Slashdot Mirror
IBM Countersues SCO, And More!
mr.crutch writes "Few details are available, but CNet is reporting that IBM has filed counterclaims against SCO. CNet also has an interview with Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik..." Jizzbug writes "Thanks to the folks of K5, we can all obtain our rights to use the Linux kernel from SCO, and without paying up to SCO's extortion. If kernel.org kernels aren't safe, sco.com kernels certainly ought to be." LWN has a copy of SCO's Linux License for your perusal. Bruce Perens is speaking of the dangers of patent portfolios to open source software, notable because IBM's counterclaims include patent infringement. And finally, a company is selling SCO Check, a tool to de-SCOify your Linux system, if SCO ever presents any evidence whatsoever of infringing code in Linux. Update: 08/08 00:16 GMT by T : SCO's public response to IBM's counterclaim is short and to the point. Among other things, it says "If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license." Given the other links in this story, perhaps SCO should go first on that count.
There's another story here that has more details, including:
In its 45-page complaint, IBM claims SCO Group's products violate four IBM patents and claims SCO Group doesn't have the right to revoke IBM's Unix license. IBM also claims SCO Group has violated the general public license, or the GNU GPL, under which Linux is distributed.
The Armonk, N.Y., computer giant seeks unspecified monetary damages and an injunction requiring SCO Group to stop violating IBM patents and refrain from misrepresenting its intellectual-property rights.
It also says that a spokesman for SCO wasn't immediately available to comment, I guess they haven't recovered from being bitch-slapped yet. I suppose that this means we'll also have the obligatory conference call tomorrow, or soon after, where Darl will blow some more hot air out of that ass that sits on his neck.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
I wanted to make money in the computer industry, so I choose to become a computer programmer, however now it looks like all the money to be made from the computer industry is being made by the lawyers.
Actually this is hardly something IBM invented, popularized, or was the first to benefit from.
Check out the history of the steel industry, the banking industry, the phone companies, power generation, the oil industry, the tobacco industry, etc. etc.
Not much there, here it is:
/usr/src/v er/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux -2.4.13-21S.src.rpm
How to use the 2.4 Linux kernel safely and legally. (Diaries)
By Entendre Entendre
Tue Aug 5th, 2003 at 05:43:46 PM EST
And without paying SCO's extortion license fees.
Originally posted as a comment but so much fun I had to give it a little more promotion.
cd
mkdir silly_sco
wget ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Ser
rpm2cpio linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm > sco.cpio
cpio -i --file sco.cpio
bzip2 -d linux-2.4.13.tar.bz2
tar -xf linux-2.4.13.tar
You'll find the license agreement in linux/COPYING
Compile, install, enjoy.
sPh
For a legal, SCO Linux kernel (copied from K5):
/usr/src/v er/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux -2.4.13-21S.src.rpm
"cd
mkdir silly_sco
wget ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Ser
rpm2cpio linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm > sco.cpio
cpio -i --file sco.cpio
bzip2 -d linux-2.4.13.tar.bz2
tar -xf linux-2.4.13.tar
You'll find the license agreement in linux/COPYING
Compile, install, enjoy."
I'm guessing their site's been slashdotted... here's the original text:
/usr/src/v er/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux -2.4.13-21S.src.rpm
How to use the 2.4 Linux kernel safely and legally. (Diaries)
By Entendre Entendre
Tue Aug 5th, 2003 at 05:43:46 PM EST
And without paying SCO's extortion license fees.
Originally posted as a comment but so much fun I had to give it a little more promotion.
cd
mkdir silly_sco
wget ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Ser
rpm2cpio linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm > sco.cpio
cpio -i --file sco.cpio
bzip2 -d linux-2.4.13.tar.bz2
tar -xf linux-2.4.13.tar
You'll find the license agreement in linux/COPYING
Compile, install, enjoy.
Novell retained quite a few rights. I think the sale effectively made SCO an agent for Novell in handling any licenses that already existed and SCO received something like 10% of the income from those licensees.
If so, then Novell certainly has the right to overrule SCO in a large variety of matters relating to those licensees.
And in other news, SCOX is down 12% today.
It's good to see IBM taking a stand here. They've got the resources to hit SCO on so many fronts that capitulation will become the only option. Think about it - IBM has a huge stake in the growing acceptance of Linux, so has everything to gain by squashing SCO like a bug.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
fencepost
just a little off
Here is a copy of the link on kuro5hin.org, There ISDN is overloaded :)
*ARTICLE*
How to use the 2.4 Linux kernel safely and legally. (Diaries)
By Entendre Entendre
Tue Aug 5th, 2003 at 05:43:46 PM EST
And without paying SCO's extortion license fees.
