Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
SCO: Inside the hurricane
By on
August 28, 2003 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols with additional reporting by Joe Barr
Between hate mail from open source supporters and love notes from investors, life isn't easy inside SCO. There have been more hated technology companies; IBM and Microsoft immediately come to mind. But they weren't pounded earlier this week by a successful <SLASH HREF="//linux.com/relocate.pl?id=3869f23790ea9ae000902c6ca19f6f04" ID="78063c08e13a925c2b4cab43e3fb59aa" TITLE="http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2784023,00.html" TYPE="LINK">Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS</SLASH>) attack despite the efforts of open source leaders like Eric Raymond to stop it. And no one's written a Nigerian spam parody for their CEOs. At the same time, though, some stock buyers love SCO's aggressive Unix intellectual property stance and its Linux licensing schemes. Say what you will about the merits or demerits of the case, life at SCO is like being in the eye of the hurricane.
Between hate mail from open source supporters and love notes from investors, life isn't easy inside SCO. There have been more hated technology companies; IBM and Microsoft immediately come to mind. But they weren't pounded earlier this week by a successful <SLASH HREF="//linux.com/relocate.pl?id=3869f23790ea9ae000902c6ca19f6f04" ID="78063c08e13a925c2b4cab43e3fb59aa" TITLE="http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2784023,00.html" TYPE="LINK">Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS</SLASH>) attack despite the efforts of open source leaders like Eric Raymond to stop it. And no one's written a Nigerian spam parody for their CEOs. At the same time, though, some stock buyers love SCO's aggressive Unix intellectual property stance and its Linux licensing schemes. Say what you will about the merits or demerits of the case, life at SCO is like being in the eye of the hurricane.
Darl McBride, SCO's CEO, couldn't agree more. "It's interesting to wake up in the morning because you never know what will happen on a given day. You realize you're in the middle of the hurricane. I was brought in to run this company, and then when we decided to start protecting our IP, our first decision was whether we were going to fight or get taken out early. Since we made that decision to fight for our property rights, as we unravel the yarn, it just becomes bigger than you thought it could possibly be going in."
McBride also compares working at SCO to riding a roller coaster. "The highs and lows get you hardened and toughened and take on a steady tone. You realize that life may be really good today, it may be really bad the next day." Eventually, he says, you learn to "hunker down and think like a fire fighter. Early on, it was fairly unnerving for employees, but now people are really tough on and see that SCO has taken an IP leadership position."
You might think that employees would be leaving SCO, but according to McBride, despite everything, "there's been no lawsuit-related turnover." Indeed, "we get lots of people wanting to come aboard." He also comments that 320 out of the 330 SCO people focus on SCO's products, it's the other ten who are the ones living in the middle of hurricane.
One of the storm-tossed wretches is Blake Stowell, SCO's director of corporate communications, who just had his fifth child on August 25. He went to work that morning, joined his wife for the birth, then was back to work on the 26th. As he puts it, "I've never worked harder at a job in my life."
He confesses that he's "a bit tired," but "for the most part, we've managed the communications pretty well over the last six months," even though he believes that "there are some people -- press, open source companies, and opinion leaders, like Eric Raymond, in the industry who don't know what's going on."
Still, he says, "I don't find it frustrating. It takes a lot of work and I look it as a challenge. Every time the open source community fires back with an issue I have to reply and that takes up bandwidth on my side. [But] I think it's been a good exchange of opinions. I think each side understands the other's viewpoint now even if they don't agree with each other."
McBride insists that IBM is the root of SCO's Problems
McBride thinks that a lot of SCO's public problems don't stem from SCO's actions, but from a loosely organized disinformation campaign masterminded by IBM. "IBM has a vast reach to a large number of people in open source. IBM doesn't touch hundreds of thousands directly, but with their strong reach and influence to companies and people in the open source community, in particular Linus Torvalds and Eric Raymond, IBM gets its message out." He goes on to say that "Novell is trying to get in [the attack] by trying to co-coordinating with IBM along with Red Hat and SuSE."
Specifically, "companies have approached me and told me that IBM had tried to get them to stop working with us, even companies that are competitors to IBM. We've also had customers come up and say IBM will penalize us if we keep working with SCO." McBride explains that, for the most part, these haven't been SCO resellers or customers, but mostly software developers. He adds, "We're in the discovery stage and this will be part of the filing and we will show direct information that IBM is the source of some of these attacks coming at us."
What people don't understand, McBride insists, is that SCO's legal actions aren't just about SCO's IP, Unix, and the GPL anymore, it's a broader issue that includes music, video, and anything that can be digitized and distributed on the Net. To McBride, the real issue is "the future of IP rights in the 21st century."
McBride isn't the only SCO employee who feels that way. Communications director Stowell says, "I once worked for a company involved with the Open Source community. I enjoyed the time that I worked there trying to build a business around contributions from a development community. I joined that company when the 2.2 kernel was in wide distribution." But, he says, "Since coming to SCO and reading over the contracts held with other licensees such as IBM, Sun, HP, and many others, I too have come to the realization that SCO intellectual property has indeed been contributed into Linux. I haven't been just drinking the SCO Kool Aid. I understand the company's case, I've read every word of each contract, every exhibit in our case, and I understand that there are people and organizations that have issues with our viewpoint. I believe in what we are doing in protecting our intellectual property. I hope at some point we can find a solution where SCO can be properly compensated for its IP and the Open Source community can move forward unhindered in creating great software."
Drew Spencer, former CTO of Caldera from September 1998 to May 2002, who no longer has any interests in Caldera/SCO, sees it differently. "My sense of SCO's action of late is that it has formulated a strategy by which it intends to extract the most value it possibly can from the IP it purchased when Caldera bought SCO in order to either liquidate it (as occurred with Caldera first generation) or re-launch the company as something totally different. With the R&D expense involved with trying to keep two operating systems up-to-date with the hardware development and what amounts to the destruction of any business development opportunities with the hardware vendors and ISVs, it's probably pretty safe to say that SCO doesn't want to be in the OS business anymore."
One way in which some SCO employees are extracting value is from SCO's lofty stock price. SCO was trading at a near 52-week high of $14.36 on August 27, and company executives have been selling stock. John Ferrell, founding partner of Carr & Ferrell, LLP, a Silicon Valley intellectual property and corporate law firm, "was interested to see that SCO insiders [the other] week were selling SCO stock at greatly inflated prices. If in fact IBM has misappropriated and infringed SCO code, SCO shareholders will deservedly be handsomely compensated. If, however, we come to learn that SCO management is falsely creating turmoil in this struggling tech economy for the purpose of jacking and dumping their stock; SCO's legal troubles will be just beginning."
Financial and IP issues aren't the only ways SCO has been making headlines recently. Spencer thinks that SCO opponents who DDoSed SCO's site are only hurting their cause. "In order to win in court, particularly with a jury trial in Utah, baiting the community into DoS attacks, protests, etc., merely serves to substantiate the case that the community wants to destroy SCO financially and the jobs that come with it. With the loss of jobs in the IT sector, particularly in Utah, where Novell, Caldera/SCO, and others have struggled as of late, a jury will likely be sympathetic to SCO's problems even if the community is able to dispute SCO's allegations of theft." In short, "SCO is the 'troll' and the community has been keeping it well fed."
That said, Spencer adds, "Could I or would I have taken the approach they are? No."
Other former Caldera/SCO employees agree that they're not happy with SCO's current path, but SCO's current staffers continue to stick to their position despite the slings and arrows of outraged open source advocates.
Comments
on SCO: Inside the hurricaneNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Re:Yes, and Kashmir really belongs to Pakistan
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 29, 2003 12:22 AM
Bad example. India has consistently refused to allow the people of Kashmir to vote on which country they prefer to belong to. Because of this refusal, it's widely assumed that Kashmiris overwhelmingly want to be part of Pakistan, not India. (Though of course in the absence of a vote it's impossible to be 100% sure.)
In other words, Kashmir probably does really belong to Pakistan, in the same sense that Paris in 1942 really did belong to the French, though occupied by another country at the time.
In other words, Kashmir probably does really belong to Pakistan, in the same sense that Paris in 1942 really did belong to the French, though occupied by another country at the time.
Re:Yes, and Kashmir really belongs to Pakistan
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 29, 2003 01:13 AM
Not so much..
Take your argument and examine a claim like the following:
'Knute's house is really a part of the Canada, and not the United States of America, because it's on the border, and Knute votes it so(being the sole occupant and therefore a majority).'
Local majority rule, in cases of national territories, seldom amounts to much. If secession were as easy as a single democratic yay/nay vote, do you think Ireland and the United Kingdom would have had their 'Troubles'?
As well, the 1942 comment is specious-- a key difference would be the fact that France's recognized borders had been violated to achieve a unilateral occupation. A better example might have been the case of East Timor.
