SCO says it's time for Linux users to pay up.

The Register ^ | 21/07/2003 at 15:47 GMT | Ashlee Vance

[dr_who_2]

/* As for those other ones, I wouldn't know, but you could be on to something :) */

[Michael121]

If you design a motor to run a wiper balde, and I change the design just enough it ain't yours I made. Patents are just plans to be improved upon. There is a start point on all distro's of Linux, it was originally based on UNIX.... but it has evolved.

It is like MS being sued all the time by SUN... earlier this year when SUN again went whining about IE, on 2 different points, 1. That MS didn't include JAVA in IE 6 but MS put the info how to download it from SUN..... and that IE was dominating the market.... first time I heard MS finally come out and say....

"It is not the job of MicroSoft to make sure that SUN keeps their internet browser up to date."

SUN never has, AOL started off with NetScape, then SUN decided they were tired of supplying it free. SUN wanted 11 dollars per CD shipped and 11 dollars for all users up to the point. That would have been hundreds of millions. AOL went shopping MS said here we will give you IE free. And SUN lost the market, not because MS is dominate, but for a bad business decision. And SUN sat around like liberals do now, not updating NetScape and waiting around for the big payday from MS lawsuits.

LINUX is free because it is a USER OS. The source is there to be tweaked. No one can get it back. The icebox door is open, and all the Penguins are running AMOK. Go little birds, waddle on.

[Golden Eagle]

SUN sat around like liberals do now, not updating NetScape and waiting around for the big payday from MS lawsuits.

Sorry, not really sure what you are getting at, SUN never had control of Netscape, at least not that I was ever aware of, which means they probably didn't.

[dark_lord]

One constant over the last twenty years is that low-end, commodity hardware (running windows or linux) is pushing its way upward toward the server market. How do you think IBM plans to compete with that type of hardware?

I think they intend to co-opt it. But really commodity hardware is not that much of a threat to the server market. Dell isn't going to be selling quad CPU, hot board pullable, RAID equipped machines for folks who want to run word processors, web browsers, and computer games. Dell will sell that into the server market, and IBM and Dell will do deals with each other so both remain competitive. After all, if IBM really wanted to undercut Dell (or anyone else) in that market -- they can. But that is a lose-lose for both, so I think they will deal with each other. On the other hand, Sun and HP are going down, I think.

[brianl703]

The RedHat VP did not get into specifics about Red Flag linux [or any of the others] and his statement is vague at best:

"The challenge that we've seen with companies like Redflag Software, Bluepoint, and to a lesser extent TurboLinux, particularly in the [China], is that they've been very welcoming to take this [open] source code and do something with it, but are less welcoming to distribute their changes," White said.

[brianl703]

As I mentioned, what the Chicom said is easy enough to verify. Only an idiot would lie about something as obvious as whether the sun is up or not or if their product comes with the source code.

What neither of you geniuses thought about yet is whether the source code Red Flag supplies is actually the code that they compiled to make their product. That could be the real issue.

[Dominic Harr]

Um, so their entire point is that the GPL seems to have no teeth in China?

Do *any* of our laws have any teeth in China?

Now that is a stretch.

Oh, well. At least they're bumping this thread, keeping the word 'Linux' in the headline in public view.

[TheEngineer]

Do *any* of our laws have any teeth in China?

The GPL, to my knowledge, has never been used as the basis for a copyright infringement lawsuit *anywhere*. If you can show otherwise, please do. Otherwise, there is no credible evidence of its 'teeth' in court.

[Dominic Harr]

Otherwise, there is no credible evidence of its 'teeth' in court.

A really successful contract is one which you *never* have to defend in court, because it's so clear and obvious no one would fight it.

Or, it's so clear and obvious that actual abuse of it is minimal, and generally cleared up quickly without a lawsuit?

There are many instances I know of in which companies and individuals have included GPL'd code in their products. Several have been linked to and pointed out to you in this thread, I see. The outcome is always relatively quick and painless. There's no obfuscation possible. If the code is there and that's provable, the offending company chooses not to fight.

I know lawyers can argue that night is day and day is night, but the GPL is so straightforward I can't imagine any basis to your suggestions it's not got any teeth.

And the GPL seems just such a case.

[Dominic Harr]

Here's a way to sum it up -- do you know of any cases in which the GPL was used as the basis to force a company to GPL some of it's code?

I believe *that* is teeth, in anyone's book.

[RinaseaofDs]

Sorry for the late reply.

I haven't the first clue, mostly because it is pretty new law with respect to software companies suing for EULA infringements.

What would probably be more the case is that they'd have to pay their initial fee, back maintenance fees, and maybe a penalty. Pretty reasonable in my book.

[RinaseaofDs]

It's this kind of thinking that got the hardware vendors in trouble in the first place.

Why did you buy a computer? Why do any of us buy computers?

To run software.

Any idiot could have seen the commoditization of the PC coming from a billion miles away.

Windows made HP, Compaq, Gateway, and all the other PC makers possible. A common operating system with common development tools.

You have the distribution channel wrong. MS knows that the battle is fought and won in developers, not the hardware vendors. The more developers they have developing on MS tools, the stronger their position in the market gets.

If MS had to, they could make their own PC's and sell against the others if they wanted to.

The amount of time, money, and effort that would be required to migrate not just all of the end users, but all of the developers off of Windows would be staggering.

There are too many out there interested in maintaining a standard set of railroad tracks against which to build boxcars (application software).

Handhelds and cellphones are where it is at today, and therein MS is vulnerable.

You say that with a 'flick of a switch' the indemnity issue could go away. I'm interested in hearing why you believe that. I don't think that's the case, but I may be wrong.

[Nick Danger]

The amount of time, money, and effort that would be required to migrate not just all of the end users, but all of the developers off of Windows would be staggering.

Everything you say applies to the desktop market. That's not where the hardware guys make their money, and it isn't a place they are going to take linux any time soon. All this "linux" action people are talking about is occurring in the data centers, not on desktops.

There is no shortage of people developing Enterprise apps on UNIX or linux. There's plenty of money in doing it, so people will continue to do it.

If linux makes dents in the desktop, I think the impetus will come from governments and Yurpeen enterprise. Unilever, for example, just joined the sponsor list at OSDL. Their plan is to be all-linux from top to bottom, but at a pace that makes sense.

It is just not true that every single app vendor wants there to a "single set of tracks." Windows is a fairly mature market, in the sense that it would difficult today for a newcomer to knock one of the segment-leaders from his perch. If you walk into a VC's office with a plan for any new Windows app, you won't get past the receptionist.

There is, therefore, a set of second-place finishers in the Windows market who hope to see linux take off on the desktop. If even a half-dozen Yurpeen governments and Mega-corps announces they are going to go that way, the guy who has the #2 product in Adobe Illustrator's segment will run over there in a flash, hoping to become the big fish in that pond. People forget... this is how Visicalc lost to Lotus, and how Lotus lost to Excel. Spot a platform trend, place your bet, and if you get lucky you're rich.

I don't see the hardware guys investing very much in making that happen, but I'm sure they will nudge things along if they can. If in fact the Yurpeens succeed in driving the creation of a set of 'world class' desktop apps that run on linux, then at some point it will make commercial sense for Dell or HP to offer such a box in the U.S.

Why flick-of-the-switch indemnity? Because that's how long it takes to say 'yes.' If some huge deal is on the table and it all comes down to "So if we indemnify you, you'll sign?" the next words after "Yes" are, "OK, here's a new Appendix D with the indemnification clause in it. And here's my pen so you can sign."

This idea that big deals are done at published prices under standard terms and conditions is a fantasy. The lovely and talented Laura DiDio has apparently never gone from 10 am to 2 am in the same conference room, ordering in lunches and pizzas as necessary, until every sentence, number, and paragraph has been hammered to death. I have, and I know that there is no policy, term, or condition that cannot be altered for the right deal.

[RinaseaofDs]

VC wasn't about bringing wonderful new things to market. It was, at least back then, a giant pump and dump scheme.

There are some terms you can't just say yes to. Indemnity is one of them. No lawyer in his or her right mind will allow you to insert that term into the contract in an open source deal. You won't find one anywhere.

Again, from past experience, I used to inspect ships for the CG. When I signed an inspection book, all I was saying was that at the time I had been aboard that ship, the ship was in the condition that I had indicated that it was in the book. Why was that?

Obviously, after I had left, someone might have taken all the fire extinguishers off the boat and returned them to their rightful owners on the ship docked next to them, for example.

This is the whole point with open source. Anybody CAN tamper with it. Not that they would, not that they could, and not that they should, but they can.

If they can, then any corp using open source is vulnerable to litigation, be it legitimate or nuisance. Any good corp lawyer will recognize this as well.

IBM loves this because the way they do it, they want you to completely outsource your IT to them, in which case they can indemnify.

I have no love for IBM, and any business proposition that requires making your IT infrastructure unique and in the hands of somebody else makes me at least nervous.

Indemnity is the hole in the open source boat. Sorry, but it can't be engineered around unless you want to outsource. My lawyers tell me this, and many others have too. I'm sure Microsoft's have told Bill that too. Granting indemnity to an open source operating system end user is like me guaranteeing that a ship has all of its life preservers on board because I inspected it last week.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

[Nick Danger]

No lawyer in his or her right mind will allow you to insert that term into the contract in an open source deal.

By those lights, Microsoft would never have agreed to assume unlimited liability for negiligent acts by its employees. Who can say what stupid, negligent thing any one of 50,000 people might do tomorrow?

It's an actuarial decision: what's the real exposure? Yeah, it says 'unlimited,' but that's not really true; then we get to multiply that by the probability of occurrence... we can put a finite number on it, and choose to do it or not.

Can IBM indemnify a guy with 1,000 servers? Why not? What is the worst possible thing that could happen to 1,000 servers? Even if the "infringment" is valued at a preposterous million dollars per, it's still not a hit below the waterline, and the probability of it happening is near zero. Why lose a deal over it?

Lawyers have their place, but you can't let them run your business.