You're asking a bunch of nerdy 13 year olds with no social life how to instill social skills in a nerdy 13 year old? *shrug* Hope it works out for you man.
Actually, it was IBM that killed UL
on
United Linux Dead
·
· Score: 2, Informative
While it's definately SCO's fault that UL as it originally was conceived failed, it was IBM's insistance that SuSE not leave UL and reform with the other two UL companies that put the final kybosh on the whole idea.
His final statement about looking past our perceptions of others is actually quite apropos. However, he taints his otherwise acurate description by the comparison to 9/11. 9/11 carries so much baggage that to use it in comparison to anyone is over the line. 10 points on content, -1 on style... which is really too bad cause I liked the message of moderation.
This seems a little dangerous. It is assumed that the GPL is on solid legal ground. However, there's never been any judgements one way or the other regarding the GPL and there's a ton of copyright history. We'd have to be ready to have this go either way... that's the problem with a jury isn't it.
I hear that quite a bit. Could anyone who's a lawyer (or knows a lawyer who cares) comment on that SCO didn't appear to know about the IP issues until recently? If someone takes my code and puts it in an GPL'd product without my knowledge, do I have any rights or am I SOL? Would the question be: When did SCO know about the IP issues and how did they act once they found out? Or is it just cut and dry that they lost all rights to their code once they unwittingly released it in a GPL'd product. If it's the latter, I'd be pretty damn scared if I'm an independant software vendor and I have any GPL'd code that I distribute.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it should not be done. This is the standard asked of closed source developers (we must remember that IP suits are not uncommon even between closed source companies). Are you suggesting that an Open Source developer/project should not be held to the same standard as a closed source developer? If so, please explain the double standard.
I'm glad this post generated some discussion. A couple of points.
1. If you call the police and say your house was robbed they will ask for a list of missing items. SCO (or anyone else in such a law suit) will provide that list to the courts (the police in the analogy). As the victim of a robbery one would not be expected to provide a list of stolen goods to the robber, only provide the list to the law enforcement. The thief would of course have the right to see what he was charged with in court, as SCO will of course be expect to provide at that time.
2. To the assertion that the theft of physical property and intellectual property are too different to compare, I disagree. Theft (taking something that does not belong to you and claiming it as your own) is the same no matter what is being taken. I will agree with you that proving intellectual property belongs to you and you have a right to pursue the thief is much more difficult with intellectual property than with physical property. Thus the onus is on SCO to prove they have a case. If they fail at that then they should suffer the wrath of all involved, if they succeed then they are indeed the victim, whether the Open Source Community likes it or not.
3. IP laws are still the law of the land. Yes, there are many in this community who disagree with that philosophically. But, there are even more who make their living by developing and selling closed source code. As much as you may hate SCO, would you really like to be in their (asserted) position? That is, that you're business was unfairly damaged because an Open Source project took your code and used it to undersell you? Again, IF SCO is right, everyone who would like to continue to draw a paycheck for developing software has a vested interest in SCO's success in this matter.
4. Liability is in no way diminished if the offending code is removed. The damage done to SCO's business is obvious (and called out with glee in this forum). How can one be expected to compete with a company/organization that steals their product and gives it away for free?
5. You are right, the acts of the few should not be made to punish the many. However, the persons responsible for the punishment of the many are the few who broke the law, not the victim of the theft. The victim may be an easier target, but it does not make them any more culpable.
Please bear in mind that what I have to say only makes sense IF AND ONLY IF SCO is correct in their assertions. If they are found in a court of law to have no case then they have made their own bed and will be forced to sleep in it. I would also like to reemphasize that all OSS projects would still do well to ensure the authenticity of their code. This is required of purveyors of the closed source development model, and it should be required of open source developers as well. Just as SCO cannot sell and sue Linux, so Linux (and all OSS projects) cannot enjoy the benefits of the Open Source development model without addressing the areas where it needs improvement.
A man has his house robbed. He and the police track down the robber and move to arrest him. As the police are about to break down his door, the robber comes out and says "Look, if you will just point out to me what in my apartment I took from you, I'll give it back and replace it with property I own."
