Slashdot Mirror
SCO Threatens Red Hat and SuSE
Guy Smith writes "CRN reports that SCO will target SuSE and Red Hat with lawsuits after they are finished with IBM (providing that IBM allows them live). To quote Sco, "There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done." They seem bent on destroying the Open Source community and they deserve to hear the community's opinion on the matter."
CRN: Some are worried that a court case might give Microsoft a legal precedent that could be used to deaccelerate adoption of Linux at customer sites. What do you say to that?
McBride: In our case, Linux comes from Unix and we own the Unix operating system. How this plays out with other code bases, I don't know.
CRN: What are you trying to do? Some say you are trying to compete against Linux by destroying it.
McBride: We will use our best efforts to protect our source code.
If that's not a battle cry, what is?
I probably won't join the flamewar on their inbox, but in EVERY circumstance where I find their products from this point forward I will offer that client a special discount on the hours I spend replacing it with any other product that will do the job.
Doesn't they sell a Linux distro? They can't sue someone for selling something they provide themselves under the GPL. Another point would be that if IBM release their trade secrets, you could only sue IBM unless the actual source code was the sectret. If someone is selling an implementation of your "trade secret" that's tough cookies, unless it's actually a stolen implementation. IANAL but this seems simple enough.
SCO has very few resources left to pursue these cases against IBM, Red Hat and SuSE. That all could change if Microsoft buys SCO for very short money. Suddenly, Microsoft would have a very strong tool to threaten Open Source Software companies.
"I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
We all know the public FUD "Linux is like UNIX and WE OWN UNIX" ...
but have they actually said what it is they are suing over? What code is it, exactly, that the lawsuit is over? Linux wasn't derived from BSD or SYSV.. it was written from scratch.
Sco appears to be basically mounting nothing more than a smear campaign.
If there IS copyright infringement... and there IS code that SCO has the rights to in there:
It would be awfully hard for them to show intent - that the code was actually knowingly used without their permission. This is obvious.. as the entire linux world is going "HuH? What are you talking about?"
That means that all we would have to do is politely remove the code covered by their copyright, and have it re-implemented.
Is there anyone among us who would not bet money that when SCO - - as a corporate entity unto itself - - bites the big one, it will more resemble a puff of breath than an explosion? I see SCO making its way, slowly but surely, into the Bozos Inc. Hall of Fame. I've rarely seen such a series of boneheaded maneuvers as that which has come from Caldera and its permutations. I mean, shouldn't they have sued Redhat first? If they'd won, they might have had a warchest to use against IBM. But to take on IBM first . . . . now THAT'S idiotic.
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
McBride: System V is the basis for all operating systems outside of Redmond, AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Apple and Linux. Linux is the only one not rationalized [from a licensing perspective].
I didn't know BSD wasn't "outside of Redmond". It looks like McBride has a firm handle on things. No wonder he thinks they have a case!
This isn't the sig you're looking for...
Na, thats unrealalistic. What IS more possible, is IBM buying SCO, thus owning ALL of SCO's code. Now, this means if IBM choses, they may open the source on ALL of SCO's products. That would just be a beautifull thing. :-)
Can all fish swim?
System V is the basis for all operating systems outside of Redmond, AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Apple and Linux.
Ever heard of:
OS/2
MS/DR/PC DOS
BeOS
OpenVMS
AmigaDOS
etc.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The problem is, they're not claiming specific problems with specific code. They're claiming ownership of "Unix." According to the lawsuit, IBM has a license with SCO to distribute IBM's own version of Unix (AIX). This stems from the fact that every version of Unix is a descendant of Bell Labs' original code. That's the code that SCO now owns.
Now, the simple fact is that SCO's code base is irrelevant. Many of the "high performance" features (SMP, NUMA, journalled file systems, etc.) that they claim IBM put into Linux aren't present in the original Bell Labs code, or even in SCO's latest-and-greatest OS offering.
So my impression is that SCO is actually claiming ownership of all of IBM's improvements, and charging that those improvements were illegally added to Linux.
Sounds stupid? It is.
[Note: any errors of fact are directly attributable to me not knowing of what I speak.]
