Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Not Underwriting SCO's Legal Fees?
An anonymous reader wrote in to say "Linux Business Week carries this morning a claim that Microsoft only bought a Unix license from SCO Group because there's been a prior development project underway at Redmond that warranted it. "The license was not seen as a way to underwrite SCO's legal fees," says a source within the company. "The idea of getting a SCO license had been under consideration prior to the IBM lawsuit." "
Maybe SCO won't engage in ultra-frivolous lawsuits now since they can't get funding for them? This is good for Linux: Microsoft is rejecting a part that would lead them directly against Linux. Kind of makes you wonder what Microsoft is thinking, though. Did they drop the ball on this one? Or are they trying to survive longer by not appearing to be a monopoly (which they would if they used legal means against Linux)?
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Always remember these two words:
"Plausible Deniability"
That doesn't disprove the allegations. It could only mean they were aware of what SCO was going to do before they did it.
The fact that the license would make it easier to enhance future versions of Services for Unix was a deciding factor.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if Services for Unix remains a half-assed endeavour...
Well yes and no.
Microsoft would need to buy a Unix license from SCO. The IBM lawsuit isn't about who owns the Unix code, as far as I can tell this is beyond doubt, SCO owns the rights to it.
The lawsuit is about the Unix code being improperly used within Linux.
So, MS isn't 'legitimising' SCO's claims. Each case goes on it's own merit and from what I can gather, there's no way IBM can use the MS issue as leverage, the two aren't connected in any way, apart from being deals with the same company, one licensing one product, the other saying code from said product was used elsewhere.
Coming soon to a Reatailer near you . . . MS Windows X?
I have a friend who works at Microsoft and about two months back, he invited me to discuss about "Linux people and IP infringement". Although the discussion didn't actually work out, after seeing this SCO vs. IBM lawsuit, I can imagine what he was planning to talk about.
Whether MS is directly supporting SCO on this or not, we can be sure that that Microsoft has its eyes laid on writing off Linux as an "Intellectual Property Issue". Look at the statements made by the MS executive in the story on XBox we discussed two days back:
Q. Folks have even built a Linux-Xbox computer. How can you control this?
A. Electronic hobbyists will do what they want to do...the numbers are not really that big. It's not a commercial as much as it is an intellectual property issue and we always pursue those. If someone finds a way to cheat, we close it down and do an update so people can't anymore.
Towards the beginning of the browser wars, Bill Gates wanted Microsoft to be synonymous with "Internet" and I feel what Bill wants now is to make Linux synonymous with "IP issues". Not sure how well the FUD strategy works, but we have a few problems ahead. What if this SCO thing is just a beginning ? With 2 or 3 more of these suits, MS can possibly keep Linux out of expanding. What can we do if some company X complains about IP infringement in Linux in the future ?
getSexySig();
"A Microsoftie fresh back from vacation decided to try to find out the real story behind Microsoft's controversial SCO license. (If you don't know what we're talking about see story below.) This is the explanation he came back with. Note that it is second-hand. "
Look, I know Microsoft has it's NDA agreements, but too many of her stories are uncited, unsubstantiated, and just plain dumb.
Is this really Microsoft's attempt to extend Windows Services for Unix? 3 years ago Microsoft announced that Windows Services for Unix works with all Unix variants including SunSoft Solaris and Red Hat Linux 5.0, so why bother buying SCO licensing now? Did they pay Redhat as well (GPL yah yah I know), did they pay anyone else?
The timining of this is too coincidental, but c'mon no more Maureen O'Gara stories. Let me know if more get published, I know some tinfoil manufacturers that I need to invest in. -B
At first, I think "Okay, they could legitimately need a license for either of SCO's Unix products". Then, I realized something: Both of SCO's Unix product lines are completely inferior to every other form of Unix on the market. SCO's one strong point--uniproccessor speed--is surpassed by the BSD-licensed BSDs, which Microsoft has been legally borrowing code from for nearly a decade.
A far more believable reason to license this code is to make a political statement: that you support IP as a barterable asset instead of a development/creation incentive. MS made their fortune under a distribution network that mimics the idea of IP-as-asset.
