Slashdot Mirror
SCO vs Linux.. Continued
An anonymous reader writes "ComputerWorld has an interview with Chris Sontag, from SCO.
Now the story has a pretty face." The interview has a variety of comments worth noting like how much source code SCO thinks has slipped from unix to linux. This story continues to amaze me.
They have been working on this for at least four years, if not more. The first time I heard about a "UNIX compat layer" from someone at Microsoft NT4 was still the flagship server product.
In two weeks, The SCO Group Inc. intends to begin showing analysts where the Unix code it owns has been illegally copied into the Linux kernel. The source code will be made available to parties who agree not to disclose the Unix source code, but they will be able to share publicly their assessments of SCO's claim. SCO has filed a $1 billion lawsuit against IBM alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims and has warned some 1,500 businesses that they may be using Linux at their legal peril.
... but to seek an opinion of their legal counsel as to the issues that we raised.
In an interview with Computerworld reporter Patrick Thibodeau, SCO's Chris Sontag, a senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource Division, the group within SCO in charge of enforcing the company's intellectual property, discussed the company's position.
Why should Linux users take your claim seriously?
Think about if I was the CIO of a company and I'm going to be running my business on an operating system that has an intellectual property foundation that, by almost everyone's admission, is built on quicksand. There is no mechanism in Linux to ensure [the legality of] that intellectual property of the source code being contributed by various people. We fully believe there are many contributions made by good, hard-working individuals into Linux that are not of issue. But based on the research that we have done, we have identified specific Unix System V code for which we have ownership rights that have ended up in Linux against our wishes. There is inappropriate intellectual property in Linux. The development process has no one that is ensuring that inappropriate code is not getting into Linux. All that's there is an honor system, and obviously there are a few, at least, that have broken that honor.
Your letter to 1,500 end-user companies outlining your claim was vague. What is it that you want from these companies?
The one thing that we specifically want from those 1,500 companies that we directly sent those letters to is for them to not take our word on the warning that we sent
What do you see as a company's options in the face of your warning?
I would suspend any new Linux-related activities until this is all sorted out. But first get that opinion of your legal counsel. If they say there is no problem and no issue, then you probably have nothing to worry about. But I doubt there is any attorney worth his salt that is going to say there is no potential of an issue here. There is a big issue.
Should companies remove Linux from their systems?
We're not making any specific recommendations at this time. We're still getting our arms around the size of this problem. We're still identifying more and more code from Unix System V that is in Linux, and so we haven't even fully scoped the problem. It's hard to come up with solutions until you have the full problem identified, and as you may guess, it's a very big problem.
Are you considering suing Linux users that you notified?
Anything is always a possibility. If you are going to enforce your contracts, claims and intellectual property, you have to be able to go to ultimately the endpoint of infringement.
You're claiming that Linux has been polluted with Unix code that you own, but you have not produced any evidence of that. Will you?
We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to various industry analysts, respected press people and other industry leaders so that they don't have to take our word for it or wait until we show some of that evidence in court. We will actually be showing the code, and the basis for why we have made the allegations that we have. We are very confident about our case. Because we are dealing with confidential source code that we have never released without confidentiality agreements, we will have to put in place nondisclosures [agreements] simply to protect the source. But people will be able to give their opinion as to what they think.
How
Q&A: SCO's Chris Sontag on Linux, Unix and brewing legal fights
... but to seek an opinion of their legal counsel as to the issues that we raised.
'There is inappropriate intellectual property in Linux,' he says
In two weeks, The SCO Group Inc. intends to begin showing analysts where the Unix code it owns has been illegally copied into the Linux kernel. The source code will be made available to parties who agree not to disclose the Unix source code, but they will be able to share publicly their assessments of SCO's claim. SCO has filed a $1 billion lawsuit against IBM alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims and has warned some 1,500 businesses that they may be using Linux at their legal peril.
In an interview with Computerworld reporter Patrick Thibodeau, SCO's Chris Sontag, a senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource Division, the group within SCO in charge of enforcing the company's intellectual property, discussed the company's position.
Why should Linux users take your claim seriously? Think about if I was the CIO of a company and I'm going to be running my business on an operating system that has an intellectual property foundation that, by almost everyone's admission, is built on quicksand. There is no mechanism in Linux to ensure [the legality of] that intellectual property of the source code being contributed by various people. We fully believe there are many contributions made by good, hard-working individuals into Linux that are not of issue. But based on the research that we have done, we have identified specific Unix System V code for which we have ownership rights that have ended up in Linux against our wishes. There is inappropriate intellectual property in Linux. The development process has no one that is ensuring that inappropriate code is not getting into Linux. All that's there is an honor system, and obviously there are a few, at least, that have broken that honor.
Your letter to 1,500 end-user companies outlining your claim was vague. What is it that you want from these companies? The one thing that we specifically want from those 1,500 companies that we directly sent those letters to is for them to not take our word on the warning that we sent
What do you see as a company's options in the face of your warning? I would suspend any new Linux-related activities until this is all sorted out. But first get that opinion of your legal counsel. If they say there is no problem and no issue, then you probably have nothing to worry about. But I doubt there is any attorney worth his salt that is going to say there is no potential of an issue here. There is a big issue.
Should companies remove Linux from their systems? We're not making any specific recommendations at this time. We're still getting our arms around the size of this problem. We're still identifying more and more code from Unix System V that is in Linux, and so we haven't even fully scoped the problem. It's hard to come up with solutions until you have the full problem identified, and as you may guess, it's a very big problem.
Are you considering suing Linux users that you notified? Anything is always a possibility. If you are going to enforce your contracts, claims and intellectual property, you have to be able to go to ultimately the endpoint of infringement.
You're claiming that Linux has been polluted with Unix code that you own, but you have not produced any evidence of that. Will you? We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to various industry analysts, respected press people and other industry leaders so that they don't have to take our word for it or wait until we show some of that evidence in court. We will actually be showing the code, and the basis for why we have made the allegations that we have. We are very confident about our case. Because we are dealing with confidential source code that we have never released without confidentiality agreements, we will have to put in place nondisclosur
I made a PHP/MySQL library that prevents SQL injection & makes coding easier!
http://www.vnunet.com/Analysis/1140828
From http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/SCO_10-K.html
The Company has an arrangement with Novell, Inc. ("Novell") in which it acts as an administrative agent in the collection of royalties for customers who deploy SVRx technology. Under the agency agreement, the Company collects all customer payments and remits 95 percent of the collected funds to Novell and retains 5 percent as an administrative fee. The Company records the 5 percent administrative fee as revenue in its consolidated statements of operations. The accompanying October 31, 2002 and 2001 consolidated balance sheets reflect the amounts collected related to this agency agreement but not yet remitted to Novell of $1,428,000 and $1,894,000, respectively, as restricted cash and royalty payable to Novell. The October 31, 2001 balances were reclassified from cash and equivalents and other royalties payable to conform to the current year presentation.
This is SCO's admission that Novell owns Unix System V, all revisions - that's what they mean by "SVRx", and SCO pays Novell 95% of the royalties. SCO gets to keep 5% as administrative agent.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
is that the CEO of SCO/Caldera is Darl McBride. He was formerly with Novell as vice president and general manager of Novell's Embedded Systems Division (NEST).
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
"Novell Inc. says the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of Unix System V from Novell doesn't convey copyrights. What's your response? We certainly have a point of contention regarding their interpretation of that contract. We have statements from all the major parties that were involved in that contract that all the business and IP-related property of Unix and UnixWare was transferred to SCO. I think this is just a desperate act on their part to curry favor with the Linux community. "
m l
Curiously, despite disputing whether or not Novell owns the system V copyrights SCO has been quite happy to pay royalties to Novell as Karsten Self found from their 10k report (tax return?)
"The Company has an arrangement with Novell, Inc. ("Novell") in which it acts as an administrative agent in the collection of royalties for customers who deploy SVRx technology. Under the agency agreement, the Company collects all customer payments and remits 95 percent of the collected funds to Novell and retains 5 percent as an administrative fee. The Company records the 5 percent administrative fee as revenue in its consolidated statements of operations. The accompanying October 31, 2002 and 2001 consolidated balance sheets reflect the amounts collected related to this agency agreement but not yet remitted to Novell of $1,428,000 and $1,894,000, respectively, as restricted cash and royalty payable to Novell. The October 31, 2001 balances were reclassified from cash and equivalents and other royalties payable to conform to the current year presentation. "
see
http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/SCO_10-K.ht
Be respectful in the face of their disrespect. Be honorable in the face of their dishonorable acts. Take the high ground and watch them collapse on themselves.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
He didn't word it really well, but that was his "minimum." He said it ranged from "10-15" lines of code to "Huge blocks of code." I'm imagining that it's these theoretical "huge blocks" that has his panties in a bunch.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
...This story continues to amaze me...