Originally posted as a comment but so much fun I had to give it a little more promotion.
cd /usr/src/
mkdir silly_sco
wget ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Serv er/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux -2.4.13-21S.src.rpm
rpm2cpio linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm > sco.cpio
cpio -i --file sco.cpio
bzip2 -d linux-2.4.13.tar.bz2
tar -xf linux-2.4.13.tar
You'll find the license agreement in linux/COPYING
Compile, install, enjoy.
In other news SCO's stock plummetted 11.4%.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
From the CNET article:
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Why is it K5 gets the credit for posting the link to SCO's linux source? I already did it here on slashdot back in July, and I am sure someone else probably has done it before me even. Sure, the K5 poster put up a short list of instructions, so I guess that'll help some people out who cant do their own research or know it already. Oh well.
It's worth noting that IBM specifically named OpenServer and UnixWare for the patent infringement item, both proprietary apps never released under the GPL.
In any case, IBM releasing GPL'd code that uses its patents doesn't give away its patent rights. But if you're using the code yourself you're fine; the use you describe is GPL-compliant.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&k=c1&c=ibm&a =v&p=s&t=1d&l=on&z=l&q=l
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
My understanding is that IBM's Linux distribution policy is specfically crafted to make sure IBM doesn't lose the right to enforce it's patents, at least not on code they don't explicitly release.
Specifically, IBM doesn't actually distribute Linux, it partners with Suse and RedHat who do that for them. Sure they produce patches, but that's all you'll get from them, not the whole kernel.
So IBM has decided to give up the right to enforce the patent on, for example, RCU. They distributed the RCU patches as GPL. But if, for example, RedHat contributes some code to the kernel that contains IBM patented techniques, IBM can still enforce those patents because it never distributes non-IBM code.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
I hadn't thought about that first point before since I always took it for granted that SCO obtained permission from IBM to use RCU, NUMA, ... in their OS. I am assuming that those are the patents that IBM is accusing SCO of violating.
No, IBM is using different patents. In any case, I doubt SCO is using RCU, NUMA, etc., in their OS.
Suppose you write a new operating system designed for some specific purpose and the only code it uses from Linux is the code encapsulating those four IBM patents. The way I figure it, as long as you use the code in-house only or as long as you distribute the code under the GPL, there will be no patent infringement. Is that right?
Yes, as long as your new OS is a derivative of Linux, you effectively have a license from IBM to run and distribute the code. On the other hand, if you completely replace the original Linux code, it's not clear that your OS would still be a derivative of Linux, and it's not clear whether you have a license to run the code. I say it's not clear because no court has decided what the definition of ``derivative work'' means for software.
This is not investment advice.
I finally found out why there are no shares of SCOX to short. As most everyone knows, shorting is the process where you sell a stock with the intent to buy it back later at a cheaper price. In other words, it is the opposite of buying a stock. Therefore, if the stock goes up in price, you are losing money; if it goes down you are making money... many /.'ers figure that SCOX will fall due to a variety of opinions.
In order to short a stock, there has to be some supply of the stock somewhere somewhere that can be sold... this supply of stock normally comes from stock used as collateral on a margin... somewhere, someone is borrowing money to buy more stock than they have money for, and using stock as collateral.
The problem being is that SCOX stock has climbed too quickly too fast and was once very recently a penny stock... thus brokers are unwilling to take SCOX as collateral... bingo, no SCOX stock available to short!
Just thought /.'ers would find that interesting.
Remember, this is not investment advice.
If SCO found code that they beleived belonged to them and they did not want share it why are they sueing. Why not contact Linus and/or other maintainers and have the code removed. It's unlikely that the code could not replaced with GPLed code. Also, there must be logs as to who submitted the code, why haven't those logs been subpoenaed. Obviously, they beleive they can make more money from the lawsuit then communicating with those who maintain the linux source
Method of navigating among program menus using a graphical menu tree
First, SCO's stock fell 12% today! Yay! Lets ride them into an early grave!
Second, I like this part:
"IBM's suit revealed that Novell on June 12 effectively forbade SCO from terminating IBM's AIX license. SCO said it revoked the AIX license on June 16. Novell maintained the right to issue such instructions to SCO under the terms of the Unix sale, the suit said."
So it seems like SCO is all of a sudden in a lot of sh*t, now that IBM, Red Hat, SuSE and Novel are all turning their guns toward them.
