Slashdot Mirror
SCO Sues IBM for Sharing Secrets with Unix and Linux
bstadil writes "The information is still sparse but the expected lawsuits from SCO over Unix/Linux patent infringements has been filed."
SCO is asking for a billion dollars. News.com and Forbes are also covering the story.
conflict of interest?
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
... Dr. Evil hired as president of SCO.
First post when posting is disabled?
Yeah, and I am asking SCO for a unix that actually runs reliably, but it ain't gonna happen, buddy.
No, really. SCO should worry less about suing over linux and unix and secrets, and more about putting out a product that doesn't suck so badly.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
When they hired Boies, you knew they meant business. But they are sueing someone with very deep pockets. I wonderhow deep SCO's are?
If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em. What a wonderful philosophy.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
How many LOCs can be filled with 1 billion $1 bills?
first lawsuit!
SCO is not our favourite puppy.
Btw, there is a OS News thread on the subject with lots of comments.
Does their lawyer look anything like Dr. Evil?
Clearly I was a fucking retard. They're fucking evil. Ban them. Send them emails which politely, yet firmly state that they smell like a llama's anus. Sick the Channel 7 ProblemSolvers on them.
Seriously, there's just no excuse. As a nation, we must rise up against this evil, and destroy it once and for all.
today sco also announced they are moving their centre of operations to a hollowed out volcano, and branching out to the lucrative area of 'fricken sharks with fricken laser beams on their fricken heads'
*pinky finger to mouth*
I just got horrible flash backs of Dr Evil going "One Billion dollars!". Unfortunately I couldn't get to the main article... but the News.com had an interesting point.
This suit is against IBM, not all of Linux.
--------
Free your mind.
do the world a favor and close shop already.
this is not the way to get in the good graces of the linux community, which, i'm sure, you've already alienated.
"The principal winners in that would not be SCO, but Microsoft and potentially Sun." I figure MS and SUN are on SCO's side, but I wonder to what extent. Maybe they are thinking that the lawsuit itself is good enough, but that if somehow they won and recieved damages of a billion dollars, that IBM would be done for, in this economy.
"It's a fairly end-of-life move for the stockholders and managers of that company," said Jonathan Eunice, an Illuminata analyst. "Really what beat SCO is not any problem with what IBM did; it's what the market decided. This is a way of salvaging value out of the SCO franchise they can't get by winning in the marketplace." - Best and most accurate quote on SCO/Caldera ever imo.
Seriously tho, IBM says nothing for linux to fear but FUD itself (literally). Caldera/SCO dropped every single ball they've EVER been thrown, so much so that every thread ever started or ended here is basically a litanny of their mistakes. Sun makes UNIX, they're still alive, IBM still makes AIX, they're certainly alive, poor SCO is dead in the water so they sue.
My guess is the next thing they'll do is sell all their IP to microsoft, and microsoft will use it as a giant club against other vendors. So it's in our best interests to see them stay afloat, otherwise some other patent-abusing, money hungry group of corporate bastards with more money will have all of their "intellectual property" and will actually have the cash to use it. IBM has the cash to hold things up in court long enough to A> Have the costs of the settlement (if ever reached) be deferred by inflation and B> Have the underlying patents they're being sued for actually expire.
Plus, IBM is the former evil empire, they have no qualms whatsoever using their vast horde of defensive patents to counter sue someone into the ground.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
This is the successful business model of the future:
1) Hire more lawyers than engineers.
2) Sue.
3) Profit.
They'll be teaching it in Harvard soon.
Everyone's so "sue-happy" these days it's pathetic.
First a moron sues McDonalds for spilling coffee on herself and now we have this!
[sarcasm] what next? Commander Taco sues slashdot?? [/sarcasm]
Fuzdout
..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
Wouldn't this fly in the face of them distributing ng Linux themselves under the GPL?
Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits
SCO needs to find a new business model other than charging for IP that they didn't even create. I mean, I can understand an author wanting exclusive rights to his work, but when you just "buy" an idea or concept (granted these libraries are much more than that) and sell rights to it, you are just depriving people of knowledge who are no less responsible (and indeed in some cases more) for the existence of said knowledge.
Honestly, what prevents a small group of people from pooling capital, purchasing tons of obscure but still used IP rights, and making a killing off of license fees that users are unaware of?
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
From the article:
"Caldera's business has been hurt by the free Linux software that IBM has been supporting, Dow Jones said, citing Darl McBride, Caldera's chief executive. Linux is a variant of Unix and isn't copyrighted."
So in other words they are trying to corner the entire UNIX (and variants market)?
And Linux isnt copyrighted WTF! If it wasnt the GPL wouldnt protect it.
James
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
IBM probably has more technology patents than any other company on Earth (and possibly other planets, too early to tell). I'm willing to bet they can find hundreds of violations in SCO's product lines and bury them.
Either way though, you just know this is going to become a bullet point on Microsoft's next Linux FUD page ("see, use linux and you can get sued).
Finkployd
If SCO are thinking of going after other Linux suppliers such as Sun and Red Hat, then what really gets my goat is that SCO (in their former life as Caldera) would have been as much in violation of the UNIX IP as any of these companies.
Maybe we'll be treated to the sight of SCO becoming the first company to file suit against itself (yeah right...).
my immediate question is, Ford runs linux? on what?
and second question is, isn't SCO like... Caldera?
aaaanyway; I guess linux is taking away the marked share of UNIX boxes a lot more than it's headway into the desktop (windows) arena. fighting the wrong crowd, I'd say...
maybe microsoft will file a suit that says "we want damages because linux makes our business model un-profitable."
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Not a good move at all. I am not surprised though. I do not know anyone that uses Caldera anymore. The analysis seems correct - a desperate move. Maybe a last gasp. Seems awfully brazen and certainlt cannot say that they have anything to add to the GNU/Linux scene. Too bad for them.
I would be embarassed to work there and claim to have any kind of association with GNU/Linux. This is really low. Sad for the people who work there and must hate this type of action.
Not good at all for the community, and it certainly makes their defenders look foolish in the public eye.
Damn - why do people have to be so greedy?
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
There's another good story on this on eWeek which has an interview with the CEO of SCO.
If it's been patented, then it's not secret is it? That's part of the reason to have a patent process.
If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em. What a wonderful philosophy.
Yeah, Amazon is planning to file suit against SCO for violating its patent covering the process of suing someone for patent violations.
SCO/Caldera sells Linux, this lawsuit is may have a chilling effect on Linux sales...why is SCO shooting itself in the foot?
If they had an idea about things, they would donate said IP to Linux/GNU, and reap many billions of Dollars of good will and karma, and I would go out and buy their distro to support them if that is what they had did.
When companies litigate instead of innovate, you know they are probably not long for this world.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
The question I would like to ask is who's next?
Apple? Sun? HP-UX?
Didn't these guys already sue UC Berkeley and the various *BSDs (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, BSDi)? Would they sue them again?
Would this be a replay of Novell suing them?
Would they try to sue Red Hat since they are not part of SCO's UnitedLinux effort?
It sounds like SCO Unix has fallen behind in technology and sales, now the only way they can make money is sue people.
Of course, just as I post my story submission to slashdot on this, no sooner than I reload the page after submitting it when the story appears from someone else. Doh!
Seriously, though, I think I'll repeat a comment that I made in my story submission. Does anyone else think that SCO has bitten off more than they can chew? I knew that they were going to make a move, but I thought for sure they were going to pick an "easy" target, like some small Linux distributor. About as big a company as I suspected they would hit was Red Hat.
Suing IBM was a huge mistake. Or more accurately: suing IBM first was a big mistake. They should have done what other companies have, which is take on the little fish in the pond hoping some will roll over and pony up the dough, before attempting to harpoon the whale.
Not that I'm unhappy about this turn of events, mind you. IBM, which has had more experience in dealing with IP rights and patents in the little finger of one of their lawyers than SCO has in their entire company, will pound them into the dirt. The sound you are now hearing is that of the death dirge for SCO.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Can IBM take over (buy) SCO, effectively cutting this lawsuit off?
Doesn't SCO know that IBM fought the federal government for decades and finally won?
I don't remember the details of the case, but I don't think IBM is the best company to get into a legal pissing contest with.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
"Cash-strapped lawyer sues local playgrounds for infringement on swing patent"? Honestly.
It seems to me that if you're not going to vigorously defend your patent for years on end in face of its open--literally, in the case of open-source IBM/Linux initiatives--then you shouldn't be able to sue every manufacturer on the block like this for what amount to arbitrary infringements. I grant that patent rights are important to protect, but inaction unfairly intimates apathy (cough Rambus) and obfuscation only exacerbates the problem.
As thousands of Slashdotters with nearly identical opinions have elucidated before far better than can I, the American patent system badly needs great reform. Tsk.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
More like: if you can't beat Linux, and no-one will buy it from you, make sure you destroy the Linux and Unix markets. Better to fuck up everything and hand it all over to Microsoft than to admit you're a worthless company.
The ability of undeclared patents to encumber gpl software is a serious flaw in the gpl. A company can embed patented technology in Linux, then allow it to be distributed to the community. After that they can, at their discretion, insist on licensing fees for use or distribution.
At this point the GPL kicks in and says that since distribution is encumbered, the GPL does not apply to the software and distribution must stop unless it can be arranged under other terms that IP owners agree to. You can imagine that many Linux contributors wouldn't agree to distribution except under the terms of the license they agreed to.
For use the case is also bad. The company owning the patents may insist on licensing fees from all users, or that they stop using the product.
Of course, the Linux solution would be to reimplement around the patents, but it would pose a big problem until that happened.
Note that this can happen to proprietary software as well (Microsoft is being sued by a company in similar financial shape to Caldera/SCO that they licensed software from earlier), but the lack of redistribution means that individual users and institutions are much less liable to face financial harm.
Perhaps they want IBM to buy them out. In any case, I expect this to get ugly.
This guy is way out there
"Some claims, though, have more potential merit, Eunice said. One is that creating Unix on Intel processors needed expertise that SCO developed but IBM lacked, Eunice said."
(this was from the news.com article)
If IBM lacked it, which I doubt, I guess we can all be thankful that Linus had the expertise needed to create a Unix on Intel processors. What an idiot.
does anyone know which patents exactly SCO is claiming IBM infringed upon, by open sourcing them with the Linux community? Off the top of my head, I can recall IBM open sourcing JFS, but... i don't think SCO invented JFS...
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Good one Caldera.
Black and grey are both shades of white.
And here we were worried about Iraq setting its oilwells on fire in case of a war.
SCO is clearly heading south businesswise, and sees this as a last ditch effort to make some money. They will clearly fail - thanks to RMS & Co, as well as Linux & gang, there is way too much prior art in this department (and yes, I know that this isn't a discussion about patents).
But that isn't the worrying part - what is really worrying is that SCO is poisoning the well to ensure that if they cannot survive (and now it is fairly clear that they won't), then no one else will, either. And sadly, given the way the corporate world works, this part of the strategy is likely to see much more success than the part aimed at making SCO profitable.
I wonder what we can do about this? Can someone sue SCO for infringing on Linux technologies in their own work?
You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
MS are happy campers. Mucho "IP hassles when chosing Linux" fodder for the Sales bots and white paper writers. If I was a paranoid, X-Files watching geek I'd wonder how much extra MS paid SCO (Caldera) to pull this crap when they settled thier civil anti-trust lawsuit?
Back in reality I think this is SCO's attempt at getting bought at a premium. Lets face facts, IBM can probably bitch slap them with their own IP, but I bet SCO thinks that buying out SCO is cheaper/easier than the time and effort (not to mention the FUD damage to IBM's linux/AIX biz) IBM would have defending this.
Wow this sure came as a shock! why is it that some many companies take the "if i going down im taking all you with me" approach. personally i think we should review the kindergarden , gr 1 curriculum these days. cause i sure dont think peeps are getting the "Sharing is Fun" lesson.
They could not have done this in a more suicidal manner if they'd tried.
Isn't IBM the company that owns patents on nearly everything related to computing, and a policy of only using them defensively? Like, the one company in the IT universe with the largest patent shield? The one with the horror stories about people challenging IBM with some submarine patent infringement, and IBM shows up with stacks of pages of submarine patents owned by IBM that the litigants are violating? What were they thinking? Maybe they just assumed that if they went after any small Linux distro, IBM would still consider it a threat, and step in with the patent shield?
And then beyond the practical concerns, there's the fact no one will ever take SCO seriously again:
Caldera claims that IBM has been unlawfully sharing trade secrets regarding Unix with the free-software community, Dow Jones said. Caldera's business has been hurt by the free Linux software that IBM has been supporting, Dow Jones said, citing Darl McBride, Caldera's chief executive.
I mean.. just.. owch. Could you imagine a more PR-insensitive thing you could possibly say? Where to start with the problems with this.. I mean, besides the fact it gives the impression to the uninformed that SCO created UNIX, or something. There's the fact that SCO has just told every admin in the world who got their start using BSD or linux-- many of whom, i'm certain, are now in purchasing positions-- that SCO should be owed damages for their existence. Not to mention that from talking to people I know who managed SCO UNIX for years, cursed its existence, and yearned for their company to transition to Solaris or BSD or Redhat, it would appear that SCO/Caldera's only worthwhile product at this point was... written by the free software hackers they are maligning here. I'm not much of a troll, but just reading that paragraph makes my fingers itch to flame.
And anyway, didn't SCO release the original UNIX code under the GPL at some point after they bought it? Did I just hallucinate that?
Also, I wonder if there's some way to tell bloomberg they made a small error here: Linux is a variant of Unix and isn't copyrighted.
This is the final act of SCO and Unix. GNU's Not Unix, founded in 1984, has finally about to put the original Unix to rest.
And what's more stupid is that SCO is sueing IBM, the company with the most resource to resist such lawsuits. All these ugliness associated with the story will just enhance the public's understanding of the problems associated with the current intellectual property system.
But it is bad that Microsoft is a bystander of the whole mass. Microsoft can gain from this fight between GNU/Linux and Unix.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
Good luck IBM.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
about wraps things up for SCO. We won't miss them one bit will we ;)
"Say goodnight, Gracie. Goodnight SCO."
SCO has a market cap of $25.68 Million. IBM could buy them for $100Million and save %90. Or RedHat maybe.
Actually, someone with a clue should buy them now before, ummm, someone with an interest in seeing Free Software set significantly back figures out that the UNIX IP is pretty much a sitting duck...
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
I would expect IBM to use its very very large patent portfolio to put the smack down on this law suit.
Is it really wise to sue the company that has been hoarding tons of patents for years?
"expected lawsuits...has been filed."
In a related story, "/. copy have been proofread."
Sorry, this grammar police moment was inspired by the disabled comments when this story was first posted.
On to business. If IBM has been giving away code that was under copyright and they did so in violation of the terms of license they had with SCO, then this suit has merit.
Of course, my humble opinion (not knowing what they think IBM "shared") is that the same problem will inspire a similar solution in any two groups of competent programmers. Independent discovery is more likely IMHO than theft of copyrighted material. There are only so many sensible ways to page memory or write a circular buffer.
in the first 40 or so posts. I believe that sets a new record. But what do you expect, putting the term "one billion dollars" in the post...
I asked for a refund - and got my monkey back.
SCO is suing the company that owns the patent on hardware and the OS, (maybe not quite but IBMs IP is quite extensive) and I expect them to get countersued into oblivion.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
defensively used patents are sure as hell more welcome than offenseively used ones.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Buy Caldera outright, and drop the lawsuit.
Currently SCO's shares are trading below $3.
Change -0.05 (-2.21%)
2.26 Open
2.33 Volume
43,850
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
I guess SCO is just after its next round of funding.
