Slashdot Mirror

I don't know anything about taking down websites, but could someone please remove sco.com from the net. I find the presence of this offensive.

Do it discretely please, no pro-Linux messages. We don't want to look like criminals.

Quotes from Linux leaders.

I'd be interested to know if this kind of thing constitutes libel. This is a page that SCO has posted that tries to make Stallman and Perens look bad. The use it to back up their "case".

This page seems to contain a number of direct quotes. If Stallman and Perens indeed said those things (in a public forum) then there is no way to keep SCO from repeating them. Libel doesn't even begin to think about entering the picture unless the quotes are false.

Free Software works on a system of replacing, And originally Replacing UNIX. Now it is replacing Microsoft. But now many Open Source advocates are saying they dont mind Windows but use Linux anyway, and keep a second Windows partition. Why not just use Microsoft Windows and cygwin for all your geek stuff.

Please Mod parent -1 Hasn't read OSI position paper.

SCO has never claimed, in their court filings, that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.

SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.

SCO, now, claims that the kernel source was contaminated with their code before IBM became involved and that they have only just discovered this. As this is a copyright issue, and they recognise the terms of the GPL would make it illegal to distribute a GPL program that contains non-GPL code, they have pulled their distro's.

"0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."

I think I can safely bet my life that SCO have not chosen to place such a notice in the code they claim was improperly introduced to the kernel source.

Therefore their, alleged, code has not been 'accidentally' placed under the GPL.

However if its not GPL it cannot be distributed in a program that contains GPL code.

"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."

They are still distributing it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL, unfortunately.

SCO has never claimed, in their court filings, that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.

SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.

SCO, now, claims that the kernel source was contaminated with their code before IBM became involved and that they have only just discovered this. As this is a copyright issue, and they recognise the terms of the GPL would make it illegal to distribute a GPL program that contains non-GPL code, they have pulled their distro's.

They are still distributing it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL, unfortunately.

I assume they already have.

By distributing the kernel ( here ) SCO have infringed Linus' copyright and are liable to punitive damages because they knew to continue to distribute would be illegal, thats why they pulled their distro's.

Why none of the kernel authors haven't sued for copyright infringement I don't know.

SCO have either infringed copyright deliberately or libelously described the kernel team as thieves.

Among others, David Boies.

I don't want to guess what he bills. $400/hour? I bet he bills his paralegals out at more than that.

SCO has never claimed that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.

SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.

SCO, now, claims that the kernel source was contaminated with their code before IBM became involved and that they have only just discovered this. As this is a copyright issue, and they recognise the terms of the GPL would make it illegal to distribute a GPL program that contains non-GPL code, they have pulled their distro's.

They are still distributing it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL, unfortunately.

'If SCO hadn't knowingly published those pieces under GPL, Linux could've been in SERIOUS trouble.'

'0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.'

To publish any piece of code under the GPL it must have a GPL notice placed in it BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.

Assuming that SCO are indeed the copyright holders in this instance they have not placed a GPL notice in the disputed code (it would make it easy to find) and have therefore NOT distributed it under the terms of the General Public Licence.

They are still distrubuting it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL.

'they've continued to listen to legal advice and got out of distributing the source'

They are still distrubuting it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL.

Unfortunately he would appear to be correct.

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.

Clearly any misappropriated sections of kernel code do not have notices 'placed by the copyright holder' and are therefore not covered by the GPL.

What this means is that you do not have any rights to copy, modify or redistribute those sections of code. However SCO are still as far as I know supplying copies of the kernel ( here ) which would give you the right to own a copy but not to modify or redistribute it.

All of the rest of the kernel remains untouched and can be modified/redistributed freely under the GPL.

I suspect a case could be made that all the other copyright holders that own sections of the kernel are having their rights infringed by SCO. By refusing to reveal which sections of the kernel belong to SCO they make it impossible for anyone else to legally distribute the kernel. I'd sue them for loss of business damages as I can no longer sell my own copyrighted code. In fact now that I think about it nobody is allowed to distributed a modified GPL program that contains non-GPL code even if that code belongs to the distributor.

'You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.'

'4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.'

So SCO have knowingly broken the law by distributing a GPL program that they claim contains copyrighted code, belonging to them, that they refuse to licence under the GPL.

By not including their copyrighted notices in the disputed code they have made it impossible for the GPL to apply to those sections should it be proven that said sections do indeed belong to SCO. Thus all copies of the kernel that SCO has subsequently distributed, since making these claims, are deliberate, knowing, breaches of the copyright's of the other kernel authors. Everyone else distributing the kernel does not know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are breaking the law, SCO on the other hand is threatening to assert in open court that it knows for a fact that it is currently breaking the law.

