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'."
What version of Linux is IBM using now-a-days. Whichever it is, Sun should basically drop Solaris and focus developing Linux for sparks along the same lines as IBM is doing. I like Solaris machines, they're fast and reliable but I only see a future for Sun at IBM. Sun has Java technology that IBM could really use as a synergy for the core products. IBM with SUN would be a large player in the future of computing, but currently SUN standing alone will be like SGI and other once powerful computing companines.
Hmmm. I wonder if Sun expected this response from SCO, allowing them to say "Well, we offered" without actually opening anything.
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 one may be partially true. Sun did licence SysV when they moved from SunOS. However, they have done a large amount of work on it since.
Are we going to see SCO try and claim the work that Sun have done on high quality SMP, multi-path support, hardware partitioning etc. as their "Intellectual Property" in the same way that they are attempting for the NUMA and JFS stuff.
...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.
IBM have been more than patient and reasonable with SCO. And SCO have produced zilch to support their claims.
That would keep them quiet for a while.
We don't WANT to keep them quiet for a while. We want IBM to go in for the kill and cut their tongue out to keep them quiet for GOOD. No more stall tactics, and definitely don't aid them in their stall tactics by giving them something to do. If they get even the faintest air of legitimacy again, rest assured some moron with more money than brains is going to pump funds into their hot air balloon to help reinflate it. I don't think I an take another year and a half of these stories every day like they were coming for awhile...
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
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 (which is essentially what open sourcing the code would do, assuming that it's a DFSG/OSD compliant license).
On the other hand, if Sun is in cahoots with SCO, as some here suggest, then perhaps they are shooting themselves in the collective foot today. Solaris is demonstrably descended from System V -- Sun programmers had all the original code to work from. It only strengthens the contrast between Solaris's development and Linux's development; i.e. the Linux developers did not have access to System V. Perhaps someone will subpoena Solaris code eventually, and show the court what a derivative work would really look like, contrasted with Linux, built from scratch and looking very different.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
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."
SCO haven't moved the trial back. They've requested that the trial be moved back. The judge has taken it under advisement.
"The Milliard Gargantubrain? A mere abacus - mention it not."
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.
That's exactly what SCO did to IBM, and IBM successfully got the court to agree that the stuff must be given electronically.
You can't have the cake and eat it.
You would, after all, only do that if you thought that your case was so weak that you couldn't give your opponent fair access.
Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org
by spending more than $US100 million in Unix licence fees Sun has the broadest rights of any of SCO's Unix licensees
They have paid $100 million over the years to a company that has a market cap of $78 million (market close yesterday). $78 Million! IBM (Not sun) probably spent that on toilet seat covers last year. How is it that a company that could be wiped out (yes I get the irony of wiping andthe toilet seat cover) of existence for $30-40 million is bringing in $100 million in fees from sun and causing lawsuit problems for IBM. I realize that for IBM it is giving SCO just what they want as far as paying them off, but why not have Sun, IBM, Red Hat, SuSe and whoever else is pissed at SCO get together and spend 78 million and buy the bastards? Then open up the source to the world and laugh at what a dumbass Darl was.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
IBM will own all of SCO's IP at the end of the trial anyway - if SCO even go that far.
what happens to the IP of a company that goes backrunpt (does it go to their investors maybe?)
"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.
I would like to add that the 20 tonnes of paper be dropped without a parachute from a C130 Hercules onto SCO and Darl McBride.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
Was there ever any mention of Sun making their license GPL?
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?
and SCO is absolutely within its rights to tell Sun
Slow down there friend. There's actually quite a lot of doubt (seeGroklaw) about whether or not SCO even has any rights over the Unix code. I believe that's the basis of their current legal tussle with Novell.---
We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience
This story is a bit old already. See groklaw.
'...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.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200406090 20821429
Gotta love them Groklaw folks, especially PJ, who totally rocks.
Sunny Dubey
They should print the source code on rolls of paper about six inches wide and four in diameter. It'll make reusing the paper after the trial much easier...
