Slashdot Mirror
SCO Says No Way To a GPL Solaris, Moves Trial Back
penguino writes "Looks like it didn't take long for SCO to formally respond to claims by Sun that it will open source Solaris. According to SCO 'they [Sun] still have licence restrictions that would prevent them from contributing our licensed works wholesale to the GPL'. The company has also released a statement dated June 8 that 'SCO is making a motion to move the scheduled trial date to September 2005 and split IBM's counterclaims into a separate case'. Also quoted is AUUG president and FreeBSD developer Greg Lehey who recommends 'that the best thing for IBM to do would be to print out every single version as requested and send the resultant 20 tonnes or so of paper to SCO. That would keep them quiet for a while'."
You sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
Can't say it could happen to a more deserving company.
How much code is still SVR5? I really can't imagine Sun would have been making all this noise about OpenSourcing Solaris recently if their lawyers hadn't looked over it.
We love Linux!
We don't know what Linux is!
Solaris is the first OS to work on these platforms (lets not mention Linux, even though it was really there first and we sell it)
What's the GPL?
The GPL is wonderful!
We will open source Java!
We won't open source Java!
We will open source Java! Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives (maybe).
We will open source Solaris!
We won't open source Solaris!
How does Sun find time to do stuff between its constant reverses of its positions?
I seriously doubt that SCO will still exist when Sun gets round to opening the Solaris source. Then again I doubt that SCO will survive the rest of this year! Their rediculous claims will be proven to be rediculous in court soon.
...this is news?
SCO Says No Way To a GPL Solaris, Moves Trial Back
No one really expected Sun to GPL Solaris, or expected that SCO will allow them to without a threat of lawsuit. This only gives SCO something else to bitch about, and Sun and excuse to do nothing about opening their code base. Sorry to be so negative, but I haven't had much of a reason to think that Sun is on "our side" when it comes to open source software.
SCO and Sun do have one thing in common, however: They will both soon be dead because of Linux and the contributions of IBM and others.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
As the ancient saying goes: "If you play with a snake, you get bit."
I really like Sun, but this serves them right after paying SCO and acting holier-than-thou about IP rights re: Linux (even though they had the means to know and probably did know that the claims weren't true).
By the way, that same saying holds true for the Microsoft crowd. . . but they probably know that already.
Well, this response from SCO serves Sun Microsystems right for having previously been one of the few companies to cave in and pay SCO the stupid "SCO licsense" for linux/solaris. Now it's coming back to bite them in their stupid asses. Morons.
Remember who backs up SCO in this case. Microsoft. I think it's amazing that with all this legal mumbo-jumbo hitting the fan, people really trust MS not to cut off Mono. They have an incentive, they got the legal base for it, and soon they'll have plenty of cooperations dependant on a .NET platform.
No API breakage, they got all the reason in the world to maintain backwards compatibility.
P.S. On topic for being a legal issue involving some of the same characters... albeit it's not clear cut.
"So unmerciful is life, that everything afterwards is too late."
Now that the SCO-fud had finally weakened to an inaudiable level, SUN (although maybe not intentionally) decides to start the circus yet again.
In history, SCO will be given an entire chapter of the sad states of affairs in our time. Probably named something like "Lawyers, litigaters, outright dishonesty and profit"
SCO are demonspawns from hell to overrun the earth with lawyers and thus confusion. All to ensure chaos and armageddon.
/my theory
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
It does make sense after the acquisition of Rational. All IBM is missing is Java now.
"In the absence of the requested discovery items, SCO has had to rely upon some alternative sources for proof," the memorandum read. "IBM has so far only produced selected pieces of AIX and Dynix."
Apart from any monetary gains they hope to make, SCO is still fishing for AIX and Dynix source code. Even without verbatim copying, what they can learn from the IBM source code can be applied to SCO's own software products. Were this not the case, they would only need the revision histories for IBM to demonstrate ownership.
Sco have the image of the bad guy that just keeps comming back.. again and again and again..
You think there out of the pictures and they just conjour up another evil plan. There just as annoying as most hollywood sequals they just get less less interesting over time and rather frustrating.. kind of like the halloweens or friday the 13ths.
