Slashdot Mirror
IBM Denies Charges of Unix Theft
ahooton writes "C|net is
reporting
that SCO has filed a lawsuit accusing IBM of theft of it's Unix intellectual property. SCO
alleges this occurred because IBM released portions
of the Unix system, owned by SCO, in to Linux." While the suit is nothing new, IBM's retort is. IBM asserts it is innocent of any charges of wrongdoing. Additionally, IBM is accusing SCO of trying to stifle Linux development through the use of the courts.
no that was the "evil bit" story
I know it's been said before, but...
SCO's real purpose behind this lawsuit is not to get money, but to publicize itself in hopes of finding a larger company to buy them.
SCO's business hasn't been so great lately, and...they're just a little desperate at this point.
I am just waiting for Microsoft to be sued for stealing other people's code.
SCO alleges this occurred because IBM released portions of the Unix system, owned by SCO, in to Linux.
I've understood that they've reimplemented some technology in Linux, but have they really just taken the existing pieces and put them into Linux? I doubt it.
Would someone care to shed some light on the subject?
.: Max Romantschuk
Just like Apple and BSD..
What I hope this means, is that IBM will once and for-all put an end to this SCO FUD. Who knows the true reason behind SCO's logic, but whatever it is, we dont need it ;)
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Well, i understand that almost everything that says anything against open source is deemed evil!
But we'l finally know wat the truth is. CO Group Chief Executive Darl McBride has said that they have strong evidence. If so we'l know it soon.
But in anycase, since when did stealing become a crime? hello! Microsoft ? Rings a bell??
Seriously, how is this news? Did anyone expect anything else?
....LINUX DOSN'T SUCK!!
...it's "At Least SCO went after the big guys first."
There is no RIAA-suing-college-kids style lawsuit here. They went right after someone who could afford to defend themselves, instead of trashing say, SuSe and RedHat.
On the other hand, it's IBM, who probably even has a patent on human life for christ sakes. Therefore I doubt we'll be seeing much more of SCO, especially if this suit doesn't hold water.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
does having once been a system v developer, with full access to the code, taint you from being a linux kernel developer?
The good thing is that right now you can run linux on IBM's zSeries, AS/400, RISC6000,... all the way down to a PDA. It's no joke to say that there is alot of money about to be made... That's the real reasonb for this suit...
||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.
But its spellchukkker sure does.
In fact, SCO alleges that "Lines from Unix's source code have been copied into the heart of Linux, sometimes exactly and sometimes in a modified form designed to disguise their origin". Link
Here is another CNet article on what SCO Group Chief Executive Darl McBride thinks on this issue. From the article,
"We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code," McBride said in an interview
Interesting... eh?
getSexySig();
From a different CNet article about the lawsuit:
...:
"HP did a complete buyout of Unix licensing from SCO," HP spokesman Brian Garabedian said. "We have a perpetual license rather than per copy license for HP-UX...We don't believe we have any exposure to the SCO lawsuit."
Sun, too, bought out its Unix license, said John Loiacono, vice president of Sun's operating platforms group.
"We bought our Unix license out....We are unencumbered for all things," including Sun's version of Linux, he said.
And then in the linked article:
IBM did make one argument defending its use of Unix intellectual property, saying it has the "irrevocable, fully paid-up and perpetual right to use the 'proprietary software' that it is alleged to have misappropriated or misused."
It sounds like IBM believes that they have "bought out" its license as well. So
1) Did SCO mislead IBM (and possibly HP, Sun, etc) with these license buyouts?
2) Is SCO trying to make everyone forget about the license buyouts?
3) Does SCO consider the buyouts invalid for some reason?
The whole thing is just weird. SCO is done. Even if they win, no one will ever trust them again. They could produce an OS that whipped any commercial or OSS implementation, but no one would buy it. Had they attacked a smaller, but significant target first (Sun?) they might have had a chance at getting bought out. But with IBM, I don't think they will bother, they'll just crush SCO. They have unfathomable resources. IBM could even afford to lose the case. Sun couldn't.
the no
Has anyone else seen the comments McBride has been making lately? Here's some choice quotes from news.com.com.com.com's unbiased and uninflammatory article, "Code Red for open source?":
"We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code," McBride said in an interview.
Please note that he has refused to release examples of this.
In addition, he said, "We're finding code that looks likes it's been obfuscated to make it look like it wasn't UnixWare code--but it was."
Please note that he has also refused to release examples of this, too.
"The Linux community would have me publish it now, (so they can have it) laundered by the time we can get to a court hearing. That's not the way we're going to go."
Yeah, that's a great excuse to not actually give any evidence of the accusations you're making - tell people that 'the Linux community' will try and sanitize every existing copy of the source code to all the versions of the kernel containing this supposed SCO source - which, he says, has been in the kernel for 'several years'! Perhaps he missed the bit where his lawyers briefed him on the GPL and how it lets anybody have a copy of the source code - including SCO itself! Is he really suggesting that SCO lacks the ability to keep a copy of all currently extant versions of the Linux kernel to use as evidence? F'chrissakes, the md5 checksums of Linus's kernels are public knowledge - if anybody tried to 'sanitize' a particular version, it'd be ridiculously easy to prove that it'd been changed since its original release.
