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
Of course, the output of this compiler is not executable code. It produces lawsuits instead.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
SCO don't care about GCC support of their OS, they do not are a software company anymore but a litigation company.
Stripping SCO support from GCC will only harm SCO's old customers who don't have anything to do with SCO evil.
...all programs compiled with the -sco flag will now start with a nag screen urging you to pay $699 to legalize your software?
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.
There is no reason to continue to support SCO. In fact, I think this action is immediately necessary to let potential licensees of SCO know that they will NOT have a free compiler if they buy SCO/Unix.
There is no reason not to defend the free software community against the illegal actions of SCO. This aggression will not stand.
SCO has profiteered off of the goodwill and charity of millions of programmers across the world. How are they repaying you? By suing you into oblivion and STEALING your code!
This is not the time to be benevolent and charitable. This is the time to be assertive and not let them bully you around.
I strongly urge the likes of the FSF and RedHat, who has already established a legal "defense" fund to also establish a legal "offense" fund and start fighing SCO for violating the GPL and the Copyrights of every developer that had their code distributed by SCO in violation of the GPL.
Everyone is so worried that the GPL won't hold water in court. If you're so worried, than it won't. The time to test the GPL is NOW, so that any weaknesses can be found and corrected.
SCO needs to be taken seriously no matter how irrational or stupid their claims become. Remember that the people they pack juries with are usually just as stupid and irrational.
- 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
- 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
Does this mean the FSF is no longer open source compatible? For the knee-jerkers out there, this is not a troll, it is a serious question. The issue is that Free software should be free, warts and all. Unintended consequences aside, you can't just remove the right to use GCC of any organisation that uses SCO software, it's not right....The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
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
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.
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).
No just make a nagging compiler. Let it put up a nag screen with each statement it compiles, showing the statement and asking the programmer if it's allright to compile this and if it's not violating one or more IP's (Yes/No/Abort). :)
did the submitter even read the README?? it says no such thing, and i quote:
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.
Well sir, if you had ever actually contributed to the GCC project you would know that they have very strict rules regarding copyright assignment. I have a copyright assignment on file that covers just about every GNU project. Any work I contribute to GCC or other GNU projects is protected by it, and the FSF holds the copyright to my work.
If you ARE a contributor then you know this already and shame on you for trying to spread FUD. And as for who says they want my help ... so far, they do. I was quite warmly welcomed to the GCC team, and I thank them for it.
Kean
For obvious reasons I cannot comment on this. I have an opinion but I cannot share it. All I can say is that from what I have read publically, SCO is not charging for other people's IP but what they believe to be their own. But this is off-topic. This thread was about my involvement with the GCC project.
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.
Since my brain was compiled with gcc -pedantic, I must point out that in effect, since they are my masters (at least at work) you are calling me a whore :) I'm just kidding trying to keep this light ... dont take offence :)
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?
Well, yes I can. There are hundreds of thousands of open source projects out there. Unless I am missing something SCO is not suing, nor have they stated any intention to, nor do I believe they ever would, any of those projects. Please bare in mind that the scope of the lawsuit is confined to breach of contract with IBM, not against the entire community. The fact that the community has missed this point and taken that lawsuit as having a much broader scope than it does is unfortunate.
However, I would like to address your actual question. I understand that people are upset with SCO, I even understand why. However, GCC is a program, it is not a political platform. That program runs on multiple architectures, one of which is SCO OpenServer. Even though the majority of my contributions are aimed at improving support for that platforms, not all are. Even if all my contributions were SCO-centric, they still have value beyond the scope of the individual platform. Each platform has its quirks and nuances, and when those quirks and nuances exposes wekanesses in the overal design of the program, addressing those weaknesses helps improve the program for everybody. Even though my contributions are SCO-centric, this too is not unusual. Linux folks tend to submit Linux-centric patches, FreeBSD folks submit FreeBSD-centric patches etc. It is simply the nature of the beast. In order for the open source model to really work, you generally take code where it is offered.
I am a geek. I love writing code, and I do so at every opportunity I get. The fact that I work for a company that is in disfavour with the community does not (or should not) have any bearing on contributions to open source projects. But look at some of the history of this particular project. At one point, Microsoft was public enemy #1, yet people still worked really hard to get things like DJGPP and Cygwin working, all the while trying to rally support against Microsoft. If you (or others) are real geeks, then I am surprised you care so much. Its all about the code and the joy of coding. All this political stuff makes my head ache :)
Having said that ... I am off to do another make bootstrap on gcc 3.4 :) Have an absolutely fabulous timezone.
Kean