linux Get Common Criteria Security Certification

Linux has reached a new milestone: IBM and SuSE Linux have received the Common Criteria Security Certification from the U.S. government (mirror), specifically from the Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) arm of the Pentagon. 'Right now it is the only Linux distribution available that has this. This certification is used as a standard by 14 countries including the U.S. and Canada,' says the SuSE U.S. general manager. Linux Enterprise Server 8 is certified at Evaluation Assurance Level 2+ EAL2 with the companies jointly pursuing a Controlled Access Protection Profile EAL3 certification by year-end, then on to EAL4. More details at CNet, AP via Detnews/CNN and Reuters/Forbes. It looks like they beat Red Hat to the punch.

More HERE...

"I use ( Mac OS X) but I have computers with ( Mac OS 9) doing important tasks. Why would I switch when it just works forever?" Wozniak said, noting that his home computer collection includes a number of desktop and notebook machines running various versions of Apple's operating system. One of those home machines is Apple's ill-fated Cube.

What is new about this? I thought Microsoft long ago told the OEMs that they could no longer include full-blown Windows CDs with the computer. Instead, OEMs could only include a "restoration" CD that restored the computer to its original configuration. In fact, I think /. had an article about it when it 1st happened.

I cannot find it in the /. archives, but here is an InfoWorld column about it.

A country or other jurisdiction (e.g., state, province, etc.) may either: (a) not have either statutory or case law that makes reverse engineering illegal, in which case it would be legal (i.e., that which is not legally forbidden is permitted); or (b) have either statutory or case law that affirmatively states reverse engineering is permitted.

You entirely miss the point. Most countries in the world have laws that explicitly make reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability legal and make any license provisions or contract clauses stating otherwise null and void.

My-my-my-my (U can't touch us)
SCO tries to bill me so hard
Makes me say, "Oh my Lord, thank you for blessing me
With a mind to think about the O from SC"
It feels good
When you know you're right
A superdope winner in a court fight
And SCO knows as much
And they'd just get beat-uh!
U can't touch us

I told you homeboys
U can't touch us
Yeah, that's how we livin' and you know
U can't touch us
Look in the GPL, man
U can't touch us
Yo, let me bust the funky code
U can't touch us

Stop! RICO time!

(With some apologies to MC Hammer, but mostly to the people who read this.)

"Dancing Steve" Ballmer has to be on that list somewhere. What's his number?

Slashdot news from the future: SCO readies new Linux licensing program

"The SCO Group is preparing a new Linux licensing program that it claims will allow users of the open-source operating system to run Linux without fear of litigation."

According to Infoworld there were 32.8 million computers shipped in calendar Q2; I don't know how that overlaps with Apple's fiscal Q3 but assuming it does then it gives Apple a 2.3 percent market share.

More info here, here and here. Here internetnews.com state that 3 vulnerabilities (not 2) where patched.

Here is the report from the people who found the vulnerabilities (or at least one of them) which includes a proof-of-concept paper and code.

"Robert X. Cringely, the PBS one"

Who gets to be a Robert X. Cringely? Just Mark Stephens (PBS) and anyone Infoworld gives that column to?

<veruca salt voice>But I want to be a Robert X. Cringely too!</veruca salt voice>

The future of wireless security is 802.11i But this standard uses a different encryption scheme than WEP, therefore some hardware upgrade will be required. There is an interim standard called WPA that combines some features of 802.11i with the encryption algorithm of WEP allows only software/firmware upgrades.

I remembered during the recent M$ anti-trust trial, one of the witnesses called to the stand is an IBMer (Garry Norris Story One and Story Two). He mentioned that IBM was given license to ship Win95 on the eve of it's launch on Aug 95.. I mean, M$ holding back on giving IBM license to ship Win95 until a couple of days before it's official launch!

Imagine the black-mail by M$ to IBM

Anyway, according to the testimony, IBM and M$ finally reach a deal for the Win95 licensing and one of the conditions was a gradual abandonment of OS/2..

