Slashdot Mirror
SCO Drops Linux, Says Current Vendors May Be Liable
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?"
Here is a mirror location for the letter. Click
It's not like there's a single company Linux Inc. or something with a single database or something.
-- Samir Gupta, Ph. D. Head, New Technology Research Group, Nintendo Co. Ltd., Kyoto, Japan.
...is fixing Dell comptuers now...
They're at our place about twice a month or more.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
LOL! You'll have pry my Linux from my cold, dead harddrive fucker.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
... tune in at the Court to find out if SCO takes the fall. There are lots of people watching. If SCO falls, Linux will emerge from this with a lot a FUD put by the side as a very public failure to sue Linux out of existance fails.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
So, if I understand this correctly, they are sending out a letter, to Caldera's customers, telling them that they have are using a product that violates Caldera's intellectual property rights? Is there a possible suit for fraud there, as they appear to be revoking whatever licenses they gave when they sold Caldera Linux?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Has it been revealed to the world yet exactly which code is in question? I know they were saving this for the trial with IBM, but I imagine as soon as we know it wont take very long to just chop those parts out (assuming its true) and rebuild.
And what, exactly, happened to their statement that they weren't going after Redhat or Joe Linuxuser, but instead just IBM?
"Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened teams of programmers working to build proprietary, secure software. This process is designed to monitor the security and ownership of intellectual property rights associated with the code. "
Wait a minute. Someone designed the process by which commecrial software is built. Why hasn't someone patented it yet?
Vermifax
Logout
Great. SCO is giving Microsoft the best anti Linux ammo it could hope for.
This is a disaster. Balmer and Gates will trot this out as a major drawback to Open Source. IT is, if true, the living proof of the Intellectual Property issues hey claim for Open Source.
SCO is hurting Linux in the long run. It doesn't matter if this is the last gasp of a dying company. It's ample ammunition for anyone who hates Linux and wants to argue against it.
I can guarantee that we'll be hearing about Linux being riddled with IP violations for years to come, even if this is the one and only example to ever come to light.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
they are punishing themselves before they sue themselves. Maybe they sent themselves a cease and desist order and they took it seriously. I think they realized they had enough legal issues going on and they didn't need another one from themselves. I hope the Smoking Gun gets ahold of a copy of the cease and desist. Then, we can get the real inside story.
They are setting an example. Of course, that example is "stupidity". But you have to give them credit for trying.
In other news, Rambus merged with SCO to form the largest legal team in the universe(s). Cease and desist letters were sent to every inhabitant of Earth as a precautionary measure.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
So SCO sold one this quarter?
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
I thought that SCO was already irrelevant. :)
Truthfully, this will go exactly nowhere - even if IBM has to buy SCO.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Where do people stand if they bought SCO Linux? This has got to be the most interesting position ever, even if it doesnt turn out to hold water.
Picture this: SCO warning customers that they may be liable, can those customers sue/claim compensation from the company that sold them the infringing product? Isnt this comparable to SCO sueing themselves?
Whatever the outcome, people are going to feel this for years to come.
I don't know about the rest of you, but when I got here all I saw was a large blue
"YES!"
right under the question, "is SCO litigating itself into irrelevance?"
(It's actually part of an Intel ad, but hey...it's a good magic-8 ball to me).
This company reminds me of this article. What makes them think they have enough clout to even attempt this? They're going to bully IBM?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
The big question, is when will SCO tell us what they think is in violation. I read the last interview here with an SCO PR dude and he avoided being clear if it was copyright or patent. I only assume it's not trademark, because they would be require to say what the think is a violation there.
If there is a real violation, SCO should fscking say what it is or go the fsck away! I hope the stock price falls and they all go broke.
They didnt write it.
They claim that enough of the SysV code in linux was cut n' paste of their code.
Frankly, I think they could be right, and the zealots would be wise not to dismiss everything SCO says and does as stupidity.
I doubt they'll collect any damages. But they'll succeed in making linux look like a grey-market stolen piece of software and drive corporate adoption of it back 10 years.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
their quotes page just seems ridiculous. are these quotes meant to back up their case that linux is stealing from them?
"if i'd known it was harmless, i'd have killed it myself"
I cannot believe that this is actually happening. What can they possibly be thinking? Do they really think that by threatening almost every major corporation in the *world* with lawsuits that they'll somehow make more money?
In the business world, you do not want to piss off you *entire customer base* like this!
Please tell me this is an April 1 joke that got leaked late...
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
This is just a last ditch effort by a company that will be talked about in the past tense a few years from now. They are obviously angling to have someone buy them or pay them to shut them up. They're hoping IBM will think "hell, we could buy them and their patents for less than all this legal crap will cost". Going after customers (and how much you want to bet that the customers they go after will coincidentially be customers of a certain large computer corp, is just a way to enlist the customers into pushing said computer corp into resolving the issue quickly.
Personally I think AT&T/Lucent/Avaya should form a company and bring the Unix rights back home.
According to Netcraft, their site is hosted on a Linux webserver.
I thought SCO was already irrelevant, and has been for years.
I've only seen their useless OS used in a couple of times in almost a decade, and only in a dinky little home office. The only reasons people still talk about these guys is because of their rediculous lawsuits.
Could someone please send SCO a memo to remind them that they don't matter, and it has nothing to do with alleged misuse of their intellectual property.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Once again, such bullshit. Linux is 100% open source. If there are parts of Linux that are infringing, just indicate exactly where the infringement is. That they have not included this information either indicates that it doesn't really exist, or that they don't want to reveal just how small the suspected infringing area really is. We all know that if any actual infringing code was located in the Linux OS it would be gone and replaced with a non-contentious equivalent in no time at all.