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I have been saying it since 1995. Even as far back as that (1.2.x - 1.3.x) linux on the same hardware was beating the shit out of it. I had to replace sevearal SCO systems with linux at the time and my overall impressions were:
1. SCO was slower
2. SCO was horrible to maintain
3. The file system hierarchy had nothing in common neither with system V, nor with posix, nor with anything else for that matter
4. It was so ridden with security holes that it could be hacked by script kiddiez on the fly. Raising the sec to higher levels (C2) even made the job easier for them beacause half of executables were setuid to maintain the functionality for C2 and almost every one of them had a buffer overrun.
5. The only thing it was useful for was running Oracle on a PC.
Since then, linux has got better. And as 5 is no longer the case SCO is dying. Frankly it deserves anything it gets. All IBM needs is an injunction preventing SCO from enforcing the 100 day clause in its contract. After that it is game over.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
We're the source of AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Linux, Mac OSX. It all comes from us.
...
System V is the basis for all operating systems outside of Redmond, AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Apple and Linux.
This sound very arrogant and egotistical to me.
So SCO is saying that they own every operating system available...except BSD. That's good to know, in a few years the world will be either SCO free, or two OS's to use...BSD or SCO =(
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
You're right, a) that they don't really have any hard proof. Their argument is that there is NO WAY linux could have advanced so fast if IBM hadn't been feeding them code. Completely ignoring the whole "Open Source Movement" thing, which isn't exactly a small workforce, not to mention the major companies who build bits of it. (ie Red Hat, SuSe, Mandrake...etc etc.)
Beyond that, however, when Caldera bought SCO, they did it for around 7 million dollars. And now they're suing IBM for like a billion for DEVALUING their 7 million dollar product. It's completely retarded, and I eagerly await the righteous can of whoopass that IBM is about to unleash.
Even if IBM had stolen ALL of SCO's code verbatim, and Linux had incorporated all of it verbatim, it is highly unlikely, based off past precidents, that they could recover even a fraction of what they are asking for.
I would almost welcome MS buying SCO, just for the amusement value of watching a convicted monopoly, and a convicted code stealer trying to sue someone else for monopolistic code stealing.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Royalties for good software aren't the problem.
/. and let RedHat know, there would be some sniveling and whining, but as software people we would understand our obligation to pay them for it or stop using it.
The problem is their motives, made obvious by their approach to this issue. Right now the opens source community is strong enough, and there are a sufficient number of talented coders out there to re-write any section of the kernel that was found in violation. It's not like the open source community has been hiding it's source. If, on the moment the SCO IP team found offending source in Linux they announced it on
Probably both approaches would be tried. Something like what happened with Blender might work, but if not, we'd just code around the damaged sections. Complete rewrites (though tedious) often dramatically increase performance, so the new code would likely be adopted quickly. That's the cooperative and honest approach.
Spotting the problem, and then threatening to sue people in the order of "Who has the most money?" is the SCO approach. I hope they get spanked for this.
Maybe a little too pissed right now, but this is what I sent.
Well, as a consultant who has moved more than a few copies of your software I am appalled at your lawsuits against linux vendors.
You will lose in court and you have just lost a supporter.
I will stridently attempt to move every customer running a SCO system to a MicroSoft solution if your suite is successful.
You have lost mindshare with the very people who put your products in place, WE determine if your products sell or not, upper management has little to do with decesions at this level, no one ever got fired for buying IBM or Microsoft, this is not the case for a litigious company such as SCO, enjoy the steady decline into nothingness.
Isn't that why the system is broken?
As groundless as the accusations may be, and as much as I spit at the feet of SCO for their tactics, I cannot agree with a system that rewards the richest litigant, instead of the one that deserves to win on the merit of the case.
I guess the US has gotten used to having corporations possessing so much power that it's considered normal to wave it around like a plush toy.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
I belive their lawers and PR people are confused. Last I heard, they were more interested in IP, not source. SysV is SCO's IP, and the Linux kernel doesn't have SCO code in it, but lots of linux software is based around the SysV design, even if the software itself was written from scratch to behanve like SysV. They also seem to think that IBM and other United Linux partners might have included SCO IP into verious software.
Seems like their issue isn't the kernel, but the software being distributed with the kernel.
Remember folks, Linux is the kernel, not the OS. Distributions are the OS. SCO is after distributers, not the kernel. If anyone tells you Linux is an operating system, they're wrong.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
FYI,
SCO hasn't read the terms of their own settlement. Systems derived from 4.4BSD-Lite and Lite2 are unencumbered.
Enjoy,
It's downright microsoftish.
