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 ..."
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]
This is all they've come up with for a defense? (Score:1, Informative)
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.
You did what? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where's the meat? (Score:4, Informative)
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:Double standard, double talk. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing (Score:1, Informative)
However it brings up a good point. They are doing something rather stupid. They only have to provide on demand that source code to people that have the binary. They chose the FTP way. Its probably a poor decision.
So basicly right now I, who has never entered into any agreement with SCO, could do so. Through the GPL. Then even IF they say I must give up money to them I could say 'hey I got in through your GPL on your ftp site.'
Re:SCO's shell game (Score:1, Informative)
355 South 520 West
Suite 150
Lindon, UT 84042
SCO's address:
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042
Something smells, and it's not just my socks.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
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]
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.
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:Even better (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:I Hope SCO wins on that GPL thing (Score:1, Informative)
I suggest you try downloading it. I did. The 25.5MB RPM contains not only the entire 2.4.13 kernel (released Oct. 23, 2001), but also a collection of patches, scripts and other files.
I even checked the 22MB linux-2.4.13.tar.bz2 file against the signature at kernel.org. It checked out okay. In other words, SCO is distributing kernel 2.4.13, as it appears at kernel.org, unchanged.
But that's not all. SCO is also distributing kernel 2.4.19 [sco.com] (released Aug. 2, 2002) in compiled form only. If you want, you could download it and demand a copy of the source code (complete with a GPL license).
Re:SCO CAN win on Derivative works (Score:1, Informative)
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/06/21.htm
However, in the later letter, signed by both parties and dated February of 1985, Exhibit C, it modifies the language of the contract regarding that clause:
2. Regarding Section 2.01, we agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you are owned by you. However, ownership of any portion or portions of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS included in any such modification or derivative work remains with us.
What this says is that derivative works do not belong to SCO, insofar as they are free of any of their original code. In other words, if there was no System V code in the derivative work, the derivative work does not belong to SCO but to IBM.
Re:not so simple (Score:2, Informative)
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/S
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.
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 kernel contributer (/. story from a week or so ago.. too lazy to look up) gets put onto the stand and asked *exactly* what he submitted, where he got it from, and who authorized him to do it.
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 Linux infringement involves code allegedly copied directly from Unix to Linux. SCO is not admitting what this code is, except under NDA.
SCO is throwing a lot of mud in the air and they are refining their story as they go along. And most of the journalists aren't helping much. But you can almost make sense of things if you keep track.
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. None of them appeared to be rocket scientists. But I didn't go into the real office, just a conference room. It's not like they gave me a guided tour, much less answered all my questions.
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 lawyers, you'd know that it is essentially an impossibility that IBM would have agreed to any contract that would open them up to such claims. But, whatever, IBM's contractual problems with SCO don't concern anybody other than IBM.
SCO only has copyright and patent laws to make claims against people it doesn't have contracts with. If those hypothetical "derivative rights" are based in copyright law, they don't cover "gaining experience from" or any other such vague constructions.
That is the strategy, it seems, and its not something that anyone should be scoffing at, becuase it just might be enough to win.
Well, bribing the judge might also be enough to win. However, as long as we discuss legal issues rationally, terminal stupidity, incompetence, or bribery are not things that it makes a lot of sense to spend a lot of time arguing about.
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 cut and pasted comments from POSIX specs, of course.) There are some implementations where it would be more shocking if there were differences than not.
SCOs making big claims but what little evidence they show, even under NDA, is hardly wourthy of mention.
If they stick with what was said in this article rather than changing their story yet again, it sounds like they don't have a case at all against anyone but IBM, and they'll almost certainly lose that one as well, because of the contract amendments that took effect in 2001.
Re:Do you have a link? (Score:3, Informative)
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updat
(beware the slashdot space)
Re:What about Xenix? (Score:1, Informative)
Obligatory reminder that SCO/Canopy own a significant chunk (disclosed, who knows what behind the scenes) of TrollTech, the makers of the Qt toolkit and the people who control access for closed-source developers to the KDE desktop.
Do not use KDE... you are supporting SCO if you do so.
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:2, Informative)
From the FAQ [sourceforge.net]:
MkLinux is a port of Linux to the Mach MicroKernel, and a corresponding port of Mach to the HP PA-RISC, Intel x86, and Power Macintosh families of computers. Originally sponsored by Apple, it consists of The Open Group Mach (PMK 1.1) microkernel, with Linux running as a user-mode Mach task on top.
Re:Only slightly better (Score:3, Informative)
Since SCO has not come forward and showed what it is, they can't claim damages. Even if they had done that, they could only take action against the person who contributed it (which was most likely their own employee). Not to mention that they would have to prove that the code is not just a standard implementation from a textbook.
The users or other Linux developers are probably not liable because they could not possibly find out what similarities there are between the Linux source and the secret SCO UNIX source. There could not have been any willful infringement, so no damages would be awarded.
You missed my point (Score:3, Informative)
RCU is not a derivative work of Sys V.
AIX with RCU is.
IBM owns all the IP in RCU. IBM and SCO share the IP in AIX with RCU. IBM had better not make AIX Open Source because they don't own all of the rights to it. IBM is free to make RCU Open Source becuase they *do* own all of the IP in it.
SCO's claims are groundless *as a matter of law*.