Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To License SCO's Unix Code
The big news of this morning is that Microsoft will evidently be licensing the Unix code that SCO carries the rights to. Yahoo! is also carrying a brief WSJ report as well. Additionally, give a read to the OSI position paper on the issue. One thing that is worth noting is that Microsoft does do *some* work with Unix - like the interoperability package - but the other side is that Microsoft deals with intellectual property a lot, and licensing is standard way of dealing with IP claims.
i hadn't expected that SCO's "buy me"-whining would actually work, but then again it's MS and they prolly have some evil plan with this all...
It's more likely there's some "borrowed" code in Windows. Anyone else remember the bzip bug that for some odd reason also affected Windows systems. Yeah go figure.
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
Why would they do that?
One simple reason: Licensing Unix from SCO strengthen's SCO's claim to Linux. Microsoft has pretty much publicly declared war on Linux (in as much as that is possible) and I don't think it's coincidence that this announcement comes days after SCO announced their plans to sue Linux out of existence. By licensing the offending code, Microsoft is essentially backing SCO up here by saying "They have a legitimate claim on this code and should be paid licensing fees." The fees are inconsequential to Microsoft, it's the implications of paying them that they want.
If anything, this lends even more credibility to the theory that M$ was behind this all along.
IBM, just go ahead and buy SCO, GPL everything they own, and let's put this silliness behind us.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
I have been following the whole SCO issue with some interest. This is exactly what closed source strategies cause: a lot of he-said-she-said finger pointing about use of 'our code' and not a lot of progress for mankind.
On the bright side, even if the whole of Linux gets rejected, someone will come up with 'clean' code (like Atheos). There will always be free (as in speech) software. Unless DRM gets global support.
Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
That should help them continue the fight against Linux.
Late Sunday, Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith said acquiring the license from SCO "is representative of Microsoft's ongoing commitment to respecting intellectual property and the IT community's healthy exchange of IP through licensing
Only the minions of Satan work on Sunday
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
owned 10-15% of the old SCO (not Caldera).
Microsoft and SCO go WAY back. In the early 1980's,
Microsoft developed XENIX which ran on computers like
the Tandy Model 6 and 6000 (68000 at 8MHz). SCO licensed
XENIX, developed drivers and sold it initially into the 80286
market (later 386). If I recall, the cost was $400 or so
for an unlimited number of users (plus another $400 or so
for the development suite).
This is most likely a bid by Microsoft to do the following:
Do people already forgot that an UNIX from M$ had happened called XENIX which became SCO OpenServer?
This is just a major hoax perpetrated by The Käuze. I hope those sick secretive freaks laugh themselves into a heart attack. This crap isn't funny.
Call me synical, but to me this looks like Microsoft has found a way to help fund the supposed distruction of Linux, or at least that's what they think.
What would be funny however, is if IBM we're to buy SCO, and then license everything under GPL everything, revoke all previous licenses, then Microsoft would have problems because it uses GPL, and everyone would know it. However this is unlikely to happen because UNIX code is everywhere, which would likely mean that IBM would have to GPL portions of AIX.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
I'm not Seth.
This isn't so crazy, so let's calm down. Windows NT is a POSIX-compliant operating system, so I'm not surprised if there's a non-trival amount of Unix-like development going on in Redmond.
Microsoft once had a Unix OS product of their own, Xenix. It ran on the old PC/AT processor (Linux needs at least a 386 for the hardware MMU). Way back in the day, Microsoft licensed Unix from AT&T, ported it to a variety of platforms (many of which no longer exist, this was in the 1970s), then sold Xenix to SCO, who ported it to the 386 and sold it as their own product for a while. Back then, while you could license source code from AT&T, the Unix name wasn't included, hence the name Xenix for what was essentially indistinguishable from "official" Unix. I believe a term of the sale was that Microsoft would not compete directly in the Unix space. I guess that condition must have expired. How amusing that Microsoft are now trying to license their own product back!
'One thing that is worth noting is that Microsoft does do *some* work with Unix'
It's all well and good to have both points of view in an article, but come on?!? That would be one bloody big coincidence if Microsoft's intentions were anything but anti-linux on this one.
Does anyone else find it ironic that one of the founders of SCO is named "Ransom Love"? I'm not sure exactly why, but in the context of the current lawsuit and now this possible merger, I find that extremely funny :P
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
At least all of us Linux zealots can now say:
"See, Linux is so good, even Microsoft has seen the light and decided to license it!"
Have EVDO, will travel.
--
Simon
There is no real effective Unix IP for SCO to license.
Microsoft's SFU and Interix products are in no way depended upon the IP that SCO holds, quite the opposite in fact - Interix/SFU actually owes more to the GNU-project.
Microsoft is just effectively bankrolling SCO's lawsuit. The EU Commerce Commission,the USA Federal Trade Commission and DOJ Antitrust should also look into this given Microsoft's recently disclosed anticompetitive predatory practices.
The reason M$ has not been willing to show the windows code is that they have borrowed unix-code to the NT. Especially the network and memory handling routines come to mind first.
Now they licence it and get off the hook.
If(when) MS buys SCO, how can they harm Linux. Definately MS will try it best to kill Linux. And money is no issue.
I think this may open the eyes of some who may have been taking the SCO threats seriously. I would not be suprised if Microsoft hasn't been behind this whole thing from the beginning. FUD on a massive level.
They're doing this to lend their weight to the claims and therefore provide SCO with some credibility; it's in Microsoft's interests to do so, after all.
http://www.blitzbasic.com/
Graphics3D 640, 480
talk about last gasper softwar gangster dinosaurs? yuk.
i DOWt IT will go the weigh of the SourceForgerIE(tm), although va lairIE/robbIE's whored themselves into a postion of suckass no matter how black their souls become.
lookout bullow. for additional insight, consult with yOUR creator.
Microsoft has a history of buying out competition and FUD. They have been watching as Linux constantly forged ahead regardless of the attacks they placed. Linux was not responding as a company would and MS could not deal with 100,000 developers, they needed a company.
They just got one.
My prediction: Every MS sales manager will be out in force over the next fews weeks. At every MS supported site they will be sending the same message:
"I see you have Linux here. Just a word of advice, we are going to be pursuing litigation over some of "our" intellectual rights that have been stolen, and we really want to keep our customers protected. You may want to move to MS products before you get caught up in something ugly.
For your own protection."
While we don't like it, we should not be surprised by it. They have a $30 billion check book to keep this tied up in court for years. They won't want a resolution, they want litigation or the threat of it.
The OSI position paper is excellent and answers a lot of questions.
SCO's case is so ludicrous (they don't even own the "UNIX" trademark) that one really does have to wonder what the motives of Microsoft are in paying them anything.
anyone else noticed?
p
:)
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/default.as
i think they'd be more than glad to make that stfu
That'd really fuck up Microsoft, they would have GPL code in there OS and have to GPL the whole thing!!!.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
We all know why M$ licensed SCO. Now let's think about the future.
2003: SCO wins the court with M$ support.
2004: Linux is banned from the U.S. In Europe and other continents that don't have DMCA, Linux still flourishes.
2005: Microsoft sues the nations that use linux. The U.S supreme court supports M$ claims. The U.S offers military support to remove Linux from the nations in Axis of Evil, which by then, means rest of the world.
2006: Rest of the world gives a shit about the US claims. The plan backfires and to avoid the shame, the US has to nullify DMCA.
2007: Americans are once again free from the DMCA. Lets celebrate!
Ok, M$ is giving (will give?) SCO a sum of money for something. Right? Well I would like to know how much! The thing is I was expecting some kind of moneyflow from M$ to SCO, though I didn't expect it to happen like this. But does it matter what the official "trade" is? It depends of the size of the transfer. I belived M$ was behind the hole SCO-suing-IBM-and-everybuddy, from the start. It was *so* M$-ish, and they always thinks they are so clever(sometimes they are), hiding the payment in "licens" fees. ?? Bah. Maybe time will tell...
1) Get frustrated with the FUD Campaign against Linux
:)
2) License SCO IP and/or buy out beleaguered company
3) Patent "Description of Linux-like O/S here" (We all know this would probably get by the patent office, greased with lots of greenbacks)
4) Sue the pants off of anybody who runs linux as "infringers of M$ IP"
5) Profit...
See? no "..." step in this one...
I think the goal of MS are :
1) to make the current doubt on Linux future in PHB's heads stronger, and during much more time.
- Why would MS pay some money to SCO if there was nothing important to license ?
- It gives substance to the claim.
- SCO has some fundings (and the trial could last years...)
2) Have a valid license if IBM buys SCO to suppress the problem, reduce legal costs, and shorten the doubt on Linux's future (some people claim that SCO's goal is to be bought by IBM).
Christophe (Don't hesitate to point out my spelling and grammar mistakes, I want to learn - Thanks).
Remember when FreeBSD got sued by AT&T and lost market/mindshare to Linux during that mess?
Now the situation has reversed.
I wonder if FreeBSD will regain some of the lost marketshare as a result of this.
After all, it was rewritten to get rid of intellectual property issues so people who migrated to avoid this particular risk might find it attractive.
The general thought seems to be that M$ will buy SCO and sue linux. But who are they going to sue. Isn't that the point with linux, no one owns it. They could sue the distributers such as red hat but that won't stop it. Am I wrong in this thinking. If not sue away and see who ends up with egg on there face.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Microsoft has a long way to go on this before it can kill free software. If it does nip the Linux "threat" in the bud then we move to FreeBSD instead. Repeat until that $30Bn or so has been wasted on Lawyers fees and finally in 2030 we will have a MS free world! In fact I'd advise you all to go to Law School right now as there is going to be plenty of work for you when you finish up!
I suggest Microsoft are using this as a catch all to combat several growing problems to their market share. Linux is a big one in the server market, but now that MS have sold their half of Apple, and are no longer under contract to develop office for OSX, they can also use their UNIX copyrights to get to Apple. knocking over two birds with one hand here?
This one's played right into Microsofts hands I'm afraid. The damage they could do are frightening
This is diplomacy at its best: You're enemy's enemy is your best friend.
Of course, by legitimizing the lawsuit M$ is in fact causing smaller linux companies to have to purchase SCO licenses. This makes linux distributions less profitable - hence slower uptake of linux, and (unfortunately) better uptake of windows in the back room.
However, M$ has to have apple in its targets - I'm still at a loss as to how this helps wreck apple, since they make the most money on Unix at the moment.
-Brett
What hold would this give MS over Apple's OSX? I can't see MS going for the jugular with respect to Linux but leaving Apple all alive and well.
Apple use UNIX on their site, they're selling a FreeBSD based UNIX derivative. Do MS now control the fate of the name UNIX, the style of OS that is UNIX, or just a few choice bits of code that nobody will give a shit about?
