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.'"
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.
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!
This may be a mixed blessing. When elephants dance, the mice hide.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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:
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