Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO Includes OS Products In OpenServer 6

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the use-it-if-its-good dept.

Unix 268

William Robinson writes "In a bid to be friendly with Open Source, SCO has included 7 OS products in their Unix product. Among the included packages are MySQL, PostgreSQL, Samba, Apache, Tomcat, and FireFox. SCO's position is consistent, spokesman Blake Stowell argued. 'We don't necessarily have issues with open source, we just have an issue with open-source technology that includes intellectual property it shouldn't' he said."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Of course they're consistent (5, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902129)

SCO's position is consistent, spokesman Blake Stowell argued. "We don't necessarily have issues with open source, we just have an issue with open-source technology that includes intellectual property it shouldn't,"

From Groklaw [groklaw.net] :
In their Sixth Affirmative Defense, they say:

"The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

The Seventh Affirmative Defense adds:

"The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped[sic] or otherwise barred as a matter of equity."

The Eighth adds:

"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."


So, yes. Their position on the GPL is completely consistant. i.e. The GPL is invalid, therefore they can take and redistribute all the software they want without any reprocussions from copyright law. They're wrong, but at least they're consistent. (In a twisted, "believe what I want you to believe," sort of way.) ;-)

P.S. Shouldn't this be under YRO or general articles instead of Apache?

Re:Of course they're consistent (1, Redundant)

njcoder (657816) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902300)

Definately not pro SCO but don't see this as much of a story. Congrats to getting a somewhat intelligent first post but Linux is a type of Open Source/Free Software. Linux != Open Source/Free Software. The GPL is a type of Open Source License. GPL != All Open Source software. There is a whole world of Open Source outside of the GPL.

Of the open source products SCO is distributing I'm pretty sure only MySQL is GPL'd.

It doesn't matter how wrong someone like SCO is, making nonsensical arguments against them doesn't help.

With the exception that they made anti GPL noises and not just anti Linux, I don't see the quote as completely innacurate.

Re:Of course they're consistent (2, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902370)

Linux != Open Source/Free Software.

Agreed. But the SCO "consitency" issues raised in the article are related to the GPL in specific. Thus my response.

Of the open source products SCO is distributing I'm pretty sure only MySQL is GPL'd.

It's interesting that they decided to bundle MySQL. Had they bundled PostGreSQL, they could have gotten away with a continued anti-GPL stance. (Although I imagine that they still distribute a lot of tools and utilities that are GPLed. Esp. GCC.)

It doesn't matter how wrong someone like SCO is, making nonsensical arguments against them doesn't help.

It is important to note that I was mostly joking. SCO's position has *never* been consistent. My post merely makes levity of their latest attempt to claim such consistency.

Re:Of course they're consistent (1)

drakaan (688386) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902371)

They say they have no beef with open-source software except for Open Source Software that has code in it that shouldn't be there. I'd say the same thing about *any* software. All Darl has to do is show what code is in those offending Open Source projects that he loathes that shouldn't be there, and we'll all be better off.

Well, Darl won't be better off if he can't come up with anything, but the rest of us will be better off.

RTFA (4, Insightful)

Thuktun (221615) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902493)

Of the open source products SCO is distributing I'm pretty sure only MySQL is GPL'd.

Quoth the TFA, "Among the included open-source packages are Samba and MySQL, which are released under the GPL [...]"

If "the General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable" is true, then it follows that SCO does not have license to use those products under the GPL. Either the GPL is not void and is in effect, or they don't have license to use those products.

Re:Of course they're consistent (3, Interesting)

nurhussein (864532) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902320)

The GPL is invalid, therefore they can take and redistribute all the software they want without any reprocussions from copyright law.

If the GPL is invalid, or if they don't agree to it, they can't distribute the Linux souce code *at all* since it's copyrighted. The GPL is the only license that allows redistribution of the Linux kernel. Attack the GPL and they're guilty of breaking copyright law.

