Listen, and you can hear the collective sigh of relief as news comes that IBM has finally countersued The SCO Group. No real news on the details yet. Stay tuned for updates. Update: Lycoris has announced that its Desktop/LX distribution is “immune” from the recent moves by The SCO Group to force Linux users to license its intellectual property. For those who have used Lycoris, the installer comes right out of Caldera’s Linux installation code.
IBM Countersues SCO
About The Author
Adam Scheinberg
Technology Executive • Web Developer • Father • Foodie • Music Snob • OS enthusiast
Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]
If you read all my comment you will understand that what I say is refferred to the post of Top Speed in which he says: “also prefer income to American software companies, even M$ or SCO, as apposed to it going to say a French company like Mandrake”…
Xenophobia is not a good principle in any kind of business. Nationalism is probably worse.
Denial is not what this lawsuit is about. It’s about weakening the enemy before the battle. The real battle was supposed to be the $3B lawsuit of SCO which is where IBM is supposed to deny any of the allegations. This lawsuit is simply there to negate the effects that SCO’s suit (whether intended or otherwise) which is to discourage the adoption of Linux.
Regardless of IBM and RedHat’s response, we’re adopting Linux now more than ever just because the lawsuit actually opened some of managements eyes to the sick and immoral acts that can be perpetrated by greedy corporate bastards. It’s like someone being shown the end result of selling ones soul to the devil for a little bit of fame and popularity: an eternity of damnation. 😉
As indicated by google caches and this page
http://www.caldera.com/products/scolinuxserver/scolinux_features.ht…
on their website, SCO knew about the IBM technology in Linux while selling it. So they can not claim that it is not now GPLed. They used the terms JFS and mentioned the 2.4 kernel scheduler and IO features of the kernel in their advertising documents for OpenLinux 4.0 which are areas affected by the alledged IBM donations. OpenLinux Server 4.0 for Itanium was actually released on April 15,2003:
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=106545
In the press release they say under product features that:
“Powerful new enterprise features based on the Linux 2.4.19 kernel”
IBM will ask them in court what they mean by those powerful new features, and the case will be over.
Totally off-topic (or not really, when you consider how this discussion has ended up), but something seriously needs to be done about how OSnews moderates these threads. I’ve seldom felt compelled to post here, but I’ve been an avid reader since Eugenia got involved, as I sort of migrated from BEnews. In all that time the lack of peer-moderation or aggressive editorial moderation never bothered me, as the people posting were on the whole a nice thoughtfull bunch and almost every post had some merit.
But now, with obvious trolls, like Top Speed et all, running rampant and unhindered almost every thread is soon diverted into flamefests or mud-slinging matches even Slashdot would be ashamed of. A good flameout can be entertaining now and then, but it has now reached the point where it overshadows all real discussion of the topics. These days I take a deep breath before diving into any thread, and more and more often I simply don’t bother at all.
OSnews has to take this seriously now, as I think I’m hardly the only loyal reader who’s considering if the site is a worthwhile bookmark anymore.
Caldera was contributing and distributing linux long before they ever held ANY form of Unix IP. For a matter of fact Caldera bought it JUST TO KILL IT! The founder of Caldera were former Novell employees for cryin’ out loud. To say they didn’t know what they were selling would be purgury.
New VC [Vulture Corperatist] hostilly took over the company and violently changed corperate direction. If what you keep saying is true, then only Novell has any case at all. After all Caldera greviously damaged their business by helping create linux and fraudulantly purchased Unix IP after actively damaging the value of that IP with linux distribution…bought it with money they gained from an IPO for a business model that they themselves are declaring to be illegal for everyone else!
That…or the original management knew what they were doing and the VCs & lawyers refuse to understand that Caldera was trying to be a “good” linux company and earn good standing in the community rather than a quick buck.
Explain to me how this affects linux please. I mean SCO can still win a suit and charge that horribly funny *Introductory* license.
Moderation + Nested lists is the answer. I don’t understand why this is not the case! I wonder what the obstacle is for osnews to adopt and more mordern setup. It doesn’t have to be as big as slashcode. At the moment while Eugenia is asleep or away from her box, people can get away with anything. Not an effective moderation system IMHO.
I read through the posts on the SCO posting a few minutes ago and none of them seemed egregiously trollish enough for me to mod down.
I figure that anything useful to say about the SCO thing has already been said so all we can expect now is arguing.
I’m trying to keep a sharp eye on some of the “known trolls”. They’re trying to provoke here, but IMO in a legitimate way.
Eugenia said that she likes to keep the page simple so its accessable on all browsers and phones.
http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5050986.html
Protection costs. Fact of Life.
Interesting, before the big SCO debacle they only covered the cost of the original software. For Linux this can technically be $0. You don’t think they are capitalizing on the SCO sharade with this “new” protection? Furthermore, I wasn’t addressing IP issues, I was addressing your contention that software has a warranty in case your “computer blows up” due to the software. Their warranty covers nothing of the sort.
Doubt it? Stop paying your taxes too.
Perhaps some people “pay” by contributing to the community. For real world scenarios think donating time to charities or donating time to neighborhood watches? Is that “payment” to those organizations worth nothing? To you maybe.
“also prefer income to American software companies, even M$ or SCO, as apposed to it going to say a French company like Mandrake”…
I have a problem giving it to French companies too. They said they want to be the “other pole” in a multi-polar world, so let them be, but not at the expense of the American economy. Why should I feed someone who insists on being my adversary?
Well maybe you don’t know enough about Linux and this whole SCO case.
Thanks for the link. (Sorry I don’t want to hunt back to find the quote.) And I now see from where you made the statements that Torvalds ignores infringign IP. However if you go down a bit more http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl541224082d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=… he elaborated on his statement with an explanation as to why. I do not agree 100% with either his argument or your interpretation of it but I don’t see what else he, or any other programmer, can do. If you write a non-trivial application there is a good probability that you are going to infringe upon some patent or another, it is impractical, as a programmer, to even attempt to indemnify yourself. This I suppose is true in things other than software patents but it is especially true here.
And to others out there, give Top Speed some slack, he is defending his opinion just as you are defending yours. Just because you do not agree with him does not make him a troll. In a traditional (read non-GPL) development environment, patent isues were largley answered by exchange of rights. GPL does disrupt this pattern by making it difficult for a software firm to trade rights with a GPLed project. Some say that it is time for the software (music/movie/etc…) industry to adapt to modern times. To avoid a flame war and becasue I doubt anybody cares what I think I will leave it at “Time will tell I suppose.” There is room and need in this world for both free and proprietary code, neither extreme is healthy in it’s own.
And last but not least MS has 90 some odd % of the market not based on the superiority of their product but upon their Machievellian practices. XP is arguably the best desktop out there, with OS X in a tie. Linux is a distant third place but rapidly getting better. My favorite WM (not technically a desktop) is FVWM. It was a pain in the ass to set up the way I wanted but now that I have everything set it is great, no clutter and very fast.
“giving you the unvarnished truth” = repeating SCO’s wild allegations
“I’m not cussing or calling names” = I just called you crybabies, and if you use Linux and don’t pay SCO’s license you’re a pirate
“it could mean you are actually facing the truth, which some of you might not be used to” = I know I said I wouldn’t call names, but then again I’m a troll so I can contradict myself at will
That’s it, I’m out of here.
Yes, they often will, at least up to the cost of the software. I saw some scam on /. the other day when some of them were bragging about how to do it.
Does that mean my company can charge for the hours upon hours of downtime from the BS job the Exchange server does keeping up all the time? If your statement was true at all, Microsoft, Oracle and the other big guys would have been milked dry a decade ago.
“I’m not cussing or calling names, just giving you the unvarnished truth.”
HAH!!
Id rather be cussed at and name called than listen to you refer to your nonsense as truth……remember YOU are in the minority here. SCO and MS are dirty companies. Always have been….probably always will be. If IBM did breach their contract with SCO…fine, Ive got no problem with that and IBM paying for that violation. As far as SCO’s unsubstantiated FUD war and extortion on the linux community…..they should and will fail miserably.
And it had nothing at all to do with microsofts legal liabilities for problems with windows at all. Rather it was about getting a refund for software that was forced onto you as a condition of the purchase.
Its a very serious issue since its virtually impossible to obtain a x86 laptop without Windows on it, and its very difficult indeed to get a refund and be able to return just windows. They say that they’ll do it in the EULA, but Microsoft are loathe to follow through with it.
Me, I just plan on getting an apple laptop.
I came back to reply since I exited right before your post.
Thanks for your honest and well spoken reply. I think you mostly agree when I say it seems to me Torvalds is completely wrong when he says it _their_ problem that he doesn’t make any check, especially when he is being directly warned about it (so it was certainly not accidental).
In a traditional (read non-GPL) development environment, patent isues were largley answered by exchange of rights. GPL does disrupt this pattern by making it difficult for a software firm to trade rights with a GPLed project. Some say that it is time for the software (music/movie/etc…) industry to adapt to modern times. To avoid a flame war and becasue I doubt anybody cares what I think I will leave it at “Time will tell I suppose.”
Very good understanding, posters like you are what make OSNEWS such a great site and I truly respect your comments. However I don’t buy (and I’m not sure you do either) the claim that just because the property owners don’t make it convenient for their customers, that customers are entitled to free property. That equates to saying “well I’m going to smash this window and take what I want, because all businesses should be open on Sunday”.
Thanks again, hope to see you again sometime.
Whoever is moderating the board…your supposed to be modding comments down, not deleting them.
Please stop replying to Top Speed.
All I see is page after page of
RE: top speed
@ top speed
top speed sux0r
Just let him go, you’ll never change his mind. I know how hard it is to not feed the trolls, but please, it’s just waiting your time and mine.
Fuck him.
I don’t buy (and I’m not sure you do either) the claim that just because the property owners don’t make it convenient for their customers, that customers are entitled to free property.
Whenever this argument comes up I think of the “looters” in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. A customer does not have a right to a product. A producer has the right to sell a product that they own for whatever price they see fit. What the producer can not do is prevent others from competing with products of their own, or to force a consumer to purchase something they did not want. Neither the misdeeds, nor the unpopular opinions held by a company gives anybody the right to hurt them by breaking the law. I detest MS actions in the past/present and consider the judgement in the monopoly trial to be a travesty. That does not give me or anyone else the right to use a MS product without paying for it.
To make it so that this post is not completely off topic, the same holds true for SCO. I detest their actions and find it highly unlikely that they are in as righteous a position as they would have us believe. However if their IP is found to be in Linux then I will move to a different OS but I will not submit myself to extortion which is what the “Linux Licenses” amount to.
P.S. I am not Top Speed
OK.
Sorry if I misunderstood you Hank.
I guess it is still valid for TS.
A small translation of a German article …
http://www.pro-linux.de/news/2003/5802.html
The FFS has a letter from the [German] SCO-lawyer, that literally says that the {hiesige} SCO-Representation has >>nothing to do<< with these claims [License payments for Linux]. The Juridical Representative from SCO, in answering a {question/request} by telephone from the FFS, claimed that the copyright claims that SCO makes are without substance, ensures in writing that SCO does everything to keep in line with the juridical decision that forces the company to refrain from damaging Linux and its users.
““Absolutely. But it is unfair competition when something that has a cost of $0 and can be downloaded”
Welcome to the post capitalist world – flop speed. And currently all the big hardware companies love it.
When nanotechnolgy develops Von Neuman Father Christmas machines – hardware will be the same downloadable for $0.
Welcome to the coming singularity where technological and social change are too fast to keep up with. I forgot in your case that has already happened
$3 billion, just where on earth did that number come from?
I did some digging around (Business isn’t my forte, so these figures may be inaccurate) and find Redhat having a turnover (Not profit) of $91 million for the 2003 fiscal year.
I’m assuming here that Redhat has the largest turnover of the Linux distributors (Again, it may not be true, but whoever is won’t be too much larger).
