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.
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.
Re:A Better Reason (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A Better Reason (Score:5, 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: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: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.
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
Re:A Better Reason (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wrong. It's the end of enterprise free software (Score:5, Funny)
We'll all be painting circles on our back lawns to show the pigs where to land. PORKAIR061, clear for landing.
No big deal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No big deal (Score:5, Funny)
Illegal use of history and common knowledge. Five yard penalty against the defense!
Re:Don't assume the GPL is infallible (Score:5, Interesting)
The GPL is as close to legally airtight as you can get, because it does not revoke any rights you have, it grants you rights you dont have. If you 'win' a case against the GPL, the best scenario you get is it defaults to standard copyright, in which case you have no rights at all. The GPL wasnt written by a bunch of geeks, it was written by a bunch of geeks and their lawyers.
EULA's are an entirely different beast, since they actually revoke rights you ordinarily do have. If you get those provisions stricken by the court you gain something. A whole lot more productive than going up against the GPL and losing as much if you win as if you lose.
In the SCO case the license is beside the point. It could be proprietary, GPL, BSD or anything else. Since they were still distributing the code under that license after knowing it allegedly contained their own proprietary code, that is rather damaging to their claim about harm being caused. In the best case we'll get a decision that whatever SCO distributed the code under is a valid license. Or the SCO code might have to be removed if the court considers it an understandable mistake on SCO's part, but as they've distributed it themselves it would be rather difficult to point fingers and argue that anyone else has been distributing the same code in bad faith.
Of course, if IBM violated an NDA on the code in the first place, that hardly helps IBM. It's really two different cases; wether IBM violated an NDA, and wether this affects Linux in any way at all.
Personally, I rather doubt any SCO code is in Linux. My experience with SCO suggests that SCO had nothing anyone would want in Linux, and frankly, if they've found any uncanny similarities, I think it's far more likely that someone at SCO has been cut'n'pasting from Linux into SCO's products. They've had loads of more opportunity and IMO far more motive.
The amounts of egg in SCO's face if that is discovered would be a fun sight to see.
Of course, IANAL, etc.
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?
"ongoing commitment"... (Score:5, Funny)
Or Apple, for that matter.
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: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: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:Why Microsoft is doing this (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe, but don't be surprised if MS makes a few more of these "Licensing" payments a little further down the road. I think this is probably more about making sure SCO doesn't go out of bidness while they're twisting the knife. In short, Microsoft is funding the lawyers for the lawsuit because it will hurt Microsoft's competition. Remember, SCO *IS* 'financially troubled' so MS no doubt wants to make sure the air conditioning stays on.
What troubles me is why doesn't Microsoft just buy SCO outright? Unless the lawsuit really is bogus and MS just wants to make sure SCO has the financial backing to cause as many headaches as possible before time runs out, it would seem to me that if they are going to make sure the gun gets used, they might as well own it so they can decide where and when the trigger gets pulled. Have you ever known Bill and Steve to **NOT** want absolute total control of everything?
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 only buys what it needs (Score:5, Funny)
5. Profit!
Interestingly enough, your steps are exactly what the Borg do with new species. There's a reason that MS is compared to them.
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: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, 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.
Re:Why Microsoft is doing this (Score:4)
You make a good point, but in this case, isn't it SCO releasing SCO's code under the GPL? I.e. they do own the rights to it. And I'm pretty sure you can't license your code and then say "Ooops! -- I didn't mean to license it!".
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
Is anybody surprised by this move??? (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM, just go ahead and buy SCO, GPL everything they own, and let's put this silliness behind us.
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.
Re:Is anybody surprised by this move??? (Score:5, Funny)
ALL: To Mount Doom!
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:Is anybody surprised by this move??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, it's the UNIX Cold War. On one side you have an evil superpower secretly supporting small rogue states (the USSR, Microsoft) fighting against the good guys of freedom (IBM, Vietnam, South Korea, etc.). My personal conspiracy theory is that SCO (aka Caldera) le
Re:'GPL everything they own' (Score:4, Informative)
If microsoft got the code from sco under a non-gpl license they would have nothing to do with a gpl version of the same code.
Jeroen
Deweasler output (Score:3, Funny)
Deweasler output:
"See? Those Linux guys don't care about IP and we do! The Linux guys are nothing but a bunch of pirates! That's why you shouldn't use Linux!"
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
Damn (Score:5, Funny)
I hate Monday's.
uh-oh! (Score:3, Interesting)
read: "We will, we will crush you."
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.
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.
Re:Simmer down now (Score:5, Interesting)
It should be noted that Berkley was pondering a countersuit, claiming that Novel's code lifted large portions from BSD without copyrights or attributions.
In case you didn't know... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In case you didn't know... (Score:3, 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?
Re:Microsoft is effectively bankrolling SCO's laws (Score:5, Funny)
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?
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 $30 billion check book to keep this tied up in court for years. They won't want a resolution, they want litigation or the threat of it.
Re:Why are people surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
For your own protection."
"Hi. I see you've recently bought Kenmore Microwave model 1610. We here at Schitzo Microsystems are currently engaged in an IP suit agaist Kenmore for their methods of working with time. Kenmore has used our IP methods to determine that '90' was 90 'seconds' and 100 was 1 minute (60 seconds). We suggest you purchase the Schitzo 7000 to ensure you don't get caught up in something ugly."
IMHO, If you purchase another product because the parent companies are bickering, you need to be flogged.
read the OSI position paper (Score:5, Informative)
SCO's case is so ludicrous (they don't even own the "UNIX" trademark) that one really does have to wonder what the motives of Microsoft are in paying them anything.
Strategic Victory for M$ (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...
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).
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.
This doesn't kill free software (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason for MS's move is publicity... (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
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!?
MS code in Solaris (Score:5, Interesting)
Baz
Re:MS code in Solaris (Score:4, Funny)
Thorough check for MS code in Solaris (Score:4, Funny)
!seineew era sremmargorp tfosorciM
Microsoft sold xenix to SCO (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.sourcemagazine.com/articles/viewer.a
Enjoy,
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.
This may be a bit redundant but... (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO is taking shots at linux on its own (and in part Microsoft's) behalf. I would bet that SCO has been working a deal with Microsoft to get some code licensed that SCO has. Suddenly SCO realizes that some of the code microsoft wants is already out. Seeing this might cause a problem with how "edible" they look to microsoft they start hammering away at whoever they can (IBM) for infringement on those same rights previously.
So in part, I think its that they wanted to look better for Microsoft, but I don't think it was a ploy to have someone buy them out necessarily.
I'd assume that in the end this will be a gestapo tactic like someone mentioned earlier and also a strategy to kill off linux as competition.
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: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."
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.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: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.)
Re:so, they screamed loud enough? (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM signed its license agreement with AT&T long ago. There is nothing SCO can do to revoke it.
SCO can say that they can revoke it but they simply don't have that power. IBM on the other hand DO have the power to tell Caldera 'sit on it and spin'.
This is nothing more than the death throes of a company looking to get bought out.
Selling the patent license to Microsoft is kinda cute, Microsoft probably didn't have to pay too much and there is probably some piece of SCO technology somewhere that would allow a claim to be made they infringed. SCO could not make the claim because Microsoft can say the same of them. If however SCO is liquidated the patents could be bought by a private patent-extortion outfit.
Re:so, they screamed loud enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you are right. Maybe you'll see some expensive Microsoft Unix tools or Windows tools that inter-operate with Unix but the big thing is the stunt SCO is pulling.
SCO is telling IBM (by extention RedHat, Debian, Mandrake, SuSe[*], et. al.) that this is how things should be done and Microsoft gets a "double plus good" rating. They are saying this is what real companies do.
On the screen it looks like flamebait or a troll, but it's just something that will not produce much (or?) but will try to get wider support for SCO's case. If Microsoft doesn't rip them off, then someone that would is evil!
*So, where can I find a list of people that actually got letters. Consider some Linux distributers wanted to Unite... does SuSe ride the SCO wave with a pass on IP claims and become the UnitedLinux?
Next week kids...
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.
The Reason is Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Reason is Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Said Donald Rumsfeld to Saddam Hussein in 1983.
Re:so, they screamed loud enough? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ponder this...
~s/License/Buy/
Re:so, they screamed loud enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
Will M$ buy SCO's Unix IP? (Score:5, Insightful)
This might be ridiculous conspiracy theory if we were talking about another company.
Re:so, they screamed loud enough? (Score:5, Funny)
Clippy: It looks like your replacing somthing, would you like some help?
Re:A choice buy (Score:5, Informative)
No. In order to do that, they would have to buy it, not license it.
Re:A choice buy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A choice buy (Score:4, Insightful)
The clear water is muddied.
The manager pauses.
The moment passes.
A small victory is made.
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
--
Simon
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
Re:A choice buy (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:How about OSX? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:MS Buys SCO... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, Linux doesn't appear to contain copyrighted Unix code. A baseless accusation from a sub-par vendor facing certain defeat in the marketplace does not a copyright breach make.
I wouldn't be one bit surprised, though, to find out that SCO Unix contains copyrighted GPL code in breach of copyright law. After all, Linux has been much more powerful and capable than SCO Unix for a number of years. With all that higher quality GPL source code just laying around for the picking, I imagine the temptation at SCO was great.
Re:Microsoft has been using a lot of UNIX code (Score:5, Funny)
I would be willing to bet there is quite a bit of Unix code in Windows. How else could you explain the gradual increased steadiness over the past 5 years.
You're right! There's no way a team of programmers could create a stable operating system without stealing Unix code!
SCO should just start suing anyone who produces a "stable" OS. That'll teach those fuckers!
Re:Microsoft has been using a lot of UNIX code (Score:4, Informative)
Wasn't it just a few years ago that Steve Gibson of Gibson Research discovered that Microsoft's TCP stack was identical to BSD?
Others have covered the illegitimacy of Gibson enough that I don't need to add more. Microsoft has acknowledged using BSD code in Windows 2000 many times. It's "TCP/IP" stack, TCP is a layer 4 protocol.
but in the console it actually shows the c: drive on my one computer as
it wasn't
Also, Windows even has an
Actually, it's a C:\WINNT\System32\Drivers\Etc folder. Having a folder named "etc" does not mean they ripped off UNIX, but this statement (as your others) are so completely unclued that this does not need to be said.
I would be willing to bet there is quite a bit of Unix code in Windows.
Duh. That's what BSD is about.
How else could you explain the gradual increased steadiness over the past 5 years.
Gee, perhaps because Microsoft employs many of the most brilliant computer scientists out there, Dave Cutler in the Kernel team, who was involved with the uberstable VMS operating system (which spanked UNIX on uptimes and was about as far from UNIX as you could get).
Microsoft did work on Xenix years ago, and for that they did work on OS/2 with IBM which has a lot of BSD in it as well.
Great! This is what the BSD license is about.
If the gov't ever opened up their source a lot of you guys would probably recognize major pieces
Duh. A guy from Microsoft spoke in a recent interview about using BSD networking code in NT.