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 249371
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
[OT]: Strategies in a post-SCO world
by robilad on Wed 20th Jun 2007 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Come clean about SCO"
robilad
Member since:
2006-01-02

Whoever ends up owning SCO's dead corpse after the litigation, will have an interest in recouping their legal costs. A way to do that may be to go after anyone who was behind SCO's deal.

It's a lot more likely that was Microsoft (and they'd present a very attractive litigation target) than Sun.

In particular, even if Sun actually was complicit in that game, it would make more sense to split the defense, and let Sun sell out Microsoft to the court, *once the litigation starts*, since if there was indeed a conspiracy against Linux that Sun was part of, then they'd have some great things to use against Microsoft in court.

So, I'd suggest patience as the best strategy: if Sun wasn't part of the SCO game plan, giving them the benefit of doubt is a good thing, and if they were part of the game, it would be strategically stupid to make it attractive for Sun's new leadership to have to defend themselves along with Microsoft, so giving them the benefit of doubt does not hurt.

Either way, we'll find out in a year or two. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

So, I'd suggest patience as the best strategy: if Sun wasn't part of the SCO game plan, giving them the benefit of doubt is a good thing, and if they were part of the game, it would be strategically stupid to make it attractive for Sun's new leadership to have to defend themselves along with Microsoft, so giving them the benefit of doubt does not hurt.


I doubt either were part of the game; Microsoft for example, most of their UNIX compatibility stack was taken off from a variety of *BSD sources, now they needed SRV5 compatibility - although I don't believe the whole SCO conspiracy, I wonder why they didn't approach Sun instead of SCO, given how comprehensive Sun's own UNIX licence is.

As for Sun, I think the err of concern comes from the fact that it was very generic in their reply - 'we purchase IP' - IP related to what what product, what specific IP was purchased? I'm sure if they said "some drivers, some of the system level libraries etc', there would be alot less concern. But given how companies in the past use the mearky term IP to hide their underhanded business dealings.

As for SCO, I have a feeling it isn't SCO that is pushing for litigation but Connical; SCO actually had a working plan when it was selling desktop Linux; Caldera desktop linux (which I bought a copy) was very good for its time, and the attention to detail was awesome.

I have a feeling that Connical started to demand instant results, they wanted more money, and they wanted it now - Ransom Love (Who now has left) probably didn't want to have any part of it, so Connical found some patsey would be willing to roll over and play dead.

As for purchasing IP, just because a company is dying, doesn't mean that their IP is of any less value.

Reply Parent Score: 2

robilad Member since:
2006-01-02

Oh, I can certainly picture Microsoft and Sun buying licenses from SCO without the necessity for a conspiracy theory to explain that behavior. Sun could be precluded by the non-disclosure section of their contract with SCO from giving further details on their purchase from SCO, for example.

I'm just saying that even in the worst case scenario, giving Sun the benefit of doubt is not a bad strategy. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1