Slashdot Mirror
Sun Rethinking Linux Strategy Over SCO Lawsuit
manyoso writes "Sun is waisting no time taking advantage of the SCO lawsuit against IBM. They are making statements trying to play up Solaris as a safe harbor for worried Linux and IBM users. John Loiacono, VP of Sun's operating platforms group, "For people looking at the issues at hand, we are a safe harbor. We have absolute rights to our technology ... We're changing our strategy around Linux (but) we're pausing because we're trying to figure out what the implications of this are going to be". So, this begs the questions... What are the short term implications for the new Linux based desktop we've been hearing about from our fair weather friends? How will the SCO lawsuit affect Sun's long term strategy with Linux and Open Source?"
I found this in the alt.folklore.computers news group.
Zoid.com
Sun paid Novell $82M a few years ago for a license to the SVR4 code base, which I assume means a royalty free license (who pay 82 million for the right to pay royalties after all). So Sun may genuinely be in the clear on this point.
The suit has no merit anyway though, so the point may be rather academic.
Ummm, IBM probably couldn't have produced OS/2 without at least some code from Microsoft.
Let's face it, IBM is a Business Machine company. They'll always be making metal plates to rivet onto whatever kind of business machines they're currently selling. Years ago it was wall clocks and timeclocks for factories, copy machines, etc. They've had a strong market share in computers for almost as long as computers have existed. But they're a business machine company that happens to make computers, not a computer company. So they hire out and borrow what they have to.
There's a lawsuit going on with potentially large implications for Linux, but it's not clear at this stage - Sun say they're looking at the implications. How exactly does this make Sun 'fair weather friends'.
Have they dropped their Linux strategy, Linux blades, stoppped supporting the various Open Source projects, dropped their 100% Unix background and started selling NT boxes like Unix' other 'fair weather friends'? Thought not...
The author's name is Fred Brooks. And it wasn't just any project he ran, it was OS360. IBM knows a bit about OSs.
See section 7 of the GPL. If you cannot simultaneously satisfy the GLP and the patent license, then you have no right to distribute the program at all.
It is not called free software for nothing.
COFF and ELF were both invented by Unix System Laboratories (for SVR3 and SVR4 respectively) so I don't see why it matters whether they are related. SCO will own any IP relating to either of them.
No, David Boies didn't lose the DOJ case. He worked the trial before Judge Jackson, and won decisively -- most observers said that he beat the crap out of M$'s team. Then Bush got elected, and they certainly weren't about to keep working with Boies. Instead, it was the new administration who decided to let M$ walk.
As for Bush v. Gore, I think even if God Himself had been Gore's lawyer, He wouldn't have had a chance against the Rehnquist Five.
But at any rate, I was rooting for him in both of those cases, and I'm very dismayed to see him join the wrong side now.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
I don't think SCO has a chance:
1 - First, IBM has too many patents to counter-sue SCO.
2 - Second, I think most the stuff that IBM has been bringing to Linux, like their journaling file-system and LVM is very recent software, that was develloped by IBM staff and not derived from the ancient Sys-V.
3 - Even if we have to remove the parts developed by IBM from the current Linux kernels, we would still have sevaral alternative implementations.
4 - Evern if SCO has patents that cover some parts of the Linux kernel, they (SCO) have also been distributing Linux under the GPL. Consequently, they have offered permition for everybody use it.
5 - SCO can also be sued for using the Linux trademark: remember Linus owns the Linux trademark.
Finally, this shouldn't be a major concern to the open source community, becvause even if we couldn't use the Linux kernel, we could allways move to HURD or a BSD kernel.
For most aplications, users wouldn't see almost any change.
BSD has already had a batle in court and won.
In the end, we will be stronger than now.
It's my impression (in my personal opinion, not based on anything "proprietary" I've been told because I haven't been) that this announcement is a combination of lawyers and PR folks wanting to make it clear that Solaris is not subject to any such lawsuits from SCO and wanting to reassure our customers and shareholders that we won't get so far with our linux strategy as to get ourselves entangled on that score. "We're pausing to see what the implications are" is not "AVOID LINUX!!! IT'S DANGEROUS!!". It's smart business practice to keep from being dragged into a potential tar baby.
Just because you and I believe that the lawsuit is completely frivolous doesn't mean that a large corporation can blythely assume the outcome of litigation and proceed on a path that might lead to problems for us and our sharelholders.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Stuff from freshmeat doesn't count
Anything that matters runs on either Solaris, AIX, or HP-UX. Full stop. Nothing else scales.
Oh, please... this is complete crap. IBM is profitable, they're smart, they've survived by knowing how to both leverage old technology in new ways (VMS, still making them hundreds of millions a year through various different business models), and pursuing "new" technologies in their own, conservative, focused, profitable kind of way (AIX, OS/2). Are they the most leading-edge? No. Are they the coolest? No. Are they a good example of how to keep your head down and make a profit in the software industry? Well, most of the time (yeah, they screw up like everybody else, but they recover more quickly than most too).
Don't get me wrong, I'm no IBM lover. I don't use any of their stuff at home, but when I've had large IT budgets to spend in big companies, they have often provided me the best price/performance I could find, and I went with them. And, my users have always been happy with the outcomes. I have always been impressed with their ability to roll with the changing industry and figure out a way to deliver value to people with checkbooks.
Oh, yeah -- just because *you* aren't in their target market doesn't make them wrong. They understand their target markets very well, and don't give a damn if you get it or not.
