The reason is that linux and bsd have different liscences. The BSD flavors all use the BSD liscence, where the source code is completely free, anybody can take it and do whatever there little heart desires. Linux is liscenced under the GPL which stipulates that you must share your source with anybody you distribute the binary to, and if you base something of the GPL code you still have to, hence "Open Source".
Open source simply means the source to the application, library, OS, or what-have-you is available for the asking (not necessarily for free, either). BSD (and similarly liberal licenses, such as Perl's) are every bit as open source as GPL'd and LGPL'd software such as Linux and emacs. The idea came partly from MIT hacker culture in the 1950s, where the source for a particularly good hack would be posted up for all to see, partly to educate, partly to show off, and partly to see if anyone else could build or improve upon it. The idea got another boost in the 1970s, when the source code to Ken Thompson's UNIX was published in book form, and when AT&T stopped the printing, claiming the book was in violation, the many people who had studied and admired Thompson's code (Ken actually gave readings, stopping to annotate the code and explain the decisions he made) mounted an argument that the code was poetry, that it had literary value, and that it should continue to be in print. (Ken Thompson, like his longtime collaborator Dennis Ritchie, is a hell of a programmer.)
The BSD license and the GPL simply reflect the fact that "open source" can mean different things in practice, and that it can serve different goals.
.... And they used to develop software for M$, like XENIX, which of course never took off...
Check your facts. At one time, XENIX was the most popular distribution of Unix available.
And for God's sake people, you are carrying on like Linux is the only free software available. That is most certainly not true. Most Unix applications are free. Many free Unix applications have been ported to Linux. Linux is not even the only free operating system. And, of course it isn't even the only free Unix-like OS. Get a grip. The sky is not falling.
Check your facts. At one time, XENIX was the most popular distribution of Unix available.
And for God's sake people, you are carrying on like Linux is the only free software available. That is most certainly not true. Most Unix applications are free. Many free Unix applications have been ported to Linux. Linux is not even the only free operating system. And, of course it isn't even the only free Unix-like OS. Get a grip. The sky is not falling.
... it remains to be seen whether the sky is falling or not; unfortunately - if FUD wasn't effective, we'd never have heard of it.
Whaddaya say we all go out and do terrible things to some SCO exec's lawn jockey!
Check your facts. At one time, XENIX was the most popular distribution of Unix available.
And for God's sake people, you are carrying on like Linux is the only free software available. That is most certainly not true. Most Unix applications are free. Many free Unix applications have been ported to Linux. Linux is not even the only free operating system. And, of course it isn't even the only free Unix-like OS. Get a grip. The sky is not falling.
Okay, Okay, I stand corrected.
But still, this seams like a bad way to take everybody down with you as your ship is sinking.
my point is this: instead of wasting all this time on building a UNIX-like OS and then improving upon it, all that time could have been spent on improving a pre-existing UNIX OS. perhaps BSD would have been a good desktop replacement had all that time been spent upon it.
Linux is "only" the kernal. The rest was GNU and its initial existance predates Linus' effort. GNU was then ported to work on the Linux kernal. Some hard core dudes prefer to call it GNU/Linux.
"I don't see why someone doesn't just buy SCO out and put them out of their misery. IBM is certainly big enough to do this on their own and it's certainly in their interest."
Because if IBM bought every two-bit piece-of-shit company that thought it could make up for having no business success for a while by suing other more succesfull companies, then IBM would have no money left, since every crappy software company in existence would want in on the action.
Say the way of ending the lawsuit was getting a controlling interest in SCO. Their market capitalisaiton is currently $158 million. (Was <$50 million b4 the lawsuit.) Lets lay that buying 1/3 of SCO's shares gives them a controlling interest then they only need $50 mil. Chump change compared to the potential cost of the litigation to IBM's business in total, even if it wins.
True about other two bit companys seeing it as an opportunity. It's like negotiating with terrorists, right? \
ROTFL. The bungling of this case by SCO's lawyers is amazing. How many ammendments have been made to the complaint? And given that this case is about 'breach of contract' and not 'copyright', on what basis can SCO hope to sue linux users?