Re:Of course they're consistent (2, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902417)

If the GPL is invalid, or if they don't agree to it, they can't distribute the Linux souce code *at all* since it's copyrighted.

That's why I said they're wrong. They're logic in the court case was extremely twisted, in that they claimed that an invalid GPL would still allow the source to be redistributable. They had to realize that they were spouting nonsense, but I think they hoped that most consumers wouldn't call them on it.

Not Quite (2, Informative)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902341)

  1. Under GPL rules, you must accept GPL and be willing to abide by the rules (distribute the source code, etc). to be able to distribute it.
  2. A number of the developers of GPL software have requested SCO to not use their stuff iff GPL is proved invalid.

    So, if GPL is valid, then SCO is unwilling to accept it, then they are in violation of the contract. Likewise, assume that GPL is invalid. Then, the licensing reverts to the developers, and many have stated that they do NOT want SCO having anything to do with their stuff.

    SCO is clearly illegal (and immoral) no matter how you slice this.

Re:Not Quite (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902391)

The SCO organization is illegal? I seem to have missed that law. Oh wait... you mean they are acting illegally, ok.

In fact, just thinking about this... (4, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902430)

MySql has the abilty to deliver a death knell to them. They are under a dual license (GPL and Commercial). SCO has to accept the GPL for it to be valid. Since they clearly do not do so, then the only license available to them is the commercial one. Therefore they MUST start paying mysql the approiate money. It will probably run in the millions. If they accept the GPL, I think that opens them up to all sorts of issues WRT to their law suits against IBM, Redhat, and Novell.

Re:In fact, just thinking about this... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902554)

Accepting the GPL for one project does not mean universally accepting the GPL in all cases. The GPL isnt an all or nothing license, one project has no power over another even tho both are GPLed so you can not accept the GPL in one case but abide by it in another.

Re: estopped[sic] (2, Informative)

InfiniteWisdom (530090) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902499)

Estopped is not a spelling mistake, it's a legal term.

estop [answers.com]

Woah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902130)

SCO actually sell something? I assumed they just litigate.

Re:Woah (1)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902273)

SCO actually sell something?

Technically, they offer stuff for sale. You're right that nobody's buying any of it.

Heh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902475)

SCO actually sell something?

Technically, they offer stuff for sale. You're right that nobody's buying any of it.

Heh. That is all.

Re:Woah (4, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902281)

SCO actually sell something? I assumed they just litigate.

FWIW, OpenServer used to be a very serious product. You see, Microsoft did the original development back in the 80's under the name "Xenix". That product was considered by Microsoft to be to DOS what NT was to 9x. Unfortunately, the market shifted to focus on early GUIs such as VisOn and the Macintosh, resulting in a decision by Microsoft to sell OpenServer to the original SCO.

SCO found themselves in the position of having the most advanced Unix ever developed for the x86 processor. (386BSD still needed work when it showed up, and the later Solaris/x86 partly gained its reputation as "Slowaris" on x86 hardware.) The result was that SCO was able to capture the early market for low end Unix boxes, below the market that even Sun targetted.

The later increase in x86 power, and the entry of Linux into the market brought more traditional Unix systems on a convergent path with SCO, thus causing their marketshare to evaporate. The original SCO moved on to greener pastures and sold OpenServer to Caldera. Caldera continued to market the product, but also inherited a large base of SCO salesmen. Guess who became the most troublesome individuals when OpenServer's sales tanked after the Linux suit? ;-)

Re:Woah (1)

ArielMT (757715) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902289)

Well, it seems their litigation purse is getting a little light, so of course they'd have to sell something to refill it. :)

Re:Woah (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902364)

Their ability to strong arm... uh, acquire... protection money... hmmm, licenses... from dipstick... you know, fearful... companies must be hitting skid row. They have to make money to pay the lawyers, even if that mean sleeping with the enemy.

Re:Woah (1)

zr-rifle (677585) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902369)

> SCO actually sell something? I assumed they just litigate.

