Slashdot Mirror
SCO Amends Suit, Clarifies "Violations", Triples Damages
Bootsy Collins writes "This evening on C|Net contains three new items. First, they've upped the damages they're seeking to $3 billion. Second, they claim that by making SMP technology generally available through Linux, IBM violated federal export controls and thus breached their contract with SCO through committing an illegal act. Finally, they elaborate on one specific technology they claim rights to which IBM inserted into the 2.5 kernel series -- the
read-copy update memory management features which went in at 2.5.43.
Unclear is why SCO thinks they have the rights to RCU, since the technology was originally developed by Sequent in the early 1990s."
They sound like a crazy old drunk, making up more and more unsubstanciated cliams, C|Net's article sounds like their getting tired off this too.
There is no god
Unclear is why SCO thinks they have the rights to ...
Has *any* of this crap they've been flinging about been clear? They're on frickin crack.
--I don't want the world, I just want your half.
Has anyone checked to see who these lawyers are paid by and associat with? Could it all be a FUD champagne?
In Unix, a zero length file is a valid shell script, that has an exit value of true. Thus, here is the whole program copied --
"There are two major products that come from Berkeley : LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." -- Jeremy S. Anderson
Soon SCO will claim ownership for LSD too
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
This kitchen recipe.
Heck, why settle there? While were at it, why don't we ask for 30 billion? I mean if your going to make a spectacle, why not achieve high?
30 billion? 300 billion? 3 trillion?
Cmon SCO, make those claims WORTH something!
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
Three times nothing is still nothing.
seriously...isn't what they are doing (abuse of judicial systems, shareholder fraud etc.) illegal? I mean...surely they must have *some* sanity left??? I just don't see what they're up to. Sooner or later, they're going to have to fold, then what then?
On behalf of the /. crowd, I am formally requesting that the Caldera/SCO widget be changed to a steaming pile of poo.
We feel that this is more appropriate.
Sincerely, /.
What?
;)
Since when did IBM have anything to do with SMP in the kernel?
And RCU is clearly a technology that Sequent designed for DYNIX/ptx. Sequent, as the link to RCU states, is now owned by IBM, so I suppose they'd have clear rights to this, no problem. RCU is also notoriously absent from SCO's product, so how they can claim ownership of the technology is beyond me.
I'm starting to think that the folks at SCO are on SERIOUS crack and they AREN'T SHARING. There's reason enough to hate them right there, forget all this Linux stuff.
My journal has hot
I think i speak for everyone when i say:
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH MUAHAHAHA -gasp- MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
Next they'll be getting the U.N. involved!
Steve
Yes, that long wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee*splat*
That's the sound of one hundred SCO lawyers crashing hard on the ground and making all kind of nice little craters. Now, they know why IBM is nicknamed "Big Blue".
A good start, if you ask me.
Bye bye, SCO. We hardly knew you.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
SCO is DYING to be bought out. They're grasping at whatever straws they can find, thinking that IBM the vampire slayer will finally drive a buyout stake through their black heart.
Yeah....its all Microsoft. I heard they deal drugs too to preschool children.
I've implemented RCU for database locks in 2000, and didn't know what RCU was.
Another obvious patent....
...on grounds of comedy. This is starting to turn into an old Looney Tunes cartoon, where the SCO Coyote throws everything but the Acme kitchen sink at the IBM Roadrunner. Meep meep!
Dude, where's my packet?
$3 billion ? Sounds like the evil empire from Austin Powers. Stupid COrp.
It's not the billions they sue IBM for, it's the billions of pieces they'd get blown into, that matters.
.Net users - all hotmail users, millions of them. And yet, Hailstorm failed!
Seriously, SCO resembles MS if it thinks increasing the lawsuit size improves their credibility. Sort of like
IMO, SCO's credibility is dropping on a daily basis.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
As much as this might have been a publicity scam, and as much as I've been enjoying this soap opera, I'm really getting sick of it now.
When is SCO going to get crushed like a lone sidewalk snail? I can't wait until someone sues the pants off of them.
And, as a matter of example, I hope the officers of the company have to serve time for this mess, if only to discourage other companies from pulling ploys like this.
This is beginning to sound like what the federal government is doing to the "detainees" in cuba. Trying them and convicting them with secret evidence that their lawyers dont even get to see. these people will be put to death in a military tribunal convicted on secret evidence that they dont know about, that their lawyers cant tell (or dont know) them about, and that no one will ever see even in a thousand years probably because it dosent exist! just like SCO's evidence!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Caldera (SCO) donate an SMP motherboard to Alan Cox a few years back, for the expressed purposed of developing an SMP Linux kernel? Eeeh?
They would be bluffing and trying to buy their way out.
I found it interesting that they have dropped some claims about linux like the comment that it was like a bicycle compared to UNIX being a luxury car. I also find it funny that they cite IBM's Linux investment as evidence that they stole code. Wouldn't a big investment like IBM's indicate that they were doing NEW development as opposed to just taking it from somewhere else?
What I REALLY wonder about is all the idiots buying SCO stock, and why it's still hovering around $10 as opposed to the 1 cent it's really worth.
Hmm - five - six more articles maybe, and SCO will become the most posted/hated OS on Slashdot?
/. ;)
I wonder how Bill Gates will take losing the "Number One" spot here at
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
No major distro ships with the 2.5.x kernel. If this code is proven to be tainted, it can easily be rewritten to avoid any legal issues.
The real question is will SCO submit to an audit of their UNIX for GPL violations?
Seems pretty easy, all you have to do is find some company with a rapidly declining market share and large ip base.
Then find some other big company that you have once done business with and sue them. Damn I wish I was a lawyer on this case, sitting back knowing I am earning a fat pay check while spewing as much crap as humanely possible to keep everything going.
But really now, does this make it any clearer wether SCO has a vaguely legitimate case on UNIX code been in the Linux Kernel?? I want to see that proved before I even try and understand why IBM is responsible for it..
37 - what does it stand for really...
Best yet: Alan Cox did much of the SMP work that lead to the 2.0.0 kernel on a machine he got from caldera!
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Actualy, SGI could be the other h/w mfr in the US they're after. SCO is probably after SGI, since SGI promoted and used NUMA-Flex architecture in multi-processor systems running IRIX and Linux.
Since SCO's going down anyway, they prolly think they'd sue everyone - some quirky sense of humor maybe.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
So basically, they didn't think they had enough to go on already and had to make up some new stuff in their case against IBM? Oh, and then triple the damages to make it look more believable from their point of view? Dragging this along a bit more after IBM called their bluff?
BTW, don't I rememeber the RCU from school?
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
Wish I had googled before posting, but here's the dirt:
.. maybe IBM refined the process later, but it looks like SMP is in the Linux kernel as a *direct* result of Caldera's actions.
http://www.linux.org.uk/SMP/title.html
Can someone post a timeline of expected events for this case? How long can SCO spread FUD before they have to appear in court? How long will the case take? How long will an appeal take?...etc.
Any guesses would be great.
Thanks.
Just in case CNET gets slashdotted? :-) I guess that's rather unlikely.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't researched this, but I'm pretty sure of it...
Didn't the 2.2 kernel have SMP support well before IBM became an active part of the Linux community?
I do seem to recall it being there, but it was quite some time ago.
Further - how can SCO be upping there damages if the infringing code is in the development kernel; that has nowhere near as wide a circulation as the stable tree. In fact (if they were right -- although obviously they're not) surely their duty of care would be to say which parts of the development kernel are infringing so that they can be removed before they get distributed to the four winds?
Of course, I know who I'd like to distribute to the four winds.
Carpe Daemon
I can't wait until SCO gets somewhere... and the Berkley joins in and invalidates and 0wnzs SCO like they did Novell when Novell tried to push the SysV IP.
Unix is a very inbred house; SCO's going to be hurting when the relatives show up.
Perhaps, but SGI is doing so badly there's nothing to gain from sueing them, other than maybe consuming the whole company. :P
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Unclear is why SCO thinks they have the rights to RCU, since the technology was originally developed by Sequent in the early 1990s.
Also from the article:
[SCO seeks]..$1 billion for breach of the Unix contract signed by Sequent, which IBM acquired in 1999
I know that Sequent used to OEM the SCO stuff, but how does SCO become a stakeholder in a contract between IBM and... itself?
Even IBM doesn't own it. It's in the public domain. Because it was invented by IBM 3 times (hey, it's a big company). Once in the mid 80's in VM/XA Rel 2 (patent 4,809,168 now expired), once at Sequent which was acquired by IBM and where RCU was coined, and once as part of the K42 project at IBM research.
Since when did IBM have anything to do with SMP in the kernel?
I think they're complaining that SMP was a restricted technology, so by helping to add SMP to the Linux kernel, and making it freely available, IBM violated US export laws. By violating those laws, IBM is therefore in violation of the SCO / IBM license agreement (not sure how that connection was made), and therefore, all rights assigned to IBM are void, blah, blah, blah, blah.
They're asking a judge for an injunction now? Good. The sooner the judicial system gets a chance to take a formal look at this, the better.
These elements of the article stood out to me as indicating changes in tactics or tactics that they're planning to use:
.
The amended suit also asserts that SCO holds copyrights to Unix, a point that could be key in future Linux and Unix litigation. Novell, which owned Unix intellectual property before selling it to SCO's predecessor, initially disputed SCO's ownership, but later relented.
IANAL - I wonder why they've inserted this now. Did they forget? Is this just clarification? Are they hoping to get some mindshare here? It's weirder since the suit makes no claims of copyright violation . .
"As IBM executives know, a significant flaw of Linux is the inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual property origins of contributed source code that comes in from those many different software developers. If source code is code copied from protected Unix code, there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact," the suit said. "As a result, a very significant amount of Unix protected code is currently found in Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x releases in violation of SCO's contractual rights and copyrights."
I'm concerned this is getting personal (well, moreso). It casts doubt on Linus' competency and/or ethics, thus casting doubts on Linux, and I think may be a veiled threat towards Torvalds and suggest that in the future they may, as has been hinted, take action against him individually.
Redesigning Linux for use by demanding business customers "is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (a) a high degree of design coordination, (b) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (c) access to Unix code and development methods; (d) Unix architectural experience; and (e) a very significant financial investment," the amended suit says.
They either don't get how OS works or don't want to. Despite the changes, it pretty much the same thing - "Linux couldn't have gotten where it is without stealing. Which, by the way, is IBM and Linus' fault."
The suit also adds illegal export issues stemming from the worldwide availability of open-source software. SCO claims IBM has breached its contract by making multiprocessor operating system technology available "for free distribution to anyone in the world," including residents of Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya, countries to which the United States controls exports. The open-source technology IBM released "can be used for encryption, scientific research and weapons research," the suit said.
The only way I can sum this up is "If you use Linux, the terrorists have already won." This addition is rather odd, as if they are so worried, why wasn't this in the original suit? It smacks of exploiting the fear of terrorism and rogue nations for their own ends, and to me hints that their next strategy could be to focus on the idea that "Linx is unethical."
Overall? I expect it to get more personal and more nasty on the part of SCO. I expect them to target Linus more, and possibly other developers or groups.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Ok, who wants to get seriously rich?
Have a look at this SCO price chart -- How long will it take for a judge to get to make some rulings in this case? what kind of timeline are we looking at? If you short SCO stock, you could get seriously rich if SCO gets clobbered by a judge to the order of "we throw this out", or "there will be no injuction against selling AIX" etc etc. There is a serious bubble building here.. if you bet right, you could do seriously well in a short position...
I was talking to someone at work about this whole issue and he recommended targeting two or three of SCO's lawyers. It should be clear to all here that, whatever the outcome, SCO's lawyers are looking to make out like bandits. He felt that the only way to stop this kind of behavior was to pick two or three and make examples of them--i.e., make their lives such a living hell that every other "hired gun" out there would think twice about egging a company on to something like this.
:^) )
His, thought, not mine (not saying I disagree, though
Could it all be a FUD champagne?
Is that like Moet or Bollinger?
Since when is "a high degree of design coordination" illegal? Does SCO have a patent on sound design and development practices? Or using expensive equipment? It sounds like SCO is complaining that IBM simply threw a lot of resources at Linux which ultimately makes Unix less competitive. Did SCO at some point buy a perpetual license to make money? Will GM sue Ford for using a wind tunnel to develop better cars?
Microsoft control the illuminati!! /puts on tinfoil hat
If SCO are so sure (yeah right) of winning this, why did they wait so long for IBM to establish a brand around AIX before suing?
Surely there's somekind of time-based clause in law which stops people from trying on stupid stuff like this? And why increase the damages? It this RIAAmaths all over again - how do you quantify $3 billion in damages over what IBM did?
IMO, SCO aren't exactly reeling from IBM's actions, they just market shite and don't sell as much. Maybe they're jealous or something...
And RCU is clearly a technology that Sequent designed for DYNIX/ptx. Sequent, as the link to RCU states, is now owned by IBM, so I suppose they'd have clear rights to this, no problem. RCU is also notoriously absent from SCO's product, so how they can claim ownership of the technology is beyond me.
I'm guessing that they claim that their contract with Sequent gives them rights over the mods Sequent made to System V, and it can't be GPLd because the developers are 'tainted'. It's hard to believe IBMs lawyers would let that slip by though.
I don't know all the history of Unix, Linux, etc. but from reading the comments in the past couple of stories, the consensus seems to be that SCO doesn't have a leg to stand on. There have also been repeated comments about IBM's lawyers.
So my question(s) is(are):
What does SCO hope to gain? Do they really think they have a chance against IBM's lawyers? Do they think they really have a case? Is this just some blatant attention-getting tactic?
I mean, we know IBM has a massive legal team, and money to burn on this issue, especially since there is MORE money at stake, so why would SCO even try this if they don't actually have a valid case as most of the slashdotters seem to think? Could they HAVE a valid case? If not, why this continued charade? Are they mad?
I'm confused.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
I see your 3 billion and raise you two more. Show your cards...
My rights don't need management.
FUD champagne? Is that the kind with scary bubbles?
So IBM is helping terrorists and rogue states now? I think we need an addition to Godwin's Law - "As a dispute goes on, the probability of one side claiming the other is helping terrorists approaches one"
More to the point, as noted in the OSI position paper on the lawsuit (about half way down - search for SMP and you will eventually find the correct segment), Linux had working SMP before UNIX did, so this is a null claim.
I'm getting bored now, and $3Billion? Who are they kidding. Anyway, so far as I can tell, the arguement goes 'IBM wrote some code and put it into both UNIX and Linux'. So far as I can tell, there is no legal bar on them from doing so. Sure, they can't later take any modifications done to the Linux Kernel and put it into Unix, but as the originator of the code that is in Unix, they can do what the hell they like with it (and later putting it into Linux does NOT GPL the version of Unix, it just prevents them from later copying Linux changes back over)
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
If nothing else, this slew of SCO suicide articles is giving Slashdotters an opportunity to come up with as many metaphors for the coming annihilation of SCO as possible.
Might as well throw in another one; IBM HULK SMASH PUNY SCO HUMANS!
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Story from Bloomberg...
BN 06/16 SCO Cancels IBM Contract, Seeks $50 Billion in Suit (Update4)
SCO Cancels IBM Contract, Seeks $50 Billion in Suit (Update4)
(Adds additional IBM comment in fourth paragraph.)
June 16 (Bloomberg) --- SCO Group Inc. canceled International
Business Machines Corp.'s contract for the AIX Unix operating
system and revised a lawsuit against IBM to seek as much as $50
billion.
The amended complaint also seeks an order forbidding the
sale of IBM's AIX operating system, SCO Chief Executive Darl
McBride said. SCO, which licenses Unix to thousands of companies,
sued IBM in March claiming it transferred Unix code into the
related Linux operating system in breach of IBM's contract. IBM,
the world's second-largest software maker, denies the claims.
``The meter is now ticking with respect to AIX and will be
ticking until we get conclusion to this,'' McBride said in an
interview. SCO is seeking from IBM ``any amount they get from the
AIX or related business lines'' while the case is pending, an
amount he said could run as high as $50 billion.
IBM's AIX license is irrevocable and there is nothing in
today's action that changes that, IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino
said. IBM will continue to ship AIX and develop products, the
company said in a statement.
SCO shares fell 28 cents, or 2.5 percent, to $10.93 at 4
p.m. New York time in Nasdaq Stock Market trading after earlier
dropping 14 percent to $9.60. Shares of IBM, the world's largest
computer maker, rose $1.75 to $84.50 in New York Stock Exchange
Composite trading. They've gained 9 percent this year.
Impede Marketing
SCO's lawsuit might hamper IBM and dozens of other
companies' marketing of Linux, which Morgan Stanley and other
companies use to cut costs, analysts said. Today's move escalates
SCO's demands by expanding a previous demand of $1 billion in
damages and seeking an injunction against AIX, which SoundView
analyst John Jones said generated $2.8 billion in sales in 2002.
``For a fraction of that, IBM can buy SCO outright,'' said
Carl Hoagland, an analyst with State Street Corp., referring to
the demand for as much as $50 billion. ``Why bother to play these
games?'' State Street is IBM's largest shareholder.
Lindon, Utah-based SCO, worth about $134 million based on
today's closing stock price, bought Novell Inc.'s licensing
rights to Unix for $145 million in 1995. Novell, whose software
is used to manage computer networks, last month challenged SCO's
claims, saying Novell retains ownership of the Unix patents and
copyrights. SCO maintains it has legal entitlement to them.
SCO's suit was filed by attorney David Boies of Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, who represented the U.S. Justice
Department in its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. and
Vice President Al Gore in his dispute over the 2000 presidential
election results. Both Boies' firm and IBM are based in Armonk,
New York.
Linux, developed by Finnish developer Linus Torvalds, is
maintained and updated by a corps of volunteer programmers who
make it available for free over the Internet. Companies such as
IBM, Oracle Corp. and Red Hat Inc. make money from Linux by
selling computers, software and services related to the operating
system.
Unix was first developed in the late 1960s by AT&T Corp. Sun
Microsystems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., IBM and other companies
over the years derived their own operating systems based on Unix.
Linux is one of the most recent Unix offshoots to emerge.
Microsoft Corp. is the world's biggest software maker.
--Jonathan Berr in the Princeton newsroom (1) (609) 750-4516 or
jberr@Bloomberg.net. and Dan Goodin in San Francisco, (1) (415)
743-3548 or dgoodin@bloomberg.net. Editor: Todd.
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
Recent statistiques shows that unless the /. editors publish some shocking story on DRM and the evil MS plans, in the week to come SCO will replace the Redmond giant on the top of the geeky "Big bad" list....
...unfortunately for SCO, this time they will top the Big Blue's Big Bad list, and that's likely to cause them a lot more troubles......;o))))
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
It's like playing the Kevin Bacon game! Can you claim IBM broke your license agreement in less than 7 hops? Yes? Well then you've got a case. Sad. It's just sad.
Fear trumps hope and ignorance trumps both
All of SCOs claims are non-sequiters. I would debunk them here, but OSI already did!
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
Um. When the hell did Novell "relent" on its claims against SCO? SCO denying claims does not mean Novell "relented". Why do reporters write things without fact-checking? Or, maybe its some creative fact-adding by one of CNET's fine Microsoft-loving editors.
Not only are they claiming ownership, they are upping the claimed damages against them because of it. Crack is definitly on their agenda.
Kind of wierd when you think that Caldera (now SCO) acquired DR-DOS to do legal battle with Microsoft only two years ago, but I suppose that just illustrates the shifting loyalties on the intellectual property battlefield. IBM is good and all, but one wonders how long they'd back Linux if a better opportunity comes along.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Hi , Troll
You amaze me. Your the most transparent troll ever, and you still manage to get modded up time and time again.
But, since your so lame, shaddup.
Read the story and laugh. This is a mouse shrieking... Soon the elephant will demonstrate how its fear of mice has been greatly exaggerated.
Why sue for billions when we could sue for ...
/got nothing
MILLIONS?
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
IANAL, but my impression is that SCO really doesn't have a leg to stand on for this case. If there *are* any lawyers here, comments would be welcome.
:-)
First of all, the claim about revoking the Unix license for AIX sounds silly. Unless the contract specifically details conditions in which the rights to Unix are terminated, the alleged trade secret violations have nothing whatsoever to do with the terms of that completely separate contract. A company cannot unilaterally try to invent some quid-per-quo measure to punish someone who they think has wronged them, that's what we have courts for.
Also, what's up with the violations of export controls? In the unlikely case that this has merit, the government would have to sue IBM, and I cannot see any reason at all why SCO should be awarded civil damages due to IBM having violated federal laws.
Lastly, the Sequent code. Sequent wrote the code around 1994, IBM bought Sequent (presumably including the rights to whatever code was developed there), and submitted the code for inclusion in Linux in 2002. I don't understand what SCO is claiming here - do they think some magical Unix vapor has infused Sequent and directly caused the RCU code to be written based on those heady fumes? If so, they should patent that technology
-Klaus
at the boston globe they say SCO are now seeking up to $50 billion damages... whats next, a trillion trillion dollars? a bazillion dollars? Fucktards. I can't work out if IBM will respond or not, until this all comes to court. They look like they might just wait it out, and let SCO run out of hot air.
Hmmmm, champagne!
Jesus Christ, I was about to die without another SCO story in the last fifteen minutes.
I'd like to not filter all of these stories out, since it would be nice to see the important SCO news updates, but isn't this a bit much?
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
SCO combining Linux and UNIX features?
SCO working on Linux SMP in 2000?
SCO contributing code to Linux in 2000?
Um, IBM didn't make Linux freely available. Linus Torvalds did. They contributed to the code, but they didn't contribute the SMP code. THey contributed the RCU thing which helps with SMP, but the SMP code itself was already in there, and hence, if anyone is liable for SMP code being in there it's Alan Cox -- and he's in the U.K. and can't be held liable for U.S. export laws.
;)
SCO is high. That's the only explanation here.
My journal has hot
The suit also adds illegal export issues stemming from the worldwide availability of open-source software. SCO claims IBM has breached its contract by making multiprocessor operating system technology available "for free distribution to anyone in the world," including residents of Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya, countries to which the United States controls exports. The open-source technology IBM released "can be used for encryption, scientific research and weapons research," the suit said.
That SCO is just looking for a good old fashioned ass fucking?
Wow. I can not understand how unbelievably poor judgement SCO's lawyers are showing. They keep manufacuturing new crap so fast I can't keep up.
The good news is, I've seen "high-priced" lawyers do the same thing and end up with a severe boot to the head.
*sigh*
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
...then they snatch your food.
No, but seriously this reminds me of the time when Bill was in trouble, and was saved,(from the press at least) becuase a war in Cosivo.
Im thinking someone is paying SCO to scream so loud, otherwise what there're doing is completely suicidal.
"Uhh, gee Darl, we're taking some pretty heavy flack and there sure are a lot of those blue-suited lawyers. What if the eventual judge we end up in front of has even the tiniest portion of Clue? We'll be doomed for sure!"
"Don't worry, minion: I have incontravertable proof that those evil masterminds at IBM have been working exclusively towards funding Cuba's ICBM research, in utter contravention of the American Way! It's foolproof! WE CAN'T LOSE!" *rubs hands with glee*
I mean, come on. Surely this is one of the more brain-dead things SCO has come out with in the last few months, which is really something of an impressive achievement given the general level of dumbness they are sinking too. I just hope they go away really soon.
You win again, gravity!
a craftsmen was clamed to have exported the bueprints of a knife. Making that a violation for export control and helping evil countries to develop WMDs.
I read this before it got properly moderated....
"exports and maintain cmdrtaco's dog rectum fetish"
That was worth a chuckle.
Oh, come, come, come. Without a monster or two, it's hardly a quest... merely a gaggle of friends wandering about. - Owl
Damn I wish I was a lawyer on this case, sitting back knowing I am earning a fat pay check while spewing as much crap as humanely possible to keep everything going.
I think you mean "as humanly possible". Unfortunately for the world, "human" and "humane" are antonyms.
I've always thought that the Export Regulation laws were screwed.
Why would Iran, Syria, or whoever want to build a supercomputer to simulate a nuclear explosion, when they only have to ask the fucking yankees nicely and they will gladly provide them with the real thing "oh sure it killed millions of people & animals and poisened hundres of millions for millions of years to come, but think of how many american lives it saved".
