So, how does everyone feel about SCO attacking not just IBM now, but Linux as well? It seems that M$ is even tipping in its hat and giving legitimacy by morally supporting SCO. It seems Eric Raymond has a thing or two to say about all this. So should linux be worried? Should we boo and hiss at SCO and wonder if M$ is lurking behind the shadows pulling some strings? Does SCO have any merit in its claims, and if so what then? They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin [edited by - dauntless on May 23, 2003 3:02:36 AM]

quote: Original post by Dauntless
So should linux be worried?

Interesting phrasing, for starters. Can a kernel be worried about politicking? Can SCO hope to target and prosecute all persons using Linux - the exact number of which is nearly impossible to determine because many of these dual-boot and acquire their copies for free via anonymous FTP? How exactly would they go about doing so? What would they gain anyway?

SCO is a strange company. It''s been functionally dead for several years, resurfacing when it was snapped up by Caldera (whom most members of the Linux community didn''t trust anyway). It''s gone through three name changes or so in the last three years - Santa Cruz O-something to SCOWare, SCOWare to SCO, Inc or some garbage like that. It is obvious that this is a desperate stab at relevance.

In any case, Linux has never been officially described as Unix. It is "Unix-like", but that is a concept that cannot be patented because it merely refers to a certain approach towards the design, construction and use of computer operating systems. We don''t patent philosophies in America (for that is what Unix really is - a philosophy), much as we don''t copyright ideas. Linux isn''t officially POSIX-compliant, though it is POSIX-compatible (the difference being that the former implies having gone through certification tests that then allow the product to identify itself as such while the latter, like Mesa and OpenGL, simply means an effort towards compatibilitiy - which may exceed that of some "compliant" products). Linux''s default GUI technology, XFree86, isn''t a licensed implementation of the X Window System either. Do you see X/Open claiming patent infringement?

Microsoft''s involvement lends zero credence to the argument. If they become more aggressive, though, it adds a lot of lawyers...

ESR''s thoughts on the subject constitute a small book. I don''t have the time to read that now.

This whole exchange is reminiscent of the controversy over PGP''s use of Public Key Infrastructure and an RSA-like algorithm, the rights to both of which were held by Public Key Partners. PGP is still here and a fairly well-known (in certain circles, though not in the general public) tool; how many people have heard of Public Key Partners?

I rest my case, your honor.

quote: Original post by Dauntless
So, how does everyone feel about SCO attacking not just IBM now...
[edited by - dauntless on May 23, 2003 3:02:36 AM]

Well, to put it like Oluseyi, once upon a time, SCO was a big player in the Unix world( and I mean UNIX, not Linux ). It used to be ONE of the most popular versions along with BSDi, and SunOS/Solaris. When Linux came around, SCO started loosing that momentum until it finally reached the bottom of the barrel. And like most people who are drowning, just before your heart stops beating, you get one last surge of adrenaline and try to keep fighting. Unfortunately, to me, it looks like SCO is in that position. Then again, I may be wrong. But they''re my views on the subject.


[Cyberdrek | the last true sorcerer | Spirit Mage - mutedfaith.com][ Administrator TheLinuxForum.tk]

I hope SCO does win against IBM and Linux just because it will piss off all the Linux users. Nothing would make me happier. As for Microsoft''s involvement, all they did was license UNIX from SCO. I think that whole thing was way overrated.

I was going to comment on this, but once again, Oluseyi has said everything I was going to say and then some, as well as in a much better way then I ever could.

But I will comment just a teensy bit

Basically, I do think that this is mostly a last ditch effort of SCO to stay alive. I think their claims are completely unfounded, and eventually this will be proven in court, followed by their ultimate demise.

quote: Original post by Hitchhiker90
I hope SCO does win against IBM

Nobody beats IBM in a court battle.

quote: and Linux

SCO isn''t suing "linux"

just because it will pss off all the Linux users. Nothing would make me happier. How very "I AM THREE YEARS OLD!" of you. Perhaps you should consider not being an ignorant dolt.

quote: As for Microsoft''s involvement, all they did was license UNIX from SCO. I think that whole thing was way overrated.

wow. a troll makes a point I agree with. My guess is that SCO threatened MS with a lawsuit as well, and MS just paid it rather than be bothered. It makes slightly more sense than MS licensing code from SCO just as a Good-ole-buddy kind of thing…

I''m 3 years old now because I have my own opinions and don''t follow the whole "LINUX IS THE 1337" crowd. Your an intelligent one. How very "How very "I AM THREE YEARS OLD!" of you to call people dolts and trolls, yet you post anonymously.

Hitchhiker90:

You post on a forum, about UNIX, that you want events to happen that would piss linux users off! What do you expect, you are obviouslly a twat looking for an arguement. Take it somewhere else.

But what should happen to the kernel if SCO can prove that there is BEll Labs code lurking within Linux (whether it be the kernel or not)? After reading Eric Raymond''s article, I''d find it hard for a jury to believe malicious intent in the worst case possible (ie they support SCO''s claims). So I can''t see something too dramatic happening to the kernel.

But more seriously, I''m wondering if there was some way they could put an injunction on distributing the Linux kernel until the legality matter is settled? I''m not sure how they could do it, seeing as how the RIAA can''t stop peer-to-peer sharing and distribution of things. But, it would make it an "underground" activity.

Frankly, after reading Raymond''s article, I don''t think SCO''s claims hold water, but that doesn''t mean that Linux can''t get all bungled up in some legal red tape in the meanwhile. And more worrisome is that this might give M$ some ideas in the future as to how to attack Linux...via intellectual property infringements.

I agree that Open Source is an idea and a philosophy, and you can''t stop it or legalize it, but the kernel itself is a tangible thing. So I''m worried what might happen to it. I think that even if SCO''s claims are true, it shouldn''t be too hard for the kernel hackers to remove the offending code and come up with something different...I''m just worried that SCO might put some kind of injunction on kernel distribution until this is settled.

quote: Original post by stustill
Hitchhiker90:

You post on a forum, about UNIX, that you want events to happen that would piss linux users off! What do you expect, you are obviouslly a twat looking for an arguement. Take it somewhere else.

Because I think Linux sucks ass I should take my thoughts elsewhere? BTW, Linux is not UNIX. You Linux people need a reality check, and thise case is a perfect way to do so.