Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCO updates Unix product, open-source attitude
CNet ^ | 2005-06-23 | Stephen Shankland

Posted on 06/24/2005 11:33:23 AM PDT by N3WBI3

In an effort to turn around its dwindling Unix revenue, SCO introduced a new version of its OpenServer product Wednesday along with a new open-source-friendly attitude.

OpenServer 6 is based on the same software core as the company's other operating system product, UnixWare, a later arrival that the company and its predecessors have emphasized for years but that never was adopted as much as OpenServer. The new OpenServer can run software for both operating systems, improves performance by a factor of two to four, and can be used on 32-processor machines with as much as 16GB of memory, SCO said.

The company's software is most popular for use in companies with numerous business branches--a notable customer is McDonald's. However, the SCO Group and its predecessor, the Santa Cruz Operation, struggled with competition from Windows and more recently, Linux.

In SCO's most recent quarter, ended April 30, Unix revenue declined to $7.8 million from $8.4 million during the year-earlier quarter.

SCO has been most prominent recently for its legal attack on IBM, Novell and others regarding its allegation that proprietary Unix software has been improperly moved into open-source Linux. Indeed, one of its targets is AutoZone, a former OpenServer customer.

Part of that attack was leveled at the 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.

Microsoft's spam plan New supercomputers overhaul top ranks Telemarketers target cell phones Digital bullies in classrooms Should cities be ISPs? Previous Next "In addition to supporting numerous Unix applications, as well as Java applications with the inclusion of Java 1.4.2, customers will also find thousands of additional applications available through many of the latest open-source technologies that are integrated into SCO OpenServer 6," SCO said in its announcement.

Among the included open-source packages are Samba and MySQL, which are released under the GPL, as well as Firefox, Tomcat, Apache and PostgreSQL.

SCO's position is consistent, spokesman Blake Stowell argued. "We don't necessarily have issues with open source, we just have an issue with open-source technology that includes intellectual property it shouldn't," he said. Indeed, SCO's products have included open-source components for years.

OpenServer 6 costs $599 for a computer with two users and $1,399 for one with 10 users.


TOPICS: Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: opensource; sco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

1 posted on 06/24/2005 11:33:24 AM PDT by N3WBI3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce; N3WBI3; Tribune7; frogjerk; Salo; LTCJ; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Buck W.; clyde asbury; ...

OSS PING

If you are interested in a new OSS ping list please mail me

2 posted on 06/24/2005 11:35:03 AM PDT by N3WBI3 (I musta taken a wrong turn at 198.182.159.17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
Part of that attack was leveled at the 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.

Maybe they changed their mind? can we expect that part of their complaint to be dropped?

Samba

I thought the Samba team was tinkering with the idea of revoking SCO's right to use this as they do not comply with the GPL.

OpenServer 6 costs $599 for a computer with two users and $1,399 for one with 10 users.

Wow and they are having trouble unloading these /sarcasm

3 posted on 06/24/2005 11:39:50 AM PDT by N3WBI3 (I musta taken a wrong turn at 198.182.159.17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3

Be Slackware or be nowhere.


4 posted on 06/24/2005 11:42:30 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3

Ridiculous. A lawsuit masquerading as a company.


5 posted on 06/24/2005 11:42:48 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave troops and their Commander-in-Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3

SCO even implied accusations against BSD (which system is very good for commercial, even closed development). SCO won't be forgiven by enough developers to get much help soon.


6 posted on 06/24/2005 11:43:38 AM PDT by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

I have not used slackware in about 9 years, it was too much of a pain for a newb like me..


7 posted on 06/24/2005 11:43:56 AM PDT by N3WBI3 (I musta taken a wrong turn at 198.182.159.17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
We don't necessarily have issues with open source, we just have an issue with open-source technology that includes intellectual property it shouldn't

I seem to remember Darl saying "SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws."

8 posted on 06/24/2005 11:47:00 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop
For me the BSD and GPL are about the same quality for different reasons. Under GPL you cant take my work, modify, and distribute is without giving me back the changes. But you also can violate the GPL and be forced to release your changes (ala Linksys). Under BSD you can take my changes, modify them and I get nothing out of it, but you're protected.

My favorite is the lgpl which give far more freedom to take gpl code, and use it in your app without having to worry about how you interact with it, so long as you don't touch the code you got from me.

9 posted on 06/24/2005 11:47:14 AM PDT by N3WBI3 (I musta taken a wrong turn at 198.182.159.17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

SCOs eighth affirmative defense

10 posted on 06/24/2005 11:48:33 AM PDT by N3WBI3 (I musta taken a wrong turn at 198.182.159.17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

I don't like the Linux GPL/LGPL or Stallman. I left the Debian project to go with BSD after a horde of anti-American commies started climbing into the user list a few years ago.

