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