“Open Source and Linux advocates have been bothered over
comments attributed to Doug Michels in recent press articles
regarding Open Source and Linux. As an Open Source supporter and
sponsor of Linux International, Mr. Michels was surprised at the
antagonistic tone and anti-Linux attitude implied by these
articles. In order to clarify his and SCO’s position on these
issues he wrote the following letter to the board of Linux
International and other interested parties.”
[ This is in response to https://www.linuxtoday.com/stories/5395.html
and https://www.linuxtoday.com/stories/5244.html.
-lt ed ]
April 30, 1999
To: Linux International board and other interested parties,
I would like to clarify my position regarding Linux and address
the comments attributed to me in several recent press articles.
I was quite surprised to read some of the things which I was
reported to have said. While many of the words and phrases sound
familiar to me, they appear to have been heavily edited and
rearranged to convey a very antagonistic context and do not
accurately reflect my beliefs. I guess I underestimated how badly
the press wants to write about a conflict. I haven’t seen this sort
of reporting since the bad-old-days of the Unix wars.
Ray Noorda made a profound, and for its time, revolutionary
observation which he called coopetition. This was the notion that
companies could indeed compete and cooperate at the same time. In
LI (Linux International) we have many competitors that are
cooperating towards a common goal, each for their own reasons. SCO
believes that Linux is a good thing and wishes to promote its
ongoing success. We believe that the success of Linux is healthy
for the overall competitive landscape. We also feel that open
source developments have accelerated the growth of the Internet and
the general rate of innovation in the industry, and that they are
often the precursor to important new commercial opportunities. We
plan to continue making key open source technologies available to
our customers as well as to continue contributing technology and
resources to the open source community.
SCO clearly competes with some of the other corporate members of
LI, both those that sell a version of Linux and those that sell
other versions of UNIX into the same markets that we target. SCO
has well defined target markets and we work hard to create
products, services and business models that have great value to
these customers. Our recently increasing volumes and revenues
provide some evidence that our customers continue to appreciate
this value. We will continue to promote our products, services and
business models as having better value for our customers and
potential customers than the products, services and business models
of our competitors. As always, we will do our best to keep this
competition even-handed and objective.
The recent articles, quoting me, were based on very small
fragments of much longer and broader interviews. I don’t have any
recordings, transcripts or even an accurate recollection of what
was actually said verbatim during these interviews. But, I do know
what I usually say and also what my belief’s are.
To clarify a few points:
a) I do not believe Linux was created by “punk kids.” During
interviews, when I am asked about Linux, I always clearly state my
respect and admiration for Linus and the community of developers
who participate in the open source movement. I believe that the
open source community is often perceived as an unruly bunch of
young hackers, especially by the IT establishment, and that this
will be a factor in the adoption of Linux.
b) Of course, I don’t believe that Red Hat is in any way
fraudulent. But, I do believe that there is a fundamental
difference in the value proposition to customers between that of
Open Source Aggregators, such as Red Hat, and that of traditional
commercial software companies such as SCO. We will continue to
educate customers so that they understand our view on this
difference. And I will continue to try and find the right way to
communicate this in measured and objective terms but none the less
forcefully.
c) I also believe in the principle that great programmers should
“steal” great code whenever possible, so long as they do not
violate any laws or license agreements. In hindsight, it’s clear
that “steal” was a poor and confusing choice of words on my part. I
was perhaps being too flippant by trying to point out that one
can’t really steal that which is freely offered.
All in all, I sincerely apologize if anything that I said, or am
reputed to have said, has offended anyone. I promise to do my best
to avoid saying anything which could be twisted or misconstrued
into sounding this stupid….ever again!
Doug Michels
President and CEO, SCO