Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 31st Jul 2003 20:31 UTC
Legal Scott McNealy, the chairman, president and CEO of systems vendor Sun Microsystems, has dramatically warned companies of the legal dangers of using open source software such as the Linux operating system. Following on from SCO Group's threats to sue Linux users over its intellectual property claims, McNealy told an audience of UK businesses that they should steer clear of open source software unless their suppliers can offer insurance against such legal action.
Order by: Score:
Yeah!
by chris on Thu 31st Jul 2003 20:36 UTC

...and make sure you use solaris!

What of Gnome?
by Best on Thu 31st Jul 2003 20:37 UTC

Isn't that really rather hypocritical? Since any number of companies could claim that thier IP had been 'stolen' and included in Gnome, which is going to be the default desktop in the new version of Solaris.

Of course companies being total hypocrites isn't exactly a new phenomenon.

Of course
by Wrawrat on Thu 31st Jul 2003 20:38 UTC

Don't get Linux, buy Solaris!

I get his point and I somewhat agree with him, but he's probably a little bit biased... ;)

Ugh....
by Christopher X on Thu 31st Jul 2003 20:44 UTC

Has Sun become that desperate to resort to badmouthing a product they themselves also happen to ship? I *love* Sun for their products, their history, their openness, their innovation - their a hell of a company and they've long defied the odds, but this? This I cannot tolerate. I can understand his previous rants against Linux on technical grounds vs Solaris because it was, quite frankly, mostly true. Solaris is the big boy, but Linux is quickly catching up (no 2.6 won't match it, but we're far closer then ever before). But now he sounds like a freaking oppurtunist of the worst sort. Does this change my opinion of Sun? It certainly shifts it a bit...though I still want a Sun Blade.

You know I wish Sun would make up its mind
by Bannor99 on Thu 31st Jul 2003 20:45 UTC

as to whether they support Linux or not. The article does say that McNealy knows his comments will be seen as showing lack of support for Linux but, let's face it, companies have little to worry about.
If, God Forbid, IBM loses the case, the all-powerful 80 or so lines of code that transformed Linux from DOS-wannabe to World Dominator, will (finally) have been identified and replaced.

I'm dying to hear what the SCO slugs will say when asked in court as to how these paltry blocks of code were able to make Linux so much superior to SCO's own Unices, namely OpenServer and UnixWare.
And, if all else fails, there are always the *BSDs which are immune to SCO's ( and presumably Sun's) shenanigans.

Pitiful
by Aki on Thu 31st Jul 2003 20:46 UTC

He should be listing facts why companies should buy HIS product, not why they shouldn't buy something else. McNealy really couldn't get any lower than this. Solaris is in big trouble and after this I really don't feel too sorry for that.

re: Christopher X
by hmmm on Thu 31st Jul 2003 20:50 UTC

ditto

Sun, like the US, has so much potential. I hate to see it go to waste.

It's now clear that Linux zealots don't read articles or don't understand English, and seem only capable of knee-jerk reactions. Please kids, you totally, completely and wholly misunderstood the article.

Let me spell it out for you. Quote: "The warnings by Sun, which sells the proprietary Solaris version of Unix, will be seen by critics as fresh evidence of its seemingly lukewarm support for Linux."

Oh, so his statements are actually seen as support for Linux? Yes, that's right. And why? Another quore: "We offer indemnification, but many suppliers do not."

This article is just about how safe it is to buy Linux from Sun. And why you should buy it from Sun and not from other vendors. Yes, that's what this article is about.

Re: Ugh....
by walterbyrd on Thu 31st Jul 2003 20:58 UTC

>>But now he sounds like a freaking oppurtunist of the worst sort. <<

Now? As if this was the first time? How about all the smug letters after SCO pretended to cancle IBM's UNIX license? i.e. "Seems like big blue's UNIX might not be legal any more. Fortunately Sun has special 'switch from aix to solaris' software all ready to go."

This after SUN secretly donated millions to SCO's lawsuit and FUD campaign.

It's confirmed that Linux "zealots" know how to read between the lines, and know to be sceptical of the pop-media, and know that actions speak loader than words.

McNealy is trying to kill free Linux. Make no mistake about that.

Linux and the BSDs, are taking turf from the proprietary UNIXes. All companies that base their businesses on proprietary UNIX are suffering: SCOX, SUNW, and SGI. HP and IBM are diversified.

The proprietary UNIX folks are fighting back, in the most nasty and underhanded ways imaginable.

desperation
by ryan on Thu 31st Jul 2003 21:05 UTC

these are sad tactics that sun is using. When companies have to resort to lawsuits and legal threats to compete, whell,that in itself says a lot.

Sooner or later
by Franklin on Thu 31st Jul 2003 21:05 UTC

I saw this comming... Sooner or later it expands on other products as well... watch out.

Idiocy
by BFG on Thu 31st Jul 2003 21:06 UTC

Sun is playing this unexpected "advantage" with SCO way too hard. Whatever the outcome of the SCO legal case, they are going to come out looking like morons.

If linux comes out OK, why would they go back to SUN and use their distribution after all of this rhetoric?

If it doesn't, why in the crap would sun say ANYTHING bad about Linux? They are alienating future users that would flock to Solaris x86 if Linux were to become less attractive. Currently, they are pissing those users off. Even in the event of catastrophe, those users will no longer go to Solaris x86 just on principal!

They REALLY should concentrate on Solaris OS and leave Linux alone. They are trying to win this war by slinging insults instead of by technical merit, they shouldn't waste their energy crying over split milk. This is really just making SUN look very unfavorable to its potential customers.

free tip for McNealy
by hmmm on Thu 31st Jul 2003 21:07 UTC

Solaris is a fine OS. He should use all the software on top of Linux that makes it so usable on Solaris. Automated package management systems, XFree86, the latest GNOME and KDE, GIMP, ogle, mplayer, xine, xmms, grip, dvdrip, etc.

If a default install of the Solaris desktop included everything they would need to work with Microsoft documents and most common file types it would make it much more valuable to the end user.

I like Sun products, I just don't like Scott McNealy or most of the executive management from what I've read. But they do keep the company profitable, so I guess I can't complain much.

But the attacks against Linux are personal attacks against people like me whether they realize it or not. Now, do you think that's intentional or maybe even a good thing?

Who am I? A Linux zealot perhaps.

re: It's confirmed: Linux zealots don't read articles
by hmmm on Thu 31st Jul 2003 21:15 UTC

I'll bite..

If Sun is selling some indemnified version of Linux, does that mean they are including an additional license along with the GPL? I am curious because such actions could be illegal according to copyright law, depending on if they are trying to place restrictions on distribution, violations of the GPL, etc.

Linux zealot or not, unfortunately we all must comply with the law. ;)

Interesting how McNealy and everyone else is jumping on the misnomer of "open source software" and not specifically the Linux kernel. It's the Linux kernel that is facing IP suits, etc., not open source software in general. After all, popular applications like Sendmail and BIND are open source. And McNealy's Sun OS ships these (as well as others). So following on McNealy's warnings about Open Source software, I should probably avoid Sun OS (not to mention AIX, HP-UX, Compaq Tru64) as they use open source softwares.

You'd think that someone like McNealy would be smart enough to specify his warnings against the Linux kernel itself and not against open source software that is included in his company's own operating system(s).

Why Java is not on your desktop
by Ricky Yamauchi on Thu 31st Jul 2003 21:24 UTC

Scott McNealy is a jerk.

Yes he opened up Open Office, but he keeps stabbing the Open Source Movement in the back. Very few desktop apps are java because, I believe, McNealy turns people off with his attitude towards linux.

I think he's been a little hypocritical: He blasts Microsoft for Anti-trust, too much control, unfair advantage. He would do the same thing if he was in charge of a monopoly. He's always talked lowly about linux and now he's spreading FUD. I read the article. He says even if IBM wins, SCO can go after individuals.

The reason MS is dominating isn't because Gates has an unfair advantage. It's that his opponents can't work together. Not only is it Mac vs. Linux vs Sun. It's unix vs. unix: BSD vs. AIX vs. HPUX vs. IRIX. And it's even LInux vs. linux: debian vs. redhat vs. Lindows. NOW, competition is the only way we'll win; we need to compete with each other. However, we need to STOP spreading FUD about each other. Anything else would just be ridiculous.

Cool attitude. The FS/OS is good when I can make money on this, but it might be bad for you, if you want to make money with this. You guys better buy my product and let me make money. Does he think I am an idiot?

Use Linux without fear!
by Cyboman on Thu 31st Jul 2003 21:32 UTC

Source: http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5058297.html?tag=fd_top

"...using Linux doesn't involve copyrights in any case. One doesn't need a copyright license to read the newspaper or to listen to recorded music. SCO's actions are similar to a publisher suing the readers of a book it says infringed the publisher's copyright, not suing the author who plagiarized the original work or another publisher who distributed the infringing work..."

