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.
Re:Damn (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ;-)
Re:Damn (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think the wording will actually cause "fear" in anyone. This just lets them know to be ready.
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?
-
This is not the way.... (Score:5, 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.
SCO maintains GCC on their platforms (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SCO maintains GCC on their platforms (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO maintains GCC on their platforms (Score:5, Informative)
Well sir, if you had ever actually contributed to the GCC project you would know that they have very strict rules regarding copyright assignment. I have a copyright assignment on file that covers just about every GNU project. Any work I contribute to GCC or other GNU projects is protected by it, and the FSF holds the copyright to my work.
If you ARE a contributor then you know this already and shame on you for trying to spread FUD. And as for who says they want my help ... so far, they do. I was quite warmly welcomed to the GCC team, and I thank them for it.
Kean
Will SCO respect the copyright assignment? (Score:4, Interesting)
From their filing of 2003-03-06:
"80. Any software licensed under the GPL (including Linux) must, by its terms, not be held proprietary or confidential, and may not be claimed by any party as a trade secret or copyright property."
SCO denies that any GPL software is the copyrighted property of anybody. This means that SCO denies that the Free Software Foundation owns the copyright to gcc.
That's SCO's interpretation of copyright law. You don't agree with it, and I don't agree with it, but in the hands of an expensive lawyer such as David Boies, it could cause a great deal of grief to the Free Software Foundation.
You think so, and I think so. SCO thinks that nobody holds this copyright. Which would leave the status of a copyright assignment in limbo.
Can you cite any recent public statement from a SCO officer that says otherwise?
As far as wanting help goes: my copyright assignment with the FSF says that I indemnify the FSF in case I contribute any code that contains other people's intellectual property.
Developer
I'm curious -- is that clause in your copyright assignment?
Which means, given SCO's litigious behavior, that I won't even be reading any contributions from any SCO employees in the future. I don't want to be the target of an SCO lawsuit.
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?
Re:SCO maintains GCC on their platforms (Score:5, Interesting)
For obvious reasons I cannot comment on this. I have an opinion but I cannot share it. All I can say is that from what I have read publically, SCO is not charging for other people's IP but what they believe to be their own. But this is off-topic. This thread was about my involvement with the GCC project.
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.
Since my brain was compiled with gcc -pedantic, I must point out that in effect, since they are my masters (at least at work) you are calling me a whore :) I'm just kidding trying to keep this light ... dont take offence :)
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?
Well, yes I can. There are hundreds of thousands of open source projects out there. Unless I am missing something SCO is not suing, nor have they stated any intention to, nor do I believe they ever would, any of those projects. Please bare in mind that the scope of the lawsuit is confined to breach of contract with IBM, not against the entire community. The fact that the community has missed this point and taken that lawsuit as having a much broader scope than it does is unfortunate.
However, I would like to address your actual question. I understand that people are upset with SCO, I even understand why. However, GCC is a program, it is not a political platform. That program runs on multiple architectures, one of which is SCO OpenServer. Even though the majority of my contributions are aimed at improving support for that platforms, not all are. Even if all my contributions were SCO-centric, they still have value beyond the scope of the individual platform. Each platform has its quirks and nuances, and when those quirks and nuances exposes wekanesses in the overal design of the program, addressing those weaknesses helps improve the program for everybody. Even though my contributions are SCO-centric, this too is not unusual. Linux folks tend to submit Linux-centric patches, FreeBSD folks submit FreeBSD-centric patches etc. It is simply the nature of the beast. In order for the open source model to really work, you generally take code where it is offered.
I am a geek. I love writing code, and I do so at every opportunity I get. The fact that I work for a company that is in disfavour with the community does not (or should not) have any bearing on contributions to open source projects. But look at some of the history of this particular project. At one point, Microsoft was public enemy #1, yet people still worked really hard to get things like DJGPP and Cygwin working, all the while trying to rally support against Microsoft. If you (or others) are real geeks, then I am surprised you care so much. Its all about the code and the joy of coding. All this political stuff makes my head ache :)
Having said that ... I am off to do another make bootstrap on gcc 3.4 :) Have an absolutely fabulous timezone.
Kean
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:Scope much greater than IBM (Score:3, Informative)
That is becuase it was brought to my attention that someone had posted about me and my involement with GCC. Today was the very first time I have ever read slashdot, and outside of this thread, most probably the last. I have a hard enough time keeping up with regular mail without being sidetracked here.
