29 Feb
2004
29 Feb
'04
8:54 a.m.
On Sunday, 29 February 2004 at 20:34:03 +1300, Wesley Parish wrote:
I know the SCO topic's been done to death, and
all, but I was thinking about
the Microsoft purchase of a Unix license (apparently) for their MS SFU
(Windows Services For Unix) which contrary to the plain meaning of the name,
is essentially a Unix (apparently OpenBSD, according to rumour) box on top of
the Windows kernel and Win32 API.
The question is, wouldn't that put Microsoft and the SCO Group in
breach of the settlement between AT&T and Berkeley?
That settlement was superseded by Caldera's release of Ancient UNIX
two years ago. See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ and
http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ancient-source-all.pdf.
If Win SFU _is_ OpenBSD, and Microsoft have bought a
license to run
it from the SCO Group of all people,
If it's OpenBSD, SCO can't give anybody a license to use it.
isn't that in effect picking a fight with Theo de
Raadt?
Why? As long as they use it within the terms of the license, I can't
see that anybody can object. As you can see from
http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html, about the only thing Microsoft
could do wrong there would be not to recognize openly the fact that
they got it from OpenBSD.
This isn't definite, of course - some details
I'm not sure of.
The most important detail is whether it was, in fact, derived from
OpenBSD. This sounds very unlikely to me. If it were the case, why
would they pay anything to SCO?
But I think if this is so, we have some very
interesting few years
to look forward to.
Even then, there's little that people can complain about.
Greg
--
Note: I discard all HTML mail unseen.
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.