Take your argument and examine a claim like the following:
'Knute's house is really a part of the Canada, and not the United States of America, because it's on the border, and Knute votes it so(being the sole occupant and therefore a majority).'
Local majority rule, in cases of national territories, seldom amounts to much. If secession were as easy as a single democratic yay/nay vote, do you think Ireland and the United Kingdom would have had their 'Troubles'?
As well, the 1942 comment is specious-- a key difference would be the fact that France's recognized borders had been violated to achieve a unilateral occupation. A better example might have been the case of East Timor.
Re:Yes, and Kashmir really belongs to Pakistan
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2003 01:12 AM
It's kinda' nice how we live in such an internationally-aware society isn't it? Just a thought.
Re:Yes, and Kashmir really belongs to Pakistan
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 29, 2003 03:49 AM
Can't we save this forum for discussing more relevant, less divisive issues like, say, the Taiwanese flag?
Sorry, I don't really care about Kashmir, I was just trying to illustrate the point that belief and self-interest have a funny way of coinciding. I should have known not to use a modern political example.
SCO employees can spin all they want about their "secret" evidence. But until they say their entire case, no one will take their complaints seriously.
It sounds, though, that SCO may be looking to unload its Unix rights and perhaps become a solutions provider rather than an OS seller.
Of course, the main reason for this is that all of SCO's products are terrible. Perhaps they figured that they'd continue to lose market share so why not go out with a bang?
It sounds, though, that SCO may be looking to unload its Unix rights and perhaps become a solutions provider rather than an OS seller.
Of course, the main reason for this is that all of SCO's products are terrible. Perhaps they figured that they'd continue to lose market share so why not go out with a bang?
"It sounds, though, that SCO may be looking to unload its Unix rights and perhaps become a solutions provider rather than an OS seller."
Um, isn't that what McBride was supposed to have done when he was with IKON? Where are they now. Say, maybe when this is all done, McBride can sue the board of SCO. He's found success going down that path in the past.
I've heard from others SCO OS was not bad at all. From my own quite limited, experience I cannot complain about it aither.
hmmm . . . SCO's product's in the past wasn't that bad; it was running stable and good. But what they forgot was to investigate a bit in to the future I think.
Thomas
Thomas
Indeed, "we get lots of people wanting to come aboard."
Sorry, the above comment is what I was referring to in my previous post.
Sorry, the above comment is what I was referring to in my previous post.
McBride insists, is that SCO's legal actions aren't just about SCO's IP, Unix, and the GPL anymore, it's a broader issue that includes music, video, and anything that can be digitized and distributed on the Net. To McBride, the real issue is "the future of IP rights in the 21st century."
Now i know Mcbride is smokin crack
Now i know Mcbride is smokin crack
I think he's right. I just think that IP is government sponsored monopoly over something which is inherently copyable. The "protections" afforded an inventor, don't exist in reality. The "protections" are used to prevent competition.
People will still make music, art, books, invent products, write software even without IP monopoly rights. The true winners of IP are large media organizations and large software companies. And the government organizations which create and enforce the rules.
People will still make music, art, books, invent products, write software even without IP monopoly rights. The true winners of IP are large media organizations and large software companies. And the government organizations which create and enforce the rules.
In other words, so-called "Intellectual Property" rights are inherently tilted towards leverage by large corporations and exist exclusively to undermine one of the key aspects of capitalism that is touted as making it "dynamic" and a "provider of freedom"...
Oh yeah, capitalism's great! Fsck these bastards and their propaganda! To all who oppose the community with SCO-like drivel: Your sins will come back on you. You're gonna burn, bitches, you're gonna burn!
Oh yeah, capitalism's great! Fsck these bastards and their propaganda! To all who oppose the community with SCO-like drivel: Your sins will come back on you. You're gonna burn, bitches, you're gonna burn!
"Love letters from investors". Since SCO try to stoll the work of thousand of Linux people, these "excited" investors realise that they are involved into a criminal action?
Even if by law they are not legally liable for the robery McBride & gand are doing, how can they sleep at night knowing that their money come from extorsion?
What is the level of morality in this corporate ?
Even if by law they are not legally liable for the robery McBride & gand are doing, how can they sleep at night knowing that their money come from extorsion?
What is the level of morality in this corporate ?
Investors are per definition interested in profit.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..and ususally very little else.
The "New SCO" is the very type of thing investors love: A company with no products, little staff, nothing that require long-term investments to pay off.
You'd think this extremly short-sighted view would've died with the dot-coms.. but apparently it's still alive and well. The craze for "IP", software patents and all show this. To the investors, IP is the perfect commodity. It doesn't need expensive factories or long-term R&D. Just lots of lawyers to reap in the license fees.
The "New SCO" is the very type of thing investors love: A company with no products, little staff, nothing that require long-term investments to pay off.
You'd think this extremly short-sighted view would've died with the dot-coms.. but apparently it's still alive and well. The craze for "IP", software patents and all show this. To the investors, IP is the perfect commodity. It doesn't need expensive factories or long-term R&D. Just lots of lawyers to reap in the license fees.
then why not invest in drug cartels? i mean, if investors are obviously not interested in legality or ethics - as you assert.
Even more sadly, if there were a mutual fund for crack I'm willing to bet people would buy into it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the SCO people really aren't the true bad guys in this. They're filing a frivolous suit in the hopes that foolish investors will think that they might win and buy the stock. They're never going to win so they're only wasting everyone's time.
The real crime is being committed by the investors who are falling for this pile of sh#t. By buying the stock they just encourgae SCO to keep it going as long as possible. I'll bet the last thing SCO wants right now is a court date.
It'll be fun to laugh at the people left holding the bag when this is over.
My advice to SCO shareholders...sell, take the money to Vegas, and put it on black. The odds are better.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the SCO people really aren't the true bad guys in this. They're filing a frivolous suit in the hopes that foolish investors will think that they might win and buy the stock. They're never going to win so they're only wasting everyone's time.
The real crime is being committed by the investors who are falling for this pile of sh#t. By buying the stock they just encourgae SCO to keep it going as long as possible. I'll bet the last thing SCO wants right now is a court date.
It'll be fun to laugh at the people left holding the bag when this is over.
My advice to SCO shareholders...sell, take the money to Vegas, and put it on black. The odds are better.
as vespasian used to say: "non olet" (it doesn't smell)
Money, money, I love money, no matter where they come from. Are you American too ???
SCO has managed to increase stock price without increasing sales. Stockholders must be happy, Mind you its going to come crashing down over their ears but for right now they must be happy.
Please, who can earn money off Linux? RedHat certainly cannot, the only reason they are still in Business is because of the interest they get from their invested IPO monies. SuSE in Germany is not earning anything either, all important Managment positions have been replaced with ex-IBM managers, guess who is paying their bills. The only one earning on Linux are the IHV's like IBM and Co. If any of you remember, these were the big bad guys for all of the Linux-junkies out there before SCO stepped up.
When this thing is over and it is decided that IP rights can be protected and you can win against the Linux community many other companies will step forward to collect from Linux as well. OpenSource is really good but not for business. I for one want to make money with my operation here in Germany and Linux is not helping matters. Every ISV is expected to give special prices on their SW if this is to run on Linux, but the porting work is just the same as for the other Unix OSes.
I have had enough of the "SW for free" mind set at the customer site.
A UNIX fan
When this thing is over and it is decided that IP rights can be protected and you can win against the Linux community many other companies will step forward to collect from Linux as well. OpenSource is really good but not for business. I for one want to make money with my operation here in Germany and Linux is not helping matters. Every ISV is expected to give special prices on their SW if this is to run on Linux, but the porting work is just the same as for the other Unix OSes.
I have had enough of the "SW for free" mind set at the customer site.
A UNIX fan
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the Caldera claims
If any of you remember, these were the big bad guys for all of the Linux-junkies out there before SCO stepped up.
>Then, they put a billion dollars into Linux, and contributed a whole hell of a lot of code. They support the OS, and contribute. They don't try to steal other people's work by saying "well, we were part of the team, therefore we own it all, and the rest of the team is irrelevant".
>When this thing is over and it is decided that IP rights can be protected and you can win against the Linux community many other companies will step forward to collect from Linux as well.
Once you have eradicated the concept of intellectual property by destroying a licensing agreement that is based on copyright laws, I have no doubt that the other scavengers will come out of the woodwork to pick the corpse of Linux clean.
>OpenSource is really good but not for business
Well that all depends: if you've based your whole business model on one OS, or profiting from the OS directly, it isn't going to be good for YOU. So why don't you do like the record companies are doing now, and instead of litigating to destroy rights, you change your business model...Oh...you mean they're not doing that either?
