Microsoft To License SCO's Unix Code 817
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.
Why Microsoft is doing this (Score:5, Insightful)
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 $400 or so
for the development suite).
This is most likely a bid by Microsoft to do the following:
The Reason is Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Why MS has not shown the code... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now they licence it and get off the hook.
If(when) MS buys SCO, how can they harm Linux. Definately MS will try it best to kill Linux. And money is no issue.
Re:so, they screamed loud enough? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ponder this...
~s/License/Buy/
Re:Is anybody surprised by this move??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually there could never have been much doubt. SCO by itself doesn't have either much reason or power to play with IBM without covert backing from Redmond. Was there any other reason for their going directly after IBM and ignoring RH/SuSE?
IBM, just go ahead and buy SCO, GPL everything they own, and let's put this silliness behind us.
That's where we hit a snag. If IBM wants to buy SCO, M$ will offer to do so as well, and who do you think SCO will sell out to?
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Then we'll have the anti-Linux trolls out, and then the anti-Microsoft flamers will get their thing on, and then the BSD and Mac users will wade on in and spark of their own flamewars.
You and I will get nothing out of it but raised blood pressure and a vow never to read Slashdot stories like this again. So why bother?
MS goals (Score:3, Insightful)
1) to make the current doubt on Linux future in PHB's heads stronger, and during much more time.
- Why would MS pay some money to SCO if there was nothing important to license ?
- It gives substance to the claim.
- SCO has some fundings (and the trial could last years...)
2) Have a valid license if IBM buys SCO to suppress the problem, reduce legal costs, and shorten the doubt on Linux's future (some people claim that SCO's goal is to be bought by IBM).
This doesn't kill free software (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A choice buy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Microsoft is doing this (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure what their fiskle health is but it isn't great. This may be MS's way of making sure that the lawsuit happens.
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.
Re:A choice buy (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, maybe not (Score:1, Insightful)
Precursor to a buyout? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe Microsoft just wants a peek at the code SCO claims has been stolen by Linux. While I understand that M$ owned all or part of this code in the 1980's, maybe they want to see what has changed since they sold it off.
If the M$ lawyers think that SCO has a real case, they'll buy the IP and take over the lawsuits that SCO has been grumbling about... They will probably make little, if any, profit from the IP and lawsuits directly, but if they can manage to hurt one or more of the major distros, it could be enough to make some of the major consumers of high-end server OS's think twice about using Linux in the future.
While I don't claim to know anything about the portions of code that SCO claims have been stolen, and IANAL, perhaps now is the time for the developers/maintainers of the affected packages to reexamine the code, just to be sure. If the code is based on SCO, it is probably rather old, and may need attention anyway. There's no need to admit any liability, but if the code is no longer recognizably 'SCOish' it may be easier to claim that there is no claim...
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
Re:Microsoft getting to Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
How? They don't have UNIX copyrights - they are licensing technology from SCO not buying it
This one's played right into Microsofts hands I'm afraid. The damage they could do are frightening
I know M$ are evil however lets not get carried away. It's just licensing some technology.
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.
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.
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?
Re:The Reason is Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Said Donald Rumsfeld to Saddam Hussein in 1983.
Re:Why are people surprised? (rantish) (Score:1, Insightful)
I think it's horrifying to see the West's manufacturing base dissolving as people construct sky-castles of "Intellectual property".
IP isn't worth the paper it's not even printed on. Its value derives entirely from IP laws. Ever-more-strict IP laws are justified by saying without them the value of IP wouldn't exist. Well, tough!
Circular logic can e.g. keep a religion around for a few millenia, granted an undereducated popilation, but it's fundamentally flawed.
The IP sky-castles will come tumbling down. And they might crush the West. The correct response is not to keep shoring them up, but to dismantle them safely.
Any real artist or mathematician knows that the act of "creation" is really an act of highlighting discoveries about the universe. To protest otherwise is a massive conceit and a denial of physical reality.
