Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Power Behind the SCO Nuisance

Posted by michael on from the luke,-i-am-your-father dept.

akahige writes "Forbes has a fairly detailed story about the sordid history of The Canopy Group and all the various companies they've sued -- Microsoft (who they beat) and CA (this case is still pending), among them. Before joining Caldera, Darl McBride sued IKON Office Solutions, for whom he worked -- and won. And it also seems that a bunch of Canopy power players also sit on SCO's board of directors. The short summary is, 'these guys are professional litigious bastards -- be exceptionally wary.'" A local user's group is planning a protest for tomorrow. Reader myst564 writes: "After reading all of this SCO press I remembered that SCO once offered up all of their 'Ancient UNIX' (their words, not mine) source to the world while retaining all copyrights (i.e, no OSS license). Interestingly enough it WAS located here but isn't any longer: SCO's Ancient Unix. What's more you can read about the original release here at: Linux Today. I downloaded the source myself way back then but never did anything but delete it! Anyway, check out this comment. It's interesting that this was predicted in 2000!"

13 of 821 comments (clear)

  1. Then the company sounds parasitic. by zptdooda · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Itâ(TM)s a small fish that feeds on big fish. Not symbiotically either.

    âBut it is very good at getting what it wants from other companies.â

    Thatâ(TM)s because (law) practise makes perfect.

    So then SCO isnâ(TM)t suing IBM because IBM is illegally interfering with implementing their business model, suing (IBM in this case) is their business model.

    What then are they really contributing? Is SCO really a software company? What is it? Maybe it contributes within Canopy, but not for a wider good.

    --
    Esteem isn't a zero sum game
  2. Even better, you can still download the code... by myst564 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah that's right, you can still download the code

    1. Re:Even better, you can still download the code... by Bazzargh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He's talkin about MD5 hashing of small sections, as someone suggested the other day here.

      If you actually have the source code, there are other fairly quick ways to find copy & pastes, eg the BWT-based method I implemented in CPD.

      That method is pretty fast - it mainly depends on the file scanning time, not the sort we used to find the duplicates (eg using a suffix tree sort instead of quicksort won't gain you much here). However its a bit of a memory hog. I originally wrote the algorithm in perl, though, and it used a lot less - it would probably work on something the size of Linux.

      I've come up with a new variation based on rysnc that will be quicker than the original MD5 suggestion, still requires no access to the original source, and sucks a hell of a lot less memory than the BWT method. Its also possible to do incremental checks (extremely quickly) using this method, something we couldn't do before.

      There are other interesting techniques based on gzip and the like if this kind of thing interests you.

    2. Re:Even better, you can still download the code... by the+gnat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      it make SCO's claims seem a little less bizarre.

      No, it makes them seem a little more bizarre. SCO is still claiming that large chunks of original SysV code ended up in Linux, and that this predates IBM's involvement in the kernel. They have only recently amended their claims to cover technologies developed as add-ons to SysV but not originally part of it, which might be covered under some contract. Darl's bluster about the Linux community's indifference to IP rights has no real basis if the only violation were along the lines of IBM adding JFS or RCU to the kernel.

      I'd say this is actually the most bizarre claim made by SCO yet. I find it hard to believe that companies like IBM would have ever signed a contract that gave away so many potential pieces of IP, but this is almost more plausible than the idea that IBM would have allowed wholesale copying of original SysV code into Linux. I've heard of contracts this dumb, but IBM has produced many operating systems in the past fifty years and there's no reason for them to sign away their future for a not-particularly-advanced chunk of code like SysV.

      Regardless, SCO's credibility is pretty much gone due to the way they continually change their claims to be even more nonsensical.

    3. Re:Even better, you can still download the code... by ichimunki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why go to all that trouble? If SCO wants to claim infringement it is up to them to prove that a) there is duplicate code and b) that the flow of code was from SCO into Linux and not vice versa (or from some pre-existing code base into both SCO code and Linux). So far, they've been very reluctant to even say which pieces of Linux are infringing. They don't have to show anyone there own code base to do that. And if they aren't going to at least say which parts of Linux are in violation, I think the best thing to do (unless maybe you are part of the IBM legal defense team) is ignore them until they do.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    4. Re:Even better, you can still download the code... by lspd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you strip the whitespace before hashing it does turn up a few interesing things.

      Comparing the code from the PDP kernel in sys3.tar.gz and the Linux 2.4.21 kernel there is a good match between the mfree function in usr/src/uts/pdp11/os/malloc.c around line 69, and the atefree function in arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c around line 187. It certainly looks like the version in SYS3 was used to create the version in 2.4.21. Take a look at the comments in these files, they're almost identical.

      The copyright on the Linux version attributes this file to Silicon Graphics. Anyone want to grep for the same comments in a BSD kernel or provide a history of this file?