>I have had enough of the "SW for free" mind set at the customer site
Perhaps you need to be in another business. If the business environment is changing to one in which you can't compete, you either get out, or you compete better. Some free software is better than the commercial stuff. Most isn't. Sell your strengths, sell support, or sell responsiveness to the customer. Stop trying to ram your outmoded business model down people's throats by destroying fundamental rights and freedoms as a means to an end!
>Then, they put a billion dollars into Linux, and contributed a whole hell of a lot of code. They support the OS, and contribute. They don't try to steal other people's work by saying "well, we were part of the team, therefore we own it all, and the rest of the team is irrelevant".
>When this thing is over and it is decided that IP rights can be protected and you can win against the Linux community many other companies will step forward to collect from Linux as well.
Once you have eradicated the concept of intellectual property by destroying a licensing agreement that is based on copyright laws, I have no doubt that the other scavengers will come out of the woodwork to pick the corpse of Linux clean.
>OpenSource is really good but not for business
Well that all depends: if you've based your whole business model on one OS, or profiting from the OS directly, it isn't going to be good for YOU. So why don't you do like the record companies are doing now, and instead of litigating to destroy rights, you change your business model...Oh...you mean they're not doing that either?
>I have had enough of the "SW for free" mind set at the customer site
Perhaps you need to be in another business. If the business environment is changing to one in which you can't compete, you either get out, or you compete better. Some free software is better than the commercial stuff. Most isn't. Sell your strengths, sell support, or sell responsiveness to the customer. Stop trying to ram your outmoded business model down people's throats by destroying fundamental rights and freedoms as a means to an end!
> Please, who can earn money off Linux? RedHat certainly cannot, the only reason they are still in Business is because of the interest they get from their invested IPO monies.
Ummm... Just stepped out of a time machine from somewhere in the past? Red Hat is now turning a profit, in cas you hadn't noticed. Not a lot, but it's steadily growing. IBM seems to be doing just fine, making money off of hardware... that is running Linux. They don't exactly turn a "profit" off the OS, but it saves them lots of R&D money that they'd otherwise have to spend on outdated OS'es that no one else really wants to write new applications for.
BTW, the GPL does protect Intellectual Property. It just doesn't allow corporations to PIRATE that technology from smaller developers - the people who wrote the code in the first place. SCO isn't concerned with "protecting" IP. They want to be able to legally PIRATE it themselves to put it in their proprietary OS.
Ummm... Just stepped out of a time machine from somewhere in the past? Red Hat is now turning a profit, in cas you hadn't noticed. Not a lot, but it's steadily growing. IBM seems to be doing just fine, making money off of hardware... that is running Linux. They don't exactly turn a "profit" off the OS, but it saves them lots of R&D money that they'd otherwise have to spend on outdated OS'es that no one else really wants to write new applications for.
BTW, the GPL does protect Intellectual Property. It just doesn't allow corporations to PIRATE that technology from smaller developers - the people who wrote the code in the first place. SCO isn't concerned with "protecting" IP. They want to be able to legally PIRATE it themselves to put it in their proprietary OS.
"BTW, the GPL does protect Intellectual Property. It just doesn't allow corporations to PIRATE that technology from smaller developers - the people who wrote the code in the first place. "
Thats amazingly naive<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Notice how the people making the software that Redhat and IBM uses in their businesses are NOT paid. Not paid in any way, not for man-hours, not for products, not for services, not for support, not for anything. IBM and Redhats "suits" investors are the ones in the end making money.
The GPL has turned programmers into big coorporations unpaid slaves. There are a handfull of exceptions but generally thats the rule.
Thats amazingly naive<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Notice how the people making the software that Redhat and IBM uses in their businesses are NOT paid. Not paid in any way, not for man-hours, not for products, not for services, not for support, not for anything. IBM and Redhats "suits" investors are the ones in the end making money.
The GPL has turned programmers into big coorporations unpaid slaves. There are a handfull of exceptions but generally thats the rule.
<whack, whack, whack>
And I'll keep beating you with this dictionary until you figure out the difference between "slave" and "volunteer"!
And I'll keep beating you with this dictionary until you figure out the difference between "slave" and "volunteer"!
Even Stallman himself doesn't claim that companies should be unable to profit from Free Software. That is rather they point of ANY software: to be put to good use.
The GPL only prevents IBM or Redhat from hijacking ownership of the software they exploit.
IBM can't "embrace+extend" or prevent anyone else from entering the market and executing the same business model that they do.
Also, IBM and Redhat both PAY for Free Software development to be done. They aren't exactly the leeches that you make them out to be.
The GPL only prevents IBM or Redhat from hijacking ownership of the software they exploit.
IBM can't "embrace+extend" or prevent anyone else from entering the market and executing the same business model that they do.
Also, IBM and Redhat both PAY for Free Software development to be done. They aren't exactly the leeches that you make them out to be.
Uh... I write *tons* of Open Source software, every year and am paid ***handsomely***.
Another point along the same lines: Most software is simply NOT sold. Many employers pay a salaried programmer to develop lots of in-house software -- never intended for retail shelves.
It would be hard to estimate the percentage, industry-wide. But in *my* 20-year careed as a programmer, only 1% of the total lines of code I've written were for a retail product. Thousands of lines of code I wrote years ago are still being used, today -- on PCs on factory floors, on thin clients in warehouses, by the guy who reads your gas or electric meter, by the teller who cashes your check, etc.
Another point along the same lines: Most software is simply NOT sold. Many employers pay a salaried programmer to develop lots of in-house software -- never intended for retail shelves.
It would be hard to estimate the percentage, industry-wide. But in *my* 20-year careed as a programmer, only 1% of the total lines of code I've written were for a retail product. Thousands of lines of code I wrote years ago are still being used, today -- on PCs on factory floors, on thin clients in warehouses, by the guy who reads your gas or electric meter, by the teller who cashes your check, etc.
if i do code for free, it is my choice. i don't have to do it.
what sco is trying to do is to prevent people gpl'd stuff yet they themselfs tout that how great legend will be with samba3 and all
what sco is trying to do is to prevent people gpl'd stuff yet they themselfs tout that how great legend will be with samba3 and all
> what sco is trying to do is to prevent people gpl'd stuff...
Actually, what SCO is trying to do is to pirate what other people have written, and then take credit for it.
Think about it. SCO wants to take GPL software and sell it. RedHat takes GPL software and sells it. The difference is that RedHat plays by the rules. They "pay" the developers - first by giving proper recognition to the copyright owners, and second, by contributing their own modifications back to the community. RedHat isn't a perfect company, but generally speaking, it tries to do the Right Thing.
Both companies are trying to make money off of Copyrighted software. One (RH) is doing it legally. The other (SCO) is trying to do it illegally. One will succeed, though they will not likely ever reach the size of M$. The other will eventually be driven into the ground and be forgotten.
Actually, what SCO is trying to do is to pirate what other people have written, and then take credit for it.
Think about it. SCO wants to take GPL software and sell it. RedHat takes GPL software and sells it. The difference is that RedHat plays by the rules. They "pay" the developers - first by giving proper recognition to the copyright owners, and second, by contributing their own modifications back to the community. RedHat isn't a perfect company, but generally speaking, it tries to do the Right Thing.
Both companies are trying to make money off of Copyrighted software. One (RH) is doing it legally. The other (SCO) is trying to do it illegally. One will succeed, though they will not likely ever reach the size of M$. The other will eventually be driven into the ground and be forgotten.
well the day that everyone learns how to program is the day that there will not be programmers being paid(or at least paid very little). There are several people who get paid for coding opensource software and there are people making money off of opensource. While a large amount of people are doing it on a volunteer basis there are still several whos jobs are solely programming opensource software.
People can be "paid" in more than just money. Try reading <A HREF="http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/" TITLE="catb.org">The Cathedral and the Bazaar</a catb.org> for a treatment of what seems to motivate true Software Engineers.
That's utter BS. No one is forced to write Free Software. As a developer, I know what I can choose to do and I choose to do this.
Darl? Blake? Which one of you posted this?
Heh. Yet another misguided fool who thinks OSS is all about cost-free software. Hint: 1.) It's about having the freedom to control your own destiny when it comes to your IT investment. It's not the software vendors investment yet they seem to think they own your equipment and software. Check the onerous licensing agreements to see how they view your investment. 2.) Companies working with OSS make a profit when they provide better service than their competitors. Remember service? I'm betting you work for one of the software vendors that have gotten the idea into their collective heads that the customers owes them something regardless of the pitiful level of service your company chooses to provide. If you don't perform, you die. The big software companies have gotten lazy and expect to have their double digit profits handed to them on a silver platter after foisting their crappy products on the public and then absolving themselves of any liability through their clever EULAs. Now that's innovation!
Go troll somewhere else. (I've already wasted enough time responding to you.)
