Slashdot Log In
Microsoft To License SCO's Unix Code
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon May 19, 2003 06:15 AM
from the the-world-just-keeps-getting-wierder dept.
from the the-world-just-keeps-getting-wierder dept.
The big news of this morning is that Microsoft will evidently be licensing the Unix code that SCO carries the rights to. Yahoo! is also carrying a brief WSJ report as well. Additionally, give a read to the OSI position paper on the issue. One thing that is worth noting is that Microsoft does do *some* work with Unix - like the interoperability package - but the other side is that Microsoft deals with intellectual property a lot, and licensing is standard way of dealing with IP claims.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
A Better Reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A Better Reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Over time, this ended up in the hands of SCO. When you log onto a SCO Openserver box, the following is displayed:
SCO OpenServer(TM) Release 5
(C) 1976-1998 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
(C) 1980-1994 Microsoft Corporation
All Rights reserved
So one school of thought could definitely suggest that M$ are covering their own backs by licensing "borrowed code" they've been using for the last 20 years.
However, what they have to fear from SCO I can't imagine.
Parent
Re:A Better Reason (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:A Better Reason (Score:5, Informative)
You should be able to find it yourself, there haven't been that many zlib bugs, so the latest one is probably the one you're looking for
Parent
No big deal (Score:5, Interesting)
Why Microsoft is doing this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why Microsoft is doing this (Score:5, Informative)
Late Sunday, Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith said acquiring the license from SCO "is representative of Microsoft's ongoing commitment to respecting intellectual property and the IT community's healthy exchange of IP through licensing. This helps to ensure IP compliance across Microsoft solutions and supports our efforts around existing products like services for Unix that further Unix interoperability."
Well gee Brad, why don't you just come right out , call us all theives and demand that Linus be given the electric chair?
Parent
"ongoing commitment"... (Score:5, Funny)
Or Apple, for that matter.
Parent
Re:Why Microsoft is doing this (Score:5, Insightful)
In my mind, it also lends weight to the theory that Microsoft has been quietly orchestrating this thing from the start. There are just too many signature signs.
Parent
Re:Why Microsoft is doing this (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless I've missed it SCO hasn't said exactly what part of the kernel they're claiming rights on. At some point that will have to be revealed and the kernel developers can examine their alternatives.
I still think that companies shouldn't be allowed to sit in stealth mode while they wait for the proper time (such as imminent bankruptcy in SCO's case) to perform their legal jack-in-the-box stunt.
Parent
US Legal Opinion Carries weight EVERYWHERE... (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't have to respect our culture, you may not respect our President, but you WILL respect our Aircraft Carriers.
All kidding aside, Common Law Courts (49 states in the US, several countries in the EU I believe... I know that LA in the US is on the Roman/Latin system, as are Italy and France, and Britain is obviously on the Common Law system, but I forget who else is what) tend to defer to each other's precedents when possible (but only for rulings on Common Law)....
However, a serious ruling in the US will affect ANYONE in the EU that does business in the US. In fact, business leaders and the movers and shakers (re: the 8 people in Europe that work over 35 hours/week
Alex
Parent
Damn (Score:5, Funny)
I hate Monday's.
Let's keep calm (Score:5, Interesting)
On the bright side, even if the whole of Linux gets rejected, someone will come up with 'clean' code (like Atheos). There will always be free (as in speech) software. Unless DRM gets global support.
Re:Let's keep calm (Score:5, Insightful)
For me Free Software is all about the apps - if an OS can run Samba, PostgreSQL, Emacs then I'm happy.
If Linux *disappeared* tomorrow - I wouldn't care one bit, becasue we have FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and to certain extent Mac OS X.
Parent
T'is evil (Score:5, Funny)
Only the minions of Satan work on Sunday
MS Investment in SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
owned 10-15% of the old SCO (not Caldera).