Evidence?
by Darius on Thu 31st Jul 2003 21:33 UTC

I haven't been following this as of late, but as SCO actually brought forth the code in question that they claim was stolen, or are they still just acusing everybody and their grandmother of ripping off IP?

Oh really?
by Cyboman on Thu 31st Jul 2003 21:44 UTC

I think I may install linux just to spite SCO!!

Linux is like gay marriages.
by Anonymous on Thu 31st Jul 2003 22:08 UTC

They are both crimes against humanity.

ugh.
by nivenh on Thu 31st Jul 2003 22:08 UTC

"McNealy is trying to kill free Linux. Make no mistake about that."

please, for the love of god, please stop using dubya phrases!! copy-catting phrases from a nimrod doesn't help to further your argument.

@Andrew Davis
by Great Cthulhu on Thu 31st Jul 2003 22:26 UTC

It's the Linux kernel that is facing IP suits, etc., not open source software in general.

Actually, no. The lawsuit concerns IBM, not the kernel developers/maintainers, and it is about breach of contract.

There have been wild allegations made by SCO, but so far that's all they are: wild allegations.

Don't worry about Sun
by top speed on Thu 31st Jul 2003 22:38 UTC

LMAO at you Sun haters. Scott McNealy has long been one of the top dogs of the computer business, and with 5 billion cash in the bank along with a license to sell legal Unix as well as Linux, he will be just fine here for the next good while.

But it is funny how you guys can pop off on some internet board about how clueless he is, when he actually owns one of the most important aspects of the entire *nix world, Java and it's dev environment. It will be even funnier if the court rules he owns your Linux too.

breaking the law! breaking the law!
by pjm on Thu 31st Jul 2003 22:43 UTC

Tonight I'm going to install Linux on a few machines and tear off all the tags on my pillows and mattresses!

Bright Future
by top speed on Thu 31st Jul 2003 22:47 UTC

Tonight I'm going to install Linux on a few machines and tear off all the tags on my pillows and mattresses!

You seem to have such a bright future ahead, why stop there?

TopSpeed is back!
by Great Cthulhu on Thu 31st Jul 2003 22:49 UTC

With his unmistakeable cluelessness!

Please, how could Scott McNealy "own" Linux? Or perhaps you haven't been following the news much in the past week? You see, more an more people are realizing that SCO doesn't have a case, that the SCO programmers who contributed to Linux (such as Christoph Hellwig) had permission from SCO to do so, and that SCO is still distributing Linux on its web site under the GPL?

In other words, Linux is safe from SCO, since it is currently willingly and knowingly distributing the code under the GPL. Now, SCO may still win against IBM (though I doubt it, since that would mean making a new definition for "derivative product" that would completely disrupt the entire software industry). But that's irrelevant: Linux is safe from SCO, despite McNealy's split personality about the penguin.

...
by Anonymous on Thu 31st Jul 2003 22:51 UTC

McNealy sounds just like Daryl McBride. When are these assholes going to die.

Oh yeah...
by Rugbuz on Thu 31st Jul 2003 22:59 UTC

...thats the reason Sun is shipping their own Linux for the desktop. To put you in legal trouble. All right, Scott.

>>select strategie from sun;

>RESULTSET WAS EMPTY.

Scott McNealy is an opportunist...
by Great Cthulhu on Thu 31st Jul 2003 23:00 UTC

...unfortunately, his act is getting old. You can fool some people sometime, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

MS, SCO, Sun...Desperation makes strange bedfellows!

interesting links
by hmmm on Thu 31st Jul 2003 23:07 UTC

java.sun.com/people/jag/green/index.html

from

java.sun.com/people/jag/

NO! WRONG!
by hmmm on Thu 31st Jul 2003 23:10 UTC

When are these assholes going to die.

That is entirely inappropriate! We just want them removed from power. They are still valuable members of our community! Well, McNealy anyway.

He's selling it right now!
by top speed on Thu 31st Jul 2003 23:14 UTC

Please, how could Scott McNealy "own" Linux?

Did you not read the article? Right now, Sun and Sco offer the only "guaranteed" legal. And if they win in Utah, they aren't going to be too interested in opening that market up to anybody else, since why should they? As far as Sun and Sco is concerned, IBM is already 'revoked'.

The reason why they steal
by Coral Snake on Thu 31st Jul 2003 23:15 UTC

I have finally come up wuth the reason that some people on these threads think that stealing other's digital intellectual property "because it can be easily duplicated"
is OK while hyppocritically mantaining a an exclusive socialist fiefdom of their own under what essentially is a mirror reverse immage of the Microsoft EULA (The GPL) rather than putting their "free software" in the public domain or under BSD/MIT style licensing.
It seems that the public schools have taught and perhaps are still teaching "morality" in a "situalional ethics" or "values clarification" or more modern "values free" sense that essentially BANS ABSOLUTES like THOU SHALT NOT STEAL from the "moral" and "ethical" vocabulary when the "situation" is right, and from such comes Napster, Kazaa, Software Piracy, the current messes with SCO V IBM V LINUX mess AND the UNDER REPORTED InterTrust V Microsoft mess.

Profound Words
by top speed on Thu 31st Jul 2003 23:24 UTC

It seems that the public schools have taught and perhaps are still teaching "morality" in a "situalional ethics" or "values clarification" or more modern "values free" sense that essentially BANS ABSOLUTES like THOU SHALT NOT STEAL from the "moral" and "ethical" vocabulary when the "situation" is right...

Such profound words, thanks Coral Snake, I actually never thought of it that way but you are probably right. Unfortunately it is a very difficult 'breed' to deal with, because they are so incorrectly certain of their own 'God-like' rights. Man is not to question the absolute truths of the world, but rather to live his life with respect towards them.

...
by Anonymous on Fri 1st Aug 2003 00:01 UTC

Sun and the (S)cumbag (C)riminal (O)rganization can never win because dictatorships are not in the interest of free citizens.

...
by Anonymous on Fri 1st Aug 2003 00:12 UTC

Sun Microsystems is so obvious that they are merely prostitutes that are willing to sleep with anyone in order to get money. They don't have any strategy other than to wonder from door to door.

Wrong again
by Great Cthulhu on Fri 1st Aug 2003 00:19 UTC

Right now, Sun and Sco offer the only "guaranteed" legal.

This statement is false in a variety of ways:

First, the actual trial has yet to begin. As you may recall, the legal system of the United States is based on English Common Law, which states that accused are deemed innocent until proven guilty. Here, SCO and McNealy are capitalizing on fears provoked by unproven (and dubious) allegations. Looking at it rationally, however, one can only conclude that there is nothing wrong with other distributions of Linux.

Second, you may recall that the suit is not about IP theft, but about a breach of contract. IBM is the other party in this suit, not the kernel developers and maintainers. Sure, McBride has threatened to sue Torvalds, but like much of what he says these days it's nothing more than an empty threat.

Third, as you specified yourself, SCO is distributing Linux as we speak (glad you finally recognized that you were wrong about this, by the way). Not only that, but they are distributing it under the GPL. Now, if you recall what the GPL actually says, you'll remember that one cannot offer to indemnify one group of users (let's say, SCO Linux users) while prosecuting others (e.g. RedHat or Mandrake users). Therefore, SCO (or Sun, for that matter) cannot legally claim to possess the "only safe Linux", because by distributing Linux under the GPL they cannot prosecute other Linux users for IP infringement.

Fourth, what you say implies that SCO would distribute Linux under an additional license on top of the GPL. However, the GPL forbids that. Doing so (which they're not doing, btw - I've checked) could make them the target of a multitude of (real) IP lawsuits. Not a good idea.

Finally, even if what you were saying was true (obviously by now we know it isn't), SCO would have no advantage, since under the GPL anyone can take what you've distributed, modify it and redistribute it, as long as they give due credit and the same rights to the distributee.

You've been spouting FUD about this case for a while, but you haven't seemed to learned much about its legal aspects in the process. I suggest you go over to Groklaw - you might learn a thing or two.

As far as Sun and Sco is concerned, IBM is already 'revoked'.

Perhaps, but as far as they law is concerned they aren't. And that's really the only thing that matters.

SCO doesn't have a case, and McNealy just made a lot of enemies.

The irony of course is that Linux will come out of this even stronger than before...

McNealy... our favorite febrile idiot
by Professor CEO Strip Club on Fri 1st Aug 2003 00:40 UTC

I wonder if the journalists stick money in his suit when he starts frothing at the mouth, shaking his head from side to side, chasing his tail and then barking at unseen objects.

Isn't it time for Sun to get a new CEO?

Maybe SCO and SUN can do a CEO swap and see if anything actually changes at either company.

Only one word: bastard !
by Marcelo on Fri 1st Aug 2003 00:47 UTC

All american software companies are against linux and free software, including IBM. They are no better than M$...

Look, a tool talking about a tool!
by obelix on Fri 1st Aug 2003 00:51 UTC

Scott McNeily should know that a liscense is merely a tool to get something to market and keep it in the market. Poor choice of words by Scott, he's smarter than to say things like this normally.

btw...
by obelix on Fri 1st Aug 2003 00:56 UTC

You should also know, that this has something to do with Microsoft showing code to the governments.

Smoke big brother's ass. It's on, niggaz.

Just another indication of stupidity
by linux_baby on Fri 1st Aug 2003 01:37 UTC


Scott Mcnealy is a freaking moron. Why then is he using Gnome, and how the hell is he sure that we won't be sued sooner than later? Why did he open up OpenOffice, and how is he sure that SCO's or somebody's else's isn't creeping in? If there was ever a reason to hate SUN's products, this is it.

Re: Marcelo
by Jason on Fri 1st Aug 2003 01:46 UTC

>All american software companies are against linux and free software, including IBM. They are no better than M$...

Would you please think of what you say before you go off spouting this kind of rhetoric. Using the word "American ..." implies everything American including all of it's people. Yes Suns activies in this regard are greedy and self serving (As bad as Microsoft), but that hardly gives you the right to make such a generalization.

Great Cthulhu
by top speed on Fri 1st Aug 2003 02:18 UTC

Despite your claim to sage-like wiseness, somehow you don't seem to understand a simple word like "guarantee". You'll probably find out soon enough, if you don't have one.

'Groklaw', is that German? I see their unbiased reporting today carried the following headline "Sun falling down a rathole" or some other such nonsense, along with multiple references to Alice in Wonderland. Top notch stuff, let me tell you.

LMAO
by top speed on Fri 1st Aug 2003 02:19 UTC

Scott Mcnealy is a freaking moron.

Scott McNealy is a billionaire. And who are you, besides some guy ranting on a message board. LMAO.

RE: He's selling it right now!
by Wrawrat on Fri 1st Aug 2003 02:28 UTC

Did you not read the article? Right now, Sun and Sco offer the only "guaranteed" legal. And if they win in Utah, they aren't going to be too interested in opening that market up to anybody else, since why should they?

If SCO wins, something that we ain't sure yet...

As far as Sun and Sco is concerned, IBM is already 'revoked'.

It doesn't mean it's really revoked. SCO didn't even bothered yet to get an injunction against the shipment of AIX. We'll see in the following months.

Keep LYAO, and you won't have any to sit on...
by Great Cthulhu on Fri 1st Aug 2003 02:33 UTC

'Groklaw', is that German?

No, it's american I believe. And it's produced by a paralegal, in other words someone who knows this stuff much better than you do.

Despite your claim to sage-like wiseness, somehow you don't seem to understand a simple word like "guarantee".

Guarantee? What guarantee? What if SCO loses, what kind of guarantee is that?

SCO doesn't have a case against Linux. They are distributing Linux under the GPL. Ergo, the have abandoned all means of controlling the code once it's distributed, including additional licenses.

The one thing I understand is that you did not try to refute a single argument I made. In other words, I've demonstrated that your statement was patently false not once, but four times, and you haven't come up with a single counter-argument.

Guarantee? That point is moot - exactly because of the reasons I've given. Answer these, and maybe we can continue this conversation. Otherwise I'll (rightfully) assume that you're stumped.

Source please
by top speed on Fri 1st Aug 2003 02:47 UTC

No, it's american I believe. And it's produced by a paralegal, in other words someone who knows this stuff much better than you do...

You mean you really don't know where the info you rely on comes from? You trust this site simply because they claim to be "paralegal"? I just looked at their information for today, and all I saw was worthless diatribe about Alice in Wonderland, you may consider that credible info but that's where we differ.

Guarantee? What guarantee?

The guarantee that should Sco win, you are already legal. Offered now at a bargain price. If you'd rather trust your business to blog stories about Alice in Wonderland, well that's your business, thankfully.

They are distributing Linux under the GPL. Ergo, the have abandoned all means of controlling the code once it's distributed, including additional licenses.

This argument only exposes your kind as the thieves you are. You know that Sco didn't put the stolen code in the kernel, but you're still perfectly content to have stolen it from them when they unknowingly released it. It actually sets Sco up even further as 'the victim' before the trial even starts.

The one thing I understand is that you did not try to refute a single argument I made.

LMAO, it was one single argument you made, that the GPL 'stole it'. That and some other obvious things like "the actual trial has yet to begin" and "this is about breach of contract". What do you want for those incredible observations, a piece of candy?

RE: Source please
by Wrawrat on Fri 1st Aug 2003 03:10 UTC

This argument only exposes your kind as the thieves you are. You know that Sco didn't put the stolen code in the kernel, but you're still perfectly content to have stolen it from them when they unknowingly released it. It actually sets Sco up even further as 'the victim' before the trial even starts.

First, stop trolling.

Second, you and I don't have any proof that the Linux community stole code from SCO or vice versa. We don't even know if SCO's evidences are valid or not. It's up to the court to decide that (if it ever goes that far).

If you are so sure of your point and that you have undeniable proofs... Well, "sources please".

I must admit that many Linux advocates don't know what they're talking about (distributing something under the GPL won't make it necessarily GPL if it isn't GPL'd... especially when we don't know if the GPL is really valid legally), but please don't try to act like you know everything where you clearly don't.

I agree Wrawrat
by top speed on Fri 1st Aug 2003 03:14 UTC

I must admit that many Linux advocates don't know what they're talking about (distributing something under the GPL won't make it necessarily GPL if it isn't GPL'd... especially when we don't know if the GPL is really valid legally), but please don't try to act like you know everything where you clearly don't.

I never claimed to know everything, and am very much looking forward to seeing how this turns out. I simply point out the absurdity of the zealots arguments, as well as their often immoral beliefs of what is fair.

New Slogan for OS Nudes...
by mrkurt on Fri 1st Aug 2003 03:31 UTC

"Exploring the FUD on Linux"... courtesy this time of Scott McNealy...whose company, by the way, distributes Linux. Hmmm..

Re: free tip for McNealy
by walterbyrd on Fri 1st Aug 2003 03:37 UTC

>>I like Sun products, I just don't like Scott McNealy or most of the executive management from what I've read. But they do keep the company profitable, so I guess I can't complain much. <<

Profitable? That's news to me. I thought sunw lost $0.71 a share in the last four quarters. Kind of pathetic for a stock that sells for $3.75 a share.


Re: Idiocy
by walterbyrd on Fri 1st Aug 2003 03:40 UTC

>>Sun is playing this unexpected "advantage" with SCO way too hard.<<

Unexpected? Why do you think Sun has been in bed with SCO for the last 5 months?

Sun = ROFLMAO !
by Anonymous on Fri 1st Aug 2003 03:45 UTC

Meanwhile......"Sun, SuSE Make Java/Linux Pact"


http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1208334,00.asp

Can you say talking out of both sides here ! Nice way to shot themselves in the foot IMHO.

RE: The reason why they steal
by walterbyrd on Fri 1st Aug 2003 03:47 UTC

Who is stealing from who? I think SCO is trying to steal IP which they did not develop, or buy. SCO and SUN are trying to efforts of thosands of volunteers.

Is that what you meant?

Re: Only one word: bastard !
by walterbyrd on Fri 1st Aug 2003 03:53 UTC

>>All american software companies are against linux and free software, including IBM. They are no better than M$... <<

What the hell are you sqwacking about? What has IBM done against Linux? IBM is the company that made Linux enterprise level. IBM is the company defending Linux SCO. You sound like a true idiot America hater.

USA has done more for computer technology than every other country in the world combined. And certainly USA has done more for free software than any other country.

Re: Marcelo
by fishy on Fri 1st Aug 2003 03:57 UTC

yea... IBM is against Linux alright... they invested that 1 billion dollars into linux just for fun...

News to you
by top speed on Fri 1st Aug 2003 03:59 UTC


Profitable? That's news to me...


"McGowan said the company continues to generate cash, adding $261 million during the quarter for a total of $5.5 billion...Sun's gross profit margin, a key measure of profitability related to product sales, rose to 44.6 percent, its highest level in more than two years."

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/...



lol McNealey
by Dekkard on Fri 1st Aug 2003 04:02 UTC

Right steer clear of open source ..instead use solaris or win2003 .. but hey.. (lol ) read the eula.. you arent protected at all. Ms and sun dont freekin indemnify their users any more than 'nix hackers.( opportunistic shill)

Re: The reason why they steal
by James G on Fri 1st Aug 2003 04:04 UTC

Ok, you oppose people who disregard commercial EULA while supporting the GPL. Probably fair enough. If it is reasonable for one group to licence IP under restrictions they've chosen, it should be ok for another group to to so with their own restrictions (otherwise they're hypocritical). That seems like an endorsement of both commercial EULA and the GPL.

But at the same time you are critical of the GPL, and you call the GPL a "mirror reverse image" of Microsoft's EULA. I guess you mean they are kind of opposite in their choice of licencing conditions, but the conditions are equally as draconian? And since you support the public domain, this seems to suggest you don't like either commercial EULA or the GPL.

