SCO May Countersue Red Hat, SuSE Joins The Fray

uninet writes "The SCO Group, Inc. today released a statement concerning the lawsuit filed against it yesterday by Red Hat, Inc. The release quotes Darl McBride, SCO's President and CEO, as being 'disappointed' with Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik for not being 'forthcoming' about Red Hat's intentions in a previous discussion." Reader psykocrime adds "According to this SuSE press release, SuSE has publically announced their support for RedHat's actions against SCO. Quoting from the press release: 'SCO has already been halted in Germany and we applaud Red Hat's actions to help end their activities in the US -- and beyond. We applaud their efforts to restrict the rhetoric of the SCO group -- and the FUD they are trying to instill -- and will determine quickly what actions SuSE can take to support Red Hat in their efforts.'" Read on for a few more links.

Vladimir writes "What no one has really touched upon is that the SCO vs. IBM court date is in April 2005, which could mean that the resolution of this case could be somewhere in 2006-2007, by which time Linux or any other OS may be irrelevant. People please keep your wallets in your pocket. Also, this lawyer has a long analysis of SCO extortion attempts and debunks a lot of their FUD."

Besides which, Omega writes "VNUnet has a story on how the economic analysis firm The Butler Group predicts that even if SCO can demonstrate there is offending code in the Linux kernel, it could easily be replaced."

Comments

They always countersue

[PoochieReds]

It's standard business practice to countersue when someone sues your company. The merits of the case have very little to do with it.

Nothing to see here, move along...

Re:They always countersue

[Anonymous Coward]

Its also common practice to counter*(see below)sue someone for libal and slander. Not to mention trying to extort your customer with vage threats of possible lawsuits and other reprocussions in the future.

Especially WITH NO PROOF WHAT-SO-EVER.

What if Ford motor company went to all the people who bought GM products and said to them, "Chevy, Pontiac and freinds stole technology from us, I am not going to tell you what they stole and how they stole it, but you should know that many of the people who designed for GM have also worked for other companies who make cars, including Ford. If you don't pay us 3000 dollars for every GM car you own within 3 months then I may have the government put you in jail, or mske you pay a big fine on top of what you owe us for using GM products."

I doubt that would go on long with out some serious reprocussions.

*And don't forget that SCO hasn't SUED REDHAT AT ALL. This is not a counter-suit. SCO has sued IBM, which sells Redhat products along with some of it's servers, but that doesn't have much bearing on the lawsuite at all. SCO allegesthat IBM put some code from AIX into Linux, during IBM's development of it's contribution to Linux's code base; thus "devalueing Unix".

The rest is a bunch a propaganda BS that SCO is using in a attempt to frighten unwitting people into giving them free money. SCO's version of UNIX is inferiorer in pretty much everyway, not only to Linux, but NetBSD, FreeBSD, and in some aspects to OpenBSD, PLUS ALL the commercial versions on Unix such as AIX or Solaras.

SCO is screwed even if they win the lawsuit. It's a company with no future and open source deployment and support was their best bet for survival, however limited, and they flushed that down the f*king drain.

This lawsuit is just a chance for them to get the company recognized as a unix provider so that their stock market "value" goes up and give the to p execs a chance to unload their stocks with as little as a loss as possible before their investors realise that they are banking on a loser and pull out, which I would think would be around... ahhh sometime between 2005 and 2006?

I am just happy to see a lawsuit that is not frivolus comming out of the american justice system.

Re:They always countersue

[perdelucena]

Nope, this is recursive! there must be a stop condition.

--
Sco Sucks

Re:They always countersue

[brocheck]

There is.

while (myCompany.capital() > 1)
{
willsue = TRUE;
}
willsue = FALSE;

return myCompany.chaptereleven();

Re:They always countersue

[GreyWolf3000]

Suse joining in is much more intersting to me...after all, SuSE and SCO were partners in {UnitedLinux} crime!

Re:They always countersue

[SmoothCriminal]

I agree after watching divorce court for the last 10 years without missing an episode

Re:They always countersue

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe, I was going to mod you as funny... but then I thought... "Wait, he's been watching divorce court for the last 10 years?!?!? And there is not a 'Pathetic' moderation option!!".

So instead of modding you as offtopic, I made this witty reply.

Re:They always countersue

[magores]

Can anyone show the recursion in brainf*ck?

Seems like it would fit the SCO thought process right now.

It's like SNK versus Capcom!

[JanusFury]

Red Hat tags out and SuSE jumps into the fray, and then they both do a combo on SCO!

SCO is down to its last bit of health, it looks like the end!

Oh wait, SCO just tagged out! Here comes Microsoft!

Re:It's like SNK versus Capcom!

[Zoop]

Ahem.

Would they use the SuSEplex move on SCO?

See the code

[tsa]

What I don't understand is why SCO is so unwilling to show the code this is all about. If it's in the kernel everyone can already see it so why the secrecy and complicated NDA stuff?

Re:See the code

[Tsali]

"Because it's devastating to my case!"
- Jim Carey, Liar, Liar

Re:See the code

[isorox]

Cynics view: Code doesnt exist, or they are frightened of someone pointing out that the code went to Linux and SCO from a *BSD tree.

Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse.

Re:See the code

[benjiboo]

Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse.

But the binaries of the kernels in question are still out there on thousands of machines. Removing the code would of course cancel out any claim they had to licensing revenues for further kernel builds, which I guess is not a hand they would willingly give up...

Re:See the code

[Sique]

Because the original case is not about the code itself, but about IBM allegedly infringing on the licensing conditions for AIX. SCO states that with IBM releasing code to the Linux kernel which was written for AIX and thus covered by the Unix license, IBM infringed on the contract.

SCO states that IBM had to protect not only the licensed source code but also the code IBM wrote to make a derivative work from the source code.

Re:See the code

[cdrudge]

Yes that was the original case. But SCO changes its story so often. If it's related to Linux, Unix, IBM, or any other company that might someday appear as a blip on SCO's radar, they have accused them of something. You don't send out 1500 letters to people who have done no dealings with IBM saying that they are infringing on SCOs IP due to a contract dispute.

Re:See the code

[affenmann]

> What I don't understand is why SCO is so unwilling to show the code this is all about.
> If it's in the kernel everyone can already see
> it so why the secrecy and complicated NDA stuff?

Maybe they're afraid. I bet that only days after they show us the source there will be a clean version of the Linux kernel, perhaps with a few features disabled. In any case, it'll only take a short time to get a clean kernel. And then they can't force anyone into paying them...
Isn't open source great ? :-)

Re:See the code

[jkrise]

'Cos SCO is interested in extortion, not reasoning.
'Cos the justice system is such that anyone can throw shit and ask others to clean up the mess.
'Cos firms are no longer interested in delivering products and services, but in making money and enriching a few directors.
'Cos, maybe there isn't much truth in what SCO's trying to have us believe.

-

Re:See the code

[superid]

"Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse"

Is there a legal basis for this? I do not doubt for a minute that any infringing code could be rewritten quickly, but why would an otherwise legitamite SCO case collapse? As an analogy, my neighbor breaks into my house and infringes upon (steals) my tv, I sue him and he says "ok I'll put it back". It seems to me that he is still guilty of a crime.

Re:See the code

[nut]

Very simple. As soon as SCO tells the world exactly what pieces of code in the linux kernel they are claiming ownership of, they will be removed and re-written by an army of open of open source developers. SCO immediately loses ownership as soon as it tells people what it claims to own.
It's a bit like Schrodinger's cat, except that even if it's alive when it comes out of the box, we immediately kill it anyway.

Re:See the code

[B'Trey]

They don't have any legal claim for licensing revenues now. As has been repeatedly pointed out, a customer is not liable. If the NY Times prints a chapter from Harry Potter and gets sued for doing so, the people who have subscriptions to the NYT can't also be sued and forced to pay for the book. It doesn't work that way.

Re:See the code

[B'Trey]

If it was only the original case, Red Hat wouldn't be bringing suit. SCO is also contacting customers of Red Hat (as well as other Linux versions), warning them that they're liable for copyright infringement or violation of trade secrets, and offering to sell them a license. That's why Red Hat is suing.

Re:See the code

[zipsonic]

Well I've been thinking alot about this, and I think it's funny that they give a blanket statement about it being in the 2.4 - 2.5 (now 2.6). If its in every 2.4 kernel, then it would had to have shown up in the 2.3 development cycle. Parts of the kernel dont magically appear at the beginning of a new production/stable cycle.
But telling us the exact release number would infringe on their IP, and we couldnt have that.

Darl, you need to put up, and then shut up when we've removed it from the kernel.

Re:See the code

[alienw]

That's an improper analogy. If the code can be replaced in 4 hours, then the court will see that the code was not valuable or important and was most likely included by accident. Then, SCO won't be eligible for punitive damages. Remember: intent is very important here.

Here's a closer analogy. You borrow a pen from a co-worker. You forget to return said pen. Co-worker accuses you of theft, but refuses to say what you have stolen. I don't think the case would get very far, given that a pen hardly costs anything, the theft wasn't intentional, and you would likely return the pen had he asked.

Re:See the code

[zerocool^]

Cynics view: Code doesnt exist, or they are frightened of someone pointing out that the code went to Linux and SCO from a *BSD tree.

We'll see:

PinkFairies.org - Home of the SCO code bounty hunt.

Hopefully we'll sweat it out of 'em. Got code? Claim your prize!

~Will

Re:See the code

[olympus_coder]

Well, there are a couple possible reasons:

1) It doesn't exist (most likely).

2) By law you have to allow the offending party a chance to fixt the problem. A reasonable amount of time to rewrite parts of a kernel is 6 months (in my opinion). SCO knows that if they release the offenses, the linux community will act in good faith, and within a very short period of time (6 days?) their IP will be expunged from the main kernel tree. SCO's buisness model relys on the community NOT opperating in good faith. They are trying to make it look that way to the clueless justice system in this country.

3) This is all just a MS ploy to weeken linux. SCO is irrelivant and all that matters is the FUD they create. If the DOJ, or anyone else kills them, it doesn't matter. They hurt linux which is what the powers at be wanted.

Re:See the code

[mrtrumbe]

IANAL, but this guy is. Did you even read the material linked to from the original story??

From the previously mentioned lawyer's analysis:

If SCO wanted to have any infringement removed from Linux, they could help do that. But, SCO is refusing despite direct requests from many parties including RedHat, IBM and Novell. They just insist upon a purely illegal activity and little else. It is important to note that disclosing the so-called areas of infringement would not lessen their claims against IBM for contract violations nor violations of trade secret. Those claims against IBM stand on their own without the withholding of key information. The same is true should SCO want to charge RedHat or any other party with copyright infringement. Fixing Linux now does not eliminate any claims or charges that rights have been infringed in the past.

The only "case" that releasing the infringing code would damage is SCO's threatened lawsuits against Linux customers. It would not hurt their case against IBM (the only suit they've actually filed to date).

So would it hurt their case against Linux customers?? Nope. Because they have no case against the majority of Linux cutomers, private or corporate.

Again, from the analysis:

The threat to Linux customers is totally without a legal foundation. And, SCO has deliberately misrepresented those laws in order to extort money from Linux customers. There is no question of that. That is a fools move. It is a fools move because it imposes upon SCO significant legal liability for harm caused to the Linux market. The RedHat law suit refers directly to this problem in its discussion about the tortuous and willful interference with business relationships between RedHat and its customers. SCO (and without any reasonable legal basis) contacted Redhat (and IBM) customers and threatened legal action if they did not pay money. It does not matter what the money is ostensibly for. Linux customers do not need a copy of Unix from SCO to run their computers. In fact, the statement from SCO clearly suggests that Linux would continue to be used. The only benefit to the customer would be not being sued by SCO. Well. For money, anyone can make that offer. And, if you have a legal basis for filing a law suit, that would be business. But, if the legal basis is missing, it becomes extortion.

The point is that by persuing Linux customers SCO has opened the door to litigation against itself. Those acts are widely viewed as illegal if no basis for a lawsuit exists. And most people outside of SCO believe potential suits against Linux customers to be baseless (like suing the NYTimes for releasing a chapter of Harry Potter--they made the IP public, but that doesn't implicate NYTimes readers in the crime). The infringing code never comes into play in the case of SCO vs. Linux customers.

And the case infringing code does effect--the SCO vs. IBM case for IP violations--wouldn't be damaged by exposing the infringing code. That case is about the release of trade secrets and intellectual property into the public domain, an issue that can be proven independant of corrections made to Linux code after the infringing code is divulged.

Please read before you post.

Taft

Re:See the code

[esarjeant]

Point #2 is significant in this case; any IP infringement I have seen in the past has been prefixed with a cease and desist letter. No evidence has been presented, this is a clear-cut case of FUD on the part of SCO.

More info here:

Linux Dispute Keeps Escalating

Don't forget, SCO is also under SEC investigation for financial misdoings. "The consolidated complaint alleges certain improprieties regarding the circumstances surrounding the underwriters' conduct during the Company's [SCO's] initial public offering and the failure to disclose such conduct in the registration statement in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended." This is not a company on the up & up, it's not impossible to imagine a shady dealing with MS to ensure uncertainty in the Linux camp.

With the current SCO pricing strategy the TCO argument for Linux goes out the window. Technically speaking it's more expensive to run a Linux shop than an NT/W2K shop. MS now wins the cost argument handsdown; interesting how that happened. Also note that the MS deal gives $5M to SCO for the next 3 quarters. With the cost of payroll at around $5M this is enough to keep the company afloat. The additional $8M initial amount can be used to mitigate deferred revenues and other long term expenses. This deal is fishy, I expect someone is going to get hurt real bad and it might just be Microsoft.

Re:See the code

[tlk nnr]

What I don't understand is why SCO is so unwilling to show the code this is all about. If it's in the kernel everyone can already see it so why the secrecy and complicated NDA stuff?

Because it's not SCO's code: SCO Unix doesn't contain any interesting advanced features.

I'd bet that the code fragments available under NDA actually compare Linux and AIX, or Linux and IBM written code fragments in Montery.

SCO doesn't have the right to show code written by IBM to the public, thus they can't show it to anyone without an NDA.

Buying the SCO-licence in Germany not possible

[OMG]

I contacted SCO Germany and tried to get an offer for a desktop licence. On the phone a SCO employee said I should stop "babbling" (yes, she used that word). I should sent an email instead. Others have tried that weeks ago and got no reaction up to now. The company doing the press releases for SCO Germany informed me that they are not allowed to comment on the licence in any way, too.

It looks like there is absolutly no chance to buy the SCO licence for Linux in Germany at the moment.

Forthcoming about their intentions?

[Rogerborg]

What, just like SCO were when they decided to distribute a Linux distro, including code that said "Please use me", and then get all of their revenue by suing people for doing so?

Remind me, what SEC filing that that plan appear on? Because it seems to me like "Abandon development and marketing of obselete product, make all of our money from barratry" would be the sort of thing that investors would like to know about beforehand.

Re:Forthcoming about their intentions?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Some would argue that SCO's distrubuting Linux under the GPL invalidates all of their claims.

But as we all know, history, logic, and legal precident have no place in a court of law.

Now look for the others as well

[deadmantalking]

I assume Mandrake, Connectiva etc. will also announce support for Red Hats actions. But this could be a cool idea. Why dont all the vendors individually sue SCO? SCO will run out of money before it can address any of them. Of course then MS may buy it out and then we could have a REAL problem on our hands...
What i am interested in finding out is if any of the companies will put their money where their mouth is... donate to the Open Source Now! fund.

Re:Now look for the others as well

[borgdows]

Why should we sue SCO ?
Outside the US we don't care a bit about SCO shit and al.

If they dare to do something in Europe or most other countries they'll be shot before they have finished their sentence (see SCO Germany for instance).

This is another proof the US Legal System is not working anymore.

Analysis - More than Linux hinges on this

[Badgerman]

I'm hoping that Red Hat and those supporting them beat the utter legal tar out of SCO. It's not just a Linux thing, either.

If SCO comes out ahead, there will be imitators. If "Extortion Liscenses" work once, people will try it again. How many claims for "IP violations" will there be by hucksters offering to sell "insurance."

I don't think SCO's imitatable yet since all they've done so far is inflate their stock price and annoy people. There are plenty of ways to inflate your stock price.

I don't expect SCO to win. But it is something that struck me as important.

Re:Analysis - More than Linux hinges on this

[arvindn]

I'm hoping that Red Hat and those supporting them beat the utter legal tar out of SCO. It's not just a Linux thing, either.

You're right, tar is not just a linux thing. Like most GNU programs, it is very portable. ;^)

Lawyerspeak

[Nogami_Saeko]

Also, this lawyer has a long analysis of SCO extortion attempts and debunks a lot of their FUD.

And from the page:

"The jerkheads at SCO refuse to disclose what their IP is choosing instead to only make general and ambiguous public and inflammatory claims about others. Without proof, of course. Even without substance."

I don't know when the last time I've heard a lawyer use "jerkheads" was, but it was probably a long time ago, if ever ;)

N.

Re:Lawyerspeak

[SmallFurryCreature]

Yeah, I know lawyer speak can be confusing but it is like youre brain surgeon speaking with a southern accent. I just rather not.

A good lawyer, for that matter anyone with a brain would never use swear words (no matter how mild) in a document. Not even on the internet.

I wouldn't put to much trust in this "lawyer" words, if he speaks the same way in a courtroom he will be on charges of contempt before the charges have been read.

Re:Lawyerspeak

[praedor]

So true. They normally make heavy use of the time-venerated "stupidhead" descriptor, and somewhat less frequently, the softer "poo-head".

SCOre One For Ignorant Quotes

[tds67]

The release quotes Darl McBride, SCO's President and CEO, as being "disappointed" with Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik for not being "forthcoming" about Red Hat's intentions in a previous discussion.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Has SCO been forthcoming about their ever-changing intentions? Is SCO the only one allowed to operate in stealth-mode?

Darl, there's enough "disappointment" to go around--most of it pointed in your direction.

Lamentations: How Long?

[4of12]

It's becoming clear that SCO is a rather deliberate-placed fly in the soothing low cost ointment of growing Linux deployments.

It's also clear that certain companies stand to benefit from slowing the rate of Linux adoption. It's in their interest to keep the question raised by SCO open for as long as possible because it will retard the growth rate of Linux. (I doubt the number of Linux deployments will decrease, or even level off, but the growth rate will probably slow.)

So how long will it take for the SCO issue to be closed?

Most current Linux users have dismissed SCO's claims as frivolous, but potential new users are probably more easily dissuaded by these kinds of questions.

What kind of legal event and how long will it take before SCO claims are no longer a question?

The most important line for your PHB:

[Badgerman]

"The very last company you want to enter into a contract with is SCO. You can see now how they operate."

Definitely good ammo if someone gets cold feet towards Linux.

what sun thinks

[t123]

according to this eweek story, sun believes it SCO can screw off:

In the early 1990's, Schwartz said, Sun chief executive Scott McNealy agreed to spend several million dollars to take a broad license with AT&T, essentially granting Sun legal rights equivalent to ownership of Unix code.

"As a result of that decision in 1993, we can do whatever we want (to the code)," Schwartz said. "We can drive forward and indemnify our customers too," a basic responsibility of any intellectual property provider, he said.

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[Skye16]

According to a letter to Szulik that was attached to the announcement, SCO "will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint." McBride continued by suggesting that his company's response "will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy."

kthxbye.