SCO do not own the code that this case is about. They merely claim IBM was not allowed to disclose IBM's own software to the Open Source world.
BTW, is there anything we CAN do, except for watching and waiting to see what the outcome will be?
Jason
I wonder if paying a licensing fee to SCO is a violation of the gnu license agreement. Likely it is. If so, then we just need to form a conglomeration that threatens to sue anyone who pays SCO a licensing fee. That way the fear goes both ways. Then companies are best off to just ignore SCO. Of couse then companies still have the viable option of not running Linux at all.
Interestingly, Scott Mcnealy has all but said that Sun will offer their own distribution of Linux. Sun DOES own the rights to UNIX. They paid 100 million for them back in 1992. So maybe it wasn't microsoft that coerced SCO into sueing.. Maybe it was Sun. I don't think we will ever know the details, other than SCO is doing whatever it can to survive.
I wonder if paying a licensing fee to SCO is a violation of the gnu license agreement. Likely it is. If so, then we just need to form a conglomeration that threatens to sue anyone who pays SCO a licensing fee. That way the fear goes both ways. Then companies are best off to just ignore SCO. Of couse then companies still have the viable option of not running Linux at all.
Interestingly, Scott Mcnealy has all but said that Sun will offer their own distribution of Linux. Sun DOES own the rights to UNIX. They paid 100 million for them back in 1992. So maybe it wasn't microsoft that coerced SCO into sueing.. Maybe it was Sun. I don't think we will ever know the details, other than SCO is doing whatever it can to survive.
It is not. You're more than welcome to try and sell GPL'd software to people for whatever price you want, so long as you provide the source code along with it. The problem with SCO trying to charge people for licenses is that their licenses only allow binary use of the software, and the GPL specifically states that it is illegal to make the binary available without the source code.
And to those people who have been saying that if SCO were successful it wouldn't be the end of the world for free software - yes, it would. Not because Linux is the only free software package, but because if this kind of attack were successful it would not only scare people away from free software, Linux or otherwise, but it would also open up a floodgate of new attacks from microsoft, or any other company who had a program which was facing competition from free software, that thought they could make a legitimate sounding claim that their IP was being infringed upon.
The only reason that I'm not particularly worried about the future of Linux with respect to this case is because if IBM honestly thought they had a chance of losing this 3 billion dollar case, SCO would've most likely been bought and liquidated a while ago, and they may yet be, who knows.
The only reason that I'm not particularly worried about the future of Linux with respect to this case is because if IBM honestly thought they had a chance of losing this 3 billion dollar case, SCO would've most likely been bought and liquidated a while ago, and they may yet be, who knows.
Mabey that might be a good idea, then IBM will also have the copyrights to UNIX, and then they can do whatever they want with UNIX/UNIXware/AIX code inside Linux.
Mabey that might be a good idea, then IBM will also have the copyrights to UNIX, and then they can do whatever they want with UNIX/UNIXware/AIX code inside Linux.
Code Historians of the future will have a field day with all of this stuff.
Zip forward 100 years...
I can imagine tens of thousands of Phd's being researched on these very issues.
IBM signs new chip customer, presumedly for the Fishkill plant. Link.
Anything good for Fishkill is good for us, right?
Reuters
IBM, Raytheon Signs 5-Yr Chip Design Pact
Tuesday August 5, 1:01 am ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM - News) said on Tuesday that its custom chip and chip system design and engineering services group signed a five-year deal with defense company Raytheon Co. (NYSE:RTN - News) that it said could be worth up to $100 million.
The design group was created last fall as part of Armonk, New York IBM's technology division, which also makes microchips for itself and outside companies. The technology group, which has been closely scrutinized by investors, posted a loss during the second quarter.
IBM and Raytheon said in a joint statement that they will create a project office in Lexington, Massachusetts where Raytheon is based. The office, which will include engineers from both companies, will oversee potential joint projects and contracts.
IBM said that it is already engaged in several custom component projects for Raytheon.
Comments
Dobby.
Originally posted by recondite
nagha,
The reason is that linux and bsd have different liscences. The BSD flavors all use the BSD liscence, where the source code is completely free, anybody can take it and do whatever there little heart desires. Linux is liscenced under the GPL which stipulates that you must share your source with anybody you distribute the binary to, and if you base something of the GPL code you still have to, hence "Open Source".
Open source simply means the source to the application, library, OS, or what-have-you is available for the asking (not necessarily for free, either). BSD (and similarly liberal licenses, such as Perl's) are every bit as open source as GPL'd and LGPL'd software such as Linux and emacs. The idea came partly from MIT hacker culture in the 1950s, where the source for a particularly good hack would be posted up for all to see, partly to educate, partly to show off, and partly to see if anyone else could build or improve upon it. The idea got another boost in the 1970s, when the source code to Ken Thompson's UNIX was published in book form, and when AT&T stopped the printing, claiming the book was in violation, the many people who had studied and admired Thompson's code (Ken actually gave readings, stopping to annotate the code and explain the decisions he made) mounted an argument that the code was poetry, that it had literary value, and that it should continue to be in print. (Ken Thompson, like his longtime collaborator Dennis Ritchie, is a hell of a programmer.)
The BSD license and the GPL simply reflect the fact that "open source" can mean different things in practice, and that it can serve different goals.
Originally posted by twinturbo
.... And they used to develop software for M$, like XENIX, which of course never took off...
Check your facts. At one time, XENIX was the most popular distribution of Unix available.
And for God's sake people, you are carrying on like Linux is the only free software available. That is most certainly not true. Most Unix applications are free. Many free Unix applications have been ported to Linux. Linux is not even the only free operating system. And, of course it isn't even the only free Unix-like OS. Get a grip. The sky is not falling.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Check your facts. At one time, XENIX was the most popular distribution of Unix available.
And for God's sake people, you are carrying on like Linux is the only free software available. That is most certainly not true. Most Unix applications are free. Many free Unix applications have been ported to Linux. Linux is not even the only free operating system. And, of course it isn't even the only free Unix-like OS. Get a grip. The sky is not falling.
... it remains to be seen whether the sky is falling or not; unfortunately - if FUD wasn't effective, we'd never have heard of it.
Whaddaya say we all go out and do terrible things to some SCO exec's lawn jockey!
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Check your facts. At one time, XENIX was the most popular distribution of Unix available.
And for God's sake people, you are carrying on like Linux is the only free software available. That is most certainly not true. Most Unix applications are free. Many free Unix applications have been ported to Linux. Linux is not even the only free operating system. And, of course it isn't even the only free Unix-like OS. Get a grip. The sky is not falling.
Okay, Okay, I stand corrected.
But still, this seams like a bad way to take everybody down with you as your ship is sinking.
Originally posted by nagha
my point is this: instead of wasting all this time on building a UNIX-like OS and then improving upon it, all that time could have been spent on improving a pre-existing UNIX OS. perhaps BSD would have been a good desktop replacement had all that time been spent upon it.
Linux is "only" the kernal. The rest was GNU and its initial existance predates Linus' effort. GNU was then ported to work on the Linux kernal. Some hard core dudes prefer to call it GNU/Linux.
At least, that is my understanding. :-)
MM
Originally posted by Socrates
"I don't see why someone doesn't just buy SCO out and put them out of their misery. IBM is certainly big enough to do this on their own and it's certainly in their interest."
Because if IBM bought every two-bit piece-of-shit company that thought it could make up for having no business success for a while by suing other more succesfull companies, then IBM would have no money left, since every crappy software company in existence would want in on the action.
Say the way of ending the lawsuit was getting a controlling interest in SCO. Their market capitalisaiton is currently $158 million. (Was <$50 million b4 the lawsuit.) Lets lay that buying 1/3 of SCO's shares gives them a controlling interest then they only need $50 mil. Chump change compared to the potential cost of the litigation to IBM's business in total, even if it wins.
True about other two bit companys seeing it as an opportunity. It's like negotiating with terrorists, right?
MM
SCO do not own the code that this case is about. They merely claim IBM was not allowed to disclose IBM's own software to the Open Source world.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
Originally posted by twinturbo
BTW, is there anything we CAN do, except for watching and waiting to see what the outcome will be?
Jason
I wonder if paying a licensing fee to SCO is a violation of the gnu license agreement. Likely it is. If so, then we just need to form a conglomeration that threatens to sue anyone who pays SCO a licensing fee. That way the fear goes both ways. Then companies are best off to just ignore SCO. Of couse then companies still have the viable option of not running Linux at all.
Interestingly, Scott Mcnealy has all but said that Sun will offer their own distribution of Linux. Sun DOES own the rights to UNIX. They paid 100 million for them back in 1992. So maybe it wasn't microsoft that coerced SCO into sueing.. Maybe it was Sun. I don't think we will ever know the details, other than SCO is doing whatever it can to survive.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
I wonder if paying a licensing fee to SCO is a violation of the gnu license agreement. Likely it is. If so, then we just need to form a conglomeration that threatens to sue anyone who pays SCO a licensing fee. That way the fear goes both ways. Then companies are best off to just ignore SCO. Of couse then companies still have the viable option of not running Linux at all.
Interestingly, Scott Mcnealy has all but said that Sun will offer their own distribution of Linux. Sun DOES own the rights to UNIX. They paid 100 million for them back in 1992. So maybe it wasn't microsoft that coerced SCO into sueing.. Maybe it was Sun. I don't think we will ever know the details, other than SCO is doing whatever it can to survive.
It is not. You're more than welcome to try and sell GPL'd software to people for whatever price you want, so long as you provide the source code along with it. The problem with SCO trying to charge people for licenses is that their licenses only allow binary use of the software, and the GPL specifically states that it is illegal to make the binary available without the source code.
And to those people who have been saying that if SCO were successful it wouldn't be the end of the world for free software - yes, it would. Not because Linux is the only free software package, but because if this kind of attack were successful it would not only scare people away from free software, Linux or otherwise, but it would also open up a floodgate of new attacks from microsoft, or any other company who had a program which was facing competition from free software, that thought they could make a legitimate sounding claim that their IP was being infringed upon.
The only reason that I'm not particularly worried about the future of Linux with respect to this case is because if IBM honestly thought they had a chance of losing this 3 billion dollar case, SCO would've most likely been bought and liquidated a while ago, and they may yet be, who knows.
Originally posted by Delphiki
The only reason that I'm not particularly worried about the future of Linux with respect to this case is because if IBM honestly thought they had a chance of losing this 3 billion dollar case, SCO would've most likely been bought and liquidated a while ago, and they may yet be, who knows.
Mabey that might be a good idea, then IBM will also have the copyrights to UNIX, and then they can do whatever they want with UNIX/UNIXware/AIX code inside Linux.
Originally posted by twinturbo
Mabey that might be a good idea, then IBM will also have the copyrights to UNIX
Maybe that would be a good idea, and maybe it wouldn't.
IBM can be really scary sometimes.
Originally posted by twinturbo
Mabey that might be a good idea, then IBM will also have the copyrights to UNIX, and then they can do whatever they want with UNIX/UNIXware/AIX code inside Linux.
Code Historians of the future will have a field day with all of this stuff.
Zip forward 100 years...
I can imagine tens of thousands of Phd's being researched on these very issues.
We "are" the history of the future....
Originally posted by Delphiki
FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Darwin without Aqua are not close to being viable desktop solutions. Linux is.
As if. Obviously, you haven't met people who use desktop OS's. There are two desktop OS's in the world: Windows and Mac OS.
Anything good for Fishkill is good for us, right?
Reuters
IBM, Raytheon Signs 5-Yr Chip Design Pact
Tuesday August 5, 1:01 am ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM - News) said on Tuesday that its custom chip and chip system design and engineering services group signed a five-year deal with defense company Raytheon Co. (NYSE:RTN - News) that it said could be worth up to $100 million.
The design group was created last fall as part of Armonk, New York IBM's technology division, which also makes microchips for itself and outside companies. The technology group, which has been closely scrutinized by investors, posted a loss during the second quarter.
IBM and Raytheon said in a joint statement that they will create a project office in Lexington, Massachusetts where Raytheon is based. The office, which will include engineers from both companies, will oversee potential joint projects and contracts.
IBM said that it is already engaged in several custom component projects for Raytheon.