* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled
@ 2008-07-17 8:18 Jose R. Valverde
2008-07-17 15:55 ` Gregg C Levine
2008-07-17 16:33 ` Boyd Lynn Gerber
0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Jose R. Valverde @ 2008-07-17 8:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3986 bytes --]
Following up to recent questions about whether OpenSolaris might be jeopardized
if SCO didn't have the rights to provide the license, I see that judge Kimball
has ruled on the case, and in discussing its ruling, he mentions the agreement
between SCO and Sun.
Particularly he mentions:
> Section 10 of the 2003 Sun Agreement also sets forth SCO's obligation
> to indemnify Sun for any claim brought against Sun asserting that the
> Section 4 licensed technology infringes the rights of any third parties.
> Section 10 further provides that if the intellectual property rights
> in the technology become the subject of a claim of infringement, SCO
> shall ensure that Sun has the right to continue to use the technology
> or replace the technology to make it non-infringing. The provision has
> not been implicated or applied.
I have to change my opinion on SCO to consider them now UNIX zealots. As
I read it, I guess Sun was worried by possibly non-ATT code in SVRX, and
may be by Novell's assertions, so they shielded themselves: if I'm not
wrong that means OpenSolaris is safe and the responsibility for that relies
totally on SCO.
SCO thus was willing to take any risks regarding third parties with respect
to opening up SVRX derived Solaris. That was very bold and valiant (though
seeminglymay be wrong) from them. Why they decided to allow open sourcing
via Sun instead of Unixware is their choice. I guess they thought it would
play better for them to sell a 'closed' Unixware as an 'enhanced' or 'better
product' than open solaris. It also fits within Caldera's previous opening
other ancient UNIX.
My guess is they were for opening SVRX as a way to increase market share
of UNIX against LINUX but preferred Sun to open _their_ version instead of
opening SCO's own. At the same time they must have thought that a combined
attack on Linux would drive most people off Linux towards opensource UNIX
and that corporate interests would prefer SCO's closed Unixware to Sun's
open source solution in line with tradition.
But then comes the last sentence: the issue of opensolaris damage to the
closedness of SVRX was not brought up at trial. May be it wasn't the time
and place, or may be Novell reasoned that it does not matter to them to
offer one open source system (linux) or other (solaris). I'd also guess
given Novell involvement in SuSE that they would have liked to open
SVRX all along but didn't dare to because of possible complains by
existing licensees (like IBM or HP) who might see their licenses as
oblivious, and -most probably- because it was never very clear whether
all code could be open or belonged to them (sort of like Linux going to
GPL3: it's difficult to identify all contributors and ask their permission).
Thus SCO move benefits them twice as now they have two open source OSes,
and should any contributor to SVRX code complain of the open sourcing
SCO would have to take the blame and has already assumed all
responsibility.
BTW, nobody seems to have complained about portions of SVRX contributed
code being in opensolaris, so maybe nobody cared anyway, but it might
also be that they were waiting to see the case unravel. In any case, we
now know SCO has assumed the defense of OpenSolaris, which is a great
thing to know.
My kudos to SCO. They were bolder than I thought. Even if -IMHO- their
strategy against Linux was misled, their willingness to support open
solaris deserves respect.
Or may be they didn't want to but needed so badly Sun's money to follow
their lawsuit against IBM that they were willing to sell their souls
(and IP) in the hope of a big win against IBM. Who knows?
One thing is certain, Caldera/SCO should be thanked for allowing opening
of so much ancient -and modern- UNIX source code. Their war against Linux
OTOH is another issue.
j
--
These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first!
José R. Valverde
De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled 2008-07-17 8:18 [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled Jose R. Valverde @ 2008-07-17 15:55 ` Gregg C Levine 2008-07-17 15:58 ` Larry McVoy 2008-07-17 16:18 ` Bryan Cantrill 2008-07-17 16:33 ` Boyd Lynn Gerber 1 sibling, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Gregg C Levine @ 2008-07-17 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5693 bytes --] Hello! Good to know. However that's only valid for those individuals who are still running older versions of Solaris. It would not have impacted any version of Solaris, including the Open one. And why you are asking? I am glad you asked. It seems that according to the good people at the Sun offices here in the City, that by the time version 9 was released, that the code base was completely rewritten, and contains absolutely nothing from BSD, and most certainly nothing from the original creators of UNIX. The fact that we can login on to a Sun system the same way we can logon to an emulated PDP-11 running the Seventh Edition of UNIX is clearly meant to be that way. (BSD2.11 included but not presumed.) Besides, those zealots at SCO only wanted to go out of business making all of us look foolish, I am very glad that it backfired and they are the ones looking foolish, because in the end it ruined the work habits of a lot of good people, and destroyed a lot of good software as well. (Not the stuff we discuss, related in function however.) -- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net "The Force will be with you always." Obi-Wan Kenobi > -----Original Message----- > From: tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org [mailto:tuhs-bounces at minnie.tuhs.org] On Behalf > Of Jose R. Valverde > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:18 AM > To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org > Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled > > Following up to recent questions about whether OpenSolaris might be jeopardized > if SCO didn't have the rights to provide the license, I see that judge Kimball > has ruled on the case, and in discussing its ruling, he mentions the agreement > between SCO and Sun. > > Particularly he mentions: > > > Section 10 of the 2003 Sun Agreement also sets forth SCO's obligation > > to indemnify Sun for any claim brought against Sun asserting that the > > Section 4 licensed technology infringes the rights of any third parties. > > Section 10 further provides that if the intellectual property rights > > in the technology become the subject of a claim of infringement, SCO > > shall ensure that Sun has the right to continue to use the technology > > or replace the technology to make it non-infringing. The provision has > > not been implicated or applied. > > I have to change my opinion on SCO to consider them now UNIX zealots. As > I read it, I guess Sun was worried by possibly non-ATT code in SVRX, and > may be by Novell's assertions, so they shielded themselves: if I'm not > wrong that means OpenSolaris is safe and the responsibility for that relies > totally on SCO. > > SCO thus was willing to take any risks regarding third parties with respect > to opening up SVRX derived Solaris. That was very bold and valiant (though > seeminglymay be wrong) from them. Why they decided to allow open sourcing > via Sun instead of Unixware is their choice. I guess they thought it would > play better for them to sell a 'closed' Unixware as an 'enhanced' or 'better > product' than open solaris. It also fits within Caldera's previous opening > other ancient UNIX. > > My guess is they were for opening SVRX as a way to increase market share > of UNIX against LINUX but preferred Sun to open _their_ version instead of > opening SCO's own. At the same time they must have thought that a combined > attack on Linux would drive most people off Linux towards opensource UNIX > and that corporate interests would prefer SCO's closed Unixware to Sun's > open source solution in line with tradition. > > But then comes the last sentence: the issue of opensolaris damage to the > closedness of SVRX was not brought up at trial. May be it wasn't the time > and place, or may be Novell reasoned that it does not matter to them to > offer one open source system (linux) or other (solaris). I'd also guess > given Novell involvement in SuSE that they would have liked to open > SVRX all along but didn't dare to because of possible complains by > existing licensees (like IBM or HP) who might see their licenses as > oblivious, and -most probably- because it was never very clear whether > all code could be open or belonged to them (sort of like Linux going to > GPL3: it's difficult to identify all contributors and ask their permission). > Thus SCO move benefits them twice as now they have two open source OSes, > and should any contributor to SVRX code complain of the open sourcing > SCO would have to take the blame and has already assumed all > responsibility. > > BTW, nobody seems to have complained about portions of SVRX contributed > code being in opensolaris, so maybe nobody cared anyway, but it might > also be that they were waiting to see the case unravel. In any case, we > now know SCO has assumed the defense of OpenSolaris, which is a great > thing to know. > > My kudos to SCO. They were bolder than I thought. Even if -IMHO- their > strategy against Linux was misled, their willingness to support open > solaris deserves respect. > > Or may be they didn't want to but needed so badly Sun's money to follow > their lawsuit against IBM that they were willing to sell their souls > (and IP) in the hope of a big win against IBM. Who knows? > > One thing is certain, Caldera/SCO should be thanked for allowing opening > of so much ancient -and modern- UNIX source code. Their war against Linux > OTOH is another issue. > > j > > -- > These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! > > José R. Valverde > > De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled 2008-07-17 15:55 ` Gregg C Levine @ 2008-07-17 15:58 ` Larry McVoy 2008-07-17 16:18 ` Bryan Cantrill 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2008-07-17 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:55:53AM -0400, Gregg C Levine wrote: > It would not have impacted any version of Solaris, including the Open one. > And why you are asking? I am glad you asked. It seems that according to the > good people at the Sun offices here in the City, that by the time version 9 > was released, that the code base was completely rewritten, and contains > absolutely nothing from BSD, and most certainly nothing from the original > creators of UNIX. Nonsense. Read bmap. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled 2008-07-17 15:55 ` Gregg C Levine 2008-07-17 15:58 ` Larry McVoy @ 2008-07-17 16:18 ` Bryan Cantrill 2008-07-17 17:12 ` John Cowan 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Bryan Cantrill @ 2008-07-17 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:55:53AM -0400, Gregg C Levine wrote: > Hello! > Good to know. > However that's only valid for those individuals who are still running older > versions of Solaris. > > It would not have impacted any version of Solaris, including the Open one. > And why you are asking? I am glad you asked. It seems that according to the > good people at the Sun offices here in the City, that by the time version 9 > was released, that the code base was completely rewritten, and contains > absolutely nothing from BSD, and most certainly nothing from the original > creators of UNIX. That is, of course, absurd, and whoever told you that doesn't have much of a grasp of the source base. Yes, gobs of stuff has been rewritten -- but plenty of code dates from Back in the Day, especially in userland. For evidence of this, I point (as I often do) to troff, and files like http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/troff/n5.c, which has had very little modification in the 18 years since The Merge, and still contains comments like this gem: /* * The following routines are concerned with setting terminal options. * The manner of doing this differs between research/Berkeley systems * and UNIX System V systems (i.e. DOCUMENTER'S WORKBENCH) * The distinction is controlled by the #define'd variable USG, * which must be set by System V users. */ And those who know their history already know the punchline: much of that code isn't going to change because (1) it basically works and (2) the engineer who wrote it -- Joe Ossanna -- is dead, having died of a heart attack in 1977. (This code is legend among Solaris developers; see, for example, http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock/entry/real_life_obfuscated_code.) - Bryan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Cantrill, Sun Microsystems Fishworks. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled 2008-07-17 16:18 ` Bryan Cantrill @ 2008-07-17 17:12 ` John Cowan 2008-07-17 17:27 ` Larry McVoy 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: John Cowan @ 2008-07-17 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw) Bryan Cantrill scripsit: > but plenty of code dates from Back in the Day, especially in userland. > For evidence of this, I point (as I often do) to troff, and files like > http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/troff/n5.c, > which has had very little modification in the 18 years since The Merge, Another example, at the opposite end of the aesthetic spectrum, is cal, which does exactly what it is supposed to and has not been changed since at least 7th edition days, except to add a modest amount of i18n. The GNU version has a few more options, as is typical, but still produces exactly the same output as the 7th Edn. running under apout. > and still contains comments like this gem: Indeed, both ditroff and Plan 9 troff are directly descended from JFO's code. Only groff is independent, which just goes to show what a heroic programmer (in a quiet way) James Clark really is (as do nsgmls and jing/trang). The Law of James Clark: If you think James is wrong on a matter of fact, you have another think coming. -- But you, Wormtongue, you have done what you could for your true master. Some reward you have earned at least. Yet Saruman is apt to overlook his bargains. I should advise you to go quickly and remind him, lest he forget your faithful service. --Gandalf John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled 2008-07-17 17:12 ` John Cowan @ 2008-07-17 17:27 ` Larry McVoy 2008-07-17 17:32 ` Michael Kerpan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2008-07-17 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:12:05PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Indeed, both ditroff and Plan 9 troff are directly descended from > JFO's code. Only groff is independent, which just goes to show what a > heroic programmer (in a quiet way) James Clark really is (as do nsgmls > and jing/trang). As a still-using-troff sort of person, I can vouch for James. Wow. Cool stuff. And groff really is mucho better than the original. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled 2008-07-17 17:27 ` Larry McVoy @ 2008-07-17 17:32 ` Michael Kerpan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Michael Kerpan @ 2008-07-17 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Larry McVoy <lm at bitmover.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:12:05PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: >> Indeed, both ditroff and Plan 9 troff are directly descended from >> JFO's code. Only groff is independent, which just goes to show what a >> heroic programmer (in a quiet way) James Clark really is (as do nsgmls >> and jing/trang). > > As a still-using-troff sort of person, I can vouch for James. Wow. > Cool stuff. And groff really is mucho better than the original. Perhaps, but it's not as good as Heirloom Troff, which is based on the "real" sources, but adds lots of groff's features PLUS adds a new font system that allows for the trasparent use of unmodified Type 1, Truetype and even OpenType (including all the fancy stuff) fonts AND tweaks the various typesetting algorithms for MUCH nicer results. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled 2008-07-17 8:18 [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled Jose R. Valverde 2008-07-17 15:55 ` Gregg C Levine @ 2008-07-17 16:33 ` Boyd Lynn Gerber 2008-07-17 17:04 ` Wilko Bulte 2008-07-17 20:51 ` Michael Davidson 1 sibling, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Boyd Lynn Gerber @ 2008-07-17 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Jose R. Valverde wrote: > I have to change my opinion on SCO to consider them now UNIX zealots. As > I read it, I guess Sun was worried by possibly non-ATT code in SVRX, and > may be by Novell's assertions, so they shielded themselves: if I'm not > wrong that means OpenSolaris is safe and the responsibility for that > relies totally on SCO. > > SCO thus was willing to take any risks regarding third parties with > respect to opening up SVRX derived Solaris. That was very bold and > valiant (though seeminglymay be wrong) from them. Why they decided to > allow open sourcing via Sun instead of Unixware is their choice. I guess > they thought it would play better for them to sell a 'closed' Unixware > as an 'enhanced' or 'better product' than open solaris. It also fits > within Caldera's previous opening other ancient UNIX. > > My guess is they were for opening SVRX as a way to increase market share > of UNIX against LINUX but preferred Sun to open _their_ version instead > of opening SCO's own. At the same time they must have thought that a > combined attack on Linux would drive most people off Linux towards > opensource UNIX and that corporate interests would prefer SCO's closed > Unixware to Sun's open source solution in line with tradition. Caldera/SCO was trying to get everything opensourced. They released OpenUNIX 8.0 which was UnixWare 7.1.2. They had reached an agreement with every one and were about to release everything a the big expo in Jan/Feb east cost. It was to be a joint IBM/SCO announcement, when IBM suddenly decided against it and were addamanly now doing everything to stop it. IBM was the "big bad guy". What I never could understand is how the roles got reversed and IBM the anti opensource and SCO the pro opensource changed places. I was working with both groups and could not understand why IBM was being such a big pain. Shortly after it came the SCO law suit. I thought it was going to be about IBM renigging on making things OpenSOURCE. I really can not understand just how the roles were changed so much. It was my understanding that the SUN deal was to add to the big change and making things better for UNIX in general. I am grateful to SCO for their attempt to make UnixWare/OpenUNIX opensource. I just wish it had succedded. -- Boyd Gerber <gerberb at zenez.com> ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled 2008-07-17 16:33 ` Boyd Lynn Gerber @ 2008-07-17 17:04 ` Wilko Bulte 2008-07-17 20:51 ` Michael Davidson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Wilko Bulte @ 2008-07-17 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw) Quoting Boyd Lynn Gerber, who wrote on Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:33:12AM -0600 .. > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Jose R. Valverde wrote: > > I have to change my opinion on SCO to consider them now UNIX zealots. As > > I read it, I guess Sun was worried by possibly non-ATT code in SVRX, and > > may be by Novell's assertions, so they shielded themselves: if I'm not > > wrong that means OpenSolaris is safe and the responsibility for that > > relies totally on SCO. > > > > SCO thus was willing to take any risks regarding third parties with > > respect to opening up SVRX derived Solaris. That was very bold and > > valiant (though seeminglymay be wrong) from them. Why they decided to > > allow open sourcing via Sun instead of Unixware is their choice. I guess > > they thought it would play better for them to sell a 'closed' Unixware > > as an 'enhanced' or 'better product' than open solaris. It also fits > > within Caldera's previous opening other ancient UNIX. > > > > My guess is they were for opening SVRX as a way to increase market share > > of UNIX against LINUX but preferred Sun to open _their_ version instead > > of opening SCO's own. At the same time they must have thought that a > > combined attack on Linux would drive most people off Linux towards > > opensource UNIX and that corporate interests would prefer SCO's closed > > Unixware to Sun's open source solution in line with tradition. > > Caldera/SCO was trying to get everything opensourced. They released > OpenUNIX 8.0 which was UnixWare 7.1.2. They had reached an agreement with > every one and were about to release everything a the big expo in Jan/Feb > east cost. It was to be a joint IBM/SCO announcement, when IBM suddenly > decided against it and were addamanly now doing everything to stop it. > IBM was the "big bad guy". What I never could understand is how the roles ** lawyers ** that is the keyword here :) Wilko ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled 2008-07-17 16:33 ` Boyd Lynn Gerber 2008-07-17 17:04 ` Wilko Bulte @ 2008-07-17 20:51 ` Michael Davidson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Michael Davidson @ 2008-07-17 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw) Boyd Lynn Gerber <gerberb at zenez.com> wrote: > Caldera/SCO was trying to get everything opensourced. > They released OpenUNIX 8.0 which was UnixWare 7.1.2. > They had reached an agreement with every one and were > about to release everything a the big expo in Jan/Feb east > cost. It was to be a joint IBM/SCO announcement, when > IBM suddenly decided against it and were addamanly > nowdoing everything to stop it. IBM was the "big bad guy". > What I never could understand is how the roles got reversed > and IBM the anti opensource and SCO the pro open source > changed places. It wasn't as simple as that - I was there (at SCO) at the time and, while it is true that the Caldera management at the time they acquired SCO's UNIX business (Ransome Love) was in favor of open sourcing everything it never came even close to actually happening. The main reason was that both SCO UnixWare and OpenServer were heavily encumbered with lots of bits of third party code and their associated licensing agreements and it was, for practical purposes, impossible to either negotiate agreements with all of the third parties or remove the code in question, As for why Caldera/SCO changed their position - that is simple. It happened overnight when the management changed and Darl McBride replaced Ransom Love. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20080717/b78ed30a/attachment.html> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <mailman.1871.1216314893.89381.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>]
* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled [not found] <mailman.1871.1216314893.89381.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org> @ 2008-07-17 19:55 ` Pepe 2008-07-17 20:22 ` Bryan Cantrill ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Pepe @ 2008-07-17 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw) > From: "Jose R. Valverde" <jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es> > > Following up to recent questions about whether OpenSolaris might be jeopardized > if SCO didn't have the rights to provide the license, I see that judge Kimball > has ruled on the case, and in discussing its ruling, he mentions the agreement > between SCO and Sun. > > Particularly he mentions: > > > Section 10 of the 2003 Sun Agreement also sets forth SCO's obligation > > to indemnify Sun for any claim brought against Sun asserting that the > > Section 4 licensed technology infringes the rights of any third parties. > > Section 10 further provides that if the intellectual property rights > > in the technology become the subject of a claim of infringement, SCO > > shall ensure that Sun has the right to continue to use the technology > > or replace the technology to make it non-infringing. The provision has > > not been implicated or applied. > > I have to change my opinion on SCO to consider them now UNIX zealots. As > I read it, I guess Sun was worried by possibly non-ATT code in SVRX, and > may be by Novell's assertions, so they shielded themselves: if I'm not > wrong that means OpenSolaris is safe and the responsibility for that relies > totally on SCO. You guess Sun was worried about non-ATT code in SVRX? No quite. The SVRX code in Solaris (if any; and certainly there is plenty) is certainly 100% ATT-derived, and any non-ATT code in the SVRX code that The SCO Group passed on to Sun had (by a mere matter of time) to be added to SVRX after ATT relinquished the original SVRX code and quite after Solaris branched out of the UNIX System V Release 4, and therefore any non-ATT (or non-ATT-licenseable) code inside The SCO Group's SVRX certainly is not inside Solaris, so no worries there. You forget the The SCO Group was fully engaged in a total FUD campaign, whose ultimate goal was to cut off Linux support in the Enterprise via fear, uncertainty and doubt, and whose collateral goal was to make plenty of money selling bogus Linux licenses and suing everybody in sight (IBM and The SCO Group's own customers, of course). Sun needed desperately to find a way to stop losing money, and that meant making themselves again desirable to the IT market. Sun mayor rivals were (and are) Microsoft and Linux. Specially Linux, since more Sun machines are being replaced by Linux than by Windows. So the Sun strategy was two-fold: release an "opensource" Unix to "steal" the grassroots support away from Linux, and give money to The SCO Group so they could keep afloat their FUD campaign against Linux in the Enterprise. If they could achieve these two goals with one swift move, much better; and they did: the gave money to The SCO Group to buy a bogus license to opensource Solaris. > SCO thus was willing to take any risks regarding third parties with respect > to opening up SVRX derived Solaris. That was very bold and valiant Your ingenuity here is shocking. > My guess is they were for opening SVRX as a way to increase market share > of UNIX against LINUX but preferred Sun to open _their_ version instead of > opening SCO's own. At the same time they must have thought that a combined > attack on Linux would drive most people off Linux towards opensource UNIX > and that corporate interests would prefer SCO's closed Unixware to Sun's > open source solution in line with tradition. Ridiculous. With Solaris the Enterprise has a growth path to big iron. With UnixWare the Enterprise has a "growth" path from the PC to a bigger PC. > Thus SCO move benefits them twice as now they have two open source OSes, > and should any contributor to SVRX code complain of the open sourcing > SCO would have to take the blame and has already assumed all > responsibility. So, what two "opens source" OSes does The SCO Group have? "Open"-Server and "Open"-Unix (aka Unixware)? Amazing! > BTW, nobody seems to have complained about portions of SVRX contributed > code being in opensolaris, so maybe nobody cared anyway Nobody cares about OpenSolaris. If you are going to go with Solaris, open or not, you are going to be paying much more for year-on-year support to the vendor than the Solaris license costs, so whether it is open o not is moot for the Enterprise. > In any case, we > now know SCO has assumed the defense of OpenSolaris, which is a great > thing to know. I do not see it like that at all. The SCO Group has afforded SUN indemnification in the eventual case the license they sold to them gets shot, as it is going to happen unless Novell gets its money, either from the now-bankrupt The SCO Group or from SUN itself (second payment for the same thing, funny deal there!). The question here is: the indemnification The SCO Group offered SUN weights less than smoke: What indemnification can you get from a bankrupt company? None, that is the answer. > Or may be they didn't want to but needed so badly Sun's money to follow > their lawsuit against IBM that they were willing to sell their souls > (and IP) in the hope of a big win against IBM. Who knows? That interpretation is much closer to the truth. Except they didn't sell "their IP", as The SCO Group had none of UNIX copyrights, none of UNIX IP, they just bought from Novell the UNIX distribution business, but not the UNIX IP. > One thing is certain, Caldera/SCO should be thanked for allowing opening > of so much ancient -and modern- UNIX source code. Their war against Linux > OTOH is another issue. Caldera/The SCO Group did no have just title to change the license on the intellectual property they did not own and which they were not allowed to re-license with different terms under the "Assets Purchase Agreement" signed between Caldera and Novell. Therefore, any and all relicensing done by Caldera of ancient or modern UNIX code is void and null. Unless Novell comes after the fact and endorses such open-sourcing. Absent Novell action, The SCO Group actions changing the UNIX license are void. Novell action in that sense has not happened up to the day of today. > From: "Gregg C Levine" <hansolofalcon at worldnet.att.net> > > It would not have impacted any version of Solaris, including the Open one. > And why you are asking? I am glad you asked. It seems that according to the > good people at the Sun offices here in the City, that by the time version 9 > was released, that the code base was completely rewritten, and contains > absolutely nothing from BSD, and most certainly nothing from the original > creators of UNIX. That's not saying much. The original creators of UNIX wrote it in assembly for the PDP-11. Nothing of that is in Solaris, that's true. And BSD is open-source and legally close-able anytime, so no argument there either. Now, if "the good people at the Sun offices" are trying to imply there in no Unix System V code in Solaris, they are lying. Period. > From: Boyd Lynn Gerber <gerberb at zenez.com> > > Caldera/SCO was trying to get everything opensourced. They released > OpenUNIX 8.0 which was UnixWare 7.1.2. What? Care to show proof? What do you mean by the mention of "OpenUNIX" in the same paragraph where you say "SCO was trying to get everything opensourced"? That "OpenUNIX" is proof of the "opensourcing" done at The SCO Group? What?? > They had reached an agreement with > every one and were about to release everything a the big expo in Jan/Feb > east cost. It was to be a joint IBM/SCO announcement, when IBM suddenly > decided against it and were addamanly now doing everything to stop it. Those are not verifiable facts. Rumors and hearsay make no history. > I am grateful to SCO for their attempt to make UnixWare/OpenUNIX > opensource. I just wish it had succedded. What attempts? Vaporware is nothing to be grateful about. -- Pepe pepe at naleco.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled 2008-07-17 19:55 ` Pepe @ 2008-07-17 20:22 ` Bryan Cantrill 2008-07-17 22:30 ` Pepe 2008-07-17 20:40 ` Boyd Lynn Gerber 2008-07-18 14:10 ` Jose R. Valverde 2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Bryan Cantrill @ 2008-07-17 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw) > Sun needed desperately to find a way to stop losing money, and that > meant making themselves again desirable to the IT market. Sun mayor [sic] > rivals were (and are) Microsoft and Linux. Specially Linux, since more > Sun machines are being replaced by Linux than by Windows. So the Sun > strategy was two-fold: release an "opensource" Unix to "steal" the > grassroots support away from Linux, and give money to The SCO Group > so they could keep afloat their FUD campaign against Linux in the > Enterprise. If they could achieve these two goals with one swift move, > much better; and they did: the gave money to The SCO Group to buy a > bogus license to opensource Solaris. Can we keep this kind of invective to a minimum? As it happens, you're wrong in this particular case, but more generally it would be nice if we could try to stick to the history of Unix as code, and not Unix as endless trench warfare... > > BTW, nobody seems to have complained about portions of SVRX contributed > > code being in opensolaris, so maybe nobody cared anyway > > Nobody cares about OpenSolaris. I think you meant to say "I don't care about OpenSolaris"... > > It would not have impacted any version of Solaris, including the Open one. > > And why you are asking? I am glad you asked. It seems that according to the > > good people at the Sun offices here in the City, that by the time version 9 > > was released, that the code base was completely rewritten, and contains > > absolutely nothing from BSD, and most certainly nothing from the original > > creators of UNIX. > > That's not saying much. The original creators of UNIX wrote it in assembly > for the PDP-11. Nothing of that is in Solaris, that's true. And BSD is > open-source and legally close-able anytime, so no argument there either. > Now, if "the good people at the Sun offices" are trying to imply there > in no Unix System V code in Solaris, they are lying. Period. I have already responded regarding this, but you would be wise to remember Hanlon's Razor (especially when dealing with my particular company): "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." For all its faults, there is little malice at Sun -- and I have no further comment. ;) - Bryan -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Cantrill, Sun Microsystems Fishworks. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled 2008-07-17 20:22 ` Bryan Cantrill @ 2008-07-17 22:30 ` Pepe 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Pepe @ 2008-07-17 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:22:15PM -0700, Bryan Cantrill wrote: > > > Sun needed desperately to find a way to stop losing money, and that > > meant making themselves again desirable to the IT market. Sun mayor [sic] > > rivals were (and are) Microsoft and Linux. Specially Linux, since more > > Sun machines are being replaced by Linux than by Windows. So the Sun > > strategy was two-fold: release an "opensource" Unix to "steal" the > > grassroots support away from Linux, and give money to The SCO Group > > so they could keep afloat their FUD campaign against Linux in the > > Enterprise. If they could achieve these two goals with one swift move, > > much better; and they did: the gave money to The SCO Group to buy a > > bogus license to opensource Solaris. > > Can we keep this kind of invective to a minimum? As it happens, you're > wrong in this particular case, but more generally it would be nice if > we could try to stick to the history of Unix as code, and not Unix as > endless trench warfare... The history is made by people and their actions, people are not isolated beings but they are social. Therefore, history is always about politics. The code of Unix did evolve because of the politics they creators/vendors were engaged with (I'm talking about political economy). The actions which created and evolved Unix had political goals, sometimes for academic gain, sometimes for commercial gain. I don't think Unix as a phenomenon can be understood without understanding it's politics. You happen to have a different view on the political angle of Unix. That's fine. You also don't hold a totally impartial stance on Unix politics, as you are affiliated to one of the Unix parties. But I don't think it is fair to try to suppress the political views one doesn't like, or to try to suppress the political expression of history altogether.. It is as much "historical Unix" the political history of Unix, as it is the code history of it. -- Pepe pepe at naleco.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled 2008-07-17 19:55 ` Pepe 2008-07-17 20:22 ` Bryan Cantrill @ 2008-07-17 20:40 ` Boyd Lynn Gerber 2008-07-18 14:10 ` Jose R. Valverde 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Boyd Lynn Gerber @ 2008-07-17 20:40 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Pepe wrote: > > From: "Jose R. Valverde" <jrvalverde at cnb.csic.es> > > > From: Boyd Lynn Gerber <gerberb at zenez.com> > > > > Caldera/SCO was trying to get everything opensourced. They released > > OpenUNIX 8.0 which was UnixWare 7.1.2. > > What? Care to show proof? What do you mean by the mention of "OpenUNIX" > in the same paragraph where you say "SCO was trying to get everything > opensourced"? That "OpenUNIX" is proof of the "opensourcing" done at > The SCO Group? No, It was the name choosen to spearhead the new opensource movement of Caldera after purchase of SCO divisions from the OLD SCO. There were only 3-12 people outside SCO that new about the soon to be released email list. It was an NDA list, sadly I can not reproduce the copies because of the idiot that over wrote over 750 GB of disk with "DIE SCO DIE SCO". I was not backing up NDA stuff. But if you can get the Forum Presenations from the year Caldera purchased SCO assests and the next one you will see their agenda to OpenSource everything clearly stated. Ransome Love if my memory is correct was CEO at the time. > What?? > > > They had reached an agreement with every one and were about to release > > everything a the big expo in Jan/Feb east cost. It was to be a joint > > IBM/SCO announcement, when IBM suddenly decided against it and were > > addamanly now doing everything to stop it. > > Those are not verifiable facts. Rumors and hearsay make no history. No, not rummors or hearsey. I was in the meetings where it was discussed. There were the IBM reps, SCO reps and a few others. This was just prior to the big show. The next day IBM came in and said they would not opensource the stuff. All the press released were trashed and then the battle began. > > I am grateful to SCO for their attempt to make UnixWare/OpenUNIX > > opensource. I just wish it had succedded. > > What attempts? Vaporware is nothing to be grateful about. You were not there and did not live through what was happening. I was. I know others were as well. It was not vaporware. It was also part of the new United Linux. SUSE was there, as well as the other members of the colliation. It was a sad day when it all happened. It was to be part of the big announcement of United Linux. -- Boyd Gerber <gerberb at zenez.com> ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled 2008-07-17 19:55 ` Pepe 2008-07-17 20:22 ` Bryan Cantrill 2008-07-17 20:40 ` Boyd Lynn Gerber @ 2008-07-18 14:10 ` Jose R. Valverde 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Jose R. Valverde @ 2008-07-18 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9560 bytes --] A few corrections: On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:55:14 +0200 Pepe <pepe at naleco.com> wrote: > You guess Sun was worried about non-ATT code in SVRX? No quite. The SVRX > code in Solaris (if any; and certainly there is plenty) is certainly 100% > ATT-derived, and