Which is why SCO is being so deliberately vague about all of this. They don't want an infringement to be eliminated; they want it to stay in the Linux code base so they can screw over users of Linux.
This is an attack on a development methodology more than anything else. What they're saying is, unless you can PROVE the lineage of your code is clean, we're going to have to assume that it isn't.
I suspect that IBM's lawyers are going to be smart enough to know all this, and will be able to effectively disarm SCO's actions. If there are infringing parts of the code, these will be revealed in a public forum (the courts).
In the meantime, I suggest that the best recourse for a receiver of this letter is to repond, indicating that the entity known as "Linux" is actually composed of thousands of parts, each independently produced, and that SCO needs to provide information indicating which component is infringing.
Or just ignore their f'ing letter.
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
From the letter: Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing violation of our intellectual property or other rights.
"All actions necessary?" Just tell us what code has been copied and it'll be fixed in under a week. The violation will cease to continue. Fast, simple, zero effort.
Or does he mean, "similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we've decided to avoid the main issue and try to make money on the technicalities, while in the long run benefiting nobody and harming ourselves as well as our users."
SCO's been working with Linux, they joined the United Linux group and all.
Also, the code for the various parts of Linux have been available for quite a long time. Why this "sudden discovery" of IP problems? Obviously this isn't something that just appeared with the latest versions of the various distros...
Finally, if the stolen code is so bloody obvious then why not show even one example of where there is direct copying. This wouldn't affect their legal strategy one bit (despite claims to the otherwise) and would grant them so much more credibility.
As it stands it still seems like SCO's jumping up and down and shouting "BUY ME NOW!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!"
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Today, SCO filed a lawsuit against SCO for selling Linux based solutions with Unix properietery code that it had contributed to the Linux development project. The lawsuit is for irrepairable damages and seeks an award of $10,000,000,000 and legal fees. The CEO of SCO had this to say, "We expect a quick settlement to this case." He also added that "With the settlement money and our recouped legal fees, we can move on to other Linux / Unix distributors, such as Santa Cruz Operation or Caldera."
###
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
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.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Linus own the rights to the Linux trademark?
I noticed on their contact page that they have 1-800-GO-LINUX as one of their main lines. Why not sue them for use of the Linux trademark without permission?
Well...
1. They said that the infringing code isn't in the kernel, so thus it may not apply to all "linux users."
2. If it does, then their own distribution would have contained code that violated their IP.
3. If it contained this code, then under the GPL all the other Linux distributers would be free to use it.
4. I'd sue them for harassment - without presenting any evidence or even exactly *what* infringes, they are issuing cease and desist orders. They are trying to scare people from using Linux. They are nothing but hot air.
it's meant to be funny.
thanks , i almost missed the joke.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
I'm still waiting for SCO to provide ANY information as to why they feel their IP has been infringed.
:-)
To date they have used FUD as ruthlessly as Microsoft in the past. I wonder if they are not on the Micro$oft payroll considering their tactics.
Finally, I'm curious why they feel the end user of any Linux product "could" be legally responsible for anything. I downloaded a product used worldwide and has GPL licensing all over it. If we've broken the law then they are responsible to enlighten us.
Maybe someone should tell them Linus wrote the kernal. Or we could sit back and watch them flounder before death takes them.
FYI... I don't dismiss everything they say as stupidity. Occasionally they say something amusing and I'd mod it up to +1 Funny
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Who knows if they're right? They've refused to offer up the evidence. I think it's fair for the "zealots" to dismiss what they say until they see evidence, especially since this conflict has been ongoing for months now. How many times can you hear that SCO says you're infringing if they don't give you any evidence whatsoever before you ignore 'em?
/. would stop giving them the free press over it, but I know it's in their right, and I can freely ignore it too. (At least I know that my replying to this won't enhance their coverage, as I'm just a comment in the mass.)
I wish
Isn't this SCO the same one who was quoted as saying they wouldn't attack Linux? That they were only going after IBM? This company is beyond contempt. They don't sell products anymore. They only exist to sue (read: extort) money out of other companies who do sell things. I doubt there's a better example of why the system of patents needs to be changed then SCO's abuses.
Heh. Did somebody at Caldera^H^HSCO finally notice that they were violating the GPL by shipping Linux while claiming property rights against it?
The funny thing is, they've therefore stolen all the non-infringing code in the kernel, as it's from other people and they can only redistribute it by releasing their own.
(Assuming, of course, that there is any actual infringemnet, which seems unlikely.)
Expect increasingly shrill announcements as IBM blackens the sky with lawyers and SCO tries to give Linux a black eye to force IBM to buy them out before the case is thrown out of court.
SCO published a nice timeline. The few arrows connecting Linux and their own intellectual property go into the wrong direction. If I were them, I wouldn't present this document in court. The dotted heritage line isn't very convincing, either.
The problemo that they have though is that 'SCO' is really Caldera inc which in turn used to sell Linux. There is a big problem with distributing linux if you intend to get heavy on the IP trip. As Bill Gates observed, Linux was released under a viral license which in effect strips away most of SCO's intellectual property rights.
The only things that Caldera can enforce its rights on at this point is code that is in the SCO code base AND a Linux distribution AND NOT in any Caldera distribution that shipped after the SCO acquisition.
The other tricky problem they have is detrimental reliance. Oh and don't discount the fact that getting into an IP pissing contest with IBM or Microsoft or any of the really big players is suicidal for any technology company, those guys have more patents to fire back in self defense its not funny.
The only reason SCO is doing this is that its their last gasp survival attempt - get bought by someone big.
