[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

1. MontaVista is very expensive. They are complaining about sending license fees to SCO while charging $20000 - $40000 per year for their services depending on what your getting. (Despite the price tag here it should be noted that they are so valuable that even our company is seriously thinking of signing up for one year. ) My point here is that MontaVista is very like SCO put doing it right. SCO tries to make lots of money for UNIX/ Linux by saying they have expertise and special added software that you can't get anywhere else. If you need multiprocessing high end server unix you should go to SCO. Problem is it's not true. In MontaVista's is basically the same thing except replace servers with embedded systems. Very thin line between needing them for $thousands$ and just getting it for free. That line is broken if the special code becomes fully public domain, GPL, or BSD. This HAS happened to MontaVista. No problem says MontaVista, we KNOW the code better, support it and have a better way for you to get the code. This is how SCO should have responded to their situation instead of running to court.

2. MontaVista hits on the REAL weakness here in defending linux from SCO. The embedded market. Embedded linux is not just in large volume or expensive stuff, its every where in many low volume inexpensive items. LinuxDevices.com has studies that shows that about 1/3 to 1/2 of ALL embedded projects are now linux. The estimate of 2.4 million systems is VERY low when you include the embedded market.

3. indemnifation is VERY important to the embedded market. UNLIKE the server/workstation market you can't just go and update all devices with the non-offending code. What about the stuff already shipped? I'm making 1000s of units per year, how do I track licenses. When do I make payments. If I can't tolerate the fees how long will it take to engineer a replacement product. Think about it here. We are not talking a few weeks or even months to fix this problem if SCO wins, but years. Many years to change code bases. Many years to fix products in the field. Many $$$$. yuck.

Yeah, SCO sucks, SCO gunna lose. But the people who make money via linux are demanding protection. There is just soooooo much on the line here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Makes sense to me too. IANAL but keep in mind, MontaVista big thing is that you use there tools to create the kernel / application base. The tool is similar to the kernel configuration tools you get with the kernel source code. In other words, its not hard to prove, disprove if offending code is in a product. In other words MontaVista is very configurable. If you get an invoice from SCO and not MontaVista, SCO faces two problems. 1. they are charging YOU not MontaVista for a product MontaVista is reselling. 2. They are charging you for something you are not using and didn't buy. I.e. if you don't want or can't use BPF chances are MontaVista didn't even ship it to you.

For example, it's like a trim manufacturer for car trim feels that he isn't getting due compensation from say for example Ford Motor company. He sues the end users (the drivers) and not just the drivers using his trim but ALL Ford drivers. It just doesn't work and it may be illegal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Factually - you are out of your league or you are a paid trolloid.

Fact: THE SCO Group have _never_ done ANYTHING in the embedded space! 'The SCO Group' have stated pubically - more than once - that v2.2 Linux is not infringing. 3 guesses which version of Linux is perferred amongst embedded Linux developers such as MonteVista.

Fact: NO software vendor in the embedded space provides any form of indemnification unless you run their software on their certified hardware with their software revisions with their service with their support bills.

I am not talking about MonteVista either - try to get indemnification from say .... ummmm ... Microsoft or Wind River for their embedded software products. You won't get it - because these folks want to have all the embedded platform developers line up just like the Personal Computer. i.e Monopoly.

What happens when that same code base ends up in a heart monitor? Is Microsoft or Wind River going to indemnify?

You're a troll or a mis-informed moron. <PERIOD>

[ Reply to This | # ]

Boy are you out of touch. FSM Labs refused to pay for their usage of Caldera's Open Unix, while suing Caldera's Lineo subsidiary over patent infringments. That was what started the whole damned SCOX "IP licensing" idea in the first place.

http://www .ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0205.3/0259.html

"In the summer of 1998, Caldera, Inc. created two separate companies to further focus development, marketing and sales efforts. Caldera Systems, Inc. was created to develop Linux-based products for PC software markets, with greatest success on desktops and servers. Caldera Thin Clients, Inc., targeted the thin client and embedded systems markets."

Caldera Inc. became Caldera Systems, Inc., which, in turn became Caldera International, Inc. After Caldera Interantional Inc. purchased a majority of the assets of The SCO Group, Inc. they continue as the legal entity name of Caldera International, Inc. but are using the d/b/a/ of The SCO Group. http://www.caldera.com/company/ drdos.html

So Thin Clients was owned by Caldera International /d/b/a The SCO Group, until it was sold recently to Motorola's Metrowerks subsidiary (a Monta Vista development tools partner). Motorola had always owned a small stake (read about it and the sale at Canopy's site). I suppose that Motorola would have asked for an indemnification clause, since the FSM Labs deal happened under their watchful eye.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]