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?
...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.
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?
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.
SCO will continue to exist until the court cases show that they have no case, at which point they will implode.
long before that there will not really be much left other than a CEO, company accountant and liason to the law firm.
Any suggestion which prolongs this or other lawsuits will just prolong the problem. We really want this sorted as quickly as possible.
The longer this continues, the longer we are focused on this and away from other things...
1) development effort
2) notice that another company is quietly (or not so quietly) trying to patent everything under the sun (pun intended)
SCO are an irrelevent distraction that everyone involved should be working to eradicate as an issue as quickly as possible.
Source available is not the same as open source.
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.
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.
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...
[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.
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.