Hmmm...squeeze-ably soft source code!
Bureaucracy loves company.
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.
Speaking of which - this debacle kind of proves which license is really "viral". It's the proprietary ones, such as the one half-assedly half-granting Sun use of the Unix source.
"You can use it, but you can't give it away." So much for ownership.
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.
Most of the paper comes from trees planted precisely for that purpose. They get planted, they get cut down and turned into paper, and other trees are planted in their place.
I.e., the whole idiocy of "waaah, must save the trees from the evil paper-using people" is just as retarded, as trying to save the grain plants from the evil bakeries and whiskey distilleries. What's the point? That crop was planted there precisely for that purpose, and another crop will be planted next year.
I.e., while I can see some point in saving non-renewable resources (oil, coal, etc), I fail to see what's the point in fighting to save a _crop_ which was planted for the purpose of being harvested. That's all that those trees are. A crop. No more. No less.
Unlike with oil, noone's going to invade, say, Canada for its trees. They'll just _plant_ more trees. And if more paper is needed, more crop will be planted.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I don't think Darl's dream of prolonging the FID will come to any fruition. The court has replied to one of their attempts at delay, as reported on Groklaw today:
IBM had argued that SCO didn't need a delay because "two of the witnesses scheduled next week ... are former employees of AT&T, not IBM. .... Similarly, Mr. Rodgers was employed by Sequent, not IBM, and IBM does not have any of his documents. The final deponent, BayStar, is an investor in SCO, wholly unrelated to IBM, and that deposition apparently will not go forward." Today Judge Wells agreed and denied SCO's attempt to prolong the FUD. This guy really seems to understand the importance of getting these decisions out sooner rather than later, since the claims are enormous and the business impact could be huge. Their arguments to postpone the trial date are equally without merit, so expect more embarassing setbacks for SCO soon.
For me this brings up an interesting future scenario re the "Solaris is a derivative work of System V". If a company (SCO) licenses software to a second party (Sun), then the second company builds a huge code base around the licensed work, at what point does the second company's contribution become large enough that it's no longer considered "derivative"?
If enough new code is written to replace original code, is the resultant work still considered to be a derivative of the original? It may be inspired by it, but is it still legally hemmed in under the original copyright?
Maybe in this case Sun feels that enough of the licensed work has been re-written (and vastly improved) by their own staff that it no longer resembles the original System V.
- Jack
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.
...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'.
Or better yet, fax it to them via a bank of fax modems and let them pay for the paper...
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
all the cards can listen to the same IP address.
You can have all the network cards active at the same time. IP Multipathing isn't really an issue, because you don't need it. You can push any path preference issues down a layer into your router's configuration.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
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.
-
The
SCO® Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) will host its second quarter 2004 financial results conference call on Thursday, June 10, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. (MDT), or 11:00 a.m. (EST).
Listen via webcast here. RealAudio or Windows Media Player, of course.If you would like to participate in the live call you may dial 800-795-1259 or 785-832-0326; confirmation code: 431766.
You will also never get the same performance using six 12-way boxes that you can get from one 72-way box. The bus speeds and I/O throughput capabilities are much higher.
Agreed.
I have never seen an application that requires that extra boost and can jusitify the additional cost, but the capacity is there regardless.
I have. Large, monolithic OLTP databases, such as the ones that banks and telcos use. When you have to track every single phone call made or received by every cellphone subscriber in the US in one huge billing database, you need that kind of horsepower on a single system.
Granted, this use is becoming less and less common, but I predict that Sun will continue to sell well on the extreme high-end, which is what the banks and telcos, and other high-volume OLTP shops need.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
If I've got this right:
Quite a while back the Grasshopper Group (which was working on a NeWS for Macintosh at a garage-shop level) contracted with Sun to combine it with X as a Sun product. It didn't catch on. But the contract resulted in Sun having enough IP rights over the codebase that the developers couldn't open-source it. Since then they have tried several times to get Sun to allow them to release the code. But nothing ever came of it.
