Comments on: SCO updates Unix product, open-source attitude

In effort to pump up dwindling Unix revenue, SCO unveils new version of OpenServer, along with new open-source-friendly position.

[System Tyrant]

SCO Who?

I figure in a couple of more years that's what most people will be saying. My only hope is that a company like Novell or IBM will buy up the rights to Unix and either squash future legal battle with Linux in that area or Open Source it so it will never again be an issue.

I think the only way SCO is really going to save itself this time is to fire McBryde and drop all lawsuits. Even then I think they are dead. I could be wrong though. Wouldn't be the first time.

SCO, the company that lost it.

I sincerely hope they won't get bought. I hope they have to fight this monster of a lawsuit till the end, and keep the migraine that results from it for the rest of their lives.

Besides, there is nothing to buy. They don't have the rights to UNIX (Novell does), and they surely don't have any moral right to use open source software. And as far as their own software is concerned, it's just another UNIX.

Consistent story?

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

SCO called GPL illegal and wrote to Congress asking them to put a stop to it. They even threw in that it was a threat to "national security". See the letter at: http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/McBride_to_Congress:_GPL_threatens_capitalism.html

Now they are claiming that their story is consistent when they ship thousands of opensource packages in their new product.

Can somebody explain to me how this is consistent?

Consistency...

...You might not think it's their stong suit.

Basicly SCO is completely happy to provide other people's Open Source and GPL software with their own products, so long as they are not expected to make their entire collection of offerings Open Source, or GPL. Whether they follow through and distribute the source to the included Open Source and GPL software at the nominal cost of distribution is of course in question, but they should be able to safely do so in any case.

The reason for this is that it would not surprise me if they do not include a compiler and related libraries to link against for the users of the source code that request it. The compiler for SCO Unix does not have to be included in any of the levels of Unix that are generally for sale. Without it you need a seprate platform capable of compiling software to run under SCO Unix.

The question for many people would be if you are going to compile the code on a seprate platform, why would you want to compile it for this platform from there. Perhaps you believe in the stability of the 'official' SCO Unix, or some other claim. In that case buying the developer package from SCO would be the way to go anyway. Granted you may end up running into problems with that licence, and any restrictions over what licences you can distribute your own software under, I don't know how likely that would be. I understand there are some interesting restrictions for various developer programs from Microsoft (not specific to compilers, more like assistance from MS). Whether SCO will take a similar stance is up to them.

Likewise I do not know how easy it would be to get the GNU Compiler Collection running under this version of SCO Unix.

Now if you look over this, you may suspect that it is a consistent take on things, or you may feel that ther are inconsistencies. I don't know, and considering the likelyhood that I will either start using SCO Unix, or get back into developing software in any serious capacity, especially for SCO Unix, I am not too worried about it.

-Rusty

[t8]

Yes I can explain it.

Whenever it benefits they take a certain point of view. Even though it contradicts; the consistency part is that they consistently contradict, because they base their stance on lies and FUD.

[John Kuzak]

national security

http://www.analogstereo.com/vacuum/miele_intensive_clean_bag_design.htm

License violations

SCO publicly & vigourously denies the GPL as valid.

Most of the software they're including has a GPL license. Some of it (MySQL) has another license. Since they deny the GPL's validity, they must use the other license for distribution.

MySQL's other license is commercial. SCO owes them lots of $$$.

[t8]

I wouldn't touch anything from SCO

I wouldn't touch anything from SCO. Look how they treated 2 of their previous customers, they took them to court because they changed to Linux.
Best not to even be involved with them in anyway to begin with.

They are a dead duck because they foolishly got on the wrong side of Linux and Open Source and started a FUD campaign which always backfires in the end.