IBM Countersues SCO, And More! 1156
mr.crutch writes "Few details are available, but CNet is reporting that IBM has filed counterclaims against SCO. CNet also has an interview with Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik..." Jizzbug writes "Thanks to the folks of K5, we can all obtain our rights to use the Linux kernel from SCO, and without paying up to SCO's extortion. If kernel.org kernels aren't safe, sco.com kernels certainly ought to be." LWN has a copy of SCO's Linux License for your perusal. Bruce Perens is speaking of the dangers of patent portfolios to open source software, notable because IBM's counterclaims include patent infringement. And finally, a company is selling SCO Check, a tool to de-SCOify your Linux system, if SCO ever presents any evidence whatsoever of infringing code in Linux. Update: 08/08 00:16 GMT by T : SCO's public response to IBM's counterclaim is short and to the point. Among other things, it says "If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license." Given the other links in this story, perhaps SCO should go first on that count.
Litigate 'till CSO runs out of money? HAH! (Score:5, Insightful)
Unspecified? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing that in the end, this will be a big number, but perhaps IBM will go for a settlement that involves SCO execs, bricks, and deep water.
Seriously, if anything this whole fiasco is probably as much good publicity for IBM as it is bad to SCO. IBM gets to lay on the smack-down, and they end up looking very much like a hero in the eyes of the linux users/developers.
It's about time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Claim to be SCO Free (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO really can't dispute that claim without offering proof, and once they offer proof, the distro can issue a patch removing the code from the system, assuming that there really is problem code
What's not in IBM Counter claims (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone know of an online copy of the filing yet?
Re:Another article,SCO can't respond to the bitchs (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, part of my really is saying:
"FSCK DARL MCBRIDE AND SCO! KICK 'EM WEAR IT COUNTS, IBM!"
This answers the big question (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that Novell specifically, explicitly forbade SCO from revoking the AIX license, and the fact that SCO ignored this (despite knowing that they were contractually obligated to respect Novell's orders on this issue) shows that there was never an expectation that this would lead to a payout. This is all about the FUD. Case closed.
Glory Hallelujah, finally some good news. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the beginning of the end for SCO. You could argue that the end began when they first made their claims, but that was just a prelude. There's no story here, of course; We go right from ONCE UPON A TIME straight to THE END. But somehow we still get a bunch of fun implied drama.
Let the lawsuits begin! (Score:1, Insightful)
So SCO wants to play hardball, do they? Then let the bastards bleed to death by fighting as many suits as the Linux community can throw at them.
Re:Big guns (Score:5, Insightful)
y'know, I never really thought of it this way. IBM has enough stake now in Linux that they are defending the principles it is built on. This is a serious milestone for the open source movement.
Triple Attack! (Score:1, Insightful)
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/maficstudiosisbad [angelfire.com]
kris@maficstudios.com [mailto]
sales@maficstudios.com [mailto]
jobs@maficstudios.com [mailto]
Why no injunction against FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why, oh why, don't they seek an injunction against SCO contacting organizations and demanding royalties while this is pending? This is a no-brainer. They have alot more than they need!
IBM is dual edged sword (Score:2, Insightful)
IBM is an elephant on the battlefield of technology. It's great when the elephant is out trampling on the opposition. The problem is that they sometimes turn around and run back to stomp the other side, too. So today they're OSS heros, but tomorrow the elephant might be running the other direction.
Re:Litigate 'till CSO runs out of money? HAH! (Score:3, Insightful)
If Microsoft should decide to pile more cash on TSG, it might take a bit longer
Re:It's about time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:better and better (Score:1, Insightful)
Since their pumped up stock has already allowed the Canopy group to make some nice aquisitions. SCO was dead on the floor before this started, it jumped the stock nearly 300 percent, some deals were made, some nice pensions were set up, all in all, a pretty clean manipulation of the press. No down side
for SCO.
The folks who are REALLY behind the SCO-IBM lawsuit are pretty clearly Microsoft who is going after the GPL by a SCO proxy.
No one is going to touch Microsoft for their hand in this. So, even though the SCO thing might fade away, the real problem is never going to until someone actually addresses Microsofts monopolistic anti-competitive behaviour.
Something the US government took great pains to avoid doing when they had the chance, pretty much making Microsoft immune.
On the upside, a failure of SCO is going to make Microsofts' next big FUD flood a lot harder.
Re:Multiple Fronts . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
If the GPL isn't a viable license (for reasons I cannot fathom, since the copyright holder gets to determine the conditions of its copying), ownership of the code reverts to the original copyright holders. This means SCO would still have no legal right to charge money for the Linux kernel since most (all?) of the code isn't theirs to sell.
