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.
I've had it.. Okay, I just checked my wallet, and I'm ready to offer $43.00 cash for The SCO Group. I know I'm overpaying, but I just want to stop hearing about them!
---
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
$0 is going to have their own section in Slashdot.
Those who trade freedom for security will lose both, and deserve neither" -- Ben Franklin
The headline pretty much says it all. "Today's SCO News". SCO is doing *everything* they can to keep themselves in the media/technology spotlight.
Of course, the Novell bit really hurt them, and now they're getting a bit desperate. If they had any dignity they'd just give up now, but we know they don't.
Der Bremer Linux-Spezialist univention_ hat vor dem Bremer Landgericht gegen die SCO Group GmbH eine einstweilige Verfügung erwirkt.
Well! I'm certainly glad to have that cleared up.
...I'm sure they're using SCO UnixWare wherever possible, so dive right in, boys, I'm sure you won't /. them! After all, it's *much* more reliable than Linux, right??
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Don't these people realize that they're wasting a renewable resource: hot air! We could probably produce megawatts from all of this ill wind...
Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."
Just when did SCO become the North Korea of IT?
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
Fantastic! Since HBO did not air the final episode of "Six Feet Under" last weekend, I have been feeling serial drama-deprived all week!
From this colorful agenda item from the press release, "Comments on Novell's baseless UNIX ownership assertions," it would appear that a fun and exciting installment is about to begin!
Will Novell save Linux? Will SCO go through with the suicide? Will IBM get drunk and break a lamp over SCO's head?
"...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
NOT!!!!!
This is not going away. I suspect this will linger for a good year or more. That is, unless SCO shareholders make a stand. Which is just not going to happen. The lawyers are running the show. SCO is no longer a technology company. They are one of these new fangled IP companies, like Rambus. The really funny thing is that it's not even their own IP.
I'm sure they think that they're on to something. But the courts have a way (albeit lengthy) of asserting common sense when the horse is already out of the barn.
I STRONGLY urge the slashdot editors to consider a weekly update, rather than hourly update, on this story from now until next year.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
I'm hoping for some good old west style vigilante justice!
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Aren't these the same German laws and courts that had the OSS world up in arms over the Killustrator/Adobe issue?
It's hypocritcal to trash them when strange laws work against you, then cheer them when similarly strange laws work in your favor.
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
While this is a great first step.. there is still much more to do.
/ 28 /caldera.html
As a matter of fact, I think the moking gun against SCO has been sitting right under our noses. In searching for information about Novell's sale of UNIX(or licensing) to Caldera/SCO, I came across an interesting article from last march at
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2002/02
In short las year Caldera(SCO) released some of the older UNIX Codes (they say including V7 and 32V) under an open source license. This means that if any of the code that SCO is talking about is revealed to be in these versions, they don't have a leg to stand on.
Search for one thing, find something else.
Just realise the reality of the situation..... There is no reality.
The oft maligned Distribution Lindows might have dealt a fatal blow to SCO. Lindows is apparantly in the clear due to contract entered between SCO and Lindows sometime ago. Couple this with the GPL and the Kernel is cleared for ALL even if the SCO allegations is correct.
Help fight continental drift.
Let's see, who's all involved again?
SCO sues IBM
SCO threatens 1500 Linux 'users'
Linus says SCO is full of it and wants proof
Novell knocks SCO on the head for being ID10T's
SCO threatens Linus if they don't receive the ransom^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H licenses
Microsoft funds SCO, but claims it was 'business as usual'
I think this might make things a little clearer...
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
$CO is wonderful.
All hail the great and powerful $CO.
Pay no attention to the code behind the curtain!
All hail the great and powerful $CO.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The Sun will nova, engulfing the Earth and SCO in its massive death-blast. SCO's still-undisclosed trade secret IP will be vaporized and that will pretty much be that.
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
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.
maybe if we all phone in at 1 we can slashdot the phone network? ;)
>1:00pm e.d.t.