If you've got $699 to spare, yes...

Does anybody take SCO seriously? (2, Insightful)

lecithin (745575) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902132)

"In an effort to turn around its dwindling Unix revenue, SCO introduced a new version of its OpenServer product Wednesday along with a new open-source-friendly attitude."

A bit too little and way too late?

Does anybody take SCO seriously these days? If so, who?

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously? (3, Funny)

adrianbaugh (696007) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902224)

Come on now, I think you're being unfair.

I think this story will be of great interest to both SCO's remaining users.

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously? (1)

paitre (32242) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902454)

YM User. Singular. HTH. :)

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously? (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902565)

Come on Quit with the hyperbole ,Over-exagerating the lack of SCO users is just false information and FUD .
We all know there are 3 Users Remaining

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously? (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902280)

Probably someone told them that certain pieces of open source software critical to unix servers. Apache comes way at the front of that list. Without it, I don't think any *nix would be under much scrutiny now, least of all anything SCO offers.

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902303)

Does anybody take SCO seriously these days? If so, who?
SCO

Re:Does anybody take SCO seriously? (1)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902522)

SCO takes themselves seriously?

Go ahead. Pull the other one.

Really... (5, Funny)

ch0p (798613) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902134)

"In a bid to be friendly with Open Source, SCO..." Just stop reading there.

Re:Really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902222)

I just stopped reading after the title SCO Includes OS Products In OpenServer 6, whose going to pay for free stuff that I can get with the non-exsistent Linux OS anyway?

Wow, an operating system in the operating system! (2, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902142)

I'm sure I'm not the only one to read that "OS" as something the author didn't intend. OS = Operating System, OSS = Open Source Software. SCO purports to sell an operating system already, so including an OS in their product seems a bit redundant.

Re:Wow, an operating system in the operating syste (1)

justforaday (560408) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902183)

Well, it could've been "SCO Includes OS Products In OS6 Product"

And what about the letter to Congress? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902145)

I thought Open Source is the end of the World in general, and capitalism in particular? Darl? You still there buddy? Whats up?

"friendly" (5, Insightful)

bedroll (806612) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902155)

Using OSS isn't being friendly to it. It's just using it to enhance your product.

Re:"friendly" (2, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902362)

Well, they pet every open source program on the head and say, "Who's a good boy? You are! Yes you are, yes you! Give me a kiss." before they ship it.

Re:"friendly" (1)

SpecBear (769433) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902455)

They're being very friendly to OSS. Just like they were friendly enough to help that sheep get over the fence...

Does this mean (4, Interesting)

m50d (797211) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902160)

that they acknowledge the GPL as a valid license? Because if not they have no license to distribute MySQL (unless they paid for it).

I know there was never much doubt, but IIRC one of SCO's arguments was that the GPL was invalid.

Re:Does this mean (1)

yamla (136560) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902338)

SCO claims that not only is the GPL not a valid license but that this results in any software released under that license to be de-facto released to the public domain. This is pretty ahem imaginative, but it means that they feel they are free to distribute MySQL et al under any terms whatsoever that they wish.

Re:Does this mean (1)

freshman_a (136603) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902441)

Samba is also released under GPL, which SCO has been including for a while.

I thought it was commendable for the Samba team to take the high road when they released a letter [linuxtoday.com] saying that even though Samba was being used "by rank hypocrites like SCO", they would still stick by their principles and make their software freely available to anyone.

It will be interesting to see if there are any reactions from the other OSS projects included with OpenServer 6.

Re:Does this mean (1)

silicon not in the v (669585) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902505)

Because if not they have no license to distribute MySQL (unless they paid for it).
Instead of "unless they paid for it", I think you mean "unless they get permission from MySQL to distribute it".

Re:Does this mean (1)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902535)

I wonder about Firefox, being released under the "Mozilla Public License"...

Of course the only a few other companies outhere besides IBM with plenty of lawyers with nothing to do...

