Slashdot Mirror
FSF, GCC, and SCO Compiler Support
Ancipital was one of several who noted that a
special patch is going into GCC. The file is README.SCO, and it is a short writeup about the SCO situation written by the FSF. It stops short of demanding that GCC developers strip SCO support from the compiler, and says more will be announced before the next compiler release.
They should have just removed the support. I don't see how it would harm normal people, as they can keep on using older compilers.
Anyway, this is the right direction. I just hope projects can strip out SCO support without breaking much good code.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
it threatens to remove support for SCO Unix, then says it won't.
what's the point?
I do not believe this is the right way to approach the issue. Let them work this ugly legalese - in courts. How are we any different from Microsoft, if we happen to "exclude" some support from projects because we do not like the receipient? I do not say "let's all develop code for SCO support", but please do not remove any *existing* code.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, consult.
Exactly that attitude is what the FSF had to have had when they decided to write this "patch" Let the Stone throwing begin. Everyone knows SCO is full of shit why cripple GCC's support for SCO's Unix just because it can be done? Is this going to become a standard practice you done did us wrong now its your turn?
Might cause SCO's clients to put some pressure on them in regards to the current action SCO is taking...
Instead of striving for the best possible compiler and tools for the open source community, it's better to engage in a pissing match with SCO? Wouldn't it, perhaps, be better just to keep things moving forward?
We must take the higher ground and turn the other cheek, lest we threaten the very trust upon which Open Source is built.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Why is it an achievement to "cripple... ...the BSDs"? Not that they have been. And when was windows crippled? Is this a magical post sent back from the future to save mankind?
Do like for your neighbor's dog to come over and crap in your yard? If you let it go every day for a week and they try make it stop, you will have a tough job. If the first dog feels free to come over and poop away, then other dogs will start to feel that they also have the right to use your yard as their own personal pooping grounds. How long before you can't freely use your own yard because it is like a mine field?
You wait just as long as you like to speak up about what SCO is pulling, but shut the fuck up about people that know they need to speak up now to protect their rights.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
But GCC shouldn't remove SCO support for reasons of pique or spite. As other posters have said, it won't hurt SCO one bit, but to do so would make GCC, FSF, and the entire free/open software community look petty, and perhaps untrustworthy. GNU software has a long history of running on unsupportive or openly hostile platforms (i.e. windows) and its continuing to do so gives users of those platforms an incremental upgrade-path to freedom. Any action like this, however justified it might feel, would do much more to harm innocent SCO customers and the entire free software community's reputation.
## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
Yeah, but I'm not so sure that SCO actually want customers anymore. They know that their market share is falling, acting the bully isn't going to change that. I reckon all this lawsuit stuff is just their dying throes, in which case hurting SCO users won't really have any impact on SCO.
Your problem is with the officials, not the inhabitants. All you would achieve is to turn sympathetic users of GCC into your sworn enemy. At what gain?
Many companies use proprietary technology. Some misappropriate Free Software, others allow it to mingle with their own. When a misappropriation takes place, our action need to be litigation, not misguided populist sentiment.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
That would make the Free Software community no better than Microsoft -- it would be stooping to their level.
And that level is exactly where we want to be, regarding SCO.
IBM is pulling some dirty tricks (patents) to punish SCO. And we're loving them for it.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
This goes against what I believed was the reason for gcc in the first place: choice. This is a standard Micro$oft strategy, keeping developers locked by limiting choice. Even despite SCO's evilness, why punish developers/users who are innocent?
It also kinda plays into SCO's hands, i.e. if they were smart enough they could market their own compiler with plenty of "useful", platform specfic features... But I suppose they'd have to prove their OS worth first.
What's next no support for Windoze, because MS believe Open Source is un-American?
"Ceilean Súil an ní ná feiceann..."
Saying that we are going to waste time removing support that already exists because we do not like what SCO has done would look childish to many observers. The message seems like 'you cannot play with us any more'. It would not disturb SCO in the slightest, as any customer crazy enough to buy a SCO license (or SCO maintenance contract) now would not be deterred by the fact that they cannot use leading edge features of the GCC compiler. All it would do is make FSF look unprofessional.
The GCC issue on the other hand is one party, who has not been harmed in any way, pummeling the users of a maligned company instead of the company itself. This is foolish as it creates enemies from friends.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
SCOs customers are a miniscule source of profit anyway. Their customer base is tiny and shrinking. No one with half a brain has bought it in years, there install base is mostly very old installations that are only there because no one wants to break a working system.
Trying to coerce people like that usually backfires. The people still using SCO, all 10 of them, are already working on installing Linux or *BSD instead. No need to antagonise them. They didn't file the lawsuits, and they didn't buy from the company calling itself SCO in the first place anyway - they bought from what is now Tarantella and while you might not like old SCO either, they're certainly on a different plane from Darl & Co.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Sounds like a technological fix to a legal problem. Not good. Makes it worse.
Suck it up and remember we are Ghandi here, not Hitler.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Well that depends on whether or not SCO's operating systems are a part of their business plan any more. A lot of people would argue that they are just a lawsuit company now.
There's a big problem with this proposed action though. What message does it send to people who happen to be using SCO, and decided upon Free Software (GCC) for their compiler? Essentially, they are getting the message "you are using an operating system we don't like, so we'll leave you high and dry". It's Free Software, so it's not as bad as when a proprietary vendor drops support, but it's still a big business risk.
We don't want to give the impression that you can't depend on Free Software unless you buy into the whole philosophy and only use FSF-approved operating systems. I think they have done the right thing by making a public issue out of this before actually doing anything, it lets people plan ahead in case this goes ahead, and it gives end-users a chance to talk to SCO about it (if they aren't already).
Depends on what you mean by use. Anyone can use it 'binary only run only' like SCO is claiming to license. However, modifying and distributing are different situations. Since SCO is openly in breach of the GPL, they have long since lost all legal right to do that. As I understand their products contain substantial cut and pastes from GPL sources particularly in the Linux compatibility sections, they can and should be sued for that.
They can still 'look at' GPL code, but if they copy it they're violating copyright.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
So, should they remove support for Windows as well? I don't think so. Let's behave like adults here, not like SCO!
If you are really intent on developing code for the SCO platform, you probably have already shelled out the money for a true developers license. This includes cc making gcc unnecessary.
Any chance we can stop giving this corporate protection racket so much free publicity?
You know you can NOT click on the article? If it bothers you so much, why not disable the Caldera/SCO topic from your preferences? Heck, how was your thinking process? "Lets click in this story that disgustes me so much, scroll dow, hit reply, write a troll comment about how sick are we with this SCO news thing".
Speak for yourself, I for one am grateful with the following Slashdot is doing to this case. Some of us (and our families) LIVE out of linux, and you can always NOT click the link and go read another story.
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
The removal of support for SCO Unix in GCC may indeed hurt its end users and developers to a greater extent than SCO itself, but, isn't it already common practise to remove deprecated/obsolete systems (I noticed they just removed a pile of old CPU architectures in the previous release). I don't think anybody will argue that the future prospects of the SCO Unix operating system are looking rosey at the moment. Indeed, in a few months, it maybe along side those old CPU's in the annals of computing history.
Furthermore, the process of eliminating support in future versions of gcc, does not detract from the fact that current versions *do* support SCO Unix. As such, couldn't current SCO Unix users simply use the older versions in any case?
I'm all for the impartiallity in the development of software as important and necessary as the open source compiler, however, there is a point where we, as a community, must take the stand. There is an acute difference between impartiallity in our work, and allowing those whom wish to assimilate it, walking all over us.
It stops short of demanding that GCC developers strip SCO support from the compiler
It does nothing of the kind. It merely states that they have been urged (by whom?) to drop SCO support, but they have decided not to for the time being. And, if you ask me, they never will, because that would be the exact opposite to what the FSF fights for. But they could have been a bit more diplomatic about it in my opinion... Most people should be able to see the obvious.
Cig? No, thank you.
Why withdraw all specific SCO Unix support ? Come on.Not only in GCC but everywhere there is SCO specific material.SCO is not our friend itislitterally the enemy and should be treated as such.
This is no joking matter.They are trying to torpedo all the work that has been done by the Linux community.
Do react and more strongly than writing a few lines.Im totally for destroying those who seek
to destroy us by all legal means available to us.
Time to shake off the fleas , growl and bite !
FuzzyTheBear
Every argument here thus far has been either to strip the SCO support, or not to. Mostly as a symbolic gesture, but have all of you forgotten how open source works? Even if you do strip SCO support, they (SCO, people compiling under SCO, etc ...) can readily use their old versions of GCC, and even put SCO support back into newer versions and create a different branch.
Quite honestly, I don't see where the harm comes into play, other than this being a symbolic gesture.
--LordKaT
Hi all,
I work for one of those unfortunate companies that are still using SCO OpenServer. I really hope the GCC team does not do something so petty as dropping support for SCO.
Being able to use GCC to compile such things as bash and GNU tar is the only thing that makes SCO liveable, and we are stuck on SCO for at least another 2 - 5 years.
Due to our legacy code base, it would be prohibitively costly to move off of SCO at this time, though we are working on purchasing new software that will allow us to get off of SCO, and have been since even before SCO went ballistic.
--LeBleu
If you're reading this you're part of the mass hallucination that is Kevin the Blue.
FSF did boycot Apple A/UX back when Apple and Microsoft was fighting in courts about look & feel.
This made life as an A/UX admin much more difficult. Not that GNU software didn't run, they did, but you had to port it yourself.
I think this actually contributed to Apples decision to discontinue A/UX. Other reasons for the decision was that Apple had its focus elsewhere. Just like SCO have changed focus to become a litegation company instead of a software house.
I'd say don't just drop support in gcc. Drop it in the entire product line.(emacs, autoconf,...) After all it is free software and SCO users can port it if they like.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
In the first seconds of reading the readme.sco-file I thought all this would be given up by the FSF for a revenge on sco. To make it clear: I do not like what sco does there with all the PI-issues but would this be a reason to give up main principles of the open source community just for a "REVENGE"?
I'm very glad that it did not happen...
Love, Gery
The answer is yes, me.
The customers/ISVs big enough to matter all use SCO's own development tools, not the GNU toolchain. GCC support or lack thereof will not direct their actions. However, those customers depend heavily on the stability and continued existence of their vendors. Were I one of those customers, I'd have already written them a scathing letter telling exactly what I think of the prospect of going through the pain of changing platforms because SCO litigated itself out of business.
Claimer: I worked on those development tools for UnixWare back in the USL/Novell days. I have no present connection with SCO, Bell Labs, Novell, or Darl's astrologer.
And who says we want his help. Who says that SCO isn't going to turn around and sue anyone distributing gcc commercially claiming it's infringing patents just like the Linux kernel? How can we trust their contributions at all anymore.
Linux and Stallman are staunch representatives of the freedom to code and share your code and have show this during many years with deeds, not words.
SCO, you know who they are, they are trying to hurt our freedom to code and share that code, with evil deeds, not only words.
Any contribution coming from anybody related to SCO should be seen with extreme paranoid suspicion and skepticism. This guy may be contributing on good faith, but the safety of GCC is owrth alienating one guy if you ask me.
You don't need to have contributed a single line of code to GCC in order to arrive to this conclussion.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It would be a VERY good idea for the GCC people to follow up on this. Remember Christian Hellweg that worked for Caldera and is responsible for a lot of the SCO stuff inside Linux.
If no "agreement" exist now with SCO maintaining their portion of the GCC, this can be used to make a strong point for Helweg doing what his company wanted later. If they, as I suspect, sue Hellweg, at some point to make the point he is in collusion with IBM.
TheInquirer had a story yesterday about Caldera and Linux
Help fight continental drift.
You would cutoff your nose despite your face... or something like that.
You gotta ask yourself, Who benefits by having free software written for a certain platform. I believe SCO does benefit by having GCC work on their platform, but, I believe when someone uses GCC on SCO free software benefits more.
It doesn't even directly insult SCO. It insults SCO users for deciding to use SCO. Those users may be trying to pick a side and now they have to choose from one side with questionable ethical practices and another side who insults them just for picking SCO in the first place. I'm not so sure I would pick either side (Linus anyone?)
Because SCO has always been our enemy. Just like Iraq has always been our enemy, and Russia has always been our ally.
For those of you who have been reading your Corrected History books, pull your heads out of your ass and look at actual archives. The port maintainer in question has been contributing code for a long, long time. In good faith. With a smile, even. He has the same copyright assignment on file as the rest of the GCC contributors, which means SCO signed a disclaimer that they would not try to claim ownership of the code he contributes, just like every other software-related company whose employees contribute code to GCC.
Fortunately, nobody has to ask you, because you're wrong.
(People bitch and moan about GCC contributors being required to get assignments and disclaimers from their employer. This is one of the reasons why it's done. It's different from other open source projects, but /. has overlooked that fact)
No, but you do need to be completely ignorant of the rules by which GCC operates.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Well sir, if you had ever actually contributed to the GCC project you would know that they have very strict rules regarding copyright assignment.
Unfortunately, you seem to find yourself in the employ of a company who wants to take advantage open source software, but doesn't appear to feel that it has any obligations to the other people who have contributed to that software in return.
Not only are they trying to charge licensing fees for other people's IP -- without any authority to do so, but they clearly have no respect at all for the GPL, and claim that it is fatally flawed.
I'm sure that as an individual, you're a person of enormous ability and integrity. However, you work for a company that has proven themselves time after time to be little better than whoremasters.
In light of that fact, how can you feel secure about the prospect that SCO won't treat your copyright in the same way as it does that of all of those people who contribute to linux and start demanding license fees for it?
And can you, in all conscience, argue that open source coders are making a rational decision if they voluntarily allow any of their efforts to be used by SCO, their employees, their customers or their developers?
You claim that the scope of this lawsuit is a dispute with IBM.
sCO has sent thousands of letters to Linux end users warning them of legal liability. SCO publicly stated that Linux cannot possibly work on enterprise systems without illegal code theft from SCO. And Darl McBride said last week: "What is at issue is more than SCO and Red Hat. What is at issue is intellectual property rights in the age of the Internet." (Conference Call, 2003-08-05).
So don't even try copping that "this is about IBM, why is the community so upset?" line. SCO says that it is about the community and attacks the community repeatedly in their conference calls and legal filings.
It WAS only about breach of contract with IBM, neglecting language insulting to the community... eg, linux was a "bicycle" until IBM stole SCO's IP to turn it into a luxury car, open source developers were incapable of creating enterprise quality code, and so on.
The fact that the community has missed this point and taken that lawsuit as having a much broader scope than it does is unfortunate.
When McBride and Sontag made numerous public threats against the larger community, they left the realm of insults and directly threated litigation.
In at least one statement to the media, they mentioned the possibility of litigation against Linus and others. 1500 threatening letters were sent, not to developers but to users, with the intention to cause them to reconsider deloying linux. I'd call that an attack on the community.
But on a purely technical level, you are correct. The lawsuit is between SCO and IBM. Though SCO hasn't yet filed any other suits, the FUD-based media circus McBride and Sontag have created, the 1500 threating letters, and the licensing campaign are all additional facts that conspire to portray SCO as an enemy of the free software community.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools