SCO Says No Way To a GPL Solaris, Moves Trial Back 429
penguino writes "Looks like it didn't take long for SCO to formally respond to claims by Sun that it will open source Solaris. According to SCO 'they [Sun] still have licence restrictions that would prevent them from contributing our licensed works wholesale to the GPL'. The company has also released a statement dated June 8 that 'SCO is making a motion to move the scheduled trial date to September 2005 and split IBM's counterclaims into a separate case'. Also quoted is AUUG president and FreeBSD developer Greg Lehey who recommends 'that the best thing for IBM to do would be to print out every single version as requested and send the resultant 20 tonnes or so of paper to SCO. That would keep them quiet for a while'."
Sun just learned... (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't say it could happen to a more deserving company.
Ummm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't know what Linux is!
Solaris is the first OS to work on these platforms (lets not mention Linux, even though it was really there first and we sell it)
What's the GPL?
The GPL is wonderful!
We will open source Java!
We won't open source Java!
We will open source Java! Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives (maybe).
We will open source Solaris!
We won't open source Solaris!
How does Sun find time to do stuff between its constant reverses of its positions?
SCO will not exist when Sun opens Solaris! (Score:2, Insightful)
and.... (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO Says No Way To a GPL Solaris, Moves Trial Back
No one really expected Sun to GPL Solaris, or expected that SCO will allow them to without a threat of lawsuit. This only gives SCO something else to bitch about, and Sun and excuse to do nothing about opening their code base. Sorry to be so negative, but I haven't had much of a reason to think that Sun is on "our side" when it comes to open source software.
SCO and Sun do have one thing in common, however: They will both soon be dead because of Linux and the contributions of IBM and others.
Serves them right (Score:5, Insightful)
I really like Sun, but this serves them right after paying SCO and acting holier-than-thou about IP rights re: Linux (even though they had the means to know and probably did know that the claims weren't true).
By the way, that same saying holds true for the Microsoft crowd. . . but they probably know that already.
Re:Hmmm (Score:1, Insightful)
Licensing & RAND (Score:2, Insightful)
No API breakage, they got all the reason in the world to maintain backwards compatibility.
P.S. On topic for being a legal issue involving some of the same characters... albeit it's not clear cut.
Well SCO are demons, anyway. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that the SCO-fud had finally weakened to an inaudiable level, SUN (although maybe not intentionally) decides to start the circus yet again.
In history, SCO will be given an entire chapter of the sad states of affairs in our time. Probably named something like "Lawyers, litigaters, outright dishonesty and profit"
SCO are demonspawns from hell to overrun the earth with lawyers and thus confusion. All to ensure chaos and armageddon.
/my theory
Re:Sun will Shine at the Big Blue (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:and.... (Score:4, Insightful)
the PC. The PC can run Windows OR Linux. The
PC is what kills Sun. Just as the PC killed the
minicomputer.
In my opinion anyway.
SCO's real goal (Score:3, Insightful)
Apart from any monetary gains they hope to make, SCO is still fishing for AIX and Dynix source code. Even without verbatim copying, what they can learn from the IBM source code can be applied to SCO's own software products. Were this not the case, they would only need the revision histories for IBM to demonstrate ownership.
Sco are like.. (Score:2, Insightful)
You think there out of the pictures and they just conjour up another evil plan. There just as annoying as most hollywood sequals they just get less less interesting over time and rather frustrating.. kind of like the halloweens or friday the 13ths.
All honesty is bad when IBM get involved and you know your in trouble if Novell has it in for you but Sun?
Personally for there own sake when will they just call it a day. All there doing is destroying their "reputation" and basically eliminating anysort of customer or industry trust.
To break it down (Score:5, Insightful)
2. SCO is claiming that it needs until SEP 2005 to go to court against IBM.
That's absolutely true. In fact, SCO needs all the delays it can possibly get.
3. SCO is claiming that the trial should be split into two parts, and their claims tried seperately from IBM's counterclaims. This is the part that is actually interesting.
Possible reasons:
I. it adds additional delays.
II. SCO expects to lose on its claims against IBM, and is hoping that splitting the trial will let them somehow get a venue for the IBM counter suit that won't be influenced too much by that loss. If the motion to split is approved, expect SCO to file motions to supress some of the results of the first trial.