Now I’ll admit that there’s a lot of Linux distros out there, but not all of them are commercial, and certainly not all the Linux distros being used have been paid for.
So the question is this.
How on earth can SCO sue for a sum that is most likely (IMHO) great than the total turnover of the entire commercial Linux world per annum?
In fact seeing as Linux spent its formative years being downloaded for free it’s not entirely beyond the realm of possibility that this exceeds the total turnover _EVER_ generated by commercial Linux in its existence to this point.
It just seems a stupendous amount of money to me, one that simply cannot be justified even if SCO are telling the truth.
By the way for all you paranoid americans out there check out the other SCO.
The Shanghai Cooperative Organization. It is currently holding joint anti-terrorist manouveres in Central Asia. On the surface against Islamic Fundamentalists – but more probably a move to contain US influence in the area.
Offtopic I know – but it is about SCO 😉
1.- Open-source including Linux is here to stay for a while. Which is good.
2.- Sco’s strategy is not very cleaver. I think that they do not have a chance.
3.- I am not a fan of IBM. They are using the same “weapons” (eg. IP) to contrarrest Sco’s claims….. mmmh, I do not like corporate world.
4.- I am not an expert but I think that there is an old deviation of the concept of intellectual property and software.
5.- Yes, I am a Linux user… and I like it!.
6.- No, I am not a communist nor a pirate.
7.- I think this site is great….. but the GRINGOS*, oh my God!.
8.- I am from México….. and I am also an American.
*GRINGO.-A person with a BIG ego that thinks that Central America means Ohio.
“Thanks for your honest and well spoken reply. I think you mostly agree when I say it seems to me Torvalds is completely wrong when he says it _their_ problem that he doesn’t make any check, especially when he is being directly warned about it (so it was certainly not accidental). ”
Could you please post at least one example of when Linus Torvalds has been directly warned of an IP infringement and has completely ignored it? SCO does not count since they have not identified any lines of code which allegedly infringe. When has someone come to him and said “this patch or these lines of code in this file is infringing upon my IP” and he has followed up by including the patch and telling the accuser to piss off? I may be simply unaware but I do not recall when anything like that has ever happened.
If you are going to accuse him of knowingly and willingly including code that he has been warned infringes upon someone else’s IP, you should provide some supporting evidence. Where is the example?
pete
Pete, he does give an example if you go back a ways. OTOH I don’t agree with his assessment. It revolved around an idea expressed in a paper on another list that closely resembled the way they were discussing a rewrite of page handling in the VM. (Bad run-on sentence, but you get the idea.) When the paper and it’s similarities was brought up Linus responded with the “I don’t care” remark. He did nit lift the code from a patented program, he simply was using an idea that resembled (closely) a aptented program.
In this situation, as in many software patents, the idea was hardly original. The kernel crowd, on their own, came up with a solution to a problem, then someone mentioned that the same idea had already been expressed and patented. I liken most software patents to a carpenter patenting the way in which he sands the doors of a shrunk. There are only so many ways to do it, and if I come up with a similar way of doing it without looking at the others shrunk or his technique I should not be penalized for the similarities. Now a completely new (or at least distinct) peice of furniture would be a differnt matter.
In a strict sense though, an idea was brought up, it was shown that it was likely to be patented, Linus said “I don’t care.”
Here it is again:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl541224082d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=…
I think Top Speed’s point is that Torvalds is unconcerned with possibly stepping upon anothers IP without persmission.
The counter argument is that it is the only way you are going to be productive in the industry. Don’t plagurize or steal anothers code, simply write the code as you come up with it. If it infringes let them contest it and then come to a resolution.
Software patents as they are being used in present times are broken and in need of reform but not abolishment. I on the other hand am not smart enough to come up with a better solution to the problem. <shrug>
I wonder why they deleted the original? Maybe the assassin thing? It was not that bad.
Just for the record that was me. I switched machines and I guess my name was not in there on the lapton
Wait a minute, this announcement from Lycoris makes this whole case moot as far as the kernel itself goes. It really does make it just a contract dispute between IBM and SCO again, because regardless of the outcome, Lycoris has the liscense, and the right to redistribute it as open source.