A much cheaper way to do the same thing would be to put the company up for sale on EBay.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Is anyone wondering if SCO executives are on the take for Microsoft?
Seriously, if companies start to think that using Linux could get them into legal entanglements- like what SCO is starting now, RIAA-style- then they might be more likely to go towards microsoft products, because Microsoft and their army of lawyers will make sure everything is properly licensed. Or so the reasoning should go.
Moreover, Microsoft certainly has the cash and interest to put down bullshit claims that might arise like this, whereas the companies that sell linux products have much smaller resources to put into fights like this. Again, this is the line of thinking that they would hope to instill, to steer customers torwards MS products.
Yeah, yeah, I've got my tinfoil hat right here....
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Considering the lashing SCO has garnered from the initial and subsequent public accusations it seems unlikely they do not know what they are doing. What is more likely is they have a deal in place already to do what they are doing. Why else would they go to such elaborate means to get this publicity? This is EXACTLY what a particular major ISV "needs" in it's campaign against OSS. Does anyone remeber a few years ago about a certain software company leaving glowing reviews about itself on the internet posing as average users? This is definately a BAD thing and will be used by marketing to sell Linux/OSS FUD for years to come.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
There must be someone out there who is on our side who has access to System V source code, right? That's what SCO is saying.
So, let's find this person, and get him to do a comparison of source code for us. If SCO won't find the infringing code, then we should try to find it ourselves.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
As far as I can tell:
In August 2000, the company known as SCO became Tarantella Inc.
The SCO tradename was bought by Caldera (now a subsidiary of Microsoft)
So this lawsuit isn't from the original SCO at all, but the new company using the SCO tradename.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Yeah, everything could be moved overseas and/or somebody like Alan Cox could continue to maintain a branch of the kernel like what is being done today but, if I really, really wanted to shake corporate confidence in Linux disrupting actual development would be the primary target. It would also make sense for SCO to attempt to do something like this. An arguement can be made that stopping distribution of the kernel sources and any binaries produced would put a halt on the continuing alleged infringement.
Would it stop everyone from using linux? Nope. But it would totally derail business adoption of linux here in the States first. Elsewhere I don't know.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Correction:
these are the allegations as I understand them. It's not yet proven in court.
The facts are that IBM became involved in Linux almost 10 years after Linux started, SCO then Caldera was already contributing and distributing to Linux long before IBM became involved.
Check this site to get a clue of the real facts:
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
SCO may claim not to be selling Linux, but their web page says otherwise. Take a look at Buy Me!.
Yet another case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
Linux leaders? Last I checked, Stallman doesn't even refer to it as Linux, but as Gnu/Linux. Makes me doubt that first attributed quote.
Surely, they must be. Together, our combined slashdot brain power can fine some sort of damning evidence proving the Microsoft collusion in this.
I have faith in all of you.
Doesn't MS own part of SCO? If linux is going to die, WE MUST PIN IT ON MICROSOFT! Otherwise we won't have the Martyr effect we need.
This won't hurt IBM. They still plan on selling big mainframes with their own software on it (largely helped on by free linux developers contributions). So what if IBM gets free slave labor and offers nothing in return other than cutting out the little linux consultants with their IBM Consulting Group behemoth.
We don't care about IBM and how they exploit free software developers. Or Apple for that matter and their use expliotation of FreeBSD. We honeslt don't care about SCO. The heart of this is somehow MS is FORCING SCO TO DO THIS. They obviously are blackmailing them. WE MUST FIND THE PROOF!
I eagerly await facts supporting what we all know must be true....
-Malakai
yes i'm friggin kidding.
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
I highly recommend reading ESR's comment.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
The only out they have would appear to be that they unknowningly released they code under the GPL and that therefore they have the right to revoke the license. That would be like Microsoft accidentally bundling MS Office with Windows XP. And then trying to tell me that even though the proprietary license says I'm entitled to install the software on one machine, that they are revoking the license and I am a software pirate if I don't wipe it from my harddrive. Something tells me they'll have a tough time convincing a judge of that -- especially with IBM's lawyers fighting them.
Just a few comments:
...
...
From Section 0: "Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
So if you distribute you have to grant everybody a free license
From Section 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."
SCO realizes, the their lawsuit terminates their GPL license to the kernel
I guess this means we're going to start using OpenBSD instead of Linux? AFAIK, the BSDs are unencumbered because of their original lawsuit with AT+T, and their rewriting of all affected code (this was a couple of decades ago). Plus, if you're using BSD, you're mostly using the packages collection, right? If you decide to use a Linux port, you can decide on a case by case basis whether you have to worry about anything.
I hope SCO is totally humiliated in this lawsuit.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Sorry, I can't get enough of that troll. It's too funny.
Random is the New Order.
Canopy Group is a major stockholder of SCO. I don't know how's the people in Canopy think. Other companies in Canopy's portfolio like Linux Networx and TrollTech are depend on Linux.
May 14, 2003
Today every previous and current Linux kernel developer filed a class-action lawsuit against SCO claiming that since SCO has access to the Linux kernel source and mailing lists they might have taken some of the code or ideas from the mailing list and incorporated them into their own kernel.
IBM later announced that they too will join the lawsuit since they have contributed code not part of the original UNIX code and fear that SCO may inappropriately be using their copyrighted work without following the license of the Linux kernel.
The lawsuit aims for two outcomes: Monetary compensation and to force SCO to release their source code so that it can be reviewed for possible infringements.
Linus was quoted as saying: "There is no way they could have written any UNIX like operating system since they only seem to have lawyers working in the company."