RedHat makes a profit. IBM makes a huge profit. HP make a sizable profit. Weta Digital makes a profit. We all profit from the research being done on Linux. My company makes a profit by selling firewalls running on Linux. Novell will find itself springing back to relevancy because of Linux and third world nations can concentrate on building their own software industry instead of shipping a huge persentage of their earned incomes to other countries. Growth rates for Linux are faster than any other OS and that is impressive when you factor in the fact that Linux for Buisness has only been around for three years. Just because you can not adapt does not mean the rest of us should live in the past and protect the status quo.
I'm not the guy you replied to but...
Redhat does barely make a profit. Most of their revenue is made on per-seat licenses of their "Redhat enterprise linux". They now use the same businessmodel as Microsoft except that they don't pay the workers actually doing their product.
IBM is a service company. That they can sell services has nothing to do with the parent posters problem of selling software. IBM likes linux because it basically gives them free labour.
Not that this means I agree with SCO or anything.
Redhat does barely make a profit. Most of their revenue is made on per-seat licenses of their "Redhat enterprise linux". They now use the same businessmodel as Microsoft except that they don't pay the workers actually doing their product.
IBM is a service company. That they can sell services has nothing to do with the parent posters problem of selling software. IBM likes linux because it basically gives them free labour.
Not that this means I agree with SCO or anything.
You are right about being harder for software companies to make a buck, when there's a free alternative... however, the fact that there is a free alternative should be seen as a catalyst for companies to make better, competitive software. Also, the Open Source solution cannot cover the entire spectrum of software alternatives. For example, there are few, and not really very competitive (there are some notable exceptions) games in the Open Source arena. And a big percentage (some even say 90%)of the software business lies in the "custom software" market.
So, the Linux business models requires companies to forget about closed-source monopolies and concentrate in the service-giving side of business. This puts some power back in small developers, as they can easily have access to the technology in order to make working and competitive solutions.
If Red Hat does little business now, then is high time for them to rethink their corporate strategies, and strive for a better model. You rightfully point at IBM as being a service company, and therefore not only does it not feel threatened by Open Source, but it feels it is good for business and contribute to it.
Software should not be a commodity, something you buy and sell (some notable exceptions can be pointed here, such as games and the likes). Rather, you establish a support and customization business on top of it. Anyway, right now, Microsoft does little new software (it rather concentrates in enhancing and supposedly improving their same old programs: Windows and Office). This is not software making, it is maintainance work, and support. Why should you pay for the next version of Windows, only because they f*cked it up with the last one?
Bottom line: you cannot fight what's free. We're having a near total monopoly right now because there was not such an alternative as Linux. When Linux will establish itself as a "mainstream" system (I mean when it will reach critical mass in the desktop arena), then we will have a full working base, on top of which every company and individual is free to add, to make a buck or only to solve a problem.
The availability of source could be meaningless to an individual that simply wants to play a game or write an e-mail, but could be critical for another company. It allows them to make better solutions, to test it against the base OS and decide if problems are created within their code or within the OS, and repair the problem no matter where it is.
I'm a programmer, and many times I have faced the scenario in which my program does some silly things, and I simply cannot find a reason why, whithin my code. Can I take a look at the OS's source to see if the problem lies there, or if it is because I'm using some API the wrong way? No, I can't, with current proprietary OSes. So I release a buggy thing just because I cannot assume anything the OS does.
This is hardly improvement, this is hardly making better technology. It is making more bucks... and, for my 2 cents on the matter, I couldn't give less if Red Hat or IBM or Microsoft make a buck or not. They're there to compete. They had their nice time already, they made their harvest of dollars. If they cannot do their living in the present state of things, so let them hit the bankrupcy court and let others more capable take their places.
So, the Linux business models requires companies to forget about closed-source monopolies and concentrate in the service-giving side of business. This puts some power back in small developers, as they can easily have access to the technology in order to make working and competitive solutions.
If Red Hat does little business now, then is high time for them to rethink their corporate strategies, and strive for a better model. You rightfully point at IBM as being a service company, and therefore not only does it not feel threatened by Open Source, but it feels it is good for business and contribute to it.
Software should not be a commodity, something you buy and sell (some notable exceptions can be pointed here, such as games and the likes). Rather, you establish a support and customization business on top of it. Anyway, right now, Microsoft does little new software (it rather concentrates in enhancing and supposedly improving their same old programs: Windows and Office). This is not software making, it is maintainance work, and support. Why should you pay for the next version of Windows, only because they f*cked it up with the last one?
Bottom line: you cannot fight what's free. We're having a near total monopoly right now because there was not such an alternative as Linux. When Linux will establish itself as a "mainstream" system (I mean when it will reach critical mass in the desktop arena), then we will have a full working base, on top of which every company and individual is free to add, to make a buck or only to solve a problem.
The availability of source could be meaningless to an individual that simply wants to play a game or write an e-mail, but could be critical for another company. It allows them to make better solutions, to test it against the base OS and decide if problems are created within their code or within the OS, and repair the problem no matter where it is.
I'm a programmer, and many times I have faced the scenario in which my program does some silly things, and I simply cannot find a reason why, whithin my code. Can I take a look at the OS's source to see if the problem lies there, or if it is because I'm using some API the wrong way? No, I can't, with current proprietary OSes. So I release a buggy thing just because I cannot assume anything the OS does.
This is hardly improvement, this is hardly making better technology. It is making more bucks... and, for my 2 cents on the matter, I couldn't give less if Red Hat or IBM or Microsoft make a buck or not. They're there to compete. They had their nice time already, they made their harvest of dollars. If they cannot do their living in the present state of things, so let them hit the bankrupcy court and let others more capable take their places.
You assert, for some reason, that Red Hat is using the same business model as MS. If you really believe that, I encourage you to go into business selling copies of MS software. Publically. Advertise. Since it the same business model, you have nothing to fear. People do that with Red Hat all the time.
Now *I* wouldn't do that. I don't think they have the same business model at all. I think that lawyers would come down on you like a load of bricks. But if you *do* really believe what you are asserting...
O, Enterprise. OK, only copy the home editions. The point still stands.
Now *I* wouldn't do that. I don't think they have the same business model at all. I think that lawyers would come down on you like a load of bricks. But if you *do* really believe what you are asserting...
O, Enterprise. OK, only copy the home editions. The point still stands.
What you posted was a non sequitor (basically, that means you're stupid). Whether Red Hat's business model is viable has nothing to do with SCO's alleged infringement "claims".
Pleeze SCO help protect me from that awful bad competition so I can charge big $ to reinvent the wheel for nth time!
OpenSource is really good but not for business.
Just in case some readers thought that above quote might have some truth in it, let me point out that Open Source in general, and Linux in particular, is excellent for business. Businesses using it no longer have to pay outrageous amounts of money to Microsoft. This directly reduces their costs.
Remember that most businesses are not in the business of selling software.
Just in case some readers thought that above quote might have some truth in it, let me point out that Open Source in general, and Linux in particular, is excellent for business. Businesses using it no longer have to pay outrageous amounts of money to Microsoft. This directly reduces their costs.
Remember that most businesses are not in the business of selling software.
Good observation. Parasites are good for parasites, but do nothing to increase the "Gross National Wealth"
OpenSource is really good but not for business.
Right on. You tell 'em! Open source has no place in UNIX. That said, I'm sure you're just itching to go remove all those nasty little open source programs you have infesting your nice proprietary UNIX box, like sendmail, or perl. Wouldn't be surprised if you had gcc infesting that box, too. Let's get rid of that, too. While you're at it, get rid of python, too. Have a webserver on that box? Better not be apache.
Grow up. You're as bad as the extremists that go the other way and state that free software is the ONLY answer. Take your blinders off and look a what works. Some of it will be proprietary and some of it will be open source.
If you sell hardware, the OS is an expense, which never goes away, because you must continue update it to perform better, support new hardware, etc.
For (new) SCO and Microsoft, an OS is a confidence game. They hype their product, and then that crucial feature that you upgraded to get won't show up or work right until the next release (which won't be free).
Free software is capitalism at its best: as technology improves, the expense of a resource goes down. In this case, it is the technology of communication that allows those who rely on the resource to divide the costs equitably among themselves.
MS and SCO can't have people finding out about it, or soon no-one will fall for their scam.
For (new) SCO and Microsoft, an OS is a confidence game. They hype their product, and then that crucial feature that you upgraded to get won't show up or work right until the next release (which won't be free).
Free software is capitalism at its best: as technology improves, the expense of a resource goes down. In this case, it is the technology of communication that allows those who rely on the resource to divide the costs equitably among themselves.
MS and SCO can't have people finding out about it, or soon no-one will fall for their scam.
I have looked as SCO's evidence, it doesn't hold up, so I won't even bother wasting time commenting on that. The more important point is the business model which you claim is flawed.
I don't agree that the Linux business model is unworkable, it has a powerful cash flow mechanism. The software isn't free, it requires maintanance and service. This is a change in business models. Instead of selling a static product i.e. software packages, sell the customer a high level of service for the same price, and provide the software for free. By sharing the OS cost to develop a stable platform, with rock solid and powerful features companies have a starting place for providing value to the customer on all levels. Linux also gives the customer control of their upgrade path and a readily scalable system. For the customer, this allows them to bid the project in ways that were impossible a few years ago because they were locked into proprietary systems. For the hardware manufacturers this gives them a strong connection with the customer, in the past the OS stood between them and the customer, now it is a more direct relationship. For particular vendors, that in the past had difficulty getting support for their products, as with Microsoft, they can readily gain access to the full OS. You have all the ingredients for a great operation that benefits both the customer and the seller. It is a promising business model. Sure there are some things to iron out, but if you are tired of getting beaten down, perhaps you are fighting market forces that will eventually make you obsolete. Assuming the Linux pricing model doesn't get you, Microsoft will. The point of Linux is not that it is free, but rather it offers FREEDOM to its use
I don't agree that the Linux business model is unworkable, it has a powerful cash flow mechanism. The software isn't free, it requires maintanance and service. This is a change in business models. Instead of selling a static product i.e. software packages, sell the customer a high level of service for the same price, and provide the software for free. By sharing the OS cost to develop a stable platform, with rock solid and powerful features companies have a starting place for providing value to the customer on all levels. Linux also gives the customer control of their upgrade path and a readily scalable system. For the customer, this allows them to bid the project in ways that were impossible a few years ago because they were locked into proprietary systems. For the hardware manufacturers this gives them a strong connection with the customer, in the past the OS stood between them and the customer, now it is a more direct relationship. For particular vendors, that in the past had difficulty getting support for their products, as with Microsoft, they can readily gain access to the full OS. You have all the ingredients for a great operation that benefits both the customer and the seller. It is a promising business model. Sure there are some things to iron out, but if you are tired of getting beaten down, perhaps you are fighting market forces that will eventually make you obsolete. Assuming the Linux pricing model doesn't get you, Microsoft will. The point of Linux is not that it is free, but rather it offers FREEDOM to its use
Then don't have your software work under Linux. It's quite simple. Have it done for UnixWare and OpenServer instead, if that's what you want. Who cares if open source/free software is good for your business or not.
Fsck you!
Seriously, that's the only logical response - Fsck you!
You think that your ability to profit trumps our freedom?!?
You seriously need a hardcore lesson in reality.
And you'd better hope that SCO loses this battle.
That DDoS is the tip of the iceberg, and if SCO win, a lot of very smart and passionate people are going to be very much disenfranchised. If even 10% of those people turn around and start something less civil, all of those who support actions like this are going to wish that they didn't support SCO very quickly.
Your greed will ultimately be your undoing. If you're failing, it's because you aren't good enough to win. Right? That *IS* the capitalist argument, is it not? Are you a Free Market Capitalist, or a fascist?
To me, you sound like a fascist! You want someone to step in and make sure that you can rule over everyone else.
Fsck off! This is not the 1800s.
You sir, are one of the most unrealistic people I have ever read a comment from.
You are the primary example of why Karl Marx' writings are still relevent.
Seriously, that's the only logical response - Fsck you!
You think that your ability to profit trumps our freedom?!?
You seriously need a hardcore lesson in reality.
And you'd better hope that SCO loses this battle.
That DDoS is the tip of the iceberg, and if SCO win, a lot of very smart and passionate people are going to be very much disenfranchised. If even 10% of those people turn around and start something less civil, all of those who support actions like this are going to wish that they didn't support SCO very quickly.
Your greed will ultimately be your undoing. If you're failing, it's because you aren't good enough to win. Right? That *IS* the capitalist argument, is it not? Are you a Free Market Capitalist, or a fascist?
To me, you sound like a fascist! You want someone to step in and make sure that you can rule over everyone else.
Fsck off! This is not the 1800s.
You sir, are one of the most unrealistic people I have ever read a comment from.
You are the primary example of why Karl Marx' writings are still relevent.
You're denying people access to software and charging them to undo that denial. The small good you do your business by accumulating money is offset by the large harm you do others in denying them access to the software.
Think about spammers: every big mailout collectively uses up someone's entire lifetime in recognising and deleting spam that passes the filters. The small good done to the spammer by earning $10-100k per mailout has to be contra'd against the collective loss of someone's entire career. Is your entire career worth only $10-100k?
MandrakeSoft is making money now, and they're very big on the GPL. Debian seems to do fine without making money. The problem is not with Open Source software, it is with the obsolete business models of its competitors. Inasmuch as Linux distributors also adhere to those models, they are limiting themselves by those models.
Open Source relies on the protection of IP. The SCO Group has trampled IP by ripping the headers from BSD software (and were stupid enough to leak one of those instances as an example of code "stolen from" them). Not only are they theives and extortioners, they're also incompetents and morons!
Think about spammers: every big mailout collectively uses up someone's entire lifetime in recognising and deleting spam that passes the filters. The small good done to the spammer by earning $10-100k per mailout has to be contra'd against the collective loss of someone's entire career. Is your entire career worth only $10-100k?
MandrakeSoft is making money now, and they're very big on the GPL. Debian seems to do fine without making money. The problem is not with Open Source software, it is with the obsolete business models of its competitors. Inasmuch as Linux distributors also adhere to those models, they are limiting themselves by those models.
Open Source relies on the protection of IP. The SCO Group has trampled IP by ripping the headers from BSD software (and were stupid enough to leak one of those instances as an example of code "stolen from" them). Not only are they theives and extortioners, they're also incompetents and morons!
But you have to agree that at the very least, there's nothing wrong with a little competition. Open source solutions aren't for you? Fine. Let the marketplace decide that to be sure for themselves. Some people are so quick to write off a good deal that makes sense just because the majority are going with something else.
Let me give you an example. Linden Hall - a school where I manage IT at switched to Open/StarOffice. There were a number of considerations, cost was but one of many. There was also internationalization (we have students here from Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.), standardization amongst the students and staff (students and staff come to us with all sorts of different versions of Word, Works, Lotus, you name it), and distribution or licensing rights.
Open/StarOffice won on all counts. Now, is it a better program than MS Office XP? No. Certainly not. Is it close? Yes. Will it do what we need it to do here at the school? No doubt about it - it has for two years running now.
And you should see OOo 1.1 if you haven't already, it's totally amazing! Output to PDF or Flash formats now, increased MS compatibility, better font support, better international support, the works! How much does it cost to get MS Office to output to PDF? It's certainly not free! How about to an open file format like XML? "Oh sorry Mr./Mrs. Customer, you'll need the Enterprise edition of Office 2003 for that feature!"
The pressure is certainly on MS to deliver something that will be affordable and provide the sort of functionality we require. The way they simply 'give away' academic Office versions for $150 at Staples should be some indication of this. The full version is well over $400 - how many non-academic home users do you suppose will realistically be purchasing that?
But OOo is free and legally so. Every student and every staff member has a copy here if they want it. Now I work at a private all-girls school, but think about this for a minute. How much of your local public school taxes go right back to Microsoft or some other closed source firm? Couldn't that money be better spent elsewhere?
Shouldn't it be?
Chuck Hunnefield
Technology Coordinator
admin@NOSPAMMlindenhall.org
Linden Hall School for Girls
Let me give you an example. Linden Hall - a school where I manage IT at switched to Open/StarOffice. There were a number of considerations, cost was but one of many. There was also internationalization (we have students here from Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.), standardization amongst the students and staff (students and staff come to us with all sorts of different versions of Word, Works, Lotus, you name it), and distribution or licensing rights.
Open/StarOffice won on all counts. Now, is it a better program than MS Office XP? No. Certainly not. Is it close? Yes. Will it do what we need it to do here at the school? No doubt about it - it has for two years running now.
And you should see OOo 1.1 if you haven't already, it's totally amazing! Output to PDF or Flash formats now, increased MS compatibility, better font support, better international support, the works! How much does it cost to get MS Office to output to PDF? It's certainly not free! How about to an open file format like XML? "Oh sorry Mr./Mrs. Customer, you'll need the Enterprise edition of Office 2003 for that feature!"
The pressure is certainly on MS to deliver something that will be affordable and provide the sort of functionality we require. The way they simply 'give away' academic Office versions for $150 at Staples should be some indication of this. The full version is well over $400 - how many non-academic home users do you suppose will realistically be purchasing that?
But OOo is free and legally so. Every student and every staff member has a copy here if they want it. Now I work at a private all-girls school, but think about this for a minute. How much of your local public school taxes go right back to Microsoft or some other closed source firm? Couldn't that money be better spent elsewhere?
