decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Novell's Chris Stone: "We Still Own UNIX and We Believe that UNIX Is not In Linux"
Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:19 PM EST

ComputerWire is reporting on Novell's Chris Stone's speech at the Open Source Business Conference 2004. They characterize it as angry. He does make fun of Darl McBride's ideas, but you don't have to be angry to do that. The most significant thing he says is: "We still own UNIX and we believe that UNIX is not in Linux and that Linux is a free and is an open distribution and should be and always will be." He ought to know. Novell has access to both operating systems. If he says he believes UNIX is not in Linux, it's significant to me.

You can watch a video of the speech by going to this page and clicking on the picture under the title "Novell chides SCO". [PJ: Sept. 4, 2007 - It doesn't work now. Go here now.] I got a different understanding by looking at the video than just reading the news account. The article says he said that they "invented UNIX", but what I heard in the snip available was that they still own it. Maybe he said the other in a later portion of the speech, or maybe it's a mistake in the account. As usual, it's safest to go to the source for the most accurate information. While you are there, you might want to read the article about Microsoft's woes.

Another important point Stone makes is that while there is money to be made in IT, operating systems are becoming commoditized. Everybody needs to adjust, including SCO and Microsoft, and learn how to make money the new way, via services and applications, not infrastructure. There is no reason why, he says, proprietary and free/open source can't coexist.

The Groklaw reader who sent this to me, Steve Gehlbach, says it's important to note that this article is "part of the news crawl seen by all active stock traders with a level II access program such as Schwab StreetSmartPro, as monitored by DataMonitor for all stocks on the NASDAQ, NYSE, etc. It pops up for a daily news search on SCOX."

Here is a taste of what Stone had to say, according to the article:

"Al Gore didn't invent the internet and we didn't invent Linux. We invented Unix and Unix is not in Linux. Linux is a free and open distribution, and should be and will continue to be," Stone said to applause from OSBC delegates in San Francisco, California. . . .

He said Novell's $250m acquisitions proved Novell doesn't believe open source will destroy the software industry, while open source is a movement dominated by professional developers already working in the IT industry.

"Sixty percent of the people in the development community working for you also work in open source. They work for you! Linux, Apache and PHP are exceptional software," Stone said. . . .

Stone told open source ISVs to compete on customer service and applications not infrastructure like operating systems, which are becoming increasingly commoditized.

"We have got to recognize where the value lines are... we spent money building the infrastructure but the value is in the services - identity, security and office. That's where the money is. Not underneath. Until you realize that you won't make money."

Well. That was refreshing, huh? Update: On listening to the video, what he actually said is even stronger: he said, "We still own UNIX," not "We invented UNIX".


  


Novell's Chris Stone: "We Still Own UNIX and We Believe that UNIX Is not In Linux" | 240 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Novell's Chris Stone: UNIX Isn't In Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:43 PM EST
A remarkable lucid accounting of the OSS scene.

Kudos to Novell... back from the brink, Baby!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Chris Stone: UNIX Isn't In Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:46 PM EST

It is refreshing. Personally, I am getting so tired of the Darl & Co. SCO
Road Show.

I can't even make fun of them much anymore. the jokes have all gotten old.

I just wish they would cave, fold, go under, fail.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Chris Stone: UNIX Isn't In Linux
Authored by: xtifr on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:58 PM EST
What does he mean by "we invented Unix"? I realize he's on our side
and all, but that claim sounds as preposterous as any of the nonsense spouted by
Darl and Co. Novell didn't invent Unix, AT&T Bell Labs did, then sold their
Unix division (USL) to Novell.

Aside from that, sounds like a basically right-on-the-money speech. The only
other thing I find confusing is the final line: "The right strategy is up
the stack." I'd suspect he was speaking a foreign tongue except all the
words seem to be English... :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Chris Stone: UNIX Isn't In Linux
Authored by: windowsrefund on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 08:03 PM EST
"There is no reason why, he says, proprietary and free/open source can't
coexist."

I was disgusted by this same rant during Novell's keynote speech at LinuxWorld
Expo 2004 in NYC. This is why I do not trust Novell yet and consider them to be
nothing more than "the new kid on the block" when it comes to Free
Software.

How can anyone take two things that are in direct opposition of each other and
say that they can coexist? At the very nature of proprietary software is the
need to eliminate alternatives (especially Free as in speech or beer).

The bottom line is that proprietary software is an ENEMY of Free Software.
Companies that look to further the adoption (infection?) of proprietary software
are in direct conflict with the goals of the Free Software community.

The bottom line is simple.

Novell is playing both sides of the fence. I say that is not good enough. I say
we need to call them on this crap at every opportunity.