The victim of the crime considers this for a moment and then responds, "If I simply allow you to take my property and combine it with yours this time, what is to prevent you from doing it to me again? Indeed, what is preventing you from doing to someone else, or a different robber taking from a different victim? No, the law states that if you take property from another person and are caught you are liable to the laws that govern such actions. To protect myself and others who have worked to acquire property, I will not simply take out of your home what belongs to me, I will do my best to make sure that you learn to respect the value of property that does not belong to you."
The robber does not like this decision and gets all his friends to throw eggs at the victim, but he is still accountable to the law. And the law says that when you take property that does not belong to you and try to claim ownership of it, you do not supersede the rights of the victim. Further, you owe society a debt for your wrongdoing.
IF SCO is right (for those asking for proof before it comes out in court, stop holding your breath), then they have a legitimate complaint and should be compensated. To ask them to simply forgive and forget is ludicrous. That is too much to ask of a "for profit" company, and would probably be illegal even if they wanted to (they are a public company and responsible to shareholders). A more rigorous and robust process of identifying the origin of code could only improve the Open Source community. If a particular project has not done this in the past, they better make damn sure they're doing it now.
From this press release: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030514/law099_1.html
"SCO will continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers and hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux products."
So while they aren't going to sell any more Linux, they aren't going to be going after anyone who used SCO Linux or Caldera OpenLinux.
Exactly so. I would like to see our so called "Unofficial open-source spokesmen such as Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond" come out publicly against this. This is PRESISLY what Linux/OSS does not need. Consider the reaction from the OSS/Linux illiterate.
Board Member One: "Hmm, these Open Source guys, this article says that they took some code from this company called SCO and then when SCO complained they shut down SCO's web with their super hacker code. So, guys what do you think? Should we port our application to Linux and open up some of our code?"
Board Member Two: "I think... no"
Board Member Three: "Yeah, I think lets run away from those guys as fast as we can."
CIO: "Actually, it's not like that... see it might not have been the Open Source folks... and Linux can save us some money and it's a popular platform.
CFO: "Let's see, 90MB of bandwidth X productivity loss X possible compromising of company information X bad press if we don't play their games = Stay the hell away from Open Source"
CIO: "Can we just talk about it..."
All: "NO!"
So to the near sighted ass wipes that did this, thanks for possibly setting Linux back 3 years and OSS possibly even further. I hope you laughed hard because you're the only ones who did.
PS please don't bother pointing out the flaws in the above scenario, it is representative of those who don't know better like you and I.
Those are some interesting points. I wonder if there is a way to find out if concern for IP infringement is "boiler plate" stuff or not. I think that wouldn't be part of a typical closed source company's IPO, but maybe it's common business practice for most companies that deal with open source. Since I don't have any definitive knowledge on "boiler plate" IPO wording I will leave it at that.
For your second point, sure SCO would rather people bought their Unix instead of Linux. If you were SCO so would you. However, what if they're right. What if IMB in their arrogance did what SCO alleges? Is SCO damaging Linux by protecting their IP? Or is the damage caused by IBM's hurry to turn Linux into a commodity so they can sell more boxes what hurts Linux. I don't know the answer, but unlike some of our fellow/.ers I can admit that there is obviously more information out there than I am privy to. And thus I will modify my reaction until more facts are known.
On your third point, I guess we must disagree here. If SCO is proven wrong in court/.ers are completely justified in their anger and your statements are correct. If IBM is wrong then, yes,/.ers jumped to conclusions based on existing bias against SCO/Caldera (however well deserved) and by their over reaction hurt the OSS/Linux community in the process. I would recommend taking our lead from Linus's reaction and be a little more calm. Infact, while there are areas where we disagree,/. could use more well thought out and well expressed posts like yours. Unfortunately the original post did not have those qualities.
You are incorrect sir. That statement take out of context may indeed suggest some action against Red Hat or SuSE, but taken as a whole it's meaning could be quite different (see above). In fact, your statement "That looks like a clear statement that they plan to sue RedHat and SuSE after the IBM lawsuit." is completely undefendable beyond your own biased conjecture.
