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
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
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?).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."
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".