Predition of future: Microsoft determines linux stole source from its Unix OS, sues and linux becomes illegal.
I think the whole activities of SCO are initiated by Microsoft to damage Linux in some way. The licensing thing is just a way to pay SCO for their work so far.
Just my two cents...
and I thought lobbying just was for buying politicians..
and now they publicly cover up the lobbying by paying a (quoting dr. evil) "license fee" and looking like the nice guys
- I choked on the red pill and now I'm stuck in limbo
Microsoft is trying to create publicity for the court case. At this stage, all that SCO has achieved is to raise a few doubts about Linux, specifically in the area of "intellectual property". By licensing SCO's IP, they are drawing attention to the issue, and putting it onto Internet news sites' front pages. It's easy to then segue from there to the discussion of how Linux raises IP questions for those business that use it. From MS's point of view, this is just an extremely cheap negative advertising campaign, without the risk that MS will get criticized for negative advertising.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
IBM is pushing Linux all the way, so as Oracle. They put massive investments in it. But if Microsoft really does take this step, what would the other OS's do.
/*Why is there a penguin on my desktop?!*/
Will Microsoft have the power to stop them (and it will be the world of the colored butterfly), or will not they be effected... in short, besides Linux, who will be hurt?.
And will IBM let them do that,(cause this will affect their AIX system too...) IBM has been relatively silent about this, Sun, IRIX...
I think if they can really do that, then Microsoft wont think twice before paying that billion $'s (as i recall). Its worth it(at least from their point of view)
The lunatic is in my head
... and stop saying "Where would you like to go today" right after that.
Just to be clear, this isn't just an accidental effect, it seems almost certainly planned to me. Microsoft loves the SCO lawsuit because it validates their own unfounded rantings against Linux. But if they just handed money to SCO to go sue IBM and badmouth Linux, it wouldn't be very effective. Saying "we licensed SCO UNIX because we respect intellectual property" lets them both appear respectful of intellectual property and give money to SCO to act as their attack dog.
However, I don't see anything that anti-trust regulators can do about that.
What the open source community can try to do is deflect the PR impact back on Microsoft by making it crystal clear what a sleazy deal this really is. Than, rather than appearing law-abiding and respecting IP, Microsoft will come across as underhanded and deceitful.
Of course, if anybody could leak the memo from inside Microsoft where this deal was discussed, that would help even more... any volunteers?
I just got off the phone with my Microsoft rep. He confirmed this is true.
His last line gave me the chills. He said "Hey Linux guy: 'All your base are belong to us'."
Freedom Is Universal
Linux-Universe
Illegal parts rewritten in one week flat, Linux becomes legal.
Maybe Microsoft just wants a peek at the code SCO claims has been stolen by Linux. While I understand that M$ owned all or part of this code in the 1980's, maybe they want to see what has changed since they sold it off.
If the M$ lawyers think that SCO has a real case, they'll buy the IP and take over the lawsuits that SCO has been grumbling about... They will probably make little, if any, profit from the IP and lawsuits directly, but if they can manage to hurt one or more of the major distros, it could be enough to make some of the major consumers of high-end server OS's think twice about using Linux in the future.
While I don't claim to know anything about the portions of code that SCO claims have been stolen, and IANAL, perhaps now is the time for the developers/maintainers of the affected packages to reexamine the code, just to be sure. If the code is based on SCO, it is probably rather old, and may need attention anyway. There's no need to admit any liability, but if the code is no longer recognizably 'SCOish' it may be easier to claim that there is no claim...
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
Wasn't it just a few years ago that Steve Gibson of Gibson Research discovered that Microsoft's TCP stack was identical to BSD?
/dev/hda1 or something similar to what I would see in Linux.
/etc directory, even though it is buried down a few levels. This is where they have the hosts file.
:)
And I don't know how many of you have used that recovery console for when your hard drives shit the bed, but in the console it actually shows the c: drive on my one computer as
Also, Windows even has an
I would be willing to bet there is quite a bit of Unix code in Windows. How else could you explain the gradual increased steadiness over the past 5 years. Whether you want to admit it or not, Windows 2000 was a major jump in reliability over previous releases and XP edged out 2K slightly.
Microsoft did work on Xenix years ago, and for that they did work on OS/2 with IBM which has a lot of BSD in it as well.
If the gov't ever opened up their source a lot of you guys would probably recognize major pieces
--Jon
What if SCO took linux code and put it in their unix code and then said, "Look, linux stole our code". How can we prove that they didn't do this?
Microsoft Information Minister :
:
"Linux, this OS is a IP thief, and we will see that it is brought to trial"
SCO Information Minister
"The Open Source Movement...[is] a place for prostitution under the feet of Linux pirates."
Linux was not responding as a company would and MS could not deal with 100,000 developers, they needed a company.
Okay, so they've (maybe) got SCO, if IBM doesn't do the smart thing and beat them to it. This isn't going to affect Linux in a major way, because they're still up against 100,000 developers.
Just because a routine works like something that's in their "IP", it doesn't necessarily follow that it is their "IP". And I don't care how much buckage they try to push into the court system; they're going to try to force the Linux development community to prove a negative, and that attempt will fall flat on its face.
There are a finite number of ways to arrive at a given programming solution. (Think "infinite number of monkeys on infinite number of typewriters".) An anecdotal example of how this works is easy to come by. All the coders out there who took (insert name of typical programming language here) in an "organized class" had a final exam program, yes? The results were important, not the actual means of arriving at the results. Twenty or so different students, twenty or so different programs (at least in my class), but I'll bet dollars to donut holes that some of the core algorithms and routines looked very similar between those programs. Did anyone get yelled at for stealing someone else's work? Not when the instructor was walking through the lab watching the students sweating and pounding out code for two hours. Individual efforts on a common problem yielded common results. So much for "IP."
Just my two cents' worth...save up the change for a root beer or something.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
It doesn't say that Microsoft is buying SCO. It says that Microsoft is going to license the rights to use UNIX intellectual property. Microsoft does use UNIX stuff, for example in their Interix product which is a POSIX subsystem for the NT line of OSes (2000, XP and 2003 included.) The use of such without a license could land them in a lawsuit.
... yeah, right. I'm sure the folks at Stac would have something interesting to say about that ongoing commitment to IP.
Or Apple, for that matter.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
The reason M$ has not been willing to show the windows code is that they have borrowed unix-code to the NT. Especially the network and memory handling routines come to mind first.
Microsoft used BSD code, but the BSD license permits this. You can try this simple experiment on your own PC, assuming you have Cygwin:
C:\WINNT\system32> strings FTP.EXE |grep -i copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
Now why would Microsoft leave that in there if they were deliberately trying to hide it?
Dunno if this could happen, with all the FTC regulations and other things I don't understand, but if it did, wouldn't MS own SCO's IP? And then be able to sue various (probably larger) Linux users with endless variations of lawsuits from now until eternity? With MS's bankroll, I don't think any single case won or lost would ever put the issue to rest then... If they lose one case, just change things around a little bit, and sue someone else using Linux...
Is it just me, or has our legal system just become like some utterly cheat-infested Unreal or Quake session? I wonder if all the lawyers involved are sending ICQs like "U fag! I will pwnz u in court, la!" "u witness camping Beeeeyoooootch u suk!". Of course, they would probably not use the punctuation...
Styrofoam IS biodegradable, you're just impatient!
...or part of SCO ...or something like that? Isn't SCO a hopped up version of Microsoft Xenix?
I certainly don't know the particulars, but you wil find my questions point to reality... to withing a few degrees.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I think this is actually a sign how desperate MS is. Yes, I wrote desperate.
They are basically stabbing IBM in the back, and that seemingly for no apparent reason, except for the fact they want to hurt IBM's adoption of linux.
And that is why I am inclined to call it desperate, because it will hurt them more than it helps. SCO will lose this suit big time, and IBM will be see that another proof that MS is unreliable, which will further underline the importance for them to go with linux.
Basically, MS may have declared an end to a business relation with IBM, where both partners demonstrated a good relationship in the public while kicking each others shinbone under the table.
They openly kicked IBM here, and they'll have to expect IBM to do the same when they get the chance. Therefore I think MS wouldn't have done that if they had felt themselves in a strong position against IBM/linux.
...much the way they did to Linux when FBSD had to be rewritten (BTW, it took considerably longer than a week).
Not that I think most Linux heads would give a rats ass if their software was willegal or not...
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
OK, it's clear to me (and most analyists) that this SCO/Linux, Sco/Microsoft, SCO/IBM, SCO/Anything is just a sophisticated "marketing" scheme designed to fool everyone in order to capture headlines, money, and marketshare.
I am convinced that SCO, failing to release any evidence what-so-ever of any claim, is merely attempting to manipulate the market. Microsoft, who admits to be fearful of Linux, is looking for anything to confuse potential Linux customers.
NONE of this is news. SCO hasn't been able to show if there has been any violations, likely because there are none. Microsoft has not been able to specify which code they were in violation of, if any, or what code they "licensed".
Therefore, I believe that SCO is just making this all up. I believe that Microsoft is helping them. I believe they are doing this because the executives at SCO want to make money by damaging the reputation of Linux. I believe it is in Microsoft's best interest to help them, because Microsoft's data center business is being bashed by Linux.
My belief and speculation should be the headlines. I suggest
"SCO's new illegitimate business model?"
Because given all the previous "press releases" by SCO, it is is the most likely truth. Maybe I'm wrong... but just lok at the evidence provided so far.
Sending a few dozen letters to big corporations is cheap and potentially lucrative. Does anyone have SCO's legal department's address? I'm thinking of writing to them (in French), asking them to explain fully (in French) the implications of their claims for the two Linux servers in my cybercafe, which binaries in my particular distro are affected, how they calculate the value of those binaries as a percentage of the whole, and so on and so on, and stating that if I don't hear from them in 28 days I will assume that everything is OK. If 50 million other Linux users did the same, I think they would have a problem...
Virtually serving coffee
MS is licensing, not buying.
The headline of both articles clearly says so.
Hi all
I must admit to being un-educated about SCO and what it means that MS has some deal with them now. I hear it will impact Linnux in some way, but I don't even know what SCO is.
Anyone care to give those who know nothing about this a couple of lines on the background? Cheers, -Nex
This sig has been deprecated.
I've got my tin foil hat pulled down tight over this one.
Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith said acquiring the license from SCO "is representative of Microsoft's ongoing commitment to respecting intellectual property and the IT community's healthy exchange of IP through licensing. This helps to ensure IP compliance across Microsoft solutions and supports our efforts around existing products like services for Unix that further Unix interoperability."
Okay... didn't we already learn about M$ borrowing other people's technology and getting burned with the SQL Server and Timeline issue.
I think this is a large case of Bill covering his butt. If SCO has the cajones to go after IBM, then they're building a warchest to go after him next. It's a smart move on M$ part, but it gives me the strange idea that I may be seeing some familiar "new" features in Longhorn.
Wow...this is so outside MS's usual routine, that I'm forced to think that they're doing this so that the courts will perceive some legal weight behind SCO's claims against IBM... It would make sense from a MS Marketing standpoint to try and start building a coffin for the IBM/Linux alliance.
blog |
Really it's the whole concept of IP that is flawed.
I think it's horrifying to see the West's manufacturing base dissolving as people construct sky-castles of "Intellectual property".
IP isn't worth the paper it's not even printed on. Its value derives entirely from IP laws. Ever-more-strict IP laws are justified by saying without them the value of IP wouldn't exist. Well, tough!
Circular logic can e.g. keep a religion around for a few millenia, granted an undereducated popilation, but it's fundamentally flawed.
The IP sky-castles will come tumbling down. And they might crush the West. The correct response is not to keep shoring them up, but to dismantle them safely.
Any real artist or mathematician knows that the act of "creation" is really an act of highlighting discoveries about the universe. To protest otherwise is a massive conceit and a denial of physical reality.
Hold on cowboy, the US has recently established global precedent. Failure to abide by our views results in your being an "illegal" outlaw regime, and we don't allow those to remain. For reference: see Taliban in Afghanistan, Baath Party in Iraq for recent example, or the Emperor in Japan and the Nazi Gov't in Germany...
:)
:-) ) aren't going to dismiss the US courts because a bunch of college kids like to laugh at the US...
You don't have to respect our culture, you may not respect our President, but you WILL respect our Aircraft Carriers.
All kidding aside, Common Law Courts (49 states in the US, several countries in the EU I believe... I know that LA in the US is on the Roman/Latin system, as are Italy and France, and Britain is obviously on the Common Law system, but I forget who else is what) tend to defer to each other's precedents when possible (but only for rulings on Common Law)....
However, a serious ruling in the US will affect ANYONE in the EU that does business in the US. In fact, business leaders and the movers and shakers (re: the 8 people in Europe that work over 35 hours/week
Alex
SCO sues IBM claiming UNIX source is in Linux. IBM DOES NOT buy outr SCO, despite SCO's plan for them too.
Microsoft sees this a great way to impact Linux, so in order to legitimize SCO's claim on Linux, they decide they're going to license SCO's technology from them. Though they probably don't need to, and don't have any IP issues, by spending some money, they help legitmize SCO's claims against Linux.
The probably would have just bought SCO outright, but the would sicked the trust busters on them faster than you can imagine...
And now SCO is threatening to pull IBM's UNIX license. Well both IBM and HP have announced that they plan to move to Linux as their primary OS for their midrange systems, instead of AIX and HP/UX.
I don't want to say UNIX is dying here, cause it's not, but UNIX is definitelyu being looked at less and less by it's 2 biggest licensees. SCO sees this and doesn't like it. After all, they abandoned their Linux business in favor of UNIX, and now they're learning a lot of people have abandoned their UNIX business in favor of Linux.
I think HP, IBM, RedHat and all those UnitedLInux companies should buy SCO and release all that UNIX source code under the GPL.
But I don't think they should buy SCO till AFTER they lose in court. Don't give SCO what they want, which is a buyout.
First, Microsoft views Linux as a HUGE threat and would benefit tremendously if SCO wins.
...
? ID=D00 0000115&Name=Microsoft+Corp
Second, Microsoft's polititical contributions have enabled it to get ridiculously biased outcomes in US courts. i.e. Anti-trust judgement "forcing" MS to give free copies of its software to schools, etc. which is ironic since giving away software for free was one of the problems.
Third, you can expect Microsoft to let politicians know what they prefer as the outcome in the SCO lawsuit while they hand out big fat checks.
Note the difference in the amount of political contributions from Microsoft before and after their anti-trust lawsuit. Expect the ROI from this year's contributions to benefit Microsoft exactly as it has in the past.
In 1996 Microsoft contributed:
$251,474 total
$136,424 democrats
$110,000 republicans
In 2000 Microsoft contributed:
$4,616,103 total
$2,134,241 democrats
$2,460,543 republicans
For more recent campaign contribution info, see:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp
NOTE: Microsoft is simply playing by the rules and doing what is in the best interest of their shareholders. If you don't like it, help change the rules regarding campaign finance by taking ACTION.
I believe Microsoft had a perpetual license to Xenix, which turned into SCO OpenServer in the mid-90s. I don't know if Microsoft had any license rights to the OpenServer upgrades.
However, it appears that the license they are getting via this settlement is to SCO UnixWare (which was Novell UnixWare and before that AT&T SVR4). Which is a totally different kernel. Or at least much different.
The UnixWare kernel is substantially more sophisticated than OpenServer, with very good SMP support, clustering support, support for many system items being hot-plug, etc.
SCO tried for years to shift OpenServer customers to the UnixWare kernel, but backwards compatibility and comfort levels always made it a hard sell.
Without its own Unix OS, Microsoft is not necessarily competing directly in the Unix space with SCO, although one could obviously argue that their interoperability tools for the last 4 years or so have competed.
--LP
Excellent point. Last week, I made the point that IBM's trustworthiness is under test here.c id=5962 757
9 3&cid=5962 715
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=64293&
I also said that since MS uses BSD, they'd use this opportunity to fund SCO's lawsuit:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=642
I repeat my query:
What if IBM settles with SCO for a cool million? All hell breaks loose for the rest of the Open Source folks. Even if this thing goes on for a few years, the damage to Linux could be great.
Who's taking a bet : IBM settles with SCO, methinks!
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
I now see the reason why RMS has always insisted on keeping Free Software *free* (as in spirit) and never let any corporate interests to hijack the development of Free Software. The whole *open source* thing brought greedy corporations into play and we are now seeing the results!!
Where is RMS when we need him!?
M$ can now claim they have a financial investment in the disputed IP, and thus assert "standing" in any possible court case(s). Personally, *I* think that's why they did the licensing deal with SCO, nee Caldera. That and to fund the company in an ostensibly "legitimate" way. I doubt SCO, nee Caldera, has (had?) the financial wherewithal to pursue their course-of-action to success without a ca$h infusion from somewhere.
"Scornful members of the Linux community are signing an online petition to 'highlight the pomposity' of SCO's claim to ownership of intellectual property in Linux."
"The creator of an online petition is inviting users to sign up to challenge SCO to sue them..."
Article at vnunet.
Petition at petitiononline.com
As far as the "buy me whining", MS didn't buy them out-right , but they did find a backdoor way to help fund the anti-Linux effort without being too obvious about it. I don't know how much money changed hands here, but for a struggling company like SCO going up against a behemoth like IBM, every little bit helps. If the amount is significant, it could help SCO prolong the lawsuit.
If MS were to buy SCO, or make another significant stock investment, it would certainly give SCO the financial resources to fight IBM. But that would probably be *way too obvious* and bring the scrutiny of the Government anti-trust regulators. This way, with the license deal, MS can funnel money to SCO without the Goverment breathing down their necks.
Could this be the Microsoft version of the Iran-Contra program? The money that M$ paid for a license just happens to be SCO's main product at the moment -- the ability to go after Linux. M$ would love to sue Linux out of existance, or (even better), let SCO act as a proxy/martyr. The suit is a joke; the odds of collecting are nil. The only surefire payoff is from M$, and even then only to the extent that the litigation helps fuel the FUD machine.
It may seem like some carefully planned move but I just presume it's some sideeffect of MS thrashing about to gain a foothold in a rapidly changing SW market. The don't see a safe and solid foundry in the non-SW dept. at this very moment, so they try to keep it going as good as it has until now.
THAT'S why they're licencing from the only company who's in the buisness long enough to actually have something of worth to sell, but smaller then anything that could actually harm MS directly.
The days of inhouse-software-only companys and their big success(es) are counted and MS knows this. People will pay for configurations 5 years from now - they won't pay big money for Software anymore. Remember the turmoil caused by the PC-architecture after it was out for a few years? Nearly everything else in the mass marktet of small computers was deader than a doornail soon afterwards.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Baz
Just try this:
root# strings /proc/kcore | grep \(C\)\ SCO
(OK, It's an old joke, just couldn't resist)
Back in Christ's days the romans awarded you 30 silvers when you betrayed someone. Today the romans buy a perpetual license of your product. Now that's progress!
You can't give away free what we are willing to pay for. You simply are not allowed.
It's taken Microsoft years to come up with a vehicle to screw Linux. It basically it has reduced SCO to a EWMD, Economic Weapon of Mass Destruction.
Of course SCO, being a bunch of greedy lawyers and IP fascists, are more than happy to oblige.
I don't think "executives at SCO want to make money by damaging the reputation of Linux". In fact, beyond looking to be bought out, I can't imagine WTF those execs would be thinking. Reality is that they've mortally wounded themselves and they'll be spewing some significantly more venomous words as their end draws closer. As for the MS thing, the only reasons I can see MS "suddenly" licensing IP for Services for Unix (which has been around over 8 years now), is either to simple grab cheap headline space (most likely) or because SCO's lawyers threatened them and MS decided it was cheaper to pay a bit now rather than take it to court since SCO will eventually be hung out to dry sooner rather than later.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
My guess is that Caldera/SCO is trying to make itself an irresistable strategic investment for MicroSoft. MS could not stomach buying the unix IP by itself, that would anticompetitive behaviour to the extreme. Even if the US DoJ would be silensed by the present US regime, the EU Comission would put the foot down on MS. SCO suing IBM is a win-win situation to both SCO and MS. The longer and blurrier this situation goes on, the better for MS. Linux now has a legal risk attached to it. Many CEOs are not willing to take risk, neither are many corporate lawyers. Would you bet your career on this IP issue? Do you trust the courts to make the proper judgement? I did not think so. At some point MS will have buy SCO, or SCO will GPL the unix code for good. At that point MS needs to drop the suit against IBM and others for image reasons. But it can still leave the IP issue open to keep Linux steadily FUDed.
They didn't BUY it. Jeezsh you guys!
NetNewsWire into Yojimbo!
that one on the right is Dr. Harold Shipman!
Let gates win! Who cares! Everybody switch to BSD and watch bill trip over himself! It's not like code bases are incompatible, after all...
So, why is everybody overreacting? They just LICENSED the code, not buy it.
Here's the secret to immortality:
Can't you see it now, the newest Micro$oft "innovation", MS OSX(P)?