The original post was inflammatory and inaccurate; comments to the effect of "nuff said" don't change that.
You make a very valid point. I guess what I'm saying is that taken in its entirety the quote (what I quoted not just what you quoted) seems to imply that possible IP infringements in Linux will come back to haunt Red Hat and other Linux resellers. That is supported by Red Hat's own statements as far back as 1999. With that in mind you could interpret "There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done. But we're focused on the IBM situation." To mean that Red Hat and SuSE will have to deal with the known and inherent risks in distributing Linux at some point. SCO on the other hand doesn't want to focus on those companies potential liabilities but on the IBM lawsuit they are currently involved in. Given SCO's partnership with SuSE in UnitedLinux and preceding statements this is at least a plausible interpretation.
That isn't to say that they way you interpreted it isn't accurate, just that it doesn't mean "SCO is going to sue Red Hat and SuSE and burn down their houses!" as is implied in the original post. I'm arguing for moderation on the part of OSS folks, not for any support of SCO.
For the record (and those who can't get to the article), SCO did not say anthing about suing Red Hat or SuSE. What McBride said was this:
But Red Hat has had a free ride. In its IPO filings, one of the warnings to investors stated clearly that Red Hat may be violating IP and one day they may have to step up and pay royalties. Why not? Every time I ship a copy of my operating system, I pay royalties to Novell and Veritas. There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done. But we're focused on the IBM situation.
That is to say that even Red Hat several years ago (1999's IPO filling) knew they may have IP issues in the future. SCO is not threatening Red Hat, SuSE or Grandma's Apple Pie despite some people's reaction. McBride is simply saying that the fears Red Hat had in 1999 are accurate, not because of anything they did, but because of IBM's arrogance.
Further, the Slashdot post makes the statement "They (SCO I guess) seem bent on destroying the Open Source community." What a stupid statement especially since McBride says specifically:
What if SCO is right? We're not trying to destroy the Linux industry. They say we're attacking Linux, but IBM brought this on. We are in defense mode. We've been attacked. To the open-source community, I ask them how they feel that IBM knew about these contracts and did what they did anyway. You have to shift the responsibility back to IBM and ask them why they're running [the open-source community's] party.
Since when is the Open Source movement 100% dependant on IBM? Open Source grew and flourished for years before IBM got on board, and it would do fine without them. Sure, if IBM looses OSS projects may be much more careful about where they get their code, but is that a bad thing? The GNU folks don't thinks so.
The best word on the subject was what McBride said himself:
We're either right or we're not. If we're wrong, we deserve people throwing rocks at us. But what if SCO is right? When we go through the legal proceedings, people will see.
Unfortunately for McBride the/.ers want to throw stones now, before proof is allowed to come out in court.
They can't act like Red Hat because:
1. Red Hat is the market leader by a LONG way. To simply try and be another Red Hat is a loosing business proposition.
2. Even with Red Hat's HUGE market share they are still unable to turn a profit for more than a quarter here and there. Further, when they have made a profit it has only been due to having millions of IPO dollars in the bank collecting interest. I believe their last quarter they got 3 Million in interest revenue. No other Linux company has anything close to that luxury.
3. They are obligated by LAW to try to leverage all their resources to make a profit for their shareholders. They are a public company, not a charitable foundation.
4. In point of fact, they are more similar to Red Hat than many people think. SCO/Caldera introduced per seat licensing and got blasted for it. What does Red Hat do? They do "subscriptions" that you can only get updates and support for if you have a license for each copy in your company. Same effect, different words. Or, as The Bard put it, "A per seat license by any other name would smell like feet." Well, maybe I paraphrased. Where's the up roar? Where's the boycott? Nowhere. Maybe the question you should ask is "Why isn't Red Hat more like Debian?" Because they are just as corporate and just as "greedy" as SCO/Caldera, whether you want to believe it or not.
