Slashdot Mirror
Windows Cheaper When Studied by MSFT Analysts
richdun writes "Here is a study done by an independent research firm which claims that under certain circumstances, it is cheaper to develop applications and enterprise solutions for Windows than for Linux. They cite costs from more education, time developing, etc. Of course, the story is quick to state that the whole study was funded and commissioned by our favorite Redmond, WA based software giant. "
Here's the article:
SCO CEO Posts Open Letter to the Open Source Community
Slams Fundamental Flaws in Linux Development & Lousy Business Model
September 9, 2003
Summary
The most controversial issue in the information technology industry today is the ongoing battle over software copyrights and intellectual property. This battle is being fought largely between vendors who create and sell proprietary software, and the Open Source community. My company, the SCO Group, became a focus of this controversy when we filed a lawsuit against IBM alleging that SCO's proprietary Unix code has been illegally copied into the free Linux operating system...
The most controversial issue in the information technology industry today is the ongoing battle over software copyrights and intellectual property. This battle is being fought largely between vendors who create and sell proprietary software, and the Open Source community. My company, the SCO Group, became a focus of this controversy when we filed a lawsuit against IBM alleging that SCO's proprietary Unix code has been illegally copied into the free Linux operating system. In doing this we angered some in the Open Source community by pointing out obvious intellectual property problems that exist in the current Linux software development model.
This debate about Open Source software is healthy and beneficial. It offers long-term benefits to the industry by addressing a new business model in advance of wide-scale adoption by customers. But in the last week of August two developments occurred that adversely affect the long-term credibility of the Open Source community, with the general public and with customers.
The first development followed another series of Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on SCO, which took place two weeks ago. These were the second and third such attacks in four months and have prevented Web users from accessing our web site and doing business with SCO. There is no question about the affiliation of the attacker - Open Source leader Eric Raymond was quoted as saying that he was contacted by the perpetrator and that "he's one of us." To Mr Raymond's partial credit, he asked the attacker to stop. However, he has yet to disclose the identity of the perpetrator so that justice can be done.
No one can tolerate DDoS attacks and other kinds of attacks in this Information Age economy that relies so heavily on the Internet. Mr Raymond and the entire Open Source community need to aggressively help the industry police these types of crimes. If they fail to do so it casts a shadow over the entire Open Source movement and raises questions about whether Open Source is ready to take a central role in business computing. We cannot have a situation in which companies fear they may be next to suffer computer attacks if they take a business or legal position that angers the Open Source community. Until these illegal attacks are brought under control, enterprise customers and mainstream society will become increasingly alienated from anyone associated with this type of behavior.
The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there. Mr Perens stated that there is "an error in the Linux developer's process" which allowed Unix System V code that "didn't belong in Linux" to end up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 25, 2003). Mr Perens continued with a string of arguments to justify the "error in the Linux developer's process." However, nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use, and then contributed that source code to Linux as though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI. This is a clear violation of SGI's contract and copyright obligations to SCO. We are currently working to try and resolve these issues with SGI.
Thi
Its Slashdot, Since when has anything been spelled correctly.
While arguing about all of this it might be well to keep in mind that UNIX code has been in court once before.
s ui t.html
When USL(AT&T) sued BSDI their first step was to seek an injunction against the distribution of "their" code.
The judge refused this injunction, throwing out all complaints except those regarding a mere six files while offering the opinion that it was likely that AT&T held no propriatary rights to UNIX at all, since they had freely distributed, and allowed others to freely distribute, said code for over a decade. ( Bear in mind that copyright law was very different then).
Oh yeah, the judge also found that there had actually been stealing going on. AT&T had, in fact, been stealing code from BSD. Very embaressing.
AT&T, the agressor in the case, was then forced to apply to BSDI for a settlement on terms very favorable to them rather than procede and have it formaly adjudicated that they owned nothing.
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdi
This is why BSD code is free, because it's likely that the code SCO claims such strong ownership of has little to no ownership at all, upon judicial review.
The cynic might come to the conclusion that this is the reason that the only actual suit SCO has filed so far is for contract violation, not copyright infringement, since filing such a suit might well result in a determination that SCO owns squat all.
You don't have an explicit contract with SCO?
Well, as my dear old granny used to say:
"Fuck 'em."
KFG