Shouldn't it be?
Chuck Hunnefield
Technology Coordinator
admin@NOSPAMMlindenhall.org
Linden Hall School for Girls
Dear UNIX fan,
I haven't seen the annual reports of RedHat or SuSe and therefore can't comment on how much they are, or are not making profit. What I can comment on, is your claim that OpenSource is not good for business.
1) For other than software manufacturers OpenSource offers tremendous possibilities to lover their software and hardware costs. It's all about imagination...
2) For companies in software business OpenSource offers competition. In general, healthy competition is always good, because it keeps you awake. No competition works as long as you don't have any, but history shows many examples of what happens when you suddenly get competition and aren't ready for it. This applies to a margarine business as well as software business.
3) Linux. This is what RedHat and SuSe do. Ok, just selling a GPL product for very low price isn't good business. The idea, why IBM, - as you imply - is paying the bills of SuSe, is that it is good for their business. Because there is no room for two Micro$ofts, other companies have to find other ways to make profit. With Linux they have an open platform to build their own (proprietary or OpenSource) products on. If they need to alter the operating system in order to get their software or hardware run better, they may just do that. (Have you ever tried to send your code to mr. Gates and asked him to include it in his operating system, because your code doesn't work otherwise? I haven't, but I think it won't be succesfull<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) This is why I'm sure that by producing good quality Linux distributions SuSe and Redhat are going to be well profitable companies in the near future, and IBM & co will still be there to pay their bills.
As a small software entrepreneur I do know that it is hard to survive in the software business, but I'd rather blame my small marketing budget than OpenSource. Anyway, I do know that a lawsuit over IP rights with SCO would most definitely put my small company to bankruptcy.
A Freedom Fan
I haven't seen the annual reports of RedHat or SuSe and therefore can't comment on how much they are, or are not making profit. What I can comment on, is your claim that OpenSource is not good for business.
1) For other than software manufacturers OpenSource offers tremendous possibilities to lover their software and hardware costs. It's all about imagination...
2) For companies in software business OpenSource offers competition. In general, healthy competition is always good, because it keeps you awake. No competition works as long as you don't have any, but history shows many examples of what happens when you suddenly get competition and aren't ready for it. This applies to a margarine business as well as software business.
3) Linux. This is what RedHat and SuSe do. Ok, just selling a GPL product for very low price isn't good business. The idea, why IBM, - as you imply - is paying the bills of SuSe, is that it is good for their business. Because there is no room for two Micro$ofts, other companies have to find other ways to make profit. With Linux they have an open platform to build their own (proprietary or OpenSource) products on. If they need to alter the operating system in order to get their software or hardware run better, they may just do that. (Have you ever tried to send your code to mr. Gates and asked him to include it in his operating system, because your code doesn't work otherwise? I haven't, but I think it won't be succesfull<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) This is why I'm sure that by producing good quality Linux distributions SuSe and Redhat are going to be well profitable companies in the near future, and IBM & co will still be there to pay their bills.
As a small software entrepreneur I do know that it is hard to survive in the software business, but I'd rather blame my small marketing budget than OpenSource. Anyway, I do know that a lawsuit over IP rights with SCO would most definitely put my small company to bankruptcy.
A Freedom Fan
Oh yeah?
Just wait until they come knocking at *YOUR* door and we'll see what you say then... It'll probably be something along the lines of "save me FS/OSS community! Save me!"...
Or are you one of those people who says "I'm doing everything right, they'll never come for me!"?
People who think like that are idiots, plain and simple.
Yeah- we all want to go back to the bad old days, where we had to trust whatever the likes of SCO and AT&T and MS put in their binaries and called an "operating system." Unless, of course, you are a major player like a national govt. or Fortune 500 company and have huge amounts of cash so that you can buy the source license.
Open Source OS's are the best thing that has ever happened to the IT industry- even Apple sees that (in case you don't realize it, the guts of OS X are open source- care to tell us that Apple isn't making any money?)
BTW, what dept. at SCO did you say you worked in?
Open source OSs are great for applications developers as well as (corporate AND personal) end users. Do you think IBM would have dumped millions into their Linux ad campaign if open source wasn't good for them?
Say hi to Darl for me when you get back to the office- and tell him IBM is a much tougher cookie than IKON was.....
Open Source OS's are the best thing that has ever happened to the IT industry- even Apple sees that (in case you don't realize it, the guts of OS X are open source- care to tell us that Apple isn't making any money?)
BTW, what dept. at SCO did you say you worked in?
Open source OSs are great for applications developers as well as (corporate AND personal) end users. Do you think IBM would have dumped millions into their Linux ad campaign if open source wasn't good for them?
Say hi to Darl for me when you get back to the office- and tell him IBM is a much tougher cookie than IKON was.....
I'm sorry about your misfortune. If you would take an Economics 101 class, you'd learn that, in the end, the price of a commodity good becomes the price needed to create a distribute one single instance of it. The price to make another copy of a piece of software and distribute it over a web site is essentially $0 (low enough that banner ads can often cover it completely), so ultimately the cost of commodity software is $0.
Smart companies realize that. They realize that OS's are now a commodity (Linux & BSD's are proof), database servers are a commodity (PostgreSQL & MySQL, and SAPDB), web servers are a commodity, etc.
So the only thing to do is move up the food chain. SAP realized that the database was a commodity, so they GPL'd one and started giving it away for free. They're selling ERM software that runs on top of the database. It'll be a commodity someday, too.
You're correct that there's no money to be made from open source software. Sure, some can make a living. But it'll never support an industry like Microsoft or Oracle. That's okay, that's because it's a commodity product.
I learned this in high school, didn't anybody else?
Smart companies realize that. They realize that OS's are now a commodity (Linux & BSD's are proof), database servers are a commodity (PostgreSQL & MySQL, and SAPDB), web servers are a commodity, etc.
So the only thing to do is move up the food chain. SAP realized that the database was a commodity, so they GPL'd one and started giving it away for free. They're selling ERM software that runs on top of the database. It'll be a commodity someday, too.
You're correct that there's no money to be made from open source software. Sure, some can make a living. But it'll never support an industry like Microsoft or Oracle. That's okay, that's because it's a commodity product.
I learned this in high school, didn't anybody else?
Let's see, Linux shops ReHat and SuSE making money. SCO, needs to sue people to make money. The only Unix shops making money are the ones who do Linux or other open source apps. It's a GNU world and it no longer matters if under GNU you have Linux, Unix or HURD.
What people don't understand, McBride insists, is that SCO's legal actions aren't just about SCO's IP, Unix, and the GPL anymore, it's a broader issue...
And that broader issue pretty much covers SCO executive stock options and other stock-related compensation, the value of Canopy's stake, and buyout price. He conveniently forgets that SCO/Caldera was an eager participant, sponsor, and beneficiary of the Linux community for 8+ years. Mel Brooks couldn't come up with dribble like this for one of his parodies. Michael Moore should follow these guys around with a camera and microphone - he'd get at least one major comedy film out of it.
This is the kind of statement where if it was made on television, people on the city sidewalks would have to dodge all the TV sets being tossed out the windows.
And that broader issue pretty much covers SCO executive stock options and other stock-related compensation, the value of Canopy's stake, and buyout price. He conveniently forgets that SCO/Caldera was an eager participant, sponsor, and beneficiary of the Linux community for 8+ years. Mel Brooks couldn't come up with dribble like this for one of his parodies. Michael Moore should follow these guys around with a camera and microphone - he'd get at least one major comedy film out of it.
This is the kind of statement where if it was made on television, people on the city sidewalks would have to dodge all the TV sets being tossed out the windows.
I don't think it is productive to say no one is buying this shit... trust me, lots of people are buying it. And it's the same people linux -needs- to survive in the corporate world (for those of you who care about wider adoption of linux).
Stock price isn't calculated by sales. A company's stock price is the sum of all future dividends that the stock could possibly yield. Of course, since they don't have any more sales, the only source of that cash would be the lawsuit against IBM...
Considering it has leapt from a price of about a dollar to almost 15 dollars at the moment I am writing this, it seems an AWFUL LOT of investors (which include other corporations) seem to agree with and are willing to bet on SCO's winning.
The problem isn't going to go away by laughing at it. It's kinda pathetic. Darl McBride is lying extravagantly, but there are some things he is telling the truth about... when he says linux users really don't have a clue. He's right, you don't have a clue.
And that is why he just might win.
Stock price isn't calculated by sales. A company's stock price is the sum of all future dividends that the stock could possibly yield. Of course, since they don't have any more sales, the only source of that cash would be the lawsuit against IBM...
Considering it has leapt from a price of about a dollar to almost 15 dollars at the moment I am writing this, it seems an AWFUL LOT of investors (which include other corporations) seem to agree with and are willing to bet on SCO's winning.