And I will once again state, as the author of the article failed to, SCO has make NO PATENT OR COPYRIGHT CLAIMS AGAINST IBM!!!!!!!!!!!

SCO HAVE CLAIMED THAT THE KERNEL AUTHORS, PRIOR TO IBM'S INVOLVEMENT, HAVE BREACHED THEIR COPYRIGHTS.

THEY HAVE NOT BROUGHT ANY COURT CASE OR PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT CLAIM.

I may put that in my sig, because it seems to be beyond the comprehension of almost everyone participating in these threads.

SCO's claim is breach of copyright. Your trade secret point is thus irrelevant.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Misappropriation of Trade Secrets--Utah Code Ann. 13-24-1 et seq.)

Got bandwidth? Mad at SCO? Download a 5mb file from here or launch an unspecified number of wget processes

You will next see this quoted on SCO's Quotations from Linux Leaders page with the caption:
"Conclusive proof that a leader of the Linux movement 'Anonymous Coward' (must be important seeing the number of his posts on Slashdot) is trying to DDOS SCO's servers. Shows that the open source community is scum and proves our point."

Give it a rest will you! There are better ways to fight this fight.

Not unless you want to work as "Production Manager" and you can lift 50 lbs. There seems to be only one position open at SCO www.sco.com/company/jobs/

For reference, Redhat has 23 positions (and you only have to lift 20-30 lbs. :=) ). Suse has no position available or I wasn't able to find any.

Got bandwidth? Mad at SCO? Download a 5mb file from here or launch an unspecified number of wget processes:

wget http://www.sco.com/images/pdf/eserver/eserver_sysa dmin.pdf

This way, you'll know how to administrate their linux server which they discontinued.

And by looking at this page at SCO this got quote a lot of awards from their distribution of Linux. Can you imagine their awards page from now on... (I am guessing it won't be changing for a while!)...

I do wonder what any of their larger customers using SCO's linux distribution are thinking right now! If SCO do give up on linux they are going to annoy a lot of their clients...

Mark.

PS. Thought this was funny still being on SCO's Partner page...

IBM offers the industry's most comprehensive lineup of solutions for Linux®. IBM's efforts to advance Linux stretch back to 1998 and signify an unrivaled show of support via technology, skills, services, and corporate focus. With the industry's largest portfolio of hardware, software and services for Linux, IBM support continues to expand, allowing more companies to leverage Linux to grow their e-businesses.

"we didn't distribute it; we had no knowledge."

At one time, this may have been a valid concern, but if you look closely, they're still distributing it

So they'd be pretty damn hard pressed to convince someone that they are immune from the GPL.

Every piece of "FUD" about the GPL will be proven--it IS a viral license, that can irrevocably infect your code without your express wishes.

No, it wouldn't. They are still distributing it, so by definition they are aware of the code. Nothing is being "taken" from them - they're giving it away themselves.

Wasn't it a well established fact that Except for SCO, none of the primary UNIX vendors ever developed a UNIX "flavor" to operate on an Intel-based processor chip set.

And Bill Gates is the devil because...

Nice try, but guess what? Unixware and OpenServer are still two separate products.

For the most part, though, this seems to have some good points. I'd love to see the reaction from SCO. It's farily obvious from SCO's original presentation (from which this document quotes) was not fully reviewed by enough mind power backed by technical experience. For example,

Virtually none of these software developers and hobbyists had access to enterprise-scale equipment and testing facilities for Linux development. - SCO

Not true at all, including the hardware IBM, Compaq, etc., made available, not to mention the equipment Caldera generously made available themselves to developers. Oops. Too bad they got rid of the folks who could have reminded them of this...

And Bill Gates is the devil because...

Nice try, but guess what? Unixware and OpenServer are still two separate products.

For the most part, though, this seems to have some good points. I'd love to see the reaction from SCO. It's farily obvious from SCO's original presentation (from which this document quotes) was not fully reviewed by enough mind power backed by technical experience. For example,

Virtually none of these software developers and hobbyists had access to enterprise-scale equipment and testing facilities for Linux development. - SCO

Not true at all, including the hardware IBM, Compaq, etc., made available, not to mention the equipment Caldera generously made available themselves to developers. Oops. Too bad they got rid of the folks who could have reminded them of this...

Btw, could someone explain these clearly out-of-context quotes?

Hi:

What is this product from $CO: http://www.sco.com/products/ssvl/?

From www.sco.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.html:

105. Plaintiff is the owner of unique know how, concepts, ideas, methodologies, standards, specifications, programming, techniques, UNIX Software Code, object code, architecture, design and schematics that allow UNIX to operate with unmatched extensibility, scalability, reliability and security (hereinafter defined as "SCO's Trade Secrets"). SCO's Trade Secrets provide SCO with an advantage over its competitors.