  3. They still running GNU/Linux by lederhosen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OS, Web Server and Hosting History for sco.com
    OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
    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 28-Nov-2002 216.250.140.112 NFT
    Linux Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 12-Aug-2002 216.250.140.125 NFT
    SCO UNIX Netscape-FastTrack/2.01 26-Mar-2002 132.147.210.109 Caldera, Inc.
    SCO UNIX unknown 24-Mar-2002 132.147.210.109 Caldera, Inc.
    SCO UNIX Netscape-FastTrack/2.01 10-Oct-2001 132.147.210.109 Caldera, Inc.
    SCO UNIX Netscape-Enterprise/2.01 30-Mar-2001 209.1.8.14 Cable & Wireless
    SCO UNIX unknown 29-Mar-2001 209.1.8.14 Cable & Wireless
    SCO UNIX Netscape-Enterprise/2.01 23-Dec-2000 209.1.8.14 Cable & Wireless
    SCO UNIX unknown 22-Dec-2000 209.1.8.14 Cable & Wireless

  4. So, now we know the real reason for fear... by tizzyD · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's not the legitimacy of the case, whether or not IP was stolen from SCO. It's all about lawyers, people who make their money be suing, buying, and financially bullying others. Thus, I predict there is no real IP violation here. The reality is that the case is vague enough and can be argued effectively by effectively lawyers to make it look like there is a violation. Whether or not there is one or not is immaterials, not germaine to the case.

    Does this strategy perhaps demonstrate the lack of any real basis to the case? Or is it that the case is vague enough so that there's the opportuninity for legal FUD to churn cash?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    --
    ...tizzyd
  5. Re:This is great news for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's an article on vnunet that hints at what is really going on. It's sleazier than most have even imagined. When IBM, SCO and Sequent got together for project Monteray, the Sequent code for RCU, NUMA and other scalability enhancements were integrated in to the SysV OS they were building. While Sequent, and later IBM, owned their own code, SCO owned the rights to determine its continued usage. This is a result of the rather odious old ATT license agreements.

    So, what SCO is claiming isn't that Linux has code taken from anything SCO ever created. They are claiming that Linux has code that was created by Sequent (now owned by IBM) and IBM and that the Unix licensing agreements give SCO rights over that code. SCO is suing IBM for giving away its own code because a goofy licensing agreement says they can.

  6. Lawyers by Legal+Penguin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many have commented that this is a suit about lawyers more than about technoogy or even law. That's true in a lot of cases, but this one is especially interesting for law-geeks becaue it pits David Boies (former superstar litigation partner at a New York uberfirm) against that very New York uberfirm, Cravath Swaine & Moore.

    SCO has hired Boies, whom slashdotters will remember as lawyer who so skillfully and successfully led the Justice Department's antitrust case against Microsoft and less successfully defended Napster (as well, perhaps, as for his less successful outings in Florida representing then vice-president Gore). IBM has chosen Cravath, its longtime counsel for "bet the company" litigation. Interestingly, Boies made his career as a young lawyer at Cravath by his (successful) work defending IBM against a massive Justice Department antitrust suit in the late 1970s (and 80s, the suit went on for something like 17 years before IBM finally prevailed). There is certainly no love lost between Cravath and Boies and the fight promises to be a fascinating one for lawyers and law-watchers. In any event, SCO's choice of cousel is an extremely canny one, though Boies' typical roster of slashdot-friendly clients has now, one assumes, been somewhat besmirched.

    --
    "The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government." - George Washington
  7. Is there a practical way to assist the defense? by dcavanaugh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All of these facts about "Ancient Unix", predictions of SCO shenanigans, the wayback machine, etc. are obviously of some interest to IBM. Aside from commenting in Slashdot (and hoping that IBM is reading), is there a better way to share this useful research? I have nothing to offer besides a general disdain for SCO (as if there was a shortage of that), but others seem to be digging up some fine dirt.

    The OSS people have collaborative efforts on so many development projects, I think this is an opportunity to "turn the aircraft carrier into the wind" and focus the OSS "mental firepower" to sink SCO. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine myself agreeing with IBM (on anything), but here we are. Yes, I actually want a Fortune 500 company to have its way with a [former] Linux distributor. It must be snowing in Hell.

  8. McBride bought 7K shares at .001/share on Friday by isn't+my+name · · Score: 5, Interesting

    McBride purchased 7003 shares at .001 dollars per share. That's right. He paid $7 for for stock worth around $70,000 at the current overvaluation.

    The more interesting thing to note is section 15. It shows that after purchasing these 7003 shares, he owned 15003 shares. That implies that he only had 8000 shares before the purchase. However, if you look at some earlier forms 4 for him, you'll notice that in March of this year, he acquired 200,000 shares of stock.

    This means that there must still be some forms 4 in the system that have not made it into EDGAR online yet. Unless, I'm reading this wrong, sometime between March and now, McBride dumped over 200K shares of stock. I'd love to see an SEC investigation of all of this.

    Here's a link for SCO related SEC filings.

  9. Re:Why Linus uses 8 space indents by tchuladdiass · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember reading about a study where groups of college students were asked to debug the same program, but each group was given a different indentation level. There was a dramatic decrease in time to debug when the level was increased, up to 4 spaces, but after that it hit diminishing returns. So, 4 is often considered optimum.