Then you make a stand for commercial IP against Napster et al. So it seems you support commercial IP. But I still feel like you have expressed opposition to the GPL. If so (and I'm not sure that's what you're saying) isn't that hypocritical on your part?

Finally you deride pro-GPL, anti-EULA people as lacking absolute morality ("Thou shalt not steal"). Now that's all very well, but I don't think anyone's saying that you should steal. There are just arguments about what stealing is. Systems of morality and law change. Honestly, I doubt God was thinking of EULA when he gave those commandments, you're quoting him out of context.

Mean while......
by Anonymous on Fri 1st Aug 2003 04:06 UTC

McNealy is signing major deals with SuSE. This is a ploy to attack IBM and thwart the succes they have had with Linux. Sun is just jealous that IBM is raking in the money hand of fist using Linux. Yet they have still to reap and real large succes like IBM. They are attacking IBM by attacking Linux in hopes that people will switch to Sun. Then they will introduce their own "Linux Solution". This freaking stunt is a big FUD campaign to get at IBM.

Incredible Deniability
by top speed on Fri 1st Aug 2003 04:11 UTC

Honestly, I doubt God was thinking of EULA when he gave those commandments, you're quoting him out of context...

God couldn't have been any clearer. Sorry to hear you're still confused...

BSD immune?
by Jeremy Friesner on Fri 1st Aug 2003 04:31 UTC

And, if all else fails, there are always the *BSDs which are immune to SCO's ( and presumably Sun's) shenanigans

What exactly would make the *BSDs immune to SCO's shennanigans?

Evidence please?
by Best on Fri 1st Aug 2003 04:35 UTC

I'm afraid that you'll have to produce evidence of the exsistance of this "god" if you want me to pay attention to single lines quoted out of context written down by human beings several thousand years ago (I do have a nice experiment in mind that could test the veracity of this claim involving a car wash and birds)

But seeing as how theres currently no evidence that Linux has any stolen code from SCO, or that there is a god, I'm afraid that you really don't have an argument.

Idiot...
by marcm on Fri 1st Aug 2003 04:37 UTC

Nope, it is not the first idiot I see around...Really...
He sounds like, uhmm, a freak'n opportunitist, a guy that tries to make a profit out of the pain that OSS is going trough. But, hey, they like GNOME...fsck SUN... what else can I say? BTW: I remember, when I was last time to L.A., I saw the SUN building, its near a highway, I think it was 10 or 101, doesn't really mather now, but it shows that they have money, oh, and instead of trying to screw Linux, they could make a profit from it. For instance I like SCO, they didn't even develop a packaging system (yes, they are on rpm), but they still brag around...
So, Mr. McNealy you look like a f****g idiot... But at the end of the day you'll just go home, without really giving a damn about what really mathers...

I support the 19th century model of capitalism. James G
by Coral Snake on Fri 1st Aug 2003 05:01 UTC

You are probably confused in this matter because I support the 19th century model of capitalism based on Temporary Monopoly in intellectual property concept with an expanding public domain and/or expanded use of truely free software licensing like BSD and MIT that BOTH COMMERCIAL AND FREE SOFTWARE CODERS HAVE ACCESS TO LEGALLY. Therefore I can be for standard commercial EULAs and free software IN THE TRUEST SENSE OF THE WORD without being a hyppocrite. This is IMPOSSIBLE for the GPL fan however because it has restrictions built on Richard Stallman's atheistic left wing
philosophy which he himself admits to having, and yet it is called "free software" which is hyppocracy.

And now for top speed. There is one place that I would dissagree you when you are posting as Golden Eagle on Free Republic and that is when you call the GPL a foriegn license. Unfortunately this communist puppy was a HOME GROWN creation of an overweight neo hippie named Richard Stallman or more popularly RMS to his fello "hackers" right here in the USA in the people's republic of Taxachusits. Linus Torvalds is probably using it ONLY because it reflects his European Socialist Views.

And I am glad to see that you are supporting an anti Microsoft company in this. Sun Microsystems is one of my favorites in the commercial proprietary software world as well. I use the full proprietary version of Star Office under Linux and am learning Java in case I have to give coding native code apps for managed code ones. I might even be considering Solaris for x86 as a replacement for Linux if these people don't start cleaning up their ethical act, and particularly these jokes about "hit men" that pour out of the mouths of Torvalds and others when they don't get their way. I find them in very poor taste and perhaps even criminal in and of themselves.

...
by obelix on Fri 1st Aug 2003 05:05 UTC

open office is what, gpl, bsdian?

I think mcneely needs to understand that in my company, we always read the fine print...

...
by obelix on Fri 1st Aug 2003 05:10 UTC

IS novell netware an OS? no. who put that in that column?

A windows user?

hit men?
by obelix on Fri 1st Aug 2003 05:34 UTC

Coral Snake.. we don't think it's the kind of joke that can be dismissed either. But there is a lot of potshots going around. It's not competition though. Competition is about being the best YOU can be. MSFT, SCO, they all do it. Some get caught(Be vs MSFT), some just get told off(SCO's bs got them told off)

as for IP- I believe intellectual property rights should only to to the one with the actual intellect, the creator person.

I don't believe copyrights should last as long as they do. I believe they should last in between the time it takes to have a generation gap from the time of inception of the concept, to 50 years, maximum, with much less time to own the copyright if it's transferred.

You might say "good god man". I think god's wanting this. He must be good, wherever he, she, or it is.

As for legal hassles? Is he implying you need to carry around an attorney around in your suitcase? Must be lonely at the top...

Avoiding debate, as usual
by Great Cthulhu on Fri 1st Aug 2003 05:41 UTC

You trust this site simply because they claim to be "paralegal"?

Prove to me the guy isn't trustable. (Oh by the way, it's a blog. You know what these are, right?) Seriously, prove the guy wrong instead of trying to attack his credibility. Otherwise you're just another guy talking on a web site thread. In this regard, I do find Groklaw to be a much more reliable source of legal advice than you, yes.

The guarantee that should Sco win, you are already legal.

Even if SCO wins its suit (and by now most serious analysts realize that this is an increasingly unlikely scenario), Linux distros will be legal. SCO has distributed Linux under the GPL. Ergo, there is nothing "illegal" with other distros. Again, you're not countering the arguments, you're repeating the same false statements I've disproved with those arguments.

but you're still perfectly content to have stolen it from them when they unknowingly released it.

But they knowingly released it. They knowingly continued to distribute it after claiming offending code was in it. Furthermore, it appears that SCO employees (Hellwig in particular) who did indeed participate in kernel development had their company's blessing to do so.

So in fact nothing was stolen. And unless you've got proof for the contrary, you should be careful about stating CSO and McBride's allegations as facts. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

LMAO, it was one single argument you made, that the GPL 'stole it'. That and some other obvious things like "the actual trial has yet to begin" and "this is about breach of contract". What do you want for those incredible observations, a piece of candy?

Actually, nothing got stolen. SCO knowingly and willfully distributed Linux under the GPL. They knowingly willfully contributed to it. This is the argument I was making, among others, which you all failed to counter. Glad to see that you finally admit it.

And that's sweeter than any candy.

Re: Coral Snake
by Wrawrat on Fri 1st Aug 2003 05:43 UTC

This is IMPOSSIBLE for the GPL fan however because it has restrictions built on Richard Stallman's atheistic left wing
philosophy which he himself admits to having, and yet it is called "free software" which is hyppocracy.


There's nothing wrong in being leftist or atheist, like there's nothing wrong in being a totalitarian god-worshipper capitalist. It's just a choice. As for GPL'd software being free... Well, yes, it is. American people tend to claim they're free to do what they want... yet they're bound to ludicrous amount of rules and laws. The GPL makes sense to people that doesn't want their code to be used by everybody without any retribution. Theorically, you can get a BSD project like Apache, change its name to something like Mohawk and start selling it while only distributing it in binaries. Some developers don't care of that, but other do.

Btw, stop attacking RMS and Tolvards, it only weaken your whole argument. They made/use the GPL because they believe in it. Yes, they might be lefists, but there's nothing wrong in being a leftist.

@Wrarat
by Great Cthulhu on Fri 1st Aug 2003 05:46 UTC

distributing something under the GPL won't make it necessarily GPL if it isn't GPL'd... especially when we don't know if the GPL is really valid legally

I agree, of course. That way one cannot "make" something GPL just by inserting clandestine proprietary code into GPLed code. But that's only valid up to the point where the distributor starts a lawsuit and alleges that there is in fact improper code in the product.

The fact that SCO has continued to release the code under the GPL is a huge liability for them, from a legal point of view. There can be no denying that they don't know that there is offending code in there, and yet they are distributing the code under the GPL as we speak...

Trolling, or just disturbed?
by Great Cthulhu on Fri 1st Aug 2003 05:51 UTC

God couldn't have been any clearer.

Beware men who claim to speak for God. They are the tool of the Devil.