Re:Why no injunction against FUD? (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if they hadn't known right away, it would be hard to use that argument now, since they still are distributing it free via their ftp site. They've had far more than sufficient opportunity to remove the GPL'd code. Since the suit against IBM was filed, it's been available for how many months now?
Re:The Juggernaut (Score:4, Insightful)
The infringing SCO software, IBM said, is its UnixWare and OpenServer operating systems, its SCO Manager remote administration tool and its Reliant HA package for letting one computer in a cluster take over if another fails.
Hey, you stole my marbles!!
Well, they technically aren't *your* marbles anymore because you've been giving them away to other kids. You stop telling everyone I stole your marbles, it's making me look bad. Oh, and that slingshot in your back pocket... mine.
Re:End result of lawsuit (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Oooh, the front page. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Another article,SCO can't respond to the bitchs (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if IBM sells hardware equiped with Linux then they ARE distributing it, aren't they? Remember, Red Hat and Suse don't write most of the code in Linux either, but they certainly distribute it.
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
The technical damage is zero.
The damage done to Linux's perception has been significant though. Every single industry talking head will also say "copyright infringement lawsuit" whenever they say Linux, now. To people considering adoption who don't know anything about the story, this is a big deal.
If it weren't for this, I doubt Red Hat would have even gotten involved.
Re:Unspecified? (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO's been pretty pretty careless with the libel. The damages could add up to a lot.
Seriously, if anything this whole fiasco is probably as much good publicity for IBM as it is bad to SCO. IBM gets to lay on the smack-down, and they end up looking very much like a hero in the eyes of the linux users/developers.
IBM has realized that karma whoring is an effective business practice. Good for them.
Re:Unspecified? (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that IBM already looks like a hero in the eyes of linux users and developers, not least for their work on scalability and their donation of an entire journaling filesystem, I think it's fair to say that this is just IBM continuing their support of Linux in a logical manner.
Let's Put SCO Behind Bars (Score:5, Insightful)
While the lawsuits being defended by IBM [sco.com] and filed by Red Hat [redhat.com] are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's [sco.com] menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.
If we all work together, we can put the executives [sco.com] of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.
If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General [naag.org]. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.
It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech [caltech.edu], was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC [ucsc.edu]. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula [deth.com] at parties around the town.
Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.
You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town [cruzio.com] between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.
Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.
It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 [slashdot.org] for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release [sco.com] announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.
I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".
My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.
Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.
SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con
Re:Another article,SCO can't respond to the bitchs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We need to start planning now to buy SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
Cute idea though :)
tactics... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another article,SCO can't respond to the bitchs (Score:3, Insightful)
More importantly if they have ever distributed the kernel to anyone, by any means, then they also have likewise accepted the license.
That claim is awfully hard to get out of.
CNET interviewer is stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, the interviewer then goes on to imply that all linux developers are really just heartless pirates, like the music downloaders on Kazaa.
Later on, we are graced with this gem:
"One view of Linux that's persisted over the years is that it's free. Even though that's not fully accurate,
Yes, those pesky pirates keep insisting that Linux is free! Clearly it's not, however, as RedHat is charging lots of money for it! Moron.
"Microsoft would say the same thing.
I have customers.
They have customers too.
Great."
Wow, RedHat has customers? Microsoft too? Truly, these are men of vision. Men of unparalleled insight!
IBM should sell patent licenses to SCO customers! (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's the indemnification? (Score:1, Insightful)
ALL WARRANTIES, TERMS, CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS, INDEMNITIES AND
NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS) ARE HEREBY
OVERRIDDEN, EXCLUDED AND DISCLAIMED.
(Sorry about partial quote - trying to get around the lameness filter)
Isn't this exactly what they have been saying is wrong with the GPL?
How do we fight these idiots? Do we contribute to the FSF, the EFF, or the War on Drugs? 'Cause these guys are obviously on crack!
Don't Lump Sun and MS together (Score:2, Insightful)
In the early 1990's, Schwartz said, Sun chief executive Scott McNealy agreed to spend several million dollars to take a broad license with AT&T, essentially granting Sun legal rights equivalent to ownership of Unix code.
"As a result of that decision in 1993, we can do whatever we want (to the code)," Schwartz said. "We can drive forward and indemnify our customers too," a basic responsibility of any intellectual property provider, he said.
Seems to imply that Sun just decided to cover their ass a long time ago. At the time they had money to burn. Although they have flung some FUD in the SCO soap opera, they probably are not financing SCO in any way.
