Law Professor Examines SCO Case

An anonymous submitter writes "This law professor from the University of California points out weakness in SCO's legal bluster, and further takes a poke at closed software, for those hungry for more SCO scraps. At the end, he references Slashdot for more info ('itself a demonstration of the power of dispersed individuals working together')."

Comments

The Biggest SCO Weakness

[wo1verin3]

They're liars.

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[JohnnySkidmarks]

Maybe so. But what company out for the big payola isn't a bunch of liars. You think IBM's been "truthin" about all it's dealings. Come on it's a case of evil vs. evil here.

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[oliverthered]

It's also their greatest strength.

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[wo1verin3]

>> IBM's been "truthin"

No, but there is a difference between not volunteering the truth, and outright accusations based on no fact.

It is business smart not to 'volunteer' information which can hurt you, and every company does it.

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[RoLi]

Actually, that's not funny, but insightful.

Their lies and threats (the threatened SuSE, RedHat, Linus Torvalds, all Linux users, and others - without ever really suing anybody) have given their stock a big rise and by now the executives should have sold their stock.

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[Gibble]

But isn't that illegal? Some sort of stock market manipulation, by lieing to raise your stock price so you can sell it higher?

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[hrieke]

Two words:
Insider Trading.

As much as they wish they can sell their stock, the SEC would nail them to the wall, and the way the public is feeling, I doubt 'Club Fed' would be in the cards.

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[Delphiki]

Arguably it wouldn't be insider trading because the facts of the case are available to the general public, except for SCO's actual code, which most executives would be able to say they don't know well enough for it to have influenced their selling decision. In order to make an effective insider trading case they would need internal documentation that showed that SCO knew the case was bogus and that that was why people were selling off their stock, as opposed to just selling it when it's up from 60 cents to 10 dollars a share.

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[mal3]

Nope. You can see Insider trades. Just go to Yahoo lookup 'SCOX' click the insider link and there it is. Last I checked there were no insider trades since the lawsuit.

They know better, if the executives are dumping stock don't you think people would notice? SCO is either hoping to be bought by IBM, or they actually belive they have a case.

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[hrieke]

Hummm.... public records for purchases and selling (Form 4).

Not impling anything illegal, just think it's interesting!

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[wo1verin3]

Insider trading only applies to trading stocks based on information that is not available to the general public.

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[whoever57]

Last I checked there were no insider trades since the lawsuit.

That is, apart from their VP of engineering selling ALL his stock and others

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[hobsonchoice]

Yahoo seems to have lost some information (there was more there before).

Compare and contrast

http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html (only 1 trade shown dated 6/20/2003 - claims this is all in last 2 years!)

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/inside r/trans.asp?Symbol=SCOX - sales dated 6/20, 6/4, 4/8 etc.

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=get company&CIK=0001102542&owner=include (SEC filings - the government site)

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[hobsonchoice]

Sorry to reply to myself, but as far as I can tell

Robert K Bench 6/9 appears only on SEC not on MSN or Yahoo.

Same applies for Michael Olson 6/12

Same applies for Darl McBride's purchase at 0.001 dated 6/13

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[shades66]

Where did the rest of the information go? The title of the section says " Insider & restricted shareholder transactions reported over the last two years" and I know for a fact that there were numerous inside tradings on this screen previously?!?!

this previous post of mine shows that this had been noticed before! which was just about the time that their stock peaked.

maybe they have asked yahoo to hide this info.

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[StormReaver]

"Last I checked there were no insider trades since the lawsuit."

When was the last time you checked?? Try this link:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/insi de r/trans.asp?Symbol=SCOX

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[hobsonchoice]

Yahoo (and MSN) is missing lots of info, there are many inside trades (not necessarily the illegal ones), see my 2 posts above with the sec.gov links.

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[hobsonchoice]

Yahoo and MSN are *both* missing lots of info, there are many inside trades (not necessarily the illegal ones), see my 2 posts above with the sec.gov links.

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[MonopolyNews]

It's also quite deep because it is often the fact that our biggest flaws are also the root of our biggest assets.

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[budgenator]

Their lies and threats (the threatened SuSE, RedHat, Linus Torvalds, all Linux users, and others - without ever really suing anybody)
they threaten everybody, here's the thought train. If they can convince a judge or jury to rule that the code that was inserted into Linux was the same code as was previously inserted into System V they win,( it's a system V derivative, and therefore owned by SCO). If IBM can convince the judge or jury that the code that was inserted into Linux came from the non-specific implementation as did the code inserted into system V IBM will win (it's a paralell developement, not a derivative). Anything that goes into system V belongs to SCO; anthing that is derived from systemV belongs to SCO.

More ominous is that SCO is making noises that BSD violated it's settlement with At&t and therefore BSD has the same problem as Linux, SCO is going to claim BSD is a system V derivative. Why would SCO bother with BSD, because Windows used BSD code, making Windows a system V derivative!

Following this through to its logical conclusion, unless you are running Solaris, you're going to be paying SCO a system V license fee.

That's right SCO considers IBM, low hanging fruit! the code in violation actualy has their copyright notices for all to see in Linux, the BSD thing will be slightly more difficult to prove but not much, then on to Apple, then Microsoft; or so the crystal ball says.

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[Cletus the yokel]

Why isn't the press getting wind of this? Darl's mass purchase of $.001 stock just before the lawsuit was annnounced should be front-page news!

Re:The Biggest SCO Weakness

[Edward Scissorhands]

If they can convince a judge or jury to rule that the code that was inserted into Linux was the same code as was previously inserted into System V they win,( it's a system V derivative, and therefore owned by SCO).

It's not about System V. It's about DYNIX/ptx. AIX is a SysV derivative as far as I know. Whether or not it's a SysV R2 derivative is another matter. But IBM's original agreement with AT&T gave IBM ownership (in the copyright sense) of not only individual pieces of code that was developed by or for IBM, but also derivative works developed by or for IBM.

At this point in time, neither SCO nor IBM has not made public the nature of the agreement between AT&T and Sequent (the developers of DYNIX/ptx). If that agreement affords the same rights of ownership given to IBM, then SCO certainly has no case at all. If, however, that contract is different from the one signed by IBM and AT&T, and Sequent is not afforded that declaration of ownership, it may be that SCO has a case.

Of course, there are many other defenses and attacks left to deal with but we'll have to wait for the day in court to see how it all pans out.

Hah!

[ddew]

Seems like someone is out to get some fame over this...

We've got grounds for a lawsuit!

[Jonsey]

We've got grounds for a huge lawsuit. It's obvious that in bad faith the University Professor is attempting to slashdot slashdot. He even included a direct link to our homepage. Untold damage!

Sue! Sue! Someone, call SCO!

Re:We've got grounds for a lawsuit!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see these questions, but they're the ones I ask most:

(1) How long before SCO shareholders sue the current management?

(2) How well will the current execs be able to hide their profits from those suits?

Re:We've got grounds for a lawsuit!

[hobsonchoice]

Personally I opine that: If they lose the lawsuit, or their stock tanks if they look like losing it, somebody will true to sue them from the shareholder side. There are enough people watching to make this almost inevitable. That is not of course the same as saying such a suit would succeed.

As to the 2nd part, I don't know, not too well I expect (which assumes such a suit would succeed which is a big assumption), and I imagine Canopy might be an obvious target for any potential litigant too.

Re:We've got grounds for a lawsuit!

[56ker]

Regarding (2) - if it's a public company (which IBM is) - for not very long..... however a major lawsuit (such as this) would have to be declared as news on the stock exchange as it could (if lost) affect the future profitability of a public company. See the tobacco companies for a similar scenario.

Re:We've got grounds for a lawsuit!

[aweraw]

Also known as 'Recursive Slashdotting'

Re:We've got grounds for a lawsuit!

[vandan]

The major shareholders in SCO ( The Canopy Group ) are the ones behind the lawsuit.

However it is possible that another shareholder could try to sue them.

I would think that most shareholders would already have sold their shares in disgust. If they haven't, they deserve to loose their investment.

Re:Oh my:

[SlashDread]

Which is why you feel the need to join no? /Dread

Next Slashdot Article

[notque]

Slashdot User Examines SCO Case

"Slashdot User notque from the University of Arizona points out weakness in SCO's legal bluster, and further takes a poke at closed software, for those hungry for more SCO scraps."

Uhh.. I think SCO sucks, and I think Microsoft sucks.

Re:Next Slashdot Article

[notque]

I too think Microsoft sucks. And I think SCO is the most sucky thing in the history of all things that suck.
And for these opinions I expect to given some serious karma. Insightfull and funny prefered. Troll is not required.

Funny doesn't give you Karma anymore. It's for the love of the game now.

Re:Next Slashdot Article

[cshark]

An interesting contrast to the know nothing lawyer who had an opinion piece on news.com.com last week.

It does bring up an interesting idea at the end that I wish he would have gone into a bit more.

Assuming SCO did win, and their assertions about fundemental os features were upheld. Don't you think that Microsoft would be the first company they would go after?

Even with their recent license, according to sources in SCO, M$ only licensed the API layer. Why would they point that out? And why is M$ so smug about all this, even through all the vailed threats SCO is making against them? It seems to me that if they had any common sense they would be looking out for their long term interests, which ideally would mean crushing the SCO bug before it grows into a monster. I guess it's like the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Well we all saw how well that worked out in Iraq over the last two decades.

That would be an ironic twist of fate, don't you think? SCO winning would cause M$ and others to defend not only the integrity of their own systems, but the open ones as well.

I found it interesting.
I would like to see more coverage of this by people who actually do their research. It was refreshing.

Re:Next Slashdot Article

[Maserati]

"He posts for peanuts"

Re:Next Slashdot Article

[TomV]

Don't you think that Microsoft would be the first company they would go after?


If i've grasped SCO's approach so far, I can see them trying something along the lines of:

• IBM had an AT&T SysV 'viral' license
• IBM subcontracted microsoft to provide (let's not go into the details) an OS for their first PCs
• Therefore the SysV license 'virally' spread via the PC-DOS contract to cover PC-DOS
• IBM further co-developed the early versions of OS/2 with microsoft
• Thus 'all' of microsoft's OS experience is 'derived' from their co-operation with 'virally tainted' IBM. (remember that SCO appear to claim that IBM were entirely incapable of writing OS software until they had access to sysV UNIX source, which obviously has the ring of, er, ?)
• Thus (look, did I ever say these guys weren't clinically deranged?) ALL microsoft OS's, from PC-DOS through to Windows Server 2003, are, in the greedy twinkling eyes of SCO, 'derived works' of AT&T UNIX as covered by its purportedly 'viral' license, and therefore the rightful property of SCO.

In which case a shareprice rise from 60 cents to 10 dollars is NOTHING.

Farcical, but at times it does begin to look as though the inheritance of the OS religious wars has come down to a claim by SCO that UNIX was indeed the 'one true OS' and that any other OS, by virtue simply of BEING an OS, must be a 'derived work' of same, and thus the rightful property of SCO.

Nice piece on chutzpah in yesterday's Guardian, by the way.

TomV

Re:Next Slashdot Article

[hobsonchoice]

Microsoft is on the target list, SCO said it in Byte. SCO have already shaken down MS once before, and MS would probably just settle.

If SCO was truly clever they would have gone after Microsoft first. Maybe they could build a case on BSD code in Windows. Lots of OSS people would cheer them on, and help SCO find material and arguments to support their claims. At the end of the case MS pays up, and SCO would have a precedent for controlling BSD-stuff which they could then sue against Linux, IBM, etc.

If I was MS I would be checking and double checking all my contracts with SCO. The Xenix stuff, the original license, and anything else, just to make sure there isn't some clause in there that SCO will later turn against MS.

Re:Next Slashdot Article

[Zeinfeld]

An interesting contrast to the know nothing lawyer who had an opinion piece on news.com.com last week.

I did notice one point where the professor's argument seemed a little weak, he did not push on the expertise question as hard as he should have. In particular I fail to see how entering into a contractual relationship with AT&T confers any sort of 'expertise' on SCO employees.

Assuming SCO did win, and their assertions about fundemental os features were upheld. Don't you think that Microsoft would be the first company they would go after?

That is unlikely in the extreeme, this is simply Microsoft having a relatively cheap bit of fun and make a bit of money for themselves. If SCO did win their next target would be Sun. But nobody really expects that to happen.

Re:Next Slashdot Article

[cshark]

Interesting. Do you have a link to that by chance? SCO took on ms with the dr dos law suit. They won. But MS's lawyers aren't as good as IBM's lawyers.

Re:Next Slashdot Article

[cshark]

I agree. But what makes you think it will be sun? Why not red hat or a company that deosn't have any other contract with them?

Re:Next Slashdot Article

[badnews]

Even with their recent license, according to sources in SCO, M$ only licensed the API layer. Why would they point that out? And why is M$ so smug about all this, even through all the vailed threats SCO is making against them? It seems to me that if they had any common sense they would be looking out for their long term interests, which ideally would mean crushing the SCO bug before it grows into a monster.

i suspect MS is well watching out for their long term interests. if SCO loses, fine, the fud damage is still done, at very little cost to MS. if SCO wins, even better, a windfall for MS as it's chief competitor is damaged. if SCO becomes a monster it will be as a parasite upon the *ix world, not the MS world.

i suspect that if SCO wins, MS will be ready with a second punch to hit the damaged GNU/Linux/BSD/Unix/etc worlds with. and is keeping the door open for an eventual 'MS-ix' which would of course be their own not unix but compatible product. and so for this reason, SCO points out the limitations to the API license.

i suspect MS is quite confident that their lawyers can beat SCO, too.

I guess it's like the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

that mistake can be very expensive.

Re:Next Slashdot Article

[hobsonchoice]

They didn't win, MS settled.

What's especially interesting about that case, is when Caldera acquired DR-DOS it was already effectively destroyed and devalued, and presumably Caldera paid much less for it when they acquired it (like buying a car that's already wrecked from a scrapyard, and then suing whoever wrecked it, in my view).

The people who would have suffered any real damages from MS's conduct would have been primarily DR, and possibly Novell. But Caldera was the one who sued and ended up getting the settlement.

Re:Next Slashdot Article

[cshark]

Still an interesting idea. I wonder how hard it would be to do something like that. Ms has brutalizes their competition at every curve. I wonder how many products by failed competitors are still up for sale. Just a thought.

I doubt they're going to win.

[Meat Blaster]

Most of my friends agree that the SCO tactics raise questions about their underlying evidence. If you've got the trump card against IBM, why wouldn't you play it right away instead of engaging in this kind of game they've been playing? But you know, given some of the history here I'm starting to wonder if they've got something that's slam dunk against Linux. I doubt it, but I can't imagine they'd try to bluff IBM, let alone the raging Linux community.

It could be that they've got a solid case. It could be that they're working out some great shenanigans. Irregardless, I'm starting to wonder if Linux should be open to the average user to contribute, or if perhaps it should be restricted to a core group of companies and Linus who can afford lawyers to vet the code. Things are getting pretty scary in the open source world, particularly with the lawyers getting involved...

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[akaina]

expect even more feeders to follow.
Where there's money there's greedy people - a necessary evil that goes with the creation of a new paradigm for software.

Pull out the duct-tape and expect the herd to move in and trample everything. By next year David Letterman will be making lame jokes about Linus' hair.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[rekulator]

I'm starting to wonder if Linux should be open to the average user to contribute, or if perhaps it should be restricted to a core group of companies and Linus who can afford lawyers to vet the code.

It's not _that_ open. Try getting a patch without review to the vanilla tree.. :) You can send your patches to the mailing list and after review of many it may or may not be accepted.

And besides, isn't IBM one of these "core companies"?

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Irregardless"?

The lack of regardlessness.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[CrazyWingman]

If you've got the trump card against IBM, why wouldn't you play it right away instead of engaging in this kind of game they've been playing?

Anyone ever hear the phrase, "Even bad publicity is good publicity"?

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[deadlinegrunt]

"I'm starting to wonder if Linux should be open to the average user to contribute"

Instead why don't we refuse contributions from corporate companies. After all it's mainly the U.S. based corporations that erode everything that is even remotely based on benevolent principles -- Capitalism at work primary focus is not on the advancement of humanity...

This is no more a good idea than yours - to do either will do more harm than anything some [insert evil doer here] can dream up to deter the growth of GNU, Linux, or OSS of any flavor.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[sig cop]

If you've got the trump card against IBM, why wouldn't you play it right away

Ummm, have you ever played games with trump cards before? Frequently it is a good strategy to NOT play a trump card right away, both in card games and real-life adventures compared to card games with mis-understood analogies.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[walterbyrd]

>>but I can't imagine they'd try to bluff IBM, let alone the raging Linux community.

Why not? SCO is going BR anyway. SCO has everything to win and nothing to lose by filing this lawsuit. At the very least, SCO sent their stock price from $2 to $10. Insiders are still selling like mad.

IBM, on the other hand, has a lot to lose if SCO has a case. If SCO had any case at all, it would have been best for IBM to settle as quickly and quietly as possible.

There is no way IBM would want this to court if there was any chance of SCO winning.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[zdislaw]

This assumes that the only way to win the case is for SCO to have a "trump card." They might not have such a thing. Lots of people go to trial without a trump card and hope that what they do have is enough. It often is.

Also, if they really do have the irrefutable evidence that they claim to, they certainly wouldn't make it public. They don't care what we think (only that people are thinking about them at all...thus stock prices go up), they need to convince a judge. And supposedly, they want to keep the code private. If it is in fact proprietary, they have the legal right to do that, right? "The kind of game they have been playing" has resulted in their stock price skyrocketing.

I agree that they'll probably lose, but I'm starting to wonder whether they even care.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[yozzle]

As much as we all like to make fun of President Bush, irregardless is actually correct. The ir- is not a negation, so the word means the same thing as regardless. The same thing is true for flammible and inflammible.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[jedidiah]

Except the code has already been disclosed and now sits in the Library of Congress for anyone to see.

The cat's already out of the bag. All that lack of disclosure does is prevent remediation on the part of offending parties. All SCO is doing is preventing those 1500 companies from making sure that they aren't infringing "SCO IP" without doing something drastic and cost prohibitive.

I certainly hope that a judge will see it this way should SCO ever decide to turn on any of those 1500.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[yozzle]

Doh! Nevermind, apparently the same dictionary entry that said that later states that it is still incorrect, despite popular usage.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[Asprin]

I think Cringely made the best point about this possibility when he pointed out that IBM HAS THE BEST IP/LEGAL DEPARTMENT IN THE BIDNESS. Nobody is in a better position to vet the code than IBM, so if there were anything there to be concerned about, I would have expected to hear from them by now.

As stupid as it sounds, SCO is bluffing -- if you're going to be stupid, be stupid big.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"...real-life adventures compared to card games with mis-understood analogies."

A friend of mine learned that the other day when he said "hit me!"

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[HiThere]

There's lots of reasons to not play your trump card first. But I can't think of any reasons for someone with a winable case to go to the media like this. I hear judges don't like that. And it doesn't seem to be at all common practice. But people with no case do it frequently enough that I've heard about it before. I guess their lawyers look at the case, and when the client asks if they should try for good PR they say "It couldn't hurt."

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[Trolling4Dollars]

Ummm... that's really:

To lack the lack of regard.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[EJB]

There is of course a way more obvious reason. The stock was worth $0.60 before the lawsuit was filed, and is $10 now.

Just wait until the big shareholders have quietly unloaded their stock, and expect a retraction of the lawsuit (on second thought, we may not have a strong case against IBM at all...)

[Any ressemblence to actual persons or situations is purely coincedental]

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[mink]

According to IBM (rep said it to me directly) they do not support SCO software on their x86 based servers and workstations.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[Maserati]

They can't. But that's beside the point. The code that SCO is claiming is "theirs" is IBM (formerly Sequent) NUMA code that wound up in Linux. SCO is claiming that the NUMA code is theirs because it's a "derivative" of Unix, which they may "own" in a sense relevant to thier claim. IBM's lawyers can examine the contracts and licenses they have, and I'm sure that their Unix license was negotiated sharply and scrutinized regularly.

The interesting thing is that since it's being claimed more as a 'trade secret" than a copyright issue[1] then, since another party had the code (Sequent, then IBM), I believe IBM can just say, "how can it be their secret if we had a copy of the code before SCO did ?"

SCO figures that if they can successfully argue their broad definition of "derived" then they're rich. If they can't, IBM whips out some patents and sues. My funniest-case estimate is that IBM uses the NUMA patents (on which SCO has no reasonable claim) to assert that if the code is worth the billions of dollars in damages that SCO sued for, then it's worth triple that in damages based on a patent claim.

SCO just had to pick on patented code, didn't they ?

[1] It's fundamentally a contract-violation case, but SCO claims the violation was in releasing their trade scerets.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[hchaos]

Anyone ever hear the phrase, "Even bad publicity is good publicity"?

Tell that to Enron.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[Kynde]

Things are getting pretty scary in the open source world, particularly with the lawyers getting involved...

(This may be redundant and obvious to most, but I never get tired of pointing this out to myself whenever I read a Your (lack of?) Rights Online article that upsets me yet again.)

Lawyers are actually a sign of OSS's success. Where there's shit there are bound to be flies, and it's even more so with money and lawyers. When money comes into the equation downsides are many, e.g. lawyers, marketing, all sorts of other parasites and ofcourse publicity with all it's further downsides. BUT there are also good sides! I for one am especially grateful for having a job where I can use and write GPL'd code AND more importantly that's what I'm also supposed to do. :)

Being also able to make abundantly clear in the job interview that I will not touch anything M$ related even with a lone icmp echo request on an avian carrier and still get the job also counts on my scale. Doubt that was possible 10+ years ago for a programmer that hadn't ascended to the demigod hood except in nethack.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[WuphonsReach]

Being also able to make abundantly clear in the job interview that I will not touch anything M$ related even with a lone icmp echo request on an avian carrier and still get the job also counts on my scale. Doubt that was possible 10+ years ago for a programmer that hadn't ascended to the demigod hood except in nethack.

That attitude might fly in the boonies - but in the corporate world, we're not gonna hire someone who's not open to using *any* tool available to get the job done. Leave the religion / close-mindedness at home, there is no one best tool out there.

Re:I doubt they're going to win.

[Kynde]

That attitude might fly in the boonies - but in the corporate world, we're not gonna hire someone who's not open to using *any* tool available to get the job done. Leave the religion / close-mindedness at home, there is no one best tool out there.

Heh, that attitude wasn't a company policy, it was a job description suited for some. Besides it depends quite a bit on what the company is doing wether getting hands dirty with proprietary software is necessary, needed or even suitable. In our case, it is not.

There's no need for me or anyone who's main expertise is oss related to participate in some Visual M$ whatever related tasks, no more than I sould take part in marketing or executive decisions.

Besides keeping fingers away from closed source proprietary sw with malformed interfaces and unknown amount of bugs has little to do with "using any tool available". Even now I could easily get a job which would right about double my salary, but which would involve everything you just said there. I was talking about personal job comfort, just as I wouldn't accept any job with mandatory 80h/week, sit on floor or any other ridiculous measures. Increased salary just doesn't cut certain things.

What I stressed out in the previous post was just that. NOW all that is possible. Ten years ago there was nothing but what you just described with "we in the corporate world". OSS success has spawned all sorts of commerce that targets or utilizes OSS to a point that one doesn't have to see M$ except here in YRO articles or virus/worm reports.

What has been said all along

[Crashmarik]

GPL or not

The second principle is that a party's rights can be affected by its later conduct - which can constitute a "waiver," giving away rights. Until recently, SCO was a willing player in the Linux movement, releasing code under the open source ("copyleft") license. Everything that happened to Linux was in the open. Yet SCO delayed in suing.

SCO had made their bed in deciding to take advantage of the open source movement. Now they want to retroactively change the decision.

Re:What has been said all along

[binaryDigit]

SCO had made their bed in deciding to take advantage of the open source movement. Now they want to retroactively change the decision.

The guy in the article made a similar comment and I fail to see how it's relevant at all. The issue here is that IBM licensed some code and SCO is claiming that IBM then used this licensed code in Linux. That SCO also participated in Linux development is utterly irrelevant unless they themselves also put proprietary Unix code into Linux.

Now the issue of what took SCO so long to figure this all out might be more relevant. But it would appear that SCO and IBM have been in talks about this for a while, so it's hard to say how long the "offending" code has been there.

Re:What has been said all along

[Ami Ganguli]

But their claims are far broader than copyright, and seem to stem from a questionable interpretation of the word "derived".

You might be able to build a case that SCO had no reason to know about the alleged copyright infringement, but clearly SCO new about and even participated in incorporating "enterprise class" features into Linux. Not only wasn't it a secret, it was widely publicised by IBM.

Now, looking a the contracts as shown on SCO's web site, you might be possible to interpret them SCO's way (well, I don't really think so, but let's pretend for the sake of argument). There's no way you could conclude, however, that SCO didn't know that IBM was porting JFS or RCU to Linux. SCO knew it, and continued to distribute Linux anyway as part of their business.

Re:What has been said all along

[Wylfing]

The issue here is that IBM licensed some code and SCO is claiming that IBM then used this licensed code in Linux.

NO. IBM did not license any of the technologies in question from SCO. What SCO is claiming is that even though the code was developed by IBM (during AIX and OS/2 development) that SCO has exclusive rights over it because it constitutes a derivative of Unix. This affects Linux because now that this "Unix derivative" code is in Linux, SCO claims Linux is a derivative of Unix.

If you're going to quote SCO's bullshit lies, get it right!

Re:What has been said all along

[dmaxwell]

The guy in the article made a similar comment and I fail to see how it's relevant at all. The issue here is that IBM licensed some code and SCO is claiming that IBM then used this licensed code in Linux. That SCO also participated in Linux development is utterly irrelevant unless they themselves also put proprietary Unix code into Linux.

That is only one issue. SCO has been claiming that ALL modern operating systems are in some fashion derived from ideas that they own. They have been talking about per CPU licenses for Linux users and that the "free ride" is over. I'd say their previous Open Source participation is EXTREMELY relevant.

Re:What has been said all along

[binaryDigit]

What SCO is claiming is that even though the code was developed by IBM (during AIX and OS/2 development) that SCO has exclusive rights over it because it constitutes a derivative of Unix.

The specific instance I'm referring to is the RCU code done by Sequent. Sequent (now IBM) licensed the Unix code and made modifications. SCO is claiming that the conditions of the original license agreement makes these modifications their property. This code they claim has now found it's way into Linux, therefore is a violation of the original license. So my statement is absolutely correct, in a nutshell. SCO is NOT claiming that Linux is a derivative of Unix, only that it contains code THAT IS.

Re:What has been said all along

[Pionar]

Sort of. It's true that SCO participation in development is irrelevant

No, that's very relevant. What the guy is saying is that SCO's participation in Linux even after suspecting that there was UNIX code in it condoned it and basically waived SCO's right to contest it. (Remember, SCO claimed that they knew about this infringemnt for about a year before they filed the suit and filed only after not hearing back from IBM.)

Re:What has been said all along

[Spam.B.gone]

That SCO also participated in Linux development is utterly irrelevant unless they themselves also put proprietary Unix code into Linux.
Or put Linux code in Unix.

Re:What has been said all along

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO is NOT claiming that Linux is a derivative of Unix, only that it contains code THAT IS.

I think you should read this (specifically the part entitled "Derivative Works") before making claims like that.

Re:What has been said all along

[Jearil]

One part about SCO though that I think will cause them problems is the fact that they told their Linux customers that their SCO Linux copies were fully legal and they didn't have to worry about it. By the GPL, that would make all linux valid.

Think about it, if SCO is willing to say that the UNIX code in question is legal in their version of linux, then that code which has been integrated with a GPL work then must fall under the GPL as well because it is a modified work of a GPL project. Else they're participating in a violation of the GPL and have a few thousand lawsuits on their hands from all of the copyright holders that made Linux.

Re:What has been said all along

[GooberToo]

was porting JFS

I think I remember reading that JFS on Linux was a new implementation rather than a direct port. Does that mean some code was lifted? I have no idea. XFS, OTOH, is a port.

Not really sure this adds anything to the topic, but there it is. ;)

Re:What has been said all along

[zdislaw]

That SCO also participated in Linux development is utterly irrelevant unless they themselves also put proprietary Unix code into Linux.

That's the part that has me interested. Even if they prove that their code ended up in Linux, I can't imagine how they could prove that it was IBM that did it, or that it was not SCO that did.

One Friday morning a few years back...

SCO Project Manager: "Sorry programmer geek-boy, we're going to have to let you go."

Programmer Geek-boy: CUT UNIX > PASTE LINUX. "Alright then, no hard feelings. It's been really great working for you. Bye now."

Sure, it probably didn't happen, but it could have....right? It might not be too hard to convince a judge of it.

Re:What has been said all along

[jmauro]

JFS was a direct port of the OS/2 implementation. The OS/2 implemenation was a new implementation of the AIX version of JFS. Hopefully that clears up what happened.

Re:What has been said all along

[binaryDigit]

Yeah I read it before and now I read it again. Care to show me specifically where SCO is making a claim that Linux is in and of itself a derivitive of Unix? They do say the following:

"SCO said the letter was to make Linux users aware that it believes Linux is tainted and contains unauthorized intellectual property."

Note that it doesn't say that SCO believes that it Linux is a derived work of Unix.

Re:What has been said all along

[AKnightCowboy]

This affects Linux because now that this "Unix derivative" code is in Linux, SCO claims Linux is a derivative of Unix.

Holy cow, and people say the GPL is a viral license? Whatever license UNIX was distributed under sounds like the bubonic plague compared to the GPL.

Re:What has been said all along

[GooberToo]

Okay. Thanks. I guess I can buy into that because somewhere back in the fog, I think I do remember it being said that it was not an AIX JFS port. Which, of course, does not rule out OS/2. Oddly enough, I didn't even know you could get JFS for OS/2. :)

Thanks again!

Re:What has been said all along

[AJWM]

The scenario could just as easily have been:

SCO Project Manager: "Sorry programmer geek-boy, if you don't get this finished in a week we're going to have to let you go."

Programmer Geek-boy: CUT LINUX > PASTE UNIX. "No sweat, it's finished."

Re:What has been said all along

[Zapdos]

WRONG.
SCO clams that all code enhancements that IBM made to AIX, which is a "UNIX". Is code enhancements to made to UNIX witch is the Property of SCO.

In other words SCO is claiming that the code that IBM created for AIX is a derivative of SCO UNIX, and therefore property of SCO.

Here why this is total bunk. When IBM creates a new idea, it is on whitepaper first with no regard for any OS. Then when that idea makes it into an OS it is simply an implementation. IBM is protected, so is Linux.

Re:What has been said all along

[47PHA60]

I think that what you are failing to see is how this argument is legally relevant. This suit is about a contract, not copyright or patents. SCO uses the term "intellectual property," but this term is not a legal term, US law has no concept of it. US law only understands contracts (like NDA's), copyrights, and patents.

SCO's court filings, which must conform to US law, only say that IBM violated their contract. Now, if court decides that a contract was violated for many years and out in the open, they may rule that it is now too late to enforce that contract.

The other legal argument (not the argument that may make sense to you and me on first reading, but the argument that actually cites law and legal precedent) is that if SCO's copyrighted, contractually protected source code was in the Linux kernel, and that source code was available for examination by anyone in the world with a computer, SCO should not have been distributing that source code themselves. "It's really hard to know" usually does not cut it in a US court.

US courts are not likely to find "I didn't know (the gun was loaded | the car had drugs in it | I was distributing my own source code without knowing it)" persuasive.

We will know nothing more until the evidence comes out. Finally, any argument I have made above presumes evidence which does not as yet exist, as far as the court is concerned. I would not be surprised if SCO files a motion to keep the discovery process and evidence hidden from the public.

Re:What has been said all along

[mink]

A few years ago OS/2 Warp 4 added JFS in a patch.
Ecomstation (warp 5 essentially) has JFS fromt he get go.

Re:What has been said all along

[XO]

JFS came packaged with OS/2 Warp Server .. I'm not sure about other editions.. I know it wasn't in the original Warp or Warp v4 packaging..

I might be kinda foggy, but since JFS was developed by IBM, and is not part of SCO, I don't think they can go on that one.

I'm not familiar with XFS at all.

Re:What has been said all along

[binaryDigit]

WRONG. SCO clams that all code enhancements that IBM made to AIX, which is a "UNIX". Is code enhancements to made to UNIX witch is the Property of SCO.

My goodness. Go back and read the myriad articles about this whole business. One of the SPECIFIC issues deals with the LICENSING of Unix to IBM (really Sequent) and what that license does and does not allow Sequent now IBM to do. SCO is NOT claiming that ALL of AIX and everything IBM has ever done to AIX is SCO property, this is completely and absolutely false.

Re:What has been said all along

[binaryDigit]

I think that what you are failing to see is how this argument is legally relevant. This suit is about a contract, not copyright or patents.

Where in my post did I say that this was a copyright issue? I said that one of the big issues was license agreements between IBM and SCO (through acquistions of the actual parties).

Re:What has been said all along

[47PHA60]

You are correct. I did mean to say that what is relevant to you and me is not always what is relevant to the court.

I got mixed up and was also replying to other replies to you which started down the 'intellectual property' argument. I apologize for the mistake.

Re:What has been said all along

[El]

Not quite. SCO is claiming that the same code IBM added to Unix cannot also be added to Linux; not that IBM copied SCO code. This interpretation defies common sense. Legally, one must take an extremely broad interpretation of the phrase "derivative work" to reach SCO's non-obvious conclusion.

Re:What has been said all along

[Eric Damron]

Okay, assuming that the code that IBM contributed came from a code base that SCO controls then the real question is: When did SCO become aware of the infringement?

If they were aware of the code and didn't raise an objection it would be implying that they approved and therefore would give away their rights to the code.

It will be up to a Judge to determine when they became aware and if they acted in a timely manner.

Again, this is only if the code belonged to SCO to begin with and I have my doubts to that.

Re:What has been said all along

[stanmann]

Actually, the chain of events goes something like this
1 IBM Purchases perpetual unix rights from AT&T for AIX.
2 IBM Develops AIX
2 IBM Develops OS/2
3 IBM Generates various parallel functionality in OS/2 and AIX beyond what SRV5 contained.
4 Unix rights go to various places from AT&T, including Novell
5 Caldera/SCO/Canopy Group acquire something regarding Unix from Novell
6 IBM and SCO create "unixware" which contains functionalities described in 3
7 IBM includes some of the functionalities from 3 and 6 in Linux
8 SCO Sues
9 ???

Re:What has been said all along

[Felinoid]

It's quite possable that the code in question was never SCOs property.
Early on I was thinking what happend (based on the early complaint) was that IBM gave SCO code needed to support IBMs hardware proterly and IBM gave Linux the same code for pritty much the same reason. It is a vital function of IBMs business that IBM dose not transfer IP rights to that code to SCO.

However SCO has desided any code that makes it into SCOs hands is SCOs property. Starting from the clame of ownership of Unix. An idea not supported by contract or law.

SCO clames the Linux code in question basicly dose the same thing in a diffrent order. The same basic commands producing an identical result.
Just from complaints by Linux users I'm pritty sure the code in question dose not produce an identical result and the diffrences between SCOs code and the "stiolen" Linux code amount to a TOTAL REWRITE.

Evil Plot

[Schezar]

At the end, he references Slashdot for more info ('itself a demonstration of the power of dispersed individuals working together')."

Now, if only we could breed, we would rule the world! Muh ha ha ha!

I attack the darkness.

Re:Evil Plot

[TopShelf]

Working together? Has this guy even seen Slashdot???

Re:Evil Plot

[Chris_Jefferson]

Now, if only we could breed, we would rule the world! Muh ha ha ha!

and here we see your plan's tragic flaw... good try tho

Re:Evil Plot

[notque]

Working together? Has this guy even seen Slashdot???

Hell, we can't even work. That's why we're reading Slashdot in the first place.

Re:Evil Plot

[Ryan Amos]

Alas, for most slashdotters, the first and last set of female genitalia they will ever see belonged to their mother (unless they were born by c-section, then they just have to resort to porn.)

Re:Evil Plot

[notque]

Alas, for most slashdotters, the first and last set of female genitalia they will ever see belonged to their mother (unless they were born by c-section, then they just have to resort to porn.)

Quite a bit of talk for such a low number.

Something about Pots being black, and calling people.

Re:Evil Plot

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Now, if only we could breed, we would rule the world! "

Oh please. Like any of you would stop at breeding once. "Better milk this one while I can!"

Re:Evil Plot

[gmhowell]

Now, if only we could breed, we would rule the world! Muh ha ha ha!

I don't know about that. This is the result of a slashdotter's breeding attempt.

(Why am I placing a link to my cable modem hosted machine on slashdot?)

Re:Evil Plot

[CyberDruid]

itself a demonstration of the power of dispersed individuals working together

I assumed he was talking about our distributed slashdotting attacks.

Credit where credit is due...

[hankaholic]

From the article:

Then, about a decade ago, a young Finn named Linus Torvalds introduced an operating system (named Linux, after its creator) that did some of what UNIX did. Linux proved remarkably successful. The community of Linux users adopted a mascot--the penguin - as a sort of trademark.

At the risk of parroting RMS here, Linus started the kernel roughly a decade ago.

GNU started the OS itself about two decades ago.

It is an important distinction. I really wish that there was a distribution of the GNU OS that used a non-Linux kernel (but was otherwise like other GNU/Linux distros), which would be more concrete evidence of the importance (and extent!) of the GNU portions of the overall OS.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[hankaholic]

After further thought, the article mentions that SCO implies that "UNIX" could not be recreated without looking at UNIX source.

There is a lot of vagueness there -- aside from the kernel, GNU had recreated the majority of the OS long before SCO owned any such trademarks.

The part they lacked most, the kernel, has been so long in coming almost because of that fact -- they recreated the OS to work with existing kernels, so there wasn't a dire need for one.

In other words, reinventing the OS was more important than reinventing the kernel. But the OS (GNU) was recreated legally, and the FSF owns copyright to every line of code in a GNU project (to prevent silly suits such as this one).

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[aurelian]

what would the GNU OS be without Linux, that's right, not an operating system, just a (rather cheezy and worthless IMHO) replacement of another OSes userland

So GNU was 'cheezy and worthless' before Linux came along. How old are you, 14? Ever heard of gcc for example? Any idea how useful that might have been?

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[dago]

Too big to let it pass ..

"Linus started the kernel roughly a decade ago."

"GNU started the OS itself about two decades ago."

and who finished (first) ?

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[Pflipp]

GNU did.

They finished their libc, shell, editor, commands, etc. before Linus finished its kernel.

Not that it matters. But it was GNU. That was first. So. There! ...not that it matters.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[LWATCDR]

What is an Operating System?
I would tend to call the kernel the OS. The first OS where nothing but collection of useful routines like IO and math functions. It later expanded to include things like memory allocation and memory protections.
Pick up a text book on OS design. You will find that it tends to talk about ther kernel and not the utilities.

The GNU project is a good project. It also really has helped Linux but then so has X, Samba, perl, php, MySQL, PostgreSQL, and Apache. Apache really has been one bigest helps to getting Linux in to the main stream.

GNU did not start Linux two decades ago. They started HURD.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[the bluebrain]

Then again, if you read RMS' diatribe on this subject: if you have GNU/Linux (for the anal retentive), and turn it into GNU/BSD or GNU/Hurd (for the anal retentive), what you get is largely indistinguishable from the GNU/Linux you started out with.
I.e., the desktop is identical, all the apps are identical and work the same way, the shell(s), the devices (the ones there are drivers for, that is) and so on. (Or an analogy: would you mark a Ferrari with a Porsche engine "Porsche"? A Panasonic TV with a Sony CRT "Sony"? An Apple PC with an IBM processor "IBM"?)

Just to say the man is not entirely devoid of any kind of a point.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[neurojab]

According to the strict definition of an OS, the OS is the kernel, no more, no less. You can argue that the kernel is useless without some supporting software, but those programs are not then necessarily a part of the OS. For example, it's helpful to have a bootloader, but I can use any one of three on x86 (lilo, GRUB, and loadlin).. which one is part of GNU/Linux? Is IE necessarily part of Windows? You can't browse the web without it... or can you?

You could call a distribtion RMS/GNU/whatever, but the OS is just the kernel, which is just Linux.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[jrumney]

Why on earth would I install GNU cat, ls, sed, awk, etc. on top of the Solaris or BSD userland?

I can't speak for BSD, as its about 10 years since I used it, but the Solaris versions of those tools suck majorly, even if you do put /usr/ucb before /usr/bin in your PATH.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[Bigby]

What if your own definition of an OS is the kernel (process/memory management, etc...) and its drivers. Or maybe even just the kernel. Then Linux would be the OS. It wouldn't be very useful without GNU, but then again, look at the definition of an OS:

• "software that controls the execution of computer programs and may provide various services" -- WordNet

Look at Windows. Do you consider IE has part of the OS? I would imagine that most of us don't. This is the same reason why I and some others don't consider gcc, ls, mkdir, mount, etc.. as part of the OS. These are just merely essential tools.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[jedidiah]

You meant to tell me that GNU finished it's kernel? I must have been asleep and missed the newsflash...

I am not sure that you could claim that GNU finished even now. This is based on RMS's own criteria.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[DavidTC]

I don't think you're correct at all.

An OS is a set of programs that controls access to devices, filesystems, scheduling, startup, etc. Sure, it needs a kernel, but it also, under Linux, includes glibc, init, ifconfig, fsck, dd, etc.

All OSes include some sort of ability to launch programs, and standard libraries to access files and devices and whatnot. When an OS is loaded in a computer, the computer must 'work', for undefined values of work.

There's a reason there's two different terms for 'operating system' and 'kernel'.

Now, with Linux, there's a blur between 'the OS' and 'stuff that comes with the OS but isn't needed'. And with Windows, there's a blur between 'the kernel' and 'the OS' and 'stuff that comes with the OS but isn't needed'.

Note, BTW, that you can have systems on top of OSes...like Linux has the X Window System. They are, in a way, mini-computers...they have a kernel, usually XFree86, they have an OS, which can be anything from an xterm launched at startup to Gnome, and they have application software.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[gcalvin]

Also...

A key to Linux's success was that its license (dubbed a "copyleft" instead of a "copyright") required users also to give away their own modifications to the software for free.

As I'm sure most Slashdot readers know, the GPL requires no such thing. Users are not required to distribute their modifications at all, but if they do, they are required to distribute them under the same terms as the original software -- with source code and the freedom to make modified versions. They can charge money for their modifications, but they cannot prevent their customers from re-distributing them at lower or zero charge. This typically has the economic effect of driving the market price of the software down, of course (often down to zero), but there is no requirement that modifications must be distributed "for free".

Chander snubs the GPL by not mentioning it by name, leaving the impression that it was Linus's idea, then compounds the insult by misstating its terms. I can understand Chander's desire not to overcomplicate the issues, but he has instead oversimplified. If this were written for USA Today, it might be understandable, but FindLaw.com's readership deserves better. He does refer several times to "copyleft" licenses, but I really think he should have specifically referenced the GPL. It's this kind of thing that probably makes RMS think he's not being strident enough.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[GlassHeart]

The part they lacked most, the kernel, has been so long in coming almost because of that fact -- they recreated the OS to work with existing kernels, so there wasn't a dire need for one.

Given the philosophical drive of the GNU Project, I highly doubt this statement. I don't think GNU thought it was such a great idea to run free utilities on top of a closed-source proprietary kernel.

the FSF owns copyright to every line of code in a GNU project (to prevent silly suits such as this one).

Nothing can prevent a lawsuit. Some things help you win one. In any case, somebody who steals code (say, from the company he works for) and contributes it to the GNU project will result in the same actionable contamination.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[p3d0]

Have you really read all these comments and still not understood the difference between an OS and a kernel?

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[XO]

Back in the DAY, I used to hang out on several Unix System III systems, that had replaced almost all of the stock AT&T Unix programs with GNU versions.

The GNU software also basically runs *BSD, for most people, I think, or if not (I haven't seen BSD since before FreeBSD/NetBSD even existed) it could certainly easily be made to.

I've been considering taking the Linux kernel and writing a new environment that isn't based on GNU or Unix. Just to see what a crazy guy like me could come up with. Never really had the motivation though.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[dago]

Hey, I know from the beginning the difference between a kernel and an OS, even if it's pretty blurry.

I just stated that linux kernel could be considered as 'finished' (in sense of productive) while the GNU operating system isn't.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[ichimunki]

The GNU project is a good project. It also really has helped Linux but then so has X, Samba, perl, php, MySQL, PostgreSQL, and Apache. Apache really has been one bigest helps to getting Linux in to the main stream.

Or conversely one could claim that GNU was a great project and that the Linux kernel, X, Samba, perl, etc helped GNU into the mainstream, except that people keep calling it "Linux".

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[neurojab]

I still think your definition of an OS is flawed, because the kernel does provide the services you mention. Userland programs and standard libraries only exist to make things easier. That said, if someone can tell me exactly what programs are part of the "Linux OS" under your definition and which are not, then it might make sense to give the package a name. Saying that there are a bunch of files called GNU/linux without even specifying exactly which files are included makes no sense at all.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[p3d0]

Ok, I'm sorry. We're having a heat wave here in Toronto and it's making me grumpy.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[hankaholic]

Why, is either one finished?

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[hankaholic]

I didn't come CLOSE to implying that GNU "started" Linux.

As far as the rest of your troll, read my earlier post in another thread on the same topic.

GNU didn't help Linux -- Linux helped GNU, as the availability of a Free kernel allowed the distribution of a complete OS.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[hankaholic]

I would tend to call the kernel the OS.

Then you're a fool, and have an incomplete view of what an OS is.

Would you say that a SysV-style and a BSD-style distro are the same OS, simply because of the shared kernel?

Compile the following (statically!), and call it /sbin/init:

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
char buf[128];

buf[127] = 0;

for (;;) {
scanf ("%127s", buf);
printf ("You typed: %s\n", buf);
}

return 0;
}

Now delete every file except the kernel, the contents of /boot, and the newly created /sbin/init.

Reboot. You now have a system devoid of anything except the boot loader, kernel, and a tiny shell.

Once you've done this, come back and tell me about how well Apache works.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[hankaholic]

A UNIX-like OS includes at the very least the C library.

Where can I find the source of this authoritative definition of an OS?

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[hankaholic]

I'm not implying that the final goal was to interoperate with closed kernels. However, when you're developing on a system that you don't own and don't have complete control over (as was the case for the developers at the time), you can't just opt to rewrite the kernel based on your own "philosophical drive."

What you seem to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that you doubt that GNU software was initially written in such a way that it would function on the only systems to which the creators had access.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[hankaholic]

What about the C library, which allows programs to do things such as open files, and get the system time?

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[hankaholic]

That did bother me as well, and I'm glad you commented on it.

It amazes me, when reading replies to my post, that people don't seem to realize how important the C library is to the overall system. Without the availability of a standard C library, every programmer would be forced to write their own implementations of printf, or fopen, or gettimeofday.

I used to condemn the FSF for requiring that developers assign copyright of their work to them (to the FSF, that is). However, if someone (SCO?) decided to claim ownership, the FSF could trace the code back to its original contributor. The more I pay attention, the more I realize that RMS really may have something with his ramblings ;)

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[dago]

no problem, I didn't take it 1st degree anyway.

There are good point to heatwaves, yesterday the Aare (the river which flows here in Bern) was at 21C. Definetely refreshing during the lunch break ;)

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[LWATCDR]

Remove the kernel and tell me if it boots at all?
What if I hacked a small webserver that ran rans as /sbin/init? couldn't it then be a useful system? Or maybe firewall? But the GNU toolset with out a kernel is pretty much usless. Unless you write a kernel.

You also said

Then you're a fool, and have an incomplete view of what an OS is.

Would you say that a SysV-style and a BSD-style distro are the same OS, simply because of the shared kernel?

Ummmm.... SysV and BSD do not share the same kernel! They have the same API I believe but the code is not the same. As far as being a fool? Well at least I know that BDS and SysV do not have the same codebase.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[hankaholic]

I said a "a SysV-style and a BSD-style distro".

Distributions of GNU/Linux do share the Linux kernel, do they not?

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[DavidTC]

I didn't say they were called Linux/GNU at all, I thik that's a fairly silly name. I call them 'Linux', or if I want to differiential from the kernel, the 'Linux OS'.

That said, I gave a partial list above...you need a lot of system libraries (in fact, I'd basically call every library that comes on a default install of various distros part of the OS), you need a shell, usually whatever /bin/sh is, you need all the filesystem creation and fixing utilities, you need all the networking utilities, and all the text stuff commonly used in scripts like 'cat' and 'cut'. There's probably some I've left out.

If you want to know what's part of the Linux OS, do a minimal install of any distro and see what you get. Of course, like I said, there's a blurry line between 'the OS' and 'comes with the OS'...but the OS is the layer below application programs, it's safe to consider anything below that, that multiple programs require to function, and are assumed to be installed, part of the OS. (And remember I mentioned the other systems, like X, that are in a sense an OS on top of an OS, or maybe the entire thing is an OS that can be split in half.)

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[LWATCDR]

This is the definiton of an operating system from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary

Main Entry: operating system
Function: noun
Date: 1961
: software that controls the operation of a computer and directs the processing of programs (as by assigning storage space in memory and controlling input and output functions)

That is what the kernel does. You will notice no mention of shells, compilers, or other untilites. Don't blame me blame Websters.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[hankaholic]

Okay. Let's say a program writes directly to the tty device, instead of using a library such as ncurses.

Such programs generally use functions such as open() to access device files. Something maps the function open() (or fopen()) to a system call, so that the user-level program doesn't have to know how do use system calls directly.

That is what the standard libraries do. Don't blame me, blame GNU.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[LWATCDR]

You do not have to use the standard glibc. There are other libcs around. Some are a subset of glibc and are much smaller and are used for embedded systems. As you said something "maps" the system call. Are you saying that the standard c library is an operating system? In your words it "maps" functions. It actually does a lot more than that. Try writing printf sometime. It is no small task. Utilities is not a bad word or a cut down. The kernel + utilities + apps + Development tools= a useful system. You could call it Linux + GNU utilities if you want to.
Back to your example. Instead of writing a tty ap lets say I write and app that looks at the CD-drive, waits for a cdrom to be put in and then executes the program on the CD called start.mgf. I could make a Video game console using just the framebuffer and SDL and the Linux kernel. The kernel can do usful work without any GNU software. The parts of GNU that we are talking about "not HURD" are usless without a kernel. Over all it really does not matter. Except that RMS is pushing himself out of the mainstream and is doing harm to the open source community. Everytime he wastes his time talking about GNU/Linux and how paying for software is immoral it just makes the closed source people happier.

Re:Credit where credit is due...

[hankaholic]

One is not forced to use the "standard" libc, sure.

However, when one refers to a UNIX-like system, they expect something resembling UNIX.

What I'm saying is that the part of the operating system that makes Linux look like a UNIX system in terms of API and interface is GNU.

The kernel "can" do work without any GNU software, sure, and as soon as you start a distribution that does useful work without any GNU software, I'll apologize for saying that GNU should be given credit.

Until then, every time you waste your time talking about how the Linux kernel would be generally useful without the GNU UNIX-ish stuff on top it just makes those who assume that people on Slashdot have nothing coherent to say happier.

No Kidding?

[notque]

Can anyone put out an article on SCO and have it posted as news?

If I could spell more than 15 words in the english language correctly, I'd create an article and submit it.

They are rehashing the same statements, we can all tell that SCO has almost no case to stand on, which is why the story is so compelling.

It's like watching the Iraqi Information Minister. It's hilarious to watch someone openly ignoring the blatent obvious.

And we get really mad when they make headways in the case, because they are so utterly moronic.

Re:No Kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like watching the Iraqi Information Minister. It's hilarious to watch someone openly ignoring the blatent obvious

You bet. Say, did they find them WMDs yet?

Go SCO!!!

[bytes256]

I have to say I'm gonna root for SCO on all of this from now on, I love cheering for an underdog

Finally a legal perspective

[UnknowingFool]

Not that Linus', RMS, or ESR didn't have some good points on the technical side, but it is good to see a legal perspective of the case.

Re:Finally a legal perspective

[notque]

Not that Linus', RMS, or ESR didn't have some good points on the technical side, but it is good to see a legal perspective of the case.

It's nice to see a legal perspective on the case, but what I want is to hear how a 7th grader feels about the case.

We've heard everyone elses opinion on it, Little Jimmy deserves to be heard.

Re:Finally a legal perspective

[DASHSL0T]

It's nice to see a legal perspective on the case, but what I want is to hear how a 7th grader feels about the case.

Go to your Slashdot preferences; set story comments to ON.

HTH!

Re:Finally a legal perspective

[UnknowingFool]

I don't think a 7th grader can provide any expert or authorative opinion on the case. Yes, we've heard from everybody, but up til now, it's the techies that have been pointing out flaws and untruths in SCO's case from a technical standpoint. Very few lawyers (besides SCO) have said anything about the legal merits.

The *only* thing Linux should fear is patents.....

[Anonymous Coward]

This really demonstrates the only Archilles heel that Linux has to fear: software patents.

If Microsoft or anyone else gets coordinated enough, maybe 10 years from now, the software industry will be so littered with software patent landmines that Linux will no longer be able to continue development. This is a very real possibility.

Please, Slashdot readers, we need to join together to figure out how the hell we are going to stop this, or else we need to come up with implementations of new ideas, business methods, software algorithms before anyone else like Microsoft can, and publish them open source so that no one else can claim a patent on them!

Talk to your representatives in Washington, Europe, whereever because this is a very real and very serious threat that **will** kill software development.

Thank God

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought I'd have to go without my coffee 'n SCO(ne) before starting the day..

Runnaway process

[dfn5]

At the end, he references Slashdot for more info...

Slashdot refers to him, he refers to Slashdot. HELP!!! I'm stuck in a DOS loop!

Re:Runnaway process

[Anonymous Coward]

^C

Hope that helped

Due process

[spagbol]

I have a small company and was attacked in a similar way by a large German company (I'm in the USA). They simply attacked with a lawyer from a large office in New York and I am in a small town in California. My lawyer did some digging and found that there is a federal law that states you must give the person in violation a full description of the violation and allow a responce. If there is not a civilized responce then you can go to court. We never went to court and we got the problem sorted out. It sounds like SCO would be in violation of that federal law.

Re:Due process

[eric76]

Did SCO attempt to resolve the differences?

Or did they claim they had evidence of infringements but refuse to provide any details of the infringements?

Given the behavior that we've seen from SCO, it seems probable that SCO probably just made a bunch of demands without providing any justification for those demands.

Re:Due process

[jedidiah]

"a full description of the violation"

I don't think that SCO has provided that to anyone. They've just made vague unsubstantiated claims. As RMS said, SCO hasn't even pinned down the what part(s) of a Linux distribution would be in violation.

Re:Due process

[El]

That's why SCO is suing under contract law, not patent, trademark, or copyright law. Most of their BS blustering appears to have nothing to do with the actual case.

Re:Due process

[babyrat]

I'm sure they gave IBM a full description of the violation.

I'm sure IBM's gaggle of lawyers would be aware of such a law and respond accordingly.

But I could be wrong...

working together?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's more fun to go against the tide :)

References Slasshdot for More Info

[ElectricPoppy]

Well, there went his credibility...

Misunderstanding the GPL

[srichman]

A key to Linux's success was that its license (dubbed a "copyleft" instead of a "copyright") required users also to give away their own modifications to the software for free.

Uh, no, sorry Mr. Law Professor, it doesn't. Not if they're not distributing it.

Re:Misunderstanding the GPL

[mikeee]

And not for free, either.

You have to allow redistribution, but if I want to sell GPLed Pink Cap Mikeeeix for $3B, I can.

Anybody buying?

Re:Misunderstanding the GPL

[sn00ker]

And not for free, either.

You have to allow redistribution, but if I want to sell GPLed Pink Cap Mikeeeix for $3B, I can.

Yes, you can. But you can't then demand more money for the source code - If you redistribute, you can't charge for the source.

Re:Misunderstanding the GPL

[PetWolverine]

The distinction is irrelevant to the case. He made an acceptable simplification in order to reach a wider audience.

There is a difference between making sweeping generalizations and making small simplifications so that people can understand the article.

Re:Misunderstanding the GPL

[bill_mcgonigle]

Uh, no, sorry Mr. Law Professor, it doesn't. Not if they're not distributing it.

From the outside, it's the same thing. If someone makes changes and doesn't distribute it, to the rest of the world, he hasn't made any changes.

The only other option would be a license where everybody could audit all of everybody else's code - noone would ever accept such a license.

What would Brigham Young do?

[cheesedog]

"What comes of litigation? Poverty and degradation to any community that will encourage it. Will it build cities, open farms, build railroads, erect telegraph lines and improve a country? It will not; but it will bring any community to ruin." -Brigham Young, JD 11:259.

Sure, the federal government wouldn't let old Brigham retain governership of Utah when it became a state, but wouldn't it by nice if we could install the guy as head of SCO? Even as a man who's been dead for more than a century, he could probably run that ship better than its current leadership.

Re:What would Brigham Young do?

[bob_the_clown]

Sure, the federal government wouldn't let old Brigham retain governership of Utah when it became a state, ...

Um, that's because he was dead when Utah became a state.

Re:What would Brigham Young do?

[Shadow2097]

Thats all well and good, but what would Brian Boytono do??

-Shadow

Re:What would Brigham Young do?

[Tablizer]

Brigham Young was just afraid that his 12 wives might sue his ass off if he divorced any. Even one wife is enough to make a man afraid of lawyers, let alone 12.

Re:What would Brigham Young do?

[swillden]

Um, that's because he was dead when Utah became a state.

Actually, Utah (well, Deseret) tried to become a state four times before Young died. Further, it's pretty clear that the US wouldn't have allowed him to retain governership even if Utah/Deseret had become a state, because they (President Buchanan, to be precise) sent the US Army to forcibly remove him as governor of Utah Territory. At bottom, the major obstacle to Utah's statehood was polygamy, and there's no way a man with 27 wives would have been allowed to be elected as governor.

Re:What would Brigham Young do?

[TheDauthi]

He'd make a plan and follow through, that's what Brian Boytono'd do.

SCO biggest Goof

[linuxislandsucks]

..is not listening to cusotmers..

After they lose this case there will be nothing lkeft but the angry mob of customers taking McBride's hide and stapling it to the wall..

Re:Yeah, that was news

[notque]

Not to be too critical, but did it seem that that "lawyer" basically just wrote a book report from previous slashdot stories? I'm NOT a lawyer, but could have come up with that.

And that's really all I'm saying. Thank you Anonymous Coward, you troll quite a bit, but you sometimes are right on the money.

bleh

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, this SCO business is seriously getting out of hand. Why do we need to hear commentary from everyone and their mother about this case.
What's the next article going to be? CowboyNeal's left nut gives it's opinion on the SCO/IBM battle.

I grand you your wish

[Johan Veenstra]

> I really wish that there was a distribution of the GNU OS that used a non-Linux kernel

GNU/Debian/HURD, GNU/Debian/BSD

Re:I grand you your wish

[Pflipp]

The problem is that these are still by far experimental. I'm a long-time Debian user, and I like to play with the HURD every now and then. But for doing so you still need to be in a hacker's mood. Using GNU/ Hurd is not yet like using a "mainstream OS such as GNU/ Linux" (bite me :-). Which I do regret for the same reasons as the original author does.

Re:I grand you your wish

[datadictator]

When you say GNU/Linux you mean GNU/XFree86/KDE/Apache/Bind/OpenGL/SDL/BSD/Posix/M ySQL/PHP/Python/Linux right ?

Re:I grand you your wish

[bsharitt]

You left out OpenOffice, Mozilla, and Gnome.

Re:I grand you your wish

[bsharitt]

If you want to get some background on GNU and Linux send RMS a question about Linux(or GNU/Linux), but call it GNU/KDE/OpenOffice/Mozilla/Linux, and if your lucky like me you'll get a half a page email about why it should be called GNU linux.

Re:I grand you your wish

[hankaholic]

From http://www.debian.org/ports/#nonlinux, regarding Debian/NetBSD:

"This is a port of the Debian operating system, complete with apt, dpkg, and GNU userland, to the NetBSD kernel. It is currently in a very preliminary stage..."

Essentially the same is said of the Debian/FreeBSD port, and as I understand it, the HURD isn't ready to replace Linux as a highly usable general-purpose kernel.

Can you come up with a ready-for-primetime example?

I'm more important than I thought

[spuke4000]

he references Slashdot for more info ('itself a demonstration of the power of dispersed individuals working together').
I though slashdot was a 'demonstration of dispersed individuals procrastinating together'.
Who knew I was demonstrating power all this time?

Re:Let's see...

[Thuktun]

1) Write an article how SCO is evil.

2) get it posted on slashdot.

3) get slashdotted, ad banners get zillions of hits

4) PROFIT!!!

It explains one thing

[SerpentMage]

One thing that this legal commentary explains is why IBM is so hush hush. Did you notice when reading the article that a large number of the arguments hinge on how the individual parties interact with the public?

I really wonder if IBM knows this and as such is keeping quiet. To show the image of the "good quiety" student.

Re:It explains one thing

[UnknowingFool]

Since this is contract/copyright dispute, the best course of action is usually to keep quiet. After all this isn't a "trial of the century" type case where public opinion might sway the jury. If anything it will come down to both sides trying to convince a judge. SCO is making lots of claims, a few retractions, and enough legal rope to hang themselves with.

Re:It explains one thing

[hobbesmaster]

I really wonder if IBM knows this and as such is keeping quiet. To show the image of the "good quiety" student.

But in reality they're still laughing at the lawsuit.

Re:In a manner of speaking, you're right

[wo1verin3]

repeat after me... there is life beyond /.

ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out !

[RouterSlayer]

please people, wake up!
can't you see it's obvious what SCO is doing?
and what this is all really about?
no... ok clueless ones, here's a clue for you...

after they announced the lawsuit their stock went up $10 a share, and the VP sold over 100,000 shares that day!

hello?!? Don't you get it? They don't care if they lose (and they will) that was never the point!

just like the WMD crapola in iraq (there never were any, it never was about that), it was about the oil!

all SCO wants to do is jack the stock high enough, long enough for their CEO, VPs, etc to cash out nice and RICH, and leave a burning twisted pile of rubble at the end....

they probably figured IBM (or someone - say Mr. Bill at M$) might buy them out, but either way, they're getting fat and rich off the share prices.

its a stock scam, and the securities people should be all over this!

so now you know the truth... what are ya gonna do about it?

It's a Bird! A Plane! A Frog! ... a frog?

[NaugaHunter]

Was Caldera a loveable shoe-shine boy, when their ultrasonic hearing hear the cries of the stolen, proprietary code, Sweet Polly Purebread? Are they attempting to rescue her from IBM, aka Simon Says? What's that pill in Underdog's ring - oh no! It's a Lawsuit Pill!

No Pirate has Yet matched those of Penzance

[metalhed77]

how come every parody of Gilbert and Sullivans 'Modern Major General' (including the one in the article) is always fundamentally lacking realistic phrasing / rhythm. There are too many sylables.

Re:No Pirate has Yet matched those of Penzance

[the eric conspiracy]

Not every parody. Tom Lehrer did it right:

There's antimony arsenic aluminum selenium,
And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium,
And nickel neodymium neptunium germanium,
And iron americium ruthenium uranium.
Europium zirconium lutetium vanadium,
And lanthanum and osmium and astatine and radium,
And gold protactinium and indium and gallium,
And iodine and thorium and thulium and thallium.
There's yttrium ytterbium actinium rubidium,
And boron gadolinium niobium iridium,
There's strontium and silicon and silver and samarium,
And bismuth bromine lithium beryllium and barium.

There's holmium and helium and hafnium and erbium,
And phosphorus and francium and fluorine and and terbium,
And manganese and mercury, molybdenum magnesium,
Dysprosium and scandium and cerium and cesium.
And lead praseodymium and platinum plutonium
Palladium promethium potassium polonium,
And tantalum technetium titanium tellurium,
And cadmium and calcium and chromium and curium.

There's sulfur, californium and fermium, berkelium,
And also mendelevium einsteinium nobelium,
And argon krypton neon radon xenon zinc and rhodium,
And chlorine carbon cobalt copper tungsten tin and sodium.

These are the only ones of which the news has come to Harvard,
And there may be many others but they haven't been discar-vard.

..power of dispersed individuals working together

[teamhasnoi]

First off, isn't /. a bastion of people NOT working together?

How many /.ers are members of the EFF?
How many /.ers don't go out to buy RI/MP-AA products?
How many /.ers write a physical letter to their congresswhores?
How many /.ers actually use Linux? or contribute to it or other OSS?
How many /.ers live alone in their parent's basement, rather than with a helpful cult or commune?
How many /.ers use Office & save their files in .doc format?

Bob Dylan would say something about wind here.

BTW, I think the professor is trying to recruit /.ers for his own private army. Sure, SCO today, but tommorrow...the world?....

Ummm, no

[TheConfusedOne]

SCO is claiming that IBM licensed some code (from AT&T mind you) and since they (actually Sequent) wrote some code that ran on top of that licensed code then they had to obey the license for the new, original work created without any help or IP from the "licensor".

That would be like saying since McAfee wrote Virus Scan on top of Windows and using the information from Windows then they can't reuse any of that code in writing a Virus Scanner for any other OS.

Re:Ummm, no

[binaryDigit]

That would be like saying since McAfee wrote Virus Scan on top of Windows and using the information from Windows then they can't reuse any of that code in writing a Virus Scanner for any other OS.

Ummmm no. There is a huge difference between writing an application FOR an OS and writing code that is a PART of the OS. SCO is claiming that any code that becomes a PART of the OS becomes their property (rightly or wrongly). To clarify your analogy, it would be like McAfee being granted a license to make VirusScan a PART of Windows, but in return, M$ now makes claim to that code. If their license says that McAfee then can't use that code in other apps, then they'd get sued if they tried.

Re:Ummm, no

[jmauro]

There is a huge difference between writing an application FOR an OS and writing code that is a PART of the OS.

Microsoft sees no difference between the two. Remember how IE started out as an application for an OS. And then there's Media Player. Things on Windows have a habit of starting out as something for and winding up as something as a part of. If I were McAfee, I'd be afraid of being sued, since Microsoft just bought a Virus scanner. Prboably will wind up as part of the OS and everyone who makes the same part will be in big trouble.

Re:Ummm, no

[jedidiah]

A filesystem need not be a part of the OS. Veritas quite demonstrates this principle quite well.

This is especially funny considering that Vxfs is the JFS that SCO offers it's own end users and it runs on Unix as well as Win32.

Re:Ummm, no

[binaryDigit]

Microsoft sees no difference between the two.

Oh please. Just because M$ likes to embed what was once application level functionality into the "OS" says nothing about the point being spoken about here. If what you're claiming was true, then ANY application written for Windoze would be a derivative and they could potentially own it.

Re:Ummm, no

[Edward Scissorhands]

And while we may think that such an arrangement is silly, because it is, it's up to the lawyers involved to ensure that whatever contracts they sign on behalf of their companies are good for the company. It's caveat emptor-- it's the company's lawyers better know what they're doing. In this case, the agreement between IBM and AT&T was modified by IBM at the time of the agreement so that the stuff that IBM developed, including derivative works, was owned by IBM. The whole issue is that SCO hasn't yet told us what agreement existed between AT&T and Sequent. SCO's claim that IBM has put IBM-developed code into Linux kernel doesn't hold any water because the agreement between IBM and AT&T ensures that IBM has this right. HOWEVER, SCO also claims that IBM took code from DYNIX/ptx, which was a SysV derivative created by Sequent, and allowed it to be placed into the Linux kernel by IBM employees who had access to the DYNIX code (indeed, IBM employees who wrote that code for Sequent). The whole point is that we don't know if the agreement between Sequent and AT&T allowed for this. SCO seems to be claiming that it did not. We won't know until the agreement is made public.

Re:Ummm, no

[jmauro]

I wouldn't put it past them.

Re:Ummm, no

[Elwood P Dowd]

There is a huge difference between writing an application FOR an OS and writing code that is a PART of the OS.

No, no there isn't. The difference between application level software and operating system software is completely arbitrary, and many people disagree about what the difference is.

And no matter where the line is, doing the actual programming is absolutely the same.

Re:Ummm, no

[AstroDrabb]

Ummm, you have no clue what your talking about. Low-level coding for an OS is nothing like coding a regular user-land app. In userland you don't have to worry about interrupts, you almost always have high level apis. If your app crashes on a modern os it is isolated in its own memory space and usually doesn't affect the system. You crash kernel code and every thing goes down. In a kernel there are no high level apis, there is no standard c library. Every thing has to be written from scratch. There is no printf, System.out.prinln, no threading libs, network libs, etc. Portability at userland is also far easier then in kernel-land. Almost no user-land apps need to deal with assembly and writing code to specific archs besides word size or endienness. Now go back to your vb/asp scripting : )

Re:Ummm, no

[Elwood P Dowd]

Obviously, writing kernel scheduler code is going to be significantly different from "your vb/asp scripting." However, in modern kernels, there are clean APIs separating whatever you're hacking from the rest of the machine. In microkernels, sometimes you can have protected memory.

But that is beside the point. What I mean is that writing explorer.exe doesn't have to be different from writing winword.exe. That is all. Sure, you and I might both understand the explorer.exe is not technically part of the operating system, but I don't think SCO would make that distinction. Many computer programmers wouldn't either.

Re:Ummm, no

[barawn]

This is completely not true - before you make flames at other people, you may want to check your own information.

Isolated memory spaces, interrupt handling, etc. - those exist only in kernel space only if that's the only place where you want it, not because there's some compsci-theoretical reason that it "has" to be there. Embedded systems regularly have a poorly defined difference between "kernel mode" and "user mode". On x86 systems, it's clear because the system is usually set up to not be able to execute certain instructions unless it's in supervisory (ring 0) mode. On other systems, it's not necessarily true.

The library lack is also pointless if you're doing low level coding (yah... lacking printf might suck, but it's always nice knowing where the UART registers are!) where you honestly couldn't give a rat's ass about stdlib functions.

Your point is (somewhat) correct, if a bit naive, if only referring to modern PCs, with massively complex memory space and interfaces (how many different buses are hooked to a modern PC? 9? 10?) but on an embedded system, in general, coding in userspace and coding in kernelspace isn't that different.

The better point is what the hell is the difference between writing a device driver that sits inside an OS, and writing a portion of an OS that improves its performance? Or is SCO claiming that all device drivers belong to them as well?

Re:Ummm, no

[El]

No, no there isn't. The difference between application level software and operating system software is completely arbitrary, and many people disagree about what the difference is.

Umm, no. OS software runs in kernel address space (Ring 0 on X86). Applications run in user address space (Ring 3 on X86). Seems pretty black and white to me.

Re:Ummm, no

[hobsonchoice]

Actually MS would not claim this. Their whole strategy is to support ISVs develop for their platform, and they've been very successful at it. Bill Gates dreams about network efforts and VHS vs betamax (VHS wins cos more "applications" - i.e. rentals) for it, every night. Read any MS strategy paper, and they're all about this idea to sell it to upper management. This is why virtually all MS apps are both apps and development platforms (yes you can write an application in PowerPoint!).

When a horizontal app (something everybody uses) gets popular, MS pursue as a platform. However MS never mess with vertically apps, except by accident.

Some other company (say SCO) might however try this arguement. They see an app vendor making money "because of their platform", and want a slice. This might make money in the short-term, but in the long-term it is a DOOMED strategy, as every platform which is hostile to app-developers in this way, dies quickly.

Re:Ummm, no

[Elwood P Dowd]

That's a nice definition, but it's not one that everyone shares. For example, I'm sure we'd agree that file systems are typically a part of the operating system, but in proper microkernel architectures, they're not in kernel space.

I don't think SCO is using your definition.

Re:Ummm, no

[AstroDrabb]

Yes, I see the point you were trying to make and sorry for the flame : )

Re:Ummm, no

[AstroDrabb]

"Isolated memory spaces, interrupt handling, etc. - those exist only in kernel space only if that's the only place where you want it, not because there's some compsci-theoretical reason that it "has" to be there. Embedded systems regularly have a poorly defined difference between "kernel mode" and "user mode". On x86 systems, it's clear because the system is usually set up to not be able to execute certain instructions unless it's in supervisory (ring 0) mode. On other systems, it's not necessarily true."

Well I was not refering to embedded systems which are a whole different game from a "normal" OS. Would you want to switch between kernel land and user land for each interrupt in a "normal" OS kernel?

"The library lack is also pointless if you're doing low level coding (yah... lacking printf might suck, but it's always nice knowing where the UART registers are!) where you honestly couldn't give a rat's ass about stdlib functions."

Again, look at the Linux kernel, many things are re-implemented like printk, linked lists etc.

"Your point is (somewhat) correct, if a bit naive, if only referring to modern PCs, with massively complex memory space and interfaces (how many different buses are hooked to a modern PC? 9? 10?) but on an embedded system, in general, coding in userspace and coding in kernelspace isn't that different."

What is incorrect or naive? Did I mention embedded?

"The better point is what the hell is the difference between writing a device driver that sits inside an OS, and writing a portion of an OS that improves its performance? Or is SCO claiming that all device drivers belong to them as well?"

I think since SCO is dead as far as development goes, they want any code that in any way needs touches, uses or depends on their "IP" to be considered theirs. I guess to them is is like they own a chocolat chip cookie recipe and claim that your daughters, daughters, daughters chocolate chip - walnut - raisin - mustard seed cookies are derived and hence theirs.

Re:Ummm, no

[barawn]

The difference between an embedded system and a modern PC is minor. Right now it's mainly just the difference between someone who builds a simple computer from bare metal, and someone who uses a complex computer that's been designed from bare metal for them.

The point being that *NIX design isn't just implemented in modern PCs. It's implemented just about everywhere (uClinux, RTLinux, etc., and even larger 'embedded machines') and there's no way that you can suggest that coding that's developed for a *NIX kernel on a modern PC is ANY different than coding for a *NIX kernel on an embedded PC.

Let me put it this way: what if someone had developed RWU for an embedded multiprocessor system (it's an example, don't pick nits) using a *NIX derivative? They're working 'inside' the OS, but on an embedded system, as you've said, it's a whole different game, so can SCO really claim control over that? If there's more issue with it being developed on an embedded system than on a COTS system, how does that make any sense?

The very fact that there is confusion over this sort of thing just proves that SCO really has no chance. You can't claim that you have the rights to anything that was developed with your technology when "your technology" is the basic foundation of all computer science. Thank God the original inventors of the transistor, integrated circuit, etc., never tried to claim that.

Yeesh.

Imagine the Microsoft win-win from this.

[AtariDatacenter]

Either:
a] SCO wins and Linux and/or IBM is injured ...or... b] The evil GPL has destroyed the intellectual property of SCO.

I have to wonder if they researched the issue and then clued in SCO to go after people.

Also...
What if it is determined that IBM gave up its rights (by helping Linux) and that SCO isn't the sucessor the the rights? Would nobody own UNIX, and if so, would that devalue it in some way?

Calm down folks

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, some of you people can be assholes.

Alright, the guy is brown nosing in his article to get some fame, but he's surely more qualified to comment on the legal merits of this case than 99% of the cretins here. It is legal opinion that will decide this matter, not a bunch of people arguing over the merits of RMS's claims to OS glory. No matter how wizard your skills are Harry Potter, getting a lawyer's opinion is the only way to understand the potential impact of this case, which could make some of us very unhappy. I, for one, found this article informative, and that's all I ask for with opinion pieces.

Now take a pill and play nice.

I've said mostly it all.

[tomstdenis]

Only x posts and slashdotted! Must be running their site on product "A".

Imagine a beowolf cluster of item "B", on a "C".

Just wait till the RIAA hears about this! and/or Just wait till the MPAA sees this! and/or Just wait till the **AA hears and/or sees this!

Something SCO would do....Or Sue! Sue! call SCO

BSD is dying, only a few million users left!

Oh and MS knows security like they know open competition.

I used Mozilla once!

1. Action "D"
2. ???
3. Result "E"

MS sucks. or MSFT sucks. or Microsoft sucks. or Micro$oft sucks or Micro$loth sucks.

Linux has a far superior kitch factor.

I'm going to patent patenting. I'm going to patent the wheel, air, fire, water, item "F". Quick hide it from bezos.

I'm going to sue for violating my first post (patent|copyright).

Check my l33t signature!

Accomplishing goal A: Cost "G". Accomplishing goal B: Cost "H", for everything else there is item "I".

Something, something, something, private part [giggle like the school child you are], something, something, something.

Re:I've said mostly it all.

[why-is-it]

Almost perfect. You only forgot a couple of things:

* a reference to Natalie Portman
* some action involving hot grits and person "J", who may or not be Natalie Portman
* a goatse link

Apart from that, you have pretty much mastered /.

Re:law profs

[NaugaHunter]

I'm sure if there existed any arguments other than SCO saying "We're right. Trust us.", most of us would like to see them. Right now there's what, half a dozen different violations that SCO has alleged that don't overlap, and no hard evidence for any of them.

Sure, we'll all take the "SCO is right because ..." arguments with different levels of belief and presumption, but we'd all pretty much like to see what they are.

The word SCO induces vomiting...

[rulethirty]

Stop the madness, SCO please go out of business so I no longer have to hear this boring news about how you are trying to sue the pants off of other bigger better competitors. I would rather read about you on f*ckedcompany.com

What if SCO is right?

[Kierkan]

Many have mentioned that if SCO showed some illegally copied code in the kernel, it would be replaced in no time. I wonder who could re-implement those parts in a safe way, I mean as in "a cleanroom implementation". Wouldn't every kernel developer be contaminated? Linus would, he must have seen SCO's code when he received the "illegal patches".

If this is true, it would be a really big problem, wouldn't it?

Re:What if SCO is right?

[BigBadDude]

Maybe SCO is right, but again... there is a far higher chance that Brittneay is a virgin :)

Re:What if SCO is right?

[mark-t]

Contamination doesn't matter here. You can't copyright an idea.

Re:What if SCO is right?

[wagemonkey]

Anyway, I've never looked at the kernel code, I could do it, after a while to get back into C, admittedly. I bet there are a lot of good C people around who couldn't be considered 'tainted' if contamination did matter.

Re:What if SCO is right?

[Kierkan]

But good C people isn't enough, they should also be good kernel developers.

Re:What if SCO is right?

[belroth]

Why? I know it's not normally done in OS but get a kernel dev to write up a detailed spec (but stop short of pseudocode obviously) and give it to a 'new' body to code up. Back to kernel devs for testing etc. It would be slower than usual but it would be a valid black box implementation.

Excellent

[Cackmobile]

I have read through th article and it makes sense to me. Hopefully he is right and SCO go down. Bring it on.

And just when I thought it was safe ....

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

... another SCO article.

I'm soooo SCOverdosed!

Re:And just when I thought it was safe ....

[belroth]

It's worrying but I'm starting to miss them - if I don't see one for a few days I wonder what's gone wrong with the world, I don't feel right without my daily hit that can only come from reading about this case. Nothing else quite gives me the high that the combination of hilarity, bemusement, righteous indignation and downright bafflement brought on by sco stories can.

Re:And just when I thought it was safe ....

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

"miss them - if I don't see one for a few days""Nothing else quite gives me the high"

Maybe we'll need a 12-step group before this is over.

Re:..power of dispersed individuals working togeth

[jasonsfa98]

How many /.ers are members of the EFF? ME

How many /.ers don't go out to buy RI/MP-AA products? ME

How many /.ers write a physical letter to their congresswhores? ME

How many /.ers actually use Linux? or contribute to it or other OSS? ME

How many /.ers live alone in their parent's basement, rather than with a helpful cult or commune? NOT ME

How many /.ers use Office & save their files in .doc format? NOT ME (.swx baby)

I doubt they're going to win.-But I'm still scared

[Anonymous Coward]

" Most of my friends agree that the SCO tactics raise questions about their underlying evidence. If you've got the trump card against IBM, why wouldn't you play it right away instead of engaging in this kind of game they've been playing? But you know, given some of the history here I'm starting to wonder if they've got something that's slam dunk against Linux. I doubt it, but I can't imagine they'd try to bluff IBM, let alone the raging Linux community."

And why wouldn't they? Desperation breeds desperate acts. Besides bluffing is a time honored tactic, both in war and business.

" It could be that they've got a solid case. It could be that they're working out some great shenanigans. Irregardless, I'm starting to wonder if Linux should be open to the average user to contribute, or if perhaps it should be restricted to a core group of companies and Linus who can afford lawyers to vet the code. Things are getting pretty scary in the open source world, particularly with the lawyers getting involved..."

Did you read the article? It's already explained why this isn't necessary. Besides those things in life that are truely worthwile are worth fighting for. Now the OSS movement will finally have the trials and tribulations that seperate the men from the boys. The rubber meets the road, and we will find out if our principles actually mean anything.

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[Cackmobile]

Thats a really good point. I hadn't thought of that.

SCO's real game

[heironymouscoward]

SCO (ex-Caldera) is run by lawyers, and they are not stupid nor crazy. Clearly they have a plan and it justifies putting their company at total risk.

Assume for a second that this case goes to court. What are the chances that it will be resolved quickly? Not good. The matter is arcane enough that it will spend several years going through judgement, appeal, judgement, appeal, as long as SCO can pay their own (cheap) legal fees.

What on earth can SCO be after? I don't believe it's a settlement from IBM. They _know_ IBM, a company that has always lived by the fist.

What else? Their business is bankrupt. They sell _nothing_. Their IP is worthless - indeed, realizing this may have been the trigger that set them on their course.

Nuisance value, that is their game. They are attacking Linux and all OSS by association, and they are attacking it a level that plays directly to the paranoia of managers making a Windows / Linux choice today. What SCO are saying, and getting lots of attention to, is that Linux/OSS is not a safe choice. Even IBM are likely to be sued. How about your business next? If the RIAA can sue ten thousand P2P users, why can't SCO sue ten thousand Linux users?

Normal decent paranoia suggests that Microsoft's hand and money lie behind this move, but that is not the crux of the matter.

What is important is that we are at the stage when Linux/OSS seriously threatens commercial interests, and this looks like an undeclared war by those interests against it. War is not nice, not decent, not logical.

Such attacks can go either way. Linux has never has so much publicity as during the last weeks, and the association IBM+Linux is now strongly in the minds of many managers. This is a good thing. People trust IBM.

The OSS community must counter attack. The best approach would be a collective libel and defamation suit by some thousand OSS developers, seeking punitive damages against SCO.

Such a suit would not win but it would show SCO that their opponents are not helpless nerds unable to understand the meaning of cold, hard steel. Knives out!!

Perhaps someone from the EFF would set up a campaign fund? I would gladly contribute $50 or $100 if it would result in SCO getting slapped with a suit.

Re:SCO's real game

[Darth Yoshi]

Perhaps someone from the EFF would set up a campaign fund? I would gladly contribute $50 or $100 if it would result in SCO getting slapped with a suit.

Better yet, contribute $50 or $100 to the Free Software Foundation so that RMS can buy SCO and put UNIX under the GPL.

Re:SCO's real game

[Ice_Balrog]

The OSS community must counter attack. The best approach would be a collective libel and defamation suit by some thousand OSS developers, seeking punitive damages against SCO.

Such a suit would not win but it would show SCO that their opponents are not helpless nerds unable to understand the meaning of cold, hard steel. Knives out!!
</quote>

No, but what would work is if those thousands of OSS developers sued SCO for distributing non-GPLed code with their GPLed code. If SCO were to actually win against IBM, they would loose against the developers. If IBM won, then the developers would drop their case as the whole issue is null.

Hold up a minute....

[StressGuy]

We're getting off the subject with this which is why I've "held my tounge" up till now. However, I think I'm going to comment on this anyways.

A few years ago, I was mucking around with Linux on my machine. Of course, I was a regular in the associated IRC chat rooms, and did a lot of internet searching to basically "learn how the dang thing worked". As my understanding grew, I started to contribute by helping newbies myself when I could (once walked someone through a kernel build over IRC). Anyway, back then, the pervading mode of thought was that Linux was the actual operating system and the everything else were merely extensions to it (X, FVWM, etc.). Just like with DOS was the actual operating system and Windows was just a program running on top of it.

Now, the paradigm appears to have shifted. The latest versions of Windows are no longer trying to eek out what they can out of the venerable DOS and, today, Linux is just a kernel and the whole package is the OS.

Fair enough, define it however you wish, but it really just boils down to semantics..doesn't it?

BTW -- When the HURD matures a little (a my kids get older so I have some free time), I'll probably muck around with it a little as well. Although, I did just do a hard drive install of Knoppix and I'm pretty darned impressed with KDE - quite an evolutionary change from FVWM2.

Re:Hold up a minute....

[XO]

Heh! Oddly enough, I've jsut recently migrated from KDE to FVWM2 .. I like FVWM MUCH more than KDE. This might have something to do with the fact that my primary machine has 128MB ram, and apparently you need a few GB to keep from being in Swapper Hell with KDE3.. (i'm exaggerating.. slightly..)

By the time the HURD matures, I'd be willing to bet your kids will be studying it in college CS classes.

Re:Hold up a minute....

[StressGuy]

He he.... Yea, bells and whistles do cost resources although, my 128M machine seems to be OK with it. Certainly boots up *a lot* faster than WinME ;). Have you tried "man hdparam"? Might help with HD performance.

FVWM2 was kinda fun to tinker with and I think I can honestly say that doing so helped me grasp a lot of GUI concepts when I was teaching myself Python and tKinter a few years later.

As for HURD, I would agree, that would go on the "hobby computer". However, given that my oldest is 2 1/2, I hope they get it going sooner than that.

Re:Hold up a minute....

[XO]

Well, that was the whole joke :-)

It's kind of like waiting for Duke Nuke'em Forever.

I've been waiting for the HURD since I was in middle school. I'm 27, now.

Re:Hold up a minute....

[hankaholic]

It's not quite semantics. Go read my post on the same topic in another thread, and really think about what a core Linux-based OS needs to operate in the way that you might expect.

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[RoLi]

all SCO wants to do is jack the stock high enough, long enough for their CEO, VPs, etc to cash out nice and RICH, and leave a burning twisted pile of rubble at the end....

Finally somebody who understood the reasoning behind this all...

The good thing about all this will be that SCO will be so deep in dept that it will die and take it's damn Unix IP with it into the grave, no more Unix legalese crap.

SCO at $10 a share?

[telbij]

Day trading is back. Ready the Put options!

Re:SCO at $10 a share?

[machine of god]

Ah gambling and contributing to market instability all at the same time. How did you get into that? Because, I think I'd really like to try it sometime.

Re:SCO at $10 a share?

[cbriscoe]

There are no options out for SCOX. I looked a few days ago with dreams of becoming rich with my PUT options. Hopefully somebody will start trading them soon.

Re:The *only* thing Linux should fear is patents..

[jcstover]

Lets turn this statement around. The real achilles heel for patents is open source. If someone puts it patented software into GPL software, that software becomes GPL too. If SCO have put there stuff in linux it's GPL. But in general IMHO the one who puts illegally patented stuff in GPL software is the one who is violating someone rights. So question is not if there is patented software in Linux but just who put it there. And my guess is that that's hard to prove.

Re:Yeah, that was news

[badnews]

Not to be too critical, but did it seem that that "lawyer" basically just wrote a book report from previous slashdot stories? I'm NOT a lawyer, but could have come up with that.

NO you could not have.

there is a difference, a big difference, between an Anonymous Coward IANAL saying "the SCO suit has no merit", and a law professor saying "the SCO suit has no merit".

sure there are no new facts, no brilliant new insights there, (nor from you). it's an opinion piece. What is significant is not what was said, but who signed their name to it.

An idea...

[*NewDis*]

If hackinga bad site that is seen as bad to some and defacing it is against hacking ethics (the free flow of information part), what about hacking a site that is trying to stop the flow of free information, linux for christ sake! Would anyone have distain for that hacker?

More SCO insider stock sold.

[eddy]

I just reloaded to see a Reginald Charles selling $55,450 worth of his SCO stock. At $55,450 that's the largest insider trade listed since this thing started.

06/20/03 BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES Sold 5,000 $11.09 $55,450

Re:More SCO insider stock sold.

[stratjakt]

More interesting is how much McBride bought before this whole pump n dump thing started.

Re:More SCO insider stock sold.

[eddy]

I googled him a little and according to this Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership SEC filing he is Vice President of International Sales.

If I'm reading it right he aquired 50,000 common shares 2003-03-18.

Pump'n'dump, here we come?

Re:More SCO insider stock sold.

[Gregg M]

At $55,450 that's the largest insider trade listed since this thing started.

And it's also "peanuts", compare that to other companies (e.g. MSFT ehem)

The SEC is going after Martha Stewart for $45,673.

The *only* thing Linux should fear is patents..NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um...Mr Insightful. I hate to tell you this but software patents don't discriminate against just OSS. Software patents is a mainefield that the entire computing industry has to face every day.

Since it's the US that's pulling most of this nonsense. It's the US that will suffer the most, while the rest of the planet will shake it's collective head, and mutter something under it's breath about those silly Americans.

If there's any dark knight? It's the same force that brought about the mess in the first place.

That's right, greed. You'll see change when rampent software patents make it nearly impossible to continue to make money.

Then you'll see the gordion knot undone quicker than it took to tie.

READ THIS:

[BigBadDude]

The tinty URL
http://tinyurl.com/cx5f
points to
http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/thanks.html?lo cation=206&category=10&Email=suckthisbitch@fuckyou .com&subject=FUCK_YOU_ASSHOLES!!!&message=SCOsuckm ydick!!
just in case you want to know that before you click on it...

SCO violates BSD license too

[argoff]

Is is well known that SCO relies heavially on BSD code. But the BSD license, while it allows forking, strictly forbids suing over derived code. Since linux and BSD share alot of code - I could envision SCO loosing controll over all of their 'intellectual property'

Re:SCO violates BSD license too

[stephenbooth]

I was at the Linux Expo that's part of the Networks Telecoms show here in Birmingham, UK, yesterday. I got chatting to a guy selling OpenBSD merchandise. He brought up a very interesting point whilst we were talking abou the GPL.

One aspect of GPL, as I and he understand it (well as I understand it and he nodded when I said it), is that if you use something GPLed and ammend it to create a derivetive product then you have to make your ammendments available under the GPL. The point this guy made is that what would happen if someone took some GPLed code and incorporated into their closed source product without telling anyone. The source is closed so there's no easy way to get a look at it an see that it's the same code.

Sure you could sue. But who would sue? The person who wrote it (who could be some college kid working out of their dorm room or a geographically diverse 'team' who each contributed their part)? FSF? AFFS? How would they even know that their code had been stolen? Even if you could show that part of the propietry product did exactly the same thing as your product, without seeing the code you couldn't refute their claim to have developed it independantly. Depending on the complexity you could be faced with the problem that for many things there are only so many ways to do them in code.

If you do sue you could get a look at the code in the dicovery phase, but by that time you've already spent money on what could be a total waste of time and could have laid yourself open to a malicous prosecution case.

Might seem like FUD, but I do think it's something that seems to be enshrouded in uncertainty and doubt. It needs to be resolved.

Stephen

Re:SCO violates BSD license too

[paule9984673]

That's one of the reasons the Free Software Foundation asks contributors to GNU projects to assign their copyright to them.

ok, enough already

[DrWhizBang]

is it just me, or are we slowly bing SCO'ed to death here on slashdot? let me get this straight off the bat:

SCO is publicly making a public ass of it ('s corporate) self.

there, it's been said. i don't need to say it again. if the subject comes up here around the water cooler, i may voice my opinion again to a new party, but really, i'm pretty confident that SCO has no legal grounds here (yes, IANAL, like most other slashdotters). this "me too"ism that is growing here is getting out of hand. how many people do we really need to tell us that darl and co. are raving?

i am sure that there are all kinds of interesting submissions that are being passed over in favour of SCO stuff, and most lilely because of volume, so please - i beg you: don't submit more SCO stories. pretty please? with sugar? unless something changes?

i'm done whining now (which is my right as a slashdotter). move along...

McBride interview

[hobsonchoice]

Part 1 and Part 2 of 3 part interview with McBride

recursive

[lexcyber]

At the end, he references Slashdot for more info

oh, so nice with recursion in stories.

At last...

[saforrest]

But at the same time, it has also generated FUD--"fear, uncertainty, and doubt"--among Linux users.

At long last I know what FUD means! All this time, I was too afraid and uncertain of myself to ask. Now my geek cred can remain intact.

Buying "damaged" goods

[eric76]

I wasn't aware of the timing, but according to the article, SCO's McBride said:

When IBM walked away from Project Monterey it put a dagger into the heart of SCO. Santa Cruz Operation lost its heart at that point and sold its business to Caldera. Caldera tried to run it as a commercial business. That didn't work and it was nearly flat-lined when we took over last year.

Let's see. He's saying that IBM quit working on Project Monterey before Caldera bought Santa Cruz Operation's UNIX rights. That Santa Cruz Operation sold the rights precisely because they weren't as worth much at that point.

But part of SCO's lawsuit against IBM is SCO's claim that because IBM quit working on Project Monterey, IBM is conducting anti-competitive behavior.

Since SCO knew about this at the time they bought it, then surely, the price SCO paid for those rights was already discounted because IBM was no longer pursuing Project Monterey.

It's kind of like buying a junked car that had been damaged in a collision and then suing the driver of the other vehicle for wrecking your car. It was already wrecked when you bought the car! At best, the seller might have had a claim against the other driver, but not the seller.

If SCO wins, maybe we should buy the salvage rights to a World War II navy vessel sunk in a World War II battle. Then we can sue Japan for the full cost of the ship plus interest and penalties because they sunk our boat.

Re:Buying "damaged" goods

[hobsonchoice]

I would agree with you. But doesn't it sound similar to DR-DOS? (although of course nobody at SlashDot cared, as it was MS who was in the cross hairs)

The point is:

DR-DOS was already damaged when Caldera bought it. Caldera got it cheap as a result.

MS actions may have damaged DR-DOS, but it was DR that suffered, not Caldera. Yet Caldera was the one suing for damages (and getting a settlement).

Seeing a pattern here? You should.

Re:Buying "damaged" goods

[Isaac-1]

There is a big difference here, Caldera bought the DR-DOS rights including the law suit, but the lawsuit had already been in the court system for years prior to the purchase.

Re:Buying "damaged" goods

[walterbyrd]

It should also be noted that once caldera was finished with the lawsuit, drdos was thrown on the scrap heap. doesn't seem caldera actually had any interest in developing or marketing the product that they bought.

maybe canopy/caldera/sco just goes around buying IP, and suing everybody hoping somebody would rather settle than fight a lawsuit?

caldera hasn't really done much for unix either.

Good For Him!

[eXoXe]

Good For Him!

MS funds SCO while disposing of Corel

[Anonymous Coward]

Rejected /. story submission but semi-relevant to the story of SCO (funded by MS) using the courts to attack competition while the same courts are not willing to protect anyone against the manipulation of competition by a monopoly)

Corel shareholders fight suspicious takeover deal

Corel is being buried alive, and at breakneck speed, by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen and a former MS executive who, incidentally, also worked for the McKinsey consultancy firm which validated the post-MS investment strategic U-turn. Under the deal all Corel products would be privatized for a measly $30M. Corel shareholders - who've also pushed for Linux support long and hard - hope to canvass enough NO VOTES to scrap the deal but the raiders are tilting the rules in their favour.

It all went horribly wrong after the Linux powerhouse merger agreement between Corel and Inprise/Borland was derailed three years ago. We understand that Borland (in which MS had a shareholding stake) had valid reasons for pulling out under the agreed terms, but the combination would still have made perfect sense. Corel founder and CEO Mike Cowpland was soon ousted and CTO Derek Burney was named interim CEO. Conveniently soon afterwards Burney's half-acquintance, Microserf Tom Button, gave him a call and invited Burney for a visit at the MS campus and before we knew it, he had signed a $135M investment deal with MS, accompanied by an incredibly one-sided Alliance deal in which Corel had all the commitments and Microsoft basically none. In his debt of gratitude, Burney even promised not to sue MS over any anti-competitive tactics that MS "may" have used in their MS-Office offensives. Next Burney drew up a new strategy based on those commitments - again incidentally killing all Linux efforts and reducing emphasis on anything competing with Microsoft - and submitted his ideas for "validation" by McKinsey & Company, a consulting firm with strong culture of alumni networking.

From 2001 onwards Corel milked the increasingly-abandoned WordPerfect Office for revenue while toiling away on its dotNET descendant. Staff was getting laid off as a three-year turnaround plan was revealed to be centered on a dotNET-based enterprise system for massaging corporate data and delivering it in realtime to any type of devices through extensive use of XML and SVG graphics. Corel even bought SoftQuad and Micrografx to merge their technologies into the project codenamed Deepwhite. Great idea but with somewhat misguided execution.

In 2002 Corel managed to strike a few high-profile albeit limited OEM preload deals with the likes of Dell, HP and Sony. While Corel received little in terms of revenue from those deals, even that limited success must have come as a shock for Microsoft. "How dare those ingrate nobodies invade our holy turf!" could have been the likely reaction at Redmond. With the anti-trust spotlight under a friendly operator it was time for the final strike, and how better add insult to injury than by not just taking Corel out but actually keeping the corpse within the family!

In December 2002 the Paul Allen financed Vector Group, managed by a fo

SCO for dummies

[msheppard]

In case you don't know what's going on: This link might help you understand the situation.

M@

txs SCO

[slartibartfastatp]

IMHO those lawsuits will always turn in favor of open-source software. It's causing people which never though of it to think about differences between proprietary and open-source software, and to even worry about it.

I hope that, then, more and more people will feel more confident about open source, then start to use it.

closed makes it easier to hide patent infringment

[obsid1an]

What I really wonder is how much closed projects have benefited from open projects. I wonder if you were to analyze a closed source program from MS or another big company if any of the programmers took their code from open sources. The only difference is that you can't be sued for patent infringment if you can't see it is there.

Revisionist history

[dh003i]

This kind of stuff really pisses me off. Mr. Chander has written a basically intelligent article, discussing why SCO's case is BS. Yet, he has revised history, probably unknowingly.

Linus Torvalds did not "indtroduce an operating system...that did some of what UNIX did". Linus wrote a kernel, which is complementary to UNIX kernels (though different in architecture, design, etc). He did not write the entire operating system -- properly called GNU/Linux. He wrote one component necessary for the operating system that is now improperly called "Linux".

This is not a knock again Linus. He has never claimed credit for any entire GNU/Linux operating system, nor GNU/Linux in general. He has simply claimed credit for the Linux kernel.

It is, however, a prime illustration of how simply calling all GNU/Linux OS' "Linux" is revising history. People here talk about it like, "so what, everyone knows Linus didn't write all of the software for Linux-based OS' [GNU/Linux distros]". We know that. Obviously, no one else does. This lawyer thinks that Linus Torvalds created the GNU/Linux distributions from the ground up, single-handedly.

It is an example of revisionist history. Just like how Issac Newton is credited as the founder of Calculus, but no-one mentions Leibniz, who invented calculus at the same time as Newton independently.

Linus has done great things for the FS and OSS communities. We should, however, credit others where credit is due.

Re:Revisionist history

[hexidec]

Your position is understandable, but does not reflect the way things are usually handled in the larger public forum. Look at the whole "inventor of the radio" business. We know that, without the work of Tesla, Marconi would have never gotten anywhere, but nevertheless you will most often hear of Marconi as the "father of radio". That is merely the way public acknoledgement tends to work. Names get shortened to the easiest version ("Linux", not "GNU/Linux", which could be likened to how many people say "Windows" rather "Microsoft Windows" in general conversation). So too do inventions get attached to an individual, particularly if they are the one who added something resulting in the invention's popularity.

So while Linus didn't invent the GNU software, he did create the kernel that catapulted the whole synthesis of GNU and Linux to the fore. And in so doing, became popularly linked with the composite entity we know hear called simply "Linux". As with the Marconi/Tesla example, those of us who are more than passingly interested in the field know the deeper details, but it is always going to be a Sisyphean task to get the casual users similarly engaged.

Howard Kistler

PS - Your Newton/Leibniz analogy, while enlightening, is not very useful here, as Linux and GNU were not simultaneous developments of the same thing, but rather complimentary ones.

Re:Revisionist history

[drewness]

Just like how Issac Newton is credited as the founder of Calculus, but no-one mentions Leibniz, who invented calculus at the same time as Newton independently.

I think that depends where you are. In America and Britain, Newton gets the credit, but I think that in Europe they tend to credit Leibniz. And it's kind of funny that we credit Newton, because we mostly use Leibniz's notation.

Re:Revisionist history

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

"more than two decades ago, IBM introduced the personal computer based on the Intel microprocessor. Plainly, IBM's engineers are quite capable of invention "

Maybe the history in the article was just sloppy -- journalists do work to tight deadlines.

Re:Revisionist history

[dh003i]

I agree completely in regards to your point on Newton/Leibniz. I wish I'd mentioned the difference you pointed out; however, the injustice is essentially similar.

Re:Revisionist history

[dh003i]

But he's a lawyer. Who's writing an article that's supposed to educate people. His article generally seems to be intelligent and informed; thus, someone who doesn't know better will come away thinking that on the first day, Linus created the Linux kernel, on the 2nd he created the GNU tools, on the 3rd he created XFree86, ..., and on the 7th day, he rested.

Re:Revisionist history

[spitzak]

Listen, "Linux" is the popular term. And RMS and everybody else who argues against it should look very carefully at what happened. IMHO about 50% of Linux's success is not due to GPL or good engineering or the BSD lawsuits, it is due to a nice name and a cute picture of a penguin. BSD has a not-as-cute devil and had a terrible nerdy spell-it-out name and it lost for that reason.

I've started to wonder if RMS's insistence on "GNU/Linux" is to try to get rid of some of the popularity of Linux amoung the non-elite-haxors, so that only members of the exclusive club will use it.

In any case, to be technically correct, SCO seems to be attacking the kernel anyway, not the GNU tools. Don't they distribute some GNU tools with their own system?

Re:Revisionist history

[StormReaver]

Always remember your target audience. This article was written on a site about law, not a site about software engineering. His muddied software definitions and imprecise Linux/Unix history were undoubtedly intentional. He was interested in conveying broad software principles as an introduction to his legal arguments. Getting bogged down in software technicalities, such as the different between Linux the kernel and Linux the common umbrella term for what is rightfully the GNU toolset, would have detracted from, not added to, his article and analysis.

There are times and places for taking to task those who play fast and loose with our favorite subject, but this isn't an example of either.

Re:Revisionist history

[GlassHeart]

He did not write the entire operating system -- properly called GNU/Linux. He wrote one component necessary for the operating system that is now improperly called "Linux".

You can argue (on and on) about what is a better name for an operating system composed of the Linux kernel and the GNU user space utilities, but don't dismiss opposing opinions as "improper". When Red Hat put together their distribution, they called it "Red Hat Linux". There's nothing unethical about that, because the GPL does not require any credit. In fact, they could have called it "Red Hat Operating System", and credited no one.

Remember the Linux Router Project guy who was lambasted for wanting credit (and money) for his volunteer work? Same deal. If GNU wanted the "glory", it should've required it as a condition in the GPL.

Note that I'm not saying it isn't arguable, just that there was no impropriety in not crediting GNU.

[Torvalds] has simply claimed credit for the Linux kernel.

Not even that. He said recently, "as the owner of the copyright in the collective of the Linux kernel, I shepherd even more [intellectual properties]", a clear statement that he is not even claiming credit for the entire kernel. Even then, most other important kernel contributors are not credited nearly as much as Linus has been, especially when you consider that the kernel bears his name.

Would you like to rename Linux the kernel as well?

Re:Revisionist history

[dh003i]

I would simply like credit to be given where credit is freaking due.

Irrelevant of the GNU/Linux (proper) vs. Linux (improper) way to say it, Linus Torvalds did not create the OS. He started the kernel.

It is patently wrong, and unethical, to say that Linus created the entire OS. That denies credit to thousands of hard-working individuals who's combined contributions create the OS (GNU/Linux).

Giving proper credit to those who create things shouldn't have to be in licenses. It should be the default. If you quote someone, you have to say that you're quoting them. You certainly don't pass off the quote as your own words, nor do you say that person X said what, in fact, person Y said.

What I am criticizing this guy for is for stating something as a fact which is not the truth. He researched UNIX history before saying anything about who created what, so he damn well should have researched the history behind GNU/Linux before saying that Linus created it. But since he didn't, now there are even more people who have that misconception, and have no idea of the real history of GNU/Linux, no idea that the contributions of the FSF (and those who contributed to it) were essential.

Re:Revisionist history

[GlassHeart]

Irrelevant of the GNU/Linux (proper) vs. Linux (improper) way to say it, Linus Torvalds did not create the OS. He started the kernel.

Sure, but now it's named after him. That in itself is "unfair" to a number of people who have contributed a lot to the kernel. The point is, things get named frequently as historical accidents. Linus obviously didn't intend to "hog" all the "glory", and Red Hat probably didn't deliberately choose to not credit GNU contributions. Remember Christopher Columbus? Well, the continent got named "America", not "Columbia". Life's like that sometimes.

I'm objecting to the distinction between "proper" and "improper" naming, not disputing that credit should be given where due. Yes, a journalist should do good research before writing; no, it's not "improper" to call it Linux. It's not even "improper" to call it "Red Hat Operating System", for example.

Re:Revisionist history

[Zebbers]

honestly. get the fuck over it.

jim has everything for a car...he has a frame, wheels..the rolling chassis.

he sits around with jackshit, just spicing up his rolling chassis when jack invents the engine and transmission.

jacks getting all my credit sorry. hes the one that did something useful

the gnu tools were lying around. linus produced something useful. linus deserves the credit. kinda like IP and copyright sitting around not getting used? so fucking what if it was already around and invented. all that matters is HERE and NOW. and HERE and NOW, linus and his kernel are what has gotten so-called gnu/linux...i just call it linux, where it is today. You want credit? Go play with your gnuhurd. If someone wants to build something using the linux kernel and NOT mention the name you wouldnt see Linus throwing a hissy fit.

jesus

Re:Revisionist history

[Kjella]

This lawyer thinks that Linus Torvalds created the GNU/Linux distributions from the ground up, single-handedly.

I think even a law professor understands that it is far more than one man's project. However, it is not so strange that people believe Linus started the movement that led to what today is commonly called Linux.

GNU's greatest problem is that it is completely redundant to say. GNU/Linux as opposed to what? Is there any non-GNU/Linux operating systems out there? To common people it would be like insisting that they say Microsoft Windows all the time, instead of just Windows. They do not care who it attributes or what it means, it makes no sense.

My server runs RH9. There's no way in hell that I'll start calling it "Red Hat GNU/Linux 9 with Gnome/KDE, x, y, and everything else that should be mentioned as a central part of this OS." And no, calling it RH9 doesn't mean I try to ignore Linus' contributions to RH either....

Kjella

Re:Revisionist history

[dh003i]

Well, I have to disagree with you. The law professor thinks Linus created the GNU/Linux OS all by himself. He certainly hasn't bothered to find anything out about the contributions of others not associated with Linus.

Common people do not know what GNU is. That is the problem. They do not know that the GNU/Linux OS is not the same thing as Linux, the kernel. Thus, they think that this lawsuite threatens the integrity of the entire OS. Yes, there is an operating system out there that uses Linux but no GNU tools, though the name of it escapes me at the moment (I believe it uses all BSD tools with Linux).

Hell, the average person thinks s/he's running Linux 9, not RedHat GNU/Linux 9. The common person doesn't even know what a fscking kernel is. That's part of the problem.

The other part of the problem is when people who do know better use terminology that causes confusion between what is the OS and what is the kernel and what is all the extra software that flushes out a GNU/Linux distribution like Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, RedHat, or Lindows.

Your right, it is common that most people think that Linus started the movement and work that led to the OS that is properly called GNU/Linux. That is exactly the problem. History has effectively been re-written. No-one knows that RM Stallman in fact started that movement, and Linus capped it off by completing the puzzle with his kernel. If more people know that RMS started the movement that lead to the GNU/Linux OS, more people may come to know of the FSF and understand the values behind Free Software.

But, all this values stuff aside, it really boils down to credit where credit is due. This lawyer would have been flunked out of any college journalism class for such a thing, and probably would face disciplinary action. The cavalear attitude among many about giving intellectual credit is particularly disturbing to me. It seems like the attitude of students bitching because they have to list references. On many modern Science papers which feature micro-array studies, there are hundreds of authors. All of them are listed on the front page of the paper underneath the title.

PS: Calling it "Red Hat" is fine among those who know what is implied by that (that it has GNU and Linux parts). The reason that it is better to call the distributions GNU/Linux is precisely to avoid the kind of confusion between kernel and OS that SCO is exploiting. The reason we don't call it GNU/Linux/GNOME/KDE/Xfree86, is because none of those things are either as essential or as massive in terms of how much they account for. No-one needs to use GNOME, KDE, Xfree86, nor any WM or X-implementation when they install distributions. They do, however, need to use the Linux kernel and GNU software. However, RMS has said that if you really feel XFree is that much of an important part of it, then call it GNU/Linux/XFree, or whatever.

Re:The *only* thing Linux should fear is patents..

[Anonymous Coward]

You're mixing up patent and copyright. Whether a particular implementaion of an algorithm is released under the GLP has nothing to do with who owns the patent for that algorithm or if the patent is enforcable.

Re:Yeah, that was news

[notque]

What is significant is not what was said, but who signed their name to it.

If I was a moderator, you would recieve +1 funny my friend.

You can help SCO!

[teamhasnoi]

As SCO is now requesting open source code to ensure it does not contain SCO's property, please send your ISOs and uncompressed images of Redhat, Suse, Lindows, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, Mandrake, Yellow Dog, and Knoppix to investorrelations@sco.com
robertb@sco.com
kmartens@sco.com
darlm@sco.com
chriss@sco.com
shitheads@sco.com

Re:[OT] /. Hate Crime Policy?

[notque]

Apparently we have a case of an immature individual committing an act of anti-semitism, illegal in the US, where this site is hosted and read a lot, and in Europe, where it's read a lot, too. CmdrTaco, the elders: are you going to do something about this individual and his petty agenda? I believe we don't deserve to see racial hatred nick above a message. Isn't the user in violation of /. policies? I'll watch this nick's posts, if it doesn't C&D will refer this to the Defamation League. (Also, if the e-mail works, hotmail should shut down their account as well.)

Wow. You really suck man.

Nope.

[jotaeleemeese]

While dying they have to pay the last bills, the UNIX "IP" would ve a valluable asset that will be sold to the first lawyer willing to sue somebody again.

Re:Nope.

[dmaxwell]

While dying they have to pay the last bills, the UNIX "IP" would ve a valluable asset that will be sold to the first lawyer willing to sue somebody again.

It won't be IBM. There has to be a room somewhere in Armonk with reams and reams of case material. If they don't use it to stomp SCO they can surely use it against whoever buys that material. Anyway, I don't think IBM is necessarily opposed to buying that IP themselves. They're just not going pay SCO's market cap for it. Once SCO craters, then yeah they'll likely buy it at a fire-sale price just so nobody else can make trouble with it.

Re:[OT] /. Hate Crime Policy?

[The Cydonian]

That's what the moderators are there for. In the meantime, feel free to upgrade his status to "foe" or something. :-)

Re:What you've really got to love..

[hobsonchoice]

I'm pretty sure the advertiser pays for that ad per unique IP clicking on it.

Bullshit.

[jotaeleemeese]

Anybody that has read about this know that this has nothing to do with the GPL.

My goofness, SCO stuff daily and there are some people that still don't get it.

No, patents are LESS worrisome than SCO case

[squashed]

In the case of a software patent , the offending algorithm would be fully disclosed in the patent application, out in the open for all to see. It would be published on the first date that the patent holder has the right to prevent unauthorized use.

With this full transparency, legions of open source coders could write around the protected algorithm. Although important code might be sacrificed, no legal problem would remain.

Much more distressing is the possibility that a company like SCO finds a judge who agrees to view code that is the foundation for a legal claim "in chambers", and finds IBM or another firm using Linux guilty of violating some "copyrighted" or "trade secret" not a matter of public record.

That's the big danger of the SCO case -- the prospect that the code that is the foundation for the legal claim never sees the light of day.

Re:No, patents are LESS worrisome than SCO case

[b29651]

This is what i was wondering also.How would kernel developers even be able to file claims for infringement if SCO gets this all done behind close doors and gets ownership of linux in a roundabout and backdoor way. Probably am not being very clear in the way to say this as i dont fully understand it

Re:[OT] /. Hate Crime Policy?

[bayofpigs]

You should decide already, whether it is the girls who suck or anti-semites. Did you ever meet an anti-semite girl? Perhaps that kind would understand your random ramblings...

A clear and interesting article

[ctid]

But I'd love to hear the Professor's views on the evidence that has emerged thus far. As far as I can see, SCO's case revolves around developments at IBM and Sequent (now owned by IBM). They have talked about RCU and NUMA and JFS and something else I have forgotten. It seems that what SCO have shown so far is equivalent to this: IBM devise a new scheme for (eg) scheduling in the kernel. They implement this new scheme in AIX, sell it to some customers and everyone (including SCO) is happy. Later on, IBM conceives its Linux strategy. They then port their new XYZ scheduling scheme to Linux, offer it to Linus and eventually it gets merged into the Kernel. Now SCO comes along and says that IBM has no right to incorporate it into Linux because it belongs to SCO. The fact that the original technology licensed to IBM has got nothing like XYZ scheduling in it doesn't matter to SCO; as far as they're concerned, since IBM incorporated it into AIX first, the technology belongs to SCO.

All of this begs the question as to what SCO have been showing to their independent experts. Suppose they grab the code for XYZ scheduling, as seen in AIX. Then they grab the code for XYZ scheduling, as seen in Linux. Obviously, these two pieces of code, are going to be a pretty good match, even down to the comments. They tell the independent consultants that the former is System V code (because SCO claims that everything that was ever added to AIX belongs to them). And they tell the consultants that the latter is from kernel 2.4.XX. So the independent consultants, in all good faith, report that there is a match between "SCO code" and Linux code. My bet is that this is what SCO have been doing. I believe that this is the reason for SCO wanting people to sign NDAs. They can't risk anyone who knows anything about the kernel saying exactly what the code represents. It is in their interests to fudge the issue of where the code has come from. If some random hacker has grabbed the original SVR4 code and slipped some of it into a patch that has found its way into the Kernel, that could occasion some sympathy for SCO (not $3bn or even $1bn worth of sympathy). If that is the case, it looks like code that SCO originally paid for is being used without SCO being compensated. On the other hand, if it's IBM's implementation of XYZ for AIX, which they have ported to XYZ for Linux, then SCO's case is dead in the water, and SCO knows it.

Re:A clear and interesting article

[Queuetue]

Close, but here you go astray:

Now SCO comes along and says that IBM has no right to incorporate it into Linux because it belongs to SCO. The fact that the original technology licensed to IBM has got nothing like XYZ scheduling in it doesn't matter to SCO; as far as they're concerned, since IBM incorporated it into AIX first, the technology belongs to SCO.

SCO does not lay claim to the Sequent code. IBM owns that free and clear. SCO's opinion is that because it was first integrated to AIX, it is a derivative work of UNIX, and can not be released to anyone without a UNIX liscense. But SCO does not lay claim to it, since they did not write it.

Some speculate that Sequent covered these bases quite well. In a white paper released before code was developed, they described the generic algorithms and functionality outside of any actual implementation. The UNIX port can be said to come from that whitepaper, which indicates it is not derivative of anything.

Re:A clear and interesting article

[ctid]

SCO does not lay claim to the Sequent code. IBM owns that free and clear. SCO's opinion is that because it was first integrated to AIX, it is a derivative work of UNIX, and can not be released to anyone without a UNIX liscense. But SCO does not lay claim to it, since they did not write it.

Thanks for clearing that up. I should have been more precise about that.

Patents are a danger only to some countries...

[OmniGeek]

I think Linux itself is not threatened in its essence. Pray hard (if you live in the EU or US) that the EU doesn't follow the US' idiot lead and decide that software can be patented. As long as there are significant Linux players in countries that DON'T recognize software patents (say, China, India, and Brazil, to name a few?), Linux will thrive safe from the software patent menace. I don't think innovation itself will wither, just in certain countries.

Of course, this will come as cold comfort to those of us in the idiot countries, because if M$ and company DO manage to erect software patent barriers to OSS, Linux will be a banned article we cannot legally import.

The logical result of all this will be that the US and (probably) EU will lose their technological edge to China and India and become second-rate powers (and probably not just in the software field) until the software patent madness is overturned.

Our leaders, if they had any ability to think strategically beyond the next election, would realize that Open Source is a critical resource for their countries' ability to compete in the only area they have a critical advantage in -- their technological edge. (Not that I like what's been sliced up with that edge recently, but living in a declining country is an unpleasant prospect...).

Sweet.

[The Cydonian]

The guy links to Slashdot, Slashdot acknowledges the link, re-links back to his article, but at the same time, he gets bashed by bored /.-tters.

A fascinating loop, if I may say so. :-D

Thing Is...

[Greyfox]

If the industry gets to that point (And I agree it's approaching it rapidly) then at some point all those big companies developing operating systems will decide that it's cheaper to lobby Congress for a change in that law versus being forced to defend themselves against hundreds of frivolous patent cases a year. While Linux may seem like an easy target for patent infringement cases, who are you going to sue? Linus, for the $12.95 in his bank account after he's done buying beer and herring for Tux? Or IBM and Microsoft, who have a lot more money in their bank accounts since they don't have a insatiable thirst for beer and a penguin to support?

Not to mention the fact that in the event that the Linux kernel comes under fire for patented methods, the community will have patches to replace the patented code in about 14 minutes. The big companies are simply not capable of changing their code bases and distributing those changes to the customers that fast.

Finally, with a community several hundred thousand strong comprising professionals and students across the industry, the chances of having prior art found and your patent discarded are much, much higher.

To put it simply

[Badgerman]

From the article:
More generally, companies trying to derive more revenue from their intellectual property portfolio may lash out at licensees. But licensees of open source software distributed under a permissive license do not have to worry about this possibility.

Nuff said. Here's your argument for your PHB.

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[walterbyrd]

Don't buy now. The time to buy was a few months ago when SCOX was under $3 a share. SCOX hit a high of $11.95 about two weeks ago and has bouncing around $10 a share since.

Buy now, and you're buying at the top.

Re:[OT] /. Hate Crime Policy?

[notque]

You should decide already, whether it is the girls who suck or anti-semites. Did you ever meet an anti-semite girl? Perhaps that kind would understand your random ramblings...

What kind of comment was that?

It's just a nickname. Even if he is anti-semitic, who cares? People can hate whoever they want as long as they follow laws.

How does a website correspond with this conversation? You sir are flamebait, and I will cease replying to this thread.

Chris Dibona discusses SCO at Usenix.

[Jeremy Erwin]

The hour long discussion has been archived on mp3

You try

[robi2106]

I once thought I could create a parody song based on this opera, but dang . . it is had to write words that match the meter and make sense! To complicate matters even more, the song is played at "ludicrous" speed to make the singer hyperventilate by the end.

robi

RTFC professor Chander

[worldcitizen]

While I agree that SCOX hardly has merits for this lawsuit, I'm afraid professor Chander is writing on hearsay rather than the actual claims made by SCOX. The point (at this moment, until SCOX files their next update to the suit) is about what constitutes a derived work and whether IBM (and Sequent) lost their rights to their original research when they incorporated it into Unix. This is not analyzed at all.

Some defensive items in the article are correct but that is because previous reporting got those right already, for example the delay in SCOX taking action and their willful distribution of supposedly infringing code under GPL terms (fully willful, there was no "inadvertent" element, they were "advertising" these featues)

The closing comment highlights how much this article is about politics more than law Otherwise, there will be no such thing as truly open, free software - and as a consequence, there will effectively be an economy-dragging tax on information technology. A judge will hardly be bothered with the existance or not of free software, there isn't a law or constitutional principle or similar that says freedom of software is protected. Same for SCOX being able to collect a "tax" from others, if judges were bothered by this, stupid patents wouldn't have a chance and we know this is not what actually happens...

So, Mr. Chander, please read the freaky claims before speaking about them. Getting infected with slashdotters' bad habits can be very dangerous in court.

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[Greyfox]

If you suspect that SCO's officers are illegally manipulating the stock market, you could complain to the SEC's enforcement division. There's a contact page over there somewhere where you can find their E-mail address. As twitchy as the SEC should be after the debacle with Enron et al, I would think they'd be on top of anything that smelled funny. I suspect that they've probably already evaluated this case and decided it was kosher. They can't afford any more black eyes right now, after all.

Word of advice; personally, I wouldn't accuse the SCO folks of running an illegal pump-and-dump scam in a public forum, since that could potentially lead to a libel suit. Since you've represented this as fact and not opinion, I'd say you're at pretty high risk...

Read history McBride

[mormop]

SCO alleges that "as long as the Linux development process remained uncoordinated and random, it posed little or no threat to SCO...." But in truth, Linux was always coordinated - just by many different hands.

In the final years of the 1930s the german army raced across Europe trashing all opposition in their path. At the time of their greatest military successes the German army was running a field command structure called "mission based" command.

Mission based command placed the authority to act in the hands of the soldiers on front line, the idea being that those closest to the front would undoubtably be best positioned to make fast assessments of a situation. Should an opportunity present itself they were free to exploit it to their advantage without having to check with the beaurocracy above. The overall target was known - to win, and as long as your actions fitted the target it was up to you.

This system worked so well that all fell in their path 'til they hit the English channel and turned on Russia (at the instruction of their one leader).

Contrast this to the latter half of the war. The more centralised command became around the leader and his sycophantic entourage, the worse things got until eventually the leaders own incapability to understand the demands of those at the front line led to the collapse of the whole system.
The first example was Hitlers order to Rommel to stand fast to the last man at El-Almain. The same mistake was made again at Stalingrad and in several other situations.

The distributed, "module based" development of Linux allows developers to react in the same way as the soldiers on the front line, patching and adding features on the fly without having to discuss it with their manager, product manager, product devlopment manager, product development management manager etc. leading to events like the KDE team patching the SSL flaw in konqueror while the MS FUD machine was still denying it was a problem.

NO! before you start saying it their are no insinuated similaraties between OSS community developers and certain historical characters of an evil nature it's the model that's similar. Ironically the intent in the case of Linux is freedom not enslavement.

Re:Read history McBride

[infolib]

Mission based command placed the authority to act in the hands of the soldiers on front line

Very nice, if the soldiers and the leader share the mission. Saddam recently did his best to discourage "mission based command" because most Iraqi soldiers had the mission "survival for me" - not "survival for the Dear Leader".

Sharing objectives with yours soldiers/workers/developers is the key to great leadership. It's just very hard to achieve.

Anyway, we're off-topic and defying Godwin. We should stop here.

Shareholder lawsuit coming?

[OmniGeek]

It occurs to me that the SEC should be looking hard at current events in the SCO case, as there's a real prospect the board are engaging in illegal stock manipulation. If SCO's case is all just hot air (IF? well, just for the sake of argument...), then those who are buying the shares the board are slowly dumping at high prices (assuming this is true; I cannot be sure) are being defrauded right now. If the board knows or should know that the case is empty and the stock rise just a bubble, are they not commiting fraud? Does only a stockholder have standing to raise the issue with the SEC (IANAL, I don't really know)? In that case, maybe I have $10 for a share of SCO and a dime to call the Feds...

Easy pickings

[The Kryptonian]

"This law professor from the University of California points out weakness in SCO's legal bluster, "..

Talk about shooting fish in a barrel..

Re:Easy pickings

[mormop]

Shooting fish or dropping a hand grenade in? ;)

Re:[OT] /. Hate Crime Policy?

[spatrick_123]

Anti-semitism is illegal in the United States?

I'll agree that the nickname suggests that the guy is an asshole, but to suggest he's done anything illegal is silly.

Also, I don't think that his email address is necessarily anti-semitic. If not wanting the 3rd temple to be built is anti-semitic, then I know several anti-semitic Jews!

Minor historical nit.

[n0ano]

The autor states Three decades ago, AT&T created a computer operating system called UNIX to run its telecommunications network.

In point of fact, Ritchie created Unix to run a chess program, not for telecommunications. Only later, when AT&T discoverd that Unix was a very creditable OS, was it used for more prosaic, business related work.

Re:Minor historical nit.

[dmaxwell]

In point of fact, Ritchie created Unix to run a chess program, not for telecommunications.


So we've been running copies of the MCP all this time? That could explain a lot. Now if someone would only de-rez McBride with one of those magic frisbees.

The above reference makes feel so dirty. "Did anybody in here watch that movie Tron?" Everybody leaves their hands down and pretends they didn't hear the question.

Re:Minor historical nit.

[Mostly a lurker]

In point of fact, Ritchie created Unix to run a chess program

Kind of ironic that one of the main reasons cited why Unix-like systems are unsuited for consumers is that they do not support games playing!

Re:Minor historical nit.

[nathanh]

In point of fact, Ritchie created Unix to run a chess program, not for telecommunications. Only later, when AT&T discoverd that Unix was a very creditable OS, was it used for more prosaic, business related work.

Actually, Ritchie *and* Thompson created UNIX to play Space Travel. You can read all about it in the definitive history of UNIX written by Ritchie himself... here.

Further history (can't find a reference) is that Ritchie and Thompson were later asked to justify what they'd just built. They hurriedly reworked Unix to be used by the trademark office for document typesetting (eg, multiple users on dumb terminals with text editors). So the first practical use of Unix was... yes... a desktop!

Re:The *only* thing Linux should fear is patents..

[Karrick]

Yikes! I can just see it now!

Why not just patent the CPU instruction set? Then every piece of software is really owned by the company that owns the CPU manufacturer? AHHHH! :-)

NB: obviously instruction sets are patented; even MS patents it dot net vm.

I think we must recall the creation of the PC compatible: a new BIOS was created from scratch to run the hardware. IBM fought tooth-and-nail to protect their BIOS-IP, but lost in court because the BIOS was created in a "clean-room" environment by programmers who had never been exposed to the original IBM copyrighted BIOS code, neither source nor decompiled. If you remember, this was a big win for the computer industry. I'll even go so far to argue that it was this court decision that enabled the PC to become as proliferous as it is today. This court decision established the notion that a basic computer algorithm cannot be patented, but the source code and executable that executes the algorithm can... Otherwise, some greedy company could patent "MOV AX, 9", or the powerful two hex bytes, "CD21", and then where would we all be?

But wait! What about the recently patent-liberated GIF compression scheme that Unisis held onto for so many years (GIF Patent Prepares to Expire refers)?

The point I'm making is that IP law will never kill the software industry. As long as there are CPUs which need programming, there will be programmers around to do the job. If anything, I honestly believe (I admit, a bit of RMS RDF in effect here) that because of the specifics of this SCO vs. IBM case, a clear line in the sand will be drawn much like the original IBM PC BIOS case, that allows cleanly-developed software to be developed to mimic IP software. Thus there will never be a threat to Linux, until the next big thing in OS technology comes along and the Linux community refuses to adopt it.

If anything, this will be a painful and expensive battle, but it's outcome will greatly benefit our community.

Karrick

yea, but when the average user hears "OS"

[dh003i]

They think of alot more than the kernel. In fact, the average Win/Mac user doesn't even know what a kernel is. They think of the OS as the universal menu bar, the file-manager, the desktop, the task-bar, and all of the utils that are needed to at least manage files.

That is what the term OS tends to be taken as today.

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[_Sprocket_]

The good thing about all this will be that SCO will be so deep in dept that it will die and take it's damn Unix IP with it into the grave, no more Unix legalese crap.

That's the fun thing about "intellectual property". It doesn't burn to the ground. It survives corporate implosion - at pennies on the dollar. With a fire-sale price, such "property" can even be snatched up by those with relatively little to lose and a lot to gain if they can leverage their new holdings in a creative manner.

And, of course, it doesn't stop there. Even if a company remains intact one shouldn't depend on the benevolence of that company. Company leadership changes. There could be a personnel shuffling in management. Or perhapse someone in Legal discovers a particularly "clever" way of making more money and gets top-level support.

Which, of course, sounds awfully familiar.

Linus speaks the truth

[ruiner13]

"Linus Torvalds retorted, 'I allege SCO is full of it...'"

Nice. Couldn't have said it better myself. I like that guy.

Or...

[Greyfox]

c) IBM put the code in from some other base they had access to and the SCO contract thing is irrelevent. Except SCO's shown their true colors and you'd have to be an idiot to establish a business relationship with them after this. Of course, I think you would have had to have been an idiot to establish a business relationship with them before, but that's just because I've used their crappy overpriced software and would hack my own right arm off with a spoon to avoid having to do so again.

Or...

d) SCO's programmers actually copied the code from Linux and it's us who should be sueing for copyright violations. This is a pretty plausible possibility, since the Linux code base is freely available, SCO's isn't and programmers often face tight deadlines with huge pressure to get stuff out. I hope this possibility is examined at great length, though no one's been talking about it much.

Or...

e) SCO or Caldera actually put those modifications into Linux themselves, giving up rights to that IP in the process.

Take your pick...

New campaign

[srealm]

We need a new campaign.

How about "Hell no! I won't SCO!" :)

Thank you

[rutledjw]

Have we beaten this dead horse enough? it's beginning to look like hamburger...

SCO is suing someone they have no chance of beating in an attempt to be bought out. Since they know this is their only option, they're putting ALL the cards out on the table.

Let it end already!

Re: SEC

[OmniGeek]

I suspect that they've probably already evaluated this case and decided it was kosher.

Or perhaps, it suddenly occurs to me, the SEC is hesitant to interfere with ongoing private litigation and will act if and when the case is shown to be meritless and it all becomes public record? (NB: a sealed settlement with IBM would massively complicate that effort). Twitchy they may be, but they're still run by an administration that is decidedly anti-regulation; that might limit their potential eagerness and make them act cautiously.

Re:Read history McBride (OT)

[o'reor]

Totally agree, but this practice of giving a certain autonomy to the regiments on the front line had been in use for a while in the German army. It was already the case during WWI. This worked quite well.

As far as WWII is concerned, don't forget that when Hitler attacked France, the French army was directed by a handful of old farts who had made technological choices that proved disastrous. France had concentrated on building a huge line of bunkers on its border with Germany (ligne Maginot) while its air force was ridiculously underequipped compared with the Luftwaffe, and it had nearly no armoured vehicles to counter the PanzerDivizionen. The French army got smashed to tiny bits when the Germans attacked...

I'll stop here, no point in going further on the subject...

Re:[OT] /. Hate Crime Policy?

[notqueSuksDic]

Yes it's just a nickname. Who cares.

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[Cyno]

Hey!

You saw the weapon of mass destruction. Or the piece of the filter that makes the explosives for the weapon on CNN yesterday. So don't go on saying there's no WMDs. Sure there are, it'll just take a few months for our CIA to plant them, er I mean dig them up. ;)

It doesn't matter. People won't learn. They'll just go on believe whatever CNN reports as fact. Just like they'll go on believe in their religion. Because if they can't, then their whole world comes crashing down around them because its all a lie and they know it.

What am I going to do about it? I'm going to go on lying 'til it makes me rich like everybody else.

Linux is the most compatible and fastest OS ever build. Nothing compares to its features, scalability, application availability, stability or security. No other OS can compete because no other OS has the support of all the world's best programmers. And if you buy now you'll get this free Penguin plushie. Just look at the plushie! How can you say no to that!?! ;)

mailing list ????

[skidrash]

>>> The guy in the article made a similar comment and I fail to see how it's relevant at all. The issue here is that IBM licensed some code and SCO is claiming that IBM then used this licensed code in Linux. That SCO also participated in Linux development is utterly irrelevant unless they themselves also put proprietary Unix code into Linux.

The article in question covers this in the "waiver" discussion.

If SCO contributed any SCO UNIX code to Linux, ie if they did the same behavior that IBM's accused of then SCO has waived its rights to collect from IBM for that behavior.

And SCO did do that, see NZHeretic's article about Jun (forgot the last name).

Contracts run 2 ways.

Re:mailing list ????

[DavidTC]

In fact, I'm willing to bet that SCO doesn't have the right to use works developed in their Unix, by others, in anything except their Unix.

And SCO, of course, knowingly distributed Linux with all IBM's stuff in it, breaking their contract with IBM. They may, in some wacky legal universe, get control over the IP just because it was developed for the OS, but I seriously doubt they got copyright or a completely unlimited license, and probably can't go around selling it in other products.

his argument

[Dark Fire]

The law professor's commentary suggests that while this case is being spun against open source software and could certainly affect it, the case is also an example that demonstrates significant problems in the software licensing of proprietary code. Given further analysis, the commentary could be developed into a thorough examination into the problems of software licensing and proprietary software. If the proper legal analysis was completed by reputable individuals, the resulting work could be published nation-wide in various reputable magazines, journals, and newspapers. The analysis could then be expanded throughout the IBM vs. SCO legal action. Let's change the focus of this case from Open Source ignores IP issues to the destructive nature of software licensing in business. If IBM wins, we get an "I told you so" card and the momentum behind open source could hit critical mass and be a BIG win. If SCO wins, it won't just be a blow against open source, but it will be a blow against every business since the powers of the copyright holder concerning software will increase by an order of magnitude. SCO and others are spinning this case against open source with no published evidence, just unsubstantiated legal claims. For any ip lawyer who reads slashdot, we need you. Competent analysis of this case is essential. The outcome of this case is either going to benefit software development or hinder software development, both proprietary and open source. Let's stop allowing SCO to spin this case without substantiating any of their claims, let's spin the case to show what it is really about, software licensing. Let's do it not with unsubstatiated claims, but with superb ongoing legal analysis of the situation throughout the progress of the case. Thank you.

Re:[OT] /. Hate Crime Policy?

[bayofpigs]

No, he doesn't obey the laws when he publishes his hatred. Incitement to hatred is a crime, and is treated as such in Germany, US, and other civilized countries. I denmand /. shuts down the account, and removes the nick from the archived thread, possibly with a link to an explanation that the poster violated the laws of the land. While /. is disclaiming the messages, it allowed creation of an account with a hateful name. I believe this is condoning the nick, and would like to see a /. response to this. Well, /. seems made for 7-graders, at least the user is most likely one of them, but it's even worse to expose the rest of the readers to this kind of useless provocation, isn't it? As a person thoroughly familiar with the history of Nazi policies, and having family members lost in Shoa, I strongly object to allowing this kind of provocation anywhere, and to any lame defenses trying to legitimize them.

Re:The *only* thing Linux should fear is patents..

[martyros]

Well, the normal way to deal with patents is to file as many as you can yourself; then when some other company says, "We think you may be interested in licensing patents A, B, and C from us", you can look at their stuff and answer, "Maybe we could trade you licenses D, E, and F?" So what we really need is for the FSF to start registering software patents like crazy, and GPL them.... "You can use this patent in your software, only if the rest of your software is patented..."

Isn't this the reason RedHat gives for some of its patents?

The only problem with this approach is that if they're held by some company like RedHat, and it ever goes bankrupt and has to sell their IP, the new owner might not be so reasonable...

Re:Yeah, that was news

[TheDredd]

Not to be too critical, but did it seem that that "lawyer" basically just wrote a book report from previous slashdot stories? I'm NOT a lawyer, but could have come up with that.

I must admit since this SCO crap has been going on, we've all become Unix historians

Anyways, if I'll ever reproduce, I'll have a great story to tell my grandchildren: "8 decades ago, AT&T created a computer operating system called UNIX to run its..."

Re:The *only* thing Linux should fear is patents..

[fermion]

The thing is that people and businesses will do what they need to do to survive and profit no matter what the laws are. If there is a law or patent that is a problem, and it is enough of problem to enough people, it will get changed.

If some businesses think they can patent everything and force competitors and customers to pay an exaggerated price, they will quickly learn the realities of the world says that when there comes a point where is just easier to destroy the troublemaker. IBM and ATT have both learned this lesson. MS due to the unusually corrupted corrupted U.S. government has yet to learn this lesson in full force.

Consumers steal music. Businesses steal software. MS validates the stealing of software by consumers by forcing large corporations to pay licensing fees so the agents of the company do not have to formally steal the software. What has been proven many times, in many countries, if that if there is no reasonable way to legally acquire what is wanted, people will steal it. The key is to make the legal acquisition easier than theft.

GNU/Linux is embedded. You can be sure that Apple, IBM, Sun, etc are all looking at this carefully. Patents aren't necessarily a problem. The current SCO is not a problem, and may be necessary to clarify some historical details. People who currently use OSS already probably have a good reason and aren't easily going to be scared away. If it does become a real problem, we may see the courts or markets enter a destructive mode to restore balance.

Re:Yeah, that was news

[Stephen Samuel]

What is significant is not what was said, but who signed their name to it.

T'is very true. If I point a CEO or CTO to my article on Kuro5hin, they'll just yawn and walk away. On the other hand, if I point them to the same article signed by a lawyer and law professor, they're a bit more likely to sit up, take notice and possibly even sell their inflated SCO stocks.

If I say "Let's go to war against North Korea", people talk about putting me in a psyche ward.

If Bush says "Let's go to war against North Korea", people go and buy duct tape and plastic(!).

The difference is not the words, it's who says it and how people listen to them that counts.q1

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[_Sprocket_]

please people, wake up!
can't you see it's obvious what SCO is doing?

...

all SCO wants to do is jack the stock high enough, long enough for their CEO, VPs, etc to cash out nice and RICH, and leave a burning twisted pile of rubble at the end....

they probably figured IBM (or someone - say Mr. Bill at M$) might buy them out, but either way, they're getting fat and rich off the share prices.

Yes. It is obvious. This is discussed again and again each time SCO comes up. Thanks for restating it.

But you, in turn, are missing another point. It doesn't matter what their intent is. What matters is their claims and actions.

Another initial theory floated when this whole thing cropped up is that its all being orchistrated by Microsoft. After all, it would appear to be validation of MS' most recent anti-Linux strategy claims. I'm more inclined to think that Caldera/SCO took a pointer from Microsoft's sales propoganda. But in any case, there will now be CIOs making purchasing and deployment policy based on both Microsoft and SCO propoganda.

so now you know the truth... what are ya gonna do about it?

What we are already doing about it. Keeping informed. Discussing claims. Being prepared to offer a counter-perspective if the oportunity arises.

Part of this situation is a publicity stunt. That's where we come in. But the other part will, most likely, be an actual trial in court. That will be up to IBM.

One final point...

its a stock scam, and the securities people should be all over this!

Keep in mind that the SEC is a governmental agency. These guys work on a very different time schedule than we do. They're slow and deliberate - but if they come down, they'll come down hard (whether it sticks or not is another point entirely).

I'm reminded of the spammer Rodona Garst who's legendary pump-and-dump spam eventually lead to action by the SEC.

How long before SCO's claims can be debunked?

[Mostly a lurker]

Let us assume (it really is possible) that SCO just wants to spin this out as long as possible. Am I right that we will need to endure literally years (not weeks or months) of unsubstantiated FUD before SCO can be forced to prove anything? No doubt, eventually, SCO can be sued into the ground if (as most of us suspect) their claims are frivolous. This is rather irrelevant in that the company was clearly going under before they initiated all this. Can any lawyer indicate how, under US law, this might be brought to a quick conclusion if IBM has no real case to answer? How quickly?

Re:How long before SCO's claims can be debunked?

[belroth]

My suspicion is that SCO could run out of money in the discovery phase-the death of a thousand cuts.
Otherwise who knows? IBM could sue SCO for bringing a nuisance suit (if IBM win) and get some cash, but SCO would take it to appeal so IBM would get little.

Why this article helps.

[ashitaka]

There are 70 lawyers in my firm.

At least one has come into my office asking if we use Linux and expressed concern about the lawsuit when informed that we do. (Samba, CUPS, etc.)

I explained the lgeal reasons why they should not be concerned but since I am just the IT manager my words have little credence.

This is the kind of article I can forward to all the lawyers who ask as it's from the kind of source they will listen to, speaking a language they understand.

As other posters have pointed out, it's not what he says (which we all already knew), it's who is saying it.

Re:Why this article helps.

[mt-biker]

There are 70 lawyers in my firm.

At least one has come into my office...

I'm sure you had a good reason to say that the way you did but, "At least one"?

Are you counting in legalese? :)

Re:Why this article helps.

[qute]

What the hell do you need 70 lawyers for?!
I work in a firm that delivers CMS systems to some of the biggest companies around and we have 1.

Of course this is in Denmark, but still - do you really need to sue that many?

re:ERASE THE JEWS

[ChaoticLimbs]

If you can be bothered to check your history, every nation which has attempted to destroy the Jewish people have met with defeat. Sometimes at the hands of Jews such as Israelis, sometimes with the help of other states such as the USA and Great Britain. You may pound yourself against a rock, but the rock will win. And the rock will not resort to pounding itself against you.

Israel has less than one fiftieth of the other arab lands. Still they cannot be tolerated by these blinded hysterical madmen. For any anti-semites and jew haters out there, I would ask when was the last time Israel attacked another sovereign nation unprovoked? Sure, they blasted Iraq's OSIRAQ nuclear power plant preemptively, but can you blame them? From the designs of that plant that I have seen, and its distant location from any city, I would say it was probably intended as a breeder reactor in my opinion. I mean, why would you need nuclear power when you have oodles of oil and low population density for 80% of your lands?

Re:[OT] /. Hate Crime Policy?

[bayofpigs]

Yeah, and looks like the nick is one of them, and a 7-grader at that. I am pretty sure using terms such as "erase" (w.r.t to people) in public media is in fact illegal. And allowing such nicks is a very bad idea. I suggest /. expands moderation to the nicks, -- in this case, the nick should carry a permanent karma whore rating. This would disabuse the poster of such an idea fix.

Define "Part" of an OS

[RabidChipmunk]

As MS has shown, what is and isn't "part" of an OS is up for interpretation. [See IE vs Mozilla] Beyond that we have the question of "Which OS?"

[ignoring historical names] IBM used SysV to make AIX. IBM wrote RCU. IBM then added RCU to AIX [not SysV]. Is RCU a "part" of SysV?

It's development didn't require SysV. [It was done as a theoretical exercise. Followed by multiple implementations.]

It's execution doesn't depend on SysV. [It runs on/in Linux, AIX and OS/400. It doesn't run on or in the SysV code they liscenced from AT&T.]

RCU was never shipped with SysV [at least not at the point they wrote it]. They didn't add something to an existing operating system. They created a new OS based on an old one. Is Internet Explorer "part" of Windows 3.1? Win95? MacOS 9?

Imagine if you modified IE to take pluggins (yes it's already been done.) MS might be able to claim ownership of the "socket" but they can't claim ownership of everything that might get plugged into it. A license for derivatives of SysV would only cover the changes to SysV which were made so that it could acomodate the RCU code. Not the RCU code.

SCO seems to be claiming that this is wrong. That they own RCU, because RCU fits in that socket. No matter the origin of RCU. This is akin to XFree claiming ownership of KDE. Or KDE claiming ownership of Karamba. This would totally destroy everything we believe about the way interoperation and extension works. Adobe would own every photoshop pluggin.

Because this is a contract issue not a statute issue, I'm being extreme. However, the concept of ownership in these cases is not trivial. The concept of derivation is under attack. If you expand it the way SCO appears to be arguing you get absurdity. Therefor, it must fail. For the sake of our livelyhoods it must be shown to fail.

Re:[OT] /. Hate Crime Policy?

[ChaoticLimbs]

Get used to the hate. Embrace the fact that those who are evil and hateful do not count you among their friends. If you allow this to bother you, you will have wasted your good times angry with G-D that he put these people here. He didn't. He only is responsible for two of them. After that they pretty much bred like rabbits. Who knew?

Don't forget...

[MachineShedFred]

In Soviet Russia, /. masters YOU!

Re:The *only* thing Linux should fear is patents..

[HiThere]

Actually, it does. If the patent owner distributes it under the GPL, then he cannot later claim patent rights against either users of the code, or those who modify it for another purpose and the use it. Nobody who does not have the right to so distribute the code is permitted to distribute it under the GPL under *ANY* conditions (e.g., "you must pay me a peppercorn per century" or "you must pay me for any derivitive works" or "you must get my approval for any derivitive works"). He could create a license similar to the GPL, and release it under that, but it probably couldn't include any GPL code. (There may be ways around this, e.g. including the GPL code as source, and requiring compilation and linking. And perhaps other ways.)

7th Grader

[MrLint]

I will attack SCO with my Blue eyes ultimate white dragon!

Any app

[RabidChipmunk]

Which is exactly the problem.

The thing I forgot to hit, when I slipped into "speech" mode, is that your virus scan example differs from the RCU issue in an important way. In your example MS licenses AntiV from somebody. It's a contract about the AntiV. In the RCU case IBM licenses SysV from SCO/AT&T. RCU not only isn't in the contract, it didn't exist at the time of writing. RCU isn't "derived" from SysV in the traditional sense.

So the question is more akin to "If I invent a spoiler for a Honda, does that mean Honda can stop me from mounting it on a Yugo?"

Eat a cake and have it too

[u19925]

SCO has said, it won't sue SCO Linux customers. Can they afford to this? I think no. It is in catch-22 situation.

If SCO sold the SCO Linux to its customers legally then that sell is governed by GPL and SCO loses right to its proprietary code. If it didn't sell them under GPL, then SCO had no right to sell at all and its customers are using illegal copies and now anyone can sue SCO Linux customers. In truth, the SCO Linux customers are doomed. Either SCO must recall the product or they can be sued by Linux developers. SCO wants to sell SCO Linux but without GPL and it can't do it.

The SCO case against IBM is altogether a different matter. That is between IBM, SCO and let them figure out in court. But if SCO tries to sue Linux customers, it is in deep trouble.

Re:Eat a cake and have it too

[zakezuke]

I'm thinking it doesn't take buckets of money to issue out ciece and desist letters. Signigent yes, but not buckets.

The real danger would be if SCO was permited to contact ISPs and able to shutdown end user's connections based on their belief of unauthorized use of IP. While this may seem somewhat paranoid, it would after all solve the glitch regarding actually taking end users to civil court. SCO after all didn't shut down your connection, your ISP did, your beef would be with them, and chances are you'd have to spend moolah to defend your self to get it turned back on. It is after all, in their mind's eye, a copyright violation.

Derivative works on proprietary code?

[Mryll]

There's something I'm not understanding about the issue... Why does SCO try to imply that they own the rights to derivative work (AIX) on code they own IP rights to, but licensed to IBM for exactly the purposes for which it was used? I could understand their argument better if the license to IBM had been some sort of GPL license, but I imagine it was not. It seems like they're trying to apply open-source licensing concepts to their own proprietary code and licensing, and I don't see the justification unless it is explicit in their licensing to IBM.

Is there some general precedent for derivative works on work licensed from others that is independent of the license terms? I know that copyright infringement can occur for unlicensed works that are judged as significantly derivative from copyrighted work. That just doens't seem the situation at all here.

Re:Derivative works on proprietary code?

[spitzak]

You are confused about the power of the GPL. SCO is claiming far more than the GPL.

If I take a piece of GPL code and extend it with my own code to make a new program, it is true that I cannot release the result without also releasing my code. However (and this is a big one that everybody that calls the GPL "viral" ignores) I can remove the GPL code and sell the rest, the part I wrote, as closed source!. Now it is true that I will have to replicate the functions I need from the GPL code, but everybody knows that is not impossible or even difficult. This could even be a reasonable business plan as temporarily using the GPL code may allow development and testing to be done sooner.

SCO is basically claiming you cannot do that with their code. They are trying to say the Unix code is truly "viral" and it really "infects" everything it touches. The GPL does not "infect" at all and is completely harmless once you seperate it from the code it came in contact with.

Re:Derivative works on proprietary code?

[Mryll]

Agreed that what they are acting as though they have greater rights than a GPL-style license would imply.

I'm mainly wondering why they would think that they have such rights, unless they are specifically spelled out in the license agreement. I can't see that IBM would agree to such terms.

It's almost like you buy a 2000 Taurus from Ford, independently buy a heavy-duty alternator and put it in the car. It works. You independently buy a heavy-duty alternator for your 2003 Honda Civic and install it. Ford claims that you can't sell the Civic because the concept of car+heavy duty alternator is a derived work based upon a Taurus plus a heavy-duty alternator. It's a fallacy because the Civic + alternator is NOT derived from Ford. You might not be able to claim that the Ford isn't still a Ford, but the Civic still isn't a Ford...

Re:Derivative works on proprietary code?

[Tenareth]

SCO isn't saying that IBM agreed to these terms, they are saying Sequent did.

Who knows what license Sequent had, they probably didn't have nearly as deep pockets as IBM, or as big a legal department, so the license might have been pretty bad.

Where's the hate crime?

[beavis88]

As far as I can tell, there has been NO crime comitted here, thus there can't possibly be a hate crime.

Sure, I would never have such a handle myself, but it's ludicrous to suggest that he has committed an act of anti-semitism merely by creating the nickname.

I know the answer to this question, as I am here posting on slashdot as well, but couldn't you find a more productive use of your time?

I'm confused

[Ride-My-Rocket]

Pull out the duct-tape and expect the herd to move in and trample everything.

What exactly do duct tape and herds have in common?

Slashdot Ecology

[RabidChipmunk]

As the husband of an ecologist [HOE], I must remind you that the order of living systems comes not from individuals working togeather, but from the less fit dying before they can reproduce.

McBride will go after individual AIX users

[Jeremy Erwin]

In an article from vnunet.com it is said that SCO may audit AIX customers.

McBride claimed that SCO has the right to audit IBM's customers. "We have other rights under the contract we are looking at. For example, we can audit IBM customers. SCO has audit rights on its customers," he said.

McBride plans to use those audit rights to ensure that

" you simply take the copies of AIX that are out there and send them back to us, or you destroy them and give us notice of the date of destruction. It calls for that in the contract to certify that destruction has taken place."

The migration from AIX to other sources could well be a shot in the arm for US IT firms. It'll be just like the Y2K crisis, except with shorter deadlines and nastier side effects. I think that Wall Street could well afford to be offline for a few months, couldn't it?

A part of "Unix"?

[TheConfusedOne]

First off, the code in question was implemented on PTx(?) which was a variant based off the licensed IP. Second off, the code they're debating was in fact written for OS/2 and ported from there.

SCO is trying ot claim that since the writers worked on both the Unix variant and the OS/2 one that the knowledge used from the one extends the license to the other.

They're trying to lay claim to a derivative of a derivative of a derivative. To make matters more entertaining the actual derivative was a paper about a generic RCU implementation with nothing tied to a particular OS. (See Cringely's article: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030619. html for details.)

SCO vs. IBM vs. [INSERT YOUR NAME HERE]

[oaf357]

Great article. This is an absolute "must read".

"In its complaint, SCO claims, in essence, that without its UNIX contracts, IBM was nothing, and without IBM, Linux was nothing. But both of these claims, like SCO's allegations, are dubious."

He worded that entirely too nicely.

Re:[OT] /. Hate Crime Policy?

[theghost]

I am a Jew, and while i think anyone with that nick is likely to be a bigotted asshole, there is no crime in having it. I'm also an American, and i believe in freedom of speech even when that speech is racist, hateful, and just plain stupid. I'd rather convince them that they're wrong than silence them and encourage violent behavior to replace wrongheaded speech.

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[PickaBooga]

If you schemed to pump up the stock so insiders could sell, the greatest risk would be from shareholder lawsuits (the people who bought at $10+ and held).

But I think SCO's management would argue that they acted only under desperation and gross stupidity. And they would have a pretty strong case ;-)

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[shadowbearer]

SEC investigations take time, tho. As I recall the SEC is already
into SCO from some earlier allegations; this is probably just more
on their plate. SEC manpower is not limitless, remember.

As to allegations of PnD, there have been many, many of those around
the web, some by people with a lot more horsepower than most /.
posters. Anyway, it's either PnD or a truly incredible coincidence (in other words, prove it's NOT true, SCO) ;=-)

Just my 0.02, adjusted for inflation

SB

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[Mostly a lurker]

Pump and dump may well be a part of this. However, one thing I have seen noone mention is that McBride and friends make pretty good salaries and bonuses that will cease once SCO goes down the tubes. SCO did not look very healthy until they started all this. Under US law, they may be able to spin this out for years before being forced to produce any evidence. I think they could stand up five years from now and say "Ha Ha Ha ... this was all a scam to continue collecting our salaries and bonuses", and there is no US law that could touch them.

The most lawyers wins

[GnarlyNome]

And IBM has more tech savvy lawyers than SCO has Dollars

Patents -- commercial vs. home use

[chainsaw1]

I thought the only way you could be liable for patent infringement was to commercially (i.e. profitably) reproduce the work. The Cottin Gin was pattented by Eli Whitney, but he didn't make a cent off of it because the design was so simple. Everyone went home and made their own, and there wasn't much Eli could do about it. Unless they sold their reproductions, they weren't liable

[If this is true]:
While this would protect the Linux kernel and the non-profits that don't sell (Debian), I'm not sure where this would leave companies like RedHat. RedHat could be considered a "seller of Linux", but they actually only sell support services. It is possible to download and install from RedHat without paying a cent.

Re:Patents -- commercial vs. home use

[Jeremy Erwin]

Here's a discussion of Whitney's patent problems. In then end, though, he won his court cases, although, by that time, his patents were within a few years of expiring.

Go Make Some Money on SCO's Bad Business!

[crunchywelch]

Report this to the SEC and make some cash!

Re:closed makes it easier to hide patent infringme

[spitzak]

Also don't discount the high probability that closed-source programs stole from other closed-source programs as well as from open source.

In fact it can be easily argued that open-source discourages copyright infringement because it can so easily be detected.

a possible problem

[jefu]

I thought of something the other day that kind of bothered me. IANAL (ever note how "ANAL" is the most important part of that?) but it seems to me that it might be possible for SCO to request the judge hearing the case to issue an injunction forbidding distribution of the software mentioned in the dispute (ie Linux) while the case is being heard. While the obvious target is IBM, it doesn't seem (given SCO's recent behavior) unlikely that they would try to get such a ban extended to all linux distributions.

That could be unpleasant.

Re:a possible problem

[jefu]

Currently SCO is just threatening by themselves. If a court got involved and said that all linux distributions would have to be shut down in the US, it would be like the DeCSS thing where anyone running a site that did distributions (or for that matter wearing a t-shirt with the distro printed on it) could be compelled to shut it down or go to jail for contempt.

So, it is possible that all distribution sites could be shut down.

But, again, IANAL and this is just speculation.

How 'bout this then...

[killmenow]

It would be more like the following scenario:

1. Microsoft licensing its OS source to a third party (say, Citrix Systems for example).
2. The 3rd party develops a new product (say, Citrix WinFrame, for instance)
3. The 3rd party uses technology it developed in another product (like, say...MetaFrame for UNIX, maybe)
4. Microsoft claims it controls the technology developed by the 3rd party because it is a derivitive
5. Microsoft sues the shit out of 3rd party

Of course, Microsoft handled Citrix differently. They licensed the NT source code to Citrix. Then, when Citrix made this really neat product, Microsoft saw the opportunity and basically said, "Hey, Citrix Systems...umm, All your base..."

Microsoft has the luxury of being able to say: "We are assimilating your technology into our OS. No one will buy your shit anymore because it's already in the box."

SCO can't do that, as is evidenced by their dismal failure at being an OS provider. So, they sue.

Re:How 'bout this then...

[art123]

Of course Citrix did receive about $250,000,000 from Microsoft with the full knowledge that Citrix would only be left with a nitch market for Windows clients that run on Mac and Unix.

Its our turn to create FUD among MS users!

[zanderredux]

This is what I call "truly insightful":

For instance, might Microsoft someday claim that software using Windows "derives" from Windows and unfairly competes with Microsoft's business? Because Windows software is proprietary, the possibility never can be fully ruled out.

What if Microsoft decided to sue everyone who built stuff that relies on the Windows API?

and I won't scold the avg. person for saying that

[dh003i]

though I will correct them.

However, this guy is a lawyer, and obviously made as point of researching the history of the situation a little, to form what is obviously an intelligent position, and what anyone reading it can tell is an intelligent position.

This is what makes his revision of history all the worse. Because people read his article, and are probably impressed by him, and his knowledge of UNIX history, they then think that Linus single-handedly created entire GNU/Linux distributions. Linus started Linux, the kernel. He did all of the initial work, and then others started helping him out.

Your explanation for Linux' success is absurd. The idea that a logo is what makes a project successful is absurd (though I would suggest GNU look into changing their logo). People judge something on it's merits, not the publishability of it's logo.

RMS and others who insist on GNU/Linux bear Linux, the kernel, no ill will; nor Linux. They simply want history recorded in the proper fucking manner. It is now being written in articles explaining the history of GNU/Linux that Linus invented it by himself. That marginalizes the contributions of everyone else who helped to create what we now as the GNU/Linux distributions (e.g., RedHat, SuSe, Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, etc).

To be technically correct, SCO is attacking the kernel. However, they have no clarified that; thus, it seems like they are attacking the entire OS. Another reason why this ambiguity between the kernel and the entire OS. Obviously, the guy who wrote this article does not understand that SCO is only attacking the kernel; he thinks they are attacking the entire OS. Thus, he says Linux, referring to the entire OS that he claims Linus created, when he should be saying Linux in reference to the kernel that Linus started and headed.

The entire OS was created by the collaborative efforts of Linus, RMS, the FSF, and millions of others; but most of it is GNU software, and a small (but very important) part of it is Linux (though Linux is no longer essential). Thus, for increased clarity, it is better to call it the GNU/Linux OS'. Simply calling it Linux creates confusion between the kernel, the OS, and the entire distributions.

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[zakezuke]

just like the WMD crapola in iraq (there never were any, it never was about that), it was about the oil!

Really, I rather thought that the US sold WMD in the form of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq during the Bush the senior administration.

So, yes... this could be good example for the SCO case.

America sells WMD to Iraq, then uses this as evidence of them having WMD and invades the country.

SCO releases their achient Unix source code for education, people get educated and then sued for using their IP they got educated on.

The Monterey Project

[Mouth of Sauron]

In the late 1990s, IBM, Sequent, and the Santa Cruz Operation were working together on a project called Monterey. Monterey/64 was designed to be a common UNIX platform running on 64-bit Intel (Merced/Itanium) and Power4. It had wide industry support from hardware and software vendors, such as Intel and Oracle. Around 2000, IBM scrapped the project based on issues with the Itanium1 platform and concerns about SCO's ability to deliver. UnixWare retained its name for some time after the SCO purchase from Novell. In the next year or two IBM acquired Sequent and Caldera acquired SCO. However, in this way did Sequent non-uniform memory access made it into UnixWare and AIX.

This is how IBM and SCO have NUMA cache concurrency code. NUMA made it into Linux because IBM wanted to improve Linux reliability on their SMP Xeon-based servers, and instructed some of their programmers including some people who worked on Dynix/Sequent that wrote NUMA in the first place. This is how NUMA came to be in Linux. What I believe is the management at SCO has little knowledge of the code history of their SVR4 UNIX product. Caldera upper level management is populated with experts in hostile takeovers and making a business out of patent and copyright enforcement. I have no doubt that they took the effort to see if the Linux kernel had any resemblance to their UNIX code tree, and lo and behold some of the SMP memory management code is identical.

SCO quickly informs IBM to stop putting UNIX code in Linux, but they don't seem to know that NUMA belongs to IBM, it is a derivitave work of AIX, which is a derivitive work of Dynix, both of which IBM owns, and on top of that IBM's source license with UNIX Systems Lab gives them intellectual property of code they create based on AT&T code.

Claims that IBM is "diluting" UNIX by putting UNIX-based code in it and having UNIX-knowledgeable software engineers working on it is rather a stretch of the imagination. If IBM has sole intellectual property on Dynix/Sequent, just because they shared it with Santa Cruz does not mean they cannot use the code elsewhere. SCO wants to compare their SVR4 UNIX with Linux code, but what we really need to see is Dynix and AIX right beside them. This will prove that IBM owns NUMA.

Claims that using NUMA in Linux will place SCO UNIX under the GPL are also false. SCO will retain rights to use and improve NUMA code they received from Monterey, because it pre-dates the NUMA code used in Linux. So in the end there are essentially who Sequent NUMA forks, the one in AIX and UnixWare cum SCO UNIX is proprietary and the other written for Linux is open source.

Think Of The Children!!!!

[belroth]

It's nice to see a legal perspective on the case, but what I want is to hear how a 7th grader feels about the case.

We must stop this madness - I don't want our children hearing about SCO, put an end to it now, please - won't anybody think of the children?

(Well, we've had every other /. cliche on this subject...)

Bullshit: BSD forbids suits on derived works

[KMSelf]

RTFL: BSD License.

The BSD license stipulates nothing other than a copyright notice (required), mention of UC in endorsements (prohibited), and warranties and liabilities (disclaimed).

Don't post FUD.

Beware of Talking Heads

[endeavour31]

Its nice that a law professor decided to analyze this lawsuit from 50,000 feet, but he has no access to evidence in the case so his ideas are really more of an OP-ED piece.

Even a cursory history of the expert professors (most of whom have never actually litigated in a courtroom) which have filled the news channels over the last few years would show an astounding ability to make pronouncements which turned out to be wrong. The OJ Simpson case is a great example. But there they were reporting on a trial as it unfolded. Here we only have the filed complaint and media posturing by affected parties. Hardly an informed base on which to fully analyze litigation. (and a very complex one)

The professor certainly knows the law, but he does not know the facts - without which he has only 1/2 the equation.

Untils we get more information stuff like this is only surmise - regardless of who says it.

Filing Defamation suit

[bstadil]

I wouldn't accuse the SCO folks of running an illegal pump-and-dump scam in a public forum

The chances is small they would entertain such a thing, since affirmative defense it that they did.

They wouldn't want to have to disclose ALL the contracts and ALL the agreements that has taken place inside SCO. That includes outside investors like the Canopy scumbags.

an extra sentence would have bogged him down?

[dh003i]

Saying something like "Linus created the kernel to power the GNU OS created by FSF contributors" would have detracted from the article? I disagree. It would have added to it. False-hoods are always bad, and truths in their place always good. He bothered to go into UNIX history, so he could have devoted a sentence to this.

It is important, because the confusion between Linux the kernel and the GNU/Linux OS' creates legal confusion as well. Most people think that SCO is alleging that the entire GNU/Linux OS (what they think of as "Linux") has their code in it, when they are only really alleging that the Linux kernel has their proprietary code in it. SCO knows damn well the difference, and is using this subtle point of confusion for their advantage.

Few people would be worried about this if they knew that only a few insignificant portions of the kernel that probably don't even affect them anyways are in question, which can be easily and quickly replaced anyways.

Missappropriation of trade secrets

[tstoneman]

I think that SCO is suing over trade secrets that IBM disclosed, nothing to do with patents or copyright.

Huh?

[El]

On its website, SCO quotes a suggestion that computer "[s]ystem administrators must be admonished to submit open-source code to inspection for potential violation of patents."

Uh, anybody in the world can download the code and examine it -- that's the definition of "open source". SCOites are definitely on the wrong kind of drugs!

What is the distinction?

[TheConfusedOne]

SCO does not lay claim to the Sequent code. IBM owns that free and clear. SCO's opinion is that because it was first integrated to AIX, it is a derivative work of UNIX, and can not be released to anyone without a UNIX liscense. But SCO does not lay claim to it, since they did not write it.

SCO is certainly laying claim to the code. They're saying that you need one of THEIR licenses in order to use IBM's code. Now they aren't saying the invented the code certainly, but they are trying to lay claim to any and all sublicensing rights.

Re:What is the distinction?

[Queuetue]

The distinction is that in this case, IBM's redistribution rights are being controlled - not thier usage, resale or ownership rights. It's a subtle point, but I think an important one, because from appearances, this happened exactly the way SCO said it did: IBM (as Sequent) did copy the same code into AIX and Linux (and OS/2, but did not release the source).

The only thing the lawsuit will decide is if copying code into UNIX turns it into a derivative of UNIX. Logically, anyone can see it does not - a derivative must derive from the original. But SCO is claiming that IBM may not copy code that IBM owns into other operating systems - NOT that any code that IBM copies into UNIX is owned by SCO.

That's why the case is a little scary - not because SCO's case has any merit: Because a court must be made to understand these very difficult subtleties, and SCO's lawyer is probably very, very good at muddying water.

We need to make this very clear, when discussing it with our clients, bosses, and friends - everyone needs to know that yes, IBM did copy the same code as they have in AIX. This is fine, though because a) They own it, and b) It is not derived from UNIX.

Re:What is the distinction?

[TheConfusedOne]

Let's see: usage rights - according to SCO they can't use it for anything except AIX.
resale - can't sell it for anything except AIX.
ownership - only own distribution rights in the context of AIX

If that's not trying to claim control than I don't know what it.

Go read Cringely's article about the development of RCU. here.

Sequent developed the concept and the initial code before they looked at ANY OS. They happened to implement it first in DYNIX but that was merely the final step of testing the theory through implementation.

So, Sequent didn't copy code from AIX/DYNIX into Linux, they used the same base code when working on both.

Re:What is the distinction?

[Queuetue]

They can only use, sell and distribute it within the context of UNIX - the license allows it to be distributed as part of AIX, Unixware, or one of Sun's offerings - anyone with a UNIX license. In the event that one of those organizations used the code, IBM would recieve money, and not SCO. SCO does not claim ownership, but instead controls distribution.

But, anyway ... I'm sick of agreeing back and forth, and it seems you're in the mood to continue this, so why don't I just allow you to be the winner here.

I hereby resign as an amateur license interpreter, and declare you the grand poobah. Hip, Hip hooray.

Re:and I won't scold the avg. person for saying th

[spitzak]

I read the article again, and I agree he did imply that Linus created the whole thing. My first reading was more along the lines of "Linus created the thing SCO is suing" but that is not what the article actually says. It certainly would have been more fair to say that Linus built on existing open source and was assisted by many others in creating Linux.

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[El]

I would call the SEC, but I have to assume that IBM's astute legal force, with much better contacts in government, has already thought of this. They're probably just waiting for an oppurtune time to announce the investication.

Re:You are wrong

[squashed]

You raise first the case, I believe, of the minor, non-core patent affecting Linux, and point out rightly that developers are not likely to react swiftly.

With relatively easy workarounds in many cases, as well as the likelihood of prior art, such patents are unlikely to pose a grave, long-term risk to Linux.

You next raise the case of a patent on the "heart of some new technology". I disagree vigorously that such a patent would be published with the community unawares.

To the contrary, I would not only expect swift counteraction after the fact, but also early anticipation that such a patent is pending, and an effort to pre-empt the "gaping hole" it would leave in Linux once issued.

You then shift to arguing "armies of patent lawyers" and "strategically placed land mines", which I suppose means you're back to shotgun patents, the minor, non-core patents -- again, not likely to cause major, long-term problems.

Re:Give credit where credit is due.

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

The professor's article consistently fails to give credit where credit is due. "Linux" is not an operating system and it never was. Linux is a part of an operating system called a kernel (which acts as a bookkeeper managing the resources of a computer so applications can share those resources without conflict). It's fair to credit the major chunks of an operating system; GNU and Linux are both valuable chunks. It's also less confusing to the reader if one refers to the union of the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel by mentioning both parts (hence the term "GNU/Linux"). For the FSF's take on this, please read their essay which also has a link to a FAQ on this issue.

So far all of SCO's claimed violations are related to code in the Linux kernel. Therefore GNU has nothing to do with this lawsuit.

You might be running a GNU/Linux operating system. More power to you. I'm running a GNU/KDE/Mozilla/Sun/Python/PHP/Apache/Linux operating system, thank you very much. GNU only contributed a tiny portion of what I use. I'm very grateful to GNU for their software contributions, but to say that GNU and Linux are the only important components of the O.S. is the height of silliness.

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[autophile]

after they announced the lawsuit their stock went up $10 a share, and the VP sold over 100,000 shares that day!

I'd like to know where that information came from. Under SEC regulations, insiders are required to report large buy and sell transactions. A quick check at Quicken Insider Trading for SCO shows that so far, as of approximately 5/13, when the stock started to rise, only one Senior VP has sold 5,000 shares, on 6/20. No other insiders are listed.

A check at MSN Insider Trading for SCO shows additionally a Divisional Officer who sold 7,916 shares on 6/4.

That's not to say that you are definitely wrong. You could be right. The lying cheating scumbags commonly known as chief officers may be just lying in wait for enough time to go by that their sells can't technically be linked to the lawsuit.

--Rob

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[Zeriel]

Buddy, if you put together a well-made, cute penguin plushie, I will buy it. That's a promise.

GPL, Sco distributing linux

[DMUTPeregrine]

Let's think here. SCO distributed Linux under the GPL. SCO says IBM put their unix code in Linux. SCO distributed this code, in Linux, under the GPL. SCO thus made this code free software, as they had every right to do, under the GPL. The code in question is thus GPLed code, and was GPLed by SCO! SCO is not distributing this code freely. The NDA prohibits giving out info on what was seen, and the won't let us have the code. The code is GPLed. Thus, SCO is in violatioin of the GPL, by not allowing the distribution of GPLed code under the terms of the GPL.

Not Informative, did not check this week

[thoromyr]

I called your bluff and did exactly what you said. I guess "BROUGHTON, REGINALD C." is not the senior vice president as per Yahoo stocks? thoromyr

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[snake_dad]

They'll just go on believe whatever CNN reports as fact.

No I don't... thanks to this professors endorsement I now go to Slashdot comments for the FACTS. And spelling help.

Re:Read history McBride (OT)

[mormop]

Interestingly enough, Microsoft's use of the same old tactics e.g. FUD could be seen as a kind of modern day Maginot Line. As good as it would have been in WW1, it failed dismally against the new type of attack.

The flailing scattergun defence of MS over the last few years suggests they have as much understanding of the economics of Open Source in business as the French had of BlitzKrieg

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[mandolin]

The SEC probably isn't going to listen to a random linux user who doesn't happen like what SCO's doing and before SCO's share price has dropped dramatically.

OTOH I bet they *will* listen to hundreds of SCOX investors after they get bilked.

Sorry, I can't seem to find that story.

[Royster]

Did you mistype the link?

Re:Sorry, I can't seem to find that story.

[Stephen Samuel]

No. It works for me, but it's a hidden Kuro5hin article (only got 59 points, net). I guess that only I can see it. I also have a version on my own web site.

calling the entire OS "Linux" is what leads

[dh003i]

to this mess of confusion. SCO damn well knows the diff between Linux the kernel and the entire OS (GNU/Linux), but they're purposeful obfuscating so that technically, they can say they were only talking about the kernel, but the impression everyone gets is they're talking about the entire OS. That's what every executive and layperson thinks -- that this lawsuit affect the entire GNU/Linux OS.

I think that if calling something one thing leads to a bunch of confusion, that is not good.

Re:calling the entire OS "Linux" is what leads

[GlassHeart]

I think that if calling something one thing leads to a bunch of confusion, that is not good.

You're right, but I'm not arguing if "Linux" is a good or unconfusing name for anything, including an operating system kernel. I'm objecting to people calling it an "improper" name, which implies wrongdoing.

Re:calling the entire OS "Linux" is what leads

[dh003i]

Well, I don't agree that improper implies wrongdoing. I'm not trying to imply that the people who call it Linux are in some way vile (aside from SCO). Just like I wouldn't say someone who says "wanna" is vile, though that is improper.

Re:Yeah, that was news

[haraldm]

The problem I have with the professor's story is that the historical part is very incomplete and inaccurate in some parts. How should I know if the legal part is any better (I have been around in the Linux community for the past 10+ years, but IANAL)? And what relevance do conclusions have, based on an inaccurate history plot ("the answer lies in the history and contracts")? Well, well.

Other than that, SCO did not prove by now who copied from whom. The best pieces of evidence may well be umpteens of kernel.org mirrors.

Re:Yeah, that was news

[Alaric42]

Given that the author is a professor of law, it wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption that his knowledge of law would be better than his knowledge of history.

Follow the money

[edinho]

After weeks of relentless assault from /. regarding SCO, $CO, SCOned, etc., :-), and after reading more about it that I should :-) :-), and after more information has been disclosed, I have this to say:

Before all this, SCO was going down the tube. (OK, SCO is still going down the tube.) And SCO is not (capable off) doing anything to change that. But there is something SCO's execs can do to make their own lives better. Pump and Dump.

SCO chance of winning this lawsuit is very small. Also, this lawsuit is not about patent or anything like that. RMS nailed it when he said the term intellectual property has been misused by SCO. SCO's lawsuit alleges that IBM destroyed SCO's business/revenue by making Linux competitive in SCO's UnixWare space. That is just is filmsy excuse with which the SCO execs have a starting point to apply smoke and mirror, create FUD with lots of public annoucements. It is not about patent infringement or copyright violation, since IBM owns those code. It is not simply about SCO's market being eroded by linux, since that would mean that SCO failed (fairly) in the free market. So SCO's execs sued IBM under the contract law, accusing IBM of helping SCO's competitor when the contract said that IBM could not do that.

Notice the amount of public annnoucements, interviews, etc., that SCO execs are generating. They do not have to do this at all. Why then? To generate FUD, of course. Why? To pump SCOX up and ...
(5)...
(6) Profit! :-)

But only for SCO execs. Anyone else profiting from this pump is purely incidental.

What is going to happen? Simple. SCO execs makes lots of money with the pump and dump. Then when it is shown that the lawsuit has not merit, SCOX tanks. At that time, SCO will be acquired. And the SCO execs let go, with golden parachutes. Who will buy SCO? Since SCO has some pretty impressive IP, they will be bought up by some big fish. And I suspect that big fish will be one or more of: Microsoft, Sun, IP-collecting-cum-lawsuit firms. My conspiracy theory is that the two huge licencees of the SCOsource are into it. One of the licencees is MS as we know. The other licencees is prolly a big tech firm or one of those shadow companies that just buy IP. The UNIX IP will be inherited by one or more of those licencees.

Follow the money. Why does MS want a SCOsource licence? FUD against linux (see how the subtle shift from IBM to linux) and possibly (joint) ownership of the UNIX source. That would give MS a big arm-twisting device against IBM/Sun/your-fav-unix-vendor.

SCO is foobared. SCO will be bought out, no doubt since they don't have any marketing plan/product that can save their collective asses. SCOX will drop in value until SCO gets bought out by someone with an interest in its IP portfolio. The current activity is just SCO exec trying to get as big a piece of pie as they can before SCOX tanks. There is nothing much about ideology or philosophy (so don't get sidetracked ;-)--those are just FUD used to accomplished the mission, and the mission is to make as much money (for yourself) as possible.

So, follow the money. Who has to gain from this? :-)

Cheers, and get back to work, yes, YOU!,
e.

Not insider trading, but...

[aldousd666]

People on the boards and corporate officers are not allowed to 'action' their stock within 6 months (or so, becasuse I don't know the exact time period) before, or after a major corporate change, public or not. It's so they can't publicly sink the ship and still make a killing at the expense of the shareholders. They still have to stew in it and wait. If they company sinks, and the board members are major stockholders, their stock goes down with the ship. Sorry about the metaphor kids.

Re:Oh my:

[devhen]

you worthless cowards can't seem to spend your time elsewhere so /. must not be as bad as you say it is. 9 out of 10 jackers say /. sucks. all 10 of them are on it every day posting bullshit which their 14 year old minds revel in ...that, my son, is what you call a dumbass. thank you all for being examples. for a minute i thought all men were created equal...

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[swillden]

Buy now, and you're buying at the top.

Right. Now's the time to sell. Short it if you haven't got it (and if you know what shorting is all about and how to manage the risk).

Scary Thought - SCO's REAL intentions

[slipstick]

Try this one on for size...

Ignore all of the bluster that SCO has been spewing about copyright's and patents, what you are left with is a supposed contract dispute between IBM and SCO. SCO is trying to claim ownership over derivative works of UNIX which they are apparently trying to claim is anything that uses UNIX services. Thus anything that is a derivitive work is supposedly covered under the license that SCO and their predecessors made UNIX available under.

Now compare this to the GPL. When you release a piece of software under the GPL you must make all derivitive works available under the same license as the GPL. Sound awful familiar? I thought so too.

So...if SCO is going to compare their license to the GPL and claim, "if the GPL can do it why can't we?" than what is the result? I have read the GPL and think I understand it as well as anyone. Not being a lawyer I can't claim authority in that respect but I believe it to be a totally fair and appropriate license. So why can't SCO claim the same thing? The license they released UNIX under may be vague in this respect but if it comes down to "any derivitive work of UNIX must be released under this same license" than how can the GPL be lawful and the SCO UNIX license not be lawful? Both can't be true.

There is one aspect that may be different between these two cases. The GPL has no exclusivity clause. Thus although the copyright holder is forced to make the source available under the terms of the GPL they can also make the program available under any other license they choose. In fact this is sometimes done so that the community can work on the GPL'ed code and the copyright holder can make money by selling to companies that want to hide their code changes.

Now I don't know that the SCO license has an exclusivity clause but there's no reason it couldn't. It's certainly fathomable that the GPL could include a clause that said "you must make the source available ONLY under the GPL" but I think it would be much less useful and certainly not as widely accepted. Anyway, the point is that SCO could have an exclusivity clause in the license. The end result being that indeed anything that uses UNIX services or runs on top of UNIX could be considered a derivitive work and thus subject to the terms of that license. In which case IBM and others would be libel for damages since they broke SCO's license by releasing code that by copyright belonged to them but that they gave up control over.

So...this is just a thought, as I write it already I see ways to argue against it. But it would be a sorry day in hell if either "derivitive work" was restricted such that only code that used code from another program was a derivitive work. Effectively this would put all GPL code under the LGPL. A particularly unscrupulous company ...SCO*cough*SCO... could take GPL code put it in a library release the library under the GPL and than simply link to it and keep all work that linked to it proprietary.

Furthermore, if SCO has no exclusivity clause in the license than the point is moot. As the copyright holder is certainly within their rights to release the software under other licensing terms.

I'm not sure what kind of probability to put on this scenario. But I've heard of stranger things. It's entirely possible SCO wouldn't mind going to court either to restrict the term "derivitive work" or even somehow in a backhanded manner, invalidate the GPL all in an attempt to avoid copyright infringement for work they have placed in to the SCO Unix offerings. Invalidating the GPL wouldn't get them anywhere though since than they would have to deal with the actual copyright holders and I'm thinking they wouldn't be too beholdin' to SCO.

Anyway, it's just a thought.

Re:Scary Thought - SCO's REAL intentions

[Todd Knarr]

The problem is the way SCO is trying to define "derivative work". Under the GPL it's a derivative work if it includes GPL'd code. That's sensible. SCO, OTOH, is trying to claim that code IBM created independently and before they got involved with SCO is a derivative work of SCO's code merely because it was added to SCO's code after creation. That's where the outrage comes from.

Re:Scary Thought - SCO's REAL intentions

[slipstick]

If you mean by "includes GPL'd code" that you must include the source code of a GPL'd work with your own before it becomes a derivative work than that's wrong. A derivative work under the GPL would be anything that even just links to the GPL'd code. This is the reason there is an LGPL.

In other words linking to a GPL work makes your code a "derivative work" and subject to the GPL. This would be exactly what SCO would imply by having to link to UNIX System V work. In each case it doesn't matter if the code you wrote was done independently, once you link it to the GPL'd or UNIX System V libraries it becomes a derivative work.

Normally a person wouldn't worry about it as far as GPL code goes because the usual method is to include code from a GPL work in your own and it becomes obvious it is than a derivative work. As well most programs are GPL'd while most libraries are under the LGPL which is much less restrictive. The one case that I know of that doesn't follow this behaviour is the readline library, this is still explicitly GPL'd and any program that links to it must be GPL'd as well. This is rather a "famous" counter example as it is one of the few libraries that is actually GPL'd rather than LGPL'd.

In any case it is concievable that just linking to UNIX System V work makes your program a "derivative work" and subject to the same license that covers the UNIX System V work. This is why it is a scary thought to me, it is conceivable that such a license exists because I already know of 1 that does. In the case of the GPL however it is structured to make the work less restrictive, less hidden, but there's no reason the license couldn't be written to force you to keep your code closed.

Re:Scary Thought - SCO's REAL intentions

[Todd Knarr]

Not quite what I was saying. If you link then the combined work is a derivative work, but the original source code is not. If I create a work intended to link to GPL'd code but distribute it only as source code without any GPL'd source code included, then my code does not fall under the GPL (although the final compiled and linked executable would). So linking against SCO's SysV code could pull the result under SCO's license, but it wouldn't pull my original source code under their license and as copyright owner I could still relicense that source code under other terms.

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[Cyno]

Conjugate the verb.. Conjugate the verb..

then what does this say...

[argoff]

I did RTFL, inculding the part ....

IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ...

The way I see it, by suing another contributor, IBM, SCO has violated their BSD license and has forfieted the rights to the BSD code in their software.

Re:Yeah, that was news

[Nodatadj]

"If I say "Let's go to war against North Korea", people talk about putting me in a psyche ward.

If Bush says "Let's go to war against North Korea", people go and buy duct tape and plastic(!). "

And then put him in a psyche ward

Re:ah come on, I thought everyone figured this out

[hobsonchoice]

SEC's complete listing of SCOX filings

I think there are a few missing from MSN

Try reading the article before you post ...

[shellbeach]

Can anyone put out an article on SCO and have it posted as news?

You didn't read the article, did you. Because if you had, you would have found out that this is not by anyone and it is not just "15 words in the english language [spelled] correctly".

This is the only decent article I have read about the whole SCO debate. It is well written, it is concise, it is well argued. But most importantly, it comes from a legal perspective, not a geek's perspective - it is written by a Law Professor (I quote from the bottom of the article: "Anupam Chander is Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis, School of Law. A graduate of Yale Law School and Harvard College, he specializes in cyberlaw and international law.")

They are rehashing the same statements, we can all tell that SCO has almost no case to stand on, which is why the story is so compelling.

No, this article does not rehash the same statements, in fact it makes a number of points that I have not heard before in any forum. Perhaps you think it's obvious that SCO has no case, but I'm not sure that everyone does - just look at previous slashdot SCO comments. (I also can't help wondering if your assurity comes from any legal knowledge, or whether it's just based on naivety ...)

Jeesh, it's comments like yours that make slashdot a bad read, and the fact that you got modded up I find even more appalling. Yes, there been many, many SCO articles and I'm as sick of them as the next geek. But that's more the pity, because this is one article that should be read by everyone who has an interest in this issue.

Re:The *only* thing Linux should fear is patents..

[Karrick]

Quote:

Software patents may not kill the industry, but they can kill Linux, especially if Linux-unfriendly companies hold key patents that will block Linux from implementing or supporting key, killer-app technologies.

...good point!

You're abosolutely right in your points, and I think that greedy companies would love to extinguish Linux / FSF / GNU / etc. Obviously big companies profit on people purchasing their software, and any person, any business, and any organization that gets in the way is a fair-game target in order for these companies to stay in business.

GNU/Linux & the several BSD flavors have forced large corporations to take a hard look at the quality of their software, and realize that competition is not only not fun, but it's extremely expensive!

Most objective minded consumers would agree that this competition will only lead to higher-quality products. However, companies aren't going to just lay down and watch their piece of the pie get eaten by outsiders. As a result what we see today is outright warfare on open-source developers. But in the end, I think these whiz-bang cool app technologies you discuss are faddish and won't define the industry for extended periods of time. No matter what whiz-bang development there is, it won't stop you from making something better. Hense, 1984's release of the Macintosh! At that time the PC was a newly established standard. It was deeply entrenched in the business market. But that didn't stop Apple from developing a revolutionary computer to replace the PC. And it didn't stop developers from developing high-quality apps for this new computer, and make a lot of money doing so.

I like your points, but I don't smell the scent of doom just yet...

Cheers,

Karrick

as long as there are dinosaurs running the show!

[ratfynk]

"Can any lawyer indicate how, under US law, this might be brought to a quick conclusion if IBM has no real case to answer? How quickly?"

As long as the Lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank. You cannot count on a quick resolution.
Thats the American way.

An all together different result might first come from a simple technology shift.

For example;

If some smart, innovative company embeds a linux or bsd based os on an add-on card with lots of chips a PC revolution to rival the heady days of the late 1980's might happen.

Wouldn't it be great if you could choose not to boot a harddrive os, or boot from a drive if you must have windoze? All it would take is cooperation from some bios writers like phoenix and award to make it roll.

If Sco was a real software and innovative company then this is the kind of innovation they would be looking into. From what I am reading the real thing Sco is trying to obscure is their bottom line. The longer they can keep the financial world in the dark then the better the chance that IBM will just buy them out to shut them up. Too bad IBM is a badly bruised dinosaur (in large part by Bill Gates and Co.) and will not venture back into the PC market with something like this idea first.

Remember how nice it was to not have to worry about harddrive failure, viruses or system check garbage when you turned on your computer? Wow even Norton Utilities would not be needed anymore. Get a virus or trojan, who cares? just install your ms backup with your permanent OS. But I am dreaming.

For far too long companies like SCO, IBM, Microsoft and their ill begotten hardware partners have held back simple innovations like this.

Re:Yeah, that was news

[msuarezalvarez]

T'is is perfectly good English...

The question is more philosophical the technical..

[StressGuy]

I agree with your earlier post, but the question remains. Is the OS the interface between the person and the computer or the person's programs and the computer? If it's the former, then a broad interpretation of "OS" is appropriate (for example, Microsoft can say the IE is part of thier OS). If it's that latter, then those who support the kernel is the true core OS and everything else is just added programs have a point.

Ultimately, for us, it's all GNU anyway. Our support and development efforts don't change. It's fully understood that, for example, RedHat means Linux+a few GUI's+lot's of other useful things. It's easier to just say RedHat OS (or Debian, or whatever). There's nothing wrong with it as long as the terminology is understood.

Similarly, whether or not Microsoft can claim that IE is part of thier OS has no bearing on the fact that it's put their to hinder competitive products.

I stand by my earlier statement, it's just semantics. Spending time trying to draw this distinction is, in my opinion, just "picking the pepper out of the fly shit".

Re:The question is more philosophical the technica

[hankaholic]

That's a copout. I simply said that the OS people have in mind when referring to "Linux" is the GNU OS, running on the Linux kernel.

If I write a program that used X for display purposes, I'd say that I wrote an X program.

If I write a program that expects that functions present in the standard C library to be there (select, gettimeofday, fopen, fabs, etc.), I'd say I wrote a UNIX program, or a GNU program.

Either way, unless I dispense with the standard library myself and use ONLY system calls and functions which I wrote myself (which themselves only use system calls and functions which I wrote myself, ad infinitum), it's not a Linux program, it's a GNU (or UNIX) program executed and managed by the Linux kernel.

You could argue that it's just semantics, but the "it's just semantics" argument could be used to dispense with many other issues as well, and doesn't do anything to address the issue.

Go delete libc6 and see how many programs you can compile (remember to use a statically linked GCC!) and run without having it around, then come back and tell me that it's still an operating system without GNU.

That's a liability waiver...

[KMSelf]

...restricting the recipient of a BSD-licensed work, concerning losses or damages which might arise from use of the work. It is not a restriction on the copyright owner(s) to seek copyright protections or remedies.

IANAL, TINLA, YADA.

Re: Discovery phase re-defined.

[ratfynk]

"discovery phase-the death of a thousand cuts."

If you define discovery phase, as 'THE TIME DURING PRE-TRIAL WHEN LAWYERS MAKE THE REAL BUCKS'. Then you are right. The perversion of Corporate Common Law by side stepping the concept that good justice needs to be swift and fair, has made buisiness law what it has become today in America.

A honey-pot den for wealthy fools and theives run by Lawyers.

Maybe Sco's lawyers shot all of their company accountants before recommending this litigation.

I thought everyone had figured this out.

[RevSmiley]

"just like the WMD crapola in iraq (there never were any, it never was about that), it was about the oil!"

A recent poll showed that 99% of those poled could give a shit about WMD's or if they are ever found. It would not change their approval of the attack on Saddam or of George Bush. The only ones who give a shit are the Media and the wacked out left (left behind I guess. )

Find something to make a point with something someone actually gives a shit about.

Defamation

[RevSmiley]

G.W.Bush.. Making Nixon look honest.

Were you alive when Nixon was president? I was.
Nixon was slightly more honest than LBJ.
The Bushes are squeaky clean in comparison to either.

Nice try no cigar..

[RevSmiley]

"Really, I rather thought that the US sold WMD in the form of chemical and biological weapons to Iraq during the Bush the senior administration."

That would have been conventional weapons and it whould have occured during the Regan era. No either of the Bush's.

Keep towing the leftist line ans looking stupid until you get a clue. No one gives a leaping fuck about your wacky political leanings. You simply invaladate any opinion you express with this shit. But you were not born then I would guess. Therfore you are just ignorant and brainwashed by the media and not serious with this statement I would hope.