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.
Considering the fact that IBM popularized the practice of litigating a company till they run out of money to fight... it shouldn't take long for this one to end.
BM is seeking unspecified monetary damages and an injunction stopping SCO from shipping its software
I'm guessing that in the end, this will be a big number, but perhaps IBM will go for a settlement that involves SCO execs, bricks, and deep water.
Seriously, if anything this whole fiasco is probably as much good publicity for IBM as it is bad to SCO. IBM gets to lay on the smack-down, and they end up looking very much like a hero in the eyes of the linux users/developers.
We can only assume that it took IBM this long to prepare the suit because they wanted to ensure a crushing blow to the SCO extortion ring in one quick sweep.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
All Linux distros need to do is place bright yellow sunburst stickers on their packaging claiming to be Guaranteed, 100% free of infringing SCO code, "for your piece of mind".
SCO really can't dispute that claim without offering proof, and once they offer proof, the distro can issue a patch removing the code from the system, assuming that there really is problem code
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
According to the press reports I've read, there is no mention in IBM's counterclaim that it has the right to sell derivative software created by it. Now, it is just possible that the press reports are not the result of a careful reading of the filing, but I am surprised there is no mention of that and would be even more surprised if that were not in IBM's filing.
Anyone know of an online copy of the filing yet?
Before we go "Yay, GO IBM!" realize that IBMs patents are potentially as harmful to Open Source Software as they are to SCO. Fortunately, IBM pays a bit more than lip service to open source at this point, so it's not like they necessarily will use their patent repetoire against OSS, but just keep in mind that they *could*.
On the other hand, part of my really is saying:
"FSCK DARL MCBRIDE AND SCO! KICK 'EM WEAR IT COUNTS, IBM!"
My journal has hot
The fact that Novell specifically, explicitly forbade SCO from revoking the AIX license, and the fact that SCO ignored this (despite knowing that they were contractually obligated to respect Novell's orders on this issue) shows that there was never an expectation that this would lead to a payout. This is all about the FUD. Case closed.
This is the beginning of the end for SCO. You could argue that the end began when they first made their claims, but that was just a prelude. There's no story here, of course; We go right from ONCE UPON A TIME straight to THE END. But somehow we still get a bunch of fun implied drama.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
OK, we had LinuxTag suing SCO, then we had Red Hat suing SCO, now IBM is suing SCO. If SCO is so anxious to take on the entire Linux community, then that community should fight back. Let's see how they do against a bunch of lawsuits filed by various developers in countries around the world. SCO can either expend resources to fight all these lawsuits or lose them by default.
So SCO wants to play hardball, do they? Then let the bastards bleed to death by fighting as many suits as the Linux community can throw at them.
y'know, I never really thought of it this way. IBM has enough stake now in Linux that they are defending the principles it is built on. This is a serious milestone for the open source movement.
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/maficstudiosisbad
kris@maficstudios.com
sales@maficstudios.com
jobs@maficstudios.com
IBM argues in the counterclaims that SCO is prohibited from treating any code it distributed under the GPL as proprietary, and that its current plan to require payment from Linux users isn't legal.
Why, oh why, don't they seek an injunction against SCO contacting organizations and demanding royalties while this is pending? This is a no-brainer. They have alot more than they need!
"In a way, I'm glad it's IBM fighting the first big GPL court battle"
IBM is an elephant on the battlefield of technology. It's great when the elephant is out trampling on the opposition. The problem is that they sometimes turn around and run back to stomp the other side, too. So today they're OSS heros, but tomorrow the elephant might be running the other direction.
This may be a mixed blessing. When elephants dance, the mice hide.
IMHO, I think SCO already has what it wants. Of course, they are going to milk this for whatever they can, but to go up against big blue is going to be too tough, they might tuck tail and fade away.
Since their pumped up stock has already allowed the Canopy group to make some nice aquisitions. SCO was dead on the floor before this started, it jumped the stock nearly 300 percent, some deals were made, some nice pensions were set up, all in all, a pretty clean manipulation of the press. No down side
for SCO.
The folks who are REALLY behind the SCO-IBM lawsuit are pretty clearly Microsoft who is going after the GPL by a SCO proxy.
