SCO Sues IBM for Sharing Secrets with Unix and Linux 914
bstadil writes "The information is still sparse but the expected lawsuits from SCO over Unix/Linux patent infringements has been filed."
SCO is asking for a billion dollars. News.com and Forbes are also covering the story.
The solution is very very simple. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, someone with a clue should buy them now before, ummm, someone with an interest in seeing Free Software set significantly back figures out that the UNIX IP is pretty much a sitting duck...
Soko
A better use for a billion. (Score:2, Informative)
Currently SCO's shares are trading below $3.
Change -0.05 (-2.21%)
2.26 Open
2.33 Volume
43,850
more info (Score:1, Informative)
"During a LinuxWorld Expo discussion, SCO-Caldera's Blake Stowell told MozillaQuest Magazine that he was not aware of any current Linux distributions that contain the SCO-Caldera IP libraries."
also:
[mozillaquest.com]
Are Linux or C++ on SCO-Caldera's IP Hit List?
SCO-Caldera & the GNU/Linux Community: Part 2, Under the Iceberg's Tip
Re:IBM (Score:1, Informative)
IBM has been awarded the most number of patents in the US, each year, for a while now. Something like 10x the number two company.
Re:Wrong thread, (Score:2, Informative)
Well, if they find out, they and/or the FSF can sue you.
And there are lots of ways to find out. There have been a number of cases of people noticing strangely similar functionality in commercial products to GPLed software, and doing some simple analysis to find out, hey, this binary contains suspiciously similar output to that of this GPLed program compiled with obfuscation...
Sure, you could do that, but isn't the risk kind of great?
Re:IBM out litigated the federal government (Score:3, Informative)
Surprise, surprise, when they left the Unix market they split their Xenix group off to become.... the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO).
Still personally don't see that as a "flaw" (Score:1, Informative)
Whereas the GPL says "you are not allowed to release under this license unless you license all your applicable patents to all comers".
So under IBM, if you discover you have accidentally release software that contains a patent you hold, you now have accidentally licensed that patent to all comers eternally. Under GPL, if you accidentally release software that contains a patent you hold, you have either the option of eternally licensing that patent to all comers eternally, or ceasing distribution of the GPLed program.
Which do you think companies really want?
Anyway, you miss one of the biggest advantages of the GPL. The GPL is just a copyright license. It doesn't depend on contract law, which is complicated, or anything else. Under the GPL, restrictions are enforced with the might of, "you have to follow these terms or else NOTHING gives you the right to use or release GPLed code". The IBM thing looks to me like you're entering into a contract of some sort-- you agree to do X just by releasing the code? Where's the signature, or whatever? I mean, maybe that's legally binding, but probably no more than a shrinkwrap license. To be honest, I seriously doubt it would be very difficult to legally weasel out of the obligations that releasing under the IBM license would entail.. thus bringing you back to the same place under the GPL, you can't distribute under the IBM license but neither can anyone else, and other people are holding code with your submarine patent. I don't know, i don't study law. Is this a reasonable doubt for me to hold?
This still makes lying to people and saying code is patent free when it is not no easier under the GPL as opposed to BSD or proprietary code licenses. This still is not much of a "flaw" in the GPL itself, just a general worry with licensing code of any sort.
This still does no good against the more threatening problem, which is people owning submarine patents and suing other people who implement that patent. Remember, you don't have to have implemented yourself the code which infringes on the patent in order to collect damages.
Is any of this innacurate?
The Lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
Re:IBM -- cross-license or die (Score:5, Informative)
My first thougth was "what idiot suit at SCO thinks they can make a case for AIX being SYSV-derived?"
The logic(sic) they are asserting seems to be: AIX is based on SYSV that SCO acquired from AT&T, and that IBM's moved those ideas into Linux.
Nice fantasy. AIX is based on the Mach microkernel from CMU, which in turn is BSD-derived. Even at that it is very much re-implemented, using such intersting magic as an O-O system configuration database, and the first widely available journalling filesystem for a *nix.
People think of AIX as being SYSV because it implements a SYSV *interface*. IBM is all about standards and AIX achieved System-V (and later versions) standard compliance *and* BSD compliance wherever that did not conflict.
So no, SCO hasn't got a leg to stand on on this aspect. I wish them luck they are toing to need it.