It appears to be well informed and even has quotes from SCO (instead of "reliable anonymous sources"). Over all it's a much better article than the hack job Maureen O'Gara put out. For anyone who's interested, Maureen has a burr up her ass about Caldera/SCO and if you have a moderate opinion about that company at all you need to really be careful about what you believe from her. She is a continually unreliable source; most recently her inflammatory "TurboLinux is Dead!" article was of course completely wrong. TurboLinux restructured in Japan where they have a huge market presence.
The article addresses important topics like the legitimacy of SCO's claim on Unix (which they do have) and why if anything they might do about it. There's also a bit about how companies are looking to IP to generate revenue in this tough market.
This is the best point to be made. The "skinner box" is a form of "operant conditioning." In short a stimulus produces a desired behavior reputedly so that even after the stimulus is removed the behavior continues. The most effective form of operant conditioning is a "Variable Interval" (the stimulus is administered in a variable time frame) and "Variable Ratio" (the size or value of the stimulus ranges). The example Skinner used to illustrate this is the slot machine. You put in that quarter knowing that the next pull of the lever (push of the button now days) could very well be the jackpot. And just when you're ready to give up, bam, you win something. This reinforces your belief that the next pull could provide the same reward or better so you keep pumping in you cash even though it's just being sucked away.
This is very much the formula EQ has used. For example, in order to obtain just about anything of significant power in the higher end game you must kill the same monster over and over again. The monster is capable of having on its corpse (after you've dispatched it) the item you are looking for (the item is either part of a quest of the item you want specifically). However, if the item is worth you time it will be a rare "drop" for the monster and you must sit there and, like the old lady at the slot machine, and wait for your Variable Interval reward (stimulus).
Where the game design is such that it seeks to take advantage of proven conditioning techniques, statements that it's not addictive loose the ability to convince. If, somehow, Sony could dispute that they deliberately did not design EQ based on these principles, their claims about it being "just a game" might be more believable.
Once again Linuxgram is more interested in being first than right. They're new motto; "So much FUD, so little time." It would seem to me that a publication dependant on the success of Linux would be more interested in getting their facts straight before hanging those trying to make Linux a comercial success.
Mandrake is right on when they say "MandrakeSoft would gain nothing by joining United Linux, and doing so would damage our reputation." Mandrake's claim to fame is their ease of use and GUI utilities, which have been praised and touted in this thread. They are not limited to the desktop, but they do it very well and that is their core competency. The are traditionally not the hardend server Linux you would think of (yes, of course Mandrake makes a fine server, I'm talking about their focus and perception). The UL crew have been very specific on what their target market is; not the desktop, the enterprise server, even to the exclusion of the desktop. Why then would Mandrake be interested in joining such a server focused group? As state, they wouldn't. Joining UL would force them to compete in an area where they are neither the leader or have a competitive advantage. Sure, you can believe all the sanctimonious hoorah they spout if you want, but bottom line is it's bad business for a desktop focused distro to join a server focused organization.
The biggest missconception about UL is that it is some Borg like entity that once you join you must fall in line with. This is just not the case. Each participating member can do whatever they like outside the UL organization. SuSE has stated quite clearly that they will continue to offer a desktop version. This version will (probably) not have the UnitedLinux tag on it, but then for a desktop, who cares? What UL offers is the ability to have your OS certified on enterprise hardware without being lucky enough to have the "defacto Linux standard" in your title (that's RedHat incase you missed it). With that in mind, there's no reason Mandrake could't join UL and realse a UL version, fully certified on all major hardware, with the added value of it's GUI tools, etc. Then Mandrake could continue to sell their deskop/server versions that would appeal to a broader, more price sensitive, customer base.
The second biggest missconception about UL is that it limits competition. This is just the opposite of the truth. To date there is only One distro that enjoys certification across all major hardware line, RedHat. Now, either RedHat has been unwilling or unable to convince it's hardware partners to certify agains all Linux distro's or, say, a Kernel/libs version of Linux. Sure, their are hundres of distro's out there, but only one certified for your enterprise needs, nice if your RedHat. With UnitedLinux there will not be two distros certified on all major hardwere, but five. And, because of the open (gasp) whey UnitedLinux was founded that could grow into as many distro's who care to achieve that level of certification. So, while UL does nothing to prevent a distro from producing whatever they like (thus not hurting competition), they provide the avenue through wich all distro's, not just RedHat, can achieve hardware certifications and compete in the enterprise market.