No one is going to touch Microsoft for their hand in this. So, even though the SCO thing might fade away, the real problem is never going to until someone actually addresses Microsofts monopolistic anti-competitive behaviour.
Something the US government took great pains to avoid doing when they had the chance, pretty much making Microsoft immune.
On the upside, a failure of SCO is going to make Microsofts' next big FUD flood a lot harder.
If the GPL isn't a viable license (for reasons I cannot fathom, since the copyright holder gets to determine the conditions of its copying), ownership of the code reverts to the original copyright holders. This means SCO would still have no legal right to charge money for the Linux kernel since most (all?) of the code isn't theirs to sell.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
The infringing SCO software, IBM said, is its UnixWare and OpenServer operating systems, its SCO Manager remote administration tool and its Reliant HA package for letting one computer in a cluster take over if another fails.
Hey, you stole my marbles!!
Well, they technically aren't *your* marbles anymore because you've been giving them away to other kids. You stop telling everyone I stole your marbles, it's making me look bad. Oh, and that slingshot in your back pocket... mine.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
You, sir, are an idiot.
I'm getting 240-250KB/s, not exactly slashdotted. It might be costing them some $$ for the bandwidth though.
Well, if IBM sells hardware equiped with Linux then they ARE distributing it, aren't they? Remember, Red Hat and Suse don't write most of the code in Linux either, but they certainly distribute it.
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
The technical damage is zero.
The damage done to Linux's perception has been significant though. Every single industry talking head will also say "copyright infringement lawsuit" whenever they say Linux, now. To people considering adoption who don't know anything about the story, this is a big deal.
If it weren't for this, I doubt Red Hat would have even gotten involved.
While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.
If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.
If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.
It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.
Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.
You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.
Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.
It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.
I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".
My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.
Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.
SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Ooh, that's correct. IBM did not want to get in the Linux distribution business which basically means that they didn't want to create and maintain their own VERSION of linux, but they do actually SHIP linux. IANAL, but I would assume that (by using IBM's own logic) that they are still subject to the terms of the GPL. Again, the source is out there, and IBM's been working with it. They can't claim that they didn't know.
Cute idea though :)
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
This is sort of interesting in that I do not see IBM denying SCO's claims. They're simply limiting what SCO can do. 1) The GPL part. If IBM is successful with this claim, SCO has no rights and the suit is over. All the code in question is officially GPL. 2) The patents. If the GPL argument fails, SCO could win. The judgment would be based on damage to SCO (value of lost revenue). If IBM can demonstrate all of SCO's products violate IBM patents, those products are now worth $0. SCO has no claim to lost revenue. In fact, SCO now might owe IBM for past use of those patents. 3) Contract twist involving Novell. This is most benneficial to IBM's sales force and revenue. They need to reassure their customers AIX is still legal whilst the legal stuff plays out.
IANAL, but acceptance of the GPL is required for more than just distribution; it's also requried for creation of a derivative work, and it could well be argued that their patches are a derivative work of the kernel (especially as they are useless without the kernel).
More importantly if they have ever distributed the kernel to anyone, by any means, then they also have likewise accepted the license.
That claim is awfully hard to get out of.
The interview starts off displaying this image, claiming him to be "Mad as hell and not going to take it". He looks about as mad as I would be if I won a billion dollars in the lottery while getting a blowjob from Carmen Electra. Oh yes, very mad indeed.
... "
Anyway, the interviewer then goes on to imply that all linux developers are really just heartless pirates, like the music downloaders on Kazaa.
Later on, we are graced with this gem:
"One view of Linux that's persisted over the years is that it's free. Even though that's not fully accurate,
Yes, those pesky pirates keep insisting that Linux is free! Clearly it's not, however, as RedHat is charging lots of money for it! Moron.
"Microsoft would say the same thing.
I have customers.
They have customers too.
Great."
Wow, RedHat has customers? Microsoft too? Truly, these are men of vision. Men of unparalleled insight!
IBM should now send letters to all of SCO's existing and former customers and require them to license the patents for $699 (until October, at whcih time the price goes up....)
From the SCO license, section 7.0: ...
ALL WARRANTIES, TERMS, CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS, INDEMNITIES AND
NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS) ARE HEREBY
OVERRIDDEN, EXCLUDED AND DISCLAIMED.
