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."
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.
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...
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 think IBM has found it's much more satisfying to slowly drain the blood from their prey over the course of many years of heated battle in a courtroom rather than go for a quick kill. Lawyers are very expensive and this will be a war of attrition. IBM will win simply because they will have the resources to stick this out for the long haul. They should be in NO hurry to settle this. Every day they delay is another couple hundred thousand dollars drained out of SCO's war chest by expensive lawyers.
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
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
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.
IBM will win simply because they will have the resources to stick this out for the long haul.
It's sad really that this is the reason they will will, not because they are in the right or anything...
Why hope to see them crushed? They provide a pretty useful service to the public: demonstrating that the concept of intellectual property leads to poor results if applied in the manner shown by SCO. Intellectual property is a nice idea if used e.g. by an artist to protect her works from unauthorized altering, or if it helps an inventor to make a living. It is not if separated from the actual, individual creators of something; it is not if used to revoke transactions after the fact; it is not if applied to prevent people from tinkering with things they did buy. Now we have a showcase. Thank you, SCO!
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
IANAL, but there is such a thing as suing for malicious prosecution. Granted, that refers to a criminal trial action, but I don't see why it can't be used in a civil action as well.
Little wonder we don't hear a lot from IBM's attorneys...they're trying to figure out how to enter into a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent, and try to drag it out long enough to make sure SCO's meager coffers are sucked dry no sooner than halfway through.
Just my two cents' worth...save up the change for a new floppy drive or something.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
I do not think they are serious about the lawsuit. SCO is serious about making a lot of noise.
IBM did not offer to buy them. So SCO will try to raise the noise level some more.
But now all they can do is sound like the Iraqi disinformation minister.
"Those penquins are infidels. There is no way penguins can write SMP code without our help. We will slaughter all the penquins and have them for dinner"
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
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!
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
Gentoo, while interesting, actually has a relativly small userbase. BTW, your second link is to kernel.org - what's your point? Kernel.org is not a distro.
People don't generally use a development kernel for production meaning that 2.5.X isn't widely used. That's the point the original poster was making, and it's 100% correct.
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
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?
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
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.
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?
"Why does it matter if Caldera provided the hardware? Unless there was a specific aggreement that was signed, Caldera/Sco would have no rights to the code"
Ah. Here is the other end of the stick, I think the grandparent poster may have been vague. SCO are claiming that IBM broke the law by putting oh so dangerous SMP code in Linux. In fact, SCO, when working as Caldera directly helped a foreign national do that instead. Its not that they think the code is theirs, but that they are claiming its IBM's, and that the information was illegal.
Therefore IBM broke the law. Breaking the law is apparently against some clause in their contract together, and so IBM broke the contract. That is what is being sued for today. Tomorrow may be completely different, of course.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Yes, LSD was synthesized by Dr Albert Hofmann in 1943, and he discovered its mind-altering properties while riding his bicycle on the way home. This is a quote from his laboratory notes:
More information can be found here and here.
Blog Ho
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.
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.
It gets worse. At what point do the developers become 'infected'? IBM can't very well replace the code, because the developers know too much AIX. Linus can't replace the code, because he's seen the original, and any changes that he makes can be considered derivitave works. Hell, I can't even replace the RCU code, because the /. editors placed a link in the article which I blindly followed and have now become tainted as well. Basically, according to the licensing, we have to shoot all people who have used linux, unix, and possibly even solaris, burn all record of Unix ever happening, and train new developers without the teachers having any prior knowledge of programming, using no resources currently in print.
If that's not viral, I don't know what is. It's a slash-and-burn to say the least!
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
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
Ok now that makes sense in SCO's little world of Alice in Wonderland.
But I am guessing what you are saying makes sense. BUT and here is my BIG BUT....
I think there is a conspiracy here. You are throwing the dice and think that you have a case. The case hits IBM and it hits Linux. Take that company out and Linux falls flat on its face. What I find especially telling is that he keeps hitting Linux. AND I find his arguments especially telling because that is what MS has been harping all the time. They ALWAYS harp about IP. Well guess who gets a license a few weeks later, MS? What I also find funny is that MS in the space of a couple of weeks forks over x million. Unless things have changed I have never known a company to be trigger happy to fork over x million on something that they might never use. Naaa, I smell a rat here....