Unix and colleges (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:5, Informative)
Taking that as a fact, who at IBM, and in the right mind, would allow someone to openly walk out of the corporate front doors with IP and give it away to a bunch of libertarian code monkeys? I work for a company whose second line of business is IP, and I can tell you that I would not have been able to publicly disseminate corporate business secrets without repercussions. My rogue initiative would have lasted maybe two or three weeks until the company got wind of what I was doing and then I would have been shut down, fired, and sued into oblivion.
Why would IBM's IP lawyers let their engineers disclose anyone's secrets, let alone their own, without getting the forms filled out correctly? That behavior just doesn't make sense for a company so steeped in a bureaucratic corporate culture.
Re:But it's open source, information wants to be f (Score:3, Informative)
...Or are you meaning both "they"s in your comment are the authors of GPL software? Get a clue, GPL software is licensed, copyrighted software. The public domain specifically refers to stuff that is unrestricted by copyrights and patents, it isn't just a synonym for "doesn't cost anything", etc.
Family History (Score:3, Informative)
Having done a *lot* of work on AIX back in the early days, I can say that it borrowed some bits from BSD (who didn't then), but didn't from S5 Unix and their kernel was theirs. I didn't have their source code, but I was always cursing them for their incompatabilities which is why I can say they were different.
Also, AIX had a PS/2 distribution in the eary days, so they certianly had x86 architecture since way back when.
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, so friend Google, who are the the Canopy Group? Aha. Ray Noorda. http://www.canopy.com
Ok, so here is some "blah" from their web site....
ie. Hit any in the Canopy Group and you hit'em all. ie. If SCO makes a sucess of this, the rest will share the "management resource".
So who is in the Canopy Group?
Oooh looky looky, Trolltech! So when are they going to be forced to sue for $1bn?
Re:Family History (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Re:SCO's Microsoft Past (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Progress (Score:2, Informative)
I have been using it for over half a decade now - it seems to run fine for me. Been on systems with 300 users to less than 10 users.
Worked it on OpenServer, HPUX, NCR MP-RAS, AIX, and finally - finally - Red Hat Linux.
These guys might have a clue for you:
http://I.webring.com/hub?ring=prodev&id=38&hub
Try http://www.amduus.com - lots of code and stuff - not much DBA though.
Not all Progress based applications are smooth though.
Re:SCO's Microsoft Past (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft (a tiny company back then) purchased the AT&T license and then contracted with SCO to develop XENIX. Microsoft attempted to sell licence it to IBM but ended up getting involved in OS/2 instead.
Xenix was then "sold" back to SCO in a deal that gave MS ownership, access to the books, and a per-copy royalty. Eventually SCO wiggled out of that.
Re:All IP is conflict of interest (Score:3, Informative)
This is an untrue statement. I suggest you read the GNU.org [gnu.org] pages. :
The word ``free'' above pertains to freedom, not price. You may or may not pay a price to get GNU software. Either way, once you have the software you have three specific freedoms in using it.
A lot more can be found on this site regarding free software and money.
You can also consider Redhat and check out their webstore [redhat.com] to find out if they do not make money on software
Or take a look at OSI's point of view [opensource.org] (Payoff for Entrepreneurs).
To sum up my point of view:
I freely choose to make no money from my software work
"No they do not."
therefore everyone else must be denied the right to make money from software
I have never heard about Oracle being sued for including freesofware in their products [oracle.com]?
Everyone has the right to make money from their work, in my understanding/opinion the GPL strongly hints anotherway of doing so. If others want to do it the traditional way, fair enough but others may opt for different techniques.
A last point : SCO is suing IBM, this does by no ways mean that IBM is guilty, at least until the trial is over.
Tell them what you think. (Score:3, Informative)
http://websurveyor.net/wsb.dll/9929/websatisfac
Re:I agree . The patent laws are another example. (Score:2, Informative)
Well, HE was beheaded in the French Revolution because a jealous colleague found that there was nothing to invent anymore in chemistry.
Antoine Lavoisier, 1743-1794 [wolfram.com]
Linux is GPL, not public domain (Score:3, Informative)
This is, as we all know, utterly false. Linux is most certainly copyrighted--that's what prevents you from stealing Linux code to use in your proprietary system. Linux may be GPLed Free Software, but it is certainly copyrighted.
Re:Takeover (Score:3, Informative)
Re:billion dollars? (Score:2, Informative)
Get license for SCO Intel.
Try to install on the same generic platform we test other Intel Unices on.
Discover that even Solaris/Intel detects hardware better.
Hunt around for hardware on the "supported" list.
Finally get a working system.
Perform testing.
