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.
Well if the stock drops low enough every Linuxer is going to buy a LOT, performing a hostile takeover, ultimately :-))
open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
I don't think SCO cares if anyone believes them or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not a judge finds their legal argument sound enough to award them a judgement. Anything else they say is just smoke and mirrors, a nod in the general direction of Publik Opeenion.
The only way the price will go down and stay down is if someone leaks the so-called evidence (or some juicy internal memos...) and the Emperor is discovered to be wanderin' around buck nekkid, so to speak.
I'm just wondering why it hasn't happened yet.
Searching for Truth, Justice, and the Guy Who Boosted My Wallet a Few Weeks Back....
They have no legal legs to stand on. Hopefully the courts will get this one right, and SCO will become irrelevent.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
What a load of crap. He's essentially saying that closed-source code is somehow more guaranteed to be more legitimate. I'd say that the reverse is true: There's a lot more incentive to do things legally when the entire world gets to see your source code than when virtually nobody does.
How unfortunate that he left out the "... and buy SCO instead."
Earlier he said that companies should abandon linux-related projects until SCO's suit is worked out. Now, he's implying that despite the fact that SCO is lying out of their teeth, and that Novell is calling them on it, noooooobody should abandon SCO-related projects. Sounds a bit hypocritical.
Here's what it really boils down to: SCO is the armpit of the Unix world, and the headquarters are in a city that's virtually the center of the MLM universe, and also known for immensely brain-dead business executives. SCO sucks, and is going downhill. Why? Because of Linux. Amazingly, Linux is also eating into Microsoft's server market share. Now the two team up, and decide to try and get rid of Linux. It's really not hard to see what's going on.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
But then the price will start going UP again. And besides, I already have an ample supply of toilet paper...
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
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
and look! if you rearrange microsoft a bit you can get sco rimoft
Interesting, and to take it a step further, you rearrange "microsoft" and you get "sco from it"
#!/
Installation Complete! To activate you Linux system, call the SCO Licensing clearinghouse at 888-WEG-OTCHA to obtain an activation key. Remember, if you change more than 3 system components, you will have to obtain a new activation key. Have a Nice Day!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
...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.
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.
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).
SCO has now said it isn't an IP issue or a copyright issue, but a contractual issue. Since Linus had no contract with SCO, how could they sue him for an alleged contractual violation that happened between SCO and IBM?
And the same goes for anything IBM may have leaked, and note I'm not saying they did...but if they did break a contract, how can anyone using a Linux product using such code be held liable for a contractual violation done by IBM, again, when SCO has now said it is contractual issue and not an IP issue or a copyright issue.
On one hand I guess we can be glad SCO are such morons, but on the other hand, can you imagine releasing a press release saying the issue was never about IP or copyrights when they are running around screaming about suing everyone because Linux may have some of their IP in it!!!
Go that way really fast, if something gets in your way, turn
Ron Paul
In other words, anything in Linux which ``belongs to SCO'' has probably actually been copied, perfectly legitimately, from BSD. And of course, anything BSD is safe from SCO, whether SCO has the copyrights or not. At worst, Linux will have to incorporate the BSD advertising. More likely, the advertising clause was removed before the copying was done.
I suspect that IBM knows this. It would help explain their lack of panic.
See what I've been reading.
No it would not be appropriate to call them "$CO" since they will be bankrupt very soon.
Admit this: Who of you purchased any SCO product over the last years? How many of you didn't hear about SCO before, or just heard the name without associating it with anything? What share of the computer market does SCO control?
SCO is forgotten.
So, what's the best way to get out of shadow and stand in spotlight? Oh well, miss Lewinsky showed that to all of us.
1. Make a lot of noise around something famous.
2. Gain fame.
3. Sell products, make claims.
4. PROFIT
The best target would be something as big as M$, but SCO had several reasons not to attack it (including M$ lawyers). So, the next target on the OS market seems obvious...
Why else would SCO care for 15 lines of code, whey would it make so dubious claim, than just to gain publicity? "No matter, good or bad, it's important that they talk about you". Old rule of showbusiness, may apply here too...
I guess the end will be quite mundane. Maybe putting a notice in sources "This part created by SCO". Maybe rewriting that parts of kernel. Maybe the charges will be dismissed. Maybe "SCO will bend under customers' pressure and withdraw its claims". What is important, is that people will talk about SCO over next few years, and whoever plans some new investment, will think "...And maybe consider that SCO thing..."?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I've said it before, but they told us to expect it. Remember Halloween VII?
If you don't, Halloween VII was a leaked memo from MS dated Sep 2002. It was a survey report, discussing what types of FUD were most effective, and where FUD was backfiring.
And later:
This page offers the absolute best explanation about what is going on in the SCO vs. Linux issue. A definate must read!
Zoid.com
dollars, cents, nothing
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Sources at SCO have revealed some of the offending 10 or 15 lines of code, in no particular order:
main( int argc, char **argv)
return;
int i;
{
}
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
char buffer[MAXBUF];
#define true 1
#define false 0
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
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.
I'm sure I just "don't get it" when it comes to trade secrets, but some things don't make sense to me. Obviously, IANAL (and I only sometimes play one on /.), but I believe I heard that if something that is considered a "trade secret" is developed independently by somebody else, there's really nothing you can do about it. That's the tradeoff of patenting your findings -- the information is public, but at least you have rights to it. If you keep it as a trade secret, then you have rights only so far as nobody else discovers/invents the same thing you did.
Now, having said that, obviously there is the IBM component. SCO claims that IBM violated trade agreemnts or NDAs or whatever, and that is how "SCO's code" (if indeed the code even belongs to them) was integrated into linux. But here is the kicker: Just because some lines of code are similar (or even the same) in two different pieces of software, it doesn't mean that the code for one was taken from the other! It seems that SCO not only has the burden of proof of identifying what code they allege is similar, but that they also need to prove that it was IBM (or someone who works at IBM) that actually inserted the code into linux (or at least provided it to Linus et al).
Furthermore, SCO would then need to prove that the code implemented in the linux kernel is 1) critical to the application and 2) actually covered by any patents as being both non-obvious and non-prior art. If some of the matching code is nothing more than an abstracted for loop that increments a counter variable and passes the result to a function or sets another variable (such as an array), then I can't image how any rational person could construe that as patent infringement. But then again, I'm not CEO of a failing company (Q2 earnings aside -- we all know posted earnings don't actually mean anything -- *cough*enron*cough*)
Finally, I like the idea of "whole blocks of code." Obviously his intent is to imply that massive portions of System Unix V code have been "violated," but what he didn't consider is that block has a very technical meaning -- a "whole block" could very easily be a one-line if statement. Not that impressive overall.
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
* Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Hmpff, what did you write? It's code copied from SCO to Linux, not the other way round? Well, who knows... :-) :-)
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
I've been trying like crazy to figure out if this is the case, and if so, if SCO is shit out of luck. I remember a long time ago they said it wasn't the case, but their story might be changing.
What I want to know is whether:
1. The code was pre-1994 from BSD, but they somehow don't think the 1994 agreement is transferrable or even valid, or
2. The code in question was written by Novell or (God forbid) SCO after 1994. If written by Novell, did they explicitly give it to the OSS community or was it just that they didn't enforce the violation? If the latter, this could pose problems...or,
3. Did SCO illegally copy code from BSD (or elsewhere) post-1994? I will say, it will be very important to see source tree commit dates even if they do have some interesting code similarities
I wonder who the "independent experts" they show the source code will be? Probably not anyone with Novell, huh?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
What fascinates me is how much intellectual property can you fit into 10 or 15 lines of code? There are only so many ways to structure data in the world, so many ways to allocate memory and so forth. How close does your code have to be to some other piece of code for it to infringe on intellectual property?
Sure, if Linux stole entire libraries of code, then that would be an issue. But how can you lay claim to component parts as small as this?
Yeah, there's still the "time for FUD" issue. However, for SCO's legal case, the "time to document refutations" could be much more important i.e. SCO doesn't want to give the Linux comuntity time to get their ducks in a row.
SCO knows that the authorship of Linux is much messier than it would be at a traditional company. By making a shotgun claim to many parts of the kernel they can win if any one peice hits. If one author of one peice can't be found, they can win the suit against IBM. If they tell us now what peices they are we can start scouring the globe. If they don't tell us until the legal procedings begin, it becomes a race between the legal procedure and the Linux comunity. Like a life or death game of seek and find. Better, if they can get a judge to only let IBM see the code, it becomes a seek and find where only IBM can play and they can't tell us what they are looking for. They couldn't even say "Does anyone have Linus's email address?" [Or more likely, "does anyone know who wrote lines 1047 to 1052 of kernelfile.c?"]
If they told us what lines were in question, we could all write memiors about how those lines came to be, with CVS snapshots and mailinglist discussions to back it up. If they don't tell us we can either do nothing and be unprepared, or start documenting everything and not get any real work done.
It looks to me like they are testing if the Linux comunity is able to generate a coherent document trail faster than they can generate code. We have lots of data. Can we seperate the wheat from the chaff on demand?
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
Let me see, they're suing IBM for 1 billion $.
That comes out to 60-100 million dollars per line of code.
I think we've just found the most expensive ASCII text in the world.
The next question is.....
Can they prove that those lines originate from their proprietary source, and not from some common (shared) free source?
eg. A text book, magazine, a HowTo, a chip manufacturers tutorial sheet, or some other code source.
The onus must be on them to prove that they did in fact create that code and not copy it from some other source.
Would it be ok to spell it $CO from now on, especially since they seem to be in bed with M$?
In bed with M$?? Let's look at what the article says:
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.
This is not in bed. This is in a dirty bathroom stall, in a seedy part of town, with one party on his or her knees.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
"I'm betting they want the offending code to keep getting used so that they can prosecute the use."
Trouble is, you have a legal obligation to mitigate damages, or in English: You don't get reimbursed in a court of law for harm you could have prevented.
Revealing the code won't do anything to cure any harm to SCO that has already taken place due to the allegedly misappropriation, and SCO can get damages for that if they can prove the improper use of their intellectual property.
So - no damages for future avoidable harm *whether or not SCO reveals the code*. Think about that. It means the reason they're giving for failing to identify the code publicly is a lie. Like CmdrTaco says, the more you hear about this case, the less sense it makes.