From what I see SCO is ripe for the picking. I wonder how much each of us would have to pitch in to buy SCO out and GPL or BSD (my preference) their code licensing? Hmmm
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
property. the kingdumb's record sucks. you may now consider yourselves the wwgarmeNTdisstricked.
vote with your heart/mind/spirit/wallet, the dark daze will turn into coolapps.
we'll see your phonIE payper liesense, & raise you a pair of stock markup FraUD indictmeNTs.
Don't forget the possible boost for SCO's stock price.
Would be interesting to see who offloads the stock if the price rises as a result of this.
check out your local LUG (linux users == gay) group.
They also "inovated" the concept of seat licences for a product that was essentially 90% Open Source and Free Software. As if that wasn't an indication of was to come!
This isn't a big revelation. Microsoft previously had thier own unix distribution. They sold it SCO.
s p? a=695
http://www.sourcemagazine.com/articles/viewer.a
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Ray Noorda, aka Novell Inc., bought the UNIX technology in 1992 and in 1995 sold it to SCO, which was already selling a version of Unix for computers that use Intel Corp. chips. Ray Noorda, aka Caldera Systems Inc., bought the bulk of SCO's operations in 2001 and recently changed its name to SCO.
This is not your father's SCO. It is your father's SCO which is now owned by Ray Noorda. When Ray (Novell & all the other companies he owns) can't compete, you buy bankrupt companies like your father's SCO for their IP and sue anybody with lottsa money.
This isn't about technology. It's about money and the control of the world, especially including its substantial comforts, that money can buy.
I think maybe some people are jumping the gun here. M$ licensed the software. They did not buy the rights to the software. The right that they purchased was probably the right to use the code in their software. In other words, they can use the software. This does not mean that they can sue people or be party to a suit against someone regarding the use of the UNIX code. I wouldn't lose any sleep because you think this is the nail in the coffin of Linux.
Therefore, in this case, it seems to me to be in their clear interest to act in the interests of squashing this lawsuit completely.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Ms needs to be careful where they get their code from. They are now dealing with a company that is more than likely infected with that there GPL virus thingy.
Now, what if they start releasing some of this code in their key products. Then, what if they trial actually comes about. Then, what if there really is similar code between the two code bases. But, what if it ends up being proved in court that the code migrated from linux to SCO and not the other way around as SCO claims, and this similar code happens to be the code in the MS products. !!!???
Then MS will have combined GPL code with the code for their key products and will have to GPL their key products! That would teach them for dealing with a copmany they hold to be virus infected.
A Nony Mouse and loving it.
Actually, when I first saw the news, I wondered if it was a way for MS to publically fund SCO's lawsuite against IBM and the rest.
Withthe lastest business model microsoft just used, to shared the windows source code with trusted, I think we have to wonder if they would have tried to license the code if they wouldn'r have plan to share its source code... just like, oups, I borrowed some ofyour code..
This might be ridiculous conspiracy theory if we were talking about another company.
If I had to guess, I'd say most of the conspiracy theories that are posted here are nothing more than that: conspiracy theories.
Let's think a bit about Caldera's history and how it relates to Microsoft. When Caldera bought DR-DOS from Novell, it also bought an anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft. This lawsuit ended with Microsoft settling for an undisclosed amount of money. Unless I'm mistaken, any and all dealings with any IP that Caldera ever owned (alleged or otherwise) would be high on Microsoft's do-not-touch list. MS has lots of money, but I'm sure they'd prefer to keep it rather than give it out in more settlements.
Fast forward to a few years back when Caldera purchased selected assets from SCO (engineers, IP, sales channel, etc.). Now, in addition to DOS stuff, Microsoft has to be careful about UNIX stuff. This comes at a time when Microsoft is desperately trying to make Windows more appealing to UNIX folks with their UNIX interoperability toolkit (as well as UNIX-ish internals to their OSes for all I know).
IBM is a big fish, but it's only one big fish out of a handful of other big fish. Microsoft -- who didn't fare well the last time they were sued by Caldera -- has probably weighed the benefits of of purchasing a UNIX IP license against the cost of a potential lawsuit and decided to get a license.
That said, there is one conspiracy theory that I've read here that I think may hold some water: by purchasing an IP license from SCO, Microsoft may think they're solidifying SCO's claims against Linux. I doubt that this would be more important to them than avoiding another lawsuit, but I'm sure the potential "benefits" of their actions have crossed their minds.
Even the most anally written of open documents, one for which any code written for is instantly assimilated into its iron grasp, matters not when the other side is the one with all the money and an army of lawyers.
How can we ever hope to win? Like so much else in the world, ultimately its just he with the most money wins. Even after we try playing a different game, we're still to be a causality of theirs it seems.
I hate this place.
Myren
and the one on the left is the poor excuse of a human being "seth-frankenstein-I-will-stalk-you-to-death".
This is so obvious:
SCO is taking shots at linux on its own (and in part Microsoft's) behalf. I would bet that SCO has been working a deal with Microsoft to get some code licensed that SCO has. Suddenly SCO realizes that some of the code microsoft wants is already out. Seeing this might cause a problem with how "edible" they look to microsoft they start hammering away at whoever they can (IBM) for infringement on those same rights previously.
So in part, I think its that they wanted to look better for Microsoft, but I don't think it was a ploy to have someone buy them out necessarily.
I'd assume that in the end this will be a gestapo tactic like someone mentioned earlier and also a strategy to kill off linux as competition.
By licencing now, if or when IBM get suckered into buying SCO, M$ won't have to worry about any Unix issues IBM might find it convenient to hit M$ with later.
On the one hand SUN should be pleased with something that increaces the value of companies that have UNIX, like solaris, that is not legally encumbered.
Yet, they must be seriously quaesy to find them selves on the same legal side of the UNIX ownership issue as their arch enemy Microsoft.
On the other hand SUN has been poised on a bet-the-company move to LINUX and most analysts have said that this going to work they cant hesitate any longer. Now they probably will pause again.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
That is what is at stake. After SCO wins this round, Linux and *BSD will truly become toys for computing hobbiests, and will be out of the server rooms.
The moral stakes, as well as the ethical and commercial ones, are quite high and frightening.
Unless I've missed it SCO hasn't said exactly what part of the kernel they're claiming rights on. At some point that will have to be revealed and the kernel developers can examine their alternatives.
SCO will claim the ENTIRE system, on the basis of following argument:
Non-SCO parts: Given away free, usually made by people working for free, with source code. Author has also given away all trade secret or patent rights they might have by putting it under GPL. SCO will argue that this is essentially commercially valueless, and therefore not much different from public domain.
Any-SCO parts: Their properitary code. Sold for money (therefore valuable), by people made to do the work (SCO employees). Protected by trade secrets and potentially patents. Therefore valuable and properietary. SCO will thus argue, assigning ENTIRE Linux copyright to them, harms no one (you are just taking junk that people give away free or throw away), and is the only way to protect SCO's IP -- thus is the most equitable solution.
What, exactly, have they licensed? I don't understand how one licenses something without being clear about what it is you are getting. The article says Microsoft is licensing SCO's Unix "patents and source code." If I wanted to fork over money to SCO for such a license wouldn't SCO have to disclose to me in some detail what I'm licensing? And shouldn't a licensee have a right to establish first that the code being licensed is actually controlled by the party claiming to own it, rather than something in the public domain, or already (legitimately) released under the GPL?
Or is SCO's "licensing program" just a thinly veiled form of extortion:
SCO: Something you are using belongs to us. We can't tell you what it is, but if you don't pay us for it we'll sue you."
LINUX USERS: Ok. Here's the money. Now tell us what we've licensed!
SCO: Sorry. Can't say. But consider yourself lucky.
In a similar vein, if I wanted to make a good faith effort to market a distro purged of SCO's code, shouldn't SCO be compelled to tell me exactly what code I need to remove in order not to infringe on their IP?
It is one thing for SCO to argue that IBM contributed code to the Linux kernel that belongs to SCO. If such a thing could be proven then I would think that SCO would be entitled to damages from IBM. But it is another thing to say that the entire community of Linux users owes something to SCO for code IBM stole from SCO and wrongly contributed to the kernel. As a Linux user, I had no way of knowing that parts of the Linux kernel belonged to SCO, nor can I bring my current Linux use into compliance with SCO's ip claims, since SCO refuses to disclose to me details about the offending code.
(By the way, it is SCO's bizarre notion of the Linux community's collective "responsibility" for damage to SCO's IP that make "viral" gpl arguments so appealing. After all, if every Linux user is "responsible" for violations to SCO's ip, even if we have had no way of knowing such violations were occurring, then certainly Caldera's distribution of SCO's code under the gpl should function to annul SCO right to their source, even though Caldera "didn't know" they were GPL'ing proprietary code.)
Lurking behind all of this are some troubling legitimate questions. For example, is the kernel development process adequate to the task of screening out contributions to the kernel that violate someone's intellectual property? Do Linus Torvalds and those working with him on kernel development have a responsibility to vet code for ip violations? Is such a thing possible or practical? If someone used the kernel development process to deliberately damage another company or individual's ip, would all legal responsibility for this damage lie with the individual making the illegitimate contribution, or is there some way in which the kernel developer's would also be liable?
no, he is Seth Finkelstein the one on the left is Jay Taylor.
Microsoft only buys stuff that has value to it, and even then it only buys when there's no alternative.
SOP at Microsoft is:
1. Approach a small company that has some cool technology.
2. Get a perpetual license for the technology and source code, in return for a cash injection.
3. Take the source, incorporate it into Microsoft products, and give those products away as bundled parts of Windows and Office, reducing small company's own products to zero value.
4. Shed worthless husk of small company.
Examples are too numerous to list, but VIVO is the classic that fits the model perfectly. Real would have gone the same way if they hadn't secretly worked on their G2 stuff in a separate code stream that wasn't covered by their agreement with Microsoft.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
As I've said before: It's just a tempest in a [OpenGL] teapot.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
It would seem that by paying SCO money, they strengthen SCO's case against IBM by setting precedent.
Eat at Joe's.
.lawsuit. This is the easiest way to do it. Throw cash at SCO, SCO continues disrupting the Linux/IBM/*nix community because MS has given it the money to hire 40 more lawyers...
Loading...
SCO has known about the GPL violations in their Linux source since last year and they continue to distribute it. They are liable for that.
If Microsoft buys them, Microsoft will be liable for GPL violation instead.
Did they license the Tetris Game ?
From what I recall, this was no freeware but a commercial game. Let alone a commercial name.
Sue ! Sue ! Sue !
Setting aside for the moment the evident tenuosity of SCO's case (the OSI position paper is VERY interesting reading), we still have this showstopper:
If SCO *does* by some dark miracle own some IP on code that is being used in Linux distros (or the kernel), they've already voided any claim against others by their own act of GPL-releasing their own Linux distro, which can be assumed to contain that same code (because the GPL license on that SCO-owned code would be valid, since they WOULD have the right to license it out). They're fscked if they *do* own such IP, and fscked if they don't (which seems the vastly likelier case).
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
We'll all be painting circles on our back lawns to show the pigs where to land. PORKAIR061, clear for landing.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Maybe I'm paranoid, or maybe I've got things mixed up, so could someone correct me if I have it wrong?
Some years back, when it was clear that SCO-Unix/Xenix was on the way out, weren't they bought up by MicroSoft? At the time I found that strange, and even stranger yet when it was "sold on" when all it really was was a name and some dubious IP (hell, probably as useful as a shell company containing all the IP related to OS2). Could it not be that MS saw the "disruption" potential back then and tried to put some ground between them and SCO? Doesn't it seem *too* convenient that they are the first ones "bowing" their heads to the FUD claims of SCO?
Hmmm...
Why are Microsoft paying SCO for a Unix license?
If Microsoft want to put Unix-like functionality on Windows, they could just use BSD, and not pay license fees. Now Bill Gates doesn't have a reputation for spending money unnecessarily, so there's some other reason.
Perhaps SCO's suit against IBM and threats against Linux users is something MS have put them up to. MS have a motive for doing this as they hate and fear Linux..
If this theory is correct, MS's payment to SCO is really a reward for disrupting Linux; the SCO Unix license is just to disguise what MS are really buying.
--suppose that sco has a valid claim that causes them to even get paid more licensing, or that causes "new code" to be written. Even if a patch is made available,and is applied and the old tainted code stripped, it still doesn't matter, the damage would still have been done, as in "punitive damages", loss of :"business", they -they being (micro)sco(soft) -could still make a claim that they "lost" such and such approximate revenue from the sum totality of all the "tainted" installs out there over a long time period. The main issue that is critical isn't the code itself, it's the claim of past lost money it appears, lost money to someone. The damages part of a lawsuit. This to me looks like a one step at a time, that this isn't the last aspect to any future lawsuits, they need to do it in a first things first sort of fashion. The introduction of microsoft into the mix means that if anyone pays or settles, or even if a patch has to be written an applied, that past damages might still be sought. THAT is the big part, altering the code to applly in the here and now and future is almost trivial,really, everyone knows it's patchable and fixable, it's the PAST THEORETICAL DAMAGES part that is big, because it's such a huge variable, BUT, if there's a shred of legitimacy to it, it MIGHT BE big. "Might be". How much "business" has been conducted with the potential "tainted" code? I got no idea but I would be quite confident saying it's billyuns and billyuns if this tainted code actually exists. You could see microsoft, if you follow the predicted predatory food chain now, actually going after past damages from the entire past installed basebase, starting with the larger targets, and maybe even offering a sop-remove linux entirely, stop using it, or you and your business get added to the axis of targets list. I don't think they have to insist on just money as a payback, they might seek the court to give them the right as an option to hold out the carrot to anyone "just stop using linux, and we'll forget about past damages". That gives companies two options, pay a fine and etc, OR remove linux. They don't have to insist they switch to anything microsoft,that's illegal, just the "stop using linux" as an option. THAT is microsofts main focus as per "linux", they clearly see it as a threat, and are willing to chance that more people would just keep using their stuff then to switch to something else, that's why you see them all over the planet dropping prices or giving it away free-they CAN'T lose any more marketshare, as it always has a snowball effect, and just because the snowball is at the top of the mountain doesn't mean it hasn't started rolling, it has, they need to stop it now or suffer, and big time. I don't know if this theory has precedent or if it's legal, but it *might* be. Look at it this way, if you go buy something from the pawnshop, and later on the cops find out it is stolen, they don't give you the option to keep it, you have to give it up. You won't be sued or charged, but you still don't get to keep the whatever. In this case, the whatever is a variable, but it has mucho value as in "past potential business loss" into the bigtime folding money area.
It's- this whole lawsuit business- already causing no small amount of worry in the money making shops, and sco is a relatively small player. Just the THOUGHT of having microsoft going after you-which in a way them agreeing to pay sco and making a big hairy deal out of it in business circles, ie "advertising" it,tangential but there, the appearance or potential of it, is enough of a bluff to make quite a few places just abandon ship, even if they think they are innocent, they wouldn't be prepared to deal with it, or want the hassle or expense. Right now, this isn't really even at the 6 o clock news headlines level for joe sixpack all over, but microSCOsoft having ANY sort of legitimate claims against linux WOULD make the news and the --fear is the word- would spread like crazy, probably enough to tip over a lot of CEOs from stockholder pressure
If anything else, this will generate some FUD that will slowdown(M$ may hope) Linux widespreading.
This whore deserves it!
Thanks, you saved me from wasting
15 minutes and coming to the same conclusion.
Microsoft is going to dig through the Unix code, and the Linux code side by side. They will find interoperability shortfalls to take advantage of, or failing that, will create them by extending APIs, or using undefined fields in APIs to their advantage (e.g. Java et al). If the majority of desktop systems can't interoperate with Linux, then their thinking is, "Linux is dead in the mainstream".
Look for Microsoft to try to manipulate Posix standards toward proprietary extensions. Also look at them to support SCO in the patent infringement case.
Urge your friends to boycott Microsoft products, buy systems without the 'Microsoft Tax' (without an OS - easiest way to do this is build a machine from parts), and reload Microsoft machines with Linux (my game box is going to be loaded with Linux exclusively in the next few days - directX is dead - long live OpenGL!)
More importantly, support Linux and open source products/projects. Lets get the breadth and depth of computer games now available on Windows for Linux by buying/supporting Linux games/developers, and following through on open source game development. Desktop productivity tools are there, now lets get the other arenas up to speed as well.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Do not forget that Microsoft had licensed code in the Unix SVR4 kernel, and this may be the real reson that SCO has started this mess. The only way to put this mess behind us all would be to get a court to find that Linux did not infringe upon SCO IP. Proof of that would be showing the source tree of the code, complete with documentation of the origins of the code, such as POSIX standards, Minix code samples for timeline, etc. Anyone around for the eighties Unix wars will remember the BSD squabble. If resonable proof of the cleanliness of Linux code can be presented, the claims will not be upheld. This is an international case, in reality. The onus will be on the plaintiffs to prove violations.
Standard IANAL disclaimer.
dot-sig.
I would like a lawyer to tell us whether Microsoft's license of Unix will allow it to legally sue Linux distributors for alleged stealing or unauthorized use of the Unix code.
If there is a possibility of that, I would recommend that at this time, the Linux community dig in for legal battle. Microsoft may attempt to use the courts to make Linux illegal.
If that is the case, the entire community should come together and fight it. We can pitch in and hire a good, large legal team. Such a team would be needed to take on Microsoft's huge legal resources.
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Although I don't think that MS^H^HSCO will win this, we need to be prepared to take Linux underground. Albeit desperate, this is a brilliant (if monstrously evil) move by Microsoft, and it is their best shot to take Linux down.
If they succeed, Linux will be an outlaw operating system in the United States. Therefore, switch your redhat boxen (and moneyen) to mandrake. (If the plan works, redhat will be a thing of the past unless they move overseas) Get rid of identifying banners and error messages in your linux based applications. Set up a node on one of the next generation P2P networks- something encrypted and anonymous, such as Freenet or Gnunet, and host as many Linux distros as space permits.
In the meantime, we need to find out where this courtroom is and plan to put our money where our mouth is when it comes to protecting freedom. If we understand this as a threat to the ability of mankind to freely share information, we have a debt to mankind to protect that freedom. If this doesn't get us off our collective ass to protest something, we may never get another opportunity. Thousands need to be protesting on the steps of this court.
That they are reluctant to release the information that shows exactly what was copied because if they do that, the Linux community will then start writing alternate code and replace all the supposed copyrighted code within the week?
If everything gets replaced, then they have no leg to stand on...then no chance of getting bought etc etc.
Just a thought.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
they will not even try they will have to get through me first and the giant anvil that i weild. If micro$oft thinks that they can try to make a good thing evil like their mommas they will have a very hard fight to win if gates tries again ill slap him whit my dick in the face and impregnate his wife whit non homo genes.
But did you grep for Microsoft spelled backwards?
!seineew era sremmargorp tfosorciM
The product in question would be Caldera's Linux distro (don't forget, the present SCO is Caldera operating under another name). Caldera does include source(else the GPL Squad would have chewed their extremities off long ago).
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Haha. That's what I love about this rabble. No one need fear that we could organize or agree long enough to put together an army... =)
Or maybe, just maybe, they wanted to protect themselves from a lawsuit over their Services for UNIX product.
Nah, it must be some giant conspiracy.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
It doesn't set precedent any more than a local shop owner paying Mob protection money...
we barely knew thee...
"Dance!" he souted, shooting himself in the foot. "Faster!" he added, aiming at the other one.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Then again, you could view it as microsoft giving SCO enough rope to hang themselves with. I'd imagine the sequence of events would go something like:
1. SCO tell Microsoft 'you're violating our IP. Pay up, or we'll sue you.'
2. Microsoft know damn well they're not, but they pay up anyway
3. SCO lose court case to IBM, found to have none of the IP they claimed
4. Microsoft sues SCO into non-existence.
Easy. One less unix vendor on the market.
-Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience-
And don't think this is typical Linux FUD either. Microsoft has already publicly identified Linux as a credible threat in certain market places.
It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God
>After SCO wins this round, Linux and *BSD will truly become toys for
>computing hobbiests, and will be out of the server rooms.
*BSD has already been thru the litigation wringer. A settlement was reached, and BSD is now unencumbered - 100% free of any Unix code.
Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix - From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable
That lawsuit put the BSD folks in limbo for quite a while, I sincerely hope this SCO mess doesn't put a similar drag on the growth of Linux.
I can't help but point out that the Interix/SFU link above (also posted by NZheretic) is a complete and utter fabrication. In fact, it is a direct plagiarism from RMS's own writings about GNU/Linux. It's hard to believe a post was moderated to a score 5 when all it had was links to obvious urls and a link to this surreal alternate reality.
It also sort of suprises me, its hard to scare Microsoft.. . And regardless of what anyone says, they saw the handwriting on the wall ( anyone remember Xenix.. im sure parts of that is in NT ) and didnt want the expense of defending themselves...
:P
But then again, they cant just buy them the FTC would never allow it. So what other choice do they have? God forbid for IBM to buy SCO then decide to sue Microsoft..
The credibility this gives the SCO suit is scary however.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This got me wondering why the OSS community is so much better. It can't just be strength in numbers, because only one developer can write a line of code. Having many developers write a few lines of mediocore code does not produce superior software without many other factors (including lots of time) involved. So why is it so much better, so consistently? Are the developers actually better?
