Slashdot Mirror

I seem to have an oddly missing link there. That was supposed to be "go to their FTP server..."

No. Napster was innocent until proven guilty by a court of justice. Coleman did the right thing.

Or else, all $BigCorp had to do was spread some fud about questionable legality of its competitor, and everybody would just oblige and roll over? First let's the courts decide, and only then be part of the punishment.

Wrong. Nuh uh. kernel.org isn't a warez site since the GPL allows people to distribute copies of the kernel.

OTOH since these people don't seem to think that the kernel is under the GPL, and since the GPL is the only way you can legally distribute the kernel, this site really IS a Linux warez site.

Wrong. Nuh uh. kernel.org isn't a warez site since the GPL allows people to distribute copies of the kernel.

OTOH since these people don't seem to think that the kernel is under the GPL, and since the GPL is the only way you can legally distribute the kernel, this site really IS a Linux warez site.

Who modded this insightful? That file SCO is distributiong (linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm) most certainly is the Linux kernel. Note that the size is 26,701,141 bytes, which is only slightly more than the 23,111,925 of the official linux-2.4.13.tar.bz2 from ftp.kernel.org. It is outrageous that SCO is still distributing this under the GPL while claiming it is illegal for others to use and distribute.

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 (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).

How can they not know about this? They are distributing the supposedly infringing version of Linux as I type this. Regardless of what they may or may not have known in the past, they certainly do know that whatever code they believe they own is in Linux right now, yet they continue to distribute it in blatant violation of the license.

Last week SCO announced acquiring the assets and technology of Vultus, a web services company, who offer web development tools called WebFace ("Runs on Internet Explorer 5 and up").

While SCO predicted that they would obtain 15%-20% of a $3.7bn Web Services market, 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".

One thing is for sure - it sure is lucky that Vultus was in the same (Canopy-owned) building as SCO (check the picture), even before the acquisition!

Update: More on this story at GROKLAW

Repost: Form-4 filings with the SEC reveal Executives profiting from SCO stock sales: they made $398,833.90 in June, and $781,964.70 in July (so far)!

Ask not how to get rid of spam, ask how to send your spam to SCO.

Did SCO hire ESR to do their graphics?

Mr. McBride,

Are you know employing Slashdot editors to proof read your site?

Your truly,
AC

Dear Slashdot,

Keep trying.

Yours truly,
Darl McBride.

ms and sun "licensed unix from sco" - i think they gave sco some money to play with without getting their own hands dirty.

Of course its a conspiracy, what else could it be? Sun doesn't have any products that lack anything, like, say, drivers that Cald^H^H^H^H SCO would be in a strong position to provide by license. And everyone knows that Microsoft can't have more than, what, one or two products directly related to Unix that having source code from SCO would be useful to help improve, or for which a license would help remove any doubt about IP rights.

They are just pretending to improve and sell their products to meet Wallstreet expectations when everyone knows its just a plot to undermine Linux. Linux will still crush them and rule all. Go Tux!!

You will begin to associate web browsing with feelings of agonizing fury and dull throbbing pain between the temples.

one who can not only operate the cash register,
but probably wrote the software for it.

Errr, wouldn't that be SCO. I would love to say "Big Mac and fries, please, Darl!"

If SCO has announced that it has registered its copyright to System V source code, does that mean it has deposited the code in the Library of Congress? And now somebody can compare it with other source code?

Mentioned in about bazillion other threads, but...

linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm

We could also overwhelm them in person... the SCO Forum is being held in Las Vegas, perhaps the slashdot community should join. For more info, go to http://www.sco.com/2003forum/

(BTW -- I haven't done this yet, and I can't do it at work, but maybe someone should check this SRPM for GPL notices and compare it against the "vanilla" kernel. If the notices are present, then SCO released the source under GPL. If the notices are not present, then SCO has committed a GPL violation. I think. I am not a lawyer etc.)

Let's slashdott them...

http://www.sco.com/company/execs/dmcbride.html

First, the premise of your case--you claim that your UNIX on x86 market share was unfairly eroded because enterprise features which you claim as your IP (including NUMA and RCU) were misappropriated into the Linux kernel.