As much as I dislike MS (and SCO), this really is not an MS tactic. Overall MS remains "ethically challenged", but I have noticed that the courts are a true last resort for them. I am actually quite impressed by that.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Maybe I am not enough of a Linux geek to understand this, and I guess this is bound to be snowed under given what seems to be the prevailing opinions, but if the fundamental claim made in the interview - that IBM gave away or otherwise violated significant amounts of proprietary code owned by SCO - then of course they have a snowball's chance. Maybe no more since IBM has those basements full of lawyers they feed only the blood of virgin geeks. But if there is significant proprietary code in open source that the owner did not put some type of open license on then any open source project that has that source code in it has a problem - and incidentally, I interpret that as being the intention of the "day of reckoning" comment regarding SuSe and RedHat, not a promise of a lawsuit, just the reality of having to expunge or otherwise deal with any proprietary code mucking up a project.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Back in the beginning of april there was a slashdot article where "SCO has agreed to allow us to submit a list of questions ahead of time, and we will contain some of the highest moderated slashdot questions."
What happened? Were the question answered?
Are you sure it wouldn't be easier for IBM to simply find a few patents in their archive which SCO violate? I am sure they have patents like that.
Really to sue IBM is just dumb, you know you're going to lose. In SCO case their more likely to get killed.
Linux wasn't based on Minix either; it was written from scratch. Even if Minix was based directly on a product of SCO's, it wouldn't matter.
Well it doesn't even have to be exact code. If they own patents (Like thousands of them) on all parts of the SYSV archetecture, then Linux could infringe without a single bit of orginal Bell Labs code used. BSD dropped SYSV because of that. They STILL had more code which they more recently got rid of, but Linux still uses a hell of a lot of "UNIX" archetecture which SCO owns most of.
That phrase "Linux is not UNIX" was a lot more wishful thinking that reality shows...
Just thought I'd post my comments to SCO here as well.
Hello. I'm an admin at a medium sized company that currently uses SCO OpenServer 5.0.5 to run our accounting package.
I just thought I would voice my opinion that I am totally disgusted with the lawsuit against IBM, and after reading the threats to RedHat and SuSE I'm making it a personal goal of mine to see that Server stripped of SCO software, and running RedHat Linux within a time frame of 1 month. I'm currently testing the Linux version of our software which our vendor has agreed to supply us with free of charge.
I think your actions are well deserving of a response such as this, and would also recommend other admins in my position do the same.
I'll keep you posted as to the date of our SCO license burning festivities.
Thanks for your time.
What's really funny about this is IBM has tons of patents, and I'm sure SCO's SYSV must have violated at least one of them. A smell counter-suit. This is the only reason to have software patents... protection of the self.
Virtually, Edward Wolpert
What I find very strange about all this is M$ admits it's "anti-Linux/OSS/GPL" FUD isn't working after surveying people about their views in the Halloween VII memo.
You're making the assumption that the Halloween VII memo is an authentic, unaltered memo from Microsoft. How do you know it's not a forgery? Where's the proof?
I have an email from Bill Gates that says he'll give me $1000 if I forward the email to all my friends, but I don't think it's real.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
I just thought I'd write in my feelings regarding your companies recent (and threatened) legal actions against respected members of the open source community. I am a technically inclined person and in fact make almost all major decisions regarding technologies at my place of work (non-profit company, 20+ employees, two websites, 10 workstations). Because of your companies recent litigious behavior you can be certain that I will never recommend a product produced by your outfit. In fact I would go one further and actively dissuade any persons that cross my path whom I might think would be looking in your direction and I will carry this decision with me for the rest of my career. This is a bad business move and while I realize that sales member are not responsible for these types of decisions I also know that you are the first in line to see and hear their repercussion. Please pass my message on to the appropriate persons. Thanks for your time. Zach **** San Diego, CA 92101
Quack, quack.
SCO is using all sorts of GPL'ed code. They are in violation of the GPL with their actions, and as such, the FSF and other holders of copyright on that code can REVOKE their license to use it.
I'd imagine there are even GPL'ed apps bundled in UnixWare...
SCO is announcing to the world that they are prepared to go nuclear on this. So, everyone else needs to nuke them FIRST.
How strong will they be with no product to sell?
Corporatism != Free Market
Are these for real?
Yes. Microsoft has acknowledged the authenticity of these documents. Halloween I, II, III and VII are real; IV, V and VI are satire/commentary consequent on
various Microsoft statements.
That link leads to a "Path Index Error.".