SCO really doesn’t have any corporate memory from thier previous incarnations do they? You would think a small thing like that would be kind of important to know before they start making all the noise about linux being illegal.
I am an electrical engineer. I know that for a fact that companies such as Intel, Broadcom and others have a group in their companies (that is SEPARATED from their development team) to actively reverse engineer other people’s products to see if others have knowingly or unknowingly infringe upon their patents.
As I engineer, there is no way for me during development to check every related patent out there to see what the others’ implementation is. The problem is, as Linus has pointed out at one point or another, by actively looking up patents and other people’s implementations one may actually subtlely learn their techniques and apply them inadvertantly, without realizing it.
So it’s much better to do it without knowing about what’s out there. Granted, there should be another group (within the same company or lab) that checks if the current implementation infringes upon other’s work. The trick of it all is that those people who check for infringements SHOULD NEVER be involved in development because they are “tainted” by their knowledge.
In this case of SCO vs. IBM, however, there is no patent to look up. SCO claims that IBM infringes upon its IP, and trade secrets. So regardless if Linus or another kernel hacker tried to look up the information, they are not really available. In these cases where patents are not available the burden is always with the owner to point out infringements
Can this companies figure it out? Linux is getting big, and it is going to get bigger…much much bigger. It will eventually become the dominant os on the planet. To those that do not see the writting on the wall, it is going to destroy them, like the telephone destroyed the telegraph.
In the future, there will not be a reason to run a proprietory operating system on your computer, unless you have a specific reason to do this. And some of the software applications manufacturers will also have to be careful because open source is going to give them a run for the money. I am not saying everything should be open source, but most definately the operating system should be developed openly.
< Here it is again:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl541224082d&dq=&hl=en… >
Top Speed,
I think you must work for SCO. I have one question, who in the hell cares? If you believe SCO’s baseless crap rhetoric then I have a suggestion DONT USE LINUX. Why are you even posting. You think SCO has a point, then lets get technical with this, If UnixWare is so superior to every other OS on the market today, why was Project Monterey a concerted effort to port AIX 5L to the Itanium platform? Why did SCO choose not to port UnixWare to iTanium? because AIX is far more superior and before UnixWare 7.1.3, UnixWare in itself was the technical equivalent of a calculator. And do you think SCO is beyond pulling Linux code into UnixWare smart guy? Tell you what pull the datasheets for SCO UnixWare 7.1.3 and pull the datasheets for SuSE Enterprise Server 8, the heart of UnitedLinux. New device drivers in UnixWare match UnitedLinux, version numbers of software match exactly. Now some coincidence I can understand, but Im just going to use this as an example, Java 1.3.1-4 used in both systems, CDR-Tools 1.11a, Samba 2.2.5 all used in both systems. Now I know what your weak little mind will say,” Well they are Open Source solutions so they didnt violate any IP ” Yes, you may be right, But, If SCO wants to stay cutting edge as they claim, Why oh why arent they using the most up to date packages, at the time of UnixWare 7.1.3 development, Java 1.4 was available, CDR-Tools was at version 2, and Samba was at version 2.2.8. Do they need to use the same exact packages from UnitedLinux, and where did the new Hardware drivers and kernel extentions come from, and also do they need to match SLES 8 exactly? I recently finished a project for a client, where we compared the performance, pricing and application support. Thats how I got into the whole comparison thing. We compared UnixWare 7.1.3 with Red Hat Linux 9 and SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8 based on UnitedLinux, now the differences between Red Hat and UnixWare 7.1.3 were like night and day, totally different. Now compare it to SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8, the performance ration was very, very similar. UnixWare before 7.1.3 had no power management capabilities at all. Now SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8, APM and ACPI are turned off by default, you must enable them in the boot process for the system to use these capabilities, Now guess what, In UnixWare 7.1.3 APM and ACPI are turned off by default, you must enable them in the boot process for the system to use these capabilities. I would love for someone to tell me and to give me a good answer as to why both systems almost basically mimic each other. The only clear difference is that UnixWare 7.1.3 uses CDE and the Panorama Windowmanager, where as UnitedLinux uses KDE by default.
