Slashdot Mirror
SCO Announces Final Termination of IBM's Licence
ickle_matt writes "SCO have announced the final termination of IBM's UNIX license, despite Novell telling them they can't. Interestingly enough there's a new set of "stolen code" figures in the release - 'approximately 148 files of direct Sequent UNIX code to the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels, containing 168,276 lines of code. This Sequent code is critical NUMA and RCU multi-processor code previously lacking in Linux. Sequent-IBM has also contributed significant UNIX-based development methods to Linux in addition to the direct lines of code specified above.' "
It's interesting that SCO is taking such drastic measures such as the license termination and licensing linux to end users before they even go to trial. The logical conclusion one draws from such measures is that they do not have a case, and do not think they can win. I can't believe that the court system is allowing this to occur, but I am willing to bet that IBM will not honor SCO's license termination and there will likely be either an addition to the current IBM suit against SCO, or a new one regarding thies termination.
Also, aren't the NUMA and RCU multi-processor patents owned by IBM? SCO might own some of the code, but since they are licensing IBM's patents IBM could sue them for infringing on their patents. Is this part of the current IBM v SCO lawsuit?
Visualize the world of wine
That's not true. IBM's solution is simple. Since there is no breach, the offer to cure is contained in the countersuit.
Tomorrow SCO's quarterly report comes out, sell your stock before the insiders can.
Ahhhh.....I can dream, can't I?
To avoid the slowness of SCO's Cold Fusion, use this Yahoo! Finance mirror of the Press release:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030813/law050_1.html
Just release the infringing code lines so we can comment it out, doom your profits, and get on with our lives!
Incidentally, they claim 2.5 kernels too... is that new? I thought only 2.4 was an issue.
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
Well, one wonders if SCO trusts any of the operating systems it sells, or has sold, in recent times. Take a look at the http response string for the web server used in this announcement:
$ HEAD http://ir.sco.com
200 OK
Connection: close
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:42:15 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Content-Type: text/html
Client-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:42:16 GMT
Client-Response-Num: 1
Page-Completion-Status: Normal
Page-Completion-Status: Normal
Though it's simply a number of files and number of lines, SCO is actually putting their ass on the line by giving a description of where the code resides.
/. can find a way to beat the topic to death.
Finally, this case has become interesting.
But I'm sure
DUMP
No more Micro$oft bashing from me. Its like bashing at the special olympics.
"...was terminated for improper transfer of Sequent's UNIX source code and development methods into Linux." (emphasis mine)
You heard it here first, people. SCO owns the UNIX development methods too. That means that producers of just about any software (because who hasn't been influenced by UNIX development methods?) will have to pay off SCO. What a bunch of bull.
Can't someone just terminate SCO? I'm getting sick of their spoilt child politics.
I've just revoked SCO's licence to use their own code. And I hereby revoke the right of anyone to tell me I can't do that.
I'd rather see IBM send in the attack lawyers in the black limos (their version of the black helicopters)...
That would be like shooting fish in a barrel with a cannon...
and well worth a video copy; would put it right next to my Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons...
Supreme Granter of Doctor of Obviology Letters ("A FIRM Command of the Obvious")
gimme a break. SCO, WHY WON'T YOU DIE???
When will they announce the final, final Termination? Tomorrow? This is actually too funny to be true.
How can these guys still be going?!? This is obviously another try at pumping up the stock. Does not unsubstantiated rumor to pump stock prices coupled with stock dumping by company executives indication that SOMETHING might be a little wrong here?
SEC...hello!!!
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
These PRs are used strictly to inflate stock value. Sell your SCO stock before the ship sinks (if you are dumb enough to own any in the first place).
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
... SCO managers dumped their shares ?
btw, does this means that non SMP machines are in the clear???
: noogie
Sequent's code belongs to IBM! Hello? McBride?
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
SCO again. I wonder who knew them before all this theater they did.
I didn't.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
How should I know what I'm thinking before I read what I wrote?
"Customers may not acquire a license in Dynix/ptx from today's date forward."
In a departure from their standard MO, SCO doesn't threaten IBM customers who currently hold Dynix/ptx licenses, and instead just claims that no new licenses may be issued.
Maybe they are starting to worry about gettting nailed on extortion charges?
I would REALLY like to see someone file a class-action suit against these clowns, charging them with extortion and fraud so that ALL Linux users can join in. Imagine a C-A suit with tens, perhaps hundreds, of individuals and companies on one side and wee little SCO on the other. That would truly be a sight to see and I for one would join in a heartbeat.
Yes, we are all just geeks who don't really know a lot about stock market rules. But you don't have to be a genius to figure this one out. They pump their stock one day before the quarterly results with some bogus claims and the SEC is just sitting there and waiting for the whole thing to blow up, so they can look like morons afterwards. Just a year after Enron the SEC is failing misserably once again.
Why is a "News for Nerds" site only covering this now?
/. been over the past weeks?
Where has
2 dashes and a space, or just 2 dashes?
This may have come up before, and there may well be ways to check.
But what is preventing SCO from adding in code from Linux (which is openly available) into their (closed) UNIX code and then claiming is was there first and was 'stolen' by Linux? C'mon, we are not expecting SCO's management to play fair here - how hard would it be to backdate code additions?
Hasta la vista, IBM?
So this pretty much all hinges on whether or not SCO owns any and all code that was derived from the original UNIX source, since they state that the code in question was originally written by Sequent (and, therefore, not SCO).
Canthros
Oh, now the line is that there is "Sequent-UNIX" code in the kernel, with no mention of Sys V code?
So, what we're really talking about is IBM code. No more BS weasle-words, they're talking about code they NEVER owned in the first place.
Well, that tears it: SCO's suing IBM for contributing their own code to the kernel. Yeah, that's totally gonna hold up in court.
WHO CARES?!
/. Maybe one day we'll actually get down to brass tacks and find out if IBM is going to give them the Sheila or what.
I'm having a hard time paying attention to these people. Is that what they want?
It seems like there are 3 SCO stories a day on
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
SCO would make a bad move to release the code before the trial under something less than a NDA.
Linux kernel developers would probably have the offending pieces rewritten in a week and back-ported to all 2.4/2.5 kernels within another week.
But honestly, I really don't think IBM cares what SCO does at this point. They know their argument is probably not going to hold water in court.
Unfortuately, with the way our justice system works, it will not be heard in court until probably late 2004/2005.
Just follow the directions here.
PoorPost Form v. 0.1
:)
Your post has been moderated positively but that moderation must have been in jest or error. Your post sucks. Please review this form to understand the weaknesses in your post and how to produce higher quality posts in the future.
[*] Your post was modded funny but is not really funny. This is because:
() You post simply used M$ instead of MS
() You went back to beating the Windows security dead horse
(*) You made a tired SCO joke
() You made a Jon Katz joke (who?)
() MS blowz, linux rules (or a variant)
() You made an unoriginal joke about Slashdotting (servers turning to powder, melting, etc.)
() Other (please comment here: )
[] Your post is modded insightful, informative, or interesting. In fact it
is neither of the three. This is because:
() You stated the obvious
() You simply tossed out lots of five-dollar words
() It was in response to a poorly-written post or troll
() You copied text from a previous post that really might have been one of the three I's
() You simply criticized Microsoft without making it funny
() It is bloated with unnecessary technical claptrap
() All you did was pose questions (like a stoner)
() All you did was pose questions (like a lawyer)
[] Your post may be rated too highly in general for the following reasons:
() You are an asterisk who has, knowing the story's release time in advance, pounceposted to get first p0st and get modded up early
() You are one of the editors and are getting your ass kissed
() One of your fans has weighed in for you
() One of the editors has blessed it with an "underrated"
[] Additional comments:
Thanks for posting! Better luck next time!
( This form is currently in alpha and suggestions for its improvement are
always welcome. )
Doesn't some linux zealot happen to have these sources lying around? Can't he/she just start looking for long matches in the Linux kernel?