Kean
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.
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.
*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)
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
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 fu
Re:I have to say this (Score:4, Funny)
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
Re:I have to say this (Score:3, Funny)
That is why you shoot the damn dog the first time and get it over with. That should be enough to send the message to the rest of the mutts might get the ideal. If not, you shoot the next one. Sooner or later they will get the message or you will run out of dogs.
Shoot the dog, then leave his head on a pike in the lawn as a warning to the others. Then urinate in a circle around the lawn. Grrrrrrrr! :) Yes, that is the ticket...
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.
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: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)
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, Informative)
What do you mean exactly?
The phrase "gcc drops support for SCO" means making specific changes to the GCC code such that gcc would not compile out of the box for the SCO platform. And, when it did compile, it wouldn't take advantage of SCO-specific features or optimize around SCO-specific quirks. In short, GCC would no run.
How else would they achieve this? GCC isn't a big software
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: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:We've done this before (Score:3, Informative)
Such a compatibility layer has existed for a number of years- you can even run X11 apps. It is called MachTen [tenon.com]. With it, one can run almost any FSF program, although I'm sure there are some which need a bit of fixing- be it Makefile tweakage or something a little more.
Other than that, a handful of FSF programs have been p
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: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 S
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:Damn (Score:3, Insightful)
The output of this compiler (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The output of this compiler (Score:3, Funny)
Your Honor, I object (code)!!!
SCO support... (Score:5, Interesting)
Stripping SCO support from GCC will only harm SCO's old customers who don't have anything to do with SCO evil.
Re:SCO support... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:SCO support... (Score:3, Insightful)
Claimer: I worked on those develo
Re:SCO support... (Score:5, Funny)
Both of them?
Re:SCO support... (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny you should say that. The company I work for has a number of SCO servers, and we are now looking to replace them with Linux boxes because of all this nonsense. (We already have a number of new servers running Linux - it's the legacy ones that are still running SCO).
SCO's 'support' costs an arm and a leg, and is pretty lousy. They do not fix problems in a timely manner, and many software packages that run on their OS are usually old and obsolete.
Ever try running Java code on SCO?
Re:SCO support... (Score:5, Informative)
What exactly is being done? (Score:3, Insightful)
what's the point?
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.
shameless (Score:2, Informative)
The FSF has asked me to check in this file on both the branch and the
mainline.
Please direct any questions or comments to the FSF.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
2003-08-03 Mark Mitchell
* README.SCO: New file.
===
As all users of GCC will know, SCO has recently made claims concerning
alleged copyright infringement by recent versions of the operating
system kernel called Linux. SCO has made irresponsible public
statements about this supposed
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:Don't do it! (Score:5, Interesting)
They *SAY* they would continue support, but throws a FUD effort to the game. It won't affect SCO users a bit, except to make them ponder whether or not to continue to use SCO, *exactly* like what SCO is doing to Linux users.
I think, if SCO has any future plan for SCO Unix, this move is important: it forces current SCO users to migrate to another OS, or SCO to develop on gcc (impossible, they don't employ any developers anymore, plus they won't release anything in GPL from now on)
Also, it'll lower the worth of the Unixware, if SCO plans to sell the Unixware IP to another company, it would certainly be bad news.
If I were FSF, I'd go further and announce that "while support for current SCO Unix is retained, for all future versions of SCO Unix it is dropped until further notice".
So now... (Score:5, Funny)
... better yet (Score:5, Funny)
Talk about Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
Re:... better yet (Score:3, Funny)
Or when run in a microsoft.com domain
Re:... better yet (Score:5, Funny)
Re:... better yet (Score:3, Funny)
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:... 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:... better yet (Score:3, Interesting)
Sco has demanded a fee from all Linux users for using their "IP". Of course copyright law gives them no right to do this, and they've yet to prove that any infringement has taken place. These facts cast their actions as extortion. They're commiting outright extortion against every Linux user. This is not just an attack on IBM, it's an attack on free software. Worse yet, it's an attempt at market manipulation to make a couple of their executives rich while the rest of the company will just b
Re:... better yet (Score:3, Informative)
In my spare time I've introduced quite a few people and companies to Linux often using free setup and consultation to get them to use Linux. I'm currently helping a SCO reseller to move to a Linux based b
do it!! do it!! do it!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:do it!! do it!! do it!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:do it!! do it!! do it!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:do it!! do it!! do it!! (Score:3)
The availability of GCC and other free software on OpenServer and UnixWare may make it easier to eventually migrate off of those platforms. If a user has a compiler, he can build Apache, MySQL, and PHP, in preparation to migrate from SCAMP to LAMP.