Software Patents are not valid and are therefore not considered IP. Most such patents are so overgeneralised that they don’t deserve to exist. But people still try and push anything into the patent office. The US patent office does not check for this, they are not into policing the law, they leave that up to the courts.
Besides SCO vs IBM is not about Patents
<<<< Software Patents are not valid and are therefore not considered IP. Most such patents are so overgeneralised that they don’t deserve to exist. But people still try and push anything into the patent office. The US patent office does not check for this, they are not into policing the law, they leave that up to the courts.
Besides SCO vs IBM is not about Patents >>>>
Guess what, it is now
“Zaphrod please listen to Teknoenie and just do your homework! We are talking about history here, not philosophy. Berkley had a fight with AT&T and they won the right to deploy their own OS which was pretty much changed from AT&T’s UNIX. Linux is something like a bastard OS (I will have to agree with Balmer on this), and there is a big possibility for SCO to find a license “flaw”.
….so do your homework and off to bed now!!!”
By the logic you and Teknoenie are using, once sued forever safe, BSD can never be sued by anyone ever again no matter whether they take, or use without knowledge, code from another product or not. I personally don’t think SCO has a case against anyone but if they do and the code has been placed in BSD then BSD is just as much a target as anyone.
Besides SCO vs IBM is not about Patents >>>>
Guess what, it is now
No thats IBM vs SCO
You actually surprised me there, motor mouth, by sounding reasonable for once!
The field of software patents resembles nothing more than a minefield with vendor-supplied markings giving clear passages, most often in the form of “if you license mine, I’ll license yours”, and “if you attack me for my violation of your patents, I’ll counter-attack for your violation of mine.”
It’s the one counter-attack SCO Group has absolutely no defense for, and is also guaranteed to force Microsoft’s and SUN’s hands – if they are truly behind SCO’s suicide-bombing of the Linux market. I.e., Microsoft suddenly licensing its own software patents to SCO to counter-counter-sue IBM, etc, ad nauseam …
AFAIK, IBM has effectively licensed its patents to the Open Source community by declaring they won’t complain about them being used in Open Source software – since IBM stands to gain hugely from Open Source all over its product and services field, it is only fair that they should take that attitude.
Yawn again!
no need to rename “top speed” – it’s already been seen to, by yours truly.
owing to the speed with which he operated, I’ve already named him “motor mouth“, and should probably sue him for … well, whatever – it is a business model he’s apparently quite fond of.
I think you must work for SCO
Can I ask if you really believe this? Whenever people are frustrated I see this a lot. Like, oh you can’t really like Microsoft’s products, you must work for them, etc.
If the claims SCO make had any value, they would’ve been taken over by SUN, IBM. Imagine SCO a company with less value then Red Hat (that is what I’m reading the last days), SUN with almost 6 billion in cash. They allready are the main Unix maker, imagine what a power they would have if they could control linux in this way.
In short SCO is bluffing and going down.
Why do all these X vs Y threads always turn into “People who like X suck and we, Y-lovers, rule da world!!”? I’d understand when people from SCO-camp started flaming here, but because there is actually no SCO camp, OSS-evangelists turned their faces to the usual target – M$. What the heck does M$ have to do with SCO vs IBM? And even if that’s not enought you start imagining stuff about ppl. If TopSpeed worked for SCO do you think you’d see his posts here? When the person doesn’t share your opinions it doesn’t necessarily mean he is the Lord of Evil or works for him/them.
Shame on you.
Twice.
<<< Can I ask if you really believe this? Whenever people are frustrated I see this a lot. Like, oh you can’t really like Microsoft’s products, you must work for them, etc. >>>
I was being sarcastic at the beginning there
Have you read the whole threat (or other threats topspeed and coral snake have posted at)? You might understand then why people react the way they do about top speeds posts. it is not about someone having a different opinion. everybody is entitled to their opinion and to voice it. however top speed continously slanders the oss-movement with his right wing nationalistic rhetoric and some of his posts are just outright wrong or based on assumptions, yet communicated as they were fact – so a little bit difficult if you want to have an open-minded stimulating discussion.
