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.
It was not a bug in bzip, but in zlib IIRC. Apparently zlib is used by MS as well (statically linked in some apps), because the security flaw affected some MS products...
:P
You should be able to find it yourself, there haven't been that many zlib bugs, so the latest one is probably the one you're looking for
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
Microsoft buys the right to sue everyone that pushes Linux.
No. In order to do that, they would have to buy it, not license it.
--
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.
Absolutly. Its little more than a snide effort to point and snear at that "Linux" thing, that steals the Intellectual Property of companies such as SCO. Its not like you have to look far to find evidence of this attitude, either. Right there in the article (This one from CNet)
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. This helps to ensure IP compliance across Microsoft solutions and supports our efforts around existing products like services for Unix that further Unix interoperability."
Well gee Brad, why don't you just come right out , call us all theives and demand that Linus be given the electric chair?
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.
Even if they did, it's legal as long as the zlib license is valid (i.e. zlib wasn't part of the so-called stolen code). zlib is under a BSD-ish license.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
As of 5.0.7, the Microsoft copyright has been removed.
Ever heard of dual licensing????
If microsoft got the code from sco under a non-gpl license they would have nothing to do with a gpl version of the same code.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
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
They seem to have their own license. I don't see any legal objection to use the lib.
Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
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
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.
...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.
MS is licensing, not buying.
The headline of both articles clearly says so.
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.
Or on Windows 2000
C:\WINNT\system32>findstr Copyright ftp.exe
*snip*
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
So is Apple's Chief software, Avie is also one of the ones who write the Mach microkernel, in fact Avie was the main guy in writing the kernel.
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.
Which is exactly what CNET was reporting (via Google News) when I got to work at 6:30 this morning, although now I see they've changed it to a licensing deal in their current report. But they plainly stated in their first story that MS was purchasing the rights to Unix itself (in so far as SCO can transfer those rights, etc.)
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
I'm not sure which govenment you're talking about, but if you're talking about the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft government that let MS off the hook with a slap on the wrist, I'd say MS has nothing at all to worry about. Of course, if Ashcroft finds out Bill is involved in distributing (gasp!) condoms in Africa as part of his charitable work to fight AIDS there, things may change in that regard ;)
"If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
I dont really understand how they can impact Linux buy "saving SCO."
Has bollocks all to do with product and everything to do with the lawsuit. SCO isn't in the most financially stable company right now, and lawsuits aren't cheap (esp. against the likes of a well funded IBM). So why does MS care? Who are two of MS's largest competitors, by their own admission? Linux and IBM. The enemy of your enemy is your friend. So funding them is low cost / low risk. They can bleet about "IP" and the lawsuit will keep IBM busy and cast a pall over Linux until its resolved.
I wouldn't trust legal advice from anyone talking about "copywrite notices", but maybe that's just me.
Copywriting is done in advertising, and is in turn protected by copyright, like software is (not done in advertising, but protected (well, some software might be done in advertising, but most isn't (all clear now?))).
good luck brothers! i fear this battle will be the biggest linux has ever faced, and i know we will stand together and not let corporate greed foil our plans for an open world of computing.
We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
>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.
Minor correction: it was Rick Rashid who was director of the Mach O/S project.
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.
zulux said: "If Linux *disappeared* tomorrow - I wouldn't care one bit, becasue we have FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and to certain extent Mac OS X."
I said the same thing last week. So I tried to install OpenBSD (bought the CDs, etc) and found that the CD wouldn't boot, and that even using a boot disk, it wouldn't install on my laptops (admittedly, they're a little old, Pentium 166's). I banged my head against the problem for a couple of days, even trying to install their PPC version on my iBook, failing utterly across the board. I think I got bad CDs (I don't want to think that OpenBSD doesn't work; it MUST be the CD's, right?).
I then tried to install FreeBSD 4.5, which DID work, and very well. It was able to boot my laptop in 45 seconds flat (Linux had taken two and a half minutes). Now, I was pretty excited about this, until I found out that FreeBSD didn't have drivers for my PCMCIA cards, none of which I could get to work. I banged my head against THAT for a day or two, too, and finally gave up on it.
The result: I went back to Red Hat Linux, which although noticeably slower than FreeBSD on my laptops DOES support all of my laptop's hardware.
So, while I like BSD, if Linux goes away I'm pretty much fucked as far as my laptops go. I NEED that PCMCIA card to connect to the network (I've got a Linksys, which BSD is *supposed* to support but which it just doesn't seem to be able to handle). I'm depressed about this, as you can imagine. BSD is neat. But, what can you do?
I'm going to tough it out with Linux, and if worse comes to worst, I'll have to figure something out, BSD-wise. I hope worse doesn't come to worst. I really do. I'd hate to see Red Hat go away.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
This is not a *patent* license.
42