IBM Points Out SCO's GPL Software Distribution 482
An anonymous reader writes "Cnet is reporting that IBM has launched a counterstrike against SCO Group's attack on Linux users, arguing that SCO's demands for Unix license payments are undermined by its earlier shipment of an open-source Linux product." JayJay.br points out a similar but more colorful article on The Register "in which SCO says that 'SCO-Caldera does not own the copyrights to JFS (Journaling File System), RCU (Read, Copy, and Update), NUMA (Non-uniform Memory Access) software, and other IBM-developed AIX code that IBM contributed to the Linux kernel.' Gee, now that I was almost buying their license ..."
What about Xenix? (Score:5, Funny)
Hell I even bought a Compaq Deskpro 386/25M. Who knew the bios could only be accessed by boot disks!!! Took me a good hour or two to figure that out. Thank god HP/Compaq still has these on their site.
Xenix the choice of an old generation.
Re:What about Xenix? (Score:3, Interesting)
And originally a Microsoft product.....
My question is-- what took IBM so long to do this? Or are their lawyers that slow?
Re:What about Xenix? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, why aren't IBM's lawyers knee-jerk, arm-chair experts like everyone else? What the heck is IBM paying them for - to take their time, do their research, make sure they present facts not just heresay or inuendo, and generally make sure the issue is understood completely before they talk about it?
IBM's just pissin' money away with those guys on board!
Re:What about Xenix? (Score:5, Funny)
Ya. That's what SCO's lawyers are for.
Re:What about Xenix? (Score:5, Insightful)
Grab some popcorn, this should be fun to watch!
Re:What about Xenix? (Score:3, Funny)
SCO Antics, the funny pages for a GNU generation!
It's like Star Wars! (Score:5, Funny)
"Fire at will, commander."
Re:What about Xenix? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about Xenix? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What about Xenix? (Score:5, Funny)
They get their kicks by watching their victims wiggle and squirm around a bit before finally squishing them.
Re:What about Xenix? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about Xenix? (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM probably just wants to keep as quiet as they can,without losing business and watch SCO die.
Re:What about Xenix? (Score:3, Interesting)
IIRC, the hard drive parameters for Compaq machines of that era were hard-coded in the BIOS. So if you want to upgrade from the 60 megabyte drive that came with the system, you might have to get out your EPROM burner. Good luck!
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What about Xenix? (Score:5, Funny)
IBM: What? Are you still here? Damnit, time to do something...
Ahh... (Score:4, Funny)
I say.. Finally.. IBM really took their time to get things done. Frankly, I am tired seeing SCO bashes Linux community and generally making life miserable..
In your face SCO!
Re:Ahh... (Score:5, Insightful)
A wise decision on their part.
Rather than leap into the fray, FUD cannons firing full effect, they likely took the time to research things a bit.
The end result?
IBM doesn't end up looking the fool, as SCO has.
Re:Ahh... (Score:5, Funny)
owned.
there it is!
Re:Ahh... (Score:3, Funny)
Let me get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)
I swear, this is getting more and more like threatening to sue the readers of a newspaper because it contained an AP story that wasn't properly credited.
Even better (Score:5, Informative)
It appears from Blake Stowell's answers to the copyright-related questions that SCO says it does not have copyrights to JFS, RCU, and NUMA software code or to items (a) through (k) of paragraph 108 of SCO's Amended Complaint in the SCO-Caldera v IBM lawsuit.
From the amended complaing:
108. IBM has breached 2.05 of the Software Agreement by, inter alia, actively promoting and allowing use of the Software Products and development methods related thereto in an open and hostile attempt to destroy the entire economic value of the Software Products and plaintiff's rights to protect the proprietary nature of the Software Products. By way of example and not limitation, IBM has used protected UNIX methods for others in accelerating development of the 2.4.x kernel and 2.5.x Linux kernel in, among others, the following areas: (a) scalability improvements, (b) performance measurement and improvements, (c) serviceability and error logging improvements, (d) NUMA scheduler and other scheduler improvements, (e) Linux PPC 32- and 64-bit support, (f) AIX Journaling File System, (g) enterprise volume management system to other Linux components, (h) clusters and cluster installation, including distributed lock manager and other lock management technologies, (i) threading, (j) general systems management functions, and (k) other areas. But for the use by IBM of these protected UNIX methods in Linux development, the Linux 2.4.x kernel and 2.5.x kernel capacity to perform high-end enterprise computing functions would be severely limited.
This is big. In essence, SCO has admitted that they don't really have *any* copyright case and that Linux intellectual property is all above board. They can still accuse IBM of breach of contract, but I really don't think any of us have the details on what the contracts stated.
Re:Even better (Score:5, Insightful)
The core issues is still a big hissy fit over the failed Monterey AIX-UnixWare unification project, and you're right that nobody here has the details.
Re:Even better (Score:5, Funny)
Joking aside, thanks for the clarification. I'm slightly less completely lost now.