So I assume that SCO is taking on AOL/TimeWarner next?

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902167)

I fucking hate SCO and I'm gunna need an asbestos suit just to read this one.

Does that mean (5, Interesting)

joeflies (529536) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902169)

that they've checked those projects for infriging intellectual property too and certify it's clean?

Re:Does that mean (1)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902483)

>they've check those projects

You are suffering from backwards thinking. You see, since any misappropriated code would be The SCO Group's code anyway, they don't need to check it. They can use it at will.

The only problem they have (a minor inconvenience for them, really) is actually pointing to any code that belongs to them.

May I be the first to say (1)

terrencefw (605681) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902173)

...what a fscking bunch of hypocritical bastards.

Heck (1)

ImaLamer (260199) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902399)

We don't necessarily have issues with open source, we just have an issue with open-source technology that includes intellectual property it shouldn't

I say that I have a problem with intellectual property that includes open-source technology it shouldn't!

Joking aside. As others have [slashdot.org] and will point out: They don't belive the GPL is Constitutional or enforceable - and because of this they have no rights under the license. I wonder how long it takes for GPL code to enter their software?

Not quite (1)

FatRatBastard (7583) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902181)

In a bid to be friendly with Open Source...

They're not doing it to be friendly, they're doing it for their own economic advantage, period. The fact that they're hypocritical asshats just makes it unseemly.

TEH HUNTER SPEAKS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902182)

SC0, WTF BR0???? I USED TO L0VE AND RESPECT Y0U SO MUCH, AND THIS IS HOW YOU REPAY ME?????

What a human waste (1)

MSBob (307239) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902186)

I know, that those people from SCO at the front lines are only doing their jobs and whatnot but someone somewhere makes the actual decisions. Probably Darle McBride. I mean how low do you have to stoop to start behaving like this? Do those people have absolutely no honour whatsoever. I know that corps cater to their shareholders and whatnot but really, how low can a person go in the pursuit of (vanishing) profit? What a rat.

parasites (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902188)

Has anyone else noted that the sco/caldera logo looks a lot like Pennicilliun mould growing on a blood-agar culture plate?

SCO - a LOW blood-sucking parasite!

McDonalds is a Customer (2, Interesting)

Metzli (184903) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902195)

Interesting, I wondered who would still be throwing money at SCO. I believe I've spent my last dollar at McDonalds. I don't want to support a company that's still supporting SCO.

Re:McDonalds is a Customer (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902251)

Funny you should mention that, I drove out of my way a extra 5 miles last week to buy all the brake parts
for my truck from "Auto Zone". I had two other stores nearly in my back yard but I will not buy parts from anyone else unless Auto Zone does not stock it.

Re:McDonalds is a Customer (3, Funny)

Trollstoi (888703) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902487)

I believe I've spent my last dollar at McDonalds.

So, you're out of money now?

With friends like SCO... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902196)

who needs enemies.

Why care? (0)

lofoforabr (751004) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902203)

SCO is dust, and will soon be gone.
Why even post things about it?

Isn't it a little... late? (1)

Silverlancer (786390) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902211)

Isn't it a bit late for them to try to be "friendly" with open source?

Curious (4, Interesting)

augustz (18082) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902213)

SCO has very publically disclaimed the GPL. Letters to congress, letters to fortune 1500, and in sworn statements in court.

"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

Given this position, isn't there standing for a contributor to actually litigate the validity of the GPL? You've got a company that has disclaimed the GPL, but still uses the software.

That's not the way it works, you can't have it both ways. Either you agree to play fair, or you have to create your own software, not take others.

And of course, the PR spin on this being "consistent" is hillarious.

Re:Curious (2, Insightful)

n54 (807502) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902448)

I absolutely agree.

Isn't this the perfect opportunity to open all the warchests in FSF, EFF, and others (or even set up a specific pool), and come down on SCO like a ton of bricks while in addition getting a legal verdict on the validity of the GPL?