(Sorry about partial quote - trying to get around the lameness filter)
Isn't this exactly what they have been saying is wrong with the GPL?
How do we fight these idiots? Do we contribute to the FSF, the EFF, or the War on Drugs? 'Cause these guys are obviously on crack!
Sun should probably not be lumped into the same muddy waters as MS. From a August 5 eWeek article (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1210889,00.a sp):
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.
Seems to imply that Sun just decided to cover their ass a long time ago. At the time they had money to burn. Although they have flung some FUD in the SCO soap opera, they probably are not financing SCO in any way.
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
Q: When SCO dies, who will snatch up the assets it has (including if any valid IP)?
A: IBM and RedHat because when they win their case, SCO will have no money to pay so they'll be forced to transfer all these assets to IBM/RedHat.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
1.4 "Linux Desktop System" means a single user computer workstation controlled by a single instance of the Linux Operating System... It may not host services for clients on other systems.
Let me get this straight. They want me to buy this license. (well, maybe not right now, but they have hinted before that they intend to go after non-commercial users at some point in the future. And I'm not sure I'd trust them if they said they were leaving home users alone) But almost everyone I know who has a GNU/Linux box also runs sshd. Among other "service hosting"-type daemons. IANAL, but it seems to me that they are prohibiting that sort of thing. Which makes me wonder - are they really trying to make money, or just to piss us all off?
(Not that I ever had any doubt about that. But it's just more reassurance that we're right.)
IBM, one fo the few companies in the world that keeps it's own comprehensive PATENT DATABASE is countersuing SCO (64 million dollars strong LOL!)
for patent infringement. I think a bunch of sphincters in Santa Cruz just puckered.
IBM has the best patent attorney's in the world. SCO seems to have the worst legal team in the country. Yankees vs Tigers would be a good comparison. Regardless of the merits of the Linux suit, IBM would not have added the patent thing unless they were sure they could win it. No matter what happens now, SCO is f*&k&d
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
After IBM & Red Hat finish these pathetic twits off in court, their stock will be probably no more than 10 cents per share. The open source community needs to buy them
Sigh. This let's-buy-them-out line of thought really needs to die. In case there is anyone left who hasn't heard yet, and apparently there are quite a few, 80% of SCO is in the hands of a single shareholder. If you managed to buy the remaining 20%, including the tiny quantities yet to be dumped by SCO executives, all you would have is a minority share in a dying company.
You want a stock tip? Buy IBM.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Had they simply decided to just sue IBM, chances are somewhat good that IBM would have settled the lawsuit,
Absolutely not. SCO accused IBM of not taking proper care of TRADE SECRETS ... and IBM makes billions in IT services because they have a reputation for respecting the trade secrets and privileged information they encounter in the course of that business. Any settlement, even for a token dollar, would be seen as admission that they didn't take proper care of trade secrets.
Compared to what loss of reputation would cost, the legal fees in the SCO suit are not even peanuts.
Ya know, I could *almost* (note that word "almost") buy SCO's argument of "we didn't realize what we were GPLing" if it weren't for one simple thing...they're still making the damned thing available for unrestricted download from THEIR OWN FUCKING WEB SITE *after* they know for a fact what they are GPLing. For being that stupid alone they deserve to be sued in to oblivion.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Two links out of history:
IBM's ThinkPad/Linux support project being dropped
Buying a Linux ThinkPad: IBM's mission impossible.
Note that the GPL isn't about who put together a distribution, but about who distributes.
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
SCO is just one of the Linux players that are part of Canopy's portfolio. There is also Linux Networx and Trolltech. Although Trolltech APIs are used by several Linux-related developers, there hasn't been much hostility from them directed toward the Open Source Community despite Trolltech's technology being proprietary.
I know that a huge pissing match ensued between Gnome and KDE over the use of a proprietary technology in a Linux GUI, and perhaps now is the time for that relationship to be reviewed (in the light of Canopy's behavior). Should those APIs be rewritten in an attempt to dump Qt, or is that over-reacting?
Also, Linux Networx is a cluster service provider. How long until they start suing IBM and HP for some spurious claim?
I trust Canopy about as far as I can toss the collective carcasses of the entire Board of Directors.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
SCO makes it even clearer than before that they are attacking the GPL:
They seem to be claiming to have been using those patents for years. In fact, all they are saying is that they have been shipping these products for years without making any claims about patents. They could have easily added the infringements later.