Seriosly, nuclear explosions have been studied to death (pun intended). Anyone serious about taking a shot at the US (I'm sure there are some out there) only need pay a laughably insignificant amount of money either on the black market or to the arms manufacturers who don't give a frig about what the Pentagon would like.
Preventing SMP and supercomputer technology (and the fucking web browser I'm using, for fuck's sake) from entering [insert anti-american country here] is just demonstrating american arrogance. I'm sure it is done in the same spirit as all the bans on medical equipment entering Iraq. Can't have the fuckers healing themselves! The yankees aren't too keen on keeping their karma high, are they?
SCO is asserting that IBM is violating export controls, but how that has anything to do with SCO is anyone's guess, unless of course SCO is claiming unfair competition in the giving-tech-to-hostile-countries-market.
Seriously, only the U.S. government can really have much of a case against them for that, if in fact they are in violation.
This is like one of my first graders, back when I tutored, coming up to me and complaining that some other kid was hogging the smelly markers (he had 1), oh and also, know what know what know what know what? He threw a rock at the doggy they saw on the way home yesterday, too!
In other words, a finger-pointing smear campaign, because the original complaint is meritless.
At least little kids are guileless enough to blush and admit it, when you call them on it.
Get off my launchpad!
Why is this a troll? SOme of us have Cnet and ZDnet blocked by our nazi pigdog MIS departments. He should be modded up, unless that's not the real article.
I'm reposting this, since the previous posting was to an article that was pretty dead already .
From McBride interview at ZDNet:
How did Microsoft's agreement to pay you for Unix rights happen?
Darl: In the Microsoft case, they saw an opportunity. We originally approached them and said we're on a new licensing path; we have this intellectual property that we've started approaching vendors about. IBM is one we approached; Microsoft was another. We had about four big vendors in the last quarter that we talked with. With two of them, we signed deals. The other we're still talking with, and IBM we reached an impasse.
To me it feels like they are still talking with HP, and Sun decided to pay up to take a stab at linux (in the back, I might as well say). Or is there any other interpretation? Was anyone surprised at how quick Sun was to advertise that they are in the clear?
Also, SCO has said that Sun is the only company that is clear of all the violations. Even M$ is less clear.
I hope someone brings this up in an interview with Scott, so he can explicitly deny this if it is untrue.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Does anyone keep record of the SCO story? I seem to have started following up on the story way too late, and I don't have the faintest clue what SCO is trying to do, and why it is bad.
So I was wondering if anyone has a record of SCO events that would clear my view of what is happening.
Thanks in advance
--- Sigmentation Fault - Comments Dumped
The latest twist in the lawsuit is revealed in a recent CNET interview of Darl McBride: "The System 5 source code, that is really the area that gives us incredible rights, because it includes the control rights on the derivative works that branch off from that trunk. " It is SCO's position that JFS and RCU are derivative of System V.
Opponents of the GNU General Public License perpetuate the misconception that it is somehow viral. In fact, it is copyright law itself that is viral. Quoting from IP in a Nutshell:
If carried to its conclusion, this suit could be the textbook on derivative works with regard to software.This is like a final roll of the dice for SCO, with everything on the table. But its still a good idea. They don't really have any valuable IP, they can't compete with IBM, Solaris or Linux in the OS markets.
The were slowly pissing money away on Linux development, something they were obviously not doing well on.
What they did have was a remote chance of making a lot of money by suing IBM. So maybe they have a 30% chance of winning the case, in that case they will do very well.
But instead of being 100% sure of making 50M from licensing. They now have 30% chance of making up to 3 Billion. Economically it makes sense.
If they lose they have just sped up the death spiral.
Its an absurd notion, but I think you're right. What the hell are SCO doing? I'm not aware that enforcing export restriction laws is a job for them; the last I checked it was the Governments job to deal with any violations.
We're not even begining to get into the fact that IBM is a mutlinational, and has offices in non-restricted countries, Linux developers come from almost every country on this planet, and that SMP was written by Alan Cox, an Englishman.
Someone should put the paramedics on standby in Utah. I think the entire board at SCO is about to OD on speedballs.
IBM raped SCO's sister, stole their Bible, burned their cabin down, and shot their dog.
So is this RCU code that is "based on original DYNIX/ptx code" and released by IBM under GPL the fabled "hundreds of lines of code" that SCO has been saying that was stolen from them and inserted into the kernel? Interesting plan, to track down legally released patches submitted by IBM and then use them to call linux hackers copyright infringers.
I expect other "copied code" to have gotten there in similar ways, some probably submitted by their former selves, Caldera.
Unclear is why SCO thinks they have the rights to RCU, since the technology was originally developed by Sequent in the early 1990s
Their theory seems to be that their contracts require licensees of the UNIX source code to keep secret the code of the products they incorporate the UNIX code into and that therefore anything that you incorporate into your own version of UNIX must then be kept secret even if you subsequently separate it out from the UNIX code.
They are wrong of course but that seems to be what they're claiming. For example, they would presumably say that any technology IBM put into AIX must then be kept secret, and cannot be released even if separated from AIX, regardless of whether it has any relationship at all to the UNIX code licensed from SCO.
(bet this gets -1 redundant)
1. Sue (IBM)|(Red Hat)|(Linus)|(TEH WORLD)
2. Lose
3. ???
4. Profit!
You win again, gravity!
"More to the point,
as noted in the OSI position paper on the lawsuit
(about half way down - search for SMP and you will eventually find the
correct segment), Linux had working SMP before UNIX did, so this is a
null claim."
Arg.. ESR has that wrong. SMP was
not working on Linux first.. Both the UnixWare and SCO UNIX banches had
SMP working before Linux.
"My neck! My Back! My neck and my back!"
Translation of the next obfuscated memo to come out of IBM:
No, seriously, you need to fuck off now. It's not funny anymore.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Now, I'm not really present on the market, os I don't know much about shares on anything, but I know enough to suspect that when a company is screwing totally everything it's achieved, the buyers are supposed to react adequatly.
I don't know why, but the chart I saw of the SCO's share price for the last six months(somewhere below in the discussion is the link to it), shows a 500% up progression. Well, why the heck is that???? Do wallstreet know something we don't??? Do they really expect that the case will be closed with a buy out??? Is this a common practise for IBM - "You make problems, we buy you. All your shares are belong to us?".... Someone, may please enlighten me on that????
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
Rectum? It damn near killed the son of a bitch!
- SCO seeks at least $1 billion in damages from IBM's alleged breach of its contract with SCO; another $1 billion for breach of the Unix contract signed by Sequent, which IBM acquired in 1999; and another $1 billion for unfair competition.
Are they serious?! No really, is this serious?! It's almost as if they're treating this whole thing as a joke. Or maybe they're thinking "what the hellI wonder how they actually arrived at the figure of $1 billion for each "transgression". I'm guessing that they plucked the figure from their heads in a group brainstorming session, not unlike a Dr. Evil and minions meeting. Whoever came up with that theory (which I read in a previous post), it's certainly looking more credible now.
I also wonder exactly how many $1 billion transgressions they can think of in the next meeting. It's both frightening and amusing at the same time.
DeeK
Unless Cnet has inside knowledge about CmdrTaco's fetishes, its not a real article.
How much of the documentation will then be released to the public? Realistacly I would expect SCO to do everything they can to keep as much of the court case closed as possible simply based on the argument that they need to protect their IP. This looks like SCO is going to play the FUD game for another week and then play behind closed doors when they have to give out any details.
Damn it I want details and I know that unless IBM completly and utterly smacks them into the ground in court most of the doucments will never be released and those of us who don't sign NDA's (note even if I did I wouldn't understand it) will never know how true what SCO is claiming really is..
37 - what does it stand for really...
Who else very recently made the Linux kernel freely available to any foreign party including terrorists, communists and all three vertices of the Axis of Evil?
Hmmm?
Could it be .... SCO!!!???
Didn't they do the due dilligence to see if the capabilities that they were distributing were exportable under U.S. law? Looks like they didn't, and now OBL himself could very well be running Caldera Linux on the Beowulf cluster in his cave simulating thermonuclear explosions.
I'm still running on the stock scam theory. It explains the escalating shrillness of SCO (must stay in the news to affect the stock price) better then anything else.
I'm not buying the Microsoft support conspiracy theory because whatever else you may think, you have to concede that Microsoft is a smart company and if they were going to indirectly support SCO in this, they would not leave an blatently obvious money trail to SCO. I think they licensed SCO's IP to just make them go away. Microsoft may have a huge legal team but odds are they are not sitting in Redmond twiddling their fingers; all else being equal even a company as large as Microsoft would probably prefer not to add another lawsuit to its plate.
Without the Microsoft support (IMHO), the "trying to discredit Linux" isn't the motivation, it's just a side-effect of their need to continually ramp up the volume.
If I'm right then we'll know in a bit; SCO can't maintain this volume much longer. I predict that in the next couple of weeks, SCO will unexpectedly drop the suit... and quite possible fold entirely.
So tell me, all of you scholorly 15 year olds, do you not think SCO's lawyers would realize if they just made up a bunch of crap that IBM's massive legal team wouldn't crush them to a pulp? Do you not think they would realize that and unless they actually felt they had some claims that LEGALLY hold water they would have gone after some other targets?
I'm not saying SCO will win any lawsuits or is in the right about anything here but the absolute hubris of the posters here, who seemingly live in their own little fantasy world, is quite amazing. Amazing indeed.
All the best,
--Bob
Alright, I'm going to stop griping about this story getting boring. I'm just going to watch it unfold over the summer like the "Summer of the Shark" 2 years ago. I love a good summer time dramatic story. Let's hope they can wrap things up by Labor day.
Let's see if they can make the cover of Time and Newsweek. Maybe some aerial shots of Santa Cruz and Linus's house on CNN. Greta can do a special on Fox News and link it to Laci Peterson somehow.
Grab a bowl of popcorn! And, for god's sake, don't go in the water!!
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Is this a flaw of Linux, or just the simple fact that SCO is claiming that their closed source system is being infringed? 'Closed source' means the general public -- including the esteemed Mr. Torvalds -- are not privy to the original code. So exactly what method of verification did SCO have in mind for Linux developers to follow? Of course, we then have Linus' (less directed) retort:
IOW, "we can't identify infringing code and remove it if you refuse to give us that information. Our process is out in the open and you are able to glean all the facts you may need ... what's your holdup?"
Do you like Japanese imports?
In SCO's last 10-Q, it claimed roughly $35M of earnings for the last six months.. So, lets just say they do $70M a year. That makes this suit the equivlant of aprox 42 years of earnings at SCO's current rate. [Insert Douglas Adams joke here]
--
Comments from my blog at MemeStreams
- My Blog - http://www.memestreams.net/users/rattle/
Looks like I need to buy some more popcorn :)
...when IBM (aka the mammoth of all things computer business) crushes SCO instead of buying the little scumbags out. I'm sure having SCO VP will look real good on your resume, especially to a Linux company who got those "notices."
Addendum: Seriously hurting my theory is how stinkin' obvious this would be to the SEC. But for money, people do incredibly stupid things, sometimes even right out in public (especially since they may perceive the current Administration to be soft on this issue....).
Being at the :
"End Of Business Sale Today---
Today we auction the Remains of SCO Inc.
The first item is The Complete and Uncut Source Code for System V...
1$ ? I see 1 $ ?
50 Cents ?
????
25?
A dime ?
A Dime it is !!!!
Another Auction won by the geeky guy with the Free Beers and the " My name is Linus" T-shirt !!!"
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Maybe Sequent developed their own RCU technology in the 1990s, but there's nothing special about RCU. This has been a standard technique among programmers much much longer than that, it was re-invented over and over again long before the nineties.
...the pinky nail held to one side of the mouth and the maniacal laugh.
does anyone else think that the quotes should be around "clarifies" in the title rather than "violations?"
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
It is obvious that the executives of this company have no long-term business plan for SCO. This lawsuit is obviously entirely bogus -- see the OSI position paper on it, and if it had any value IMB would have settled or bought SCO.
Rather than focusing on creating a sound business plan and actually making a good product which consumers want to buy -- something which SCO has failed to do as of yet -- they have chosen to throw baseless allegations around. It generates stock-market interest.
They are obviously planning on doing some insider trading, selling out the investors when the stock is at it's peak, long before the inevitable crash.
As for the allegation that Torvalds can't determine what code contributed is proprietary, no-one can within reasonable means. The best anyone can do is get those contributing to accept responsibility for the contributed code and sign a legal agreement stating that it is their own code. He, nor anyone else, cannot put out bulletins asking the world "is this anyone's proprietary code" before contributing something to the kernel. Many companies would lie and say it was, wasting his time and putting an undue burden on him. Furthermore, he'd have no way of verifying such claims.
The best approach to writing software is exactly what Linus has advocated. Pay no attention to legal patent/copyright, and simply write code. When accepting code from other's, make them claim liability for it, and legally say that it is their own, or code they're allowed to contribute to the best of their knowledge. Trying to find out for sure if contributed code may or may not be copyrighted is an undue burden, and puts additional liability on developers.
Btw, Linux is international. So is GNU software. This lawsuite, even if it's claims of misappropriation are true, will not necessarily force any changes in Linux or GNU/Linux. If any code is SCO's, however, for the convenience of those working in the US, it will rapidly be coded around. This is a non-issue no matter which way you look at it.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
SCO upps damages to 6 billion - citing IBM's illegal use of 'international business machines' acroynm which they thought up first.
Damages go up to 15 trillion when SCO discovers that gravity and other basic laws of the Universe which IBM has been using to build servers formed a basis for SCO's machines first.
Finally, SCO ups damages to (quoting here) "forty bazillion-kabillion" for "having a successful business," which is what SCO was planning to do but couldn't because of IBM.
It should be noted that this last figure was given just before the Executive board collectively passed out after coming down dangerously from a hallucenagic high caused by dry-erase markers, non-dairy creamer, pez, and possibly other office-related recreational drugs.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
What the email address for your MIS department? I need to know so I can have them add /. to the list of blocked sites.
Seriously, the AC that posted is infringing on a copyright - it's not a fair-use excerpt - AND it has been modified with off-color comments. Reposting of articles is fucking stupid and annoying.
And RCU is clearly a technology that Sequent designed for DYNIX/ptx. Sequent, as the link to RCU states, is now owned by IBM, so I suppose they'd have clear rights to this, no problem. RCU is also notoriously absent from SCO's product, so how they can claim ownership of the technology is beyond me.
OK, I could be completely wrong here. Lord knows trying to figure out what's in these people's minds is hard. But here's what I think is going on, and why they make such a claim. I preface this by saying that it was other posters here, in yesterday's SCO-related articles, that first made this point to me. First, check out this C|Net article, containing a brief interview with the CEO of SCO. In particular, note this quote:
I added the boldface to that last clause for emphasis.
Similarly, Chris Sontag, SCO's Senior Vice President of the Operating Systems Division, said the following in this Byte magazine article:
The point is that I think they feel they have some sort of rights over the additional code and technologies that licensees add to the System V code they license from SCO in the process of creating their particular product. IBM bought Sequent, acquiring Sequent's RCU technology. IBM added that technology to AIX. Apparently, in SCO's mind, that gives SCO some degree of rights over that technology, because it's now part of AIX, and AIX is a derivative work of SCO's System V code, and SCO believes they have some amount of rights over all derivative works. And therefore, claims SCO, adding it to Linux violated SCO's rights.
This seems like what they're saying. It also seems completely nuts -- unless IBM's license for SysV code for AIX gives the rights for technologies they come up with and add to AIX back to the owner of the System V codebase. I can't imagine that being true, though.
Another read on this is that it looks even more than it did before like an attempt to re-try the Unix Systems Labs vs. BSD case.
It is official; Netcraft confirms: SCO is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO community when IDC confirmed that SCO market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
OpenServer is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time OpenServer developers Darl McBride only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: OpenServer is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
UnixWare leader Chris Sontag states that there are 7000 users of UnixWare. How many users of Open UNIX are there? Let's see. The number of UnixWare versus Open UNIX posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Open UNIX users. Open Linux posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Open UNIX posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of Open Linux. A recent article put OpenServer at about 80 percent of the SCO market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 OpenServer users. This is consistent with the number of OpenServer Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Caldera, abysmal sales and so on, OpenServer went out of business and was taken over by SCO who sell another troubled OS. Now SCO is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
Fact: SCO is dying
Linus always said he just wanted to code and stay out of all this political stuff, while the RMS camp said that it was all part and parcel of it...
I don't think Linus can sit at OSDL and quietly code his kernel oblivious to this horror going on in the rest of the world much longer...
"This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again
Can you picture what will be
So limitless and free
Desperately in need...of some...stranger's hand
In a...desperate land"
(...)
"The blue bus is callin' us
The blue bus is callin' us
Driver, where you taken' us..."
Oh, the beauty of capitalism; the quintessential buttfscking gameshow...
"The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll
Now onto my curiosity...Why did the article before this one talk about Linus leaving for oh, about a year, to work full-time on the kernel? To me this sounds like either something is wrong (and Linus knows what it is and is gonna go hammer and tongs at changing it), or he envisages a battle ahead...Or it could be just that he has some great ideas to put into development...I still find it weird...
Karem
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
You do the math.
yush
Java was a bicycle peddled by a 300 fat man before Sun added SCO technology to it - and now, well, it's still a bicycle powered by the same fat man.
so the damages they're seeking have been upped to ((Pinky finger to corner of mouth)) $3 Trillion dollars!
This entire scenario illustrates the need for licenses with a clause like that in the Open Software License:
10) Mutual Termination for Patent Action. This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License if You file a lawsuit in any court alleging that any OSI Certified open source software that is licensed under any license containing this "Mutual Termination for Patent Action" clause infringes any patent claims that are essential to use that software.
In fact, I think that we need to go further, and insert a clause saying that you lose the right to even USE any software licensed under an OSI license with this clause in it if you file a patent, trademark, or copyright lawsuite.
We need to do what we can to prevent crap like this.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Reporters do not have to check facts. They only have to report the news. In the event that there is no news, they may invent news. Of course, this article on the The Inquirer.net about a coder suing SCO for code/copyright violation is worth a chuckle.
Does anyone remember the news articles like "SCO may expand Linux case" where RedHat, SuSE & co were mentioned as next targets?
Well how could SCO target those companies when they didn't released distros with RCLOCK yet ?!? Providing they can prove that RCLOCK is really "derived" from SysV.
All this looks like South American soap opera with really bad script.
bb4now,
PMC
we-go-we-fly
I wonder how many days will SCO survive before going to bankruptcy :-)
IBM are a superpower of villains. They are superpower of Al Capone. These cowards have no morals - they have no shame about lying. We will slaughter them all
Mohammed al-Sahaf (now SCO press spokesman)
Former Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
From the article: "...for free distribution to anyone in the world," including residents of Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya, countries to which the United States controls exports."
The last I heard, Linux has been (and is) developed by folks from all over the world -- including the countries in question -- so how does "export" even come into play here?
Using SCO's own twisted logic, wouldn't SCO itself be responsible for "exporting" banned code to these countries by making its distros available on their FTP servers?
Careful, Alan Cox is Welsh, one of the non-english nations in the United Kingdom. They're touchy about such things.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
www.sco-sucks.com is still available after all this?
:P
Someone else go spend the money for me.
however the word you were looking for is: supposition
I don't think it's an unfair supposition to make at all that Microsoft is viewing this as a high-risk low-cost gamble on SCO winning this fight.
http://boston.com/business/tech_innovation/news/20 03/06/17/sco_ibm.htm
President: "Ha ha ha! 100 Billion dollars? That's like asking for a bajillion trillion!"
Dr. Evil: "C'mon, Mr. President, show me the money."
Scott: "You're a moron."
This, along with Sontag giving ONLY SUN a "clean bill of health" and thereby telegraphing Sun to be the "unnamed" Co-conspirator^W^W^Wlicensee of SCOSource, is starting to make Sun look damnably guilty by association.
Sun -- you better stand against SCO in this or face the same wrath SCO is receiving.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
>> Since when did IBM have anything to do with SMP in the kernel?
> so by helping to add SMP to the Linux kernel, and making it freely available, IBM violated US export laws.
But the question was, what did IBM have to do with adding SMP to the kernel? Alan Cox did that with hardware from Caldera. IBM had nothing to do with SMP in the kernel.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
IANAL and I havn't seen the contract but I'm thinking the claim is bull. Hopefully a judge will see this.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
'nuff sed...
Oh well, what the hell...
It's like hiring the Three Stooges to fix your plumbing. Yeah, we'll *triple* the damages! Nyuck Nyuck Nyuck.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
From The Trillian Project
... and ... the ... is" -- found 61 times
"//Trillian v 1.0" -- found 35 times
"/* I hope this works */" -- found 18 times
"int i" -- found 370 times
"//
"// AOL SUCKS" -- OK, this one was only found in the chat program...
And they didn't even bother to change the name! Man those guys are screwed.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
Another read on this is that it looks even more than it did before like an attempt to re-try the Unix Systems Labs vs. BSD case.
....conspiracy? they changed their name to SCO Group to reflect their main source of revenue, which apparently is everyone who makes an operating system that comes after Unix. :)
Yeah, and USL lost on that one. IBM's SysV license comes from AT&T, it did not originate from SCO. So IBM had the license with USL, and then later Novell, and then later SCO, and then later Caldera, and then later SCO.
Okay. So if USL lost, then the precedence has already been set -- USL didn't have rights to derivative works as ruled by the courts, so neither does SCO, because SCO has the same rights USL had, presumably. The OSI position paper covers this.
Yeah, so SCO even in your scenario, is STILL on crack and they STILL aren't sharing.
Also, tinfoil hat mode, Look at Sontag's quote:
We believe that UNIX System V provided the basic building blocks for all Subsequent Computer Operating systems, and that they all tend to be derived from UNIX System V (and therefore are claimed as SCO's intellectual property).
Hmmmmm
My journal has hot
-
IBM will supply SCO with AIX enterprise technologies for UnixWare 7. SCO will integrate key AIX technologies into future releases of UnixWare 7. This will be done to enhance the functionality of UnixWare 7, and achieve source code compatibility between AIX and UnixWare before the IA-64 UNIX System is available. This will give ISVs and IT managers a common development platform across PowerPC and IA-32 platforms and a smooth transition to IA-64 environments.
-
IBM NUMA-Q (formerly Sequent) will contribute data-center technologies - including its multipathing, partitioning, and clustering technologies - and sell the high-end UnixWare ptx Edition.
Of course we don't have access to the contracts signed by the various parties (maybe one could get them from public filings), but if there were any notion of exclusivity (say, on a platform basis) to these technologies, SCO may have grounds to pursue damages.The scary thing (or amusing, possibly) is that these allegations are presumably SCO's best pieces of evidence of IP violation.
I second your comment about the crack. Come on SCO, share the wealth.
I would also guess that the posters that know the history of Unix are probably more than 15 years old.
In short, you're a moron.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Fucking grow up.
Redesigning Linux for use by demanding business customers "is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (a) a high degree of design coordination, (b) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (c) access to Unix code and development methods; (d) Unix architectural experience; and (e) a very significant financial investment," the amended suit says.
SCO: They built a better OS using so-called open source methods? Inconceivable!
IBM: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Almost every comment here could be modded down as 'Redundant'. Rants against SCO are a poor substitute for analysis, and absent analysis, we're all in the dark.
Let's look carefully at the issue:
We know well the weaknesses in SCO's claims, but what are the strengths? The issue is legal weaknesses and strengths: The contest isn't in the court of common sense or the FSF; it's being decided in a court of U.S. law.
* Has anyone, besides SCO, looked at the Linux code and tried to determine what might have come from SCO, and what might have come from a common predecessor?
* FUD FUD FUD: Lawsuits can last years and SCO's, whatever its merits, may cause Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, freezing many Linux customers and Linux contributors (who don't want to waste their time or be sued) for as long as it lasts. How can the FUD be countered?
* If SCO wins, what can be done? What will the consequences be?
* IBM will act in its own interests, of course, and not in the interests of the Linux community; what should we expect from them?
* How time-consuming would it be to replace all SCO code (if it does exist)? Should it be done now, with all the code they claim regardless of merit, to preempt their case?
* Is including controlled technologies in Linux the equivalent of violating US export laws? That could have implications far beyond SCO's suit.
These seem like the critical issues to me.
And all of you [insert country where you live] are a bunch of inbred, ass backwards, terrorist sponsoring asshats.
Yeah, that's it.
Dumbass.
Now it's starting to become clear that the key issue in SCO's case is that they are interpreting copyright law differently from everybody else.
Based on their interpretation, their ownership of the SysV source code gives them rights over every feature implemented as part of every system that contains any of the SysV code.
In general, this should be a non-issue because nobody in their right mind would accept their interpretation. However, the current atmosphere in the US is supportive of "strong intellectual property protections"...it may just be that SCO is hoping that the courts will actually validate their interpretation.
Lets hope they are wrong.
I don't know about anyone else, but I am waiting for IBM's response to all of this in court. I hope that they don't seal up everything because I would like to see their defense (or offense? - hey, the best defense is a good offense, right?).
So far, IBM has only made small comments basically shoving aside the entire situation, like their most recent:
I also remember at the beginning of this whole mess, IBM stated that they wanted this to go to court (specifically a jury trial if I remember correctly). I have no doubt that the IBM legal department has some very interesting material/arguments that they are ready to show everyone.
Maybe SCO has been spewing with new "revelations" and "violations" but I am sure the very adept IBM legal department has been getting something ready that SCO won't stand a chance against.
On slashdot (and many other places) people are really getting played by the SCO "FUD" meanwhile IBM doesn't seem to be playing anything up - and people seem to forget what company we are talking about here - the same IBM that has been around since forever and has fought their share of legal battles.
We should have a little more confidence that good old Big Blue knows what they are doing here and not try to kill ourselves with the B$ flowing out of SCO.
A computer is a valuable tool, so use it and stop whining.
So when does this really go to court?
Actually I believe he is English (Brummie in fact). He just studied at the University of Swansea, of all places.
I may be wrong, but that is what my fuzzy memory recalls from reading Just For Fun
OMG!!! /. killed my brother!!!!
Cause of death: Too much SCO...
If Microsoft is willing to purjure itself by throwing a bunch of bullshit into court, why wouldn't SCO be willing to do so? After all, SCO stands to lose far more than MS would have.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
The more I read about this lawsuit the more I'm convinced that SCO is a Microsoft Patsyâ. It doesn't matter if SCO loses as long as it damages the Linux community in the eyes of corporate users. And Microsoft Patsy â will drag this out as long as it takes. It's a lose-lose situation for SCO, Linux, and IBM and a win-win situation for Microsoft.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
what's it mean when, instead of starting at slashdot, i went to google news which linked to this SCO article not through C|NET but to slashdot.
/. or are they trying to protect C|NET?
/. become a trusted news source?
Google News linking to slashdot!?! Do they have it out for
Has
Because they knowingly shipped 2.4.x and previous kernels as part of Caldera's Linux under the GPL. That's why they can only use the new dev kernel to base their lawsuit on. A very weak strategy.
Down 8.5% while the markets were closed last night...
Reuters
Yahoo!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If SCO is claiming that smp is one of the big problems they have with Linux, I wonder if users of multiprocessors have an alternative? Surely there are alternatives. Does grid, or distributed computing use SMP? If so, how come Oak Ridge National Labs in Tennessee had a qroking cluster in the mid 1990's that was like the 17th fastest computer on earth and running on linux? I think they wrote their software from scratch to best of my recollection. Peace yall, please don't kill me now. My Karma sucks, but i still try!
If the changes were allegedly made into the 2.5 series of the kernel, then SCO has no legal ground against end users or corporations for using Linux. 2.5 is the development version and is not stable enough for everyday use in production systems. So nobody but perhaps testers and developers should be using it. Where did this guy get his info on which kernel it went into? B/c if they're right and it was 2.5, it should put distros and corporate users at ease b/c they don't use 2.5. SCO will have no legal ground to sue future companies
"From Hell's heart, I stab at thee.
For hate's sake, I spit my last breath, at thee."
Hmmm.. that's a fine point, and I'm not sure I agree with you.
First off, it depends on your definitions. Having a port to a platform that isn't part of the core project, IMHO does not count (especially since that port is not techinically what SCO is claiming IBM took).
UnixWare, AFAIK, did not have a core SMP capability prior to Linux. SCO Unix on the other hand may have, I'm not sure. Those are, of course, very different products, and again I think SCO is claiming that the Unix license that was sold to IBM *prior* to SCO's acquisition of the rights are the point of "IP loss", so claiming that they had it first in SCO would not help.
I would love to hear people who used to work for Novell weigh in on the timeline. I know that Linux had SMP on certain limited motherboards VERY early on and as early as v0.27, 05 may 1998, the new motherboards were being added to the already growing list of Linux SMP platforms....
Actually SCO has some legal blurb kissing the current US governments ass on their ftp server (ftp.sco.com).
Don't know how long it has been there....
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
SCO is claiming that by helping with Linux IBM is potentially aiding terrorist. Hmmm, well then, how do they explain this?1 .1/Work station/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux-2.4.13-21D.src .rpm
:-D
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.
Source RPM of Linux wide open with no disclaimers, no checks, no "I certify I'm not from one of the naughty countries", nothing.
Let's report 'em to Tom Ridge.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of Lindon. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."
For years we have heard of the Slashdot effect, but for some reason this effect has not happened to the world-wide financial markets. Let's place our bets. Put your buy limit order in for SCO stock at $0.01. Sell it short for $8 or $6 or wherever your personal risk quotient will go. Buy and sell options on their stock below market. There are no open options on SCOX stock right now. My buy order is in for 10,000 at $0.01.
ScaryBubbles? If that's not a developmental kernel codename, I don't know what is. Of course, the full power of the open source community will probably come up with something much more pointed and insulting than that...
Sun CEO Sees Opportunity In IBM Legal Fight
Let's assume for one second that SCO does have a case. In that case, HP-UX and Solaris could be the only major, commercial versions of Unix left. Is IRIX considered a major player any more? I don't think so.
Corporate Gadfly
Jonathan Archer: the most beaten up Enterprise captain in Star Trek history
What does penguin taste like?
Why, chicken, of course. Just like everything else.
MORTAR COMBAT!
Perhaps the good Dr. Torvalds has been rented out for a bit by the major Linux distributors, just in case SCO does show that the code was lifted, so that he can be put under the gun to rewrite the kernel sans offending bits. That is, unless SCO earns some merit on the claims that all SysV-related OSes are derivative...
OS X is BSD, not a line of SysV in the beast, correct?
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
You're brilliant. Wish they let me mod anymore.
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
I can picture it now.. Bill Gates sitting back drinking wine and just laughing his ass off about this whole situation. Why fight Linux when SCO can do it for you? And its free!!! Haha its so ironic. The losers will be the open source community. I hope SCO loses, and goes bankrupt from all the lawyer fees.
Its just what the general feel of comments is over this issue.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Though I would love for IBM to fight this out to the end (winning, of course), the problem is it keeps the FUD flying, which is SCOs intent (as well as getting bought out). I would now simply like to see IBM buy them and outright fire the entire management staff, from CEO down - WITHOUT ANY GOLDEN PARACHUTES.
Give SCO leaders what they want, with a twist. They get bought out but they make nothing on the deal as they are left totally bereft of big money for stepping aside for new management. Hopefully, IBM would be able to find gainful employment for the software engineers, etc, who are presumably innocents caught in the madness of their leadership.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
While it's nice to get behind Big Blue on this, I think it would speak volumes if a company such as SuSE or Red Hat, or even a small consulting company that lost business because of SCO's loud rattle against Linux, was to win a case against, or defending against, SCO.
I'm glad IBM is supporting Linux, but everyone knows that if their earlier "efforts" hadn't gone down the tubes, they would not be the friend they are today to the Linux community.
SCO has to prove that IBM specifically stole the code and gave it to Linux/Linus.
IBM has hundreds of thousands of employees and contractors around the world so unless SCO had someone come to them and say, I copied this code from SCO while at IBM and put it into the Linux/Linus kernel, they cannot prove beyond a _reasonable_ doubt that IBM was the offender.
Is IBM the ONLY sub-licensee of SCO?
SCO has the right to withdraw the license given to IBM IF it was written into the contract that way. SCO could have said that IBM has the ability to do X and at anytime can revoke further sales and require proof that all past licenses have been destroyed. That is still possible but it had to have been written into the contract.
Novell was stupid to stick their nose in. SCO wouldn't have come this far(one would seem to believe) w/out having their attorneys ensure that they actually own the rights to this code. If they did not own the rights and continued forward sueing IBM, IBM could've gotten all attorneys costs covered which would've been party time since they are most likely using in-house counsel.
I believe any reasonable Judge/Panel that somehow ruled in SCO's favor would still give X number of days to correct the infringement and with the power of the OSS community I don't believe that removing the infringement would be difficult.
My $0.02
According to an article on byte.com, Linux is only the start. BSD,Windows,MAC could potentially be targets as wells. SCO appears to beleive that all operating systems are derived in some way from Unix System V technology. I think they are hoping if they stink loud enough someone buy them out. (Byte article is here
100 BILLION DOLLARS! (austin powers :-) )
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
80% of the posts bean modded up are marked Funny.
The only reason we are not going spastic about waiting for the final chapters of certain geeky movies is that they have release dates. Can somewun from iether party please tell us when the result is going to be released so we can RELAX A LITTLE BIT?
Thnx.
(new grit joke - dlbrate maspellunk. how long will it last?)
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
SCO: "And we will hold IBM ransom for..."
(dramatic music)
SCO: "One MILLION dollars."
Number 2: (clears throat)
SCO: "Sorry... I mean... One hundred... BILLION dollars!"
Yup, that sounds pretty much like SCO's style.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Why cant anyone countersue for causing damage to business with unsubstantiated rumours like in Europe?
Okay. So if USL lost, then the precedence has already been set -- USL didn't have rights to derivative works as ruled by the courts, so neither does SCO, because SCO has the same rights USL had, presumably. The OSI position paper covers this.
Well, my understanding of the particulars of the USL/Novell v. UC/BSD case isn't as good as it might be; but my understanding is that where Novell and USL were shot down was in their claims of trade secret infringement. Some copyright violation was found, requiring a small amount of code change within BSD to be necessary. In other words, I thought the message of that case was that the SysV code was effectively unencumbered with trade secret issues; but copyrights could still be violated. Is that not correct?
If it is correct, then things get slightly more worrisome. In the case that we're discussing -- the Read-Copy Update issue -- I have no idea what argument would let SCO claim they have automatic rights to the technology. But copyright law is quite explicit about who owns the copyright to derivative works of some original work -- namely, the holder of the copyright to the original work. Taken literally, that would seem to imply that SCO does have some rights over AIX and its contents. Of course, my confusion over the details of the outcome of the Novell/USL v. UC/BSD case notwithstanding, I don't think the applicability of these rules about derivative works to software source code has been clearly considered by the courts. Completely independent of the outcome, this case may end up having a lot of impact about what software copyright really means.
I hate to break it to SCO, but Linux had SMP support LOOOOOONG before IBM got into the open source game. Idiots.
I hope SCO execs have to sell their kidneys to pay for the lawsuit filed by IBM when courts figure out how unsubstantiated these claims truly are!
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
This is from a local LUG - most/all common knowledge, but the last part hit me as interesting: "The SCO that bought Xenix is not the SCO that is suing IBM. The SCO that is suing is actually Caldera. They changed the name to capitalize on SCO's name recognition as they were making money from "SCO UNIX" which they had bought a source license* (but not the patents and copyrights) from Novell. -snip- * This was fairly common around 1990. AT&T sold many source licenses for UNIX. SCO bought one, Everex (ESIX) bought one, Interactive Systems (later owned by Kodak and sold to SUN) bought one, etc.
.. end LUG quote. ... and then some comment here on /. said this:
- model. Yet.
--
"The SCO Group, and only The SCO Group, has *sole* right to sub-license any and all source code from all of the folowing UNIXs; SCO UnixWare and SCO OpenServer, Suns Solaris, IBMs AIX, SGIs IRIX, HPs UX, Fujitsus ICL DRS/NX, Siemens SINIX, Data Generals DG-UX, and Sequents DYNIX/Ptx. "
Can anyone confirm this to be true/false? These two contradict quite well. It means it could just as well be SUN who'se suing IBM and/or hoeing down the OS community. Although I suspect SUN isn't into the shoot-myself-in-the-face-with-a-howitzer-business
-
Follow me here: Microsoft is sponsoring this lawsuit: we've already seen this with their licensing. But, if I remember correctly, the German Army dumped M$ as an OS, because they found all their emails being routed through Denver.
So it is clear that Microsoft has some kind of link to the NSA, possibly intentional, possibly inadvertent.
Suppose that it is intentional, though? In that case, suppose that the real push behind this is the NSA, trying to eliminate Linux so that its own preferred code will be used [*BSD folks, check your code, just in case!]
If that were the case, it might be that SCO has marching orders to bring up "axis of evil", so that the Pentagon can step in and shut down Linux. IBM may, in the process, be a minor casualty -- not being destroyed, but getting a wrist slap.
But if this is the case, then I still don't see how the US Government can wipe out Linux everywhere, any more than they could wipe out the shift to Euros for the payment of oil. The US *doesn't* have the capability to fight everyone, and the molassas morass of Iraq has only begun. So, I'm not going to give this one a high percentage of likelihood. Yet SCO's leadership seem absolutely insane, unless they have something up their sleeve [or unless they're buying IBM stock]. I can't believe that they are all insane, and the only card up their sleeve I could imagine is government injunction against Linux.
So I'm left with crazy conspiracy theories that only make about 1% sense to me.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
You should make it a little turd, and give it these cartoony red feet, and maybe a light-blue cape, and maybe glasses, and some horns on it's head ('cause they're the Great Satan, right?), kinda like this.
--sdem
From what I understand: you can download Linux from SCO's FTP site
I think: wouldn't that mean SCO themselves are also breaking any export restrictions if IBM were?
I recommend Ashcroft look over SCO's FTP logs for binladen@cave.com and shussein@iraq.com
[Raise pinky]
[Dr. Evil]
$3 billion dollars
[/Dr. Evil]
[/Raise pinky]
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Dear Mr. Palmisano:
I have become aware of a litigious situation between your company and that of Darl McBride (SCO). In your pending defense against their lawsuit(s) I would like to recommend to you that I, NMG be your sole defense attorney. I am not on your legal defense team, nor am I actually a lawyer. I am merely a reader of Slashdot. SCOâ(TM)s claimâ(TM)s of damages are so ludicrous, I believe that even a troop of Screaming Monkeyâ(TM)s could provide you proper defense. Unfortunately for you, the Screaming Monkeyâ(TM)s were already hired out for the year by the Federal Trade Commission. Therefore, I extend an offer of my services for your legal defense in return for a pack of smokes, a ThinkPad and a chance to punch SCO in the kisser. This union will save you a bundle of money in defense feeâ(TM)s and will save your legal resources for your pending investigation with the horde of Screaming Monkeyâ(TM)s. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
NMG
Dateline - Jun-23-03, Santa Cruz
SCO just hired Al Gore as assistant CIO. With the newly acquired Intellectual Property rights, EVERYONE is hereby ordered to cease and dissist from using the Internet.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
While that's pure common sense, we're dealing with legalities and attorney generals who pride themselves on applying our laws to those devious foreigners. Alan Cox may be paranoid about coming to the US but he has good reasons.
That means, if get that explanation right, my company can develop and get copyright/patent for a new type of engine for BMW, but I can not sell or give it away later to Ford without asking BMW, even if BMW and my company had no previous legal arrangements over technology transfers. Sounds strange to me.
SCO what is that I've never taken that drug before? Oh you're gotta try it. You'll feel on top of the world, and you will totally lose your connection with reality. Wow sound great Oh there is one downfall though ... you tend to start fights with the big guys ... you know the type of fight that you can't win.
We don't need no stinking sig!
Dr. Evil would be proud of SCO.. 3 Billion dollars...
But the funny thing is after they said 3 billion IBM just kept on laughing.
Didn't Caldera give Alan Cox an SMP system?
This is about IBM buying Sequent and the whole thing with SCO (and Monterey)
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-228275.html
Well, my understanding of the particulars of the USL/Novell v. UC/BSD case isn't as good as it might be; but my understanding is that where Novell and USL were shot down was in their claims of trade secret infringement. Some copyright violation was found, requiring a small amount of code change within BSD to be necessary. In other words, I thought the message of that case was that the SysV code was effectively unencumbered with trade secret issues; but copyrights could still be violated. Is that not correct?
You're right... Except SCO isn't going after *copyright* infringement. They're going after *trade secret* infringement and breach of contract.
My journal has hot
According to Infoworld, Sun has joined the debate by taking advantage of the uncertainty over IBM. They have taken out advertisements questioning the use of AIX over Solaris.
-Sean
This illustrates a huge problem SCO has if the
case ever goes to trial.
They're going to have to go over this huge pile of source code with a non-technical judge and/or jury, examining in detail the provenance of each disputed component as if they were determining the rightful heir to the throne. That would take a very, very long time. And I can see the judge's eyes terminally glazing over within hours on the first day of such testimony.
This would be a much more tedious undertaking than examining the look-and-feel issues in the Apple-MS Windows lawsuit. Incidentally, that
suit initially had an end-of-the-world-is-nigh feel to it as far as MS was concerned, but eventually resolved in a verymuddled fashion.
John Reece
No shit...
This has MS written all over it but "Mr. Bush's" DOJ doesn't seem to have any problems with MS trying to destroy not just an company but an entire movement(Linux-Open Source) using the same tools used to convict MS of monopoly...
Boy isn't that ironic!
come on everyone together now:
Oh the weather outsides delightful.
And McBride is surely frightful.
In case you didnt know
Bite me SCO, Bite me SC0, Bite me SCO.
Well, the SCO boys are surely crazy,
Too much crack makes their intellects lazy.
In case you didnt know:
Bite me SCO, Bite me SCO, Bite me SCO.
When we finally go to court,
How I hate dressing up for the day,
But if Blue really gets real mad.
you will just get blown AWAY.
Oh the weather outsides delightful.
And McBride is surely frightful.
In case you didnt know
Bite me SCO, Bite me SC0, Bite me SCO.
Well if you look at the code submitter for the Read-Copy Update infrastructure on the Kernel mailout it can be seen that the code was submitted by Dipankar Sarma. Doing a quick google search at can be seen that Sarma knows his stuff about RCU's and has worked with them before. I can not seem to find if he works at IBM or not but that is just somethign I noticed.
IA_AL. A malicious prosecution suit is a follow-up to the original suit. One of the elements of an MP claim is that the original plaintiff loses the original suit.
Opinions?
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
In IBM vs. SCO, the only winners will be: the lawyers.
Everyone else will have to live with an uncomfortable fact: a system many base their business on was challenged, by a relatively insignificant and dying company. In the end, a judge and jury will determine what happens to billions of dollars across thousands of companies.
IBM will trounce SCO. There is no doubt about it, just like U.S.A. vs. Iraq. However, just like Iraq, the hardest part will be after the war. SCO must be strung up mercilessly, picked apart at every seam, laughed into oblivion, every claim exposed for every possible ridiculous angle. It needs to be shown that SCO was literally insane.
Anything less, and Linux will always carry a little baggage, perhaps that extra smidgen of doubt that prevents "Big Company" from setting up some Linux servers.
SCO needs to be a synonym for idiocy, even for Grandma on AOL. If Linux has any lasting bruises from this battle, the next blow will be even worse.
This whole thing just strikes me as too convenient for some other high-profile interests, and too much like part of a long-range plan.
...
Has anyone thought about the fact that the US Government may take a pro-SCO stance in all of this? You see, however much you might hate large corporations like Microsoft and others, they do make up the bread and butter of our economy. That's why some legislators have taken an anti-OSS stance. They view it as similar to communism.
Also, notice how David Boies is representing this case, didn't he used to work for the DOJ on prosecuting the Microsoft case? Our current Republican government, as much as I detest their practices and cowboy attitude, is very much pro-capitalism, even to the point of taking away personal rights and giving them to corporations.
IP theft is becoming an extremely large issue to those in power (the corporations), and I think that the government may try to make an example of IBM... Release trade secrets to terrorists, go to jail, or something similar.
Any thoughts?
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
This quote is rich:
"The suit also adds illegal export issues stemming from the worldwide availability of open-source software. SCO claims IBM has breached its contract by making multiprocessor operating system technology available "for free distribution to anyone in the world," including residents of Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya, countries to which the United States controls exports. The open-source technology IBM released "can be used for encryption, scientific research and weapons research," the suit said."
Next thing you know, SCO will claim IBM is helping supply Hamas with PC Jr hardware with the purpose of causing death and destruction among all the free countries of the world. I can't wait to see SCO go down now. Even if they drop the suit tomorrow, SCO's goose is cooked. What CIO/CTO is going to take them seriously now?
[C]ommentary from media and intellectual property law firm Buys Inc, which says: âoe...for now the SCO letter looks like a campaign made more for the media than the courtroom.â
If I own IP rights to a technology what prevents me from licensing it under many different contracts? In this case as a derivitive work under Unix System V license and under Linux under the GNU code. I know there are projects like PHP who license under dual licenses.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
"He would womanize and make ridiculous claims, like he invented the question mark."
Madness. Absolute madness.
At least it's fallen from the $11+ it was a couple of days ago. I guess that means the market knows they're stretching it a bit now.
Your understanding of the USL/BSD case is faulty. While the court did find that BSD included a small amount of code from AT&T, they also found that AT&T took much more than that from BSD.
Your understanding of derivative works is similarly faulty. While it's true that the issue of what is a derivative work in software has never been litigated, it is not true that the owner of the original work owns the copyright to the derivative work. When a company, like IBM, buys the right to make derivative works, they own the copyright on the derivative work. Disney bought the rights to make films from A.A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh. The Milne heirs do not own the rights to those films, Disney does.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO community when Wall Street confirmed that SCO stock prices have dropped yet again, now down to less than a..fuck it, they're worthless. Coming on the heels of a recent IBM statement which plainly states that SCO will be whooped, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Stanford-Binet comprehensive IQ test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because IBM will kill it. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO stock prices continue to drop. Bullshit press releases flow like a river of piss.
SCO is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core credibility. The boring and unpleasant crying of long time SCO executives Darl C. McBride and Chris Sontag only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: SCO is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
SCO wants three billion dollars. How many dollars of that will they get? Let's see. The number IBM's lawyers outnumber SCO's to a ration of 1000000 to 1. Therefore there are enough lawyers to crush SCO like a bug. SCO funds aren't even half of IBM's. Therefore there will be no more SCO. A recent article put SCO at about 100 percent of the "Wah-Wah-Crybaby" market. Therefore there are eight corporate executives at SCO. This is consistent with the number of SCO criers.
Due to the troubles of suing IBM, abysmal sales and so on, SCO will go out of business and be taken over by IBM who will laugh their asses off. Now SCO will soon be dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in stock value. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among people who thought Big Blue would fall. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
Fact: SCO is dying
What if MS purchased SCO, instead of IBM? Whats to stop them from doing it? IANAL(BIPOOSD), but would the DOJ step in to prevent an aquisition?
If IBM is going to acquire SCO, would they release the UNIX source code, or continue to license it as controlled IP? Whats to stop a future CEO @ IBM from pulling the same legal manuver in the future if the UNIX source remains closed?
And, finally: If I were a CIO or CTO debating the TCO of *nix vs. Win2K3 to a CEO, would IBM vs. SCO be the TKO that stops the CEO from approving A/P to pay my PO for RH's LGX? FWIW, even if OSS is FAIB, if the DOJ considers *nix IP with a TM, then it basically become's SCO's LIC, meaning our OSS becomes a CSS OS, which would RSTBO. AIBO going w/ an ASP that manages our OS? BTA, we might end up w/ a BOFH giving us ZA, which WWAD PMS. AFAIK, INMP if SCO wants to be ITM w/ it's supposed IP - *nix IP should be PD or GNU, like BSD just on GP, IYKWIM.
Oh, BTW - IITYWIMWYBMAD?
This article over at Forbe's has an interesting quote.
We gave IBM notice that they're in violation of the contract that they had," Sontag told Reuters. "If they continue to ignore the termination order and with the damages that will rack up every day, we're not in a hurry to settle anymore."
- Chris Sontag, a general manager in charge of SCO's Unix licensing efforts
With their bluff called it sounds like even SCO has realized this is pointless.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
Is the HURD usable yet? Airdrop a few thousand Linux developers on it and they'll have that poor microkernel whipped into shape in no time ;)
From the OSI position paper:
SCO/Caldera alleges (Paragraph 57): âoeWhen SCO acquired the UNIX assets from Novell in 1995, it acquired rights in and to all (1) underlying, original UNIX software code developed by AT&T Bell Laboratories.â
SCO/Caldera neglects to mention that those rights had been substantially impaired before its acquisition of the ancestral Bell Labs source code. There was a legal action in 1992-1993, in which Unix Systems Laboratories and Novell (SCO/Caldera's predecessors in interest) sued various parties including the University of California at Berkeley and Berkeley Systems Design, Inc. for alleged copyright infringement, trade secret disclosures, and trademark violations with regard to the release of substantial portions of the 4.4BSD operating system[36].
The suit was settled after AT&T's request for an injunction blocking distribution of BSD was denied in terms that made it clear the judge thought BSD likely to win its defense. The University of California then threatened to countersue over license violations by AT&T and USL. It seems that from as far back as before System V Release 4 in 1985, the historical Bell Labs codebase had been incorporating large amounts of software from the BSD sources. The University's cause of action lay in the fact that AT&T, USL and Novell had routinely violated the terms of the BSD license by removing license attributions and copyrights.
The exact terms of final settlement, and much of the judicial record, were sealed at Novell's insistence. The key provisions are, however, described in Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix: From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable, [McKusick99]. Only three files out of eighteen thousand in the distribution were found to be the licit property of Novell (and removed). The rest were ruled to be freely redistributable, and continue to form the basis of the open-source BSD distributions today.
Ten years ago â" at a time when Linux was in its infancy â" the courts already found the contributions of other parties to what is now UnixWare to be so great, and Novell's proprietary entitlement in the code so small, that Novell's lawyers had to settle for a minor, face-saving gesture from the University of California or walk away with nothing at all.
If IBM is the copyright holder of this piece of code, based on their aquisition of Sequent, how can they be sued releasing it into the Linux/GPLed world? It belongs to them, not SCO...
Still, it's all gravy for M$. All this talk about Unix being "destroyed" by evil Linux and threats on all still shelling out money for licensed Unix, it's all FUD M$ is loving. Having failed to compete on technical merits and abandoned their "Unix killer", NT, this is the best they can do? Pathetic, but the FUD might just keep Linux numbers down long enough for them to implement Paladium and lock everyone else out.
Right, and I own the moon and will license it to the Chinese because I bought the patents on the first liquid fueled rocket. It's mine, bitches! Everything flows from it and all of you are theives of my Intelectual Property, -burp-.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
The claim that IBM is aiding terrorism is something so cliched in America it's almost not even funny anymore. This is something so typically used as a last ditch defense when everything else fails that most people should be able to see it with ease. SCO's claims have varied from copyright infringment until proven otherwise, through contract breach by releasing SCO code until IBM called that bluff as well, up until now when SCO goes for the patriotic kneejerk reaction hoping to rally Americans to the cause.
Incidentally, they're also claming RCU is in breach of contract. The RCU might very well be in breach of contract in that Sequent added code to Linux although that code was developed under the Unix licence from SCO. Sequent was bought by IBM and that makes IBM guilty although I'm not sure that SCO can claim ownership of anything that Sequent developed unless there was an agreement between them.
Which would in fact leave only the patriotic fallback, and I'm pretty sure that that one is not going to hold up in court.
So, in other words, you're fucked Darl.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
but PC's mobos were only available with a maximum of four processor slots.
Ever see the Copyright Corrollary in the SCO boot-ups?
Corrollary had 8 and 16 way 386/486 SCO boxen. They also made serial ports.
When they were bought out, the serial parts went to Digi, Intel took the silicon patents. I thought I remmeber a press release about some Intel/SCO IP transaction involving the code.
So, SCO had access to SMP for a long, long time.
And it 'taint bad either....
Do they actually intend for real people to do this?
Between the painfully ugly code formatting standards and screwball ideas ("hey everybody! let's standardize on GUILE!"), this is a document only RMS could love.
Where can I download GNU/Hurd? Yes, I know it is not as usable as Linux, but at least I know that its copyright is entirely in the hands of FSF.
But I doubt it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
is all IBM should have to say to the world to answer that one.
SCO has been all over the place about what they're claiming. We've heard about patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and even trademarks, and vague "intellectual property rights". But the actual complaint they filed with the courts does NOT allege any copyright infringement, just breach of contract and unfair competition.
Actually that judge and jury you mentioned is exactly why I'm scared. SCO trots out a few lines of source pointing out the identical structure, possibly identical variable names, maybe even identical comments and says "See, identical! Stolen!".
Now, prove to a non-technical audience that such a piece of code may very well be obvious to those practiced in the craft of software development? Like a bubble sort algorithm or something?
Suddenly, I'm not so sure of the chances at jury trial.
IANAL, nor a kernel hacker, so I'll just supply this as speculation. Some of you may have the information necessary to acquit this as fact or fiction.
You know. I've got two nice SCO golf shirts that used to be some of my most treasured posessions and I wore them with pride a couple of years back.
Now, I want to throw them away and if someone should stop me in the street and ask if I know SCO, I would lie like a Judas and exclaim never to have heard of the company.Hell, I wouldn't even put it on my CV anymore! This is really sad. At least I can continue to wear my "Geek by Nature, Linux by choice" T-shirt with even more pride! It doesn't fit so well anymore though...
"I used to have that really cool,funny sig
I wish IBM would just crush SCO and get the whole thing over with. Did you know that I invented the internet, and by developing software to "illegally" connect to my internet, SCO violated it's license and shall be crushed and burned
That's what the ducks think too, come hunting season.
I work for a company that had a 1 line technical detail that crept into a document that had 5k copies printed for a large conference (Comdex?). When our export compliance department got wind of it, they took the company jet, flew to that conference the night before it opened and literally took exacto knifes and carved that page from the document which was printed by the conference. Needless to say, the conference was pissed. It cost the company several 10s of thousands of dollars.
This part of SCOs claim is probably the only part that scares IBM. The US, if not the only country, is a country that considers a briefing where "technical data" (anything technically about a system developed by the US) is divulged to be an "foreign person". Just to be safe, my company has a general rule.... "If it's code, it's technical data. Don't even try it." A foreign person is ANYONE not living within the US borders. If you are working for a US corp, but are living and working in their European/Australian/(Other than the 50 US states) branch you are considered a foreign person. You can't even have a phone chat with the US technical support line, because that too is considered an export. Export laws are terribly tight and far stretching in the US. SO!!! There might be some merit to the claim that SCO has about export compliance. If IBM didn't get a contract with the US to make this an open source project then they probably violated export compliance law.
Now the big but!
I would think that IBM would be paying fees to the government and SCO would have no foundation to charge damages for the export of these goods, unless SCO was somehow charged fees by the government and were trying to regain these fees due to IBM being the ones at fault. But the US usually slaps the ones who own what was exported.
Now the bigger butt!
SCO
Is that why the floating green monkeys keep quoting Satre today? I knew that seemed out of character for them.
Uhm, 0.27 is the version of the HOWTO, not the version of the kernel that contained SMP.
IIRC, the first version to have SMP support was in the 1.3 series, in 1996.
I'm sorry, technical difficulties prevented the translation in Cavemanese. That was, in fact, the English version.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Thanks to xyote for pointing this out:
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
But copyright law is quite explicit about who owns the copyright to derivative works of some original work -- namely, the holder of the copyright to the original work.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. Under copyright law, the copyrights to derivative works are shared. Neither the copyright holder on the base work nor the creator of the derived work (or assignees) can distribute the derivative without permission.
However, the creator of the derived work could distribute a patch to the original work as long as the patch itself did not contain any substantive portions of the original work.
The way I read it is that Sequent developed the RCU technology under a SystemV license from AT&T, Novell, SCO, Satan, whoever. That was a license in perpetuity, so when IBM bought out Sequent, they didn't gain the full rights to RCU, just a licensing agreement allowing them to sell it.
And as far as SMP goes, I'd like to check SCO's server logs to find out if any Linux downloads originated from IPs in NK, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc. They're likely more guilty of supportting terrorsim than IBM, by having actually ditributed the code in question.
You killed my operating system. Prepare to die.
^champagne^campaign
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
make sco.slashdot.org and allow us to filter this stuff off the home page I have had enough of all the sco stories for a while
Hold me mommy, I'm scared!!
-- Linux User in Iran, using SMP for scientific research
"And last, the rending pain of re-enactment
Of all that you have done, and been; the shame
Of motives late revealed, and the awareness
Of things ill done and to other's harm"
So, what's going to happen?
As far as I know, if you have portions of code that is infringing, you have to tell the offender what code it is in order to sue their square pants off. You can't just come in and bitchslap 'em out of business without giving them the chance to correct any error.
SCO is out for blood. Too bad that it looks like the only blood in the water so far is from their own neck.
Is SCO going to sue the NSA too? What about all the government agencies that use Linux and/or AIX?
I looked over the license I have for AIX. I don't see anything in it about having to stop using it because SCO puts their pinky to their mouth and utters, "Three BILLION dollars!". I didn't see a mention of SCO at all.
I've sent a note to purchasing to not renew our SCO support contracts. We haven't used it much anyway, and their helpless desk is just that. Shall we put together a list of companies that use SCO and start a boycot?
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
"Unclear is why SCO thinks they have the rights to RCU, since the technology was originally developed by Sequent in the early 1990s."
This syntax is clumsy and improper. "Unclear" is NOT why SCO thinks they have the rights to RCU. At the very least, "unclear" should be replaced with a noun.
It would be better to say "SCO's management seems to think they have legal ownership to RCU, which is strange because it was originally developed by Sequent in the early 1990s."
I had linux running on a dual pentium-233 on a Tyan Tomcat IV motherboard my sophomore year of college, which began August of '98. I remember being very exciting every time a new dev kernel was released because SMP was under heavy dev by Alan Cox then. (if I remember correctly).
The case will likely center on the meaning of the phrase I have italicized above. It may very well mean that IBM can't take parts of derivative works that they added to SysV, like RCU, and release them under the GPL.
Then, on the issue of exports, another contract which grants IBM the rights to license the software to third parties says that they can only export the software under license from the US Government. So the distribution to Iran, North Korea, et. al. may be a contractual violation as well.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
If you want to understand SCO's situation, look at the statements they make and then compare them to the statements North Korea makes. SCO is the corporate equivalent of a starving soviet state, desperate to hold onto its power. The only thing left in its arsenal are threats to use weapons with potentially catastrophic side-effects. Essentially, in both cases it's a plea for economic aid and recognition, and it all demonstrates a tremendous fear that the end is nigh.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I think it's time to put the fear of god in them. Does anyone else feel it's time for some street justice here?
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
dr evil:
c in e8.jpg
m in ime05.jpg
http://austinspad.tripod.com/images/photos/ap2/
mini me:
http://austinspad.tripod.com/images/photos/ap2/
ready made iconÂs:
http://austinspad.tripod.com/icons.html
Hmm, SCO has a real problem with "FREE" software. They even had to drag in "illegal export" comment in there. FYI, SCO, Linux is a world-wide effort that originated in Finland and doesn't fall under US export laws.
Instead of adapting and jumping on the Linux bandwagon they chose to ignore the whole thing (hoping it would go away) and now it's too late.
As far as I know Novell still holds the Unix (tm) rights and not SCO. Depending on whom you listen to, they (novell) either still own it or don't.
It's totally ludicrous that JFS is derivative of System V in any normal sense of the word. JFS was the first journal file system in commercial UNIXes back in 1990 and way-predated other journal file systems (caveat: dunno when Veritas entered the fray as a third-party vendor).
So why would SCO make this claim?
A new thought on this occurred to me: what's really bizarre is: "How does SCO know what AIX code looks like??!" The IBM guys licensed UnixWare (via Sequent and I think Monterrey), but not vice-versa, did they? Perhaps by making strong claims, SCO can go on a fishing expedition into the AIX code!
The idea goes something like this: show the court that IBM coders took some code from UnixWare and put it in Linux. Then claim that they probably did the same for AIX. Then get to look at all the IBM source code and try to find more (minor, insignificant) infractions that you can blackmail.... I mean settle with IBM for.
Just a thought.
--LinuxParanoid
P.S. The possibility that Sun is that other 'unknown SCO licensee' makes a lot of strategic sense. Dunno whether it's true, but the shoe fits. Kudos rjamestaylor for that thought.
I just had a look at the development of the value of the SCO shares over the last 6 months (http://investor.cnet.com/investor/quotes/chart-sn ap/0-9970-1043-0-SCOX.html?priceDisplay=1&duration =6m&frequency=0) and it seems to have increased 10-fold since march... I wonder when the great buyout will start!
Two words: "Fuck SCO!"
Patent Lawyer: I've spoken with the copyright guys, and they blame the contract.
Contract Lawyer: We blame the Patent guys, but they blame the Boise.
Manager: Where are the Boys?
Aide: Snowboarding in Utah.
Manager: Isn't there anyone whose responsibility it is to keep this whole pump'n'dump running?
Aide: (aside) That'll be you, Darl.
Cue Big Blue logo, close up of McBride shitting himself.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
Fry: "Very impressive. Back in the 20th century we had no idea there was a university on Mars."
Prof. Farnsworth: "Well in those days Mars was just a dreary uninhabitable wasteland... much like Utah. But unlike Utah, it was eventually made livable, when the university was founed in 2636."
Leela: "They planted traditional college foliage: ivy, trees, hemp...."
"First, they've upped the damages they're seeking to $3 billion"
If you're going to come up with a random number about how much business you've lost then I guess you may as well say $3 billion instead of $1 billion. Perhaps in the magical world in which SCO now lives they believe this to be an auction.
"Unclear is why SCO thinks they have the rights to RCU, since the technology was originally developed by Sequent in the early 1990s." Apparently they think that they have the rights to ALL improvements made to any UNIX branch by any company anywhere in the universe since the dawn of time ... that's not how copyright law works, but they don't seem to realize it.
Sco's just pissed because Linux proves that you don't have to be a billion-dollar company to get the job done. That quote in the original suit is so telling:
"Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. Unix was the software equivalent of a luxury car."
Could they be more plain about their motives? They make their living selling luxury cars. What they'd really like is a law mandating people either walk, or drive a Rolls Royce.
I love it when the news media expecially on the internet writes articles and title's them differently everytime they add a paragraph and update the report. You start reading beyond the first paragraph and you realize it is yesterday's article. I guess that's the easy way to provide the relevant story along with the updates, but sometimes it can seem pretty cheesy. Similarly, I remember watching one cable news station when the inditement against Martha Stewart broke, and they had they guy on camera skimming through the 13 page document and reading areas that sounded interesting and going back to him every 2 minutes, not giving him enough time to say anything worthwhile. Funny Stuff.
Apparently, according to Forbes the latest update is that they have now "revoked" the Unix license officially. Here's the text.
I need a TiVo for my car. Pause live traffic now.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
why spend the money on fighting the lawsuit or paying a settlement - buy out SCO
SCO hasn't sued anybody yet..
And if their behaviour can be used as a indicator of how solid their case is, I'd say here is a good change they won't be suing anybody in the forseeable future.
Either that, or the case will be dismissed right after SCO has explained it's case and the judge has had a good belly laugh ..
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
They just want to tell IBM it's much cheaper to buy SCO right away. $3 billion is enough to send the message, but I don't think it will work. IBM is in this for the long run. I believe IBM will be the one to win the lawsuit because they aren't the ones doing the talking.
SCO is behaving like the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". He had his arms and legs cut off and he still challenged King Arthur saying "I'll bite your legs off!".
http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/movies/holy-grail/sce ne-04.html
Great movie. Bad adaptation by SCO. And they should be sued for copyright infringement.
IBM violated their license by introducing read-copy update to the world?
Doesn't SCO read books? Read-copy update was a feature of the mach kernel by the mid 80's. Its IPC was pretty much just messaging and read-copy update was a clever optimization that minimized unnecessary memory copies.
What did AT&T have to do with it? Other than use it? Given mach had it by the mid 80s, in what way did IBM violate this "trade secret" at least a decade later?
Did Carnegie Mellon invent read-copy update? I don't know, but it was a widely taught technique by the late 80s, when I learned it as a 3rd year computer science undergraduate.
What I find truly hilarious is SCO's attempts to rewrite the last 20 years of computer science.
I have always thought that rewriting history was the privilege of the victorious. In what way has SCO been a winner?
Given that the date that I cited was May '98, I would certainly hope that by August, SMP was still in the kernlel! ;-)
This is ridiculous. I guess unfounded speculation is interesting to /. Have you even talked to any SCO employees to ask them what they think about the lawsuit? All you do is make gross generalisations, which are especially rash since they are based on your poor perception of their religious beliefs. Being one of the Utah Mormons, I don't care if you disagree with my religious beliefs. I don't care if you disagree with my political leanings. Indeed, more power to you for exercising your rights to do so. But I don't appreciate being called closed-minded or simple-minded *when you have never even met me*.
Boom Shanka
IBM has bypassed U.S. export controls with Linux... "Syria and Libya and North Korea" are all building supercomputers with Linux and inexpensive Intel hardware, in violation of U.S. export control laws. These laws would normally restrict export of technologies such as "JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMPâ"and... encryption technologies... We know that is occurring in Syria"
From an interview with Chris Sontag, SCO's Senior Vice President in Byte. Sounds more like Donad Rumsfeld than Mohammed al-Sahaf.
The SCO folks thought it said "History is written by the wieners", and of course, they're the biggest bunch of wieners around.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Its the type that keeps on telling you that you shouldn't drink beer, because 'the next bottle will have that same beer taste' and that its been proven that beer can lead you to having bad trips for the rest of your life.
From www.caldera.com:
"SCO is the owner of the UNIX Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back 1969, when the UNIX System was created at Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the patents, copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX System. The SCO source division will continue to offer traditional UNIX System licenses to preserve, protect and enhance shareholder value."
They say they are the OWNER and License Holder...
NOBODY could be this litigous in such an obviously wrong fashion without some external motivation.
I'm betting there is a backroom deal.
A VERY backroom deal... paying lots and lots of $$$ to SCO execs to wreak as much havoc as possible in the Linux arena.
Note how it's now shifted to "IBM using using linux to bypass export controls". That relies upon a pretty heavy presumption; that being that linux can be seen as a "terrorist device" or something.
And hell- SCO execs? You may as well make IBM your target at the same time- they are making the largest push to bring Linux in to the heavy-corporate environment.
I can't blame the SCO execs too much-
If I were in their position, I'd probably have done it too- stuck with that messy failure of a company; an opportunity to sacrifice some of your own worth for a large $$$ payday?
Then getting to sit back and watch all the chaos you've created?
It's an anarchists dream come true.
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
UnixWare has had SMP since they merged the Sequent written SVR4 ES/MP stuff to make UnixWare 2, released January 1995 according to Ãric Lévénez.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Doesn't anyone think that the Caldera logo should better be used to represent Disneyland?
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/
http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/ancient-unix/
Go nuts, big boy. Let us know what you find.
(FWIW, the planetmirror link is being slow for me right now. Be patient, it's there.)
the no
If there are any SCO shareholders out there why are you letting your CEO risk YOUR money in what seems to be a the actions of a deluded lunatic.
Yes folks it's YOUR money not his and ultimately as shareholders you have the right to tell him to stop behaving like idiot and concentrate on competing by improving the product, not the legal team.
If you don't and IBM stamp SCO into the ground it's YOUR money that HE wasted trying to take on IBM and believe it, after this Linux will go on to kill off SCO as distributors turn away from the mess that's left.
DO IT NOW! Mail the CEO. Tell him your pissed off with him gambling your money, better still, tell him to resign and let someone more else have a go. It can't get much worse than it already is.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
I'm pretty sure that SMP development was done by Alan Cox using Caldera provided hardware. I'm sure Alan will correct me if I'm wrong.
We have now identified lots of code copied source from our precious SCO Unix.
Here are 2 of the worst offending code snippets:
Please look at our SCO-Unix code, you will see how shamelessly those lines were copied:
And there are 58 other lines of shamelessly copied source code in Linux. Our marketing department has calculated that each line of code is worth 50,000,000 $ which translates to an average of about 10,000,000$ per character. We have found copied characters worth of 5,693,340,000,000 $ in the Linux source code, however, because we are generous, we only insist on the fully copied lines of code. However, if IBM doesn't pay, we might be forced to demand the full amount.
But for now, I only demand IBM to pay 3,000,000,000 $ within 2 weeks to this account:
account holder: Barl McDride
account no: 4239573204
Royal Cayman Bank
134 Ocean Boulevard, Cayman Islands
Every week of delay will cause another 1,000,000,000 $ due to lost sales, mental stress and other damages which have to be paid to the same account, so please pay quickly, or else.
Sincirely, your pal
Darl McBride
Just in case solid reasoning, documentation and expert opinion are defeated by maddness, I have made my own claims to modern computing. You see, by SCO reasoning, I own it. Not just some of it, all of it and more than most monkeys can dream of. I own the moon, the plannets, the astroid belt, the sun and all the stars. Modern computing is just another spin off of the first liquid fueled rocket. Now, I don't really own the patents and copyrights on Mr. Goodard's great invention, but neither does SCO own ATT's ancient code. So, if SCO owns all of Unix, I own all of SCO and hearby release all of their code under the terms of the GPL.
Don't get any fresh ideas about metalurgy patents or anything else that might have lead to that first fateful 2.5 second flight of my ownership. Mr. Goodard's acomplishment stands out in the field of human endevors and my claims to it are absolute. He could have used any material to get where he was going, and that's all I need to get where I'm going. The space shuttle is like a bicycle when compared to Goddard's craft, and I intend to drive it all the way and punish those unpatriotic no goods who have been helping the Chinese improve their vastly inferior solid fuel, fire-cracker technology.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Not only would it have to give SCO rights to IBM-developed technology incorporated into AIX, those would have to be EXCLUSIVE rights... meaning that IBM couldn't use that technology in other projects once it was incorporated into AIX.
Ludicrous, if you ask me... I can't imagine IBM signing a contract that went that far, or a court upholding such a contract if they did. But, IANAL and the law is definately fucked up to begin with.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Heh, good point, still it's a useful benchmark that we have documentation for May, '98. Please feel free to cite an earlier date if you have a citation for it (or want to scrounge through the code on the ftp sites and find the earliest SMP). But, so muc for my quick google search... heh.
It turns out that the "real" date depends on your point of view, but the first stable release was 2.0 in June of '96. Here's a link to the LI press release.
Let's assume that SCO owned the RCU code in question. Not just via IBM. They reveal the code; all derivatives of linux containing it are tainted. It is now longer legal to distribute those distributions or version of the source. The next day, Linus replaces that RCU code with a new implementation which does the same thing but is not copyrighted.
SCO now has the marvelous ability to block a subset of old kernel versions from being distributed. It does not help them, it does not matter to linux.
The GPL is viral because when you incorporate anything GPL and then redistribute, your whole work is then irrevocably GPL. But copyright is not that way; if you incorporate a piece of copyrighted code and distribute, you may have violated a copyright, and there may be rights to damages and injunctions against distribution of that product, but that doesn't give the owned of the copied code a right to all the other code. You remove that code, you're good to go again. In other words; it is possible to 'remove' a copyright derivative-work taint by removing the portions that are derivative. It is not possible to do the same with the GPL once you've released code, because the license terms for the GPL stipulate that you MUST license the work as a whole to those you distribute it to.
This is pretty much like the BSD dispute. "Yes, these 10 lines are stolen." "ok, we removed them." "Er, ok, thanks."