>US: 1-800-289-0496
>International: 913-981-5519
>Conference code #: 164628
Last Trade
12:26pm $6.66
Hmmmm, 'nuff said.
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
SCOs own SEC filings prove Novell's calims.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
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"?
The order forbids SCO from maintaining that, "that Linux operating systems illegitimately acquired and contains intellectual property of SCO Unix and/or that the end users of Linuxc can be made liable for patent infringement".
The German SCO office faces a fine of up to 250.000 euro for each offence if it continues with it's claims.
Univention had previously warned the SCO Group because of anti-competitive behavior. The Homburger based enterprise let the period for objections elapse.
"We were therefore forced to obtain the order", said Peter H. Ganten, CEO of Univention and one of the authors of the Debian standard work "Debian GNU/LINUX".
"SCO 's unproven statements , that Linux hurts patent rights of the Unix enterprise, upsets the public and harms the image of Linux. So we have had to resist."
The provisional order against the SCO Group is, according to opinion of the enterprise, an important step in several weeks of smoldering controversy in the computer industry regarding Linux.
SCO Group had sued IBM at the beginning of March for a billion US dollars of damages, because they claim that IBM's Linux programmers availed themselves of the code of SCO Unix version. SCO has so far failed to provide any evidence to back up this statement.
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
Sure, SCO would like to have the UNIX branding powers, but they don't have it. Period.
That of Bremen Linux specialist univention _ obtained regional court before that of Bremen against the SCO Group GmbH a provisional order
Worst. Sig. Ever.
Q: What do you say to an SCO employee in 2005?
A: I'll have a Big Mac, large fries and a Coke.
Trolling is a art,
If you're new to the SCO drama, you can play catch-up here in a context we can all understand.
They have the Internet on computers now?
Where is the code?
SCO has said that for legal reasons, they won't identify the exact code. But it would be useful to know if the code is in the kernel, or in user space. If the kernel, at least what directory, or section of the kernel is it in?
If it is a header file, in the include directory, similarities are to be expected. For example, the Linux system call numbers are the some as many other OSes. These number are well known, and and have been for decades, and can't possibly be a trade secret. POSIX defines a zillion well-known constants which will show up in most every POSIX compliant OS, and similarities are also to be expected here. Again, this doesn't mean that Linux copied from SCO, rather, that they both copied from POSIX.
If the code is in a device driver, it is very possible that both the SCO code and the Linux code share a common ancestor -- many device drivers are written by the device manufacturers, and given to the OS vendors to include in their system.
If the code is in the CPU-specific part of the kernel, is it something that there is only one way to do. Intel publishes specs on how to manipulate low-level registers to do specfic tasks (start second CPUs, enable memory protection, etc.), and there just aren't that many different ways to do them.
Is the code is *BSD, or elsewhere on the net?
If this alledgedly infringing code is in *BSD, or on other places on the net, this would again point to a non-SCO ancestor. For example, Intel publishes Application Notes on how to use features of their processors. It wouldn't surprise me to find this code in many different OSes which use Intel processors, or Intel-compatible processors. Also, there is some Unix(tm) code which has been given to the public domain, in the interest of portability. I believe that cpio is one of these programs.
Both SCO and Linux use the X window system, which came from the X consortium -- I'm sure there's a ton of common X related code in both, but again, that doesn't mean that Linux copied from SCO.
The last Unix lawsuit resulted in marking all of the BSD code as "clean", so if this infringing code is also in one of the BSDs, that would help to indicate that it is also clean.
When did the code first originate?
As many people have pointed out, even if there is similar code in both Unix and in Linux, that doesn't indicate which direction the code moved. If such similarities can be found, the origination dates would need to be proved as well. Apparently, SCO ships Samba, GCC, and other open source code today, and marks it as such. Perhaps there's more code like this that slipped into the kernel.
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?"
I suggest we move them to /dev/null ... all in favor? :-)
-Digital Extremist
Cringely says: "Let's try to make some sense of all this", but to me he doesn't manage to do this because all of the claims are just presented without enough questioning. E.g:
"At stake is certainly Linux and perhaps FreeBSD, NetBSD, and any other Unix that doesn't come with an SCO license."
Which (non-SCO) Unixes come with a SCO license? As I understood it The Open Group permit products to be called "Unix".
"What matters is the approaching June 13th deadline, which is when SCO can yank IBM's Unix license, making any subsequent copies of AIX not Unix."
Again, which license?
- Brian.
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
You forgot this...
4)M$ will release M$ UNIX
5)The next day, users of M$ UNIX (former users of SCO) reports the first BSOD for UNIX in the history of UNIX.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
(And for the record, they probably could have stolen...err appropriated code from FreeBSD. Also, note that Linux can run SCO binaries, through iBCS2. But that's likely because there's a standard that governs those binaries...)
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
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.
Just th' good ol' boys
Never meanin' no harm...
According to the injuction that uninvention got from the German courts, if SCO repeat or continue to make their unproven allegations that Linux contains their IP, they can be fined up to 250,000 Euros. :-)
So, who is going to make them say it in the conference call?
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
A Mr. Arie Rubenstein has helped us out here --
"To make [the SCO vs Linux thing] easier to understand, I put it in familiar terms -- Dukes of Hazzard"!
(warning: mirror needed)
For Immediate Release
May 30, 2003
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
-- The SCO Group is based in Salt Lake City, Utah and has done nothing of interest in many years.
Trolling is a art,
Memepool has a link to a fantastic Dukes of Hazard interpretation of the whole SCO/Linux affair.
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
In fact, Microsoft already has a Unix/Windows hybrid: it's SFU (windows services for unix), and it includes a component called Interix, which extends the Windows NT/2000/XP kernel with a set of Unix system calls, and adds a few hundred Unix utilities.
If buying a SCO licence wasn't pure propaganda, then it's likely that Microsoft bought the SCO licence for the benefit of the SFU product.
It is highly unlikely that Microsoft would ever follow Apple's lead and create a new version of Windows that is layered on top of a Unix kernel. This is because of Microsoft's corporate culture. They are as rabidly pro-Windows and anti-Unix as the Slashdot community is the reverse of this.
Doug Moen.
I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
The worst thing that could ever happen to Apple is if they broke 50% in user base. With the absolute control they hold over the platform and their history of using their control to influence their vendors they would be prime targets for monopolisitic tendency status.
The Sun will nova, engulfing the Earth [...]
Listen, I know some of the old SparcStation 10s run hot, but if you ensure proper ventilation and kept to the recommended CPU combinations you'll have absolutely nothing to worry about.
"In order to protect the rights of ethnic Linux users, we must attack SCO in self-defense."
;)
There ya go.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I love the crack at the end about a microsoft hybrid that could be known as 'WINDEX'. Will Microsoft now have to Embrace/Extend/Destroy SC Johnson wax to steal yet another trademarked Name?
wanted: one clever sig,apply within
This has no relevance according to Novell.
scovslinux.slashdot.org. It will make SCO/Linux stories easier to find. I am tired of scrolling through a bunch of technical stories to find them.
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
Microsoft, will watch this unfold. Ultimately it will take a decade for this suit to conclude, and it's unlikely SCO will stick around that long. However, Microsoft can watch the preliminary legal actions and see where it goes. If the possibility of a win seems decent, then Microsoft can go and buy the Unix property off SCO, make SCO stockholders happy, and try to wipe out the Unix variants.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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.
SCO: "copyright issues not important to our enforcement actions"
SCO: "next week ... will be showing ... direct lines of code from our LinuxWorks ... in the Linux kernel".
SCO: "since we have started down this path ... business great"
SCO ist the celebration of the repellant and painful.
Would you like to touch my monkey?
Now ist the time ver ve dance!
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I tried dialing in - I'm a Novell employee and told the operator that - and they said SCO had asked that Novell employees not be added to the call.
Hrmmph.
You'd think they'd at least let us listen to them talking about us!