>>What the heck does M$ have to do with SCO vs IBM? <<
Well not a lot apart form speculations, which given the history of Microsofts business practices are not that far fetched (even though as already mentioned mere speculation)
1. Microsoft has Linux as the number 2 (i think number one is changes in the economy or sth. like that) threat on their hit-list
2. SCO sues IBM over contract-breach and IP-Infringement in Linux – a lawsuit that obviously will cost money
3. At the same time Microsoft decides suddenly to pay licence fees to SCO for some of their UNIX stuff (wonder why they didn’t do it before)
4. And this happens all around the same time when Microsoft is releasing its Windows 2003 Server, to which Linux is the greatest competition. they even say that with windows 2003 your ‘safe’ legally, obviously hinting at the SCO/Linux/IBM story
So as i said mere speculation, but ….
In relation to Microsoft and Windows 2k3 Server, might I point out that if Microsoft had copied Linux source code into its Win2k3 Server – and like it or not, the whines you’ve been hearing from Ballmer and co on the “non-commercial</b. nature of the GPL are suggestive – if such was the case, then Microsoft’s purchase of the SCO Unix license would make a lot of sense.
A deeply perverted “sense, of course, but sense all the same.
It is highly unlikely that any of the BSD’s would use any of the SCO SystemV source code or Linux since the BSD kernel and the Linux kernel are totally different.
There is nothing wrong with taking an idea and implementing it differently. To me SCOs claims are obscure at the very least. To say that you own sources is fine. To say that you own the “idea” irregarless of implementation is not ok. If BSD implements something that leads to the same goal completely differently (as do the BSDs) than that’s ok. Line by Line copying of code (as per SCOs Linux claims) is not. 2 years is a long time. I’ll continue using BSD on my servers (as I have been for the past 10 years) and Linux on my desktops (as I have been for the past 3 years). It’s easy to migrate a desktop to a different OS. Servers.. well that’s another can of worms all together.
The sale of SCO Linux products to new customers is currently suspended due to intellectual property (IP) issues associated with the Linux operating system. Accordingly, SCO has announced the suspension of its own Linux activities until the issues surrounding Linux IP and the attendant risks are better understood and properly resolved. More information can be found at the SCOsource home page. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact SCO, toll free, at 1 (800) 726-8649.
So…SCO is basically saying that nobody who isn’t using Linux now shouldn’t be allowed to try it until this is resolved. Those of you who are using Linux may be using illegal software. Fine…will let the courts decide that. But here is the thing. If nobody is allowed to use Linux at this time, then why is it that SCO is using Linux for a web server?
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.sco.com
Considering that linux is inherently open source, I find this whole thing to be blown way out of proportion. After all, SCO isn’t filing against Linux itself, it’s filing against IBM. I think SCO is just trying to remedy their financial problems by stealing chunks of other companies’ profits. Using “Linux” and “illegal” in the same sentence is a paradox to begin with, because of the GPL. It’s akin to saying “You can’t speak English because I own the rights to English.”, My point being that nobody owns Linux, it was built by a community of developers that have developed it over the years. The whole premise of Linux and any code bound by the GPL is that it’s free from all of this Capitalist political garbage. Companies own Redhat, SuSE, and SCO Unix, but not Linux itself. If RedHat, or SuSE, or United Linux, or even IBM goes down because of Linux, Linux will still be there. The communities that support linux will still support it and embetter it. In my view, this is just some snooty tiff between Corporate big wigs that’s good for a laugh. Besides that, $3 billion will only slow a giant like IBM down. By contrast, IBM has counter sued, and SCO will face retribution tenfold if IBM wins. SCO’s financials prove it to be a lame duck as it is. It’s those pesky bandwagon investors that are flocking to SCO, but the old saying goes “fools rush in where wisemen dare to tread”.
Linux is OPEN SOURCE, got that McBride???