Slashdot Mirror
SCO Terminates IBM's Unix License
AKAImBatman writes "SCO has terminated IBM's license to use Unix code. SCO is filing for an injunction that will require IBM to cease all sale of AIX as well as accrue damages for each day IBM continues to sell AIX."
Sorry,
CNET story
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
> Has anyone checked their roots to see if they're
> related to Microsoft at all?
They are. Microsoft Xenix was sold to the original SCO who renamed it "SCO OpenServer" after carrying it as "SCO Xenix" for awhile.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
In a response, IBM claims that SCO doesn't have the right to terminate the license.
-renard
From: News.com
"In 1995, Novell sold SCO Unix copyrights and contracts with many large companies, including Hewlett-Packard, IBM and Compaq Computer. Though those licenses lay largely dormant for years,SCO decided that they could be a source of revenue that could bolster the struggling company's fortunes after its failure to make a business of selling Linux."
1. Old Dusty Contracts
2. ???
3. Profit
I think it goes like this: SCO licensed Unix code to IBM. IBM incorperated said Unix code into AIX. IBM takes up Linux. Rise of Linux threatens Unix. SCO gets notion that Linux steals code from Unix, and places blame on IBM. SCO tries to revoke license to Unix code from IBM, thereby revoking it from AIX - all while suing over supposed stolen code in Linux.
At least, that's how it looks from here...
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
SCO is now claiming that they could possibly own the rights to most major OSs, including the *BSDs, OSX, and possibly even Microsofts OSs.
How is this dumb-assed question "insightful"?
What I want to know is, how much "evidence" would they have to reveal to get this injunction (and does the judge have to sign the NSA
What's at issue is that SCO is accusing IBM of putting AIX code into Linux, which is a violation of IBM's Unix license.
Or, in the words of SCO's lawyer:
So yes, they want another UNIX war. Once their precioussss is described as the trunk of all Unices (and stating that almost all vendors contributed to Linux in the same interview) what follows is that replacing the infringing code is impossible. That's why RMS a few weeks ago aimed directly at invalidating the claim to the unix codebase by proving that its already in the public sector (remember his call for people who had or have access to the code? - some people ridiculed him for this, but he saw this clearly coming).
At any rate, SCO does not stand a chance with such ridiculous claims (and no Unix vendor, not even SUN would be happy if the court accepts Darl's interpretation of their IP rights). Read one of the best analyses here (please, someone tell me how do I make a link, coz this is going to be long):
http://forums.com.com/group/zd.News.Talkback/zd
As soon as you understand what "barratry" means.
:
Barratry is the act or practice of bringing repeated legal actions solely to harass. Usually, the actions brought lack merit.
I can assure you that SCO fully believes that their case has merit and that they are going to win. If they opened dozens of cases against IBM all with no chance of winning then barratry would be a case.
Unless of course you meant this definition
In admiralty law, barratry is a fraudulent act committed by a master or crew of a vessel which damages the vessel or its cargo, including desertion, illegal scuttling, and theft of the ship or cargo.
That's true only in the strictest sense of the word. SCO is alleging that IBM has made simple modifications to System V code and imported it to Linux. If this is the case, then a massive grepping party at IBM wouldn't reveal the offending code. You'd have to have an army of people sifting through tens or hundreds of megabytes code in order to find out what SCO is talking about. And how similar are we talking here? Where is the line between similar code that's similar because of illicit activity and similar code that's similar because it's the best approach drawn? If the scheduler is similar, perhaps that's because that's the best way to write a scheduler. It started out as very straightforward and based on academic works.
I believe that SCO needs to be specific with the request, and any judgement against IBM needs to consider intent and practice. If a different team came up with the code, IBM shouldn't be liable. If SCO won't tell IBM what specific code is in question, IBM shouldn't be liable. If IBM legally
dual-licensed the code that IBM wrote, IBM shouldn't be liable (key here is, does the SCO / IBM contract allow dual licensing?).Profile: SCOX
Stock's at $11. 12M shares outstanding. Market capitalization $136M.
The SCOXuckers are suing IBM for One. Billion. Dollars.
So right now, the market's giving 6:1 odds that Big Blue machine will turn SCOX into a thick yellow spray all over the courtoom walls.
End of line..
Uncanny similarities between SCO and Linux:
Here appears to be another reason why, according to SCO's previous CEO (note the date):
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5406
I probly shouldn't post this but meh.
the CEO of SCO Australia can be reached on his mobile : +61419 660 016
Over 3 million lines by my count, and that's not counting any header files or documentation.
./ -name "*.c"`; do cat $i; done | wc -l
[root@sether linux-2.4.20]# for i in `find
3333647
Um, it all depends on the terms of your contract. IBM's license agreement probably looks NOTHING AT ALL like a typical EULA. It's Very Normal in the business world to have an irrevocable license. That's how you protect yourself against crap like SCO is trying to pull. I've negotiated dozens of licensing contracts and made DAMN sure that my companies interests were protected.
These contracts are not "take it or leave it" type things like EULA's are. You negotiate.
Like this?
NEW YORK, June 16 (Reuters) - International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM - News) on Monday said that the SCO Group (NasdaqSC:SCOX - News), which is suing IBM over intellectual property rights, has no right to revoke its license to its version of the Unix operating system, called AIX.
ADVERTISEMENT
Earlier on Monday, SCO said that it would revoke IBM's right to use or distribute its AIX software, saying that IBM had violated its agreement by adapting some parts of the AIX operating system to Linux, the free version of Unix.
"There's absolutely nothing new in this press release. SCO continues to make its claims. As we have said all along our license is irrevocable, perpetual and cannot be terminated," IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino said, reading from a prepared statement.
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Dear SCO employee,
So, when SCO sues Microsoft over DR-DOS (and wins)
wrong. Caldera didn't win - they settled.
But when they have a more substantial claim against IBM and Linux
wrong again. There's no evidence their claims are any more substantial. In fact, there's evidence that there isn't much of a case behind their lawsuit.
Thanks for playing! Bye!
Here's a clip where Scott McNealy mentioned that Sun had already paid a large pile of money for the rights to use System V in Solaris.
They've been saying this since at least the McBride interviews started. In fact, he said he wouldn't rule out going after individual linux users as well as linux distributors as well!
Yeah, I think they're forgetting that IBM is a *big* company. They took in like $80 billion last year, they've got about $4 billion just sitting around in cash, and their market cap:sales ratio is something like 27:1. Plus, unlike some other legal battles they've been in, the court of public opinion is on their side. Yeah, I don't think IBM has ANY TROUBLE affording an *extended* legal battle at all. ;)
My journal has hot
One corporation claims to have complete immunity to SCO's legal threats. Interestingly enough, they happen to be one of IBM's competitors in the high-end server market. And dispite all those take-over rumors, they have around $5.5 billion in the bank..
And now there's this Big Blue blood in the water. If you were an IT head, whose sales pitch would you listen to? Hmm....
And as McBride recently pointed out they found the code during the 30 day extention IBM filed for. So it clearly does'nt take an army.
I would bet that IBM has in fact been doing a massive internal audit, both in development process and on the code base. Their decision to go to court is hopefully based on the results.
IBM has been absolutey quite about this and I think that it's the still before the storm. They are not playing this out in the Media like SCO is. My gut tells me this is because SCO has no case and is trying to slander/pressure/etc IBM ( et. alls ) into a settlement. What they have done is given IBM's legal team additional ammo while IBM has revealed none of it's cards.
This is going to be one for the history books!
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
I think you mean the Open Group who is now responsible for enforcing what "Unix" *is*. Not to be confused with the X Consortium, the keepers of the X11 protocol. Besides, the OP only asked about roots. :-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The above link
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Sun had made a big bruja about how SunOS is the name of the OS and Solaris the entire package or something like that, but it doesn't really matter for our purposes.
But according to many many sources including IBM, IBM does not have or need a license from SCO to use/sell AIX. AIX is derived ultimately from the Unix code, and needs a license to be called unix, but the rights to the UNix code are from Novell and the rights to call AIX Unix come from the Open Group. In fact I would say that at this stage of the game it would be difficult to say whether even novell or the Open Group would have any kind of right to stop the distribution of AIX. Presumably most of AIX is 100% IBM IP and anything which was not could be changed if it was really deemed necessary.