Well,it is obvious that if you press start button on your computer,SCO 0wnz you :)

Boycott and Protest at SCO Forum in August in Las Vegas, plus look at their sponsors: http://www.sco.com/2003forum/sponsors.html

Intel and HP should not be supporting them

From this patch (note the date):

SCO Security Advisory

Subject: OpenLinux: kernel kmod/ptrace root exploit
Advisory number: CSSA-2003-020.0
Issue date: 2003 May 09

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

It's part of the kernel folks. They're distributing it. They put it there two days ago, and it is available today. With source. Under the GPL. On their FTP server.

March 7, 2003: SCO announced it was suing IBM for $1 billion dollars. That day, the stock shot up to over $3 per share and has been rising ever since.

If sold on the open market today, the combined value of those shares purchased would be nearly $1,000,000 dollars, for the purchase price less than a couple of months ago of $230.

Yes, it is. They have patents, which they plan to enforce, namely with regard to multi-processor stuff.

If you have a source that suggests copyright (NOT TRADEMARKS) can be revoked by lack of due diligence, I'd definitely like to see it

Any due diligence issues might play out in a penalty phase, but in terms of guilt and innocence, it's irrelevant.

There have been a jillion articles on this thing, including with SCO officials, so it's not a matter of more data. They claim that both patents and copyrights have been violated.

Patents supposedly got leaked through IBM's AIX collaboration with SCO. Copyrights supposedly did because they claim that a lot of pre-IBM linux developers were privy to unix code that they were NDA'd from using elsewhere.

That's where it currently stands. Much of this was in the articles attached to this discussion, which you might have considered reading first.

So looking at the SCO website, they have a section termed success stories that supposedly has many many success stories. Well, they dont list them all...you have to reload the page to see them. After roughly 50 reloads, I got 5, yes 5!!!, unique success stories. They claim at least 192! SCO can we see the other 187?

In fact, one of them related the use of SCO Linux for a mobile carrier in Korea. Considerring the fact that SCO pulled all support for their Linux "product", I guess that wasnt such a success, now was it?

I hate ungrateful sons of bitches...

A bbetter link. Leads straight to a kernel RPM for one to download. So, SCO, if there is your IP everywhere in the kernel, why do you still have the source code up on your ftp site? Seems to me like you're not exercising your due dilligence here. Won't look good in court sirs...

They may have stopped distributing OpenLinux on CD, but they are still distributing it via FTP.

SCO Openforum is a conference and trade show held by SCO in Las Vegas from August 17 - 19, 2003. The Agenda includes a lot of uninteresting stuff, and lots of opportunities to talk to the C?Os and managers of SCO and tell them what you think of them. Are you a SCO partner and want to be associated with SCO? Come to the partner pavillion or even become a sponsor and showcase you association with one of the boldest defenders of IP rights in the US. :-)

SCO Openforum is a conference and trade show held by SCO in Las Vegas from August 17 - 19, 2003. The Agenda includes a lot of uninteresting stuff, and lots of opportunities to talk to the C?Os and managers of SCO and tell them what you think of them. Are you a SCO partner and want to be associated with SCO? Come to the partner pavillion or even become a sponsor and showcase you association with one of the boldest defenders of IP rights in the US. :-)

SCO Openforum is a conference and trade show held by SCO in Las Vegas from August 17 - 19, 2003. The Agenda includes a lot of uninteresting stuff, and lots of opportunities to talk to the C?Os and managers of SCO and tell them what you think of them. Are you a SCO partner and want to be associated with SCO? Come to the partner pavillion or even become a sponsor and showcase you association with one of the boldest defenders of IP rights in the US. :-)

I'd like to thank SCO for making the GPL distribution of Linux a high-throughput broadband affair!

-K

This letter on SCO's website contains a number of non-original words and phrases. For example:

'commercial Linux user' is a phrase first commonly used by SGI;

'Unix-like operating system' has obviously been pinched from multiple sources; and

SCO's claim to 'Linux-related activies' is clearly not propietary.

This messages constitutes a warning to SCO to change the content of the above mentioned letter or face possible legal proceedings.

..SCOs brilliant "quotes from linux leaders" page of proof! Oh no! Linux is doomed!

Nah, they aren't that stupid sco press release

SCO Suspends Distribution of Linux Pending Intellectual Property Clarification; Announces Greater Focus on UNIX and SCOx Strategy

SCO Suspends Sales of Linux, Alerts Customers That Linux Is an Unauthorized Derivative of UNIX and That Legal Liability May Extend to Commercial Users SCO Reaffirms Commitment to SCOx, SCO's Growth Strategy Through Web Services

LINDON, Utah, May 14, 2003 -- The SCO® Group (SCO)(Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX operating system, today warned that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX and that legal liability for the use of Linux may extend to commercial users. SCO issued this alert based on its findings of illegal inclusions of SCO UNIX intellectual property in Linux. The company also indicated that until the attendant risks with Linux are better understood and properly resolved, the company will suspend all of its future sales of the Linux operating system.