Can't Linux developers just audit all their "critical NUMA and RCU multi-processor code", to look for shady origins? There's a big difference between the 80 lines previously claimed and the 168,000 lines now claimed!
Think, McBride. If I checked in my NUMA code under your copyright, I'd get sued. You wouldn't want that to happen, would you? ... Would you!?
Look, your stock's down. :poke: Ha hah, don't be so gullible, McBride.
[
It's Wednesday. Time for the SCO Press Release. Just like tomorrow's Thursday. Time for the latest Microsoft Windows Update patch. Anyone surprised by this "next ridiculous statement"? I'm not...
been part of the due legal process?
This really pisses me off that companies put out "press releases" covering what should be a private matter between the parties involved.
Why don't journalists just ignore SCO in the same way a parent ignores a screaming child pushing for an ice cream?
Why isn't this in the "It's Funny, Laugh" section? Nothing saying SCO
like a cute fat-boy's foot icon.
I think SCO has finally figured out what that vague middle step is in the concept to profit cycle. It is actually two steps instead of one.
3a. Sue major corp for 'alleged IP violations' (i.e. Pump)3b. Board members dump stock on unsuspecting investors (i.e. Dump)
3b (alt). Get bought out by major corporation 4. Profit!
But, for all of you who are like me and have wondered what these guys have been smoking (and perhaps, where you could get some), it is becoming increasingly obvious that they are flailing in the wind to elevate stock prices so they can dump and run. They will all then quietly resign and the incoming board will reap the chaos sown.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Date: 8/13/2003
Re: SCO termination of UNIX license
To be read aloud in high pitched whiney voice
Ooooohhhh. I'm so scared.
-B
So, if the "stolen" code is in RCU and NUMA, why are they asking money from single processor systems? AFAIK this RCU and NUMA stuff is all SMP related, and not even compiled in single processor systems.
helo IBM
ehehh1!1 j00 R t3h 0wn3d!!11
u will nevar figuor out who t00k u down!!
LEENUX SUX!!
SCO
ps NYEAH!!1
Helps millions of customer!!! Yeah by serving legal notices. I think they are spending more time reading linux code than they are fixing any of their own code.
Can you ping me now?... Good!
IBM has announced today that it has terminated SCO's right to existance. A tomb stone has been made that says "R.I.P. SCO, You ungrateful bastards." and has a holographic penguin to the top of the inscription that continiously pisses on the letters S-C-O.
SCO has recently announced their new corporate logo, and policy for dealing with IP piracy.
http://windows.scares.us
By now, everyone should have figured out what SCO is up to
It's simply a group of people who bought a broken company they thought had some value, found out it didn't, and are now trying to get some of their money back by inflating their stock with press releases and selling it as they go..
Belive me, SCO will try to stall it's case against everyone for as long as possible..
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Blake Stowell, +1-801-932-5703, bstowell@sco.com, or Marc /Photo: NewsCom: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOLO GO
Modersitzki, +1-801-932-5635, both of The SCO Group; or Avi Dines, or Brian
Willinsky, both of Schwartz Communications, +1-781-684-0770,
sco@schwartz-pr.com, for The SCO Group
AP Archive: http://photoarchive.ap.org
PRN Photo Desk, 888-776-6555 or 212-782-2840
I can't help but wonder how much influence Slashdot might have on SCO stock price.
Like if Slashdot were to "accidentally" publish a story like "SCO Insider Reveals Code Copied From Linux to UnixWare!' - how much would the stock drop?
Makes one think... not that I'd suggest anybody actually TRY this.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
There's a notice on ir.sco.com about the SCO forum, which was to be held in Las Vegas next week:
Notes: SCO Forum in Las Vegas has been postpoined until Autumn 2003
Read into that what you will...
- Brian.
Good point. I don't know why IBM hasn't filed for a temporary injunction against the license termination. It would accomplish two things. 1) it would put AIX users a bit at ease (even if IBM has indemnified them), and 2) would get this thing in a courtroom quicker which is *obviously* the last thing SCO wants. I believe when they start getting legal defeats the stock will tank.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
If all the code SCO is complaining about is only in the 2.4 and up kernels, then why are they going after Tivo? I thought the Tivo kernels were 2.0 and 2.2..? Then again I have a history of not knowing what I'm talking about.
I would like to be there when IBM's legal department gets notification of the double secret termination. There should be wondrous laghter.
IBM owns those patents. You can't say BTW since we license something to you, we now own your patents. IF, big IF, that were the case, IBM would have made them sign a cross-licensing agreement allowing IBM to keep control of thier patents.
IBM has owned those patents since '92 when they bough sequent, sequent had those patents since the late 80's so either way SCO SOL.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
... not so hard to locate now.
Given the numbers it should be easy to prove either
a) that there is no possible combination of the given number of files with the given number of LOC in the kernel sources
or
b) that a matching combination is not contributed by someone who could have had access to any information from SCO IP (which I doubt it even exists).
Has done someone something like this before ?
This is an unrelated case (remember, Canopy Group makes a living suing people). However, given the timing, I am now lead to believe that part of the settlement was that CA agreed to buy some of SCO's phony "Linux Licenses".
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
's liesense to exist on yOUR planet any longer.
that's right. those foulcurrs are about to experience a power that they have built their felonious kingdumbs, denying the existence of.
the lights are coming up now.
you can pretend all you want. our advise is to be as far away from the walking dead contingent as possible, when the big flash occurs. you wouldn't want to get any of that evile on you.
as to the free unlimited energy plan, as the lights come up, more&more folks will stop being misled into sucking up more&more of the infant killing barrolls of crudeness, & learn that it's more than ok to use newclear power generated by natural (hydro, solar, etc...) methods. of course more information about not wasting anything/behaving less frivolously is bound to show up, here&there.
cyphering how many babies it costs for a barroll of crudeness, we've decided to cut back, a lot, on wasteful things like giving monIE to felons, to help them destroy the planet/population.
no matter. the #1 task is planet/population rescue. the lights are coming up. we're in crisis mode. you can help.
the unlimited power (such as has never been seen before) is freely available to all, with the possible exception of the aforementioned walking dead.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. more breathing. vote with yOUR wallet. seek others of non-aggressive intentions/behaviours. that's the spirit, moving you.
pay no heed/monIE to the greed/fear based walking dead.
each harmed innocent carries with it a bad toll. it will be repaid by you/us. the Godless felons will not be available to make reparations.
pay attention. that's definitely affordable, plus you might develop skills which could prevent you from being misled any further by phonIE ?pr? ?firm? generated misinformation.
good work so far. there's still much to be done. see you there. tell 'em robbIE.
the rest of the wwworld is laughing/crying at/for US in sympathy/disgust, as we fall/jump into the daze of the georgewellian corepirate nazi life0cide, whilst criticizing their ip gangsters, which are also members of the walking dead.
Hmmm, let's see here
Nine IBM servers all running AIX 24/7
Seven IBM servers all running SuSE Linux 24/7
A set of bogus claims from SCO that get wilder by the day.
If the SCO Scooby gang try and take any of these babies away from me I'll see them in court.
Ed Almos
Budapest, Hungary
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
So why isn't the Gartner group warning folks to "go slow" on using AIX for mission-critical applications too? If you give SCO any credibility, then you have to believe AIX contains unauthorized SCO intellectual property too.
--- http://davidnehme.blogspot.com
SCO announces IBM now under double-secret probation.
Proverbs 21:19
SCO is hopeless. They have nothing to loose.
Darl & co. may be odious, but I'm sure they at least know the difference between the words "loose" - as in adj., slack / not tight, and "lose", as in v., to fail at a challenge or misplace an object..
How long before someone fudges the kernel source to just work on single processors then?
That would sort out most home users then SCO can charge busineses liciencing to use the multi-processor code.
'corse that still screws over the universities running clusters of quad CPU machines.
ERR 411[Max number of witty sigs reached]
For SCO, running Linux doesn't create legal problems, not even in their own extraterrestrial view of the whole thing.
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
nothing to loose
lose.. fucking retard.