III. SCO doesn't expect the motion to split to be allowed, but hopes that not getting it will give them grounds for an appeal.
IV. I can't think of other reasons offhand, but then I am not a lawyer. Someone else may.
Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
They dont seem to have had a very good press recently on a variety of points.
Its unlikey to happen soon, and even in the very unlikely worst case of a SCO victory, they can just say "Well we cant anymore" and they have at least the cudos for trying so they really cant loose.
I have to say even with the recent announcements on Java and such like, i still wouldnt mind a nice multi-way Solaris box on my desktop instead of my Dell, no matter what they say.
Re:Sun will Shine at the Big Blue (Score:1, Insightful)
Solaris is nice, but it has one absolutely fatal flaw: updates. Sun would take a huge leap into the 21st century if they got rid of their antiquated patch system and replaced it with apt. Patch Pro sucks ass and doesn't work half the time for me so don't even suggest that.
Re:and.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Because Sun has never contributed any useful piece of code to be OPEN. OFFICErs at the company are gnome for their lack of contribution to any real groupzilla.
Know your roots.
Re:Unfortunately, they're right (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming that they, not Novell, actually own the relevant rights.
Delay == Bad? (Score:2, Insightful)
-- Wouldn't that be a bad thing? I mean, SCO obviously has no qualms about suing major corporations for their use of Linux even though their copyright clames haven't been proven. If the trial gets delayed, it'll just give them more time to spread their FUD and scare companies, not to mention extending the "wait and see" attitude of companies that are thinking of embracing Linux.
The only solution (Score:4, Insightful)
I think IBM or Sun (if they have the money) should purchase SCO, with a hostile takeover if necessary. It's a relatively quick solution, gets them out of litigation, and probably saves them millions of dollars in the long run. Otherwise this stuff will just drag on for years.
Re:SCO will not exist when Sun opens Solaris! (Score:4, Insightful)
long before that there will not really be much left other than a CEO, company accountant and liason to the law firm.
Any suggestion which prolongs this or other lawsuits will just prolong the problem. We really want this sorted as quickly as possible.
The longer this continues, the longer we are focused on this and away from other things...
1) development effort
2) notice that another company is quietly (or not so quietly) trying to patent everything under the sun (pun intended)
SCO are an irrelevent distraction that everyone involved should be working to eradicate as an issue as quickly as possible.
Re:Ummm... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ummm... (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book
http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200312/ed
http://www.atnewyork.com/news/articl
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately, they're right (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, depending on the result of one of the pending trials, isn't it Novell that would have to tell Sun that they can't sublicense it? Yet another thing pending an SCO lawsuit.
How Sun Might be able to do this (Score:5, Insightful)
It would take some investment in man-hours, but Sun might be able to comb through Solaris and rip out all the remaining AT&T Sys V stuff and replace it (as a place holder) with either *BSD code or some of their own re-writes. This would be a process similar to what BSDi/UC-Berkley had to do with 4.3/Net2 in order to reach the unencumbered 4.4BSD-Lite. Depending on how much of the old AT&T stuff still exists, this might be either a trivial or Herculean task.
Once that is done, Sun is left with an OS that contains BSD code along with its own Sun-originated Solaris code. At that point, they are free to license it as they see fit.
Re:Bite the bullet and buy the damn thing (Score:3, Insightful)
That's probably exactly what they want.
what a dumbass Darl was
Yeah, he'll be a dumbass when he's laughing all the way to the bank.
Re:How Sun Might be able to do this (Score:3, Insightful)
In SCO's own little world, their license is so "viral" that the GPL looks like public domain next to it.
Re:Serves them right (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure in which way it applies to "the Microsoft crowd."
Microsoft never promised to GPL Windows. And I'd expect to see pink pigs flying and Satan going to work on skis before that happens.
And, to the best of my knowledge, SCO never tried to stop MS from doing anything. Nor claimed ownership to any Windows code. So in which way did MS get bit? No, seriously, I'm really interested.
Not that anyone expected Microsoft to go GPL anyway. Most of us "Microsoft crowd" really couldn't give a damn about ideological crusades, nor about fanboy allegiances to whoever is this year's fashionable underdog. Or agains whoever is the fashionable corporation to hate this year.
