Caldera's plans
Arthur Marsh
Linux/Unix battle hots up at Caldera; only one to survive
URL:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-17-005-06-PS-CD
Linux Today
Linux/Unix battle hots up at Caldera; only one to survive
Oct 17, 2000, 14 :32 UTC (3 Talkback[s]) (2164 reads) (Other stories
by Cath Everett)
By Cath Everett, VNU Net
Unix and Linux will fight each other for supremacy over the next 18
months but only one can survive, according to Caldera Systems.
The statement follows the Linux distributor's decision to acquire the
Santa Cruz Operation's (SCO's) Unix business in August for an
estimated bargain basement price of $130m. The agreement includes
rights to SCO's Unix SVR5 source code and the UnixWare and OpenServer
operating systems (OSs).
The deal was expected to close in October, but will now be completed
between 5-10 December.
Edgie Donakey, Caldera's vice president and chief of staff, said that
the two companies were currently reselling each other's products, but
that the aim over the next six months or so was to offer two new OSs.
One will be based on the Linux kernel and will include two so-called
personalities that run OpenServer and Linux applications, while the
other will be based on the UnixWare kernel and run Linux and UnixWare
applications.
But Donakey claimed that only one of the kernels would remain within
the next 18 months.
"It will not be a two kernel situation into the future. As the Linux
kernel develops and the Unix kernel is open sourced, the solution will
be whichever works the best. It will be the survival of the fittest.
People are not doing a lot of development on the Unix kernel these
days because people see Linux as exciting and the future," he said.
He added that Drew Spencer, Caldera's chief technology officer, and
the supplier's legal department were now looking at the ramifications
of licensing the Unix kernel and UnixWare personality under a GNU
General Public Licence - one of several ways to license open source
software.
This means that the source code would be made available to the open
source community for free to allow them to tinker with it, but that
any changes would have to be handed back so that others can benefit
from them.
As a result, the aim is to encourage kernel and application developers
to work on the code and to "give them added insight into the way the
OS works".
Original equipment manufactures, such as IBM and Hewlett Packard,
would still have to pay a fee to license the SVR5 Unix kernel source
code, however, if they wish it to remain the basis of their own
commercial iterations of Unix.
Donakey added that over the next six months, Caldera will target the
Linux-based offering at the desktop and low-end server markets to run
on machines of up to two processors, while the UnixWare-based product
would be positioned as a high-end system for machines using four chips
or more.
Users wanting to migrate their Linux packages from the low-end to the
high-end OS will be able to do so because the Linux personalities will
be binary compatible.
Talkback(s) Name Date
Can I have some Hotsup with that hot dog? (Kosher of course) I'm
sorry I ... Hots Up?
Gabriel Weisner Oct 17, 2000, 14:59:39
Did I miss something? Since when are SCO intel boxes "high end"? If
this is ... Since when is SCO
steve Oct 17, 2000, 20:00:53
First of all I hope Unix SVR5 becomes open source under GPL as this
can only hel ... Re: Since when is SCO
Dale Oct 18, 2000, 08:03:42
[snip]
All times are recorded in UTC.
Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Powered by Linux 2.2.12, Apache 1.3.9. and PHP 3.14
© Copyright 2000, internet.com Corp. All Rights Reserved.Legal
Notices.
John Hughes
"Arthur Marsh" <mars...@flinders.edu.au> wrote in message
news:39eda...@news.chariot.net.au...
>
> He added that Drew Spencer, Caldera's chief technology officer, and
> the supplier's legal department were now looking at the ramifications
> of licensing the Unix kernel and UnixWare personality under a GNU
> General Public Licence - one of several ways to license open source
> software.
> Original equipment manufactures, such as IBM and Hewlett Packard,
> would still have to pay a fee to license the SVR5 Unix kernel source
> code, however, if they wish it to remain the basis of their own
> commercial iterations of Unix.
Looks like someone has to re-read the GPL.