Personally, I think the chance of SCO having a legitimate claim regarding at least of the code in question are about 1 in 3. But until this announcement I thought it was 1 in 10.
When does SCO put IBM on "Double Secret Probation"?
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
"Someone has to teach that guy (SCO) how to die."
-Col. Jack O'Neill, Stargate Sg1, "Maternal Instinct"
SCO announced late yesterday evening that all companies running Linux were dangerous felons and that SCO was in the process of filing criminal complaints against members of the board of directors for those corporations.
Darl McBride, reached by satellite phone offshore on his recently-purchased yacht, told reporters that the whole affair,
Asked to comment about SCO executives recent selling of SCO shares, McBride made staticky noises with his mouth and said:"Provided by the management for your protection."
This is the license for some product called Dynix, quite distinct from IBM's AIX licensing.
Interestingly, this contract is with Sequent, not IBM. They're now alleging that Sequent gave IBM (it's parent) the code, breaching this contract. But seeing as IBM is a different company than Sequent, surely they were not under an obligation to keep that code to themselves; Sequent fudged up by giving it to IBM, so why should IBM's license to AIX be revoked? The Sequent contract read, according to this press release, that derivative could should be treated "as if" it were UNIX code, not that it actually became the property of SCOX.
It looks to me that the code was a trade secret at Sequent ("treaded as if..") but they retained copyright. Then it got divulged to IBM, who even obtained the copyrights, and could disperse of it as they pleased. Liability is then ristricted to Sequent's officers who breached the contract with SCOX, and perhaps some IBM officers if it can be prover they coerced Sequent. IBM's AIX license and copyrights (and thus ability to GPLize) stand, IFF this press release contains the actual facts!
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
"'I can't help but wonder how much influence Slashdot might have on SCO stock price.
Like if Slashdot were to "accidentally" publish a story like "SCO Insider Reveals Code Copied From Linux to UnixWare!' - how much would the stock drop?"
If investors in SCOX were reading Slashdot they wouldn't buy it in the first place....
Most likely they are bottom-feeders who are gambling on the lawsuit as if it were a lottery.
Anyone who loses their shirt on this stock DESERVES it to happen...
Corporatism != Free Market
RCU and NUMA are VERY recent additions to the Linux kernel, and most machines running kernel 2.4 are NOT USING RCU AND NUMA!
Furthermore, SCO's claim that Linux is "derivative" is completely ludicrous now, as RCU and NUMA can be removed easily, even in the 2.6 kernel. It would remove some nice features for SMP systems, but that is all, from what I understand.
SCO's claim to ownership of those technologies is dubious at best, and I'm sure IBM will be victorious in court.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It's just the same claim they made before: that they have some sort of super-contract that transfers the copyright ownership of any code which ever gets linked to Unix code to them, whether they wrote it or not.
They'll be putting their ass on the line by either showing any copied code that they actually own or by showing some basis for their "we own everything you wrote" claim other than a misunderstanding of what a "derivative work" is.
In other news, SCO unveils their latest threats (found this editorial on HardOCP).
Over-the-top? Yes...
According to this this page at Yahoo! Financial, "The SCO Group, Inc. develops and markets software based onthe (sic) Linux operating system."
REALLY? I thought they did UNIX!
Doesn't this mean all of this is for nothing, if they develop and market software based on Linux?
This implies that THEY put the contested code into Linux, and they're too stupid to know it.
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
A lot of comments seem to think that this is a "re termination" of IBM's AIX License - accourding to the article (yes I read it) IT'S NOT ABOUT AIX This is a new allegation relating to Sequent (an IBM subsiduary). As for the RCU I *believe* IBM has this covered as the work on RCU that was donated to Linux was *NOT* from the work done at Sequent, but was from their OS/2 work on a *similar* technology. NUMA work however has not been mentioned as yet by IBM.
I pull the other 4095 CPUs out my TiVO and I'm in the clear!
wouldn't it have been incredibly stupid of IBM to have put that code in the Linux kernel, since the Linux kernel is wide opened and everyone has access to it. It doesn't make a lot of sense, unless one buys into a conspiracy theory about IBM eventually buying SCO and then trying to own Linux in the same way that SCO is now trying to own Linux, which I personally don't.
So, it's official: SCO's complaint is entirely about Sequent, and their contributions to UNIX and Linux.
For those who don't know, Sequent was a super-computer company that developed a lot of the software techniques that make today's multi-processor machines (especially the more-than-2 processor systems) work well. Sequent's code was its own, and IBM bought Sequent, so at first glance IBM has every right to contribute this code to Linux, even though it has also been sold to USL/SCO.
So why is SCO suing? Because they feel that this code was written "for UNIX" and thus cannot be contributed to Linux without carrying a "taint" of UNIX IP.
SCO has made many claims about "stolen UNIX code", but that's a sham as we now see. What SCO is really upset about is that code that they think is encumbered by them, but not actually theirs was inappropriately licensed without compensation to SCO. It's not UNIX code, it's allegedly-UNIX-encumbered code, but that doesn't sound as good in a press release demanding $32 from every TiVo user....
In fact it sounds suspiciously like a case where SCO will have to fight an up-hill battle over IP rights that aren't really clear to begin with, and even then they have to fight the GPL issue, which (given that they still offer a Linux kernel for download) will be difficult.
SCO is going to burn over this, and I really do think that the owners and all C-level executives of the company are going to end up in jail. It's just too brazen a lie and scam to go unchecked. The FTC and SEC will at least have to launch a token investigation to demonstrate that they're not 100% asleep at the wheel...
The NUMA and RCU code was donated by IBM. It's not "shady", it's known. The problem is SCO claims IBM didn't have the right to give its own code to them, because they claim that any code IBM wrote for UNIX after they acquired the license is SCO's.
Doesn't make sense? It doesn't make sense to them either...like many people have already said...pump the price, dump the stock. That's what makes sense to them, but hopefully it'll make sense to the SEC as well.
printf("\nstuff");
and
main() {
and
int x,y;
and dont forget:
}
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
You know. I can't help but wonder where all that stock actually WENT to when folks started to dump it. You can't exactly sell the stock to thin air, somebody's gotta buy it.
Right?
I wonder who bought the stock that's been selling off.
very very rich with this case.
They are the only winner.
IBM: or what...you'll release the dogs, or the bees, or the dogs with bees in their mouth, and when they bark they shoot bees at you?
that 100,000 lines of code is just a teensy sub-system. Windows is worse perhaps. Now back in the days of GEOS you could fit a bitmapped screen, an OS and applications and user data into 64K.
Can we test license termination and code misappropriation claims with a lie detector?
Is it just my imagination, or is this whole mess like a bad parody of Dragonball Z?
SCO is like Mr Satan ("Hercule") in that it is cowardly, conceited, inept and over its head. And now SCO is launching its "Satan Special Ultra Super Megaton Punch" (which is the same as an ordinary punch...just with lots of empty fanfare.)
IBM is like Maijin Buu, and it will soon unleash its version of the Human Extinction Attack against SCO.
Maybe they're using RIAA-math? They might mean that one file is typically 50 lines, so any file with say 2000 lines counts as "the equivalent of 40 files"
(for those who don't get it, see here)
Belief is the currency of delusion.
IBM has two license agreements with SCO. Previously the AIX license has garnered most of the attention. Now SCO is terminating the other license, which I believe was acquired by Sequent before Sequent was acquired by IBM.
Does that mean that we can run the 2.6 kernel without the risk of beeing sued? :).
As of about 8:00AM MST, SCO's stock value has reached almost what it was when they closed yesterday. Yahoo Finance has a nice graph.
It's nice to see that their blatantly screwed up press releases aren't helping them anymore.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Well...we know how to change that. All IBM has to do is say We are the IBM, lower your firewalls surrender your servers. You will be assimilated. Resistence is futile.
get the SCO execs some Creatine!!!
... will they get any smarter?
Posted on Yahoo! Finance
1 60 3
Check out the PR. The World was not enough. Bye bye SCO Forum:
http://ir.sco.com/Calendar-Detail.cfm?EventID=1
SCO execs HAVE been dumping their shares:
SCO Senior Suits Dump Shares
"Nothing is so important that you cannot make fun of it." -Clarke
So the age of fire would not have been possible. Cooked food, heat, manufacturing. The Industrial revolution, steel! Yes folks, I have rights to everything! You OWE ME!!!! Pay up now, or I will revoke your right to have ever existed this far into the future!! Pay me!! NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.sig
Given enough info is it worth the community's time to simply re-write those files SCO is putting to question? Rather than wait out the storm and let the image tarnish further, maybe the code in question should just be rewritten now. It would certainly be worth IBM's time to keep the same APIs and re-write the underlying code so there can be no question from anyone that it's not "stolen." IBM could then cut the argument short and say, "It's not yours, but even if it was it's rewritten now."
Developers: We can use your help.
If SCO claims aren't true no surprise, but if they are, IBM is guilty of putting patented material they liscensed for SCO in the Linux kernel illegally. If MS had put your Linux code in it's kernel and payed no attention to copyright or patent law the majority of you would be screaming for their head.
Corporate Troll
Has anyone noticed that if you don't post the OSS Linux anticorporate status quo you get modded down and labeled a troll? bet this message does!
SCO will put IBM's Unix licence on "Double Secret Probabtion"
The sad part is the technically clueless that
inhabit Wall street will probably "reward" SCOX
for their "ballsy" move.
McBride, Darl C
1799 Vintage Oak Lane
HOLLADAY, UT 84121
801-424-2006
One of the interesting issues with this case is that SCO distributed via GPL the very code they claim is their code. The obvious question that people have asked is why didn't they recognize this code in their distribution. Now i guess their defence is that they didn't recognize it because they didn't write it - IBM did.
This is funny, not flamebait! ;)
I suspect that we will hear in the next day or two, that novell files a major lawsuit and asks the courts to drop SCO's right to resell Unix.
They have already indicated that Novell has the right to tell SCO that they can not do this action. It now becomes breach of contract unless there was some item in the contract about this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
SCO SEZ LEAVE B4 UR EXPUNGED
The only serious question remaining is how rapidly SCO will enter Flatland. If it takes some time for IBM lawyers and amicus curiae to suck all the loose cash out of SCO's hyperinflated stock, the slowly spreading grease deposit should represent a high grade discovery for Flatland wildcatters. At projected velocities, however, SCO's impact will likely encounter the Flatlandish event horizon too fast to prevent useless misting over the entire basal plane.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
Server: Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.3.2-RC on www.sco.com. Really wonder how they can actually take themselves serious.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
if all the "stolen" code relates to multi-processing, then why do SCO feel they can license linux running on single processor machines?
Did you pay to post that comment? Well did you? DID YOU?
You theiving fucking commie bastard. Go shoot yourself you freeloading cum dumpster fuck.
I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this before or even if it's possible but...
Everyone knows that the linux sources are quite readily available to basically anyone with an internet connection. SCO Unix sources are only available from SCO, hence the need for people to go to SCO and sign the NDA if they want to see the alleged infringing code snippets. What if it's SCO that copied Linux code into their proprietary Unix and then bitched to the world that we stole from them? It's not like anyone but employees of SCO are in a position to audit THEIR code. I don't know...just my little conspiracy theory. I can't believe this has gone on as long as it has and am just waiting for SCO to crash and burn.
Otherwise, they would be running their own stuff (shudder).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I found a typo in the company description:
> The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday
it should be
The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX) sues millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday
If they think that I am going to licence my ftp server that I built from old components (P1-64Mb-30Gb HD), they must be on crack.
One option for fighting SCO would be to swamp them.
In my opinion every GNU/linux user should email SCO asking to buy a licence from them. Then request that the contracts and details be sent by snail mail. This will waste their time dealing with us and hopefully cause them to miss out on some poor fools who are actually trying to buy a licence.
My 0.02EUR anyway
as a former employee in the financial services industry, linux is far from a secret. indeed, at one company that will remain nameless, 500-1000 linux servers were delivered approximately 1 year ago (more?) as part of an evaluation, not from OS/2 but from MS.
the senior IT people really do know their stuff, at least in that firm; it just takes a while to push change of that scope.
ed
If SCO had a case, they'd be suing all those involved. Notice that they're targetting IBM, who they can likely cast in the role of the Big Bad Guy, picking on lil old SCO. They can't do that with SGI, who's not much bigger, these days.
Also notice how they really did NOT want Red Hat involved, which is -definitely- in the realm of tiny, poor and (when they want to) are able to pull the "cute kid on the block" type pose.
If SCO had a case, they'd be suing everyone on the NUMA development site. They aren't. They'd be suing all companies which have exported previously commercial UNIX code to Linux. They aren't.
Ergo, SCO have no case. But the damage they can cause the industry as a whole (win or lose) could be potentially nmassive. The USAF has nothing on SCO, when it comes to collateral damage.
But maybe this time it's even more appropriate. :)
SCOX (Lola) Song
Enjoy...
(To the tune of "Lola" by The Kinks)
I met them in a club down in Santa Cruz
where you code in C and it looks just like
the Linux kernel... K-E-R-N Kernel
They walked up to me and asked me to desist
I asked them their name and in a cowardly voice they said,
"SCOX"... S-C-O-X SCOX, sco sco sco sco-X
Well I'm not the world's most intelligent guy
But when they showed me the code I almost cried
Oh my SCOX, sco sco sco sco-X
Well I'm not dumb but I can't understand
How they stay in business with blood on their hands
Oh my SCOX, sco sco sco sco-X
Well they filed their claims and sued all night,
thanks to Microsoft's failing might
They picked me up and sat me on their knees
Saying, "Linux coder won't you turn and flee?"
Well I'm not the world's most logical guy
And when I looked at the comments
I almost fell for their bullshit
bull bull bull bull-shit
sco sco sco sco sco-X
I laughed them away. I walked to the court.
I filed a countersuit. They'll be down on their knees.
Now that IBM is looking out for me
And that's the way that I want it to be
They'll clean them out and make them pay
Oh my SCOX, sco sco sco sco-X
Linux will be UNIX, and UNIX will be Linux
It's a scratched-out, messed-up, crazy diagram
thanks to SCOX. sco sco sco sco-X
Well I posted to LKML just a week before
saying I never ever leaked code before
SCOX smiled and said "We understand,"
saying, "Linux coder, you can do what you can"
Well I'm not the world's most open source guy
but I know Richard Stallman and I bet that they'll fry
oh my SCOX, sco sco sco sco sco-X
sco sco sco sco-X
If they patched their WebDav vulnerability?
If I license a GPLed software application and make modifications to it, all rights to those modifications revert to the GPL if I choose to distribute the changes.
If the SCO/IBM license is not binding, then how in the hell would the GPL (or any other software license) be binding?
SCO is sending out Invoices to commercial Linux users. Seems that asking wasn't enough. See2 00004 8630,20277173,00.htm
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/os/story/0,
Ahh.. The mind what a wonderful trap!
The AIX suit is lame and they will lose. The sequent thing is entirely different. Sequent had a limited licence that clearly states they can't put the nUMA technology into the public realm. This is the first time I have seen SCO actually have a case in their legal argument. The question is how will this affect Linux? Can NUMA be done while working around the SCO IP?
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
I grepped for `RCU' in the Linux source (2.6.0-test3), and one particularly `suspected' file is kernel/rcupdate.c, written in 2001 by an IBM employee and copyrighted by IBM. The copyright notice also says it is based on previous work by another IBM employee. There are 45 files in total containing `RCU'. (Haven't tried `rcu', `NUMA', or `numa' yet.)
Sorry, but I really can't take this seriously until it reaches the triple termination point.
I am currently using the most valuable peice of software I have ever seen....cool. I'm rich.
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
And in the same vein, does that mean every printf ("Hello World!"); now belongs to SCO?
Somebody please explain?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Having followed this issue, it seems rather funny that that this whole rampage against the GPL and other opensource licenses was first started by Ransom Love.