If we (the F/OSS community) hurry we might even be able to win this before IBM crushes SCO totally (it would be fun if FSF/EFF got awarded all of SCO remaining assets in damage).

And no, I doubt there's a chance in hell SCO would win http://linux.sys-con.com/read/38151.htm [sys-con.com] :

"Recently, we had an unrelated copyright discussion on the Linux kernel discussion list (some people still want to have binary only modules and try to argue that the GPL doesn't ever cover them).

Anyway, that's beside the point, though it does show that some people want to take advantage of open source without giving anything back. But after the discussion, I ended up looking up the exact wording of the U.S. copyright law and guess what I found:

"The term 'financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works."

This is from U.S. Code Collection, Title 17 (copyrights), Chapter 1, Section 101: "Definitions." In short, this is from the very first section in copyright law -- the section that defines terms even before those terms are used. This is some pretty fundamental stuff when it comes to copyrights in the U.S.

Pertinent, if you will.

And note how copyright law expressly includes "the expectation of receipt" of anything of value, and expressly mentions "receipt of other copyrighted works" as such a thing of value. And that's the very definition of "financial gain," as far as U.S. copyright law is concerned.

Now guess what the GPL is all about?"

Article Text (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902214)

In an effort to turn around its dwindling Unix revenue, SCO introduced a new version of its OpenServer product Wednesday along with a new open-source-friendly attitude.

OpenServer 6 is based on the same software core as the company's other operating system product, UnixWare, a later arrival that the company and its predecessors have emphasized for years but that never was adopted as much as OpenServer. The new OpenServer can run software for both operating systems, improves performance by a factor of two to four, and can be used on 32-processor machines with as much as 16GB of memory, SCO said.

The company's software is most popular for use in companies with numerous business branches--a notable customer is McDonald's. However, the SCO Group and its predecessor, the Santa Cruz Operation, struggled with competition from Windows and more recently, Linux.

In SCO's most recent quarter, ended April 30, Unix revenue declined to $7.8 million from $8.4 million during the year-earlier quarter.

SCO has been most prominent recently for its legal attack on IBM, Novell and others regarding its allegation that proprietary Unix software has been improperly moved into open-source Linux. Indeed, one of its targets is AutoZone, a former OpenServer customer.

Part of that attack was leveled at the General Public License (GPL), which governs Linux and which SCO attorneys said violates the U.S. Constitution as well as copyright, antitrust and export control laws. But Wednesday, SCO touted the inclusion of several open-source products with OpenServer.

Microsoft's spam plan
New supercomputers overhaul top ranks
Telemarketers target cell phones
Digital bullies in classrooms
Should cities be ISPs?
Previous Next
"In addition to supporting numerous Unix applications, as well as Java applications with the inclusion of Java 1.4.2, customers will also find thousands of additional applications available through many of the latest open-source technologies that are integrated into SCO OpenServer 6," SCO said in its announcement.

Among the included open-source packages are Samba and MySQL, which are released under the GPL, as well as Firefox, Tomcat, Apache and PostgreSQL.

SCO's position is consistent, spokesman Blake Stowell argued. "We don't necessarily have issues with open source, we just have a desire to anally penetrate developers of open-source technology that includes intellectual property it shouldn't," he said. Indeed, SCO's products have included open-source components for years.

OpenServer 6 costs $599 for a computer with two users and $1,399 for one with 10 users.

Section? (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902215)

Any reason this is in apache? (apache is one of the programs, but wouldn't unix or YRO make more sense?) The colour scheme here makes IT look good.

for convenience, not cooperation (1)

Roadmaster (96317) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902221)

They're not trying to show friendliness toward free software, they just realize their inferior product is doomed and they don't have the clout to bundle commercial products, so they fill in the voids with free software; which is completely hypocritical and I think they should rot in hell for that but well, SCO are the ones who don't give a damn about the GPL; the software authors do and recognize that since the software is free, SCO can do what they're doing. That's respect for you SCO.