The answer I came to: Yes. OSS developers are better. And there's a reason for that, it's not just a coincidence. Commercial programmers do what they do because they get paid to do it. OSS developers do what they do because they enjoy it. And people who derive enjoyment from what they're doing (a) probably find it very easy and (b) are motivated to do it better.
True, many commercial developers (myself among them) love their jobs. But almost all OSS developers love what they do for a hobby, or they'd stop. Therein lies the difference, in my opinion.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
One thing that is worth noting is that Microsoft does do *some* work with Unix
Another thing worth noting is that Microsoft does a lot of work with Unix. However I doubt this applies much to the current discussion.
Someone you trust is one of us.
'On one side you have an evil superpower secretly supporting small rogue states (the USSR, Microsoft)'
Er - who installed the Taliban?
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
This is just a way for Microsoft to keep SCO afloat while they fight out the IBM (and whomever else) lawsuit, without getting the SEC, DOC or DOJ involved (as they would be if Microsoft just tried to buy out SCO). It also gives Microsoft the appearance of being at arm's length in that conflict ("Us? We're just an innocent bystander!").
Finally, should somebody else (IBM, Sun, RedHat, whomever) decide to buy out SCO, MSFT will already have a (perpetual, one assumes) license to the Unix code should they ever decide they need it (versus needing one and having to negotiate for same with IBM or Sun or RedHat, etc.)
In other words, a typical Microsoft strategic move, like a "fork" in chess, that can be played out either way.
-- Alastair
Well, appart from all the little errors.
Come to think of it it's almost as stupid as the "SCO" (Stupid Caldera Obfuscation) lawsuit.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
And liberate their IP?
Is this supposed to be some sort of a joke? :P
If Caldera hadn't released code on its flavor of Linux, Lycoris Linux would not exist. As far as I know, Lycoris is the only branch of the Caldera distro that is being actively developed. They use Lizard, Caldera-style RPMs, the whole 9.
Basically, Caldera released all the IP that it's now suing IBM about under the GPL. The only value of all this hubbub is the FUD value. And Microsoft is making hay while the sun shines.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
cant you see this is the first shot in microsofts war to destroy linux?
I thought the solitaire game in the Caldera OS Installer looked familiar...
MS=Dr.Evil
SCO=Mini-Me
It's not going to work. Free software can only be destroyed by elimnating the fisrt and fourth amendments to the US Constitution.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If only the te**orists had crashed those planes into M$ corp offices instead they would have been global hero's and would have done the world a great service..
Yeah, but have they patented it yet?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Finish your education off by increasing your vocabulary.
didnt sco give all the code away when it was released under the GPL? there's nothing left to license.
Yow! Rip van Winkle awakes!
Did you miss the last couple of elections?
The outcome of the Microsoft Anti-Trust case?
Go back to sleep now.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I think a countersuit should be filed against SCO and all of their customers that are using their GPL Linux (yep, that's right... both of them) and sue them all for violating the GPL. After all, SCO distrubuted their GPL code to them with other people's IP in it.
This is like Apple suing Microsoft and all Microsoft customers because Microsoft put some of "Apple's IP" in their OS.
It's just stupid and rediculous. I hope we get an intelligent judge and IBM just plasters SCO to the wall.
Its very telling that SCO Gorupo has not sued BSD..the case in 1993 of BSd vs Unix is going to come out in IBM's response to being charged..
All BSD Code shared with SCO Unix IP code is not applicable to an IP claim accodring to the 1993 case...
Since AIX code does have BSD shared code..it seem sthat SCO is barking up the wrong tree..It also seems that IBM hinted at this approach with its mention that it has an unrevocable license to unix code(the bsd shareed code)
We of the linux community should thank BSD for sticking with their defense of the lawsuit case of 1993 adn the successfull winning of that case!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
"OVER THE WEEKEND Linux and Main reported that IBM might be about to hire Eric S. Raymond as a trial consultant to assist with its defense against SCO's billion-dollar intellectual property lawsuit.
Help fight continental drift.
It's certainly possible that MS has no real need to license Unix IP from SCO. This may simply be a way for MS to covertly subsidize SCO's legal battle against IBM.
Since I didn't see it anywhere else..... Consider how long it would take for M$ to buy out SCO... perhaps longer than SCO can survive, particularly with this lawsuit.
Hence, M$ funds SCO via licensing IP that they may or may not need to license to ensure that SCO continues to exist while M$ makes the necessary preparations to buy them outright.
What SCO needs to do is setup a deal with Think Geek to put out source code posters with the offending code clearly marked in high-lighter yellow and arranged to mimic that famous Viet-Nam war photo of that poor chap getting shot in the head at point blank range. Draw the parallels. I would gladly make room on my utilitarian wallspace for one of those. SCO and Microsoft would be fools to turn their back on the potential to put their handiwork, clearly marked with their corporate logos in the margins, in the hands of sales reps and unit managers. Business is war, red in tooth and claw. Have lotsa fun.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
Now they know how to do it! Why are you helping them?
Telecommuting! What about socialization?
You boys just became unpaid members of the Microsoft Marketing division. Thanks much!
It's a real live FUD party!!
Anyone care to guess how many Linux implementations will be put on hold today; at least while this issue is fact checked for potential corporate impact?
Corporations, being risk averse in the extreme; will have to now do more due dilligence prior to making a decision in favor of Linux. Everyone here has confirmed the nessesity through their very comments, and the comments on what will be hundreds of web sites before the week is over.
Microsoft can afford to wait, afford to market and afford to BUY whatever they need to secure those enterprise contracts from corporations getting flaky over the SCO issue. People can conclude(at their own peril) that there is nothing to the lawsuit, but lawsuits are EXPENSIVE whatever the outcome, and not just in money. Time is the issue. Time to stretch out the purchasing decision that will occur only every 5 to 10 years best case.
Can Redhat and IBM wait as long as Microsoft? Nope. Nobody can.
This has to be totally obvious doesn't it??
Where do you want to be, What are you doing to get there.
Remember that SCO had a unix product before buying Caldera's linux distro. SCO's own unix was a Xenix-derivative. So SCO does have some unix code (quite a bit) that isn't covered by GPL. It could be *that* code that they are basing their lawsuit on.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
If SCO is right about their claim, and they seriously impact Linux's development by sueing or whatever, can you imagine how their name/company would be seen by all those they cost/affected some way. If your company uses Linux, or you use it by yourself at home, you're not going to be very happy with SCO after this. They must realize that they will seriously affect their own business in the future if they sue everybody who uses Linux. They are in the Unix business (I presume, don't know much about them myself), they're not going to be appreciated down the road by the Linux community. In fact, they have already started to hurt themselves by starting a case like this!
Not realizing the above is why so many young computer programmers (and Slashdot readers) don't maximize their power.
As I've gotten more involved in politics (being a member of a political party, running candidates for office, doing a public affairs radio show, just to name a few things), I've learned that a big part of political success comes from organizing people and making the organization outlast one's opponents. I treat it as a source of hope that ordinary people have the power to reorganize society to distribute power more equitably. Then, I hope, maintain their organization and prevent corporate and governmental abuses again.
Digital Citizen
There is only one reason why Microsoft would license code from SCO, and that is to increase the legal justification of this lawsuit.
Microsoft has Billions in its coffers people and the story behind the scenes is more sinister than you can possible imagine I am afraid.
More sinister, because as this develops, it is quite clear this was fully planned and orchestrated by some individual in conjunction with Microsoft's legal apparatus at least 6 months ago.
You don't just BUY a license from SCO, there is a great deal of negotiating that has to take place first for at least 30 days, for example.
So this news is hardly a revelation, more like a leak.
I predict the following from this fall out:
1) International acceptance will widen of Linux because of this, and it will backfire on whomever came up with this idea to discredit Linux and its developers.
2) Microsoft hasn't learned. It continues to use its enourmous warchest to get itself into trouble both with intellectual IP (frivilous lawsuits) and its growing hard line against Linux.
Obviously this is a new tactic. Microsoft's Billions can buy any company it so desires, and use it as a front to create untold havoc in the Western Information Technology sector that considers any alternatives to Microsoft Products.
The best way to expose this is to get a hold of the negotiations between the individuals at Microsoft and SCO, if any paper documents exist, that planned this complete work of fiction lawsuit.
If someone at Microsoft is reading this, leak those papers, so that a lawsuit can be filed. This is blatent AntiTrust behavior and could repoen the case against Microsoft.
3) The outrage that this is going to cause in the Linux American based developer community is going to be far and wide, primarily directed at Microsoft.
As a result I predict this to be an enourmous PR problem for Microsoft on a scale not seen yet, especially after a few months of this goes buy and #2 comes to light.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
In all of this I see "linux" over and over and have yet to see "GNU" mentioned anywhere.
IS this saying that the GNU efforts are completely safe, that's it all about the linux kernel?
If so then SO WHAT!
GNU complete doesn't include the linux kernel.
It includes the Hurd instead. And from a technical POV, I doubt SCO can make claims to the Hurd code.
To your employer its cheaper to buy Microsoft Windows 2k3 and replace Linux.
Remember innocense cost money in this country.
http://saveie6.com/
Bart to SCO:
SCO, what happened to you man? You used to be cool!
Who knows, maybe Microsoft Unix won't be an oxymoron anymore.
Besides, having a Unix license Bill Gates can control not only 90% of a desktop market, but also 90% of OS vendors. I doubt he will lose such a chance.
Less is more !
You put your Unix in my Linux!
You put your Linux in my Unix!
Hey! That works great!
Rinux Pinux
___________________________
"Billy Gates, I should've expected to find you holding SCO's leash. I recognized your foul stench when the suite was filed."
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
What the subject says.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
MS will offer a higher price and give SCO the bidding war SCO wants.
Therefore, IBM's best option was to sue SCO to smithereens. Any company buying SCO would be stuck owing damages to IBM (?... IANAL[1]). Sort of like IBM getting its own discount to eventually buy SCO...?
This was before MS took notice --how couldn't they, they're wiley and nimble (for a large company.) The lawsuit finesses their point better than they ever could in the eyes of the target, business managers. Controversy not technical-correctness is an adequate goal for them[MS] in this case (which has some precedence al la [Halloween Docs].)
____________
[1] Is this how the system works? I'm just guessing here.
SCO will be found to have been stealing code from a number of places ( I have to get a new stable product out in 3 months, what to do??? ). GPL code will be found in the kernel and then the interesting law suits start.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
SCO needs money to fund it's lawsuit. Microsoft has an interest in the case. This is the easiest way for them to funnel cash to the effort without anyone crying "foul".
