[Am-info] CNET: Microsoft to license SCO's Unix code

[Gene Gaines]

More.

Microsoft's anti-Linux FUD campaign is becoming clearer.

See:

  http://news.com.com/2010-1071_3-1007758.html?part=dht&tag=npro

A quote from the article by Bruce Perens, (Co-founder
and director of Software in the Public Interest):

  For SCO to have been distributing the very code it contends was
  appropriated--under a license that assures everyone of the right
  to use it for free--further hurts its chances of prevailing.

  SCO management also fails to grasp its liability for the harm it
  is causing to countless customers, developers and software
  projects involved in Linux. The group's actions will lead to
  loss of sales and jobs, delayed projects, canceled financing,
  and the like. The damage to others will certainly invite
  retribution when the frivolity of SCO's claims is revealed.

  I earlier thought the suit could be a bid to force IBM to
  acquire SCO at a cheaper price than the cool billion dollars
  being demanded to settle the case. Big Blue, which isn't taking
  the bait, must be confident of winning.

  Who really benefits from this mess? Microsoft, whose involvement
  in getting a defeated Unix company to take on the missionary
  work of spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about Linux
  is finally coming to light.

  Microsoft hardly needs an SCO source license. Its license
  payment to SCO is simply a good-looking way to pass along a
  bribe, coupled with an announcement designed to further
  intimidate Linux users. It's hard to imagine former Microsoft
  adversaries SCO and David Boies doing Bill Gates' bidding, but
  Microsoft's money is green. SCO stockholders should be asking
  questions.

Well, Microsoft has never lacked for irresponsibility and
arrogance!

Gene Gaines
gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com
Sterling, Virginia


On Tuesday, May 20, 2003, 9:21:56 AM, Roy wrote:

> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 07:40:02PM -0700, Mitch Stone wrote:
>> I'm thinking of an episode from not that long ago. Microsoft was forced 
>> to release SCO from an onerous license agreement that required them to 
>> carry Microsoft code in SCO Unix and pay Microsoft a license fee even 
>> though SCO had been trying for years to jettison the code.

> Ah, I think I found a cite for this:

> http://www.hri.org/news/europe/midex/97-11-24.midex.html

> It indicates the timeframe for this is late 1997.

>> The 
>> settlement such as it was came as a result of a European Union 
>> decision, but what I don't know is if SCO had also sued Microsoft 
>> civilly over this issue. If they did, this could be the legal 
>> settlement.

> If they did file suit, given how slowly the legal system works, it's
> possible that they have only now arrived at a settlement.  Still, the
> timing of it seems awfully fortuitous for both SCO/Caldera and
> Microsoft.  "Oh, please don't throw me in that there briar patch!"

>> The model for this is Microsoft's 1997 investment in Apple 
>> -- a deal which to this day most people do not understand had nothing 
>> to do with Microsoft's desire to be nice to Apple or invest in the 
>> future of the company.

> It is ironic that perhaps SCO and definitely Caldera were recently in
> court against Microsoft.  Aside from possible lawsuit seattlement, I
> would say that now Microsoft has another more strategic reason to
> invest in SCO/Caldera.  They can use SCO/Caldera's lawsuit against IBM
> as ammunition against open source software.

> R.
> _______________________________________________
> Am-info mailing list
> Am-info@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info


--