Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Fiasco Over For Linux, Starting For Solaris?

Posted by Zonk on from the wheel-turns-turns-turns dept.

kripkenstein writes "We have just heard that the SCO fiasco is finally going to end for Linux. But Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols at DesktopLinux.com points out that the favorable result for Linux may cause unpleasant consequences for rival open-source operating system OpenSolaris: 'At one time, Sun was an SCO supporter ... Sun's Jonathan Schwartz — then Sun VP of software and today Sun's president and CEO — said in 2003 that Sun had bought "rights equivalent to ownership" to Unix. SCO agreed. In 2005, SCO CEO Darl McBride said that SCO had no problem with Sun open-sourcing Unix code in what would become OpenSolaris. "We have seen what Sun plans to do with OpenSolaris and we have no problem with it," McBride said. "What they're doing protects our Unix intellectual property rights." Sun now has a little problem, which might become a giant one: SCO never had any Unix IP to sell. Therefore, it seems likely that Solaris and OpenSolaris contains Novell's Unix IP.'"

7 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Troll Article by turgid · · Score: 5, Informative

    Linux and Solaris come from different code bases. Linux is Linux and Solaris is UNIX System V R4.

    Secondly, Sun didn't "license unix" from SCO. Sun bought some device drivers.

    There, settled.

    --
    Stick Men
  2. Microsoft also has a problem ... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Informative

    Two, actually.

    Remember, they also bought a license. I wonder what Novell IP made it into Microsoft products, and if that wasn't the REAL reason Microsoft wanted a deal with Novell - not because of Microsoft IP in linux, but Novell IP in Windows?

    Plus, if Novell and/or IBM and/or Red Hat manage to piece the "corporate veil" surrounding the PIPE invenstment, there's another problem, which will be much worse for the convicted monopolist.

  3. Re:Let me be the first to say... by EvanED · · Score: 4, Informative

    You are (depending on how you count) between about 3 and 9 months out of date.

  4. Re:Let me be the first to say... by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sorry, Java isn't Open Source.
    From wikipedia:

    Sun made the Java HotSpot virtual machine and compiler Free software under the GPL on November 13, 2006,[11] with a promise that the rest of the JDK (which includes the JRE) will be placed under the GPL by March 2007 ("except for a few components that Sun does not have the right to publish in source form under the GPL"). According to Richard Stallman, this means an end to the Java trap. Mark Shuttleworth called the initial press announcement, "A real milestone for the free software community".[12][13]

    Following their promise, Sun released the complete source code of the Class library under GPL on May 8, 2007, except some limited parts that were licensed by Sun from 3rd parties who did not want their code to be released under an open-source license.[14][4] Sadly some of the encumbered parts turned out to be fairly key parts of the platform such as font rendering and 2D rasterisation. Sun's goal is to replace the parts that remain closed with alternative implementations and make the class library completely open.
    If its good enough for Richard Stallman, its good enough for me.
    --
    weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
  5. Microsofts legal sockpuppet? by geoff+lane · · Score: 5, Informative
    Sun spent a lot of time and cash with lawyers to establish the ownership of all the code that was opensourced. Some parts of Solaris are still not available because of the ownership problems. One of the characteristics of open source is, once released, the worms cannot be forced back into the can. The Solaris code is never going to disappear. What would Novell gain by fighting Sun over this? Novell have no grounds (the same that TSG) for objecting to Sun orginated code, and the old Unix code has been publicaly available from many sources for years.

    It's possible that Novell could act as Microsofts legal sockpuppet, but as we have seen, those who act as Microsoft proxies are doomed to failure.

  6. Re:Let me be the first to say... by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 4, Informative

    and that's fairly typical: a normal Linux install contains very little Sun software (except maybe OpenOffice).
    Gee, that's odd... why then does the European Commission say that Sun is the number one contributor to the entire Debian project? They made fewer actual kernel contributions than redhat, but still a lot.

    So what if they have done bad things in the past? Right now, they support open source. As long as they keep supporting open source, I will support them.
    --
    weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
  7. Re:well, now that we know by jonbryce · · Score: 5, Informative

    There were three key elements to the defence, and success in any one of them would mean victory for linux.

    These were:
    1. Linux does not include any unix code.
    2. SCO does not own the copyright to unix code.
    3. SCO themselves published a linux kernel under the terms of the GPL, and hence granted permission for any SCO owned code it might contain.

    The court judgement yesterday established point 2, and therefore linux wins.

    In a court case taken by Novel, point 1 would still apply, and point 3 would apply as well in that Novel have also published a linux kernel under the terms of the GPL. Either of those two points would be sufficient for Linux to win.