Re:SCO

[isorox]

Dear Mr. COWARD,

We note that you are using the word "money" in your post. This is flagrant misuse of our intellectual property, and as such we will require you to license the word. Please contact our sales department (1-800-SUEMYSHORTS) to discuss volume licensing from $900 per instance.

Yours Sincerly

Mr I.S.Orox

Re:SCO

[ninthwave]

Yes you do on the same grounds SCO are saying you may be breaking the law with a linux kernel that has their ip, you now have a binary only license that contains non SCO ip protected by the GPL so you effectively bought a license that knowingly infringes on other people's ip and they can sue SCO for distributing it. As if you are liable or not you shouldn't have been liable for SCO's ip in the linux distribution you used so you never needed the license. You did not violate SCO's ip if it is in the linux kernel the perosn or persons whom supposedly placed the code there did, hence the suit against IBM and not against any Linux distribution and certainly not against any Linux users. You just wasted some money for something that was not your liability.

But neither here nor there now you are proof that SCO has taken money to license a product that they do not own I believe all kernel contributors can sue them for distribution of their IP against the terms of the GPL which protected their IP.

I repeat SCO does not have a right to license a binary only linux kernel if their IP is in it or not because they do not own the IP of the whole kernel only by their own admission part of it. Without supplying you the full source code upon request.

At least that is my take on it.
Any GPL advocates or kernel contributors want to enlighten the debate further for this is a key issue I would like to see more clarification and discussion on.

Speaking of licenses

[xyote]

Has anyone actually seen one of these beasties? Do the licenses make specific claims to IP or they the usual vague claims of extortion attempts, pay us and we won't hurt you.

Ha! I can just see Darl "Pirana" McBride's next bright idea, SCOO, the Santa Cruz Other Operation.

Re:Speaking of licenses

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Well, they couldn't afford a horse's head, so I got a Gerbil's. They also can't afford a Godfather, Daryl is the Nephew. The hitman is armed with a waterpistol filled with lemon juice.

let's go!!

[bryam]

Go Turbolinux, Conectiva, Lindows, IBM, Oracle, SGI, HP, NEC, Fujitsu, members of OSDL, members of CELinuxForum!! Go!

Join to this RedHat action.

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[n3rd]

My bad.

In typical Slashdot fashion I didn't read the whole article.

Re:SCO

[benjiboo]

It is not THAT much money, and I don't have to worry about being sued or breaking the law. I'm not sure if this comment is tongue in cheek, but a large company (for whom Linux only represents a small percentage of their install base), might consider paying up to remove any potential or perceived liability. Dirty tactics by SCO, but i'd guess in most situations, it's easier to pay the $700 rather than taking on an unlimited liability in terms of future costs.

Instead of just taking SCO to courrt..

[bigmattana]

Redhat and SuSE should use some of SCO's tactics. Since SCO's version of Linux probably contains some code that was generated by these companies or their employees, they can "sell" licenses to use their code before they sue SCO for violating the GPL. That way, the end user won't be held "liable". :) No more SCO linux users.

It doesn't have to be a valid threat to scare management into submission. I think more tech companies need to put insurance agents into upper management positions. Nothing intimidates those guys!

Re:SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news:
SCO revenue for the quarter ending August 31 2003 estimated at $690.

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[Zigg]

As anyone with the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader can tell, this does not say or even implies anything about counter-suing.

That's because you took the quote out of context. Add these lines:

Yours truly
Darl C. McBride

Now it becomes very obvious. :-)

Not about intellectual property rights

[ljavelin]

Clearly SCO is not hopeful that it will win the lawsuit against IBM - if it were, it wouldn't care about how many "SCO Linux licensees" are out there, and it wouldn't be trying to collect hundreds or thousands of dollars from them.

Just think: If SCO thought it could win the IBM suit, SCO would be very successful financially. SCO could then take that financial success and license their technology in terms that are legally clear to their customers.

Instead, they're trying to force organizations to be their customers by threatening them with potential lawsuits. And unclear lawsuits at that.

SCO is merely looking for extremely high visibility in the short term - negative visibility which can damage it's ability to be a product OR IP property. Basically, they're pissing off potential customers of their technology (no matter WHO they license it to).

SCO is looking for some short term cash with this deal, likely because all other forms of cashflow have stopped or in the process of stopping. Again, they can only bite the hand that COULD feed it, as at this point they have no product of any value except the threat of lawsuits (which isn't really considered a product).

Is this a repeat of the Rambus wars...

[SmackCrackandPot]

Looking back at recent history, I found this list compiled from various technology news reports...

January 2000 Rambus files patent infringement lawsuit against Hitachi
June 2000 Rambus settles lawsuit against Hitachi
August 2000 Rambus files patent infringement lawsuit against Infineon
August 2000 Micron files patent infringement lawsuit against Rambus
August 2000 Hyundai files patent infringement lawsuit against Rambus
Sept. 2000 Rambus files patent infringement lawsuit against Micron and Hyundai (Hynix)
May 2001 Rambus lawsuit against Infineon dismissed, fined US $3.5 million
August 2001 Rambus faces class-action lawsuit for fraud

Re:Is this a repeat of the Rambus wars...

[the lurking man]

Let's hope not, because you forgot an important part of the Rambus saga.

January 2003 Rambus wins appeal; court throws out fraud claims, interprets patents favorably to Rambus, and remands for new trial.

But the damage is done...

[radbrad]

Noi matter how much nice companies like Red Hat and SuSe help the effort, the damage to Linux's (considered in some circles) bad reputation, has been done.

Joe "Unix? Wha?" Average already is wearing his microsoft distributed OSS protected sun glasses, and will only see the bad PR from SCO.

It just sucks that now for every bad vibe that SCO has sent out regarding linux, it means we have to send out ten good vibes. So grab your friendly joe Avergae and explain to them what SCO really repreasents, just try not be too fanatical, people get wierded out by that.

Re:But the damage is done...

[Dan Ost]

If SCO's loses (read: no settlement), then Linux will emerge from this
stronger than if this had never happened.

Linux IP had always been a legal grey area. After this, legal precedent will
be set and everyone will point to this case as a reference for future IP
questions.

Also, because of this suit, Linux is closer to being a household name than
ever before. The public must first be aware of Linux before it can accept it.

Finally, this suit causes the Linux community (and perhaps the larger OSS
community) to put aside some of their differences and become less fragmented.
This can only be a good thing.

Wallpaper of the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo ?

[Sector_001]

We need some logo and/or wallpaper that we can use to express our displeasure with SCO.

It needs to be something tasteful and non-libelous that can be placed, for example, as wallpaper on a corporate desktop.

Anybody got anything that they would like to contribute ? (The kind of thing that I am thinking of is the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo with a sledgehammer)

and in other news

[Darth_brooks]

Mike Tyson has announced he will sue all of his former opponents, as they were not 'forthcoming' about their intentions to hit back.

McBride ended his letter somewhat vaguely by suggesting that Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux."

Yeah, Defending your company's business practices is a horrible way to stay in business. You should attack other people's practices.

hey what did you buy?

[linuxislandsucks]

Since no user of any copyrighted software can be charged for damages of copyright infringment even windows users, what di you buy?

and how did you make the case to buy this thin air with your company's CFO?

Copyright infringment looks for damage by the infringer..did you put code in linux?

Re:hey what did you buy?

[falcon5768]

thank you,

honestly anyone who pays a cent to SCO is a fool and should have talked to their legal department first..

Read Carefully

YOU CANT GET SUED BY SCO SINCE YOU NEVER BOUGHT SHIT FROM SCO.

Likewise a class action lawsuit should be filed by anyone who uses linux charging SCO with extortion, they are using scare tactics to get your money, nothing of any legal merit.

If there really is any offending code in the kernal (which I doubt) then SCO has to show it, and then, its only IBM's concern, not us. IBM would have to pay SCO NOT the end user.

PLEASE would someone start up a class action lawsuit already!!!!!

Re:Can someone explain what 'shorting' is?

[veddermatic]

Normally one buys stock in hopes that it will go up. "Shorting" a stock is agreeing to purchase stock at a future date in hopes it will go down.

In a nutshell, it's the reverse of a "normal" stock trade... you actually SELL first, THEN buy later.

ex: I believe SCO is going to tank, so I 'sell' 100 shares today at $3 each. In one months, which is how long I bought my short for, I then buy the stock for $1 and (minus commissions, minus the fees for the 3rd party who has to cover the month where I didn't have the stock I sold) I make money.

a long period of uncertainty

[non]

does the timing of all of this strike anyone else as intentional? that just when microsoft was starting to lose server interest share to linux at an ever-increasing rate a plague descends upon linux. does it further seem coincidental that microsoft has announced a number of open source/linux initiatives recently?

i think there are several things going on here, but they all originate from strategic, and not tactical, decisions by redmond. let me start with a comment i heard from a coworker (he's in technical sales), "if anyone can figure out how to make money out of linux, its microsoft."

one: microsoft has recently started to be perceived in the marketplace as stodgy. no, i don't have any business case studies to back it up; i feel it. so they're attempting to tell the world that they can change with the times like the best of them. how? by announcing open source initiatives, etc.

two: despite microsofts continued rants about TCO, business' experience probably show that linux TCO, especially in the area of server administration, and down-time associated with virii, patches and other security issues, is in fact lower. ergo microsoft's focus on security and providing 'enhanced' command-line tools for server administration.

three: they (redmond) know just how long it takes a suit to be completed. this whole series of events figures into some long-range plan. what, i don't know. remember though, this court date for the start of the suit is after the release of longhorn. my bet is that there will be a slew of patches and other enforced upgrades between now and then to change the balance. not in the home, where microsoft is feeling threatened, but in the corporate world, where they are quite seriously running scared.