I doubt latter is going to happen, either. Thing is, many of those ultra-cautious decision makers that might pay attention to SCO's claims are still concerned about "free" and "open" aspects of Linux, and haven't adopted Linux (or have done so very slowly). Thus they are hardly the driving force for corporate adoption. As to others, unless SCO succeeds in actual legal battle, I seriously doubt will care a lot. Going back 10 years would pretty much mean "no adoption" (I started using Linux 8 years ago. Red Hat already existed, but not too much else); very unlikely outcome.
What SCO really needs is series of legal victories against actual recognized companies. Without that they are just blowing hot gas. And knowing how long legal battles go on, if they are 2 well-funded parties, by the time things are settled in (or out of) court, there's good chance SCO itself is just part of history. So, my money is on "Linux" side, strongly against SCO. And that's without any zeal.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
In general, people are contributing their creations from their grey matter on the belief that they will be justly compensated for their efforts. Most people on this planet would not want to do something and not be compensated for their doing (unless they're communists, and even then...).
For instance, no one likes to go to work for an employer, work very hard for three years and receive absolutely no compensation for their work. In this instance, people would scream bloody murder at the employer for not providing adequate compensation.
Therefore, it necessarily follows that people that contribute substantive creations would like to have their works protected from those that seek to gain an unfair advantage in this world. In other words, no one likes having something stolen from them...especially if they've worked very hard and spent many millions on that something.
In the world of Linux, Microsoft and even piracy in general, there are a number of individuals and companies that are stealing these works and gaining compensation without rewarding the original creator of the works. Therefore, these individuals and companies are guilty of a crime. In this case, they are guilty of patent or copyright infringement.
If it is proven that IBM is guilty of patent infringement, then they deserve whatever they get. In addition, those works would need to be removed and replaced by better routines. It's a shame that IBM never learned from the Compaq BIOS experience and lawsuits.
-Mindragon
Just add {In Space!} to anything.
why do I get the feeling that Microsoft money is somehow behind this effort???
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
Quit... Right now... While you still have some tiny speck of self-respect... Stop what you're doing and quit... Now...
And, it looks like it's run by the same sloppy crew as their legal team:
Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 on Linux
I believe there are remote root exploits for each of those packages listed.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
Them thinking that IBM developers used AIX sources to move Linux onto IBM mainframes with many CPUs. Which is a definite possibility. But can they prove it? It also suggests that this is going against the kernel, which once again brings us around to the point of...
File names in the SMP code and line numbers please.
I too, smell a Microsoft rat in this one. It is so similar to Microsoft other vague FUD campaigns of recent years, that it would not in the least surprise me to hear about it. If it ever turns out that MS is funding and aiding this, the fallout would be bigger than the MS antitrust case, as IBM can and does have the financial and legal resources to sue MS for illegal attempts to damage IBM's business, and IBM doesn't come cheap.
This nothing less than an attempt at "stealing" Linux so they are the sole owner, and the only legal version of Linux would be Caldera.
Here's how it works:
1. Stop selling OpenLinux.
2. Sue everyone except Caldera OpenLinux users, and win.
3. SCO are now the only company able to legally use the Linux source code, and they effectively own it. This could result in the GPL being legally nullified.
4. Once the legal battle is won, start marketing Linux again, as the only vendor.
I suggest that all future work to Linux source code and GPL'd applications is released under a new version of the GPL. This version should include a new clause which specifically prohibits the use of the code and application by SCO, any of it's subsidiaries, or any parent companies.
My concern is that, given how SCO has been conducting itself, they will try to use fear as a reason not to use Linux by first suing individual Linux users and developers. Although I do not believe that SCO has much of a case, but how can you know as they will not release any evidence, the suits SCO would file against individuals would probably be very difficult for these individuals to defend themselves against, and, regardless of whether SCO is right or wrong, these individuals will probably choose to settle.
Therefore, I am proposing the following set of initial steps to bring a quick end to this situation:
I believe that under the combined pressure of a stock sell-off and rapidly decreasing revenues SCO will not even be able to continue its current legal activities.
As an astute poster pointed out on OSNews, they cannot collect on any damages anyway.
They distribute(ed) a version of Linux under the GPL, a licence that legally permits people to copy and branch the code assuming they put it under the GPL. Unfortunately for SCO, whether or not they knew they were distributing their own IP under the GPL or not is irrelevant to the rather compelling argument that they did put their IP under the GPL, and now that they continued to distribute linux after they found the alleged infringements means that no court would declare that licence invalid.
They have knowingly distributed what is potentially their own code under the GPL for nearly a year now. The GPL licence should hold, infringement-free.
The ______ Agenda
Multics was originally concieved of by MIT. GE Information Systems and Bell labs became part of the project.
I'm not sure of the exact details but GE sold their computer business to Honeywell. At one point I think Honeywell and french computer company Bull merged/joined and later separated and I believe that Bull ended up with the rights to Multics.
For more details about Multics you can look at the usenet for the group alt.os.multics or http://www.multicians.org/
1: IBM finds that the code added, if any, came from Caldera, forcing SCO to sue themselves.
2: IBM, in discovery, demands a receives the source to SCO's flavors of Unix and finds evidence that SCO stole GPL'd source code to put into unixware / openserver. Sco is forced to release the whole shebang under the GPL.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
Another good reason to use OpenBSD or FreeBSD.
Distributing your *own* software under the GPL does not affect your copyright ownership rights to it. SCO is claiming the code is copyrighted by them. This in fact would mean they are the only entity that can distribute it, under the GPL or any other license.