Hey, I'm open to the possibility of some of these documents being real, but I've looked around, and I've asked for proof from other people who reference these documents, and nobody has ever been able to provide the proof that I want. All of these Halloween documents could be satire/comment consequent on various Microsoft statements.
Rumors have a strange way of being accepted as truth, especially after they are passed around enough.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
I think this was previously mentioned in a past post about the SCO vs IBM case, but which IP are they suppose to have been abused?
While reading the case
41. Shared libraries are by their nature unique creations based on various decisions to write code in certain ways, which are in great part random decisions of the software developers who create the shared library code base. There is no established way to create a specific shared library and the random choices in the location and access calls for "hooks" that are part of the creation of any shared library. Therefore, the mathematical probability of a customer being able to recreate the SCO OpenServer Shared Libraries without unauthorized access to or use of the source code of the SCO OpenServer Shared Libraries is nil.
If someone compiles something with these shared libraries, does that make that derrived work dependent upon the share code and subject to having used the shared library IP?
If someone creates a compile (say gcc), including its own libraries (say libc), it does not then violated source code duplication, unless code was used in the compiler or library....right?
If someone creates something that has the same interfaces (say posix) as someone else, is that subject to violation?
It makes reference to 4000 applications written for SCO OpenServer. Are any of these specifically gnu related applications which are ported to a given platform? Does that mean if something was written for a different platform, is it subject to the same viloations?
50. As SCO was poised and ready to expand its market and market share for UnixWare targeted to high-performance enterprise customers, IBM approached SCO to jointly develop a new 64-bit UNIX-based operating system for Intel-based processing platforms. This joint development effort was widely known as Project Monterey
53. Specifically, plaintiff and plaintiff's predecessor provided IBM engineers with valuable information and trade secrets with respect to architecture, schematics, and design of UnixWare and the UNIX Software Code for Intel-based processors.
So does this mean they provided any sort of possible NDA Intel information to IBM? Did SCO in turn violate any agreements with Intel in doing so?
Are schematics and design IP? By that I mean, if I write something that conforms to a specific design or schematic, am I in violation? Or since it is new code, is it not in violation?
Has IBM developed any 64-bit UNIX for the PowerPC chip line?
AIX is not currently on the Intel platform correct?
54. By about May 2001, all technical aspects of Project Monterey had been substantially completed. The only remaining tasks of Project Monterey involved marketing and branding tasks to be performed substantially by IBM.
55. On or about May 2001, IBM notified plaintiff that it refused to proceed with Project Monterey, and that IBM considered Project Monterey to be "dead." In fact, in violation of its obligations to SCO, IBM chose to use and appropriate for its own business the proprietary information obtained from SCO.
So was anything ever done with Project Monterey? Did IBM ever produce a 64-bit Intel platform product? Perhaps this would be a breach of contract between IBM and SCO, but is it a violation if one decides after working on something not to follow through for other reasons such as performance, or outdated by something else?
If IBM felt that Linux was a better platform to make a 64-bit Unix then Unixware, etc, then this doesn't seem to be a violation to move to that platform verses SCOs derrived platform.
However, if while analizing the platform, they found weaknesses or strengths in the product, does that count as a violation since it is derrived from SCO work? If that was then feed into so
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
I want to read the story but it's already slashdotted. Now the IBM lawsuit earlier I thought was just a big press stunt, but saying that after IBM they'll go after RedHat and SuSe is psychotic. They honestly can't be thinking they'll make it past IBM to begin with and secondly aren't they going after stuff that is GPL'd in the kernel? Which would mean they would HAVE to go after every single person and/or vendor who has compiled and sold the kernel for anything. Regardless of what the judge says should be proper penalties. I'm not a judge or lawyer but I can already see; "What took you so long to address this problem, surely you had a vested interest". I mean Linux did exist before IBM and if you make it past IBM which i'd probably fall over dead at that news but if, infact you do there is just no way you'll be allowed to exist selling "Unix" anymore. If you are an investor and invest in SCO; I'd sell right now before the IBM lawyers decide to rip SCO down to bare nothing, make them go bankrupt and then buy all their shit at an auction to recoup the lawyer fees.
SCO, you will not be missed and I think the place where you once stood will be scorched earth and well deserved. You're terrorists by every definition of the word.
SCO DOES believe that IBM has illegally taken SCO Intellectual Property and deliberately fed it into the linux community. If you read the complaint the scenario goes something like this...
