Microsoft will license the rights to Unix patents and source code from SCO Group. What Microsoft will do with these rights isn't clear, but one outcome of the move is to give SCO Group a better position in their billion dollar lawsuit IBM for allegedly transferring bits of Unix code to Linux.

Microsoft to license Unix code

SCO Group: Microsoft Will Pay Licenses.

Sometime ago...in a land far far away...

...I was writing for Wrox Press and managed to get in on a thread
of discussion on their blogs site regarding the long term
picture for Microsoft. It is MHO that Microsoft has/is
looking into *nix in order to properly port its IL (or CLR
as it is called today) to the *nix flavours.

What does this mean in the long term? Well, imaging if you
can run Office on Solaris or Linux ?!? Surely that has got
to be a tempting proposition for $$$ Microsoft $$$ ?

Think it's not going to happen? Consider now that Microsoft
has already got a version of Office for the Mac.

- Gary

Everyone,

Is their a lawyer in the house that can explain this in terms that I can understand? Is this a real threat or FUD?

Of course I am asking about the 1 billion $ lawsuit?

Well, SCO's stock has doubled since it filed the suit, so I guess their shareholders are happy.

There were a number of rumors floating around that the entire licensing issue, including the $1B suit against IBM might have been secretly orchestrated by Microsoft. They have sufficient cash reserves to pull this off. Despite their initial derisive attitude towards Linux, Microsoft definitely sees Linux as a threat now.

Besides, SCO and Microsoft have been good friends for a while. Back in 1979, Microsoft's XENIX was based on Unix code licensed from AT&T. The following year, SCO became a distributor for Microsoft XENIX and licensed the name XENIX because they sold their trade name DYNIX to Sequent. In 1989, SCO ran short of cash, and Microsoft, along with other investors, put $25 million into SCO in exchange for 16% of the stock.

In the subsequent years, Microsoft gets increasingly rabid and edgy (not to mention edgy and rabid) about Linux's increasing dominance. Wonder if they still own SCO stock? Probably not. In any case, it wouldn't be surprising if they are "up to something".

Aspiring Conspiracy Theorist

eat this ..
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html

Jagan,

Very intresting read, thank you. So does SCO have a leg to stand on?

> http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html

excelent.

> http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html

Very, very cool! If SCO goes ahead with the lawsuit, UC Berkeley should counter sue SCO and bring the Novell/AT&T/USL vs. UC Berkeley court case full circle.

In my estimation, there are two primary reasons (and many secondary) for developing open source projects.

1. To promote other high-quality open source projects, through knowledge sharing.
2. To drive the cost of quality software down.

OSI quotes the complaint as follows:
"...the improper extraction, use, and dissemination of the proprietary and confidential UNIX Software Code and libraries".

What is 'improper extraction of Unix software, code and libraries'? Why would you ever release source if this was a concern?

These opportunistic sell-outs slit their own throats. I'm only astounded that Sun wasn't first, since M$ has had a hard-on for them forever.

Kyle

Finally Microsoft has acknowledged what all of us have felt all along that it is very scared of Linux/Desktop UNIX.

I am sure Microsoft knows that it has already lost the war against Linux. Now it is looking for ways to counter it. I won't be surprised if they already have an Office/Visual Studio version for Linux.

Regards,
Musaddique Husain Qazi
http://www.the5ants.com
When was the last time MS did something original ??? ....

Well, preety standard M$ behaviour: first ignore it, then bash it, then copy it, then cash on it, then eat it for breakfast... :)

They revoked the IBM license (frome next month?), spending money on the law suit, behaving like idiots. Who will buy anything from them? Where is their cach flow coming from? Well if they need a cash injection the M$ money is very welcome. Some might even see it as a payment for a job well done ;) Do M$ need the license? Doubt it.

Bruce Perens: Microsoft's spreading FUD over Linux
.

How can MS proof that all code in their products is their own intellectual property?

I dont think M$ would anything with their license nor produce
commercial products for Linux. Based on M$'s history of conquering,
their policies hostile against competitors are not something new.
FUD, the weakest link of open-sources has not been so effective
for Linux, which would be one of the great threats to their line of server
products. They finally brought the legality into this battle ground
to de-moralize Linux evangelists and plnat the seed of uncertainty
on the minds of decision makers in corporate Amercia, and the World
later. I wouldn't be so surprised if this vicous idea started from the
M$ heads and then executed by M$' corporate puppet. M$ did not forget
portraiting itself as a Corporate Moral by paying lots of money for this
license. Also by doing that, M$'s move makes this license look more
legally justified. I am not the big fan of M$ itself. But amused to see
what lies ahead. Good Luck for both.