What's the point anyway? If your world is only made of black-vs-white, or good-vs-evil, you live in a very simplistic world. The real world is far more complex than "IBM=GOOD; MSFT=EVIL".
If you look at the history of computing, as little of it as we have so far, one thing has always been constant:
A. whoever is winning, doesn't want standards, they want people locked into their very own proprietary stuff. IBM did it, Sun did it, and Novel did it really big time. That's how the Unix fragmentation happened, and why it lost to Windows.
B. whoever is losing, is whining about how great the open standards are, and how evil proprietary solutions are.
(And some, like Sun, can't even make up their mind in which camp they really are.)
Wake up, people. We're not talking about a group of geeks fighting for ideals. We're talking about corporations who only want to make money. And _will_ change the strategy whenever it looks like another one might bring more money.
IBM is no dedicated friend of OSS, and neither is Sun. (You may notice that IBM did _not_ go GPL with either DB/2 or WebSphere.) At this point IBM merely figured out they can get an advantage out of Linux, in their fight against both MS and Sun.
_If_ IBM was to win a decisive victory, and MS became the underdog, you can fully expect the roles to be reversed yet again.
IBM will start shipping an "enhanced" version of Linux, with a whole bunch of closed source IBM-only executables in it. Just like they did with Unix. Trying to lock people in again. And spreading FUD like they already did before.
And Microsoft would most likely cheerfully go from defending the way of the proprietary solution, to praising open standards.
And knowing the
So, what'll it be? (Score:3, Insightful)
"I suppose the interesting question is if Sun releases those parts of Solaris which it has developed in-house, what does that do to the code it has licensed?"
Lehey said the GPL has the so-called "viral" effect, and that would theoretically cause the remainder (of code) to fall under the GPL as well, "but that's so preposterous that I can't think of any way it could happen"
The context is parts of Solaris Sun developed in-house. These are "derivative works", perhaps, of System V. Sure, fine.
One of the following might work:
(1) GPL-ing them does not, in any way, make the reverse true. System V is not a derivative of works derived from it, thus the GPL's viral effect will not encompass System V code.
(2) Because there would be a viral effect extending to code which Sun does not own, it will be impossible to use the GPL, as it could not release that code. Sun doesn't own the copyrights to change the license.
(3) Sun has all the rights to redistribute the code as it sees fit (including under the GPL). Maybe.
I wonder how Sun will respond.
Good timing... (Score:5, Insightful)
SGI sat back one day, wondering about how they were spending something like $2billion a year on IRIX development. It finally dawned on them that they were a graphics software and support company, not an operating system company. So they switched to Linux, dropped IRIX like a rotten apple, and helped put a small portion of the $2billion they saved into helping get Linux to the point where they wanted it.
Sun could so the same--save billions, but still make a massive contribution to the Linux community, and help make sure Linux is 'where they want it.' It wouldn't take long, and they'd save a fortune.
Re:The only solution (Score:1, Insightful)
Finally, and most crucially, it'd still leave the 'Linux IP issues' unresolved and up in the air.
So no, a buyout would be terrible. Instead, IBM wants to hammer SCO and show that companies shouldn't mess with IBM. It wants to show that Linux is clean, and that IBM's AIX license is permanent. It wants to get all this in front of the courts for the world to see.
Re:Sun will Shine at the Big Blue (Score:1, Insightful)
Ever heard of XFS?
Not an easy job but if it was too hard why did it get done?
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sun will Shine at the Big Blue (Score:5, Insightful)
Or how about the benefits that RedHat gives IBM, Dell, SGI, VA Linux et al when IT adds something?
You are basically missing the real synergy being FOSS, one company contributes and helps its competition but those guys are also contributing and helping you. So in reality, you are helping yourself against the REAL competition (non-FOSS) and not your immediate "partners." Of course, there are leeches like Dell, but that's OK...
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't know what they are talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
The SCO Group's marketing manager Marc Modersitzki doesn't even use the lingo correctly - lets analyze some of his statements:
"However, they still have licence restrictions that would prevent them from contributing our licensed works wholesale to the GPL."
This statement makes it sound as if Sun is talking about transferring ownership to some GROUP - 'contributing wholesale to the GPL'... The proper statement would be something like "They still have license restrictions that would prevent them from releasing our intellectual property under the GPL license", and this may be true... Anything that Sun owns they can do whatever they want with - anything they license they have to comply with any terms of that license... nothing new here.