"IBM is affirmatively taking steps to destroy all value of Unix by improperly extracting and using the confidential and proprietary information it acquired from Unix and dumping that information into the open source community," the suit said. "IBM's tortious conduct was also intentionally and maliciously designed to destroy plaintiff's business livelihood and all opportunities of plaintiff to derive value from the Unix software code in the marketplace." - hopefully IBM wins this one and shuts SCO the hell up.
/. with AIX team working on GNU/Linux, does anyone else remember? This is going to be a tough battle, I hope Caldera loses it.
Linux's rapid maturity--for example, growing up to work on large multiprocessor servers--is evidence of the presence of Unix intellectual property, the SCO suit said. "It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach Unix performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of Unix code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM," the suit said.
- cool. I guess these allegations have only to do with what IBM has been adding to the GNU/Linux code. Will it be possible to prove that there was no contamination, especially if the former AIX team was working on Linux software? I remember, maybe a year and a half ago, there was an interview on
You can't handle the truth.
Money is always a "conflict"
---
BSODs done right
Once was said... Berkley has given us both UNIX and LSD, we do no feel that this is a conincidense.
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
From News.com:
p 82597b.HTM)
- "creating Unix on Intel processors needed expertise that SCO developed but IBM lacked"
- "It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach Unix performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of Unix code"
Apparently they didn't notice that IBM owns Sequent, which has been shipping 32-processor Intel boxes since the mid-90s... (e.g. http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/s
Why doesn't a company like IBM or Microsoft or [insert name here] just buy SCO? They are pretty much a failure anyway. Make it a hostile takeover if you must. Then fire everyone and close them down.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
This is why it was a good thing that IBM joined the Linux/Open Source movement.
This lawsuit was bound to happen to somebody somewhere somehow.
The fact that SCO is suing IBM is a good thing insofar as IBM will win either way. They'll either win outright or they'll pay SCO off and buy them.
Imagine if SCO was the champion for open source and IBM was suing them. This lawsuit would have a much different feel to it, wouldn't it?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
In SOVIET RUSSIA
Patents sue SCO!
see this mozillaquest article
"During a LinuxWorld Expo discussion, SCO-Caldera's Blake Stowell told MozillaQuest Magazine that he was not aware of any current Linux distributions that contain the SCO-Caldera IP libraries."
also:
Are Linux or C++ on SCO-Caldera's IP Hit List?
SCO-Caldera & the GNU/Linux Community: Part 2, Under the Iceberg's Tip
the subject says it all.
If this is a "serious flaw", how on earth can you recommend fixing this flaw? Can you name any license or distribution method on earth that does not have this "flaw"?
Those with propeitary or BSD licenses are no more sheltered from submarined patents than GPLed people. In fact, GPLed software offers one single protection that no other license has: With the GPL, since you are banned from releasing under the GPL software which contains patents that are not licensed to all comers, if the hypothetical "evil company" you mention releases a patent-tainted piece of GPLed software, then once they pull out the patent and say "pay me for this" they are immediately banned from distributing their own piece of software further unless they move it to a different license. If they have incorporated GPLed code into the GPLed software they released, then they cannot move it to a different license.
Anyway, why bother releasing a GPLed piece of software with a secret patent encumbrance? It's so much easier to just get a submarined patent on something obvious, then sue all the propeitary software makers who make software covered by that patent. You don't have to write or create anything yourself, plus you don't have to wait for people to adopt your piece of software since there are probably people implementing your obvious patent already, plus you are suing people who maybe actually have money.
IBM has tens of thousands of patents. Suing IBM over patent infringement is almost 100% guaranteed to be a terribly bad idea, because IBM will just turn around and recite the litany of IBM patents SCO is infringing. Stupid stupid stupid.
In other news, SCO joins up with Mac to sue Microsoft, Gnome, KDE, and various other window manager software companies for usage of the "trash can" icon or a similar varient. The amount will come to... 100 billion-gazillion dollars... or something like that
take off every sig for great justice
Linux's rapid maturity--for example, growing up to work on large multiprocessor servers--is evidence of the presence of Unix intellectual property, the SCO suit said. "It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach Unix performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of Unix code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM," the suit said.
First thought that came to mind while reading the article: SCO has seriously underestimated the brain pool of tens of thousands (at least) of open source porgrammers. Unix advanced to where it did technologically because some really smart people knew what they're doing. Isn't it possible that Linux got to where it did because a helluva lot more really smart people knew what they were doing?
Intellectual property lawsuits booming
Intellectual property litigation appears to be on the rise in the high-tech industry and for good reason: The settlements or verdicts are often quite lucrative.
Intergraph, which once made workstations but now specializes in software, got $450 million from Intel in two separate suits in the past year and could receive $150 million more from the Santa Clara, Calif.-based chipmaker in an appeal on one of the actions. Intergraph's income from operations in 2002 was $10 million, but net income including legal settlements came to $378 million.
Perhaps I'm not paying attention to the news enough, but didn't it seem like these business-to-business lawsuits started cropping up en masse when the economy tanked? "We can't earn an honest dollar, so let's sue somebody and take theirs."
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
IBM should countersue, buy their cold dead company, and then release the proprietary Unix source under the GPL! Not only would that be a massively funny up-yours reaction to this situation, but it'd finally make an important historical branch of Unix free.
I'll never call it GNU/SCO/Linux. IBM should crush them immediately.
They don't start with a couple of smaller fish, but instead go for the biggest whale in the sea. They should file for Chapter 7 tomorrow. Even the analysts think this is lame.
The best quote in the CNET story is from the suit itself which says and I quote, "It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach Unix performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of Unix code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM," So all that hard work all the developers and Linux did for the last 10 years were for nothing.
And there you have it. SCO is dead. How can SCO sell a Linux product anymore when they themselves are saying, "Hey, we don't know how Linux could have gotten so good. It must have been from misappropoation of our trade secrets."
Who in their right mind would buy anything from these losers?
Your mom always said, a PB&J is better than nothing, and God is nothing, is a PB&J better than God?
[knee-jerk] Burn Em! Bury em alive! [/knee-jerk]
One interesting thing to note about patents is that they can be used as a yardstick to measure human intelligence in such a way that it can be compared literally against machine intelligence. This is, in fact, one of Alan Turings' proposed measurements of artificial intelligence. In fact, machines have already designed systems that meet or exceed the capabilities of human patents. From the linked page:
Just thought I'd bring a slightly positive note to what is already becoming Caldera Flamefest 2003
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
The Hurd....
I really don't think there is anything here but motivation to get in and help move the Hurd along.
but you make a good point. I mean, WTF does the GPL really do? NOTHING! I'm going to steal a whole lot of Linux software, and sell it as my own. What are the programers going to do about it? NOTHING!
GPL == teh useless
when the story came up a few weeks ago on how SCO hired David Boies (sp?) and everyone gleefully remarked on how they would be going after Microsoft?
How they wouldn't dare go after Linux vendors?
Remember a couple of years ago when IBM said they were going invest a billion dollars in Linux of the next ten years?
Well, guess where the billion dollars is going.
Given that project Monterey was about developing a commercial UNIX for Itanium, and given that IBM abandoned SCO and produced AIX5L for Itanium and discontinued it shortly thereafter, I really do not know what SCO's beef is.
Project Monterey had nothing to do with x86. So what if IBM is pushing Linux on x86.
Now if IBM produced its own Linux distribution for Itanium, and SCO saw some of its Monterey source in the distro, SCO might have a claim.
At least some of the claims just don't pass the sniff test.
When AIX came out in 1990 or so, it was so different from SVR4 that competitors cried "AIX isn't UNIX". IBM really did a huge amount of kernel work and had all sorts of administrative features borrowed conceptually from the mainframe that were lacking in UNIX at the time. Journalling filesystems, logical volume management, etc. just for starters. The toolset for managing AIX was (and still is, to some extent) quite different from other UNIXes. I think IBM kept the SVR3/4 APIs but re-wrote
most of the code below it back in the late 80s.
You know you have a weak argument when you start seeing claims like this:
Added Sontag [SCO SVP], "When they (IBM) started utilizing the same engineers that worked on the Unix System V source code and the ultimate derivative of it in the form of AIX, they have
effectively been applying our methods and concepts, even if there isn't a single explicit line of code" that shows up in Linux.
Believe me, there are a lot of methods and concepts that UNIX (System V/VII,SVR4) stole from predecessors, and continues to steal! Where's the suit from the MULTICS guys against AT&T? Citing executive's handwavings generalizations about leveraging UNIX expertise makes for a pretty weak legal case (and PR case imho). Monterey always had too much hand-waving for me to get enthusiastic about.
However, the issue of IBM allegedly re-creating versions of SCO libraries using SCO's actual code sounds interesting. SCO binary compatibility is actually something somewhat valuable that SCO should fully defend if it was unlawfully infringed upon via trade secret leakage rather than cleanroom reverse engineering. Still, if I remember correctly, most of the SCO/Linux binary compatibility stuff was done by some guy at SCO (Avi Tevananian or something like that? I'm butchering his name, sorry.) SCO was working on Linux binary compatibility before IBM even knew Linux existed. So to speak.
As far as infringing on how to run Linux on Intel, clearly Linus managed that without anyone's help. Now running Linux on IA-64, or perhaps some particular acceleration technique used by SCO might be grounds for a decent case depending on the particular evidences involved. I guess we'll see.
With revenues less than Red Hat, and a business model going nowhere, a legal approach makes sense for SCO. IBM can afford the lawsuit and probably route around it better than, say, Intel could route around Clipper chip infringements in existing products. If it lays clearer guidelines for Linux IP, so much the better. I guess that's what I'm hoping for. As a betting man though, I wouldn't bet on SCO for this case. Unless there are more rabbits in that hat.
--LP
"It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach Unix performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of Unix code, methods or concepts to achieve such perfomance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM,"
Man, I'm impressed too, don't be jealous!
I'm really sorry for you that the only good things in the Free Software world would be borrowed from insiders from proprietary companies. Here is the truth, lastnames omitted - the longlist of cheaters of IP:
- Linux-ze-kernel Bobby from SCO
- Mozilla Tim from Opera
- KDE Jack from Apple
- Gnome Zak from Microsoft
- XFree Paul from Xerox
- Freeciv Yann from Microprose
- MySQL Sergei from Oracle
- GCC Rod from Borland
- Mplayer Allan from Real
- Ogg Vorbis Dan from FhG
- ...
Sorry guys, the party's over.... then it would all be okay.
It could be the case that there is infringing patented code in linux that the patent holders didnt authorize in any way.
SCO could be right. So then what? How much would linux change with the removal of all the disputed code (most of the SysV subsystems?)
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Linux is a variant of Unix and isn't copyrighted.
Not only is Linux copyrighted, it is in fact not a variant of Unix. It's a kernel! :)
Available now for no less than 1 billion dollars.
Chapters include such topics as:
"How your failing company can buy other failing companies"
"How to change your name so when you suck scum a lot of people wont know it's you"
"How to turn on your former friends, customers and associates claiming the product you tried to sell before and couldn't hurts your business now because of one of those other failed companies you bought that couldn't sell its product either"
But wait, don't order now! This offer includes a copy of Ass Reaming for Idiots *at no extra charge!*
Put it on your credit card and we'll bill you in easy installments of only $19.95 million a month.
That's almost free if you think about it, and information wants to be almost free, so long as we make a bundle without actually doing a fricken thing.
KFG
SCO doesn't have any assets worth buying. They have SCO UNIX, and i've never met anyone who likes that. They have Caldera Linux, which while I know that had some proponents, has never been anything more than a second-tier or third-tier linux distro.. and as of late they've fallen off the news map. I've never even met anyone who used caldera. They have a public reputation that is downright horrid-- SCO bashing was a fun and not uncommon pasttime *before* this patent nonsense started-- and is now effectively mud. They have... the original UNIX source copyright, and some submarine patents. Okay, cool, but that isn't worth $26 million.
Why buy them out when there's a simpler solution: IBM simply pulls out their massive patent portfolio and massive lawyer box, countersues for infringement and barratry, and demands $26 million in damages. Or maybe not even demand damages, but make sure the lawsuits drag out such as to keep SCO alive long enough to bleed money through lawyer payments and the fact they just alienated all their customers... until SCO goes bankrupt.
This way, the assholes at SCO don't get an ounce of money, as opposed to one hundred million dollars they did nothing to deserve. Instead, they can't get jobs anymore, since who wants to hire the ex-CFO of SCO, the company that failed at everything it tried, even its last-ditch, exit-strategy attempt at being a submarine patent warehouse (which is probably the most boneheadedly easy business to succeed at, so long as you follow the simple strategy of DON'T SUE IBM)?
"former evil empire"?
Where did that "former" come from?
If we ignore it, it might go away. Although it would help if AMD would ship the Hammer line.
"Representing SCO is David Boeis of Boeis, Schiller and Flexner, the attorney who prosecuted the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust case against Microsoft and represented Al Gore in the vote-counting controversy in the presidential election. "
Note that they are suing IBM because they think that IBM basically broke an NDA that they (IBM) had with them (SCO). There is not *necessarily* patent infringement happening, just trade secrets that IBM allegedly made not so secret. (But patents could easily be part of the case.) By the way, isn't the normal method to sue the small guys first? Suing IBM? IBM!? They're nuts.
....
I type this every time.
How do we know that SCO engineers have not taken parts of the Linux kernel to improve their own SCO kernel?
The IBM open source license. It is basically the gpl with a clause to cover patents owned by the entity contributing the code. It isn't gpl compatible because of the patent right distribution restriction, but Richard Stallman says he will fix that in the next version of the gpl, and attempt to put in a similar clause.
RMS? Not fucking likely. And open sores programers work for free, so they can't afford lawyers.
Looks like I'm going to be 'stealing' some open sauce, and sell it as my own. VIOLATING THE GPL!!!!!1
...news at 11. Well, at least that was my initial reaction. I did not find it unexpected since they looked like they were getting themselves all worked up to sue somebody, although the timing and choice of target was most unexpected by me.
The one real danger I see in this suit is that it tries to assert the idea of intellectual contamination, that seeing and using one piece of source from one entity contaminates what those engineers later do in another. Taken into other contexts and as a precidence, it could endanger the occupation and very basic freedom and individual dignity of any engineer anywhere.
Sounds like the right thing to do to me. SCO is just a lying sack of shit...They promised that they WOULDN'T do this, then they did! They deserve to be put out of business....FOREVER! B O I E S C O T T !!!
How come nobody seems to be discussing the fact that it sounds like IBM might have tainted the Linux code base? That's at least as big a problem as SCO going after them for said act.
Is IBM really as good for Linux as some people seem to insist?
Just some points people should think about.
If they think they can win at "patent chicken" with IBM, they're sadly mistaken. Doesn't IBM have the world's largest patent portfolio? Oh well, it was nice knowing you, SCO. Too bad you are about to be countersued into bankruptcy.
And apparently somebody at IBM dropped the ball when they wrote up the contracts for the now defunct Monterey. They should have included a patent cross-licensing agreement there.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
How can they sue anyone if they willingly throw thier code into public domain?
And IBM is guiltless? The possiblity that they've tainted the Linux codebase isn't relevant too?
Let's see what SCO is claiming before jumping to conclusions. There might be some code for the Debian people to rip out and replace.
conflict of interest?
I think this is the biggest problem. All too often I encounter this false faith that concepts like "intellectual property" can happily co-exist with concepts like "free as in freedom". I don't think it can, and this article touches on a fundamental reason why it can't. From the very beginning SCO, and now Sun thought they were better because they were covered in the flag of "intellectual property" and free markets. But this is a fraud, "intellectual property" is not a free market property right. It is so dishonest, and so many people fall for it, that it makes me cringe to see it.
