Slashdot Mirror
Today's SCO News
landoltjp writes "SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX) are hosting a teleconference today in order to clear the air (*snort*) regarding "Novell's baseless UNIX ownership assertions" and other bits of hubbub and nonesense that's in the news today. Should be fun." And SCO has apparently been enjoined from making some of its claims by a German court (also here.) Cringely has an editorial on the whole mess.
t doesn't help, either, that one of SCO's own people made a strong argument awhile back against the whole idea that Unix code could make it into the Linux kernel. 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.
;)
Hmmmm...the kernel internals are so different...? But wait, if that's the case how did IBM copy SCO code into Linux...? Exactly. It didn't. Even a SCO employee says so.
SCO doesn't appear to be forcing Microsoft, so I can only come to the conclusion that Redmond is thinking of actually using that license, selling its own version of Unix. I wrote about something very similar to this a few months ago, only then I speculated that Microsoft might build a new OS atop Linux. But why use Linux when they could claim Unix, instead? The key here, I think, is the Windows emulation technology Microsoft got when it bought Connectix. Originally aimed at server consolidation, that code could be used by Microsoft to create and sell a Unix/Windows hybrid that would be a big success if Linux is killed by SCO. And the new Microsoft OS would even be a viable competitor to Linux if SCO loses, since it would offer Windows application compatibility. Microsoft could certainly use a sturdy server operating system for a change.
I never put those together until Cringely did, and ya know, Cringley could be on to something here. It's entirely possible that Microsoft staged this whole thing from day one. That would be the ultimate evil -- but then, again, wouldn't that be just like them? Yeah.
My journal has hot
Since the editors didn't find this interesting enough to include, I'll post it here.
Lindows has claimed that their SCO license allowed them to relicense SCO kernel code as GPL. See here for the article. Basically it either means that Lindows has cleaned the offending kernel code or they're about to get sued off the face of the earth.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
SCO's website on Linux at Rackspace? Guess they needed to move it after the DoS recently. Odd choice of platform I have to say.
Netcraft's analyzer says:
Operating System and Web Server for www.sco.com
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.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
$CO has the IBM's response on its site, a PDF of a fax. It just goes over paragraphs, denying each "averment," and granting things sounding like, paraphrasing: Unix-like operating systems are widely used indeed, IBM POWER chip is more powerful than Intel's, and IBM has nothing much to say as to whether Linux is popular among computer enthusiasts! Their response to Prayer for Relief is basically: response is not needed; if needed, there's no relief, or any relief -- it's hilarious!
Should computers be able to parse the phrase "police police police police"?
Sure, SCO would like to have the UNIX branding powers, but they don't have it. Period.
CIO of my corporation today sent out a corporate memo to all IT departments. Basically it demands that any departmental pilot projects involving open-source materials be placed on hold given the 'ongoing legal concerns about the licensing of open source materials'. This SCO debacle, whether orchestrated by Microsoft or not, is killing any goodwill regarding open source products. I can't even get people to agree to deploy Apache to replace our aging iPlanet webserver deployments... "Who owns Apache? Who provides support? How quickly can the vendor manage patches/updates if we have a critical production problem???". Never mind that SunONE support is pathetic, and iPlanet is a dying product line...at least management knows who Sun is.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Nope. The case warrants an update. If I understand the babelfish horror correctly the German court has slapped an injunction on SCO on claiming that Linux infringes on anything and put a tag on it of 250000 Eu for any further violations. That is the first decision in a court of law on the case.
Actually I do not quite understand IBM. Why the hell are they giving this a chance to be viewed in Utah? They could have countersued in a suitable country, obtained an injunction and got a relief exceeding SCO market's cap in Germany ten times by now. That is based on the value of their AIX business alone (before counting linux and linux related hardware in).
After that SCO would have simply folded in. And we would have all been happy to follow another soap opera
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
To get in on this conference call, they want: 1. Name (First & Last) 2. Telephone # 3. Company And no privacy policy either...hmmmm....
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
I've read lots of posts accusing MS of orchestrating this whole thing. I don't understand why people are so willing to believe that -- occam's razor leads us to a simpler explanation.
.NET and Java? Maybe they've got something really incredible -- but it seems pretty unlikely to me.
SCO is in bad shape. On the conference call the other day, they talked about web services, that's the actual product that they're going to try to sell. But what can they do that will stand up to
Anyone who has ever had the misfortune to use SCO knows that it sucks when compared to Linux. Are they going to sell that?
They're in a bad position. They have to make money the best way that they can. This lawsuit seems to be an indication of where they think their best options lie.
Sure, when MS saw the lawsuit, they were filled with glee and they went out and bought a license. But that doesn't mean that they created the situation, that they planned it.
I really think the MS paranoia here tends to miss the point.
Yeah. but it could backfire on MS. Either Linux will win and Linux keeps moving into more market share, or MS kills off Linux and leaves the world with no choice but... ...Apple?
There's no doubt about the BSD origins of OSX, and OSX is past the initial release dramas of its first few years and is a well-deployable, UNIX system available now, running on hardware built specifically to run OSX.
Sounds a good choice to me.
This has nothing to do with ownership of the code, just the fact that OLDER UNIX code has been LICENSED under an Open Source License (BSD licensing I do believe). This is only a smoking gun if the code SCO is talkingabout exsists in these older versions that were open sourced.
Just realise the reality of the situation..... There is no reality.
the "investor club" over here I talked to during lunch, and my daddy who's a CFO... neither had heard of the SCO debacle, or even knew who SCO is. But they all knew about the Microsoft AOL agreement.
So, some job their doing staying in the spotlight. They're (SCO) just trying to make us suffer: of this I am sure.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I saw the same thing in each of my trials. No matter what facts may be on your side, the other side has their own spin on them and, as part of ourcourt system, they have the right to express that spin.
Wouldn't it be interesting if all the Linux users got together and bought out the SCO stock as a way to thwart this? And then vigorously saw to the enforcement of the MS license? Am I really so uncaffeineted that I actually typed those dreams?
Yeah, guess I am..
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
May be IBM should buy Novell. That way they get 95% of all royalties collected by SCO too. They can then sue SCO for distributing Linux containing SVR-V code. IBM can then force all of SCO customers to move to AIX and MS will need to get license from IBM.
IBM supports wide variety of systems and supporting Novell wouldn't be that hard since Novell is business oriented only. Many people don't buy Novell products because they don't have faith that Novell would be around for long. With IBM that won't be the issue. IBM has a history of buying second rank companies: Lotus, Informix etc.
So say for instance we had a sue SCO day. Imagine 20,000 linux hackers and OSS developers going to their local court houses and filing a small claims
suit against SCO for defamation of character and or lost revenue due to groundless claims against linux and the developers. You know there is no way that SCO could defend that many suits and all of them would be no show guarenteed wins. Wow I sure would like to have about 5 grand in my pocket at their expense.
GLOBAL SUE SCO DAY, June 6, 2003
Got Code?
On the Conference call, SCO says that the version of linux that they will focus their sue will be 2.4 and beyond.
The box said "Windows 98, Windows NT, or better"; so I installed GNU/Linux.
You've obviously never actually TALKED to a Microsoft systems engineer.
The ones that I have met have been looking at ways to incorporate the things that really 'work' in Unix into the Windows codebase. I spent over 2 hours talking to one guy in particular who was desperately trying to get a full permissions based file system into the Windows code base. There are numerous ongoing R&D efforts at Redmond completely aimed at making Unix style security, scalabity, and stability available in a user friendly fashion inside of Windows.
I beleive that the culture at Redmond stresses revenue, not particular ties to even their own products. They recognize that they are losing the server battle.. They are winning the useability/administration battle. They are losing (badly) in terms of reliability and security. This company understands (better than any other) the importance of customer perception. Customers associate Unix with all of the things that Microsoft fails at. By building a SERVER product that is based on a Unix foundation, with a windows style UI and admin tools they gain the perception of a server platform that IS secure and stable. That's what Microsoft cares about.. and it makes perfect sense.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
... as all the whiney, arrogant pie-holes determine his IP address despite his posting AC and drown the box with ping floods, spam, and all other sorts of geeky nasty things.
I think the flames have something to do with the dust that was collecting in the back near the GeForceFX-brand vacuum cleaner. You should invest in an air can, man.
Oh, $c0 sux. (not ot)
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I never put those together until Cringely did, and ya know, Cringley could be on to something here. It's entirely possible that Microsoft staged this whole thing from day one. That would be the ultimate evil -- but then, again, wouldn't that be just like them? Yeah. ;)
Actually, I think what they (SCO and MS) wanted to happen didn't materialize, so they are taking this route. Consider this from the article by Cringely:
Gee, maybe SCO wanted to get its hands on the copyrights to UNIX so that Microsoft could buy SCO. If MS were to buy SCO, then they would have the copyright rights to UNIX, and could sic the lawyers on all the Linux vendors. All the greedy, incompetent execs at SCO get to retire on a nice fat payday, simply for turning over the keys to Linux. This plan didn't materialize because Novell wouldn't give up the rights, so Microsoft came up with this strategy. The execs at SCO don't really care what happens, they just need an out. They are heading a dying company, so all they are concerned about it how they can get paid before the whole things collapses.
It may sound like a conspiracy theory, but I think it is a pretty good one. Using money and power, Microsoft could legally squash Linux. What, you think they wouldn't want to do that?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Thing is that this actually hurt the adoption of BSD, until recently.
The reality is that SCO && Microsoft would probably not have that big a problem with Linux if the GPL was actually the BSD license. Then both SCO and Microsoft could take Linux code and do as they wish, and both would benifit in their closed source'dness.
Question I have is why are there references to SCO in the Linux kernel code? I did a grep last night on the source for SCO and came up with some interesting things in some of the drivers and other parts of the kernel. Not sure why there was ever a mention of a __SCO__ define in the Linux kernel? That has me worried.
Question I now have is, will SCO be content to just let the Linux hackers rewrite the 'SCO' out of Linux or will they want more and what more can they get? Also since SCO - Caldera are 'one' didn't they release this code as Caldera under the GPL? Ignorance is no excuse. They should have checked first.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
As far as I can tell Novell admitted that they gave the right to collect License fees from Unix. I personally don't see what it has to do with copywright, IP or trademark. SCO is essentially a bill collector in this contract so I would assume that this deal could be revoked whenever. So, I guess my question is if this is indeed the case, why isn't Novell yanking the contract NOW?
Novell? I mean, it sounds like the safest bet here. Imagine IBM+Novell. Then just find some excuse to kill SCO's license, misrepresentation maybe. (IANAL, though, so who knows if this is possible).
Makes you wonder doesn't it, how can we be sure SCO aren't using tactics to help Microsoft in exchange for sales and licensing?
Several people questioned how SCO was claiming copyright over this code, and SCO's response was two fold.
It doesn't matter to the current litigation with IBM, that is purely a contract matter.
SCO believes that the rights they purchased to in fact include the copyright rights. The contract just didn't say so explicitly.
They sent a letter to Novell asking for them to 'clarify' this (implying that they wanted Novell to just hand over the copyright explicitly.) Apparently Novell declined to do so. So, SCO is going to litigate to show that they have the copyright rights. SCO claims that the 58 pages of the contract with Novell contains everything but the explicit turnover of copyright, and SCO believes that they can argue successfully that they can infer the copyright rights from that contract.
Somebody (Steve Nicholas?) noted that SCO and Caldera worked a long time on Linux and Unix, trying to build a unified system [you remember Monterey? I didn't think so.] How could SCO be sure that it wasn't SCO that added these lines?
SCO just says that they didn't do it. They blame IBM for wasting two years of their time on Monterey, then walking away from it.
In closing, Darl said that "Everybody who really knows, knows that SCO has a strong position. How is it going to get resolved? Will it be by attacking us, and destroying us, before the issues are heard in court? We are very comfortable with our position. We understand that the battle is fierce, but we will continue it because we have the rights and these are our crown jewels."
They say that they are going to show hundreds of lines of infringement, starting in June. June will be "show and tell" month.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Turn off any machine that has open source software on it. Windows has some. Solaris does too. Can't have open source? Then you can't run the company. Do a reply all and tell everyone what a dumbass your CIO is.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
could sco be using this time to edit there own CVS logs?
they said SCO had asked that Novell employees not be added to the call.
Hmmm...what about Novell employees who happen to be SCO shareholders?
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
The majority of IBM's work on the S/390 was to port it to a very alien platform. I'm sure there were parts of Linux that needed some code help -- for example, the S/390 handles disk and file systems quite a bit differently. That disk and file system predates almost all contemporary computer hardware. The file system originated in the S/360 days, the 1960s.
The Sytem 390 is hardly a "very alien platform"; its a von Neumann machine with a byte addressable memory; in some ways it resembles the PowerPC or 680x0. Linux/390 on zVM uses standard Linux filesystems on IBM disks; it doesn't use the CMS or MVS file systems. Handling low level disk I/O on a 390 is different (channel programs or using the diagnose instruction in a virtual machine; don't know which Linux uses myself) but this is not a fantastic difference.
Atleast Cringely, thinks of the Microsoft angle from a pure economic rational. His conjecture is much more rational than the obfuscation of / to \ or cp to copy or ls to dir, the difference between a proprietary dynamic link library and a private lib. It is obvious that the problems with computer software language is the babel that has occured to obfuscate and remain secret.
There is nothing technical about obfuscation of software language, it has been the stock and trade of Microsoft, and most companies including IBM. However IBM has been forced to become much more responsive to server technical support. IBM has realised that open source for the OS is a good thing as site specific changes to functions can easily be implimented by a qualified software tech. The result is that Microsoft, a company that relies on antiquated 32bit IBM arch to sell computers to ignorant pc users, is now trying desperately to eat IBMs 64bit lunch. However if IBM launches a killer cheap 64bit pc with Linux it might blow Microshaft out of the water in one heck of a hurry! Microsoft might then be forced to port a Win32 emu, Office and IE to 64bit Linux just to survive. It sure would be funny if people realised how stable and easy Open Office is to use! SCO is just a side show in the ongoing battle of the titans.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Four years ago, IBM Announced Linux support under AIX. Four years ago
What if that code, based upon Linux code and not the other way round, leaked out of IBM when SCO and IBM were working on IA-64.
Is it IBM who should be sueing SCO for GPL violations?
This is a boring sig
the opportunity to correct any code determined to be an infringement.
So how do you code change a hello world program?
According to patent law there are some things that are not patentable. And this includes such things that anyone in such a relative field would come to the same or similiar solution in the normal course of work.
What this means is that for SCO to prove there is code of theirs in Linux - And I'm sure they are doing some conversion on the code (i.e. converting variable names and function calls to some common symbolic sets) and comparing the results - they have to also show that such solutions are not common knowledge today, such that solution is likely to be patentable today.
Considering the fact that the linux code is open source........
Who is to say that SCO themselves did not spike the code?
What is more likely to be the case is that they are finding pattern matches after doing symbolic conversions. Sorta along the lines of searching for bible codes but far more mathmatically likely to find matches.
In this symbolic pattern matching the task of linux will be to be allowed to disprove the probability of correct findings proving infringement.
The conversion process alone could be reason to NDA it.
But perhaps now the cat is out of the bag and we can openly start creating our own symbolic conversion programs to process sourcecode for pattern matching.
if microshit wanted to make a linux clone itd be here long ago. and doing great.
the truth is that ms is using sco to attack linux the brand. maybe they get to keep 10 percent of the bribe money. no windex. sorry.
Yea this "secret evidience" crap has been festering in the US for some time. It didin't start under Bush but people who support this anti civil liberty view have taken advantage of it post 9/11. It's a bipartisan group as many would not suspect. Fortunately theire is also a bipartisan group fighting it. The "USA Patroit" act will not be extended or renewd. Now if we could just get DARPA's little project to spy on the innocent shut down and prohibited for ever. Goverment teend to erode civil liberties, You now stack of books to find out if what you want to do is legal. You used to just know it by it's feel.
Now you are guilty until proven innocent. Less goverment is good goverment. Less law is good law. The US has forgot that.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
They have hundreds of lines that they claim to be infringing. That is the sticky wicket. Just because they say it infringes does not mean that it does.
Someone is going to have to prove that code wasn't cribbed.
Just the opposite. They are going to have to prove that it was cribbed and that they held the IP rights to it at the time. That in and of itself is a question very much up in the air.
Sounds to me like a court can only agree that they were wronged.
Two letters O-J. Courts can rule any number of ways depending on what is and is not allowed into evidence, how the jury is selected and yes, even which side has the better lawyer. The law is not black and white. It is logrithmic iterations of grey on a dynamic grey background. SCO has confused many facts in their case and their ownership is also in question.
Ownership, infringement, intent, license terms, previous exports, and a wide range of other issues can all be argued ad naseum for a veeeeeeeeeeeeeery long time.
This won't take ten years
Ten years? Of course not. SCO will be dead by then. Will it last over 2? Almost certainly. The lifespan for IP cases in Federal Court are on average 3-4 years. I know because I have worked on them. Lawyers can drag out anything that they put their minds to. Even assuming that both sides push for a quick trial date it will still be over a year before a slot open up for them to take. The court system is very much backed up and almost nothing has been done to rectify it. So it will, unless a settlement occurs sooner, be a case measured in years.
It's not like the IBM or AT&T or Microsoft monopoly cases, which risked their corporate existence
Actually SCO is risking their corporate existence. They will not survive a defeat and their stock is indicitive of investors knowing that as well. Only through victory or hanging on long enough to force a buyout at a higher price will SCO be able to survive.
But you can bet they won't spend a second protecting anyone else using linux.
Nor should they be obligated to. the claims against Linux are an attempt to interfere with Linux sales as a means to help their own products. If SCO wants to go after Linux users than they need to file a complaint to that effect. I doubt that IBM will just roll over and settle because it sets a bad precedent for every other hack corporation that can superglue a complaint together.
Remember, just because a company says something does not mean it is true. Lawyers go to school for three years so that they can manipulate facts, opinions, and language in the support of their client. The job of the other lawyer is to point out the manipulation while attempting to do the same thing.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Just finished reading the nmap questions answered...then moved onto this...found it kinda funny that they talk about all the revenue they're going to get from sueing people...would be salt in the wounds of the open source community if they won the case and used Nmaps OS detection to find linux boxes and issues summons :)