But what if a non-US bit of IBM did the work ? Take Hurlsey in the UK where the MQSeries and CICS work is done, I dare say there are other areas with enough talent in IBM to do this work.
So if the code was added by IBM but at an IBM subsiduary outside of the US would the same rules apply ?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
But this is were the twisted logic come in handy. They can claim, that they didn't know it was illegal to export the code because the didn't know what was in it.
See this interview article.
Let me summarize SCO's position:
"We own Unix System V, which was innovative and gave the world lots of experience with operating systems. As a result, all operating systems that follow are derivative products which violate our trade secrets. These include, but are not limited to: Apple Mac OS, Microsoft's MS-DOS, Microsoft Windows, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Sun's SunOS and Solairs, SGI's Irix, IBM's AIX, HP's HP-UX, Digital's DG-UX and Ultrix, Linux, Bell Labs' Plan 9, the GNU Hurd, BeOS, Atari's STOS and Amiga Workbench, Apple's PRODOS, Tandy's TRSDOS...[paragraph trimmed due to time constraints]
"Oh... and what's more, IBM is an international nuclear terrorist, so we should get a billion... no THREE billion dollars because they're un-American. OH, and Linux is bad, don't use it, that Torvalds guy is sloppy."
If you think this even deserves to be dignified with a response, you're a little shaky yourself.
Answers to your points:
Has anyone, besides SCO, looked at the Linux code and tried to determine what might have come from SCO, and what might have come from a common predecessor?
The Linux development process, including all code additions, is completely transparent and recorded for posterity on the Internet. Every snippet of code can be traced to its submitter or originating project. This is why Linus' only real response thus far has been to essentially say "Hey, our development process is open for all to see... on the other hand, where's SCO's evidence?"
If SCO wins, what can be done? What will the consequences be?
If SCO wins given their current claims, it will essentially have a claim to every last product in the entire computing and networking industry, and the US legal and intellectual property systems will be thrown into confusion for decades to come.
This will be extremely silly because SCO Group hasn't ever contributed a single line of code to any product, including the ones that they now claim to "own". It would be turning any concept of "justice" on its head in a crazy world.
IBM will act in its own interests, of course, and not in the interests of the Linux community; what should we expect from them?
This is moot because right now, what IBM appears to be doing is precise
End of story.
Even if they can track the poster's IP and time, burden of proof now lies with SCO that the posting was not the friend (or one of his friends) making stuff up based on what employee or other employees (or cleaner, security guard, yadda yadda) said.
BTW, Mormons may be taught to obey, and may have some seriously wild theology kicking around (not the stuff they share across your kitchen table), but they're generally hard-working and bright. This is probably why so many of them suicide; the other reason may be Utah companies as stupid as SCO.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Bullshit.
I lived in Utah for 17 years. I am not a Mormon, and am more opposed to the Mormon Church than I am to Microsoft.
What you have said, sir Coward, is blatantly offensive to not just Mormons, but to anyone who holds a religious faith. If you hold to a religious faith, you should be doubly ashamed of yourself. If you are going to criticize a person or a group, have the honor to name yourself, your problem, and the group or person you criticize.
Next time the account creation mechanism doesn't work, try simply signing your name.
I'm glad I'm an American, I'm glad I'm free,
I wish I were a dog and SCO was a tree.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I don't know about this. I think IBM would more happily counter with a countersuit which would leave the SCO execs wandering the streets in their skivvies begging for change.
/.'ers can come up with the idea that SCO wants to be bought out, I'm sure IBM realizes.
C'mon, if
Personally, I think we may find that they have a third-party that will fund court cases long enough to drag this fiasco around and possibly damage the linux/IBM reputation. Hmmm, who do we know that might want Linux/IBM to go down... nobody with current business dealings with SCO I'm sure.
Having lived in Utah all my life, and being of the 'particular religious persuasion' you reference, I can tell you you're dead wrong. I *really* wish SCO would just go away. Your comment sounds *very* tainted; we're not all just a bunch of bleating sheep; what McBride is pulling really ticks me off. As far as technologies, methodologies, or business practices not being pioneered in Utah, you must not know as much as you claim about Utah. Somehow, 'venture workshops and meetings' seems like a VERY limited view of the whole picture. Try to refrain from such blatant generalizing next time.
i'm actually rather surprised that major financial news like WSJ and IBD doesn't report on this sort of thing. they're simply silent on the issue.
grey wolf
LET FORTRAN DIE!
Well I'm English so as a country I hearby give notice that all people in the world who are using English are breaking copyright and all derivative works (including technical specifications and patent applications) are now owned by the UK Goverment.
We are also claiming Charles Babbage and all derivative works that involve computation and concepts of automated computing.
Unfortunately the Iraqi's are now claiming that they invented writing, the Chinese are laying claim to printing and basically everyone on without a 2,000 year+ history is screwed.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Argh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry....
...waves good-bye to karma
philcrissman.com.
Damn straight it is - Darl accidentally played his hand (or on purpose, who can tell with him) in an interview where he admitted that a buyout from IBM is "an option." That means he asks Jesus for a buyout every night. This guy's just a corporate raider - he has stock options, which are worth a lot more after this lawsuit talk, and he just wants to negotiate a sweet per-share buyout to make them worth even more. Of course, IBM would shitcan all the SCO employees if they did buy them out, including Darl, but he doesn't care. Nice.
Problem is, IBM won't settle, as they're pissed. Also, if they were to settle, that would only encourage every other dipshit company with some marginal IP and no business plan to pull an SCO. IBM seems to be playing the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" bit, and I don't blame them.
Also, as SCO has virtually no chance of winning, settling doesn't make financial sense. Naturally, THAT'S why SCO increased the suit to $3B - it lets IBM think that settling makes sense now at a lower SCO success rate. If the break-even point for a settlement was a 50% chance of SCO victory, now it makes sense at a 17% chance. For example, obviously, as both numbers are too high. ;)
Bottom line, though, is that SCO picked on the wrong dog. This one's gonna eat 'em.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
This suit is getting especially nasty. I see two agendas.
1) Microsoft wants to stop IBM from undermining their OS monopoly using hard-core litigation.
2) (and more importantly) Microsoft is using SCO like a preliminary boxer to discover what tactics and skills the open source community can bring into the ring. Or, to use another analogy, Microsoft is forcing OSS to put their cards on the table by sending in a substitute poker player. That way, they don't have to risk putting their cards on the table, too.
As OSS shows Microsoft what tactics they'll use to defend open source, Microsoft is preparing for the final battle by studying their tactics and developing attacks that are more likely to defeat those defenses.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Is it just me, or is /. news turning into SCO. news? Not that it is a bad thing to learn about how crazy or hopped up SCO is on whatever they are smoking, but it sure would be nice for the rest of the /. community to get a whiff of what they are using.
Give it a rest SCO!
The SCO(R) Group (SCO) (SCOX), a leading provider of business software solutions [...]
should be replaced with
"The SCO(R) Group (SCO) (SCOX), a leading provider of intellectual property law-suits [...]"
I'll come clean. IBM didn't put it there... It was me.
Interesting history, and your comment really sheds some light on why SCO may feel that code was duplicated, as it might well be the same code!
If UnixWare's SMP originally came from Sequent, and IBM later (2001) bought Sequent, then I would not be surprised if IBM had incorporated "their" SMP code from Sequent into Linux. If that's the case then SCO would be correct, but absolutely unable to prevail in the suit (as IBM did nothing wrong) as long as there are no licensing problems with Sequent/IBM claiming the rights to that code (e.g. if the code was written independantly and the version that was merged into SVR4 was a derived work, then SCO can claim no rights to the original, but if the code was written as changes to SVR4, then SCO might have a claim, but a much weaker one than they have been trying to make it sound!)
If they start doing that, they will end up lumped with SCO and Microsoft as the evil guys. This could spell a lot of trouble for them.
According to the sco website, the current company charter is "to manage its UNIX® System intellectual property, create new and innovative licensing programs to meet the changing demands of today's market, and to protect its intellectual property assets."
One out of three ain't bad.
Maybe they could simplify things and just say "create new, innovative, and demanding ways to manage IP assets."
That way they don't have to worry so much about their use of the phrase its IP assets.
Never mind $3 Billion or $50 Billion or whatnot. Never mind what IBM will or won't have to buy out SCO to make this thing go away.
Think instead of how much it's costing the folks at SCO to make this lawsuit happen -- probably not that much considering all the exposure it's getting, and it seems all SCO has to do to keep it on the front pages of the tech business section is to continue to up the amount. How much does each amendment actually cost SCO to make in paperwork? A few thousand in legal fees and filings? Now, how much would it cost to get that same exposure through traditional advertising?
Now realize that Microsoft is licensing pretty much useless software from SCO. How much money is SCO getting from that deal? Enough to help SCO make salary and perpetuate this lawsuit? Heck, so long as they can delay the actual court date with IBM, they might be making a profit on this whole deal. Good for SCO. Meanwhile, the longer this lasts the longer a cloud hangs over Linux in the eye of the corporate world. Good for Microsoft. And the longer it takes IBM to squelch this thing, well, bad for Linux making deeper corporate inroads. And it won't look much better if IBM buys out SCO, because that can be spun by the enemy into making the public believe that IBM had something to hide.
This isn't about SCO trying to win any money. I'm willing to bet they've given up on that a long time ago. They're a smear tool right now, with just enough distance between themselves and Microsoft to avoid culpability landing on the latter. Heck, this whole thing doesn't have to be more than just a chilling loss leader to be effective.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Why would someone quote ESR? Just because he's less discredited than SCO doesn't mean anyone should listen to him.
I thought we all learned that years ago.
Planning meeting in Dr. Evil's lair.
.... ozone layer
Dr.Evil:
Number Two: That already happend.
Dr.Evil: Sh.t! Oh well, let's draft some frivolous lawsuit and sue the world's biggest computer company for...
ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Number Two: *cough* Don't you think we should ask for more?
Dr.Evil: OK. And sue them for ONE BILLION DOLLARS!
Or heck, make it three.
Good.
Hyperom.com
SCO sues IBM for lava lamp, black light.
2) OS Blending
:)
by 2names
As Linux developers inside IBM, do you get to see the AIX source code? If you do, are you allowed to "steal" some ideas from AIX and implement them in Linux? If not, why not, and what's the IBM official line?
IBM Kernel Hackers:
First of all, before any of us were allowed to contribute to Linux, we were required to take an "Open Source Developers" class. This class gives us the guidelines we need to participate effectively in the open source community - both IBM guidelines and lessons learned about open source from others in IBM.
We are definitely not allowed to cut and paste proprietary code into any open source projects (or vice versa!). There is an IBM committee who can and do approve the release of IBM proprietary or patented technology, like RCU.
That covers "stealing" code, but what about ideas? We might talk to an AIX programmer and comment we're seeing performance issues in Linux in this area or that area and she tells us they discovered that they really needed to profile the network routines when they saw that. Having solved the problem once, our non-Linux peers can help steer us without spelling it out for us, allowing us to still develop solutions that can then be open sourced.
It's a fine line to walk, especially as an engineer who just wants the answer
Interview
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
At risk of being offtopic...
BOOTSY! GROOVE IS IN THE HEART BABY!
Ok, I'm better now. (At least I had the balls to post as myself and not AC.)
SQUEAK, the Death of Rats explained.
In fact it's quite a bit larger than Microsoft and employs considerably more people than they do. I very much doubt that the US government will try to make an example of IBM, because it definitely is not in their interests to do so.
Under what terms did Sequent write the SVR4 ES/MP stuff? Who owns it? How did AT&T/NOVELL/SCO et al get hold of it?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Guess what? SCO Unix is already used widely in Iran. I can confirm it. I live in Iran.
So perhaps it's SCO itself that is breaking the US export regulations.
--
A member of the first GPL-ed software project in my country
That is because Open Source software is Terrorism. Never mind that Al Qaeda use pirated windows rather than learn to use Linux.
Why do most of the readers of slasdot see a Microsoft plot behind everything bad that happens to open source software? C-mon, you sound like the UFO crazies that blame the government for covering up the Roswell crash... Oh wait, the government has no power, everything is run by the trilateral comission....... ;-)
You come up with silly analogies, like "there are only so many recipes for french fries" and "mowing the lawn is mowing the lawn - you can't write out those instructions too many different ways".
Well, about the question if IBM might have signed a stupid contract like this. Can anyone remember wich bunch of idiots failed to see the coming of the PC and through that effectivly gave MS a free run?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Your broad characterization of the mormon people as unthinking followers is so simplified answer as to recall Mark Twain's remark "All generalizations are false, including this one."
You can't with one wave of your dick piss all over the entire religion claiming that SCO and Darl and mormonism have *ANY* common ideological link. Why? Because I live in Utah valley, work near SCO, and know more than a dozen people from SCO closely enough to ask them how they personally feel about the whole thing.
Utah doesn't innovate either eh? You set yourself up as the expert for plenty of things, perhaps thinking that you yourself are tall enough to look down on everything. Your claims against innovation in the state are just as shallow. Utah has history enough of technological innovators as to be envied by many.
Consider the statement of Brigham Young when trying to determine whether LDS religious belief lends any support to SCO's actions:
It is worth pointing out that the GPL does not actually prohibit you from authoring and distributing proprietary versions of GPL'd code only so long as your version does not contain any code copied from a GPL'd work. A person thoroughly committed to making a proprietary version of a GPL'd program could theoretially accomplish the goal simply by taking the time to rewrite the entire thing (without copying any code). GPL "contamination" is not a factor because the GPL is only a copyright clause which actually only governs the *content* of a work. Remember, copyright can't and won't ever protect ideas.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The suit also adds illegal export issues stemming from the worldwide availability of open-source software. Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya, countries to which the United States controls exports.
Righto. I'm an American, and being an American it would be irresponcible for me to permit direct trade with any nation that America has a trade embargo with, esp encryption / sci research / weapon tech. I disagree with some of these embargos, but that doesn't change the fact that I can't nessicarly do this.
However, if I wasn't an American, then America has no juristition. Fancy that, America has no offical authority over these countries.
For example... pre iraq war, there was a trade embargo. R.J Renelds couldn't export Camel Cigarettes to iraq. American product, trade embargo, can't do it. However, other nations who don't have a trade embargo between either America or Iraq could buy Camel Cigarettes and sell them to Iraq. While in a way R.J. Renelds products are making their way to Iraq, they can't nessicarly be held responcible.
This is one reason why there is an anti-american sentiment in many places, because of this attutude that we own the world. SCO clearly demonstrates this attudide. And the thing is, I hate people like this my self, dispite the fact that I'm an American. While I don't know everyone who develops for the linux kernel, i'm willing to bet a few are not American nationals, and not subject to our laws.
Exclusivly American products are with in our domain, but given the fact that it's not the 20th century anymore, even those are harder to actually control.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Gee, they are threatening customers for using an unreleased version of the Kernel? How many customers run 2.5 in production?
I know that Linux had SMP on certain limited motherboards VERY early on and as early as v0.27, 05 may 1998,
Um... Linux had SMP support way before May '98. I was in College in 1997 and my desktop computer was running SMP Linux on a Dual P133 at the time. Don't remember the mobo maker tho... maybe tyan?
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
You do not correctly understand the difference between closed source and open source. I could post a 100k lines of source on my website, get it slashdoted so that a 100,000 coders read it, and still make it "closed source". The difference between "open source" and "closed source" is that people are allowed to publish changes to open source software and not closed source software.
Most books are published with something like a "closed source" license. It doesn't prevent you from seeing it. It prevents you from publishing changes to it.
The cake is a pie
So, will SCO be claiming ownership of linux now, since RCU was put in linux, after being put in AIX? The insanity grows!
Seems like SCO is pursuing the American Dream: To have everything for nothing.
Quick! Everyone download a copy! :)
Yes.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Hrm...
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/S/SCOX.html
Good ole' Yahoo / Multex. Seems like quite a few directors picked up a boatload of shares for nothing before they announced the lawsuit. Looks like they're all in for 250K+ returns...
Redesigning Linux for use by demanding business customers "is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (a) a high degree of design coordination, (b) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (c) access to Unix code and development methods; (d) Unix architectural experience; and (e) a very significant financial investment," the amended suit says.
Have these morons forgotten that they helped develop Linux? That many companies exist solely for the development of Linux and have smart people and heavy equipment? Tack on hundreds of companies whose smart people are working on OSS on behalf of the company or at home in their spare time and the idea that Linux has to steal code is absurd.
SCO didn't even write most of the code, they bought it.
Emulation is imitation, not theft, and the idea of patenting ideas is attrocious. As long as I don't copy code, I have not done anything wrong. How many scientists would be anywhere if some moron had patented the concepts of chemistry?
Someone asked if I had patched against MSBlast; I said yes, I installed Linux.
for a bus ticket to send the CEO of SCO somewhere like public housing outside of East St. Louis with a sign on his back that says "Rich Yuppie Guy". Seriously, the stock exchange should have suspended trading of SCO stock once it became blatantly clear that SCO's whole business plan is to manipulate the stock price, then fold.
On a related note, can you imagine the poor engineers who work at SCO these days? Walking in public must be incredibly humiliating.
-michael
Very informative. You should get modded up for that. (Hint).
;)
We are definitely not allowed to cut and paste proprietary code into any open source projects (or vice versa!). There is an IBM committee who can and do approve the release of IBM proprietary or patented technology, like RCU.
So an IBM committee approved the release of RCU, which they got from Sequent. My guess is any such committee at IBM would include technical managers, executives, and also, more importantly, at least one representative from IBM's legal department, particularly attorneys with expertise in IP.
So likely IBM *already knows* they are in the clear on RCU and are prepared to back that claim up. Either that or we'll be seeing a press release from IBM about how some of their legal staff were recently fired for incompetency.
My journal has hot
Pansies. Everyone knows that OpenBSD is the favorite tool of the terrorists. Even DARPA says so:
"As a result of the DARPA review of the project, and due to world events and the evolving threat posed by increasingly capable nation-states, the Government on April 21 advised the University to suspend work on the "security fest" portion of the project." (ie. the OpenBSD c2k3 hackathon)
-- Jan Walker, (703) 696-2404, jwalker@darpa.mil
is IBM buy them for 3 billion dollars then the 400 other kernel developers (who incidentaly can sue SCO for exactly the same thing SCO is suing IBM for) turn around and file a 3 billion dollar class action suit against SCO before the sale goes through.
I think that IBM and SCO could learn something from the Appalachian factions, the McCoy's and Hatfield's. Can't we all just get along?
Boise gets paid only if SCO win. AFAICT, Boise has lost it.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
System V derived systems had SMP capabilities prior to 1990. USL (Unix System Labs), eventually bought by Novell, had SMP support that was licensable in 1990. I ran a group of companies that ported that version to the 88K processor. The claim that SCO makes about any System V derivative arguably being SCO property may not be all that crazy. In the early days of System V UNIX, the standard contracts to license the code included the provision that derivative works were owned by USL. We didn't agree to those terms and I doubt that IBM would have.
IBM's agreement says they own any IP ("derivatives") that they add. Sequent are a part of IBM. It doesn't matter how large a claim you multiply by zero, it's still zero. Math done, next question?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
See subject.
They changed their demands again... Now they want a gazillion bazillion dollars, and sharks with laser beams sticking out of their heads.
--- sig moved for great justice.
It seems obvious to me that this whole thing is a ploy for SCO's execs to get out. I find it very interesting that IBM isn't even flinching on this issue. If this whole thing really was true, does anyone honestly think that we would be hearing about this at all? If this code was duplicated by IBM, they would have bought SCO a while ago and the whole thing would have been brushed under the carpet without any public involvement at all.
Will it be about $1 when IBM starts pulling out that very large patent portfolio? Since most of Unix was a simpler time share system, you would expect others to have documented their research and IBM did patent anything that they could mostly as a defense aginst some small company going after them for IP issues. Now does SCO count as a small company or just a bug thats about to get squashed?
Also is anyone playing with stock options with this? Its sort of like playing the lottery with better odds and it could swing either way and the payoff will change every day up till the time when the options are worth as much as 99+% of lottery tickets.
...or are all the examples of early, massively multiprocessing Linux systems non-Intel architectures (SPARC and PPC)..?
And, doesn't SCO's claims relate to the IA-32/64 architectures..?
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
Get it right o.k.
/. is atrocous....
shesshhh spelling on
In perpetuity.
Actually, that may not be an ouch because courts generally frown on perpetual contracts (IANAL).
Now I'm not claiming that therefore SCO has a slam dunk. But it does indicate SCO's main line of attack. And it does make all the arguments about date and place of invention somewhat tangential.
One key question is: exactly how much work is covered by the original license? Another key question: how much of the original UNIX is tainted by unlicensed imports from BSD? I'll be watching while the billion dollar boys battle it out...
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
[pasted from the linux.kernel list]
:)
From: Christoph Hellwig (hch@infradead.org)
Subject: Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Date: 2003-05-01 22:50:08 PST
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 03:21:36AM -0000, The Spirit of Open Source wrote:
> If there's UnixWare source in the Linux kernel, a SCO Group employee put it
> there! After all, who else would have such easy access to UnixWare sources?
As somone who walked for SCO (or rather Caldera how it was called at that
time) I can tell you this is utter crap. There were very people actually
doing Linux kernel work then (and when the German office was closed down
all those left the company) and we really had better things to do then
trying to retrofit UnixWare code into the linux kenrel. Especially given
that 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
It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware,
I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in
the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare..
That Sun is heading down (just like we all knew).
To join in the fray of this SCO ball of shit, and worse, to be perceived as joining in on the SCO side, is suicidal. It's not _as_ suicidal as what SCO is doing, but it clearly screams, "HEY LOOK AT US, WE'RE HAS-BEENS".
Sun had their day in the, em, sun a long time ago, and they've done very little since then to reassert themselves as leaders in the computing world.
Java is the only thing I think Sun can be credited with in the last few years, and even that is debatable.
But hey, we shouldn't be too hard on Scott, he doesn't have many examples of good CEOs to observe.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Really, that's the only logical reason I can think of for keeping this suit going. You know your company is in the crapper and the stock price is going to nosedive before you can legally sell it off. So you manufacture a high profile court case against a real company and sustain it until you can sell your shares.
So does anyone know if Mr. McBride has filed with the SEC to seel a big chunk of SCO stock in the immediate future?
This is all soooo stupid. Just when UNIX was reaching the mainstream and all our knowledge and investments were paying off.
Now we are being overridden by non-entities. The non-achievers who were surviving despite the fact that they were bad performers simply because they were in a small market. Now the market is big and people have choices and the choices are much less expensive. SOME companies find out that they did a really BAD job of preparing for success. They have no intellectual infrastructure to make their products stand ABOVE the others. So they try to chop the feet out from under their competition.
Remember this when the dust settles: If your company acts without class, the techs will remember. We decide whether your products get implemented at our companies: We make the recommendations. And we can test your products until they fail...testing yours twice as hard as your competition: Your products wont ever be good enough. Too many problems. Get it? So even if SCO wins and IBM falters, SCO still loses...the techs will remember. SCO will NEVER be competitive again, the house is against them - FOREVER. And anyone else - be it SUN or Microsoft who wants to try to benefit from this upset will be remembered.
Oh, its a SUN box? Werent they the guys...lets look at their box last. Oh, they want SCO? Well, I have heard some bad things, lets test it for a month so we can be really really sure. Nope, it ate our data the first time. No I can't tell what happened. Too dangerous. Better go with this one instead.
The lawyers and the market-droids are going to destroy your companies if you let them. The ONLY thing the people who make technical decisions care about is ABILITY. And if you try to make some short term lawyer/market-droid FUD points....you will never stop paying for the mistake. Every quarter, every account, every day.
Forever.
Shortly after SCO first announced the lawsuit, there were several people who commented that we would all be safe if we moved to something with a clear court decision on its side: BSD. In fact, this very thread has at least one person suggesting the same.
I commented then that doing so wouldn't help because SCO isn't basing its lawsuit on valid points of law. SCO is attacking Linux and IBM without a shred of merit.
Now, as if SCO execs were reading my postings, they are claiming ownership of every operating system with Unix-like functionality, including BSD. The only exception is for Solaris. They're granting that SUN is the world's only company that has its own independent Unix.