UnitedLinux is not a bad thing. It is focused on what it wants to do, but ultimately it does what RedHat never cared to, bring the rest of Linux along into the enterprise space. . . if they want to come.
Slashdot Mirror
You're asking a bunch of nerdy 13 year olds with no social life how to instill social skills in a nerdy 13 year old? *shrug* Hope it works out for you man.
While it's definately SCO's fault that UL as it originally was conceived failed, it was IBM's insistance that SuSE not leave UL and reform with the other two UL companies that put the final kybosh on the whole idea.
His final statement about looking past our perceptions of others is actually quite apropos. However, he taints his otherwise acurate description by the comparison to 9/11. 9/11 carries so much baggage that to use it in comparison to anyone is over the line. 10 points on content, -1 on style... which is really too bad cause I liked the message of moderation.
This seems a little dangerous. It is assumed that the GPL is on solid legal ground. However, there's never been any judgements one way or the other regarding the GPL and there's a ton of copyright history. We'd have to be ready to have this go either way... that's the problem with a jury isn't it.
I thought he was going to talk about SCO there for a bit, but soon realized it was just one more forum for RMS to evangelize the term "GNU/Linux."
I hear that quite a bit. Could anyone who's a lawyer (or knows a lawyer who cares) comment on that SCO didn't appear to know about the IP issues until recently? If someone takes my code and puts it in an GPL'd product without my knowledge, do I have any rights or am I SOL? Would the question be: When did SCO know about the IP issues and how did they act once they found out? Or is it just cut and dry that they lost all rights to their code once they unwittingly released it in a GPL'd product. If it's the latter, I'd be pretty damn scared if I'm an independant software vendor and I have any GPL'd code that I distribute.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it should not be done. This is the standard asked of closed source developers (we must remember that IP suits are not uncommon even between closed source companies). Are you suggesting that an Open Source developer/project should not be held to the same standard as a closed source developer? If so, please explain the double standard.
I'm glad this post generated some discussion. A couple of points.
1. If you call the police and say your house was robbed they will ask for a list of missing items. SCO (or anyone else in such a law suit) will provide that list to the courts (the police in the analogy). As the victim of a robbery one would not be expected to provide a list of stolen goods to the robber, only provide the list to the law enforcement. The thief would of course have the right to see what he was charged with in court, as SCO will of course be expect to provide at that time.
2. To the assertion that the theft of physical property and intellectual property are too different to compare, I disagree. Theft (taking something that does not belong to you and claiming it as your own) is the same no matter what is being taken. I will agree with you that proving intellectual property belongs to you and you have a right to pursue the thief is much more difficult with intellectual property than with physical property. Thus the onus is on SCO to prove they have a case. If they fail at that then they should suffer the wrath of all involved, if they succeed then they are indeed the victim, whether the Open Source Community likes it or not.
3. IP laws are still the law of the land. Yes, there are many in this community who disagree with that philosophically. But, there are even more who make their living by developing and selling closed source code. As much as you may hate SCO, would you really like to be in their (asserted) position? That is, that you're business was unfairly damaged because an Open Source project took your code and used it to undersell you? Again, IF SCO is right, everyone who would like to continue to draw a paycheck for developing software has a vested interest in SCO's success in this matter.
4. Liability is in no way diminished if the offending code is removed. The damage done to SCO's business is obvious (and called out with glee in this forum). How can one be expected to compete with a company/organization that steals their product and gives it away for free?
5. You are right, the acts of the few should not be made to punish the many. However, the persons responsible for the punishment of the many are the few who broke the law, not the victim of the theft. The victim may be an easier target, but it does not make them any more culpable.
Please bear in mind that what I have to say only makes sense IF AND ONLY IF SCO is correct in their assertions. If they are found in a court of law to have no case then they have made their own bed and will be forced to sleep in it. I would also like to reemphasize that all OSS projects would still do well to ensure the authenticity of their code. This is required of purveyors of the closed source development model, and it should be required of open source developers as well. Just as SCO cannot sell and sue Linux, so Linux (and all OSS projects) cannot enjoy the benefits of the Open Source development model without addressing the areas where it needs improvement.
A man has his house robbed. He and the police track down the robber and move to arrest him. As the police are about to break down his door, the robber comes out and says "Look, if you will just point out to me what in my apartment I took from you, I'll give it back and replace it with property I own."
The victim of the crime considers this for a moment and then responds, "If I simply allow you to take my property and combine it with yours this time, what is to prevent you from doing it to me again? Indeed, what is preventing you from doing to someone else, or a different robber taking from a different victim? No, the law states that if you take property from another person and are caught you are liable to the laws that govern such actions. To protect myself and others who have worked to acquire property, I will not simply take out of your home what belongs to me, I will do my best to make sure that you learn to respect the value of property that does not belong to you."
The robber does not like this decision and gets all his friends to throw eggs at the victim, but he is still accountable to the law. And the law says that when you take property that does not belong to you and try to claim ownership of it, you do not supersede the rights of the victim. Further, you owe society a debt for your wrongdoing.
IF SCO is right (for those asking for proof before it comes out in court, stop holding your breath), then they have a legitimate complaint and should be compensated. To ask them to simply forgive and forget is ludicrous. That is too much to ask of a "for profit" company, and would probably be illegal even if they wanted to (they are a public company and responsible to shareholders). A more rigorous and robust process of identifying the origin of code could only improve the Open Source community. If a particular project has not done this in the past, they better make damn sure they're doing it now.
From this press release: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030514/law099_1.html "SCO will continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers and hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux products." So while they aren't going to sell any more Linux, they aren't going to be going after anyone who used SCO Linux or Caldera OpenLinux.
Exactly so. I would like to see our so called "Unofficial open-source spokesmen such as Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond" come out publicly against this. This is PRESISLY what Linux/OSS does not need. Consider the reaction from the OSS/Linux illiterate.
Board Member One: "Hmm, these Open Source guys, this article says that they took some code from this company called SCO and then when SCO complained they shut down SCO's web with their super hacker code. So, guys what do you think? Should we port our application to Linux and open up some of our code?"
Board Member Two: "I think... no"
Board Member Three: "Yeah, I think lets run away from those guys as fast as we can."
CIO: "Actually, it's not like that... see it might not have been the Open Source folks... and Linux can save us some money and it's a popular platform.
CFO: "Let's see, 90MB of bandwidth X productivity loss X possible compromising of company information X bad press if we don't play their games = Stay the hell away from Open Source"
CIO: "Can we just talk about it..."
All: "NO!"
So to the near sighted ass wipes that did this, thanks for possibly setting Linux back 3 years and OSS possibly even further. I hope you laughed hard because you're the only ones who did.
PS please don't bother pointing out the flaws in the above scenario, it is representative of those who don't know better like you and I.
Those are some interesting points. I wonder if there is a way to find out if concern for IP infringement is "boiler plate" stuff or not. I think that wouldn't be part of a typical closed source company's IPO, but maybe it's common business practice for most companies that deal with open source. Since I don't have any definitive knowledge on "boiler plate" IPO wording I will leave it at that.
/.ers I can admit that there is obviously more information out there than I am privy to. And thus I will modify my reaction until more facts are known.
/.ers are completely justified in their anger and your statements are correct. If IBM is wrong then, yes, /.ers jumped to conclusions based on existing bias against SCO/Caldera (however well deserved) and by their over reaction hurt the OSS/Linux community in the process. I would recommend taking our lead from Linus's reaction and be a little more calm. Infact, while there are areas where we disagree, /. could use more well thought out and well expressed posts like yours. Unfortunately the original post did not have those qualities.