Re:Even better (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Even better (Score:5, Informative)
Only slightly better (Score:5, Interesting)
First, I'll note that SCO has never claimed a direct copyright on JFS, etc. They've claimed in the past that that code was a derived work of Unix, implying a copyright interest. If they are in fact abandoning that claim, that is good. It's not clear to me from the article that they are abandoning that claim.
In any case, that code--JFS, etc--is the basis for SCO's suit against IBM. SCO claims that IBM's contribution of that code to Linux violates the terms of the contract which IBM signed with a predecessor of SCO. SCO has tried to claim that that code makes Linux a derivative of SCO's Unix, but they haven't been pushing that claim all that hard, probably because they are aware that it would be very hard to make it stand up in court.
That brings me to the second kind of code which SCO is talking about: code which they claim has been directly copied from Unix to Linux. They claim that this code causes Linux to directly infringe on their copyright on Unix. This is the 80 lines of code which gets discussed here and there--SCO claims there are much more than 80 lines, actually. This is not part of JFS or any of the other code which is part of the IBM lawsuit.
So, in other words, even if SCO abandons all copyright claims to JFS, etc.--and it's still not clear to me that they are abandoning that claim--it does not mean that they are abandoning the claim that Linux violates SCO's IP.
Re:Even better (Score:5, Informative)
Finally, someone gets it right. Darl has said in interviews, "We know IBM put code in there (Linux). Their copyrights are in it." Darl is not claiming that SCO owns the copyrights. Yet.
SCO alleges that IBM had no right to share code with the Linux project, because SCO's contracts with IBM compel IBM to keep any derivative work confidential. In other words, despite SCO's attempts to "license" Linux, the only case they have outstanding is still a contract breach with IBM.
"...but I really don't think any of us have the details on what the contracts stated."
The contracts are available at SCO's website. Go to http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit. The IBM contracts are Exhibits A-D on the right hand sidebar. Exhibit E is the letter from Darl to Palmisano threatening to terminate IBM's AIX license. Exhibits F-G are the Sequent contracts.
In Exhibit C (section 2), the contract grants ownership of IBM's derivative works to IBM. Exhibit D, section 3.04, would seem to confirm that IBM is not obligated to keep confidential any of its derivative works.
Besides, I doubt that a judge will be willing to accept a definition of "ownership" that obliges the owner to treat its own work as confidential.
So, SCO's case against IBM still looks pretty weak.
SCO's allegations that Linux illegally appropriates derivative work also seems equally weak. SCO's main allegation against Linux is that any code contributed by an ISV or IHV (that has contracts with SCO) is a misappropriation of code that should have been kept confidential under SCO's contracts with them.
This seems to also fall apart under section 3.04 of Exhibit D, because that clause is part of what looks like a standard contract that SCO used with *all* parties to renew System V licenses after its purchase of the source from Novell. In other words, that clause is not part of an IBM side agreement, but appears to be a grant SCO made to any ISV or IHV licensing the System V source.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be construed as legal advice. It's just my opinion, derived from reading the contracts that SCO published on their web site and referenced in their court claims.
Re:Even better (Score:3, Informative)
I suspect SCO will claim that code was lifted directly from their branch of SysV and therefor their licensing grab is valid. I can't wait until this goes to court and the Caldera/SCO employee who was a major k
Nope.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Kjella
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Interesting)
If you look at what they've been doing, they've been trying to pump up their stock prices. SCO's execs have been dumping SCO stock almost as fast as they can. This doesn't even sound like a company that is expecting to get a huge infussion of cash from an outstanding legal battle. This is the act of rats trying to bail on a sinking ship. I personally hope the FTC is watching them very closely.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Informative)
SCOX insider trades (Score:5, Informative)
Vice President 5,000 Automatic Sale at $13.30 - $13.44 per share.
(Proceeds of about $67,000)
2003-07-22 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C.
Senior Vice President 20,000 Automatic Sale at $12.91 - $13.2 per share.
(Proceeds of about $261,000)
2003-07-17 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C. 15,000 Planned Sale
(Estimated proceeds of $195,000)
2003-07-15 WILSON, MICHAEL SEAN
Senior Vice President 6,000 Option Exercise at $0.66 per share.
(Cost of $3,960)
2003-07-15 WILSON, MICHAEL SEAN
Senior Vice President 6,000 Sale at $10.66 - $10.8 per share.
(Proceeds of about $64,000)
2003-07-14 WILSON, MICHAEL
Senior Vice President 6,000 Option Exercise at $0.66 per share.
(Cost of $3,960)
2003-07-14 WILSON, MICHAEL
Senior Vice President 6,000 Sale at $10.77 - $10.87 per share.
(Proceeds of about $65,000)
2003-07-11 OLSON, MICHAEL P
Vice President 8,000 Automatic Sale at $10.40 - $10.99 per share.
(Proceeds of about $86,000)
2003-07-09 HUNSAKER, JEFF F.
Vice President 5,000 Sale at $11.76 - $11.814 per share.