I should know, look at my (old) nick! (Get it?)

I have just found proof
by Richard James on Fri 1st Aug 2003 05:57 UTC

That the person posing as Total Snake is infact a large shareholder in SCO stock

@Richard James
by Great Cthulhu on Fri 1st Aug 2003 06:00 UTC

I believe you!

(Although...just so you should know...it's "coral" snake.)

:-)

Sun Microsystems: a solution looking for a problem.
by Kingston on Fri 1st Aug 2003 06:31 UTC

This is not only silly in a sinister sort of way, but absurd. End users are not liable for any IP theft by the vendor. The vendor is the only one in such a case, as they were the ones responsible for the theft. This is madness. I know it's common knowledge around here, but what SCO and Sun are doing is not only wrong, but very likely illegal, even in the United States.

RE: @Wrarat
by Wrawrat on Fri 1st Aug 2003 06:42 UTC

The fact that SCO has continued to release the code under the GPL is a huge liability for them, from a legal point of view. There can be no denying that they don't know that there is offending code in there, and yet they are distributing the code under the GPL as we speak...

First, it doesn't mean that their distribution is valid, as the GPL doesn't necessarily override the licence of the alledged proprietary code. If it violates the GPL, well, their distribution is simply no longer protected by the GPL.

Second, we have yet to know if the GPL is legally valid. I've read somewhere that most EULAs out there are probably invalid. They still exist because no one challenged them yet. Hell, I've heard of EULAs that allow the program to delete the software of the competition from your computer or even install a virus if you use it past the trial period! I do believe the GPL is valid, but I don't think it's as powerful as some people claim.

Btw, I'm not a lawyer, so it's just my opinion and my interpretation of the law... The one from the Real World(tm) can be different.

Moderation - Pleeeaasse !
by elmo on Fri 1st Aug 2003 07:21 UTC

I can only ask again, why is there no moderation going on??? There are posts here, especially from our two special friends 'coral snake' and 'topspeed', that have got nothing to do with the subject and that are offensive, nationalistic, racist remarks on this forum.

McNealy, CEO, mismanagement par excellence
by mtdman on Fri 1st Aug 2003 07:25 UTC

Scott McNealy is really making an ass of himself with his two-faced approach to linux. In contrast to SCO, Sun can afford such stupidity as offered by its CEO in public forums because the quality of SUN's products is of far greater value that the FUD that McNealy is spreading. First their was the Shenanigans with Solaris x86- where the loyal x86 folks got royally shafted-then Sun admitted its error and continued to support x86- then Sun announces it's own linux-then they say they won't offer it and instead will seek 3rd party vendors- now we know that they will do both-use 3rd party vendor linux and their own linux-in effect pitting Solaris x86 users against Sun linux users and playing the two against each other.

Solaris x86 is utterly useless for the vast majority of commercially available x86 hardware- for it supports virtually no peripheals-no modern graphic cards, no USB, virtually no sound cards, only a tiny fraction of the available network cards, no pppoe etc. As such it is an emasculated version of Solaris. Their own linux offering will be based on an out-dated Redhat distribution, which will not be able to compete with Redhat, particuallarly since they will also use Redhat as a 3rd party vendor, as they are also doing with SuSE. And one calls this management- McNealy is utterly clueless and worse- he is an absolute oppurtunist. If not for Sun's quality product, as pertains to the non-x86 world, which has nothing to do with McNealy, but everything to do the hordes of good programmers working for Sun- such shenanigans would spell their financial ruin.

Re: "top speed" and "coral snake"
Buzz off you proffesional trolls-your neo-fascist rhetoric is too transparent, your inability to address the arguments of those who have taken you, mistakenly, serious is proof enough of your intellectual bankruptcy. Such a shame that your ilk has discovered OSNEWS-dragging every discussion down to new depths never before seen. Moderators ? where are you ? can you not recognize what they are doing ? If the moderators do not take a stand aginst such proffesional trolls this site is doomed.

Elmo's False Accusation
by Coral Snake on Fri 1st Aug 2003 08:05 UTC

I will admit that Top Speed and I are very nationalistic but
the term RACIST applied to us is FALSE and you know it. When we discuss the Communist Chinese in a negative manner we are talking purely about their POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY not their RACE!!!. I also dare you to find ONE WORD that we have said against African Americans, Hispanics or Asian Americans Except for our NATIONALISTIC belief that our nation has the right to control its borders. It is YOU SIR who deserves to be moderated for FALSE ACCUSATION

rule 2 of the T & C.

Some thoughts
by Richard Yamauchi on Fri 1st Aug 2003 08:19 UTC

Scott's being a jerk now. He's not evil, but SCO and Scott are weaking unix as a whole by pitting us against each other.

IBM and RedHat are American Companies that are working hard to get Linux to be successful. As are lycoris, Lindows (in a strange way), and Tivo. Please netcraft www.whitehouse.gov and see that it runs LINUX (use www.whitehouse.gov withought the www it shows solaris).

RMS may be leftist, but Torvalds I don't think is. He tends to be apolitical. If Torvalds is leftist in any way, he must not be good at it.

I Firmly believe there is NO SCO code in the Linux Kernel. We did NOT steal anything. Stealing copyrighted or proprietary code would be against what Linux is about. We can't compete against Closed Source by cheating.

BSD had a lawsuit against it in the 1980s to early 90's. I believe they settled out of court when it was found out that there was more BSD code in Sys V than Sys V in BSD. I believe all the "offending" code was purged.

While there may be nothing wrong with being leftist, and everybody's entitled to their opinion, Allowing Linux to be associated with Atheistic, Communist, and non-capitalistic is contributing to the SCO/MS Fud factory. The more you Jerks bash America, the more you play into MS PR. Are you dorks on Microsoft's Payroll? Linux is perfectly fit for Business, capitalism, Christians (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, whatever) and AMERICA. It celebrates Freedom. If you're leftists and like linux, lovely. I want everybody to use linux (at least once, and by their own choice, not by my force or your force or the govermnment's). But Linux is not leftist, socialistic, communist, stealing, atheistic, or Anti-American by Nature. Didn't we get ANGRY at Gates for saying stuff like that?

Finally, the BSD license is good in some places. GPL is good in others. If you do something cool and want people to use it without sharing the code back if they improve it, use BSD. There ARE times when that's appropriate. With GPL, they can STILL sell it and make money and improve it; they just have to share the source. It may seem more difficult to make money that way, but it's possible.

re: Moderation - Pleeeaasse !
by Robert Renling on Fri 1st Aug 2003 09:10 UTC

elmo i really dunno, but people have been moderated for far far less, if this keeps going on i'm going to go to arstechnica for all my news instead.

Top Speed a.k.a. Motor Mouth is kissing the serpent's behind again. Unfounded allegations spew from him like fluids from a Diarrhoeaista (Someone believing in Diarrhoea in the way a Sandinista believed in the doctrines of the Sandinista government) - in this he is like his gods, the CEO's attacking Linux.

Coral Snake is again off with the - well, we can't say "fairies", can we, because he will accuse us of accusing him of homosexuality, which we are not. It's just that he is less aligned with common-or-garden reality than most of us. Let us know when you meet Elvis, Coral Snake - just be careful how you bite him. It might get sceptic.

In short, the CEO of one company I used to feel fond of, Sun - because they had cool computer stuff I wanted to get my hands on - has shown a rabidity towards a piece of software, Linux, he is allegedly trying to sell, and has regurgitated much of SCO's worst rabidity.

Two of his stooges on the OSNEWS blog have regurgitated said FUD and accused everybody else of various absurd actions and beliefs.

I'm a bit confused, Eugenia - if you want dadaist commentary, ask for it. If you want absurdist commentary, again, ask for it.

I don't read the terms pages as permitting the Theatre of the Absurd/Cruel that either these two clowns, Motor Mouth or Coral Snake, regularly overindulge in.

Elmo I'll make you a deal
by Coral Snake on Fri 1st Aug 2003 10:06 UTC

You help me in trying to get some moderation for the off topic and highly tasteless slashfilth "humor" that is starting to permiate this site and I will keep my off topic political and historical discussions concerning the lawsuit and the participants in it with Top Speed for Free Republic
(where he posts as Golden Eagle). Some times the ONLY reason Eugenia lets us stay around is that we do provide a morality antidote for the creeping slasthdotism of this site.

RE: Elmo's False Accusation
by elmo on Fri 1st Aug 2003 10:31 UTC

>>>I also dare you to find ONE WORD that we have said against African Americans, Hispanics or Asian Americans Except for our NATIONALISTIC belief that our nation has the right to control its borders. <<<

Racism is not only a question of bland outright words against Asian Americans ..... however the way you write and deal in your postings with other nations (Chinese, German ...)is to say the least offensive, whilst at the same time taking your words to their conclusions you certainly end up with, even if not outright yet at least implied form of racism.

>>>. It is YOU SIR who deserves to be moderated for FALSE ACCUSATION
rule 2 of the T & C.<<<

Seeing that you are so quick to jump on your moral highhorse and selfrighteously throw rules at me, let me suggest that you yourselve are in breach of
rule 1 - no bad mouthing
rule 2 - no attacks to other users
rule 3 - Whatever you got to say, say it in a calm way, and explain your reasoning as an adult, and not as a 10-year old kid.
rule 4 - No bashing. No trolling. Just *discuss* it.
rule 7 - No off topic comments.

>>>You help me in trying to get some moderation for the off topic and highly tasteless slashfilth "humor" that is starting to permiate this site and I will keep my off topic political and historical discussions concerning the lawsuit and the participants in it with Top Speed for Free Republic <<<<

I will not help you do anything. This is Eugenia's site, it is her decision and responsibility to moderate this site, and quiet frankly i am very suprised that you and topspeed are still around.

Without reading any of the rest of the comments yet...
by marc the pirate on Fri 1st Aug 2003 11:34 UTC

..I say that it's due time that all Open Source software developers pull the plug on any Solaris ports. If they're going to cry foul, then they should not benefit from free (as in beer or freedom) software on their platform.

Coral Snake = Correct
by top speed on Fri 1st Aug 2003 12:22 UTC

And now for top speed. There is one place that I would dissagree you when you are posting as Golden Eagle on Free Republic and that is when you call the GPL a foriegn license.

Yes, Coral Snake, I admit that statement was incorrect, something I became aware of since I originally posted that (which was some time ago I believe). But thank you for pointing it out, and it is certainly a pleasure to have such a knowledgable new friend. Hope you have a great day!

This is a snapshot of the source code Caldera contributed to the Linux development team, when they were still members of it (80 lines? easily! code donated with full acknowledgement of its status.) (snapshotted with "grep -r '[Cc]aldera' /usr/src/linux ) - and now they've turned on it:

/usr/src/linux/arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c: * Original development of Linux SMP code supported by Caldera.
/usr/src/linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/smpboot.c: * Original development of Linux SMP code supported by Caldera.
/usr/src/linux/CREDITS:S: Caldera (Deutschland) GmbH
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/networking/tlan.txt:(C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/sound/CMI8338: b. Caldera OpenLinux 2.2
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/smp.tex:The author wishes to thank Caldera Inc. ( http://www.caldera.com )
/usr/src/linux/drivers/net/tlan.c: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
/usr/src/linux/drivers/net/tlan.h: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
/usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/advansys.c: AdvanSys driver in the Caldera releases.
/usr/src/linux/net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc. <greg@caldera.com>
/usr/src/linux/net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Neither Greg Page nor Caldera, Inc. admit liability nor provide
/usr/src/linux/net/ipx/af_ipx.c: KERN_INFO "IPX Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.n"
Binary file /usr/src/linux/net/ipx/af_ipx.o matches
Binary file /usr/src/linux/net/ipx/ipx.o matches
/usr/src/linux/CREDITS:E: sp@caldera.de
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/Configure.help:# LocalWords: caldera Preload Preloading slowdowns schoebel uni NBD nbd prog
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/smp.tex:The author wishes to thank Caldera Inc. ( http://www.caldera.com )
/usr/src/linux/drivers/char/drm/drm_context.h: * 2001-11-16 Torsten Duwe <duwe@caldera.de>
/usr/src/linux/drivers/net/slip.c: * from Jim Freeman's <jfree@caldera.com>
/usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/advansys.c: Erik Ratcliffe <erik@caldera.com> has done testing of the
/usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/ips.c:/* 4.00.06a - Port to 2.4 (trivial) -- Christoph Hellwig <hch@caldera.de> */
/usr/src/linux/drivers/sound/esssolo1.c: * up. Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
/usr/src/linux/drivers/sound/esssolo1.c: * Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
/usr/src/linux/drivers/sound/maestro.c: * v0.15 - May 21 2001 - Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
/usr/src/linux/drivers/sound/nm256_audio.c: * 19-04-2001 Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
/usr/src/linux/drivers/sound/rme96xx.c: Marcus Meissner <Marcus.Meissner@caldera.de>
/usr/src/linux/drivers/sound/sonicvibes.c: * Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
/usr/src/linux/fs/freevxfs/vxfs_olt.c: printk(KERN_NOTICE "vxfs: please notify hch@caldera.den");
Binary file /usr/src/linux/fs/freevxfs/vxfs_olt.o matches
Binary file /usr/src/linux/fs/freevxfs/freevxfs.o matches
/usr/src/linux/net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc. <greg@caldera.com>
/usr/src/linux/net/ipx/af_spx.c: * Jim Freeman <jfree@caldera.com>

Arrogance of the Ignorant
by top speed on Fri 1st Aug 2003 12:33 UTC

your neo-fascist rhetoric is too transparent, your inability to address the arguments of those who have taken you, mistakenly, serious is proof enough of your intellectual bankruptcy.

Whatever. My comments are based in fact and supported by many professional analysts as carried IN PRINT in respected trade journal magazines covering both the US tech and business markets, which I have linked to repeatedly to corroborate my position.

You can continue to call names, as apparently, that's all you're capable of doing.

"Some times the ONLY reason Eugenia lets us stay around is that we do provide a morality antidote for the creeping slasthdotism of this site."

It is chidish trolls like Coral Snake and Top Speed that are making the OSnews threads more like Slashdot and a reason not to bother with it anymore.

At least in /. these trolls get lost in the mass of contributions, here with a smaller base of readers they can waste an entire thread.

Just my 2 cents Canadian

Voices of Reason
by top speed on Fri 1st Aug 2003 12:50 UTC

It is chidish trolls like Coral Snake and Top Speed...

We are two of the few (there are certainly others) voices of reason, with adult perspectives and experience, who are being forced to counter the extreme ignorance and immorality of what are truly children posting on this site. If you weren't so immature yourself, you'd see this obvious truth (as I'm sure most true adults do). Somehow you'll just have to come to grips with it.

RE: BSD immune?
by Bannor99 on Fri 1st Aug 2003 12:59 UTC


Because the BSDs are derived from a codebase that was determined to be unencumbered by AT&T copyrighted - a settlement was reached in California court in '94.
Read here for an account by Marshall McKusick of the FreeBSD project : http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/kirkmck.html

RE: Voices of Reason
by elmo on Fri 1st Aug 2003 13:06 UTC

>>>...who are being forced to counter the extreme ignorance and immorality of what are truly children posting on this site<<<

Huh ???? No one is forcing you, in fact it seems to me most people would be more than happy for you to leave OSnews Forums for good ... so please feel free to leave ... bye bye then!

Sun Profitable? News to me.
by walterbyrd on Fri 1st Aug 2003 13:15 UTC

------------------
For the fiscal year ended 6/30/03, revenues declined 8% to $11.43 billion. Net loss totaled $2.38 billion, up from $587 million.

Earnings (ttm) -$0.75
Profit Margin (ttm) -20.8%
Operating Margin (ttm) -23.8%

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/s/sunw.html
------------------

@Wrawrat
by Great Cthulhu on Fri 1st Aug 2003 13:55 UTC

IANAL either, but I’d be inclined to disagree. There is such a thing as enforcement of copyright. If SCO was to sue others for distributing the offending code – assuming that it exists – then the fact that they are currently distributing that code under the GPL could definitely be taken against them in a court of law.

As long as you’re aware of what you’re distributing (which is currently the case with SCO), the GPL doesn’t make a difference between “distributing” and “releasing”. In other words, if they know the code is there, and they actively distribute it under the GPL nonetheless, then they are giving de facto approval to it being GPLed.

The argument that the GPL itself might not be valid has come up often since its inception, but the fact that no one has tried to follow up on this argument is quite noteworthy. It is because, unlike EULAs (which are based on contract law), the GPL is an extension of copyright. In other words, it is copyright law, with additional rights given to the recipient on the condition that he agrees to some other rules.

Now, if SCO was to invalidate the kernel as a GPL app, then they would expose themselves to lawsuits from all kernel contributors, as they would have themselves distributed the kernel without the explicit copyright holders’ consent (which is otherwise granted by the GPL). Remember, they can only claim ownership of the offending code (if any), not to the rest of the kernel code.

So, even if SCO were to convince a judge and jury of the fact that the GPL is invalid even though they gave their tacit approval to releasing the code under the GPL (i.e. there’s no “pregnant cow” in this case), they could very well be the target of a multitude of IP lawsuits...

@based in fact, Motor Mouth
by Wesley Parish on Fri 1st Aug 2003 13:57 UTC

Motor Mouth, you have yet to bring proof of your basic position from any version of either Linux or Windows.

I for one have quoted extensively from my own copy of Linux and hunted down people with proof of their position, and since the current debate doesn't hinge on Windows, I have necessarily not quoted extensively from my own copies of it.

"... supported by many professional analysts as carried IN PRINT in respected trade journal magazines ..." doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Ever heard of the disaster of the Railway Bridge over the River Tay? What about the Tacoma Narrows Bridge?

You can still wrong, even if you are respected ... and by the way you have consistently carried on, on this blog, you're consistently wrong without being respected.

I wonder why.

RE: It's confirmed: Linux zealots don't read articles
by Mudball on Fri 1st Aug 2003 13:58 UTC

"This article is just about how safe it is to buy Linux from Sun. And why you should buy it from Sun and not from other vendors. Yes, that's what this article is about."

No, this isn't true. He was referring to the fact that _Solaris_ customers are indemnified, not Linux customers. I saw another article, where he said Red Hat Linux users will have to go to Red Hat for questions about liability.

Sun will be happy to sell Solaris/SPARC, Solaris/x86, and Linux/x86 to their customers, but Sun will only go to bat for the Solaris customers if SCO becomes even more overconfident.

Good
by Me on Fri 1st Aug 2003 14:40 UTC

Now he undustood Linux takes Unix market, not MS.
And what is the MS's target? Unix.....

He's pulling what got msft in trouble
by obelix on Fri 1st Aug 2003 15:09 UTC

Essientially he is. It's bait and "switch" selling. Sun offers up linux servers, why cut off their own foot? There is no legal hassles over using gpl software, os, whatever.

There is legal hassles when you do somthing wrong though. Linus can sue over slander? If it hurts business, but Linus doesn't work that way. (see, SCO got told the F off). Now, These comments that MSFT's BoD's, and Sun, and to lesser degree, apple, could be seen as sladerous, libelous, or even seditious. Especially with all the private back room meeting these guys have with governments.

Re: Good
by chemicalscum on Fri 1st Aug 2003 16:12 UTC

"Now he undustood Linux takes Unix market, not MS.
And what is the MS's target? Unix..... "


All the evidence I have been able to find is that Linux is hitting pretty evenly at both MS and proprietary Unix in the server market. It is both replacing windows servers and blocking MS expansion into the enterprise space when it replaces proprietary Unix (Lintel instead of Wintel).

While Linux is a huge potential threat to windows on the desktop. A threat that is only just beginning to emerge - viz Munich.

RE: RE: BSD immune?
by Wrawrat on Fri 1st Aug 2003 16:54 UTC

Wait. Only the lite versions of the original BSD (4.2, 4.3 and 4.4BSD I believe) are certified as being unencumbered. It doesn't make FreeBSD & co. unencumbered and/or immune to prosecution if they have included UNIX code that weren't included in those original lite BSDs (if there was some, of course). I'm NOT saying they did, though.

RE: Voices of Reason
by Wrawrat on Fri 1st Aug 2003 17:04 UTC

My comments are based in fact and supported by many professional analysts as carried IN PRINT in respected trade journal magazines covering both the US tech and business markets, which I have linked to repeatedly to corroborate my position.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position seems to be "SCO is right, the Linux community stole their code so they must be punished". None of your sources proved that. None. The financial analysts in those so-called respected journal magazines you have linked only said that Linux might not be the best choice right now as it could be encumbered and that they should consider other solutions for the moment. I understand them, and that makes sense, but it hardly prove that IBM and/or the Linux community are guilty.

We are two of the few (there are certainly others) voices of reason, with adult perspectives and experience, who are being forced to counter the extreme ignorance and immorality of what are truly children posting on this site. If you weren't so immature yourself, you'd see this obvious truth (as I'm sure most true adults do). Somehow you'll just have to come to grips with it.

And I guess trolling is an adult behavior?
You are VERY pretentious to believe you're the only two understanding the situation...

RE: @Wrawrat
by Wrawrat on Fri 1st Aug 2003 17:22 UTC

As long as you’re aware of what you’re distributing (which is currently the case with SCO), the GPL doesn’t make a difference between “distributing” and “releasing”. In other words, if they know the code is there, and they actively distribute it under the GPL nonetheless, then they are giving de facto approval to it being GPLed.

It makes sense, but I'm still not sure that would make the infringing code GPL'd. I guess that's up to the court to decide that. A de facto approval isn't a real approval, like a de facto standard isn't a real standard. I must admit that it weakens their case a bit, though. Not against IBM, but against the community.

The argument that the GPL itself might not be valid has come up often since its inception, but the fact that no one has tried to follow up on this argument is quite noteworthy. It is because, unlike EULAs (which are based on contract law), the GPL is an extension of copyright. In other words, it is copyright law, with additional rights given to the recipient on the condition that he agrees to some other rules.

Hmm, I don't know. It's not exactly like the copyright law. The contributors are still licencing their code to people or future contributors. Anyway, I can't really discuss on that as I don't really know.

Now, if SCO was to invalidate the kernel as a GPL app, then they would expose themselves to lawsuits from all kernel contributors, as they would have themselves distributed the kernel without the explicit copyright holders’ consent (which is otherwise granted by the GPL). Remember, they can only claim ownership of the offending code (if any), not to the rest of the kernel code.

Maybe, but who would sue them? ;)
But you're right, they can't claim ownership of the rest of the kernel code.

So, even if SCO were to convince a judge and jury of the fact that the GPL is invalid even though they gave their tacit approval to releasing the code under the GPL (i.e. there’s no “pregnant cow” in this case), they could very well be the target of a multitude of IP lawsuits...

We'll see...

@Wrawrat
by Great Cthulhu on Fri 1st Aug 2003 17:52 UTC

Eben Moglen has just published his position paper on the SCO suit. He seems to think that SCO has indeed released whatever code they claim might have been copied under the GPL. Of course, one could say that he's an interested party (being chief counsel for the FSF), but at least he is a lawyer and has a good grasp of the issues at hand, and of the nature of the GPL.

A good read, nonetheless:

http://www.osdl.org/docs/osdl_eben_moglen_position_paper.pdf

(And, yes, I got the link off of Slashdot... :-)

Walterbyrd, misrepresenting the truth
by top speed on Fri 1st Aug 2003 21:53 UTC

Following the very link you provided:

"Results reflect the impact of the weakening economy and $2.13 billion in goodwill and other intangible impairment charges."

chemicalscum
by top speed on Fri 1st Aug 2003 21:57 UTC

All the evidence I have been able to find is that Linux is hitting pretty evenly at both MS and proprietary Unix in the server market.

Sorry you're so far behind the times...

8,000 sites switch from Linux to Windows Server 2003

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/07/15/windows_server_2003_ap...

Wrawrat
by top speed on Fri 1st Aug 2003 22:05 UTC

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position seems to be "SCO is right, the Linux community stole their code so they must be punished".

Consider yourself corrected, based on my exact quotes on this thread:

"if the court rules..."

"if they win in Utah..."

"You'll probably find out soon enough..."

"should Sco win..."

etc...

Reflection on SCO/MICROSOFT
by Tom Curtis on Fri 1st Aug 2003 22:27 UTC

In a strange way the SCO attack on Linux is for the best. It will solidify the Linux faithful and once and for all prove that Open Source is viable. Since MS funded SCO with $8M the fight will go on much longer than it might have otherwise and Linux will be that much stronger. What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. And Linux is right and just!

Mr. Curtis
by top speed on Fri 1st Aug 2003 22:44 UTC

Linux is right and just!

Just out of curiousity, how would your opinion change towards Linux IF it is shown that ATT Sys V code is in Linux, and got there without the owner's blessing?

Would you then a)admit that Linux 'stole' intellectual property from Unix, and pay for your fair use, b)still hate SCO and refuse to pay only over your dead body, or c)something else that needs to be identified/explained?

Just out of curiousity
by Tom Curtis on Fri 1st Aug 2003 23:32 UTC

Just out of curiousity, how would your opinion change towards Linux IF it is shown that ATT Sys V code is in Linux, and got there without the owner's blessing?

To tell you the truth I do not even know what ATT Sys V code is. However, if it were found in Linux and it was proven that it was stolen then the person who submitted it to the Linux kernel would be held accountable by all those who love Linux and any others who cared. The block of code would then be re-written and Linux would go on.

this is silly
by fuzzywzhe on Sat 2nd Aug 2003 00:10 UTC

Anybody that uses any Unix knows it's filled to the brim with open source software. Binutils is an example, half of the commands of the shell are, the shell usually is - BASH, for example. Apache is open source and runs over 60% of the webservers on the net, sendmail is open source and runs nearly all the mail servers. Perl is open source, gcc is the default compiler for almost all embedded projects and for Unix, and it's open source.

All this stuff is included in your standard installation of almost any Unix, including Solaris. Sun is just trying scare people away from Linux because it competes against Solaris.

If SCO had a case BTW - they should get an injunction against kernel.org - the distributors of Linux. SCO has not case, this is all talk. There are no intellectual property issues with regard to Linux. It's an attempt by SCO to be purchased.