Microsoft and SCO go WAY back. In the early 1980's,
Microsoft developed XENIX which ran on computers like
the Tandy Model 6 and 6000 (68000 at 8MHz). SCO licensed
XENIX, developed drivers and sold it initially into the 80286
market (later 386). If I recall, the cost was $400 or so
for an unlimited number of users (plus another $400 or so
for the development suite).
This is most likely a bid by Microsoft to do the following:
History (Score:5, Interesting)
Simmer down now (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't so crazy, so let's calm down. Windows NT is a POSIX-compliant operating system, so I'm not surprised if there's a non-trival amount of Unix-like development going on in Redmond.
In case you didn't know... (Score:5, Interesting)
Never trust anyone named "Ransom" (Score:5, Interesting)
To put a good spin on this... (Score:5, Funny)
"See, Linux is so good, even Microsoft has seen the light and decided to license it!"
Microsoft is effectively bankrolling SCO's lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
There is no real effective Unix IP for SCO to license [opensource.org].
Microsoft's SFU and Interix products are in no way depended upon the IP that SCO holds, quite the opposite in fact - Interix/SFU actually owes more to the GNU-project [slashdot.org].
Microsoft is just effectively bankrolling SCO's lawsuit. The EU Commerce Commission,the USA Federal Trade Commission and DOJ Antitrust should also look into this given Microsoft's recently disclosed anticompetitive predatory practices [iht.com].
not just "effectively" (Score:5, Interesting)
However, I don't see anything that anti-trust regulators can do about that.
What the open source community can try to do is deflect the PR impact back on Microsoft by making it crystal clear what a sleazy deal this really is. Than, rather than appearing law-abiding and respecting IP, Microsoft will come across as underhanded and deceitful.
Of course, if anybody could leak the memo from inside Microsoft where this deal was discussed, that would help even more... any volunteers?
Parent
Re:Microsoft is effectively bankrolling SCO's laws (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Why MS has not shown the code... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now they licence it and get off the hook.
If(when) MS buys SCO, how can they harm Linux. Definately MS will try it best to kill Linux. And money is no issue.
Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft used BSD code, but the BSD license permits this. You can try this simple experiment on your own PC, assuming you have Cygwin:
C:\WINNT\system32> strings FTP.EXE |grep -i copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
Now why would Microsoft leave that in there if they were deliberately trying to hide it?
Parent
Why are people surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
They just got one.
My prediction: Every MS sales manager will be out in force over the next fews weeks. At every MS supported site they will be sending the same message:
"I see you have Linux here. Just a word of advice, we are going to be pursuing litigation over some of "our" intellectual rights that have been stolen, and we really want to keep our customers protected. You may want to move to MS products before you get caught up in something ugly.
For your own protection."
While we don't like it, we should not be surprised by it. They have a $30 billion check book to keep this tied up in court for years. They won't want a resolution, they want litigation or the threat of it.
read the OSI position paper (Score:5, Informative)
SCO's case is so ludicrous (they don't even own the "UNIX" trademark) that one really does have to wonder what the motives of Microsoft are in paying them anything.
Strategic Victory for M$ (Score:5, Funny)
2) License SCO IP and/or buy out beleaguered company
3) Patent "Description of Linux-like O/S here" (We all know this would probably get by the patent office, greased with lots of greenbacks)
4) Sue the pants off of anybody who runs linux as "infringers of M$ IP"
5) Profit...
See? no "..." step in this one...
FreeBSD was sued years ago, now its clean. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now the situation has reversed.
I wonder if FreeBSD will regain some of the lost marketshare as a result of this.
After all, it was rewritten to get rid of intellectual property issues so people who migrated to avoid this particular risk might find it attractive.
The reason for MS's move is publicity... (Score:5, Interesting)
What if SCO stole the Linux code first? (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about it (Score:5, Insightful)
They are basically stabbing IBM in the back, and that seemingly for no apparent reason, except for the fact they want to hurt IBM's adoption of linux.
And that is why I am inclined to call it desperate, because it will hurt them more than it helps. SCO will lose this suit big time, and IBM will be see that another proof that MS is unreliable, which will further underline the importance for them to go with linux.
Basically, MS may have declared an end to a business relation with IBM, where both partners demonstrated a good relationship in the public while kicking each others shinbone under the table.
They openly kicked IBM here, and they'll have to expect IBM to do the same when they get the chance. Therefore I think MS wouldn't have done that if they had felt themselves in a strong position against IBM/linux.
The truth about SCO code in Linux & Windows XP (Score:5, Interesting)
I am convinced that SCO, failing to release any evidence what-so-ever of any claim, is merely attempting to manipulate the market. Microsoft, who admits to be fearful of Linux, is looking for anything to confuse potential Linux customers.
NONE of this is news. SCO hasn't been able to show if there has been any violations, likely because there are none. Microsoft has not been able to specify which code they were in violation of, if any, or what code they "licensed".
Therefore, I believe that SCO is just making this all up. I believe that Microsoft is helping them. I believe they are doing this because the executives at SCO want to make money by damaging the reputation of Linux. I believe it is in Microsoft's best interest to help them, because Microsoft's data center business is being bashed by Linux.
My belief and speculation should be the headlines. I suggest
"SCO's new illegitimate business model?"
Because given all the previous "press releases" by SCO, it is is the most likely truth. Maybe I'm wrong... but just lok at the evidence provided so far.
License not Buy (Score:5, Informative)
The headline of both articles clearly says so.
You know why they did this.... (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft sees this a great way to impact Linux, so in order to legitimize SCO's claim on Linux, they decide they're going to license SCO's technology from them. Though they probably don't need to, and don't have any IP issues, by spending some money, they help legitmize SCO's claims against Linux.
The probably would have just bought SCO outright, but the would sicked the trust busters on them faster than you can imagine...
And now SCO is threatening to pull IBM's UNIX license. Well both IBM and HP have announced that they plan to move to Linux as their primary OS for their midrange systems, instead of AIX and HP/UX.
I don't want to say UNIX is dying here, cause it's not, but UNIX is definitelyu being looked at less and less by it's 2 biggest licensees. SCO sees this and doesn't like it. After all, they abandoned their Linux business in favor of UNIX, and now they're learning a lot of people have abandoned their UNIX business in favor of Linux.
I think HP, IBM, RedHat and all those UnitedLInux companies should buy SCO and release all that UNIX source code under the GPL.
But I don't think they should buy SCO till AFTER they lose in court. Don't give SCO what they want, which is a buyout.
Here's why SCO might actually win the lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, Microsoft's polititical contributions have enabled it to get ridiculously biased outcomes in US courts. i.e. Anti-trust judgement "forcing" MS to give free copies of its software to schools, etc. which is ironic since giving away software for free was one of the problems.
Third, you can expect Microsoft to let politicians know what they prefer as the outcome in the SCO lawsuit while they hand out big fat checks.
Note the difference in the amount of political contributions from Microsoft before and after their anti-trust lawsuit. Expect the ROI from this year's contributions to benefit Microsoft exactly as it has in the past.
In 1996 Microsoft contributed:
$251,474 total
$136,424 democrats
$110,000 republicans
In 2000 Microsoft contributed:
$4,616,103 total
$2,134,241 democrats
$2,460,543 republicans
For more recent campaign contribution info, see:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp
NOTE: Microsoft is simply playing by the rules and doing what is in the best interest of their shareholders. If you don't like it, help change the rules regarding campaign finance by taking ACTION.
RMS has been correct all along (Score:5, Interesting)
Where is RMS when we need him!?