Maybe this is why IBM is keeping silent. Maybe the lawyers from IBM are saying, "Are they that stupid? They could not be that stupid? Could they?" And in those cases it is better to shutup than say anything...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
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.
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.
Not necessarily delusional, just driven by the same pathological greed that drives many corporations. Try it this way:
"If you were an SCO employee, would you feel at least a little concerned that your boss is aparently driven by the same pathological greed that drives many corporations such as Enron and WorldCom into the ground? I know I would."
The license of the GPL is different from the "viral" copyright law. I would suggest that it would not lose any credibility as a solid license or in enforcability. The GPL doesn't claim that violations result in all derivative works transferring back to the original copyright holder, just that derivative works must also be GPL. That should be a lot easier to get past a judge than SCO's claims....we hope, at least.
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.
I personally think that this is SCO trying to get IBM to buy them out. Trying Violently.
Think about it - SCO's buisness model is failing because of Linux and Open Source. Claiming 3 Billion Dollars in Damage is probably a good way to get IBM to buy them out - because why spend the money on fighting the lawsuit or paying a settlement - buy out SCO, problem goes away, and all that "incredibly valuble" unix code can be dumped into linux, where useful.
My Theory...
.
No, let's be clear: IMHO, the issue -- at least in this lawsuit -- is *not* "whether or not SCO's code appears in the Linux kernel." The issue is whether or not they can provce that *IBM* put SCO code into the Linux kernel. If SCO code got into the Linux kernel some other way, they have no case against IBM, at least.
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
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.
Yes, there are many Mormons in Utah so many of them who are technically inclined work for Utah tech. companies. That said, I've known many of them for more than a decade at WordPerfect, Novell, Caldera/SCO and dozens of other companies and they're no more inclined to blindly obey a CEO than a Roman Catholic is to obey his CEO because he's been taught that the Pope in infalliable.
For example, I know for a fact that many current and former Caldera/SCO employees *hate* what their company is doing. Why don't you hear more from them? Because they have mortgages to pay, childern to feed and they don't want to lose their jobs and/or find themselves sued left, right and sideways. In short, they're people like everyone else trying to get by as best they can.
Steven
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
This would only apply if linux were shown to be a derivative work of SysV. This is copyright law - not "Trade secrets" law. From what I've read SCO is not alleging that IBM violated any of their copyrights.
Copyright does not cover how an OS works, just what it looks like (any artwork) and the verbatim text of the source code and the compiled image of the code. If you rewrite an OS from scratch and don't copy any artwork, chances are that even though your OS may act the same as the OS you are emulating you won't be considered a derivative work. There is a standard way of going about this. You buy a copy of the software you want to copy and give it to a team of programmers. They do not reverse-engineer the software (which would violate the EULA - a different legal matter). Instead they write a detailed specification of how the software behaves - to the most minute details. Then the specs are handed to another team which has never seen the original software and they are asked to write software to meet the specs. The whole process is documented in case of a lawsuit. The new software will act nearly identically to the original software but will not be a derivative work under copyright.
Patents are a different story - but I don't think SCO wants to get in a patent war with IBM.
Legally, Microsoft could make a linux clone and relase it non-GPL - provided they did not copy any of the linux source code.
The key is that linux is not based off of existing unix source - except from parts borrowed from BSD whose copyright status is already known to be clear. Linus wrote the core of the software on his own as a personal project. Since then there have been many contriubuations. As long as nobody copied SysV code they are safe from any accusation of infrigement.
You will not find much of what we consider "enterprise" features in any SVR4 code because of its age.
What we have are companies who are donating their own enterprise innovations, which they have also included in their SVR4 *derived* systems.
SCO is trying to say that, for example, AIX is a derivative of SVR4, which is owned by SCO. Therefore, SCO has certain rights to the improvements that IBM makes to AIX (in a round-about way). If IBM contributes some of their improvements from AIX to Linux, then SCO says that IBM is breaking their contract with SCO.
So what we see now is that SCO is claiming a lot of advanced technology that they never really "owned" at all, but they want to prove that, indirectly, they really did have rights to it.
I believe one of the analysts who examined the SCO and Linux code under the NDA, indicated that the code shown was SVR4 code. If this is the case, it was most likely from BSD.
