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." "
There is no way of either truly confirming or denying this. Microsoft won't, i am prepared to bet, actually say what they are working on, and Very few people trust M$ to be telling the truth. End discussion, really.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
Always remember these two words:
"Plausible Deniability"
Riiiiiiiiiight
Developers: We can use your help.
Dateline OZ.... As reported earlier the Wicked Witch and her consortium of mean little monkeys has licensed rights to the Ruby Slippers from Glenda the Good Witch. Glenda, who is suffering financial problems, and was unable to leverage her IP against the Dorothy Corp (NYSE-DC) and with little opportunities elswhere in the Good Witch market it was assumed that the Good Witch franchise (NYSE-GWF) would soon collapse under the weight of farm houses. Timing IS everything!
Let's say this is true. Hey, it may well be.
There's still something to be learned from all of this - namely Microsoft's problem with people not trusting them is very real.
In short, Microsoft is not a company that a lot of people would give the benefit of a doubt.
After so much FUD, how can we trust them?
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
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.
Translation: SCO was looking to f*** over Linux and IBM, and we liked that. Most of the other software vendors, traitorous bastards that they are, have been all too happy to port their stuff over to Linux.
What bothers me is not the lie, but the pervasiveness of this sort of attitude. They don't want to admit their true motives, so they lie and the mass media doesn't call them on it.
My question is simple: why are they bothering? They have financial interest in seeing Linux, and MacOS, failing. If Linux's market share expands, theirs contracts. Nothing difficult to understand here.
Unfortunately, that their pathetic lie being allowed to go un-challenged means that otheres will keep right on lying in ever more pathetic manners. Let's have some artistry here, if someone wants to lie to me I expect it to be plausable, not rediculous.
Its rather like the political "doner's" lie: "Oh, no, I'd never bribe a politician. This particular politician just wants to give me special favors because its part of his political philosophy, I'm just giving him money to express my support of that philosophy."
Since that excuse works so well in politics why not everywhere else: "Oh no officer, I wasn't paying that woman for sex, she simply has a philosophy of giving oral sex to strangers, I'm merely expressing my support for that philosophy."
Really, MS, politicians, their lies are just too transparent to be amusing. We need a better class of lies damnit. Either that or some honesty, that would be original too...
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
"I didn't mean to give that gun and 10,000$ cash to the murderer just before he killed my *&*(&$# cheating POS ex-wife. It was pure coincidence."
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Actually they are working on a port for Office on Linux. I have a friend who was interviewed for a developer position for it.
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
Microsoft has been distributing their Services for Unix software for some time now. If you will remember, the entire purpose they attended LinuxWorld last year was to show this product and even hand out free CD's to try.
Basically, Services for Unix runs on Windows and is designed to replace UNIX servers by offering some similiar services such has NFS and NIS. The idea here is for companies to gracefully migrate their servers away from UNIX and lock them into a MS products.
I just don't understand why Microsoft didn't purchase this license years ago when the Services for UNIX was first started.
They don't need SCO code for any UNIX emulation.m l and I guess they will get actually better support for what they probably want to do
1. They can take (F,N,O)BSD code and get a perfect UNIX(ish) layer.
2. If they want to pay somebody, they can go to http://www.windriver.com/products/bsd_os/index.ht
Just tell me what is the benefit of SCO code from the MS point. I'll tel you - they know SCO was going to do something and now they are covering their traces with smoke.
Microsoft was planning long before the SCO lawsuit to respond to the popularity of Apache web servers with Apache helicopters.
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."
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.
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