(Proceeds of about $59,000)
2003-07-09 HUNSAKER, JEFF F.
Vice President 5,000 Automatic Sale at $11.76 - $11.814 per share.
(Proceeds of about $59,000)
2003-07-09 HUNSAKER, JEFF F.
Employee 5,000 Planned Sale
(Estimated proceeds of $55,000)
2003-07-08 BENCH, ROBERT K.
Chief Financial Officer 7,000 Automatic Sale at $10.91 - $11.12 per share.
(Proceeds of about $77,000)
2003-07-08 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C.
Senior Vice President 5,000 Automatic Sale at $10.90 - $10.95 per share.
(Proceeds of about $55,000)
2003-07-08 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C.
Employee 5,000 Planned Sale
(Estimated proceeds of $56,450)
2003-06-25 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C.
Sr Executive Vice President 5,000 Automatic Sale at $10 per share.
(Proceeds of $50,000)
2003-06-20 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C.
Senior Vice President 5,000 Sale at $11.08 - $11.1 per share.
(Proceeds of about $55,000)
2003-06-20 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C.
Employee 5,000 Planned Sale
(Estimated proceeds of $53,750)
Re:SCOX insider trades (Score:3, Interesting)
Employee
Senior Vice President
Sr. Executive Vice President
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)
The SCO company directors are lying through their teeth.
They are trying to convincing the public they own something they dont, to boost the share price.
At the same time dumping their stock at what they know are inflated prices (they know they lawasuit doesnt have a hope).
They could argue that they are stupid (most people would believe it), and they thought the lawsuit had a chance.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
And you've just described insider trading. If SCO employees know their company's claims are bullshit because they have access to insider information (UnixWare source code, for example), they can't use that information to go make bank on SCO stock. The stock market (supposedly) works on the premise that all investors are on an equal playing field.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:3, Informative)
I think you meant the SEC, which is the agency that would be interested in insider trading.
Conspiracy Theory (Re:Let me get this straight) (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe they bought themselves some insurance:
[emphasis mine]LINDON, Utah, July 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX operating system, today announced the appointment of K. Fred Skousen, PhD., CPA, to its board of directors. Mr. Skousen is currently Advancement Vice President at Brigham Young University. He has previously served as the Dean of the Marriott School of Management and the Director of the School of Accountancy at Brigham Young University. Mr. Skousen has been a consultant to the Financial Executive Research Foundation, the Controller General of the United States, the Federal Trade Commission, and a number of large companies. Mr. Skousen has been a visiting Professor at the University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Missouri, as well as a faculty resident on the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission and a faculty fellow at Price Waterhouse & Company.
Darl McBride also quoted as saying.. (Score:5, Funny)
Darl was last seen in tattered pieces scattered around IBM.
Re:Darl McBride also quoted as saying.. (Score:5, Funny)
badly worded story.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that IBM has evenetually responded to the allocations that SCO has made over the past few months if very important and more-or-less blows the worries of any users out of the window:(IBM will settle the issue)
Double standard, double talk. (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. Go to their FTP site and READ THE GPL they have posted there. It states explicitly that SCO is distributing the code under the GPL.
Fscking LIARS....
Oh yeah, hey Darl, here's a little something special for you:
Behold, the truth.. [rr.com]
Re:Double standard, double talk. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Double standard, double talk. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Claiming that there's SCO copyrighted code in the Linux kernel that they say they don't consent to be licensed under the GPL, which means: a) they're committing fraudulent and deceptive behavior by misrepresenting that the code they're distributing is completely under the GPL when it isn't, and b) they're infringing on the rights of the copyright owners of the kernel code since they're knowingly mixing in non-GPL code, a direct violation of the GPL.
and
2. The only way they can avoid committing fraud and violating copyright law is to distribute ALL the code in the kernel under the GPL, which means they forfeit any ability to collect royalties.
SCO should be deathly afraid of being sued if they choose #1 because they don't even have the money to stay alive for all the years it will take to fight the IBM lawsuit, so I don't see that they have any choice except #2, unless they don't care about the destruction of their company.
Either way, SCO is almost certainly screwed.
Simple (Score:3, Funny)
Hello, I represent Nike running shoes (Score:3, Funny)
Please send us $700 for protection so you don't have to worry about breaking the law and getting sued.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Funny)
Hopefully he gets a year's supply of K-Y. Obviously, SCO isn't going to have the common courtesy to offer a reach-around.
IBM is just repeating Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO counters with the expected: they didn't contribute the code knowingly, and thus the code was never officially released under the GPL.
Re:IBM is just repeating Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
My fault, my loss. SCO's fault, SCO's loss.
But like you said.. SCO is countering with the expected, and no one expected them to come up with something better than that. Sad, ain't it?
not so simple (Score:5, Interesting)
We must ask:
1. Did SCO "place a notice" on the program ?
2. Or did they just copy someone else's notice ?
3. Did SCO add ANY of their own code to SCO Linux, under GPL? If so, then they are copyright holder for at least SOME code in the distro.
