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
...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!
"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
So SCO sold one this quarter?
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
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!
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!!!!
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.
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
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 $10,000,000,000 and legal fees. The CEO of SCO had this to say, "We expect a quick settlement to this case." He also added that "With the settlement money and our recouped legal fees, we can move on to other Linux / Unix distributors, such as Santa Cruz Operation or Caldera."
###
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
Not telling the world what the code is, is a legal blunder of the first order. This means that they have unclean hands, as they are supposed to try and mitigate the damage in order to receive compensation.
You can't knowlingly add to the damage and then ask for compensation incl Punitive damages based on same. Any suit against Linux vendor in the future can site this as an Affirmative Defense" and pretty much get the suit tossed on that account alone
Help fight continental drift.
I'm still waiting for SCO to provide ANY information as to why they feel their IP has been infringed.
:-)
To date they have used FUD as ruthlessly as Microsoft in the past. I wonder if they are not on the Micro$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
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.
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.
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."
"Has it been revealed to the world yet exactly which code is in question?"
No, and for two primary reasons:
1) SCO's bluffing until the bitter end. There is no copyright infringement, and everyone in high level positions at SCO knows it. SCO's market exit strategy (to be bought by IBM) backfired in a huge way, and there is no way to repair the damage. If SCO backs off now, it will be destroyed by the SEC for gross negligence towards the shareholders. Everyone at SCO knows that IBM is going to destroy SCO, and are merely trying to hold off the inevitable for as long as possible.
2) There is no copyright infringement. When the trial starts (and it's a given that this will get to trial considering #1 above), SCO will have to produce something (and I guarantee it will be manufactured ala Microsoft). At that point, the jig will be up. SCO doesn't actually want to go to trial, but now the company has painted itself into a corner and will -have- to go to trial. This is a great big "OOPS!" on SCO's part.
"And what, exactly, happened to their statement that they weren't going after Redhat or Joe Linuxuser, but instead just IBM?"
SCO realized that IBM wasn't biting, and panicked. This is SCO's flailing around for anything and everything to halt its inevitable destruction.
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.
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
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.
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.
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/
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.
From the text of the Copyright act:
In other words, you can copyright a binary, or you can copyright the actual printout of the code (verbatim.) You cannot however copyright any workalike code.
As far as patent infringement goes, they would have a leg to stand on if they were to prove which specific patents they were seeking to enforce. Given the System V was released in 1983, any and all patents on System V expired in the year 2000. Worst case scenario, they were pending for 2 years, and would have expired in 2002.
Considering IBM's license to all of that technology is an established fact long before any of the events described, I think SCO is going to find itself in the hurt box if this case is placed before a Judge.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
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
These threatened lawsuits migh also restrict SCO's ability to support their old Linux clients...
Right now, they're restricting the ability of people to redistribute the code that they sent out under the GPL. That's in violation of the GPL. This means that they now lose any rights to redistribute that same code.
This would include updates.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Bruce
Bruce Perens.