What you are claiming as a "premise of the case" is not the lawsuit at all. That makes the rest of your comment meaningless. The case is about contract violations, having implications on the definition of derived works. The specific complaint from the lawsuit is:

The UNIX software distribution vendors, such as IBM, are contractually and legally prohibited from giving away or disclosing proprietary UNIX source code and methods for external business purposes, such as contributions to the Linux community or otherwise using UNIX for the benefit of others. This prohibition extends to derivative work products that are modifications of, or based on, UNIX System V source code or technology. IBM and certain other UNIX software distributors are violating this prohibition, en masse, as though no prohibition or proprietary restrictions exist at all with respect to the UNIX technology. As a result of IBM's wholesale disregard of its contractual and legal obligations to SCO, Linux 2.4.x and the development Linux kernel, 2.5.x, are filled with UNIX source code, derivative works and methods. As such, Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x are unauthorized derivatives of UNIX System V. [bolding is mine]

The big issue is on derivative works. A narrow interpretation of the law could mean that any usage of any data structure created for SystemV would make the program a derivative work. Even a broad interpretation requiring extensive usage of System V ideas &/or code would place all modern unixes in danger. That is the fear of the IT Lawyers, and it should be your fear as well.

frob

Are you in Las Vegas on the 17th-19th August?

Make you feelings known, drop in at the SCO Forum 2003.

I'm sure SCO representatives will be very happy to answer all of your licensing questions or maybe you just want to hand over your cash in person.

Name: kernel-source
Relocations: (not relocateable)
Version: 2.4.19.SuSE
Vendor: UnitedLinux LLC
Release: 152
Build Date: Fri Feb 7 08:34:55 2003
Install date: (not installed)
Build Host: Zert184.suse.de
Group: Development/Sources
Source RPM: (none)
Size: 37756367
License: GPL
Packager : http://www.unitedlinux.com/feedback
Summary : The Linux kernel (the core of the Linux operating system)
Description : Linux Kernel sources with many Improvements and Fixes.

Authors:
--------
Linus Torvalds
see /usr/src/linux/CREDITS for more details.

According to this Gartner Group article on SCO's website, "SCO has indicated that the libraries are available from SCO for $149, or lower with discounts."

I wonder how deep the discounts are? How deep will Micro$oft's discount be if they try to become the exclusive distributor of SCO's "licensed" linux?

...but I figured this was the best approach for figuring out exactly what SCO is trying to sell. Nowhere on the SCO page could I find any reference to this new "license" for UnixWare. In fact, the only place I could find any of their EULA information was by trying to download some of there software (I decided to check the EULA on UnixWare 7.1.3).

The only place that I can even see a mention of source code is here:

"Software" is the machine-readable (object) code portion of the Product and any human readable code contained on the media.

which reads to me that they don't give out their source code. Also, they have admitted here:

Caldera, the Caldera logos, Caldera OpenLearning, Caldera Volution, OpenLinux, Lizard, Webmin, SCO, The SCO Group, and associated logo, SCO OpenServer, SCO Open Server, ODT, Open Desktop, AIM Benchmark, and Hot Iron Awards are trademarks or registered trademarks of Caldera International, Inc. in the U.S.A. and other countries. Caldera Global Services is a service mark of Caldera International, Inc. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. UNIX and UnixWare, used under an exclusive license, are registered trademarks of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. SCO Legal Notice

that Linux is not SCO, and SCO is not Linux. As well as a reference in the EULA that there may be free software adhering to the GNU Public License included with their products.

So unless someone who was authorized to view their code (ie a real SCO developer), there should be no way that SCO Unix code could have found its way into the kernel. They also make no claims about Unix being SCO property in either their legal documentation or their EULA.

Either they haven't drafted this new license, or they're talking out of their asses. Any votes as to which??

Has anyone else made a conscious effort to Slashdot SCO's web site and servers? I mean, who among us with broadband doesn't need to download their entire ftp site each and every day?

For this? (linked off the "Products" page of their main site): http://www.sco.com/company/scosource/intellectual_ property/

Mea culpa; mea maxima culpa.

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Serv er/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/

You can get patches for each new version of 2.4 from kernel.org and its mirrors. If SCO thinks it's safe to distribute 2.4.13 due to a lack of infringing code, then digging through the subsequent patches should reveal what code SCO thinks it owns[0].

However, I find it far more likely that SCO's lawyers are overrated and don't understand the implications of the GPL and GPL violations. I don't think SCO's lawyers understand that, by claiming certain pieces of code are not under GPL, that the entire kernel they are distributing here now falls under standard copyright law. Since SCO does not have copyright on the entire kernel, this distribution is illegal and itself infringing until SCO obtains permission from every other person who has copyrighted code in the kernel.[1]

[0] This seems to be a moving target, depending on who is speaking and what day it is, my opinion that the whole thing is a bullpuckey stock scam notwithstanding.

[1] The amusing thing is, timestamps on SCO's ftp server indicate there was a serious attempt to wipe out all signs of 2.4.13 kernel code and binaries on May 16, 2003. Despite this, you can still find several copies of 2.4.13 in the updates directory. I can't believe SCO's staff would fail to think of this, and I'm stunned that the legal teams haven't caught wind of this and demanded that these copies also be wiped out.

From the SCO website:

"Caldera Systems, Inc. is a Canopy Group holding under the Ray Noorda/Canopy Group Investment Company. Ray Noorda is the former CEO of Novell, Inc. (NASDAQ:NOVL)"

And from the TrollTech site, you can see Canopy, along with SCO group own about 6% of trolltech too.

Take a look at the Canopy group main website and be sure to not patronize any of their other 20 or so "Portfolio Companies" like me.

Go to heck SCO and the VC you rode in on too.

If they can drag this out long enough, it becomes almost irrelevant whether they win a lawsuit. The fear level generated can be even more effective than a victory.

It would not surprise me to find that MS and SCO are having strategy sessions. The moves that SCO is making are too good and too forward thinking for the principals at SCO to be working alone (given their old track record). Remember that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Also remember that MS used to own 25% of SCO and may still get royalties for portions of their Xenix code.

Now it would really suck if MS starts claiming that portions of Xenix code have ended up in the Linux kernel. I shudder at the thought.

As for IBM, this attack by SCO will have the desired effects even if no code were copied. Remember that IBM is a giant behemoth with layers of managment. If SCO can prompt IBM to put in layer after layer of code review groups, IP review groups, code accountability groups, managment groups and the paperwork jockeys to track the information flowing between groups, then IBM will have essentially shut down the useful rate of their work on Linux. Bingo! MS and SCO both make significant progress towards winning this phase of the game.

I also ask myself some more questions here. MS is a licensee of SCO now right? So they have full access to the source now for sure. But how long have they had source to peruse? I am sure that MS has many more programmers that could painstakingly compare Linux source to the code they could access before formally licensing the code and IP.

Does SCO have the manpower for such a task? Well, at their jobs page there is only a single sales position listed. Nothing for OS support, driver developer or low-level kernel programmer. This dosen't sound like a healthy technology company to me. Hmmm, how many code monkeys could they throw at the Linux kernel source?

Download your source RPMs here:

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Serv er/current/SRPMS

By that logic, SCO has no case. To most people, if it isn't Windows it doesn't exist.

They could throw out some nice, Judge-convincing BS like "We only made these files available via the 'FTP' program, which is only for highly advanced technical individuals such as corporate IT managers, for the convenience of our paying customers. It was not intended for download by unlicensed individuals, and in fact doing so constitutes hacking as per the terms of the DMCA..."

Unless reading security advisories from LinuxSecurity.com constitutes "hacking", I don't see that argument as particularily convincing. SCO posted the kernel on their FTP server May 9th. A Linux kernel developer told SCO about it a month ago. Links to the story were posted on many popular news sites. The code is still there.

Apparently it is possible to install ext2 support on SCO Unixware 7 and newer. (See http://www.sco.com/skunkware/COMPONENTS.html for version 7 information)

According to someone who used to work for SCO (or Caldera) it is a good possibility that this support is based on code stolen from Linux: linux kernel posting. IMHO the Linux community should be allowed to examine this code, and if it is found to disregard the copyright the remaining Unixware code should be examined closely.

As it apears that US copyright law is based around "give lawers as much income as possible" I imagine that there is plenty of precedence for suing a company over this, but certainly press released should be issued, and all SCO customers should be made aware of their (possible) rights under the GPL to Unixware source.

Oh, and the Canopy group should be mentioned as well: They owned 68% of SCO before the first press releases in March, but just a few days later stated in a SEC filling that they would start selling off stock. It shouldn't be too hard to show that it is possible that this is simply a ploy by the Canopy group to boost share price while selling out.

(With the stock at 13$ up from a .60$ low last year they might already have made more from selling at 13$ than they might have made from selling their entire holding at around 1$.)

Summary : Linux kernel sources and compiled kernel image.

Copyright : GPL
#Packager : Bishop Clark (LC957) <bishop@caldera.com>
Packager : Ashish Kalra <ashishk@sco.com>
URL : http://www.kernel.org/

* Wed May 02 2003 Varun Sethi <varuns@sco.com> 2.4.13-21
- updated IBM ServeRAID 6.x drivers
- erg712269
- erg712288

..and they still have this on their homepage.

Two-faced bastards.

It is in the scolinux directory: ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/ SRPMS/kernel-source-2.4.1kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE -106.nosrc.rpm9.SuSE-106.nosrc.rpm And a SuSe rpm no less... Get your copy today. :)

SCO filed in state court.

IBM pointed out, in a very sarcastic lawyerly manner, that SCO is a Delaware corporation but IBM is a *New York* corporation, not a Delaware corporation as SCO mistakenly claimed in their filing. Therefore diversity of jurisdiction applies and the case may not be heard in a state court.

So now the case is before the US District Court for the District of Utah.

If you want to know more:

SCO Page on the IBM Lawsuit

Read the PDF's there.

It is still there.

Someone should crash this party.,

SCO does not actually offer the Linux kernel in any form

Really? If you look here I think you'll find that they offer it in MANY forms (3 different patch levels, including source and binaries.) If you're lazy, try downloading this file and taking a look inside it.

SCO does not actually offer the Linux kernel in any form

Really? If you look here I think you'll find that they offer it in MANY forms (3 different patch levels, including source and binaries.) If you're lazy, try downloading this file and taking a look inside it.

Unless they accept the GPL, they have NO RIGHT to distribute the program.

Again, who said they were?

Well, HOW ABOUT THEIR FTP SITE, FOR ONE?

How hard is this to understand? Terribly, according to you.

Repeat after me: You can't distribute Linux for 2 months under the GPL *after* claiming it contains your code, and *then* remove it from distribution.

Hmm...then what's this this doing on their FTP server? Hmm?

*They* themselves distributed a Linux kernel, complete with source up until a week or so after they filed the suit

Not quite.

They themselves distributed a Linux kernel, complete with the source, and continue to do so.

From their site:

SCO History Caldera, Inc. was founded in 1994 by Ransom Love and Bryan Sparks. In 1998, Caldera Systems, Inc. was created to develop Linux-based business solutions. In 2001, Caldera Systems, Inc. acquired the assets of the Server Software Division and Professional Services Division of The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. (SCO), forming a new company, Caldera International, Inc. In 2002, Caldera changed its name to The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX).

My-my-my-my (U can't touch us)
SCO tries to bill me so hard
Makes me say, "Oh my Lord, thank you for blessing me
With a mind to think about the O from SC"
It feels good
When you know you're right
A superdope winner in a court fight
And SCO knows as much
And they'd just get beat-uh!
U can't touch us

I told you homeboys
U can't touch us
Yeah, that's how we livin' and you know
U can't touch us
Look in the GPL, man
U can't touch us
Yo, let me bust the funky code
U can't touch us

Stop! RICO time!

(With some apologies to MC Hammer, but mostly to the people who read this.)