Slashdot Mirror
IBM Doesn't Comply With SCO's Deadline
prostoalex writes "IBM refused to settle with SCO and comply with their deadline, expiring Friday the 13th. "We've got a strong defense case, and we're going to fight it", IBM representative is quoted."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I hate to say this, but who actually thought IBM would give in to this undersized bully?
Someone hates these cans.
Third round!! 50 bucks on IBM!!!
On Friday the 13th a black cat was found dead at SCO underneath a broken mirror.
Who needs drama/soaps on tv when you have a show right here..
SCO and IBM's marriage isnt going well.
SCO says IBM is cheating with another OS.
SCO files for divorce.
SCO takes IBM's keys to the house away
IBM fights for the house.
Oh how I will tune in next week to see what happens.
Since I don't have the money to defend myself in court like IBM, I'd really like to comply with SCO's claims that not just linux, but a lot of other software infringes on SCO's claimed copyright. I'm just a bit puzzled as to how I might go about this.
.tgz files and post the URL here, I can download it and take care of it myself.
...
For example, I'm looking at a line of code in one of my GPL'd programs:
i += j - n;
Does this infringe on any code claimed by SCO? How would I know?
The only way I can think of is that SCO should send me a copy of their code. I can easily write a little perl script that will compare every line of my code with every line of theirs, and I can rewrite anything that seems to be infringing.
Can anyone think of another way?
Since my code is GPL'd and on my web site, SCO could do it themselves. But they are probably pretty busy, so I'd rather do it myself. Anyway, recent history shows that when they find infringing code, they don't send the programmer a nice message so the code can be changed. SCO just sues them for big bucks. I'd much rather avoid this threat, and save them time, by eliminating any infringements myself.
SCO doesn't need to send me their code. If someone at SCO would just package it up in a few
Eagerly awaiting the URL
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Linux software companies could also become SCO targets. "Do we have potential issues with Red Hat, SuSE and other commercial Linux distributors--yes, we might," Sontag said, adding that chances for negotiating with such companies appear to be slim.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
Of a case involving MCA Universal, Nintendo and Donkey Kong.
It ends up Universal didn't actually OWN the rights to Donkey Kong, but bullied several companies, and sued Nintendo anyway... and ended up paying 1.8 million for the trouble.
Ryan Fenton
On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."
If SCO lose because their rights have not been infringed upon, as seems likely, then that doesn't say anything bad about the GPL at all. How could it?
...of something strongly in doubt.
First off, SCO has to prove that the code in question is in fact "theirs". Considering the rather incestuous family tree that is UNIX that is not so cut and dry.
Additionally, there are allegations that SCO has been helping themselves to GPL'd code without credit or redistribution.
No, the thing we're learning here is that if you really have an IP case against Linux or another GPL project than just be right out in the open. Document the code and PROVE your case. Don't hide behind lawyers, NDA's, horribly out of context quotes and vaguely threatening letters.
And, oh yeah, it helps if you can at least stick to one story for greater than a week.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
SCO can't compete with Linux. Its UnixWare OS, while a fine middle level server OS, doesn't have the the scalability, hardware support or applications that Linux has. They know it. SCO couldn't make money selling its own Linux.
So, it does what M$ could only dream of: launch a self destructive lawsuit in a last, desperate gasp of trying to save its business and destroy Linux, unleashing the greatest FUD attack witnessed yet. People are scared. M$, with its "license" pulls the strings, and watches with glee. "I told you so!" M$ will say. "You can't trust open source!"
SCO needs to be destroyed. No bought or settled with, but crushed, utterly and completely. What they have done is unethical, immoral and (hopefully) completely without legal base.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
> Modern OSS lack original ideas.
No it doesn't. Look at GNU Radio. You can use it to decode HDTV signals. Try finding non-free software that does the same thing. The linux kernel has VFS (Virtual Filesystem Switch) which acts as an abstraction layer allowing you to mount and use many different file systems in the same way. That's pretty original. Look at OpenBSD. It has encrypted swap space and random pids. What other OS has that? Look at apache. Before apache you couldn't have more than one website per box. Look at Gnutella, it was the first distributed p2p software ever. And the list goes on....
And if SCO wins, it'll send a message to the world that you can't trust any GPLed product, because a contributor might suddenly determine that, oops, some of the code in it was "unintentionally" released-- and therefore, you never really had a license to use/distribute it in the first place.
Of course, you really have to break this case into four separate decisions:
1) Did IBM steal proprietary code from SCO in violation of an NDA, and include that code in their Linux release?
2) Does SCO even own the copyrights to that code, or do they still belong to Novell, in which case the determination in (1) may or may not be important.
3) Assuming (1) and (2) break in favor of SCO, does SCO have the right to sue Linux end-users for posessing/distributing Linux code, even if the end-users didn't know they were breaking the law? This turns on...
4) Does SCO's distributing their own version of Linux (under the GPL) invalidate any copyright claims they might have made on code that was (without their knowledge) included in the Linux codebase? In other words, if you steal my code and hide it in a corner of the Linux kernel, can I legally be deprived of my rights to it just because I distributed a copy of Linux?
