FSF, GCC, and SCO Compiler Support 525
Ancipital was one of several who noted that a
special patch is going into GCC. The file is README.SCO, and it is a short writeup about the SCO situation written by the FSF. It stops short of demanding that GCC developers strip SCO support from the compiler, and says more will be announced before the next compiler release.
Damn (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, this is the right direction. I just hope projects can strip out SCO support without breaking much good code.
What exactly is being done? (Score:3, Insightful)
what's the point?
Re:Damn (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not the way.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
Pressure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is not the way.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's open source, SCO can fix whatever it wants. I don't see why we should maintain any code who is only going to benefits instances we don't wish to support. Even existing code needs maintenance.
but please do not remove any *existing* code.
On the contrary, please do. Call it a cleanup or refactoring. GCC removes support for obsolete archs all the time.
Silly, Silly, Silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Slippery Slope... (Score:5, Insightful)
We must take the higher ground and turn the other cheek, lest we threaten the very trust upon which Open Source is built.
Re:excellent (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is it an achievement to "cripple... ...the BSDs"? Not that they have been. And when was windows crippled? Is this a magical post sent back from the future to save mankind?
Re:This is not the way.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, it is a better knife in the back of SCO for everyone who uses it to see it is built upon open foundations.
I have to say this (Score:3, Insightful)
You wait just as long as you like to speak up about what SCO is pulling, but shut the fuck up about people that know they need to speak up now to protect their rights.
dropping SCO support would hurt the wrong people (Score:5, Insightful)
But GCC shouldn't remove SCO support for reasons of pique or spite. As other posters have said, it won't hurt SCO one bit, but to do so would make GCC, FSF, and the entire free/open software community look petty, and perhaps untrustworthy. GNU software has a long history of running on unsupportive or openly hostile platforms (i.e. windows) and its continuing to do so gives users of those platforms an incremental upgrade-path to freedom. Any action like this, however justified it might feel, would do much more to harm innocent SCO customers and the entire free software community's reputation.
Re:do it!! do it!! do it!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't do it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your problem is with the officials, not the inhabitants. All you would achieve is to turn sympathetic users of GCC into your sworn enemy. At what gain?
Many companies use proprietary technology. Some misappropriate Free Software, others allow it to mingle with their own. When a misappropriation takes place, our action need to be litigation, not misguided populist sentiment.
Re:... better yet (Score:5, Insightful)
And that level is exactly where we want to be, regarding SCO.
IBM is pulling some dirty tricks (patents) to punish SCO. And we're loving them for it.
Re:What exactly is being done? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, read it again.
It says they've been urged to do so, but will not at this time. They're considering it, but have very good reasons not to. If they did remove it, it would be basically a symbolic move that would hurt a few innocent people. Putting in this readme drawing attention to the controversy achieves a similar symbolic statement, without hurting those people. I think it's a good move.
Re:This is not the way.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Removing SCO support is the right move, and here is why...
Free software is about community. SCO is attempting to destroy that community. Why should community authors help SCO sell their wares and fund the holy war against, essentially, themselves? If supporting an antique operating system in your open-source code perpetuates this lawsuit for even one more day, why should I be required to do it? If I owned any copyrights to code that would be detrimental to SCO if withdrawn, you bet your ass I would consider it. Or at the least, I'd ponder a patch to remove SCO support while maintaining functionality for everybody else. Yes, I know its OSS, and they can download the code, but there's an expense involved for SCO there, too, since developers need to pay mortgages and food bills too.
Yes, it would probably be considered punitive, but as an author I am under no requirement to permanently support every stupid operating system for my software. Crap, does SCO even matter anymore outside of their lawsuit against IBM? I don't really think so.
A turn for the worse... (Score:2, Insightful)
It also kinda plays into SCO's hands, i.e. if they were smart enough they could market their own compiler with plenty of "useful", platform specfic features... But I suppose they'd have to prove their OS worth first.
What's next no support for Windoze, because MS believe Open Source is un-American?
Adult behaviour is best (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying that we are going to waste time removing support that already exists because we do not like what SCO has done would look childish to many observers. The message seems like 'you cannot play with us any more'. It would not disturb SCO in the slightest, as any customer crazy enough to buy a SCO license (or SCO maintenance contract) now would not be deterred by the fact that they cannot use leading edge features of the GCC compiler. All it would do is make FSF look unprofessional.
Re:... better yet (Score:4, Insightful)
The GCC issue on the other hand is one party, who has not been harmed in any way, pummeling the users of a maligned company instead of the company itself. This is foolish as it creates enemies from friends.