All honesty is bad when IBM get involved and you know your in trouble if Novell has it in for you but Sun?
Personally for there own sake when will they just call it a day. All there doing is destroying their "reputation" and basically eliminating anysort of customer or industry trust.
1. SCO is essentially just claiming that Sun may or may not be able to release code to the GPL, depending on what parts Sun picks. There's not really a SCO related story there, until Sun does it, and SCO either objects to the specifics or doesn't.
2. SCO is claiming that it needs until SEP 2005 to go to court against IBM.
That's absolutely true. In fact, SCO needs all the delays it can possibly get.
3. SCO is claiming that the trial should be split into two parts, and their claims tried seperately from IBM's counterclaims. This is the part that is actually interesting.
Possible reasons:
I. it adds additional delays.
II. SCO expects to lose on its claims against IBM, and is hoping that splitting the trial will let them somehow get a venue for the IBM counter suit that won't be influenced too much by that loss. If the motion to split is approved, expect SCO to file motions to supress some of the results of the first trial.
III. SCO doesn't expect the motion to split to be allowed, but hopes that not getting it will give them grounds for an appeal.
IV. I can't think of other reasons offhand, but then I am not a lawyer. Someone else may.
Who is John Cabal?
Actually, i suspect it may be more along the lines of they realise where the current SCO case is going, and are trying to appeal to Open source developers again.
They dont seem to have had a very good press recently on a variety of points.
Its unlikey to happen soon, and even in the very unlikely worst case of a SCO victory, they can just say "Well we cant anymore" and they have at least the cudos for trying so they really cant loose.
I have to say even with the recent announcements on Java and such like, i still wouldnt mind a nice multi-way Solaris box on my desktop instead of my Dell, no matter what they say.
Solaris is nice, but it has one absolutely fatal flaw: updates. Sun would take a huge leap into the 21st century if they got rid of their antiquated patch system and replaced it with apt. Patch Pro sucks ass and doesn't work half the time for me so don't even suggest that.
As much as we all hate SCO, unfortunately they are right this time. Solaris is built from the original Unix code. There is a direct descendence here, and SCO is absolutely within its rights to tell Sun that they can't sublicense it.
Assuming that they, not Novell, actually own the relevant rights.
'...the best thing for IBM to do would be to print out every single version as requested and send the resultant 20 tonnes or so of paper to SCO. That would keep them quiet for a while'
-- Wouldn't that be a bad thing? I mean, SCO obviously has no qualms about suing major corporations for their use of Linux even though their copyright clames haven't been proven. If the trial gets delayed, it'll just give them more time to spread their FUD and scare companies, not to mention extending the "wait and see" attitude of companies that are thinking of embracing Linux.
The only long-term solution is the end of SCO, either by bankruptcy or takeover. SCO will disappear eventually because no public company can survive solely on licensing "old" software without developing any new offerings. (Yes, Microsoft exists because of licensing, but they continually sell new software. SCO doesn't.) The problem is this process will take a long time due to the influx of money they've gotten indirectly from Microsoft.
I think IBM or Sun (if they have the money) should purchase SCO, with a hostile takeover if necessary. It's a relatively quick solution, gets them out of litigation, and probably saves them millions of dollars in the long run. Otherwise this stuff will just drag on for years.
Developers: We can use your help.
Source available is not the same as open source.
Actually, depending on the result of one of the pending trials, isn't it Novell that would have to tell Sun that they can't sublicense it? Yet another thing pending an SCO lawsuit.
Y|
IIRC - The original SunOS was a BSD Unix derivative. Solaris was built by combining Sys V and SunOS. Since then, Sun has hacked up (read improved) Solaris substantially. So at this point, I don't know how much of the original AT&T code still resides in Solaris, but I'd wager that there is not too much left. In the mean time, BSD derivatives have also improved over time.
It would take some investment in man-hours, but Sun might be able to comb through Solaris and rip out all the remaining AT&T Sys V stuff and replace it (as a place holder) with either *BSD code or some of their own re-writes. This would be a process similar to what BSDi/UC-Berkley had to do with 4.3/Net2 in order to reach the unencumbered 4.4BSD-Lite. Depending on how much of the old AT&T stuff still exists, this might be either a trivial or Herculean task.