4. Would that "copyright holder" status spread to the whole distro or stay only the code they willfully added ?
5. What responsibility do they have to check the code they just copy ?
6. Since they are COPYing someone else's code, doesn't that mean they should check to make sure they have PERMISSION ?
7. Did they "place a notice" ?
8. If so, did they do it "as the copyright holder" even if someone else put the code in ?
9. What if they didn't put it in, but they knew it was there ?
10. Once they knew it was there, how quickly did they react ?
simon
Where's the meat? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is in contrast to every known FUD convention, where it's normal practice to sign a NDA, look at something secret, wait a few days then quietly have a word in your buddy's ear and get him to post some still-speculative-but-extremely-specific detail of what it is you looked at.
Why the sudden maintenance of SCO's secrecy, when there's an industry-wide history of violating similar NDAs at the first opportunity? How can we not know even the tiniest specific detail of SCO's case, yet we know e.g. details of every close-kept Apple product release several days before Steve Jobs announces it?
A few weeks back, I honestly expected the following to happen:
- a few people sign the NDA and view the code in question
- (nothing happens for a few days)
- new code gets quietly released for functions A, F, H and Z in the kernel, gets exhaustively tested by several key Linux people and very quickly appears in the next kernel release
- confident pronouncements from Linus, RedHat, SuSE etc. that they are absolutely sure the SCO case has no merit, that they believe (but can't confirm) the code in question is "old code no longer in use" and so on
Actually, maybe this happening now and I should keep quiet about it. If so, could someone tell me which step we're up to? I promise not to tell
Re:Where's the meat? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Where's the meat? (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's in an old version of the kernel, then it may just take a bit longer to grep for it.
I'm not talking about something as gruesome as a SCO copyright message, but you'd think there would be some aspect of the code that would remain in the guy's mind when he left SCO.
Furthermore, I can't believe the individuals who signed the NDA were that disinterested that they didn't do exactly this. I know *I* would have done so, if only to satisfy my own curiosity.
Assume just one of these people did this, and now has concrete proof (if only in their own mind) as to whether SCO is talking out of their arse or not. Would that person not be inclined to find a way to make this information public, via whatever obfuscation process was required to ensure their identity was untraceable? I mean, these guys were picked because of their kernel and/or coding knowledge; surely they could make a few discreet enquiries about anonymous mail relays and how to use them...
I'm not encouraging these guys to flout SCOs NDA; I'm just surprised that it hasn't occurred through "osmosis" as normally happens with NDAs, and there's not a general feeling among OSS people that the problem has gone away if it actually ever existed.
Re:Where's the meat? (Score:3, Informative)
A german guy reported that they forgot to make him sign the NDA and did a pretty thorough report. If you search back aways you should be able to find it.
He said they showed very small clips, the linux code was from mailing list archives, they just showed a few lines from each that matched without the context. Not enough to do much with.
There are plenty of opportunities given what's known about the code to come up with small clips like that. There's some BSD code. There are POSIX implementations (with cu
Re:Where's the meat? (Score:3, Interesting)
Otherwise, it may mean that infringing code actually does not exist or
Re:Where's the meat? (Score:5, Insightful)
i am amazed at the number of folk who simply assume the claims of sco are accurate, that there is unlawful code in the linux kernel. could it be that the above has not happened precisely because there is no offending code to replace?!
Re:Where's the meat? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought this stopped being about just code a long time ago. SCO keep moving the goal posts, some of the claims I've read (may not be in cronological order):
- Linux has stolen SCO code inserted by IBM.
- No one is allowed to create Unix-like OS's without paying us.
- All operting systems owe their existance Unix, so we could sue others too.
- JFS, NUMA, etc, technolgies dont belong to IBM, they broke contracts by contributing these.
- SCO's Unix was no.1 on X86 until Linux came along, this could n't have happened without IBM's help.
- All your Linux are belong to us, not just the Linux kernel but also the GNU tools.
- It takes massive corpations and millions of dollars to make the kind of OS that Linux has become so IBM must have help them. Remember Linux is an OS put together by "Punk Ass Kids"
I'm sure there are others I cant recall at the moment. It's amazing how they've managed to twist the original claim of copyright violation to ownership of Linux and the demand of payment for Linux licenses. In hindsight we should have known, there are the guys who purchased DR-DOS just so they could sue MS (not that MS were in the right with regards to DR-DOS). They are also the same people who tried to bring out a per seat model for Linux (not to be confused with support contracts).
[Rant off]
Re:Where's the meat? (Score:5, Interesting)
The scenario you describe did not occur for a few reasons.
First, I signed the NDA in good faith. I knew going in that I was not going to be permitted to disclose the code. Those were the ground rules which SCO set, and it was not my intention to cheat them.
Second, SCO is demonstrably a litigious company. Were they to sue me, that would be a major problem for me. Were they to win a lawsuit, I could lose everything I own and have my wages garnished for eternity. While it's true that it would hardly be worth their while to sue me, the level of risk requires cautious behaviour on my part. Basically, I want to be sure that if the code which SCO showed me is removed from the Linux kernel, that there is absolutely no reason to think that I had anything to do with it.
Third, SCO only showed me one example of what they claimed to be direct copying. They claimed that they had many other examples which they were not going to show me. So even if I were to quietly reveal the one example they showed me, it would not affect their claims significantly. Of course, it is possible that they are lying about having other examples. But since SCO's claims in general rely on FUD, removing one instance of potential direct copying, when there are other claimed instances, would not materially lessen the FUD.
I can't really speak to your suggestion that people routinely violate NDAs. I've never knowingly violated one. Aside from any considerations about keeping my promises, if people became aware that I had violated an NDA, I think it would be quite a bit harder for me to find my next job.
Re:Where's the meat? (Score:3, Informative)
Based on what SCO showed me, it was quite plausible that the two pieces of code--in Unixware and in Linux--came from the same source. The similarities went well beyond predictable names and choice of algorithms. I say this as a practicing programmer with extensive experience.
Did you see any "rocket scientists" on the premises?
I saw only four people on the premises. Non
Re:Where's the meat? (Score:3, Interesting)
When you are technically ignorant like SCO's managment you will make these kind of mistakes.
I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think it will help anything if section six of the GPL can overrule section one. If the copyright holder did not Know they had code in Linux, they should not be obligated to have that code be considered GPLed because they distribute it.
It is a question of knowledge, and I suspect it would be hard to prove that SCO hadn't just missed a few snippets of code.
A ruling that SCO put its code under the GPL unknowingly would destroy corporate faith in the GPL, and that's a very bad thing.
Also, I don't think it is morally correct to punish for distributing code they did not know about.
Of course, I hope SCO dies painfully a few months later when its law-suit actually hits IBM.
Re:I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Do you have a link? (Score:3, Informative)
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updat
(beware the slashdot space)
I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
What I mean is that the GPL in this case had the possibility of unique harm to SCO (a 1st year legal student could see that), and yet they (a) encouraged their own employees to work on a GPL project (b) released a version of the GPL OS themselves.
It seems a bit disingenuous to say "I am an operating system company, but I didn't know what I was releasing".
They're either stupid or lying. In either case, it appears to be that they lost their unique ability to distribute the moment they distributed Linux.
How can an Operating System company claim ignorance of the copyright within an operating system they sold? Its inexplicable. It goes beyond the boundary of veracity. Or, like I said earlier, they're a bunch of yahoo's that have no idea of what they're doing.
Re:I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing (Score:3, Insightful)
the whole kernel source, only patches.
Ironicly, if SCO prevails with their copyright
extremist view against IBM, then even distributing
these patches would be as damaging as the
whole kernel because of "derivitave works".
Copyright is a unique failing of our democracy,
because it is the pet issue of the media.
That is why our founding fathers created a
constitution and explicitly required the promotion
of the useful arts and a time limit. Too
bad it failed.
Had software
Re:I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing (Score:4, Insightful)
right now, on this day, several months after it this crap started, still it's on their ftp, with gpl attached.
you don't say to a judge that you didn't know your cars breaks were failing six months after it failed the inspection because of the brakes and you kept driving it anyways, "sorry sir, i didn't know they were faulty, even though i must have known!"..
and licensing binary only running of linuxes is just sick (paying for nothing, except for the privilidge of doing a contract with these jolly sue maniacs), and has no point at this phase of the legal progress anyways.
anyways, now they're claiming theres entire files in there, but at the same time they're claiming they belong copyright-wise to ibm.. so.. actually i don't have any idea anymore theres so much of this crapfud around, how on earth can they be ibm written and at the same time line by line copied from sco's unix base? or are they trying to say that their contract with ibm forces ibm not to do any research on their own on the same fields they have licensed from sco(seperate developer groups and all included)?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing (Score:3, Interesting)
So far, the RCU patch [sourceforge.net] seems to be the focus of the suit. SCO claims this "infringement" was discovered during a recent code audit. As discussed in "How SCO Helped Linux Go Enterprise" [slashdot.org], a clueful Caldera employee publicly acknowledged and encouraged this work.
Based on this information, I hope SCO loses the GPL argument (although I really doubt it will come to that). Otherwise, free software users will always
SCO's shell game (Score:5, Interesting)
While SCO predicted that they would obtain 15%-20% of a $3.7bn Web Services market [pcpro.co.uk], I have to admit to being perplexed how this is supposed to happen, and also wondering how well an Internet Explorer-based product could fit into SCO's UNIX offerings.
ComputerWorld has an alternative explanation of the Vultus acquisition, they call it: "SCO's Shell Game [computerworld.com]".
One thing is for sure - it sure is lucky that Vultus was in the same (Canopy-owned) building as SCO [vultus.com] (check the picture), even before the acquisition!