How MS will quote you (1)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902357)

they don't have the clout to bundle commercial products, so they fill in the voids with free software; which is completely hypocritical and I think they should rot in hell for that

Dear Sir / Madame,

Than you for your recent comments on Open Source software. We're very excited by your comments and plan to use them in an upcoming update to Microsoft's "Get the Facts about Linux" campaign.

Below is a sample of you your quote will look:

they ... bundle ... free software ... and I think they should rot in hell for that
-- Roadmaster

SCO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902226)

SCO is still around? How quaint.

SCO, a company without shame (2, Interesting)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902231)

Uhm, that's not "being friendly." That's taking advantage of the IP of programmers that they're trying to demonize.

It's not an attempt at bridge building. It's a reflection of their desperate need for Open Source in order to offer ANYTHING worth using with their OS.

It's a clear statement that they consider Open Source to be code that they can use for whatever they want, but no one else should be allowed to use.

It'd be like FedEx trying to keep UPS from using the US highway system.

It's not trying to be nice to Open Source. OSS doesn't need any boned from the SCO jackal. They're trying to continue to take advantage of Open Source even as they try every legal trick they can think of too hurt it.

Violating IBMs Claims (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902233)

Not a mention of the countersuit claims by IBM that SCO is violating their license?

In other news... (2)

ehaggis (879721) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902234)

SCO announces it will include the Linux Kernel in their next release. "We will continue to support / sue the Open Source Community. We will also continue our therapy for schizophrenia."

Damage done (1)

Iriel (810009) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902237)

SCO can bid all they want, but they've already made their stain in the technology world. Darl made himself the most hated man in tech faster than Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer combined in a shorter period of time. I could say that it's nice to see OSS in a UNIX system, but the course of action they've taken is mostly impossible to reverse. It's as meaningless as M$ telling the world that they'll open source Windoze. I'm not really sure this does any good considering the audience they've already alienated and the server market that Linux is gathering for itself based on its merits rather than marketing and property rights.

Could this be good? (1)

mboos (700155) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902250)

If they distribute this GPL'd software, that means that they won't be suing the developers for misappropriating their IP, right?

Oh dear

My interpretation (3, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902261)

"We're trying to save money, OF COURSE we're consistent! What do you think we've been doing the last couple of...

Hey look! A three headed monkey!" (runs away)

If the GPL is not valid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902269)

how can they distribute MySQL?

How long will SCO product be supported after the executives are prosecuted by the SEC for their pump & dump scheme?

Who cares?

UHH.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902291)

I dont care! why is this important? AHHH!

Jesus calls them.... (1)

xmorg (718633) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902292)

Woe to you hypocrites! Strain out a knat and swallow a camel, Those of you who profess open source with your mouth but deny it in your heart shall be judged!

NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO (1)

fiveRocketCars (746296) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902301)

If i were leading an open-source project under any open-souce license....personally, I would modify the license to specifically prohibit SCO, and any companies that SCO has ownership in, and any companies that have ownership in SCO from ever using the project's source code, binaries, trademarks, etc, in any way what so ever.

I might also prohibit any company, whose execuatives talk any smack against the GPL.

What is the saying....."love it" or "LEAVE IT!"

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO (2, Insightful)

PaxTech (103481) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902361)


If i were leading an open-source project under any open-souce license....personally, I would modify the license to specifically prohibit SCO, and any companies that SCO has ownership in, and any companies that have ownership in SCO from ever using the project's source code, binaries, trademarks, etc, in any way what so ever.


If you did that, your project would no longer be considered open source. It's like how freedom of speech isn't just for people who say things you agree with.

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO (1)

fiveRocketCars (746296) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902411)

Actually, the source would still be "open", and SCO could look at the code, just not touch it, or use it. And, it would still be FREE, just not to SCO, there would be no available way for SCO to use the projects code, even though they could drool over it.

