Could this hurt Mac OS X: CNET: Microsoft to license Unix code
Quote:
Microsoft to license Unix code
By Scott Ard
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
May 18, 2003, 10:45 PM PT
Microsoft will license the rights to Unix technology from SCO Group, a move that could impact the battle between Windows and Linux in the market for computer operating systems.
According to a statement from Microsoft, the company will license SCO's Unix patents and the source code. That code is at the heart of a $1 billion lawsuit between SCO and IBM, which is aggressively pushing Linux as an alternative to Windows in corporate back shops.
Microsoft's Windows has a monopoly in the market for desktop operating systems, with a market share greater than 90 percent. Linux, which has been developed by thousands of contributors and can be freely obtained, has caught on as a worthy competitor in the market for corporate servers. In the past two years, Microsoft has repeatedly labeled Linux as a threat to the Redmond, Wash.-based computing giant, partly because of its low cost.
Late Sunday, Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith said acquiring the license from SCO "is representative of Microsoft's ongoing commitment to respecting intellectual property and the IT community's healthy exchange of IP through licensing. This helps to ensure IP compliance across Microsoft solutions and supports our efforts around existing products like services for Unix that further Unix interoperability."
Unix was invented more than 30 years ago by AT&T's Unix Systems Laboratories. In many ways Linux works similarly to Unix, making it relatively easy to translate Unix software to Linux.
AT&T sold the Unix intellectual property to Novell Networks, which in turn sold it to the Santa Cruz Operation. Caldera International, a seller of Linux, then acquired from SCO the Unix rights and two SCO products, OpenServer and UnixWare. Then last year, Caldera changed its name to SCO Group to reflect the fact that most of its revenue came from its SCO business and not from the Linux products.
But SCO has recently alleged that parts of the Unix source code have been copied into Linux, and it is seeking fees from Linux users. In March, SCO sued IBM for $1 billion, alleging that Big Blue had used SCO's Unix code in Linux. IBM, along with Hewlett-Packard, has been a major backer of Linux. Last week, SCO escalated the battle by sending hundreds of letters to large corporations warning them that their use of Linux could infringe on SCO's intellectual property.
SCO's letter stated, in part, "We believe that Linux infringes on our Unix intellectual property and other rights. We intend to aggressively protect and enforce these rights. Legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end user."
Some analysts said the move was an attempt by SCO to be acquired by another company--possibly Microsoft, IBM or another firm with a stake in the matter. "I guess suing IBM wasn't enough to get them acquired, so (the letters are) the next stage," Illuminata analyst Gordon Haff said.
Microsoft's public disdain of Linux stretches back more than two years.
In March 2001, Microsoft Senior Vice President Craig Mundie said releasing source code into the public domain is "unhealthy," causes security risks and "as history has shown, while this type of model may have a place, it isn't successful in building a mass market and making powerful, easy-to-use software broadly accessible to consumers."
A few months later, in an interview with CNET News.com, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates sought to warn corporate users about the GNU General Public License, which Linux is distributed under. "Some of our source codes are out there and very available, like Windows CE," Gates said. "Some generally require a license, like Windows itself. We have no objection to free software, which has been around forever. But we do think there are problems for commercial users relative to the GPL, and we are just making sure people understand the GPL.
"Unfortunately, that has been misconstrued in many ways. It's a topic that you can leap on and say, 'Microsoft doesn't make free software.' Hey, we have free software; the world will always have free software. I mean, if you characterize it that way, that's not right. But if you say to people, 'Do you understand the GPL?' And they'll say, 'Huh?' And they're pretty stunned when the Pac-Man-like nature of it is described to them."
The next stage in the fight between SCO and IBM could occur next month--SCO has threatened to revoke IBM's Unix license on June 13.
Microsoft to license Unix code
By Scott Ard
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
May 18, 2003, 10:45 PM PT
Microsoft will license the rights to Unix technology from SCO Group, a move that could impact the battle between Windows and Linux in the market for computer operating systems.
According to a statement from Microsoft, the company will license SCO's Unix patents and the source code. That code is at the heart of a $1 billion lawsuit between SCO and IBM, which is aggressively pushing Linux as an alternative to Windows in corporate back shops.