When McBride came onto the scene he started to talking about IP issues. I have no issues with a company setting out to see their IP is being used and whether the parties that are using it have paid the appropriate licenses for it.
Lets fast forward a little. SCO suddenly kills off their Linux business and throws all their programmers to SuSE so basically SCO simply becomes a reseller. Considering that they have made no profits so far from Linux and have almost a 0% marketshare, maybe their last resort is hair spliting.
Over the next several months the accusations have moved from being IP vioations to contractural issues.
Lets give a brief rewind, the last version of SCO Linux to be released before Ransom Love left was Caldera OpenLinux 3.1.1 and it was loaded with 2.4.13. Having the RCU code in the Linux kernel since the VERY early test releases, and it has taken almost 21 releases, around 2 years for SCO to come out of the wood works and complain.
Here is my take, when Ransom Love was in "their" they most likely looked at the possibility of litigation, however, due to a gray area in the IBM contract Love most likely decided not to persue a dead end law suite.
Fast forward to today and we have a new management trying their luck in a vein hope of sucking money out of IBM to prop up their failing business.
Sorry, UnixWare and OpenServer failed because they "suck". Sorry, I can't come up with a better adjective for their current line up. Poor scalability, waaaaaay over priced, heck, it makes Microsoft look charietable with their license pricing and they have next to no ISV and IHV support. No wonder SCO is dying.
"The difference between pornography and erotica is the lighting" - Woody Allen
The annoying part of this whole business is the fact that no matter the outcome of any of the lawsuits SCO has hardly any money in capital so there is nothing there to get. Sure, if IBM or Red Hat win their respective law suits, they can suck each last penny from them [SCO]. Unfortunately, this will never compensate for the shadow that was cast on Linux at the moment of its uprise. So basically the guys already have their money gained from stocks, and now nothing more to lose.
I would like to make it officially known that some code that I wrote in 1985, as a small child, contained some intellectual property known as "0" and "1". The code I own contains this code and therefore, I am calling for a halt of all things digital. Thank you. -The Hampton2600.com Legal Team
"I don't want to start a holy war here..."
SCO-None shall compile.
IBM-What?
SCO-None shall compile.
IBM-I have no quarrel with you, brave SCO, but I must distribute UNIX.
SCO-Then you shall be sued.
IBM-I command you to stand aside.
SCO-I move for no corporation.
IBM-So be it!
IBM draws his sword and approaches the SCO. A furious fight now starts lasting about fifteen seconds at which point IBM delivers a mighty blow which completely severs the SCO's left
arm at the shoulder. IBM steps back triumphantly.
IBM-Now stand aside worthy adversary.
SCO-(glancing at his shoulder)
'Tis but a scratch.
IBM-A scratch? Your arm's off.
SCO-No, it isn't.
IBM-(pointing to the arm on ground)
Well, what's that then?
SCO-I've had worse.
IBM-You're a liar.
SCO-Come on you pansy!
Another ten seconds furious fighting till IBM chops the SCO's other arm off, also at the shoulder. The arm plus sword, lies on the ground.
IBM-Victory is mine.
(sinking to his knees)
I thank thee O Lord that in thy...
SCO-Come on then.
IBM-What?
He kicks IBM hard on the side of the helmet. IBM gets up still holding his sword. The SCO comes after him kicking.
IBM-You are indeed brave SCO, but the fight is mine.
SCO-Had enough?
IBM-You stupid bastard. You haven't got any arms left.
SCO-Course I have.
IBM-Look!
SCO-What! Just a flesh wound.
(kicks IBM)
IBM-Stop that.
SCO-(kicking him)
Had enough?
IBM-I'll have your leg.
He is kicked.
IBM-Right!
The SCO kicks him again and IBM chops his leg off. The SCO keeps his balance with difficulty.
SCO-I'll do you for that.
IBM-You'll what... ?
SCO-Come Here.
IBM-What are you going to do. bleed on me?
SCO-I'm invincible!
IBM-You're a loony.
SCO-SCO always triumphs. Have at you!
IBM takes his last leg off. The SCO's body lands upright.
SCO-All right, we'll call it a draw.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
#include "fud.h"
#include "enron.h"
void SCO_keep_alive()
{
while(!inCourt()){
try{
generateFUD();
extortLicensesFromLinuxUsers();
}
catch(ImpendingIBMSuit suit)
{
int numShares = MAX_INT;
dumpStock(numShares);
terminateLicense("IBM");
}
}
fileChapter(11);
}
Don't forget about the Double Secret license termination notice!
I believe SCO's real strategy is to appear more stupid than they really are in order to provoke an irrational reaction from the Linux community. After all, if they behaved in a reasonable manner and identified the code in breach of their copyright, Linux developers would just rewrite the offending code and that would be the end of it as far as Linux is concerned. And all SCO would be left with would be to sue a corporation much larger then they are. There must be a method to their madness.
So what happens if SCO has a legitimate claim and IBM really did steal some code? What happens?
get nemulator
i can't be sure of the exact figures, but the 2.4 kernel is just a little over 3 million lines of code(2.2 was 1.7 million lines). SCO claims 'approximately 148 files of direct Sequent UNIX code to the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels, containing 168,276 lines of code' we're talking about 5% of code (could be less if comments are stripped out?). i think once this gets to court, the argument is going to end up boiling down to fair usage...
IANAL, but as i understand it, legally there is no set percentage or figure for what is considered fair usage.
three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
OK, I've tried to understand SCO's requirement for signing an NDA. Normally this makes sense for companies revealing proprietary code.
But the whole basis of this case is taht the code has been improperly released to the public! If SCO is telling the truth (HAH!), then we ALREADY HAVE THE CODE they're contesting! Take your code to court, get a sworn and signed affidavit that the code you're showing is unaltered, from before IBM released these suspicious lines, and then SHOW IT TO US!
Of course a few weeks ago, McBride declared that they couldn't reveal which bits of the Linux code infringed, because then the coders would just go and fix it. If they refuse to allow this to take place, then I'd say they're not quite bargaining in good faith.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
> Look, your stock's down
The stock price for today is interesting. Up a bit initially, then back down as the excitement fades.
Begone, SCO!
The Army reading list
How many lines of code are there in the Linux kernel? Don't have sources to hand at the moment, but I'd wager that 168,000 lines may actually be greater than the total size...
With the code being NUMA and multi-processor patents, then why does SCO claim a hefty license fee for *single CPU* linux installations?
It's part of the kernel that you can't even use if you wanted on a single-CPU box!
So what's the fee for, again?
Regards,
--
*Art
It was quickly repeated on other Linux news sites, & made The Inquirer. The SCO Group had to spend time fighting that false report.
(For the record, I suspect what happened was that the original poster accidentally dialed the wrong number, had not been the first to misdial that number, & the person who answered had decided to play a prank.)
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
If IBM didn't believe them the first time and specifically denied it in their reply, and Novell told them they have no right to do it, why does SCO think repeating the same allegations in another press release make it any better.
Apparently the stock needs another shot in the arm to keep the dead stock walking until the insiders can dump enough options to make it all worthwhile.
Can anyone tell med where the rest is? Is there really so much NUMA-code in Linux 2.6?
Please send me $699 if you would like to continue using my fork-and-knife-based eating methods.
I have never regretted my speech,
but I have frequently regretted my failure to speak.
I think SCO and the RIAA should join forces, just think of it, all they do is claim they own everything and sue everyone...what a business model.
Looking though the 2.4.21 sources it looks like RCU isn't even merged into the mainline kernel yet. As for NUMA, it effects all of about 20 files. So can somebody tell me where the hell SCO is finding 148 files of copied code!?! Hell, the core code in ipc, mm, and kernel is only 58 files.
You know, what's really going to lose the case for SCO is that they just got too greedy.
If they had stopped distributing in any fashion Linux on the day they announced the lawsuit, they might have still had a chance.
But since they are continuing to distribute Linux through their website, they have done nothing to curb infringement of their "valuable IP".