Update: More on this story at GROKLAW [weblogs.com]
Repost: Form-4 filings with the SEC [sec.gov] reveal Executives profiting from SCO stock sales: they made $398,833.90 in June, and $781,964.70 in July (so far)!
So who's not drinking the Kool-Aid? (Score:3, Funny)
Or have we been in the grip of one hellacious Reality Distortion Field, and none of this "We Really Own Linux, We Don't Care About Some No-Name Finnish Geek" crap ever actually happened? What else has occured since then that might not have happened? Could Bush have been impeached and I just missed it somehow?
a question about SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
So McBride hatches this FUD plan to sue IBM for copyright infringement despite the fact that the actual code is from their own employees!
Hoping for buyout from IBM..unfortunately IBM has clear records of Caldera employee contributions and thus knows its own contributions to same subsystems and thus know its in the clear and ha snot violated copyrights..
So my question is..
When SCO goes bankrupt aroudn Christmas wil the top execs be charged with fraud for pumping up stock on false information and if so whne can we see MCbride behind bars?
prior art (Score:5, Interesting)
Inconsistent Virality (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, SCO says that the GPL is barely viral at all, not even worthy of a runny nose. That's because they linked their code to a bunch of GPL'd software, but they say that they can ignore the license because "hey, we didn't really mean it". In fact, the GPL must be so unviral that SCO can still distribute this code from their FTP site.
It will be interesting to see if any court buys both of these arguments at the same time.
So, now there's two separate issues to address.... (Score:5, Interesting)
2. All that said, there's no resolution of the "copied" code sections Caldera has brought up. From many, many, of their previous statements, it would seem that the technologies mentioned above are what they're trying to milk GNU/Linux users for. If it's *not* NUMA, RCU, and JFS, what, exactly, are the infringments GNU/Linux users are responsible for? I eagerly await a cogent answer, but I know the chances of getting such are slim to none. I will use GNU/Linux (when I'm not playing around with the Hurd) until an individual user loses a lawsuit to SCO over copyright or patent infringement.
Good point in the MozillaQuest Article (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that SCO are saying that the issue is not actually about copyrighted code being in Linux at all. The issue is about IBM putting it there in contravention of their contract to "keep it secret, keep it safe".
However, I understand that IBM's linux teams and the AIX teams were pretty seperate for that specific reason - no cross pollination. So, SCO is saying that algorithms, solutions and ideas are the problem, not code.
<irony>Luckily this area of legal rights on ideas, concepts and algorithms is really clear in the US legal system.</irony>
clips from the article:
This lawsuit is about breach of contract and other tort claims. It is not about copyright infringement.
SCO-Caldera being able to prove that IBM-developed AIX code
SCO CAN win on Derivative works (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a seriously different approach and it constitutes a valid approach to Caldera-SCO's grievance with IBM.
I don't know if they can win, but I know that winning a derivative works argument is substantially easier than winning a copyright violation argument. And if they can convince a judge and jury that they have derivative rights to the AIX code base copyrighted by IBM, either by contract or by copyright, then the contribution of that code base to the Linux kernel is a violation of either the contract or the copyright on System V.
That is the strategy, it seems, and its not something that anyone should be scoffing at, becuase it just might be enough to win.
That said, what would have to happen to undermine that strategy?
An agent of Caldera actively circumventing an existing contract with IBM, if Caldera was the owner of the contract in question at the time of the action, would be a strike against Caldera. That seems to have been shown to be the case by the statements of the former Caldera CEO and a 'Unix-Linux Kernel Integration Engineer' working for Caldera.de making contributions of code and advice to the Linux kernel development team.
A ruling that the AIX code base is sufficiently independant from the System V code base would invalidate the whole issue, regardless of the contract, unless the contract specifically prohibits all copyright distribution rights of code developed on top of the System V code base - something I doubt IBM's legal team would have agreed to.
A ruling in the original BSD case settlement, which is still sealed, that would invalidate the subsequent System V contracts with IBM. I'm not holding my breath.
A body of evidence that proves some Enterprise capabilities in the Linux kernel evolved from non System V / AIX origins. This certainly could be the case with SMP.
It seems important that as the Caldera-SCO strategy becomes clearer, that the opposition is able to dissect the various parts of it into manageable parts with independant solutions.
Ranting about Caldera-SCO is no longer sufficient.
Re:SCO CAN win on Derivative works (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux in its self is probably safe here as the Santa Cruz Organisation never seeked to use litigation against Linux.
JFS, NUMA and RCU from a technical point of view are just add-on's to a system. JFS itself coming from OS/2 (OS/2 derived from Sytem V?). NUMA was obtained when IBM purchased Sequent and RCU is just a method of multual exclusion that speeds up locking for systems with lots of CPU's. None of these are derived from System V, they are just "features" bolted onto AIX/Linux/Kitchen sink OS.
Regardless of JFS, NUMA and RCU, AIX may be a derivative of System V but that does n't mean that any new technology they add is automatically owned by SCO unless there is some kind of contract that states that(Project Monterey?). When contributing to Linux IBM where very careful not to contribute anything directly from AIX hence JFS code was from OS/2 and not AIX.
To use derive in this sense would be like me saying two totally different cars can be a derivitive of another by sharing the same spoiler.
be rational (Score:3, Informative)
Well, excuse me, but there is a huge difference between "the contract" and "the copyright".
If IBM violated a contract with SCO, that's IBM's problem and IBM would have to pay the bill for that. If you have ever dealt with IBM's l
Re:SCO CAN win on Derivative works (Score:3, Interesting)
If SCO is correct about their contract, the second part of their claim will probably stand u
What if... (Score:3, Insightful)
I present to you, gentle reader, another possibility. One that has the purchaser as not IBM, but Microsoft... think about it for a bit.. MS buys a SCO license at the first possible minute (more or less), then later starts openly postulating similar things as SCO...
Deep pockets vs. deep pockets... who will win?...
And you thought the DOJ vs MS was a long trial...
The pot calling the kettle (Score:3, Insightful)
So, to summarize, SCO didn't pay attention to the product they were distributing, and accidentally released source code under a license that they should not have. Isn't this exactly what they accuse IBM and Linus of doing, of not paying attention and violating someone's IP rights in the process?
The great thing about it is that IBM and Linus' "victim" is SCO, and SCO's victim is SCO!
If only every other Linux competitor were so self defeating...
SCO's defense is the Linux community's defense (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL ... whee ... so this is my own opinion, only.
SCO's defense with regard to GPL provisions applying to their distribution is the Linux community's defense. SCO is claiming that there is a distinction between merely distributing a copy of Linux versus actually incorporating their own code into it. In theory, I presume, this means they were unaware that code they claim is their intellectual property was already in the Linux kernel. So, by being unaware of it, they were not actually performing the act of contribution. If it can be shown that they were aware, that argument could vaporize. But left to stand, it could be valid (presuming it is also proven that code in Linux is in fact their property).
By basing their defense on being unaware of the existance of (supposedly their own) property in the Linux source, they are also handing the Linux community the same defense. If in fact there is SCO property in Linux, then everyone who was unaware of it can also claim like innocence on that same basis. Only those who knowingly or negligently placed any SCO property in Linux (if this did in fact happen) would be unable to use SCO's own defense.
To whatever extent SCO claims that anyone who was unaware of the existance of the property they claim is in Linux is liable, then SCO itself is liable for the GPL provisions despite their own lack of awareness. So watch the cards they play and follow suit.
ABOUT TIME! (Score:4, Interesting)
What I'm really hanging out for is some serious action from IBM. For example, if IBM announced that they would indemnify all Linux users against SCO lawsuits brought about due to actions from IBM themselves, then all of this "if you buy a UnixWare license, we won't sue you for using Linux" crap would instantly go away.
If IBM doesn't have the balls to make such a move, then what are they worried about? Even with the very strong technical case they have, their inaction seems weird to me.
Re:ABOUT TIME! (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it. SCO, who's full of shit, is whining loudly and spreading as much FUD as it can, trying to scare Linux users and IBM's customers. IBM is sitting back, smug, waiting for its day in court, and quietly reassuring its customers. They're walking softly, which makes me think they're the ones with the big stick.
Now if IBM lowered itself to SCO's level, trying to win in the court of public opinion, then I'd be worried.
Factual Article at ZDnet (Score:5, Informative)
I'm surprised this article was not posted, it is very factual:
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/mai n/0,14179,2914364,00.html [zdnet.com]
Stop missing the point people. (Score:4, Interesting)
"SCO-Caldera being able to prove that IBM-developed AIX code, JFS, NUMA software, RCU, and so forth are derived works under the Unix licenses is the critical and key issue to SCO proving that IBM breached the Unix license agreements. So proving they are derived works brings the IBM developed AIX code, JFS, NUMA software, RCU, and so forth under the umbrella of Unix Software Product as set forth in the Unix Licenses.
"That's because the Unix license prohibits IBM from disclosing Unix Software Product code, methods, secrets, and so forth to third parties. Simply put, if SCO-Caldera can prove that IBM-developed AIX code, JFS, NUMA software, RCU, and so forth are derivate works and therefore part of the Unix Software Product and that IBM disclosed the code, methods, secrets and for them to the Linux developers, then SCO wins its IBM lawsuit."
SCO doesn't need copyright, and they can happily state that IBM *did* develop those bits. But if a judge rules, that those bits are "derived works" and are a part of "Unix Software Product", then they have won their contractual battle.
This is why SCO claim that its "hundreds of files" not "lines" of code. They are including everything IBM developed as derived works and therefore part of "Unix Software Product".
Let's say the judge agrees and they get damages from IBM (for contract violation). The big question is where this leaves linux. They *did* afterall knowingly (ie after the it was pointed out to them) continue to distribute SCO linux under the GPL.