The last time in US history where people were so disillusioned was over slavery. Why in the world couldn't people just pull their head out and see that slavery wasn't a property right? Why? The plantation masters were so well educated, and so wealthy, and such intellegent executive business men, so Why? Why did they ignore the forces of the industrial revolution that were going to force them to change? Why did they push it to the point that millions(?) ended up dead?
The fact that the forces of the industrial revolution caused all hell to break out then, and now we are suffering conflict directly related to our society moving into the information age really bothers me. How far are they going to push it this time? What will they be willing to do when push comes to shove and there's trillions at stake?
What was that movie again where a tiny little country attacks the US in hopes of being taken over and occupied?
I haven't read the filings yet, but it sounds as if SCO's main claim is that IBM (and perhaps others) violated their non-disclosure agreements by allowing employees who had seen the Unix source code to work on Linux. However, Linux was developed first on the Intel i386 processor family, way back in 1991, at least five years before IBM took an interest in it. Linux follows MINIX, an even earlier published-source-code system that very clearly isn't derived from Unix - its architecture was very different.
SCO claims that Linux could not have become ready for the enterprise so quickly without use of art originating in Unix. They seem to ignore the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have been educated in operating systems programming, and that very healthy communities of scientific research exist for systems design, and that most of the enterprise-ready features originated in research operating systems and only later were ported to Unix.
They claim that the Linux libraries could not have been produced without input from Unix. But these libraries are written to a printed specification called POSIX, published by the U.S. government and available to the general public. The GNU C library, and many other Linux libraries, existed long before IBM's involvement. We also had printed "man pages" for Unix available in bookstores without restrictions on implementation of the documented facilities, and shelves of published documentation on Unix in every technical bookstore.
So, I think the claims I've heard are specious, and not enforcible in court. Why, then, is SCO doing this? They want to be purchased. This is the exit strategy for their investors, Canopy Group. IBM can buy them just to shut them up. Or Microsoft can buy them to use them to FUD Linux. And Canopy Group management figures they'll play the two against each other to drive up the price. But IBM management is smart enough to poison this particular well, by bringing counter-claims against SCO.
SCO is also party to the GPL, which invalidates their patent portfolio for any of their patents that happen to have been used in a Linux system that they distributed. Under the GPL terms, if you distribute your patented practice in GPL software, you must grant a license to everyone to make use of that patent in any GPL software, for any field of use. This is why SCO's initial claim seems to be focusing on an NDA rather than patents. And of course, the fundamental patents that apply to Unix would have expired some 15 years ago.
SCO can't claim that IBM (or anyone else) was hiding the Linux development from them, since Linux source is available and is part of SCO's own Linux product. They have been distributing the source code that they claim violates their own NDA as Caldera's main product for years. So, they are going to have a very small chance of making this case work.
We in the Free Software developer community must make it clear that we will not tolerate specious intellectual property claims on our software, even if those claims are directed to a user or industrial partner rather than an individual developer. The obvious first step that would occurr to any of us would be to shun SCO - not to do business with them, not to recommend them in our jobs, etc. SCO must have known that they'd be shunned for these shenanigans, and they went ahead with them anyway. This means they're writing off their entire software and operating systems business. SCO is owned by Canopy Group, I guess those folks are writing off their other software businesses, too.
I look forward to getting a look at the court papers, and being a witness for the defense or amicus curae in these cases. I'm sure I'll be joined by a lot of you. In addition, we may have our own infringement claims to make, if the SCO filing violates the GPL terms. I doubt there will be much left of SCO at the end of this.
These folks could have been good partners. Other people in industry were, and beat Caldera and SCO in the market. Canopy Group, their venture firm, were the real managers of SCO and Caldera. Front-men like Ransom Love were not the ones making real decisions. Their business failed, and others flourished, because Canopy Group never understood how to be our partners. They've chosen to screw us one last time on the way out the door. Let's do our best to turn it back on them.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Sorry, that's not true. Caldera only has to grant rights to use their patents with GPL'd code. If you were to use one of Caldera's patents in a non-GPL'd project, you would violate the patent. That's probably why they picked IBM rather than Red Hat. Red Hat GPLs their code. IBM, on the other hand, sells several closed source operating systems which likely infringe.
When asking "who is going to win this case", a key question we might see answered before the full trial would be "whose side is Intel (i.e. their developers, experts) going to testify on"?
Remember that standard used for binary compatibility of UNIX on Intel used for running SCO apps on Linux and vice-versa? iBCS2? The "Intel Binary Compatibility Standard 2nd Edition"? What do the makers of that standard have to say about this case?
What does SCO know about running UNIX on Intel that Intel doesn't know and couldn't have legally passed such knowledge to IBM or Linux communities directly?
Inquiring minds want to know.
--LP
Just nit picking, but let's not forget about Bill Jolitz, who wrote nearly all of the i386 specific code in BSD, both what became 4.4 BSD, and 386BSD, from which we got FreeBSD and NetBSD.
Linus ain't the only single person to pull off such a feat. Not to mention the fact that Jolitz did it first...
You are right about Eunice being a bit misguided.
Excerpt from the News.com article:
Linux's rapid maturity--for example, growing up to work on large multiprocessor servers--is evidence of the presence of Unix intellectual property, the SCO suit said. "It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach Unix performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of Unix code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM," the suit said.
Firstly, it appears as though they are referencing the 2.5 development tree. If this is the case, they do not distribute a development kernel that I am aware of. It is possible that I'm wrong. Second, whatever happened to different means to a similar end? Or rather, "There's more than one way to skin a cat." Could it be that perhaps the IBM developers know what they're doing?
Excerpt from the Bloomberg article:
Caldera's business has been hurt by the free Linux software that IBM has been supporting, Dow Jones said, citing Darl McBride, Caldera's chief executive. Linux is a variant of Unix and isn't copyrighted.
I guess they were fooled by the "Copyleft". Hmm, maybe if they caught on that GNU is Not Unix.
Umm.. i'm looking at that license. What it looks like is that by releasing code under the IBM license, you agree to license all your applicable patents to all comers.
Whereas the GPL says "you are not allowed to release under this license unless you license all your applicable patents to all comers".
So under IBM, if you discover you have accidentally release software that contains a patent you hold, you now have accidentally licensed that patent to all comers eternally. Under GPL, if you accidentally release software that contains a patent you hold, you have either the option of eternally licensing that patent to all comers eternally, or ceasing distribution of the GPLed program.
Which do you think companies really want?
Anyway, you miss one of the biggest advantages of the GPL. The GPL is just a copyright license. It doesn't depend on contract law, which is complicated, or anything else. Under the GPL, restrictions are enforced with the might of, "you have to follow these terms or else NOTHING gives you the right to use or release GPLed code". The IBM thing looks to me like you're entering into a contract of some sort-- you agree to do X just by releasing the code? Where's the signature, or whatever? I mean, maybe that's legally binding, but probably no more than a shrinkwrap license. To be honest, I seriously doubt it would be very difficult to legally weasel out of the obligations that releasing under the IBM license would entail.. thus bringing you back to the same place under the GPL, you can't distribute under the IBM license but neither can anyone else, and other people are holding code with your submarine patent. I don't know, i don't study law. Is this a reasonable doubt for me to hold?
This still makes lying to people and saying code is patent free when it is not no easier under the GPL as opposed to BSD or proprietary code licenses. This still is not much of a "flaw" in the GPL itself, just a general worry with licensing code of any sort.
This still does no good against the more threatening problem, which is people owning submarine patents and suing other people who implement that patent. Remember, you don't have to have implemented yourself the code which infringes on the patent in order to collect damages.
Is any of this innacurate?
He must've worked for Nullsoft.
Dear IBM,
Please spend the $US25.68 million it would require to buy out SCO, and then fire every single member of their management and legal department.
Thank you,
A Linux user.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
The GNU foundation/fsf actually does police GPL violations. They've done it in the past. Look through the slashdot archives or something, there have been multiple cases of companies buckling when faced with fsf legal action and absolutely zero cases of the FSF backing down rather than going to court.
You raise an interesting tangent (okay...it's my tanget, but it's based on your subject). Jeez...
If I may go on a tangent here, I'd be interested to know what the largest patent-holder companies are (ie Top 10).
My guesses (in some semblance of order): IBM, Xerox, Sony...?
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
with thanks to whoever posted this script, and with great annoyance at whoever decided that Slashdot posts with low average line lengths are a bad thing, and so need to be offset by pointless filler like this to bring up the average -- apologies while I pad this just a little more, and please feel free to disregard this last paragraph so that the average line count goes above, apparently, 30. Two things you can apparently never include in this news for nerds sites: program code (you can talk about open source, but you can't share it here!) and, apparently, movie scripts. Go figure.... Anyway, this should be enough padding, pretend this whole last paragraph is wrapped in a <!-- sorry --> block :-)
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
This is going to be fun to watch:
Single Camouflaged Operative vs International Battle Marines.
Do a search on the USPTO for International Business Machines as assignee, and file as title, and you get 300+ hits. This is out of their 32000+ patents.
If you're so afraid of 'the man' steeling your software, just get it copywrited, how else to companies like Microsoft make it big?
All GPL software is copyrighted by their respective owners / creators. They never lose their copyright!
unfinished: (adj.)
(kind of ontopic) In addition to the groups organized to freely redistribute systems built around the Networking Release 2 tape, a company, Berkeley Software Design, Incorporated (BSDI), was formed to develop and distribute a commercially supported version of the code. (More information about BSDI can be found at http://www.bsdi.com.) Like the other groups, they started by adding the six missing files that Bill Jolitz had written for his 386/BSD release. BSDI began selling their system including both source and binaries in January 1992 for $995. They began running advertisements touting their 99% discount over the price charged for System V source plus binary systems. Interested readers were told to call 1-800-ITS-Unix. Shortly after BSDI began their sales campaign, they received a letter from Unix System Laboratories (USL) (a mostly-owned subsidiary of AT&T spun off to develop and sell Unix). The letter demanded that they stop promoting their product as Unix and in particular that they stop using the deceptive phone number. Although the phone number was promptly dropped and the advertisements changed to explain that the product was not Unix, USL was still unhappy and filed suit to enjoin BSDI from selling their product. The suit alleged that the BSDI product contained proprietary USL code and trade secrets. USL sought to get an injunction to halt BSDI's sales until the lawsuit was resolved, claiming that they would suffer irreparable harm from the loss of their trade secrets if the BSDI distributions continued. At the preliminary hearing for the injunction, BSDI contended that they were simply using the sources being freely distributed by the University of California plus six additional files. They were willing to discuss the content of any of the six added files, but did not believe that they should be held responsible for the files being distributed by the University of California. The judge agreed with BSDI's argument and told USL that they would have to restate their complaint based solely on the six files or he would dismiss it. Recognizing that they would have a hard time making a case from just the six files, USL decided to refile the suit against both BSDI and the University of California. As before, USL requested an injunction on the shipping of Networking Release 2 from the University and on the BSDI products. With the impending injunction hearing just a few short weeks away, preparation began in earnest. All the members of the CSRG were deposed as were nearly everyone employed at BSDI. Briefs, counter-briefs, and counter-counter-briefs flew back and forth between the lawyers. Keith Bostic and I personally had to write several hundred pages of material that found its way into various briefs. In December 1992, Dickinson R. Debevoise, a United States District Judge in New Jersey, heard the arguments for the injunction. Although judges usually rule on injunction requests immediately, he decided to take it under advisement. On a Friday about six weeks later, he issued a forty-page opinion in which he denied the injunction and threw out all but two of the complaints. The remaining two complaints were narrowed to recent copyrights and the possibility of the loss of trade secrets. He also suggested that the matter should be heard in a state court system before being heard in the federal court system. The University of California took the hint and rushed into California state court the following Monday morning with a counter-suit against USL. By filing first in California, the University had established the locale of any further state court action. Constitutional law requires all state filing to be done in a single state to prevent a litigant with deep pockets from bleeding an opponent dry by filing fifty cases against them in every state. The result was that if USL wanted to take any action against the University in state courts, they would be forced to do so in California rather than in their home state of New Jersey. The University's suit claimed that USL had failed in their obligation to provide due credit to the University for the use of BSD code in System V as required by the license that they had signed with the University. If the claim were found to be valid, the University asked that USL be forced to reprint all their documentation with the appropriate due credit added, to notify all their licensees of their oversight, and to run full-page advertisements in major publications such as The Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazine notifying the business world of their inadvertent oversight. Soon after the filing in state court, USL was bought from AT&T by Novell. The CEO of Novell, Ray Noorda, stated publicly that he would rather compete in the marketplace than in court. By the summer of 1993, settlement talks had started. Unfortunately, the two sides had dug in so deep that the talks proceed slowly. With some further prodding by Ray Noorda on the USL side, many of the sticking points were removed and a settlement was finally reached in January 1994. The result was that three files were removed from the 18,000 that made up Networking Release 2, and a number of minor changes were made to other files. In addition, the University agreed to add USL copyrights to about 70 files, although those files continued to be freely redistributed. 4.4BSD The newly blessed release was called 4.4BSD-Lite and was released in June 1994 under terms identical to those used for the Networking releases. Specifically, the terms allow free redistribution in source and binary form subject only to the constraint that the University copyrights remain intact and that the University receive credit when others use the code. Simultaneously, the complete system was released as 4.4BSD-Encumbered, which still required recipients to have a USL source license. The lawsuit settlement also stipulated that USL would not sue any organization using 4.4BSD-Lite as the base for their system. So, all the BSD groups that were doing releases at that time, BSDI, NetBSD, and FreeBSD, had to restart their code base with the 4.4BSD-Lite sources into which they then merged their enhancements and improvements. While this reintegration caused a short-term delay in the development of the various BSD systems, it was a blessing in disguise since it forced all the divergent groups to resynchronize with the three years of development that had occurred at the CSRG since the release of Networking Release 2.
My first thougth was "what idiot suit at SCO thinks they can make a case for AIX being SYSV-derived?"
The logic(sic) they are asserting seems to be: AIX is based on SYSV that SCO acquired from AT&T, and that IBM's moved those ideas into Linux.
Nice fantasy. AIX is based on the Mach microkernel from CMU, which in turn is BSD-derived. Even at that it is very much re-implemented, using such intersting magic as an O-O system configuration database, and the first widely available journalling filesystem for a *nix.
People think of AIX as being SYSV because it implements a SYSV *interface*. IBM is all about standards and AIX achieved System-V (and later versions) standard compliance *and* BSD compliance wherever that did not conflict.
So no, SCO hasn't got a leg to stand on on this aspect. I wish them luck they are toing to need it.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
So we're putting on our 'Yay Software Patents' t-shirts now? Do they sell such a shirt at Thinkgeek yet?
Just nit picking, but let's not forget about Bill Jolitz, who wrote nearly all of the i386 specific code in BSD
Since the article is about IBM filling Linux with their IP, Torvalds is the correct reference to make.
You see, the silliest part of the claim is that IBM created this intel-based Unix. They were referring to Linux, which IBM didn't create. You obviously didn't get that part.
Let's hope that the few major ISVs and hardware vendors who still support SCO (e.g. Oracle, HP/Compaq) have the guts to drop support for both SCO Linux and UNIX like a bag of rocks, even though IBM is their competitor. Surely they understand that this kind of pathetic IP leechery is a disaster for everyone with an interest in Linux.
Furthermore, I'll be really disappointed if SuSE fails to kick SCO the hell out of the UnitedLinux group.
Then I hope all the strategic partners:
http://www.caldera.com/company/partners/
Will break away from SCO/Caldera. Nothing quite like isolating them...
What does this mean for United Linux?
"Oh look IBM you're sharing code that makes Linux so much better and we didn't want Linux to do well at all".