Joe Doupnik
> Did anyone else see:
>
> Linux/Unix battle hots up at Caldera; only one to survive
> URL:
> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-17-005-06-PS-CD
>
> But Donakey claimed that only one of the kernels would remain within
> the next 18 months.
>
> "It will not be a two kernel situation into the future. As the Linux
> kernel develops and the Unix kernel is open sourced, the solution will
> be whichever works the best. It will be the survival of the fittest.
> People are not doing a lot of development on the Unix kernel these
> days because people see Linux as exciting and the future," he said.
Ah, self-fulfilling propheses. Of course the community isn't
doing much with the Unix kernel, given the licensing terms and prices.
That says nothing, zero, about its technical merits. The community is
playing with the mess called Linux too, and that does not determine its
technical merits either. Appealing to the masses will give them what
they want, often the least difficult solution for the providers.
Speaking personally, I want to see UnixWare persist. It's quality
and organized, and proven stable. The alternative is Solaris, and I do
have Solaris sources.
Joe D.
Crossfire
the Lovely and Talented John Hughes <ja...@calva.net> wrote:
] "Arthur Marsh" <mars...@flinders.edu.au> wrote in message
] news:39eda...@news.chariot.net.au...
]
] > Original equipment manufactures, such as IBM and Hewlett Packard,
] > would still have to pay a fee to license the SVR5 Unix kernel source
] > code, however, if they wish it to remain the basis of their own
] > commercial iterations of Unix.
]
] Looks like someone has to re-read the GPL.
The GPL does not cover the SVR5 Unix Kernel source code. SVR5 Unix was
copyrighted years ago, and so whoever owns the copyright can charge fees
for others to use it.
Jon Reid
========================================================================
Email: jonLU...@MEATapeiros.com Web: http://www.apeiros.com/~jon
(DeSPAM my email to contact me.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I slept my way to the middle. -- Bruce Villanch
========================================================================
Anthony W. Southworth
: On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 21:10:16 +0200,
: the Lovely and Talented John Hughes <ja...@calva.net> wrote:
: ] "Arthur Marsh" <mars...@flinders.edu.au> wrote in message
: ] news:39eda...@news.chariot.net.au...
: ]
: ] > Original equipment manufactures, such as IBM and Hewlett Packard,
: ] > would still have to pay a fee to license the SVR5 Unix kernel source
: ] > code, however, if they wish it to remain the basis of their own
: ] > commercial iterations of Unix.
: ]
: ] Looks like someone has to re-read the GPL.
: The GPL does not cover the SVR5 Unix Kernel source code. SVR5 Unix was
: copyrighted years ago, and so whoever owns the copyright can charge fees
: for others to use it.
I think the point was that if Caldera plans to GPL the UnixWare kernel,
it might get a little sticky telling other vendors that they need to
pay for what everyone else gets for free...
Of course, if Caldera GPL's the code that IBM, HP and others use in
their kernels, does that mean that IBM and HP have to provide source
code as well, since they are using GPL code?
Could get interesting... B-)
--
Anthony Southworth
Anthony W. Southworth
: Ah, self-fulfilling propheses. Of course the community isn't
: doing much with the Unix kernel, given the licensing terms and prices.
The pricing will be key.
Yes, I know they're planning to position UW on the high-end hardware,
but I think the "Base Edition" (if there still is such a thing), and
UDK should be dirt cheap. Get it into as many hands as possible, and
see what happens.
: That says nothing, zero, about its technical merits. The community is
: playing with the mess called Linux too, and that does not determine its
: technical merits either. Appealing to the masses will give them what
: they want, often the least difficult solution for the providers.
: Speaking personally, I want to see UnixWare persist. It's quality
: and organized, and proven stable. The alternative is Solaris, and I do
: have Solaris sources.
: Joe D.
--
Anthony Southworth
Warren Young
>
> This means that the source code would be made available to the open
> source community for free to allow them to tinker with it, but that
> any changes would have to be handed back so that others can benefit
> from them.
Translation: "You can use, tinker with, and sell the Linux kernel
freely, and you can use the UnixWare kernel freely and maybe tinker with
it and probably not sell it." If there can be only one, guess which one
will survive.
It's plain what Caldera wants to happen: they've bought a lot of
technology which they intend to fold into Linux. They're buying the
future of their company, and they've bet that future on Linux.
--
= Warren -- See the *ix pages at http://www.cyberport.com/~tangent/ix/
=
= ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m
John Hughes
"Warren Young" <war...@etr-usa.com> wrote in message
news:39EF57DD...@etr-usa.com...
>
> Translation: "You can use, tinker with, and sell the Linux kernel
> freely, and you can use the UnixWare kernel freely and maybe tinker with
> it and probably not sell it."
How can they impose such a condition? Some kind of "UnixWare community
license"?
nobody's mentioned that yet.
Joe Doupnik
If UnixWare were by only one outfit then there would be a chance
for licensing options. Alas, some other major companies have made
contributions. Getting around that difficulty is a big task in itself
even before sources become available.
Also, UnixWare isn't put togther according to the wierd Linux model
of a kernel by one person and everything else by RMS&Assoc and others. So
let's not talk about free kernels and such and instead talk realistically
about open/closed Unix systems, the whole nine yards. Solaris does it,
excepting the C compiler necessary to build the sources which they still
license. That tiny item causes difficulty here and I wish they had gone
the full route.
A strength of UnixWare (and Solaris etc) is that it is a whole,
not a bunch of components du jour flying in loose formation.
However this may be, I too can see the obvious: let's make life
easy for ourselves and boost the quarter's bottom line, feed the masses.
Nevermind about the long term because the analysts will have killed us
by then. By such means is technology lost.
The fallback from UW is to Solaris, and from there to say FreeBSD.
Beyond that we are back in the jungle. Just one person's opinion.
Joe D.
Crossfire
the Lovely and Talented Anthony W. Southworth <ant...@carsinfo.com> wrote:
] Crossfire (jonLU...@MEATapeiros.com) wrote:
]
] : The GPL does not cover the SVR5 Unix Kernel source code. SVR5 Unix was
] : copyrighted years ago, and so whoever owns the copyright can charge fees
] : for others to use it.
]
] I think the point was that if Caldera plans to GPL the UnixWare kernel,
] it might get a little sticky telling other vendors that they need to
] pay for what everyone else gets for free...
Oh, I understand. Yes, that would be true. But I'll bet that's not what
Caldera wants to do. (For the record, I have no clue what Caldera actually
DOES want to do.)
] Of course, if Caldera GPL's the code that IBM, HP and others use in
] their kernels, does that mean that IBM and HP have to provide source
] code as well, since they are using GPL code?
Yes, well, that is why lots of people refer to it as the G.P. "Virus"...
] Anthony Southworth
John Hughes
news:slrn8uv1pf.ak...@olethros.apeiros.com...
> On 19 Oct 2000 15:13:55 GMT,
> the Lovely and Talented Anthony W. Southworth <ant...@carsinfo.com>
wrote:
>
> ] Crossfire (jonLU...@MEATapeiros.com) wrote:
> ]
> ] : The GPL does not cover the SVR5 Unix Kernel source code. SVR5 Unix
was
> ] : copyrighted years ago, and so whoever owns the copyright can charge
fees
> ] : for others to use it.
> ]
> ] I think the point was that if Caldera plans to GPL the UnixWare kernel,
> ] it might get a little sticky telling other vendors that they need to
> ] pay for what everyone else gets for free...
>
> Oh, I understand. Yes, that would be true. But I'll bet that's not what
> Caldera wants to do. (For the record, I have no clue what Caldera
actually
> DOES want to do.)
From
http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47-71-364-377_STO48264,00.h
tml
(datelined August 07, 2000)
In a conference call with analysts, Caldera CEO Ransom Love said developers
would get access to all Caldera source code, but that Caldera would hold on
to ownership of parts of the code. "Ownership [of code] is not a bad thing,
it's actually a good thing," said Love. "It protects [code] quality."
so something like the Sun Community license seems a lot more likely than
GPL.