Re:do it!! do it!! do it!! (Score:5, Insightful)
SCOs customers are a miniscule source of profit anyway. Their customer base is tiny and shrinking. No one with half a brain has bought it in years, there install base is mostly very old installations that are only there because no one wants to break a working system.
Trying to coerce people like that usually backfires. The people still using SCO, all 10 of them, are already working on installing Linux or *BSD instead. No need to antagonise them. They didn't file the lawsuits, and they didn't buy from the company calling itself SCO in the first place anyway - they bought from what is now Tarantella and while you might not like old SCO either, they're certainly on a different plane from Darl & Co.
Technological fix (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Pull SCO support (Score:3, Insightful)
Suck it up and remember we are Ghandi here, not Hitler.
Re:do it!! do it!! do it!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that depends on whether or not SCO's operating systems are a part of their business plan any more. A lot of people would argue that they are just a lawsuit company now.
There's a big problem with this proposed action though. What message does it send to people who happen to be using SCO, and decided upon Free Software (GCC) for their compiler? Essentially, they are getting the message "you are using an operating system we don't like, so we'll leave you high and dry". It's Free Software, so it's not as bad as when a proprietary vendor drops support, but it's still a big business risk.
We don't want to give the impression that you can't depend on Free Software unless you buy into the whole philosophy and only use FSF-approved operating systems. I think they have done the right thing by making a public issue out of this before actually doing anything, it lets people plan ahead in case this goes ahead, and it gives end-users a chance to talk to SCO about it (if they aren't already).
Re:Pull SCO support (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on what you mean by use. Anyone can use it 'binary only run only' like SCO is claiming to license. However, modifying and distributing are different situations. Since SCO is openly in breach of the GPL, they have long since lost all legal right to do that. As I understand their products contain substantial cut and pastes from GPL sources particularly in the Linux compatibility sections, they can and should be sued for that.
They can still 'look at' GPL code, but if they copy it they're violating copyright.
Windows Support (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is not the way.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's the only way to remain free. 'I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it to the death'. We can't just stop supporting a large userbase because the company that produced their os is now doing some things that are against some peoples ethics/morals.
Re:do it!! do it!! do it!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot -- Your Daily SCO Update Channel. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know you can NOT click on the article? If it bothers you so much, why not disable the Caldera/SCO topic from your preferences? Heck, how was your thinking process? "Lets click in this story that disgustes me so much, scroll dow, hit reply, write a troll comment about how sick are we with this SCO news thing".
Speak for yourself, I for one am grateful with the following Slashdot is doing to this case. Some of us (and our families) LIVE out of linux, and you can always NOT click the link and go read another story.
Re:This is not the way.... (Score:5, Insightful)
'but you should not expect me to invite you for lunch'.
Re:This is not the way.... (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO Unix (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, the process of eliminating support in future versions of gcc, does not detract from the fact that current versions *do* support SCO Unix. As such, couldn't current SCO Unix users simply use the older versions in any case?
I'm all for the impartiallity in the development of software as important and necessary as the open source compiler, however, there is a point where we, as a community, must take the stand. There is an acute difference between impartiallity in our work, and allowing those whom wish to assimilate it, walking all over us.
Re:What exactly is being done? (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Damn (Score:3, Insightful)
All it would have the opposite effect... developers running SCO would then have to purchase the SCO C Compiler from SCO.. therefore SCO gets more money..
my 2 cents.
ChiefArcher
Re:This is not the way.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Free Software Movement might be about community, but Free Software, on its own, is just something that gets the job done for many people. If its developers yank your support because they don't like the operating system you use (why haven't they done this already for Windows?), then they run the risk of being percieved as unreliable. And how community-friendly is it to yank support for an OS that some people might be heavily reliant upon, when those people aren't responsible for the lawsuit madness?
Re:I have to say this (Score:3, Insightful)
The funny thing is, what the FSF is considering is the kind of thing that happens between businesses all the time. (Maybe they are ALL three year olds ;) ) I think their approach is actually pretty good. They state the problem, what possible actions are, but intend to take a "wait and see" approach. They've obviously considered the ramifications to innocent parties, which is good. And as of yet, they haven't taken any real action. I feel reasonably confident that if they decide to take action, it'll be warranted.
SCO support no more ! (Score:1, Insightful)
This is no joking matter.They are trying to torpedo all the work that has been done by the Linux community.
Do react and more strongly than writing a few lines.Im totally for destroying those who seek
to destroy us by all legal means available to us.
Time to shake off the fleas , growl and bite !