This should put an end to the notion that BSD is any safer to use than Linux. Companies who attack Linux without merit will be just as happy to turn around and attack BSD without merit. Nothing is safe from corporate stupidity.
I live in Boston, near one of Sun's big campuses. Those Sun guys really /do/ believe that Solaris is better than Linux. Must be because of the high concentration of Catholics in the area and the mindless going to mass...
Does the above make any sense whatsoever? No. Mod this down. Thank you very much.
PS: she asks that you reply soon, while you still have some money.
"Everytime you use Linux/Unix/BSD/The Bathroom, a Terrorist-Drug Dealer-Music Pirate-Pedophile-Mad Scientist kills a Kitten. Why do you hate kittens?"
Watch for it, its coming soon to a patent infringing form of communication near you!
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
"You gonna bark all day little doggie, or are you gonna bite?"
I removed those rights to derivative modifications from those contracts... The world can thank me later....
(Hint Real-time unix, makes a very nice SMP OS, B.T.W. it was running on SMP 68K platforms, first, then ported to 88K, then Intel).
SCO has no claim, as AT&T & sub licensee quickly backed down on that clause during source code contract negotiations...
Note: I pointed out that the "we are entitled to your modifications" clause was an obvious violation of then Anti-trust statutes.
They both agreed.. clause removed.. SCO is so screwed...
Lastly, the clause was never exclusive, for obvious reasons. Thus companies & employees were free to give the code to anyone they choose.
Do they have Internet or even enough electrical power in NK to run Linux or even an SCO operating system?
In this case, it ain't "Godwin's Law", but rather "California's Law".
Well...isn't that SPECIAL!?!?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
This event is getting more and more like some strange kind of sitcom.
Is there any place where I can placed bets when SCO will get stomped by IBM and how hard their crack-smoking mgmt. will be sued by their own shareholders?
I read the article you linked... what a hoot!
It would be interesting to see if a) SCO ever replies, and b) what they would say, and c) if the guy ever reaps any benefit over it.
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
"If IBM is found to be in violation according to the complaint, its options will be to settle on a compromise in damages or to buy out SCO. It is unlikely IBM will acquire SCO and add to an already complex portfolio with SCO's aging OSs, especially with Linux as IBM's mainstream direction. However, IBM is committed to protect its users and maintain Unix license rights. Thus, IBM would opt for a settlement (0.8 probability if the suit is upheld)."
Not at all. I do not know how IBM bought Sequent but normally it is the assets that is bought not the company. This is done precisely to avoid some legal issues down the road. If you buy assets you are not responsible for anything the company might have done in the past.
Help fight continental drift.
The technology may be, but it's still a copyright violation if they directly copied the code from SCO. However, I think a more adequate explanation is that they both got the code from Sequent.
Engineering and the Ultimate
It's funny. Caldera gave Alan Cox an SMP machine so that he could implement SMP in Linux. Now the same company (renamed SCO) is claiming that IBM is responsible. Are they going to be suing all the scientists that work for the DOE, NSA, NASA, etc. that created Beowulf technologoy?
But from what I've observed with the legal system, a person can make any claim that they want. Proving it is another story.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
This whole fiasco reminds me of that scene in the move "Fight Club" where Edward Norton's character is in his boss's office and he starts beating himself up and shouting "stop ! No ! Don't do that..." just before security shows up. He ends up bloodied but walking out of the building with all sorts of "hush goodies". SCO sucks. Plain and simple.
If you don't understand anything I post, please accept that I ate paste as a small boy...
That's all fine and dandy. However, this conveniently ignores that little thing called BEOWULF developed and freely distributed by a branch of the US Government.
This is one major failing of US courts. The entire framework seems designed to prevent useful information from being disclosed to the relevant parties. Barristers are expected to "lie through omission" as a matter of standard practice.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I think he ment 'champagon'
Isn't SCO impeding free trade? Under El Presidente and Uncle Rummy's logic, SCO must be helping the terrorists.
is to prepare, say, a 100,000 page answer document. The SCO lawyers will have to read every single page, and there's no doubt they wouldn't do that kind of time on credit. SCO would be bankrupt by the end of the first 10,000 pages.
Another way might be to have every single IBM employee world wide buy 1000 shares of SCO stock. Hostile takeover without the mess of SEC filings and whatnot. SCO wouldn't even know what hit them.
Even another way might be to have IBM "license" some Novell technology much like Microsoft "licensed" SCO technology, and basically have Novell sue the fancy-pants off of SCO for claiming rights to UNIX that it does not own, and for infringing upon Novell's IP rights that were NOT part of the sale of UNIX to SCO.
Finally, just to show how much of a dirtbag SCO is, we have the right in this country to be confronted with the evidence against us. Now that SCO has levied criminal charges against IBM, they had better be ready to pony up the infringing code or they themselves be cast into oblivion.
I had made a comment before about the possibility of this case being heard by one of these liberal "go for the underdog" judges, but the opposite could also happen. If I were hearing this case, the first thing I'd do is lock the SCO lawyers up for contempt by refusing to present the evidence and for wasting the court's time.
It's despicable that people can't do something nice for the world and write free software without the fear of being sued by some corporate criminal...
If you canâ(TM)t innovateâ¦litigate!!
Dear IBM
Hey, is it cool if you like, paypal me the money? Please use this address.
Thanks guys, Darly MacBrid
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, honey!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I think that SCO is on crack, not sharing and confused.
They're confusing the viral nature of the GPL with derivative works law. Had UNIX been shared under the terms of the GPL, IBM (nee Sequent) would have been required to GPL the code to things like RCU and JFS. It's not because they're derivative code however. In fact, the requirement to relicense is because they're not derivative code. The GPL requires you to GPL that code because it's distributed with GPL'ed code. If you didn't distribute the GPLed code then you wouldn't need to GPL the additional code.
SCO is basically grasping at straws here. They've gone through the history of Linux and suddenly realized that IBM really was pretty hard-nosed about not letting their UNIX tainted people put any SCO code into Linus, so now they're trying the back door, hoping it's not locked.
I think that they're going to find a pretty solid wall.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
As is apparent by this post, IANAL, I have never wanted to be a lawyer, nor do I have any respect whatsoever for the lawyer profession. Fucking weasels.
That said:
SCO is not claiming copyright infringement, so the case isn't strictly about copied code. They are claiming violation of contract, so the *court case* will hang on contract law, *not* IP law.
However, in *public* they are making this an IP case. They have made not-so-veiled claims to owning the rights to the concepts of *all* modern operating systems.
If the case were based on their public claims, they wouldn't stand a chance. But, their case is based strictly on contract law. All this public posturing means nothing.... except....
If they win the contract violation suit, it will appear as if their public claims were valid, and upheld by the force of law!
This is subtle, and will have a chilling effect on all future SCO dealings. They can then extort money from every single OS vendor in the country, based not on actual fact, but on lies and innuendo. Look at how quickly (Sun?) and Microsoft payed up without a single court win.
In any case, this public face is designed to get the top administration a chance to sell their shares at a nice profit. They don't really care about much else, near as I can tell.
Fuckers.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Either IBM will absolutely destroy their case, quickly (This is the option they will choose if they really want to support linux), or IBM will file more paperwork than the laweyers at SCO will ever be able to read and understand (IBM's first legal brief against the Justice Department in the 70's was 56 4-drawer filing cabinets).
Option 2 is the safer option--SCO just can't handle that kind of legal pressure and commitment.
On the other hand, I'm sure that IBM upper-management understands that the longer this lawsuit drags on, the more it will affect linux, and to a lesser degree, AIX
If IBM's upper management really has a lot of faith in their linux development strategy (which, I suspect they do), I expect IBM to quickly smash SCO by brandishing patents suggesting SCO could never have owned the underlying technologies behind Unix.
I don't think this case is about a copyright issue. This is about SCO having the rights to all derivative UNIX works. I suspect that IBM is going to prove it has the necessary patents to claim ownership of lots of the technologies within UNIX.
Interestingly enough, Novell never transferred UNIX patents to SCO, just trademarks, and possibly copyrights. SCO probably has no idea what IBM is going to hit them with.
This is especially funny, because IBM has already had a technical/legal board review the transfer of RCU code to linux under the GPL---I suspect they already have a document saying something like this:
A. We can do this because we own it;
B. And if we don't actually own it, its protected by these patents;
C. And if we can't protect it using those patents, we can show that we created a similar implementation first, on a different system.
D. And even if all that is irrelevant, we control the original sequent contract licenesing RCU to SCO---We revoke SCO's license to RCU, for X legal reasons.
IBM's case may be so strong in this position that it makes NO sense for them to say anything about it. Wait till it comes to court, don't give SCO anytime to pullout (probably too late for that now), countersue SCO, and allow SCO to settle by assigning all rights on UNIX to IBM.
If SCO doesn't settle, I suspect that IBM will try and take all of those rights, or have those rights rendered void. And they'll win, either based on: a)the weakness in SCOs case---('Copyrights! Trade Secrets! We never really actually sold Linux! They are terrorists anyways!') b) the strength of IBM's patent portfolio, c) Or the courts unwillingness to acknowledge the bizarre series of contract transfers away from AT&T-->I suspect that any judge (and ESPECIALLY a jury) will be totally unwilling to buy SCO's 'We are the mother of all things UNIX' mentaility.
Even if there are some minor contractual quibbles, SCO just doesn't have much to do with the UNIX world. SCO is a tiny little company, attempting to destroy a huge industry of behemoths, a lot of which have sold systems to the federal government. Who has more credibility regarding UNIX---Big Blue, or Caldera a.k.a. SCO? This ownership of all derivative works business would have been a stretch if AT&T had tried it. For a small linux distributor to try it? HAHAHAHAHAHA
I read the news as much as the next guy. I'm just as interested in this case as the next guy. But I'm no longer mad at SCO, and I'm not even willing to be foaming at the mouth. SCO has clearly stopped targetting the linux community---thats too hard. Instead they've targetted IBM, for trade secret infringment.
It's like some random idiot on the street suing the government for rights on the legislative process because he was related to some legal philosopher from the 1600s. IBM's internal divisions have already covered this issue, at length, in triplicate, with review, ad infinitum.
It's really just hopeless.
BTW: To all you SCO engineers out there, you guys should have some sort of backup plan. Like, maybe, saving evidence of managment's activites, so when the grand jury
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
It's apparent these guys are swinging at the trees. They've now directly named Torvalds as well as being responsible for allowing the code in. The longer this goes on without court action though the worse this is for the community. Why? Simply because they won't stop hurling accusations until someone makes them stop.
I would not underestimate the legal firepower these guys can bring to bear. And it is clear they are out to ruin Linux. There is no other logic really behind what they are doing when you think of it. They can do a lot of damage until they actually specify something and have to prove it. Be nice if they would identify the elements in question so that future kernels could side-step their IP completely.
I was all fired up to do this myself before I really thought it through. We all know that SCOX will soon be worth $0.01 but what happens between now and then can ruin you if you short their stock today.
Here is an example timeline:
Everyone is happy in one week except for you, because tomorrow your broker will come knocking asking you to buyback all the stock at $150/share. If you don't have enough cash in your account they'll liquidate your stock and take your house. Sorry.
New Tech Trading: Short Selling
SEC: Short Selling Restrictions
SEC: Short Sales
Don't you know an animal's right to live is directly proportional to how cute it is?
Last post!
Your understanding of the USL/BSD case is faulty. While the court did find that BSD included a small amount of code from AT&T, they also found that AT&T took much more than that from BSD.
Hi. Thanks. I don't think that contradicts what I said, though. The fact that the court found the SysV code infringing doesn't contradict the court finding the BSD code infringing. I certainly wasn't suggesting that UC/BSD "lost the case" in any way; merely that it is possible for copyright infringement against the SysV code to occur.
Your understanding of derivative works is similarly faulty. While it's true that the issue of what is a derivative work in software has never been litigated, it is not true that the owner of the original work owns the copyright to the derivative work. When a company, like IBM, buys the right to make derivative works, they own the copyright on the derivative work. Disney bought the rights to make films from A.A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh. The Milne heirs do not own the rights to those films, Disney does.
You're right, and I misspoke. What I should have said is that U.S. Copyright Law is clear on the fact that the creation of derivative works of things which are still under copyright is the province of the copyright holder. To create derivative works, one must obtain the permission of the original copyright holder, and to do otherwise is a copyright violation. In the example you use above, Disney's Pooh films were not a violation if permission to make those films was granted by the holder of the copyrights to the Pooh stories (Milne or a publisher or whoever).
Thanks for catching me on this; it makes me feel a lot better, because the difference is obviously pretty significant here. Obviously, IBM had permission to create a derivative work!
Three billion. That's just so damn funny!
Since SCO is so small why doesn't IBM just buy'em out. They've got around 135 million in market cap and IBM's got about 145 billion so instead of dropping 20 mil or so on legal fees and years of exchanging threats and then paying some sort of settlement to get them to shut up. it would cost more to pay the 3 billion they want then to buy the entire company through a hostile takeover.
SCO has stated that Sun's license is irrevokable and that Sun can do pretty much anything with the UNIX source.
So, what if IBM were to buy Sun and then, under Sun's license, open-source the SVR4 code?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Are these guys for real???
What a joke.
I love every bone in her body, especially mine!
Ain't just you, pretty much anyone with a funcitioning brain. ;) I would say that it will be easier to get evidence after they file their motions and such - let them shoot themselves. And with as stupid as Darl is, there is conveivably enough material from what he's said in the media to hang him with. He's said outright that he'd like a settlement and that he's suing IBM because they have more money than Linus. He's hinted that he's doing it as revenge because linux and IBM "killed Unix." Given all that, the only piece of the puzzle left is a little fraud. That's going to be tough to find, but those comment lines can cut both ways if linux can predate SCO's stuff. Next, you need to show that SCO modified their existing code comments to match linux after they started blustering about lawsuits.
The problem is that getting all that, which you'll need to prove fraud, will be hard. Additionally, SCO will be worth nothing if IBM wins the suit, but they won't have sufficient evidence to get subpoenas on SCO's code unless SCO file it in their own suit, effectively making it public record. A bit of a catch-22.
Best bet might be to file for exploratory after SCO files suit but before a ruling. Basically tell SCO they're playing double-or-nothing - if you guys file a suit and lose, we will more than crush you, we will put you out of existence.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Heheh..
Index of ftp://ftp.sco.com/
[...]
welcome.msg 1 KB 05/16/03 19:45:00
Looks like it was put there the night before the court motion was filed. Real slick.
-DAVEO
...look for another post of mine in this story.
Basically, the contract with AT&T says that IBM will treat all derivative works as if they were part of the original codebase. While that dosn't grant copyright to AT&T/SCO, transfers of copyright must be in writing, it might constrain how IBM can disclose code which was originally part of a SysV derivative. This is undoubtedly where SCO thinks its case lies.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I believe that's exactly what I was asking above. Perhaps I was unclear, but certainly any shred of hope that SCO would have would have to rest on the agreements between SCO (pre-Caldera, *probably* post-Novell) and Sequent over this code....
Most underrated /. comment of all time.
Topic in #os: hey guyz, stop pickin on irix. /msg atnt haha. idiot. :~(
. html?thread=2531787
<SCO> w00t! i bought unix! im gonna b so rich!
<novell>
<novell> whoops. was that out loud?
<atnt> rotfl
<ibm> lol
<SCO> why r u laffin at me?
<novell> dude, unix is so 10 years ago. linux is in now.
<SCO> wtf?
<SCO> hey guyz, i bought caldera, I have linux now.
<red_hat> haha, your linux sucks.
<novell> lol
<atnt> lol
<ibm> lol
<SCO> no wayz, i will sell more linux than u!
<ibm> your linux sucks, you should look at SuSE
<SuSE> Ja. Wir bilden gutes Linux für IBM.
<SCO> can we do linux with you?
<SuSE> Ich bin nicht sicher...
<ibm> *cough*
<SuSE> Gut lassen Sie uns vereinigen.
* SuSE is now SuSE[UL]
* SCO is now caldera[UL]
<turbolinux> can we play?
<conectiva> we're bored... we'll go too.
<ibm> sure!
* turbolinux is now turbolinux[UL]
* conectiva is now conectiva[UL]
<ibm> redhat: you should join!
<SuSE[UL]> Ja! Wir sind vereinigtes Linux. Widerstand ist vergeblich.
<red_hat> haha. no.
<red_hat> lamers.
<ibm> what about you debian?
<debian> we'll discuss it and let you know in 5 years.
<caldera[UL]> no one wants my linux!
<turbolinux[UL]> i got owned.
<caldera[UL]> u all tricked me. linux is lame.
* caldera[UL] is now known as SCO
<SCO> i'm going back to unix.
<SGI> yeah! want to do unix with me?
<SCO> haha. no. lamer.
<novell> lol
<ibm> snap!
<SGI>
<SCO> hey, u shut up. im gonna sue u ibm.
<ibm> wtf?
<SCO> yea, you stole all the good stuff from unix.
<red_hat> lol
<SuSE[UL]> heraus laut lachen
<ibm> lol
<SCO> shutup. i'm gonna email all your friends and tell them you suck.
<ibm> go ahead. baby.
<SCO> andandand... i revoke your unix! how do you like that?
<ibm> oh no, you didn't. AIX is forever.
<novell> actually, we still own unix, you can't do that.
<SCO> wtf? we bought it from u.
<novell> whoops. our bad.
<SCO> i own u. haha
<SCO> ibm: give me all your AIX now!
<ibm> whatever. lamer.
* ibm sets mode +b SCO!*@*
* SCO has been kicked from #os (own this.)
From : http://www.livejournal.com/community/linux/397771
Model M keyboard.
Need I say more?
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
What is it with the moderators here? A post stating that puffin, cooked correctly, is tasty, is marked as informative ?!? The poster didn't even tell us the correct temperature and minutes/pound, never mind how to prepare the bird.
There's now way this post can be considered informative (although I'll concede that arguments could be made that it does count as insightful).
This has to be one of the funniest episodes in the anals of coporate america.
IBM should pay them because the entertainment value of what these clowns are doing is priceless.
The people at IBM have to be f-ing rolling on the floor laughing their butts off.
This has to be great for IBMs attendance, their employees probably can't wait to get into the office in the morning to see what the clown god has in store for them today...
I can just see it now, the IBM legal department has a scout out front waiting for the FedEx guy to arrive, the P.A. system is tuned in to the legal department, all ears tuned in like the radio broadcast of War of the Worlds.
The package arrives, over the P.A. system you can hear the tantalizing rip as the Priority Letter is opened, papers are shuffled, then a loud thud as broadcasting attorney drops to floor, and laughs hysterically.
I love every bone in her body, especially mine!
Yeah, does this mean I can claim my dinastic right and resume Jus Primae Noctis? That'd be quite cool, I know a couple of chicks I wouldn't mind exerting such right with! ;-)
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Redesigning Linux for use by demanding business customers "is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (a) a high degree of design coordination, (b) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (c) access to Unix code and development methods; (d) Unix architectural experience; and (e) a very significant financial investment," the amended suit says.
Since when did SCO become the authority on software design? It seems that they're just a piggy-back company that's appropriated anything great from someone else who has done the development.
All that good software needs is time. Look at all of the other open source projects that are great, and you'd know what I'm talking about. The investment is no financial. It's an investment of man-hours. RMS created GNU, yet he didn't get paid for it. A crazy guy in CA rewrites operating systems in a couple weekends, and doesn't get paid for it. The GIMP was done for free, yet it rivals commercial packages. Hardware isn't expensive. It's not too difficult to pick up an old Sun Ultra Sparc that has more than two processors.
You also don't even have to pay for one of the best compilers out there, which is another example of man-hours being spent on a free item.
In a flash from the 80's: SCO knows diddly.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
What code from SCO? I don't believe any of their products even use this...
Why?
Using SCO's own twisted logic, wouldn't SCO itself be responsible for "exporting" banned code to these countries by making its distros available on their FTP servers? SCO is far more culpable than merely having an available FTP server. As Caldera, they actively assisted in the development of SMP in Linux, making them, not IBM, responsible for this so-called "terrorist code". Somebody sic Ashcroft on these guys!
Of course it is. Its always Microsoft around here. What an obsession you guys have. I even got a -1 Overrated moderation. How interesting.
Anybody want to bet that SCO is using pro bono Microsoft lawyers? I don't think they're devious enough to come up with twists like this on their own, but Somebody wants to see them be effective.
Ok, I'll admit that I've been out of the Linux loop for several years. However, I do know Linux has been around for at least a decade so I guess my question is why is SCO bringing this stuff up *now* and why didn't Novell bring it up before? With all the rave about open-source code this had to have been noticed within six months of the very first distro.
Now, let me see if I follow this RCU thing: Sequent (a company which appears not to be SCO) developed the technology in the early nineties, and put it into their version of Unix. Later, IBM (a company which also appears not to be SCO) bought Sequent, and recently let the kernel hackers add it in. But since it was originally added to UNIX, and SCO owns UNIX, SCO now owns RCU.
Was Microsoft aware of this "viral" interpretation of SCO IP when they signed their contract?
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
You would defend MS if they were killing babies with a pitchfork in front of the vatican.
Released products. Remember IBM, Sequent, and SCO were working on Monterey (Unix for ia-64 and ia-32) together. However, who owns what in Monterey is likely covered in the agreement they signed.
The probably would be that someone did a "cut and paste". What would have to be done is a rewrite. How that rewrite add up to $3 billion ... well that's where the crack kicks in I guess.
Linux is going to go there the a similar saga that BSD had to go there to unwind themselves from the ATT code.
They can claim, that they didn't know it was illegal to export the code because the didn't know what was in it.
But shouldn't they know what they're distributing? If I learned anything in my high school civics class, ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. If they're going to hold IBM accountable for possibly including non-GPL'd code in their Linux distros, then SCO better damn well hold themselves to the same standard.
IMHO, SCO is just out on a fishing expedition. They can claim whatever they want, but they willingly and freely distributed their own version of Linux via FTP with no restrictions -- and presumably with the same IP "violations" as IBM, RedHat and others that they've mentioned. If they can't take the time to inspect what's contained in their own distros, where the hell do they get off thinking they can sue or threaten everyone else in the business for the same practice?
What really pisses me off is the fact that they either 1) contributed the code themselves, or 2) knowingly allowed the code to be contributed by a third party (IBM or whoever), and are just now making a stink because their bottom line sucks and they have no future unless they want to actually work at it.
There is no collusion. I work for Sun, and there has not been a word about the SCO lawsuit in any quarter. The ad campaign trying to woo customers from AIX over to Sun is just normal marketing. If it were Sun that SCO were suing and claimed to revoke the Solaris license, you can bet IBM would be launching their own ad campaign favoring AIX/Linux over Solaris. And as stated in several other replies, Sun paid for its UNIX licenses LONG before this lawsuit ever started.
I imagine it would be in SCO's best interest to take the settlement, and I'd love to see the looks on their faces...
"doing SMP kernel developer"?? ... EWWW!
It is fun If somebody writes a code, it violates the export laws. If somebody distributes it, it does not. With that logic, I wonder what kind of programmers work at SCO.
I don't know about SMP specifically but SCO has had multiprocessor capabilities for just about as long as there have been multiprocessor x86 systems. One of the things I remember vividly from my youth as a fledgling geek in Santa Cruz is that SCO supported this one 8-processor 486DX33 system, and I wanted one badly :D
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Found this little gem on Spot's LiveJournal Account:
/msg atnt haha. idiot. :~(
Repeated here to avoid slashdot affect:
Topic in #os: hey guyz, stop pickin on irix.
<SCO> w00t! i bought unix! im gonna b so rich!
<novell>
<novell> whoops. was that out loud?
<atnt> rotfl
<ibm> lol
<SCO> why r u laffin at me?
<novell> dude, unix is so 10 years ago. linux is in now.
<SCO> wtf?
<SCO> hey guyz, i bought caldera, I have linux now.
<red_hat> haha, your linux sucks.
<novell> lol
<atnt> lol
<ibm> lol
<SCO> no wayz, i will sell more linux than u!
<ibm> your linux sucks, you should look at SuSE
<SuSE> Ja. Wir bilden gutes Linux für IBM.