Lehey said the GPL has the so-called "viral" effect, and that would theoretically cause the remainder (of code) to fall under the GPL as well, "but that's so preposterous that I can't think of any way it could happen".
The viral clause of the GPL cannot affect things that you don't have the intellectual property rights to. I couldn't write a contract that required you to give me your neighbors car... it is not yours to give (Even if he let you drive it once or twice). Sun is free to release their code under the GPL... if it relies on things that are not GPLed that they don't have the intellectual property rights to, well, that sucks, but it is not within Sun's power to decide to GPL it. The viral clause only affects the rights of DOWNSTREAM users - it is a condition of the terms of granting the copyright. If Sun were to GPL solaris, minus the parts it doesn't have the rights to, I'm sure armies of developers will step up to provide a clean room implementation.
I am not a lawyer, but this stuff is not rocket science...
Re:Serves them right (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, as the endless "Linux vs GNU/Linux" show or Apple's building a propritary MacOS/X on top of BSD prove, there's far more to an OS than the kernel.
For example, IBM could jolly well come up with their own proprietary compiler that produces great code, but is slightly incompatible with GCC. Like MS did with MSVC. Sure, some people will curse and have even more #include blocks to work on both, but a lot won't. That's what's been happening in the Windows world.
For that matter, they could go deeper down MS road, and provide their own foundation classes that go with it too.
Etc.
Now I'm not saying that it would go as long a way as doing the same with a 100% closed-source OS. And I'm sure the Linux community would work hard to emulate all that.
But it also doesn't mean they wouldn't try.
Re:Sun will Shine at the Big Blue (Score:1, Insightful)
And IBM owns all of the high-end AIX features that aren't in System V - it didn't stop a baseless lawsuit from SCO.
SCO is gonna claim that *they* own all of Solaris, just like they're claiming that they own all of AIX, contrary to logic and the law.
LOAD the bullet and SHOOT the damn thing (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a matter of principle: "If you will not set a good example, you shall serve as a terrible warning." Or, more specifically here, IBM's version of it: "If you sue IBM, we will destroy you." Doing so serves to discourage "sue Big Blue" as an exit strategy for other failing companies-- a corollary of the old principle about Danegeld. Besides, IBM has most of these lawyers on salary... it's good to keep them in practice, just like it's good to keep your knives sharpened. =)
Unsubstatiated rumor has it that members of IBM's legal team have been informed that they will be considered to have failed if SCO even exists after this lawsuit ends.
Re:Update: Judge Wells Denies SCO's Extension (Score:1, Insightful)
And gotta love these slashdot editors, who can't seem to stop publishing misleading headlines.
Re:Sun will Shine at the Big Blue (Score:3, Insightful)
Here, let me quote the parent:
"While Sun may not be able to open source Solaris due to SCO license restrictions, as soon as a judge declares that IBM enhancements to AIX are not the property of SCO, Sun can roll whatever "high-end Solaris" code they have into Linux."
Whether or not you read the article is up to you, but please read the posts you reply to...
Re:Sun will Shine at the Big Blue (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because something is ancient does not mean is's obsolete.
Lisp is ancient...
The atomic bomb is ancient...
Airplanes are ancient...
I tend to think ancient things have withstood the test of time. We'll see what you look like in 40 years.
Anyway, my point is: just because something is ancient does not mean it's obsolete.
Quantum physics were worked out in the 20s and 30s? They're ancient, man!!!
Re:Could you point out some of those advances? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:SCO's real goal (Score:4, Insightful)
No.
First, it's under a protective order from the court. If they violate that, IBM will sue and destroy them... hopefully sooner with a temporary injunction rather than later with an ultimate verdict.
Second, much of the code was disclosed only to SCO's attorneys and not directly to SCO. See the complains from Computer Associates.
Third, SCO's unixware and openserver business is dying. Few (if any) new installations are being made. Even if they made dramatic improvements, those products are about as good as dead in the market due to a long history of neglect.
Fourth, their reputation is ruined. Nobody in their right mind will trust SCO now. And why should they, when "solutions" are readily available from large, stable companies with good reputations.... like IBM.