I remembered whenever Bill Gates was giving interview, post-launch of Win95, when asked about competition from a more superior OS - OS/2, he kept saying that he's wondering why IBM is still supporting a 'dead' OS..

All the time!

Is he saying it again about Linux because he reached a deal with someone who'll ensure the death of Linux too?

SCO ? Darl McBride? Hello hello?

Signed in blood by a former Team OS/2 member, now Team Tux

> Wireless services based on Wi-Fi cost less to deliver than do services
> offered through other broadband technologies such as DSL and 3G
> (third-generation) wireless, Gelsinger said, making Wi-Fi "the only
> way to build a broadband infrastructure" in developing nations. Wi-Fi
> is an interoperability specification for wireless LAN technology based
> on the IEEE 802.11 standards, but is often used loosely as a synonym
> for wireless LAN technology in general.
>
> However, many of those nations are taking actions that are detrimental
> to Wi-Fi development, he argued.
>
> "We're seeing developing nations be the slowest and the most
> conservative in terms of making unregulated, unlicensed spectrum
> available," he said. "We see this idea of a scarcity mentality, this
> 'We have this spectrum, we're holding onto it and maybe getting a few
> dollars from licensing it.' "
>
> Gelsinger later clarified his remarks, saying that by "unregulated" he
> doesn't mean governments should take an entirely hands-off approach
> toward overseeing spectrum allocation, but rather that governments
> should set aside spectrum bands with no end-user licensing
> requirements for wireless device use, as the Federal Communications
> Commission has done in the U.S.

No sense in letting a rejected post go to waste. :)

Here's more background on the ideas and issues at stake, especially (surprisingly) the technology press links.

At the recent Wireless Internet Opportunity for Developing Nations conference, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that 802.11b (AKA Wi-Fi) has "a key role to play everywhere, but especially in developing countries and countries with economies in transition," where there is little to no telecommunications infrastructure in place. Keynote speaker Intel CTO Pat Gelsinger was understandably thrilled saying, "We see millions of people with the potential to become Wi-Fi users," and that wireless Internet was particularly appropriate for developing nations because it was neither government-regulated nor licensed. With 40-50 million PCs in use already, developing nations (including China and India) now make up the fastest growing market segment. Intel's new Centrino 802.11b laptop chipset and 30-mile-range MANs now under development that are based on 802.16 make Gelsinger hope for a sales bonanza that will put Intel in the lead for wireless notebooks. Critics say that a technology focus is not the panacaea for the poor, but instead solutions should be matched to the needs of a population.

And actually, I think we're both wrong. The lawsuit wasn't part of the original case (as I said), but it also wasn't Sun suing a second time (like you seem to be saying). The remedy was because of the Federal lawsuit brought by the states see here for a reference. Sun made the request for the injunction in May, 1998, and it was granted after the first lawsuit was settled after the first lawsuit was settled. Sun didn't initiate all this after the first one was settled. So we were both wrong. While, "strategic litigation" is a pretty stupid title to give a division of lawyers (and you have to think they thought that one up themselves), it wasn't what Sun was doing in this case, as you imply.

Java on the desktop and Java in the browser are two different (although related) issues. Java on the desktop was weakened by Microsoft's release of the incompatible Java, simply because of everything they did. The lower courts found that to be true.

However, I would lay the blame at Netscape's feet for giving people the bad impression about Java on the browser. It always ran incredibly badly. Hell, even HotJava ran applets better than Netscape ever did, at least until the plug-ins came along. That was the first impression that most people got of Java. Not through HotJava, but through Netscape. I still meet people to this day that complain about Java's speed, and when pressed is usually because of some dumb applet they tried to write back in the early days.

Microsoft's JVM did allow people to write applications, See here for a J++ guide which talks about it in Chapter 7.

The COM interfacing thing, if you'll also recall is something that Microsoft was saying way back then, they intended for DCOM to work across ALL platforms. Here's something that talks about that search for Macintosh. So, yes, I do think that Sun believed that people were eating what Microsoft was feeding them, and further, that by not telling people the special "features" they were adding to "improve" Java, if further locked them in.