"SCO is taking this important step because there are intellectual property issues with Linux," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource, The SCO Group. "When SCO's own UNIX software code is being illegally copied into Linux, we believe we have an obligation to educate commercial users of the potential liability that could rest with them for using such software to run their business. We feel so strongly about this issue that we are suspending sales and distribution of SCO Linux until these issues are resolved."

SCO will continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers and hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux products.

Going forward, SCO will have a stronger focus on UNIX and the company's growth strategy around Web services, SCOx. The company introduced SCOx in April as the company's Web services framework and plans to introduce new Web services applications from third party developers in August at SCO Forum, the company's annual conference.

"SCO remains committed to servicing our customers and as such, we intend to continue our growth strategy around SCOx -- the Web services framework for small-to-medium businesses and branch offices," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, The SCO Group.

In a separate announcement released today, SCO gave guidance on expected results for its 2nd fiscal quarter. The company expects to report net income of $4.0 million on revenue of $21 million.

In addition, SCO today also posted an analyst report from Gartner to their Web site at www.sco.com/scosource entitled, "SCO Lawsuit Sends a Warning to Linux IS Shops." The executive summary of the report asks whether Linux is safe from encumbrances.

About The SCO Group

The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 8,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to all partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services visit http://www.sco.com .

SCO and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Caldera International, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX, used under an exclusive license, is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of their respective owners.

The lawsiuts of SCO may very well backfire, as they now claim that Linux infringes SCO/Caldera IP. Siply because the IP in question has long been part of their own SCO/Caldera Linuxes, and according to their own EULA, SCO/Caldera themselves recognize this IP to be correctly released under the GPL. Their EULA can be found here, on SCO.com, alternatively on this maxed-out mirror.

Who exactly elected RMS as a Linux leader?

this is kinda unnecessary isn't it? So Linux didn't just get the source in question by accident, but all people involved with Linux are thieves who you'd expect to try and steal things? Seriously.. wtf? Why does this page need to be here?

Official complaint from SCO says that it is David Boies who represented other corporations against microsoft at the Microsoft anti-trust suit.

Announcing SCOForum 2003
Announcing SCOForum 2003: a hard-hitting technology summit showcasing the technology and business solutions of The SCO Group and its Strategic Business Partners. This event is scheduled for August 17 - 19, 2003 in Las Vegas, NV. Like no other, SCOForum 2003, will be an unparalleled demonstration of SCO's support and commitment to our reseller partners, developers and enterprise customers worldwide. Additionally, SCOForum is an opportunity for our most important ISV, OEM, and Strategic Business Partners to provide information and education about their latest solutions.

SCO partners are invited to participate with us at this important event. Register HERE.

Attention Partners
Present your solution to the world! SCOForum 2003 provides and excellent opportunity to showcase your solutions to resellers from around the world.

Here is the feedback page feedback to sco

Based on a really really quick (and therefore possibly erroneous or inaccurate) skimming of their complaint (can be seen here), the crux of their argument seems to be as follows.

50. "IBM approached SCO to jointly develop a new 64-bit UNIX-based operating system for Intel-based processing platforms. This joint development effort was widely known as Project Monterey."

92. "Thereafter, on December 20, 2000, IBM Vice President Robert LeBlanc disclosed IBM's improper use of confidential and proprietary information learned from Project Monterey to bolster Linux as part of IBM's long term vision...

"[IBM] continued with Monterey as an extension of AIX [IBM UNIX] to support high-end hardware. AIX 5 has the best of Monterey.

"[IBM stated it is] willing to open source any part of AIX that the Linux community considers valuable.

95. "IBM's AIX contributions were integrated into the standard Linux source tree, a win for open source.

96. "Again,IBM's AIX contributions" consisted of the improper extraction, use, and dissemination of SCO'S UNIX source code and libraries, and unauthorized misuse of UNIX methods, concepts, and know-how."

It goes on and on the way legal documents always do, so I don't have the patience to read it all... But there might be some substance to the argument.

Linux leaders? Last I checked, Stallman doesn't even refer to it as Linux, but as Gnu/Linux. Makes me doubt that first attributed quote.

SCO published a nice timeline. The few arrows connecting Linux and their own intellectual property go into the wrong direction. If I were them, I wouldn't present this document in court. The dotted heritage line isn't very convincing, either.

Nah, they aren't that stupid sco press release


SCO will continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers and hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux products.