| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft to license Unix code | |
|
||
| Time: 02:41 EST/07:41 GMT | News Source: News.com | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
Microsoft is acquiring the rights to Unix technology from SCO Group, a move that could dramatically impact the battle between Windows and Linux in the market for computer operating systems. According to a statement from Microsoft, the company will license SCO's Unix patents and the source code. That code is at the heart of a high-stakes, billion-dollar lawsuit between SCO and IBM, which is aggressively pushing Linux as an alternative to Windows in corporate back shops. Late Sunday, Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith said acquiring the license from SCO "is representative of Microsoft's ongoing commitment to respecting intellectual property and the IT community’s healthy exchange of IP through licensing. This helps to ensure IP compliance across Microsoft solutions and supports our efforts around existing products like Services for UNIX that further UNIX interoperability." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 332 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:29:49 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 12071 (203.217.66.254) at 5/19/2003 8:21:10 AM |
| I do wonder why Microsoft would need to license any code from unix?! And it just *happens* to be the same code that SCO is suing IBM over? Wow... coincidence or what! Is this an example of Microsoft innovating yet again or ... ? |
| #2 By 16451 (65.19.17.219) at 5/19/2003 8:29:40 AM |
| Late Sunday, Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith said acquiring the license from SCO will allow Microsoft to complete their monopoly on the desktop OS and will also allow them to finally and completely eradicate the evil that is Linux. |
| #3 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 5/19/2003 8:55:29 AM |
|
#1 - Really, the only plausible reason is given directly in the article: it "supports our efforts around existing products like Services for UNIX that further UNIX interoperability".
In addition, SCO has many patents surrounding Unix. We have no idea which chunks of code are involved in the law suit, nor which chunks of code Microsoft is licensing. |
| #4 By 8062 (68.107.23.145) at 5/19/2003 9:41:29 AM |
| IBM was caught looking the other way...again! |
| #5 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 5/19/2003 9:52:18 AM |
| RMD, the other stated reason given was to "ensure IP compliance across Microsoft solutions," which could be construed that Microsoft's own software might also infringe upon SCO's IP. However, I'm also skeptical--with Microsoft's legal resources, they might try to make this the magic bullet they've been seeking against Linux. Whatever the legal basis for it, I don't think it will help their image--especially in the IT community--and it might backfire on them. |
| #6 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 5/19/2003 10:26:43 AM |
| By licensing the source code, MS can build all the interoperability into Windows, thus making Linux and Unix all but obsolete. |
| #7 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 5/19/2003 11:02:13 AM |
|
#7 - "the other stated reason given was to "ensure IP compliance across Microsoft solutions,""
Yes, but wouldn't that include interop code? I suspect the "IP compliance" is in reference to current or future code that helps Windows interop with Unix. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/19/2003 11:21:51 AM |
|
Let us go back through history, shall we?
Microsoft originally licensed Unix from AT&T to produce Xenix. They subcontracted out much of the work to a small company called Santa-Cruz Operation. After the PC began taking off with MS-DOS following Netware's introduction in early 80's Microsoft decided to focus on that direction. So they sold their rights for the Unix source to SCO. They also sub-licensed Microsoft technology to SCO. For years the C Compiler that SCO shipped was the Microsoft one, as an example. The two companies have had a long standing relationship as a result of this. I see this move as two fold: #1. Microsoft may be thinking that they may have accidentally retained some of the Unix code after selling it to SCO. They are covering their bases. #2. SCO is facing bankruptcy, and this is an infusion of cash into the company to help them out. |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/19/2003 11:26:39 AM |
|
BTW this SCO situation is pretty much enforcing Microsoft's viewpoint.
"Mess with the GPL and your company faces oblivion." One just needs to look at the casualties of the battlefield. Corel VA Linux SCO Sun SGI Yet obviously working with BSD licensed technology, such as what Apple has done, is a winning strategy. |
| #10 By 61 (65.32.171.144) at 5/19/2003 11:43:40 AM |
| I must have missed the article about the SCO suit against IBM, can someone please explain? |
| #11 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 5/19/2003 12:18:03 PM |
| Sodablue, you don't think they're interested in this as another weapon to hold against Linux? I think they may have numerous reasons, but on the surface at least, it seems like the pieces fit as a competitive move against IBM and Linux. |
| #12 By 7797 (63.76.44.99) at 5/19/2003 1:21:05 PM |
|
SCO has no case IMO. They are accusing IBM of misappopriating SCO's IP by using it to make Linux better in some cases even by putting Unix code into Linux. However, SCO, at the same time was still developing and distributing their own version of Linux under the GPL as well as putting efforts into developing United Linux together with SuSe and others. In other words, they were knowingly distributing their own IP under the GPL. By suing IBM _before_ discontinuing their own Linux efforts they shot themselves in the foot.
As SCO was a dying company anyway the entire lawsuit screamed "buy me". One possible scenario would have been for IBM to let them die in court and then buy their assets. However, by licensing UNIX Microsoft is basically stating their own interest for getting first dibs when SCO assets are up for sale. |
| #13 By 7797 (63.76.44.99) at 5/19/2003 1:25:50 PM |
|
CPUGuy:
"I must have missed the article about the SCO suit against IBM, can someone please explain?" As I suspected already you must be living in a bubble. It wasn't "an article". This has been a well covered event for some weeks now. I don't know how anyone who reads tech news could have possibly missed it even if they wanted to. |
| #14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/19/2003 2:07:27 PM |
| bluvg - In part I suppose. It's in Microsoft's best interests for Caldera/SCO to not go away. |
| #15 By 1896 (208.61.158.208) at 5/19/2003 2:09:23 PM |
|
There are so many uncertain facts here that is impossible to know the real reason why MS decided to license the code from SCO. For instance what about this:
MS can't buy SCO; too many complaints, Anti-trust issues etc.. At the same time they are concern that another big company with a lot of resources, like IBM for instance, could do it without many problems. Now what is better, license a code from a company almost in bankrupcy desperately looking for money like SCO or licensing it from a someone like IBM, a company with a much bigger bargaining power and no need for cash? Again I am not saying that this is the reason MS acted the way it acted but i could be the reason or one of the reasons. |
| #16 By 7390 (198.246.16.251) at 5/19/2003 2:43:10 PM |
|
tgnb, by licensing UNIX Microsoft is basically stating their own interest for getting first dibs when SCO assets are up for sale
What does one have to do with the other? Why wouldn't SCO sell to the highest bidder regardless of prior involvement? on the flip side an infusion of cash to SCO would help MS "murky" the Linux water. Does anyone know the dollar amount of this deal? |
| #17 By 61 (65.32.171.144) at 5/19/2003 2:52:04 PM |
| tgnb: Yeah, I've been fighting off a sinus infection for the past week. |
| #18 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/19/2003 3:27:39 PM |
| Fritzly - That's a very observant point, and I suspect that such thoughts did come into play with this agreement. |
| #19 By 7797 (63.76.44.99) at 5/19/2003 4:28:39 PM |
|
Kevinu:
"It doesn't matter if SCO had or has a version of Linux under development. What matters is if IBM is breaking their license." Yes it does matter. IBM (supposedly)stole code and technical know how (IP) and put it into linux. SCO released a version of linux (most likely containing this code) and published their version to the net under the GPL, hence publishing the allegedly stolen code under the GPL license. Now, this doesn't make IBM's theft "legal" or good. However, by publishing the code under the GPL themselves they most certainly published their own IP under the GPL. Had they pulled their own version of Linux FIRST, immediately after finding the alleged code,before suing IBM then things would be different. But they pulled their linux AFTER suing IBM and are STILL contributors to UnitedLinux. Besides, Caldera was a Linux distro who bought the UNIX IP and renamed themselves to SCO. RedHook: "What does one have to do with the other? Why wouldn't SCO sell to the highest bidder regardless of prior involvement?" If you re-read what I said you'd see i spoke about MS wanting first dibs of the assets, not SCO themselves. IMO SCO wants to bought. But if no one buys them they will most likely go bankrupt. If they go bankrupt their assets will be for sale. MS might have first dibs depending on what the terms of their recent UNIX license purchase are. |
| #20 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 5/19/2003 7:36:36 PM |
|
kevinu:
=== http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-999371.html "We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code," McBride said in an interview. In addition, he said, "We're finding code that looks likes it's been obfuscated to make it look like it wasn't UnixWare code--but it. === Linux = the linux kernel, the single(?) common thing to all Linux distributions! Any linux distribution contains the linux kernel :) Otherwise it wouldn't be linux afterall. Hence SCO continued to knowingly distribute and publish their OWN IP with their own linux distribution under the GPL even AFTER suing IBM. And as of yet they have to announce any pull-out of United Linux. They even released an ITANIUM version of their distribution more than one month after filing suit. Read also: http://www.sco.com/company/news/ http://ir.sco.com/releases.cfm CPUGuy: SCO announced the Lawsiut on March 7, 2003 with many follow-up stories since then. I guess you've been fighting your infection for over 2 months with no access to tech news sites. Funny how at the same time you were able to post at AW though.. Bubbleboy! |
| #21 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 5/19/2003 8:32:02 PM |
|
#3 RMD, that's the only plausible explanation? Do you honestly believe that? Why do Microsoft all of a sudden want to license SCO's code? Why not livense it earlier? Are they covering their asses in case they happen to have some of SCO's code lying around? Are they trying to bring more merit to SCO's lawsuit? Why would Microsoft require code that is used in a kernel? Really, from the way you and certain other members here go on about it, why would Microsoft require any code at all from SCO? After all, surely their code is far better and innovative! They keep telling us so!
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" (Slashdot). Happy now RedAvenger? How about you answer the questions rather than acting like a 5 year old threating anyone that opposes Microsoft, damn zealot, look in a mirror would you, you'll see that you just as bad as the Linux zealots if not worse given that you go around giving them shit for being zealots but you don't see how hypocritical you're being in the process. This post was edited by chris_kabuki on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 at 01:22. |
| #22 By 116 (66.69.198.173) at 5/19/2003 8:46:51 PM |
|
Man all the activewin trolls just repost what they read on slashdot.
Bla bla bla... Guess what folks your poster child might about to get knifed. Penguin stew anyone? |
| #23 By 61 (65.32.171.144) at 5/20/2003 1:32:34 AM |
| tgnb: Yes, and I'm also a college student that works about 32hrs a week on top of school.... and I have a social life. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 332 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:29:49 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