For your second point, sure SCO would rather people bought their Unix instead of Linux. If you were SCO so would you. However, what if they're right. What if IMB in their arrogance did what SCO alleges? Is SCO damaging Linux by protecting their IP? Or is the damage caused by IBM's hurry to turn Linux into a commodity so they can sell more boxes what hurts Linux. I don't know the answer, but unlike some of our fellow
On your third point, I guess we must disagree here. If SCO is proven wrong in court
You are incorrect sir. That statement take out of context may indeed suggest some action against Red Hat or SuSE, but taken as a whole it's meaning could be quite different (see above). In fact, your statement "That looks like a clear statement that they plan to sue RedHat and SuSE after the IBM lawsuit." is completely undefendable beyond your own biased conjecture.
The original post was inflammatory and inaccurate; comments to the effect of "nuff said" don't change that.
You make a very valid point. I guess what I'm saying is that taken in its entirety the quote (what I quoted not just what you quoted) seems to imply that possible IP infringements in Linux will come back to haunt Red Hat and other Linux resellers. That is supported by Red Hat's own statements as far back as 1999. With that in mind you could interpret "There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done. But we're focused on the IBM situation." To mean that Red Hat and SuSE will have to deal with the known and inherent risks in distributing Linux at some point. SCO on the other hand doesn't want to focus on those companies potential liabilities but on the IBM lawsuit they are currently involved in. Given SCO's partnership with SuSE in UnitedLinux and preceding statements this is at least a plausible interpretation.
That isn't to say that they way you interpreted it isn't accurate, just that it doesn't mean "SCO is going to sue Red Hat and SuSE and burn down their houses!" as is implied in the original post. I'm arguing for moderation on the part of OSS folks, not for any support of SCO.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
This from an Anonymous Coward... how droll
That is to say that even Red Hat several years ago (1999's IPO filling) knew they may have IP issues in the future. SCO is not threatening Red Hat, SuSE or Grandma's Apple Pie despite some people's reaction. McBride is simply saying that the fears Red Hat had in 1999 are accurate, not because of anything they did, but because of IBM's arrogance.
Further, the Slashdot post makes the statement "They (SCO I guess) seem bent on destroying the Open Source community." What a stupid statement especially since McBride says specifically:
Since when is the Open Source movement 100% dependant on IBM? Open Source grew and flourished for years before IBM got on board, and it would do fine without them. Sure, if IBM looses OSS projects may be much more careful about where they get their code, but is that a bad thing? The GNU folks don't thinks so.
The best word on the subject was what McBride said himself:
Unfortunately for McBride the
They can't act like Red Hat because: 1. Red Hat is the market leader by a LONG way. To simply try and be another Red Hat is a loosing business proposition. 2. Even with Red Hat's HUGE market share they are still unable to turn a profit for more than a quarter here and there. Further, when they have made a profit it has only been due to having millions of IPO dollars in the bank collecting interest. I believe their last quarter they got 3 Million in interest revenue. No other Linux company has anything close to that luxury. 3. They are obligated by LAW to try to leverage all their resources to make a profit for their shareholders. They are a public company, not a charitable foundation. 4. In point of fact, they are more similar to Red Hat than many people think. SCO/Caldera introduced per seat licensing and got blasted for it. What does Red Hat do? They do "subscriptions" that you can only get updates and support for if you have a license for each copy in your company. Same effect, different words. Or, as The Bard put it, "A per seat license by any other name would smell like feet." Well, maybe I paraphrased. Where's the up roar? Where's the boycott? Nowhere. Maybe the question you should ask is "Why isn't Red Hat more like Debian?" Because they are just as corporate and just as "greedy" as SCO/Caldera, whether you want to believe it or not.
No. Only 30% - 40% of SCO stock is publicly held, there would be no way for IBM to execute a hostile take over.
For those looking for some details and not more FUD, check out this article.
e s/980514.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/cnet/stori
It appears to be well informed and even has quotes from SCO (instead of "reliable anonymous sources"). Over all it's a much better article than the hack job Maureen O'Gara put out. For anyone who's interested, Maureen has a burr up her ass about Caldera/SCO and if you have a moderate opinion about that company at all you need to really be careful about what you believe from her. She is a continually unreliable source; most recently her inflammatory "TurboLinux is Dead!" article was of course completely wrong. TurboLinux restructured in Japan where they have a huge market presence.