At least there are benchmarks and enough of a description to allow discussion. It would be much worse if benchmarks were prohibited from publication.

The test results are invalidated by severely lopsided testing conditions. Among them, Apple used a prototype G5 running its special GNU compiler and an unreleased version of OS X. The Dells used shipping hardware, vanilla GNU compilers and Red Hat 9.

... Dell's published results on the SPEC site--regarded as the definitive repository for SPEC results--are best-case. They're far better than the results cited by Veritest in the Apple report. That bit takes no special knowledge to ferret out.

James Gosling, the creator of Java, recently mentioned that he favors an Open-Source Java. (See Infowork article).

Some people withing Sun seem to be scared though that an Open-Source Java standard could be "polluted" by Microsoft.

Seeking to invalidate SCO's claims, ESR managed to round up 60 users who had access to SysV code. Is it going to be enough? BSD could claim that thousands of users had access to that code. If what ESR claims is true (SCO licencinc SysV to universities) than the whole case looks more and more like BSD (+Univ. of California) vs. USL case. Read IT

Microsoft has been legally found to be a monopoly. "Fine," say you. "That doesn't make them evil."

If you haven't been paying attention, there are a few other things they've done that put them beyond the category of aggressive competitors. For example:

• They committed perjury by faking video testimony.
• They're still under investigation in the EU for displaying a pattern of illegal monopoly protection.
• They've done quite a few other things that could qualify as nasty.

All companies are not the same.

this article...

According to Infoworld, Sun has joined the debate by taking advantage of the uncertainty over IBM. They have taken out advertisements questioning the use of AIX over Solaris.

-Sean

This, along with Sontag giving ONLY SUN a "clean bill of health" and thereby telegraphing Sun to be the "unnamed" Co-conspirator^W^W^Wlicensee of SCOSource, is starting to make Sun look damnably guilty by association.

Sun -- you better stand against SCO in this or face the same wrath SCO is receiving.

My [large hardware company] rep who is supplying me with neat technology including handhelds, laptops, tablets and Linux server appliances, is also the rep for SCO. He tells me he doesn't even want to touch SCO now that they've pulled their shenanigans. He even referenced McBride's comment that contracts are strong bases for lawsuits as a real chiller. Imagine being so reviled that sales people don't want your money...

I wonder if employees of SCO have any pride left, or any intention on working with the tech industry again? They may not be the source of SCO's vitrol and venom, but as long as they sit quietly and let the day traders pimp and pump the stock they are one and the same as McBride/Sontag/et al. We need a hacker revolt from within SCO -- if any are left. ... Until proven otherwise, no friends of tech or Open Source remain in SCO.

If you work for SCO you better cut your ties with Sontag/McBride or lie on your resume for your next position. Pretending to be unemployed since Caldera brought on McBride will get you further than admitting you sat idly by while your company pulled the crap that it is pulling.

I'm pretty sure the "pay for support" comment was in regards to an ongoing support and maintainance contract, not in regards to finding someone to help them make the software work. In other words, Microsoft Licensing 6.0. Check the pricing problems and see why some people aren't eager to have that ongoing cost.

RagManX

Gosling likes idea of open source Java

For those feeling confused about all this Jabber/XMPP vs SIP/SIMPLE, here is a short article which talks about the difference between XMPP and SIMPLE.

The InfoWorld article also claims IBM is siding with SIMPLE, not with XMPP like the article in the Slashdot story suggests. Other articles also suggest IBM is siding with SIMPLE not XMPP. If you don't mind the PDF you can see for yourself that IBM's Lotus uses SIMPLE.

This is my sig, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun.

Just like my garden, though, constant vigilance is required, or before we know it, the yard is full of drug dealers. (Um, was that a mixed metaphor??)