Isn't this like biting the hand that feeds you indirectly? We're not talking Adobe, where most people never heard of those DMCA cases, we're talking high end server areas where this sort of news travels. Sure a billion dollars would be helpful, but if you've soured relations in a market where you don't have a monopoly...
StarTux
IBM not only has filed more patents than anyone else for the past 10 years, but they also have one of the largest number of IP lawyers.
Yeah, SCO isn't going to last very long... That's like threatening a carrier fleet with a rowboat and bebe gun.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Title says it all.
quick somebody patent the
"one click lawsuit"
and then go setup a website for companies like SCO, Amazon.com, SBC
Cowboy Bebop Movie comes to the States
AnimePosted by CowboyNeal in The Mysterious Future!
from the spike-jet-faye-ed-and-ein dept.
birdman666 writes "According to the movie site the movie of the popular anime Cowboy Bebop has finally been set to release in the states in a handful of cities including LA, NY, SF, Seattle and others on April 4. It features all the same voice actors as the Cartoon Network series and is big news for all those Bebop fans out there. As a note the Japanese title of the film was 'Cowboy Bebop: Knockin On Heaven's Door', but has been changed simply to 'Cowboy Bebop: The Movie' for the states." We had a note about the American premiere last summer, but now it's finally open for general admission
I'm asking, because we use Apprise at my job, and it licks an arse. It's fairly crappy, from what we get to see (front end, our MIS/IT dept handles all the back end and programming, so it could just be them being too lazy/dumb to help make it work for our needs).
Do you have any web pages where we might be able to get more info on the Progress Database software itself? Google doesn't seem to be much help in the matter, as a few of my co-workers and I have tried to use it to research this database, to no avail.
were it not for the facist bullshit of slashdot's editors, I would have had fp.
You want me.
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
Yes, basically.
To clarify, they could distribute *their* code (i.e., code that Caldera holds the copyright on) with the GPL attached, but no one else could, unless Caldera also granted them the patent rights. Putting code like this under the GPL would just be a cruel joke. (Well, *maybe* if you infringed the patent a sympathetic judge would say that putting out GPL'd code implies a sort of patent grant, otherwise why did they choose the GPL, but I doubt it).
Basically the GPL is pointing out something that's always true. If you have code that infringes someone's patents, or can't be distributed under an agreement, or is illegal under the DMCA, then just because there is the GPL (or BSD, etc) license on the code doesn't mean you can ignore the patent infringement or the other restrictions. If your rich uncle lends you his Ferrari and says you can drive as fast as you like, you can't use that as an excuse to speed.
*Anyone* who distributes GPL'd code could would have to stop distributing it, if it infringes Caldera's patent. Except Caldera of course.
That would be great for Caldera: they could take code written by *somebody else* and re-distribute it under the terms of the GPL, but no one else could, including the original author!
I think the moral is: software patents are bad things.
Patents do not last forever. They are only good for a set period of time. It is possible that the litigation will outlast the patents, so even IF SCO wins, the whole thing could be moot before the trial, appeals, et al. are complete. I think SCO is trying to find a purchaser or perhaps get a quick, cheap settlement in order to keep things afloat.
IAAL
Well, SCOX (caldera Systems = SCO group) has
market capitalization of 26 million only.
IBM can simply buy and canibalize the whole
company ending the stupid suit.
Everybody, go to this link and let them know how you feel:
http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/
They have very heavy ties to both UNIX (via AIX) and Linux. It wouldn't be a big shock to learn that they've moved some top engineers between the two OSs. They've also got big pockets, and a large customer base which means -- if they lose -- you can dig deep into those big pockets.
IBM is also, arguably, among the least sympathetic of the big Linux players. They have a history of being a mega-corp who (in their own time) defined the acronym FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt). Perhaps SCO is hoping that the Linux community will be less whole-hearted in jumping to the defence of the once - anything - but - open - source megalith.
If IBM loses big, the size of the settlement/charge could shell-shock smaller linux companies into looking for a cheap out.
Running against SCO, however, is the fact that Unix is ancient.. Ancient enough that patents on it's basic design technology -- if they were patentable back then -- are going to be expired by now. This means that most of the violations are likely to be copyright violations -- and most of Linux's code base is not from IBM.
Happily, IBM is far from an early booster for Linux. By the time IBM jumped on the bandwagon, Linux already had a long and happy history of exponentional growth and improvement. SCO's claim that Linux couldn't have grown that fast without stealing code is going to have to swim against that tide.
Yo prove IBM liable for copyright violation, SCO is going to have to point to specific code that IBM stole from UNIX, and show that it was IBM that installed that code in Linux and not somebody else. That's going to be a difficult feat == especially given Linux's history and idea pool (the whole world).
IBM is well versed in litigation by attrition. Much like Microsoft, they took on the DOJ in the '70s -- arguably with more success.
SCO has a formidable opponent, and the possibility of massive profits if it wins big. Needless to say, I do not wish them luck.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
When suing a company so much bigger than you that it could swallow you in a business transaction before noon the next day, you should keep this in mind. You probably shouldnt sue for more than the combined total of your previous ten years earnings. Then again, if SCO used that rule of thinb they would have to file their suit for a whopping $5.74
Choose wisely you must...
...Or are you meaning both "they"s in your comment are the authors of GPL software? Get a clue, GPL software is licensed, copyrighted software. The public domain specifically refers to stuff that is unrestricted by copyrights and patents, it isn't just a synonym for "doesn't cost anything", etc.
Be careful! New moon tonight.
Coffee only needs to be at about 120-130 degrees (F) to remain fresh. At that temp it takes about 30 seconds of exposure to skin to get any kind of burn. McDonalds was in the habit of keeping their coffee at about 180-200 degrees. At that temp, exposure (such as by spilling) gives you third degree burns in about 2 seconds.
The part that the judge and jury found the most actionable was that this issue had come up before; McDonalds knew their coffee was burning people and did nothing about it.
It's reasonable to assume that people will occasionally spill coffee on themselves. That wasn't the point of the suit. It isn't, however, reasonable to assume that coffee should give you third degree burns on your genitals.
Just so you know.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
I had a friend (yeah, that's it) that used to work for SCO when they were still in Santa Cruz, CA.
The executive team would get up in front of the employees at quarterly meetings and talk about how Linux was not a threat and that SCO UNIX on Intel was superior. Who's SCO's daddy now?
Also, this umm, friend of mine also reported rumors of the former SCO CEO being offered more money than SCO was worth back in 1999 from SUN for the company. SCO's CEO supposedly had harsh words for Mr. McNeely.
So, then Caldera buys SCO.
Don't forget that SCO spun off Tarantella at the same time-another failing company.
Then Caldera changes name to SCO Group. Now they sue IBM.
What a bunch of losers!
I hope that I get another call from SCO's "partner" program people about developing software for their platform. It will be a lovely discussion.
I wonder if The SCO Groups head Lawyer is still the same one from SCO (pre-caldera). He was an ex-SUN lawyer.
The folks over at the desktop-linux friendly (mostly mandrakian) pclinuxonline.com are encouraging a boycott of SCO over this.
Give Ransom a piece of your mind. Click here to go the SCO/ Caldera feedback page.
Four days ago there was this article on /.
Dell CIO Says "Unix is Dead"
Apparently not yet, the trademark from SCO just trying to make some money out of its agony.
We used SCO's Unix in 1990 or so to teach Unix students for a while, but after noticing that we'd had to plug in GNU software for almost everything to make it work, we finally switched to SunOS, and later to Linux. But that's not the interesting part. What is, is that Iremember the SCO's original Unix booting with the horrifying sight of Microsoft's copyrights on the Unix flavor underneath.
:-)
You might say, "What? Microsoft did Unix in the 80s? No! That's insane!".
Apparently Microsoft had been working on Unix in some respect for a while, until Bill had decided it had no future (or perhaps, just not a proprietary enough one), and (or so I infer) sold it or licensed it to the Santa Cruz Operation.
This would make for much irony if SCO won their little suit, but then Microsoft bought them to try to reassert control over what Bill once thought was irrelevant, and now clearly -is- the future.
The comments in the suit about IBMs AIX and its claimed collision with the Unix patents is pretty funny, since apparently one of the miseries of doing AIX design was going before a little review board that would judge the odds of your perfectly good code intersecting known non-IBM patents, and then making you break it until it didn't - or so goes one unfortunate's tale.
All of this is, of course, hearsay, so if you were there, just tell us what really happened, yes?
I am sure IBM can take care of it self in this one.
SCO could get really really burned in public perception and finically by IBM getting mid evil on their *ss.
Stop distributing AIX HA... that will be the day...
Having done a *lot* of work on AIX back in the early days, I can say that it borrowed some bits from BSD (who didn't then), but didn't from S5 Unix and their kernel was theirs. I didn't have their source code, but I was always cursing them for their incompatabilities which is why I can say they were different.
Also, AIX had a PS/2 distribution in the eary days, so they certianly had x86 architecture since way back when.
First off, don't put cups of coffee near your genitals and you won't burn them. Um, I would expect to get burned pretty badly by hot coffee or tea spilling in my lap. Also do note that being an older gal she would have more tender skin than a young adult (old skin burns easier as it's thinner)
Also think of it like this: Lets say she made her own coffee in her coffee-maker at home (you know the kind where you don't get a choice how how hot it is made. Say simply "on" or "off") or even if she say made some tea (don't know about you, but when I make tea I *boil* the water first) and puts it in a cup with a lid and goes in her car (depending on who's version of the story you believe she is either the passenger or the driver -doesn't matter) and does the same thing as the McDonald's incident what is she going to do then? Sue the coffe-maker company? Or if it's the tea version then what? Oh, she'll sue the company that makes her stove for being able to boil water!
More than likely though, she wouldn't have been suing anybody if she made it herself despite it possibly being the same or close to the same temperature as the McDonalds coffee.
Fuzdout
..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
(b) IBM unchains the Lawyer Horde, buckles on their Patent Shield (c) and proceeds to lay the legal smackdown on SCO
(c) then buys up the smoking ruins of SCO for even less than they're worth now
WHICH IS STILL A BETTER DEAL FOR THE SCO PEOPLE THAN RIDING THEIR PITIFUL IP HOLDINGS INTO OBLIVION
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
...oh, wait, we already are. Nevermind.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Is this the desparate attempt of a dying company to litigate revenue or is it a threat against IBM by the UNIX vendor to stay away from open source? A one billion dollar lawsuit is sure to draw CEO-level attention. I hope this doesn't prompt IBM (and others) to reconsider their Linux stance for fear of IP infringement. I hope this doesn't start a trend, widespread lawsuits like this could kill big player support for open source pretty quick, even if they are frivolous (which this one might not be).
My feeling is that this is an MS-inspired shot over the bows to scare VCs and IT chiefs away from Linux. In one case it really doesn;t matter whether SCO/Caldera wins or loses, it just hast to leave a suspicion in these people's minds.
This mean's that not only must IBM win, but they should win 'loudly', i.e., so those people who may be worried about Linux realise that they shouldn't be.
So you mean the way Netscape, Sun and so many others who can't actually compete insist on cotninuing lawsuits to try and get the government to do it?
That kind of thing?
In year 2003
....
Slashdot copy has been proofread
CmdrTaco: What happen ?
Timothy: Somebody set up us the submarine patent
CowboyNeal: We get Story Submission
CmdrTaco: What !
CowboyNeal: Submission queue turn on
CmdrTaco: It's you !!
Ransom Love: How are you gentlemen !!
Ransom Love: All your intellectual property are belong to us
Ransom Love: You are on your way to lawsuit
CmdrTaco: What you say !!
Ransom Love: IBM had no chance to create UNIX on Intel processors without expertise from SCO
Ransom Love: HA HA HA HA
CmdrTaco: Take off every 'slashbot'
CmdrTaco: You know what you doing
CmdrTaco: Write 'flame'
CmdrTaco: For great justice
*Anyone* who distributes GPL'd code could would have to stop distributing it, if it infringes Caldera's patent. Except Caldera of course.
That would only be true if Linux were entirely Caldera's product. If that were the case, Caldera could distribute the product, and the GPL would have no meaning. Customers who received the product from Caldera would have no license for redistribution.
However, Linux is not Caldera's product, and they must abide by its license. The license terms state that if your customers can not be given the full rights that you have under the GPL, then you must not distribute the software to them at all. If Caldera put patented code into Linux without a non-exclusive license, they would not be allowed to distribute the product.
If one goes back in history, a lot of MS's own hatred of Unix comes from their internal systems running on SCO Unix in the early days. Mind you, SCO were using MS compilers then.
I think they're making a play to get bought out by IBM.
It's about the only way I can imagine of salvaging their stock's value.
SCO has sold worthless shit for longer than Linux has been in existance. The notion that Linux had to steal technology from them to become successful is absolutely ludicrous.
Did they get their Buzzword Bingo set in the bargain bin? Those descriptions are just pathetic. Then again, wasn't Ray Noorda the guy who ran Novell into the ground?
sulli
RTFJ.
IBM declined to comment on the suit, which was filed in Utah on behalf of SCO by David Boies of Boies, Schiller and Flexner. Boies was the U.S. Justice Department's lead lawyer in its successful antitrust case against Microsoft.
IBM: Uh oh.
----- sXe
What is it going to feel like having your ass handed to you on a cracker by the x86 *nix community??
Signed,
Slashdotters
Flame them. I just did. It's very theraputic.
As part of the actions Novell did when they bought UNIX from AT&T was to settle the BSD IP lawsuit.
So the BSD's have a clean bill of health.
So to avoid the lawyers on this one, you can run BSD. BSDi had bought a UNIX licence at one time, if you like paying $995 for your UNIX. *wink*
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
No doubt this will be modded flamebait but I have to speak my mind on this one--
Caldera/SCO is one of those companies which I have absolutely no good will towards. Sure, someone had to sue Microsoft over the antocompetitive actions against DR DOS, but Caldera didn't even really pretend that the product was a real addition to their product line. They only bought it to sue Microsoft and after they settled, they sold it to Lineo.
Then they bought SCO and became the SCO Group. BTW, this was after they were sued by their shareholders for inflating profits before Enron broke.
Since they dislike the GPL, and can't find a good way to pretend that Linux is proprietary, their business model seems to be:
1: Buy dying products
2: Sue other companies
3: Win or settle
4: Profit
5; Sell dying product line to other companies
6: Profit again
If they were ethical, I would support them.... but I can find no ethics, or any other virtues....
Lets hope this is dismissed soon..
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
After the countersuits, maybe IBM will own the stake in Troll Tech. :)
...and thus shut them up.
...a small price to pay for IBM.
Let's see, SCO's revenue is ~$20million/quarter and isn't the rule something like 4x revenue, so for $80million IBM could buy SCO thus killing the lawsuit and put SCO out of it's misery (and spare the rest of us all the FUD SCO is spreading).
One SCO executive said suing a fellow Linux vendor would be suicide. IBM isn't exactly a Linux vendor but it is still suicide. I hope they succeed die quickly.
Also I want to apologize to Maureen O'Gara. She was more accurate than she knew.
Patents are the problem.
There will be a breaking point where people get really mad and REAL change will occur.
Did they ever look the history of AIX ? Of course - if the operating system is what the interface is then AIX may not be first but under the user interface - kind of old ( very old ) including some very new ideas from IBM today. Saying that AIX came from System V 3.2 is like a new skin or a new windows manager. And of course - what Unix has that for ex. 360 ( a little older than any Unix)/370/390 architecture doesn't ?? Names are different, functions are same, implementations different ( on any platform/system ) Complaining of libraries, guess what, today I was missing the attach/link/load mechanism in Unix / Windows. Standard libraries - Today I use the same code in Unix/Windows I wrote -72 for 360 ( 370 -74 ) AND the old programs are still running in big mainframes. Methods and consepts - haven't seen anything in Unix that wasn't already implemented one way or another earlier. Kind of amazing but nothing new. But then, I have no idea how patenting / IP protection works, so have a nice day .