Fifth, they've already cut back (laid off employees), so their capability to illegally integrate lots of AIX code is reduced... and as things get worse for SCO this problem will only increase.
And finally, they will run out of cash soon anyway, with 4 lawsuits against corp heavyweights rapidly draining their funds. Their chances for further investment are slim, after the high profile Baystar dispute. Their stock has fallen enough that their ability to raise funds by issuing more shares is diminished, and if Kimball grants IBM even one bit of the summary judgement or makes a negative (for SCO) opinion in the Novell case, their stock valuation will be dropped back down to the sub $1/share where it rightly belongs.
Only a miracle is going to save SCO now... like Kimball buying their expansive theory of derivitive works, or suddenly finding a lot of directly copied SysV (not AIX) code inside of Linux.
Re:Sun will Shine at the Big Blue (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPU vendors also have a decent (depending on your viewpoint) reason for doing this, their drivers have licensed software in them that they can't release as source. At least this was true at one time and all the modern graphics chips still support the covered algorithms (specifically ST3C if I'm not mistaken).
Also the "shims" aren't for GPL reasons, they are to allow their binary only driver to interface with at least a handful of different kernel versions, otherwise they would REALLY be busy updating their driver. With the current method, they only have to periodically release refreshes when something directly related to their driver or something major in the kernel changes.
Re:and.... (Score:3, Insightful)
You talk about remembering your roots. You obviously forget IBM of the 80's. There is the root of FUD. They started it and wrote the playbook.
So what if they are currently in favor because of their stance on Linux and against SCO. IBM has been open toward Linux because there is money to be made there. Don't think for one instance once that ends that IBM won't dump Linux in a heartbeat.
Remember they are you friend not because you are nice and they like you. Remember they are your friend because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Once the enemy is gone...Re:Sun just learned... (Score:2, Insightful)
Can't say it could happen to a more deserving company.
Wack yourself upside the head with a cluestick. In case you didn't know this, Sun has been licensing significant portions of System V code from AT&T, and now from SCO when they purchased it from AT&T, for decades now.
They have no say or control over what SCO does with their intellectual property. They are simply a customer, licensing Unix System V, just like every other commercial Unix vendor out there.
If you want to put every company that supports SCO on your little commie shit-list because they're funding the destruction of Linux, you might as well put IBM (AIX), HP (HP-UX), SGI (Irix) on there too.
Unless you've been drinking enough of the FOSS kool-aid to actually think that every commercial flavor of Unix is evil, evil!
Re:Sun will Shine at the Big Blue (Score:3, Insightful)
Lisp is ancient...
The atomic bomb is ancient...
Airplanes are ancient...
You need to get a better perspective on what's ancient. I suggest spending some time in some Roman, Greek, or even Mayan ruins. Walking amongst buildings which have not been inhabited for thousands of years gives a much better appreciation for the word "ancient".
Re:Sun will Shine at the Big Blue (Score:1, Insightful)
could really use as a synergy...
And just like that, your credibility is gone.
Re:Sun just learned... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you missed the news flash, but Sun also happens to have been a major contributor to SCO's legal war chest, and continues to be an antagonistic purveyor of anti-FOSS FUD.
If you want to put every company that supports SCO on your little commie shit-list because they're funding the destruction of Linux, you might as well put IBM (AIX), HP (HP-UX), SGI (Irix) on there too.
Yes, I'm aware those companies have proprietary Unices, since I do, in fact, have a clue. Let me clue you in: if I was anti-commercial-Unix, I'd be railing against IBM, HP and SGI. The fact that I did not mention those companies should have told you something. I'll spell it out for you, anyway: IBM, HP, and SGI didn't join MS in propping up SCO as an opportunity to regain lost ground in Unix marketshare. Their attitude towards open-source can also be described as cynical at best, and use FUD to stave off their own impending obsolescence.
All three of those companies you listed also happen to make a substantial profit from Linux, and their futures are tied inextricabley to the FOSS movement.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
BSD-like would be an even bigger mistake. It would free both IBM and Microsoft to release modified, incompatible versions of Java, without providing any of their code changes.
A rationally greedy company will prefer using GPL to BSD, to ensure that no other company re-closes the source they just opened. But they'll probably prefer a special APL or MPL style license instead, which gives them (and only them) the power to incorporate derivatives in non-OpenSource products.