I guess they couldn't live without those support contracts for Linux they had already signed. There's smart greedy, and dumb greedy. And so a few hundred thousand dollars will now cost them 3 billion (potentially). Dumb, dumb, Dumb.
Is it Autumn in August?
A post on the Yahoo SCOX board points to this note on the SCO website regarding SCO Forum that says it is postponed until Autumn 2003.
Is this an old note and do they think August is Autumn or is this the first clue that they are postponing it until later?
As a former Sequent employee, my recollection is that IBM, SCO, and Sequent entered into a joint development for NUMA optimizations for UNIX. I can't believe that:
1) IBM doesn't have rights to that
2) IBM bought Sequent but didn't buy their code
SCO's actions get weirder all the time!
Has anyone asked the question who has the most to gain from the legal proceedings (besides the lawyers?) I am not into conspiracy theories as a rule, but it seems to me, that Microsoft may have a lot to gain from turmoil in the Linux world...
Just a thought....
Really. I bet we could think of some great questions. They obviously couldn't comment directly on SCO, but answers to general questions like "how seriously do you take email from random people suggesting you investigate a company" would be interesting.
mm/numa.c:
/*
* Written by Kanoj Sarcar, SGI, Aug 1999
*/
arch/x86_64/mm/numa.c:
/*
* Generic VM initialization for x86-64 NUMA setups.
* Copyright 2002 Andi Kleen, SuSE Labs.
* $Id: numa.c,v 1.6 2003/04/03 12:28:08 ak Exp $
*/
/*
* linux/arch/alpha/mm/numa.c
*
* DISCONTIGMEM NUMA alpha support.
*
* Copyright (C) 2001 Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> SuSE
*/
You know, FUD isn't okay just because it works in your "direction".
Yes, the note is misspelled, but it does say Autumn 2003, no? Well, in my part of the world, that's now.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
SCO 'terminates' IBM's license to Unix. However, according to Novell, SCO doesn't have the right to terminate IBM's license.
Novell informed SCO that it had no rights to terminate IBM's license but SCO does it anyway. Would this put SCO in breach of contract with Novell? Obviously I've never read the SCO/Novell agreement but it would certainly be interesting if SCO has breached contract. And its implications would be even more interesting.
You think you're tired of SCO??? Some of my extended family works for SCO and some of us are ardent linux advocates. When my family gets to gether, we don't fight about religion or politics, we have OS holy wars!
"UNIX-based development methods" -- huh? What exactly are these "methods", and under what terms does SCO claim to have ownership of such "methods"? What part of IBM's contract held by SCO licenses these "methods" and restricts their use?
That SCO's tune has changed about the AIX license: It says at the bottom of the press release that no one can acquire NEW AIX licenses. IIRC, at the time of the last BSA (Big SCO Announcment) the claim was that all AIX licneses were null and void and nobody had a right to be running SCO... Isn't that odd? I wonder if IBM's lawyers will brow-beat SCO's lawyers with that piece of McBridian Megalomania...
"I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant
and filled him with a terrible resolve"
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
December 7th, 1941
Anybody not see the parallels? SCO has launched an unprovoked sneak attach against the sleeping giant, (IBM) and the Linux community. And this war will end the same way, with the legal equivalent of an atomic bomb delivered to SCO.
My rights don't need management.
Yes, surprise, people don't go strictly by the meteorological definitions in such matters as where the seasons start and end.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I believe Linux adoption will skyrocket immediately after SCO's case finally dies (along with SCO itself). Linux has already been well-proven technically, but success in the courtroom gives an impression of corporate backing and strength, and more will look at Linux as terra firm. And the bigger SCO's claims get, the stronger Linux will look after a victory. Even average home users often decide what tech products they will buy based on which companies/brands will likely be around for a while, and they are probably least likely to pick a cheapie newcomer just for cost's sake. (Yes, Linux is 10+ years old, but you know what I mean.) Eh well, another $.02US gone...
ir.sco.com is running IIS.
But that's not a SCO host, that's shareholder.com:
It is very common for the entire IR site to be handled by an external Investor Relations firm like shareholder.com. That way they can manage simultaneous release of press releases by fax, conference, and web without having to coordinate with the true company's admin monkeys.
Tonight the part of the Black Kniggit will be played by SCO and the Part of King Arthur will be played by IBM, Red Hat and just about everyone else in the linux community... :)
My name.... is SCO!
bang, bang.
Ooh, sorry..... wrong movie!
You can't handle the truth.
Outside the courtroom Weinberg: "What was that in there? 'Your honor, I object.' 'Overruled' 'I strenuously object' 'Oh, in that case, sustained' It doesn't work like that..."
After all, IBM commited those patches under no form of secrecy, and it was no secret either that they were based on Sequent code. Makes you wonder why they needed the smokescreen NDA and FUD-spewing huh? Everybody that signed it and said "well they look similar" and helped SCOs FUD campaign now looks like a complete idiot, because of course they're identical.
If SCO had said this straight away, IBM would simply go "Yep we did that, they're identical. And we had every right to." Instead, they chose to make a great mystery with wild conspiracy theories out of it to pump their stock up. However, the illusion is fading bad, and now they need bigger numbers (80 lines? no 168,276 lines!), cheaper media stunts (like the Fortune 500 licence) and more and more farfetched reasonings. Very soon, the bubble will break.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Atari was a licensee (sic) of Unix System V. directly from AT&T when they wanted to offer a Unix option for the TT030 computer systems (Motorola 68030 based). Perhaps someone should check with the current Atari (ie. Infogrames) to see what the terms of that license was. Maybe Atari/Infogrames could transfer the rights to another company, and they could sell a Unix System V. package with Linux bundled with it dirt cheap and thereby beat SCO at its own game just in case IBM and Red Hat lose... The end user would actually be buying a Unix System V. package and all the IP rights with it for certainly a lot less than the direct $699 SCO bribe...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
That's so cute. But no, they sold all their computers months ago, to pay for more lawsuits.
This whole hullabaloo has the foul odor of extortion (allegedly, /covering my ass) emanating from it, like those companies that sue small business websites saying they patented hyperlinking or shit like that. Maybe this is SCO's new business plan. Yes SCO will burn, Big Blue will go on, unfettered.
I hate sigs.
Interestingly, the logic behind that claim is similar to the logic behind SCO's core claim: SCO believes that it has trade secret rights to the NUMA and RCU code developed by IBM and Sequent, because it was developed for AIX and Linux, and a lot of the files are the same. Since SCO has trade secret rights to UNIX and thus most of AIX, they seem to think that the shared code between the AIX RCU and NUMA implementation and the Linux NUMA and RCU implementation is a derivative work of Unix and thus they are the only ones allowed to license it (while the code still belongs to IBM, they can't do much with it because it's SCO who has the ability to license it).
SCO seems to think they have a strange Midas touch: whatever they touch, becomes theirs. We'll see how that holds up in court.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
Seriously, I thought these stories were funny at first, but right now they're mostly like sequels to a funny movie that get less and less funny as more are made. What I'd like to see now is how SCO is judged, but I guess there are a dozen of episodes left until that. :-P
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I've just had a look at the original RCU patches contributed by IBM for 2.4.1, (RCU web site, http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rcupdate.html)
One of the copyright notices from a file:
Support for deferred freeing of memory using Read-Copy Update
mechanism.
Copyright (c) International Business Machines Corp., 2001
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
Author: Dipankar Sarma [dipankar@sequent.com]
(Based on a Dynix/ptx implementation by
Paul Mckenney [paul.mckenney@us.ibm.com])
IBM aquired Sequent in 1999, the copyright notice on this file from 2001. The important thing is that this code is based on an implementation and not the actual original code as such this is not Dynix/pty code.
SCO could argue that since it is based on the code then it is actually a copy, however from what I have seen of the contract clauses (mainly from groklaw) IBM are free to use any knowledge/processes/etc gained from adding to AIX.