At any rate, this is a serious departure from their plans in August of 2000. At that time, Ransom Love was promising to release whatever code he could into the Open Source Community, and he even speculated on the use of the GPL as the license that SCO might use. Interestingly, he mentioned that some improvements could not be released because they were owned by other companies. SCO would now like to have us believe that they own all of that code.
History shows that in fact SCO never really got around to releasing the promised code, maybe because other companies (IBM and HP) had already stepped up and contributed their own features. Part of SCO's "sour grapes" might be due to the fact that they thought they would be a much bigger player since they owned Unix IP, when actually other companies had far surpassed them already.
The current state of affairs represents turnabout on SCO's part. They made some statements in bad faith back in August of 2000. They are now actively trying to thwart an international organization of volunteers, who have contributed their work to the world.
IBM and other companies may be able to stand up for themselves, but they do not have the same stewardship over Linux that the greater Linux Community has.
SCO has made an affront to the uncounted hobbyists and enthusiasts that are proud to claim Linux as their own. They have slandered and derided. There are those contributors who have been hurt by these actions.
We cannot afford to stand individually on this issue. We ought to call upon the OSI or the FSF to represent a countersuit - in due time - on behalf of the community that has been wronged by these actions. We must show SCO that there are very dire (legal) consequences for their unethical behavior.
There was a time when SCO deserved better than this. If they were truly concerned about IP rights, they could have approached us in a more civilized, concilliatory manner. They could have worked with us, like they used to in times past. Or, they could have made good on Ransom Love's statements during the acquisition of SCO. Some, at least, might have considered this a sort of verbal contract that SCO has failed to keep.
From SCO we see anger, slander, and wilful misrepresentation of facts. I might expect this reaction from a loosely knit group of enthusiasts, but not from a professional organization. They ought to know better.
Now, I'm not going to argue that those Utah "software concerns" are the most innovative companies in the world (although, to be fair, WordPerfect had a pretty good run there), but I will argue that it's myopic and absurdly judgemental to ascribe the characteristics you do to people of a "particular religious persuasion." There are lots of stupid business decisions made every day, and I'm willing to be that most of them aren't being made by the Mormons.
And come on. If you're going to insult them, call 'em by name, without the wink-wink crap.
-schussat
The hour of noon has passed. Let us go and get some Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Not really. The problem here is that Sequent made modifications to Sys V, and even though all of the code used in Linux was created by Sequent, not already in Sys V, SCO feels that it should be theirs. Basically, if I make a modification in a GPL'd program to which I don't own the copyright, should I be able to use code that I put into that program (but none of the code that was already there) in non-GPL'd works. I think we want the answer to be "yes." Another similar question is, if I use code my proprietary product, and then contribute some of it to a GPL'd product, is it still legal for me to use it in my other product. I think, however, that the GPL makes it clear that modifications are owned by those who create them, so all this may be completely irrelevant to the GPL.
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
Yeah no shit. I'm awaiting the day that SCO claims that Osama himself has submitted patches to the kernel and that Alan Cox colaborated with Saddam Hussain in the mid 90's.
They aren't first to try this though. 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).
In other words, SCO is just a few years too late to try to claim that. Which brings up an interesting point: If MS accused Linux of something, can SCO do that now too? Or are they infringing on M$ accusation?
Jobs? Which jobs?
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
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!)
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...
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".
Really, what is the US coming to? With VERY little research, a foreigner, like myself can discover this is conservative propagnada. Al Gore Never said he "invented the internet". He did say, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Regarding that statment; Vincent Cerf, who's been called the Father of the Internet, said "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."
The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance Computing Act.
The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."
Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?"
So, what Gore said was "true" according to Traub, Ferber, Andreesen, and Cerf.
This "story", can be read about here: http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm
Bottom line, please DONT spread this meme, its flatly untrue... but the fact that this story "Has Legs" in the US is not surprising, when you read here (please read this..) that One in three Americans believe WMD have been found in Iraq. Nearly one in four Americans believe Iraq actually used WMD in the war. And half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001.
With the US so poorly informed, its no wonder Shrub runs willy-nilly around the planet... WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE USA?
First, any company that is in financial trouble can simply sue IBM over something stupid, and IBM will write them a check (settle) or buy them out.
Second, if IBM settles, it will be taken by their userbase as an admission of guilt, even if "no guilt is admitted" in the settlement. Companies will look elsewhere, since they don't know what other tiny companies will creep out of the woodwork and send them threatening letters for using IBM software.
I know that on /. it's always fashionable to bash msft. but the truth is that sunw has more to win from this than msft.
- sun hope to convert aix users to solaris.
- linux and freebsd hurt sun more than msft.
Having lived in Utah for most of my life and having been a member of the prevailing religion for my first 20 years or so, I have to comment on this. It is true that the church (should I type that with a capital "C" like we do here in Utah?) does encourage personal discussion/study of the doctrine, but it also makes it clear what the correct conclusions are. An example: A few years ago, there was some suggestion that BYU might lose its accredidation over concerns of academic freedom, or the lack thereof.
Culturally, I think that Mormons, particularly those in such a concentrated, conservative community like Utah County, where SCO lives, tend to have an unhealthy respect for authority. This is not necessarily something that the church has intentionally promoted, but that has grown in the culture. I have worked in predominantly Mormon and non-Mormon environments and there is a palpably different atmosphere. I don't find it implausable that the offices at SCO have a "we're right and the whole rest of the world is wrong" attitude. This too is part of the local culture.
This will put Sun in a bad light eventually. They should have taken the moral high ground -- they should have at least held off pulling out ads in the WSJ.
It is an interesting tale that one can tell for the generations to come. As more such things get unearthed, the more I belive RMS's vision was very clear indeed.
S
I personally think that this is SCO trying to get IBM to buy them out.
Yes, it is also true that the sun is going to raise in the morning tomorrow. There are a few things that are plain obvious, true.
On the other hand, they were doing a much better job trying to get bought out before today. At least they had something that resembled substantiated claims. Not anymore... I mean, it's almost a textbook example of how NOT to try to get bought out. Think of it:
1. SCO isn't worth a billion bucks. Much less likely are they to be worth 3 billion. If IBM were to buy them, they would rather spend a few million bucks to buy them out rather than a billion dollars to settle, right? By upping the settlement three-fold SCO at best ticked off IBM a bit more, and have not contributed to their worth or their chances of being bought out one bit.
2. Ticking off IBM for them is like a death warrant - if IBM was considering whether to sue them out of existence or be nice to them and buy them out, the chances of the latter happening are diminishing rapidly with every new claim against IBM SCO makes. SCO had to make sure that IBM takes them seriously. IBM understood that. SCO got IBM's attention. Now SCO has to sit back and pray that IBM will be nice to them. Instead they make more claims that makes IBM unhappy. Not very wise, if you ask me.
3. Also, if this garbage EVER makes it to court, the judge has got to just laugh at the number - 3 billion! They could as well have claimed a trillion dollars in damages! It's like me suing you for a million bucks because your dog dug up my lawn!
4. SCO tries to involve a dumb export restriction imposed by the government that never worked and has been abolished long ago because its effectiveness was zero, and pain for US companies was significant. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that whether or not IBM violated any export restrictions has nothing to do whatsoever with SCOs intellectual property. IBM has either misappropriated the IP and trade secrets or not - no government involved. If I buy a car from you and run a red light, I pay the ticket to the government; you have no right to try to take my car back!
5. It's dumb to even mention something that just made its way into 2.5.43 kernel as something you own. I mean, you are suing for years of infringement, you are threatening corporate linux users who are still using 2.2 or 2.4, and presenting code that hasn't even made it into any stable kernels yet as evidence!
6. And lastly, they just upped the number of claims of ownership on things that they clearly do not own. I thought their previous similar claims damaged their cridibility bad enough not to try that again. Looks like they haven't learned the lesson...
At times I wonder, if they just figured they have a snowball's chance in hell to be bought out by IBM and just decided to make a really cool fun show for all of us to see...
Jobs? Which jobs?
I can't speak for the other guy, but I've already walked out of one company for that exact reason.
Greed is perfectly fine in moderation. However, when that avarice starts to cloud the judgement and interfere with longterm business planning, it's time to start spreading your resume around.
Greed is no excuse to be a moron.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Copyright permission is not required to use something you have. It is agreed that one does not need to agree to the GPL to use GPL'd software. However, you do not have the right to distribute the software unless you do agree.
Well, according to most EULA's, you do need permission to use something you already have paid for. So, it makes good sense for us to put in such clauses in FS/OSS licenses. If corporations don't like it, they have to challenge the right of a license to impose such a restriction. If they win, then we can't legally force them to stop using FOSS if they file copyright/patent/trademark lawsuit against FOSS; however, all EULAs would then be invalid in that regard. A win-win situation for FOSS.
To terminate on fileing of a copyright filling would bne very dubious ground indeed. The liscence relies on copyright law to exist, and have any effect. If you prevent anyone else from actually claiming copyright infringment, then you are denying them any chance to use the same rights you are
Well, I'm not talking about preventing anyone else from filing copyright infringement. This doesn't even do that. It simply imposes a penalty for doing such. And only if they file a lawsuit against FOSS licensed under a license with that clause in it. They can still file such lawsuits...just they have to accept a penalty of no-longer being able to use FOSS with that license term, nor distribute it. In fact, I'd rather say we go even further, and make it like a EULA where if they want to use the software, they agree to never file a lawsuit against FOSS.
Consider a case where two different groups both release open source, and a copyright violation between them. It gets very complex, very fast, if there have been external patches included in those software packages.
In that case, they each lose the right to use the other's software, and any other FOSS with that term (though obviously not their own). This has the benefit of urging disparging groups to work out solutions out of the courts, rather than airing internal conflicts of the FOSS community before the world in the courts.
Note that the license comtains the qualifier 'essential to use'
As I said, I recommend getting rid of that qualifier.
Further more, SCO have not filed any claims that and open source softare is in copyright violation (as far as I'm aware). They claim IBM breached contract, and that's none of the things you mentioned.
I'm issuing this in anticipation that they will file lawsuits against FOSS projects.
[trademark] can be abused, granted, but on the whole, it's core intent remains a good one. I cannot say that about the majority of software patents
I agree with you on trademarks being overall good. However, they are disastrous when abused. There needs to be penalties for companies which abuse their IP, which are severe (as in, losing all of their IP). Misused, trademark is a way for the rich to carve up the English language amongst themselves.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Accusing a particular religious sect of an appalling lack of
skepticism is hardly "spewing hate".
However, the "spewing hate" was done with:
1. no evidence SCO execs are even mormon
2. no basis to justify the claim that SCO employees are sheep
3. blanketed to encompass all mormons
Hardly skepticism. More like blantent ignorance. This is no different than spewing hate.
You've lived a remarkably
sheltered existence. Your comments are highly offensive to those of us
that have experienced genuine ethnic oppression firsthand or are
immediate kin of those who have.
Wow, you must have no idea of where these mormons have come from. The fact your downplaying mormon hatred with this reason when they themselves have suffered genocide is even a greater insult.
Note that whether IBM intends to take it to trial or buy out SCO, their response (in this situation) will be identical. They get the best price by acting as if SCO had no case -- that drives down the price, which makes the acquisition more attractive. SCO knows this too, of course, and they are required to act as if they did have a valid case, with the exception that if they really did have a valid case, it they would have stuck to it a bit more consistently. The fact that their story changes, and that they seem less eager to bring it to trial than IBM, makes me think their case is not as strong as they claim.
I think, too, that IBM may be pushing for a stock price collapse; it all depends on shareholder perceptions. If they turn tail, then IBM gets to shut this down on the cheap, plus they get the option to do exactly what SCO accuses them of doing, which is copy Unix code into Linux. I'm sure Sun would like that.
So, that's my prediction -- more PR battles, IBM does whatever it takes to depress the SCO stock price, then they buy SCO cheap. It could still be a net win for the SCO shareholders, if they get more than it was trading at before all this folderol.
But now all they can do is sound like the Iraqi disinformation minister.
No, they sound more like Kim Jong Il. They claim to have a nuclear bomb and their extortion demands and bellicose rhetoric grow every day. They think they own everything, but really they are just puppets of the power behind the scenes, China (cf. Microsoft). They're a pipsqueak pawn against a superpower.
What code from SCO? I don't believe any of their products even use this...
Why?
Having lived in Utah for several years (out now)...This group has a tendency to believe whatever the powers that be tell them....So contrary to what you might think and comment, the employees really don't have any idea how nutty the company's claims may be; they truly believe they are correct
I'm LDS (a.k.a Mormon), and I've lived in Utah most of my life. I've noticed there are those...not many...who know next to nothing about Mormons, but still delegate themselves as experts on our church simply because they'ved lived here a few years. You definitely fall into this category.