Open letter to McBride

[Anonymous Coward]

My open letter to Darl McBride
Dear Mr McBride,

If I understand SCO's position correctly, it is:

1. Linux 2.4 consists of copyrighted work licensed under the GPL by various authors, as well as some form of SCO's IP which has never been legitimately licensed under the GPL.

2. SCO believes in protecting IP holders' right is important.

While I will leave the merits of your claim of SCO's IP being in Linux to another day, I would like to ask you about the rights of other Linux copyright holders and whether SCO's actions are consistent with your stated position on the importance of protecting IP holders' rights.

As you are aware, the GPL forbids distribution of a combined work contains both GPLed and non-GPLed code.

I believe you are aware of this, and agree with this interpretation of the GPL, because it says so on your company's web site:

Quoting from http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html it says:

"Why doesn't SCO offer an IP License for Linux to the Linux distribution companies so that they can bundle SCO IP with their Linux distribution? " "The SCO compliance program is an end-user program for the right to use SCO IP in binary format. The IP License for Linux does not grant distribution rights, nor does it grant any rights associated with source code. SCO doesn't offer a license to cure the infringement on the part of the Linux distributor because SCO's source license agreement directly conflicts with the GPL. "

Furthermore, you reiterated this position in your August 5 conference call, referring to Red Hat's Linux distribution:

"But if infringing code is found, RH is required under the GPL to stop shipments of Linux."

It would therefore seem that distributing Linux would not be appropriate, in your view. As any such distribution, by anybody, would in fact infringe the copyrighted IP and GPL license, of the various Linux coders, for the portions of the code that does not form part of the alleged infringing code in Linux.

So I have to ask, by what right do SCO continue distribute GPL software (SCO Linux) from your official FTP site ftp.sco.com ?

I am not aware of any special provision in the GPL that grants SCO more rights to distribute Linux than Red Hat. So if Red Hat have no right to distribute Linux, why do you think SCO have that right?

I am aware you now (added today) state on your web site that your distribution is only for existing SCO Linux customers, but again I would do seem any provision in the GPL nor am aware of any special provision for SCO or anybody else, that says you may ignore the GPL if distributing to existing customers. So can you please explain why you think SCO is legally entitled to distribute GPL licensed Linux software, and especially the non-contested portions, at all?

Finally referring once again to your license FAQ at http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html

"If SCO doesn't offer a license that would permit the distribution of an in house customized Linux OS to internal data centers, what is the value of correcting the infringement on the part of my end users when my company as a whole is still infringing SCO's intellectual property? What should I do?" "Consider migrating from an in house customized version of Linux to a shrink wrap, off the shelf version of Linux or to an alternative operating system. If you are unable to migrate, consider outsourcing the development of the customized Linux distribution. SCO understands that these options are very constraining and is investigating alternative that both protect its intellectual property and are less burdensome for end users."

Specifically I would like to ask about these two sentences:

"Consider migrating from an in house customized version of Linux to a shrink wrap, off the shelf version of Linux or to an alternative operating system. If you are unable to migrate, consider outsourcing the development of the customized Linux distribution."

If as you

In other news

[revividus]

...the Mafia is sueing SCO for violating it's Racketeering(TM) IP. The Mafia intends to settle out of court, however, and has already sent representatives Vinnie and Guido to visit McBride....

SCO is hiring!

[borgdows]

http://sco.com/company/jobs/

They're seeking a Senior Sales Account Manager... oh wait they should have called the job Senior Stupid Cow Milker!

Re:SCO is hiring!

[Anthony Boyd]

They're seeking a Senior Sales Account Manager...

Someone should infiltrate. Either get the job so you can try to work within their system and convince your coworkers to behave ethically, or get in there and see how long you can keep the job while you royally undermine the company's business.

Re:Replacing the Code

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree, are you at fault for a crime you didn't commit? I mean, it wasn't a crime until now. You have to knowingly commit embezelment, as theres no possible way to do it without knowing. This is diffrent though, you can do this without knowing.

Tune in next week!

[Darth_brooks]

It's SCO RAW!

Announcer 1: Welcome back to the staples center where we're in the middle of the SCO-redhat cage match for the undisputed heavyweight rights to Unix! SCO Goes for the ankle lock, but Redhat counters. Redhat's climbing to the top rope (crown moans) Oh and a cheap shot by SCO to the groin! SCO is going for the reverse boston crab, things are not looking good for Redhat...

Announcer 2: OHMYGOD! Look at this!

Announcer 1: It's SuSE! SuSE is coming to the ring to make the save!

Announcer 2: Look out, he's got a folding chair....

Re:Replacing the Code

[Dunark]

I think you're full of it. SCO's refusal to identify the alleged offending code is what is preventing any corrective action. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure this will prevent them from making any claims based on the duration of the infringement.

Re:Replacing the Code

[aug24]

...except that the end users didn't steal anything, so have no need for a SCO licence.

To improve (slightly) your piss-poor analogy, it would be like someone stealing a car from a taxi firm and giving lifts to people. When the thief is caught, those lucky enough to have got a lift wouldn't then get charged retrospective taxi fares - especially not at the extortionate rate this taxi firm feels like!

Any successful action by SCO would be against IBM. If that occurs, they will get damages from IBM, and anyone using Linux can then be required to stop using the offending code, or licence it, but not until.

J.
IANAL, natch, but clearly neither is the author of the parent.

Bickering Children

[asciimonster]

I beleive the SCO case is just like two bickering children. ("You stole my code! What code? That code! I did not! Yes you did! Wel prove it! I'm telling mommy! Well I'll tell daddy!") I think we are now in the running to mommy and daddy stage. It's the time that the stakes are risen and neighter party can emerge victorious. What is left is the question of who looses the least. Damned shame.

I as an interested outsider can do two things: laugh my ass off or argyly ignore all post concerning SCO. Since I am finding it more and more difficult to do the first I will shut up now and have me mod -1 now...

Re:Bickering Children

[wagemonkey]

That's unfair to IBM. They're behaving impeccably.
It reminds of an adult and a whiny child - the child is screaming and swinging wildly and missing, whilst the adult holds off the tantrum-throwing tot with a hand on the childs head and a puzzled expression - and the other hand reaching for the rolled up newspaper.

Or AD&D analogy:
SCO==kobold with a feather duster,
IBM==Ancient Gold Dragon with a puzzled expression thinking "Are you sure you want to do this?"

Re:Replacing the Code

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

You are not all square... you have to pay for the IP you stole. End of story.

So why is SCO treatening to sue me? I didn't steal anything, I bought a product from a distributor and at the time I did not have a probable indication of parts of the product being stolen. How am I liable for this supposed theft?

Re:Instead of just taking SCO to courrt..

[AgTiger]

> Redhat and SuSE should use some of SCO's tactics.

Absolutely not. The actions of the SCO executive are unethical, unconscionable, and at least in Germany, illegal.

Were RedHat or SuSE GMBH to comport themselves in this manner, I would be forced to take a similar dim view of them, and would no longer buy their distributions.

A very large message needs to be sent to companies everywhere: Act reasonable while providing quality products, and customers will stay with you and be loyal. Act like McBride, and go down, hard.

There should be no other outcome.

Re:Replacing the Code

[Laur]

Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now.

While you are correct, it is up to the courts to decide what damages to award, if any. SCO estimates the damages at 3 billion, but I'm sure a court would not agree. You see, a company must show that it tried to mitigate the damages as much as possible. Apparently, the alleged code in Linux is so damaging to SCO that they don't want it removed! Also, up until a few months ago SCO was selling Linux for money. Hard to say that Linux damaged SCO's business when they were making money off it. They also continue to distribute the code themselves to this day. Based on this utter lack of failure to mitigate any supposed damages, the damages could just be an order to remove the code. Besides, since when will Linux users have to pay damages? If anyone pays, it will be those who inserted the code, not those who used it in good faith.

Yeah give sco a call.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I called SCO enquiring about the linuxware license and was promptly told to "return to my basement" and stop wasting Mr. Snow's time for enquiring about whether or not i can send SCO a bill for Kernel code that they are distributing that i have written.

Here is the number....this is the second supervisor up the chain of command.

1.801.765.4999
Ask for Mr. Snow

Please feel free to give him a call and ask him whatever is on your mind.

Re:Wallpaper of the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo

[AKnightCowboy]

We need some logo and/or wallpaper that we can use to express our displeasure with SCO.

Nothing says fsck you to SCO better than this.

An insult on the US justice system...

[jkrise]

The fact that RedHat has to wait for months to get a possible injunction, while SCO & Co keep pumping their stocks and FUD - well.. this is a direct indictment on the way the justice system works(?) in the US.

It took all of 7 days fot LinuxTAG to shut up SCO in Germany, likewise in Poland and Australia. If SCO is yet to prove it's case, why is it possible for it to keep yelling everyday? The US justice system is too free, maybe

-

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[jd]

Bear in mind that after Red Hat's announcement, SCO's stock dropped 20%, in a matter of minutes. Methinks investers are starting to think SCO doesn't have much of a [case|brain] (delete as appropriate), either.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[cesarcardoso]

The fact that RedHat has to wait for months to get a possible injunction, while SCO & Co keep pumping their stocks and FUD - well.. this is a direct indictment on the way the justice system works(?) in the US.

The worst part (for American citizens, that is) of all the senility of US justice system is that, on the long run, who wants to innovate, or even work? Become a professional suer and you'll be well-done for the rest of your life. Be a Canopy Group-like and you'll be rewarded on the casinos known as NYSE and NASDAQ.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[kilgortrout]

SCO was enjoined in Germany in 7 days because they refused to defend the action; basically they just rolled over. What kind of justice system do you want? One where anyone can get an injunction based on mere allegations in a complaint without the necessity of coming forward with proof and the opportunity for the otherside to offer proof in their defense?