Re:Or, people will just switch to FreeBSD.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
$2,460,543 republicans
For more recent campaign contribution info, see:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp
NOTE: Microsoft is simply playing by the rules and doing what is in the best interest of their shareholders. If you don't like it, help change the rules regarding campaign finance by taking ACTION.
Re:Why are people surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
For your own protection."
"Hi. I see you've recently bought Kenmore Microwave model 1610. We here at Schitzo Microsystems are currently engaged in an IP suit agaist Kenmore for their methods of working with time. Kenmore has used our IP methods to determine that '90' was 90 'seconds' and 100 was 1 minute (60 seconds). We suggest you purchase the Schitzo 7000 to ensure you don't get caught up in something ugly."
IMHO, If you purchase another product because the parent companies are bickering, you need to be flogged.
Standing (Score:1, Insightful)
M$ money will now help fund lawsuit (Score:3, Insightful)
If MS were to buy SCO, or make another significant stock investment, it would certainly give SCO the financial resources to fight IBM. But that would probably be *way too obvious* and bring the scrutiny of the Government anti-trust regulators. This way, with the license deal, MS can funnel money to SCO without the Goverment breathing down their necks.
Re:A choice buy (Score:4, Insightful)
The clear water is muddied.
The manager pauses.
The moment passes.
A small victory is made.
Re:Why Microsoft is doing this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is anybody surprised by this move??? (Score:2, Insightful)
gah! Spare me the political indoctrination, please.
Re:so, they screamed loud enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would agree, except that I don't see the end of this case being years off. SCO has stated a deadline by which they want IBM to buy them out -- June 13 -- or face having their Unix license for AIX revoked.
Since letting that deadline pass forms a"pick one OS to promote" dilemma, and also given that I don't see them giving up on their Linux or AIX development (given that their services are moving more and more to Linux on the small side, but they still promote AIX for high-end users) I expect a resolution before that date (but not much before it).
And given that IBM may have hired [theinquirer.net] Eric Raymond as a "UNIX history consultant", I would say the outcome of this case is predetermined. (To be honest, I said the same about Eldred v. Ashcroft, but that didn't turn out as I expected.)
History 101 - Business 101 (Score:1, Insightful)
This is not your father's SCO. It is your father's SCO which is now owned by Ray Noorda. When Ray (Novell & all the other companies he owns) can't compete, you buy bankrupt companies like your father's SCO for their IP and sue anybody with lottsa money.
This isn't about technology. It's about money and the control of the world, especially including its substantial comforts, that money can buy.
jumping the gun (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MS Buys SCO... (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, do you actually have proof that the Linux kernel doesn't contain any SCO IP?
Two different things, and neither of you have proof. Shut up.
Re:A Better Reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Will M$ buy SCO's Unix IP? (Score:5, Insightful)
This might be ridiculous conspiracy theory if we were talking about another company.
Nice conspiracy theories, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's think a bit about Caldera's history and how it relates to Microsoft. When Caldera bought DR-DOS from Novell, it also bought an anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft. This lawsuit ended with Microsoft settling for an undisclosed amount of money. Unless I'm mistaken, any and all dealings with any IP that Caldera ever owned (alleged or otherwise) would be high on Microsoft's do-not-touch list. MS has lots of money, but I'm sure they'd prefer to keep it rather than give it out in more settlements.
Fast forward to a few years back when Caldera purchased selected assets from SCO (engineers, IP, sales channel, etc.). Now, in addition to DOS stuff, Microsoft has to be careful about UNIX stuff. This comes at a time when Microsoft is desperately trying to make Windows more appealing to UNIX folks with their UNIX interoperability toolkit (as well as UNIX-ish internals to their OSes for all I know).
IBM is a big fish, but it's only one big fish out of a handful of other big fish. Microsoft -- who didn't fare well the last time they were sued by Caldera -- has probably weighed the benefits of of purchasing a UNIX IP license against the cost of a potential lawsuit and decided to get a license.