Develop a backup plan to migrate servers to Free-/Open-/NetBSD, and perhaps have a small pilot where several servers are migrated/integrated. There should never be a need to implement the plan, but its existence will help to put the business managers' minds at ease, and thus reduces the FUD impact dramatically, and perhaps if this action were taken on a large scale and publicized it would take the steam out MS/SCO recent actions. Sure, some will say this is allowing ourselves to be intimidated, but I would choose to view this as a preemptive strike against a potential threat, something which is popular these days. ;-)
sig != null
Not gonna happen, not the way you think it will. History has shown that this will take a lot more time than you might think. You are talking about first getting everyone in agreement on a fix, which will be as easy as hearding cats, then implementing that fix across the board without infringing upon SCO's IP.
We are talking years before this gets sorted out, fixed, tested, shipped and accepted. Years that companies may or may not wait for before deciding on Linux or crawling on back to Microsoft.
Why are you putzing around with antiquated FreeBSD 4.5 when you should be using 4.8?
That's like saying you installed RH 6.0 and cried because it didn't support your FireWire Drive.
Microsoft used parts of Unix and FreeBSD into their own operating systems, AND their relationship with SCO goes back a few years, AND SCO owns some Unix code IP.
Now, imagine if MS used SCO's code, and SCO released its own code under the GPL (when they had a Linux distro), does it mean MS could have used GPL'ed code in Windows?
I know you have to stretch the facts and a lot of coincidences have to merge, but hey, it's a possibility, isn't?
Imagine if there's GPL code inside Windows...
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
MS is PAYING SCO to harash the linux comunity. Think about it, SCO needs cash, Microsoft can not give SCO money directly to harass linux. But they can buy products. This is the sole and only reason why SCO license is bought.
..just how weak the SCO case is.
If there was a hope in hell of it succeeding, MS wouldn't have bothered to liscence but probably would have gone for the purchase instead, thus giving them the legal hammer to hold over IBMs head.
As it is, they're just going for the publicity shot.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Has someone in Redmond realized they might have stolen the wrong parts from the Linux code? ;)
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.03 29 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian
^^^^^^^
It's not that sco can claim that the work done by one of its employees effectively belongs to them ?
As far as I know, they are only able to pull IP on the GNU tools or SystemV Inits. The kernel, from everything I've heard, is still non-infringing, and I seem to remember them making a big deal about that before they sent the letters to the other GNU/Linux distro developers.
:D
Personally I think if it's such a big deal, fine, let's drop the SytemV-alikeness of GNU/Linux and move to making it a BSD-like system. It's already been litigated "clean," so it'd never have any more IP BS, and it'd allow even more interoperablity with the GNU/Linux and *BSD camps.
And would could start having people fight over Gnu/Linux or GnuBSD/Linux being the proper wording. It's a win/win!
A) They can un-GPL anything at any time (anyone can)
B) It was not all (or even mostly) GPLed in the first place. Were not talking about caldera here. Were talking about SCO UNIX.
C) They own the (C) on it and can therefore do anything they want with it.
Suck it up.
Very little of that is fact. It's mostly hyper-speculation with a sky-is-falling twist. Like watching FOX news.
/. as a source of "information".
Informative indeed. Says loads about
after microsoft licenses SCO, everyone else gets butt-reamed with patent infringement, and only M$ holds the license.
d'oh!
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
that IBM will pummle SCO in a long court battle, mabe there positioning for an eventual buyout? Only to
I sincerely doubt that private (read: 'hobbist') developers outside of the US will be affected.
If, by 'growth' you mean widespread adaptation by the corporate sector, I don't see how that could not be the case. Microsoft's involvement will almost cince it in many decision makers' eyes.
Bear in mind, that the people making these decisions are the same ones who believe that Bill Gates invented DOS and Windows, and that the only reason he got 'picked on' was because he didn't buy enough lobbyists/senators.
I don't think it's possible to underestimate the effect that Microsofts' involvement will have in this. The words "nail in the coffin" come to mind.
I state this to demonstrate how snowballed many of them already are, it won't take much to scare them permanently away from anything close to OSS.
SCO accuses IBM of stealing their UNIX code.
SCO sends out nasty letters to tons of companies that use Linux telling them they'd better pay up.
Microsoft pays up.
That gives legitimacy to SCO's claim, makes other companies more worried. More worried that they need to pay for Linux.
They thought Linux was free.
Now they're not so sure.
simon
home page
Correct. But it's not all of open source that's on the line here, only alleged SCO Unix code in Linux. The BSD licence & derivatives, for example, would not be liable under this or any other possible SCO action.
Somehow I don't think IBM is going to acquire MS or Vice Verse. They are approximately the same size, not the order of magnitude difference that would be required for a takeover move.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
They could also just run FreeBSD or Solaris.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Speaking of publicity...
Could this also mean publicity for Linux? At least in other industries (namely music) ANY publicity is good publicity, even if it is bad publicity.
This might be the final straw that makes "Linux" a `household name' amongst those stuffy CEOs and management that are otherwise oblivious to anything outside thier PowerPoint presentations.
Microsoft certainly knows how to wage war.
Speaking of publicity...
Could this also mean publicity for Linux? At least in other industries (namely music) ANY publicity is good publicity, even if it is bad publicity.
This might be the final straw that makes "Linux" a `household name' amongst those stuffy CEOs and management that are otherwise oblivious to anything outside thier PowerPoint presentations.
SCO targets Linux customers About 1,500 of the world's largest corporations are warned they could be liable for using Linux. May 14, 2003 SCO Group's case against Linux Unix owner SCO's $1 billion lawsuit against IBM provides a glimpse of what claims the company might make if it takes legal action against Linux users or distributors. May 19, 2003 SCO to license Unix code to Microsoft The software giant will license the rights to Unix technology from SCO Group, a move that could dramatically impact the battle between Windows and Linux in the market for computer operating systems. May 18, 2003 Can we say Microsoft orchestrated this one? It's interesting that SCO would suddenly be interested in their "intellectual property" around the same time that Microsoft wants to throw money there way. Looks like M$ is going to use this to try to muscle out the Linux market.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
The Linux community are now in stage #3 of their fight with SCO. First we ignored SCO, then we laughed at SCO. But I don't see much laughter today.
I sure hope that SCO does not win, however! I shorted some SCOX this morning!
BTW i knew people who worked for The Tetris Company who planned on making a case against Caldera for infringing on the Tetris copyright.
Microsoft/SCO is admitting the fact that Windows has to infringe as much as Linux, and is paying the license fee, knowing full well that Linux cannot pay the same.
It also allows them to go after BSD and every other non-Windows system in the world. They all use integer file descriptors and unix-style read/write, and thus all can potentially infringe.
Yeah, FreeBSD. All the legal uncertianity of Linux minus the big corporations sponsoring it.
Here's a follow-up analysis of the story
Vote for Pedro
Would we be forced to use the newly open sourced Novell and IPX/SPX and how much Novell stock does Noorda still own?
And what about this McBride guy, he looks like the Bow-flex man but he's supposed to be a theoretical physicist. I don't trust him and I've always hated Franklin Day Planners and the people who use them, they usually just want to get money out of me.
Only from the Universe of the New Zion of Utah could this evolve. The same people who gave us Sen Hatch and Sen Bennet.
This has had microshaft written all over it from day one. Just wait for it. Here it comes.....
...of course not, I read the books years ago!
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
So the ultimate validation for software patents is licensing them to Microsoft?
In one of the "biggest plays" for the LDS church since stealing Utah from the Indians, the Mormons have managed to proselytize the richest man on earth.
When asked about the significance of this latest development church authorities replied that "of course it may well double the tithing base in one fell swoop".
Unfortunately, Linux is sole rallying cry that can be heard outside the Open-Source world. Most people, upon hearing that Linux is 'Grey-area software', will not react too kindly to any other Open-Source of any kind.
You do, however, have a very good and logical point. We, the enlightened masses, understand perfectly that free software is a Good Thing(TM). (Heck, we're the ones who will probably continue to use GNU/Linux.) What, though, of those underpaid system admins who were brought up on 'dir *.bat /w'? Or worse 'Start-->Programs-->ICQ Netbomber'? It will be a bad day when the only free software left are Nimda, CodeRed, and whatever you can grab by searching Microsoft Google for 'Warez'.
Hi:
What is this product from $CO: http://www.sco.com/products/ssvl/?
I believe the website you are referring to is this:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/defaul t.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/cas e/hotmail/default.asp
(Mozilla Firebird won't let me <a> it; the URI is too long)
As well...I am a 16-year-old script kiddie, you 1 |\| 5 3 |\| 5 1 7 1 \/ 3 ( |_ 0 |)
Now that Microsoft has control over Unix, it will display it's magical ability of King Microsoft's Hole-en Touch, where fifty five thousand new bugs shall appear in SCO's Unix as Microsoft gains control.
http://mediagoblin.org/
As everyone in the Open-Source world knows, Microsoft has tried FUD before. It has failed miserably, in part due to the overwhelming antagonism towards the Microsoft brand. Remember Halloween, anyone? While SCO, admittedly, is not doing much better, Microsoft wants to do what they can without proverbially 'getting their hands dirty'.
My 1.5 cents
Except that the corporate names are just window .....SCO is now and always had been Gates'
dressing for the real players. We all know that
B Gates IS microsoft, but we do not know that
Paul Allen is Gates' partner in microsoft and
is one of the few other extremely major players
in microsoft stock. Now the good mr Allen is ALSO
a major player in the background in Caldera
before it swallowed bankrupt SCO and became
the 'new' SCO. NOW do we get the picture
trojan horse in the Linux world. Look at the
real investors Gates and Allen and see the
conspiracy for what it is. Check it out for
yourselves at quicken.com as to who the major
players are in these theivin outfits. Know
the enemies of civilized computing and individual
creativity. Now you know why these worthies
fought so hard for and bought so many politicians
in order to get the DMCA passed. Wonder how many
interns they gave the ex president to sign it?
What do you base this on? Half of /. readers will be below the median (assuming an even number of readers and a scale that is fine-grained enough) but you have to make some (IMHO) unfounded assumptions regarding intelligence distribution to claim that half will be below the arithmetic mean.
But then again, English is not my native language. Perhaps "average" does not mean what I think it means?
Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati
First, since this is a trade secret case we will never know what the code that SCO claims is stolen is, unless it is established in court that it is not a trade secret. My question is then if the court does up hold that the code is a stolen trade secret, what does linux do? SCO can't tell them what code to take out, because that would reveal their trade secret. Since linux is open source even if all the developers signed NDA's, a quick grep would show what code was removed and violate the trade secret. So, in the sort of situation what happens? Second question. Lets say SCO did the smart thing here (I know it's a stretch, but lets pretend). They completly isolate their unix and linux groups. They know if any of their unix code ends up in linux they loose the copyright. They assume IBM does the same thing. IBM puts some of the unix code into linux. How is SCO supposed to know this? Their linux team doesn't know what the unix source looks like. This is the kind of dilemna that might start scarring people away from linux.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Are there any sys v elements in the kernel itself? (Just trying to get my mind around the problem.)
should read the OSI position paper, it's very, very informative.
