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/
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.
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.
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.
You are an idiot, I cannot believe this is moderated +5 "Informative".
/dev/hda1 or something similar to what I would see in Linux.
/dev/hda1, it was the kernel's name for your drive. The NT kernel doesn't give a flip about drive letters, it uses its own namespace.
/etc directory, even though it is buried down a few levels. This is where they have the hosts file.
:)
Wasn't it just a few years ago that Steve Gibson of Gibson Research discovered that Microsoft's TCP stack was identical to BSD?
Others have covered the illegitimacy of Gibson enough that I don't need to add more. Microsoft has acknowledged using BSD code in Windows 2000 many times. It's "TCP/IP" stack, TCP is a layer 4 protocol.
but in the console it actually shows the c: drive on my one computer as
it wasn't
Also, Windows even has an
Actually, it's a C:\WINNT\System32\Drivers\Etc folder. Having a folder named "etc" does not mean they ripped off UNIX, but this statement (as your others) are so completely unclued that this does not need to be said.
I would be willing to bet there is quite a bit of Unix code in Windows.
Duh. That's what BSD is about.
How else could you explain the gradual increased steadiness over the past 5 years.
Gee, perhaps because Microsoft employs many of the most brilliant computer scientists out there, Dave Cutler in the Kernel team, who was involved with the uberstable VMS operating system (which spanked UNIX on uptimes and was about as far from UNIX as you could get).
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.
Great! This is what the BSD license is about.
If the gov't ever opened up their source a lot of you guys would probably recognize major pieces
Duh. A guy from Microsoft spoke in a recent interview about using BSD networking code in NT.