I might consider changing the modified license so that any company that Darl McBride was affiliated with, would not be able to use the projects code. :-)

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO (1)

sjvn (11568) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902401)

"If i were leading an open-source project under any open-souce license....personally, I would modify the license to specifically prohibit SCO"

Nope, you can't do it. Open-source licenses are called open for a reason. Anyone can--and does--use it.

If Microsoft decides one day to release MS-Linux, and the boys from Redmond obey the GPL rules as they do it, well... there's going to be a lot of copies of MS-Linux in CompUSA and BestBuy.

Steven

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO (1)

fiveRocketCars (746296) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902494)

well, to each his own i guess. Now i have an incentive to get off my ass and create a project that is succesful enough to garner community support, even with the slightly non-free/non-SCO modification to the license.

There would be nothing stopping me from creating such a license, nor non-SCO folks from using the product. I just wouldn't be "in" with the purists i guess.

Re:NO, NO,.....NO MORE SCO (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902517)

If i were leading an open-source project under any open-souce license....personally, I would modify the license to specifically prohibit SCO,

That would be playing right into their hands. SCO *wants* to get OSS producers upset so that they'll do something stupid. SCO can then point to the event and say "See? They are being juvenile while we negotiate in good faith!"

Ignoring SCO (except for direct legal defense) has been, and will continue to be, the best defense. The only one who gets worked up in that situation is SCO. So guess who starts looking pretty stupid to the public? ;-)

hipocrits (1)

wind_ice_flames (894250) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902315)

So basically SCO says you can use "our" intellectual property to create programs we can use, but otherwise we will sue you. Hmm sounds a bit opportunistic to me..

Based on UnixWare rather than OpenServer 5.0? (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902324)

Indeed, it is interesting to see them basing OpenServer 6.0 on UnixWare rather than OpenServer 5.0. And it will most likely be quite confusing, too. After the UnixWare -> OpenUNIX -> UnixWare naming shenanigans I thought they would have known better than to do something so misleading.

MySQL AB et al (2, Interesting)

mindaktiviti (630001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902351)

Shouldn't the people behind these open source products demand a licensing fee (say..$699 per copy) for SCO using their products? Because SCO does not believe in the GPL, but some of these products (like MySQL) have other licenses.

It seems only fair that SCO should fork over the cash, I'm sure their lawyers and accountants would understand.

Why do they even have a license? (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902365)

Clearly, the copywrite holders of Apache or MySQL could be revoking their license, now that SCO tried to cut their throats.

If they don't have a problem with Open Source... (1)

borgheron (172546) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902367)

If they don't have a problem with Open Source, why are the alleging in federal court that the GPL is unconstitutional?? I mean we all know that this is total and complete bullshit, but still.

Don't bald face lie to us, Mr. Stowell. As you've no doubt realized, the FLOSS community is tireless in it's pursuit of what's right, relentless in it's pursuit of the truth, and has virtually unlimited resources with which to make it happen.

Later, GJC

Re:If they don't have a problem with Open Source.. (1)

zoomba (227393) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902474)

Here's how they could play the fact that they call the GPL unconstitutional along side of including GPL code and products in their system...

1. GPL is unconstitutional.
2. GPL is therefore null and void
3. Thus GPL code has no copyright protection as it has no license or terms
4. CODE IS FREE! (100%) They can take it and use it however they want
5. Profit!

What a relief (2, Funny)

digidave (259925) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902372)

*whew*

Now I can start liking SCO again. I'm off to the SCO Store to buy some of whatever it is they try to sell.

It's a little to late to try and save face (1)

dbfruth (707400) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902405)

You blew it SCO. No amount of PR can save you from your death spiral.

Force them to pay up! (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902408)

In a bid to be friendly with Open Source, SCO has included 7 OS products

I think these groups sould get together and force SCO to pay them $100/copy for each of their products sold. They could also give them a $1.00 discount for bulk purchase (i.e. total of $699.00/copy).