I'm guessing the code will end up being replaced, however this won't be trivial. Developers that have been "tainted" by seeing the code will probably be hesitant to contribute to new versions of those bits. And you can bet SCO will be looking through any new code with a fine-toothed comb.
SCO revenue in 2004? 2005? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what is scox going to do to pay the bills? I suppose scox can become a shell company, and exist only for the one-in-a-million chance that IBM will settle or something.
Makes me wonder how scox will get 15% of the market for web-tools, considering scox can't afford R&D. Even if scox could afford R&D, nobody would buy from scox.
Wow, what a bright future. No wonder SCO shares have gone from under $1 a share to over $13 a share.
The Crosspatch Decision (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM has been very careful in the contracts it signed, making careful distinction between ATT Unix and IBM's own contributions. Not all Unix licensees were as careful, possibly including Sequent. The question is, if Sequent's possibly incautious contract would have kept them from contributing their inventions to Linux, would that contract bind IBM, too? Would it prevent the inventions' new owner from releasing them unencumbered? Or, do IBM's own contracts with (the shell that is now) SCO subsume Sequent's?
WAIT ONE DAMN MINUTE (Score:3, Interesting)
and i fscking quote....
"Until now the case started off as a contract dispute with IBM and did not involve intellectual property or copyright. As of today it's a different game, and Linux users now do have a copyright issue to deal with," SCO CEO and President Darl McBride told a media teleconference on Monday.
and now i read...
http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-24-Co
Blake Stowell: No we don't, but this is not a copyright case. This is a contracts case. We have taken IBM to court because they are in breach of contract.
so which the fsck is it? and where is the equal time in PHB websites like InformationWeek, etc.. about this new development??
aaaaarrrrghhh. i'm totally frustrated by this nonsense. And where is the SEC when you ened their sorry butts?
Re:WAIT ONE DAMN MINUTE (Score:3, Informative)
SCO claims that IBM violated their contract. This is the basis for the lawsuit.
SCO claims that Linux distributions infringe on SCO's Unix copyright. This is the basis for the letters sent to Linux users, and the offer to not sue Linux users who purchase a Unixware license.
The alleged IBM contract violation involves code which IBM contributed to Linux. SCO has said what this code is: it's JFS, NUMA, etc.
The alleged Linu
This will get thrown out of court in 10 seconds (Score:4, Insightful)
AIX, as an OS kernel which includes Sys V code, is indeed a derivative work.
However, to claim that any SysV-derived UNIX cannot and has not received IP contributions from existing projects, which themselves are not licensed under the terms of the AT&T/Novell license, and as such distributing these works independently is illegal, is ludicrous.
Like, stunningly, incredibly ludicrous. In fact, I would say such a licensing agreement violates anti-trust laws, and would be ruled illegal and unenforceable, possibly rendering the entire contract void.
Free/Open/NetBSD cannot legally exist with this interpretation of 'derivative work', because they include code that was once linked with SysV code.
According to SCO, it doesn't matter if the BSD people own the copyright to every line of code, because it was once linked with SysV code, and hence is a derivative work.As such, they may not disclose it
This is quite clearly not the situation.
To claim that any IP placed in any SysV-derived UNIX strips the copyright-holder of that work's right to redistribute the original work under any license they see fit is absurd.
Are they really trying to say that because the text of the BSD license is included in SysV that nobody may distribute the text of the BSD license because it is covered by AT&T licensing agreements, and must be kept secret?
SCO just doing things by the book. (Score:5, Interesting)
"All this was inspired by the principle -- which is quite true in itself -- that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper stata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes." A. Hitler - Mein Kampf
Re:This is all they've come up with for a defense? (Score:5, Informative)
Even if none of these 9 were to work, the burden would still be on SCO to prove the 100+ assertions in their complaint.
Re:This is all they've come up with for a defense? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it is impossible to check. When somebody come with a piece of code, and say they wrote it, how would you check?
Re:This is all they've come up with for a defense? (Score:4, Insightful)
You obviously haven't been keeping up with things. SCO/Caldera knew very well that IBM was putting these things in the kernel as early as 2000. They released OpenLinux 4 ranting and raving about the same features you now see them saying were illegally contributed. How can they claim they didn't know when one of the listed features of OpenLinux is JFS?
Re:Well either way... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, say SCO harassed this lady into getting her to pay for a SCO Unix license. She doesn't have a legal department, and all she sees is that she's somehow liable for stealing something, and buys a license right away.
Months later, they find out SCO was full of shit and in the wrong completely. Was old Mrs. Henderson duped and hornswoggled into buying a license? Well, obviously; but can she get a lawyer and countersue SCO for their aggressive, deceptive tactics? Or is she just up shit's creek, because she should have known better (or hired someone who did)?
Re:Well either way... (Score:5, Informative)
If and when SCO loses, they are rapidly going to be out of business. Any small business that spends legal fees going after SCO at this point will just be wasting money.
I ain't buying no stinking license (Score:3, Funny)