As tempting as it is to excommunicate a platform for political reasons, it's a bad idea. OpenServer and UnixWare support may eventually die du
Re:do it!! do it!! do it!! (Score:4, Interesting)
For a long time, Stallman strongly urged everyone not to develop to Apple's platform either, because of the GUI lawsuits against Microsoft. It was a pretty effective campagin IIRC; for a long time it was nigh unto impossible to find emacs for the Mac and I'm sure that discouraged a lot of developers from going to the platform.
They should have gone ahead with it (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no reason not to defend the free software community against the illegal actions of SCO. This aggression will not stand.
SCO has profiteered off of the goodwill and charity of millions of programmers across the world. How are they repaying you? By suing you into oblivion and STEALING your code!
This is not the time to be benevolent and charitable. This is the time to be assertive and not let them bully you around.
I strongly urge the likes of the FSF and RedHat, who has already established a legal "defense" fund to also establish a legal "offense" fund and start fighing SCO for violating the GPL and the Copyrights of every developer that had their code distributed by SCO in violation of the GPL.
Everyone is so worried that the GPL won't hold water in court. If you're so worried, than it won't. The time to test the GPL is NOW, so that any weaknesses can be found and corrected.
SCO needs to be taken seriously no matter how irrational or stupid their claims become. Remember that the people they pack juries with are usually just as stupid and irrational.
Pressure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pressure (Score:3, Interesting)
Business make money by pleasing customers, not muscling them into paying. All their doing is pissing people off.
most of the younger generation (myself included) have never had much experience with any unix, only linux. it's what we can run at home on a spare box. It's cheap and easy. When we finally get up the ladder in companies that are actually RUNNINIG SCO products
Difficult (Score:5, Informative)
- 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
- 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
Does this mean the FSF is no longer open source compatible? For the knee-jerkers out there, this is not a troll, it is a serious question. The issue is that Free software should be free, warts and all. Unintended consequences aside, you can't just remove the right to use GCC of any organisation that uses SCO software, it's not right....The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
And another thing! :-) (Score:2)
Re:And another thing! :-) (Score:3, Interesting)
I would hardly call this approach "against making money." If I
Re:And another thing! :-) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And another thing! :-) (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I see the free software community handling this in an open, responsible and reasonable manner
No (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
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.
Windows Support (Score:3, Insightful)
-1 Troll (Score:5, Informative)
did the submitter even read the README?? it says no such thing, and i quote:
Bug Filed into GCC bugzilla (Score:3, Informative)
People calm down, this is not really big news as FSF has done this before with Apple and other people so this should have not come as a big surprise.
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember the Apple boycott? (Score:5, Informative)
The Apple boycott was motivated by Apple's "look and feel" lawsuit against HP. If look and feel was copyrightable, the GNU projeect itself was threatened since GNU very much look and feel like Unix.
Evcantually, the FSF dropped the boycott with the reason that it was not effective, the Apple management didn't care if they even knew about it.
I believe the same reason will apply to SCO, their management no longer have any interest in their own products, they are solely a litigation company these days.
I consider boycotts a legitime weapon, despite that it also hits innocents. Nobody have a moral obbligation to buy or support anything. However, such weapons should only be used when they are effective.
When battling with a polar bear... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a life and death battle. If you don't fight, there's a slim chance that some moron judge will side the wrong way.
SCO has the audacity to attack linux, and hence, Free Software. How many GCC developers run linux? How many of us do?
I'm completely looking forward to the linux revolution that's creeping in. This is our chance to prove how strong free sofware really is. We can't seem meek, because if we do, and just barely squeak by SCO, microsoft or someone else with a bag of cash is gonna crush us. We gotta give everything we got.
It's sorta like a prison movie. Either kick someone's ass the first day or become someone's bitch.
We need to pull out all the stops. No survivors. lay them of them to the man. cut up their credit cards. Throw the board of directors in the electric chair. If we hold back, there will be dire concequences.