This perspective is profitable but on extremely shaky ground right now As quoted, "[s]ince other software vendors who depend on software licenses haven't been exactly falling all over themselves to support our position, seeing something that supported it was welcome." In other words, this lawsuit is their first good opportunity to throw their support with another party to support this idea. Unfortunately for MS, it's also a pretty pathetic opportunity.
The best part about this is that MS didn't have to buy the license at all. They tried it, then they bought it to support a company they (conditionally) respect. Bloody pirates.
I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.
Last week I received this months copy of SysAdmin magazine in the mail. What happened to accompany my magazine in the shrink wrap? None other than Microsoft's Services for UNIX 3.0 which used to be Interix Services. It's possible that this product has the potential to contain code that could be obtained from other sources.
I don't remember much about Interix before Microsoft bought them, but I do remember using a demo copy of the Interix Services package and what it did do was pretty cool. It gave a UNIX functionality layer to the NT system. You could log in via SSH and perform all command line functions that you would find on any *BSD, *Linux box. Including cross compile. I seem to remember the demo package including GCC that had been compiled specifically for this package.
Unfortunately I don't have a single MS box in my current possession to install this on to play with. One of my poor, ailing, FreeBSD boxes might get wiped to play with this for a few weeks.
Since everyone else is throwing out conspiracy theories, I suppose I'll throw my own into the arena. CAUTION the following is frivolous bullshit that has no way to be proven except in my own mind. But isn't that true of most of these theories people have?
Interix starts out as a company to build a UNIX compatibility layer for the NT kernel. What better way than to look at the source that is freely available to decide what road to take. Looking at *BSD and *Linux they find that with a little effort they can write a compatibility layer and run pure *NIX apps right on top of NT. (They even have a XR11 port for this layer) All fun, all native, all fast.
Since this is starting out as an exercise in theoretical mechanics of getting UNIX to operate directly on NT, they borrow some "free" code to figure out how exactly to get it all to fit together. Purely with the intention of yanking all "borrowed" code later should this prove to work as they can afford to.
Their compatibility layer works better than expected, apps can easily cross compile to their pseudo-kernel and anyone that isn't directly in front of the box doesn't know they aren't talking to UNIX. This causes Uncle Bill to take notice. He likes what they are doing, and since his own Services for UNIX is pretty piss poor he does what he does best. Buys the company. (I'm not just an Interix client, I liked them so much I bought the company.)
So now, instead of ripping out all the "borrowed" code that is working so well, the new team, who is partnered with pieces of the old team, continue to develop along side each other, integrating the MS UNIX codebase that was Services for UNIX into the Interix codebase to build SFU 3.0.
SCO comes along and starts the whole lawsuit procedure but isn't giving any examples of code. Uncle Bill, preferring to stay quiet and in control, doesn't know if they need to scrap the project or not. Easiest solution? Buy the rights to the problem. License the technology you've already stolen and improved upon, gaining the legal right to use it, before the originating company realizes what you are doing and comes after you.
MS may have deep pockets, but they aren't bottomless, and I believe the legal battles with Apple taught them one very important lesson. End it quick and as painless as possible, keep the government out of it, because they have a tendency to side with people who may be my enemy (MS almost lost the anti-trust suit before Clinton left office?) So make it go away quietly so as not to draw attention to us.
End Rant ..... just my two cents.
"Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
It also contains interesting notes about due diligence to companies involved in open source development:
(Note 1) Due Diligence Options
There's a lot of FUD being spread around this but, in reality, Microsoft is merely one of around 30,000 Unix source code licensees and is using the opportunity associated with the current SCOsource initiative on renewals to throw a little FUD at the Linux community.
The history here is interesting. When SCO first started, its target was the Tandy line of MC68000 add-in boards and similar computers while Paul Allen (developer of MS BASIC) was arguing with his marketing guy that they should port Unix to the Apple II.
When IBM asked for an OS demo from Microsoft, they specified a piece of hardware based on a chip, the i8088, that simply lacked the power to run Unix. It had, after all, been produced as a downgrade from the 8086 (which wasn't selling well against the MC68000) to enable compatibility with older 8bit devices and could barely handle CP/M.