Except, of course that if SCO have knowingly distributed it under the GPL then anyone else also has the right to distribute it under the GPL - it doesn't prevent SCO selling it under another license, but it would mean everyone else has the right to continue to distribute it.
It says Vendors may be liable. If the Editor actually RTFA'd, he might have noticed that SCO is actually planning on trying to hold END-USERS liable, not vendors. IBM is the only Linux vendor they have (tried to?) go after so far.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
The site www.sco.com is running Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 on Linux.
Looks like they need to shut down their own website.
How can we band together to stop idiots like this?
Refreshing to see understanding about SCO's true actions.
The more people who understand that SCO has no teeth, the less effect it can have in terms of creating the kind of panic it wants.
// -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ --
Distributing their own software under the GPL does indeed not affect their ownership of it...
But by distributing it under the GPL the buyer gets it under the terms of the GPL license which clearly states that they can copy it further....
So anything that was created by SCO and distributed by them under the GPL is now free....
By the terms of the GPL their patents are worthless (as far as they weren't already to old). The only case they might have is against IBM because of a breach of contract. And even that one is questionable.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
FYI, the monkeys who post on the Yahoo! message boards are writing things such as this:
Re: Excellent news AH
by: treycc (32/M/Rochester, NY) 05/14/03 04:47 pm
Msg: 6563 of 6565
Gee, SCO must be really if-y on what they are doing. Hehehehehehehehehheheheheheheheheh... This is going to be quite a ride. Everyone may freak and bail and the stock may suffer for a while--I don't know--but with the SCOSource funds starting to come in things are churning. Hehehehehehehehehehehehe Oh the poor linux geeks. Their little Star Trek-like existence is threatened--this ought to be good for some more illegal tampering with the SCO systems. That seems to be how they handle their stress--strike out in the only way they know how. Hehehehehehehehehe, hohohohohohoho...
It will gratify my to see them lose their kids' college funds. I think the poster shown above is really Steve Ballmer under an alias, but I've been wrong before.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
Dropping a bomb in a trial is a sure way to shoot yourself in the foot.... The opponent side has a right to prepare a response... They would only make the trial last longer if the wait, and possibly make a bad impression on the judge/jury.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
You know, in all this mess about SCO suing IBM and possibly Linux commercial distribution manufacturers over stolen code in Linux, there's one question I have to ask: what is Linux Torvalds' stand on this suit? I'm sure he won't approve for obvious reasons given that Linux by definition cannot have patents or copyrights on any code incorporated into Linux as defined by GPL.
Everyone else seems to have covered the concept of allegations vs. facts and date of IBM's entry into Linux, so I won't bother...
"SCO maintains that the code, if checked line by line, matches their original design and sometimes syntax."
Uh huh. So their argument is that given 2 developers trying to accomplish the same thing there is no way they can come up with the same or similar code? Please. While there may be more than one way to skin a cat, nothing says that 2 people won't skin them the same way. Especially when the goal is to provide an implementation of an existing technology (i.e. SysV type calls.)
On the other hand, if they are correct and the code is theirs and was illegally placed in the kernel tree, the ones approving what code goes into the kernel (still just Linus?) will really need to sit and think about how to prevent this in the future.
That may or may not be the case. However, SCO condoned all of this the moment they began distributing Linux themselves. While they could initially claim ignorance that this was going on, they could not claim so once the suit against IBM was filed.
It seems that they did not understand the full implications of the GPL when they filed their original suit against IBM.
However, the cat is now out of the bag. Any code that was in any kernel that SCO distributed after filing suit against IBM is now "in the public domain" and they can't take it back.
This just may end up being a test case for the GPL.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
How can I help, you ask? By supporting strong intellectual property laws. And supporting your local technology company ... if they're still around in five years, they will be paying plenty of IP lawyers.
At this point you may have some worries. I hate innovation, you say ... what if the money I invest in technology companies is used to advance technology?
No need to worry. Less and less potential IP lawyer salary is wasted on technology every day, and many visionary technology companies have already made the switch to an all-IP lawyer technical staff! No pesky engineers needed!
Call your elected representative. Tell them that you support the welfare for IP lawyers program, and to keep those IP laws coming! And make sure you say, "A lonely black suit won't happen on my watch."
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Someone with enough cash should ask the courts to force SCO to publicly release their evidence. They create enough harm in the marketplace to justify such an injunction. They threaten enough people to require a public disclosure. And, IANAL but I think SCO is legally required to do their best to limit the damage caused by the alleged infrigement.
Dear SCO,
Regarding your recent lawsuit against the so-called Linux operating system. Linux is only the kernel, the whole system should be refered to as GNU/Linux. I would really appreciate it if you change all Linux references to GNU/Linux in all your legal documents. Thank you!
Yours sincerely Richard Stallman
>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?"
oh great, we all know how well that turned out.
And BTW: Unisys, pos that it is, makes over a Billion Dollars in Revenue a year still. If this turns out anything like the GIF controversy, Linux is screwed major.
-pyrrho
Does this need to be pointed out again?
SCO is infringing on thier own intellectual property!
Oh wait, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE
We do not even know what code Caldera (SCO) even legally owns.
Unix was written by AT&T in the seventies when it was ILLEGAL for AT&T to market an operating system (in violation of the TRUST agreement with the U.S. Government). To prevent prosicution by the U.S. Government AT&T did not sell the OS and released the source for anyone to use. UC Berkeley picked up the source and expanded it into Berkeley UNIX which was partly AT&T code and partly Berkeley code. At this point all UNIX code was in the public domain (it would have been illegal for AT&T to exercise any copyright or patent claim to the OS.
After the breakup, some idiot at AT&T decided that there might be some economic value to the OS and AT&T re asserted ownership of UNIX. Whether or not this reassertion of ownership was legal was never tested in the courts. UC Berkeley considered challenging AT&T's right to the old code but elected (in the end) to just pack it in.
The question of whether or not AT&T had the right to retroactively appropriate code written while they were a monopoly has never been tested in the courts. Since they were required to give up ownership of the code when they were a monopoly, I suspect that the economic advantages of the code could not (at a later date) revert to AT&T.
You see where this is going. Since Berkeley had re-written (Cory hall) 80 percent of UNIX as it stood in 1985, it was deemed easier by the UNIX community to rewrite the remaining 20% than fight with AT&T.
Caldera may have trouble proving that what they purchased from AT&T is even property (of any kind).
Tom
Exactly right. When AT&T/USL sued UC Berkley over BSD, they crippled BSD for a decade. Now they are trying to do the same thing to Linux. The AT&T vs BSD lawsuit introduced enough FUD and left a big enough cloud over BSD to drive commercial users away from BSD and make vendors license SysV "just to be safe". Even a strong BSD varient like the orginal SunOS has been supplanted by a SysV varient Solaris. I suspect that one of Sun's reasons in switching to SysV was to avoid legal issues, in addition to getting the "newer and improved" features of SysV. It is only very recently, with Mac OS-X, that BSD is finally coming out from under the cloud and starting to become mainstream again.
I find it interesting that the letter claims control over UNIX "methods". It sounds like they are contending that they have a lock over all "UNIX-Like" systems, even those with non-encumbered code because the ideas and methods are facsimilies of proprietery methods. I think they are actually saying that they have a monopoly on *nix-likeness. So regardless of the cut-and-paste issue with the code, they are still going to fight over the implementation itself. How they expect this to hold up in court is going to be interesting because the already "gave it up" when they cleared the BSD settlement.
"Not widely used" is a pretty good paraphrase of "fringe player." And anyone designing a public web site and willing to discard 10% of customers is also a fringe player.
I may be even more ignorant, but....
I thought "System V" was the product that was sold, and "UNIX" is both the Registered Tradeark and specification of The Open Group. I've noticed that "SCO Unixware" is certified to the Unix 95 specification.
Unless I'm wrong, SCO can't claim they own "UNIX" as the trademark (and specification) is registered to another entity.
Is that they're no longer selling Linux because they believe that the Linux (that they sell) is infringing on other Unix IP (that they own).
Um. Ya. So I don't want to sell my book because it makes a use of passages that I used in my last book.
Maybe they should start their lawsuit off by sueing themselves.
--
Mike
-- Mike wildcard@illuminatus.org
Conversely imagine if SCO had actually written Linux and never released a GPL copy. Then RedHat rummages through their dumpster, finds a printout, and steals it and makes RedHat Linux. This would obvioulsly be illegal and a copyright violation. Then SCO decides to relase this Linux under the GPL, after the theft. I would think this subsequent action in no way would make RedHat less guilty of theft.
It would get more gray if in fact SCO had already released the code under the GPL and at the same time RedHat rummaged through their dumpster and did not in fact notice or look at the freely-available GPL code. Despite the fact that RedHat could have legally aquired it, it still seems to me they would be equally guilty. The only real difference is that unless they were actually caught looking in the dumpster they can claim they copied the GPL code and thus not get prosecuted.
Although I am pretty certain they have no case, the claim that because they released a GPL copy means they have no case is IMHO not true. Claiming that makes people think the GPL is more powerful than it really is, which falls right into MicroSoft's attempts to make it sound evil.
Assuming there's nothing obvious (eg, SCO copyright notices in the comments), one of SCO's challenges will be to establish the pedigree of their code. Just because there are identical sections in the two source trees now does not imply the direction in which copying occurred. To prove that, for example, code that existed at SCO in 1994 showed up in the Linux kernel in 1995 is somewhat more challenging. IMO, most companies' backup procedures are probably not adequate to establish the necessary chain of evidence. You can't just show up with a tape that you say has filesystem dumps from 1994. Look at what goes on with photographs of crime scenes:
-
The prosecution will call the photographer, who swears that they were at the scene and took pictures.
-
Then they trace the film through development by the lab, again with people swearing that they developed that film, made these prints, etc, with records to back that up.
-
Then they ask to admit the photos as evidence.
As a defense attorney faced with a backup tape cartridge, I would demand that the other side at least prove when it was dumped, and that the security arrangements were such that it was not feasible for another tape to have been substituted between then and now.In the complaint SCO mentions 4000 application developed for their operating system. I remember a higher number being mentioned back when I was involved. I also remember a catalogue of the applications, and a lot of them were really silly apps obviously put there just to make the catalogue bugger. Also, if you'd could count the number of Linux applications, I'm sure you'd reach a number a couple of magnitudes greater.
SCO is as bad (or worse) as Microsoft. They were back then too, although I was blinded because I worked with the stuff all the time.
For example: Back when OpenServer 5 was released, it used a product activation scheme almost identical to Microsofts, which the difference that while corporate customers don't have to activate their copies of XP, every single SCO customer had to call in to activate their system. The activation scheme itself worked pretty much the same.
OpenServer 5, when released, was a huge improvement to the old version, but at release it lacked a lot. One of those useful things was threads. In order to get a pthreads implementation you needed buy DCE. And, if I remember correctly, DCE was shipped by a third party. (I believe that third party is owned by IBM these days, but please double-check that information before you pass it on as fact).
While I worked with SCO products I kept hearing how great SCO was, and how they were the market leaders and the largest UNIX supplier in the word (1 million installations was a common number being passed around). At the same time very people outside the POS (and a few other businesses) business had heard about SCO. As far as I know, SCO got _very_ few new customers during the 90's, but mainly kept selling copies to providers of various POS systems. Another common customer was coporate telephone switch providers.
Most SCO customers, after installing the base OS, started off by installing the full GNU toolchain. The provided tools sucked too much.
There were 3 different C compilers available for OpenServer 5: SCO's compiler, the Intel conpiler, and GCC. GCC was free, so most people used that. Intels compiler provided the best code (but compiled slowly). SCO's tools were somewhere in the middle. I'm still not sure why people payed for them (I'm desperately trying to remember why _I_ used them... I guess I was blind... But me not having to pay for then helped, I guess :-) ).
I still remember the Monterey launch tigether with IBM. I remember having doubds back then even, especially when the SCO representative said that Monterey would take over after AIX as IBM's main UNIX system.
The Monterey launch wasn't the first major launch of amazing new products that was supposed to show the world just how great SCO really was. After SCO purchased UnixWare I remember it being touted as the next big thing, and the product that would change SCO. Naturally, it didn't.
Somehow I doubt the statement SCO made in the complaint about them having Monterey finished in 2001, ready for release. As I mentioned, I left the SCO world in 1997 and even then the star had begin to fade (it didn't take long), after that, nothing was heard about Monterey. Would they have continued working on it for 4 years and then be suprised no one wanted it? I don't think so.
I really hope that this goes to court, and SCO becomes required to show the allegedly finished Monterey product. I'm not so sure they will have anything to show.
As someone wrote on linux-kernel, if there is code in the linux kernel and in SCO which is identical, it is probably because /SCO/ coders once copied code from linux and incorporated it into SCO. Scroll down a few years to present, SCO hires consultants to compare linux code to SCO's own and hey presto "look its the same code!".
Also, a heavy hint was dropped on linux-kernel by a former SCO employee (iirc) that if one were to look very carefully at the support for a certain filesystem (*cough* 0x83) in the SCO kernel that one would find an example of the type of copying above.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Curiously enough, Macromedia seems to use it [PNG] as the default vector image format for Fireworks (perhaps even Freehand and Flash), which could make it big fast if they pushed it.
PNG is a raster image format, not vector.
You might be thinking of SVG (scalable vector graphics), which is essentially an XML format for describing vector graphics (note that IIRC the SVG format requires support for PNG and JPEG images, to include said images in an SVG file). None of this, however, makes PNG a vector graphics format by any stretch of the imagination.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
They have backed them in the past:
Google Cache of The Reg article
Ransom Love, CEO of Caldera Systems, will become CEO of a new Caldera Inc, which became a shell company after Caldera won its antitrust case against Microsoft. SCO president David McCrabb will become president of Caldera Inc. Bryan Sparks will remain with Lineo, which has filed for IPO.
The deal is interesting because of the complex and somewhat incestuous relationship between Caldera, SCO, Microsoft, Citrix, and Novell. Microsoft acquired SCO shares as a result of getting SCO, founded in 1978 by Doug and Larry Michels, to produce a version of Unix called Xenix. Microsoft had licensed Unix from AT&T, and the product was first marketed in 1979. In 1987, Microsoft was concerned that AT&T's Unix applications might not run with Xenix. As a consequence, AT&T agreed to add some Xenix code to its Unix and to pay Microsoft a royalty for this.
Ray Noorda subsequently acquired Unix from AT&T for Novell, held it for two years, and then it was sold to SCO in 1995 - with Novell receiving a 13.8 per cent holding in SCO as part of the deal. The next year, SCO realised that the code added to Unix was no longer needed or relevant, so it asked Microsoft to agree to end the agreement. Microsoft refused, with the consequence that SCO complained to the European Commission competition directorate early in 1997. In FY 1998, SCO paid Microsoft more than $1.138 million in royalties. In January, Microsoft sold its entire 12.3 per cent holding in SCO, and the SCO share price began to collapse.
I couldn't remember where I'd read about the Novell/UC Berkley licensing issue, here it is in the FreeBSD handbook (an amazingly thorough book!). A little history.
Quack, quack.
Presumably, timing is important. Caldera was originally a Linux company, not much different from Red Hat. But over the course of events, they negotiated to get ownership of the Unix IP. Now, I presume that if they act in a timely manner, they would be permitted by the courts to get their house in order with respect to IP issues. Therefore, they would be allowed to go ahead with lawsuits that seek to protect their Unix IP. But, if what they claim is true, then Linux is a mix of copyright and copyleft code. Obviously, copyright and copyleft are polar opposites. SCO cannot simply collect royalties from anyone using Linux, as that would be attempting to damage the copyleft of the GPL. I mean, it seems that in that case what we have is an IP no-man's land. SCO has no right to Linux, and the general public has no right to it. I can't see any alternative, then, to a painstaking process of separating copyright and copyleft code. (Okay, copyright is probably not the right term, because they are more likely to claim violation of trade secrets. But it's the same idea.)
So, what then of Caldera, the Linux company? Presumably, their license was similar to Red Hat's license, which disclaimed any indemnification for IP violations. In other words, Caldera was a service company, providing support contracts for Linux. So, maybe they would be free from lawsuits from their customers. However, they would be required to consider their customers as committing IP violations against the Unix IP. There is absolutely no way they could violate the GPL and grant any kind of waiver of royalties to customers who bought Caldera Linux.
In any case, we have to wonder what kind of due diligence the Caldera executives undertook before they acquired rights to the Unix IP. And does that due diligence, or lack thereof, affect their legal position. I mean, imagine if they knew that Linux contained violations of the Unix IP. If, at the same time, they were negotiating to acquire rights to the Unix IP, and they knew the requirements of the GPL on Linux, then they made a horrible business decision -- one that cannibalized their Linux business. I mean, what were they thinking?! That they would use the Unix IP to dominate the Linux market? That they didn't understand the GPL, which prohibits using IP to dominate copyleft software?
The way I feel right now, it's like that duck in the AFLAC commercial, which walks out of the barbershop shaking it's head and going "Aaaaahhh!"
REDMOND, Washington - March 10, 2003 - Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT), the proven owner of the patent for Most Hated Company of All Time, today announced that it has filed legal action against The SCO® Group (SCO) (NASDAQ: SCOX) in the State Court of Washington, for misappropriation of corporate image, torturous interference, unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that SCO made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the monetary value of Microsoft's image as Most Hated Company of All Time, particularly Most Hated Company of All Time in the Information Technology sector, to benefit SCO's licensing division.
:)
Taken from: Microsoft files lawsuit against SCO
It's funny. Laugh.
For example, when folks began downloading massive quantities of music from various Internet channels, corporations realized that this posed a threat to their current methods, as did the CD to tapes, tapes to LPs, LPs to live performances, etc. However, the top management and boards of directors of these large companies have no imagination, no style, no tact, no nothing. They know only one thing... It is commonly known as "the bottom line." What it means is, "We have the inalienable right to eternal perpetually increasing profits."
To continue our example of the music industry, we will note that instead of seeking ways to make the changes work for the company, the aforementioned managers and directors (hereinafter idiots) want to maintain stability in a business that is inherently unstable. This stability is artificial and is achieved through litigation, just as the artificial monopoly provided for "intellectual" property is achieved through law.
The idiots abuse the legal system in order to maintain their bottom line and will continue to do so as long as the courts allow it. The RIAA does this. The MPAA does this. Now SCO is jumping on the "e-Litigation" bandwagon. Who cares anyway... SCO is yesteryear's news. The future is Linux. And if there is some code in there that belongs to SCO, which I doubt, then it is already done because once released in Linux, it will remain in use forever. There will always be some server out there, some desktop out there, some strange hack that will contain this code for lack of being updated to the next version, which is "cleaned" of the offending code. What are you going to do? Make Linux illegal throughout the galaxy because of this? Hang Linus for it? Or, figure that the code wasn't making you any money anyway and spend the would-be litigation funds on marketing efforts, on product line expansion, on research and development, on performing services for valuable customers... and on the million other things that SCO might do, in order to secure a good bottom line through honest, ethical, and otherwise positive and constructive means?
Oh, wait... Their bottom line demands that they abuse the court system, as if they're betting on a semi-fixed basketball game.
Ignoring the fact that it defies all sense of credibility to think that this sort of "erasure" could actually occur, it doesn't carry any legal weight anyways (IANAL, but I checked with one about this recently because I was curious). By not being forthright about the specifics of the violation, SCO has not shown due dilligence to minimize the damage that could be caused by allowing the infraction to go unstopped. IBM and any other companies that SCO wants to sue about this won't have to pay one dime to SCO on this matter, and can even independantly file countersuits to cover their own legal costs.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Unisys was notoriously difficult to work with. A few years back I worked at a large corporation on a product that, among other things, generated GIF files. We attempted to get a license from Unisys. Their demands were outrageous. The GIF file generation was a very minor component of a large and expensive software product but they wanted 10% of our revenue! Our patent attorney finally gave up negotiating and told us to go ahead and release the software, saying "If those a$$holes catch us, I'm sure they're infringing on some of our patents." Had Unisys agreed to more reasonable terms they would have had a steady revenue stream for the last six years.
SCO won't get far with this. IBM probably has some patents they can counter-sue against SCO, and they'll settle the whole thing out of court. Ditto for Sun and any other large company they might go after. And who's going to buy anything from SCO after this?
That's flat out 100% wrong.
OS/2 was developed with the master source code repositories running on Xenix for OS/2 1.0 and OS/2 1.1, but that's it. Actually to be technically accurate the master copies ran on MVS, since IBM considered their copies to be the masters and Microsoft's to be shadow copies, but....
Once the first IDW build of NT was done (sometime in 1989), NT ran 100% on NT.
So from 1988 to 1989 NT's source repository ran on OS/2, but it's been NT ever since.
Check out Helen Custer's Inside Windows NT or G Pascal Zachary's Showstopper! for more info.
I just wandered over to one of Macromedia's support pages and noted the following statement:
As little sense as the paragraph makes if you try to parse it closely, this second "chunk" has gotta be what contains the vector information. Maybe the setup is something like the TIFF/PICT preview that some EPS files have? Sigh. I'm kindof disappointed...
Tweet, tweet.
"What they have done is steal our properties. They steal our codes and make it free beer. This is wrong. But we do something very beautiful. We sue IBM, we sue Linus, we sue everyone who touches free-beer software. We will sue them all for 1 billions dollars. All will be sued, none will not be sued. We will sue with lawyers, bullets and shoes."
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Lets take a step back here for a minute.
We know that SCO has been selling Linux, and as such has been complying with their obligations under the GPL.
Would this not therefore imply that anyone who has purchased SCO's Linux incarnation would, accordingly have all the rights available to them under the GPL, and as such, as they have already released "Linux", all possible IP Claims for linux become null and void.
Or to put it in other words: Linux may have IP that is SCO's or not, however, the fact that SCO have sold Linux, and have licensed these releases under the GPL, then anyone who has purchased said releases may now re-release, accordingly.
My 2c