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.
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.
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 $400 or so
for the development suite).
This is most likely a bid by Microsoft to do the following:
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
I'm not Seth.
The reason M$ 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.
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 $30Bn or so has been wasted on Lawyers fees and finally in 2030 we will have a MS free world! In fact I'd advise you all to go to Law School right now as there is going to be plenty of work for you when you finish up!
Maybe it's just a cynically evil attempt to legitimise SCO's claim (that their patent is valid and not dissolved by it's release under an open-source license) and so do harm to IBM's case, and thence to Linux?
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Maybe Microsoft just wants a peek at the code SCO claims has been stolen by Linux. While I understand that M$ 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...
On the bright side, even if the whole of Linux gets rejected, someone will come up with 'clean' code (like Atheos).
For me Free Software is all about the apps - if an OS can run Samba, PostgreSQL, Emacs then I'm happy.
If Linux *disappeared* tomorrow - I wouldn't care one bit, becasue we have FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and to certain extent Mac OS X.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
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.
Which means that Linux will, at least for the near future and until the end of the court case which could be years off, be in legal limbo-land, just like BSD was in the early 1990s.
If you remember right, this was the reason why Linux became the focus of so many developers and even GNU -- because BSD was caught in legal limbo land!
If history will repeat itself, look for something similar to happen with Linux, now that its legality has been brought into question. Which alternative *nix based system will take its place?
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
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 would agree, except that I don't see the end of this case being years off. SCO has stated a deadline by which they want IBM to buy them out -- June 13 -- or face having their Unix license for AIX revoked.
Since letting that deadline pass forms a"pick one OS to promote" dilemma, and also given that I don't see them giving up on their Linux or AIX development (given that their services are moving more and more to Linux on the small side, but they still promote AIX for high-end users) I expect a resolution before that date (but not much before it).
And given that IBM may have hired Eric Raymond as a "UNIX history consultant", I would say the outcome of this case is predetermined. (To be honest, I said the same about Eldred v. Ashcroft, but that didn't turn out as I expected.)
Do you like Japanese imports?
What this has really done is lend some legitamacy to the SCO licensing gambit, raising the probability that the major Linux players will have to shell out as well. Basically, MS just dropped a major FUD bomb on the Linux-in-the-enterprise crowd.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
This might be ridiculous conspiracy theory if we were talking about another company.
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
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
What this has really done is lend some legitamacy to the SCO licensing gambit, raising the probability that the major Linux players will have to shell out as well. Basically, MS just dropped a major FUD bomb on the Linux-in-the-enterprise crowd.
Not to mention this so-called 'necessary' SCO license is a way for M$ to funnel some money into SCO to help support their bogus lawsuit.
I had a similar thought -- the timing on this is altogether too convenient. And it will look good in court for SCO's side of the lawsuit, as well as generally bad for opensource.
Otherwise, why wouldn't M$ sit back and wait for the outcome of the SCO vs IBM suit? After all, if SCO loses, M$ wouldn't have to pay SCO a red cent.
OTOH, if IBM takes the easy way out and buys SCO, then M$ could find itself meeting *IBM's* licensing terms, which one suspects could be considerably less, ah, "flexible" than dealing with SCO.
I'd really love to have some flies on those boardroom walls...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?