To get a real OS as a later follow-on to PC-DOS, Microsoft licensed AT&T Unix source and did a partnership deal with SCO that resulted in Xenix for the 8086 before that plan got pushed aside by the astonishing commercial success of the PC.
SCO, however, was left paying Microsoft royalties on its contributions to the intel port - a situation that continued until SCO cleared the last Microsoft code out of OpenServer in the mid ninties.
That worm turned when SCO bought the USL properties from Novel and eventually discovered that they now held the source licenses for most of the material Microsoft had been licensing to them - and on which Microsoft has just renewed its license.
So, with apologies to the conspiracy theorists, the MS rebewal doesn't signal anything beyond normal business practices - with the bonus of being able to sow a little free fear and confusion among the Linux troops; itself, of course, another normal business practice for MS.
"The idea of getting a SCO license had been under consideration prior to the IBM lawsuit...."
It's just a happy coincidence that we decided to do it NOW, before SCO Group folds in December due to lack of funds. If a simple purchase of a "UNIX" license will let two of our competitors duke it out, with one or both of them dropping out of the market because of it, then it's a small price to pay.
Plus, of SCO wins over IBM, then they can go after Redhat, and Suse, and all those other companies that don't hold the MS principles dearly.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
Not....really. SCO owns the OLD codebase, as in so old as to be obsolete. They also own their changes. But the history of Unix is really incested, as there are massive cominglings of open-source and closed (supposedly) dating back 15 years ago and prior. Bottom line is that ATT already tried that suit and lost, and it is now perfectly fine to make your own Unix clone and pay no one. See Sun, SGI, etc for proof of this - none of them pay SCO a dime, and they release products they call unix.
The only people you would ever need to pay is if you wanted to call it unix. Then you would need to license it ($$$) from the Open Group. But that's the name, not the code. MS really had no reason to license anything from SCO unless they really liked SCO's implementation. And trust me, no one likes SCO's unix except fast-food restaurants, for some strange reason, as SCO's unix (like all their products - Calderalinuxyuck!) suck.
The lawsuit is about the Unix code being improperly used within Linux.
snip...
So, MS isn't 'legitimising' SCO's claims. Each case goes on it's own merit and from what I can gather, there's no way IBM can use the MS issue as leverage, the two aren't connected in any way, apart from being deals with the same company, one licensing one product, the other saying code from said product was used elsewhere.
Well, assuming I'm correct about above (always a reach, but give me some leeway;> ), then there are two questions: 1. Why did MS actually need to license unix? and 2. Why did MS license SCO's unix?
Dealing with these in order, I can't see any reason why MS needed to license anything, for reasons above. The only thing I can think of is that MS doesn't understand the concept of actually getting something for free. But they seem to like stealing, so I don't think that's it. And they ahve BSD licensed things in the past.
Second, why SCO? From the linked article, if it's legit, they do talk themselves back in a circle when they talk about SCO as one of the few companies other than them who "value IP." This is not a stretch to interpret as "fight open source." I think they've unapologetically made that translation in the past, actually. And the article claims they say that this was a factor in them going ahead with the SCO deal. They say they wouldn't have licensed it for nothing, but they'd have to say that, wouldn't they? And since when do they have a history of EVER licensing something voluntarily before they've exhausted their...ah...other methods?
This tells me that a big reason MS licensed unix from SCO, and probably why they licensed unix at all, is to have somebody else fighting open source, and by extension, IBM.
I'm not ready to claim that MS put SCO up to suing IBM and threatening the linux community, but I think they definitely saw the SCO legal fund as an investment. And I wouldn't be surprised if we found that MS was behind the shift in SCO's language away from its IBM focus to more of a linux focus. It just makes sense for them, as there's no other reason to license SCO.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
"The lawsuit was seen as indirect supporting our position on the value of IP" ......
"The license was not seen as a way to underwrite SCO's legal fees"
Just a wee contradiction here. Perhaps that 'not' slipped into the second sentence by accident!!
Skiing? Check out The Independant Skiers Portal
I don't see it as illegal either, just hilarious.
They respect others IP rights except when they are sued for patent infringement, then they fight other's IP rights to the bitter end.
Or when they lie about others IP rights to their own customers.
Or when they steal others IP outright.