Once that is done, Sun is left with an OS that contains BSD code along with its own Sun-originated Solaris code. At that point, they are free to license it as they see fit.
buy the bastards
That's probably exactly what they want.
what a dumbass Darl was
Yeah, he'll be a dumbass when he's laughing all the way to the bank.
Quote:
"I suppose the interesting question is if Sun releases those parts of Solaris which it has developed in-house, what does that do to the code it has licensed?"
Lehey said the GPL has the so-called "viral" effect, and that would theoretically cause the remainder (of code) to fall under the GPL as well, "but that's so preposterous that I can't think of any way it could happen"
The context is parts of Solaris Sun developed in-house. These are "derivative works", perhaps, of System V. Sure, fine.
One of the following might work:
(1) GPL-ing them does not, in any way, make the reverse true. System V is not a derivative of works derived from it, thus the GPL's viral effect will not encompass System V code.
(2) Because there would be a viral effect extending to code which Sun does not own, it will be impossible to use the GPL, as it could not release that code. Sun doesn't own the copyrights to change the license.
(3) Sun has all the rights to redistribute the code as it sees fit (including under the GPL). Maybe.
I wonder how Sun will respond.
This is good timing. I think Sun should take a look at how SGI handled this.
SGI sat back one day, wondering about how they were spending something like $2billion a year on IRIX development. It finally dawned on them that they were a graphics software and support company, not an operating system company. So they switched to Linux, dropped IRIX like a rotten apple, and helped put a small portion of the $2billion they saved into helping get Linux to the point where they wanted it.
Sun could so the same--save billions, but still make a massive contribution to the Linux community, and help make sure Linux is 'where they want it.' It wouldn't take long, and they'd save a fortune.
> scratch the surface ..
Ever heard of XFS?
Not an easy job but if it was too hard why did it get done?
Except that SCO claims "an easment" into ANY SVRX licensee's implementation. According to them, anything that was added on to the original SVRX code cannot be released outside the company that developed it in any way, shape, or form, without SCO's approval. This is their current rationale behind the IBM lawsuit and Darl has said this numerous times.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
You mean like the benefits IBM gives to Dell, RedHat, SGI, VA Linux, etc whenever it adds something to the kernel?
Or how about the benefits that RedHat gives IBM, Dell, SGI, VA Linux et al when IT adds something?
You are basically missing the real synergy being FOSS, one company contributes and helps its competition but those guys are also contributing and helping you. So in reality, you are helping yourself against the REAL competition (non-FOSS) and not your immediate "partners." Of course, there are leeches like Dell, but that's OK...
That's why "open source" was probably not such a great term anyway...
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Either the writer of this article doesn't understand the issues involved, or the parties involved are all boobs. LEts look at some of the quotes from the article
The SCO Group's marketing manager Marc Modersitzki doesn't even use the lingo correctly - lets analyze some of his statements:
"However, they still have licence restrictions that would prevent them from contributing our licensed works wholesale to the GPL."
This statement makes it sound as if Sun is talking about transferring ownership to some GROUP - 'contributing wholesale to the GPL'... The proper statement would be something like "They still have license restrictions that would prevent them from releasing our intellectual property under the GPL license", and this may be true... Anything that Sun owns they can do whatever they want with - anything they license they have to comply with any terms of that license... nothing new here.
Lehey said the GPL has the so-called "viral" effect, and that would theoretically cause the remainder (of code) to fall under the GPL as well, "but that's so preposterous that I can't think of any way it could happen".
The viral clause of the GPL cannot affect things that you don't have the intellectual property rights to. I couldn't write a contract that required you to give me your neighbors car... it is not yours to give (Even if he let you drive it once or twice). Sun is free to release their code under the GPL... if it relies on things that are not GPLed that they don't have the intellectual property rights to, well, that sucks, but it is not within Sun's power to decide to GPL it. The viral clause only affects the rights of DOWNSTREAM users - it is a condition of the terms of granting the copyright. If Sun were to GPL solaris, minus the parts it doesn't have the rights to, I'm sure armies of developers will step up to provide a clean room implementation.