That said, there is one conspiracy theory that I've read here that I think may hold some water: by purchasing an IP license from SCO, Microsoft may think they're solidifying SCO's claims against Linux. I doubt that this would be more important to them than avoiding another lawsuit, but I'm sure the potential "benefits" of their actions have crossed their minds.
Microsoft only buys what it needs (Score:5, Insightful)
SOP at Microsoft is:
1. Approach a small company that has some cool technology.
2. Get a perpetual license for the technology and source code, in return for a cash injection.
3. Take the source, incorporate it into Microsoft products, and give those products away as bundled parts of Windows and Office, reducing small company's own products to zero value.
4. Shed worthless husk of small company.
Examples are too numerous to list, but VIVO is the classic that fits the model perfectly. Real would have gone the same way if they hadn't secretly worked on their G2 stuff in a separate code stream that wasn't covered by their agreement with Microsoft.
Re:Microsoft is effectively bankrolling SCO's laws (Score:2, Insightful)
From what I recall, this was no freeware but a commercial game. Let alone a commercial name.
Sue ! Sue ! Sue !
MS gives SCO their reward: 30 pieces of silver (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are Microsoft paying SCO for a Unix license?
If Microsoft want to put Unix-like functionality on Windows, they could just use BSD, and not pay license fees. Now Bill Gates doesn't have a reputation for spending money unnecessarily, so there's some other reason.
Perhaps SCO's suit against IBM and threats against Linux users is something MS have put them up to. MS have a motive for doing this as they hate and fear Linux..
If this theory is correct, MS's payment to SCO is really a reward for disrupting Linux; the SCO Unix license is just to disguise what MS are really buying.
Embrace and Extend... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look for Microsoft to try to manipulate Posix standards toward proprietary extensions. Also look at them to support SCO in the patent infringement case.
Urge your friends to boycott Microsoft products, buy systems without the 'Microsoft Tax' (without an OS - easiest way to do this is build a machine from parts), and reload Microsoft machines with Linux (my game box is going to be loaded with Linux exclusively in the next few days - directX is dead - long live OpenGL!)
More importantly, support Linux and open source products/projects. Lets get the breadth and depth of computer games now available on Windows for Linux by buying/supporting Linux games/developers, and following through on open source game development. Desktop productivity tools are there, now lets get the other arenas up to speed as well.
Re:Why Microsoft is doing this (Score:3, Insightful)
But I have here a boxed copy of Caldera's own Linux, with the kernel source supplied to me under the GPL. Since Caldera do own the UN*X source, then even if there is 'tainted' UNIX code in the Linux source Caldera undoubtedly did have the legal right to apply the GPL to it and they supplied it to me under the GPL. So the GPL says I can supply it to anyone else...
See that boot? It's got a bullet hole in.
Re:A Better Reason (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A Better Reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention this so-called 'necessary' SCO license is a way for M$ to funnel some money into SCO to help support their bogus lawsuit.
Re:You've watched X-Files one too many times. (Score:4, Insightful)
To just write it off as so much conspiracy talk is to ignore the obvious potential advantage Microsoft could try to exploit. Heck, I would do the same thing if I was them and I thought it would work.
Re:A Better Reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise, why wouldn't M$ sit back and wait for the outcome of the SCO vs IBM suit? After all, if SCO loses, M$ wouldn't have to pay SCO a red cent.
OTOH, if IBM takes the easy way out and buys SCO, then M$ could find itself meeting *IBM's* licensing terms, which one suspects could be considerably less, ah, "flexible" than dealing with SCO.
I'd really love to have some flies on those boardroom walls...
Re:so, they screamed loud enough? (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt MS is "paying off" SCO because MS is afraid of being targeted, rather MS sees that these claims by SCO that Linux is infringing as positive-- if Linux has a cloudy legal future, then MS can continue to undercut Linux-- and they can help SCO stay afloat by licensing something they don't even intend to use. It's bankrolling straight up plain and simple, if you ask me.
Re:not just "effectively" (Score:1, Insightful)
Microsoft and SCO Predictions (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has Billions in its coffers people and the story behind the scenes is more sinister than you can possible imagine I am afraid.
More sinister, because as this develops, it is quite clear this was fully planned and orchestrated by some individual in conjunction with Microsoft's legal apparatus at least 6 months ago.
You don't just BUY a license from SCO, there is a great deal of negotiating that has to take place first for at least 30 days, for example.
So this news is hardly a revelation, more like a leak.
I predict the following from this fall out:
1) International acceptance will widen of Linux because of this, and it will backfire on whomever came up with this idea to discredit Linux and its developers.
2) Microsoft hasn't learned. It continues to use its enourmous warchest to get itself into trouble both with intellectual IP (frivilous lawsuits) and its growing hard line against Linux.
Obviously this is a new tactic. Microsoft's Billions can buy any company it so desires, and use it as a front to create untold havoc in the Western Information Technology sector that considers any alternatives to Microsoft Products.
The best way to expose this is to get a hold of the negotiations between the individuals at Microsoft and SCO, if any paper documents exist, that planned this complete work of fiction lawsuit.
If someone at Microsoft is reading this, leak those papers, so that a lawsuit can be filed. This is blatent AntiTrust behavior and could repoen the case against Microsoft.
3) The outrage that this is going to cause in the Linux American based developer community is going to be far and wide, primarily directed at Microsoft.
As a result I predict this to be an enourmous PR problem for Microsoft on a scale not seen yet, especially after a few months of this goes buy and #2 comes to light.
-Hack
Re:OSI Position Paper-BSD RULES! (Score:3, Insightful)
The second claim is that Linux could have never scaled as fast as it did and grow as fast as it did without IBM or 'insider UNIX info'.
Personally I think what this case is going to show us is that Open Source CAN be better software than closed source for just this reason. linux grew cause people wrote the apps FOR linux and the drivers FOR linux. The linux kernel went through a process of change over time. 2.0 -> 2.2 -> 2.4 and each time it got better and better. There are probably more open source programmers working on ALL the various open source projects that make up a GNU/Linux distro, then SCO has had employed in its ENTIRE history as a company. THIS is why I think Linux has come where it is today. Not just the KERNEL, but ALL the GNU projects, that ALSO run on IBM/AIX, SUN, HP, *BSD, Linux, AND SCO.
Re:Why Microsoft is doing this (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes they could.
That is, the current administration could.
This is reality. Remember?
Oh, the current administration could never roll back our civil liberties to an unprecedented level.
Re:Why Microsoft is doing this (Score:5, Insightful)
The public comments about IP protection are minor asides: the real value to them is having thousands of sales blokes able to keep repeating "
Remember, this comes about a week after it came out that MS have directed their sales for "not to lose to Linux at any cost". They will play this for all it's worth - it's like an astroturf campaign which fell into their lap.
Dunstan
Re:Dog Food. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hello? McFly? Is anyone home?
Have you forgotten what administration we are currently living under?
It won't be that difficult to root out all those free software comunists, er..., um... oops, the new word is Terrorists.
Re:A Better Reason (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason is simple. Microsoft doesn't really believe that SCO has a case. If SCO really had a case the last thing they would do is talk to journalists. The reason that IBM hasn't responded in the press to SCO's statements is that IBM knows that these statements can be used as evidence. SCO knows this as well, but they don't care. They aren't trying to win a court case, they are simply launching an advertising campaign against Linux on a budget. Instead of taking out ads they simply start a $1 billion suit against IBM and wait for the journalists to call them.
Microsoft knows that anything that discredits Linux helps their cause, and so they have pitched in some money to strengthen SCO's case in the court of public opinion. If Microsoft were actually concerned about SCO's IP they would already have licensed it. SCO had plenty of licensees to their IP. The reason that SCO and Microsoft are discrediting Linux is because both of these companies are vulnerable to Linux growth.
Assault on Linux != Assault on Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)