"This is not about 10 lines of code, it's about 20 years of extremely valuable intellectual property we're trying to protect...Am I supposed to lie down and not say anything about it?" McBride said. "There's a certain point here where you stand up for what's right and let the chips fall where they will."
Gotta love that last line... McBride wouldn't know "what's right" if it came up and bit his ass.
I can't even begin to express my disgust for a company that insults, intimidates and sues the very people who have made it possible for SCO to distribute their own version of Linux. Crawl away and disappear, McBride - you're a liar and you know it.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Last I heard, IBM was asking SCO to state specifically what code they were alleging that IBM had used, and IBM had gotten no answer. Today's story still has IBM describing SCO's allegations as "unsupported." If the nice folks at SCO can't back up their claims, are they just betting that the effect of the news stories on their business ("no bad publicity") will be greater than the losses they'll take for filing a frivolous lawsuit? What am I missing here?
Think, write, think, edit, think...then post.
You had to figure SCO's real motive was to get IBM to buy them in order to avoid the lawsuit.
I was really hoping that, rather than do this, IBM would sue SCO into oblivion. It's quite gratifying to see it actually happen.
Woo hoo!
Follow the adventures of the new wandering jews
If SCO brings in RIAA, half the lawsuit will have "copyright infringement violation" in it and the lawsuit will go in the quadrillions.
That there is the SCO reply saying that they have hired consultants and found major code duplications between UnixWare and Linux, although they will not release the information about what parts of code they are talking about that has been duplicated. Article also quotes SCO's Darl McBride:
"We feel very good about the evidence that is going to show up in court. We will be happy to show the evidence we have at the appropriate time in a court setting."
I hope they are bluffing, or IBM will just buy SCO out and be done with it.
hahah, I love how this was modded as redundant
:P
Like: "As if it needs to be said"
.... Only linux users do ....
:)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Posted as anonymous for an obvious reason.
We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code
And where's the proof SCO (or some programmer there) didn't use the GPLed code of Linux, and shove it into their own sorry excuse of an OS??? According to the GPL, they can do this all day long as long as they release their changes back. But who's to say, some young, enterprising programmer at SCO didn't get stuck with some piece of SCO kernel code he could not get working right, so he 'borrowed' some Linux code lines, tweaked them into place, and hoped no one would find out. You'd better be DAMN sure this isn't the case, McBride, or you'll lose your 20 years of IP crap by violating the GPL!! Wouldn't that just take the cake!! Think about that while you feel the icy water lap around your ankles as your ship slowly glides to a watery death.
For those who describe their systems as 'boxen', do you order multiple 'boxen' of corn flakes also?
With SCO being closed source, who is to say that SCO didn't steal Linux code and then claim the opposite?
How do you defend against ANY closed source project doing the same?
It would be a very scary tactic that could kill OSS.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Maybe those Unix license buyouts will protect Sun and HP against SCO's lawyers, but if their versions of Linux can't be redistributed freely then the GPL require that Sun and HP not distribute them at all.
What's with the mods? There isn't really much to say about this other than... what did you expect IBM to do... Get all walked over like a doormat?
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
I found the code that matches up exactly, the top five matches are ( drum roll )
.cpp file! Linux developers will pay for this blatant violation of SCO's IP rights!
5) for ( int x=0;x lt 10;x++)
4) while ( x lt 10 ) {
3) #include stdio.h
2) #include math.h
1) int main( String args[] )
Number 1) shows up in every
Note: for some reason the board wigged out with greater than and less than signes, so I had to leave those out. lt = less than
I can't afford a sig!
I would think that mnay people have the same idea and as long as it isn't pateneted then people can share. I mean if you look at high end machines there are a number of things that are shared such as cross node memory. Now you don't seem the trying to sue each other do you?
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Out of curiousity, has anyone ever considered the possibility of a group of people individually filing a claim in small claims court against a company that is doing something they don't like?
In this case, for example, what if we could mobilize a few thousand people who use Linux professionally to sue SCO for slander? Professionals who use Linux are risking their reputation on it; SCO saying that Linux uses stolen code reflects badly on the professional. If what SCO is saying is untrue, that's slander and is in fact causing damages, yes?
Now, here's the trick -- if 5000 professionals who are effected by this in the USA were to file claims in small claims court of say, $1000, then SCO would have to simultaneously defend 5000 cases, or risk losing $5 million in damages.
What kind of effect do you think that would have on a company of SCO's size? Catastrophic, I'd think. And what's nice is that since they're impuning our professional judgment without providing any truth, we should have a cause of action.
If this is doable, this could be a serious way for a large community such as the free software community to show extreme displeasure with companies that do stuff like this, and for it to really count.