SCO just stated on the conference call, in response to a question asking if it would be possible to use the Linux kernel in a fashion that would not violate SCO's claims, that they are only really concerned with people using the 2.4 kernel and above. So is this a clue that the code in question is something that is only in kernels > 2.4?
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.
3.11 NNS
I called and tried to get in. Gave the code, gave my name, then the person asked my company name. I replied "IBM" and was told that the call was "by invitation only". When I called back and said I was a "private investor", I was let in.
SCO owns all of UNIX, all versions, all updates, all source and all derivative works. They have ~=30,000 license and sub-license agreements with ~=6,000 parties including many fortune 2000 companies.
.. they also have patents but this is their strongest lead.
.. improperly donated.
This initial enforcement action is based upon copyright law
There is no linux kernel that they have studied that is not in some violation of their copyright laws. They are specifically interested in 2.4 and later
they found evidence of SCO code and derivitaves in the linux kernel
Because of the legal issues there are limitations on what they can disclose, next week they will show some parties their proof, such as members of the press, parties they have license agreements with and some software analysts.
----
There are a lot of good reporters on the line asking a lot of interesting questions. There will also be a full text of the conference call later. Don't know where yet.
Let's take a moment to remember whose intellectual property all this really is:
Dennis
Brian
Ken
Rob
et. al.
"Unix, Live Free or Die"
I'm on the phone on this conference call right now.
.. blah blah.. which gives us full authority to reach agreement with our customers.
.. came and went and they didn't show up. Later that evening Novell did their thing with that letter we've all read. We were set to show them the code, but they didn't show up. TH
CALL START
great deal of aconfusion over last 2 weeks re: sco's enforcement actions.
suit against IBM and letter to 1500 commercial linux users.
Based on contract/licenses. None of SCO's actions have been based on copyright/patent. No assertion by anyone that SCO doesn't have contract rights. As to the copyrights, 2 points. Copyrights not important to current actiosn. We have stated that we own the UNIX copyrights and right to enforce. Novell has challenged taht. We disagree with that. Desperate measure to curry favor with the Linux community. We will take all steps to rectify the issues.
1995 agreement -- we own all rights to ownership to unix and unixware. blah blah blah.. blah blah blah.. we own everything.. blah blah blah. He's being a real dick about it, too.
Why SCO bases initial enforcement actions: SCO owns unix licensing agreements. ~30,000 agreements. these licensees include a lot of people. blah blah.. these licenses include restrictions and "standard of care". This applies to the original source code and the derivitive works created by the licensee.
Current enforcement actions are based on these rights. They may do copyright stuff later, but not now.
Second question: Does SCO have evidence of UNIX source in kernel? "Resounding yes" Each of our 3 groups studying linux for UNIX code have individually come back finding code improperly put into LInux.
STarting next week viewing code under NDA. We hope this step will be of benefit of the software community.
Question 1: differences wit Novell causing problems to deal with IBM: very simple answer: we have full right to UNIX
Question 2: What does it mean "turned novell issue over to attorneys to rectify issues". We've said very clearly that ocpyright isn't important to current enforcement actions.
Question 3: SCO claims that they're being damaged by presence of their IP in Linux kernel. Aren't you continuing your damage by not showing the code?
We're showing it next week. We'll show our actual code samples. Also derivitive works. ALong with contract info to back up the claim.
Questino 4: SCO has rolled all the dice on this lawsuit. If you lose, what is the remaining company if you lose?
We're enforcing our rights in the UNIX business. Only one compnay can say they own 30,000 contracts on big unix companies. It's an incredible position to be in. Basically saying that all they have is the lawsuits. He talks nothing about actual product or anything. All about suing. All future prospects are regarding lawsuits.
Question 5:
Re: novell contract. did not metino copyright and patents. Does it meniton copyright and patent?
56 pages of novell/SCO documents. Majority of contract clearly shows intent that Copyrights covered as related to SCO going to market.
