Sun is the original licensee of the new SCO licensing

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Adam Warner, Jul 11, 2003.

  1. Adam Warner

    Adam Warner Guest

    A while ago the bombshell hit that Microsoft was one of the two licensees
    of a new SCO licensing arrangement. Until now the second company was not
    disclosed. It turns our that company was Sun Microsystems:
    <http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1024633.html>

    The deal appears to go further than the Microsoft one since "SCO also
    granted Sun a warrant to buy as many as 210,000 shares of SCO stock at
    $1.83 per share as part of the licensing deal, according to a regulatory
    document filed Tuesday."

    Sun's involvement as a licensee was evident on the day SCO launched their
    legal proceedings against IBM: `Sun hasn't been ashamed to try to profit
    from the effects of that suit. It jumped at the chance to declare itself a
    safe haven for spooked technology buyers: "Sun's complete line of Solaris
    and Linux products...are covered by Sun's portfolio of Unix licensing
    agreements. Solaris and Sun Linux represent safe choices for those
    companies that develop and deploy services based on Unix systems," Sun
    declared the day SCO filed suit against IBM.'

    The implication is that only a "licensed" Linux such as "Sun Linux" is a
    legally safe choice. The whole process is a machiavellian attempt to
    appropriate and privatise a public good that threatens sales of
    proprietary Unix operating systems. It probably doesn't even matter to Sun
    if Linux becomes illegal to distribute.* People will just have to buy
    Solaris instead.

    Sun and Microsoft versus IBM, illustrating that the enemy of my enemy is
    my friend.

    Regards,
    Adam

    *Section 7 of the GPL states in part:

    If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
    obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations,
    then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For
    example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
    redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly
    or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it
    and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the
    Program.
     
    Adam Warner, Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Adam Warner

    Steve Guest

    Adam Warner allegedly said:

    > The implication is that only a "licensed" Linux such as "Sun Linux" is a
    > legally safe choice. The whole process is a machiavellian attempt to
    > appropriate and privatise a public good that threatens sales of
    > proprietary Unix operating systems. It probably doesn't even matter to Sun
    > if Linux becomes illegal to distribute.* People will just have to buy
    > Solaris instead.
    >
    > Sun and Microsoft versus IBM, illustrating that the enemy of my enemy is
    > my friend.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Adam


    Got it. Sun. Microsoft.

    Makes sense. They both have a common interest in putting speed-bumps under
    linux becasue their business models are both under threat.

    --
    Steve
     
    Steve, Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Adam Warner

    Adam Warner Guest

    Hi Steve,

    > Got it. Sun. Microsoft.
    >
    > Makes sense. They both have a common interest in putting speed-bumps
    > under linux because their business models are both under threat.


    And as a quirk of fate this doesn't apply to IBM since IBM has already
    decided to standardise upon Linux, to the extent of even raising the idea
    of phasing out emphasis upon AIX:
    "IBM: Linux is the 'logical successor'"
    <http://news.com.com/2100-1001-982512.html>

    While IBM doesn't expect Linux to replace its own AIX version of Unix
    any time soon, Big Blue is pushing the open-source OS in the that
    direction, Steve Mills, senior vice president of IBM's Software Group,
    told CNET News.com at last week's LinuxWorld trade show.

    Asked whether IBM's eventual goal is to replace AIX with Linux, Mills
    responded, "It's fairly obvious we're fine with that idea...It's the
    logical successor."

    ...

    The IBM executive in charge of AIX--a product overseen by IBM's server
    group, not the software group Mills heads--exemplifies that more
    circumspect outlook, and argues that AIX still has a promising future.

    "Steve's view is really on a multidecade time frame," said Nick Bowen,
    vice president of Unix and Intel server software development at IBM.
    "Over time, Linux and Intel and Windows will catch up to where we were
    yesterday (with AIX). When they catch up, we'll be two steps down the
    road."

    ...

    "IBM has never decommissioned an operating system, and they're not
    about to start now," said Governor.

    Rather, the debate is over how IBM can best spend its money.

    "As IBM puts more resources into Linux...you do have to ask, what
    incremental value does AIX bring? And is it worth the incremental
    development costs?" Haff said.

    One day even Microsoft will have to address a similar question. What's
    certain is that incremental development costs will be too high without
    hardware manufacturers continuing to freely supply Windows device drivers.
    While this isn't yet likely with desktop hardware the reluctance to commit
    resources to writing Windows device drivers for server hardware will be
    increasing as Microsoft loses server markets to Linux.

    Microsoft's pricing strategies are being affected by Linux and Free/Open
    Source software: <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1121576,00.asp>

    Microsoft Corp. is starting to react more aggressively to the Linux and
    open-source threat, last week slashing the price of its SQL Server 2000
    Developer Edition by $450, to $49.

    The second major price cut in as many weeks followed the Redmond,
    Wash., company's decision to reduce the retail price of Office XP by 15
    percent.

    For the first time, Microsoft officials are admitting that Linux is
    affecting the way the company prices products. Paul Flessner, senior
    vice president of the Server Platform Division, told eWEEK at the Tech
    Ed conference here last week that Linux factored into Microsoft's
    decision to cut the price of its SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition,
    effective Aug. 1.

    "Microsoft is about making technology available to all audiences and as
    ubiquitously as it can," Flessner said. "Giving developers great access
    to our technology helps further that mission, so that was the call
    around the developer edition." (For more from Flessner, see Face to
    Face, Page 26.)

    It is the open source database like PostgreSQL and MySQL that are becoming
    ubiquitous.

    Regards,
    Adam
     
    Adam Warner, Jul 11, 2003
    #3
  4. Adam Warner

    Peter Guest

    this quote is from Adam Warner of Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:15 :
    >
    > Microsoft's pricing strategies are being affected by Linux and Free/Open
    > Source software: <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1121576,00.asp>
    >
    > Microsoft Corp. is starting to react more aggressively to the Linux and
    > open-source threat, last week slashing the price of its SQL Server 2000
    > Developer Edition by $450, to $49.


    It will be difficult to keep up their megaBillion $ cash flow stream if they
    cut prices like that. They must have ideas for some new revenue streams.

    It takes an awefull lot of cashflow to support their stock price. Unless
    maybe they plan to use a bit of their cash reserves to wipe out Linux now,
    then they can ramp up the cashflows again in a couple of years time when
    monopoly control is restored.


    Peter
     
    Peter, Jul 11, 2003
    #4
  5. "Lennier" <> wrote in message
    news:pan.2003.07.11.22.28.04.394784@TRACKER...
    > On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:45:52 +1200, Peter wrote:
    >
    > > It takes an awefull lot of cashflow to support their stock price.

    Unless
    > > maybe they plan to use a bit of their cash reserves to wipe out Linux

    now,
    > > then they can ramp up the cashflows again in a couple of years time when
    > > monopoly control is restored.

    >
    > Most likely this is the case.
    >
    > After all, Micro$oft is fighting for it's life here.
    >
    > Why use Micro$oft software when there are better, substantially cheaper,
    > community-based, Open Source alternatives?


    Better is a relative term. What is better to you, is not neccessarily
    better to an IT decision maker in a business.
     
    Nathan Mercer, Jul 12, 2003
    #5
  6. Adam Warner

    Steve Guest

    Nathan Mercer allegedly said:

    > Better is a relative term. What is better to you, is not neccessarily
    > better to an IT decision maker in a business.


    "Better" certainly is in the eye of the beholder, so:

    "Why use Micro$oft software when there are better, substantially
    cheaper,community-based, Open Source alternatives?"

    .....still stands. Assume you ARE an IT decision maker and this IS the
    thought that just corssed your mind.

    You sound as though you don't think it is possible....but it clearly is.

    --
    Steve
     
    Steve, Jul 12, 2003
    #6
  7. Adam Warner

    Mark Harris Guest

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 20:44:30 +1200, "Nathan Mercer"
    <nathan@**(*(*IHATESPAM*(**(K!!!mcs.co.nz> wrote:

    >You'd be being irresponsible by not looking at all the options.


    True

    >From what
    >I've experienced, most business people who look at this issue of "Windows vs
    >Linux" objectively, choose Windows.
    >

    Which would go to show that most business people don't know shit from
    clay, when it comes to technology, which is my experience.

    Generally, the decision (if left to the business) comes down to "I can
    find MSFT on the Stock Exchange, but I can't find LINX. Better buy the
    one I can find".

    Organisations who actually get their technologists to do the research
    and present them with options aren't going this way. Munich did it's
    research.

    >better doesn't mean a thing
    >substantially cheaper may well be true based on upfront cost, but not
    >neccessarily over the longer term


    You and Bill have yet to prove definitively that Windows has a cheaper
    TCO than Linux/OSS.

    >and some people would argue that being community based is a downside
    >

    Oooh, that would be why Microsoft has been building a
    developer/support community via its MVP and newsgroup activities, yes?

    Cheers

    mark
    --
    "Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully."
    - Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse
     
    Mark Harris, Jul 13, 2003
    #7
  8. Adam Warner

    pbs Guest

    Steve wrote:
    > Got it. Sun. Microsoft.


    shirly: "Sun of Microsoft"
     
    pbs, Jul 14, 2003
    #8
  9. Adam Warner

    pbs Guest

    Nathan wrote:
    > "Steve" <> wrote in message
    > news:x8MPa.4451$...
    >
    >>Nathan Mercer allegedly said:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Better is a relative term. What is better to you, is not neccessarily
    >>>better to an IT decision maker in a business.

    >>
    >>"Better" certainly is in the eye of the beholder, so:
    >>
    >>"Why use Micro$oft software when there are better, substantially
    >>cheaper,community-based, Open Source alternatives?"
    >>
    >>....still stands. Assume you ARE an IT decision maker and this IS the
    >>thought that just corssed your mind.

    >
    >
    > You'd be being irresponsible by not looking at all the options. From what
    > I've experienced, most business people who look at this issue of "Windows vs
    > Linux" objectively, choose Windows.



    I think they do this for 3 reasons:

    1) Senior management look on all IT costs as subtractions from the
    bottom line. What they want is a specific number to which they can
    slot into their "excel" spread sheet. The MS solution gives them
    that (as they can calculate from last 3 years expenditure).
    Volatility/Uncertainty is not what they are looking for in a basic
    cost to business.

    2) In most organisations the PC department grew organically from
    one or two machines back in the 80s. There is now a large vestige
    interest in most organisations from the school leaver who installs
    the OS to the senior manager/director of the PC-IT division who
    do not want to change to anything else. They can play FUD and inertia
    to the Board to make sure that "we keep what we know".

    3) Without suggesting corruption - because in my experience the
    purchasing department can be influenced with such petty bribes that it
    is not worth the name. Let us suppose I am a clerk in the purchasing
    department. Who is going to take me out to lunch one a quarter at the
    local Italian restaurant or remember to send me a Christmas card if I
    recommend to my boss that the organisation goes for free software?
     
    pbs, Jul 14, 2003
    #9
  10. Adam Warner

    Lennier Guest

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:45:52 +1200, Peter wrote:

    > It takes an awefull lot of cashflow to support their stock price. Unless
    > maybe they plan to use a bit of their cash reserves to wipe out Linux now,
    > then they can ramp up the cashflows again in a couple of years time when
    > monopoly control is restored.


    Most likely this is the case.

    After all, Micro$oft is fighting for it's life here.

    Why use Micro$oft software when there are better, substantially cheaper,
    community-based, Open Source alternatives?


    Lennier

    --
    I specifically DENY Xtra, and Telecom NZ Ltd, and all other subsidiaries
    of Telecom NZ Ltd, the right to use the contents of this digital
    communication for any purpose whatsoever, whether in whole or in part -
    regardless of how it is stored or transmitted through Xtra's network.
     
    Lennier, Nov 21, 2003
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guest

    MSDN Licensing

    Guest, Jul 13, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    683
    Jupiter Jones [MVP]
    Jul 13, 2004
  2. Mark Shickell
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    431
    Walter Roberson
    Oct 15, 2003
  3. Nickyvonbuskergr

    sun reflector sugestions to keep sun out of the eyes

    Nickyvonbuskergr, Sep 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    551
    Nickyvonbuskergr
    Sep 29, 2003
  4. steve
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    617
    Bling-Bling
    Aug 13, 2005
  5. sobriquet

    new example of the silly licensing nonsense

    sobriquet, Jan 29, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    95
    Views:
    1,455
    Whisky-dave
    Mar 15, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page