Any lawyers or anyone with professional knowledge out there that can comment?
This is the most cheapest way to try to earn money. SCO can't stand up to themselves to come up with good product, so they found the most ugliest route to get money. Kudos SCO !
Ok - so you've unix' IP, so what ? What have you done with it. Hybernate and wait for unix to hatch by itself and pour money on you. Come on...
SCO's real purpose is not prove Linux' authenticity, its just a cheap trick to earn money( if they're going to get a dime ). Besides, I hope folks in M$ should be very happy tonight, laughing and feel as if they've got something for their bait...
Time will tell as who is the real beneficiary is... FUD over Linux at this point - I won't say is bad, because we don't know as how it spins out but it certainly will be a bump in this superfast drive.
No, because IBM has an SCO license. It's not illegal for another Linux vendor to sell Linux. It *is* a violation of contract for IBM (however unlikely) to use code from their licensed Unix and put it into Linux and attempt to GPL it.
May we never see th
Article says that there won't be a free slot in court for 2 years. SCO will be dead by then.
Another quality dupe from Slashdot's crack editorial staff. Quick! Cut'n'paste those 5-rated comments! Score some cheap karma!
Yeah, but your spelling does ;-P
At the Kwik-E-Mart, Bart plays backseat driver as Laura plays ``Death Row''. Upon reaching the Conservative Judge, the Insanity Plea fails to work, so Bart suggests a Change of Venue. Unfortunately, it changed to the Texas electric chair. ``If I'd hit the Remorse button one more time I would'a made it.''
IBM's gonna defend Linux. This was the only thing I was worried about, that IBM would cut a deal with SCO and leave linux users out in the cold. Now that IBM's going to defend itself (and by extention linux) SCO is pretty much done for. I'm really looking forward to that company going bankrupt after what they said about Redhat and Suse.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"As somone who walked for SCO (or rather Caldera how it was called at that :)
:)
time) I can tell you this is utter crap. There were very people actually
doing Linux kernel work then (and when the German office was closed down
all those left the company) and we really had better things to do then
trying to retrofit UnixWare code into the linux kenrel. Especially given
that the kernel internals are so different that you'd need a big glue
layer to actually make it work and you can guess how that would be
ripped apart in a usual lkml review
It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware,
I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in
the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare.."
Could be intresting
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Linux has white space, our IP has white space, clearly they stole it. QED.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There are bound to be sections of code that coincide slightly in such a large project. It's hardly proof of plagiarism.
IBM is accusing SCO of trying to stifle Linux development through the use of the courts
Taken from paragraph 82 of the lawsuit filed by SCO against IBM.
Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.
Somebody please explain to me how software is like a car/bicycle.
Further into the lawsuit you'll notice SCO isn't actually suing IBM for releasing their source but because they are losing business. With A-holes like McBride I can't imagine why. I just wish they'd hurry up and die.
paragraph 84
not 82
Wow, under all those lawyers, and Fancy suits, there's typical slashdot geek in there.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
...we can enjoy to see someone ripped off by an army of lawyers.
Hell, I haven't gone shopping in a month. I'd sell out for $45 + travel expenses.
SCO, are you hearing this? Reply here!
- Anonymous Coward
McBride's taking a dingy up against the battleship that is IBM. Can he honestly think that SCO won't be reduced to so much virtual matchwood? I'm just waiting for the moment when he's staring down IBM's big guns, and goes "Eep!".
Wait for it...
This what Apple did of Microsoft... Now lets see, take a sys V UNIX and linux console and place them side by side. Now type: uname touch SCO ls cat SCO > /dev/null
rm SCO
mmm, works the same...
If it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck !
I think they could win this hands down !
Now if I give up programming and take up corporate copyright law, I think I will be rich..
Rob.
"For Every Pleasure There's a Tax"
The Man
I like Christoph Hellwig's (ex-Caldera employee) comments on the Linux Kernel Mailing List 02 May 2003 06:44, in part:
"It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware, I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare.."
Let's hope the FSF sue SCO for infringement of the GPL. For a billion dollars. I'm sure IBM lawyers would lend a helping hand! ;)
"Mary had a crypto key, she kept it in escrow, and everything that Mary said, the Feds were sure to know."
What ever happened at the PLUG April meeting where we were told they would be interviewing SCO with our questions that were submitted?
Anybody have any idea what happened at the meeting or have a transcript from the questioning?
Their mailing list doesn't seem to have much mention of it.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
I'm pretty sure any lawyer that helped you with this would be charged with barratry, or for vexatious litigation.
:)
I'm not sure if individuals can be charged with something similar. You'd have to look it up.
Note that the charges you are laying can still have some merit, but doing them in an attempt to subdue the defence isn't legal.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Just curious. It seems that all the comments revolve around how SCO is stupid and wrong and greedy and dumb and soon to be extinct.
