Weekly Edition
Return to the Letters page
| |||||||||||||
Opinion Piece: Taking the wind out of SCO's sails
Opinion Piece: Taking the wind out of SCO's sails
The open-source community prides itself in being able to develop
useful and good quality software as well as quickly addressing bugs
& security issues. If a problem/obstacle appears on our path, we fix
it or work around it.
Why not take this to the next step, and apply it to legal matters ?
What I'm talking about is taking the wind out of SCO's sails,
by removing and/or replacing the code in the Linux kernel that
they have contention with; we have a pretty good idea what this
code is (I'll expand on this point later). While pre-emptively removing
code may seem like capitulating to SCO, it is not. We can always put
the code back in after the SCO vs IBM dust settles.
In the larger picture we all want the Linux/GNU system to replace
expensive and closed proprietary systems. To do this, we need the right
atmosphere, which has been brewing for quite some time. The problem
here is that SCO's legal actions have put question marks around
open-source software in people's minds (never mind that only the Linux
kernel is affected) - in effect the atmosphere for open-source is being poisoned.
Incidentally (or on purpose), this benefits Microsoft. The SCO vs IBM
lawsuit can last for _years_, with the very real possibility of stifling adoption
of open-source products for the foreseeable future.
We have a pretty good idea what areas in the Linux kernel SCO has
a problem with. After all, they're suing IBM, so the contributions
must have come from IBM (or from the companies that IBM recently
acquired, such as Sequent). Specifically, we have a clear idea that
the problem is with NUMA {Non Uniform Memory access} and
RCU {Read Copy Update} (see [1] and [2] for more information on this).
IBM's JFS should also be removed. I have nothing against JFS,
but what is at stake here is more than a replaceable file system;
moreover, I don't know how many people actually use JFS, but I'd
put a bet that it's a lot less than other journaling systems,
such as Ext3 and ReiserFS.
There's also the question of SMP. I'm not suggesting that SMP should
be removed (after all, the Linux kernel had SMP way before IBM got
interested in it) but a careful search should be done to see if IBM has
contributed to the SMP infrastructure.
I'm sure that Linux will be slower without NUMA and RCU, but it will
still work. Some people could be annoyed at the removal of JFS, but
we have other journaling file systems. As mentioned before, these
removed pieces could be put back in, once the legal wrangling is over.
In the meantime, the open-source community would have shown that
it is serious about respecting intellectual property rights (even if SCO's
case is proven to be baloney), which would go a long way to repairing
the atmosphere; ... and a good atmosphere is needed for the progress
of open-source.
References
[1] "Does SCO own read-copy-update?", http://lwn.net/Articles/36164/
[2] "Analyst who saw SCO 'evidence' ...",
(Log in to post comments)
Opinion Piece: Taking the wind out of SCO's sails Posted Jul 10, 2003 3:37 UTC (Thu) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] There are two issues at stake in SCO's suits and pronouncements. It isn't assimple as a bit of code that snuck in that belonged to them. They are claiming that IBM's intellectual property, including patented algorithms, are theirs to control. IBM will mount a vigorous fight, since they strongly believe that the IP belongs to them and they can do what they want with it, including contribute it to a free and opensource project. This suit only peripherally involves Linux, since the dispute is whether IBM has the right to contribute said IP to Linux. It isn't our fight. Remember the injunction they filed is regarding Aix, not Linux. The second issue, where there hasn't been any suits filed, only bluster and many very far fetched claims, is that SCO IP is included in Linux. They say it has been stolen. They want royalties. They don't want to identify the code, because they know it would be removed within hours, or identified as coming from BSD. I don't think that even SCO has the guts to refight that one. If that happened, they couldn't claim royalties. They are making much noise, without any real proof or legal decisions. They want to scare people into writing checks to them. If they filed claims in court, then something tangible and real could be examined. But, they haven't. This is I believe on purpose, since they can probably collect more money through bluster and threat than real and expensive and time consuming legal action, which they may very well lose. Remember it is much easier to 'steal' linux code than any proprietary Unix. If someone wants to write a check to SCO, why should we care? They are sqeezing their old distribution partners, who facing competitive pressures, are probably dropping SCO Unix in favor of Linux. Why pay SCO for something that is inferior and poorly supported, when they can get Linux, a better product that is actively developed and improved, for nothing or close to it? The why may be some contract that they signed. Again, not our fight. SCO owns a worthless filing cabinet worth of paper and magnetic media. They can't live on the revenues from an old and obsolete product. So they sue. There isn't any clear issue at hand. There isn't any code that obviously belongs to them that can be cut out. That isn't the issue. Derek
Opinion Piece: Taking the wind out of SCO's sails Posted Jul 10, 2003 3:45 UTC (Thu) by eyal (subscriber, #949) [Link] Conrad,While you have good intentions to which I basically agree, following your suggestions will actually open the door to more trouble. What you say is more or less "somebody claims ownership of XYZ so let's drop XYZ and move on". Before you know it every Linux / open-source opponent in the known universe will claim ownership on something in Linux, and demand that "their" pieces will be removed as well. Eyal.
Opinion Piece: Taking the wind out of SCO's sails Posted Jul 10, 2003 8:21 UTC (Thu) by beejaybee (guest, #1581) [Link] I agree. Do nothing unless & until SCO specifically point to "their" code; then remove or replace it. Otherwise we're open to being kicked all around the field by anyone who feels like making unsupported (& probably unsupportable) accusations.Does a reed bend before it feels the gust of wind?
|
|||||||||||||