What continues to amaze me is the following...
Netcraft reports that SCO's own website is running on Linux.
SCO is still apart of UnitedLinux
SCO's own phone number is 1-888-GO-LINUX
They sure have their hands in a lot of Linux for it being so "illegal".
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
SCO stock today. Down 25% yesterday, and an additional 12% today, Thursday, May 29, 2003.
You are looking at the wrong stock. SCO is not SCO/Caldera. SCO -- SCOR group, traded on NYSE (first clue that it wasn't the right symbol) -- isn't doing well, either, but that is coincidental (unless there are a bunch of stupid day traders that can't tell their symbols apart).
Caldera is SCOX (traded on NASDAQ) -- yahoo summary.
While they are down a boatload in the last couple of days, they are still not below the levels they were trading at the beginning of May (or earlier).
As it stands, it looks like this little publicity stunt has driven the stock up more than down. Given current trends, it looks like it may normalize such that the whole thing is a short term wash in terms of stock value-- whether it proves profitable over the long term remains to be seen.
This is from their 10-K filing in Jan. Why would they pay if they owned it?
"Restricted Cash and Royalty Payable to Novell, Inc.
The Company has an arrangement with Novell, Inc. ("Novell") in which it acts as an administrative agent in the collection of royalties for customers who deploy SVRx technology. Under the agency agreement, the Company collects all customer payments and remits 95 percent of the collected funds to Novell and retains 5 percent as an administrative fee. The Company records the 5 percent administrative fee as revenue in its consolidated statements of operations. The accompanying October 31, 2002 and 2001 consolidated balance sheets reflect the amounts collected related to this agency agreement but not yet remitted to Novell of $1,428,000 and $1,894,000, respectively, as restricted cash and royalty payable to Novell. The October 31, 2001 balances were reclassified from cash and equivalents and other royalties payable to conform to the current year presentation."
Zoid.com
It's a posix layer and standard utilities (most of the BSD based). It does include gcc, though (and the source code).
It's been available (from interix or MS) since NT4, though, and I doubt it contains any SCO code, and (as I said before), the command-line tools are mostly just recompiles, so it seems unlikely that's why they would get a Unix license (OTOH, suing microsoft is popular, and juries do stupid things sometimes).
Unlikely. I've worked on a few IP litigations, and a great deal of effort is put in to keep secret documents out of the public view. When the documents are discussed in court, the doors are closed, and anyone who is not allowed to see the info is removed from the courtroom. The exhibits the court uses are never released to the public, and even the transcripts are never released to the public.
If you are patient enough, a good observer can figure out what was discussed in closed door sessions
But based on the research that we have done, we have identified specific Unix System V code for which we have ownership rights that have ended up in Linux against our wishes.
According to this, SCO only has a license. The copyrights, patents, and ownership reside with Novell.
Microsoft has been shipping Services for Unix since 2000. It recently won the Open Source Product Excellence Award for Best System Integration Software at LinuxWorld.
Also, it's hard to update your icons when you're as busy as CmdrTaco (the sims can't play themselves yet!)).
Actually, in my Economics class, we're doing a stock market simulation. And I'm "going short" on SCO stock, which means that I sell SCO stock that I don't own and buy it later. That way, when IBM drives SCO to the ground, I profit, and SCO loses.
Nothing like profiting off the misfortune of stupid companies.
NO
Good god, its so damn easy to get mod5 as "informative." Whatever. Anyway, the compat layer is for things that are almost completely owned by Solaris in the IP world...nfs, automounter, etc. Those are COMPLETELY Sun, and not even SCO is making claim to them. Think M$ gave money to Sun? Hell no - Sun is a linux ally. They're not trying to discredit Linux. Serves M$ no purpose.
Or, so that you can become somewhat informed on your own, go to M$ all on your own. How about checking out the MS "solution" itself, Services For Unix.
Here's what MS says about it: "Services for UNIX provides file sharing, remote access and administration, password synchronization, common directory management, a common set of utilities, and a shell."
File sharing is through a samba-like util and through nfs, password sync is through ldap-like stuff (as is the directory management), and the utilities have various "uses." Not one of these things has anything to do with SCO.
Of course, if SCO would just mention what is being infringed, that might help the clueless be less confused. Many of us know its bunk without their even bothering, though.