<SCO> can we do linux with you?
<SuSE> Ich bin nicht sicher...
<ibm> *cough*
<SuSE> Gut lassen Sie uns vereinigen.
* SuSE is now SuSE[UL]
* SCO is now caldera[UL]
<turbolinux> can we play?
<conectiva> we're bored... we'll go too.
<ibm> sure!
* turbolinux is now turbolinux[UL]
* conectiva is now conectiva[UL]
<ibm> redhat: you should join!
<SuSE[UL]> Ja! Wir sind vereinigtes Linux. Widerstand ist vergeblich.
<red_hat> haha. no.
<red_hat> lamers.
<ibm> what about you debian?
<debian> we'll discuss it and let you know in 5 years.
<caldera[UL]> no one wants my linux!
<turbolinux[UL]> i got owned.
<caldera[UL]> u all tricked me. linux is lame.
* caldera[UL] is now known as SCO
<SCO> i'm going back to unix.
<SGI> yeah! want to do unix with me?
<SCO> haha. no. lamer.
<novell> lol
<ibm> snap!
<SGI>
<SCO> hey, u shut up. im gonna sue u ibm.
<ibm> wtf?
<SCO> yea, you stole all the good stuff from unix.
<red_hat> lol
<SuSE[UL]> heraus laut lachen
<ibm> lol
<SCO> shutup. i'm gonna email all your friends and tell them you suck.
<ibm> go ahead. baby.
<SCO> andandand... i revoke your unix! how do you like that?
<ibm> oh no, you didn't. AIX is forever.
<novell> actually, we still own unix, you can't do that.
<SCO> wtf? we bought it from u.
<novell> whoops. our bad.
<SCO> i own u. haha
<SCO> ibm: give me all your AIX now!
<ibm> whatever. lamer.
* ibm sets mode +b SCO!*@*
* SCO has been kicked from #os (own this.)
Ben, you've become an UberGeek! Take me as your padawan!!!
I'd like to ammend this, this is offensive to me and I don't have any religious affiliation.
Blanket statements like that are fundamentally unfair and necessarily BS.
It's really no different from any other generalizations (including racists remarks).
Seriously, you don't need a convoluted theory to explain the stupid, morally corrupt actions of a CEO (we've hand plenty, and I'm sure that a representative share of these scum-bag CEOs has come from all groups of people).
IANAL, but wouldn't the SEC step in if IBM were to make a bid at purchasing SCO? As one of the major UNIX vendors in the world, there would seem to be something of a conflict of interest if they were to suddenly be in the position to take the same actions that SCO is taking now against their competitors.
Then again, IBM buying SCO wouldn't really give IBM any sort of market share advantage (IBM + near-zero) so maybe the SEC wouldn't object.
I'd be more concerned that Microsoft might put forth an offer.
"the more I belive RMS's vision was very clear indeed."
He's been dead on.
His GPL is such a wonderful device. Its essentially a copyright virus in many ways. The most insidious are the non-obvious. ways.
Internet Explorer was unable to link to the Web page you requested. The page might use standard HTML or CSS.
Filter Caldera, Dumbass.
Who modded you up?
WRONG!!!!! When are people going to stop this FUD. You still own the copyright to your original work even after you distribute it under the GPL. If you removed the other GPL code from it you could then distribute the portion that is left (the part you wrote) under any rules you want. It is exactly the same as copyright, exactly the same as the copyright version you described:
You remove that code, you're good to go again. In other words; it is possible to 'remove' a copyright derivative-work taint by removing the portions that are derivative.
Please explain clearly why you think removing the GPL portions does not do the same thing. Don't give me any bullshit about people already having the code, that is true of your copyright example as well. If they did not break into your office and steal it, you have already granted them rights to use the code, by giving it to them, it does not matter if you said it was GPL or not.
Repeat after me: the GPL is an EXCEPTION to US and world copyright rules. It lets the receiver of the code do MORE than they could do if there was no GPL and the code was just copyrighted normally. The GPL adds no laws or anything and is entirely based on copyright. If copyright was repealed the GPL would be meaningless and you could do anything with the code.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's an idea, SCO files suit against IBM, forcing IBM to take responsibility for Linux. This may not be about IP in the way the SCO is portraying, but if the IP in Linux can be legally tied to a corporate entity, then Microsoft, et al can compete against Linux again, since it'll just be an extension of their textbook strategies against any competitor. This could be the real fear, that Linux doesn't even have a body, really, and that's what corporate America (adopters and technological competitors) really fears. They don't know how to deal with it, and if SCO can tie IBM as the caretaker of Linux, then the GPL becomes secondary under US/International corporate financial, commercial, and governance laws.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
"How did AT&T/NOVELL/SCO et al get hold of it"
The contracts up at SCOSource seem to include an "all your base" clause, granting AT&T rights to derivitive works. Naturally people signed this back when USL was a bunch of Ma Bell scientists, not Utah IP sharks.
This isn't an interesting topic, its OFF TOPIC and should be MODDED DOWN as such
Any more, I just shake my head and laugh. What a bunch of morons. I certainly hope Darl Dipshit and Co. are unemployable when this thing is finally over.
They're obviously afraid of losing the constant news coverage (as that's the only thing propping up their stock price recently) so they're trying ever harder to infuriate the F/OSS community (Like the remark naming Linus as a culpable party). They're not really getting much coverage where it counts (how many posts have we seen here where corporate officers in charge really haven't heard much about the case until asked about it by a techie) so they're hoping sooner or later all our ranting and raving will get more publicity.
Again, as pointed out in so many posts on the SCO subject, people with a strong case keep quiet until they get to court, and people with a weak or non-existent case tend to make a lot of noise about it. Who's keeping quiet, and who's making noise?
SCO NEEDS the publicity, so let's quit giving them so much of it. Let's do what IBM is doing: ignore the BS until such time as they actually present some kind of real case!
Only people that are possessed file unsubstantiated law suits for other companies and expect to get money out of it. If this is them trying to prove a pattern of copyright violations on IBM's part shouldn't they at least talk to the victim first?
I think this is SCO's attempt at ruining the OSS community and muddying the waters of Big Blue. Even though they toned down their talk it's still clear they are not just in this to save themselves.
They aren't claiming rights to RCU. They are claiming rights to a particular implementation.
>Looks like they didn't, and now OBL himself could >very well be running Caldera Linux on the Beowulf >cluster in his cave simulating thermonuclear >explosions. More than likely he's playing TuxRacer & his new version of xbill, xbush.
On these grounds, of course, Microsoft will soon be suing Linus for Three Trillion Dollars.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It says clearly that the patch was accepted into the kernel in 2002. IBM merged with Sequent in 1999. You do the math.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I don't know much about Unix, but I would guess that comercial Unixes had SMP support long before that, since SMP was available in "server" systems long before it was available in commodity PC motherboards, and in those days (1995) it was commodity PC hardware that drove Linux development.
I've just propagated the meme here.
"derivative works" under copyright law (which the GPL uses) don't include know-how, people and methods.
There are a few large-ish companies (and one very large in particular - guess who!) that claim that Open Source in general and Linux in particular aids terrorists by providing them with a reliable and secure tool without intentionally placed backdoors (for law enforcement or otherwise).
Any vendor created backdoor that can be used to catch terrorists can also be used for general espionage. No government in it's right mind would buy an OS from that vendor. That has been a concern with some of these governmental OSS rollouts we've been hearing about. If a "certain large vendor" is playing the terrorism backdoor card then it is cutting it's own throat outside the US.
Next you'll be asking for the "right to reply" that those commie-pinko-homos in Europe are pushing for.
Note for moderators, the above is called satire
Clink the link and educate yourselves.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
UnixWare® 7.1.3 marks the return of the UnixWare brand name as the premier UNIX Operating System for industry standard Intel and AMD processor systems. UnixWare 7 is the right choice for companies who place a high value on the scalability, reliability and security inherent in UNIX technology based systems. Like its predecessor release (Open UNIX 8.0) UnixWare 7.1.3 runs both Linux and native UNIX applications, using the Linux Kernel Personality Technology (LKP). The LKP feature provides a more scalable, stable, secure and reliable environment than Linux can offer today, and has been updated in UnixWare 7.1.3 to support multi-byte characters. UnixWare 7.1.3 has been updated to enable SCO Update Service for UnixWare. This innovative service provides electronic notification and delivery or operating system changes and gives customers control of the upgrade process. SCO Update Services simplifies and streamlines the process of deploying new technology and keeping deployed systems up to date. UnixWare 7.1.3 consists of a comprehensive family of pre-configured Editions and optional products to build and deploy UNIX and Linux applications.
See this post on Yahoo's finance/stock boards. Quote:
SCO has... let us know that SUN is GOLDEN in SCO's eyes, SUN can do anything it wants with the license SUN purchased from SCO... They now know SCO's accusations but SUN IS STILL SELLING Linux... SCO is SCREWED. SUN has GPL-ed any SysV code that may be in Linux.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
- Sequent was bought by IBM.
- Read-Copy Update was developed at Sequent.
Articles written by Paul E. McKenney on Read-Copy Update are available from
http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/rclock/
If the judge or jury decides in favor of SCO, they are going to be EXTREMELY unpopular with people around the world. Much more so than Judge Kollar-Kotelly (spelled right? Is she still on the chair? I was hoping she wouldn't).
Well, that is if the judgment isn't delayed until people tone down a bit. That's okay, we can stoke the fire later on. People, don't allow yourselves to be manipulated into indifference.
We can pretty much count on BSD becoming the new focus for slashdot. ;)
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"IBM violated federal export controls and thus breached their contract with SCO through committing an illegal act"
And Linus is from where?
This statement is completely nuts. What concerns me is the number of people getting involved in this case, such as microsoft lawyers signing the NDA to look at SCO's allegations, or the son of senator hatch being one of SCO's lawyers, or the lead lawyer that blew the microsoft anti-trust case, Bose, and so on.
Could we have a bunch of our spoiled rich nuts thinking they can grab something here? You know, lack of punishment for these many years have made the upper levels of power spoiled in the US.
Of course, Linux is worldwide. This doesn't even involve something here that COULD grab. There are many other countries that would laugh if they did.
Maybe off the beaten track, but its rare to see people sign on to something that is dead at the get go like this, and SCO's carcase can't be worth much either.
Microsoft has never been particularly quite or sneaky when doing these types of things. Yet, they get away with it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Has anyone thought about "What if they win?"
I mean, no, I don't think they will, but in the States you hear about all sorts of weirdness in the judicial system.
So what if they win?
If you read the OSI position paper, it doesn't say that Linux had SMP before SCO's unices did.
In the section titled "SCO/Caldera's claim to own Unix scalability techniques is weak" it says that Linux had SMP working _on Intel_ before SCO's unices did. It also mentions that Linux has greater-than-4-way SMP capability, a feature that SCO's OpenServer does not itself support.
K.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?search=David +Boies&go=Go
David Boies is a lawyer and a chief partner of Boies, Schiller & Flexner. He has been involved in a number of high-profile cases in the United States.
He helped defend IBM in an antitrust case, and years later famously took the other side by representing the Justice Department in the Microsoft antitrust case. Following the 2000 U.S. presidential election, he represented Vice President Al Gore in the ensuing legal battle and participated in Bush v. Gore, one of the few Supreme Court cases ever televised.
He is representing Enron executive Andrew Fastow, and has been retained by the SCO Group in their pursuit of infringement of their rights to the UNIX intellectual properties.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
I hope that after IBM ruins SCO they also sleep with their wives and take custody of their children.
oooh.... ninja pirates!
-pyrrho
Bullshit yourself.
Preface: I don't buy the idea that the employees have anything to do or say about the misdirection of their company in this case (any of us would do the same thing, nothing, in their shoes). I think the original comment is misguided but NOT for the reason you have cited.
Political correctness be damned, I refuse to stop calling a spade a spade on account of people like you. Likewise, I refuse to stop calling blind obedience where I see it. It's something that many religions require to varrying degrees, but there is aboslutely no doubt that the Mormon religion is one of the worst offending anywhere and deserves cult status.
----- sXe
Even though all this huha can be considered important, the BBC website does not deem it important. CNN mentions it under the heading "more news". I spoke to a senior person of a big Telco, he knows who SCO is but was not aware about the treat to AIX customers re their licenses (the SCO story) the non issue (the IBM story). I think this issue has had more funnies and comments than most other topics. But really, the world at large is not aware; it was not in my paper this morning. Thanks, Gerard
I guess someone at sco is still playing with linux as according to Netcraft somthing has been updated on their apache server today !
Linux Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.3.2-RC 17-Jun-2003 216.250.140.112 NFT
Linux Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 20-Nov-2002 216.250.140.112 NFT
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
Obviously Solaris v10 will be actually be Sun rebadged version of Linux! At which point IBM will probably sue Sun as it is has parts of IBM code in and as SCO can retroactively decide to that the code that they shipped under GPL is no really under the GPL. At some point, it will be shown that DEC misused trade secrets at some point and code which was misappropriated then made it's way into VMS which then somehow made it into NT and the only operating system that we can actually use is DOS.
Of course, there's a huge difference between "test at your own risk" and UnixWare which was shipping in production SMP configurations at the same time.
In 1995 I worked quite a bit with 2-way Compaq Pentium servers. Supported OSes were WinNT, OS/2, Novell UnixWare, and SCO UNIX.
As several others have pointed out, I don't believe that SCO EVER had an issue with IBM's independantly implementing algorithms.
If IBM came up with similar code to SCO's there would be no dispute - IBM is probably within its rights to do that.
If IBM independantly came up with the exact same code, including comments that were in SCO's code however....
Thank goodness only corporations are driven by greed.
A couple of points along the Unix SMP timeline:
1986 Mach from CMU is running on MP's, but isn't full-function Unix
1987 Mach was ported to Sequent Balance and Encore Multimax MP machines.
1991 The first OSF/1 - based OS shipped (KSR OS, on a 32-way machine to Oak Ridge National Labs).
OSF/1 was a Unix variant with a Mach 2.5-based kernel. (The Mach code was in fact pulled by way of the Encore Multimax.) I know that was a full Unix and full SMP machine -- I was in the OS group.
So a full commercial Unix with SMP based on Mach 2.5 has been available since at least 1991.
SMP OS's go much further back than that; the first ones worthy of the name "symmetric multiprocessing" as applied to the OS (i.e., capable of significant concurrent execution as well as CPU symmetry) were probably Dec's TOPS-10 for the PDP-10 and IBM's OS/VS-2 for the 370 MP machines, from the early 70's. OS's that were "symmetric" but single-threaded preceded that by a decade (AOSP for Burroughs A-825, 1960). These could run a user thread on each processor, but all kernel calls were serialized.
... only they called it "copy-on-write" since the early nineties - possibly the late eighties?
Besides, MicroBSD had this feature in an early version circa. 1306AD.
i.
i - This sig provided by
I'm guessing it's Intel. I base that on Intel's participation with Trillium. Mostly just a hunch.
Did anyone consider so far that the result of the lawsuit could not be determined by who's really right, but by political interests?
I mean, let's just see what happened to Microsoft in court, or better, what did not happen to them.
By law, Microsoft would have been broken up, just like Bell.
Bell was an local (american) monopoly, Microsoft is different: it has an important global monopoly that gives the USA the edge, so of course it's not really challenged (in america).
The trial against IBM could be a nice start to get rid off that pesky pinguin thing, and a system that bends rules enough to tolerate MS might be good for a surprise in this case.
...that hasn't already been said about Afghistan. It looks bombed out and depleted. (previous lines stolen from Dave Chappelle).
In my opinion, the following quote sums it all up:
Darl McBride, CEO SCO (Link to Article)
"The fact that Linux shows up in town and everybody gets excited about it because they get the same sort of value we had with UnixWare but they don't have to pay anything--I get why customers like that. It's the same reason everybody loved Napster--you get CDs for free."
There you go folks, it all boils down to Linux = Napster, and if you aren't paying out the ass for software you are stealing it, no matter what the 'license' says. It all belongs to SCO and no matter what Linus nor IBM nor anyone else says, 'its all the branch of the same tree'...sounds pretty compelling when you are a company going out of business and you exist in a country who's legal system is sold to the highest bidder. I still hold my position that if the code was stolen and copied out of something that SCO rightfully owns, then more power to them, I hope they get their fair compensation because it would be the correrct thing to do. But all indications I see seem to point to a situation where SCO was displaced by Linux and now they are trying to suck anything they can out of the situation before going titsup.com.
What a bunch of mark ass marks, trick ass marks, skip skak skanks and skalliwags! (Dave Chapelle again, thank god he's not licensed by SCO)
"But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" - Dennis Miller
True enough, the SCO buyout was around '95 and 2.0+smp was there around that time, so I was incorrect.
;-)
It seems like SCO is suffering from having to play catch-up on what Novell did or did not get from Bell Labs and/or get from BSD and/or get from contributing companies like Sequent and/or create. They may well have no idea who generated the code that they are concerned about!
Man, oh man, that's just ugly. Imagine a world where you own the copyright on a work, but can't tell if another work (which contains exact copies of portions of yours) is infringing on your copyright or not.... It's enough to make me come within 20 miles or so of feeling for SCO!
Then again, they're trying to make a fast buck, rather than sitting down with IBM and going over the facts to everyone's satisfaction. Wanna bet that if the current UNIX copyright holder had asked to be given details on how IBM is making sure UNIX IP doesn't end up in Linux that IBM would have been more than happy to help? Guess we'll never know now...
In checking out ESR's postition paper and the relationship of the various Unix flavors, it doesa not appear that AIX is a derivative of System V, but more properly of BSD 4.3 and Unix Version 7 with some elements of System V being introduced in a later version. Is SCO saying that adding some System 5 elements makes it a derivative? BSD clearly is not a derivative of System 5, although System V appears to have elements of BSD 4.2 added into it, which according to their logic (SCO's) would make System 5 a derivative of BSD 4.2, as well as Version 7. They are going to have a very hard time with this in court. Glenn
i told u i was hardcore
THe stuff they seem to be mentioning here is in 2.5... which as everyone knows is a development branch.. so even if some sco IP made it's way in there, that has nothing to do with SCO's business falling over the last several years in favor of linux.
If this restriction exists, it is about Nuke Simulations. I thought that was dropped around 1998.
Today I saw this article which says that, accoring to a statement by VP Scott McNealy, Sun is going to focus more and R&D, expecially Linux and Java. He does identify their main competitors as IBM and Microsoft.
They'll combat IBM by selling complete solutions of Software and Hardware, while they're to target Microsoft with Linux and Java.
They might not love linux, but...
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Just to make the obvious point, the "test at your own risk" system went production in June of '96 which is about a year and a half after UnixWare 2.0's Jan '95 release that was the first production release of *that* OS to support SMP. Were there SMP UNIXen before that? Sure! Sequent had SMP working under their UNIX-variant back in '86 or '87! But that has little berring on this conversation. When comparing UnixWare and Linux, they both developed SMP capabilities in a production release within 18 months of eachother, and Linux had been in use as an SMP platform for quite a while before the production release, but it would have been, IMHO, unwise to rely on it at that point. Still, Alphas were popular and the 1.3.x series was your gateway to the (then) huge performance gains of running an Alpha with Linux. Once 2.0 came out it was about a year before it settled down into a "non-dot-oh" release.
I have no idea how reliable UnixWare 2.0 was at it's FCS, but I imagine they had a similar set of fixes to make and time to shake out all of the bugs customers would eventually find.
Not really trying to OS-war here, as I think that's kind of moot nearly a decade later. I'm just pointing out that you made it sound like there was a giant stability and technology gap where there really was only a fairly small one. Linux grew stunningly fast, and the development and release model that it employed seems to have produced a system capable of innovating *and* playing catch-up with the big boys that had decades on Linux within a fairly short time.
This is quite contrary to SCO's claim that Linux cannot possibly have developed into a mature OS as rapidly as it did without benefitting from UNIX source code. Clearly, long before IBM contributed and code at all, it was doing just that.
But I believe there is some aspect of law where you can't charge someone with, say, copyright violation if you yourself are violating their copyrights at the same time. if it's SCO -vs- AIX (hypothetically) and it turns out SCO stole code from AIX as well, the case would probably be tossed out.
saw this SCO sucks button with the O as a bullet hole, thought it was pretty funny being as all the stuff SCO is going around doing, ordered two already check it out
Can someone comment on how TCP-IP made it into SCO? :-)
Did they use code from Berkely? Can these guys from Berkely do some nasty things? Personally I would love to see an SCO unix that is not allowed to use TCP-IP
I worked with SCO about 8 years ago. At that time the TCP-IP implementation was more or less hidden and was depreciated and hard to find.
Just wait.
Bush's army continues to look high and low all throughout Iraq. Little did they know the Linux-running PC of 15-year-old Alhamada-al-sheriaq (used to play out-of-date, open-source video games) contained the real Weapon of Mass Destruction: Linux.
I'M A RAELIAN!
I am not a lawyer, but isn't there a huge hole in SCO's trade secret theory.
SCO seems to be claiming rights in anything vaguely associated (added by IBM or others) to a Sys V like code base. Their complaint against IBM is a trade secret complaint, so they are claiming these items are SCO's trade secrets? While I do not buy this, let's assume for a moment it held up. I still can't see how it could work:
1. If IBM added say RCU this way, SCO's claim would be this makes it SCO's trade secret. However how can it be a trade secret if it was patented, and hence available for the public to read.
2. If IBM added something else, SCO's claim would be this makes it SCO's trade secret. However, I can not see how it could be a trade secret if it was public knowledge (i.e. not an IBM trade secret) in the first place.
3. Linus is blamed for not scrutinizing IP before adding to Linux. SCO want him to scrutinize for trade secrets (this is a trade secret complaint - remember). If it is truly a trade secret, then Linus could not know that, unless it was no longer a trade secret or he had agreed to keep it a trade secret.
Quick! Everyone download a copy! :)
Then forward the URL to someone who can get it to IBM's legal team, because this would go a long way to proving SCO can't even practice due diligence in stopping its own distribution of supposedly infringing code.
I'm sure IBM already has some legal WMD aimed at Darl McBride's fat head, but it can't hurt to add one more 10kT warhead to the pile.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
IBM MUST DIE!
:]
I have been looking around and there doesn't seem to be anything major from any of the big news sites showing overall support for SCO? Is this because NOBODY believes them?
Also found this which has some nice info about SCO's input the linux over the years (And searching on the person named in this document (jan@sco.com) a lot of this input from around the time IBM supposedly introduced this so-called IP into linux!)
oh well... hopfully someone will accidently drop a nuke on SCO in the near future..
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
How exciting were you???
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
Underling: This just keeps getting more ridiculous every minute! We never had a chance in the first place because everybody KNOWS this lawsuit is mindless blather. But every time you open your mouth, you make an even bolder accusation! What were you THINKING?!
McBride: By Jove, you're right! This lawsuit is going nowhere as long as I piddle around with puny little accusations and $3 billion damages. I'm going to announce a $3 trillion dollar suit. I know, I know--it's still not very much. But it will give them a small idea of just who they're dealing with before we crush them like the gnats that they are. I like my victims scared before they die!
Underling (rolling eyes): Go get 'em, sir. You've really got them on the run now. I'll just clean out my desk and go home now, if you don't mind. I've got some...uh...vacation time to take. Yeah, that's it.
McBride: Don't like the sight of blood, eh? Well, don't worry about it--I'll fill you in on all the gory details once we've won!
It's a big gif; where are Sequent on it?
Cheers,
Steve.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
Darl accidentally played his hand (or on purpose, who can tell with him) in an interview where he admitted that a buyout from IBM is "an option."
The article you're thinking of is here. Very interesting reading.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
Good post, Iâ(TM)m surprised you got âoe0â score for that. "SCOff at" is really funny and some /. moderator missed this one big times, they should have given it "5" score just for the tricky language that is also subject oriented.
/. ? It wouldnâ(TM)t be necessary for it to exist.
Seriously, if we stop talking about SCO vs. IBM/Linux than we could also stop talking about many other things and so peace of mind would envelope us all - not a bad idea. Do you know what would that mean to
But I agree that âoepeople with a strong case keep quiet until they get to courtâ, thatâ(TM)s what IBM is doing, they almost said nothing so far. I think that is only people connected to GPL/Linux/BSD and such who worry about who is going to win that case, IBM doesnâ(TM)t, maybe they should but they donâ(TM)t.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
That's horseshit.