The article addresses important topics like the legitimacy of SCO's claim on Unix (which they do have) and why if anything they might do about it. There's also a bit about how companies are looking to IP to generate revenue in this tough market.
This is the best point to be made. The "skinner box" is a form of "operant conditioning." In short a stimulus produces a desired behavior reputedly so that even after the stimulus is removed the behavior continues. The most effective form of operant conditioning is a "Variable Interval" (the stimulus is administered in a variable time frame) and "Variable Ratio" (the size or value of the stimulus ranges). The example Skinner used to illustrate this is the slot machine. You put in that quarter knowing that the next pull of the lever (push of the button now days) could very well be the jackpot. And just when you're ready to give up, bam, you win something. This reinforces your belief that the next pull could provide the same reward or better so you keep pumping in you cash even though it's just being sucked away. This is very much the formula EQ has used. For example, in order to obtain just about anything of significant power in the higher end game you must kill the same monster over and over again. The monster is capable of having on its corpse (after you've dispatched it) the item you are looking for (the item is either part of a quest of the item you want specifically). However, if the item is worth you time it will be a rare "drop" for the monster and you must sit there and, like the old lady at the slot machine, and wait for your Variable Interval reward (stimulus). Where the game design is such that it seeks to take advantage of proven conditioning techniques, statements that it's not addictive loose the ability to convince. If, somehow, Sony could dispute that they deliberately did not design EQ based on these principles, their claims about it being "just a game" might be more believable.
Once again Linuxgram is more interested in being first than right. They're new motto; "So much FUD, so little time." It would seem to me that a publication dependant on the success of Linux would be more interested in getting their facts straight before hanging those trying to make Linux a comercial success.
Mandrake is right on when they say "MandrakeSoft would gain nothing by joining United Linux, and doing so would damage our reputation." Mandrake's claim to fame is their ease of use and GUI utilities, which have been praised and touted in this thread. They are not limited to the desktop, but they do it very well and that is their core competency. The are traditionally not the hardend server Linux you would think of (yes, of course Mandrake makes a fine server, I'm talking about their focus and perception). The UL crew have been very specific on what their target market is; not the desktop, the enterprise server, even to the exclusion of the desktop. Why then would Mandrake be interested in joining such a server focused group? As state, they wouldn't. Joining UL would force them to compete in an area where they are neither the leader or have a competitive advantage. Sure, you can believe all the sanctimonious hoorah they spout if you want, but bottom line is it's bad business for a desktop focused distro to join a server focused organization.
The biggest missconception about UL is that it is some Borg like entity that once you join you must fall in line with. This is just not the case. Each participating member can do whatever they like outside the UL organization. SuSE has stated quite clearly that they will continue to offer a desktop version. This version will (probably) not have the UnitedLinux tag on it, but then for a desktop, who cares? What UL offers is the ability to have your OS certified on enterprise hardware without being lucky enough to have the "defacto Linux standard" in your title (that's RedHat incase you missed it). With that in mind, there's no reason Mandrake could't join UL and realse a UL version, fully certified on all major hardware, with the added value of it's GUI tools, etc. Then Mandrake could continue to sell their deskop/server versions that would appeal to a broader, more price sensitive, customer base.
The second biggest missconception about UL is that it limits competition. This is just the opposite of the truth. To date there is only One distro that enjoys certification across all major hardware line, RedHat. Now, either RedHat has been unwilling or unable to convince it's hardware partners to certify agains all Linux distro's or, say, a Kernel/libs version of Linux. Sure, their are hundres of distro's out there, but only one certified for your enterprise needs, nice if your RedHat. With UnitedLinux there will not be two distros certified on all major hardwere, but five. And, because of the open (gasp) whey UnitedLinux was founded that could grow into as many distro's who care to achieve that level of certification. So, while UL does nothing to prevent a distro from producing whatever they like (thus not hurting competition), they provide the avenue through wich all distro's, not just RedHat, can achieve hardware certifications and compete in the enterprise market.
UnitedLinux is not a bad thing. It is focused on what it wants to do, but ultimately it does what RedHat never cared to, bring the rest of Linux along into the enterprise space. . . if they want to come.
Opus