The problem isn't going to go away by laughing at it. It's kinda pathetic. Darl McBride is lying extravagantly, but there are some things he is telling the truth about... when he says linux users really don't have a clue. He's right, you don't have a clue.
And that is why he just might win.
This is NOT about SCO IP, this Is about SCO hoping to get their grubby hands around the Linux kernel, and hijack all the development by millions of small open source developers over the last few years.
Do not think for one minute that this will be over if and when SCO is crushed, there will always be criminals hiding behind the flag of law, trying to steal whatever they can.
Do not think for one minute that this will be over if and when SCO is crushed, there will always be criminals hiding behind the flag of law, trying to steal whatever they can.
Yeah, nobody has a clue about the "hundreds of lines of code" or "hundreds of files" or "millions of lines of code" (depending on which McBride interview you read) of Linux kernel code that was illegally copied or "obfuscated" from SCO's copyrighted IP. That's because SCO refuses to tell anybody. These were presumably found by a team of "MIT mathematicians" that later turned out not to be at MIT, but SCO won't tell us who they are - there are "confidentiality agreements", you see.
They did show two examples under NDA at SCOForum, but after these were refuted Sontag claimed they weren't even part of their evidence. Sontag basically said "HAHAHAHA all you lamers, that's not even close to what we've got!". I wonder if he shared that interesting followup with the conference attendees.
But even though SCO refuses to disclose its evidence, they're still demanding all Linux users to pay SCO exorbitant license fees that take away end-user rights; those that refuse to pay will be liable to unspecified damages down the road. They made a big announcement that a "Fortune 500 company" had purchased licenses, but they won't say who it was because of - you guessed it - "confidentiality agreements". But they've been promising for the past month to send out unsolicited invoices to Linux users worldwide in the "coming weeks and months". No word on when that's going to happen - that must be more confidential information.
So there's a reason nobody has any idea about what SCO is actually claiming.
They did show two examples under NDA at SCOForum, but after these were refuted Sontag claimed they weren't even part of their evidence. Sontag basically said "HAHAHAHA all you lamers, that's not even close to what we've got!". I wonder if he shared that interesting followup with the conference attendees.
But even though SCO refuses to disclose its evidence, they're still demanding all Linux users to pay SCO exorbitant license fees that take away end-user rights; those that refuse to pay will be liable to unspecified damages down the road. They made a big announcement that a "Fortune 500 company" had purchased licenses, but they won't say who it was because of - you guessed it - "confidentiality agreements". But they've been promising for the past month to send out unsolicited invoices to Linux users worldwide in the "coming weeks and months". No word on when that's going to happen - that must be more confidential information.
So there's a reason nobody has any idea about what SCO is actually claiming.
"...nobody has a clue about the "hundreds of lines of code" or "hundreds of files" or "millions of lines of code" (depending on which McBride interview you read)..."
It's not just different interviews, it's DIFFERENT MCBRIDES! That's right, SCO is cloning their top execs, so that they can continue the fight even if someone gets fed up with their crap and nukes Utah. Unfortunately, they are having some stability problems with the clones' mental processes, unless they keep their heads at or below liquid nitrogen temperatures.
What has happened is that reporters have caught the various clones in varying states of neural decay, thus the confusing and contradictory public statements.
Our best sources believe that the real McBride is lying low in a brothel in Billings, Montana.
It's not just different interviews, it's DIFFERENT MCBRIDES! That's right, SCO is cloning their top execs, so that they can continue the fight even if someone gets fed up with their crap and nukes Utah. Unfortunately, they are having some stability problems with the clones' mental processes, unless they keep their heads at or below liquid nitrogen temperatures.
What has happened is that reporters have caught the various clones in varying states of neural decay, thus the confusing and contradictory public statements.
Our best sources believe that the real McBride is lying low in a brothel in Billings, Montana.
considering it has leapt from a price of about a dollar to almost 15 dollars at the moment I am writing this, it seems an AWFUL LOT of investors (which include other corporations) seem to agree with and are willing to bet on SCO's winning.
If you're confident that SCOX is going to win a $3 Billion judgement from IBM then you would be willing to pay something near $230 per share ( $3 bil / 13 million shares of SCOX) If you believe SCOX will also prevail on their derivative works theory (All your source are belong to us ) then you've got to expect that to at least be worth another $3 billion. Judging from what I'm seeing I'd say the invester community is saying the odds of SCOX winning aren't any better than 1 in 30 ( $460<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/share ) / ($14/45<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/share ).
Who knows better then investors? Insiders. They would know more about SCOX's secret evidence than outsiders would and hence would have a better feel for SCOX's odds of prevailing. If you have something that you believe is worth $460 then you don't sell it for $14.45. On the other hand if you know it is only worth ~$1 then you you're happy to sell it at $14.45. This explains why insiders adn the Canopy Group are dumping SCOX. Plain and simple they know they haven't a prayer and now is their opportunity to cash in.
If you're confident that SCOX is going to win a $3 Billion judgement from IBM then you would be willing to pay something near $230 per share ( $3 bil / 13 million shares of SCOX) If you believe SCOX will also prevail on their derivative works theory (All your source are belong to us ) then you've got to expect that to at least be worth another $3 billion. Judging from what I'm seeing I'd say the invester community is saying the odds of SCOX winning aren't any better than 1 in 30 ( $460<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/share ) / ($14/45<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/share ).
Who knows better then investors? Insiders. They would know more about SCOX's secret evidence than outsiders would and hence would have a better feel for SCOX's odds of prevailing. If you have something that you believe is worth $460 then you don't sell it for $14.45. On the other hand if you know it is only worth ~$1 then you you're happy to sell it at $14.45. This explains why insiders adn the Canopy Group are dumping SCOX. Plain and simple they know they haven't a prayer and now is their opportunity to cash in.
One thing that's being ignored is the prices that the corporations paid for the stock. I heard that when the stock price was around $10, Sun, in exchange for buying a license, was given the option to purchase, I think it was thousands of shares, at around $1/share. I don't know when the option expires, I don't know how much Sun paid for the license. But that sounds to me like...wild speculation. And the price is more in line with 1 chance in 300, or less. (After all, this same deal was also an idemnification just in case they win.)
And people though you had to go to Nevada to gamble like that!
And people though you had to go to Nevada to gamble like that!
But you fail to recognize this is not a lawsuit likely to affect regular Linux users. They can't both sue IBM and the end user because that would be double dipping and it is typically not allowed by the courts. And Linux users will be given the opportunity to strip SCO code before they are forced to pay anything. As far as the stock price, the volume has been up lately, but only a fraction of outstanding shares have been traded. A tiny percentage of current trades are what is driving this rise in share price, leading me to believe that the stock is extremely volatile. It is entirely possible the share price could collapse in an instant. It also seems that significant shareholders are laddering out of their positions with small sales designed not to arouse suspicion. This looks more like an investor feeding frenzy, and a pump and dump operation like at the end of Enron.
Obviously it is a concern to GPL software authors that they maintain compatibility with the SCO platforms, while SCO publicly abuses them, tries to get the GPL declared invalid, and while SCO
profits from selling their software and integrating it into future releases of the SCO product line.
Therefore I am trying to prepare a report, on all the things to avoid if you don't want to accidentally (oops!) permanently break SCO compatibility in GPL software that you are an author of.
I would appreciate if any readers could help fill in the blanks, especially on the requested areas, but additional suggestions, or specific tips on any of the points much appreciated.
profits from selling their software and integrating it into future releases of the SCO product line.
Therefore I am trying to prepare a report, on all the things to avoid if you don't want to accidentally (oops!) permanently break SCO compatibility in GPL software that you are an author of.
I would appreciate if any readers could help fill in the blanks, especially on the requested areas, but additional suggestions, or specific tips on any of the points much appreciated.
NOTE: This report hereby placed in public domain, use it as you wish, at your own risk!
Additional suggestions, detailed specific recommendations, comments, requested.
Obviously it is a concern to GPL software authors that they maintain compatibility with the SCO platforms, while SCO publicly abuses them, tries to get the GPL declared invalid, and while SCO
profits from selling their software and integrating it into future releases of the SCO product line.
Software authors will be aware that breaking SCO compatibility may cause problems for SCO users - (although strictly speaking that is SCO's problem, not the software author(s)', unless the author(s) have some contractual relationship with SCO or SCO customers).
SCO needs support revenue (and new sales revenue) that may depend on GPL products, to fund their PR and litigation.
Software authors, who not obligated to support SCO, presumably might want to.
Therefore here is a list of things NOT to do, if you don't want to break SCO compatibility.
1. Don't refactor your code, rearrange files, move functions between files, and rename files more logically in the same release as one which contains accidentally contains one or more SCO incompatible changes.