Yes, but it's about tripled since this whole thing began.
... and then they issue themselves another wad of shares at 0.001 per share. Mind you, that's all they're gonna be worth soon.
IBM's stock quotes: IBM
Novell's stock quotes: Novell
and our favourite SCO: SCO
The fallacy of this point has been stressed repeatedly. Please stop saying that SCO gave their IP away simply by releasing a Linux distro.
If they distributed their IP in GPL'd code without their knowledge, the GPL does not apply to that code, as it was licensed by someone who did not have the authority to license it. They accepted the kernal as a package, under good faith that all contributions to it were legitimately licensed by the contributing parties.
Whether they stopped their distribution soon enough after discovery of the violation is a matter for the courts to rule on.
An analogy is sometimes helpful. I'll try to think of one that won't get nitpicked to oblivion.
Lets say you have a priceless family heirloom. Someone steals it, locks it in a box, and gives it to you to sell at a garage sale. Then he goes to your garage sale, pays the $5 that you asked for, and then, in your presence, unlocks the box to show you your family heirloom, stating that he legitimately owns it now. Is the sale legitimate? I'd certainly sue someone who tried that on me..
Then again, all this doesn't matter if their core claim of IP ownership is invalid. However, the "Its ours now because they released it under the GPL" warcry is very unlikely to hold up in court.
BTW, IANAL...
SCO and IBM worked together for some time on a version of AIX for Itanium. AFAIK, SCO contributed UNIXWare code, and IBM contributed AIX code.
IBM walked away from this agreement.
If IBM contributed anything from this collective codebase (either their own code or SCO's), then SCO's actions become entirely logical.
This may not be about historical UNIX code. This may be about recent development efforts and the sour relationship between IBM and SCO over Itanium UNIX.
But you're right - the allegation would have been enough. Methinks this was originally there to make sure GPL'd software developers would be extra-careful about what went into their stuff, and that if there was an allegation, that they would be quick to fix it (can't distribute otherwise).
Unfortunately, SCO has refused to say what specific code/patents/whatever has been infringed. So my take on this is that there in fact has not been an allegation of infringement, since a real allegation would have to state what was being infringed. It's more like an allegation of an allegation.
--From the Lone AC, Yippe KY--
SCO Group Chief Executive Darl McBride said a published report that his company may take legal action against Linux founder Linus Torvalds was overstated.
Responding to a portion of a Wednesday story by CBS Marketwatch that has generated intense criticism from the Linux community, McBride told CNET News.com that targeting Torvalds is unlikely.
"Virtually we see no reason why that would ever happen," McBride said. "We're not trying to go down that path."
McBride's comments were meant to address a portion of the story that stated, "McBride added that unless more companies start licensing SCO's property, he may also sue Linus Torvalds, who is credited with inventing the Linux operating system, for patent infringement."
While he would not completely rule out the possibility of suing Torvalds, McBride emphasized with News.com that "I wasn't even talking about patents."
A CBS Marketwatch reporter did not immediately respond to a request to respond to McBride's comments.
Torvalds, meanwhile, said he sees legal action against him as ineffectual but not inconceivable. "I don't see what (SCO) would expect to gain from suing me, but they don't seem to be acting very rationally," he wrote in an e-mail interview.
And while Torvalds said he agrees with some of the criticisms SCO's actions have triggered on Linux-friendly online forums such as Slashdot, he also called for restraint and maturity in dealing with SCO. "I hope this doesn't incite anybody to (launch a denial-of-service attack against) the SCO Web site or something silly like that," he said.
SCO's actions, including legal threats and assertions that Linux programmers couldn't have built high-end features into the operating system on their own, have indeed inflamed the passions of many Linux advocates. SCO's Web site was crushed by such an attack earlier in May; the specific attackers were unknown, but SCO was quick to blame Linux proponents.
SCO sued IBM for more than $1 billion in March, alleging Big Blue illegally incorporated Unix intellectual property that is owned by SCO into Linux. Initially, SCO said it wasn't going after Linux, but it changed its stance when three separate investigations found Unix source code copied into Linux, the company said. SCO has declined to reveal the specific code that was allegedly copied.
The copying of source code could potentially expand SCO's legal actions beyond IBM through copyright infringement claims, but McBride said contracts provide a stronger legal case.
"Our code is showing up inside the Linux kernel. Given the rights we have, where does that take us? The most logical place is the guys we have contracts with," McBride said.