Move their desks into the basement storage room and take away their red staplers!
If nothing else, the Unix community will see that SCO has the right to revoke the license to use Unix, such as AIX. I guess that acts more as FUD against Unix, not Linux. Law-saffy companies will benefit from going the Linux way, since Unix is a bitch of SCO. Of course this might motivate people to go for windows also...
But of course I agree with millions of other people that SCO should be bitchslapped hard, and repeatedly until they die. I would assume that UnitedLinux doesn't want to be associated with SCO anymore, how realistic is it to kick them out?
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
In other news, the world's largest catapult has recently been constructed on the rooftop of IBM's world headquarters. What it is being used for no one knows, but it now seems to be pointed at Redmond, with a sign on the front which says "Try that shit again, foolios, and see what happens."
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
We're doomed.
It doesn't even matter anymore whether or not they actually have a valid claim... asking for one billion dollars just makes you a money whore and shows just how greedy and desperate for money you are. If nothing else, they've lost my support because of all of this. I honestly think they are overstepping their bounds with this one. One billion dollars....
The president of an exclusively Linux/Open Source shop told eWeek last week that he had recently participated in a 20 minute phone survey that began with a statement to the effect that a company named SCO was pursuing legal remedy to protect its intellectual property.
[...]
McBride said his company had nothing to do with the market research. [...] "This latest survey wasn't commissioned by us, I can tell you that,"
My inner tin-hat person is saying, "Wouldn't it be interesting if McBride was telling the truth? Who else would conduct as survey about this?"
They're suing over breaches of NDA and License to Unix code that SCO claims IBM had with them. Patented stuff- in the Linux kernel (Otherwise why would they be harping about SMP systems?).
And, they have the unmitigated GALL to say that Linux systems purchased from them have no issues because they have the license bundled in with their distribution licenses. That is a GPL violation, pure and simple. Either there ISN'T a patent issue or there is- if there is, then the patented stuff has to go bye-bye or have a GPL compatible license. SCO's not claiming to have licensed the alleged tech that way in their press releases.
No, this is SCO commiting corporate suicide in the most public, painful way possible. Picking an IP fight with IBM is not one of the wiser things to do- and to set the stakes so that IBM HAS to do something about it rather than settle simply and easily is downright insane. IBM is all about IP and is pretty much anal about IP handling- with theirs and their partners'. If they don't countersue with their own infringement suit (thus getting the whole mess dropped- SCO can't afford a legal battle on two fronts...) they'll prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there's nothing to SCO's claims. And that's just the lawsuit part of this whole mess- the bad blood they just earned with the community just torpedoed themselves, UnitedLinux, and anyone that associates themselves too closely with SCO.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I haven't yet read all 300+ comments here, but so far I haven't seen *any* supporting SCO. Do any of you really know what's going on here? It is quite possible that IBM did rip them off. If SCO shared proprietary code with IBM under contractual restrictions, and IBM went ahead and violated those restrictions by putting that code in other products, then IBM is in the wrong. It doesn't even matter if the code is covered by patents or not, all that matters is what the two companies agreed to on paper.
I for one hope that whoever is truly at fault gets nailed, be it IBM or SCO. I believe that agreements should be honored. That's something that corporate America cares little about, especially if a buck can be made by ignoring an agreement. If IBM truly blew off a legitimate agreement, then they should fry. If IBM really believes SCO has no rightful claim to the intellectual property in question, then they should not have signed an agreement with SCO. It could well be that SCO is lying/embellishing/hallucinating, but maybe they're not.
On an aside, back in the 80's and early 90's, I worked on a port of SCO Unix to a proprietary platform. What people have been saying here about SCO's "quality" is true. Their OS was crap. I can't count how many bugs in the kernel we had to fix. We even had to completely rearchitect whole subsystems. When we were done with it, it was fairly passable, but it took man years. The most appalling thing about their code was the third party SMP implementation they bought from some other company. It was truly horrendous. I believe it did improve over the years as the product matured, but obviously not enough to keep them alive.
SCO was a popular platform for Unix on Intel. It was a private company, microsoft had a 20% shareholding, but it wasn't quoted on the stockmarket. It had been like that for years.
Suddenly (about 1995): they announced that they wanted to float on the stock market, all sorts of reasons given but one side effect was that it meant that the major shareholders (the directors) would be able to 'cash in' on their shareholding by selling to Joe Shareholder. Quite unfortunately for the new share holders, Linux started to bite into SCO profits soon after float and it never really recovered.
I have no doubt that the SCO directors had no idea that this ''new phenomenon called Linux'' would have any effect on the SCO sales & thus share price; they were only involved in that sector of the market and so would never have heard of Linux, and even if they had they would not have been able to predict the future effect on the SCO share price; it is quite coincidental that they sold their shares to the general public just before the value started to crumble.
damn, the Hurd is (at the moment) mach based...dies that mean theyre gonna try and sue te Hurd community...1 billion is hell of a lot for 3 developers!
You are all so quick to call the lady a moron for putting hot coffee between her legs. Yet that is standard practice when driving if you do not have a cup holder because you cannot hold the steering wheel and a cup of coffee and roll up a window at the same time.
Admit it you guys. You have all put coffee cups between your legs in the past. It is not a moronic thing to do if you do not have a cup holder (which most cars did not have before the SUV-tank craze).
Market cap is calculated as if all outstanding shares were available for sale at the same price as the last block of shares sold/bought. All outstanding shares are not available for sale all the time, only what people/institutions are offering at any one time. If IBM makes a tender offer for all shares or a controlling interest of SCO (they need not buy the whole company), then the price will go up as people/institutions will more or less hold their shares for ransom ("So you want a large block of shares, eh? What's it worth to you?").
If IBM makes an offer at say double market cap, the current shareholders may still hold out with the reasoning of "We sue you for a billion and now you're trying to buy us out. We must be worth that billion or else you wouldn't offer.".
IIRC AIX is pretty much originally the most original of the commercial Unix variants. To the user, it is more like "our own stuff, but with BSD and SysV compatibility".
OSF/1 (later Digital UNIX, later Tru64) is based on Mach and 4.3 BSD, like NeXTSTEP. Mach with BSD subsystems is not freely distributable because of restrictions on 4.3 BSD. Apple updated to 4.4 BSD code, which allowed them to make Darwin open source.
Regardless of the details, all major commercial Unix variants have been developed with source licenses from AT&T, so arguably they may contain code or techniques, although anyone who has actually had access to the source code of any of these systems will tell you that there's nothing special there.
Fucking A -- who scored this to 5? ... RTFA -- IBM licences UNIX from SCO. It's a fact.
In your "nice fantasy" world you neglect that some of that code was derived from the original UNIX codebase, no matter how many ringers it's been through.
My first thougth was "what idiot suit at SCO thinks they can make a case for AIX being SYSV-derived?"
IBM suits that cut a check to SCO every year.
Let's boycott SCO, united linux, and anybody affiliated with SCO.
Actually, a company call The Santa Cruz Operation did it years and years before Jolitz or Torvalds did.
Whatever happened to those guys?
Its the old MS Xenix based Sco Openserver that sucks which is sco's main product. Customers only buy it today to run ancient apps written for it that are no longer updated.
Sco is worth close to 16 million according to some industry analysts. Its dieing.
If sco asks for billion to save its ass then it would make sense for IBM to just buy them for 16 million and get it over with. They would save alot of money and potential hassle in the future. No more future problems with them and also not to mention sco makes some money with consulting which IBM is already king in. IBM could gain more customers in return that would more then make up the ROI for purchasing them.
http://saveie6.com/
I can only tell you what little I know. Ford was at one point seeking an individual to roll a Redhat AS-based distibution for internal use. The concentration was on work-product sharing. There also seemed to be a sub-product for distributed processing. So, at a very unsupported guess: Ford uses Linux for what everyonelse does - clustering and work-serving.
Okay, so it didn't say all of that. But it could have.
SIGFEH
People keep bitching that IBM is famous for spreading FUD. Hell, they invented it. This comes down to the age old question of can a bird change it's feathers. --adam
My opinion, yes a bird can change it's feather. Look at XFS, JFS, EVMS, iSCSI, Jikes, Linux Test Project, Linux NUMA and other projects. SCO (nee Caldera) has contibuted not much more then a distro, one of many. --adam
They have an anonymous web survey at:
t io n20021210.htm
http://websurveyor.net/wsb.dll/9929/websatisfac
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
well. go on, go on - unix was already dead. linux gave unix a 2nd chance... now sco is definitely screwing things up...
Don't tar eveyone in the United Linux set with the same brush. It is only an aliance of code not business practices. Suse, and the others have no control what so ever on how Sco conducts its business. It may be something for them to think about though, once more information is forthcoming, as to whether or not to throw SCO out of the alliance.
TO: Caldera/SCO
The secret is about how to produce good, reliable, useable software. The only ones from whom it is kept secret are apparently in your own poor-ass excuse for a development shop. The only good product you ever made -- err, bought -- was DR DOS and you sold it as soon as you got your petty settlemnt from BillG. I'll never forgive you for not stcking it to MS on that one. You were the only ones with a claim left standing to do it, even if it wasn't your creation. You could've made the DOJ case come out entirely different and made a fortune while you were at it. Instead, you took chump-change, tucked your tail and sold the product. For shame. Ransom Love indeed!
I have used SCO, both before and after you acquired it. It was and remains the bane of my existence as an admin. And OpenServer, please! OpenLinux, etc. -- all suckware! Please, everybody go back to Novell and focus all your energy on finally running that albatross the rest of the way into the ground. When you're done with that, see if you can buy the IP rights to Win9x from BillG. If you are selling it, I am sure all reasonable people everywhere will stop using it. What a service you could do the community.
On a more serious note, if any of your real IP has made it into the kernel, please, for god's sake point out precisely what it is so it can be promptly replaced with something that works!
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
We have some legacy Unixware 7.1.1 boxen that we wanted to update during the latest round of sendmail patching. The latest vunerability was handled pretty well - vendors had private lead time and when the problem was made public all the patches were developed and available. This was Monday.
Except for SCO/Caldera. Here's the current (3/7) from their website:
http://www.sco.com/support/security/
"Security
We are aware of the CERT CA-2003-07 sendmail issue, and are currently working on fixes for our supported distributions. We will announce the fixes via our normal channels:"
So now we know where their energies have been spent lately. Hopefully when they win and own UN*X outright we can expect the same great service.
Well we've been looking for an excuse to flush UW7 anyway. I'll sign this AC as I prefer not to get sued for quoting from their copyrighted, state of the art, "target us now", security support announcement system.
just buy SCO, then they can do whatever they want. Really what secrets were they giving out? What proof do they have. Their probably just jealous that IBM didn't include them.
Shall we sue now? Or sue later?
Well, HE was beheaded in the French Revolution because a jealous colleague found that there was nothing to invent anymore in chemistry.
Antoine Lavoisier, 1743-1794
And now SCO seems to be continuing in the role of Agent Provocatuer. This could be very bad for open source as far as the relationship with corporations goes. Companies will be led to believe that dealing in open source will leave them open to lawsuits. I may sound like a conspiracy nut, but there are a lot of very powerful people who are afraid of the (most likely subtle) changes in the economic model that open source software and a proliferation of bandwidth is inevetably going to bring about. Not to mention those in the intelligence, law enforcement, and organised crime industries (the three are closely linked.) who are afraid of strong encryption getting into the hands of ordinary citizens, or uncontrolled access to information databases that the manipulated may use to connect the dots.
Read, L
And how does this enter into the claims?
SCO Your honor, IBM pays us x$ per year to license Unix (TM)
IBM That license covers a variety of uses, for instance, access to the Unix Trademark, SCO cannot claim damages for technology which we license but do not implement.
What I saw in the FA was and IP-based lawsuit. The license is a matter of commercial and contract law. The use of code and technology is a matter of copyright and patent law.
I sincerly doubt there is very much SYSV (monolithic kernel) code in AIX (microkernel) as a kernel or related userspace utilities. Because most of the interesting technology is in the *kernel* I think this is main point. As I already indicated, AIX is based on Mach, but with a *lot* of modifications in the core. Other examples of what IBM technology has found its way into Linux:
JFS -- the first *nix journaled filesystem and the Linux version is branched from the OS/2 flavor of JFS, in any case developed inside IBM.
LVM -- as near as I can tell the Linux LVM was implemented outside of IBM, and in anycase it's not AT&T/SysV derived.
ProPolice -- oss-derived techniques applied to the GCC compiler (not a Linux issue)
you neglect that some of that code was derived from the original UNIX codebase, no matter how many ringers it's been through.
Actually that was the *point* and I stand by it. The AIX kernel is *not* AT&T derived. I suggest you look over the Linux and *BSD kernels and look at the task of merging them. *Why* would IBM have done that? Aside from being stupid in terms of technology, it would create the very sort of potential license problems SCO thinks it can raise. There may well be some AT&T code there, but SCO is going to have to show that it's used in ways that violate their contract.
I imagine IBM spent a fair amount of code building a SYSV interface onto the kernel which they developed from Mach(BSD-derived). Again I doubt that will have been done using anything from the AT&T code. Whether there are infringements on SCO's patent base is another matter.
SCO's statements quoted in the article suggest that [unless ibm worked in a clean room] their Linux efforts *must be contaminated* by their exposure to SYSV.
From the Article: Eunice, who has been involved in Unix for years, questioned the accuracy of some of the history contained in the SCO suit. For example, the suit says that "AIX is a modification of (SCO's) licensed Unix that is designed to run on IBM's processor," but Eunice said IBM was unhappy with the performance of Unix kept only the interfaces higher-level software used to communicate with it.
"The AIX kernel...was not principally based on the Unix source code. It was based on their (IBM's) own development," Eunice said.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
The best words I can come up with to describe Trolltech's behaivor to the community are class and grace. Furthermore, the QT in KDE and friends is GPL and Trolltech lost the ability to blackmail anybody in the community by releasing it thus. They're smart enough to know this. I seriously doubt anybody at Trolltech has anything to do with this. In fact, it would seem to endanger a large deal they're working with IBM at the moment.
Let's reserve our anger for those who deserve it. Trolltech has been more than decent to us.
IBM sells over $10 billion in software every year.
Lotus Notes (#1 selling e-mail and collaboration system), WebSphere (#1 selling web application server), DB2 (#1 selling SQL database), Tivoli (storage and network management software), Rational, ViaVoice, AIX, Sametime (#1 business IM product), and so on.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
It's time to dump SCO and go Open Source!
Live Linux!
And mcBride has no clue! McBride.. read the GPL!
...said the half crippled mouse to the two ton gorilla, "or I'll stab you in the toe!"
"Linux is a variant of Unix and isn't copyrighted."
Having graduated with a degree in Public Relations (meaning, I had to take a lot of journalism courses) one of the first things they taught us was that we shouldn't EVER get the facts WRONG in a story.
Two mistakes for the price of one. Nice going... pretty typical of "technology" journalists (who, in reality, are just regular journalists who know how to turn a computer on).
sad robot making broken music
"It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach Unix performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of Unix code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM," the suit said.
I can't speak for its validity, but it's an interesting claim. They seem to be saying linux couldn't have grown up so fast in the last few years without their patents which are over a decade old (AFAIK). It couldn't be only because there is such a large community and many great new ideas coming into play recently, at least at the enterprise level they're referring to. We know their argument is almost definitely bogus, but I wonder how it'll play out in court.
Developers: We can use your help.
