|
Sun Finds a New Way to be Repulsive |
|
Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 05:11 AM EDT
|
Just when I think I have seen it all, Sun springs into the spotlight and does some new, seriously off-putting thing that makes me wonder, once again, if they are behind this whole SCO mess.Now they are thinking of putting out their own version of Linux, offering customers indemnification based on their license with SCO.
They found a journalist willing to push this as a plus. Read it for yourself, while I go throw up: Sun has a Unix license that appears to cover just about any aspect of the operating system. Further, the company will indemnify users from legal issues that could arise relating to the operating system. There's no doubt McNealy believes Solaris is a better solution than Linux, and he's not above taking advantage of the FUD -- fear, uncertainty and doubt -- sowed by SCO to promote the operating system on which Sun has lavished so much research and development over the years.McNealy may be ready to seize an opportunity that the dispute presents. He told me Sun is considering offering its own Linux distribution, which the company's Unix license may fully cover. If Sun could indemnify its Linux customers, it would have an unassailable advantage. I don't think you will find a similar indemnification for Linux from the other open-source vendors. It would also be in keeping with Sun's offering an integrated, airtight whole -- shades, once again, of the vertical integration that's Sun's heritage. For enterprise buyers, it's certainly a wise approach to go slowly with any deployment until the court clears up the dispute or the vendors agree to bear any legal burden you may face. Offering a 'better' Linux -- one that's legally unencumbered -- might just give McNealy a reason not only to hug the Penguin but also to give it a big squeeze. Hold the squeeze, please. No, really. "Not above taking advantage of the FUD." You can say that again. In fact, this story adds to it. And that's why I'd never accept their Linux distribution, let alone pay for it. In fact, I have a message for business. Leave GNU/Linux alone, if you don't understand it and accept what it is. Just write your own code, for crying out loud. You need GNU/Linux, not the other way around. Otherwise, you wouldn't be thinking of putting out a Linux distribution, would you?. But if you mess with what made free software what it is, you'll have nothing worth co-opting. So do what you do. Be as proprietary as you please. But don't grab free code and underhandedly give nothing back, or worse, grab it and leave a hole where it used to be. It's morally wrong. And there's no way to make it right. Consider that, next time you lecture on the sanctity of your Most Holy Secret IP, will ya? My stomach can only take so much. Also, read the GPL, will you? I mean *before* you do a distribution. Get a lawyer to explain it to you, because when it turns around and bites you in your Achilles heel, a la SCO, I don't want to hear any whining about it being viral or you didn't know combining your code with GPL code means it all goes GPL. Big business' mind set makes it hard to grasp the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect the freedom of users. From you. The coders who wrote the code distributed it under the GPL for a reason, and they have the right to demand that you respect their license that comes attached to their creative, copyrighted work. You know what a license is, don't you? OK, then at least on this point, we're speaking the same language. They have a legal right. But they also have a moral right. Um.. you know what morals are, right? You heard about it? If not, here's practical, business language: offending the coders that create the Linux kernel, which is the part under dispute currently, means your business will tank, if you depend in any way upon Linux. People that use Linux, as you call it, will avoid buying your products. That's why Caldera couldn't make a living from Linux. That's your unsolvable problem. If the community marks you as no good, and they will if you behave unethically according to its lights, they won't encourage their bosses to buy your product; they won't write for you; they won't give you the benefit of any doubt. You'll waste time and effort and end up thinking no one can make a living from GNU/Linux when really it's you, because you've been exiled from the community. It's not organized. It'll just be that way, just as Sun is now marking itself Not a Member of the Community. Not that it ever was. So, to come full circle, I think Sun had better just leave GNU/Linux alone. Journalists may praise their ideas, but without community support, it'll fall flat. And a year from now, I'll be linking to this article and saying I predicted it. Some things are just obvious. One other tip: by distributing Linux, the kernel SCO is suing over, you are putting it under the GPL. Your SCO license doesn't change that. It's there already, because they've been distributing it long after they filed the lawsuit, but you'll confirm it. No kidding. You guys need to read the GPL. It'll spare us all stupid lawsuits.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 04:46 AM EDT |
While Sun's actions smack of raw opportunism (and it could be argued that this
lies behind Sun's steady decline, an endless stagger from one silver bullet to
another instead of a coherent strategy) and cynicism, they could nevertheless
turn out for the good. (I don't think Sun are conspiring with SCO - the Vultus
buyout points more towards a straight stock play by Canopy, and Sun are just
jumping in on the bandwagon.)
Sun have enough lawyers and nous to understand the GPL - after all, they
released OpenOffice under the GPL, and are arranging a GPL'ed Java with Red Hat.
Therefore they must know that they cannot distribute the kernel under any terms
other than the GPL. However, they could offer to indemnify anyone who buys Linux
from them on a cost per seat basis - as I said IBM might think of doing - but
this would have more appeal than an IBM offer given SUN's strong position vis a
vis the System V code. The difference between this and SCO's protection racket
would be that while SCO talks of binary-only Linux licences (illegal), Sun would
not seek to challenge the GPL or other distributors at all.
How could this help? Well, if Sun got their act together and put out plans along
these lines quickly, they could make an offer that undercut SCO's scheme on
price, end user rights and legality. No-one would give SCO $1500 for a Unixware
licence when a $500 "Sun Linux" pack came with the same legal protection *and*
still gave you GPL'ed source. Result: SCO's planned income stream shrivels up
overnight. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 07:10 AM EDT |
Dr Stupid, don't be so stupid and read the damn GPL, you do not need extra legal
protection! the GPL gives more than enough legal protection, if Sun releases
Linux under the GPL(that they already did once, if no one remember, Sun Linux
exsisted until a few months ago) then it's under the GPL and no one can sue you
for using it in whatever way you want. Period.
There can't be any extra "legal protections" because there can't be any hidden
limitations, the GPL forces you to make sure that you give up any extra
limitations(eg., patents). And that is exactly SCOs problem, that they have
released Linux under the GPL for years(and are still doing so, just check their
FTP), and now the cat is out of the bag, they can't just say "Oppsss, we didn't
really meant it"
Anyway, go read the GPL before making uninformed posts.. as for Sun releasing a
GPLd Java, I will believe it when I see it...
k K[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 07:19 AM EDT |
Legally, Sun probably can't put a out a Linux distribution. To make the Linux
kernel's the source code available, as the General Public License demands, would
probably violate Sun's new license from SCO. On the other hand, if Sun didn't
make the source code available, they could be sued under the General Public
License by the Free Software Foundation.
They'd be damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
Alex Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 07:53 AM EDT |
Sorry to comment twice in a row, but I've had an interesting thought. What if
this is the future of Linux as SCO, SUN, and Microsoft have always imagined it?
Any company that can pay multiple millions for a big license gives SCO gobs of
money, then they can distribute a fully indemnified "binary only" Linux.
Microsoft Linux,
Sun Linux,
SCO Linux.
Everyone else dies.
PJ, I believe I'll join you in that nice, refreshing puke now... Alex
Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 07:53 AM EDT |
Sorry to comment twice in a row, but I've had an interesting thought. What if
this is the future of Linux as SCO, SUN, and Microsoft have always imagined it?
Any company that can pay multiple millions for a big license gives SCO gobs of
money, then they can distribute a fully indemnified "binary only" Linux.
Microsoft Linux,
Sun Linux,
SCO Linux.
Everyone else dies.
PJ, I believe I'll join you in that nice, refreshing puke now... Alex
Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 08:36 AM EDT |
Sun Linux...
I put a comment up on the Twiki at least a month back that Sun had a Sun Linux,
and they already distributed it under GPL, thus anything SCO can claim they
didn't release under GPL, SUN DID.
My problem is I searched high and low for proof that anyone out there actually
purchased SUN Linux. I found a few tantalizing hints but found no web page from
which to order (or a cached version of such a page).
Unless someone can find such, or produce a purchased Sun Linux CD this line of
inquiry is iffy.
I also note that SUN has a download site to pick up security patches for Cobalt
machines ....
Hmmmmm..... Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 10:13 AM EDT |
I really enjoyed everyone's reactions. Thanks, guys. I do want to say that Dr.
Stupid is anything but. What he was pointing out is that there is a kind of
seeming loophole that Sun seeks to take advantage of, whereby clueless business
types could take a license and have it as insurance, and as long as they don't
distribute themselves, and most don't distribute software (they just use it),
it'd be harmonious with the GPL.
I think he's correct. Alex is also correct, IMO, that nobody needs a license,
but some might view it that it's better to be over-protected than risk a
lawsuit, even if they know they will win in the end. For those guys, it'd be
better to buy from Sun than from SCO. It'd pull the rug out from under their
offer of a license. In an imperfect world, Dr. Stupid was pointing out, that'd
be better than SCO having folks line up with money in hand. He does understand
the GPL. I know from earlier discussions.
Whether Sun is better than SCO depends on your point of view, I guess, not your
level of smarts.
Thanks again for the comments, and the idea, Sanjeev. I'm off and running. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
Definitely projectile puke time. rm -rf /usr/local/java. By tommorrw I'll be
using Intermezzo instead of NFS on my home net. Greg T Hill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
Hi K, you're absolutely right that if Sun ship Linux under the GPL, that is all
the protection anyone needs. The point is that <gasp> most bosses don't have
the foggiest idea about the GPL - I should know, I've have to explain it enough
times. Sun can just play one of the oldest games in town - selling you something
you don't really need (like an extended warranty on your new toaster!)
P.S. It's getting OT I know but with regard to the GPL'ed Java, see http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/
3370 - Sun is not open sourcing Java, but approving Red Hat's clean-room
implementation. I hope this is successful as a viable GPL'ed Java system can
only be good for the industry. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
If Sun tries to make its own version of Linux legal based on its Unix license
(and assuming SCO has a leg to stand on to begin with), according to the GPL,
one of two things must happen. Either Sun's Unix license will, in the process
of making Sun's version legal, also make all other Linux versions using the same
code legal, or Sun's inability to stretch its Unix license that far will make
its own Linux version illegal under the GPL no matter how legal it might be
under Sun's Unix license. There is no middle ground that can make Linux legal
only for Sun customers, any more than there is that can make it legal only for
SCO customers. Nathan Barclay[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
Sanjeev, Sun's previous Linux distro (which was just a slightly tweaked RHAS)
was only shipped pre-installed on Sun x86 boxes - you couldn't order CDs.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 10:58 AM EDT |
OK, no CDs. But how would you upgrade your kernel on Sun's Linux distro, if you
got it pre-installed? pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 11:04 AM EDT |
Of course you're right that no-one needs a license, but I think you're missing
my point.
(Or perhaps I didn't express myself very well - I should never post before
absorbing the morning caffeino-beverage...)
If Sun sells Linux with a SCO style license, they open themselves to a lawsuit
from the FSF foundation for relicensing GPLed software. On the other hand, if
Sun sells Linux with a GPL license, then they've probably violated whatever
license SCO sold them, and have opened themselves to a suit from SCO, probably
on similar grounds to the suit against IBM.
In other words, Sun will get sued one way or another for issuing an indemnified
Linux distribution.
Going off topic, I also found an interesting URL on the Trillian project which I
don't think you've reported yet. It makes clear that IBM didn't do the SMP
implementation for Linux on Itanium. The SMP for IA-64 was created by VA Linux
and Intel. IBM tools were used for testing and tuning.
http://www.linuxia64.org/pressQA4.p
df
Another link I don't recall seeing on your page is vuunet story with quotes from
the old SCO president at http://www.vnunet.com/News/88805
I'm curious what you think about it. It looks like a terrible lack of due
diligence to me!!
Alex Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
Alex, you make a valid point (and I understood you the first time ;) But to
clarify the licensing situation vis-a-vis Sun and SCO:
When SCO sued IBM, Sun said immediately that they were "clean" because they had
bought total rights from SCO (the old SCO) a while back: In March, for example,
they said
"Sun's previous licensing agreements give Sun complete Unix intellectual
property rights in relation to Sun's operating systems."
http://nl2.vnunet.com/News/1139333
When Sun were revealed as SCO (new ex Caldera SCO)'s second licensee, they were
buying a licence to use SCO's proprietary x86 UNIX code in x86 Solaris. Of
course, SCO didn't make this very clear as they wanted to puff it up as a
vindication of their claims.
The upshot of this is that it may be the case that Sun's original license would
let it sell Linux with the GPL without SCO's being able to sue. Presumably we'll
find out if Sun goes ahead with this idea. If that happened then while I'm no
great friend of Sun it would be amusing to see SCO's business model blown out of
the water.... Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
Check this:
ftp://ftp.cobalt.sun.com/pub/products/sunlinux/5.0/en/updates/i386/SRPMS/
kernels as recent as 2.4.20. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
>> Sanjeev, Sun's previous Linux distro (which was just a slightly tweaked RHAS)
was only shipped pre-installed on Sun x86 boxes - you couldn't order CDs.
<<<
I saw pics of CDs with SUN logos & Tux. I don't know if these were handed out
at conventions or were just a promotional mock-up.
If we could get a CD I think that's a MUCH stronger case than the FTP of a
RedHat image. With Sun Linux SUN had actually changed the kernel and was
(planning on) selling it for profit. With the ftp, SUN is in almost the same
boat as IBM. IBM has never had an "IBM Linux", denied from the very beginning
that they would do one. They don't even sell Linux unlike SUN selling RedHat,
but IBM does preinstall on servers, like SUN with Cobalt.
I think when push comes to shove SUN can claim they don't "publish" or change
Linux, they just distribute RedHat, so SUN has a little room to wiggle out.
Like a local store that sells RedHat CDs, that store does'nt have the right to
GPL any contributions.
Now if SUN ever sold the Sun Linux product they have NO WEASEL-LY way out.
PS if you did download the sunlinux above, could you grep for 'sun'? Putting in
tm notices or other changes like that .... that would be "A Good Thing" (tm) to
find. Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30 2003 @ 01:54 AM EDT |
The kernel source rpms have in the changelog (for example):
* Tue Jun 03 2003 Duncan Laurie <duncan@sun.com>
- add restart delay patch and build for Sun Linux 5.0.7 update
So these are not vanilla RedHat rpms, the source has been repackaged by Sun
(albeit with hardly any changes.) In fact Duncan Laurie has added a patch not in
RHAS:
# Sun Linux: specific patch to address reliability issue
Patch90000: linux-2.4.20-13-restart.patch
This is a small patch, but there can be no question that Sun have taken RHAS's
kernel, made a *derived work* from it, and redistributed it under the GPL. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30 2003 @ 01:56 AM EDT |
The kernel files found at the address given, as well as other places on the ftp
site (such as the kernel-source rpms), all appear to contain unmodified kernel
source trees (linux-2.4.20.tar.bz for example). I even verified the GPG
signatures with kernel.org. This means that the GPL is included without
modification, since it is contained inside those source files. It doesn't look
like Sun made many changes to the rpms from a regular RedHat 7.x system, but it
would be difficult for them to claim that they weren't "publishing" Linux, since
all the packages have been rebuilt on Sun hosts (rpm -qip <packagename> for
kernel-2.4.20-18.7.SL.src.rpm shows: lx50.sun.com).
I also found this press release (and feature story) from Sun's website:
http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2002-02/s
unflash.20020207.1.html?redirect=false&refurl=UserTypedURL
http://www.sun.com/2002-0319/feature/?redirect=false&refurl=UserTypedURL
Here, Sun announces "8. It will continue to be one of the largest contributors
of intellectual property to the Linux and open source communities, and will
offer contributions to the Linux kernel. . ." They also say that Sun
"Distributes Linus Torvalds' kernel" and "Provides key technologies for the
Linux platform" (without defining which technologies they're providing.
In addition, information about Sun Linux can still be found at http://wwws.sun.com/softwar
e/linux/index.html, and Sun Linux patches can be found at http://sunsolve.sun.com/patches/li
nux/. Differences between RedHat 7.2 and Sun Linux 5.0: http://su
nsolve.sun.com/pub-cgi/retrieve.pl?doc=finfodoc%2F8425
I also find it interesting that while SCO claims that without IBM's help, Linux
wouldn't amount to anything on high-end systems, Sun was claiming that Linux
_doesn't_ amount to anything on high-end systems, and is only good on the
lower-end stuff. Frank[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30 2003 @ 03:07 AM EDT |
Nice summary Frank! I think that the fact the kernel was built on Sun's hosts,
with an additional patch added by Sun, pretty much wraps it up.
BTW, more info about the new Sun Linux is here:
http://www.i
nfoworld.com/article/03/07/28/HNsunslinux_1.html
It'll be part of a complete package with StarOffice, Evolution etc, costing
$50-$100 per employee per year (I assume a support charge, rather like SuSE's
"Linux Desktop for Enterprise") Sun will continue to ship RHAS for their x86
low-end servers. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30 2003 @ 06:01 AM EDT |
Now Solaris 9 8/03 has Gnome instead of CDE.
http://silicon
valley.internet.com/news/article.php/2241961
http://news.com.com/2100-101
6_3-5057535.html
Not to mention all the creeping GNUisms in Solaris 9 like "df -h", "du -h",
"diff -u", etc. Bab
y Peanut[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30 2003 @ 07:38 AM EDT |
http://silicon.com/news
/500011-500001/1/5376.html quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30 2003 @ 07:38 AM EDT |
http://silicon.com/news
/500011-500001/1/5376.html quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30 2003 @ 09:39 AM EDT |
Now if only IBM had a website for people to contribute material for their
defense.
While I doubt SCO is reading Groklaw or the twiki (since they need to shave
expenses down to survive the next few years) IBM may be but I doubt that too. Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30 2003 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
Sun has invested in Gnome (on the accessibility/usability front in particular,
as I recall) in order to get a cheap replacement for CDE. That's is the Jekyll
side of Sun. The Hyde side is exemplified by its use of the SCO FUD for its own
ends. Sun really seems to be unable to work out where it stands with open source
in general: it gives us OpenOffice and chips in to GNOME (and Linux kernel
development in general) but then feels it has to trash-talk the open-source
community at the same time to promote its own product, Solaris. It hasn't come
to the realisation (which it seems IBM *has*) that the commoditization of the
operating system is natural as the IT industry matures, and moreover is not
something it - as a hardware, middleware and systems vendor - has to fear.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30 2003 @ 07:08 PM EDT |
Most companies pay people to collect whatever anyone says about the company.
There is software that does nothing but. I consider it likely that both SCO
and IBM know about both Groklaw and twiki. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 01 2003 @ 11:48 AM EDT |
So does anybody know of any site (anywhere) that takes a contrary stance on the
SCO vs IBM issue... Most of the publications I read (e.g. slashdot, register,
inquirer) are strongly anti-SCO. Many of the mainstream publications e.g. CNET
adopt clueless nutrality. Are there any legitimate publications in favour of
SCO's side of the argument? Salim Fadhley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 01 2003 @ 12:13 PM EDT |
Salim,
For sure not here, although I try to be fair. If you ever find one, please let
me know. I'd be interested in what they have to say. Thanks. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|