If you do this, it would make it harder for SCO or their partners to re-introduce any "lost" code that was necessary to support the SCO's platforms. Obviously you wouldn't want that.
2. Don't accidentally remove SCO support in a series of stages, which overlap in time with a bunch of critical security or bug fixes, without making it clear at which stages you accidentally removed SCO support.
3. Don't accidentally remove any special fixes or work rounds for SCO platforms.
4. Don't depend on functions, which are not implemented or perform differently on SCO platforms. Especially don't depend on those functions in lots of different places in your product.
In particular avoid these functions:
(please help with this list - "list 4")
5. Don't depend on compiler features that might not be available on SCO platforms. This is especially true if, as has been suggested may occur, new versions of GCC don't support SCO platforms.
In particular don't depend on these compiler features:
(please help with this list if and when GCC loses SCO support)
6. Don't put in messages that display only on SCO's platforms.
7. Don't remove support in your makefile for building the application on SCO's platforms.
8. Don't rename your functions and variables with names that conflict with SCO-specific extensions
In particular don't use these names
(please help with this list - "list 8")
9. Don't accidentally introduce code that accidentally fails if it fins SCO specific files/directories/etc.
(please help with this list - "list 9")
10. Do answer support questions from SCO and their customers in a helpful and timely fashion.
Additional suggestions, detailed specific recommendations, comments, requested.
Obviously it is a concern to GPL software authors that they maintain compatibility with the SCO platforms, while SCO publicly abuses them, tries to get the GPL declared invalid, and while SCO
profits from selling their software and integrating it into future releases of the SCO product line.
Software authors will be aware that breaking SCO compatibility may cause problems for SCO users - (although strictly speaking that is SCO's problem, not the software author(s)', unless the author(s) have some contractual relationship with SCO or SCO customers).
SCO needs support revenue (and new sales revenue) that may depend on GPL products, to fund their PR and litigation.
Software authors, who not obligated to support SCO, presumably might want to.
Therefore here is a list of things NOT to do, if you don't want to break SCO compatibility.
1. Don't refactor your code, rearrange files, move functions between files, and rename files more logically in the same release as one which contains accidentally contains one or more SCO incompatible changes.
If you do this, it would make it harder for SCO or their partners to re-introduce any "lost" code that was necessary to support the SCO's platforms. Obviously you wouldn't want that.
2. Don't accidentally remove SCO support in a series of stages, which overlap in time with a bunch of critical security or bug fixes, without making it clear at which stages you accidentally removed SCO support.
3. Don't accidentally remove any special fixes or work rounds for SCO platforms.
4. Don't depend on functions, which are not implemented or perform differently on SCO platforms. Especially don't depend on those functions in lots of different places in your product.
In particular avoid these functions:
(please help with this list - "list 4")
5. Don't depend on compiler features that might not be available on SCO platforms. This is especially true if, as has been suggested may occur, new versions of GCC don't support SCO platforms.
In particular don't depend on these compiler features:
(please help with this list if and when GCC loses SCO support)
6. Don't put in messages that display only on SCO's platforms.
7. Don't remove support in your makefile for building the application on SCO's platforms.
8. Don't rename your functions and variables with names that conflict with SCO-specific extensions
In particular don't use these names
(please help with this list - "list 8")
9. Don't accidentally introduce code that accidentally fails if it fins SCO specific files/directories/etc.
(please help with this list - "list 9")
10. Do answer support questions from SCO and their customers in a helpful and timely fashion.
No need to go through all this trouble...
Each developer, as rightful owner of his work of code, can deny SCO the right to distribute, copy or otherwise use their software. No need to make it incompatible with SCO platforms.
If SCO can back up in their GPL policy, they are implicitly saying that so can every other developer of GLPed software, that's why they cannot refuse to accept such change in distribution policy.
Just distribute your software with the notice: "This software is distributed under the General Public License, which grants you unlimited rights to copy, modify, or otherwise distribute this program. The authors, however, desire and require, as legal owners and/or copyright holders of said program, that such licensing policy should not be applied to SCO Group and subsidiaries, as their previous infringement of GPL policies invalidate them as possible candidates for GPL benefits", or something of the sort...
SCO has infringed the GPL already, since paragraph 5 of the GPL states: "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."
In my place they would say: "it is written with fire."
If Apache, or Samba, would come out with such a notice, they would be in DEEP SH*T, right to their armpits!
Each developer, as rightful owner of his work of code, can deny SCO the right to distribute, copy or otherwise use their software. No need to make it incompatible with SCO platforms.
If SCO can back up in their GPL policy, they are implicitly saying that so can every other developer of GLPed software, that's why they cannot refuse to accept such change in distribution policy.
Just distribute your software with the notice: "This software is distributed under the General Public License, which grants you unlimited rights to copy, modify, or otherwise distribute this program. The authors, however, desire and require, as legal owners and/or copyright holders of said program, that such licensing policy should not be applied to SCO Group and subsidiaries, as their previous infringement of GPL policies invalidate them as possible candidates for GPL benefits", or something of the sort...
SCO has infringed the GPL already, since paragraph 5 of the GPL states: "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."
In my place they would say: "it is written with fire."
If Apache, or Samba, would come out with such a notice, they would be in DEEP SH*T, right to their armpits!
IANAL (which means, I Am Not A Lawyer), so don't assume my notice or interpretation of the GPL is dead right... I would like hearing your opinions on this subject...
I don't believe that such terms are consistent with the GPL. Also, although SCO has said that they denied its validity, have they actually done anything that you can point to (actions rather than words) that violates it? If so, then legal actions could be brought against them, but I don't think that abusive and uncivil language violates the GPL. As I read it, it requires a series of specific actions, which, as far as I can determine, SCO continues to respect. (E.g., they continue to make the source for the binaries that they have distributed to their customers available on a public ftp site. That's one acknowledged way of making the source code available on legitimate request.)
If they *have* actually violated it, rather than just spewing venom, then it needs to be brought to the attention of someone appropirate (i.e., the copyright holder).
That said, a new license that was similar to the GPL, except for specifically denying the right to copy to those who abuse the license in the public press would certainly be legal. But it wouldn't be compatible with the GPL, and would, e.g., need to be distributed in the non-free section of Debian, or on the Commercial Products CD of Red Hat (they've probably reorganized that now, but you get the idea).
If they *have* actually violated it, rather than just spewing venom, then it needs to be brought to the attention of someone appropirate (i.e., the copyright holder).
That said, a new license that was similar to the GPL, except for specifically denying the right to copy to those who abuse the license in the public press would certainly be legal. But it wouldn't be compatible with the GPL, and would, e.g., need to be distributed in the non-free section of Debian, or on the Commercial Products CD of Red Hat (they've probably reorganized that now, but you get the idea).
This is my point, exactly. Since SCO has not done any action against GPL, and according to paragraph 5, by distributing or modifying a GPLed program you are implicitly accepting the GPL, its terms and conditions.
Therefore, SCO cannot at the same time fight the GPL and accept it... it is a contradiction.
And, also, they HAVE violated the GPL since they are claiming copyrights over GPLed code, something you cannot do, according to the license: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
This very point is also forbidding them from implanting their licensing scheme, therefore effectively imposing other restrictions on the recipients of the software. And certainly making a license for a product that is already licensed in another way is imposing restrictions.
Also, Linux, and other GLPed products, are distributed under GPL terms, and, as the GPL states, when you don't comply with the GPL it ceases to have validity for you. Therefore, GPL is no longer valid in the case of SCO, since as I pointed out earlier, SCO has in fact infringed the terms of the license. So, GPL not being valid in SCO's regard, the choice of the developer is valid.
Again, again and again, IANAL, this is just me applying some logic, so before you put somethin
Therefore, SCO cannot at the same time fight the GPL and accept it... it is a contradiction.
And, also, they HAVE violated the GPL since they are claiming copyrights over GPLed code, something you cannot do, according to the license: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
This very point is also forbidding them from implanting their licensing scheme, therefore effectively imposing other restrictions on the recipients of the software. And certainly making a license for a product that is already licensed in another way is imposing restrictions.
Also, Linux, and other GLPed products, are distributed under GPL terms, and, as the GPL states, when you don't comply with the GPL it ceases to have validity for you. Therefore, GPL is no longer valid in the case of SCO, since as I pointed out earlier, SCO has in fact infringed the terms of the license. So, GPL not being valid in SCO's regard, the choice of the developer is valid.
Again, again and again, IANAL, this is just me applying some logic, so before you put somethin
Yes, and Kashmir really belongs to Pakistan
Posted by: cornstalk on August 28, 2003 09:07 PMYes, and since coming to Pakistan and assuming my duties as Information Director and Chief Spokesman, I too have come to the realization that Pakistan has a completely legitimate claim to the whole of Kashmir.
#