What if they're not. What if they do have a genuine grievance. I'm not trying to be a troll or flamebait, just honestly curious. What impact would this have on GNU/Linux? Would people honor SCO's claims if they're proven right?
didn't you know? I wonder if M$ has some driving force behind in all of this?
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
That point, I believe, is up for debate...
McBride also addressed the controversy surrounding SCO's plans to make users pay for some Unix software they're running, unlicensed, on Linux. SCO announced this week a Unix library licensing program that will let companies pay $149 per server processor to use those Unix libraries.
and nobody could have guessed this next paragraph:
While claiming that it is hard to estimate how many people are technically in breach of its licensing terms, McBride said it's "very widespread and would generate a revenue stream in the millions of dollars. We know who they are." But he stressed that this is a "friendly move" by the company, which would be flexible in determining what customers who had been using the software in an unlicensed way for some time would be charged.
Maybe IBM should move the court to order that SCO file their "evidence" under seal with the court right now.
"We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code," McBride said in an interview.
:-)
Please note that he has refused to release examples of this.
OK I'll provide some examples
1) #include
2) #define __DEBUG
3) ptr=*x->next
*shudder*
You think OpenServer is bad... try OpenServer running Microsoft Xenix binaries using its compatability layer? Our Accts and bookings system doesn't read TERMCAP, and was written before Terminfo existed. Sheer hell.
I'd like to ask SCO this question:
SCO, please tell me.
So you claim you need (3) and (4) to make Linux '?-bicycle-?', as you say, of the same quality as UNIX '?-luxury car-?'.
Then how was UNIX created before (3) and (4) were available?
Ever heard of the chicken and egg problem? How do you get access to UNIX source code, methods and concepts when you're beginning to write and define it? How can you have architectural experience with something that you're still building and haven't built before? If you have any answers to those questions, then those same answers can be applied to how Linux could be made into 'the equivalent of a luxury car' without (3) and (4).
And for the rest, (1) and (2), and (5) are irrelevant for the way Open Source works and you, IBM, we, and the judge all know it.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
For more information, check out this Ubersoft thread.
Buy SCO OpenServer 5.0.7: Want the latest greatest...
SCO Unix and Linux help
SCO OpenServer: Find the best deal!...
When are slashdot going to grow up, escape their linux-centric origins, and start being a fair,unbiased newssource again?
"In an e-mail discussion that took place 24 and 25 April, SCO-Caldera Senior Vice President Chris Sontag told MozillaQuest Magazine that there is SCO-owned code in Red Hat and SuSE Linux distributions. He also told MozillaQuest Magazine that the tainted code is not in the Linux kernel that Linus [Torvalds] and others have helped develop. We're talking about what's on the periphery of the Linux kernel.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
.... then MS will get a fight it can't forget
Take for example, the name "Command Prompt" which may be counted as one of the "trade secret of unix"
This time MS has to face not only IBM, but also The Regents of The University of California which happen to be the rightful owners of *BSD.
If MS wanna fights the world, then the world will fight back.
It's that simple.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
It is times like this when I wish that Stallman et. al and linus didn't mess with *NIX. Really it seems that if you touch *NIX at all you are just waiting for a court battle.
:)
Of course then "GNU's not Unix" wouldn't have such a ironic twist
ps. I love linux,bsd and really only use *NIX based systems, but it is really hard to find an organization that hasn't been sued over it's history with unix.
Or actually 3000 times bigger, in terms of market capitalization.
Does anybody have a link ?
Anonymous Coward
Sadly, the MS FUD has already started. In the wonderfully written "Code Red for Open Source" article at Cnet which is fair and balanced (in that Fox News kind of way) Balmer is quoted as saying something to the effect, "See, you dont know who's writing your OSS software."
If MS wants to make it a "lose-lose" situation for the IBM-Linux alliance, then we can make it a "lose-lose-lose" situation where NOBODY came out a winner.
Steve Ballmer may thinks he owns the world, but he ain't, at least not yet.
Believe it or not, MS still depend on the world for its own survival, Mr. Ballmer may think otherwise, but if MS crosses the line, the world will shuns MS like a plague.
No one is an island in this world, MS is no exception. If MS really wants a fight, then lets make it one that MS wins nothing but financial ruins.
MS is already suffering from utter Moral Bankrupcy, and from there it's a very short trip to Financial Bankrupcy.
IBM has learnt the bitter lesson back in the 80's, mebbe it's MS turn this time around.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
IANAL, but it seems to me that there must be a defensive line against the SCO suit in the mere fact that it has promulgated that policy. Of course the existence of the policy is no guarantee that it is going to be adhered to 100%, but in the (unlikely) event that SCO is able to establish that some illegal copying of their material did take place, the corporation can hold its hands up and ask what more it could have done to prevent it.
How cowardly of SCO to go after the little guys. I say we show our support by starting up a modest (but sincere) IBM defense fund. I'm willing to put in 5-10 dollars.
i hate to flame.. but this is ridiculous..
;-)
this is probably the 4th article i read regarding this stupid lawsuit.. not much is going to happen/change anytime soon (that's how wonderfully quick the judicial process here is).. so PLEASE.. for the love of us and all.. let's post some other cool shit for the time being..
and yes.. the evil bit run-on was cute
I'll sue your ass etc.
Make claims about source code, which as itself is unpatentable (are 'Caldera' suggesting they own the 'do while' loop?, due it's reusability and the fact that there are only so many ways to do things, and that any programmers will probably come up with the same thing from time to time on a totally independant basis.
Caldera's claim that their source has somehow ended up in the Kernel of various companies is debatable particularly the comments about 'obfuscated code' which is a way of saying that the code in question bares no resemablance to their code at all, other than it was written using the same programming language and perfoms a similar function.
It really is all about the money, Caldera had no involvement in the original creation of the Intellectual property and have no moral right to lecture the world on how sad it is when such property is debased, dressing up as Sco and pretending to be Sco won't change anything here.
I've no doubt the original angle was for a buyout but now we've got to the point where it is abundantly clear that IBM have no intention at all of buying them the game is up, and so Caldera/Sco will become a shell of a company file for Chap 11 and fire all it's staff, hire a few lawyers instead and float along with whatever cash they have left until they sink, then somebody will buy the Unix IP at a firesale price, hopefully they will cast it into the public domain lest it corrupt any other mortals.
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
... there's a question haunting my mind; the Caldera logo. Is it a red C stamped upon a blue globe, or is it a Mickey Mouse blue silhouette dawning from the east? Either way, it's quite revealing ;-)
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Yes, let's. While we're at it, let's cure cancer and bring about world peace, as well. Also, we can put that whole 'intelligent life elsewhere in the universe' thing to rest, one way or the other. Are you ready, my brothers? Let us be off!
We can figure out the details later, right?
dalamcd
moer liek CELtroid prime!!@1!
Typical of the slashdot crowd, no one seems to think there is any possibility that SCO could be right. I wouldn't say the probability is 0. SCO I'm sure sees the outcry this is causing and knows it'll be their doom if they're totally full of shit, so what if they really are telling the truth?
How can you even begin to pretend that there is something remotely just about the judicial system in the US?
Seen from a foreigners perspective, the only purpose of this system is for corporations to harass their customers and to extort each other.
As for criminal law, there seems to be a common perception that the more money you've got, the more likely you are to get off. And when people are shipped off to jail, most americans seem to enjoy making ass-raping jokes, like that should be a mandatory part of any criminal punishment. It makes your capital punishment look like mercy.
And don't get me started on bizarre laws and amendments, protecting certain corporations or industries. It can be quite amusing to compare the latest laws passed by your congress with the enlightening figures over at www.opensecrets.org.
Your country most be one of the most openly corrupt, by western standards. Your legal system looks like a complete sham, but all you seem to do about it is pass lame jokes like "too bad you're short on cash!" and "hope he likes it up the batty!".
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
That should get IBM's sales guys to become Linux advocates too!
Sharks don't get cancer. Incredibly cancer-resistant mutant mice have been created.
The simplest way to get intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is for some humans to get off this planet, permanently. It would only take a hundred years or so to get to the next start system - with CURRENT technology.
Yeah, share and enjoy, we dont need your lawsuits!
Share and Enjoy
Share and Enjoy
Boot up your box
With our communist ploy
To run your machine
Free from emipres mean
And when it breaks down
And starts to complain
About panics on boot
Segfaults in your games
There's no disk space free
Missing initrd
There's a memory leak
CPU usage peaks
And the docs are just
Full of weird techie speak
And you've got to stop, for the good of your health!
We'll tell you, 'Learn C and fix it yourself'.
Unix steals IBM!
I'm smarter than the average bear.
Ballmer actually said: "customers will never really know who stands behind this product."
The intent is similar, but it's a subtler shade of meaning here.
Of course, people pay Red Hat and IBM and other companies money to stand behind the code. And you DO know who wrote the code anyways. Their names are all over it.
My journal has hot
I'm not worried. Who needs the feature creep of Unix anyway ;-)
Most of the time it is the Big Corporation that is hitting on the little guy. But it seems like SCO is a mouse tring to eat the cat. If I were IBM I would just let them suck away all their money in legal fees and let them go bankrupt. There is no great loss in loosing SCO anyways. There is still Linux and if you want a Unix there are the BSDs. If I were SCO I would go well our Unix platform is dead perhaps we should change our focus on something else.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
As I see it, the source code for the linux kernel/GNU linux software has been available since day one. Is there anyone out there that could vouch for the SCO claim that there is reimplemented/borrowed/misappropriated code in the kernel/GNU software. If there is, why is this just becoming an issue now? In my eyes, that question does give credibility to the theory that SCO is just "fishing" for a buy-out. Either way, I hope BIG BLUE and the open source/Free Software Community bitch-slaps SCO in and out of court. I've been using GNU/Linux since 1996 and find it impossible to believe that someone (SCO) could make a blatantly idiotic claim that GNU/Linux could not be where it is today w/o someone giving OSS developers enterprise level code. That is just a HUGE slap in the face to anyone who has been doing work on GNU/Linux software. Whenever I've needed help with any problems I've had with Linux, there's ALWAYS been someone willing to offer first class/knowledgeable help......Yup, even on /.