I had a HP XU 6/200 dual PPRo back in 1996. I *worked* on that code occasionally in 2.1.x and 2.3.x series of kernels (not 2.5.x) when it impacted on my X11 work with XFree86. I had the Intel manuals, which I got from Intel's developer ftp site. You don't need to be rocket scientist to add broken SMP to any kernel. To make it work requires a lot of developers with lots of different pieces of hardware, not just IBM's. Remember the old Abit BP6's with dual celery's? I doubt IBM shipped any of those.
SMP was already there back in 1996 when I started using my dual processor box. We were in the process of doing the fine tuning to remove the big lock, and adding MTRRs for p6's, and working on cache coherency, multi-threadedness, and APIC use to balance the boot processor's load from the soft irqs amongst all processors.
Restricted my ass. SCO had NOTHING to do with that code. If IIRC properly, they didn't have an SMP capable OpenServer available at any price until ages after 2.3 was sprung forth.
Andrew
Andrew van der Stock
Unless it came with strings attached (code created on it was Caldera property) BFD...
OK, SCO wins, EVERYONE e-mail McBribe the UNIX Source code... complete, unzipped, or tarred,
Next friday at 12:00pm. Talking about SPAM from hell.....
Everyone knows it's a joke. SCO's position is full of bull as it is - that suggesting that they would resort to a false rumor (as you so diligently point out) is the punchline here.
Look a bit past the obvious.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
I think the artist formerly known as Prince is safe. That symbol is just indescribable.
I don't know if "confused" is exactly the right word. The figures I last saw were for the Salt Lake City area, and showed suicide in this Mormon-dominated city at 77% higher than comparable control cities. Since I'm not Mormon it has no direct impact on me, but I do have a soft spot for Mormons so I would be happy to be shown to be wrong.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Both companies are owned by the canopy group, and it wouldn't surprize me at all to see trolltech pull the IP card out of it's sleeve and try to own KDE and Linux.
It's also likely that Sequent would have been operating under a similar licence to IBM all along, and IBM's licence (before amendment and AFAICT afterwards too) yielded them rights to all modifications they made.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
[PATCH] Read-Copy Update infrastructure
This is the RCU core patch from akpm's tree. It has been in his tree since about 2.5.37-mm1 along with dcache_rcu and so far it has worked fine. For 2.5, I am hoping that we might get the following RCU patches included
1. rt_rcu - ipv4 routecache lookup. Davem agreed to include this patch if and when you include RCU core in your tree.
2. dcache_rcu (by Maneesh Soni) - dcache lookup avoiding dcache_lock as much as possible. This has been akpm's tree - stable and gives us a good yield. I have been submitting this to Viro and I will publish some more benchmark numbers later to help decide on this.
This RCU core implements RCU APIs, call_rcu() and synchronize_kernel(), by monitoring a per-CPU quiescent state (idle/user etc.) counter.
call_rcu() queues a callback to be invoked after all the CPUs have gone through a quiescent state. Queuing is per-CPU and each per-CPU batch gets a batch number. As batches get their turn, a global
cpu mask is used to keep track of CPUs pending quiescent state.
Checking for quiescent cycle is done by saving the per-CPU counter at the beginning of the batch and then monitoring it for change through the local timer interrupt handler.
It looks like they just grepped for ibm.com in the changelog, copied the code into unixware, and started this whole lawsuit thing. Obviously thier other points of contention are similar. Let's grep for ibm and smp next!
Actually, the whole picture is even more devious, although it's not certain whether it'll work yet.
A certain individual buys a ton of shares of a B-class company for half a penny a piece.. Then they launch a desperate-looking attack on an industry giant, hoping that this will increase the value of their shares -which it most certainly will do. However, the cunning part is revealed if the industry giant's shares lose some footing and drop, not much but a bit.. then the deadbeat CEO can cunningly liquidate all the deadbeat shares and invest the capital in the industry giant's shares a day before announcing it was all a big hoax (or losing the claim by a third party).. this is guaranteed to create a surge of interest for the industry giant's shares, which the deadbeat CEO can then liquify at a percentual win of at least an approximate 5 units from the price he got them, reinvest and live happily ever after.
Got to love the stock market.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
I see SCO is one of the exhibitors slated to be at the LinuxWorld Expo this August in SF. I wonder if they will be set up next to the M$ booth.
WRONG!!!!! When are people going to stop this FUD. You still own the copyright to your original work even after you distribute it under the GPL. If you removed the other GPL code from it you could then distribute the portion that is left (the part you wrote) under any rules you want.
First: deep breath. Hand off the exclamation key. Ah! Ah! I saw that. Ok, now:
If I write 10,000 lines of proprietary code, and then take a 500 line chunk of GPL'd code, say, and insert it, and then distribute the whole 10,500 as a complete work, all 10,500 lines is now released to the world under the GPL. Anyone who gets a copy has all the rights the GPL grants them; rights I was forced, by the GPL, to grant them, by virtue of using GPL code.
Yes, I do still own the copyright to my work. I can, in fact, release the work under another more or restrictive license. But I can never retrieve the code I have released under GPL. The GPL does not leave a choice; if you use GPL code, then the complete work that it is used in can only be released as GPL code as well. Otherwise you have no rights to the GPL code under the GPL license.
Please explain clearly why you think removing the GPL portions does not do the same thing. Don't give me any bullshit about people already having the code, that is true of your copyright example as well. If they did not break into your office and steal it, you have already granted them rights to use the code, by giving it to them, it does not matter if you said it was GPL or not.
I'm not quite sure I even understand what you're asking here. Let's just examine the two scenarios, however:
Scenario one, I incoroprate some GPL code into my own software which I hold the copyright on, and I release it. My software can now be redistributed under GPL, modified, and further redistributed, etc. I cannot control derivative works. This is because the GPL has regulated my behavior. It forces me to grant the rights I received with the GPL to anyone who receives my code which contains GPL'd parts.
Scenario two, I have a piece of code I own the copyright to. I find some applicable code on the net which claims to be under the BSD license. I incorporate it into my code. Since the BSD license does NOT require me to release my derivative work under the BSD license, I can release the code under any license I want, including not granting rights the GPL would grant.
Now, taking scenario two further to line up with SCO: let's say I am notified that the code I added was actually not legitimately BSD license, because an employee without the rights to do so 'released' it without permission of the owner (his employer). My code is 'tainted' by virtue of that persons copyright. I cannot release it in any form because it would constitute a derivative work. If I released it already, I have to desist. The people I released it to gained no rights in the code I released because the rights weren't actually mine to give. Now, I can go back and REMOVE that code, however, because I still own the copyright on my own code, and I can then distribute my work again, without the tainted code. In other words, the taint does not irrevocably stain MY code.
If you're saying that if I release something under GPL, I can still later release a derivative work not under the GPL, that's true. The portions which are the original are still covered by the GPL from my GPL release, but I can do new work and release proprietary derivatives.
Repeat after me: the GPL is an EXCEPTION to US and world copyright rules. It lets the receiver of the code do MORE than they could do if there was no GPL and the code was just copyrighted normally. The GPL adds no laws or anything and is entirely based on copyright. If copyright was repealed the GPL would be meaningless and you could do anything with the code.
The first part of this is true with any software license. Copyright always protects the code, and barring an agreement, you have no rights to it whatsoever. Only the author do
Q: How did the Linux action originate? How and when did you come to realize there was this problem?
A: It really goes back to last fall. I joined the company last summer, and we spent a quarter or two looking at this Unix operating system asset we have.
SCO ends up owning the intellectual-property rights to the Unix operating system, which is a pretty substantial asset to be holding. So we started looking closely at where Unix was relative to Linux. Linux was starting to take off, and we did have some concerns.
We saw some initial problems last fall, and we tried to address those with vendors in the December time frame. We didn't really get a lot of traction with just having friendly discussions. So we came out in the first part of this year and basically said, 'We are going to enforce our intellectual-property rights.' And even though we weren't directly going after IBM at that point, they had a violent reaction to (that).
So at that point in time, we tried to work through the issues with IBM. We came to an impasse, and that's what led to our filing our lawsuit against IBM on March 7. Concurrent with filing our lawsuit against IBM, we put them on notice that we were going to be revoking our AIX (IBM's Unix distribution) license. Under the contract, we have to give them 100 days notice. That notice was due on Friday, June 13, and if we hadn't had the issues resolved then, we would revoke their AIX license.
During the period of time we were focused on the IBM issues, it came to our attention that we had our code, our Unix System 5 code, showing up directly inside of Linux. So that, in turn, led us to send out letters to 1,500 of the largest companies around the world, to let them know we had these substantial intellectual-property violations and to notify them that we had these problems. We didn't think that necessarily they were the ones that generated the problems, but they had been passed a hot potato they were holding.
Was it a matter of someone at SCO just working with Linux source code and saying, 'Hey, that looks familiar?'
When we filed against IBM, they were supposed to respond in 30 days, and they filed an extension for another 60 days. So we had about 60 days where we were waiting for IBM to respond. So we turned a group of programmers loose--we had three teams from different disciplines busting down the code base, the different code bases of System 5, AIX and Linux. And it was in that process of going through the deep dive of what exactly is in all of these code bases that we came up with these more substantial problems.
Why was IBM the initial focus?
When we first started talking about how we were trying to protect our intellectual-property assets around Unix...IBM basically became very upset we were going to go down the path of even talking about intellectual-property rights in relation to Linux. And they basically threatened that if we didn't pull back from our statements that we were going down that path, they would quit doing business with us at all.
To me, it was a strange posture to be taking for a company that collects a billion and a half dollars a year on their own intellectual-property portfolio. And so that caused us to go digging on what was behind the initial set of problems we found...And as we dug deeper, we found that we did have significant violations going on with respect to their version of Unix they had licensed from us.
At one of their conventions this year, an IBM executive stood in front of an audience and said that IBM was going to destroy the value of Unix and move it all over to Linux. They were going to take the know-how, the people, the methods they developed over the years around AIX--which is our licensed version of Unix--and they were going to transport all that in a wholesale fashion over to Linux. Those statements alone caused us alarm. When we dug deeper, we found they, in fact, had been doing that and they were going to do more.
What would IBM need to have done to keep this from going to court?
The exact same thing would happen if you released your code public domain. You cannot retrieve that code and make it coyprighted again after telling people they are free to copy it. This is not a problem with the GPL. Your problem is that the GPL does not allow you to distribute your program in a way where you prevent people from copying the code. Therefore your entire argument is just a long-winded way of saying that the GPL does not allow you to write closed-source. Well too bad, I feel really sorry for you. Unfortunatly that is 100% the purpose of the GPL and you will have to live with it.
And don't you dare say you are "forced to grant the rights to your code to anybody" by the GPL. You are not "forced" to do anything, and it is easy to avoid: either don't distribute your program, or figure out how to make your program without using some GPL code. You don't see me complaining because I cannot use Microsoft's code in my programs, but you are basically complaining about exactly the same thing.
An OSS license ... only restricts one single thing: distributing the GPL'd code and derivative works.
No, copyright restricts distributing the GPL'd code and derivative works. The GPL is an exception to copyright, it gives you explicit rules under which you can violate copyright. Without it you can do less with the code.
Many people are confused because most source code they have seen has at the top the text "permission is hereby granted to ..." in it which is also a way to grant an exception to copyright, and usually this exception is much more generous than the GPL, which leads people to think the GPL is restrictive. But compared to nothing at all, both the GPL and such "permission granted" code is generous.
If I write 10,000 lines of proprietary code, and then take a 500 line chunk of GPL'd code, say, and insert it, and then distribute the whole 10,500 as a complete work, all 10,500 lines is now released to the world under the GPL. Anyone who gets a copy has all the rights the GPL grants them; rights I was forced, by the GPL, to grant them, by virtue of using GPL code.
...Otherwise you have no rights to the GPL code under the GPL license.
Bzzzzt! Wrong on at least two counts. First off, inserting 500 lines of incompatibly licensed code into your work is pretty damn willful. The GPL didn't force you to do anything. Incidentally the licences on proprietary SDKs can be even more "viral" and "onerous" than the GPL. How come nobody ever bitches about them?
Secondly, the combined work is not GPLed unless you have included a copy of the GPL with the source and you have indicated (preferabably in the files themselves) that the work is GPLed.
The 10,500 line combined work that hasn't been explicitly licensed GPL is illegal to distribute. If you distribute it anyway without complying with the GPL then you are committing copyright violation. Making the whole thing GPL is only one remedy and is probably the result of a settlement. The judge in any litigation involving the code could have any number of legal options. A likely one is an injunction against any further distribution whatsoever and statutory damages. Anyone else in possession of the combined work is no more allowed to distribute it than you were.
I can, in fact, release the work under another more or restrictive license. But I can never retrieve the code I have released under GPL...
Correctemundo! He who writes the code chooses the license. If you don't like the license then don't use the code. Not whinging about it would be a nice bonus. Incidentally, that not being able to recall the code is a feature not a bug. One of the reasons Linus gave for putting the GPL on the kernel is that he wanted developers to trust him. That trust is a major reason why I avoid most commercial software. I pay money and they can trump up reasons to revoke my license if I piss them off. That non-recallability is also needed if someone like say...SCO perhaps...wants to renege on the license. Any beatings SCO takes on that account are richly deserved.
Now, taking scenario two further to line up with SCO: let's say I am notified that the code I added was actually not legitimately BSD license, because an employee without the rights to do so 'released' it without permission of the owner (his employer). My code is 'tainted' by virtue of that persons copyright. I cannot release it in any form because it would constitute a derivative work. If I released it already, I have to desist. The people I released it to gained no rights in the code I released because the rights weren't actually mine to give. Now, I can go back and REMOVE that code, however, because I still own the copyright on my own code, and I can then distribute my work again, without the tainted code. In other words, the taint does not irrevocably stain MY code.
The problem here is that SCO needs to rewrite history to get what they want. They distributed Linux for years. The corporate entity (SCO, Caldera, scumbags...whatever) even donated an SMP machine to Alan Cox for SMP kernel work. You can even find technical posts from Caldera/SCO employees on the kernel mailing regarding SMP development. SCO can not credibly pull off the "Wild Cowboy We Didn't Authorize" defense. They participated in Linux development and distribution for years. The scenario you outline is workable apart from that.
That said, what a GPL does do to you, as a copyright holder, *IF* you create a derivative work, is taint that derivative work. Once you incorporate any GPL source (licensed to YOU under the GPL; not including code you create yourself that you license under the GPL), your work can never go back to
18 Months is a great overstatement. I'd say maybe 4-5 years is more like it.
Linux had the "BFL" problem until 2.4, and balancing problems for most of the early 2.4 series. Unixware wasn't perfect either, but had these issues sorted out long before.
Unixware was shipping on 32-way machines back in 1998 -- and you could barely buy a single *supported* Linux server at all back then. It's only been in the last 6 months that there's 1 (one) Linux-based large-scale SMP system marketed (from SGI).
So, did Linux develop quickly: Yes. Was it far behind commercial OSes the whole way: Yes.
It's all quite offensive, but something that really offends me is SCO's statement "It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach Unix performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of Unix code." You know, because any intelligent programmer would obviously rather pay tens of thousands to be allowed to modify Unix than modify Linux and accept that they must share their changes.
SCO Sucks button...
I would think that the HR department had hired Baghdad Bob as a spokesperson.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
claims rights to earlier code, infact code written before there was an SCO or Caldera to buy the original SCO out AFAIK. It is not SCO code, but SCO-owned System V code they are yapping about, and IBM code purportedly derived or extracted from it. This claim is the single most creative thing SCO has done in years, even if it dumber than a box of rocks.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
It's my understanding that BSD does not contain System V code.. they have nothing to worry about.
According to SCO/Caldera they did try talking to IBM at first, but IBM told them to get lost.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re: Q: Info on SVR4 ES -- Enhanced Security
Here's source for Sequent input into SVR4 ES/MP:
Re: sco, mpx, multi processor and Re: YES!!! - SCO Group Slaps IBM with $1B Suit
Sequent (dynix) is the line right underneath the SYSV (3, 4, 4.2, 5) yellow line. It forks from BSD in 1984 and merges stuff from SYSV in 1985, and 1988.Watch this Heartland Institute video
"The technology may be, but it's still a copyright violation if they directly copied the code from SCO."
True, but the IBM suit is about trade secret. If it is a trade secret it is hard to replace it (a patented technology claimed as a trade secret by a company that didn't invent it, wtf???) but if it isn't and is "just" a copyright violation then there isn't anything stopping the release of the code in question and its replacement thus limiting SCO's gain to whatever damage they can get.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Linux 2.0.33 was released on 16 Dec 1997.
Linux 2.0.34 was released on 03 Jun 1998.
Linux 2.1.99 was released on 20 Apr 1998.
Linux 2.1.100 was released on 07 May 1998.
It looks to me as if SMP was introduced to Linux in kernel version 1.3.26 (13 Sep 1995). The patch is here.
You are responding to something I didn't say, and you're wrong to boot.
First off, no it was *exactly* 18 months from when UnixWare first shipped a production release with SMP to when Linux first shipped a production release with SMP. There's no debating those facts, as they are simply facts. it was not 4-5 years, it was 18 months.
Now, as for the "BFL" problem in 2.0 (single locking in the kernel for those who aren't aware of the term, I won't expand the actual acronym), it wasn't a problem. That's one way to do SMP, and it has advantages and disadvantages. The largest and most obvious disadvantage is performance. The largest and most obvious advantage is simplicity of design. A fully preemptable SMP kernel without problems introduced by its design is essentially impossible. Every attempt I've ever seen had massive problems due to the complexities of hardware that have to be exposed all the way up, sometimes even as far as user-land (through the threading model), and any compromise (e.g. the 2.4 series Linux kernel which employs finer granularity locking without full preemptability) is frought with even more difficulty in predicting process responsiveness (as 2.4 has seen). These problems and design trade-offs have been seen since the dawn of symetric multi-processing, and are not at all unique to Linux.
Of course, Linux is now going down the complex, but high-performance route. Personally I prefer the 2.0 series for its rock-solid performance which, while less responsive than one would like from SMP, did manage to be more reasonable for highly interactive high-load tasks such as sorting large mailboxes in a threaded mail reader.
To say that Linux has been "far behind commercial OSes the whole way" is just outright wrong.
Linux did SMP on alpha far better than NT, and while not as well as True64, the earlier encarnation of OSF/1 on Alpha had worse problems. It still has the best HTTP acceleration, packet filtering (barring BSD's, which as of current is about as good as netfilter, and was better for a good long time) and broad range of filesystem support in the business. Linux has been far behind market leaders in R&D like Sequent in some specific areas until very recently in development kernels when IBM started putting Sequent techniques into Linux (probably prompting the SCO suit, since SCO also got those techniques from Sequent). I would agree with that, and I was not saying that UnixWare 2.0 (which benefitted from 10 years of Sequent R&D) had the same level of SMP support as Linux. I simply said it was the first production release of both OSes' SMP offering, which I said in response to the claim that at the time of UnixWare 2.0, Linux wasn't stable SMP-wise. I take a cetain amount of heart in the capatalist system that there are such high-quality R&D shops that produced results that out-live even the company that created them!
Linux is, IMHO, the best all-around kernel ever produced. It's not the best (and sometimes by a long shot) in many areas, but nothing is even in its league when it comes to covering all of the modern bases. Windows NT (in whatever current form) is probably second on that list, but as I've noted elsewhere, that OS has to rely on hardware vendors taking a lot of the development load off of Microsoft, and its still lagging badly in many high-end areas such as specialized networking tasks.
According to SCO, yes, but I've seen SCO's idea of "trying to talk". It ammounts to an invoice and a threat for legal action. I'm sure if the communication had begun with a civil request to review IBM's contributions to Linux in light of the licensing agreement over UNIX, IBM would have been willing to talk.
IBM has been quite consistent in this process, and has been very willing to talk to all parties, but unwilling to accept the assertion that they put code from UNIX into Linux. That claim is what they think is without basis, and if SCO simply made that assertion and asked IBM to pay up, why on earth would IBM respond any way other than to tell them to get lost?
tyan would make sense. I have a p133 board that has screen printing and contacts on it for a second processor. unfortunately, i'm not adventurous enough to do something about that :P however, the fact that I have two dual pentium pro and two dual pentium 2 systems makes it sort of pointless.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
The exact same thing would happen if you released your code public domain.
And did I ever say it wouldn't? My original post was discussing the fact that just because SCO's code somehow made it into the kernel, doesn't mean they can control derivatives of ALL the code, only branches containing their copyrighted code (assuming it is theirs, and their own linux distribution ends up being non-binding because of the circumstances).
And don't you dare say you are "forced to grant the rights to your code to anybody" by the GPL.
Why not? In order to use GPL code in your code, yo must release the complete work as GPL. It forces you to; it is a requirement. Yes, you can obviously not use it.
Many people are confused because most source code
Okay, well, I'm not at all confused. I hope you've enjoyed your crusade to 'educate' me, or whatever, but about the only point you've made is that you don't like my terminology. Whether you view it as permissive or restrictive depends on what you want to do with it. Clearly, any code the GPL code comes in contact with must become GPL to be released; just as any cell a virus comes in contact with becomes a host for viral production. Thus, the GPL is viral. I don't really say that in a bad way, because personally, I like having lots of GPL software available, and I view it as an awesome tool for people who put time and effort into code and want to avoid people misappropriating it for their own gain. That said, stop being a terminology nazi and go try to write some code.
First off, inserting 500 lines of incompatibly licensed code into your work is pretty damn willful.
/. has a lot of push-button GPL warriors that want to play terminology police. Apparently if you call it 'viral' or 'restrictive', you must be part of some enemy GPL-hating camp. Whatever. It's true: the GPL is viral. It was meant to be. That's why there's an LGPL, in fact, because some people wanted to lessen those restrictions.
I didn't say it wasn't willful. But that's neither here nor there. If you want to incorporate GPL source into your own code and release your code, the GPL forces you to release your code under the GPL to do so. To phrase it another way, you could say, "The GPL permits you to release combined source containing your own code and GPL code if you agree to license the complete work under the GPL." In either sense, the net effect is the same. The GPL is a great tool for doing what it's intended to do; stopping people from building on the source code that is free, and making derivatives unfree. If that's what you want, the GPL is great for it, and I'm happy for everyone who opts to use it.
Correctemundo! He who writes the code chooses the license. If you don't like the license then don't use the code.
I was never whining about the GPL. But apparently
The problem here is that SCO needs to rewrite history to get what they want.
SCO is on crack on so many levels, we needn't even touch that. And in fact, the point of my original post in this thread was simply that even IF all SCO alleged were true, it's still irrelevent to linux as a whole. Linux removes the offending code, and life goes on. The poster seemed to think that the fact that misappropriated code made its way into the kernel might give the owner of that code some nebulous rights to the whole codebase. Not so; they can only stop derivates which contain their code.
But please, no whinging because someone else's hard work is commercially useless to you.
What piece of code did I complain about? I'm not whining, and there's no hard work I somehow want to be mine. And, in fact, I've given away code in the past of my own, and been happy to give something back.
That's not a problem.... "if".
If Sequent developed their SMP handling as a separate product that just did processor scheduling and shared resource management, and then built a SysV port *around* it, then I think they're ok. I *think* that that is what they did, given that in the early days of their OS, you could install either a BSD or SysV variant which means that they had at least two versions of that code applied to the wildly different source trees.
If they made the changes to BSD and then IBM incorporated those changes into AIX and Linux while USL applied them to UnixWare, then the code that went into Linux is not a derivative of SysV any more so than BSD is, and THAT fight has been shown to be pathalogically complex to the point that 2 or 3 legal teams have given up.
Good! I dislike the whole PC thing, too. My beef is that making a blanket statement like that, while posting as AC, and then EXCUSING himself from even signing his name, is simply vile.
You, on the other hand, are not an Anonymous Coward. I'm honored you took the time to disagree with me.
Bring this up with people who give a fuck. OK.