Microsoft's Windows has a monopoly in the market for desktop operating systems, with a market share greater than 90 percent. Linux, which has been developed by thousands of contributors and can be freely obtained, has caught on as a worthy competitor in the market for corporate servers. In the past two years, Microsoft has repeatedly labeled Linux as a threat to the Redmond, Wash.-based computing giant, partly because of its low cost.
Late Sunday, Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith said acquiring the license from SCO "is representative of Microsoft's ongoing commitment to respecting intellectual property and the IT community's healthy exchange of IP through licensing. This helps to ensure IP compliance across Microsoft solutions and supports our efforts around existing products like services for Unix that further Unix interoperability."
Unix was invented more than 30 years ago by AT&T's Unix Systems Laboratories. In many ways Linux works similarly to Unix, making it relatively easy to translate Unix software to Linux.
AT&T sold the Unix intellectual property to Novell Networks, which in turn sold it to the Santa Cruz Operation. Caldera International, a seller of Linux, then acquired from SCO the Unix rights and two SCO products, OpenServer and UnixWare. Then last year, Caldera changed its name to SCO Group to reflect the fact that most of its revenue came from its SCO business and not from the Linux products.
But SCO has recently alleged that parts of the Unix source code have been copied into Linux, and it is seeking fees from Linux users. In March, SCO sued IBM for $1 billion, alleging that Big Blue had used SCO's Unix code in Linux. IBM, along with Hewlett-Packard, has been a major backer of Linux. Last week, SCO escalated the battle by sending hundreds of letters to large corporations warning them that their use of Linux could infringe on SCO's intellectual property.
SCO's letter stated, in part, "We believe that Linux infringes on our Unix intellectual property and other rights. We intend to aggressively protect and enforce these rights. Legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end user."
Some analysts said the move was an attempt by SCO to be acquired by another company--possibly Microsoft, IBM or another firm with a stake in the matter. "I guess suing IBM wasn't enough to get them acquired, so (the letters are) the next stage," Illuminata analyst Gordon Haff said.
Microsoft's public disdain of Linux stretches back more than two years.
In March 2001, Microsoft Senior Vice President Craig Mundie said releasing source code into the public domain is "unhealthy," causes security risks and "as history has shown, while this type of model may have a place, it isn't successful in building a mass market and making powerful, easy-to-use software broadly accessible to consumers."
A few months later, in an interview with CNET News.com, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates sought to warn corporate users about the GNU General Public License, which Linux is distributed under. "Some of our source codes are out there and very available, like Windows CE," Gates said. "Some generally require a license, like Windows itself. We have no objection to free software, which has been around forever. But we do think there are problems for commercial users relative to the GPL, and we are just making sure people understand the GPL.
"Unfortunately, that has been misconstrued in many ways. It's a topic that you can leap on and say, 'Microsoft doesn't make free software.' Hey, we have free software; the world will always have free software. I mean, if you characterize it that way, that's not right. But if you say to people, 'Do you understand the GPL?' And they'll say, 'Huh?' And they're pretty stunned when the Pac-Man-like nature of it is described to them."
The next stage in the fight between SCO and IBM could occur next month--SCO has threatened to revoke IBM's Unix license on June 13.
Comments
Originally posted by cybermonkey
Just a thought but how does sco's lawsuit against IBM effect freeBSD and darwin?
That article is about Microsoft gaining full control over the Xenix codebase which they had licensed about 20 years ago. This has nothing to do with SCO's lawsuit against IBM, whether it's mentioned or not. Moreover, Mac OS X's kernel is _not_ FreeBSD-based. The personality is kept up-to-date from a FreeBSD codebase though.
Originally posted by Chucker
That article is about Microsoft gaining full control over the Xenix codebase which they had licensed about 20 years ago. This has nothing to do with SCO's lawsuit against IBM, whether it's mentioned or not. Moreover, Mac OS X's kernel is _not_ FreeBSD-based. The personality is kept up-to-date from a FreeBSD codebase though.
So, this cannot hurt Apple?