Cheers to the programmers/developers and testers that have given me such a wonderful operating system!
The GPL is not some Evil Overlord's World Destroying Superweapon. GPL violation is copyright violation. Even if there is some language in the GPL concerning penalties for violation, it is up to a judge to set the penalty. The judge has more options than "make them GPL the whole thing". He could restrain distribution altogether. The violator could be made to pay for an alternative license to the code he's using. He could even be made to pay damages and to reimplement the code in question. Like any copyright violation, the Court will want to put an end to it. There's more than one way for them to do it.
Incidentally, discretely replacing such code may not necessarily work. A whistleblower could whip out a tainted code tree. Your developers might screw up and leave debugging symbols in old binaries. It would not be hard to prove in court that a sanitized code tree did not create a binary in dispute. The court may well see a code tree as business records to which the rules of evidence apply. "So Mr. Project Co-Ordinator, where is the source code that produced the exhibit in question?"
Yeah, getting the GPL stuff out your code tree would be a good idea. There's no ironclad way to prove it was never there.
I am not saying that Linux has or has not received code from SCO. I would not know. I just do not think people are remembering that it has happened in the past with copyright-stripping.
In that case, I can see it as a misunderstanding of the BSD license. SCO code would be a lot harder to misappropriate.
Save the world from illiteracy.
...it's about who holds the patents.
If successful, this would be the most staggering example of innovation being stifled by the patent system. The complete abandonment of open source software for fear of patent violations.
In the case of Linux they're claiming that IBM polluted the code with the SCO-gained IP. That being the case it's hard to sue Red Hat or another distro first (not to mention they're in the United Linux group) as their case hinges on proving the IBM point.
So, they might as well shoot high right from the get go.
Anyway this is all just a giant cry of: "Buy me NOW!!!! PLEASE!!!!"
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
The reason I don't get quite as worked up about the MS Fud regarding Linux is that it's a short-term strategy at best.
Part of that is for the well-worn reason that "Linux is not a company."
Part of it is because today's techies and coders are tomorrow's pointy-haired bosses and project managers. Alienating us now is a strategy that will backfire bigtime down the road.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
I doubt that open source would be completely abandoned. It would be a serious blow to the momentum of open source. And it would be a very long time before businesses would trust open source again.
This issue is going to fuel the calls for open source patent licensing. I've seen it suggested several times before right here on Slashdot. Basically, a patent holder would license software patents for use in open source software. They could be used commercially in exchange for cross-licensing of other patents on on the same terms. It would effectively immunize open source projects against patent infringement suits. The first company to sue a big open source project over a patent would risk a countersuit on the patents of several different patent holders. As soon as they sue, they've violated the terms of the license, which requires open source cross-licensing.
They've said that there is no infringing code in the kernel. They've said they want to arrange a payment schedule for those using Unix libraries. Does anyone else think that they might well be going after glibc?
Have IBM done any work in glibc? If memory serves the new super-duper threads implementation had some IBM help.
Carpe Daemon
There is little chance that they can win this. IANAL, so I can't speak to the question of whether their claims have a chance in court. I could argue the point of whether they make sense, but I don't want to get involved in that.
However, IBM has the resources and the motivation to fight this. SCO's market cap is a whole lot less than IBM's investment in, and presumably revenue from, open source software. From a business perspective, it would make sense for IBM to buy SCO and release the patents to the open source community. If winning this fight would cost them more, they can do that. If winning it costs less, they can fight it and effectively disarm SCO.
I think within a short time what we are going to see is that open source software will effectively become very safe from lawsuits. The day is coming when it will be a safe bet to use open source because you will know that it has already survived these attacks.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Speaking of which, didn't we have some questions for them to answer? Maybe they're too busy with their thriving business... more likely the crickets are just too loud there for them to concentrate.
How about an slashdot community hostile takeover and subsequent firing with extreme prejudice of employees and dismantling of the company? Lets apply the /. effect to the real world!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
jesus had his judas and now so does the open source community. the big question is, will the betrayal of SCO through the lawsuit be the catalyst for something big for open source? you must admit sco has unified the open source community against it, much in the same way microsoft had in the years before. only if we could use this unity to further our cause.
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
Why even attempt to set these mindless drones straight? These brainwashed hordes wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between a patent, trade secret, trademark, copyright.
Its all evil.
Except of course for the IP that their employers own that allowed for the funding to pay their salaries. Or of course, the IP that the slashdot advertisers own.
It's also a good thing for both the linux community, and open source as a whole. Lighten up, dudes - if IBM had just bribed^H^H^H^H^H^Hbought out SCO, we wouldn't have a chance to resolve/test some issues (GPL, etc.) in the courts.
Balmer is quoted as saying something to the effect, "See, you dont know who's writing your OSS software."
When you're forced to live in their world, you *do* know who it writing your code, and is unfortunate, as time and experience have proven the case.
Since SCO has thusfar been unwilling or unable to produce evidence of or even point to any instances of stolen code, has anyone at RedHat, IBM, or anyone else performed a code audit in an attempt to locate any code fragments that might belong to SCO? It seems to me that this would be a prudent thing to do.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
I did some grepping:
Some of the original work on Linux SMP was done by them. Of course they put that in (donated the code) themselves, so there's nothing to cry "Wolf" over anyway...
What if they do have a genuine grievance. I'm not trying to be a troll or flamebait, just honestly curious. What impact would this have on GNU/Linux? Would people honor SCO's claims if they're proven right?
[sarcasm mode on, truth mode on]
Since when in the past 100 years (or longer) in this country, did having a valid and genuine grievence actually really mean anything in court anymore?
[sarcasm mode off, truth mode still on]
but, let's be creative here... you're IBM, you're a big multinational company w/ relatively good social standing (we can forgive the wwii profiteering if you handle the next few years correctly), you're involved in hardware, software, services, etc., the money flux through your accounting department keeps people employed and communication flowing between different world cultures, you have the nads to support the people who do the work. ok, fine.
because you are in such a position of power, and transnational in the extreme, you might as well take on the mantle of "world leader" and DTRT for everyone: buy this little company for peanuts and put its management to work undoing all the petty fecal material it and its ilk have been spewing. develop a "ministry of transparency" whose primary task is to reflect upon FUD ("hey we're experts") and educate people on how to recognize the techniques. nothing is more persuasive (not to mention entertaining) than a reformed FUD-monger -- it would be like those shows where "magicians reveal their secrets".
why is this preferable to the world leader? that's for you to figure out; i'm just giving implementation advice here. :-)
I've said it once, i'll say it again.
1) SCO as a company isn't worth that much..
2) All us Open-Source advocates could probably all chip in a few bucks and BUY SCO ourselves. Then we could legitimately opensource thier IP and put an end to this bullshit.
phaeton
Click here or here.
Maybe I'm way off here, but here's the way I see it. IP ownership falls under either:
1) a Patient
2) a Trademark
3) a Copyright
Obviously #2 is right out. This has nothing to do with trademarks.
If this is a patient issue, hasn't the 17 year limit expired already? This would mean that the code must have been written in the ~1986 region.
Now according to: this, AIX was first written it 1986. So patients are right out because of the expiry dates.
So that leaves copyrights. Copyrights protect (sorry RMS) specific works, not the ideas they are based on. I would be amazed if the code from the 1986 version of System V Unix copy be cut and pasted into the Linux kernel directly. I haven't seen the SysV codebase, but that's just silly.
So tell me where I'm wrong. Where does SCO say it has a leg to stand on?
--
Mike
-- Mike wildcard@illuminatus.org
Click here or here.
I guess they could also sue Oracle, but it seems Oracle's continued cash flow depends upon suing Microsoft, but that would basically be the vulture eating the jackal. I dont know why redundant bottom-feeding strikes me as funny.
Perhaps SCO is also hoping IBM will continue the trend of buying out companies that file lawsuits against them...
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Does SCO have proof that IBM was the source of these lines of code?
More generally, do they even have proof that these lines of code were added after IBM started being directly involved in Linux?
Thanks to version control, we can determine exactly which lines were added, who added them, and exactly *when* they were added. So it would seem that such evidence should be trivial to obtain for either side.
I think it's time for SCO to either put up, or shut up on this issue. They allegate that the open source community is too incompetent to have made Linux as powerful as it is without misappropriating SCO's IP? I defy them to prove it!
This whole issue makes me so flippin' mad, I can hardly type.
Crap. I need a drink.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Why doesn't IBM just do us a favor, buy SCO, dissolve it, and end the whole problem?
Never again will I use or attempt to think of using a SCO product ever again....
Ballmer actually said: customers will never really know who stands behind this product.
The EULA's that I've seen for most commercial software products (including Microsoft's) clearly state that they're not guaranteed to do anything, and are not guaranteed to not harm your system or you. It seems quite clear that the difference in this area between commercial OS/software releases and Open Source is that, with Open Source you never know who will stand behind the product, and with commercial software you will know that nobody stands behind the product.
At least with the former I have a chance that someone, somewhere will stand behind their product.
I think the code SCO is claiming relates to the following Characters:
/ ~! @#$%^&*()_+QWERTYUIOP[]\ASDFGHJKL;'ZXCVBNM,./
`1234567890-=qwertyuiop[]\asdfghjkl;;'zxcvbnm,.
So therefore all linux source code, in fact belongs to SCO. So Pay up.
In fact, just by typing you now owe SCO $$$..
"the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad" -Salvadore Dali
That's 2 month old FUD here is something more current.
Senior Vice President Chris Sontag told MozillaQuest Magazine
"We're not talking about the Linux kernel that Linus and others have helped develop. We're talking about what's on the periphery of the Linux kernel"
Speaking sides both mouth out of.
Because the RIAA has the rights to good music, and SCO the rights to grotty, bad code.
May we never see th
Does any of this remind anyone of the situation with North Korea? One rogue nation (translation: company) lashing out at everyone trying to solve its problems...
The problem is that ever since Caldera won the DR-DOS suit against MS, and made $150M or so, it's had the idea that the way to make money is to sue OS developers rather than to actually produce a good product.
And actually, they *used* to be useful -- siphoning money off MS is fine by me any day of the week. Attacking Linux development by trying to run off with the money that IBM is putting into Linux (and giving half to lawyers instead of software engineers) is less attractive, however.
May we never see th
Buy the company, declare all its IP community property, fire every single employee, burn their buildings, loot their coffers, trample their crops and sew their fields with salt.
This is not my sandwich.
I can't even figure out *what* could possibly be copied. This isn't a web browser. It's a kernel. You can't just swipe the scheduler from a completely different kernel and drop it into place. It'd be far harder than just writing the thing yourself.
May we never see th
The problem is that's obviously what Caldera *wants* to have happen. IBM wants to, as a long term policy, discourage dying companies from suing them for any IP they might be able to work with.
Intel has similar rules -- they have crosslicensing agreements, and flat fees of up to something like $100K for patents rights, but always fight IP issues other than that. As a result, you have to be a real idiot to go after Intel on IP grounds, because they *will* fight tooth and nail, and they have a lot of resources to pour into said fight. If IBM and Intel didn't maintain such policies, everyone would see them as cash-bloated companies and try to swipe a piece of the pie.
May we never see th
"IBM said it's seeking a jury trial for the case, but Ferrell said a court date for trial likely won't come for about two years."
And some claim by IBM that SCO is trying to hold up and cause delays in teh development commuinty of linux.....
IBM has NO say over what the linux development community does or doesn't do!
IBM seems to be doing nothing more here than effort at helping to hang a threat over the Linux development community for the next two years.
Do we all really need to be reminded of all the effort to bust MS and where years and years of that has gotten anyone expecting justice?
IBM does not own the linux kernel nor do they have authority over the developers of GNU/Linux.
Perhaps what needs to be done is a review over any source code IBM has contributed to the GNU/Linux source base.
I wonder what the possibilty that this so called stolen intellectual property was put in by Caldera. If so would they sue themselves? Maybe before they did that they'd just buy themselves out....
SCO Used to own Unix(tm).
Bell Labs made a better one
Berkly Systems care of UC Berkly makes a even better one. what's the problem here?
No, they can't buy SCO. That would invite every dying dot-com to sue IBM in the hopes of getting bought out.
A few years back a small company had the rights to the name 'internet explorer'. A legal battle began for the brand, and the small company lost due to insufficient funds to continue the legal battle. MS offered 50k to buy it out.
If you are going in a legal battle against MS, either you 'are' a lawyer and have nothing better to do with your time, or have deep pockets to finance a loooooooong trial with years of legal fees. By the time the trial ends, you product is obsolete.
Short, sweet, to the point, and so utterly and profoundly true.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Patenting is expensive. People might want to code for free but probably not to pay for it.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
It's possible to have a big market cap on a low margin business, so it might be even better to know net revenue. But really the story of a publicly held company is better divined from things like how saturated its chosen markets are, what its competition is, how easily it can absorb risks when diversifying, and whether it holds a degree of monopoly (monopolies can be though of in degrees by quantifying the cost of barriers to entry).
(This might be offtopic but) I find it interesting to note the differences between assessing a public and a private company. Consider a privately held mom-and-pop deli that never expands, and makes enough money on a sustained basis to pay its employees, cover the cost of a decent lifestyle for the owners, and allow them to put away money for retirement and their kids' college. In the world of private companies this is a success. But in the world of public companies, this is a failure; there's no ever-growing profit to be distributed across the pool of stockholders. Whereas in a public company, a massive layoff can be considered a great boon and send stock prices up... but is an abysmal failure in the mom-and-pop scenario.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
If you purchase controlling interest in a company, the board still cannot DESTROY the company, and any shareholder value that went along with it. They have a DUTY to the shareholders to maximize shareholder value.
That's why public companies often don't "do the right thing" and why you don't just buy one up and close it down... becuase the shareholders will SUE you for destroying their product.
Remember, even if IBM buys a controlling interested in SCO, that doesn't make it the outright owner. Control and ownership are two different things.
What would be really cool is if Lunix devs were to each sue SCO *individually* from their respective local courts. That would be really, really cool.
This is just SCO marketing looking for publicity. Just got spammed by one of their commercial spammers ... looks like a marketing ploy.