OpenBSD Journal

On the OpenBSD Mantra of Code Freedom

Contributed by jose on from the scary-but-trie dept.

Daniel Melameth writes:
"(already posted to by Jason Dixon on the topic of "The importance of 'Free'dom")

SCO Group has hired high-profile attorney David Boies to see whether Windows, Mac OS X, Linux and versions of BSD infringe on Unix intellectual property the company owns, Chief Executive Darl McBride said Wednesday. "

Lawyers have recently really messed a bunch of stuff up for various free software projects, including PCI devices , and this is just another threat to things. Obviously I don't know how credible this threat is, but it still can cause damage by scaring away support and tying up resources (money, people, time, etc). Still, people are possibly gunning to cause some damage.

(Comments are closed)

  1. By cellula x () on

    You've got to be kidding!

    ""Instead of going after people, we're giving people a chance to license," McBride said. Customers with numerous servers will receive discounts, he added. "

    Hahahaa... I'm turning in my future grave right now

  2. By Anonymous Coward () on

    Some people just smoke too much crack...

  3. By schubert () on

    Already grepped the entire OpenBSD source tree for "SCO" and "Santa Cruz" and a few other similiars. Only ONE file turned up even a REFERENCE to a SCO copyright on a file and reading the comments the author said he REMOVED it because the file was a *blatent* ripoff of the original file from an early BSD system (read: the original berkeley distribution). If the copyright references are to AT&T... don't the licenses included in those files stipulate the free/open use of that code EVEN if the copyright has now been transferred to SCO? How can they claim that just because they now own the copyright, the license terms of those files is now retroactively voided and now you gotta pay to use them?

    So I'm wondering where it (the SCO "code") might be? The compatability library that allows *BSD and others to run SCO binaries? If they even claim its infringement... the code will probably just get pulled since I seriously doubt a signifigant population would suffer horrendously not being able to run SCO binaries on their favorite OS.

    Anyhow... seems like a last ditch effort to score some cash for a sinking ship.

  4. By Gimlet () on

    I haven't looked at the details of this issue, but it sounds like SCO is in a bind, financially, so they're taking a chance to see if maybe, somehow, they can get a bunch of money through litigation. Bah.

    Maybe the city of Santa Cruz ought to copyright the name and sue SCO. :-P

  5. By Anonymous Coward () on

    Righ, let's press on christian authorities to sue
    SCO for using the Santa Cruz(c) (spanish for Holy
    Cross) name with greedy purposes.

  6. By Anonymous Coward () on

    Even if they tie developers in court there is
    enough people currently working able and willing
    to release their work in a few years come.
    A fine troll btw.

  7. By Josh () on

    we should all move to canada...I will be there in about a year...hope to see some of you guys too!

  8. By Peter Hessler () on

    Last I heard, when BSD settled with ATT(Novel), we were exempt from future "infringements" of the old code. Is that not true?

    Granted, if new code came over that was under their copywrite, that still is a target, but I don't think that SCO can get a dime out of the BSDs.

  9. By axt () on

    is System V IPC (shm etc) they try to sell?

  10. By grey () on

    "Boies is noted in the computing industry for working on the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust case against Microsoft and for defending music-sharing site Napster. He also represented Al Gore in the Florida vote-counting controversy during the 2000 presidential elections. "

    So let's see... MS 'lost' their antitrust case, and we all know how well Napster is doing now, and let's not forget how Al Gore obviously vanquished W. Shrub's cheating.

    Hmm, despite no details really being provided, suddenly I don't feel so worried anymore. ;-)

  11. By Anonymous Coward () on

    Regardless of what you think of RMS and his GPL,
    he has the right idea with LPF and patents. We're
    all in this together and we have to stop this crap.

  12. By knomevol () knomevol@sanctuary.prv on mailto:knomevol@sanctuary.prv

    tell them exactly what you think:

    Tel. (801) 765-4999
    In United States and Canada phone 1-800-726-8649
    In Korea phone 82-2569-7999
    In Japan phone 03-5486-3906
    In Latin American countries contact your local SCO Sales Office
    In Europe, Middle East, India, Africa and Pacific Rim phone +44(0)1923-813 600

    Media Relations Contacts

    Blake Stowell
    Director, Marketing Communications

    Laura Sexton or Avi Dines
    Schwartz Communications

    Paul Hatch
    Manager, Corporate Communications

    SCO PR Hotline
    The SCO Group
    355 South 520 West
    Suite 100
    Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
    Phone: 801-765-4999
    Fax: 801-852-9088

  13. By Noryungi () n o r y u n g i @ y a h o o . c o m on

    I have been thinking about this whole SCO mess for a little while now, and here is my little conspiration theory... er... explanation.

    The only interesting thing that SCO can do with this whole stupid plan is not take out the *BSDs: as far as I know, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD are strictly non-profit and do not have any meaningful (read tens of millions of $$$) funding to support them.

    Heck, there was an article on OBSD Journal, not long ago, that urged people to BUY the official OpenBSD CDs!

    Also, most Linux vendors, right now, are completely broke: SuSE is in dire straits, Mandrake is broke, etc. Almost nobody is making money off Linux, except perhaps IBM and HP (hardware/service sales) or the Slackware people, and Slackware is a 5-people operation AFAIK.

    BUT... There is *one* company that sells a Linux distribution, makes decent money out of it, is committed to [GPL] "Open Source" and has plenty of money in the bank, thanks to its IPO. And that's Red Hat.

    So... I think the "game plan" could be something like this: SCO sues Red Hat, for lots of money. If the IP suit is well prepared, Red Hat either settles down, or loses. SCO gets the $$$, and may even -- worst case scenario -- take out a competitor in the process.

    Either way, this is strictly motivated by money. SCO needs money. Fast! =)

    Is OpenBSD at risk? Probably not. But I think a lot of Linux distributors are probably losing sleep over this...

Latest Articles


Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]