Daveleh Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 Just read this on Yahoo news! http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030519/36/e0c0l.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramfree17 Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 hmmmn, it came from the uk so it must be one of those press releases by their uk office who are responsible for the iloo *fake release*. i wish microsoft buys sco. its a money-losing venture anyway. ciao! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daveleh Posted May 19, 2003 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 i wish microsoft buys sco. its a money-losing venture anyway. ciao! Maybe, but who has the worst current licence practices MS or SCO ? And if they were to apply that to Unix what effect would that have on Linux distributors ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero0w Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 Unfortunately, looks like this news is true: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/1...19/1055223&tid= Another source from WSJ http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030519/0114000182_1.html Well it looks like the open source folks will have to fight this one. MS joining forces with SCO, I cannot imagine how the legal battle will turn out, or if IBM will decide to buy SCO eventually. I believe open source DOES have great impact such that these issues will make people vocal, and now, sue about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aru Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 who cares? I mean, I doubt that SCO or MS-SCO will be able to demonstrate that IBM's Linux Kernels use native Unix code, but if they could demonstrate it, which is the problem? The open source movement is now too big to be stoped or even affected by corporate stuff Maybe is just that M$ wants to make a posix compilant windows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixthusdan Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 It does indeed look like another microsnarf scheme to silence linux. They have shown their hand; the whole argument is another way to create poor market conditions for linux distributions attempting to do business. SCO has agreed to attack linux. Micosoft's only interest in any of this is certainly not "intellectual" property rights, IT, or any community. Microsoft is scared of linux. When they are scared, they either buy all the programmers or buy the rights to the software that concerns them. They think they have figured out a way to but the rights, because they can't buy the programmers. SCO needs to be done in the community. Actually, they are already gone, because that's what happens to all those who work with micromindlessness. With the micromoney entering the fray, it looks like the courts will indeed decide if someone like me can even think about what my software should do. After all, according to microsoft, only they can ask the questions and find the solutions for me, because so many have given them money. Only paid professionals can write safe software, only paid professionals can think about what my computer can do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeeDubb Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 This is laughable. Even if MS continues the law suite, and even if it gets to a judge, even if they manage to prove to a judge that IBM linux contains source from SCO, there's no point, because Caldera (later to become SCO) PUT IT THERE THEMSELVES UNDER THE GPL!!!! THe only way MS could make a go of this is to somehow prove that the GPL is illegal. How many of you think a judge is gonna buy the "We released the source on accident" story? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 Ooh, where can i find ou that the code is given out under gpl..i didn't know that....is it there a contract of sco that says this?? I want to find more about it.....just curious thanks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 Michel: the reason it was given out under GPL is because Caldera (which became SCO, as mentioned) had it's own version of linux. And as we all know, anything based off of the linux kernel must be GPL'ed-therefore, if there is code in the Linux kernel, and SCO/Caldera released it's own version of linux under GPL which would have had the included code in it, that code is legally under the GPL after said point. They might as well take out a gun, point it at their feet, and pull the trigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JaseP Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 Not necessarily. If there is other code in Linux that got put there by IBM and was not part of Caldera's release, then there could be a problem. Additionally, there could be a problem with if the Caldera release included one of those duel licenses that encorporates both OpenSource and proprietary software, and they did it right. M$ buying a license doesn't give M$ the right to to enforce the patents, it's not an assignment, they are just becoming a "subscriber" so to speak. I think it's geared at interoperability and covering their own ass as to use of SCO intellectual property. It may be an attempt to take a sneak peak in order to see if an acquisition is in order. They may run into a problem if they attempt to enforce acquired rights against their key competitor once they have already been adjudicated as a monopoly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crashdamage Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 This is very, VERY bad news. Why, after 30 years of UNIX, does Microsoft suddenly feel the need to buy a UNIX license? It can only be the 1st step of a much larger plan to put the wood to IBM and Linux. Remember years ago, Microsoft put up something like $165 million to bail out Apple, but on the condition Apple would not compete directly with Microsoft, i.e. sell no x86 compatible operating systems, which is mainly why there is no version of OSX for the PC. Eliminated Apple as a serious OS competitor, but meanwhile Microsoft can sell Apple-compatible software like Office and make money from Apple's continued exsistence. Sweet! Microsoft likely is going to do something similar for SCO - put up the money for their legal fight (SCO really doesn't have it) and bail out SCO but on the condition that SCO does not compete directly with Microsoft, i.e.not allow use of their code in Linux for the PC. Eliminates Linux as a serious OS competitor, but meanwhile Microsoft can sell UNIX-compatible software and make money from UNIX's continued existence. Sweet! Or, after looking over SCO's code, they may decide SCO does have a great case and just buy SCO - and thereby Linux. End of their problem, but just the start of ours. The only good thing I see in all this is the fact that SCO sold Linux themselves, released under the GPL. That might save Linux in general, but maybe not IBM's ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JaseP Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 I don't think you are completely off the beam with the argument that M$ is likely helping to bankroll SCO with this latest manuever. On the other hand, M$ has previously released an intention to port some of their technologies over to *nix platforms. An SCO Unix license would make that easier. I don't think this particular action is intended to be M$'s assertion of IP rights against Linux. They are sneakier than that. What this does is cover their butts with regards to anything that they implement in their owns software that might intrude on SCO patents. If you read the OpenSource Initiatives white paper on the SCO claims, it is abundantly clear that they are setting themselves up for failure. They may win a small judgment against IBM for patent infringements in IBM's own releases, but they are unlikely to be able to spin that out into a direct assault on Linux. The minds involved in Open Source development are better than to allow someone's IP to derail their efforts. There is more than one way to skin a proverbial cat, and I trust that Open Source developers have found those ways in Linux, rather than just steal code. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 Not necessarily. If there is other code in Linux that got put there by IBM and was not part of Caldera's release, then there could be a problem. Yes, there would be a problem for IBM, but not the linux kernel, which is the main vein here. as the caldera release had to contain the kernel (otherwise it would not be linux, obliviously-yes spelled wrong intentionally). there was an actual news article in which someone more knowledgeable than myself spoke of the issue of caldera's version of linux and how that negates any effect on the linux kernel, however I can't currently find it, it's buried somewhere in another post on this board concerning this topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 I own a copy of Caldera edesktop 2.4 dose that make mean im ok, anyone whant the kernel srpm from it, its a bit outdated but its GPLed so i can give it away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 I own a copy of Caldera edesktop 2.4 dose that make mean im ok, anyone whant the kernel srpm from it, its a bit outdated but its GPLed so i can give it away you just made my point :) if that kernel source is GPLed, unless they stripped it from the kernel source that was on kernel.org at that time, then any code that might have been their's that was in the kernel would have become GPLed. am i wrong? i'm just trying to be logical, but then again no one has ever accused the legal system of working logically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.