Yep. I've got the impression that IBM has only recently started contributing scalability-related stuff, i.e. their work will be seen in 2.6 series of kernels.
What they did is contribute people. The Linux work done by those people is original. I know this to be true, since I've been working with them from the start (on the VM/scalability front) and we have the irc logs where the ideas were born and developed, including ideas originated by non-IBM people and developed further by IBM people. IBM also contributed the patented RCU lockless sharing algorithm and contributed a license as well, as required by the GPL. Besides that, I don't know of a single instance of IBM people contributing anything other hard work, original engineering and creativity.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
If Trolltech ever discontinues licensing Qt as GPL then it automatically can be licensed under the BSD. This is the purpose of the KDE Free Qt Foundation. This has been all worked out long ago:
n .p hp
http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundatio
"They then sold this to Santa Clara Operations (SCO)"
Actually, its "Santa Cruz Operation". Other than that, great post.
Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
You missed the last product announcement. It was in there. Have a look at http://www.sun.com/bignews/blades/
Tp.
It's actually rather different because AIX still includes code licensed from Bell Labs/USL/Novell/SCO. If there has been cross-pollination between AIX and Linux at IBM, misuse of SCO's UNIX IP is conceivable.
I don't think it's likely that IBM employees have misused IP licensed for AIX in Linux, but this sort of thing is always a possibility when two similar products with incompatible licences are being concurrently developed within one firm.
NT has never included any code licensed from Bell Labs/USL/Novell/SCO. Moreover, Microsoft Xenix was sold to SCO in 1985, three years before NT was started, so there was never any concurrent development. Finally, the original NT team comprised developers brought to MS from DEC, including the architect of the VAX/VMS OS, who may have had knowledge of DEC trade secrets relating to VMS (there's a rumour there was a lawsuit to this effect), but were never involved in UNIX development.
They have their own Solaris flavour of Unix that they worked so hard on.
:), there will be decent volume management, mature HA clustering, high-end FC disk array support, big iron scalability and most important of all - business application support. It's not there now, which is why Sun is still going (reasonably, considering the downturn) strong. Sun are going to have to change though, as their market changes.
:)
As someone who has worked at Sun as a Systems Engineer and now earn my crust supporting Solaris elsewhere, I can tell you that it's very easy to consider Linux and Solaris x86 toy operating systems for toy computers - dull, low end, low margin (but high volume) stuff. If your making 80%-90%+ margin on multi-million (insert local currency unit here) interesting, complex, geographically distributed clustered systems which solve a unique problem with excellent availability and guaranteed mission critical data integrity with decent application performance and a credible level of manageability, it's all too easy to ignore the low end. You'll have to forgive them, currently Linux is not the solution to many problems like this, but Solaris is (or possibly AIX, or HP-UX).
Probably sooner than anyone at Sun cares to imagine, you will be able to do stuff like this on Linux (and maybe even Windows
Sun have always been careful when it comes to litigation, look at how quickly they yanked MP3 support from the JMF when Fraunhofer started grumbling about the MP3 license (it was one or two days). They're still just testing the water when it comes to Linux - give them some encouragement, they're moving in the right direction. Lastly, don't think of Sun as a great big ogre, they are definately the best company I have ever worked for, some of the nicest people you could hope to meet and genuinely passionate about technology and open systems - except for iPlanet and S-Unprofessional Services, they're a bunch of arrogant gits
# init 5
Connection closed.
Oh...
I said this before, in another thread...
Sun had that free Solaris offer. I signed
up, which required giving Sun all my personal
information (name, address, phone, e-mail,
etc.), and was sent a message that I would
get a copy. Sun began sending me "offers"
via e-mail (ie, SPAM). Then I was sent an
e-mail saying I would NOT be getting a copy.
I was then required to request being removed
from their e-mail contact list, but they still
retain (I imagine) my personal information
somewhere in a database. Bad Sun, Bad! You
can NOT trust a spammer. Fair weather friend
indeed!
Incorrect.
it IS a BSD License. The license is quoted IN THE AGREEMENT. go READ the agreement, and you will see. Don't make false statements that you have no clue about.
the agreement is simple, and is in a legally binding contract.
1) TrollTech must release a new version of QT (even if its just bugfix revisions) every 12 months or the latest QT Free edition becomes BSD Licensed. (this is a REAL BSD license, not a BSD Like license)
2) If TrollTech is ever bought out, the latest QT Free edition automatically becomes licensed under BSD
3) If TrollTech ever goes out of business, the latest QT Free edition is automatically licensed under the BSD license.
4) If a majority vote of the members of the foundation vote that QT has not met its obligations in the agreement, the latest version of QT Free Edition is automatically relicensed as BSD.
All you people talking about not being able to relicense GPL work is full of crap. You don't know what a license is, and therefore, should not comment. When an entity wholely ownes the copyright to a work, they can release it with ANY LICENSE THEY WANT, no matter what their conflicts are. As it stands now, TrollTech wholely owns the copyright to QT, and can license it to whatever license it wants (and can license it to anything it is forced to via the foundation's agreement).
Your post is innacurate at best, and completely inflamatory. Please check your facts before you post bullshit next time.
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
Sun needs to realise without the free unixes they currently would be in a very poor position right now. Windows would own the less than 8-way market. Sun would be religated to the high end with Windows slowly creeping up (and don't talk to me about MacOS. Without the free unixes Jobs would still be faffing around with the next generation MacOS until it also gets canned, just like the 4 before it).
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.