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Anonymous Custard]

The fact that RedHat has to wait for months to get a possible injunction, while SCO & Co keep pumping their stocks and FUD - well.. this is a direct indictment on the way the justice system works(?) in the US.

Well, the Securities and Exchange Commission needs to get involved. An SEC investigation would cast a little FUD right back at SCO, though it would be much more truthful than the crap SCO's spreading around.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Hezaurus]

Let's face it - the US legal system is a money making machine for the lawyers and big companies. You know it and I know it, the whole world knows it.

The patent system (which you are now successfully trying to shove down to the european throat) protects big companies.

See: in europe the competition is regulated by government which most of the US citizens see as a communist way.
In the US competition is regulated by the big companies with 10k+ patents in their briefcases.
Disclaimer: I'm not living in America.. and I'm not sorry.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[nEoN nOoDlE]

The US justice system is too free, maybe

Yeah, you're right... what the US needs is a good dictator.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[oni]

It took all of 7 days fot LinuxTAG to shut up SCO in Germany, likewise in Poland and Australia.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe SCO did not defend itself in Europe or Australia so the courts there issued summary judgement.

Why didn't SCO defend itself? Because in thier estimate of the situation, the concluded that the outcome wasn't going to affect thier stock price back in the US. Had they defended themselves, it would have taken months to get an injunction in Germany just like it's taking months in the US.

So, this is not "an insult on the US justice system" so much as it is an insite into the strategy of SCO. This is just more evidence that they are doing a pump and dump.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Malcontent]

No they need a better one then they have now.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[canajin56]

Aparenntly it's impossible in the US to make someone personally responsible for the statements he issues or to make a corporation responsible for the statements their management issues.

The people can't be charged with anything since the corporation did it, not the person. I mean the person actually DID say it, but that's just pedantics, according to law.

The corporation, on the other hand, CAN be, but those laws have been challanged as unconstitutional, since they gag the corporation (Who is a person), which violates its right to free speech.

What COULD happen, though, is that AFTER the stock price collapses, the shareholders can sue the execs, IF they can prove that they KNEW they were BSing, and that their actions were not in the best interest of the corporation's profits.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Hentai]

It's ok to lie if it's about war.

As opposed to, say, getting a blowjob?

Think about it this way: What's easier to get on prime-time television, a scene of a woman getting punched or a scene of a woman bearing her breasts? A scene of full-penetration sex or a scene where someone dies violently?

Which is our culture more afraid of - sex or violence? Feeling good or making others feel bad?

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[iabervon]

I suspect that most SCO investors are short-term investors. They don't care if SCO has a case or not, because their goal is to hold SCO stock while it goes up. Chances are that SCO stock will drop a lot when SCO is about to need to prove something. Until then, the market is betting that SCO will release good FUD soon, enabling people to profit off the fluctuations.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Malcontent]

"As opposed to, say, getting a blowjob?"

Yes. Basically if you lie about where you stuck your cock you get impeached. If you lie about taking the nation to war then It's cool.

SCO

[Kris2k]

I feel soo bad, considering that I just ordered about 2K of licensing upgrades from a SCO distributor for a client yesterday. :(

If it wasn't for a proprietary set of apps, Linux + SCO bin emu was looking very good. I even had a chance to test this scenario, but encountered some serious issues.

This just proves that, like any other commercial OS, if a company adopts a commercial OS, and their production apps are taylored to that environment, the companies are just locked-in, wether they like it or not.

WWF!

[Noryungi]

Is it me, or is this SCO thing looking more and more like a bad parody of a wrestling match??!!

"And, in the left corner, Red Hat is entering the ring, with his trademarked legal fund spandex and red fedora! SuSE is standing by, ready to lend a helping hand to his wrestling partner, while SCO's partner-in-crime, Microsoft is screaming 'HURT HIM!, HURT HIM!' to Darl McBride... But wait! Oh my Gosh! Red Hat has started a double-nuclear-powered screwdriver on both Darl McBride legs!! Wait!! Microsoft is trying to bite Red Hat butt while being severely pounded by 'Mein licenz ist GPL' SuSE!! It's a four way fight, people!"

Aaaaah... Saturday night wrestling... (lick lips in anticipation)...

Let's just hope that the good guys win! 10 to 1 on the little guy with the red hat! ;-)

Re:SCO

[ninthwave]

SCO Announces Intellectual Property License for Linux
Tuesday August 5, 12:43 pm ET
SCO Provides Commercial Linux Users With Run-Time, Binary License to Run SCO's Intellectual Property in Linux

# LINDON, Utah, Aug. 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner and licensor of the core UNIX(R) operating system source code, today announced the availability of the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux(R). The run-time license permits the use of SCO's intellectual property, in binary form only, as contained in Linux distributions. By purchasing a SCO Intellectual Property License, customers avoid infringement of SCO's intellectual property rights in Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 kernels. Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOLO GO )

from Yahoo biz release

Now the article continue that it is a run time only license to comply with the GPL which is why I requested for comments on is this stretching the GPL asking to use the kernel in binary form only and not giving the option to remove offending code. Basically hijacking the kernel.

Re:Yes, but...

[Urkki]

...as long as you aren't the one paying for it.

Oh, wait, you are! Either directly if you buy Red Hat (or Suse now too) products, or indirectly if you just like to use OS software, since that "lawyer money" could have been better spent on software development.

Any ideas what for?

[eddy]

I mean.. what's there for SCO to counter-sue for? Remember, the do not want to have to display code in court, so they can't very well turn around and sue for the very thing RedHat disputing, namely infringement.

Or maybe they could, but to a layman that doesn't make any sense. Maybe good for one final pump of the stock though, so I guess there's some logic to that line of thought... yeah, we'll probably see a counter-suit in order for the insiders to pump the stock for another round of sell, sell, sell.

I can't see any registered sales for a while now. I wonder if maybe they know the earnings report is so very depressing that no insider dares to sell this close to it. Might look suspicious to sell just before announcing ten figure income and large overall losses... nah, they don't care -- The SEC is toothless.

Re:Replacing the Code

[theLOUDroom]

Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now. That would be like me embezelling money from my company every day, and when they catch me, I can just say "okay I will stop doing it now, so we are all square".

How exactly is this insightful?

His analogy is way off base. He compares knowingly comitting theft, to unknowingly using code that was distributed in breach of contract.

You are not all square... you have to pay for the IP you stole. End of story.

Doesn't this line along give away the post as a troll? There's no end of story. Even if SCO wins the case against IBM, there's nothing saying the will be able to collect damages from anyone else, especially since they have refused to disclose the infringing code. (They were knowingly adding to the damages through their own actions.) Heck, despite what SCO says, it seems the only suit they have filed is about their contract with IBM. Even if IBM did break this contract, it doesn't mean CO owns the copyright to the code.

Re:Replacing the Code

[hacker]

Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now.

Except that SCO themselves claims that they knew back in 2001 that their IP was allegedly in the Linux source tree. Why did they wait 2 more years? So more people could use, buy, adopt, and adapt "their" code, which means more people to extort this bogus licensing from. Sorry, that sword cuts both ways.

That would be like me embezelling money from my company every day, and when they catch me, I can just say "okay I will stop doing it now, so we are all square".

No, that would be like the law letting a rapist rape 20 women, instead of 1, so they can nail him on 20 counts of rape, instead of 1.

You are not all square... you have to pay for the IP you stole. End of story.

End of your story, yes, however, reality goes on. The real story is that the GPL is not a EULA. If there was infringing code or IP in the code I was given, which was transferred with the GPL, and no other exclusions or contracts that CLEARLY state that there is IP in the code I've received, I am not guilty of copyright infringement. Got that? Repeat it slowly.

Also, if IBM writes code on their own, which works with the SysV source tree that they bought a license to from SCO, IBM owns the copyright to that code that IBM created, NOT SCO. You can't claim copyright on someone else's copyrighted code. That's not how the law works.

In any case, I do not owe SCO anything for my dozens of Linux boxes, nor does any other Linux user, company, or business using, deploying, distributing, modifying, or selling Linux. Period.

..or should I say, "End of story."

Re:Yes, but...

[turgid]

So use Debian or Slackware or.... whatever.

Slashdot category...

[Urkki]

"What no one has really touched upon is that the SCO vs. IBM court date is in April 2005, which could mean that the resolution of this case could be somewhere in 2006-2007"

This thing is here to stay. We really do need a separate slashdot category for SCO stuff...

Re:Yes, but...

[Urkki]

It's all part of the same OS community, working under GPL. Any (GPL) code developed by Red Hat is available to Debian and Slackware users / developers as well. I mean, that's (part of) the idea behind OS software. For example, I believe Debian package format was developed after RPM. I bet having first version of RPM to look at and seeing how it worked in practice made developing new package formats much easier, and made them better.

In closed source, a competitor not developing software often helps you. In open source it usually hurts you too.

So, to re-iterate, any OS development money spent on lawsuits hurts OS movement. Of course there are cases where the results or just the publicity of the lawsuit can help more (or hurt less) than not going to court, but that's beside the point.

Re:Yes, but...

[walt-sjc]

I think you missed the point. RedHat spends a lot of money on things like kernel development. If they are spending more money on lawyers, that money can't be spent on kernel development. That hurts debian and slackware too.

While I hate to see ANYONE having to spend money on lawyers to defend Linux, I think that it's money well spent in this case. Hopefully it results in a financial penalty in damages as well as just stops SCO's behavior. After all, RedHat loses money when people are scared off Linux.

This suit will hopefully force SCO to put up or shut up.

Wrong

[leonbrooks]

The reason is that The SCO Group want to extort money from people and also drive up their share price. Note that a lot of the upper crust in there have been dumping their shares already, so at least they think the farce is nearly over. The share price has stopped rising for now, and even took a big hit on Monday ($13 -> $11 in two hours).

Linus replacing the code would not have any impact on TSG's damages claim, even if they had one.

Let's make a stupid presumption and say that TSG's code claims are all 100% straight-up correct. Because they have not showed the code, the people they are threatening to sue cannot determine whether they are using it or not. The law requires them to be able to. This has axed any and all damages claims that TSG may have had. TSG is able to claim zero dollars in damages right now because they've massively contributed to the damage by their own acts.

It would also take a very unreasonable judge to disallow you time to bring your systems into compliance, and as you said, Linus and his troops would replace it so fast that TSG wouldn't even have time to print out the legal documents requiring them to stop using UnixWare-derived code, let alone serve those papers. Some of the bits would head out over the wire only half-compressed.

A Pyrric victory indeed for TSG. So instead they try extortion - and I think the wheels are about to come off that caper as well.

Interesting thing..

[epiphani]

Who has the most to gain from SCO winning this lawsuit? Certainly not SCO, because they arent going to get money from Linux development. Not microsoft, because linux will not die.

Sure, SCO will get the money from the lawsuit itself, but nothing beyond that.

Sun.

Think about it. If major corporations are forced to switch away from linux, Solaris is the next viable product. SCO is not only a bad product, but they've sucessfully put the last nail in their own coffin with this lawsuit. They pissed off the majority of the industry.

Microsoft wouldnt take the market, because all the applications and development are designed around linux/unix environments.

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of what Sun is doing, but they're probably waiting with baited breath to see the outcome of this.

Re:Interesting thing..

[ryanvm]

If major corporations are forced to switch away from linux, Solaris is the next viable product.

I don't think so. Solaris is a little more expensive than what most Linux users are used to paying. You really can't think of any other free, UNIX-like operating systems with a proven technical track record? I'll give you a hint - their names end in BSD.

Sure Sun may be the most viable commercial product, but I think you'd see the *BSDs picking up a lot more users than Solaris would.

Of course, the truth is that most Linux users would probably just continue to do so. So they have to download it from offshore - big deal. It's not like the BSA could touch them (no filthy EULA to empower them). They'd have to be tracked down and prosecuted by regular law enforcement for copyright violation. Good luck with that one, SCO.

Re:Interesting thing..

[Darth Yoshi]

Sure, SCO will get the money from the lawsuit itself, but nothing beyond that.

Sun.

My opinion is (and, hey, I post on Slashdot so I've gotta have an opinion) it isn't about SCO or Unix at all. It's about some opportunist executives sucking the last life out of a dying company.

I think the original plan was to sue IBM, have IBM buy SCO, exercise their stock options, open their golden parachutes and bail out.

When that plan failed, their backup plan was to pump-up their stock prices using exaggerated claims about the value of their Unix intellectual property rights while quietly exercising their stock options and selling off their stock in the background (I hope the SEC is looking into this).

I think that as soon as they've sold off all of their personally held stock, the executives will open their golden parachutes together and bail out and SCO (and their lawsuit) will die shortly thereafter.

I hope Boies was smart enough to get paid in advance.

Re:Interesting thing..

[s390]

No way David Boies is doing this pro bono. It's a commercial dispute (or a set of related commercial disputes), and lawyers - especially well-known trial lawyers - don't take those on for fun and good publicity.

We don't know what Boies law firm is charging SCO, as that's between them. I'd doubt they're working on full contingency, but they might have cut their rates in exchange for a percentage of any future recovery from IBM.

But Boies is out of his field here. He's an antitrust lawyer (he defended IBM for 10 years, then prosecuted US vs Microsoft). It's possible SCO hired him because he knows IBM's lawyers, and SCO might have thought he could smooth a buyout by IBM. Well, that obviously didn't work out, but now Boies is stuck with his sleazy client, SCO.

But he's not an intellectual property lawyer, so he's at some risk of focusing on irrelevancies and paying insufficient attention to what's really important. Just for example... business correspondence (including email), statements in business meetings, and patterns of conduct are important in antitrust law, because they show intent and acts to further anticompetitive practices. But such factors mean little in intellectual property cases, where the emphasis is on concrete facts. So Boies might screw up here, if he has to actually go to trial. He could be as badly mismatched to the contest as a swordsman at a gunfight.

I hate SCO

[vesamies]

The SCO people are so evil. The should tell where that verbatim stuff is so it can be removed. I guess this happens when corporations are making money...

hedging one's bets

[DdJ]

So, let's see. The case may not ultimately be decided until 2006 or later.

The case applies to kernel version 2.4 or later. If you're using 2.2, you're okay. Right?

In order to hedge one's bets, maybe a distinct fork of 2.2 is called for? If we want to be utterly over-the-top paranoid, we need to make sure that if we're called upon to roll back to 2.2, we can do that, even four years from now. Which means we need to make sure device drivers written for new hardware up until then can be made to work with the 2.2-series kernel architecture.

It'd also be good if distributions continued to give the option to use a 2.2-series kernel up until this is resolved. The current stable Debian distribution does; I hope the next two or three do as well.

Free Software on SCO

[naken]

Not that any of my software is important, but to help alienate SCO I've changed all my licenses so that my software cannot be installed on SCO operating systems:

http://ringtonetools.mikekohn.net/license.php
h ttp://nakenchat.naken.cc/license.php
http://asp2p hp.naken.cc/license.php

for example.

Maybe other free software developers will do the same? /mike

1 2 1 2 The Naken Crew

MS would certainly go after this market

[nedwidek]

All of the infighting only weakens the players in the unix arena. Microsoft is already trying to the server market or haven't you noticed the "we saved a nickel" ad they play each night.

The worrying aspect

[The Evil Muppet]

Regardless of what each person thinks, there are a few worrying aspects here that few people seem to have looked at. I am a big Linux fan. I have migrated several SCO installations to Linux and I, along with my clients, have never been hapier. SCO have decided, against all common sense, to take on IBM. IBM is one of the "big three" when it comes to enterprise UNIX (along with HP and Sun). I like IRIX as well, not to mention the unforunately dying Tru64. Then there's VMS and QNX.....

This is where it gets interesting, and I implore the ./ crowd to point out any referencing material to help me out here, but why on earth would IBM team up with SCO for Project Monterey? IBM have experience in developing UNIX (and other enterprise class Operating Systems) operating systems for 64-bit architectures, as well as the supporting tools to go along with such a beast.

What exactly did SCO bring to the table? Considering that the answer to the last question above is quite possibly "Nothing", one must ask why it was that SCO claims that enterprise-strength features are the bulk of the misappropriated property here? Most of the products SCO are claiming ownership of don't exist in any SCO product line except OpenLinux (if you can call that a product). SCO don't have any experience in developing for anything other than x86, and no one would call that an advantage when developing code for the Itanium. It seems that the only thing SCO have that gives them reason to go on in this game is their legal team - people who know about how IBM works.

Looking at the Novell situation, it is terribly convenient that SCO happened to "find" a document detailing their ownership of various copyrights after Novell had made a public statement. As Novell were quite methodical and timed in their release of their press statement, one could very well assume two things:

1. SCO knew that Novell would have something to say
2. SCO knew that Novell would not have the "first ammendment" on hand

The factualness of the second point above can be further asserted by the fact that Novell basically went quiet soon after SCO responding. To paraphrase saint McBride, SCO's legal "team" have been going over the Linux codebase for over 12 months now. Yet, in that time:

• Caldera/SCO got into United Linux in a big way
• Caldera/SCO continued to push their own Linux
• Caldera/SCO continued to make open source tools and their inclusion major features of new releases of UnixWare and OpenServer

Regardless, SCO has told the nice blokes at SuSE that they'll be on SCO's list of potential victims at some point, they continue to refine LKP for UnixWare and exclaim on the excellence of OpenLinux as the ideal conduit for migration from commercial UNIXes (they also say that UnixWare is the best commercial UNIX though...) Looking at the above, you could be led to beleive that SCO has planned all of these events. This is not a conspiracy of any sort - simply a possible example of excellent planning, with very questionable overtones in each of the three major cases above.

In reality, could a closed-source kernel (such as UnixWare or OpenServer) contain code that was suitable for copying straight into Linux? Everyone seems to forget here that Linux departs majorly from the way that most UNIXes do things. Linux doesn't use working sets for memory management as one prime example. It has two memory allocation mechanisms as another case in point. With the resources that SCO has, one would seriously doubt their ability to make changes to their codebase that depart massively from the "traditional" way of doing things while still maintaining a supportable product with the release cycle they're committed to. Seriously though, OpenServer doesn't even seem to have anything looking like kernel-space threads (no offence to any open source OSes that like their user-space thread implementations. In your case, your threads are that way because they serve you

Maybe, ultimately, SCO will help us!

[Theovon]

Something that we need more of in the Free Software community is cohesion. We need to work together and support each other if we're going to improve technology for everyone and beat down predators like Microsoft. SCO is getting Red Hat and SuSE to work together, despite the fact that they are competitors. Everyone is rallying together against SCO. The common enemy makes us united. If that feeling of unity continues past the point where we have beaten SCO, the world will be better.

Too Late... The Needle and the Damage Done

[nathanh]

It doesn't matter now whether SCO is right or wrong because Linux has been permanently harmed by the allegations SCO has made. I count at least 3 ways.

First, SCO has opened the flood gates for similar litigation. You think claims that UNIX is in Linux are bad? Wait until every trumped up failure of a company starts claiming IP ownership of everything open source. Not just Linux but all of userspace, applications, libraries, the lot. It's going to be a gold rush with Linux as the grand prize.

Second, the media attention over "indemnity". The closed source vendors are gleefully telling any journalist who will listen: "when you buy closed source we will indemnify you against litigation, when you use open source there is no indemnity". That's a significant blow against open source. I can already see every PHB in the whole damn world reconsidering their plans to deploy Linux because of the fear of lawsuits. If I was a conspiracy nut, I'd say that this was the real reason behind SCOs actions; somebody wanted a noisy and public demonstration that Linux is "risky".

Third, this is the beginning of the end for all corporate support. The growth of open source really exploded once companies took an interest. Not just the kernel but also userspace (OO.org, Mozilla) and infrastructure (GNOME, KDE) and harder concepts like marketting and packaging and sales. Linux went from "that hobbyist thing" to something much more because PHBs figured that if IBM/SGI/HP/Sun are treating it seriously then maybe there was something worth looking at. But can you imagine the CEOs approving Linux development now? Certainly not when Linux development leads to lawsuits from trumped up nothings like SCO. Large companies are slow to react but I predict within 18 months there will be a huge drop in corporate Linux support.

Linux is hurt by these actions. Right or wrong. True or false. None of that matters. I've seen the needle. The damage is done.

A few are taking adv. of SCO's inflated Stock

[Stone316]

I was curious to see if any stock holders were cashing in on SCO's inflated stock price. Check out the following link which details the last month. Not alot of huge transactions, maybe their really think their cashcow vision will come true? Yahoo Insider Trades

the problem with press releases

[Adler]

why do companies release needless papers stating their position on stupid things such as this, for once i wanna see a company release a press statment to a company pulling crap like SCO that says "Get fucked." what more do you need to say? seriously i'm not trying to start a flame war here, think about it, whats the most simple way to deal with SCO right now? sometimes you need a simple message for simple minded people.

Improper analogy

[burgburgburg]

As has been pointed out, this is a copyright issue, not one about theft/piracy which is clearly the case in your analogy.

Want recent SCO Linux release

[darkonc]

Does anybody have a copy of SCO Linux from after Feb 2003 (that they haven't already burned)? an install ISO would be best. I'd like to have a copy of SCO Linux running on one of my boxes before I call them to talk about their new license scheme.

Sources would be good too (I guess I could always load an update kernel binary and source from their website)

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[Tackhead]

> McBride continued by suggesting that his company's response "will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy."

Conspiracy? What the flying-a-747-through-a-Krispy-Kreme fuck?

If they cross the line from bizarre and groundless civil claims into even more bizarre and groundless criminal claims, then all bets are off. I got yer conspiracy right here, and it has to do with issuing press releases in order to manipulate the price of securities.

Several have pointed out that the insider sales are "scheduled" and therefore legal. Correct.

But if you know the trades are going to happen between Day X and Day Y, it can still be insider trading if you manipulate the price of your stock by means of press releases.

This is a rare case - most scheduled selling is unrelated to the stock's day-to-day trading activity. For instance, consider an insider who knows earnings for the quarter are gonna suck.

An insider selling XYZ (unscheduled) the day before it reports earnings - legal.
An insider selling XYZ (scheduled) on the first of the month, every month - legal.
An insider selling XYZ (scheduled), knowing the quarter's gonna suck, and knowing his (legal) insider sale is likely to take place on the first of the month, browbeating the board to release earnings a week ahead of schedule - very interesting.

Assuming they were smart enough not to discuss this in email, it would be very difficult to prove whether any particular group of individuals set out to schedule their (legal) insider sales in advance of a series of (questionable) lawsuits... or if they scheduled the lawsuits, and in full (insider, nonpublic, material) knowledge of what the lawsuits were likely to do to the stock price, scheduled their sales. Some might even call that a conspiracy.

Unbelievable business opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello dear friend and greetings from sunny Nigeria.
Please forgive me this intrusion, but your name was forwarded to me as a person I can trust. My name is Dr. Mombutu and I am the CEO of SCO for Nigeria. As you are probably aware SCO is now involved in a lawsuit which will undoubtedly result in a multi million dollar settlement as every user of devil spawn Linux will be ordered to pay money that is being owned to SCO as a result of copyright infringement. According to careful estimates this would result in a sum of $47.8 million US Dollars being deposited in SCO's accounts over the period of next 2 (two) years. I would like to offer you 10% (ten percent) of the entire $47.8 million if you help us in the legal fight against Linux. Your contribution will only have to amount to US$ 699 if you have a uniprocessor machine running Linux, US$1149 for a dual processor machine US$2499 for quad and US$4999 for a eight cCPU machine. Each additional single CPU will be $749, while a promotional licence fee for embedded devices is $32 per device. I personally guarantee that 10% of the entire $47.8 million will be deposited into the account of your choice as soon as the lawsuit is completed. Please send cash, certified cheque or money order to

Dr. Mombutu
Box. 2301
1 Aguiyi Ironsi Street
Maitama Abuja, Nigeria NG

Cosa Nostra

[bonoboy]

The only real difference is that this "organization" is not threatening the law suit on shaky if not absurd grounds. Rather is it like an insurance company of sorts.

Yeah, and exactly like SCO, it's also known as a "protection racket."

Replacing the code in Linux won't shut SCO up...

[rufey]

because SCO will then claim that whatever code is written to replace the offending code is a derivative work.

At least one of the FUD statements that SCO has made in the past couple of months is that they own the control over derivative works. They have said as much when clarifying the IBM suite by conceeding that they don't own the copyright to the IBM-written code, but they should have control over it becuase it is a derived work.

Anyone who looks at the offending code and then proceedes to write their own code to replace the offending code has been tainted, and their work could be considered a derivative.

Here are some examples of SCO work in the kernel

[str8-and-sober]

sol:/usr/src/linux # egrep -ri '(@sco\.|@caldera)' * 2>/dev/null
CREDITS:E: sp@caldera.de
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.0 16 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.01 18 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.02 21 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.03 29 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
drivers/net/slip.c: * from Jim Freeman's <jfree@caldera.com>
drivers/net/tlan.c: * Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>: TLan_PciProbe() now uses
drivers/char/drm/drm_context.h: * 2001-11-16 Torsten Duwe <duwe@caldera.de>
drivers/scsi/ips.c:/* 4.00.06a - Port to 2.4 (trivial) -- Christoph Hellwig <hch@caldera.de> */
drivers/scsi/advansys.c: Erik Ratcliffe <erik@caldera.com> has done testing of the
drivers/sound/esssolo1.c: * up. Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
drivers/sound/esssolo1.c: * Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
drivers/sound/maestro.c: * v0.15 - May 21 2001 - Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
drivers/sound/rme96xx.c: Marcus Meissner <Marcus.Meissner@caldera.de>
drivers/sound/nm256_ audio.c: * 19-04-2001 Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
drivers/sound/sonicvibes.c: * Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
fs/freevxfs/vxfs_olt.c:&nbs p; printk(KERN_NOTICE "vxfs: please notify hch@caldera.de\n");
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc. <greg@caldera.com>
net/ipx/af_spx.c: * Jim Freeman <jfree@caldera.com>

You're using the WRONG analogy...

[Svartalf]

Copyright does not create a thing, per se, like a television. When you copy and distribute something without the Copyright holder's permission, you're not commiting an act of theft, but one of infringement- you're taking away the right of the holder to control production and distribution of the IP in question. It's the way the law is worded and there's a good reason for it as IP isn't really property- when you infringe, you don't take away the idea; when you steal, you take away the object and it's use from the owner.

Now, having made this distinction, I'll make a further observation that makes your analogy invalid. The Linux kernel people as a whole didn't take the IP in the first place. The closest analogy to this if you WERE to try to apply a "theft" model on the whole thing would be this:

Party A steals a TV set from Party B's house. He doesn't get immediately caught and sells the TV at a garage sale or at a flea market for what would be a fair price (so as to not tip people off that it's hot) to Party C. Party A is actually caught up with and is punished. Party C is not guilty of anything because he bought in good faith- but he may be required to relinquish the stolen property if Party A wants it back.

In this case, the party (or parties) that is actually guilty of the act of infringement is the only one that will face fines and damages- the rest of the people distributing Linux will be ordered to remove the offending IP (which is the very thing we've been TRYING to do anyway...) or license it accordingly and will be given a reasonable amount of time to decide and act on the order.

Re:I've just spoken to Larry at SCO

[dazk]

I tried something similar. I called the German branch and I planned to act dumb but besides vaious efforts they told me again and again to mail them so I did. Of course in that mail I asked them what I would be paying for and asked not to send me the default answer (SCO's IP) but what exactly. Let's see if they will ever reply. Another fellow in a German news board managed to get through to a German SCO employee and he told him to write a mail as well and that he couldn't give any details because of an injunction (right word?) that disallows SCO or it's representatives any statements claiming that there is illegal code in Linux until they actually produce evidence.

You should have asked for Moe.

[Sans_A_Cause]

He's widely acknowledged as the smart one. Oh, well...at least you didn't get Curley

Debian GNU/BSD

[alexborges]

The medium term scenario is this:

Lawsuits extend long enough to hurt linux badly

Debian/BSD is propperly finished

Debian GNU/BSD is started and we end up with the exact same debian with a bsd kernel (not the same as the one above). It would be good to get berkeley relicense it GPL if possible (ya right).

We port all the linux drivers and relevant coolstuff(TM) to the BSD kernel.

We still have a full FLOSS OS with a killer ultra-scalable kernel.

If HURD is done before that (dont grin), then kill BSD and use plain HURD.

If they knew that it was there since 2001...

[Svartalf]

...this ups the ante a little bit. This means that they were KNOWINGLY distributing and selling a GPLed system with IP that they were unwilling to license under the GPL. The moment that this occurs, they're without a license, per the terms of the GPL, to distribute or make derivative works. This means they're guilty of some 18+ months of IP infringement on everyone else that has contributed substantive portions of the Kernel, Red Hat and SuSE included. There is no way in HELL that a court is going to give SCO any damages or even hear an IP infringement case from SCO if this is actually the case. Worse, if they realy ARE stupid enough to file suit against Red Hat over infringement and conspiracy to infringe, it opens up the floodgates- because it will be an open statement of that willful 18+ months of infringement and their unwillingness to work out the infringement they did- and since they SOLD the stuff, there WILL be actual infringement damages involved.

we need a class action lawsuit in the US..

[josepha48]

.. I wish Redhat and SuSE would file a class action lawsuit and let the Linux community join in.

SCO's Secret Formula

[Psyx]

From what I could gather (the standard not a lawyer disclaimer goes here), they don't want to show the code because they think it's a trade secret. From the press release yesterday, SCO seems to be claiming that their trade secrets trump the rights of the supposed copyright violator to know the details of the accusation.

I've been drawing an analogy in my mind. Something akin to Coca-Cola's (SCO - nothing against Coke) having a secret (trade secret) ingredient that they claim Pepsi (Linux) is using. But the claim they can't tell what that ingredient is or the secret is out. So instead they ask Pepsi to pay royalties or stop producing the formula.

Pepsi says no, just tell us what it is and we'll remove it from our formula, but in Coke's mind, that could reveal the formula to all of the non-Pepsi world, a fate possibly worse in Coke's eyes since no longer does just one competitor know their trade secret but all of them know it.

Remember before you flame that I'm just trying to see things from SCO's point of view. And I don't believe for a second that they have a tenable position.

It seems to me if Coke had released their entire formula at one point (including the trade secret part), they forfeit claims to that trade secret.

Also if claims of trade secrecy can trump the right of a defendant to know the accusation, then "trade-secrecy" claims could be abused way to easily. (Again, the not-a-lawyer-disclaimer goes here.)

I'd love to get comments from well educated lawyers about what parts of the above are bad assumptions/incorrect and what is accurate, just to help my understanding if not others.

Re:SCO's Secret Formula

[DavidTC]

Trade secrets don't work that way. Pepsi is perfectly free to use Coke's recipe all it wants.

However, it's forbidden from breaking the law, or various contracts, to gain it. It can't pay some guy under an NDA at Coke to spill the formula. It can't pay a cat burgler to break in and steal it.

However, it can reverse engineer the formula, it can read it out of a book Coke accidently left it in, (Which, BTW, has basically happened...at least the formula they were using in the fifties...they left it in a book.), they can pose as tourists and take the tour with super high-power cameras photographing everything, etc. As long as they do not violate criminal or contract law, Coke would have no grounds for anything.

Likewise, if someone else broke into Coke, and stole the formula, and posted it on Usenet, Pepsi is perfectly free to use it.

You can't 're-secret' a trade secret...if a single person stole it and used it, without telling anyone, part of the damages they agree to, when caught, might be to sign an NDA, so it might remain a trade secret. But once the cat is out of the bag, it's out of the bag. Coke could get massive damages from the person who stole it and posted it to Usenet, but that's it.

In fact, 'trade secrets' are just a logical extension of the law...they let you get damages from someone who broke the law (or your contracts) and, although they didn't 'steal' anything, still has made off with a significant advantage of yours. And that's the only person you can go after...someone who broke the law or your contracts.

Meanwhile, anyone who didn't commit the crime but ended up with the 'secrets' is perfectly free to do whatever they want.

If there were any trade secrets put in Linux, they are no longer trade secrets and are freely usably by anyone on the planet however they want.

Calling on Linux hackers/admins to fight back...

[L1ttl3p1gg3]

We (the linux community) can either sit back and cross our fingers that all this FUD will blow over soon and in the mean time not damage things to much. SCO has broght some serious law suits to the table and is using strong arm tactics (a lot like another corp that we all love to hate) to scare and bully OUR innocent end users into paying them for something the we did. For obvious reasons we can't really stand up to them and fight the normal fight - it will take a lot of money (for attorney fees and such) and a long time. SCO obviously isnt in this alone, McBride I dont believe is all that bright and because of such he wouldnt be able to figure out how to carry something like this for the years and years it is going to take to finilize.
Essentially, we are in for a fight. The corporations "for" linux are going to fight the battles on the front lines (in court), but as we all know that is going to take forever - we as a community needs to start supporting ourselves because this is not going to go away and is just going to get worse.
SCO (as the front man) is strong arming and scaring innocent linux users into paying them a lot of money. They expect you to pay if you use the 2.4 kernel and later - there are two sets of people; those listening to the FUD from SCO and those flipping them off. We dont nedcisarily need to worry about those flipping them off, its the ones listening to them. We need to focus on those that are worried about it, this is linux afterall and we can twist her into a pretzel and she will still sing and dance - its time to do so for those that are worried about this...

Solution: For those that are concerned, install the 2.2 kernel or if worse comes to worse an experimental 2.3 kernel that is stable for there setup. There are patches and everything else out there to make the 2.2 kernel work with what is neccesary like the ext3 journaling fs. And all the apps will still work just fine (most atleast). The fancy desktops will have issues, but the people worried about this wont be using linux in that way. We may have to do some serious patching to the 2.2 kernel - but it is very possible and it needs to be done.

This isn't going to stop - we have another 2 years before anything will begin to happen in our favor. In the mean time SCO (and there backers) are going to push this very hard and litterally scare users away from linux. From the way the letters sounded with regards to the case with RH adn SCO - this is just the tip of the ice berg. If we dont figure out a way to get around the scare tactics, they are going to win. We cant fight this battle on the front lines - and we dont need to...

Re:Safe heaven? Sun Linux out soon

[frkiii]

Sorry, but Sun having paid SCO money earlier, seriously taints Sun in my book.

This is a personal thing for me only, but I am sure others feel the same.

I like java (program in it a little bit), but would not use their OS or Linux from them either.

Dunno what else to say. I hope Sun realizes its mistake, once the dust settles, then tries to re-coup the license money they paid to SCO. That would rock, likely not to happen though.

Re:Here are some examples of SCO work in the kerne

[oohp]

Irrelevant. These contributions were released under the GPL.

Re:Yes, but...

[ePhil_One]

So, to re-iterate, any OS development money spent on lawsuits hurts OS movement. Of course there are cases where the results or just the publicity of the lawsuit can help more (or hurt less) than not going to court, but that's beside the point.

I'm not sure. Imagine RedHat succeeds and wins the case. They are awarded triple damages, putting a hurting on SCO in a big way, SCO can't pay up (no huge cash reserves, and all the lawyers fees are adding up). RedHat and the Linux community graciously accept the right to the "Unix" name and all original source code as compensation.

Suddenly, Linux *IS* Unix.

Ok, it really wouldn't be, and Linus has no real desire to make it so. But think of the chaos!

best defence of them all for linux!

[mabhatter654]

Suse & co have a fine line to walk with United Linux. Generally, to create such a product there are "cease-fire" and cross-license aggrements put into place at the start. Being as the "linux" that SCO sells was directly derived from Suse code [and file system layouts, UI, and other SuSe trade secrets..all that you can have in Linux], Suse would have some pretty good protection for it's version of Linux to be cleared by SCO...they don't really want to mess that up.

also, the agreement provides another establishment that SCO had [or should have had] due dilegence in the knowladge of the contents of the linux kernel and other supporting code...They engaged actively and willingly in cross-licensing the technology from/to other Linux distros! McBride has already hinted that SCO will try to get out of that contract or that it's worthless to the lawsuits...Suse will beg to differ.

Linux distributors should offer IP insurance

[kneels_bore]

Red Hat, Suse and other Linux distributors need to understand that some businesses will require a form of indemnity insurance if they are to adopt Linux. The very nature of the OS model leaves it wide open to SCO style abuse. Distributors could easily set up a scheme whereby for an additional premium they indemnify their clients against IP claims. A large insurance company could take on the risk analysis and reinsurance companies would spread the risk. Companies who felt the need would pony up the insurance premium. What these distributors and most commentators have failed to understand is that this flaw in the OS model cannot be fixed by recoding, it needs a modification of the commercial package on offer to business.

Re:What about UnitedLinux? part 2

[mabhatter654]

I was also considering that under the United Linux agreements there would have to be a remedy for this situation..How could SCO hold other members distros liable...more than that, how could they refuse to give other members the info about the liability to allow them to be compliant per the agreement.

This could be the backdoor Linux needs. If SCO lawyers visit a UL shop and demand $$ then the partners have a contractual complaint against SCO. Suse could demand remedy [under NDA of the current agreement of course!] and make the neccessary changes to their kernel. BUT...that kernel would be under GPL and of course redistributable. We would have our patch. SCO would have IP protection. GPL would be saved.

Don't expect any common sense to come from really expensive lawyers though...sorry.

Re:Yes, but...

[HiThere]

Are you suggesting that Linux stands for
Linux Is Not UniX?

Re:Solaris Is Going Away

[Prof.Phreak]

I doubt you realize how much engineering effort Solaris represents. It's internals are actually *thought out* fairly well. The kernel is much more robust in terms of high load and availability than the Linux one (try it, see for yourself).

Dumping it would be 'bad' by any measure. The best thing that I'd personally like to see happen is them merging Solaris and Linux.

Linux has a lot of quick & dirty hacks, it supports a ton of consumer hardware, etc., solaris is more of a stable-well-thought-out OS, that lacks some of that 'agility' that Linux has.

Re:Replacing the Code

[theLOUDroom]

Exactly.

Once the actually proved in court that the code was distributed illegally, you would have to stop using it. If you didn't stop, you could be held liable (just like you couldn't keep the stolen wheels).

The cool thing about Linux in this situation, is that the day the offending code is revealed, it will probably be removed from the kernel. By the time a verdict is reached, it should be a simple matter of running apt-get, emerge, up2date, or whatever else your distro uses.


Here's a question though.....What about embedded Linux?