FuzzyTheBear
Uh, missing something from this argument? (Score:4, Insightful)
Every argument here thus far has been either to strip the SCO support, or not to. Mostly as a symbolic gesture, but have all of you forgotten how open source works? Even if you do strip SCO support, they (SCO, people compiling under SCO, etc ...) can readily use their old versions of GCC, and even put SCO support back into newer versions and create a different branch.
Quite honestly, I don't see where the harm comes into play, other than this being a symbolic gesture.
--LordKaT
I hope they keep support for SCO in GCC (Score:2, Insightful)
Hi all,
I work for one of those unfortunate companies that are still using SCO OpenServer. I really hope the GCC team does not do something so petty as dropping support for SCO.
Being able to use GCC to compile such things as bash and GNU tar is the only thing that makes SCO liveable, and we are stuck on SCO for at least another 2 - 5 years.
Due to our legacy code base, it would be prohibitively costly to move off of SCO at this time, though we are working on purchasing new software that will allow us to get off of SCO, and have been since even before SCO went ballistic.
Re:Damn (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me cynical, but I think that's just what they are doing. The file effectively implies that SCO developers will not be affected, but may be in the future - this is FUD, which is what SCO is using to try to screw money out of various parties. Not that I'm against it, mind you ;-)
They did boycot Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
This made life as an A/UX admin much more difficult. Not that GNU software didn't run, they did, but you had to port it yourself.
I think this actually contributed to Apples decision to discontinue A/UX. Other reasons for the decision was that Apple had its focus elsewhere. Just like SCO have changed focus to become a litegation company instead of a software house.
I'd say don't just drop support in gcc. Drop it in the entire product line.(emacs, autoconf,...) After all it is free software and SCO users can port it if they like.
Holy war? (Score:2, Insightful)
In the first seconds of reading the readme.sco-file I thought all this would be given up by the FSF for a revenge on sco. To make it clear: I do not like what sco does there with all the PI-issues but would this be a reason to give up main principles of the open source community just for a "REVENGE"?
I'm very glad that it did not happen...
Love, Gery
Re:This is not the way.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:SCO support... (Score:3, Insightful)
Claimer: I worked on those development tools for UnixWare back in the USL/Novell days. I have no present connection with SCO, Bell Labs, Novell, or Darl's astrologer.
Re:This is not the way.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason OSS is being successful is our reputation. Not only do we have the moral high ground when it comes to software, but we are percieved to have the moral high ground.
Developers out there may rave aout how it will never work, and they can't make money at it, but they'll all admit it's a really nice idea if only it would work. That's good will we've got going for us. That's more valuable than any money.
If we, as a community, start fighting dirty, then we lose. On the surface it seems like a good idea, but a little while down the road the OSS community will no longer be seen as morally upright. We will be vindictive little bastards, and people (and companies) working with us will forever be wary, waiting for that knife in the back.
Confidence, that's the game we're playing. SCO undermines ours by this case of theirs, but we undermine our own even more so if we hit back like this.
The OSS definition states one cannot descriminate against people or organizations. How can you suggest it is right to exclude our enemy from the benefits of Free software? Sure, they will take and take from us, but eventually they will be overtaken as well and will become part of our community. If we exclude them, it is no longer Free for anyone, it becomes something only for a privileged few.
This fight isn't about SCO, or the people who may be harmed by not having the latest GCC. This fight is about our reputation in the future and the spirit of the movement.
Re:SCO maintains GCC on their platforms (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is not the way.... (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO is telling linux developers, "if you want to use the code you wrote, you must first pay us, because we've assumed control of your work and we're selling it now." Supporting that is stupid.
Re:This is not the way.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it's a good thing to take sides, but let the courts make their determination because we are not in possession of ALL the facts in this matter. SCO may suck at PR, but somewhere in there - they may have a case and it may not be the case that you think they do and it may not be the case that they are saying it is.
AFTER the courts have made their determination, THEN apply whatever measures deemed appropriate.
Re:Damn (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Damn (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't remove and SCO support and don't currupt any data on SCO system. But every time a program detects it is launching on a SCO system pop up the following dialog:
Caution: SCO is not an officially supported platform. Use of this software on an unsupported platform may result in data curruption or hardware damage. (C)ontinue anyway or (A)bort safely?
-
Use your common sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO, you know who they are, they are trying to hurt our freedom to code and share that code, with evil deeds, not only words.
Any contribution coming from anybody related to SCO should be seen with extreme paranoid suspicion and skepticism. This guy may be contributing on good faith, but the safety of GCC is owrth alienating one guy if you ask me.
You don't need to have contributed a single line of code to GCC in order to arrive to this conclussion.
Re:SCO maintains GCC on their platforms (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be a VERY good idea for the GCC people to follow up on this. Remember Christian Hellweg [ukuug.org] that worked for Caldera and is responsible for a lot of the SCO stuff inside Linux.
If no "agreement" exist now with SCO maintaining their portion of the GCC, this can be used to make a strong point for Helweg doing what his company wanted later. If they, as I suspect, sue Hellweg, at some point to make the point he is in collusion with IBM.
TheInquirer had a story [theinquirer.net]yesterday about Caldera and Linux
GCC must punish itself to hurt SCO (Score:2, Insightful)
You would cutoff your nose despite your face... or something like that.
You gotta ask yourself, Who benefits by having free software written for a certain platform. I believe SCO does benefit by having GCC work on their platform, but, I believe when someone uses GCC on SCO free software benefits more.
It doesn't even directly insult SCO. It insults SCO users for deciding to use SCO. Those users may be trying to pick a side and now they have to choose from one side with questionable ethical practices and another side who insults them just for picking SCO in the first place. I'm not so sure I would pick either side (Linus anyone?)
Re:This is not the way.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If SCO is trying to kill Linux, and claim ownership of everything that so many people have worked so hard for, we should fight back as best we can. SCO has no claim, even one as bullshit as their claim on the 2.4 kernel, on GCC so they don't have any leverage, and Stallman isn't the kind to buckle to corporate pressure. If they try to kill Linux, make their platform the least viable on the market... not that they haven't already made good headway on that themselves.
*bzzt* Try again next round. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because SCO has always been our enemy. Just like Iraq has always been our enemy, and Russia has always been our ally.
For those of you who have been reading your Corrected History books, pull your heads out of your ass and look at actual archives. The port maintainer in question has been contributing code for a long, long time. In good faith. With a smile, even. He has the same copyright assignment on file as the rest of the GCC contributors, which means SCO signed a disclaimer that they would not try to claim ownership of the code he contributes, just like every other software-related company whose employees contribute code to GCC.
Fortunately, nobody has to ask you, because you're wrong.
(People bitch and moan about GCC contributors being required to get assignments and disclaimers from their employer. This is one of the reasons why it's done. It's different from other open source projects, but /. has overlooked that fact)
No, but you do need to be completely ignorant of the rules by which GCC operates.
Re:SCO maintains GCC on their platforms (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, you seem to find yourself in the employ of a company who wants to take advantage open source software, but doesn't appear to feel that it has any obligations to the other people who have contributed to that software in return.
Not only are they trying to charge licensing fees for other people's IP -- without any authority to do so, but they clearly have no respect at all for the GPL, and claim that it is fatally flawed.
I'm sure that as an individual, you're a person of enormous ability and integrity. However, you work for a company that has proven themselves time after time to be little better than whoremasters.
In light of that fact, how can you feel secure about the prospect that SCO won't treat your copyright in the same way as it does that of all of those people who contribute to linux and start demanding license fees for it?
And can you, in all conscience, argue that open source coders are making a rational decision if they voluntarily allow any of their efforts to be used by SCO, their employees, their customers or their developers?
Scope much greater than IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
sCO has sent thousands of letters to Linux end users warning them of legal liability. SCO publicly stated that Linux cannot possibly work on enterprise systems without illegal code theft from SCO. And Darl McBride said last week: "What is at issue is more than SCO and Red Hat. What is at issue is intellectual property rights in the age of the Internet." (Conference Call, 2003-08-05).
So don't even try copping that "this is about IBM, why is the community so upset?" line. SCO says that it is about the community and attacks the community repeatedly in their conference calls and legal filings.
Re:SCO maintains GCC on their platforms (Score:4, Insightful)
It WAS only about breach of contract with IBM, neglecting language insulting to the community... eg, linux was a "bicycle" until IBM stole SCO's IP to turn it into a luxury car, open source developers were incapable of creating enterprise quality code, and so on.
The fact that the community has missed this point and taken that lawsuit as having a much broader scope than it does is unfortunate.
When McBride and Sontag made numerous public threats against the larger community, they left the realm of insults and directly threated litigation.
In at least one statement to the media, they mentioned the possibility of litigation against Linus and others. 1500 threatening letters were sent, not to developers but to users, with the intention to cause them to reconsider deloying linux. I'd call that an attack on the community.
But on a purely technical level, you are correct. The lawsuit is between SCO and IBM. Though SCO hasn't yet filed any other suits, the FUD-based media circus McBride and Sontag have created, the 1500 threating letters, and the licensing campaign are all additional facts that conspire to portray SCO as an enemy of the free software community.