Again, our point is that C&P don't affect our current lawsuits. Contract rights are much more important than C & P. SOme really bad card-game analogy thing.
Question 6:
Stupid question. Already been covered.. more stuff about copyright stuff. SCO claims they have copyright and patent, but that it doesn't matter for the current stuff. Dude didn't seem to really have much of a clue. Sounded like some guy living in his parent's bedroom in Wyoming. I hope you're reading this. You're dumb.
Question 7:
Were you surprised what novell did, as you were a previous novell exec.
We had a meeting with their vice chairman scheduled to look at the source code stuff. "Come on over, we'd be glad to show those to you". We set up a time to do that 11am tuesday
Sorry, the all the BSDs have already been down this path before and re-wrote any code that was in question. Next...
They were angry that novell gatecrashed their profits announcement :-) :-(
I was on the call and nothing really that new was said
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
That being said this might not be so bad for FOOS.
From the attitude of your CIO it looks like there is Zero undertanding and Zero willingness to give anything back, so why should your company benefit from FOOS.
The impact to FOOS of them not using any open source software is zip to the community as a whole, and your employeer puts themselves at a competitive disadvantage which is richly deserved.
FOOS is a long term Quid pro Quo and not a one way street, at least in spirit.
Help fight continental drift.
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.
"Schranken verwiesen"
:o)
Isn't that what happens to your naughty bits when you go swimming in a cold lake?
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).
Wonder about their webcast too - could have made a good phone-in question this past week.
Something like "You're running this webcast on Linux - why is that?"
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
usually a patent is 17 years with the potential for a 17 year extension, at least thats what I thought. UNIX was patented 35 years ago wasnt it? What's the deal?
Only if you assume that patents are relevant to the SCO lawsuit, and that nothing added to Unix in the last 35 years was patentable. SCO has indicated that the first is not really true, and anyone who's used Unix for a while knows that a vast quantity of additions and innovations have been made much more recently than 1968 (especially considering it wasn't released until after that). Patents cover a specific technique or algorithm, not a general product with thousands of components. (The most famous Unix patent is probably 4,135,240 from 1973 - Dennis Ritchie's patent on the setuid bit, which AT&T released to the public domain years ago.)
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.
*best in the sense of being hilarious.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
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
Can we get a German-to-English translation that doesn't suck, please? I've tried google to no avail, and feel that Babblefish won't be any better.
I still wonder how many people have read this by Eric Raymond.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
While SCO has yet to provide any substantial evidence in their case against IBM and Linux, Timeline Inc has already won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft in another contract dispute.
The outcome of this case puts developers and users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft product at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents.
Microsoft's products do not provide users and developers a safe haven from the threat from lawsuits based on violations of intellectual property.
However, since the SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL licensed Linux kernel and components, it must by the terms of the GPL license, provide all those who receive the code from them an implicit license to any intellectual property, patents, trade secrets which SCO owns and is used by the GPL'ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently receives the GPL source.
You are actually in a better legal position using GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products.
Is there any way to change the caldera story icon to something like a zombie hand or rotten fish head or something? I don't think they deserve to be recognized by their official corporate symbol anymore. If Microsoft rates a borg photoshop, Caldera certainly should get something more exemplary of their character and bearing.
Like say, cat vomit.
could sco be using this time to edit there own CVS logs?
No... First they edit their pocket books, then they fold up shop and edit their pants.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
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.
$C0 ... I read that as 192 dollars. Upping the ante as it were?
SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
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!
There's an extra space being inserted after '28'. It's not in my code, but the link in my preview works...
It'll be /.'ed now, for sure.
This is where I can't understand who is running this strategy - Darl or the VERY expensive lawyers they're supposedly paying. Because it seems pretty easy to predict. First, they claimed property they do not own - property actually owned by the Open Group and Novell. These organizations then bitchslaped SCO in public.
Did they not think the "bitchslap" step would occur? Because it looked pretty obvious to me. Did they think Novell wouldn't tell the world that they were begging for Unix copyrights? Did they think Novell would actually give it to them? That's pretty damaging to your case there, guys.