Adam Kosmin
WindowsRefund.net

[ Reply to This | # ]

Chris Stone Mis-quoted?
Authored by: Ken Wilson on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 08:12 PM EST
Unless ComputerWire based their article on statements I haven't seen, they got the quote wrong. The video I saw had him saying "Al Gore didn't invent the internet and YOU didn't invent Linux". Not WE didn't invent Linux. Minor point but it does change the nature of his SCO chiding.

---
Ken Wilson

[ Reply to This | # ]

How refreshing, but...
Authored by: meat straw on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 08:17 PM EST
I am very happy to see Novell really stepping up to the plate. However, I can't
shake the feeling that a newly invigorated Novell wouldn't have been possible
without the surreal events that have been unfolding since SCOG has been spewing
poop. I guess I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth -- SCO is quickly
finding how powerful the ire of Novell is; I can't wait to see how the copyright
turmoil is going to turn out (my bet is on Novell). Still, it seems, to a
certain degree, that Novell has jumped on the bandwagon. Maybe I shouldn't be so
sour and enjoy the show.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Viewing Video in Linux
Authored by: captainhaddock on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 08:41 PM EST
Does anyone know how to watch the video in Linux? I hate these embedded
Javascript-triggered Realplayer pop-ups. I've got Mandrake with the bundled Real
player, and Firefox as a browser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Sun and Novl 1994
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 08:48 PM EST
http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/other/0,39020682,39149353,00.htm

kaycee77025

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Chris Stone: "We Still Own UNIX and We Believe that UNIX Is not In Linux"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 08:57 PM EST
"'Al Gore didn't invent the internet and we didn't invent Linux. We invented Unix and Unix is not in Linux." is not correct. The correct sentence is this:

"Sorry Darl! Al Gore didn't invent the internet and you didn't invent Linux! ... We still own Unix and we believe that Unix is not in Linux"

I think that's the whole essence: "Darl, you didn't invent Linux".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Chris Stone: "We Still Own UNIX and We Believe that UNIX Is not In Linux"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 09:16 PM EST
It's nice to see Novell criticizing SCO, but I'd really like to see AT&T
state publicly that SCO's derivative argument is wrong and that AT&T never
intended to put any restrictions on what Unix licensees did with their own code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Videos in Linux format?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 09:47 PM EST
Does anyone know how to access these videos _through_ Linux?
:)

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - If Novell chooses to countersue
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 09:48 PM EST
If Novell chooses to countersue the SCO Group, the grounds will most be likely
breach of contract.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not everything SHOULD be Open Source
Authored by: OmniGeek on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 09:59 PM EST
I saw Eric Raymond at a Boston geek fest a few years ago, and he made the point
that there are software applications that don't benefit from the positive
network synergy of OSS. For the people who do these apps, it is not a good idea
to Open Source them.

Open Source *operating systems* are clearly the Right Thing, and most apps as
well (OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, KMail, etc ad transfinitum). Open Source and
closed source CAN coexist peacefully, but only when the underlying platform is
open. I simply do *not* believe they are mortal enemies, even if RMS does. (And
we do need RMS, his contributions to F/OSS are fundamental. I just think he gets
a bit doctrinaire in some areas.)

---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Al Gore never said
Authored by: Wol on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 03:44 AM EST
That he invented the Internet.

If you know the facts, sadly, Chris Stone's comment sounds a lot less
impressive.

Al Gore said that without him, the Internet wouldn't exist. Seeing as he was one
of only FOUR people who fought for funds to develop ArpaNet, that sounds
plausible.

Okay, something vaguely like the Internet (as in MSN or AOL) would probably have
arisen eventually, but life would be *very* different today.

Quick general knowledge question - where, when and by whom is the first recorded
use of the phrase "Information Superhighway"?

The answer? In Congress, in 1986, by Al Gore. Note that that is five years
BEFORE TBL invented the WWW. Oh - and he was speaking about the Internet.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | # ]

coexist
Authored by: phrostie on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 06:58 AM EST
"There is no reason why, he says, proprietary and free/open source can't
coexist."

making the OS open and free is the only way to level the playing field. the
only real competition is in the linux market. for those still trying to make it
in the windows market, there are only two(10) types of software packages.
those taken over by MS(office, email, etc) and those that they have not yet.

