Slashdot Mirror
Culture Clash: SCO, OpenLinux, Linus And The GPL
hobsonchoice writes "SCO has issued a letter saying SCO Linux customers won't be sued. The same does not seem to apply if using a non-SCO distribution such as RedHat." LightSail points to the SCO letter itself, and raises an interesting point: "If they approve the use of 'their' IP in Linux in a single kernel, then the GPL holds that IP SCO allows to be used by a select few must be freely released to any and all. It appears that all Linux users everywhere were just given a license to continued use of Linux even if SCO would win their suit with IBM." And Haikuu writes "eWeek recently posted an interview conducted by e-mail exchange with Linus Torvalds regarding his recent move to the OSDL and the SCO suit."
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
It continues to seem that most companies simply don't believe that the GPL is a real license. It's as if they think that secretly free software authors "don't really mean it" when they explicitly define rights and restrictions in a license.
It's almost as if the GPL is too "far out" and too liberal for anyone in corporate America to really believe it's real or take it seriously; they seem to think they can just pretend like it isn't there and the courts will wink and understand. As more and more cases end up in court (as the SCO case looks like it will), I wonder if we'll start to see a shift away from "those free software kids don't have a REAL license, this GPL thing is just a toy" to "these are dangerous commies that threaten our entire economy and for that reason the courts must ignore what they're doing and side with us!"
Sort of like the end of segregation and the Vietnam war protests in the US, both things that much of the older generation simply couldn't understand beyond "those silly kids and their silly ideas" and later "those god damned subversive kids and their dangerous ideas..."
SCO can do as they wish with their IP of course, its that simple, truly.
Photos.
So SCO lets its customers use it's hypothetical IP as part of the linux kernel. As said in the story, this would then release this code under the GPL. But this does NOT mean they now give the source away to all and sundry - only to their customers (who can then release it to anyone they choose).
Of course this is all irrelevant as the source is out there and available regardless. Can't wait to see this play out in court.
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
-Like tears in rain, time to die.
The anti-GPL crowd likes to talk about how the GPL has this power to "force" people to do things, like some kind of animated chainsaw that turns on its owner. Now the anti-SCO folks are using the same argument? Sorry folks, that's not how it works.
The GPL is simply a means for a copyright holder to grant others the right to copy under certain circumstances. It can't "force" anyone to do anything.
If the Linux kernel is a derivate work of SCO's (or more likely, certain PARTS of the kernel are derivative works), then SCO can simply claim that ALL copies of the Linux kernel are infringing copies, and ALL public distributions of the code are copyright violations.
The GPL was placed on that code by someone who was not the copyright holder. That person would not have the right to license the code at all. So you'd have to just ignore the GPL, and treat the code the same as if you just downloaded the Windows 95 source code from somebody on Kazaa.
SCO can also say, well, since we don't want you to have to go to all the trouble of deleting your OS, we'll sell you an end-user license and so forth, for $50. Otherwise we'll sue you. Aren't we nice and friendly? And we'll pick and choose who we want to sell licenses to, and who we want to give them to for free.
They certainly wouldn't allow distribution by anyone under the GPL.
The GPL simply falls by the wayside, since the copyright holder (SCO) NEVER INTENDED to distribute the code. It doesn't matter that they were already distributing it, they can argue that they were duped into distributing it because they didn't know what was in it.
The GPL does not have any magical power to bestow freedom on anything it touches. Especially someone ELSE'S code.
(This is assuming all the bullshit SCO is putting out is actually true.)
must be freely released to any and all. It appears that all Linux users everywhere were just given a license to continued use of Linux even if SCO would win their suit with IBM.
That's not what it means. Nobody can unintentionally make their software GPL through 'infection'. Instead, it means that SCO has just formally violated the GPL and should now be sued for copyright infringement by anybody and everybody who owns copyrights to any part of the Linux kernel. In particular, Linus could generate lots of press by suing SCO for copyright infringement. He might get some good coin out of it too; $3.1-billion ought to do it.
To 'hold harmless' is far different than a grant of license. Although the analogy in the parent is somewhat misleading, the point is absolutely valid. Eseentially, SCO is agreeing to exclude customers of it's own linux distribution from any future legal action.
The big question is, what constitutes a SCO customer? Must I have purchased SCO services with my download of the SCO linux distro, or can I simply make use of their distro to avoid the threat of legal action? How much of the SCO distro must I use?
Perhaps I should install a few packages on each of my Linux boxes, so as to avoid the the threat of lawsuits.
As I re-read this, it appears the letter is only directed to current and ongoing SCO partners. This suggests that possibly, not only would I have had to have purchase SCO services but I would have to continue to pay for SCO service contracts indefinately into the future. Then again, IANAL, so perhaps I have misinterpreted the legal implications of this letter.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Sure, it appears that they either don't understand or believe the GPL, but I doubt they are that dumb. I think what's going on is that they realize that they can't stop others from distributing Linux because they are still distributing it themselves (despite their claims otherwise), but they want to keep people from distributing it anyway, and spreading FUD like this is how they do it. Why do they want to keep people from using Linux if they would have a hard time legally enforcing it? They want to drive people from Linux to Unix because they believe that they can exert control over Unix. I believe that is their plan. They want to drive people away from what they can't control into the arms of the closest alternative, which they do plan to control.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
they might not be liable for SCO IP, but what about all the GPL IP? SCO is ignoring the fact that the GPL does not apply if they ship royalty generating IP in their distro, so they cannot ship all that GPLed code. So their customers are now liable, instead, for GPL violations (although there may be obscure wiggle room for them based on the fact that it's really the act of copying that becomes prohibited, e.g. SCO is the violator).
Linus, the FSF, and RMS should all SUE!
-pyrrho
I got to thinking afterwards what a masterful stroke SCO pulled by joining the protestors. Entering the fray 'in the spirit of fun', and getting the opposite side to join in, including at one point convincing one of the protestors to carry pro-SCO signs, reduced the anti-SCO position to 'all in fun' as well. Not to be taken seriously. You can bet though, the message the SCO signs carried - linux = communism, GPL = theft, OSS = Kazaa - resonated with a few less-informed people.
Pretending to extend the hand of friendship, SCO completely obliterated the anti-SCO message. Slick.
...then they laugh at you, then they fight you...
And then you find out if you side has what it takes to win.
Ghandi had the plight of the oppressed, the moral high ground, and the triple guilt of the Anglican White Empire.
What does GNU have? Some sour grapes against software developers, and a license designed to turn copyright on its head.
It's entirely possible that the concept of copyleft could be tossed out, as being an unfair infringement upon the innovation and artistic progress of others. It's also entirely possible that it'll be upheld lock stock and barrel.
No one, AFAIK, has attempted to challenge the GPL and taken it to court. (If you know otherwise, please site case name and / or court.) Until that happens, it's a license that may have some or more parts of it removed.
(For the GNUelots, the "entirely possible" would require a case getting to the Supreme Court.)
Same deal with GNU software. I rely on the GPL to know that my code is going into the public pool. I do it as a hobby and I don't get paid for my time, so my one recompense is knowing that some jerks can't steal my hours of labor. I give them as a gift for all the world and that is good enough for me.
When these "SCO" big-shots start attacking the GPL I take it personal, and so does anybody else who has written for Linux and GNU. I'm certainly not writing code to make SCO rich. They don't pay me, they don't like my "philosophy", well they can go piss up a rope because I'm getting tired of them walking all over the GPL like it somehow doesn't apply to them because they are "big-shots." Bullshit! They are a bunch of crack-heads if they think they can pull this swindle off. They got big balls, I'll give them that, but their big balls are gonna get kicked hard.
Clickety Click
that if I download a copy of Caldera Linux (someone can tell
you the link to get it), then I won't have to worry about them suing me?
Even if I don't actually use it? Or do I have to use it
at least once then I can claim I have permission to use
the kernel in another Linux OS I'm running?
I think they are simply saying they don't want license fees and/or won't sue (not sure which - probably means same thing) existing SCO customers. I personally don't think the letter necessarily implies that SCO thinks that SCO Linux customers will be able to keep on distributing source, GPL style.
One thing that I haven't figured out, is what about UnitedLinux? (which I believe SCO to be a member of). Is SCO Linux = a standardized UnitedLinux distro, or is it more complicated than that?? And if yes, or nearly, how do SCO think customers of their UnitedLinux partners should act??
Another thing that isn't clear, is whether you will be able to become a SCO Linux customer (not saying I want to, just whether it will be possible) - i.e. what if you want to buy SCO Linux - could you? I realize they have stopped selling it for now, but will this continue?
Well, SCO has specifically referred to Unix patents.
:)
And according to the terms of the GNU General Public License, if you can't satisfy patent laws AND the terms of the GPL simulataneously you have no right to use the code at all.
Does this mean that SCO, by telling their users it's alright, is violating GPL? I'm not a lawyer, but I know a bit about IP law. But this whole mess is confusing even me, especially since SCO keeps saying conflicting things.
My head hurts now. I wonder if I can sue SCO for medical bills and psychological trauma?
My journal has hot
Is it pronounced "S, C, O, Linux" or do I say it like a word: "SKOH Linux"?
I called their line the other day to see why they were still distributing linux, and their voice mail said "S-C-O". This surprised me, since my friends and I have been pronouncing it 'skoh' since the 1996 or 1997.
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
SCO has no right to distribute Linux whatsoever, since they know 'their' code is in Linux without giving up the rights to that code. However, as long as they are not distributing any GPL'd code, they are in the clear.
Contrary to what a lot of people think, the worst that can happen to you if you violate the GPL is that you lose your rights to distribute the code, and you might have to pay a civil fine for the GPL infringement.
But the point is moot anyway, since SCO isn't distributing anything right now, they are not GPLing anything.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Like a lot of people around here, I've been watching intently as I perceive something that seems to represent freedom to be under assault from a bunch of greedy and self-serving corp-lawyers. Taking a step back, I've begun seeing this as a good thing because this is exactly the kind of threat that the GPL has been begging for over the years: a battle for legitimacy. Did you think that testing the GPL was going to be a small potatoes deal? The way it's playing out is perfect: a single-minded company wants to pull itself out of a GPL-induced (I'd say, given their Caldera competence) downturn, and an opponent who can well afford the time, money, and expertise to fight this without weaseling out into a settlement. Well, I hope for that last part, but you know what I mean.
Counterintuitively - and not a little bit idealistic about the legal system's ability to judge without outside influence - perhaps the thing to do is to root for SCO a little bit. Egg them on with false love! Give them a hand up the hubris ladder! Kneel down as they fawn over their petards! Make this the fight that covers many bases as possible so that these things we seem to share an attachment with are the stronger for it.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
NO.
Copyright doesn't work like that (for the thousandth time). If you have copyright on something, those rights last as long as copyright law allows. Not defending them doesn't harm your case in any way if you suddenly decide to start defending them.
Linus didn't have to say a whole lot. The suit doesn't involve him yet and he's not obligated to remove any code from the kernel because A) no one has asked him to and B) the pending lawsuit seems to be the way SCO wants to handle this. Linus does give his opinion of the lawsuit though and I think he would like it if SCO just said, "You know what, we're morons. Sorry about the mess." But, SCO is too deep into this now.
Just a reminder. I'm consolidating the "worthwhile" points of the lawsuit at the link in my sig. If anyone would like me to add something to that page or would like to contribute commentary on this subject please don't hesitate to contact me.
The only reason NVIDIAs drivers are not covered by the GPL is because binary only kernel modules using existing kernel interfaces were expressly permitted from the beginning by Linus, as an EXCEPTION to the GPL. This means these drivers can be under any license NVIDIA wants. The only reason you can't distribute thsoe drivers with the OS is because NVIDIA says so, not ebcause of the GPL.
Note - I'm trying to find the clause that allowed it, I'm sure I've seen it before, and it's common knowledge.. but I can't find it, anyone know where it is?
The license on the linux Kernel itself is not just the GPL, it has an additional clause.
You quoted Section 7 of the GPL.. let's look at more of it:
"For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. "
That's pretty self explanatory.. if SCO cannot distribute copies that allow ANYONE to redistribute in the same manner, they cannot distribute at all.. Therefore, they cannot just license their version of linux to their users only, and impose restrictions on others.
I'm really getting tired of this crap. When are kernel developers going to sue SCO for violating the GPL? All of SCO's past profits from selling Linux are a direct result of their piracy. This is a big pot of gold -- why is nobody going after it?
If you're really pissed at The SCO Formerly Known As Caldera, and you've ever purchased one of their Linux distributions, sue them to get your $50 back. They claimed they were selling you code under a certain license, now they're retracting that claim. If they can get away with that at all, it shouldn't be without at least giving you your money back.
Of course, it's not mainly about the money: it's about thousands of people dragging SCO to small claims court as their own personal way of saying, "Fuck you, too!"
Don't ya think SCO should have'ta PROVE that there was copying taking place first?...I mean, why bother with the merits of the GPL and if it's enforceable here. The relevant issue is about illegal copying and supposed "obfuscation" of code to make it look "not copied." We have not even gotten to trial yet!....until the judge rules guilty, or I see the evidence myself, it's all a bunch of accusations to me. We are entitled to our innocence right up to the verdict, or even after the verdict if we can get a good PR firm.
Slashdot should be helping to shape the language of this media hype event, we shouldn't even be debating this crap until the evidence is presented....we should be encouraging the press to do likewise....all press comments should be "we are within our rights, we obey the law, we are unconcerned, we'll see the bastards in court, business as usual..." That's precisely how IBM's handled the case so far..."we are right, we know it, we'll be seeing ya' in court."
Even answering their charges only serves to shift the debate and allow them control over the media "language" of the case. With their weak case, they will attempt to shift the spotlight to anything BUT proving that copying took place, who did it, and the chain of custody along the way.
The best answer is to deny, deny, deny....then claim that you can't recall, but you are sure that you didn't do it, 'cause you never break the law. That's how Bill G. does it...it seems to work pretty good....
There isn't in the location choosen for reasons I can't comprehend by the OP.
d ates/SRPMS are four files that claim to be "kernel-source" but strangely contain the string "nosrc" as well.
However, over here:ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/up
This one in particular: kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm contains a file called patches.i386.tar.bz2 which in turn contains a file called 8975_NUMAQ.
That seems to be a kernel patch dealing with something related to NUMA, and contains GPL references.
Isn't NUMA one of the things, SCO has specifically mentioned as being part of the IP at issue?
But SCO's argument is that these very kernel hackers had no right to release that kernel work under the GPL to begin with - all derivative work from UNIX belongs to SCO. All SCO will be doing is reasserting their right (according to them) to all that work was done. Just as WASTE, apparently, was never actually released under the GPL...
Imagine the trauma is SCO wins: not only will all that derivative work belong to them but there will be a boatload of pissed off kernel hackers that have given a lot of work away (ironically, considering that is what they have been doing all along, ne?)
Call me crazy, but I've yet to hear this argument:
Suppose SCO wins (ducks).
Okay really -- suppose SCO wins and their claims are correct: Some of SCO's IP is in Linux. Big Friggin' Deal!!! That doesn't give them the right to start charging everyone for it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but MOST of Linux has been written by many, many people NOT employed by SCO. Those people surely could have a say in who uses THEIR hard work (IP) and I'm sure that those people are not too keen on SCO hijacking their tens (hundreds?, millions?) of thousands of hours of development.
To wrap up...
1 - SCO wins.
2 - SCO decides to sell Linux, claiming that it's theirs.
3 - SCO distributes their version of Linux which GUESS WHAT???, contains a WHOLE BUNCH of GPL'd code.
4 - Hence, to distribute Linux (even AFTER a potential victory in court) straps SCO into accepting the GPL. There is really no way around it... they can't steal ALL of Linux because SOME of it belongs to them... The majority of it belongs to the thousands of people that wrote it, and these people, I'm sure, would not be very pleased to have their hard work stolen.
(5) - Alternatively, they might just _try_ to kill Linux and sell whatever half-baked version of *nix they've got... I say _try_ because I don't believe that IP laws, piracy laws, etc. can stop the future of Linux. I know I'll still use it, even if I've got to download it from overseas and break all kinds of state and federal laws to do it.
okay, i'm done ranting... off to get what little sleep I can tonight.
In Peace.
IANAL. Also, I don't think any of SCO's code is actually in the kernel. I'm describing a safety net, possibly the last, but I don't think it will go nearly that far.
Litigious bastards
I have indeed been a SCO sysadmin, and it is an ugly hard-core Unix with no frills, no hand-holding, and it ain't Linux. If you think that Linux isn't ready for the desktop then SCO Unix is about ten years behind Linux in this regard. Basically it sucks in every respect except that SCO will come in and hook up a bunch of consoles for you and will write you some lame app in Unibasic to run on your terminals. That was the old SCO, the new SCO probably doesn't get their hands dirty with such stuff like writing programs.
Having run their OS, it was OK, nowhere near as good as GNU+Linux but it was OK, something like NetBSD with FVWM2 I suppose, except not as good. SCO reminded me of Ultrix on the university terminals about ten years ago.
But Linus did a clean-room implementation of the Unix kernel, and Stallman's FSF wrote the rest of the GNU OS as a clean room implementation as well. This was so that you and me could piss around with a real Unix-like system at home without having the bankroll to install AT&T UNIX. I don't know what you know about how SCO operates, but they implement the High Priesthood almost as good as IBM does.
When I was the SCO sysadmin, the management totally freaked out when they found out I had even touched the SCO box! But the mods I made (since I had learned using Linux) pleased them so they let me keep working with it. I replaced as much as I could with GNU so I was running SCO/GNU which was better than SCO. The little box was humming better than it ever did. I hacked the Unibasic code and implemented ANSI-BBS terminal support in addition to Wyse-30 "magic cookie codes" and Whoaa! We could use the "telnet" thing just as good as the Wyse-30's!!! Amazing! No more garbled screens ... don't have to walk over to the termial anymore!
Linux exists as a learning tool. How else are you going to learn Unix as a home user? No it isn't ready for the desktop, and it may never. It is an old-school "big iron" OS and you ought to thank your lucky stars that you have it.
Clickety Click
Well, what SCO Products might be affected by the GPL and IPL?
Each copyright holder can have their own go at SCO for breaking the grant to their work as specified under the GPL. Each and every God bless'ed one of them.
Notice I did NOT say "licensed under the GPL". As you ALL know, the GPL is a grant. A grant, without which, SCO has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to make even a single copy of the work in question.
Copyright law stipulates prescribed penalties when the infringment was, er, non-accidental and a specific level of damage cannot be set. I belive the number is/was $100K or $150K per infringement.
GPLed works would probably fall in that catagory. The GPL is "good and true", as long as copyright is the law of this land, but dollar damages would be pretty hard to set.
Law says... "per infringement". Each and every holder of a copyright within Linux would have the right to declare at least one infringment.
In a way Linus theory on "distributed copyright holding" vs. the FSF's centralized approch may prove an advantage here. FSF can only sue once per infringement. The Linux case would quickly grow and the courts would have a hard time grappling with the possibility that a single act of "copying" could result in such massive statutory liability.
Better step up soon, 'tho. I'd bet SCO can't pay you all. Something of a lottery, to be sure, but you never thought you'd ever be able to get paid $100K for contributing to Linux, did ya?