Quite frankly, the best outcome is for SCO just to drop this nonsense.
If IBM illegally copied code that rightfully belonged to SCO,and is large enough to warrant real copyright protections, and it made it's way into linux, then we want SCO to win against IBM, and we want SCO to do the right thing, which is let us know which code it is so the linux world at large can work to remove that code from future versions.
Furthermore, realize that we aren't obligated to remove it immediately; even if IBM copied it into, say, OS2, their customers would not be obligated to uninstall their software. SCO can claim damages, but claiming control over all of linux sure isn't going to happen.
On the other hand, if scos claims are really baseless, we want them to die, because they suck.
To date, SCO has signed new licensing deals with two companies. One is Microsoft; the other has not been identified.
Could the other one also be Microsoft? Just thinking.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
Ok, let's play what if.
Suppose there was a meeting. There were no notes taken of this meeting. No emails or memos were ever written that it even took place.
The meeting was between Microsoft and SCO.
Microsoft promises to keep SCO afloat...doling out money to them over the next 10 to 15 years. In small chunks. First up is to buy a license from SCO...totally out in the open. Saying that they just want to be on the up and up with any code they may write in the future.
But in exchange for Microsofts funding, SCO must openly attack Linux...the only thing that Microsoft truly fears. They must attack Linux, and all the big companies that support it. They must stir up a huge shit-storm around Linux and spout off FUD like there is no tomorrow. This will put doubt in the eyes of future Linux adopters, investors and users while Microsoft gains an even larger foothold.
But remember, there are no documents ever written to this effect. No emails that can be found or memos to be brought forward. No one even knows what is going on except the people at the top. No one has actually said "Linux must die". But this is the ultimate goal.
Just a thought.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
For a company that seems to hate Linux so much it is funny to see via Netcraft that Sco's site SCO.COM is running Linux. Seemed they used to use SCO UNIX but switched to Linux according to the graphs. Yet IBM, that pushes Linux runs on AIX.
Not only are there lines of SCO's code in Linux, but also derivative products based on SCO intellectual property have been created, Sontag said. Getting all of the protected bits out, assuming SCO's claims are valid, would be a huge chore.
"Our biggest issues are with the derivative code," he said. "It would be almost impossible to separate it out."
This is the first time that SCO has essentially admitted in the open what some have been saying all along: SCO does not believe that Linux coders can ever "clean" Linux up; simply replacing "infringing" lines of code with new code is not enough becasue they are trying to claim that Linux itself is now a derivative product of SCO Unix.
The chances of this going away before SCO is utterly dead are zero. SCO has no intention of easily revealing the "matching" lines of code because they believe that they are irrelevant... as far as SCO is concerned, every line of code in Linux is infringing and it is essentially beyond repair. Since it is open-source, Linux can't license proprietary code from SCO. Ergo, the courts should essentially put an end to Linux in much the same way that they did with DeCSS code. At least, this seems to be how SCO sees it.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
When not anonymous, I work for IBM.
The lawyers there are PICKY.
When dealing with IP, before a project goes out the door, the lawyers go over the thing with a fine-tooth and make sure:
a) We have legal rights to what we're about to put on the market.
b) Everything we have legal right to, we've properly and appropriately protected. (Such as patented, if appropriate - it's not always.)
When buying software from 'outside', the lawyers go through the license terms to make sure it's 'appropriate', and sometimes it's a pain in the neck. Sometimes it seems it takes so long to buy a new, never-before-bought piece of software that by the time you can get it, the need is gone.
Before you can use Linux inside IBM, you need to take the online "Open Source Legal Course" (title probably abridged) and sign off that you have. The mini-course discusses the legal implications of the GPL, etc.
None of these cases is exactly like the SCO case. But the legal folks are so darned diligent about IP that I can't see anything like what SCO alledges happening inside IBM. The place just doesn't work that way.
I think you've been too confused by the idiotic "They GPL'd their code when they sold linux", which is probably not true.
Only because they probably don't have any code inserted into Linux. But if they did, it would be under the GPL.
SCO clams that someone from inside IBM inserted their code into Linux
No, they are most definitely NOT claiming this.
They are claiming two things - first that "someone" put their code into Linux.
Second, they are claiming that IBM used "knowledge" of their OS to make Linux better.
The two issues are completely separate.
There are no allegations of code theft against IBM. Their sole complaint is "Linux hackers suck, so the only way that Linux could compete against us is if IBM helped them."
Now, if there really is SCO-owned code in Linux, SCO distributed that code knowingly. They know it's there, they know that the kernel is covered under the GPL, and they are still distributing it.
SCO is implicitly licensing their code under the GPL because they continue to distribute Linux. They must have agreed with the GPL, because nothing else grants them the right to continue distributing it.
even if they had never touched the GPL they still would have had code leakage
True, and thier actions state exactly how much any alleged code is worth to them.
The doctrine of laches says that if an injured party wants to claim damages, they must minimize the damages. Since SCO won't allow anyone to remove the alleged code (they refuse to say what the alleged code is, or where it is), then they are unable to claim injury.
By refusing to tell anyone what the alleged code is, they are effectively saying that any code that might be in the kernel is worthless to them.