Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


		        NYLUG Mailing List Archives

To: nylug-talk@electriclichen.com 
Subject: [nylug-talk] SCO and Open Source 
From: "Jason Perlow" <perlow@hotmail.com> 
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:01:19 PDT 
Sender: owner-nylug-talk@electriclichen.com.nylug.org 

I'm here at SCO World at San Jose and I've been talking to a lot of the 
higher-ups at the organization about SCO's Open Source strategy.

Recently SCO announced that it would start offering Linux and Open Source 
consulting services, which I think is a great move for a commercial Unix 
vendor. Here's my peice on it in Smart Reseller:

http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,2315973,00.html

At this time however, SCO has not announced its own Linux distribution or 
releasing any of its core UNIX properties into Open Source, GPL, Free 
Software or via any of the similar licensing schemes that would allow 
developers to look at or modify source code. The prospect is very exciting 
to them as it would give them more mainstream acceptance by the open source 
software and Linux communities and allow them to mentor some software 
development projects as well. However whatever they do must make business 
sense for them as well as provide value to the open source community at the 
same time.

I have been talking with some of the Open Source advocates here at SCO about 
the possibility of a version of SCO UnixWare distributed with an Open Source 
UNIX System 5 Revision 5 kernel (possibily using a license scheme similar to 
Apple's APSL, with some restrictions involving intellectual property), 
UnixWare 7 ports of all the major open source tools and programs that a 
major Linux distribution like Red Hat would have, and pre-configured to run 
Linux binaries out of the box, avaliable for MINIMAL cost to non-commercial 
end users and software developers. They seem very interested, but would like 
to gauge interest in such a thing.

I am proposing a Open Source/SCO peace summit to take place in SCO's Murray 
Hill NJ facility, the birthplace of UNIX, where leaders in the
Open Source community and SCO can discuss how SCO can contribute to Open 
Software cause. They want to do it.

Discuss.


Jason Perlow / President, Argonaut Systems Corp

jason@argonautsystems.com
    jason@eserver.linuxgroup.com
       redbeard@gamesweekly.org
           perlow@hotmail.com (preferred)


Contributing Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
    Sr. Technical Editor, Windows CE Power
       Contributing Editor, PalmPower
           Associate Editor, GamesWeekly.ORG
              Contributor, Linux Magazine

138 Vista Drive, Cedar Knolls NJ 07927  (973)451-0215





_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

To: nylug-talk@electriclichen.com 
Subject: [nylug-talk] SCO and Open Source 
From: "Jason Perlow" <perlow@hotmail.com> 
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:08:07 PDT 
Sender: owner-nylug-talk@electriclichen.com.nylug.org 

I'm here at SCO World at San Jose and I've been talking to a lot of the 
higher-ups at the organization about SCO's Open Source strategy.

Recently SCO announced that it would start offering Linux and Open Source 
consulting services, which I think is a great move for a commercial Unix 
vendor. Here's my peice on it in Smart Reseller:

http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,2315973,00.html

At this time however, SCO has not announced its own Linux distribution or 
releasing any of its core UNIX properties into Open Source, GPL, Free 
Software or via any of the similar licensing schemes that would allow 
developers to look at or modify source code. The prospect is very exciting 
to them as it would give them more mainstream acceptance by the open source 
software and Linux communities and allow them to mentor some software 
development projects as well. However whatever they do must make business 
sense for them as well as provide value to the open source community at the 
same time.

I have been talking with some of the Open Source advocates here at SCO about 
the possibility of a version of SCO UnixWare distributed with an Open Source 
UNIX System 5 Revision 5 kernel (possibily using a license scheme similar to 
Apple's APSL, with some restrictions involving intellectual property), 
UnixWare 7 ports of all the major open source tools and programs that a 
major Linux distribution like Red Hat would have, and pre-configured to run 
Linux binaries out of the box, avaliable for MINIMAL cost to non-commercial 
end users and software developers. They seem very interested, but would like 
to gauge interest in such a thing.

I am proposing a Open Source/SCO peace summit to take place in SCO's Murray 
Hill NJ facility, the birthplace of UNIX, where leaders in the
Open Source community and SCO can discuss how SCO can contribute to Open 
Software cause. They want to do it.

Discuss.


Jason Perlow / President, Argonaut Systems Corp

jason@argonautsystems.com
    jason@eserver.linuxgroup.com
       redbeard@gamesweekly.org
           perlow@hotmail.com (preferred)


Contributing Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
    Sr. Technical Editor, Windows CE Power
       Contributing Editor, PalmPower
           Associate Editor, GamesWeekly.ORG
              Contributor, Linux Magazine

138 Vista Drive, Cedar Knolls NJ 07927  (973)451-0215





_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

To: Jason Perlow <perlow@hotmail.com> 
Subject: Re: [nylug-talk] SCO and Open Source 
From: Jay Sulzberger <jays@panix.com> 
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:45:36 -0400 (EDT) 
cc: nylug-talk@electriclichen.com 
In-Reply-To: <19990817210807.62291.qmail@hotmail.com> 
Sender: owner-nylug-talk@electriclichen.com.nylug.org 

If all the critical infrastructure is not GPLed why should I work on the
system?  Why should I buy it, since I know that developers won't want to
work on code that is not part of the free market?

We have one big example of a large program which became free software but
whose license is not the GPL.  Mozilla.  Though the project is a success,
and not a failure, as some claim, it is not the success it would have been
had Netscape just GPLed the thing.

The decision to use or work on any OS, or any big infrastructure program,
is usually largely based on perceived frictional costs.  And things that
may seem to SCO small restrictions in their special free license will
likely be perceived outside SCO as points of friction.  And I do think
that almost any special clauses will immediately produce actual friction,
and worse, will cause worry about future friction; what if SCO fails, then
what happens to the trammeled code, who will have the power to license it?

The GPL is radically pro-business.  It says:

Go ahead.  Try and make money any way you can off this.
Just do not stop other people from trying to make money.

I think that shortly it will be generally accepted that any license except
the GPL for critical infrastructure is too risky.  The one exception is
infrastructure not widely used.  There some of the big good effects of
free software might not be felt, because only a few people will want to
write code/contribute bug-fixes for something used by only a few people.

oo--JS.

To: jays@panix.com, perlow@hotmail.com 
Subject: Re: [nylug-talk] SCO and Open Source 
From: "Jason Perlow" < perlow@hotmail.com> 
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:17:15 PDT 
Cc: nylug-talk@electriclichen.com 
Sender: owner-nylug-talk@electriclichen.com.nylug.org 

Its certainly what Open Source people want in the BEST case scenario. I just 
think we need to convince SCO that they need to go ALL the way with their 
kernel. But before they go ALL the way, we need them to take the baby steps 
to understand that if they do release SVR5 into GPL, they are still 
competitive and the rest of their OS still has value.

Jason


----Original Message Follows----
From: Jay Sulzberger < jays@panix.com>
To: Jason Perlow < perlow@hotmail.com>
CC: nylug-talk@electriclichen.com
Subject: Re: [nylug-talk] SCO and Open Source
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:45:36 -0400 (EDT)

If all the critical infrastructure is not GPLed why should I work on the
system?  Why should I buy it, since I know that developers won't want to
work on code that is not part of the free market?

We have one big example of a large program which became free software but
whose license is not the GPL.  Mozilla.  Though the project is a success,
and not a failure, as some claim, it is not the success it would have been
had Netscape just GPLed the thing.

The decision to use or work on any OS, or any big infrastructure program,
is usually largely based on perceived frictional costs.  And things that
may seem to SCO small restrictions in their special free license will
likely be perceived outside SCO as points of friction.  And I do think
that almost any special clauses will immediately produce actual friction,
and worse, will cause worry about future friction; what if SCO fails, then
what happens to the trammeled code, who will have the power to license it?

The GPL is radically pro-business.  It says:

Go ahead.  Try and make money any way you can off this.
Just do not stop other people from trying to make money.

I think that shortly it will be generally accepted that any license except
the GPL for critical infrastructure is too risky.  The one exception is
infrastructure not widely used.  There some of the big good effects of
free software might not be felt, because only a few people will want to
write code/contribute bug-fixes for something used by only a few people.

oo--JS.



_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

To: Jason Perlow < perlow@hotmail.com> 
Subject: Re: [nylug-talk] SCO and Freedom Source 
From: Bruce Ingalls < bingalls@panix.com> 
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:28:01 -0400 
CC: nylug-talk@electriclichen.com 
References: < Pine.GSU.4.05.9908171717400.9826-100000@panix3.panix.com> 
Sender: owner-nylug-talk@electriclichen.com.nylug.org 

I have been personally reprimanded by Rich Stallman for using the verboten
faux pas "Open Source". I have editorialized to remove such NC17 material.
Say 3 Hail Marys and open a charitable trust to the FSF.

Jay Sulzberger wrote:

> If all the critical infrastructure is not GPLed why should I work on the
> system?  Why should I buy it, since I know that developers won't want to
> work on code that is not part of the free market?

Hmm, Yes, well I have made contributions to fixing Freedom Software, with
the satisfaction that it all comes back to the community.
On the other hand, why should I help Unresponsive Proprietary Tycoon Corp,
who will charge me $100-200/hr for me to report bugs to them? Then charge
for the bug fix update?

I am glad that SCO is looking at (hopefully) SGI, 2 companies I fully expected

to go south real fast (and I'm not talking where the cheaper labor markets
are)

While they may get a onetime public relations boost from yelling "Free
Source!",
I would suggest that they look at a core/distinguishing part of their
business,
probably something that would benefit from setting an industry standard.
They need to bring some focus to what they do best.
For SGI, this is graphics (and maybe their filesystem).

What comes to mind is their Unix/Windows connectivity.
Unfortunately, this may not work, due to licensing arrangements.

Case in point: my guess is that Zope increased their consulting business,
after
opening their web database software. Before, I expect that they were being
marginalized by Enterprise Java Beans and PHP.

Are these the sort of suggestions you were looking for, or  are you looking
more
for ideas like, where to meet, and whether to server milk & cookies or beer?

To: bingalls@panix.com 
Subject: Re: [nylug-talk] SCO and Freedom Source 
From: "Jason Perlow" <perlow@hotmail.com> 
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:55:56 PDT 
Cc: nylug-talk@electriclichen.com 
Sender: owner-nylug-talk@electriclichen.com.nylug.org 

This is exactly what I'm looking for --

Again, I don't expect a company as entrenched into the commercial UNIX model 
as SCO to start GPL'ing all of their core technologies overnight. Even if 
they do some type of an APSL or MIT style of license with their kernel or 
other core UNIX technologies, I still think this is a -good thing-. Nobody 
has seen the innards of System V for years, and SCO has an awful lot of core 
and legendary UNIX talent that the Open Source and Free Software 
coumminities need. If they intend to become the dominant commercial 64-bit 
Intel UNIX with their Monterey project, it won't succeed without some strong 
free software or open source element.

Like I said, SCO needs to take baby steps. I don't think we should make any 
inherent demands on them, but I think they KNOW they need to do something to 
make their mark on the community. As to what technologies they should 
release or contribute to, that's up for discussion. It has to make sense for 
them and the benefit has to go both ways -- but even if the benefit isn't an 
exact 50/50 split between the community in SCO I still think it is good. 
Companies like SCO are never going to make Stallman happy (and frankly, I'm 
convinced he will NEVER be happy and the whole issue of getting companies to 
contribute is not making the likes of Stallman happy.)

Before we ask for the moon we have to achieve escape velocity, or at least 
hit the lower atmosphere.

Jason


----Original Message Follows----
From: Bruce Ingalls <bingalls@panix.com>
To: Jason Perlow <perlow@hotmail.com>
CC: nylug-talk@electriclichen.com
Subject: Re: [nylug-talk] SCO and Freedom Source
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:28:01 -0400

I have been personally reprimanded by Rich Stallman for using the verboten
faux pas "Open Source". I have editorialized to remove such NC17 material.
Say 3 Hail Marys and open a charitable trust to the FSF.

Jay Sulzberger wrote:

 > If all the critical infrastructure is not GPLed why should I work on the
 > system?  Why should I buy it, since I know that developers won't want to
 > work on code that is not part of the free market?

Hmm, Yes, well I have made contributions to fixing Freedom Software, with
the satisfaction that it all comes back to the community.
On the other hand, why should I help Unresponsive Proprietary Tycoon Corp,
who will charge me $100-200/hr for me to report bugs to them? Then charge
for the bug fix update?

I am glad that SCO is looking at (hopefully) SGI, 2 companies I fully 
expected

to go south real fast (and I'm not talking where the cheaper labor markets
are)

While they may get a onetime public relations boost from yelling "Free
Source!",
I would suggest that they look at a core/distinguishing part of their
business,
probably something that would benefit from setting an industry standard.
They need to bring some focus to what they do best.
For SGI, this is graphics (and maybe their filesystem).

What comes to mind is their Unix/Windows connectivity.
Unfortunately, this may not work, due to licensing arrangements.

Case in point: my guess is that Zope increased their consulting business,
after
opening their web database software. Before, I expect that they were being
marginalized by Enterprise Java Beans and PHP.

Are these the sort of suggestions you were looking for, or  are you looking
more
for ideas like, where to meet, and whether to server milk & cookies or beer?



_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

To: salvatore.denaro@citicorp.com 
Subject: Re: [nylug-talk] SCO and Open Source 
From: arijort@valinux.com 
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:53:01 -0400 (EDT) 
Cc: nylug-talk@electriclichen.com 
In-Reply-To: < 19990817210807.62291.qmail@hotmail.com> 
Sender: owner-nylug-talk@electriclichen.com 



Jason,

I just read one of your later pieces

http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,2317408,00.html

in which you mention that IBM's involvement in Monterey
would include folding features of AIX into Monterey.

--
IBM explained its evolving to a multi-tier UNIX strategy, with Linux the
operating system of choice for entry-level UNIX workstations and Internet
servers, and Monterey replacing AIX for line-of-business and
high-availability applications.
--

This was the first I had heard of this wrinkle.
Was there any talk of the high-end enterprise class
features of AIX being folded into Linux?  I'm talking
about the kind of features that DH Brown was talking
about in their report.

Was there any sense that all this posturing surrounding
Monterey will become moot when these vendors decide that
is simply makes more economic sense to move Linux up 
the scale instead of merging 2 proprietary unixen
(and maybe 3 if Compaq throws in a contribution)?

And what is Compaq's contribution to Monterey, other 
than their announcement that they would support it?

Did anyone go on to speculate further on general
unix unification (Irix disappearing, AIX and SCO
merging, and HP support for Linux growing.)?

And doesn't Microsoft own ~11% of SCO?  What role,
if any, did that play in these developments?

Thanks for your work....

---------------------------------------------------
Ari Jort	            arijort@valinux.com
Systems Engineer            http://www.nylug.org/
VA Linux Systems            http://www.valinux.com/
140 Broadway, Suite 4616
New York NY 10005

On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Jason Perlow wrote:

> I'm here at SCO World at San Jose and I've been talking to a lot of the 
> higher-ups at the organization about SCO's Open Source strategy.
> 
> Recently SCO announced that it would start offering Linux and Open Source 
> consulting services, which I think is a great move for a commercial Unix 
> vendor. Here's my peice on it in Smart Reseller:
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,2315973,00.html
> 
> At this time however, SCO has not announced its own Linux distribution or 
> releasing any of its core UNIX properties into Open Source, GPL, Free 
> Software or via any of the similar licensing schemes that would allow 
> developers to look at or modify source code. The prospect is very exciting 
> to them as it would give them more mainstream acceptance by the open source 
> software and Linux communities and allow them to mentor some software 
> development projects as well. However whatever they do must make business 
> sense for them as well as provide value to the open source community at the 
> same time.
> 
> I have been talking with some of the Open Source advocates here at SCO about 
> the possibility of a version of SCO UnixWare distributed with an Open Source 
> UNIX System 5 Revision 5 kernel (possibily using a license scheme similar to 
> Apple's APSL, with some restrictions involving intellectual property), 
> UnixWare 7 ports of all the major open source tools and programs that a 
> major Linux distribution like Red Hat would have, and pre-configured to run 
> Linux binaries out of the box, avaliable for MINIMAL cost to non-commercial 
> end users and software developers. They seem very interested, but would like 
> to gauge interest in such a thing.
> 
> I am proposing a Open Source/SCO peace summit to take place in SCO's Murray 
> Hill NJ facility, the birthplace of UNIX, where leaders in the
> Open Source community and SCO can discuss how SCO can contribute to Open 
> Software cause. They want to do it.
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> 
> Jason Perlow / President, Argonaut Systems Corp

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/