Novell, which owned Unix rights before selling at least some of them to SCO's predecessor in 1995, on Wednesday disputed that SCO has copyrights and patents for Unix. It didn't dispute that SCO holds the contracts under which Unix is licensed to others.
SCO said it will reveal in June the Unix code has been copied into Linux, but only to select people, such as independent analysts who have signed nondisclosure agreements. It won't share that code publicly, saying the Unix code is proprietary.
SCO says it has more than 6,000 Unix licensees, including companies and universities, and that its direct contracts with companies such as Hewlett-Packard, IBM or SGI require that sublicensees protect the Unix code. A sublicensee is a business that has purchased hardware or software with Linux from IBM, for example.
"They sign up for the fact that they may not misappropriate the code," McBride said. Unix is used at the majority of the 1,500 large companies to which SCO sent letters alerting them to legal risks of using Linux, he said.
Contrary to Novell's assertion, SCO contends it does have Unix copyrights and could base legal action on them. "I think it's perfectly clear we have the rights to enforce copyright claims," McBride said. "Clearly copyright is a path you can be taking a hard look at."
The company I worked for wasn't profitable for a long period of time, but the fact is thet the only time it became profitable was when the owners tried selling it. First they cut staff, then killed support and development and stuck strictly to doing mods that customers were willing to pay for. Sure we were profitable, but that didn't mean our fortunes weren't declining (i.e. we got sold, but there's no way we can be profitable for a while now since we need to rehire missing staff, spend money on developing a piece of software that languished for 2 years etc...).
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
But at $6/share that's still three times what it was trading for in mid-March of this year and ten times its July '02 price.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
See here
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
The company is profitable.
Ahem. Thats not what I heard listening to the beginning of the second quarter conference call.
Listen to the conference call on the SCO investor relations website. Correct me if im wrong, but i remember them saying that SCO had posted its lowest losses yet, which is a far cry from profitability.
And food for thought: If a SCO official is willing to lie in an interview about their financial status, doesent that make you even more apt to believe their lying about the whole linux thing??
Check the link...
5 /p r03033.html
http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/0
The fact of the matter is that sorting out who owns any particular piece of Unix code could take decades in court. You find two pieces of code that are exactly the same in SCO Unix and Linux. This could be any of the following:
- An amazing coincidence
- SCO licensed software that was copied into Linux improperly
- SCO licensed software that was copied into Linux properly (i.e. by a SCO employee)
- Software from a 3rd party, properly incorporated by both SCO and Linux
- Software from a 3rd party, improperly incorporated by both SCO and Linux
- Software from a 3rd party, that properly/improperly incorporated it into their product which was then incorporated into SCO/Linux
Have you ever taken a look at the Unix family tree? There's no way they are going to be able to sort out the ownership of any individual piece of code. I mean hell, with Novell speaking up, it might be that SCO doesn't own squat (that they are just licensed the copyright that Novell still actually owns). Novell might not even own it either.
It will make some headlines, the world will move on, and in about a decade when this gets settled it will all be irrelevant.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
"...Linus Torvalds found a Linux-kernel mailing list (lkml) posting from Christoph Hellwig, a former employee at SCO, then called Caldera. Hellwig pointed out the impracticality of actually getting copied code from UnixWare accepted by the tough critics on the mailing list. "The kernel internals are so different that you'd need a big glue layer to actually make it work and you can guess how that would be ripped apart in a usual lkml review," Hellwig wrote..."
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
It wouldn't make good business sense for IBM to engage in PR war with SCO before the trial begins. It's just the way IBM works, their stern wording in court fillings, however, indicates that they know exactly what they're doing. It's like saying to SCO "you boys have no standing in this case..."
- group_complaint_on_april30_2003.pdf
That IBM's filling is at: http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/ibm_response_to_sco
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
I work at company that is a subsidiary of a fortune 500 company,
and yesterday we were told to develop a migration plan to move everything off of Linux on to Windows. I sh*t you not.
Before we were bought out, our company president would have scoffed at this obvious FUD campaign backed by MS (he still feels this way), but he doesn't set corporate policy now - it comes from our parent company. This may extend to any open source tools we use (linux, perl, apache).
One of the main reasons I took this job was the Linux friendly
environment. Now I guess I'll have to dust off the old resume.
Lawsuit reform is really needed in this country ( there should be a financial penalty if you file a lawsuit and lose - at least pay court costs).
My only chance at salvation is a very quick resolution to this.
really sucks.