If you, like me, are running Linux *anywhere* (and I'm running it nearly *everywhere* I can) SUE THEM for $10,000 in your local small claims court. They won't show up, they won't defend themselves for such a small, nuisance suit, so they won't lose.
But can you imagine the impact of 5,000 of these kinds of suits?
I'd be willing to provide the hosting space for a site that instructs and coordinates this kind of effort.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
ince the Linux vs. SCO dispute has become quite complex, I have taken the time to distil the various issues of contention into a format which lends itself to easier digestion, and have drawn possible likely outcomes for these issues raised by SCO. Sources for all claims made herein are supplied as footnotes.
t rix.html
www.cybersource.com.au/users/conz/linux_vs_sco_ma
SCO continues to shoot itself in the foot with its public statements. let's review two sections of the GPL:
"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
SCO could have claimed that since they did not know of the alleged code, that they have not granted rights to that piece of code by distributing it. however, they have stated that they knew months in advance of the lawsuit of the alleged code, and continued to sell and distribute their Linux distribution. They have also continued to distribute their Linux distribution via FTP, and now, they prove in this letter that they know they have distributed the alleged code to their customers, and are planning to hold them harmless instead of removing it from their distributions.
So, we have two cases:
1. That SCO has granted rights to the code in question under the GPL by knowingly distributing it. In this case, they have no case against anyone but the original infringer.
2. That SCO has not granted rights to the code in question under the GPL. In this case, they have voided the license to distribute the kernel under the GPL, and have been knowingly stealing Linux, as they have no other rights to distribute it under. Their announced plan for the future is to continue stealing it for benefit of their customers. They could be sued by everyone who has contributed to the kernel for stealing their IP.
So, SCO is simply doomed regardless of the validity of their case.
However, if you've been reading the daily SCO articles and interviews, the whole stolen code thing is just misdirection and FUD. What they are really claiming is that anyone who has touched an invention to System V has not only given SCO rights to that invention, but has given up their own rights to that invention. This is simply madness, but this is their claim. This is their basis for claiming non-SCO technologies like IBM's JFS, and claiming that hundreds of thousands of lines of code in Linux are infringing. The sheer audacity of this claim, that they exclusively own 20 years worth of other people's inventions, is probably why they have avoided seeking a temporary injunction, because they would have to make this argument in court immediately, and it would never hold up. They want this to drag on as long as possible in hopes their slander and libel against Linux pays off on its own.
Since that IP was licenced under the GPL, SCO/Caldera has no right to use it unless they release it under the GPL as well.
As far as I can gather, SCO's position seems to be, at its heart, that the old UNIX System V AT&T license (or rather, every single one of the numerous SysV licenses, AIX, Dynix, etc) was, to use a Ballmer-ism, 'viral', unstoppably so, in their view.
They've been pretty clear that anything designed to work with any flavour of UNIX, by anyone in possession of any variant of the SysV licence, is in their opinion, automatically part of 'the UNIX intellectual property'. Therefore, for example, because Sequent developed their NUMA code whilst bound by a SysV license for Dynix, SCO's position seems to be that NUMA is automatically theirs.
And from that position, it's easy to see how SCO would make the leap to claiming that there's no GPL issue with Linux, because ALL of the Linux code, due to the supposedly viral nature of the Sys V licenses, is theirs to start with, so not only would they claim the absolute right to distribute the Linux code as they please, they would also tend to the view that no one, not Torvalds, not Stallman, can claim any ownership of anything which interoperates with any system derived from any system with any ancestry which might have involved a viral SysV license. In SCO's view, if it works with UNIX, it's their property regardless of any other factors.
Now clearly this looks like a lot of self-serving boholox, but i can believe that the old (convicted monopolist, remember) AT&T might very well have put some thoroughly draconian terms into their licenses, and, horrifyingly, if the sysV licenses do turn out to be viral, then SCO wins, hands down.
tomV
In case you didn't notice, I posted the parent.