According to the article: Linux is a variant of Unix and isn't copyrighted.
This is, as we all know, utterly false. Linux is most certainly copyrighted--that's what prevents you from stealing Linux code to use in your proprietary system. Linux may be GPLed Free Software, but it is certainly copyrighted.
But the antitrust case did nothing to stop micro$oft having a monopoly and using dubious tactics -
- and Al Gore didn't manage to become president,
as "Things come in threes" lets hope that David manages to fluff this one up for whoever hes representing too.
If SCO has a reason to sue, shouldn't they have done so over 10 years ago?
Remember when Xerox tried to sue Apple over the idea of a GUI? I think that suit was thrown out becuase Xerox waited too long.
Linux, the Kernel, was developed by Linus, and he never had access to any Unix source code. The rest of the OS, GNU tools, X, etc., are completely unrelated to Unix specifically, or, like the GNU tools, were also developed without access to Unix source code.
Linux has been moving along just fine before IBM, or any other big company for that matter, ever touched it. SCO's claims should be taken as a huge insult to all the OS/FS programmers who have worked on Linux. Linus, RMS, AC, et al` should all be highly insulted.
IBM has contributed a filesystem, helped with ports to other architectures, etc., but, and correct me if I'm mistaken, they really haven't contributed much, if any, code that has been accepted that was geared towards scaling upwards, as per one of SCO's ridiculous claims.
Obviously, SCO is just hoping they can get a court to beleive poor little them over IBM the huge giant unfair megacorp. For once, the megacorp may actually protect us. Hopefully SCO doesn't get a judge that they can buy, or whatever companies to do sway judges' opinions.
In any case, IBM has a huge investment in Linux now, and they also have the "IP" to protect their investment. If SCO eventually sells their assets to MS or another company beliggerant towards Linux, I'm pretty sure IBM could bury them in patent litigation if necessary.
Bah! What a fucking mess the business enviornment is in this country. Is it better elsewhere?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
That's about the stupidest move SCO could have made; they went after one of the biggest companies out there.
I mean, the only way they could have been stupider is to claim that WinNT was a UNIX-like technology, and sue Microsoft for breach of contract.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Yet people still buy from these companies.
I think we as a community need to start boycotting companies that sue open source developers for any reason. Even if they are open source developers themselves. If you don't buy anything from these fundementally unprofitable companies, they will at some point run out of money and die. That's really the only way to end if. No one would sue over patents if it meant the the death of their companies. Think about it.
sPh
The whole premise of accusing other people of destroying the value of Unix on Intel by promoting Linux very clearly demonstrates where SCO is coming from. Linux development should be in their interest; they are selling Linux. If someone else is using Unix IP to improve Linux, they should be thankful that their job is being done for them. They would benefit from improvements to Linux just like everyone else. SCO obviously does not see Linux as a profitable business, like IP litigation.
I'm sure IBM will just counter sue them with a boatload of patents themselves.
SCO: good riddance to you.
In the beginning I was Caldera supporter.. Sure they were a bit shady ( though they DID contribute to early Linux development and marketing ) but who would have dreamt they would stoop to this level in just a few years..
While its a long shot, what happens if they DO win? Who is next.. Sun? Microsoft? US??
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And IBM is guiltless? The possiblity that they've tainted the Linux codebase isn't relevant too?
This is interesting, and you need to elaborate. How can IBM taint the Linux codebase? I mean, Linus is still in charge of what's in and what's out, so what's to stop him from, in the future, declaring all IBM-sponsored code to not be "Linux" and relegating the IBM GPL-ed code to a kernel called "IBM-Linux"?
Or were you talking about Linux (the OS), not Linux (the kernel)?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Nope. Not me! First off, I don't like coffee and secound, if I don't have a cup-holder in my car I don't drink hot drinks while driving! And if I'm a passenger, I still NEVER EVER stick the damn thing between my legs. :)
So there
Fuzdout
..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
sPH
If your mom always said, a PB&J is better than nothing, and God is nothing, is a PB&J better than God?
If
I am asking for 1 Gagilion Dollars. Mwa Ha Ha Ha Mwa Ha Ha Ha
That insane, gleeful cackling that you hear?
It's coming from Redmond, Washington.
"Ransom": AIX will stop-ship in 100days
Love?
But hold IBM to ransom?
Fools
SCO away.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Boycott SCO-Caldera immediately!!!
So can we kick thier ass out of UL now?
I cringed the second i saw their name associated with the project.
SCO's got themselves a real winner here!
:
"Representing SCO is David Boeis of Boeis, Schiller and Flexner, the attorney who prosecuted the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust case against Microsoft and represented Al Gore in the vote-counting controversy in the presidential election. "
Look out ! With that kind of history, SCO might
A. Fold under pressure
B. Cower in a corner after IBM crushes them with preferential judges...
They are just pissed off that SCO is a big smoking chunk of shit, whereas all the other Unixes (Unices?) ever created (yes, including HP/UX... HP/UX is nowhere near the trash pile most here seem to think it is) beat it into the ground.
As far as I can tell, the last major updated in SCO was when AT&T SOLD it to SCO, and they changed the name from "AT&T Unix System 7" to "SCO Unix". And I'm not even going to talk about Xenix. Well, too late. Oops.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Actually they're more of a services company these days..
Who do they think they are?
They had decades to keep track of this!
This is yet more proof that software patents dont work and cant work. Just look at what is happening to mp3! Get rid of the patents!
What the hey, lets stop being pushed around by lazy CEO's with fat pockets who don't socialise in the playground of software and freedom!
Lets stand up and make an example out of SCO for pushing around the computing industry!
I suggest a complete boycott of all SCO products and services. SCO email needs to be treated like junk mail. It will be satisfying to see SCO's share price plummet!
SCO, your days are numbered. Count them carefully, believe me, you don't have many.
Try quite a bit more now.
A 1 billion dollar lawsuit will do wonders for share price.
The slavery part was not overboard if you got the point. It wasn't a comparison of the morality between the two, it was a raw example of a period of time where something that seems so obviously flawed was still perpetuated. Any arguments for avoiding or changing the practice sadly end up only being accepted in hindsight for the majority of people.
Anything I say about IP being bad doesn't go over well with business people, especially the attorneys I work for, but after the 'revolution' comes and the world is freed from the oppresive groups in society... sure, thatll happn... it will be a perfectly acceptable view for anyone to take, just like modern day views on salvery.
People are used to certain ways and won't think twice about it unless they are forced to. Laziness, that's the American way.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
can anyone else see the prospective vision where because (and hopefully never) Europe and many other nations don't allow softare patents a notion where licensing issues of this sort make Gnu/Linux untenable in the US. Meanwhile every where else adopts it and just adds everything in that gets patented in the US (if it's a good idea not already being added in anyway)?
Stop that monkey it took my brain
Kinda reminds me of back in the day when Atari - going down in a ball of flames after the spectacular flop of their Jaguar system - sued Sega and Nintendo for tens of millions of dollars.
I think the end is near for SCO, as it was for Atari, regardless of whether they win the lawsuits or not.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
At any rate, i guarantee if SCO had just come forward and said "hey, there's some of our code in linux", the linux community would have gone "holy shit", deleted the offending code and written in their own, original version of that part of linux almost immediately. So, how is SCO damaged, and how the fuck does that justify a billion dollars in damages? Or even a million? The fact they filed suit before bringing up their beef to the point where any of us now know what exactly they're suing over indicates, if nothing else, they are interested in nothing but milking lots of money out of IBM. It doesn't inspire confidence in me that in the weeks leading up to this, SCO has been openly saying that they are looking around for someone to sue on the grounds that, hey, they own this intellectual property, that must give them the right to sue someone for something, right?
According to the articles, IBM licensed the technology from SCO in 1985. Aren't patents only valuable for 17 years?
Now that wouldn't protect IBM if they had actually supplied code derived from SCO to Linux. That seems unlikely from my experience because IBM tries to educated it's developers about cross contamination. There emphasis was on not pulling GPL code into a non-GPL project but still there was some education.
Now looking at IBM's profile, $5B cash on hand. IBM could buy them many times over.
Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
nuff said
this sig steers like a cow. and i can prove it
Jesus F-ing C!!
/.
This is the most pathetic story line ever posted on
Editors post a story with clearly erroneous reference to patent infringement and after 200 posts concerning how evil the patent system is, someone finally has a clue!
This is a trade secret matter.
Not, I repeat not matter.
This is the complete opposite of a patent you witless imbeciles!
This is what happens when you choose not to patent a technology
You hide it and protect it via trade secret NDA's.
Knee jerk infantile dimwits!!
This, in my mind, is part and parcelof Caldera's desperate attempt at staying relevant. Much the way France is using the UN to stay relevant. The only thing that makes Caldera relevant to me is the fact that they employ Linux folk. Were it not for that, they could quietly fade into non-existense and ethically should. They buy up all this IP and sit on it for years until they are in such urgent need for money that they pull something like this. This is a kin to extortion. You think they give a rats ass that IBM is sharing information? No. They need money. Legally, there's nothing wrong with that. But we all know it's dirty pool. This could all very well backfire on them. I think it just might. In fact, I predict that Caldera will eventually be sold off or at least sell off various parts of itself. >
The problem now is that people are claiming property to the very IDEAS being used to create particular products. Amazon's One-Click Patent is a wonderful example of this.
Now, Amazon could very easily protect and license their overall software package that is used to support their one-click check out. They could sell as many shrink wrapped licenses as they want and use Copyright to protect their "IP" from misappropriation.
The problem is when they try to claim ownership to the very idea that they're implementing. Especially when it's not a terribly innovative one. Now it doesn't matter how you implement the idea, you have to go to Amazon for a license.
You then go on to horribly mischaracterize the GPL. The GPL is not "no one is going to make any money off of software" the GPL is about creating a strong commons that everyone can build off of. Being able to get Apache and Tomcat for free doesn't mean that you can't make money building e-commerce sites for people. It just means that you have access to high quality tools for very reasonable rates. In addition you can even improve those tools and thus return them back for the other programmers to use in even better condition.
Finally, IBM makes its money on SERVICE, not hardware. Sure it doesn't fully embrace all of the principles of the GPL, but they don't embrace all of the principles of proprietary software either. They embrace the principles of "let's get the customer's job done."
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
SCO (using its former name "Caldera") alleges that IBM took its IP and applied that to AIX and then took that and applied it to Linux. What they will have to prove in court is that there really is SCO/Unix IP in AIX that could possibly be applied to Linux. And then they will have to prove that the advances in Linux (which they claim to be as a result of IBM's "tortious" misappropriation of their IP) were not as a result of Caldera's involvement with Linux and specifically with UnitedLinux.
If IBM was responsible for the advances, what possible use was Caldera in the UnitedLinux camp? Their only contribution could have been IP since they had no viable distro and no marketing and, frankly, not much credibility.
If Caldera was contributing to SMP, journalling, etc. then they have a difficult case to win. If they weren't, then why were they involved with UL in the first place?
This shouldn't be difficult to show given that IBM's contributions are open source. What will be interesting is discovering how much of SCO's IP might have been directly borrowed from the GPL.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
There are some things you should not do for money.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
So far everyone seems to have posted that this suit is a bad business move on sco's part or that it will destroy their ability to sell unix.
They don't care. They aren't in the business of selling software.
SCO is owned by Caldera. Caldera bought Dr. Dos from Novell so it could carry on the law suit against Microsoft. Caldera reportedly settled the suit for north of a billion dollars.
Next thing you know Caldera buys sco,renames itself sco, makes a couple of half hearted attempts to revive the product and then goes back to suing.
Caldera/SCO is not in the software business its in the lawsuit business. You can be very sure there will be more of the same from these people.
Crash
The FA clearly indicates this is Trade Secret and Licence case. The word "patent" is not mentioned, but here on one-dimensional slash-dot, knees jerk and everyone just ASSumes that every IP suit is all about patents and reverse engineering.
You are probably 100% correct about AIX's technical origins, and there might have been an enormous amount of reverse engineering. But legally, there was never a cleanroom, and AIX was born from a UNIX license -- and that means contracts with SCO.
Linux is copyright Linus Torvalds. Every geek knows this. Don't you wish that the people writing "Bloomberg.com Technology News" actually knew what they were writing about :-(
While I'm no lawer or familiar with takeovers/buyouts, whats stopping from IBM buying SCO Group outright? Last I checked, SCO Group was only worth about $20M. IBM looses this much money when the CEO catches a cold. If anyone from on high in IBM is reading this, take over SCO Group, Fire the executive suite, and to throw a dash of salt on the wound, GPL all the unix (and otherwise) source code! That would end any question that might still be present about the IP rights of SCO Group's code (because now its GPL), and provide Open Source developers some very interesting and exciting stuff to work with. IBM would also assume ownership of SCO Group's portfolio of patents. If there really is anything worth while in SCO's source libraries, it would be available for inclusion in future software. Contemplate that one IBM - a $1B lawsuit (plus legal fees) versus a $20M buyout and possibly even have something to gain by it!
Go laziness!
Now, to explain this to the boss...
Well, I *did* - until SCO bought them and they began running around like a flock of headless chickens. Generally, poultry are amusing, but not when they're headless software chickens.
Caldera's eDesktop fell by the wayside, updates were few & far between.. blah.
I moved everything over to SuSE, but I wonder if *that* was a good decision. Isn't SCO part of this UnitedLinux thing along with SuSE/etc?
Maybe I'll look at Debian or Gentoo. Hrm.
Maybe when you're dead, the prospect of being buried doesn't look so bad.
-- this is not a
1. Suicidally libel the worlds largest Computing IP holder
2. ???
3. Profit!
Glad to see that SCO has the market cornered when it comes to the last gasps of a dying company. Now, other companies that end up facing bankruptcy can sue SCO!
Bowie J. Poag
I imagine it's relavent because it shows that Novel, purchaser of Unix System Labs, forgave any losses that might have arising from dissemination of trade secrets in 1993. It also shows that the whole nightmare has happened before, sort of like the MPAA's attack on the VCR coming back to life in the form of DRM.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If you don't like the rules, don't use the software
That argument sounds a lot like - if you don't like slavery, don't own slaves. Hopefully your logic can fill in the rest from there...
First, I hope that IBM wins.
:-D).
But the suit may be good if it actually goes through court. If IBM can stay off any preliminary injunctions, and appeal the hell out of the suit, Caldera will be in a lose-lose situation.
Assuming the case goes through court, it *may* shed light on what exactly the test is for derivative works, which would vastly clarify the GPL among other things. So I would like to see this go to trial (and SCO lose and have to pay the bill
the interesting thing about this case is that it appears to be in the "DMZ" of IP law-- where neither side is in safe territory. Caldera/SCO cannot assume that they will win this one hands down, nor can IBM because the law is vague here. What exactly is a derivative work? If this is a patent case, what is the real scope of the patent? These are issues that the court will have to decide.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
All bad luck, I presume.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Actually I think IBM is squeeky clean on this one. I have been following what IBM have been providing to the Linux community and it has not been all that big concerning design and features (almost zilch). They mostly provide device drivers and hardware support. I read that Caldera was sueing on behalf of something to do with SMP and i386 stuff which Linus & company did way before IBM even heard what Linux was all about and quite frankly IBM has not even touched.
I miss the Karma Whores.
I have no reason to believe that IBM is guilty. I hardly call the unsubstianted an vague claims by the company that was once headed by Mr. Love evidence.
OTOH, I do have considerable evidence that SCO is attempting to injure something that I consider valuable. So even were IBM to be guilty (as I said, I don't think there is any reason to assume this), that would not render SCO any less vile. There were many ways to proceed, and they chose this one.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
That's why they went after IBM-- arguably the one company that most legetimized Linux in the eyes of corporate types and probably the only one which could have done so on its own, if it wanted to. (Cue "Faust" overture).
