Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Jun 2007 10:29 UTC, submitted by binarycrusader
Oracle and SUN Simon Phipps of Sun has responded to the recent criticism of Sun's openness, pointing out that even releasing information that they may already have costs a lot of money. "Jonathan asked me to look into this, to ensure we're pursuing an open path across all of Sun, not simply the software group. We take all input seriously, and we can't solve all problems for all parties, but we're committed to doing our best to faithfully engage with all the communities we serve, in the same spirit as the existing Open Source Ombudsman Scheme. With the support of my team and others in the community I'll try to build a new scheme that is fair and transparent."
Thread beginning with comment 248973
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Come clean about SCO
by kaiwai on Tue 19th Jun 2007 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Come clean about SCO"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

But SUN's invlovement with SCO needs to explained. If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, more than likely, it's a duck. I'm too cynical to believe this is all coincidence. McNealy is gone now, so it's shouldn't be anything for Mr. Schwartz to just come out and be open about what happened. Otherwise it's a stumbling block. Ask yourself how can you fully trust someone who may have had involvement in a plot to subverse you in the past but won't talk about it when asked why? How can you? The obvious answer is you can't.


Oh please, did you actually *read* the link - do you know what it is actually *ALL* about? what SCO says and what the relity is, as you and I well and truely bloody know, can be as far apart as New Zealand from the United States.

Microsoft licenced code from SCO to improve their services for UNIX offering; and Sun needed to purchase components that were still owned by SCO. Please, if Sun and Microsoft were *really* going to bank roll a litigation suite, wouldn't you think that firstly they would do it in an alot more concealed manner, and secondly, wouldn't you also conceed that they would need alot more money?

Sco will say any damn thing; of course they would say that "this is an IP purchase for UnixWare AND Linux" to make their case seem more legitimate - make it appear that two of the IT world largest companies are purchasing IP related to UnixWare AND Linux - when in reality, it is just UnixWare. Sun and Microsoft see the IP purchased as purely from UnixWare, SCO on the other hand seen that purchasing of UnixWare IP means they're also purchasing Linux IP.

Again, do a little reading analysing before screaming to the top of your lungs whilst claiming that there is some sort of grand conspiracy against Linux - if Linux isn't successful, it will have nothing to do with law suites or so-called 'voodoo' happening behind the scenes. It'll be something of its own making.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Come clean about SCO
by 2fargone on Tue 19th Jun 2007 19:13 in reply to "RE[3]: Come clean about SCO"
2fargone Member since:
2006-02-20

Yes, I did read the link, and have since the beginning of the SCO trial. I've read every stinking last piece of it. Briefs, motions, filings, exhibits, financial statements, and so on.

If you want to wave SUN's flag and hold them harmless, so be it. I still cannot, and will not, say SUN is trustworthy until they clear the air about SCO. If you don't like that, then I can't help you.

And I never screamed at the top of my lungs. And you're the one saying grand conspiracy. All I see is business manuvering, which is why I said they didn't even need to apologize.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Come clean about SCO
by kaiwai on Wed 20th Jun 2007 00:22 in reply to "RE[4]: Come clean about SCO"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, I did read the link, and have since the beginning of the SCO trial. I've read every stinking last piece of it. Briefs, motions, filings, exhibits, financial statements, and so on.


Good for you, but it seems that all the reading doesn't seem to actually have informed you.

If you want to wave SUN's flag and hold them harmless, so be it. I still cannot, and will not, say SUN is trustworthy until they clear the air about SCO. If you don't like that, then I can't help you.


Hey, I'm not the one with the chip on the shoulder; it was you screaming and yelling over how 'evil' and 'underhanded' Sun was.

I mean, geeze, Sun does some stupid things, and if you've ever tuned into me on my blog or other forums, I'm going to be the last one to appologise for Sun - but if you do want to attack Sun for flaws, the SCO conspiracy is nothing more than that, conspiracy theories.

And I never screamed at the top of my lungs. And you're the one saying grand conspiracy. All I see is business manuvering, which is why I said they didn't even need to apologize.


Excuse me, but you're the one jumping up and down over non-existant conspiracy's. Sun has already 'cleared the air' - they bought some IP - end of story, full stop.

Reply Parent Score: 2