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."
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
Pore SCO. The funny thing is that "someone" has demonstraighted a major comitment to Linux by steping forward to pay Dr. Torvalds a full time salary to work on just the kernel with no obligations to any specific vendor etc...
My gues ? It has something to do with SCO's silly little lawsuite. See the story before this one.
Now here is the tall order SCO has to fill to compleat this case.
1: These specific lines were introduced into the Linux Kernel by IBM at this date.
2: That date must be after the comensment of Trilian.
3: That item was not in any IBM product before Trilian.
4: That item was not in BSD.
5: And finaly. That item was in SCO before the Trilian project.
That's a lot to prove and I doubt SCO will ever do it.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
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 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.My [large hardware company] rep who is supplying me with neat technology including handhelds, laptops, tablets and Linux server appliances, is also the rep for SCO. He tells me he doesn't even want to touch SCO now that they've pulled their shenanigans. He even referenced McBride's comment that contracts are strong bases for lawsuits as a real chiller. Imagine being so reviled that sales people don't want your money...
I wonder if employees of SCO have any pride left, or any intention on working with the tech industry again? They may not be the source of SCO's vitrol and venom, but as long as they sit quietly and let the day traders pimp and pump the stock they are one and the same as McBride/Sontag/et al. We need a hacker revolt from within SCO -- if any are left. ... Until proven otherwise, no friends of tech or Open Source remain in SCO.
If you work for SCO you better cut your ties with Sontag/McBride or lie on your resume for your next position. Pretending to be unemployed since Caldera brought on McBride will get you further than admitting you sat idly by while your company pulled the crap that it is pulling.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
SCO claims that the SMP jumped from 4 processors to 64, something that the linux community could not do on their own, mostly because none of us could afford a 64 proc machine
I remember someone porting SMP Linux to a Sun ES10000 machine and posting the dmesg output to the kernel mailing list. That particular ES10000 sported 64 processors if memory serves, and this feat was accomplished long before IBM became a big Linux player.
From what I remember of Linux SMP capabilities circa 2.2.x, it could scale to a large number of processors, but PC's mobos were only available with a maximum of four processor slots. I'm pretty sure that's where the "only four processors" thing comes from.
Chris
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.
Didn't Caldera give Alan Cox an SMP system?
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
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.