Slashdot Mirror
What if SCO is Right?
b17bmbr writes "
What if SCO is right. Bruce Perens was quoted with this scenario. "it's entirely possible that SCO was inadvertently distributing its own proprietary Unix code in its version of Linux. In that case, SCO would've already released its Unix source code into open source". But here's the catch: Does this validate Microsoft's view of a
"viral GPL"?"
companies need to be extremely circumspect when dealing with the GPL because if they're not, there might be long-ranging unintended ramifications to their business down the road.
Excellent point. At one company I worked for, it turned out that one of the programmers had put some GPLed code into our proprietary software product. This was in no way an intentional infraction of the license -- he'd seen the code on the net, it billed itself as free, and having better things to do with his time than follow the antics and ideologies of RMS and crew, he didn't understand that "free" meant "free as in restricted."
Legally, this one little mistake could have been used in court to try to claim the proprietary product was now entirely GPLed and must be given away, destroying the company. Needless to say, we kept this extremely quiet instead, replaced the offending section of code, and hoped that no one ever found out.
It could happen to you. The GPL is a dirty trick waiting to happen, and its characterization as "viral" is quite accurate.
Some of you may find this interesting...
I live in Santa Cruz and my coworker worked for SCO for a number of years. I think he worked (I believe he quit in disgust) for them for 10 years, or around there. So I decided to ask him about some questions about SCO as my curiosity has been peaked due to SCO's allegations.
According to him, SCO is built from a lot of stolen code, and that during the 80's (where I believe the brunt of his employment took place) that it was pretty common practice for code to be stolen and put into SCO's UNIX. He also mentioned that the CEO of SCO was a coke head and one of the biggest crooks he had ever come across.
I explained how many feel that SCO is just trying to get itself bought to which he responded "Oh, that makes sense, they've been trying to get bought for a long time" and he felt that any allegations of SCO code being in the kernel are probably BS, and if there is any cross code, it's probably code stolen from Linux.
We don't work in IT right now (not even close) but after he told me of his experiences with SCO, I can't blame him after hearing just a few of his many stories about how crooked most or all the uppermanagement was/is.
I wish I could give more detail about my coworker but I haven't really asked his permission.. So I for now, I can't go into anymore detail than I've already given.
I have a friend who's son works for Caldera/SCO. I've been thinking of dropping him a line to see if maybe I could ask his son a few questions about this mess. Though I don't know what useful info, if any, I could get out of it.
. . . from the Corporate Buttock. This guy's either on the take or plainly irresponsible. What is this shit: "The common wisdom is that SCO is bluffing in its charges that Linux vendors and users ripped off SCO's Unix intellectual property. But we don't actually know that. They could have a case. " Could they? *Why* could they? Do you know why? Do your sources know why? Why does your article not indicate why? Are you a journalist or a FUD shitter? And this: "And if the proprietary Unix code can't be made into open source, then open source developers would have to turn their attentions away from other projects and turn instead to developing replacement code for the proprietary code, delaying development of those other projects. " Huh? What makes you think that it couldn't be done during a coffee break? Oh, perhaps you have a source that indicates the nature and degree of the claimed SCO code? (But if so, you article fails to mention it.) Or perhaps your just an alarmist fuck bucking for regular employment with Microsoft?