Re:When SCO dies... (Score:3, Insightful)
A: IBM and RedHat because when they win their case, SCO will have no money to pay so they'll be forced to transfer all these assets to IBM/RedHat.
Stupid License Restrictions (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me get this straight. They want me to buy this license. (well, maybe not right now, but they have hinted before that they intend to go after non-commercial users at some point in the future. And I'm not sure I'd trust them if they said they were leaving home users alone) But almost everyone I know who has a GNU/Linux box also runs sshd. Among other "service hosting"-type daemons. IANAL, but it seems to me that they are prohibiting that sort of thing. Which makes me wonder - are they really trying to make money, or just to piss us all off?
(Not that I ever had any doubt about that. But it's just more reassurance that we're right.)
Let the SCO Bitchslapping begin! (Score:2, Insightful)
for patent infringement. I think a bunch of sphincters in Santa Cruz just puckered.
IBM has the best patent attorney's in the world. SCO seems to have the worst legal team in the country. Yankees vs Tigers would be a good comparison. Regardless of the merits of the Linux suit, IBM would not have added the patent thing unless they were sure they could win it. No matter what happens now, SCO is f*&k&d
Re:We need to start planning now to buy SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh. This let's-buy-them-out line of thought really needs to die. In case there is anyone left who hasn't heard yet, and apparently there are quite a few, 80% of SCO is in the hands of a single shareholder. If you managed to buy the remaining 20%, including the tiny quantities yet to be dumped by SCO executives, all you would have is a minority share in a dying company.
You want a stock tip? Buy IBM.
Re:Let's Put SCO Behind Bars (Score:3, Insightful)
Could you explain the principle behind this statement? The GPL does not affect usage of the programs under it. It is not a user license, it only applies to modification and distribution.
The the kernel contains infringing code, the GPL will prohibit any modification and redistribution by anyone (including SCO, which they don't appear to understand). It will also be true that the previous distribution of the code will have been done illegally.
The whole strength of the GPL is that is based on giving extra rights that are otherwise restricted by copyright. The GPL doesn't take away any rights at all. How could the GPL disallow running the kernel?
Re:Criminal Escalation (Score:3, Insightful)
Had they simply decided to just sue IBM, chances are somewhat good that IBM would have settled the lawsuit,
Absolutely not. SCO accused IBM of not taking proper care of TRADE SECRETS ... and IBM makes billions in IT services because they have a reputation for respecting the trade secrets and privileged information they encounter in the course of that business. Any settlement, even for a token dollar, would be seen as admission that they didn't take proper care of trade secrets.
Compared to what loss of reputation would cost, the legal fees in the SCO suit are not even peanuts.
That pig won't fly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another article,SCO can't respond to the bitchs (Score:3, Insightful)
Two links out of history:
IBM's ThinkPad/Linux support project being dropped [linux-thinkpad.org]
Buying a Linux ThinkPad: IBM's mission impossible [theregister.co.uk].
Note that the GPL isn't about who put together a distribution, but about who distributes.
Canopy's Next Move? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that a huge pissing match ensued between Gnome and KDE over the use of a proprietary technology in a Linux GUI, and perhaps now is the time for that relationship to be reviewed (in the light of Canopy's behavior). Should those APIs be rewritten in an attempt to dump Qt, or is that over-reacting?
Also, Linux Networx is a cluster service provider. How long until they start suing IBM and HP for some spurious claim?
I trust Canopy about as far as I can toss the collective carcasses of the entire Board of Directors.
SCO has replied (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO makes it even clearer than before that they are attacking the GPL:
They seem to be claiming to have been using those patents for years. In fact, all they are saying is that they have been shipping these products for years without making any claims about patents. They could have easily added the infringements later.
I don't know what the following signifies. Are they saying that IBM can't file a counterclaim that is not mentioned in their original answer to the suit?
And, of course, even more blather:
Re:SCO Responds (mod up) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO has replied (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, when you copyright a program, you only have to provide the first and last 25 pages of source code.
What we really need is to provide every page in a machine readable format and post it on the Internet so that people can check their code for possible infringements.
Then, we need to rule out all damages for anything other than malicious infringements that occur prior to some reasonable amount of time after it is published.
The larger the amount of code copyrighted, the longer amount of time should be allowed to check the code and remove any infringing code. This should give people time to identify possibly infringing code, determine whether or not it really is an infringement (at least to a reasonable degree), and if it does infringe, to remove it.
We really need a reasonable maximum length of time on copyrights. I'd say 20 years is more than enough. (Actually 5 years should be plenty.)
While we're at it, we should cut patents back in most cases. The length of the patent should really reflect the cost of developing the patent and the time reasonably needed for a payout on the patent.
Any patent that you could infringe while sleepwalking should have a maximum life of no more than a month.
Re:Cheering for IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
When IBM realised that there was money to be made from supporting free software.
No, *DONT* Lump Sun and MS together (Score:1, Insightful)
" Sun's expanded license permits Sun to use some software from Unix System V Release 4 for software components called drivers, which let computers use hard drives, network cards and other devices. Sun needed the software for its version of Solaris that runs on Intel servers, Sun spokesman Brett Smith said. A source familiar with the deal said the new contract was signed in February, but neither Sun nor SCO would comment."
So Sun in february bought a LICENSE FOR SYS V DRIVERS for their Solaris on Intel hardware. SCO made it look like Sun bought a Sys V license.
Re:SCO has replied (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say this shows IBM's faith that IBM will still exist a year from now and will have to honor any contracts it makes. SCO can offer any indemnification they want to if they plan on going bankrupt is 3 months.
Re:The Buy a Sco share Campaign (Score:2, Insightful)
SCO can not be bought. The majority of shares are held by Canopy. You will never get 51% ownership of stock because they are not for sale.
What part of can't don't you morons get?
49% does not equal "control" of SCO.
This simple fact has been repeated in every SCO thread.
You can't buy SCO stock and get control of the company.
SCO's bowels are in such turmoil it needs 3 asses to shit out of. Go big blue.
Re:SCO has replied (Score:5, Insightful)
You gotta love it when a company that has posted multiple million dollar losses for the last 5 years, can't find a market for their product, and admits in it's sec filings that it's current actions will alienate it from it's market and customers says IBM has a flawed business model.
Re:Just to play Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
Go ahead. You are allowed to charge for Linux, and you are permitted to charge whatever you want. And so is anybody who you sell Linux to. That is what the license is about. You are not allowed to deny the rights that you were granted by the GPL to anyone to whom you subsequently distrubute the altered or unaltered GPL code. Hell, Stallman supported himself for years selling GPL software. I believe that the people who paid for it saw the value in supporting his efforts to write an extensible and full featured editor.
If you feel yourself to be a charitable person, then by all means volunteer your time and heart to a worthy organization, perhaps a soup kitchen or a children's hospital.
Good idea. Perhaps we can form a community dedicated to developing Operating Systems, complete with networking, productivity, records management, imaging, and other apps that would be useful for childrens and other hospitals, schools, and charities. That way they could spend thier budgets on providing care and service for those who depend on them, instead of on upgrading thier systems every time the software vendor decides it's time to milk that cow.
The very nature of business precludes money for a piece of property.
Incorrect.Of course if you had stated that the definition of business includes the exchange of money for a piece of property, I'd be forced to agree with you, but precludes means quite the opposite. Perhaps you made a mistake there. (In fact, I'm rather certain that you did mean to use includes, so we agree after all. Isn't this nice?!) When I have a peice of property to sell you, then we can do business. I think that you also forgot that services can be exchanged for currency as well, and it is still business, but I'll forgive that. For the time being though, you can make a copy of what property I have that I'm unwilling to sell, and as long as you have my permission (you do), and you pay for whatever materials you need to make that copy, I think thats legal as well. Just don't use that copy to screw anybody over. (Ha ha, a little humor. See, were all gentlemen here, except for the ladies, and I think we all know that you'd never dream of doing something like that.)
It is not sacred.
I agree with you again. Open Source software has proven to be a practical, secure, and stable alternative to software developed in secretive environments that discourage cooperative problem solving. Practical, usefull, and rapidly developed.Yes, Open Source is all of those things. But sacred? No, nothing is sacred around here. Except for respect for peoples copyright (or copyleft) and thier licensing terms. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Open Source developers and maintainers go to greater lengths [debian.org] to ensure that they are respecting copyright than most others.
Outside the tech world, linux users are hippies, just barely still democratic.
I'm not quite sure by what you mean by that, but I thought I'd quote it anyway.
They use and work on a system of knowledge steeped in time honored and capitalist traditions
Once again we agree! Getting along famously now, aren't we. Many Linux and Open Source developers have built thier own businesses around Open Source, providing goods (computers) for Open Source to run on, services for both industry (customization, implementation, etc) and end users (networking services, web hosting, entertainment) and documentation (books) to teach the masses (consumers) how to make effective use of Open Source software in hopes that this will bring thier businesses more success and thier personal lives more enjoyment, increasing thier demand for more goods and services. Open source people: Upstanding citizens of our Grand Capitolist system!
division of labor(modularity), stability(conservatism), diversification (to the point of parties spanning the globe contributing anony