It surprises me a bit that MS would be attempting to add credence to SCO, though; the SCO suit sure sounds shaky to me. And opportunistic.
Hmmm.
Er, I haven't been following this one too closely though.
Originally posted by Jared
So, this cannot hurt Apple?
Maybe it indirectly will. However, there is no direct relationship between Microsoft licensing this code and Apple's UNIX operations.
I wonder if Apple's UNIX license from A/UX days still holds?
That being said, I hope all the Linux vendors kick the sh!t out of SCO. I wouldn't be surprised if when this all comes out that Caldera, who owned the Unix rites and had a Linux distro, co-mingled the code.
WinNT allegedly began as a unix variant/used a kernel similar (not sure, don't know), and perhaps SCO saw some deep pockets in MS.
MS legal may have looked over the IBM suit and said, "Ballmer, it will be cheaper to license this than to litigate it. Besides, it will give SCO money to fight IBM"
I foresee interesting times ahead. Especially since there are a couple of actors not on stage yet.
Screed
IBM could settle with SCO cheaply, drop linux, then adopt OS X instead.
SCO could be bought out by someone - IBM, Apple -- what's SCO's market capitalization?
Feh. Plink-plink... problem solved.
But seriously, why does this smaller company think they can leverage gargantuans like IBM?
Screed
The deal could put pressure on other firms to follow suit and sign license agreements. In addition, it could up the ante in a lawsuit that SCO filed against International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM - News) last March.
SCO sued IBM, alleging the world's biggest computer company abused its intellectual property rights by including some of SCO's Unix software code in a derivative version of Unix called Linux. IBM has denied the charges.
Both Linux and Unix are major rivals of Microsoft's Windows software, the dominant operating system software.
In a statement, Microsoft said the Unix license was intended to ensure that the software maker did not violate any intellectual property rights when developing products that allow computers with differing operating systems to work in tandem with one another.
"This helps to ensure IP (intellectual property) compliance across Microsoft solutions and supports our efforts around existing products, like services for Unix that further Unix interoperability," Brad Smith, Microsoft general counsel and senior vice president, said in a statement.
talk about a crappy deal. i see no way that this should affect the end user, they did nothing wrong.
Most likely, if IBM saw they would lose, they would settle - if SCO was willing. They'd want a blanket license for their current users and would negotiate future licensing.
No matter what, the next version would not be free.
That's the whole pointof this, to smack down Linux as a free or cheap alternative. I hope they succeed. It will be better for Apple.
I dislike that Commie "free-software" stuff anyway. Just like "free love,"it leads to nothing but venereal disease.
:-)
Originally posted by jccbin
It affects end users most. The courts could easily rule that they are using illegal software and force IBM/RedHat/ whoever to remove it at IBM/etc's expense.
Most likely, if IBM saw they would lose, they would settle - if SCO was willing. They'd want a blanket license for their current users and would negotiate future licensing.
No matter what, the next version would not be free.
That's the whole pointof this, to smack down Linux as a free or cheap alternative. I hope they succeed. It will be better for Apple.
I dislike that Commie "free-software" stuff anyway. Just like "free love,"it leads to nothing but venereal disease.
:-)
i kind of agree with you there.
After using linux for years and posting in linux forums the attitude of linux has changed from "hey lets all pool our ideas together, share our thoughts and lets make a great app/product" to "no software belongs to anyone or company and were going to backward engineer your property without your permission because everyone has the right to free software".
Linux has been buggered by freeloaders who are just intent on stealing in the name of openness. Though i wonder at M$ timming at striking a deal with sco to win back its server share.
Anyways, Darwin is FreeBSD based. How can it be synced with FreeBSD and not be based on it? And then there's the fact that the head of Apple's Open Technologies Group is Jordan Hubbard, former FreeBSD core member. My understanding of Darwin is that it's an Apple-modified Mach kernel, with the FreeBSD libraries and utilities included, along with some Apple stuff like NetInfo.
Barto
Originally posted by jccbin
It affects end users most. The courts could easily rule that they are using illegal software and force IBM/RedHat/ whoever to remove it at IBM/etc's expense.
Most likely, if IBM saw they would lose, they would settle - if SCO was willing. They'd want a blanket license for their current users and would negotiate future licensing.