This is finally it: The beginning of the endgame between Closed and Open Source, the last battle between Good and Evil, Armageddon in the software universe. AOL is doing so bad that "AOL Time Warner" has been considering dropping them out of the mother company's name; and Microsoft for all its resources can't help but feel the penguins and daemons breathing down its neck if even places like Munich will not heel when they call. Their backs are not quite against the wall, but their bums are touching brick, and they will not go away without one hell of a fight. I think it is safe to say that this is the worst threat that Open/Free Software has ever faced, given the sheer political and financial clout these two companies have combined.

Oh, and think of the irony that it comes at a time when Neo is in a coma and has been revealed to be not the Saviour, but the Angel of Death; when Buffy has been discontinued; and when Nanny Ogg is feeling just a wee bit under the weather...were these not omens that we failed to heed? How could we be so childish to believe these signs were just random events in popular culture...

They seem to find SCO's claims as "questionable," but are warning that end users might in fact be sued. Despite calling it a "remote" possibility, their recommendations could hold back the deployment of Linux.

One of their recommendations is "Minimizing the use of Linux in 'complex, mission-critical systems' until the dust clears on how valid SCO's claims are." How long is that going to take?

Gartner to users: Don't take SCO suit lightly

Maybe Microsoft is trying to back off the use of C#.

An interesting quote from your linked to story:

Why do I think Linux won't kill Windows? Two reasons. The Open Source Movement's ideology is utopian balderdash. And Linux is 30-year-old technology.

Name a single networking infrastructure used more commonly than the 30-year-old ethernet!

Why does this seem ironic to me?

Metcalfe has a habit of saying stupid things, I wonder why people keep listening to him. One great invention thirty years ago, paired with a huge ego, does not an oracle make.

I don't think anyone (in their right mind) is suggesting that Linux replace any of the mainframe OSes

Apparently IBM and the NYSE are...

This isn't informative, mods. It's /still/ speculation.

The Power5 isn't "starting to replace the Power4", since it isn't going to be released until 2004. (See also here if you want more than once source on that.) 980 speculation is still that: speculation.

In this article published yesterday, the real motivation behind the timing at least was evident:
(Chris Sontag of the SCO Group) "...We also have contractual obligations to IBM related to our license of Unix System V source code, which IBM has used for AIX. We have the ability to withdraw or pull the AIX license on June 13, which should cause IBM to expedite this issue as well"

Should? Or will it cause IBM to buckle and just ante up the cash to buy the bastards out? I would like to know the implications of the licenses being pulled as well, but I have to imagine that it would be damned inconvenient for IBM to say the least.

This is dirty corporate greed at it's very worst, folks.

What I find annoying is that material about other products seems to get kicked off quickly from the front pages of many sites and some even disappear. This is unfortunate because information is essential in making informed decisions. Microsoft products have been unable to survive in a free market nor compete on technical merits, and then there are the image problems, security issues, fines.

The market has already changed and Microsoft has not. RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, and OS X are all far easier to install, use and maintain. And these are more secure. In other words, they are for all practical purposes, drop in replacements for most home and many business desktops, minus the games. For games, there's Playstation and Gamecube. The market has already said what it has to say about xbox

The U.S. economy is hurting so badly that deflation is now a danger. Ballmer, Allchin, and Gates' insistence on trying to keep a dead company afloat is just causing further harm. Enough all ready, if the executives haven't exercised their options by now, tough. Businesses and agencies now realize that by going with the better (i.e. non-Microsoft) systems, not only do they gain more flexibility, but can spend their time working rather than repair.

Jon Udell is lead analyst of the InfoWorld Test Center. He is a blogger, and he is the reason I used to subscribe to Byte Magazine. He does write articles for O'Reilly from time to time, but he works for InfoWorld now. His weblog is here at InfoWorld.

No, I don't know how many users they have, nor do I know their support structure. But for some reason they've done the decission. Think about it.

The crowd is starting to murmur, "the emperor [chairman] has no clothes".

Does Bill Gates use a Tablet PC? No, he uses a yellow pad of paper. ( Jon Udell's blob, Ron Howard's blog)