Quite honestly, although I consider my post to be interesting, I don't consider it to be insightful.
It may be inciteful, or not, but I'm not 100% sure it's good. I'm still of the opinion that the best wars are those that are never fought, and that wars have no winners, only losers.
So though I consider this as a trial balloon to think about and consider, I *don't* automatically consider this a good thing. And I don't find any particular insight in this. Insight is "seeing within". This posting, though, was as obvious as a guy carrying a scarecrow into a herd of penguins. I mean, slashdot thinks in terms of distributed function, right?
Now, insightful would have been if I had figured a way to finesse all of this, and completely drop off SCO's radar, and still leave SCO standing.
Thing is, I still don't hate SCO or Microsoft, even with all their criminal behavior. There is some good in every organization, just as there is some good in every city, because you don't get the organization without human trust. I just don't like it when it breaks bad.
Anyhow, someone mod this one down to 3 or 4. I wanted this balloon out there, but it's really not all that insightful.
- MickLinux [and yes, it's really me].
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Why can't all the programmers that have contributed to the GPL now go after all SCO's customers saying that they are(/Maybe as in SCO's own threat they sent out to AIX/Linux users...) using a product which is in violation of the GPL because of the way SCO are operating and therefore they must pay X thousand $ per line of code per installation. If a great number of people do this then maybe SCO's own customers may complain that SCO stop this stupidity.
Oh well. One day this madness will end and hopfully SCO will be 10 feet under the ground...
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
What are other peopleâ(TM)s views on the likely hood of Linux being in 2 worlds at the same time one where its free and open another where its IP?
I wish SCO would pick on some one in the UK there are laws and fines against frivolous lawsuits here.
This is all on the presumption that the judge is complete fool who sits on his elbows and nudges people out they way with his arse IANAL but I play one on /.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
I once did a fresh install in a very tight timeframe, so tight in fact that I was unable to license the second processor, and missed the fact that the Rio card being used made a nice little 1MB memory hole at 15MB (the box had 128MB, but Openserver wasn't ever going to see it without a bootstring).
Despite this, the box went online and serviced 140 users (all running Sage) without complaints for the whole of the following day, until I could get back in and fix the processor license and bootstring.
I'd love to see an NT box (this was about 5-6 years ago) that could boot properly in 15MB, run on 1/2 its processors, and still support 140 users running a fairly disk-intensive app like Sage.
Yep, Openserver was a BUFF, but it was robust and not too unfriendly.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
in SCO's (actually caldera's) site they have a copy of a gartner arcticle that contains parts that are a litle detrimental to SCO
g .h tml
http://www.caldera.com/scosource/gartner_warnin
some quotes:
"The SCO Group's suit against IBM could be a way to make SCO a more attractive takeover target"
"In Gartner's opinion, SCO's claim that IBM misappropriated trade secrets from AIX will be difficult to prove, because an enterprise OS consists of many components, including high-availability features, diagnostics, security, kernel hardening, scheduling and queue management."
What ? Me, worry ?
I'll say it again:
SCO hired David Boies. They want to lose.
They're just looking to get bought out, plain and simple.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
(Umm..Err..sorry, left out the tags...)
Has anybody tried to make sense of what is really going on, and for what purpose does SCO (an obviously sinking ship) try to scuttle Linux intellectual property?
Here are interesting developments to think about:
1. Microsoft buys Apple stock. Microsoft ports MSOffice for the Mac. By developing apps for a Unix-like OS such as Apple, Microsoft developers can gain valuable programming experience for the Unix platform.
2. Microsoft develops Windows 2000 Server. Several important Unix security concepts gets implemented, like tighter file permissions and streamlined kernel operations.
3. Microsoft develops Windows XP. Much of the Unix concepts gets reimplemented in the desktop operating system.
4. Microsoft develops Windows 2003 Server. It is seen as a stop-gap release between Win2003 Server and WinXP while users wait for the ultimate OS in the works -- Longhorn.