They should give SCO 1 billion dollars worth of OS2 software.
Get a free ipod.
Caldera
240 West Center Street
Orem, Utah 84057
801-765-4999 Fax 801-765-4481
January 23, 2002
Dear UNIX enthusiasts, Caldera International, Inc. hereby grants a fee free license that includes the rights use, modify and distribute this named source code, including creating derived binary products created from the source code. The source code for which Caldera International, Inc. grants rights are limited to the following UNIX Operating Systems that operate on the 16-Bit PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System, with specific exclusion of UNIX System III and UNIX System V and successor operating systems:
- 32-bit 32V UNIX
- 16 bit UNIX Versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Caldera International, Inc. makes no guarantees or commitments that any source code is available from Caldera International, Inc.The following copyright notice applies to the source code files for which this license is granted.
Copyright(C) Caldera International Inc. 2001-2002. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
- Redistributions of source code and documentation must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the
following disclaimer.
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions
and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
- All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
- Neither the name of Caldera International, Inc. nor the names of other contributors may be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
USE OF THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED FOR UNDER THIS LICENSE BY CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.Very truly yours,
Bill Broderick Director, Licensing Services
* UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the US and other countries.
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
...legality have anything to do with the way a giant business conducts itself anymore?
That is a big correction.
Send them feedback. For both incorrect statements in that sentence.
Technically Linux is a Unix-like operating system written from scratch. It is not a variant of Unix(tm and all that).
The URL for corrections is http://quote.bloomberg.com/cgi-bin/feedback.cgi.
.signature: No such file or directory
Ducks taste good.
Let's think about this NDA bull shit. A tells B, and thus violates a non-disclosure agreement. B has no idea and tells C,D, Everybody. Someone else has the same idea independently. Is everyone beholden to A because B? Sounds like what patents are for, the ownership of a few useful ideas granted in return for public knowledge. What if B has proof that they knew what A did before they made an agreement? Even then B might get draged to court to hash it out.
People have made ugly noises about the "viral" nature of the GPL but NDAs look far worse. I doubt IBM thought is was giving up all of its previous work and I hope that SCO gets all chewed up so that others won't be tempted to pull the same thing, NDAs that is.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
we worked on that port, it was for the 286, SCO couldn't get it to work and had to go out to the company I worked for to get people who knew how to make things right. From memory the deal was we'd get a copy of the result for our efforts and we were screwed by SCO in the end
First, spend slightly less to spank SCO in court and countersue them for $100 million (or more). When they fail to pay up, take all their assets and THEN fire every single one of those somsofbiches. Thanks!
...that Caldera is trying to SCO-rew IBM?
I don't believe that they're suing IBM over that. I think that they're being sued for "enhancing" linux with unix technology.
It's the only sensible thing to do. Stop doing business with them. Do whatever you think it will damage them.
Remember, they are going after the "Unix intellectual property" bullshit because they are starved, because they lack money. This is their weak spot. Whatever will damage their revenue, will help sanitize the situation.
Look, Canopy Group is an investor in several technology companies. One of those companies is out of control, and should be penalized. However, going after ANYONE that has an investor in common with SCO is out of control.
Trolltech is a privately held company, but they likely took this investment prior to SCO's decision.
As a previous poster mentioned, Canopy owns 5.8% of Trolltech. You're going to attack the other 94.2% of Trolltech shareholders because of an unrelated business's actions happens to have as an investor someone that owns 5.8% of their company?
I have a lot of respect for you as one of the leading intellectuals in this movement. However, as a small business owner, I'm terrified of what you are saying.
My company has small holdings in several of our clients. They OFTEN take courses of actions that I don't like. If you were to attack another of my clients because of what one of them did, because I was a shareholder in both? I don't think that you are being at ALL fair.
If you believe that the Canopy Group is behind this behavior, than I would suggest an announcement that ANY privately held company that takes investment capital from them (from this point, not retroactively), will be shunned. However, Trolltech did NOTHING wrong, other than take an investment from a company whose other investment did something that you don't like.
I have a third party with an ownership stake in my company. The relationship had been rocky, but quite frankly, I couldn't afford to buy them out, even if they were willing to sell. If you organized a boycott of me because of something they did, I'd be floored.
Unless you are prepared to coordinate the fundraising to buy the Canopy Group out of Trolltech (and any other company that you are prepared to boycott in your crusade against this venture capital firm), back off. You're being extremely unfair to Trolltech, who has done nothing but provide amazing software to their commercial clients (of which we are one, albeit for only one developer) and FREE software to the open source community.
Your imagination about Canopy attacking GNOME is fascinating, but they are a MINORITY shareholder. They cannot cooerce Trolltech management. Deal with Trolltech based upon Trolltech's actions, not the actions of a third party.
Imagine if you were being held personally accountable for the actions of a second cousin through marriage? I don't imagine you'd like that. Same for Trolltech and SCO.
Alex
This is an important post by an Anonymous Coward.
This guy/gal seems to be a loyal IBM employee that should be modded UP.
--- Linux or FreeBSD, it's like blondes or brunettes. I like both. ---
The WINE project was sponsored by the Canopy Group as well. The Canopy Group is not the problem.
.SCO came from outside the Canopy Group and bought one of the companies that belong to that group.
When SCO bought Caldera, they bought into the Noorda franchise. . .
Don't blame the whole Canopy group for the idiots from SCO.
So, does that mean this could be patent infringement if the "creater" copyrighted/patented this:
for( int i = 0; i
or what about
while( true ){
I mean, where do you draw the limit. How can you enforce a patent on programming. A lot of what is out there can be regarded as common knowledge now. I didn't learn how to create a page table from UNIX. I learned from the Dinosaur OS book. So, am I breaking any laws if I happen to have implemented a paging system that is very similar to UNIX? Yes, I didn't see SCO's code prior to, but there is nothing that innovative out there in the UNIX OS anymore. We all know how it works.
I really wish there would be some businesses that aren't pushed by money and could be push forth by innovation instead.
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
Nah you Nana! That is "Feeding the Jackals", bite the hand behind this move, ie. Canopy Group
As you pointed out, it's a "Unix-like system", and it's important to point this out when we're talking lawsuits.
Not to be pedantic (to keep others from pointing it out), but the feedback I sent Bloomberg states that it's GNU/linux, and that linux is the kernel from Linus Torvald, and copyrighted by him :-)
Again, thanks.
Shareholders own the company. The company does not own it's shareholders.
A publically traded company can't control who owns their shares.
A privately held company needs to be careful when exacting control.
A shareholder owns part of Trolltech. Trolltech has NO say over the actions of the shareholder. Trolltech cannot simply "buy them out" unless they want to sell.
Your actions are insane, encourage illegal behavior, and is a blatant attack upon the capitalist system. You would dry up all capital.
My one outside shareholder happens to be a manager/owner in a separate business, one of whose shareholders happens to have as a shareholder Bill Gates.
So by tracking through 5 corporate entities, I'm connected to Microsoft. I should be subject to boycott and harassment for every decision that Microsoft makes if I can't buy out my shareholder (and/or they don't want to sell)?
What about publically traded companies? I bet you that one of the partners in the Canopy Group owns some IBM stock either directly or indirectly. Should we attack IBM for this?
You're absolutely nuts and misinformed. This action has ZERO bearing on Trolltech, and Bruce Perens and ANYONE trying to link this to Trolltech is being irresponsible.
Alex
QT: GPL GNOME: LGPL
Sontag declined to comment on how his company's actions would affect its UnitedLinux partners, but said customers who buy Linux from SCO have no intellectual property concerns. "Those that purchase our Linux product have nothing to fear. They have our full license to our Unix intellectual property when they're purchasing our Linux products," he said.
So... All IBM has to do is go pick up a copy of Caldera Linux. They get a free coater out of it, but more importantly a full license to SCO's Unix IP. :-D
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
They all have names for it, it doesn't mean that they necessarily act as management. Any angel/venture investor will take a board seat to advice the company. Depending on the ownership, they may hold multiple seats or other way to manipulate the situation.
I'm not disputing the Canopy is pulling the strings here, but I wouldn't be certain. SCO Managment is responsible. I can't figure out how to cut through their BS and figure out how much Canopy holds... Remember, SCO is a public company, anyone can buy shares of SCO...
I really can't tell how much Canopy owns of SCO. My guess is that they funded Caldera, and would likely have had between 20% and 50% of Caldera, and diluted down with the merger. However, they are likely the largest (or one of the largest) shareholders.
I would suggest that before you attack companies that took capital from Canopy Group before it became "blood money" (which we still don't know, who knows who pulled the trigger).
I think that Canopy may or may not be involved, but we should find out what happens before we open fire one anyone that took their investment. I think that with your stature, you should come out and take a stand in defense of Trolltech, given that their are idiots in the thread that saw a few mentions and are screaming and yelling about Trolltech.
Otherwise, you're going to hurt a LOT of innocent bystanders by this mistaken belief that companies can simply buy out investors because they don't like the actions of other companies.
Alex
True, I mentioned it because I've read that SCO holds some relevant patents.
But legally, there was never a cleanroom, and AIX was born from a UNIX license -- and that means contracts with SCO
Cleanroom implementations are nearly always used for reverse-engineering *patent* IP. Although I imagine some Copyright/License situations might warrant it, I've never heard of one. BSD has been (nearly) cleaned of AT&T code, Samba and Wine have been reverse-engineered, all without cleanroom / multiple team approaches. (MS and others have started to write license conditions that make reverse-engineering more difficult but I don't think that applies here).
From the complaint:
19. IBM has branded its version or "flavor" of the UNIX software as "AIX." All references hereinafter to AIX are so defined. AIX is a modification of AT&T/SCO's licensed UNIX
49. Prior to the events complained of in this action, SCO was the undisputed global leader in the design and distribution of UNIX-based operating systems on Intel-based processing platforms.
Project Monterey
51. Prior to this time, IBM had not developed any expertise to run UNIX on an Intel chip.
65. Pursuant to the AT&T / IBM UNIX Agreements, the parties agreed, inter alia, to the following terms and conditions:
a) IBM recognizes the proprietary nature of the Software Products (defined to mean the UNIX Software Code) and the need to protect against its unrestricted disclosure (Side Letter, 9);
b) IBM may not transfer or dispose of the UNIX Software Code in whole or in part (AT&T / IBM Software Agreement 7.10);
c) IBM is required to hold all UNIX Software Code subject to the AT&T / IBM Agreements in confidence (Software Agreement 7.06(a) as amended by Side Letter 9); and
d) IBM may not use the UNIX Software Code directly for others or allow any use of the UNIX Software Code by others (Software Agreement 2.05).
[some handwaving about specific elements, e.g. jfs]
[assertion that IBM encouraged linux developers to reverse-engineer SCO's valuable(sic} interfaces in breach of their agreement above]
Of course if SCO wanted to go after Irix or HP-UX they'd have something of a case, as both those Unices simply began as SysV with minor mods. Again, not so for AIX, nearly all the core utilities are BSD-flavored (yes there is a dfference) and as discussed already the kernel is Mach.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Ray Noorda was the guy that drove Novell to the pinnacle of their success. He was either a founder or a very early employee.
Noorda was also the guy who engineered the purchase of WordPerfect, Borland's office suite, and Unix, and a supporter of the Novell Linux group that became Caldera. His reasoning: Novell's OS needed replacing, and quick, and that Microsoft's competitive threat needed an aggressive response. He was right, of course; imagine how much better Novell would be doing now if NetWare were based on Unix or Linux.
This isn't to defend anything recent that's happened, but to set the score right. If Noorda had stayed in charge of Novell, I believe they'd be in a lot better shape.
Bruce, wasn't Canopy behind the threatened NTFS lawsuit with the Linux kernel? Didn't some ex-Novell architect which has given information to one of the NTFS developers have to leave Utah because of constant legal harrassment from Microsoft and Novell?
Copying something is not theft anymore than freeing a slave from the plantation is. Last I checked, SCO never claimed IBM deprived them of their own copy of UNIX. Unless you are suggesting that IBM stole market share, but frankly that goes on in free markets all the time, and I don't consider my patronage a right to be traded by them, but a right to be choosen by me.
SCOX
Market Capitalization $25.0M
Shares Outstanding 11.4M
Float 3.70M
I see you're a proponent of efficient market theory where the market somehow "knows" the intrinsic value of goods. Well, the dot com bubble disproved that theory. Lawsuits are a complete crapshoot. No one is willing to place a big bet on one side or another until the judge has ruled. Anyway, the current market cap of SCOX is irrelevant compared to the billion dollars they are asking for in damages. Notice that insiders hold the majority of stock. They cannot be bought out without their approval. The insiders are probably holding out for $500 million. Remember - Caldera successfully got money from Microsoft over DR DOS. Anything is possible.
Perhaps I have no incentive to grow trees unless I can plant one in your yard, perhaps Ford has no incentive to make cars and R&D car safety unless the government gives them a monopoly on making cars, so what. If a the government gave a farmer a monopoly on growing potatoes, and then called that free market because he had no incentive to do potato R&D, people would see it as the fraud that it is. If the govt called it free market because the farmer could sell potato licenses, people would also see it as the fraud that it is also. Perhaps there is no incentive to do cotton research and clothing maufacture unless the farmer can own slaves on the plantation, why couldn't they just get it.
In the information age knowledge and information need to be more free, not less, need to be less regulated not more. I hope the commercial world gets it this time.
Umm...
I was talking about what Linux does today. Not what .Net will do tomorrow, nor what Java has been promising for roughly a decade.
...it looks as if Canopy + SCO upper management hold just over 50% of the SCO stock, or at least have it on option.
If there were no problem today then no solution would be needed tomorrow - I trust we can agree that much.
But you appear to be arguing that Linux offers a cross-(hardware)-platform solution superior to Java today. From this we assume that you see Dotnet as no threat and Java of no use.
All three of these conclusions are questionable, to say the least.
WHO IS RAY NOORDA? I'll tell you...
.COM run-up to the peak of January/February of 2000.
Ray Noorda was the primary driving force behind the initial success of Novell. Novell was founded in 1979 as NDSI - Novell Data Systems, Inc.. It had a Motorola 68000 based network server box for MP/M and CP/M client machines, and sold everything as a high priced package.
In 1983, the VC forced a reincoporation as just "Novell", and forced Ray Noorda on the founders as "adult supervision" (the VC in question was Safeguard Scientifics).
Ray Noorda changed the business model, and the product line, targeting the newly created IBM PC as both server and client hardware.
Ray Noorda was almost singularly responsible for the success of Novell.
Ray Noorda personally intervened, after the purchase of USL, to get the USL/UCB lawsuit settled. I spent a lot of time talking to him and Mike DeFazio, then VP of the UNIX Systems Group, a legacy executive from AT&T who came with the USL purchase.
Ray Noorda encouraged an executive to move on, after he issued a statement that he didn't like, when that executive stated that Novell/USG was "de-emphasizing UNIX on the desktop". I asked "If not UnixWare, what _Novell_ Operating System will computer users be running on their desktops?" His answer was "None. They will run Windows.". Ray Noorda stormed from the room.
Ray Noorda was to Novell what Thomas Watson was to IBM. He was its strong leader, who forged a stunningly successful company from ashes and raw clay.
Novell was incredibly successful under Noorda. It's stock split 4 times from 1987 to 1992, reaching a high of almost $60 a share before the last split. The closest it's come to that after Noorda was almost $50, in the
The one really big mistake he made was the purchase of Word Perfect; he did it because he believed that Microsoft was the enemy, and he needed to match product lines against them.
