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
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
We're always talking here at Slashdot about patent abuse, and how patent houses go after "infringing" small fish first to set precedent for the bigger fish. By agreeing to pay off SCO, Microsoft may have just saved SCO the trouble of going after the small fish. The argument for smalltime Linux distros against paying royalties for the supposedly infringing code gets a bit tougher when SCO comes to you and says "look, even Microsoft ponied up and were too afraid to risk a legal battle."
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
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
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?
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!
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.
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?
...but then again it's MS and they prolly have some evil plan with this all...
Ponder this...
~s/License/Buy/
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
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 $30 billion check book to keep this tied up in court for years. They won't want a resolution, they want litigation or the threat of it.
The OSI position paper is excellent and answers a lot of questions.
SCO's case is so ludicrous (they don't even own the "UNIX" trademark) that one really does have to wonder what the motives of Microsoft are in paying them anything.
1) Get frustrated with the FUD Campaign against Linux
:)
2) License SCO IP and/or buy out beleaguered company
3) Patent "Description of Linux-like O/S here" (We all know this would probably get by the patent office, greased with lots of greenbacks)
4) Sue the pants off of anybody who runs linux as "infringers of M$ 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.
Buying SCO's Unix IP and going after Linux with that would most likely result in more antitrust attention at Microsoft. It is much more convenient for them that someone else is doing the suing.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
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!
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
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/
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?
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;
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.
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 ... can also use their UNIX copyrights to get to Apple. knocking over two birds with one hand here?
How? They don't have UNIX copyrights - they are licensing technology from SCO not buying it
This one's played right into Microsofts hands I'm afraid. The damage they could do are frightening
I know M$ are evil however lets not get carried away. It's just licensing some technology.
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.
... 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?
...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.
AT&T and USL basically indeminfied anything derived from the BSD 4.4-lite source tree as part of there settlement with the Regents of the Uninversity of California. Given OS X's NetBSD origins, it should be "cast iron" safe of this current madness
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
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.
MS is licensing, not buying.
The headline of both articles clearly says so.
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.
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.
Actually, people who tend not to give a rats ass about their software being legal pirate windows.
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
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!?
~s/License/Buy/
Clippy: It looks like your replacing somthing, would you like some help?
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
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.
Baz
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!
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?
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
I think you are right. Maybe you'll see some expensive Microsoft Unix tools or Windows tools that inter-operate with Unix but the big thing is the stunt SCO is pulling.
SCO is telling IBM (by extention RedHat, Debian, Mandrake, SuSe[*], et. al.) that this is how things should be done and Microsoft gets a "double plus good" rating. They are saying this is what real companies do.
On the screen it looks like flamebait or a troll, but it's just something that will not produce much (or?) but will try to get wider support for SCO's case. If Microsoft doesn't rip them off, then someone that would is evil!
*So, where can I find a list of people that actually got letters. Consider some Linux distributers wanted to Unite... does SuSe ride the SCO wave with a pass on IP claims and become the UnitedLinux?
Next week kids...
Get your Unix fortune now!
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?
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
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.
IBM signed its license agreement with AT&T long ago. There is nothing SCO can do to revoke it.
SCO can say that they can revoke it but they simply don't have that power. IBM on the other hand DO have the power to tell Caldera 'sit on it and spin'.
This is nothing more than the death throes of a company looking to get bought out.
Selling the patent license to Microsoft is kinda cute, Microsoft probably didn't have to pay too much and there is probably some piece of SCO technology somewhere that would allow a claim to be made they infringed. SCO could not make the claim because Microsoft can say the same of them. If however SCO is liquidated the patents could be bought by a private patent-extortion outfit.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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 !
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.
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.
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
But did you grep for Microsoft spelled backwards?
!seineew era sremmargorp tfosorciM
>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.
Why?
As soon as this court case gets going any code they show as being part of their IP will be replaced within weeks (I think that the likes of IBM/REDHAT/SUSE/MANDRAKE/LINUS T. etc... will all team together to do this as fast as possible!). And because of this I don't think that MS will "buy" (Not licence as they have done so far according to the topic header) SCO's IP as the minute the Linux comunity removes this IP the licence will not be worth anything to MS.. Unless they already have some of that IP in windows and/or They intend on using some of that IP..
Only time will tell but I think it is going to be an interesting fight!
Mark.
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
To just write it off as so much conspiracy talk is to ignore the obvious potential advantage Microsoft could try to exploit. Heck, I would do the same thing if I was them and I thought it would work.
It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God
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.
SCO most certainly can revoke a license if they can show that IBM materially breached a contract they signed regarding that license.
I doubt MS is "paying off" SCO because MS is afraid of being targeted, rather MS sees that these claims by SCO that Linux is infringing as positive-- if Linux has a cloudy legal future, then MS can continue to undercut Linux-- and they can help SCO stay afloat by licensing something they don't even intend to use. It's bankrolling straight up plain and simple, if you ask me.
I do not have a signature
I thought the solitaire game in the Caldera OS Installer looked familiar...
MS=Dr.Evil
SCO=Mini-Me
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.
The second claim is that Linux could have never scaled as fast as it did and grow as fast as it did without IBM or 'insider UNIX info'.
Personally I think what this case is going to show us is that Open Source CAN be better software than closed source for just this reason. linux grew cause people wrote the apps FOR linux and the drivers FOR linux. The linux kernel went through a process of change over time. 2.0 -> 2.2 -> 2.4 and each time it got better and better. There are probably more open source programmers working on ALL the various open source projects that make up a GNU/Linux distro, then SCO has had employed in its ENTIRE history as a company. THIS is why I think Linux has come where it is today. Not just the KERNEL, but ALL the GNU projects, that ALSO run on IBM/AIX, SUN, HP, *BSD, Linux, AND SCO.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Licensing the code also allows Microsoft to do with it what others can't: Make changes and keep them secret.
It let's them take a piece of Linux and incorporate it into their own products, without releasing their source code.
I can't imagine it as being a very large piece of Linux, though, given that the kernel has so many contributors.
What's this Submit thingy do?
Free software can only be destroyed by elimnating the fisrt and fourth amendments to the US Constitution.
Hello? McFly? Is anyone home?
Have you forgotten what administration we are currently living under?
It won't be that difficult to root out all those free software comunists, er..., um... oops, the new word is Terrorists.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
This is not a *patent* license.
42
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.
SCO can only license what it owns.
If SCO passed on stolen property, then Microsoft may very well have some GPL code lurking about it's OS. They could suddenly lose all rights to distribute various versions of their product.
They might also be on the hook for all of the source.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I would imagine that Microsoft, and others, might try to get around the GPL by basing their decision on SCO's claims - in other words - if SCO claims a certain part of Linux violates their IP rights, then that would be a part that Microsoft (and others that license the UNIX code) could use without having to GPL it. So even if IBM wins the court case, now it would be the GPL vs Microsoft (and the others who might be into this kind of thing); if the court case drags on long enough before any decision is reached, those large corporations that are licensing UNIX from SCO might incorporate those parts of Linux that are in question without the GPL in an effort to "comply with the IP rights". This whole thing is bad for GPL.
I had a thought earlier today that maybe we will have two Linuxes - just like there is UNIX and BSD - I wonder if it would evolve to a point where there would be the UNIX Linux and then the GPL Linux. No doubt there are people that like Linux but hate the GPL. I am beginning to wonder if this is what this whole thing is about.
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.