X is already open and NeWS is currently moribund. None of Sun's current or likely future market advantages are the restult of its windowing system, and an open version of NeWS wouldn't be any threat to Sun. (Even if it caught on big time Sun could just grab the open version and use it - and an open project would no doubt include a good Sun port anyhow.)
So if Sun is really interested in contributing to Open Source, here's something they can do on the cheap: Free the orphan.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I imagine it was modded up in preparation for the anti-blunte negative moderator party.
/. moderation is a crap shoot. Most comments (including many of mine) are just drivel, but at the same time most moderators are not qualified to judge the value of comments, either due to lack of knowledge on the subject, lack of practical experience, or just simply lack of general intelligence.
Usually what happens is my comment gets modded up a couple of points, and then is swiftly modded "overrated" or some other useful mod.
Anyway,
Plus, some attitudes are in vogue here, while others are very much not. Any anti-Bush comment is a definite winner, while any defence of Bush is a loser. Anything that suggests a non-liberal view is bad, while any anti-US view is good.
I'm neither liberal nor conservative (at least as the two parties represent themselves), but nor am I incapable of evaluating political decisions and outcomes.
Back on topic, Sun's relationship to Microsoft is awkward and unusual, as is their relationship to SCO. Sun has been anti-Linux, but it has alternately embraced Linux. So it's really not out of the realm of possibility that part of the MS -> Sun $$$ settlement involved Sun sabotaging Linux in some way. This open sourcing of Solaris, of which Sun has already agreed (by license) is related to SCO's Unix IP, could not have been done in ignorance with respect to how SCO would respond.
Thus, I think it was either specifically designed to give SCO an excuse to delay the conclusion of the case, or at minimum to give SCO an opportunity to spout "new" PR (and regain some SCOX value).
Anyway, thanks for asking.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
IBM thought that way, until about 30 years ago.
At the time, IBM was the big bully of the computer industry. When victims sued, a standard IBM tactic was to flood the plaintiff with documents: a great indiscriminate memo dump from one of the world's biggest bureaucracies. Finding anything relevant would be like finding a particular needle in a needle factory.
When Control Data produced the CDC 6600, IBM responded by announcing a supercomputer of its own, hurting sales of the 6600 as potential customers waited for IBM. IBM didn't actually have any such machine in the works. Eventually CDC sued IBM, and, as usual, IBM sent documents by the trainload.
But IBM's lawyers forgot about progress and CDC's freakin' big computers. Cray hired an army of typists and began building a database of memos' dates, subjects, authors, and recipients. (Later, CDC spun off this group; it still exists.) When IBM found out, it didn't even pause to change its collective underwear before settling the suit, on condition that the database be destroyed (warning very long document; only click if you really care).
echo 33676832766569823265328479713269.8639857989Pq | dc
Schwartz will do that for you.
Help fight continental drift.
I am wondering if there is anyone out there who keeps track of court statistics? If so, how often is it that a company files suit for patent/copyright infringement and then after 1 year asks for a postponement of the trial? And how often do they win as a result? Why bring it in the first place if you are not ready to do so?
> Large, monolithic OLTP databases, such as the ones
> that banks and telcos use. When you have to track
> every single phone call made or received by every
> cellphone subscriber in the US in one huge billing database
Why not split the database into segments, like alphabetically into a,b,c,...,z customers, and then put each one on a separate PC with one master PC routing the calls? I bet it would be just as fast, if not faster than your monolithic system.
> Now you need a ridiculously complex method of searching twenty-six separate databases
Not at all; the point was check your search key and direct the search to the machine that owns the database containing the entries matching that range of the key. Each server is still searching its own database, but the database is 1/26th in size and the incoming requests are only 1/26th in volume. I think that would more than compensate for the extra link, which can be over a very high speed cable. You might not win much in latency, but you will definitely win in throughput and cost.