I am not a lawyer, but this stuff is not rocket science...
It's probably a safe bet that Sun owns all of these high-end features in Solaris, since they're not in any other UNIX.
And IBM owns all of the high-end AIX features that aren't in System V - it didn't stop a baseless lawsuit from SCO.
SCO is gonna claim that *they* own all of Solaris, just like they're claiming that they own all of AIX, contrary to logic and the law.
[W]hy not have Sun, IBM, Red Hat, SuSe and whoever else is pissed at SCO get together and spend 78 million and buy the bastards?
It's a matter of principle: "If you will not set a good example, you shall serve as a terrible warning." Or, more specifically here, IBM's version of it: "If you sue IBM, we will destroy you." Doing so serves to discourage "sue Big Blue" as an exit strategy for other failing companies-- a corollary of the old principle about Danegeld. Besides, IBM has most of these lawyers on salary... it's good to keep them in practice, just like it's good to keep your knives sharpened. =)
Unsubstatiated rumor has it that members of IBM's legal team have been informed that they will be considered to have failed if SCO even exists after this lawsuit ends.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Gotta love them Groklaw folks, especially PJ, who totally rocks.
And gotta love these slashdot editors, who can't seem to stop publishing misleading headlines.
You haven't been following the case, have you? Their latest argument is that everything in every OS derived from UNIX is theirs.
Here, let me quote the parent:
"While Sun may not be able to open source Solaris due to SCO license restrictions, as soon as a judge declares that IBM enhancements to AIX are not the property of SCO, Sun can roll whatever "high-end Solaris" code they have into Linux."
Whether or not you read the article is up to you, but please read the posts you reply to...
>Plain System V is ancient...
Just because something is ancient does not mean is's obsolete.
Lisp is ancient...
The atomic bomb is ancient...
Airplanes are ancient...
I tend to think ancient things have withstood the test of time. We'll see what you look like in 40 years.
Anyway, my point is: just because something is ancient does not mean it's obsolete.
Quantum physics were worked out in the 20s and 30s? They're ancient, man!!!
"Piter, too, is dead."
Well I don't see why the price jumps for these things should be linear at all. The complexity of a 16 CPU machine is > 2 * the complexity of an 8 CPU machine. Massively parallel machines face enourmous engineering challenges when it comes to memory and IPC.
Yea, but that isn't really the same thing. They aren't improving the kernel, then keeping the changes to themselves. They are allowing very limited support of their own hardware. They aren't in the Linux business in the same way that SGI, IBM, etc are. They just provide an interface to their own hardware, so if it doesn't work they are hurting themselves more than anyone else. These vendors are still primarily (99+%) Windows related, so they release a Linux driver in the same style as their Windows drivers, binary only.
The GPU vendors also have a decent (depending on your viewpoint) reason for doing this, their drivers have licensed software in them that they can't release as source. At least this was true at one time and all the modern graphics chips still support the covered algorithms (specifically ST3C if I'm not mistaken).
Also the "shims" aren't for GPL reasons, they are to allow their binary only driver to interface with at least a handful of different kernel versions, otherwise they would REALLY be busy updating their driver. With the current method, they only have to periodically release refreshes when something directly related to their driver or something major in the kernel changes.
Just because something is ancient does not mean is's obsolete.
Lisp is ancient...
The atomic bomb is ancient...
Airplanes are ancient...
You need to get a better perspective on what's ancient. I suggest spending some time in some Roman, Greek, or even Mayan ruins. Walking amongst buildings which have not been inhabited for thousands of years gives a much better appreciation for the word "ancient".
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
could really use as a synergy...
And just like that, your credibility is gone.
or under a BSD-style license.
BSD-like would be an even bigger mistake. It would free both IBM and Microsoft to release modified, incompatible versions of Java, without providing any of their code changes.
A rationally greedy company will prefer using GPL to BSD, to ensure that no other company re-closes the source they just opened. But they'll probably prefer a special APL or MPL style license instead, which gives them (and only them) the power to incorporate derivatives in non-OpenSource products.