No matter what, the company now known as SCO never had any agreements with IBM whatsoever, unless perhaps they bought some software from IBM. Ultimately they have tried to use legal tricks and fiat to claim the rights over vast amounts of IP they have 0 claim to (every form of Linux and Unix) and it is not working so far.
IBM is used to being sued by loudmouth idiots and usually do not rise to the bait (for instance recall the people that were trying to claim IBM supported the Nazis during WWII even though they were actively supporting the allies by manufacturing arms and providing computing services, etc.). They have lasted this long by being careful what they say and do and maintaining their serious reputation. They will easily weather this FUDfest.
{from article} SCO said that the termination of the AIX license means that all IBM Unix customers also have no license to use the software. "This termination not only applies to new business by IBM, but also existing copies of AIX that are installed at all customer sites. All of it has to be destroyed," Sontag said.
I think the courts will disagree with SCO. The term to apply here is called estoppel, which basically means that they can't retroactively change the terms of your license. IANAL. SCO can deny further use of the UNIX license to IBM for AIX, but that doesn't mean the copies of AIX that I am using now will in any way are "invalid".
..guess everybody have seen this already; but anyways;
o m :)
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=sco.c
Actually, it's more like this: IBM licensed Unix from AT&T and used it to make their own Unix, called AIX. AT&T sold Unix rights, except trademark, to Novell. Novell sold some of those rights to SCO. SCO and IBM worked together on Project Monterey. IBM recognizes the Linux, not Unix, is the way of the future and backs out of Project Monterey. SCO got bought up by Caldera, a Linux company. Caldera changes name to SCO because they think Unix, not Linux, is the way of the future. SCO gets notion that Linux steals code from Unix, and places blame on IBM. SCO tries to revoke license to Unix code from IBM, thereby revoking it from AIX - all while suing over supposed stolen code in Linux.
I hope that clears things up.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
No, imagine for a second what would happen if they actually were to get their injunction requiring each and every copy of AIX to be collected and destroyed. The National Weather Service is using AIX for some of their weather modeling. What do they do, just cease operations for a few months while they port their software..... to WHAT? None of the other commercial UNIXen are safe, you can bet they aren't stupid enough to try porting to a rack of Dells running NT. So does the Weather Channel replace their feed with a slide saying "Out of Service pending resolution of SCO v IBM"? Follow the ripples down through the economy from all of the sites running AIX.
Which is exactly why this won't happen. Before issuing a preliminary injunction, a judge will weigh the potential harms of issuance vs. non-issuance, on both the parties involved and third parties.
In other words, SCO can thump their chests all they want, but they will run up against a brick wall trying to retroactively recind licenses.
-jerdenn
According to Harry Newton, many brokers are calling up rich people, trying to persuade them to buy SCO stock. Classic pump and dump behaviour.
Here is an article claiming:
"Specifically, Sontag believes the "SCO technologies" which were misappropriated into AIX, IRIX, and the derivative UNIX-alikes (including Linux) are:
JFS (Journalling File System).
NUMA (Non Uniform Memory Access), a SGI/Stanford collaboration.
RCU (Read-Copy-Update).
SMP (Symmetrical Multi-Processing)."
and
"But SCO has been even more thorough. After sifting through e-mails from the Linux developers' mailing list, Sontag says SCO has examples of programmers from AT&T licensees offering to write UNIX code into Linux, and can identify where those UNIX fragments turned up in the codebase."
and
"Admittedly, I can't tell you what I saw, but I did form the opinion that it was not in the kernel proper. In all probability, the code is more important to Silicon Graphics' Altix servers than to average x86 Linux users."
and
"...IBM has bypassed U.S. export controls with Linux. How "Syria and Libya and North Korea" are all building supercomputers with Linux and inexpensive Intel hardware, in violation of U.S. export control laws."
Strong claims, but there will probably be a fistful more dirt flying around.
Before you talk to IBM you need to enter the four digit machine type...
Why don't you just use something like
find . -iname \*.h -o -iname \*.c | xargs cat | wc -l