---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Chris Stone: "We Still Own UNIX and We Believe that UNIX Is not In Linux"
Authored by: James on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 09:30 AM EST
Ok, here is a quote from a blog of David Gerrold (one of the few sci-fi authors I truly love, well known for writing "The Trouble With Tribbles" episode from Star Trek):
[W]here things get confused is when folks confuse belief and knowledge, as in: "I believe in the facts." No, dammit, no. That's turning knowledge into belief -- and in the words of one particularly aggressive instructor, "Don't believe in the facts. Use them, but don't believe in them. When you believe in the facts, you turn them into the same bullshit as all your other beliefs." Why? Because belief, by definition, is not knowledge. It is a different domain than knowledge, it is totally detached from knowledge. When you start believing in facts, when you turn facts into belief, you divorce the facts from what's so. When they become part of the belief system, they become part of the construction of superstition, and they [lose] their relationship to what's so in the universe.
I agree with this whole-heartedly, so while I respect Chris Stone's opinion and his belief, I will not rest until Novell conclusively analyzes the two code trees and answers with a definitive NO.

Btw, even if Novell were to do this, I believe SCO would simply drop their FUD in that direction while still laying claim to the IDEAS behind Linux. That is what they fear most, I believe, is the idea of Linux. It simply terrifies them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re: Novell's Chris Stone: "We Still Own UNIX and We Believe that UNIX Is not In Linux"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 11:14 AM EST

Wish I could have watched that video on Linux. I had to resort to using Windows to view it. But I watched it twice. Stone's an infinitely better speaker than anyone I've heard from SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How do I view the video on Linux?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 01:28 PM EST
>You can watch a video of the speech by going to this page
>and clicking on the picture under the title "Novell chides
>SCO".

Could someone please tell me how I can view the video with Mozilla on Linux?

[ Reply to This | # ]

No Registration Mirror - THANKS GOOGLE
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 02:57 PM EST
Article text from the Google cache. Thanks, google!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Compelling Generousity?
Authored by: justsalt on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 03:37 PM EST
It has been fascinating reading the above posts. At first I was taken
aback by the heat of some of Adam's comments but then I thought of an
analogy which I hope won't offend anyone:

If, in the mid-1800s, in the US, you talked to an abolitionist
(for the abolition of slavery) you probably would get some flames back if
you tried to tell him that that the best thing about forbidding slavery was
that it made our businesses far more efficient, or that slavery would
soon die out because of that economic inefficiency, or (worst of all) you
liked the absence of slavery but didn't want anyone taking away your
freedom to own slaves or profit from those who did. He would, quite
justly, yell back, "economics be damned! They are people and it is
wicked to enslave them!" Putting it in this kind of light Adam's
huffiness is more understandable. As, I believe, he said, it is a moral, not
an economic issue.

On the other hand, I do not believe that copyrighting software, which I
have created, for the purpose of restricting its use and distribution to
those who have paid me (i.e. proprietary software), is immoral.

If our society chooses to abolish copyrights on software from moral or
economic reasons, it will be interesting to see what happens. I fear (but
am by no means certain) that their might be actually less useful software
around, though we would all be free to do what we wish with what there
was. I hope that fear is wrong.

But, though I respect property rights, I believe generousity is a great
virtue. Every time someone releases their creations to the public it is of
benefit to everyone, and such generousity should be encouraged and
rewarded. All kinds of influences, including economic/business
arguments, are fine ways to encourage that. But I do not think that such
generousity (or rewards for generousity) should be compelled.

Sorry if I have not accurately reflected the beliefs of the Free Software
movement. I have only quickly read the material at fsf.org and it is
always hard to truly understand something you do not agree with.

Robert

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Chris Stone: "We Still Own UNIX and We Believe that UNIX Is not In Linux"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 03:53 PM EST
yes indeed!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Open Source and Closed Content
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 03:59 PM EST
A lot of people are making a big scene about closed software being a part an
open source community. I really like some of the designs that I have seen out
and about that kind of blend and contrast these Ideas and Ideals. Take for
example ID software. They have opened up the source for (iirc) quake, quake2
and doom engines. The software becomes "free" (i dont recall what
licence they used), but the content remains closed (not that you couldnt fake a
copy by recreating the material). I re-purchased quakeII last year (lost the
original) because development had continued in linux and I was more than happy
to go back and play it, but the content was still "closed", even
though the engine had been opened up.
Open source, closed content. I like it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Transcript of the clip of Stone's speech
Authored by: johnwcowan on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 04:28 PM EST

I transcribed the video clip for people who have trouble viewing it. Note that this is a transcript of the 7-minute clip, not of the whole keynote speech: various quotations in the press clearly come from other parts of the speech, so no conclusions should be drawn about what Stone did not say.

In addition, it's important to remember that good spoken rhetoric is not the same as good written style. This transcript has not been cleaned up to make it into prose. I take full responsibility for all punctuation and paragraphing, as well as which verbal errors to represent and which to ignore (very few).

Sorry, Darl, again, Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, and you didn't invent Linux, or intellectual property law.

(Narrator: At the Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco, Novell's vice- chairman Chris Stone takes a jab at SCO Group chairman Darl McBride and SCO's lawsuit against Novell over Unix copyright claims. Stone also discusses why Novell is wagering its future on Open Source.)

Now, there's a lot of unmet needs (forgive the picture [first of Darl, then of a newspaper article on the Novell lawsuit], but we had a little fun here). What's the void, if you will, of these unmet needs? What need was proprietary software failing to satisfy that this Open Source community came about? Well, I think quite honestly customers were a bit tired of a "one size fits all" solution. They were tired of sales reps calling themselves "licensing engineers".

C'mon, folks, this business has got so out of hand. Customers starting from scratch has [sic] choice, right? If you don't have an incumbent vendor in place, you really have a wonderful model. You've got complete choice, lots of it. But once they've made your first choice, or made your initial choice, whether it's a database, or an operating system, or it's an ERP, or whatever it may be, the cost of the resources required to swap it out became extremely prohibitive. And so what happened? You became locked in, and you started to add more and more and more from that same company, or companies that latched on to that company.

Customers need to be able to determine when they are going to upgrade at their pace, not our pace. Novell shouldn't tell you, Microsoft shouldn't tell you, none of us should tell you when to upgrade. You should determine that model. That doesn't mean "Don't pay for maintenance," as some analysts would have you believe. It does mean you should have the freedom to make that decision. Proprietary software development forces you into a box; it forces you into an upgrade model. You need to get out of it. We, as software developers, companies that build those kinds of models, need to be more flexible and give you, the end user, the ability to make choices.

Customers need to be able to tailor solutions, because the "one size fits all" approach quite frankly just doesn't fit most of the buying patterns. It's not what you want to do any more. You guys are dynamic, you have business models that are fairly dynamic and flowing and moving. Y'know, this means that my infrastructure has to change to support the business. So quite honestly IT is a means to a business end, it's not the end itself.

Customers need a real choice. Open Source offers them a flexibility, or the flexibility, to change that. It forces vendors to compete on innovating solutions for customers. That's what we should be focused on, instead of innovating Novell--novel ways of locking you in to some particular model. It really is turning this whole industry upside-down, as the way we think about how we as vendors treat a customer, and how you as a customer, if you will, treat us and work with us. Choice, I think, will be the open source legacy.

How are standards made? They're not made by a bunch of us in a back room who write a spec, protocol, bunch of APIs. Standards are purchased. They're purchased. Y'know, we may come up with an API, we may come up with a protocol, we may come up with a product, but you purchase it, you make it a standard. We don't, you know, throw holy water on it and all of a sudden announce that it is. You make that decision, customers make that decision, companies make that decision, not us. Don't let us do that. Force us away from that.

Choice is kind of scary though, quite honestly. Choice means customers can go someplace else. They don't have to buy from me any more, they can go someplace else, and that's the beauty of Open Source. It's also the [sic] blessing and a curse. For every VPN out there in a proprietary world, there's maybe two or three additional ones in the Open Source community. So the Open Source community does have to focus around some implementations rather than provide you with 20 or 30 different ways to do things. But again, it's part of the beauty; there are numbers of choices. And going forward, I think the IT community has to grow up and be like the rest of the world's economy. In other words, as I started out saying, focus on customer satisfaction. Instead of just building vehicles to get there, we really have to focus on it.

Okay. What is this -- and the reason we're here is to talk about the money, following the money. So we have the technology to enable Open Source. We can build this stuff. The legal system to foster it is now in place. Alternate -- alternative licensing models are now in place. So now the infrastructure, if you will, is there. Now how do you make money? How do you get there? It's important. One more thing is required, though, and that is the will to do it, the ability, the want, if you will, to make that money.

The funding by HP, IBM, and other companies pouring billions of dollars into this marketspace isn't a fluke. They're not stupid. You know how much it cost them to develop the different versions of Unix that were out there? Right? We don't want to relive that again. That's the beauty of, say, Linux as an Open Source project. It's a single kernel, so to speak. And we can all focus on one particular OS, focus on an infrastructure, and the value is above the model, the value is up the stack. That's where the money is. It's not in the low-level environment. And that's what these hardware vendors have figured out, which is why they're rushing to Linux at such a fast and furious pace. Their profit margins are going up because of their move to Linux. That's a good thing.

Sorry, Darl, again, Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, and you didn't invent Linux, or intellectual property law. We still own Unix, and we believe that Unix is not in Linux, and that Linux is a free and is an open distribution, and should be, and always will be. [Light applause]

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.05 seconds