Re:so, they screamed loud enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
We're always talking here at Slashdot about patent abuse, and how patent houses go after "infringing" small fish first to set precedent for the bigger fish. By agreeing to pay off SCO, Microsoft may have just saved SCO the trouble of going after the small fish. The argument for smalltime Linux distros against paying royalties for the supposedly infringing code gets a bit tougher when SCO comes to you and says "look, even Microsoft ponied up and were too afraid to risk a legal battle."
Parent
Re:so, they screamed loud enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that anyone, even the IANALs around here (of which I am one) should know that a never went to court ``settlement'' like this carries absolutely zero legal precedent.
Instead, the way that I see this is simple: if Microsoft was -- as some have claimed -- funding this lawsuit, there had to be a monetary transaction somewhere. Until now, there wasn't any such transaction; while this is not in any manner a proof that Microsoft is the power behind the curtain, it does, coupled with their past statements on Linux as being harmful to IP, make this appear more like one of their publicity stunts.
I have no doubt that IBM will ride this out to its' logical conclusion, and we shall have another AT&T vs. BSD case.Parent
Re:so, they screamed loud enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you remember right, this was the reason why Linux became the focus of so many developers and even GNU -- because BSD was caught in legal limbo land!
If history will repeat itself, look for something similar to happen with Linux, now that its legality has been brought into question. Which alternative *nix based system will take its place?
Parent
Re:so, they screamed loud enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:The Reason is Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Said Donald Rumsfeld to Saddam Hussein in 1983.
Parent
Re:A choice buy (Score:5, Informative)
No. In order to do that, they would have to buy it, not license it.
Parent
Re:A choice buy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
--
Simon
Parent
Re:Is anybody surprised by this move??? (Score:5, Interesting)
as easy as that sounds, it literally makes me sick to think that SCO will be receive one single penny from this.
SCO, in all of their selfishness, deserves nothing. it is not the fault of the community if SCO's business model did not put more focus into the linux market by establishing a distro and services very much like Redhat has done.
Before even hearing that Microsoft is now involved, I had a hunch that this would be a perfect thing for MS to push. From the surface, it makes the GPL look shaky and raises doubts for IT departments allow linux onto production systems; what a perfect attack.
however, having been involved with the linux and open source community for almost 10 years, i know how strong of a voice we have. you can bet the community won't sit idle and let this foolishness actually happen.
good luck brothers! i fear this battle will be the biggest linux has ever faced, and i know we will stand together and not let corporate greed foil our plans for an open world of computing.
Parent
Re:Is anybody surprised by this move??? (Score:5, Funny)
ALL: To Mount Doom!
Parent
Re:Deweasler output (Score:5, Insightful)
So many deweasler outputs here:
"My enemy's enemy is my friend"
"Now, here's a cracking source of FUD we can use - we can't fund this campaign directly, so we'll fund them indirectly and get additional FUD value"
"Let's send out reps round saying 'did you get a letter from SCO - unlike these Linux pirates Micosoft ensures you're safe from this sort of thing'"
Obviously MS has no interest in the outcome of the case, just in the FUD value while it's going on. The real danger is that they will help SCO keep the thing alive and unresolved for years. They're good at that. IBM and the OS community need to focus their attentions not on the rights and wrongs of the case - when did being in the right ever help when wrestling with MS - but on ways of getting the case to closure.
I am suddenly deeply fearful of this lawsuit.
Dunstan
Parent
Re:How about OSX? (Score:5, Interesting)
The funny thing is that Richard Shaheen, Microsoft's chief OS architect, is the one that invented the BSD Mach microkernel, the basis for OS X and Next before it.
Basically, it was possible to do development on BSD because AT&T came to agreement some time ago with the academics who developed it, allowing them to keep the source. Before this agreement, there was actually disagreement and legal battles similar to what we are seeing today.
Back when BSD forked, ownership of the trademark and intellectual property was murky. AT&T had basically been giving out the source, somewhat similar to SCO' recent practice, but not under the GPL. Since SCO released under the GPL, their claims do not seem very strong.
Parent