Free speech is getting expensive...
What a surprise. SCO (as of 1:21pm) is trading at $10.60, which is down $1.60 as of right now. IBM is trading at $80.36, which is up $0.61 for the day.
"A method" does not mean "any method".
If you had RTFT, you would have known that all the previous poster was doing was explaining the GPL vs. patents issue to someone who specifically asked about that.
The actual patents in IBM's suit are irrelevant here.
According to GROKLAW, SCO's contract with IBM was a three-party contract -- and Novell was the third party!
Wow, a lucrative publishing contract! I don't have to be evil anymore. --Meteor
Don't forget to donate to Pink Fairies it's about 30 dollars short of 300 in two days! Keep em coming.
Later,
Phil
Here's the patent
Prior art mentions graphical menus in MS Windows, so it seems the distinction here is allowing seamless navigation from one program's menus to another's, but I can't wade through all the legalese.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
From Groklaw
Actually, they will be in chapter 11 when this is over. Their IP will be auctioned off to pay off the creditors.
My rights don't need management.
Nonetheless, the original poster makes a valid point. In the Yahoo story linked from the main page, both HP and IBM are quite evasive when Bruce Perens asks for a written assurance that they will not sue open-source developers. IBM is not our friend. It's interests happen to be aligned with the Linux community on this issue, but ultimately they are a business with interests of their own and a responsibility (as they see it) to no-one but their shareholders. Perens is quite right: software patents are dangerous for free software.
And IBM have a history of using patents aggressively when it suits them to do so.
"Don't remember the Carter years too well, do you? "Ran out of money" isn't that bad an exaggeration!"
Ran out of gas, ran out of job, ran out of Iran, everything... Those who think times are bad now don't KNOW bad times like the late 70's under Carter...
Speaking of inflation, I wonder how long it will take SCOX to drop back to the penny range? If they lose an injunction and are forced to stop shipping software, it will expose to all that they don't actually HAVE a product.
SCO is no longer a "going business concern". Meaning that they no longer have a product, that they market, that generates revenue, that minus overhead is profit...
The business model of buying dubious IP and then litigating has GOT to be stopped... But then, they took on MS and won... Now MS is helping them take on IBM. Go figure.
Corporatism != Free Market
Our SGI rep. said IBM has found 26 verbatim lines (that includes comments) in Linux Kernel from SCO code. Implecations are that SCO themselves put the code there. IBM is probably firing up the Lawyers to crush SCO's extorsion. On a positive note, the rep. said that this SCO shit hasn't really affected sales of their linux products b/c they mostly are working with intelligent clients ;-)
I just added some command-line instructions to make clear the terms of the other license (the GNU license) under which the code in question is distributed.
Check out this link for good research and analysis, as well:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
Groklaw has been posting almost daily updates on this story since April, and recently is posting several updates per day. It's run by Pamela Jones, a paralegal who actually *reads* the court documents, the contracts, etc. and uses her experience to point out what she would flag for a lawyer as important, worthy of more research, etc. Good read.
Thanks to the support of John Gilmore and a very good lawyer, the case was resolved before we went to court. In the end, people were allowed to obtain source for the version of SMail that Amdahl shipped, and Amdahl agreed to follow the terms of the GPL (for SMail and any other GPL-ed code) from then on.
chongo (was here)
Here is SCO's response to the action...
Pathetic press release...
Can be found here.
"Can anyone fill me in on what happened between 3/14 and 3/17 that caused the
price to drop from $2.64?"
Easy--people stopped paying attention to the stock and volume dropped. Without news and enough trading to boost the stock up it did its natural thing and dropped.
"And how did the executives know that $2.07 was the lowest it would go?"
It's a cause and effect thing. When they issue the options, people know about that, and it shows confidence by the company insiders that the stock is going to rise. Once word gets out, interest in the stock rises again, people start trading it more, and the price goes back up. The executives didn't know $2.07 was the lowest, the fact that granted themselves options caused the rise that pulled it above that.
http://www.debategate.com/forums/PIC/posts/84363.h tml
Boies might be disbarred in Florida, at least it's a start.
Help fight continental drift.
Here's an article that has a link to the text of IBM's response/countersuit:
h ives.asp?ArticleID=43784
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarc
You got more karma out of the deal than me. Your message explaining that you, apparently the K5 person who posted what I reposted here, got two informatives. I only got one, but I got two funnies which don't count towards karma, but did make my message score higher than yours (4 vs. 3). So I think you got your cut. :-)