SCO and IBM enter into agreement to produce 'hardened' Unix for the Intel Platform. When this development is done, and SCO expects IBM to market it, IBM says "nevermind we don't want to go in that direction anymore". Months later IBM announces an initiative to help the linux community 'harden' linux
SCO claim that IBM illegally used what they learned from SCO to make IP contributions to Linux. So even if the code wasn't copied the knowhow was illegally transfered from a private partnership with huge NDA coverage, to a public project without SCO's consent. If this is true, they have a case against IBM
I do not know what there case may be against Red Hat etc.
Keep passing the open windows...
but I'll quote this from SCO's website anyway:
:)
In the case at hand, SCO initially approached IBM about this diplomatically. However, in the end we came to an impasse. More than three decades and billions of dollars have gone into developing UNIX, and SCO has a responsibility to protect that investment for the benefit of every customer, developer, reseller, shareholder, employee and partner. Thus it has become necessary to protect this highly valuable asset through the legal system.
Isn't it obvious that UNIX today is so valuable that Linux and any OSS competitor must pay licenses and royalties to SCO even though GNU/Linux is NOT UNIX.
I think SCO's board is just sad because they lied to their investors about the value of UNIX.
And these are the execs responsible for their recent childish actions:
Darl C. McBride - President, CEO
Robert K. Bench - CFO
Sean Wilson - SVP Corp
Jeff Hunsaker - SVP Sales / Marketting
Chris Sontag - SVP GM SCOsource division
Opinder Bawa - SVP Engineering, Global Services
Reg Broughton - SVP Worldwide Ops
All of them stupid white men except Opinder Bawa, which I suspect doesn't have much to do with this. But I don't know all the details, so please comment and fill in anything I'm missing or correct me where I'm wrong.
Yes, Microsoft wrote Xenix, which in the day was partially the foundation for SCO. SCO and Microsoft got into several heated lawsuits over the Microsoft code and SCO was eventually freed from it's contractual obligations. Then a dying SCO was sold to Caldera. Then AT&T sold the official Unix codebase to Caldera, which changed it's name back to SCO.
Yeah, I can see how they're all related.
From a business perspective, such a policy can make good sense. According to a book I once read, Xerox came to the same conclusion. Back in the 60's and 70's, they chased after everybody that might be violating their patents, but in the 1980's they decided that chasing people through the courts was a distraction from their main business and more trouble than it was worth.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
To whom it may concern,
This is to inform the SCO Group that as of May 1st, 2003 if all litigation against IBM and possibly Red Hat and SuSE is not halted that I, Orlando Echevarria will cease to recommend and use ALL SCO Group products.
As a result of the recent legal actions by the SCO Group against IBM and the Open Source movement, I have come to the conclusion and believe that they have no merit. I, along with others feel this way and as a result, I am taking this action. This is nothing personal against anyone in the SCO Group company, but from the standpoint of the customer and user, this legal action by the SCO Group is being viewed as an attack against the Open Source movement and is based on greed. We all have mouths to feed and roof to put over our heads but through litigation; this is not the responsible way to handle this situation.
Please note that the ban and dis-promotion of all SCO Group products will not take affect until May 1st, 2003 or SCO Group terminates its litigation against IBM before the May 1st 2003 deadline.
Please know that, I have evaluated the situation at hand and have come to this very difficult decision after a lengthly deliberation based on the facts available.
Former OpenLinux User,
Cycloneous
------8<--------8<--------
I do not understand why you are pursuing these blatantly insane legal shenanigans. As a SCO stock holder, I do not feel that your present actions are in the best interest of me, my shares or the Linux world in general. I originally purchased $4500 worth of stock at the IPO and had intended to keep this stock for the long haul, even though it is now nearly worthless. But if you insist in your attempts to harm the Linux and, by association, the IT/IS world I will have to dump my shares.
I had great hopes for Caldera. I go back far enough to remember when it first started up; when the name changed from Corsair to Caldera; I helped friends with recommendation to use Caldera Linux and even helped a friend get a job there. Now, it seems like you are doing everything you can to kill Linux, UnixWare & SCO Unix. It is a shame.
------8<--------8<--------
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
strip out the IP sco licensed from Microsoft from openServer and it wouldn't even boot! SCO bought Xenix from Microsoft, and it the base for their OS, Microsoft copyright notices are all over it. That's why this suit is going to be very interesting, so much of the source code was bought and sold, often in circles, that it may take a decade in court to figure out who realy owns what.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds