Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Drops Linux, Says Current Vendors May Be Liable

Posted by timothy on from the so-they-read-the-gpl dept.

Hank Scorpio writes "Well, SCO is at it again. I just received an email from their Developer Partner Program stating that not only are they suspending all future sales of their own Linux product (due to the alleged intellectual property violations), but they are also beginning to send out this letter to all existing commercial users of Linux, informing them that they may be liable for using Linux, a supposed infringing product. They mentioned that they will begin using tactics like those of the RIAA in taking action against end-users of Linux. This seems like it will be about as successful as the whole GIF ordeal a few years back. Where is UNISYS today? Is SCO litigating itself into irrelevance?"

9 of 1,037 comments (clear)

  1. Mirror for the letter by darrad · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is a mirror location for the letter. Click

    1. Re:Mirror for the letter by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 4, Informative
      Why mirror it? It's not like Slashdotting SCO would be a *bad* thing, would it?

      I turns out that that link is a link to a copy of the SCO email that was sent out... The email links to the SCO letter which is referenced in the main posting. In other words, it's a different letter and worth reading on it's own.

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
    2. Re:Mirror for the letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ease of on the FUD, please. Canopy has investments in Trolltech (around 3-4% I think). They do not own, nor do they control it. The control is firmly in the hands of the employees of Trolltech which own the mayority of the stocks.

  2. They'll have to change their webserver I guess... by fuzzbrain · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to Netcraft, their site is hosted on a Linux webserver.

  3. Re:Excuse the ignorance... by mugnyte · · Score: 5, Informative

    I may be just as ignorant, but my understanding is that:

    UNIX the commercial product was sold by ATT to SCO (or its precursor). SCO then licensed this source code to IBM for the development of their own products (AIX?).

    The charges then alledge that IBM contributed to the Linux product by (directly or indirectly) submitting code additions to the OSS project before its first release.

    SCO maintains that the code, if checked line by line, matches their original design and sometimes syntax. They claim that only IBM could have perpetrated such a thing, and that designing some of the algorithms was beyond the OSS project's stand-alone capability without IBM's help.

    By showing that Linux is indeed a viable alternative to SCO UNIX, and that they are losing money based on the commercial installation base of Linux, they can claim that either IBM (1) pay them for the infringement or (2) a judge deem all Linux distro must license from SCO, or both.

    To them, IBM didn't want to pay the license fees any more, so IBM starts to sell Linux as their *Nix solution, not the SCO-compile. This locks SCO out from at least IBM's fat check to them. This makes them unhappy. SCO claim foul play.

    these are the facts as i understand them, but i write this to ask for clarification from everyone.

    mug

  4. SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collect by bstadil · · Score: 5, Informative
    This has been posted before but they can not collect on any damages caused, as they have not published the allegdedly infringing portions.

    Not telling the world what the code is, is a legal blunder of the first order. This means that they have unclean hands, as they are supposed to try and mitigate the damage in order to receive compensation.

    You can't knowlingly add to the damage and then ask for compensation incl Punitive damages based on same. Any suit against Linux vendor in the future can site this as an Affirmative Defense" and pretty much get the suit tossed on that account alone

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  5. Re:"All Linux users"? Including Caldera users? by Opusthepenguin · · Score: 5, Informative

    From this press release: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030514/law099_1.html "SCO will continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers and hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux products." So while they aren't going to sell any more Linux, they aren't going to be going after anyone who used SCO Linux or Caldera OpenLinux.

  6. Eric Raymond's Rebuttal by ctid · · Score: 5, Informative
    Erick Raymond has produced a very nice rebuttal of SCO's claims. In particular he draws attention to a number of logical problems with their case, for example:
    • SCO themselves loaned an SMP system to Alan Cox so that he could implement SMP in the Linux kernel.
    • SCO claims that the Linux community couldn't do scaling with > 4 processors without access to Unix intellectual property. However, Linux can do this, but SCO's OpenServer and UnixWare products cannot. So according to SCO, the Linux community stole SCO's IP so that they could do with it something that SCO was not able to do.
    • The Bell Labs Unix code, of which SCO is now the owner, is not capable of SMP.

    I highly recommend reading ESR's comment.

    --
    Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
  7. Re:What is Linus Torvalds' views on this mess? by ctid · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are some comments that Linus Torvalds made about the issue here. It seems that they were made before SCO started to widen the scope (and the potential target population) of the suit.

    --
    Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room