The mistake was in letting the Word Perfect founders know how he valued companies, when they were looking for an exit strategy after the incredible mistake of trying to turn technical support into a profit center. To maximize their "valuation", which Noorda based on PPE - Profit Per Employee - they threw all people not essential to the operation of their base business overboard. All the R&D people working on pen computing, all the human factors and other people who were working on ensuring the product was competitive with Microsoft Word, all of the people who worked on the VMS and UNIX versions of the product. How do you raise PPE? Increase "P" or reduce the number of "E"'s. And that's what they did.
What about funding Caldera? Caldera was funded by Canopy, a VC group answerable to The Noorda Family Trust, *AFTER* Noorda left Novell, *AFTER* Caldera was a going concern, *AFTER* some of the Novell/USG engineers, so fed up with the NIH of the USL side of things, started a "skunk works" project using Linux, and Mike DeFazio, VP of Novell/USG, and dyed-in-the-wool USL, got it shut down because it risked cannibalizing the UnixWare market. Rather than let the idea die, they left Novell and formed Caldera, funded out of the pockets of the two founders: Brian Sparks, to my knowledge, sold 50 acres of family land to fund it. Noorda came in after that, with additional funding from the NFT's Canopy venture fund.
Ray Noorda would not have approved of the cancellation of the Linux project inside Novell (while it was in house, we jokingly called it "LinuxWare").
Ray Noorda had a philosophy which Novell pays lip service to today, but which they no longer really follow: coopetition.
Coopetition is a word coined by Noorda as a combination of "cooperation" and "competition". It was realized in Novell by having 2 or 3 groups working on solving the same problem, and then letting the one that produced the best solution "win", and taking that product to market.
Having a "LinuxWare" project compete with UnixWare, and may the best product win, was the *very essence* of coopetition. Ray Noorda would have approved of it greatly.
When Noorda left as president, remaining on the Board, Novell ran on for a time on inertia, with an "office of the president". But the three people who were chosen for this task lacked sufficient vision, and couldn't carry off the duties of that office in keeping with the same philosophy and corporate culture. They were bean counters, which isn't bad in itself, but they didn't know the heart and soul of Novell.
Blame Caldera, if you must; I don't think that's exactly fair: they started with a good vision, and they got an incredibly bad rap when they initially didn't release source code for some things that they *couldn't* release source code on, because they were licensed from third parties. Yeah, this stuck to them, but I believe it stuck unfairly. I don't believe the people I knew who started the company would do this.
Blame SCO, if you must; I don't think that's exactly fair, either: my first job out of college was developing and porting communications software to around 140 different UNIX platforms, DOS, Windows, Mac, VMS, CP/M, etc., etc., and by far, SCO was always easy to work with, both as an OS, and as a company, and as people. I've had a number of very long talks with Doug Michaels, over the years; some one-on-one, some with one or two people, like Esther Dyson, present, and I hold him in *very* high regard. I don't believe the people I know at SCO would do this.
Blame USL, if you must: personally, that's my chief suspect. But SCO also has Microsoft investment, Microsoft code in their OS, and Microsoft board members. There are plenty of real villains to go around, and plenty of pseudo-villains who are likely just fighting for their jobs and their investments of money, time, and self.
But don't blame Ray Noorda.
PS: Novell, if you are reading this, you can have your soul back any time you want; it was never sold, only pawned.
PPS: IBM, if you are reading this, realize that, unrelated to this case, your soul is sitting on the pawn shop shelf next to Novell's; you can reclaim it any time you want, too, by internalizing your customer-facing philosophy.
-- Terry
It's not superior to Java, it's just different and working well today.
Yes, .Net is a threat and Java is useful. Oddly, Java is especially useful on Linux because it makes configuration and setup more uniform... :-)
And if you need performance, just write a native Linux app... all your servers are running it anyways.
As this company has already sued Novell for DRDOS and Microsoft, perhaps lawsuits is their version of fundraising? Ever since Caldera bought SCO, their business has not improved nor their profit margin. It seems everytime they are in trouble, they find someone new to sue. Perhaps if SCO/Caldera International/Caldera/SCO Group could present a decent bsuiness model and learn to turn a profit, they would not have to rely upon lawsuits to make money.
This whole Canopy thing is a Red Herring. Ray Noorda, the former Novell supremo, owns this venture capitalist co. As we all know, Caldera sprung from Novell, so it's not unreasonable to assume that Noorda funded Caldera through Canopy. Caldera merged with SCO, thus diluting the Canopy shareholding. .com bust, SCO execs made a power play inside Caldera and effectively took over management of the company, removing Ransome Love. These same execs are the ones who have been fighting a desperate rearguard action against Linux on Intel for the past 5 years. First they ridiculed it, then they tried to co-opt it with the Linux Kernel Personality for OpenServer. That didn't work and now find themselves in a corner and this is the final roll of the dice to save the SCO business - not the Caldera Linux business.
As we also know, following the
And as someone has pointed out above, Canopy own only 5.3% of Trolltech, as an investment partner - they're not pulling anymore strings at Troll than they are at SCO.
I wish Perens would get his facts straight before diving in feet first.
And, of course, the Trolls.
What do all these companies have in common? They're geek companies. They employ geeks, and they sell to geeks. What geeks think of them matters to them and can hurt them. If you're doing business with any of these companies, tell the people you're dealing with that you're not happy with SCO's behaviour, and that your unhappiness is sufficient to start you re-evaluating their competitors.
It's also worth pointing out that several of these companies are making use of the Linux[tm] brand, including one of them using it in it's name. The owner of the Linux[tm] brand has it within his power to have a quiet word with them, although, of course, that's entirely up to him.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Having worked with and for IBM on the development side of things, I find is very unlikely that SCO has a case. IBM is anal to the n'th degree about "contamination". I have seen this over and over in the last 15 years of dealing with them on the code side of things. IBM is the company with source licenses to more systems then anyone is probably aware of and if your working on something that might compete or might come in question you have to be 'clean' from any competing products. Granted, this is not my impression of IBM of the early and mid 80's but I know this to be a fact of IBM well before Linux even existed.
I'm sorry to see that SCO (which certianly only exists as a name anymore) but at one time was a large part of the OS world at one time resort to extortion.
Oh boy, 2 replies. 1 reasonably intelligent, the other, well...
Linux is NOT GNU/Linux. That's silly. It is Linux in the context of the story (first) and it is Linux period. You can combine the kernel as you like and, guess what? I have a box that has almost nothing by the GNU team. But the kernel is Linux. Sheesh, next you'll be telling me it is CDE/HP-UX, or Gnome/Solaris. Or FreeBSD/Mach/Mac OS X.
.signature: No such file or directory
I agree with everything you've written, however your response seems to be aimed at Bruce Perens when in fact it was another poster who you should be responding to.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Novel exists today because they got an early DOD/DISA contract to hook all kinds of nasty old machines to the "Internet". They were the only people selling an interface to things like an IBM 3081 and they only built them after you paid for the R&D and some of the interfaces costs more than the orginal price of the machines and were talking real heavy iron main frames here.
In 1993 I was looking at the low level packets on whatever the AFNet was called that week. It took TCP/IP packets and put them on an x.25 network (using a custom software on a cisco AGS+) and then the X.25 packets were put in IPX packets and handed off to the custom expensive gear.
IBM is very, very paranoid about contamination of developers involved in any OSS. from what i've seen they'd sooner hire someone new than take a risk over licensing or IP issues. just *think* about how much damage that would do to business...
That just affirms my point. IBM bought a UNIX licence from AT&T/SCO. Whether or not they actually used any of that code or technology in AIX, they are still bound by it's terms. HP and SGI are in a simlar situation.
Let's see, you have some project where a talented developer wrote an entire new language. If you would have had requirements that set your bar higher, you would have an interested team, kicking major ass. Instead you've probably delivered slop and your team is bored silly.
This is my sig.
Synopsis:
r ?text=company -name%3D%28CALDERA+INTERNATIONAL+INC%2FUT%29&first =1993&last=2003&mode=Simple
t p://www.sco.com/company/success/summaries.html
t p://www.freebsd.org/o penbsd.org/
a ta/1102542/000 104746903007344/a2104670z10-ka.htm
= company -name%3D%28CANOPY+GROUP+INC%29&first=1993&last=200 3&mode=Simple
. htm
p ://www.sco.com/company/success/summaries.html
s co.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=9996 5m l
Follow The Money!
Go after the owners and clients of SCO.
- Voice protests to the owners of SCO.
- Write to the CEOs and CTOs of SCO client companies and suggest that it is in their own best interest to pursue alternative software choices.
Attack the SCOsource division within SCO. It is the key to SCO's future survival.
Let the non-SCO members of the Canopy Group alone - they do not own or control SCO. Let our Linux friends alone - they are already putting the hurt on SCO. Even the United Linux consortium members are hurting SCO far more than they are helping it. Focus the protest activities and energy on where it will do the most good.
Rationale:
In order to initiate *effective* protest action against SCO, a for-profit corporation, one must first follow the money.
Therefore, let us ask:
1) Who owns SCO, i.e. invests money in SCO?
2) Who buys product from SCO, i.e. gives money to SCO?
3) Who competes with SCO, i.e. takes potential sales from SCO?
In answering these questions, we will be able to focus on how to directly and indirectly influence and/or attack SCO, and who to avoid protesting against because they are SCO's competitors.
The following web pages provide information to help answer these questions.
SCO (aka Caldera International Inc) SEC Financial Statements:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/srch-edga
List of SCO Clients:
http://www.sco.com/company/success/
ht
List of SCO Competitors - x86 Hardware Compatible Unix Clone Software Providers:
http://old.lwn.net/Distributions/
ht
http://netbsd.org/
http://
1) Who owns SCO?
Scroll about halfway down this page to "Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management":
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d
The Canopy Group Inc (aka Raymond Noorda), John R. Wall, Ralph J. Yarro III, and Darcy Mott own substantial numbers of shares in SCO.
These are the organization and people who own and control SCO. They are the people who we want to communicate with, and inform of our displeasure.
Most of Canopy is owned by the Noorda Family Trust. Refer to the Canopy Group SEC filings for this info:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/srch-edgar?text
Raymond Noorda, for the most part, owns and runs the Noorda Family Trust which mostly owns and runs Canopy.
Please note: The Canopy Group owns portions of a number of other companies:
http://www.canopy.com/portfolio/index
These companies do not own SCO. Nor do they control SCO. Some of them have a very tenuous relationship to Canopy itself. Protesting against these companies is a waste of energy and effort.
Follow the money! Who directly owns SCO, and who buys SCO product - this is where the protest activities should be directed.
2) Who buys product from SCO?
Simple enough:
http://www.sco.com/company/success/
htt
These are the companies that provide SCO with revenues by purchasing SCO products and licenses. If you want to hurt SCO sales, then contact the CEOs and CTOs of these companies and inform them about why they should consider competitive alternatives to SCO software.
Also, and most importantly, SCO anticipates increased revenues from its licensing activities. This is part of the new SCOsource division, which is directly behind the IBM lawsuit. SCO CEO McBride has stated that he expects up to $10 million in new licensing revenues from SCOsource in the coming fiscal quarter. Free software advocates need to think of ways to hinder and/or block this lucrative and profitable new revenue stream. SCO could conceivably cut all its other operations and survive on this kind of growing revenue base alone.
See these reference links:
http://www.sco.com/scosource/
http://ir.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030226/law059_1.ht
SCOsource is the future of SCO. As Unixware and OpenServer and the rest SCO's Unix software business dies, SCO plans to turn itself into an IP toll collector. Attack SCOsource, and you attack SCO's future and continued existence. (The question remains, how the free software community can do this legally and effectively. Suggestions?)
And since SCOsource is behind the IBM lawsuit, this is why it is paramount that IBM not lose OR settle that lawsuit; NOR buy out SCO and pay off its senior management. Only total IBM victory is acceptable. Otherwise, SCO and its Unix IP will survive, and SCO or its successor will next attack other Linux companies that can't afford, or don't have the time, to fight such lawsuits.
3) Who competes with SCO?
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Who are SCO's enemies in the software business? Any organization that produces an x86 compatible Unix-like or Unix-clone operating system with System V compatibility is a direct competitor with SCO. This includes most x86 compatible Linux distributions and all of the BSDs.
By their very existence and continued success, the Linux distros and the BSDs are hammering away every single day at SCO. They are undermining SCO's business model, taking away paying SCO clients, and directly reducing SCO revenue. They are also destroying the value of SCO's IP portfolio.
Now, some folks have advocated protesting against and boycotting the non-SCO members of United Linux. This would include SuSE, Connectiva, and TurboLinux. But each of these Linux companies produces a product that is in direct competition with SCO's Unix software. They have undermined and attacked SCO for years - doing far more than we Johnny-come-lately protesters have.
Furthermore, SuSE's, Connectiva's, and TurboLinux's participation in United Linux only serves to somewhat help SCO's OpenLinux product, which itself accounts for only 5% of SCO's revenues. Let us focus on where SCO gets 95% of its revenue - Unix software and Unix licensing. SCO's OpenLinux product is small peanuts in the total SCO product portfolio. Whatever aid OpenLinux gets from the United Linux consortium is dwarfed by the damage done to SCO Unix products by the other members of United Linux and their Linux products.
Finally, to a greater or lesser degree, each of these companies has been a good free software community citizen. They have all contributed something back to free software. So how can it be logical to attack these three companies and boycott them? They help the free software community and they hurt SCO.
Please, let us not be mad cannibals about this - the free software community can not afford to eat its own young. Let us choose the targets of our protest actions carefully and wisely. SCO is the enemy, not Linux distros. SCO clients send checks to SCO, and Linux distros take those checks away from SCO when they persuade SCO clients to switch over. SCO's owners and SCO's clients should be the direct targets of any protest actions.
Conclusions:
Follow The Money!
Go after the owners and clients of SCO.
- Voice protests to the owners of SCO.
- Write to the CEOs and CTOs of SCO client companies and suggest that it is in their own best interest to pursue alternative software choices.
Attack the SCOsource division within SCO. It is the key to SCO's future survival.
Let the non-SCO members of the Canopy Group alone - they do not own or control SCO. Let our Linux friends alone - they are already putting the hurt on SCO. Even the United Linux consortium members are hurting SCO far more than they are helping it. Focus the protest activities and energy on where it will do the most good.
Cheers,
Luke Seubert
Could you illustrate this with some examples? (I'm hoping that communism isn't among them, as I don't really consider communism's problems to be compellingly mappable onto software licenses.)
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Ohh.
I can de-bunk 51.
I have a copy of AIX for X86 dating from LONG before monterey.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
I like SuSe, and would like to see them distance themselves from SCO, maybe we should send inquires to:
E-mail: jeckert@suse.com (Press manager for SuSe)
SCO's assertion is that everyone working on Linux is too dim to have made a worthwhile Unix work-a-like without IBM providing access to proprietary information, and that the only way one could produce a Unix work-a-like is via that licensed code.
It's absurd on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. For starters, "How Unix Works" is documented by the POSIX specs and the BSD code, neither of which carry AT&T UNIX encumberance (which is the UNIX that SCO own).
A number of the capabilities - such as SMP support - which SCO allege could only exist as a result of IBM providing illegal material - existed long before IBM had anything to do with Linux. So that's a non-starter.
And the Linux code is freely available, so if any code or documentation had simply been inserted wholesale, it would be trivial for SCO to reference it.
SCO's complaint contains a number of other untrue assertions, including the one that no-one has made Unix workalikes on the ia32 architecture before - which is simply untrue. Witness the POSIX layer for older versions of NT, the various BSDs on ia32, Solaris x86, and Unix/POSIX emulation layers for other operating systems (ixemul will be familiar to Amigans).
Basically, it's an opportunistic crock of shit that doesn't have one single, unarguable, factual assertion to its credit.