On a side but very interesting note, Win2003 Server is now more Unix-like. Configuration files are no longer housed in a cryptic registry but are simple text files. Services can be configured individually.
A very interesting article on the net opines that Microsoft is becoming more and more like Unix.
Comments from the article:
"...products, where they facilitate Unix-to-Windows interoperability. Services for Unix is comprised of commands, utilities and libraries drawn from BSD Unix, a Posix layer developed by Microsoft, and GNU utilities, among other elements, Miller says. And Windows Server 2003 comes with new Unix-based command-line administration tools."
"But Microsoft needs to improve its Unix-interoperability pitch, a message that's coming from the top. "We must invest in better support for developers who want to move Unix applications to Windows, or extend Unix applications with additional functionality on Windows," CEO Steve Ballmer wrote in a state-of-the-company E-mail that went to all Microsoft employees on June 4.
"We have made great strides on Services for Unix, and Unix class-library support on Windows. There is still more to be done to support Unix APIs and scripts on Windows."
That push, more than anything else, may explain why Microsoft needed SCO's Unix code. And it's worth noting that Microsoft's Unix-interoperability strategy is essentially the same as its Linux-interoperability strategy. "We see Linux as yet another variant of Unix," Miller says. Services for Unix, he says, can be used to run Linux applications on Windows..."
5. Microsoft buys a chunk of SCO and takes a look at SCO's codebase. In this manner, they leverage the theoretical knowledge gained from working with MacOS, BSD, and their own implementation of these concepts on Win2K, Win2003 Server, and WinXP.
6. Meanwhile, MS unsuccessfully tries to stem the tide of Linux migrations around the world, most especially with lucrative government agencies. In a bid to boost up this effort, MS funded SCO to raise serious doubts on Linux IP, target IBM, and spread FUD. So far, this campaign has been somewhat successful in making potential migrators think twice of Linux.
7. Meanwhile, MS core developers tries to emulate Unix, trying to make libraries and APIs compatible with everyone else.
Why engineer an OS to become more and more Unix-like? Big question, any answers?
If Microsoft finishes the compatibility problem, then they can complete the stage which they have been working for so long.
Embed (or steal) the greatest Linux kernel into their core OS.
Since no one can take a peek at their source code, they can do this, then build "decoy wrappers" around it to mask its true core design.
Microsoft suddenly has a powerful core. Why bother designing your own when you can steal the greatest kernel for free, as long as you don't get cau
It continues to seem that most companies simply don't believe that the GPL is a real license. It's as if they think that secretly free software authors "don't really mean it" when they explicitly define rights and restrictions in a license.
Oh, the GPL is a real licence, and either they've all understood that, or they're just incompetent with respect to licensing issues. Remember that IBM, which has more IP lawyers than many (most?) western nations has carefully examined the thing.
If there were any loopholes or room for doubt, IBM probably would've exploited them long ago.
Rather, I think it's an issue of big guys believing that they can s--t all over the small guys. Sadly, this often makes good business sense. You can do whatever you want to people if they can't afford to sue you.
If you're big enough to afford lots of defense lawyers (and perhaps a few campaign donations to the powers that be), you don't even have to worry about getting sued.
"Per infringement" means "per copy you make". If they make and sell 1000 copies, they commit 1000 infringements.
So if each of the authors of the code in the kernel, took this letter as a piece of evidence, and the other statements and filed a class action lawsuit against SCO--each infringement would be also per author. Let's for fun say that there are 1000 authors of kernel code (I suspect more). That's 1000 copies X 1000 authors = 1 million infrigements. Now since the code is "free", the copyright violations come in at 100k a piece according to a previous IANAL. This puts damages at 100 billion dollars.
Is this enough money to get a high powered team of lawyers drooling? They of course would be limited by the total cash value of SCO, but I would advocate that kernel developers band together and file a class action. They might just get paid...
I see your 50 billion and up you 50.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.