The main point being, SCO's ownership of the UNIX code does not convey the kinds of IP rights you might think it does, for a variety of reasons.
- They don't own the trademark, that is owned by the Open Group.
- The code they purchased does not have all the enterprise high availability features they talk about.
- many companeis and people throughout the past have open access to the unix sources through prior agreements with it's prior holders. SCO does not have leeway over, say, SUN or SGI or anyone with regards to their unixes, even though they are partly based on code that SCO now owns.
- Nothin in the Bel Labs unix tree can be considered trade secret... as literally every unix dveloper on earth has access to the source. Even though it was technically against copyright way back when, EVERYONE has copies of it nowadays, and it's been that way for years.
Basically, owning the UNIX code from Bell Labs just isn't worth that much nowadays, it's not secret, unique, or anything else.
Just blowing off some steam. Nothing new to see here.
If SCO Linux was ever released containing the SCO Unix source code in question, IBM could argue that they agreed to GPL the code by releasing it under the the GPL.
Though on one occasion I saw my own code obfuscated and introduced into another open source project by someone claiming to have written it themselves, so I sort of know how it feels to have your IP violated in such a way.
But SCO's motive is not to protect their Intellectual Property, it's to sue their way back into business while crushing their competition. There was no serious crime. Linux would still have the popularity it does today if none of their code was copied, and SCO would still see the same gradual decline in profit. They're trying to make it look as if the primary reason that Linux is awesome and they're going out of business is that some of their code was copied and/or rewritten from memory.
This lawsuit is full of BS. It's OBVIOUSLY full of BS. It will be a no brainer in court. Read the position paper linked.. not that I'm a big OSI fan.. but the paper states verifiable facts.
This is about creating negative press for Linux, and microsoft is counting on it while it launches it's new server OS, Windows Server 2003. more customers than ever are looking at breaking out of the microsoft upgrade cycle... consider that.
They want as much bad press now during release time as they can get.
Dude! Do you have nothing better to do?
-no yami wa mitsukeru kibo-
See Previous Post
Since SCO didn't immediatly detail WHAT part was infringing on their "IP" allowing the harm to stop they cannot sue for punitive damages. They have to take all care to reduce damages, and since they haven't they can't sue. As to trade secret; they can only sue the party that violated the NDA, but they have to prove that it was not independently reproduced. Trade secret is no IP at all once it gets out to the public. I am guessing they are going to try to sue under some "look and feel" clause like what Apple tried and failed to sue Microsoft over. But worse for them the since the Unix UI going to be hard to copywrite, and since BSD is free to use the same and could be the basis for linux.
FreeBSD is safe. We've already been through a big law suit. There's been no UNIX code in FreeBSD for years. Many closed-source projects (including MS) have used BSD code.
OTOH, there may not be any IBMs sponsoring FreeBSD (don't get me started, either. IBM is only on the bandwagon to sell more servers.), but a majority of the major open-source apps are designed with FreeBSD in mind.
Apache and PostgreSQL are both developed on (on, not for) FreeBSD. Yes, www.apache.org is powered by FreeBSD. So is Yahoo! Hell, use NetCraft.com to confirm that the above sites are powered by FreeBSD, and while you're at it, check out what powers NetCraft. You'd be suprised.
Common sense is not so common.
It's not like this is new ground for Microsoft.
Anyone remember the Xenix days? If you have a SVr4 license and browse through the code, you will see any number of (surprising) utilities that have a Microsoft Copyright notice in them.
Tp.
strings /proc/kcore | grep \(C\)\ Microsoft
See what results you get... hmmmm.
I would be so happy if IBM stole that bit of IP and got it into every distro. That would be schweet, and well worth another billion dollar lawsuit.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
1. Wait for SCO to crush major Linux/BSD companies
2. Buy SCO and all rights to UNIX
3. ???
4. Profit!
How much did they pay for the license?
Knowing this may reveal the intentions of MS in the matter.
You really should have upgraded to the 2.4 OpenDesktop edition. Pac-Man!
thanks for the reply. I admit this case is a head scratcher for me, best I can do is shift around and try to take their side as an exercise, to play devils advocate. They can claim they did their best, and on review,after first dealing with IBM and becoming "alarmed"over what they claim was a boast by an IBM official to "destroy unix", and filing suit, that they then took a closer look and audit, became even more alarmed, sent out the letters as a way to stop damage, in as timely a manner as they could. They also stopped shipping their own linux product, again, they can claim they did that as soon as they realised what was happening, again, to limit damage.
I think the base of their case is they will claim an error on their part, but one of simple oversight, but a greater error that was malicious and intentional in IBMs case, and it was the IBM case that clued them to their own error. They will then say, between a rock and a hard place, they pushed,and publically, as soon as they found themselves in that position.
Whether or not that pack of dogs can hunt in court is a whole nuther ballgame. It's certainly got everyone's attention. It's most ceertainly going to force a lot more code auditing, so that's a good thing. I'm always in favor of less code, but better code, whether it's a license angle or a useability angle.
Perhaps they were just durious to see what code is shared between Linux and UNIX.
Unfortunately it's true. I have isolated the exactly matching code that is in the source of both kernels:
And this snippet of code is obviously an obfuscated section of SCO's codified enterprise business process:
Notice how the Open Source programmer cleverly changed a variable name to try to hide the true ownership of the algorithm.IBM has suffered a damage regarding linux business,
so IBM and other linux related campanies should sue SCO.
This is a good time to point out the obvious, that most GNU tools can be put on top of other kernels. Even whole distrobutions like Debian can sit nicely on top of OpenBSD or even non-OSS products like QNX. It's often just this constellation of GNU tools that most non-tech people refer to collectively as Linux. While the Linux kernels certainly have advantages, so do others. OpenBSD
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
"Only the minions of Satan work on Sunday "
Christian Ministers, Pastors, and Priests have their most important work day on Sunday.
I need my jokes to play closer to reality to be funny; otherwise, I'm just left thinking "Hey, that's almost funny. Now I can almost laugh."
These are good points but if SCO can claim that they were ignorant that there own Intelectual property was in Linux, they can hardly claim that other users of Linux should also be liable since (whether they will admit it or not) they are implicitly endorsing Linux by releasing it under the GPL. In your scenario, it seems they would have a legitimate beef with IBM but not with Linux users in general.
OTOH, I agree it's not a good thing for Linux. In theory, Microsoft could get someone to "contribute" their licensed code and then sue anyone using it... The liability should begin and end with the people who added the code.
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
After all it looks identical right? Hmmm they must have edit cut and pasted code.
Also IBM contributed to other gnu software projects. FreeBSD heavily uses gnu. If SCO decides some of the same algorithms are in gnu as their own they then FreeBSD could be liable as well.
Since BSD once had Unix code from 1980-94 its possible SCO could blame their marketshare loss on BSD and sue for loss revenue.
Personally I think this whole thing is BS but Freebsd is not invincable to false lawsuits.
http://saveie6.com/
Hey, Zulux:
;)
I think I've found something useful. I've been checking all of the common outlets to try and find a steady source of the PCMCIA ethernet cards that are listed in the compatability list, and it's been pretty slim pickings... My best luck was with Linksys, because their EC2T, PCMPC100, PCM100, and PCMLM56 cards were all available at CompUSA and supported -- most by mail order, though. Only the PCM100 is available in-store, in an upgraded version called the PCM100-CU. I'm going to give that one a whack tonight; it claims to support Linux out of the box, so there's no risk whatsoever in purchasing it to try out FreeBSD. Cost: 39.99. Not bad, eh?
I also noticed that Intel bought Xircom, but luckily, they're still going to be manufacturing three of those cards: The Xircom 10/100 Network PC Card Adapter, the Xircom CreditCard Ethernet 10/100, and the Xircom CreditCard Ethernet 10/100 + modem (apparently only the ethernet part is "known" to work).
So, that's not bad, right? At least there's a supply of a set of cards that can be used. So, wish me luck; I'm going to head over to CompUSA and try and score a card tonight (while I also pick up "Enter the Matrix" of course! Priorities are a FreeBSD test and gaming; dinner, sleep and personal hygeine can wait in the queue).
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
You probably found out - Intel actually re-released the Xircom cards under the Intel brand name for a bit less cost - Xircom has a great reputation, but Intel wanted to get some sales as well.
/stand/sysinstall - you can configure your network, XFree, and other things from here.
Once FreeBSD is up and running, I think you'll like it. The 'man' pages are excelent and things just seem to work better - once the're working, that is.
The *BSD lack some of the features of some of the Linux distributions, but when you have work to be done - they do an excelent job.
In FreeBSD, you can get back to the confuguation screen by
-Ben
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Given the CERT and snd Security Focus alerts that have the same vulnerabilities in some Microsoft products as does UNIX, this means Redmond has public domain source in it's commercial product.
Would be good to see if this could be used in piracy theft as a defence because of GNU or other licensing.
But then Microsoft did own part of SCO (at least at one point). Would be nice to know who owns them now?
Maybe Linux types aught to sue Microsoft for anti-trust as prices of their products now are based on Linux/Open source/UNIX code. If I sell to you at one price because your white, and another because your black, does that not make be racist? Is that not anti-trust? How guilty does Mico$soft have to be for a decent lawsuit to succeed?
Fortunately, Linux has 100 million CDs out there with source. Even a 44 billion dollar bigoted company like Micro$oft can't stop a slow but steady Linux revolution.
I still predict Micro$oft Linux 2005.
Stretch
Thanks! I've acquired the card, now I have to get it working. I'm having similar problems with this one, specifically, when the kernel tries to access the card, it times out. The card lights up, and it's doing something (probably trying to get DHCP data) but I can't access the network yet. I'm going to try and figure it out tonight. Getting it working will be worth the effort, I think.
Thanks again!
Phil
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
I just read this on CNET News. It's a response to CNET's coverage of the Microsoft-SCO deal, and while not terribly important taken at face value (It's just a troll whose author has "Dear friends at Microsoft"), it's showing that this is already having an undesirable effect, as this person can't be the only one in an influential position to be affected by this news. 'Free' Linux Movement should end
Type in
dmesg | more
and page up and page down though the message - you you see any problem with PCMCIA controllers?
It might not be the card that FreeBSD is having trouble, it might be the PCI/PCMCIA cipset!
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.