It's fine to disagree with a church. It's entirely different to spread hate-filled overgeneralizations about a group of people you obviously know little about.
Why is it insane for SCO to protect their copyrighted work
It's not insane for them to protect their copyrighted work, but if you've actually been following the story SCO's actions and claims have been insane and comical.
First of all within 2 days of the story breaking Microsoft announced it was buying a licence from SCO for around $13 million. Not only did this cash infusion take SCO out of the red ink for the first time in it's entire existance, the deal was extremely out of character for Microsoft. They never buy licences like this unless they are forced to do it kicking and screaming. It looks like SCO is being used as a puppet to throw FUD on Linux. And considering that SCO's main competitor is Microsoft, it looks like they are being sent on a suicide mission.
SCO is alienating THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS by mailing out legal threats.
SCO is going after IBM, and even if they had a valid case IBM could probably crush them in a courtroom anyway.
SCO is alienating it's business partners.
SCO has been refusing to show the actual lines of code that were copies because they are a 'trade secret', yet all of the lines of code are somewhere in the publicly accessible Linux source.
There has been reason to think that the code in question was copied from Linux to SCO. Of course it's hard to verify since the code is still secret.
SCO threatened to sue Linus Torvaldis personally. Even if SCO's claims against IBM are valid, Linus has nothing to do with it.
Novell has stated that code/patents don't even belong to them, not SCO. If so then SCO can't even bring suit in the first place.
SCO themselves continued to distribute Linux containing the code in question long after they discovered the issue. This means they either chose to release the code for use under the GPL, or they commited copyright violation by distributing other people's code without permission.
IBM has hinted they will go after SCO with their portfolio of over 30,000 patents. I'd wager IBM could serve SCO with one patent violation every day for the next two or three months.
SCO is claiming 3 billion in damages. They came up with that number by assuming they would have captured the entire server market for the last decade or so.
It seems that SCO may have swiped Linux code that predates any of their claims of code going into Linux. If so then their entire case may be thrown out by estoppel.
SCO claims of the infringing code have been very peculiar. It started out with "five or ten lines here or there" (seconions that small can simple be due to the fact that two pieces of code to do the same thing tend to look similar), and now they are claiming hundreds of thousands of lines of code were stolen.
IBM has contributed very little Linux code, and what they did work on was completely alien to the SCO code they had. People involved say it's hard to see how they could have copied anything in from SCO code, much less massive quantities.
SCO is claiming they are retroactively revoking the licence of everyone who bought AIX from IBM and that they have to destroy that code. Aside from the fact that it's probably impossible to revoke a product that has been legitimately purchased, numerous megacorps run AIX and several departments of the US government such as the weather bureau and parts of the department of traffic. The government would probably declare eminent domain and seize the rights away from SCO before they would permit entire sections of the government and the economy to be shut down by such a stunt.
IBM seems to be saying pretty confidently that SCO's charges agaist them are false, and the their licence from SCO is irrevokable.
Now SCO is stating that part of their case is based on an alegation that IBM aledgedly violated US export laws with SMP code wich didn't even come from the US and which has absolutely nothing to do with SCO.
SCO's case is so bad that even when they make triumphant press releases th
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
SCO is now claiming copyright infringement.
They didn't in the original complaint, but they filed an amended complaint yesterday that does allege copyright infringement, but they are still mainly talking about contracts.
From Paragraph 139 of the amended complaint:
Paragraph 135 of the complaint is rather interesting:
In other words, Sequent appears to have agreed that the derivative work is to be treated as if it was part of the original SCO code.
But it seems to me that they are arguing about the entire product, as amended. I don't see from the quote that the modifications themselves belong to SCO. Only that the resulting work composed of Sequent's modifications AND of the original code are to be treated as confidential.
I'd readily grant that Sequent's modifications of SCO code does not convert the entire resulting product to something that can be freely distributed.
But I don't see that it result in SCO's ownership of the modifications themselves. They do have a legitimate interest in keeping their code private even when the modifications are added. But where does it say that the modifications themselves must be kept confidential when not included as part of the source code itself?
Maybe there is some legalese version of the word treated that really means that any and all modifications belong to SCO.
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.