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
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
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
No, read it again.
It says they've been urged to do so, but will not at this time. They're considering it, but have very good reasons not to. If they did remove it, it would be basically a symbolic move that would hurt a few innocent people. Putting in this readme drawing attention to the controversy achieves a similar symbolic statement, without hurting those people. I think it's a good move.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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)
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.