any non-ATT code in the SVRX code that The SCO Group > passed on to Sun had (by a mere matter of time) to be added to SVRX > after ATT relinquished the original SVRX code and quite after Solaris > branched out of the UNIX System V Release 4, and therefore any non-ATT > (or non-ATT-licenseable) code inside The SCO Group's SVRX certainly is > not inside Solaris, so no worries there. > I don't quite get your point, but had access to some old versions of Solaris under NDA, and believe me or not, it hasn't changed that much (although it has changed a lot). As far as I remember, SV is not 100% ATT: a large part of it (the majority according to some) was developed by Sun. It would surprise me if in their joint agreement Sun hadn't safeguarded themselves to keep some control on their code. Not only that, there is/was code that didn't belong either to ATT nor Sun there. Tracking all that and getting agreements would have been a nightmare for Sun. And Sun had been after open sourcing Solaris since the late UNIX Wars and early Linux times, see Larry McVoigh's http://www.bitmover.com/lm/papers/srcos.html Finally, probably a good part of the deal with SCO was due to Sun's interest in many SCO device drivers for x86 > You forget the The SCO Group was fully engaged in a total FUD campaign, > whose ultimate goal was to cut off Linux support in the Enterprise via > fear, uncertainty and doubt, and whose collateral goal was to make > plenty of money selling bogus Linux licenses and suing everybody in > sight (IBM and The SCO Group's own customers, of course). > I don't believe anybody sane would engage in deceptive action at that level consciously with such big players as IBM. From all the history of the cases it seems rather that this is a case of a change of management to unknowledgeable, ambitious managers who paid too much attention to the UNIX department on the Company and then had to put a straight face to defend what resulted to be an untenable position. Try to put yourself in Darl's place: you make a decision based on the promises of some head of department and sue IBM and the world. Then little by little your move is proven wrong. What can you do? Yes, say sorry, close the company, fire all workers and get punished for admitting to a scam. Or you can put a straight face, defend that you do actually believe the unbelievable -and look as a stupid instead- and try to save the company, the workers and your skin until you can find someone else to take the hot potato. I don't say that is what's happening, but it certainly looks like. > Sun needed desperately to find a way to stop losing money, and that > meant making themselves again desirable to the IT market. Sun mayor > rivals were (and are) Microsoft and Linux. Specially Linux, since more > Sun machines are being replaced by Linux than by Windows. So the Sun > strategy was two-fold: release an "opensource" Unix to "steal" the > grassroots support away from Linux, and give money to The SCO Group > so they could keep afloat their FUD campaign against Linux in the > Enterprise. If they could achieve these two goals with one swift move, > much better; and they did: the gave money to The SCO Group to buy a > bogus license to opensource Solaris. In the dot-com bubble Sun was _the_ Internet company. They had a strong name and their view of the future was right. Plus, see the "The Sourceware Operating System Proposal". Plus, they had already tried half-opening Solaris 8, and the experience, well received, proved not enough. They might have been desperate, but open sourcing solaris was a decision taken long, long before. Maybe they took advantage of SCO's Linux war, but SCO clearing up SVRX for them was the move they had been forever praying for since they helped build SVRX. Do not forget Sun had been an open source company from its beginning selling BSD. The UNIX wars damaged them heavily, and after a short interlude of closedness in the 90s the company culture was bound to retake over. > > > SCO thus was willing to take any risks regarding third parties with respect > > to opening up SVRX derived Solaris. That was very bold and valiant > > Your ingenuity here is shocking. So is yours: think of Linux and GPLv3: that's an impossible move because there's no way to track contributors. Same happens (to a lesser degree perhaps) with SVRX. I never said it wasn't silly or wrongfully founded, but you must acknowledge it was bold. > > Ridiculous. With Solaris the Enterprise has a growth path to big iron. > With UnixWare the Enterprise has a "growth" path from the PC to a bigger > PC. > Not only did Unixware at the time have better SMP support, and Himalaya clustering, and many things above Linux, but Monterey goal was that Unixware would run on IBM's big iron. And last I looked IBM produced far more big iron than Sun. > > Thus SCO move benefits them twice as now they have two open source OSes, > > and should any contributor to SVRX code complain of the open sourcing > > SCO would have to take the blame and has already assumed all > > responsibility. > > So, what two "opens source" OSes does The SCO Group have? "Open"-Server > and "Open"-Unix (aka Unixware)? Amazing! That 'them' refers to Novell, which is the subject of all the paragraph. Novell gets Linux and OpenSolaris if they reach an agreement with Sun. > > > BTW, nobody seems to have complained about portions of SVRX contributed > > code being in opensolaris, so maybe nobody cared anyway > > Nobody cares about OpenSolaris. If you are going to go with Solaris, > open or not, you are going to be paying much more for year-on-year > support to the vendor than the Solaris license costs, so whether it is > open o not is moot for the Enterprise. > That argument applies equally to HP, IBM or any other. However... Certainly any company that outsources system management must pay for it, be it to Sun, RedHat, IBM or whomever. If you have competent sysadmins, then you can get all maintenance in-house and save a lot on support. And you may not care. But Sun's clustering, DTrace, ZFS, Grid, and many other technological offers are worth for real performance. I don't argue most people do not care about them and are happy with Linux or Windows. Me... I've used Linux since 0.1 believe it or not, and the bulk of my systems are Linux. But I also keep xBSD, Tru64, AIX and Solaris for those special cases where Linux falls short. > The question here is: the indemnification The SCO Group offered SUN > weights less than smoke: What indemnification can you get from a bankrupt > company? None, that is the answer. > The law may have something to say regarding Sun's role as a possible scam victim of a Novell representative (SCO). > Caldera/The SCO Group did no have just title to change the license on the > intellectual property they did not own and which they were not allowed to > re-license with different terms under the "Assets Purchase Agreement" > signed between Caldera and Novell. Therefore, any and all relicensing > done by Caldera of ancient or modern UNIX code is void and null. Unless > Novell comes after the fact and endorses such open-sourcing. Absent Novell > action, The SCO Group actions changing the UNIX license are void. > That's not true as we know now from the outcome of the ATT BSD settlement and the rulings on that case. A lot of code was published without copyright at a time when that meant public release. The issue was never actually resolved in court, but you can bet that most probably code up to SysIII is unprotected. Again, a risky decision by then Caldera, but this one with smaller risk. > > From: Boyd Lynn Gerber <gerberb at zenez.com> > > > > Caldera/SCO was trying to get everything opensourced. They released > > OpenUNIX 8.0 which was UnixWare 7.1.2. > > What? Care to show proof? What do you mean by the mention of "OpenUNIX" > in the same paragraph where you say "SCO was trying to get everything > opensourced"? That "OpenUNIX" is proof of the "opensourcing" done at > The SCO Group? > > What?? Of course nobody can read someone else's mind. But just as SCO announced everywhere their war on Linux, Caldera announced everywhere their intent to progressively open source UNIX. At least you should give same weight to both series of statements (bearing in mind they were done by different CEOs). > > What attempts? Vaporware is nothing to be grateful about. > Don't let your bad experience with Microsoft spread to all vendors. Some have managed a long history of delivering on their promises, and Caldera at the time was one such. Personally, I think if they had stuck to Ransom Love and endured the harsh times for a couple of years until the "boom" of Linux they would have managed a lot better. Not to mention they could have unified UNIX at last. But there's no way to know now. j -- These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first! José R. Valverde De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20080718/551599bd/attachment.sig> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled @ 2008-07-18 17:03 Michael Davidson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Michael Davidson @ 2008-07-18 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw) Jose R. Valverde wrote: I don't believe anybody sane would engage in deceptive action at that level consciously with such big players as IBM. From all the history of the cases it seems rather that this is a case of a change of management to unknowledgeable, ambitious managers who paid too much attention to the UNIX department on the Company and then had to put a straight face to defend what resulted to be an untenable position. I am not going to comment on Darl's sanity. I think that you will find that Darl's problem was paying too little attention to the people who actually understood what was going on, not paying too much attention. He certainly didn't appear to pay much attention to this: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-459-22.pdf Try to put yourself in Darl's place: you make a decision based on the promises of some head of department and sue IBM and the world. Then little by little your move is proven wrong. What can you do? Yes, say sorry, close the company, fire all workers and get punished for admitting to a scam. Or you can put a straight face, defend that you do actually believe the unbelievable -and look as a stupid instead- and try to save the company, the workers and your skin until you can find someone else to take the hot potato. I think that it was more a case of suing IBM and the world based on what you (at the time) sincerely believed and hoped *must* have happened, and then spending several years and legal theories unsuccessfully trying to find any evidence for it. Don't let your bad experience with Microsoft spread to all vendors. Some have managed a long history of delivering on their promises, and Caldera at the time was one such. Personally, I think if they had stuck to Ransom Love and endured the harsh times for a couple of years until the "boom" of Linux they would have managed a lot better. Not to mention they could have unified UNIX at last. But there's no way to know now. One promise that, at the time, Caldera had never delivered on was making a profit. Caldera did some good things in the Linux world but they were a distinctly second tier player. Their decision to buy SCO' s UNIX business was a bad one, based largely on emotion not on good business sense (I know this, because I was one of the people that helped sell it to them). At the time Caldera had no revenue stream but still had some cash from their IPO, SCO had a rapidly declining revenue stream, and bunch of mostly 10 to 15 year old technology which was still in reasonable shape but which wasn't going anywhere. Somehow (with SCO's help) Ransom Love convinced himself that the deal made sense and that (most important of all, because it appealed to his ego) he could succeed where everyone else had failed and somehow unite UNIX and Linux and build a successful business out of it. Sadly none of that turned out to be true and, had Ransom Love stayed as CEO I suspect that the company would have been out of business by the end of 2003 at the latest. md -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20080718/14fb1126/attachment.html> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-07-18 17:03 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2008-07-17 8:18 [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled Jose R. Valverde 2008-07-17 15:55 ` Gregg C Levine 2008-07-17 15:58 ` Larry McVoy 2008-07-17 16:18 ` Bryan Cantrill 2008-07-17 17:12 ` John Cowan 2008-07-17 17:27 ` Larry McVoy 2008-07-17 17:32 ` Michael Kerpan 2008-07-17 16:33 ` Boyd Lynn Gerber 2008-07-17 17:04 ` Wilko Bulte 2008-07-17 20:51 ` Michael Davidson [not found] <mailman.1871.1216314893.89381.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org> 2008-07-17 19:55 ` Pepe 2008-07-17 20:22 ` Bryan Cantrill 2008-07-17 22:30 ` Pepe 2008-07-17 20:40 ` Boyd Lynn Gerber 2008-07-18 14:10 ` Jose R. Valverde 2008-07-18 17:03 Michael Davidson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).