@Top Speed
by Great Cthulhu on Sat 2nd Aug 2003 00:43 UTC

8,000 sites switch from Linux to Windows Server 2003

Yes but overall the migration is still in favor of Linux:

"In the last two months Linux has made a net gain of over 100 enterprise sites; sites which have migrated to Linux including Royal Sun Alliance, Deutsche Bank, SunGard,T-online and most noteworthy, Schwab."

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/07/24/sco_lawsuit_will_the_e...

Mr. Curtis
by top speed on Sat 2nd Aug 2003 03:55 UTC

Thanks for your answer. Regards...

Lost from Unix, not Windows
by top speed on Sat 2nd Aug 2003 03:58 UTC

8,000 sites switch from Linux to Windows Server 2003

Yes but overall the migration is still in favor of Linux.


Check your own link genius. Any Linux improvement at all was due to Unix losses. Schwaab was Webshere etc.

Hey, who cares where it came from...
by Great Cthulhu on Sat 2nd Aug 2003 04:06 UTC

At least Linux had a positive score...and it's only the beginning!

Still, you make a statement that is almost certainly false:

Any Linux improvement at all was due to Unix losses.

So you're saying that not a single Windows server switched to Linux? Not one? Not a single one? Because it's pretty easy to find examples on Netcraft, you know...

Or is it just another false statement, like the fact that I supposedly connect from IBM?

IBM
by Mike on Sat 2nd Aug 2003 08:04 UTC

IBM did not make Linux enterprise level. They contributed to it but not as much as you think, it was the collective effort of thousands of volunteers and many companies including IBM.

IBM has just spread the word the most with tv commercials, magazine adds etc. all over the place giving you the false impression that ttheir contributions ar emuch greater. Frankly they just adapted and the 1BN was only to port THEIR products to linux so it was entirely for their benefit.

SUN isn't so loud about their contributions to Linux, but IMO they are much more important IMO. OO.org was a huge beast costing millions of dollars and they also donated their file system and contributed money and code to the linux project.

Hmmm
by Invisible_Man on Sat 2nd Aug 2003 08:23 UTC

To me it sounds just like Windows does with Lindows.. i think that everyone is seeing what Linux can finally do with the new versions that have come out and now they want to hop on the bandwagon.. Until now most people haven't wanted to mess with Linux let alone think about sueing someone over it.. I link Solaris owners are worried about lossing to something that they helped create but didn't get copyrights to it.. That is just my opinion. I think Solaris owners are just about as bad as Microshaft owner Bill Gates it...

Re: Top Speed, misrepresenting the truth
by walterbyrd on Sat 2nd Aug 2003 13:09 UTC

Sorry, top speed, the numbers don't lie. Sun has *not* been profitalbe. That is a verifiable fact. Note: Earnings (ttm) -$0.75 = not profitable. You are an idiot and a liar. Clearly you are the one misrepresenting the truth.
------------------
For the fiscal year ended 6/30/03, revenues declined 8% to $11.43 billion. Net loss totaled $2.38 billion, up from $587 million.

Earnings (ttm) -$0.75
Profit Margin (ttm) -20.8%
Operating Margin (ttm) -23.8%

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/s/sunw.html
------------------

Can you say "belly-up", McNealy
by The god of knowledge on Sat 2nd Aug 2003 16:21 UTC

I wonder if McNealy warned companies of the danger of baseing their business on a company whose stock has gone from $60.00 to $3.00! Sun is a racoon hit by a car on the road waiting to die from its wounds. I would warn IT departments to stay clear of Java for the same reason. When Sun goes belly-up, Java will be auctioned by their creditors.

A general lack originality....
by FUD on Sat 2nd Aug 2003 21:12 UTC

USL vs. BSDI/Berkeley or SCO vs. IBM/Linux.....

I always get confused about these things... ;-)

Tom Curtis wrote:
"To tell you the truth I do not even know what ATT Sys V code is."

I don't think a lot of us know what ATT Sys V code truely is or where it REALLY came from. Kinda like the entity currently known as SCOs work. Hah hah.

UNIX vs. Linux
by Christopher Estep on Sun 3rd Aug 2003 12:18 UTC

The reason why SCO (and now Sun) are *really* screaming over Linux doesn't have a thing to do with any misappropriated code.

The real issue is cost (specifically, Linux' lack of cost compared to traditional UNIX).

Linux was *designed* originally to be aimed at students, hobbyists, etc. as an alternative to the horrifically expensive System V (and Solaris).

While both Sys V and Solaris licensing has dropped (with Solaris 9/x86 being the Big UNIX Bargain at a mere $20/license), it still is not free.

It is one thing when the majority of Linux users are the aforementioned students/hobbyists/etc. Apparently it is quite another (especially to SCO and Sun) when the users are primarily Corporate World (according to most Linux-friendly, and even Linux-UNFRIENDLY, sources, business users are the fastest-growing Linux user segment). And where are most of the new Linux boxes showing up? Server closets (primarily Web servers, but also application servers, primarily database servers running DB2 or some SQL-type server).

Linux went from targeting Windows to targeting *UNIX*. (SCO in particular aims its UNIX at the server closet; has SCO even *shipped* a desktop flavor of its current UnixWare?) And, like Microsoft, SCO and Sun are not going to let their lunch be stolen with impunity. (McNealy's comments viz. Linux were *expected*; remember, this is the same McNealy that had to be browbeaten into releasing Solaris 9 for x86 in the first place.)

Sun is repositioning Solaris as a server-closet OS (which is where SCO is now); which means they have to defend it against all would-be server-closet OSes (not just Microsoft, but RedHat and Mandrake as well).

Welcome to the world of business-targeted operating systems (AKA, the Corporate Jungle).

Re: RE: RE: BSD immune?
by Wesley Parish on Sun 3rd Aug 2003 12:48 UTC

History of 4.xBSD, in relation to AT&T:

The University of California at Berkeley's CSRG made a commitment to getting free of AT&T code. By the time of the infamous law suit, there were only 4 files that were encumbered and couldn't be released without an AT&T source code license.

Ergo, they were excised and 4.4BSD-Lite was released. I've got myself three copies of it, and have seen various bits and pieces of other pre-4.4BSD BSD code, now of course released unencumbered by Caldera c. 2001 under the BSD license.

I don't know just how many files were encumbered in 4.3BSD, but I do know that when Bill Jolitz decided to port 4.3BSD to the 386, thereby making 386BSD, the forerunner of FreeBSD, NetBSD, and therefore OpenBSD and the others that have been released, he was working on the relatively unencumbered 4.3BSD-Reno and 4.3BSD-Tahoe, and of course the Net/2 BSD releases. He refuses to accept that the case had anything to do with him, and I'd say he's right. But ask him.

FreeBSD and NetBSD happened as a result of Bill Jolitz's differing priorities to those of his system's users. They wanted patches they had contributed to be incorporated, and when he was too involved in writing his Operating System Source Code Secrets book series, they went ahead and incorporated it anyway, but because the two groups had different priorities, they wound up in different "distros", to misapply a Linux concept.

Since that day in court, none of the *BSD have had anything to do with AT&T-sourced code to the best of my knowledge, and the idea that they have somehow incorporated it since and have thus become encumbered again, is ridiculous. It's just more SCO FUD. Don't believe the FUD.

Re: RE: RE: BSD immune? - Corrigendum
by Wesley Parish on Sun 3rd Aug 2003 12:58 UTC

FreeBSD 1.0 and NetBSD 1.0 were based on 4.3BSD minus the encumbering AT&T code. But after the case was concluded, the FreeBSD and NetBSD teams individually targeted the 4.4BSD-Lite release as their basis.

I should've made that clearer - my apologies.

Sun fucked up
by Eric Thompson on Sun 3rd Aug 2003 19:49 UTC

So, sun who is making hardware, especially processors, that's generations behind other companies like IBM and Intel tells us that you should not use linux. Big surprise. I couldn't have guessed that, or...
Oooh, by the way, sun licenced unix from SCO under a new agreement the other month. Strangely, the agreement allowed sun to by SCO shares for about $2, below the price today. Well, well, seems theres more to what sun says.

So does that mean ....
by Stuart Coulson on Mon 4th Aug 2003 15:07 UTC

.... if linux is to become licenseware then there will be 2 versions 1) those who purchased pre and 2) those who purchased post.


And .... how will they be differentiated.


All would have been easy if Linus Torvald had made it freely available with a license! The source would have been protected by an Escrow agreement.

BADMAN
by anest on Thu 7th Aug 2003 05:10 UTC

McNealy is soldman! :-(

fucking money.........................
p.s. i love Sun before.. now i dont.

sun on linux
by sneaky pete on Fri 8th Aug 2003 00:31 UTC

all you guys chill on Mcnealy . He is stating the truth as he sees it . he wants to sell linux at the low end and even midrange to compete with dell and hpq better. He loves linux and considers unix an adaptation to linux. What he is saying is get it from a vendor that will indemnify you against lawsuits . vendors who wont indemnify understand the legal problems ahead . sun licensed from sco its right to use and build on linux and so has microsoft. why wont they indemnify he asks and i ask?