And have a look at the following from an old NetBSD list. It's most likely still on the Web, too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
"As far as I know, Microsoft has not tried to restrict the freedom of
programmers." --Richard Stallman

List: macbsd-general
Date: 09/02/1994 18:26:42
~~~~~~~~~~~


11 posted on 06/24/2005 11:49:09 AM PDT by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
OpenServer 6 costs $599 for a computer with two users and $1,399 for one with 10 users.

Hmm, how about another commercial UNIX? Mac OS X Server beats the pants off OpenServer, and costs $499 for 10-client, $999 for unlimited client, even cheaper if you buy it with a server.

They are ONLY going to be able to sell this as an upgrade to those who perceive themselves as locked in to their current OpenServer platform.

12 posted on 06/24/2005 11:50:48 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
"My favorite is the lgpl which give far more freedom to take gpl code..."

I've pursuaded two project authors to amend/get rid of that viral license. The LGPL also allows the so-called Free Software Foundation to steal my own proprietary work, if I use LGPL'd libraries. The LGPL also generally insults business leaders (see "...Tycoon...President of Vice"). So I don't use those.

Some projects for very narrow purposes (especially in specific engineering fields with few clients) will not draw attention from many developers. Projects for those clients must be closed source for profit to be possible.

The Fox GUI Library, for one, is amended. Read it, and weep.
13 posted on 06/24/2005 11:56:29 AM PDT by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Fell as you wish but the gpl is no more communistic than the bsd, or closed source licenses. None of these give power to a central state. Stall can be a horses rear but so can gates, and yes Im sure there are commies in the BSD clan as well..


14 posted on 06/24/2005 11:58:24 AM PDT by N3WBI3 (I musta taken a wrong turn at 198.182.159.17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: familyop
The LGPL also allows the so-called Free Software Foundation to steal my own proprietary work, if I use LGPL'd libraries.

How? You can use lgpl software and so long as you dont touch the code (from that software) your gold. Now I know it would be really popular for people to take the work of others change it and not respect the wishes of the people that wrote the code in the first place but thats called stealing.

The Fox GUI Library, for one, is amended. Read it, and weep.

So are you here to troll or talk? You remind me of somone who used to talk the same way, and he ended up being nothing but a tech thread troll..

15 posted on 06/24/2005 12:01:23 PM PDT by N3WBI3 (I musta taken a wrong turn at 198.182.159.17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Thats what I was thinking, hell Sco's not even competative with Solaris or AIX...


16 posted on 06/24/2005 12:01:59 PM PDT by N3WBI3 (I musta taken a wrong turn at 198.182.159.17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
The following tells well enough (although attorneys have also done so) as to why the LGPL is not good for business. See the "ADDENDUM TO LICENSE" below the goofy commie license (which does not include the usual LGPL insult against free market business, re. "Ty Coon, President of Vice," and the like.).

FOX Library License [Remove Frame]

Rationale

Copyright © 1997-2005 Jeroen van der Zijp

17 posted on 06/24/2005 12:04:17 PM PDT by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
"So are you here to troll or talk? You remind me of somone who used to talk the same way, and he ended up being nothing but a tech thread troll.."

Go ahead. Spew the usual name calling and rhetoric, while I post proof of my arguments. Here's some of the commie BS in the LGPL that you adhere to.

"However, linking a 'work that uses the Library' with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a 'work that uses the library.' The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables."
"

The LGPL allows for the theft of any of my source that's linked to it (or even contains the header entries). So I don't use LGPL'd libraries (unless they have an Addendum that effectively nullifies it).
18 posted on 06/24/2005 12:16:28 PM PDT by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Look if you want some kind of OSS license holy war, count me out. I like them all for different reasons and in different ways (and in fact I like regular old closed source Eula's at times).

If you want to runaround screaming the the GPL or LGPL have anything to do with stealing someone else's work have fun, most people here who follow OSS know what a foolish statement that is...

Have fun..

19 posted on 06/24/2005 12:18:03 PM PDT by N3WBI3 (I musta taken a wrong turn at 198.182.159.17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: familyop
The following tells well enough (although attorneys have also done so) as to why the LGPL is not good for business. See the "ADDENDUM TO LICENSE" below the goofy commie license

I read, and it sounds quite clear. A business can use the library, and link and derive classes all they want, and not have to worry about violating the license if they keep their source closed. They only have to follow the license and make any code changes to the library itself public (wow, having to follow a license to use another's work, what a concept).

I don't see the problem. I always like the LGPL better than the GPL since it better defines the separation between your code and their code.

20 posted on 06/24/2005 12:20:07 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson