Slashdot Mirror
IBM Points Out SCO's GPL Software Distribution
An anonymous reader writes "Cnet is reporting that IBM has launched a counterstrike against SCO Group's attack on Linux users, arguing that SCO's demands for Unix license payments are undermined by its earlier shipment of an open-source Linux product." JayJay.br points out a similar but more colorful article on The Register "in which SCO says that 'SCO-Caldera does not own the copyrights to JFS (Journaling File System), RCU (Read, Copy, and Update), NUMA (Non-uniform Memory Access) software, and other IBM-developed AIX code that IBM contributed to the Linux kernel.' Gee, now that I was almost buying their license ..."
"IBM really took their time to get things done."
A wise decision on their part.
Rather than leap into the fray, FUD cannons firing full effect, they likely took the time to research things a bit.
The end result?
IBM doesn't end up looking the fool, as SCO has.
That's essentially where SCO started this whole thing from -- before certain executives started shooting their mouths.
The core issues is still a big hissy fit over the failed Monterey AIX-UnixWare unification project, and you're right that nobody here has the details.
SCO can not distribute their proprietary code linked with GPL code, because it would be illegal under the GPL. So if they claim they can, SCO, and by the SCOian logic, all SCOs customers are liable for a class action lawsuit from everybody that has ever contributed to those OSS projects. Sounds like cannon fodder for some counter-FUD, not to mention a countersuit to me.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
A few weeks back, I honestly expected the following to happen:...- new code gets quietly released for functions A, F, H and Z in the kernel, gets exhaustively tested by several key Linux people and very quickly appears in the next kernel release
i am amazed at the number of folk who simply assume the claims of sco are accurate, that there is unlawful code in the linux kernel. could it be that the above has not happened precisely because there is no offending code to replace?!
Life is short; think quickly.
If you have a business where you essentially own System V; where in fact, the only thing you have of value is System V, and you release Unix-like code under GPL, it seems to me you'd better understand what you're releasing!
What I mean is that the GPL in this case had the possibility of unique harm to SCO (a 1st year legal student could see that), and yet they (a) encouraged their own employees to work on a GPL project (b) released a version of the GPL OS themselves.
It seems a bit disingenuous to say "I am an operating system company, but I didn't know what I was releasing".
They're either stupid or lying. In either case, it appears to be that they lost their unique ability to distribute the moment they distributed Linux.
How can an Operating System company claim ignorance of the copyright within an operating system they sold? Its inexplicable. It goes beyond the boundary of veracity. Or, like I said earlier, they're a bunch of yahoo's that have no idea of what they're doing.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
SCO will be forced to choose between:
1. Claiming that there's SCO copyrighted code in the Linux kernel that they say they don't consent to be licensed under the GPL, which means: a) they're committing fraudulent and deceptive behavior by misrepresenting that the code they're distributing is completely under the GPL when it isn't, and b) they're infringing on the rights of the copyright owners of the kernel code since they're knowingly mixing in non-GPL code, a direct violation of the GPL.
and
2. The only way they can avoid committing fraud and violating copyright law is to distribute ALL the code in the kernel under the GPL, which means they forfeit any ability to collect royalties.
SCO should be deathly afraid of being sued if they choose #1 because they don't even have the money to stay alive for all the years it will take to fight the IBM lawsuit, so I don't see that they have any choice except #2, unless they don't care about the destruction of their company.
Either way, SCO is almost certainly screwed.
I'd bet that if you get them off the record, most of the trades that you see are just ordinary people exercising their stock options that have made a dollar or two. The amount of shares that have been sold are negligable to the total numbers out there. The trades represent 8/10ths of 1%. If you were in their shoes, what would you do if McBride, Sontag, and Canopy decided to screw over the company?
And you've just described insider trading. If SCO employees know their company's claims are bullshit because they have access to insider information (UnixWare source code, for example), they can't use that information to go make bank on SCO stock. The stock market (supposedly) works on the premise that all investors are on an equal playing field.