I don't know what the following signifies. Are they saying that IBM can't file a counterclaim that is not mentioned in their original answer to the suit?
And, of course, even more blather:
When is the last time Slashdotters actually cheered on IBM?
When IBM realised that there was money to be made from supporting free software.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
From your Link:
" Sun's expanded license permits Sun to use some software from Unix System V Release 4 for software components called drivers, which let computers use hard drives, network cards and other devices. Sun needed the software for its version of Solaris that runs on Intel servers, Sun spokesman Brett Smith said. A source familiar with the deal said the new contract was signed in February, but neither Sun nor SCO would comment."
So Sun in february bought a LICENSE FOR SYS V DRIVERS for their Solaris on Intel hardware. SCO made it look like Sun bought a Sys V license.
Someone should start modding this "buy SCO" shit to -1.
SCO can not be bought. The majority of shares are held by Canopy. You will never get 51% ownership of stock because they are not for sale.
What part of can't don't you morons get?
49% does not equal "control" of SCO.
This simple fact has been repeated in every SCO thread.
You can't buy SCO stock and get control of the company.
SCO's bowels are in such turmoil it needs 3 asses to shit out of. Go big blue.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Why not charge for Linux?
Go ahead. You are allowed to charge for Linux, and you are permitted to charge whatever you want. And so is anybody who you sell Linux to. That is what the license is about. You are not allowed to deny the rights that you were granted by the GPL to anyone to whom you subsequently distrubute the altered or unaltered GPL code. Hell, Stallman supported himself for years selling GPL software. I believe that the people who paid for it saw the value in supporting his efforts to write an extensible and full featured editor.
If you feel yourself to be a charitable person, then by all means volunteer your time and heart to a worthy organization, perhaps a soup kitchen or a children's hospital.
Good idea. Perhaps we can form a community dedicated to developing Operating Systems, complete with networking, productivity, records management, imaging, and other apps that would be useful for childrens and other hospitals, schools, and charities. That way they could spend thier budgets on providing care and service for those who depend on them, instead of on upgrading thier systems every time the software vendor decides it's time to milk that cow.
The very nature of business precludes money for a piece of property.
Incorrect.Of course if you had stated that the definition of business includes the exchange of money for a piece of property, I'd be forced to agree with you, but precludes means quite the opposite. Perhaps you made a mistake there. (In fact, I'm rather certain that you did mean to use includes, so we agree after all. Isn't this nice?!) When I have a peice of property to sell you, then we can do business. I think that you also forgot that services can be exchanged for currency as well, and it is still business, but I'll forgive that. For the time being though, you can make a copy of what property I have that I'm unwilling to sell, and as long as you have my permission (you do), and you pay for whatever materials you need to make that copy, I think thats legal as well. Just don't use that copy to screw anybody over. (Ha ha, a little humor. See, were all gentlemen here, except for the ladies, and I think we all know that you'd never dream of doing something like that.)
It is not sacred.
I agree with you again. Open Source software has proven to be a practical, secure, and stable alternative to software developed in secretive environments that discourage cooperative problem solving. Practical, usefull, and rapidly developed.Yes, Open Source is all of those things. But sacred? No, nothing is sacred around here. Except for respect for peoples copyright (or copyleft) and thier licensing terms. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Open Source developers and maintainers go to greater lengths to ensure that they are respecting copyright than most others.
Outside the tech world, linux users are hippies, just barely still democratic.
I'm not quite sure by what you mean by that, but I thought I'd quote it anyway.
They use and work on a system of knowledge steeped in time honored and capitalist traditions
Once again we agree! Getting along famously now, aren't we. Many Linux and Open Source developers have built thier own businesses around Open Source, providing goods (computers) for Open Source to run on, services for both industry (customization, implementation, etc) and end users (networking services, web hosting, entertainment) and documentation (books) to teach the masses (consumers) how to make effective use of Open Source software in hopes that this will bring thier businesses more success and thier personal lives more enjoyment, increasing thier demand for more goods and services. Open source people: Upstanding citizens of our Grand Capitolist system!
division of labor(modularity), stability(conservatism), diversification (to the point of parties spanning the globe contributing anony
Read, L