Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Amends Suit, Clarifies "Violations", Triples Damages

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the whole-scoop-o-sco dept.

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."

8 of 1,347 comments (clear)

  1. SCO does not own RCU! by xyote · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:SCO does not own RCU! by _|()|\| · · Score: 5, Informative
      The code that found its way into Linux is "based on original DYNIX/ptx code (released by IBM under GPL)." SCO's position is that everything in DYNIX/ptx, including RCU, is derivative of System V.

      Most of us assumed that SCO's chest thumping about copyright infringement referred to literal copying of System V or Monterey code. Now, it seems, it is based on the more tenuous theory that any part of a System V-based O/S is derivative.

  2. IBM and Linux SMP by CrudPuppy · · Score: 5, Informative


    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.
    1. Re:IBM and Linux SMP by LO0G · · Score: 5, Informative

      The issue isn't whether or not Linux had SMP support.

      The issue is whether or not the source code in Linux was written by SCO or not.

      Similarly, the comment in the topic about RCU being invented by Sequent is irrelevant. The issue is if the code that implements RCU in the Linux kernel was written by SCO.

      If the code was written by SCO, then they have a case. If it wasn't, they don't.

      Remember - SCO's not claiming patent infringement, they're claiming copyright violation. Their claim is that the Linux kernel contains code that was written by SCO and shared with IBM under SCO's license to IBM. They claim that IBM then turned around and inserted that code into the Linux kernel that they distributed, thus violating SCO's copyright.

      Whether or not the concepts that are embodied in that code were original to SCO is utterly irrelevant to SCOs case. The ONLY issue is whether or not SCO's code appears in the Linux kernel.

  3. How do you know what they're claiming? by dark-nl · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:How do you know what they're claiming? by ascii27net · · Score: 5, Informative

      This article on C|Net offers some insight on what they are claiming (comments from Darl McBride in the article): "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." They are claiming that because they have rights over derivative works, everything IBM wrote for AIX is under there control, so IBM can't take code IBM wrote and distributed with AIX in Linux beause it is a derivative of SCO code. That bascially is a claim that they own everything ever writte n for a Unix platform. They even mention JFS - that isn't exactly an SCO technology - but they claim it is a derivative work. "the amount of code showing up inside of Linux today that is either directly related to our Unix System 5 that we directly own or is related to one of our flavors of Unix that we have derivative works rights over--we don't necessarily own those flavors, but we have control rights over how that information gets disseminated" "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." How dare IBM port thier code for AIX to Linux!

  4. Re:Maybe Linus is going to 'santize' linux.. by molnarcs · · Score: 5, Informative
    "OS X is BSD, not a line of SysV in the beast, correct?" According to an interview with BSD core developers:
    M. Warner Losh : The code was *NOT* derived from System V, but rather from Unix 6th and 7th edition, as well as 32V. Only the copyrights were similar to those used in System V source files. The code in question was merely blessed by USL and acknowledges as originating there by the Regents. Read here.
    and...
    There never was any System V code in any BSD. Ever. The IP claims that USL made its 1992 suit were based on the inclusion of sixth and seventh editions and 32V. While these were the forerunners to System V and System III code bases, they are not specifically System V or System III. Furthermore, SCO released, under its ancient unix program, all sources that predated System III and System V to be freely distributed under a BSD-like license. These specifically included 6th edition, 7th edition and 32V.
    Read the rest of the interview here.
  5. Re:/. pathetic response by bwt · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

    So far four components of the Linux source have been implicated: SMP, RCU, NUMA, and JFS.

    I have done a little digging into the NUMA code. IBM has contributed several people who have participlated in developing NUMA under linux. Some names I've run across: Martin Bligh, Matthew Dobson, Patricia Gaughen, John Stultz, Michael Hohnbaum. IBM even has a Linux NUMA news archive. It appears that IBM jumpstarted it's NUMA efforts when it purchased Sequent which was intitally intended to boost its participation in Project Monterey, which is no doubt the origin of SCO's objections.

    The most obvious source file for NUMA is /usr/src/linux/mm/numa.c in the 2.4 series kernels. This file contains a comment header stating it was "Written by Kanoj Sarcar, SGI, Aug 1999". This file has been removed from later 2.5 kernels (its gone by at least 2.5.46), appearently because Linux accepted an IBM NUMA patch as reported here. This patch was announced by Martin Bligh and is likely the code in question in this lawsuit.