SCO has no credibility in the Open Source arena (1)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902426)

at least among Open Source advocates. The beauty of OSS, and SCO has better thank their lucky stars, is that OSS is forgiving. It doesn't matter that SCO has been a bunch of dicks in the pst, they can still redeem themselves.... maybe

danger will robinson, danger! (1)

chasingporsches (659844) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902435)

spokesman Blake Stowell argued. 'We don't necessarily have issues with open source, we just have an issue with open-source technology that includes intellectual property it shouldn't' he said.

i argue, "you might want to watch your use of 'he said'", i said.

Re:danger will robinson, danger! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902541)

RTFA, I said.:P

Do they use GCC? (2, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902464)

Do they use GCC, or their older, proprietary C compiler along with their cfront-based C++ compiler?

Indeed, GCC has had the following in the README.SCO file in the main GCC source distribution:

The GCC team has been urged to drop support for SCO Unix from GCC, as a protest against SCO's irresponsible aggression against free software and GNU/Linux. We have decided to take no action at this time, as we no longer believe that SCO is a serious threat.

For more on the FSF's position regarding SCO's attacks on free software, please read:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/sco/ [fsf.org]


If SCO is using GCC as their native C compiler, then perhaps this will prove the impetus needed for the GCC Steering Committee to remove support for SCO from GCC.

Congratulations SCO (1)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902469)

When I think of you, I feel fear, uncertainty and doubt.

I wouldn't touch your products with a ten-foot pole.

I think I'll use this Linux thing I've heard about instead.

SCO gets ch0wned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902471)

In the long run they're gonna get ch0wned by IBM anyway. Not even sure why they still work on product development. Who is buying this stuff?

mod 0p (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902480)

This just proves that OSS is bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12902496)

This must be Microsofts latest tactical spin on OSS being bad, just pay SCO to include the best of breed OSS. After everyone gets the name association with SCO then who would touch OSS with a ten foot pole? ;)

In a more serious note, who will be first to sue SCO this time?

Alternatives? (1)

gamlidek (459505) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902497)

I hope folks aren't seriously flocking to buy SCO products still.. seems like with all the alternatives available SCO should be suffering. /gam/

sendmail, bind (1)

ThrobbingGristle (62723) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902504)

SCO has always included OSS in their OpenServer products, as do most all UNIX vendors. sendmail and bind are two obvious examples, but I could probably find others if I tried.

I think the ftpd in OpenServer 5.0.5 might be wu-ftpd, originally as well although I'm not sure of that.

I think SCO just finally recognized that without a bunch of free software, SCO OpenServer was not only severely deficient but a pain to use.

Alternate story title... (2, Funny)

Shads (4567) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902515)

... "SCO pulls more inane bullshit out of their ass"

What a bunch of hypocrits.

What would be nice.... (1)

GoMMiX (748510) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902545)

Is if the FSF would sue SCO and force them to remove all GPL'd software from their products.

Like the FOSS community gives a crap if SCO distributes their stuff with SCO-UNIX. The only people who benefit from that are SCO and it's customers - who merely serve to fund SCO'd litigation machine.

Better title (1)

bad_outlook (868902) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902560)

Wouldn't this had been a better title for the article?

SCO Includes GPL Products In OpenServer 6

I assume these are the only GPL apps they distribute with their OS, right?

Sections (4, Insightful)

Espectr0 (577637) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902561)

We definitely need a "Open Source Software" (OSS) section on slashdot, to avoid using weird sections like Apache for these types of stories (yeah, apache is one of the oss in the story but still)

The subject should read OSS Products instead of OS. OS is known as Operative System most of the time.

Huh? (1)

failure-man (870605) | more than 9 years ago | (#12902566)

SCO has a product and engineers to develop it? I thought they were just a crew of ninja attack lawyers and seven-figure art history majors that hung out in a Taco Bell and watched their stock price.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?