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'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
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
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!
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;
Except that anyone, even the IANALs around here (of which I am one) should know that a never went to court ``settlement'' like this carries absolutely zero legal precedent.
Instead, the way that I see this is simple: if Microsoft was -- as some have claimed -- funding this lawsuit, there had to be a monetary transaction somewhere. Until now, there wasn't any such transaction; while this is not in any manner a proof that Microsoft is the power behind the curtain, it does, coupled with their past statements on Linux as being harmful to IP, make this appear more like one of their publicity stunts.
I have no doubt that IBM will ride this out to its' logical conclusion, and we shall have another AT&T vs. BSD case.Do you like Japanese imports?
IBM, just go ahead and buy SCO, GPL everything they own, and let's put this silliness behind us.
as easy as that sounds, it literally makes me sick to think that SCO will be receive one single penny from this.
SCO, in all of their selfishness, deserves nothing. it is not the fault of the community if SCO's business model did not put more focus into the linux market by establishing a distro and services very much like Redhat has done.
Before even hearing that Microsoft is now involved, I had a hunch that this would be a perfect thing for MS to push. From the surface, it makes the GPL look shaky and raises doubts for IT departments allow linux onto production systems; what a perfect attack.
however, having been involved with the linux and open source community for almost 10 years, i know how strong of a voice we have. you can bet the community won't sit idle and let this foolishness actually happen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I still think that companies shouldn't be allowed to sit in stealth mode while they wait for the proper time (such as imminent bankruptcy in SCO's case) to perform their legal jack-in-the-box stunt.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
Actually, the AT&T license covers System V only. BSD is a separate issue that was settled some time ago. The Apple kernel is a BSD derivative, so safe. Linux is a mix of BSD and System V, so a target of SCO.
The funny thing is that Richard Shaheen, Microsoft's chief OS architect, is the one that invented the BSD Mach microkernel, the basis for OS X and Next before it.
Basically, it was possible to do development on BSD because AT&T came to agreement some time ago with the academics who developed it, allowing them to keep the source. Before this agreement, there was actually disagreement and legal battles similar to what we are seeing today.
Back when BSD forked, ownership of the trademark and intellectual property was murky. AT&T had basically been giving out the source, somewhat similar to SCO' recent practice, but not under the GPL. Since SCO released under the GPL, their claims do not seem very strong.
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?
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?
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.
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!?
Baz
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.