Unfortunately all of my software [morgajel.com] is pretty simple, and there's no way of removing support for SCO since there's none to begin with.
Yes, This will hurt SCO users, but then again, they can always complain to SCO and notice that SCO doesn't give a damn about them. Perhaps they'll consider moving to another platform.
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
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.
I tend to agree... (Score:4, Interesting)
What _may_ be affective (if its possible) is to, for the time being initially, revoke the GCC licence for use of SCO - so SCO cannot package it up on their systems (nor use it inside SCO to copmile products - i.e. stopping development at SCO until a new "GCC" style compiler has been written that _DOESN'T_ use FSF/GCC code), but allow individuals to do this.
Also, if SCO release ANY product, state that they _must_ be using copyrighted code illegally, and report them to the appropraite people and then, possibly, sue them!
Might have an effect.
JaJ
One good reason not to drop support (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and I'm forced to use SCO at work because of a ton of legacy code and proprietary applications that SA refuses to port. We hate it, but what are you going to do? The cogs grind slowly
Ouch. (Score:3, Funny)
- A.P.
Why kick the village idiot? (Score:3, Interesting)
Political Reasons Is the source code an appropriate place to put a short, relevant political statement? My answer to that is YES. We're not talking about a manifesto here. This is a short relevant statement that becomes part of the "history" of GNU. Good place for it.
Discontinuing SCO support--Why do it?
Legal Does including SCO support in gcc undermine the legal position of the gcc developers and users w.r.t. the SCO situation? (My guess is NO). And even if that was true, would acknowledging the fact there MIGHT be a legal issue further undermine that position? (Again, my guess is NO). Legal Reason: No
Logistical Does continuing to include SCO support in gcc cost an unacceptable amount of resources--(developers time)? I know that after SCO has pissed everyone off, some would say that "One second of developer's time is unacceptable." That's a different issue. We'll get to that farther down. My guess here is SCO support does not delay gcc releases a whole lot, but the developers can answer better. Logistical Reason: Probably Not
Design Do developers sit around saying "Dammit, if we didn't have to support SCO, gcc could be twenty percent faster/smaller and we could add all these features people have been wanting." My guess no, but again, ask the developers. Design Reason" Probably Not
Retribution Did SCO offend the community who has worked so hard to develop the GNU they use and (used to) distribute? Yes. Does that community now have the opportunity to abandon SCO (and all the users unfortunate enough to be dependant on SCO)? Yes. Is Retribution against SCO a valid reason for the gcc project to modify their code? Ask the developers. Only the people doing the work can say what they want their role in this community to be.
Social(Don't Tread On Me)--Would discontinuing support for SCO send a message: "If you stand before the community and falsely accuse and harass us, you should not expect the community to continue to support you. You are now outcast." Why would the developers care how they are perceived?
Explicitly Removing SCO support--Why not do it? IF it is a good idea to discontinue SCO support, why not remove it altogether? What's the cost?
Functionality--What does removing SCO support break?
Logistics--How much time and effort do the developers want to commit to excising this code?
Collateral Damage--Who else would be hurt by the gcc project's retribution against SCO?
Social(...thine Enemies)--Would the gcc developers be perceived as vindictive for removing SCO support? Why would the developers care how they are perceived? How would this affect future collaboration?
sco gcc still stuck on gcc 2 w/ dwarf-1 (Score:4, Interesting)
Some facts:
SCO pays at least one employee to maintain gcc and gdb for SCO operating systems.
SCO's supported version of gcc is gcc 2. They are working on upgrading to gcc 3 but are not planning to support gcc until gcc 3.4.
SCO's gcc generates dwarf-1 debugging format (not dwarf-2). I've researched this, and the only dwarf-1 compilers I sighted were proprietary compilers from Diab and Absoft and the SCO version of gcc. All other versions of gcc in the field use other debugging formats now (dwarf-2 and stabs+, mostly).
My opinion: disengaging from SCO would hurt SCO's version of the gnu toolchain materially. Which would be good.
My take on SCO (Score:3, Funny)
-- Greg
Re:excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
%s/license/licence/g (Score:2)
Re:Pull SCO support (Score:3, Insightful)
Suck it up and remember we are Ghandi here, not Hitler.
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.
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.