Scott McNealy, the chairman, president and CEO of systems vendor Sun Microsystems, has dramatically warned companies of the legal dangers of using open source software such as the Linux operating system. Following on from SCO Group’s threats to sue Linux users over its intellectual property claims, McNealy told an audience of UK businesses that they should steer clear of open source software unless their suppliers can offer insurance against such legal action.
Essientially he is. It’s bait and “switch” selling. Sun offers up linux servers, why cut off their own foot? There is no legal hassles over using gpl software, os, whatever.
There is legal hassles when you do somthing wrong though. Linus can sue over slander? If it hurts business, but Linus doesn’t work that way. (see, SCO got told the F off). Now, These comments that MSFT’s BoD’s, and Sun, and to lesser degree, apple, could be seen as sladerous, libelous, or even seditious. Especially with all the private back room meeting these guys have with governments.
“Now he undustood Linux takes Unix market, not MS.
And what is the MS’s target? Unix….. “
All the evidence I have been able to find is that Linux is hitting pretty evenly at both MS and proprietary Unix in the server market. It is both replacing windows servers and blocking MS expansion into the enterprise space when it replaces proprietary Unix (Lintel instead of Wintel).
While Linux is a huge potential threat to windows on the desktop. A threat that is only just beginning to emerge – viz Munich.
Wait. Only the lite versions of the original BSD (4.2, 4.3 and 4.4BSD I believe) are certified as being unencumbered. It doesn’t make FreeBSD & co. unencumbered and/or immune to prosecution if they have included UNIX code that weren’t included in those original lite BSDs (if there was some, of course). I’m NOT saying they did, though.
My comments are based in fact and supported by many professional analysts as carried IN PRINT in respected trade journal magazines covering both the US tech and business markets, which I have linked to repeatedly to corroborate my position.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your position seems to be “SCO is right, the Linux community stole their code so they must be punished”. None of your sources proved that. None. The financial analysts in those so-called respected journal magazines you have linked only said that Linux might not be the best choice right now as it could be encumbered and that they should consider other solutions for the moment. I understand them, and that makes sense, but it hardly prove that IBM and/or the Linux community are guilty.
We are two of the few (there are certainly others) voices of reason, with adult perspectives and experience, who are being forced to counter the extreme ignorance and immorality of what are truly children posting on this site. If you weren’t so immature yourself, you’d see this obvious truth (as I’m sure most true adults do). Somehow you’ll just have to come to grips with it.
And I guess trolling is an adult behavior?
You are VERY pretentious to believe you’re the only two understanding the situation…
As long as you’re aware of what you’re distributing (which is currently the case with SCO), the GPL doesn’t make a difference between “distributing” and “releasing”. In other words, if they know the code is there, and they actively distribute it under the GPL nonetheless, then they are giving de facto approval to it being GPLed.
It makes sense, but I’m still not sure that would make the infringing code GPL’d. I guess that’s up to the court to decide that. A de facto approval isn’t a real approval, like a de facto standard isn’t a real standard. I must admit that it weakens their case a bit, though. Not against IBM, but against the community.
The argument that the GPL itself might not be valid has come up often since its inception, but the fact that no one has tried to follow up on this argument is quite noteworthy. It is because, unlike EULAs (which are based on contract law), the GPL is an extension of copyright. In other words, it is copyright law, with additional rights given to the recipient on the condition that he agrees to some other rules.
Hmm, I don’t know. It’s not exactly like the copyright law. The contributors are still licencing their code to people or future contributors. Anyway, I can’t really discuss on that as I don’t really know.
Now, if SCO was to invalidate the kernel as a GPL app, then they would expose themselves to lawsuits from all kernel contributors, as they would have themselves distributed the kernel without the explicit copyright holders’ consent (which is otherwise granted by the GPL). Remember, they can only claim ownership of the offending code (if any), not to the rest of the kernel code.
Maybe, but who would sue them?
But you’re right, they can’t claim ownership of the rest of the kernel code.
So, even if SCO were to convince a judge and jury of the fact that the GPL is invalid even though they gave their tacit approval to releasing the code under the GPL (i.e. there’s no “pregnant cow” in this case), they could very well be the target of a multitude of IP lawsuits…
We’ll see…
Eben Moglen has just published his position paper on the SCO suit. He seems to think that SCO has indeed released whatever code they claim might have been copied under the GPL. Of course, one could say that he’s an interested party (being chief counsel for the FSF), but at least he is a lawyer and has a good grasp of the issues at hand, and of the nature of the GPL.
A good read, nonetheless:
http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf
(And, yes, I got the link off of Slashdot…
Following the very link you provided:
“Results reflect the impact of the weakening economy and $2.13 billion in goodwill and other intangible impairment charges.”
All the evidence I have been able to find is that Linux is hitting pretty evenly at both MS and proprietary Unix in the server market.
Sorry you’re so far behind the times…
8,000 sites switch from Linux to Windows Server 2003
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/07/15/windows_server_2003_ap…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your position seems to be “SCO is right, the Linux community stole their code so they must be punished”.
Consider yourself corrected, based on my exact quotes on this thread:
“if the court rules…”
“if they win in Utah…”
“You’ll probably find out soon enough…”
“should Sco win…”
etc…
In a strange way the SCO attack on Linux is for the best. It will solidify the Linux faithful and once and for all prove that Open Source is viable. Since MS funded SCO with $8M the fight will go on much longer than it might have otherwise and Linux will be that much stronger. What doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger. And Linux is right and just!
Linux is right and just!
Just out of curiousity, how would your opinion change towards Linux IF it is shown that ATT Sys V code is in Linux, and got there without the owner’s blessing?
Would you then a)admit that Linux ‘stole’ intellectual property from Unix, and pay for your fair use, b)still hate SCO and refuse to pay only over your dead body, or c)something else that needs to be identified/explained?
Just out of curiousity, how would your opinion change towards Linux IF it is shown that ATT Sys V code is in Linux, and got there without the owner’s blessing?
To tell you the truth I do not even know what ATT Sys V code is. However, if it were found in Linux and it was proven that it was stolen then the person who submitted it to the Linux kernel would be held accountable by all those who love Linux and any others who cared. The block of code would then be re-written and Linux would go on.
Anybody that uses any Unix knows it’s filled to the brim with open source software. Binutils is an example, half of the commands of the shell are, the shell usually is – BASH, for example. Apache is open source and runs over 60% of the webservers on the net, sendmail is open source and runs nearly all the mail servers. Perl is open source, gcc is the default compiler for almost all embedded projects and for Unix, and it’s open source.
All this stuff is included in your standard installation of almost any Unix, including Solaris. Sun is just trying scare people away from Linux because it competes against Solaris.
If SCO had a case BTW – they should get an injunction against kernel.org – the distributors of Linux. SCO has not case, this is all talk. There are no intellectual property issues with regard to Linux. It’s an attempt by SCO to be purchased.
8,000 sites switch from Linux to Windows Server 2003
Yes but overall the migration is still in favor of Linux:
“In the last two months Linux has made a net gain of over 100 enterprise sites; sites which have migrated to Linux including Royal Sun Alliance, Deutsche Bank, SunGard,T-online and most noteworthy, Schwab.”
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/07/24/sco_lawsuit_will_the_e…
Thanks for your answer. Regards…
8,000 sites switch from Linux to Windows Server 2003
Yes but overall the migration is still in favor of Linux.
Check your own link genius. Any Linux improvement at all was due to Unix losses. Schwaab was Webshere etc.
At least Linux had a positive score…and it’s only the beginning!
Still, you make a statement that is almost certainly false:
Any Linux improvement at all was due to Unix losses.
So you’re saying that not a single Windows server switched to Linux? Not one? Not a single one? Because it’s pretty easy to find examples on Netcraft, you know…
Or is it just another false statement, like the fact that I supposedly connect from IBM?
IBM did not make Linux enterprise level. They contributed to it but not as much as you think, it was the collective effort of thousands of volunteers and many companies including IBM.
IBM has just spread the word the most with tv commercials, magazine adds etc. all over the place giving you the false impression that ttheir contributions ar emuch greater. Frankly they just adapted and the 1BN was only to port THEIR products to linux so it was entirely for their benefit.
SUN isn’t so loud about their contributions to Linux, but IMO they are much more important IMO. OO.org was a huge beast costing millions of dollars and they also donated their file system and contributed money and code to the linux project.
To me it sounds just like Windows does with Lindows.. i think that everyone is seeing what Linux can finally do with the new versions that have come out and now they want to hop on the bandwagon.. Until now most people haven’t wanted to mess with Linux let alone think about sueing someone over it.. I link Solaris owners are worried about lossing to something that they helped create but didn’t get copyrights to it.. That is just my opinion. I think Solaris owners are just about as bad as Microshaft owner Bill Gates it…
Sorry, top speed, the numbers don’t lie. Sun has *not* been profitalbe. That is a verifiable fact. Note: Earnings (ttm) -$0.75 = not profitable. You are an idiot and a liar. Clearly you are the one misrepresenting the truth.
——————
For the fiscal year ended 6/30/03, revenues declined 8% to $11.43 billion. Net loss totaled $2.38 billion, up from $587 million.
Earnings (ttm) -$0.75
Profit Margin (ttm) -20.8%
Operating Margin (ttm) -23.8%
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/s/sunw.html
——————
I wonder if McNealy warned companies of the danger of baseing their business on a company whose stock has gone from $60.00 to $3.00! Sun is a racoon hit by a car on the road waiting to die from its wounds. I would warn IT departments to stay clear of Java for the same reason. When Sun goes belly-up, Java will be auctioned by their creditors.
