All examples given are true and it's apparent that I over spoke (wrote?).
Show me an open source app that does not imitate an existing commercial application. We are not talking about filling the same market space, I'm talking feature for feature match.
I thought about BEOS after I posted that statement and thought... "oops, went too far there."
The core issue has not changed.
Linux is dependent on code that came from System V.
There can be no argument about that even if all we examine is the SMP processes. There are only so many ways to coordinate instructions through multiple processors and AT&T has a patent on that section of the Un*x code and the underlying process. All other SMP patents mention the underlying AT&T patent.
All SCO has to prove is that any part of their patented process/technology was exposed by IBM and offered for inclusion in the GPL by IBM and IBM is in breech of their contract.
Not all of the licensed technology. Not most of the licensed technology.
If any part of the licensed technology was included in a submittal to the GPL.
That is one low bar SCO has to get over.
The issue swirls around the definition of "derivitive", how that "derivitive" code got into the linux kernal and did the people who put that "derivitive" code into the linux kernal have the legal right to submit it for inclusion in the GPL.
Those issues will decided by lawyers and judges with precious little contribution from anyone who really understands the technology. No matter where you stood on the MS antitrust case ( I wanted MS split ), during those deliberations it became obvious that the courts do not understand the impact of their decisions on technology.
I wish SCO hadn't filed this suit. I wish this issue had never come up. I wish this didn't matter for us, as engineers and developers.
Wishful thinking is a dangerous indulgence for engineers. It results in collapsed bridges and buildings in piles of rubble and under that rubble there are bodies. We are lucky in that no one dies when we screw up (usually, air control and medical applications aside).
SCO did file the suit, it is an issue and we had better take it into account when we do our jobs, for our own good as well as to protect our customers.
If we ignore this issue and make recommendations to use linux, then the courts decide that SCO is entitled to some part of our customer's income to compensate for our using their intellectual property, are we (as the persons who specified it's use)liable to pay that cost?
Are you willing to take that risk? I am and will, but I am pressing for indemnification from any vendor offering linux solutions.
My conversations with these vendors goes something like this...
Me - "So, it only runs on linux. What about the SCO issue?"
Salesman - "That case will be thrown out of court."
Me - "So, will you take all the liability and protect us from any lawsuit?"
Salesman - "Uh... well... uh... we can't do that... uh... like I said, it's not an issue."
Me - "So, if it's not an issue, your company will indemnify us for all claims based on the SCO thing, right."
Salesman - "No."
Me - "It was nice meeting you and I will have someone show you your way out."
Posted by Mike S at June 21, 2003 08:35 AMDon't hit yourself too hard, there, Mike - BeOS started out as a commercial project that only went open source because the company was doomed. BeOS has little or no traction in the open source community as I know it.
I know you guys know a lot about the law, but your understanding of the open source community seems to have a number of holes.
Linux is an open source project, a kernel, one of many. NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Mach, Hurd, and several others exist. If the Linux kernel takes one in the head tomorrow, those others will go on. The Linux kernel is only one small piece of a puzzle of literally interchangable parts. And computer architectures don't just dry up and blow away. Look at Amiga. Heck, they still have Apple ][e's at my daughter's school.
But I digress. If Linux goes away, Perl and Apache and PHP and many other projects will go on. There are too many and it's not cost effective to go after every single one of them. And there's only a future in it if this action succeeds, which is far from certain.
Claim: there are socialists in the open source movement. This is correct. RMS (Richard M Stallman) has been very public about his belief that there should be no intellectual property rights with respect to software. There are some who follow RMS. Many do not.
Most of the OSS folks I know use and prefer open source because it provides better engineering choices than the proprietary stuff. (Think kernel-level network packet filtering in HP-UX vs Linux, as an example). I, for one, have benefitted greatly from the open source movement and relish the chance to give back, not because I feel other people are entitled to my work but because I wish to give it to them. The movement will go on even if Linux does not. And it is far from clear that Linux is doomed at this point.
Posted by: Marty on June 21, 2003 12:55 PMYou're correct Marty, I don't know much about open source at all. Which is why I wanted everyone's input...which has been great.
But one thing I do know is that the effects of a large settlement or judgment against IBM is going to be like dumping a big bucket of bloody chum in shark infested waters, derogatory lawyer metaphor intentional. Open source as a philosophy may be able to survive that; open source as a business option will not.
On that, Rita, I think we are in complete agreement.
I didn't see the lawyer metaphor there, BTW. :)
Posted by: Marty on June 21, 2003 03:32 PMIs that a polite way of saying "Thanks for explaining that, Mrs. Obvious"?
You know how lawyers are, we use 100 words to say what everyone else can say in 5.
: )
Posted by: Rita on June 21, 2003 08:12 PMNo, I was just saying I don't automatically mentally substitute "shark" for "lawyer".
I was in a wordsmithing profession before I got into tech; it doesn't bother me. :) And I appreciate the value of stating things precisely.
Posted by: Marty on June 21, 2003 08:35 PMAnd I value the appreciation of stating things precisely.
Thanks for the compliment.
: )
Posted by: Rita on June 22, 2003 09:19 AM