Fools.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Thank you Alta Vista Bablefish.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Backslashes were used as directory separators in DOS because nested directories were not introduced until several revisions in, and by that time forward slashes had been widely adopted as option indicators.
However, all modern Win32 platforms support forward slashes as directory separators. There are only a few places left (e.g. the standard file dialog) where you still have to use backslashes.
NTFS also supports case-sensitive filenames, though it's not turned on by default for compatibility reasons.
DNA just wants to be free...
Here's the theory. The company executives convince themselves that they have been wronged and find a lawyer who willingly agrees. What they don't have (and why I originally titled it "Negative Feedback") is someone pointing out their errors. In other words, they don't have any negative feedback internally for their claim. I have no doubts that their attorney knows its a non starter. Saying its a non starter, though, means no more gravy train of legal fees. So he goes ahead and prosecutes the percieved injustice as strongly as ever.
Now, for the lawyer to keep billing the case has to be kept going. The more FUD spread, the longer it goes, and the less tangible the claims made, the easier it will be to pursue the case. Once SCO gets pinned down to the nitty gritty of their case, it will probably be game over. Discovery will force SCO to disclose the exact nature of their claim to IBM. Once that happens, IBM can subpoena Novell, and maybe even Lindows from what I have seen from some of the comments, for their documents related to ownership and can review the work that IBM put into the Linux kernal. IBM can then move for Summary Judgment based on the fact that a) the code in question is not owned by SCO (and hence has no standing) b) that the code was not incorporated into the Linux kernal (and hence the case is moot) and possibly even c) that SCO GPL'd it through Lindows (and is, again, mooted).
It is in the Discovery process that SCO will drag out the case. There will be constant objections, motions to compel, motions for protective orders and every last line is going to be contested. SCO's lawyer will probably be able to extend the discovery process for years. Even longer if a Special Master is appointed.
Throughout this process the SCO atty is going to be reinforcing to SCO how wronged SCO is and how everything that IBM is doing is merely a trick to continue to steal from SCO. Again there will be a distinct lack of opposing voices. At the end of the day IBM will have won, Linux will be vindicated (but not without serious sales disruption), MS will point to the whole 2+ year debacle as further evidence of OS unreliability, SCO will be bankrupt, and their lawyer will own a couple new houses, boats and cars.
At least that's my take on it (and I am only a cynical paralegal- not a lawyer!), though the reality is I know less about it than a lot of the other posters here. SO be sure and add some NaCl before ingesting;-)
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Now, as you can see from that page, it will be retired on June 16th and replaced with a new database. Unfortunately, the new database won't have all the same information available unless you are a reseller partner or have paid for support. There's a thread at comp.unix.sco.misc discussing this, and as you can imagine, even those who would still like to find some reason to feel good about SCO are more than annoyed.
In the interests of total honesty, at the moment at least it is easy and free to become a SCO partner and get full access to the database. But as SCO insiders have specifically said that the purpose of this is to generate more support income for resellers, how long will that last?
Also, if you are battling a problem at 2:00 am and google a link to the ta that would solve your problem, will you enjoy having to sign up as a partner to find out why the stupid thing won't boot? I doubt it. My bet is your next move would be to install Linux right over it..
-- Tony Lawrence
Maybe somebody could clear this up for me. Folks seem to think that SCO will not reveal the alleged violating code because there isn't any. SCO's silence is understandable. But they threatened IBM, presumably by telling IBM that it is misusing SCO code. So IBM would know what code is in question. Why doesn't IBM reveal even a hint of what the allegedly offending code might be or where it resides? I don't see any good incentive for IBM to keep quiet.
Option 3. Take a dump in it, then send it back.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
If you ask me, he's doing what he's paid for. Why risk exposing yourselves to costly legal fees and penalties? Yeah it might suck, but that doesn't mean it's a bad decision.
Oh and ixnay on shutting down the company, as one poster suggested, work from within, inform people, educate them, trust me, you'll get farther that way.
I just had a look at SCOX's stock on Yahoo. They closed up about 12% from yesterday's close.
I can't help but suspect this increase in price was due to thrillbert's buyout offer.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1011627.html?tag=f d_top
who needs credibility anyhow - famous last words
FUNK!
... really doesn't know yet if SCO got anything on them or not. It certainly looks weird so far. Perhaps they are just stalling as long as it takes so their own auditors can go over it once, twice and thrice so they don't pull a boner in court. Probably interviewing a lot of past programmers as well. The last place you want to find out stuff is in discovery.
methinks that wasn't an appropriate saying for slashdot......
oh well
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.
A recording of the teleconference is available:
(888) 203-1112 code: 164628
> Actually I do not quite understand IBM. Why the hell are they giving this a chance to be viewed in Utah?
Actually, IBM has moved that this lawsuit be tried in federal court. Both the court & IBM are waiting for the SCO Group's reponse. Evidentally, the SCO Group is too busy talking to the press, rather than talking to the judge.
In any case, MacBride & his ilk have to deal with this motion before it can go to trial. No telling how much it will cost them in legal fees to respond; obviously less for them than IBM.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
The URL http://www.sco.com/soss/ takes you to a very helpful page which, among other topics, has an address where you can "Report problems, make suggestions, get help". I certainly reported a problem with SCO & open source, suggested a few alternatives courses of action and asked for their help in understanding what they hoped to achieve. Maybe you have questions for SCO too... I might even send them another mail later today.
- mipe -
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.
Yeah, well at least we don't have to wait until we get to the last chapter of our novels to get to all the verbs. ;)
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?
It think this is like SCO. Just wait til sundown.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Germany has the advantage of a 20th Century legal system that in many aspects -- though certainly not all -- is vastly superiour the 18th Century hack that the U.S. is hobbled by (for the record: I'm an American). This starts with the basic philosophy: The American system is adversarial, which means that you don't even pretend to care about what really happened, you just let both parties slug it out and declare one side a winner at the end. In constrast, the German system at least pretends to be interested in the truth. This means for example that procecutors are required by law to list all the evidence they think shows that the accused is innocent.
Also: The court calls the scientific experts, which means that German cases are almost completely free of the junk science that makes the U.S. legal system so bizarre. Lawyers are paid the same (by fixed rates) if they win or lose and law students do not aspire to become millionaires. The guy with the most money doesn't automatically win -- while most Americans will not even consider going to court against entities with deep pockets anymore. All judges are appointed, not elected, and then they are basically untouchable; note the U.S. only uses this system for a few elite positions like the Supreme Court.
More differences: Laws are written down in books, not make up as you go along by creative interpretations of older rulings. This provides Germany with Rechtssicherheit ("legal security"), so the legal environment has a certain degree of stability, a very, very alien concept to the U.S., where anybody can sue anybody else for anything at any time, stupid or not. As a result, there is basically no such thing as a "tactical lawsuit" in Germany. You don't get "laughed out of court" -- they don't let the clowns in in the first place.
Like in any modern legal system, the lottery of trial-by-jury has been replaced by a panel of professional judges who know what DNA is and don't show up in Star Trek uniforms when considering a murder case -- remember OJ? People are assumed to be of average intelligence, not morons like in the U.S., and so you can't sue McDonald's if you are such a dumb fuck that you burn you tongue on their coffee (the mentally handicapped are treated on a case-by-case basis).
The German legal system has also proven itself to be fiercely independant of government influence (compared to the Microsoft trial in the U.S., for example). German judges ruled flat out that Libya was behind the bombings in Berlin that killed U.S. soldiers at the same time the German administration was kissing up to Ghaddafi for economic reasons.
There are, of course, disadvantages, like a tendency to give murders 20 years and then let them out after 15. However, the German system on the whole is far, far more sane than the American one, and so it doesn't surprise me one bit that SCO is not getting away with this crap in Germany.
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 :)