USL vs. BSDI/Berkeley or SCO vs. IBM/Linux…..
I always get confused about these things…
Tom Curtis wrote:
“To tell you the truth I do not even know what ATT Sys V code is.”
I don’t think a lot of us know what ATT Sys V code truely is or where it REALLY came from. Kinda like the entity currently known as SCOs work. Hah hah.
The reason why SCO (and now Sun) are *really* screaming over Linux doesn’t have a thing to do with any misappropriated code.
The real issue is cost (specifically, Linux’ lack of cost compared to traditional UNIX).
Linux was *designed* originally to be aimed at students, hobbyists, etc. as an alternative to the horrifically expensive System V (and Solaris).
While both Sys V and Solaris licensing has dropped (with Solaris 9/x86 being the Big UNIX Bargain at a mere $20/license), it still is not free.
It is one thing when the majority of Linux users are the aforementioned students/hobbyists/etc. Apparently it is quite another (especially to SCO and Sun) when the users are primarily Corporate World (according to most Linux-friendly, and even Linux-UNFRIENDLY, sources, business users are the fastest-growing Linux user segment). And where are most of the new Linux boxes showing up? Server closets (primarily Web servers, but also application servers, primarily database servers running DB2 or some SQL-type server).
Linux went from targeting Windows to targeting *UNIX*. (SCO in particular aims its UNIX at the server closet; has SCO even *shipped* a desktop flavor of its current UnixWare?) And, like Microsoft, SCO and Sun are not going to let their lunch be stolen with impunity. (McNealy’s comments viz. Linux were *expected*; remember, this is the same McNealy that had to be browbeaten into releasing Solaris 9 for x86 in the first place.)
Sun is repositioning Solaris as a server-closet OS (which is where SCO is now); which means they have to defend it against all would-be server-closet OSes (not just Microsoft, but RedHat and Mandrake as well).
Welcome to the world of business-targeted operating systems (AKA, the Corporate Jungle).
History of 4.xBSD, in relation to AT&T:
The University of California at Berkeley’s CSRG made a commitment to getting free of AT&T code. By the time of the infamous law suit, there were only 4 files that were encumbered and couldn’t be released without an AT&T source code license.
Ergo, they were excised and 4.4BSD-Lite was released. I’ve got myself three copies of it, and have seen various bits and pieces of other pre-4.4BSD BSD code, now of course released unencumbered by Caldera c. 2001 under the BSD license.
I don’t know just how many files were encumbered in 4.3BSD, but I do know that when Bill Jolitz decided to port 4.3BSD to the 386, thereby making 386BSD, the forerunner of FreeBSD, NetBSD, and therefore OpenBSD and the others that have been released, he was working on the relatively unencumbered 4.3BSD-Reno and 4.3BSD-Tahoe, and of course the Net/2 BSD releases. He refuses to accept that the case had anything to do with him, and I’d say he’s right. But ask him.
FreeBSD and NetBSD happened as a result of Bill Jolitz’s differing priorities to those of his system’s users. They wanted patches they had contributed to be incorporated, and when he was too involved in writing his Operating System Source Code Secrets book series, they went ahead and incorporated it anyway, but because the two groups had different priorities, they wound up in different “distros”, to misapply a Linux concept.
Since that day in court, none of the *BSD have had anything to do with AT&T-sourced code to the best of my knowledge, and the idea that they have somehow incorporated it since and have thus become encumbered again, is ridiculous. It’s just more SCO FUD. Don’t believe the FUD.
FreeBSD 1.0 and NetBSD 1.0 were based on 4.3BSD minus the encumbering AT&T code. But after the case was concluded, the FreeBSD and NetBSD teams individually targeted the 4.4BSD-Lite release as their basis.
I should’ve made that clearer – my apologies.
So, sun who is making hardware, especially processors, that’s generations behind other companies like IBM and Intel tells us that you should not use linux. Big surprise. I couldn’t have guessed that, or…
Oooh, by the way, sun licenced unix from SCO under a new agreement the other month. Strangely, the agreement allowed sun to by SCO shares for about $2, below the price today. Well, well, seems theres more to what sun says.
…. if linux is to become licenseware then there will be 2 versions 1) those who purchased pre and 2) those who purchased post.
And …. how will they be differentiated.
All would have been easy if Linus Torvald had made it freely available with a license! The source would have been protected by an Escrow agreement.
McNealy is soldman!
fucking money…………………….
p.s. i love Sun before.. now i dont.
all you guys chill on Mcnealy . He is stating the truth as he sees it . he wants to sell linux at the low end and even midrange to compete with dell and hpq better. He loves linux and considers unix an adaptation to linux. What he is saying is get it from a vendor that will indemnify you against lawsuits . vendors who wont indemnify understand the legal problems ahead . sun licensed from sco its right to use and build on linux and so has microsoft. why wont they indemnify he asks and i ask?