From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wb@freebie.xs4all.nl (Wilko Bulte) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:04:07 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] IANAL. Kimball has ruled In-Reply-To: References: <20080717101801.6f7319cb@cnb.csic.es> Message-ID: <20080717170407.GA95756@freebie.xs4all.nl> 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