Repeat the whole thing next time we actually need to test on SCO, because the original test hardware has been repurposed or retired (no reason to keep a SCO installation intact after testing. there's generally 12-18 months between times we need it)
That's the only Intel Unix we had problems with.
We'll probably look at it agian if a customer asks us too, but I'm not expecting one to, to be honest.
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:3, Informative)
A copy of SCO's complaint is on file with the State Court of Utah and can also be found at www.sco.com/scosource
Teleconference
SCO has scheduled a teleconference regarding this announcement for 11:00 a.m. Eastern time on March 7, 2003. Press and analysts who are interested in participating in this announcement should call:
Toll Free within North America: (800) 289-0496
Toll Callers: (913) 981-5519
Toll Free within Europe: +800-7777-1112
Confirmation Code to enter call: 490616
Participants should dial into the teleconference 5 to 10 minutes prior to
the scheduled start time.
SCO will offer an audio recording of this teleconference within two hours following the call. This recording will be available for 30 days, both by phone and via the Web.
To access the audio recording by phone, dial:
Toll: 719-457-0820
Toll Free: 888-203-1112
Participants will need to enter the following confirmation code: 490616
To access the audio recording via the Web, go to the following
URL: http://www.sco.com/scosource
Re:Where are the filings? (Score:4, Informative)
the complaint [sco.com] and some exhibits ( A [sco.com] B [sco.com] C [sco.com] D [sco.com] E [sco.com] can be found on SCO web site
There is a press release on the same page, in case you wondered who writes the ZDNet articlesRe:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:1, Informative)
Don't repeat nonsense from the Canopy web site. Canopy have a mere 5.8% investment in Trolltech, according to troll tech.
The "Canopy group" appears to just be a listing of Ray Noorda's portfolio, not a group of companies owned by him. There is no evidence that TrollTech have anything to do with (or to gain from) SCO's IP claims.
Probably most of these companies, unlike SCO, just have some minority Canopy investment.
Attacking these companies seems like McCarthyism (guilt by association), by the usual crowd of KDE-baiters.
Re:Anyone here considered that SCO might be right? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, I'm pretty sure they can't, because of the terms of the settlement between SCO and Microsoft several years ago. The lawsuit was regarding Microsoft's alleged interference in SCO's business, which was manifesting itself by Microsoft as a partial owner of the company forcing SCO to include an out of date version of Merge (windows compatibility software) in their Unix, or something bizarre like that.
I don't remember all the terms and I don't have any links regarding the whole thing (hopefully someone else does) but there were certainly a number of "Microsoft must leave SCO alone now" measures dictated, IIRC. Among other things, I believe MS had to give up most or all of their stock in the company as well as agree not to compete in the Unix market.
Re:The Canopy Group is not the problem. (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce
Re:You're being unreasonable (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Re:Family History (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:2, Informative)
But I'm certainly not going to shun or boycott SCO. If a SCO customer wants help migrating to Linux, yes, absolutely I will joyfully help them.
But if they want to stay right where they are, I'm going to continue to help them with that too. It's not their fault that the SCO management is
Recommending SCO for new projects? Well, gosh, isn't that rather unlikely anyway? Upgrade an installed machine, sure. But a new install - it's just so unlikely..
I wouldn't be so sure that death is imminent either. There are more SCO systems out there than most people even begin to realize. You couldn't throw a rock in any reasonably sized place without hitting a SCO box - it's owners may not have a clue that is what it is, but there are a lot of them out there, and just the upgrade business alone is serious business for somebody.
Eventually those machines will migrate to other OSes- hopefully Linux/Mac/anything but Microsoft.. but that's eventually.
This is nothing to do with Canopy (Score:3, Informative)
As we also know, following the
And as someone has pointed out above, Canopy own only 5.3% of Trolltech, as an investment partner - they're not pulling anymore strings at Troll than they are at SCO.
I wish Perens would get his facts straight before diving in feet first.
Also under the Canopy (Score:3, Informative)
And, of course, the Trolls. [troll.no]
What do all these companies have in common? They're geek companies. They employ geeks, and they sell to geeks. What geeks think of them matters to them and can hurt them. If you're doing business with any of these companies, tell the people you're dealing with that you're not happy with SCO's behaviour, and that your unhappiness is sufficient to start you re-evaluating their competitors.
It's also worth pointing out that several of these companies are making use of the Linux[tm] brand, including one of them using it in it's name. The owner of the Linux[tm] brand has it within his power to have a quiet word with them, although, of course, that's entirely up to him.