Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Terminates IBM's Unix License

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the lets-get-ready-to-rumble dept.

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."

12 of 1,065 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Another URL by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sorry,

    CNET story

    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  2. Re:Another URL by walt-sjc · · Score: 5, Informative

    In a response, IBM claims that SCO doesn't have the right to terminate the license.

  3. don't miss the McBride interview... by renard · · Score: 5, Informative
    CNET also has an extensive interview with SCO CEO Darl McBride, who is now claiming that there are "hundreds of thousands of lines" of infringing code in Linux. Choice quote: "The world seems to be divided into two camps - those that respect intellectual property and those that don't." I guess the only question then is: Which side is SCO on?

    -renard

  4. Re:Clarification? by tuffy · · Score: 5, Informative
    I don't really understand how sco can cancel AIX licenses when the issue is IBM and Linux. What am I missing? Ignoring the fact that the whole thing is ridiculous to start with.

    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.

  5. It gets worse by mccormi · · Score: 5, Informative

    SCO is now claiming that they could possibly own the rights to most major OSs, including the *BSDs, OSX, and possibly even Microsofts OSs.

  6. Re:Clarification? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    What, is this the first you're just hearing of this or are you not paying attention?

    1. SCO licensed some SysV source code to IBM.
    2. IBM used that source in AIX.
    3. SCO claims IBM breached their contract to license SCO's code because the code is showing up in Linux and SCO says it came through IBM.
    4. SCO filed suit against IBM for .... ONE BILLION DOLLARS!!!
    5. SCO sent menacing letters to companies using Linux saying they could be liable for using software that illegally infringes on their IP
    6. Novell said they never transferred the copyrights to SCO and that their claim to own the IP is bogus.
    7. SCO says that since IBM is in breach of contract, they have no valid license for the source code that is in AIX.
    8. SCO in now seeking an injunction to bar IBM from selling AIX.


    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 ;-) )
  7. SCO the sole UNIX owner by molnarcs · · Score: 5, Informative
    The problem is that SCO tries to convince the world that it is the sole UNIX owner, and defines the category of 'derivative' work quite broadly. In fact, they don't want this to be sorted out. It is quite clear that even if the infringing codes are disclosed in court, Darl and his cohorts wants to convince the court that replacement is impossible, for every code is 'derivative' in their view. This is clearly stated by Darl in his cnet interview:

    Where people get a little confused is when they think of SCO Unix as just the Unix that runs the cash register at McDonalds. We think of this as a tree. We have the tree trunk, with Unix System 5 running right down the middle of the trunk. That is our core ownership position on Unix.

    Off the tree trunk, you have a number of branches, and these are the various flavors of Unix. HP-UX, IBM's AIX, Sun Solaris, Fujitsu, NEC--there are a number of flavors out there.http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-1017308.html ?tag=fd_lede2_sl


    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/zdn n/ tb.tpt/@thread@193986@F@1@D-,D@ALL/@article@193994 ?EXP=ALL&VWM=hr&ROS=1&PAGETP=2100&NODEID=1104&SHOS T=zdnet.com.com
  8. Re:Future licenses by Drathos · · Score: 5, Informative
    If you check out the article here, you'll see that SCO isn't just claiming future sales are unlicensed.
    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.
    SCO is claiming that everyone, everywhere has to destroy their copies of AIX. I hope, for everyone's sake, that IBMs claims about the license being irrevocable are true.
    --
    End of line..
  9. Recommended reading! by hobsonchoice · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  10. Re:in related news... by Tower · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."
  11. Re:Future licenses by dougmc · · Score: 5, Informative
    I always thought Solaris was BSD derived, not SysV.
    SunOS 4.x was BSD-ish. SunOS 5.x and later, which most people just call Solaris 2.x and later, are SysV based.

    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.

  12. Re:Future licenses by Jim+Hall · · Score: 5, Informative

    {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".