No matter what, the next version would not be free.
That's the whole pointof this, to smack down Linux as a free or cheap alternative. I hope they succeed. It will be better for Apple.
I dislike that Commie "free-software" stuff anyway. Just like "free love,"it leads to nothing but venereal disease.
:-)
It gets to the point where you are either a troll or an idiot... I hope no mods are itching for a hAx0ring, cause they CAN see your IP address.
YES! Let's kill the ONLY system that can compete with Microsoft! That will help Apple! Let's get rid of ALL the community contribution to Mac OS X! That will help Apple! You are obviously a fan of Corrupt Capitalism?, like that embodied in Enron and WorldCom. OSS is a viable model for software development. There would be no Mac OS X without it. It has lead to some GREAT software like Apache etc, and the world is a better place. Why don't you PROVE that it is destructive, rather than making assertions like that next time, hmmmm?
Barto
PAGE 84 COMING LATER
As a consultant, I get the question, "Why should I go with Mac OS X instead of Linux?"
For a large company with it's own IT shop, Linux is an alternative (although more expensive in the long run than OS X, in my opinion).
For a small shop (which most businesses are), Linux is the worst option because it requires techinical expertise to set up, maintain and upgrade.
If Windows was a boon for IT jobs, Linux is the God of job security for IT people. I don't want IT job security. I want computer systems that are so easy to set up and use that entire corporations can put their IT departments to work on something besides maintaining their systems - perhaps creating new apps, you know, work that actually justifies those salaries.
The answer is Macintosh. Long-term costs are lower than anything out there with Mac - yes even cheaper than the so-called "Free" Linux distros.
Why? Because Mac users only have to pay for the OS, Applications and the Hardware. After that, most of them don't have to pay for IT departments to maintain their machines. IF they spend a couple of extra bucks on something like DiskWarrior, they likely won't even have to take the machine in for repairs over it's useful life.
How is this different from Linux? Any ol' numbskull can buy a Mac, set it up, and go to work within minutes doing things like burning DVDs; buying, organizing, playing music; running great apps like InDesign, Office, thousands more -- ALL without having to learn about compiling, and KDE, and XFree, and command line installs that won't work unless the slash is actually a backslash with a tilde in brackets before the incantation and pig sacrifice.
Linux is only an alternative to Microsoft for blind companies who think that the only way is the IT way.
Screw IT.
The businesses need something simple, fast, stable and cost efficient but at the same time people need their IT jobs, after all that is what America is shifting over too is more employed people...
I'm sure you know this, so please don't take it as an insult to your intelligence. Others here may not know or may not want to beleive it.
The purpose of business is NOT to provide jobs. Businesses exist to move product at a profit and return as much of that profit to the owners of the business as possible within the constraints of the law and moral obligations.
Providing a job to me or you or Barto or Amorph is NOT a moral obligation.
Protecting the environment IS a moral obligation.
Being fair IS a moral obligation.
Being honest IS a moral obligation.
But if a business could do better with fewer employees, it should let them go. IT has a moral obligation to be honest, fair, and even handed when letting them go, but it has an equal (some would say larger) obligation to the owners.
In the case of IT jobs, many of these people are highly intelligent, capable people. They can find good jobs within a few weeks - perhaps not in their field, but they can find work. Perhaps not in their current town or state, but they can find work. IF they choose to stay in Silicon Valley and whine and moan, it is not my fault, nor yours. They have the free will to choose and they chose, whether directly or indirectly. It's not our fault if they didn't keep a rainy day fund or if they want their kids to go to one specific school.
I have pity on the manual laborers who get fired with no severance, or the high school drop out who doesn't know how to improve his/her situation because they never were taught well.
Alternatively, having a job doesn't mean you have to stay there. Employees owe their employers 100% effort while they are there, but they don't owe them any more loyalty than the business owes them. If a better chance comes along, take it. If your employer is great and loyal and showers you with perks, repay that loyalty in kind, but don't mistake the employer's motivation: he/she wants you to keep working for them. If an opportunity for improvement comes along, a truly loyal employer will encourage you to take it.
just my 2 cents