Probably the two pieces of code look similar and I can believe even the comments since the implementor had access to original code. In addition to this it could be argued that it would be impossible to implement the code without there being similarities or even being nearly identical in places. For example try implementing a bouble-sort/linked list/etc without the code looking similar.
The only thing left are the RCU patents and IBM own these.
Having looked at this now SCO's case is pretty thin, they could win of course nothing is impossible (though unlikely), however it would just be a case of copyright violation and someone outside of IBM could do a re-implementation of RCU. In addition since RCU is n't part of the mainstream Linux kernel so I cant see how they could claim any substantial damages let alone $3 billion.
1. This has nothing to do with patents.
2. You can use IO-APIC on uniprocessor systems. If you grep the kernel changelogs for ibm you will see they contributed heavily to apic code.
3. SCO sucks.
The code in question was originally developed as a theorhetical process and was then added to UNIX. Stating that because it was subsequently added to UNIX makes it the property of SCO would be like Ford saying that because Pioneer car stereos can be installed in Ford cars that gives them the right to sue Pioneer for making a kit that allows those same radios to be installed in Chevrolet cars.
I suppose you can sign a contract stipulating just about anything - and since we havn't seen the Sequent contract yet (if ever) there could be something idiotic like that in there.
...doesn't implicate Linux per se (though part of the intent undoubtedly is to taint Linux by association).
The release says that IBM was (allegedly) contractually obligated to treat its OWN work product which it developed based on SCO's predecessor's code in the same way (i.e., subject to the same restrictions) as the code it had licensed from SCO. It quite carefully says that IBM contributed "148 files of direct Sequent UNIX code" to Linux. But what SCO is talking about here ("Sequent UNIX code") is IBM's code, and not SCO's or AT&T's code. If IBM agreed to make its own code be subject to the license (and IBM says that it did not, since it claims that this provision was overriden by a side letter agreement that made completely different arrangements), then this would be a matter of contract between IBM and SCO (which IBM is very vigorously contesting). It would not mean that SCO owns the copyright to subject matter independently developed by IBM.
It would not, even if true, give SCO any rights vis-a-vis a Linux user who had nothing to do with IBM and/or its contract with SCO. Off hand, I would say that the only way a Linux user would be at risk would be if there were substantial code written by the original copyright owner that found its way in some recognizable form into the Linux 2.4 or 2.5 kernels, and (even it that turned out to be the case), if the copyright owner never gave its permission for that code to be included. I have not seen where either of these contentions has been clearly alleged, except by implication, as a result fo SCO's threats.
It is of course possible that there is such code overlap, but it is SCO's burden to prove it. I have not seen any proof of this. Even if they were to prove it, the Linux user would then be allowed to show SCO's consent to this inclusion, such as by the authorized release of the code in question under the GPL.
It seems to me that SCO's case against the typical Linux business user is awfully speculative at this point.
Right, but this AIX crap is really just a proxy war for the fight against linux users, and everyone knows it. If it weren't for that, I'd agree with you. However, as of now, SCO hasn't made any legal moves against linux users, they've just been playing a PR game. As it stands, "business as usual" is NOT good for linux users.
IBM needs to unify those two fights from a legal perspective, while SCO would prefer to keep them legally separate, only drawing parallels between them as they want in the media. SCO's fight against linux users depends on them having some success in avoiding the legal arena, where they have little chance. Every day this stays out of court is a win for SCO.
That's why I think IBM should expedite this thing. Because if it never goes to court, SCO wins through erosion of linux marketshare in enterprise applications, as well as the potential for revenue through linux "licensing." Additionally, they depend on their inflated stock price to finance this game and provide a windfall in the event they sell out of their position. Giving them a legal setback would really hurt their stock price, and would cripple them in terms of their strategy.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Sequent / IBM have no names on these files. What the heck is SCO talking about now?? Where are the NUMA files that orignated from IBM that contain Dyniz sources??
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
So does SCO's claim say that only Linux 2.4 and 2.5 contain chunks of Unix code, or was this Unix code always there as part of the original Kernel? If the code was always they're as part of the original Kernel, then I find it interesting that Linux from day one was open-source. This meant SCO has access to the source code, probably reviewed it thoroughly and would have determined that parts of the code were from Unix.
One has to wonder why they didn't address this issue in Linux' early years. The obvious answer is the market was privy to Linux. So like a good company, they sat back quietly and waited for Linux to germinate the Tech Industry. When this was successful then they would start their campaign of extracting license fees.
On one hand I think this is a shady thing to do. Yet since they own the rights to Unix' code they have a legitimate claim to ask for money to use that code. This puts them in a unique position of being a Monopoly in that they can do whatever they want and they'll probably still be alive tomorrow because frankly we all know that Unix is a DAMN GOOD platform to run just about anything on (enterprise or non-enterprise).
My two cents...
grep >= ! == $your
...Try shorting their stock. It's currently around $9.75. If you short ten shares to $0.01, that won't even cost you $100 (the stock is unlikely to ever go back above $10, certainly not within your short window).
One person doing this isn't really going to hurt them. Millions of Linux users around the world doing this would bury the company.
Of course, one person in a different thread said that they worked at a brokerage and SCO was one of the companies they weren't allowed to short, due to lack of liquidity of the shares. So, you might have to go looking for a place that would let you place a short, but you should still be able to do it.
Brad Knowles
http://daily.daemonnews.org/ -- if you're not
They're bankers! How can you even suggest they're innocent?
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
First, let me say that IANAL... but at least I RTFA. I think SCO/Caldera is beginning to close in on their actual complaint, and rather than making grandiose claims, it's beginning to look a lot smaller than $3bn (IMHO). Why they made a more reserved announcement than "All your Dynix are belong to us" on the eve oif their results announcement is a mystery to me. Is Boies trying to restrain their enthusiasm? There may be an argument that Sequent's SysV license is not covered by Amendment X, in which case, Dynix/PTX may be a derived Unix, and under the terms of the license, maybe the source must be "treated as part of the Original [System V] Software." But the source isn't necessarily "resulting materials" in terms of the contract, so even that's hazy. The numbers of files and lines will also turn out to be misleading. I predict the "approximate" numbers 148 and 168,276 will dwindle as this goes on. But SCO's still got enough of the Good Stuff to assert that "Unix based development methods" are covered by a license. What ever that Stuff is, they should be getting FDA approval, and replacing TV...
I did a quick calc against my gentoo-sources tree. Sure, its a bit different to vanilla, but what the hell, it will be roughly right.
.h and .c files.
4592051 lines of code, only counting
168276 lines of disputed code, stated by SCO in their latest press release.
If every line of code SCO claims to be in Linux IS in Linux, then it is only 3.6% (roughly) - and of that code, they claim that MOST of it is the NUMA and RCU (what is RCU? Can someone enlighten me?) - code that 99% of people don't even use anyway!
Unix development methods:
printf( "Got here!/n" );
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
By terminating IBM's license, SCO is saying that IBM can't make money now on related products now. Since the scheduled court date is more than a year off, this could impose a serious hardship (so to speak) on IBM.
It would seem to me that that would give IBM a way to push for an injunction stopping this quickly, or a way to push for a faster trial.
As of now they're on Double SECRET Probation! - Dean Vernon Wormer :)
I must be confused, prolly cause I didn't follow the entire soap series. Help me get this straight.
First SCO terminated IBM's license. Then IBM said, "You can't, the license is perpetual" Now several weeks later, SCO says "Seriously, we *REALLY* terminate your license." So now IBM is going to have to explain them again?
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
At the bottom of their "SCO puts IBM on double secret probation" press release, some numbers are given: "The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers." I bet a new survey of countries, resellers and developers (a true survey), would show something like: 2 countries. 0 resellers. 2 developers. 5 lawyers. But we count all Linux distributions, resellers and developers as "ours" also, because we say so, so there! So the numbers are much higher! Regards, Fredrick --------- I still like the "SCOzo the Clown" idea....
And you call yourself a Monty Python fan? In the context of this quote, it should be IBM-All right, we'll call it a draw.
Jeez.
-toomuchPerl
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Biff: Hey, McBride! You got that homework I asked you to do for me?
McBride: Well, no, biff, I was going to start working on it, but I couldn't find anyone to steal if from
Biff: *noogies* THINK, McBride, THINK! I need plenty of time to copy it into my kernel to make it look like it's mine. How else am I going to sue whomever you copied it from?
McBride: uh, uh, okay, Biff, I'll try to get you some Linux code as soon as I can.
The complaint on SCO's side is that Sequent did this work for their Sys V Unix and thus should be considered a derivative work and protected thusly.
However, if you look at a lot of the work it was originally done (and patented) in a non-OS specific manner. Thus, the work was done and then IMPLEMENTED under their version of Unix. This makes a huge difference in that the original source of the work is not their Unix and thus isn't derived from their Unix.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
can't someone fix the blaster worm to take out SCO instead of poor old Microsoft.
If you can't do that, simply rest easily considering that SCO is *still* releasing the source code to Linux on their own ftp server. There is no way they can claim ignorance of the code contents now. They have VDH (very dirty hands). If this suit were to go to court tomorrow it would last a whole two or three days after the judge reads IBM's counterclaims and (after laughing out loud for 15 minutes) told the bailiff to arrest the SCO representatives for a frivolous and vexatious suit and remands them to SEC authorities for their lame pump and dump scheme.
The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.
And SCO's telling a real whopper. . .
I posted this in a thread yesterday, but it got sort of buried and I think /.ers ought to keep it in mind:
SCO's Shell Game
Some quotes:
None of the threats make legal sense. If they did, SCO would be able to get an injunction to shut down Linux users. In practice, SCO hasn't even been able to get an injunction against IBM and won't get a court hearing on its request to do that until 2005.
Meanwhile, a German court told SCO in June that it must stop threatening Linux users. And an Australian government agency is looking into charges that SCO is essentially running a shakedown racket by claiming that Linux users must buy a license they don't actually need.
And SCO's tactics don't make business sense, either. SCO is a software company that has slashed its R&D budget, alienated its customers and demolished the value of its brand. That's not the way you build a business.
So, what do you do when you have no real business but your stock price keeps going up? We all learned that lesson during the dot-com bubble: You use that stock as currency.
. . .
Got all that? If it sounds like a shell game, well, that's the way Canopy likes to move its companies around. But in effect, Canopy used SCO's stock price, boosted by SCO's Linux threats, to rake in a couple of million dollars in cash behind the scenes.
And apparently it worked. Which means we can expect that as long as Canopy can find ways of cashing in on SCO's threats against Linux users, those threats will keep coming -- no matter how little sense they make.
This letter specifically gave back to IBM the rights of any code they created to enhance or extend the AIX/SYS5R4 OS.
Yes, it did. However, if they don't have such an agreement over Dynix/ptx, then IBM may very well be screwed. If what SCO says is true (even though what they said about their right to terminate AIX wasn't), then IBM may be in a world of hurt. If Dynix/ptx code must be treated as a derivative of System V, then there may be actual trouble here. Remember, AIX and Dynix/ptx are completely separate products with completely separate licensing schemes. SCO may have actually found a legal leg to stand on. Unless IBM can produce similar documentation about Sequent's code, it may belong to SCO.
(By the way, how does SCO have Dynix/ptx source code to compare against the Linux kernel?)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
If you check out the Nasdaq stock report for sco the following shareholders with >5% is shown:
Ralph Yarro
Darcy Mott
Canopy Group Inc
John Wall
If you then check out The Canopy Group website you will see the following as board members
Ralph Yarro - CEO & Presedent
Darcy Motto - Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
This gives the Canopy group at least a 15% stake in SCO, possibly more.
If you look at SCO's board and then have a look at their share trading, you see the following:-
Charles BROUGHTON (VP world ops) sold about 120,000 USD worth of shares in the last two months
Robert BENCH (CFO) sold about 120K USD in last few months
Jeff HUNSAKER (s. VP)sold about 120K USD in last few months
Other than McBride (CEO) most of the board have ofloaded shares in the last month or two. To give you an idea of the "peak" of share selling. According to the Nasdaq the number of "insider" trades (i.e. board members) in the last 12 months was 15, and 12 (all of which were sales) of those were in the last 3 months (or as its know just after the Linux thing).
Yarro and Mott both also sit on the board of SCO.
Does that stink or is it just me?
Jaj
That's it! SCO stole IBM's car, went back in time with linux source code, and used it to build Unix!
and Linux rides a skateboard and wears Calvin Klein undies!
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
So SCO's new story is that, even though IBM owns the relevant copyrights, IBM didn't have the right to donate NUMA and RCU to Linux.
Well, IBM did.
SCO has no grounds to charge end-users license fees for using this code, as SCO owns no relevant copyrights or patents.
SCO is welcome to seek damages for breach of contract against IBM, which of course they are. This is their only recourse, however. Good luck.
Dynixs' contract was very specific about derivative works. NUMA is not a "derivative work". How could it be? UNIX had nothing like it. In addition, Dynix did ALL their work in a cleanroom, then later used the stuff with UNIX, not as part of it. Also, I read IBM's counterclaim. If I was SCO, I would have shut my fat mouth.
I did NOT learn everything I need to know in kindergarten.
Please don't pull stuff like that out of your ass, it stinks. Just leave it up there, until you find a restroom(or bush...) so you can properly relieve yourself.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Mr. McBride, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Cripes....do you want to help SCO?! Stop helping them already...
Seriously though, the fact that SCO has a remote legal basis for each accusation is enough to keep the SEC out of this. When SCO goes down however, I'm sure they'll at least try to find proof that SCO knew these were hopeless legal angles. SCO may be many things, but the people there aren't stupid enough to document their underhanded shit.....you'll never find a message in hard or soft form that states what they're really doing. They'll make it out of this situation with some money in their pockets, it really boils down to how much.
erm no the original post was correct fool
If you people had really been following the whole idea of derivative works you would have realized that there are *many* things that cannot be considered derivative works. One of those things are algorithms that can only be expressed a certain way (ie: software patents). Another one is code that is hardware dependent (ie: hardware patents).
NUMA and RCU are almost certainly considered to be one or both of those.
BRRRRKKKK! Sorry, SCO. The time is up. Not only have you still been releasing all of the kernel code under the GPL, you are trying to encumber another companies software and hardware patents.
Don't pass GO. Go striaght to jail.
SCO rebates IBM their $699?
...when it was also pointed out numerous times that SCO's unwillingness to divulge what is infringing and where, thereby making it impossible for those alleged to be infringing to correct the problem and avoid doing so, makes them ineligable for any compensatory or punitive damages of any kind. This is a well established civil doctrine with a mountain of precident to dwarf Everest (look up "dirty hands" and "clean hands" with regard to civil law if you are still confused).
... indeed, it appears to be a basic tenent of civil law.
Rewriting Linux now will not do a damn bit of good. It doesn't absolve anyone from past infringements, and it won't mean that IBM did not breach their contract.
IBM's alleged contract violation is between IBM and Caldera-renamed-SCO and has absolutely no bearing on Linux. IF, and I stress IF (because as others have pointed out, an overwhelming amount of evidence indicates it is almost certainly not the case), Linux were infringing on a SCO copyright, liability would only exist AFTER SCO has provided the information and the kernel coders have had an opportunity to remove the infringing code. Interestingly enough, even that liability is probably close to zero as a direct result of SCO's current actions (not disclosing the source code, i.e. not doing everything in their power to alleviate so-called damages, thereby indicating rather strongly that the damages aren't significant. Again, there is a mountain of precident for this sort of thing...)
When it comes to trial, even if we all find out that Linux is infringing on SCO's IP, all the non-disclosure will have done is make the judge less likely to award damages to SCO.
No. The lack of disclosure will have made it impossible for the judge to award damages to SCO. Well, not impossible (a judge can do anything), but impossible for it to hold up on appeal. Again, the mountain of precident on that point is huge
IANAL, this is not legal advice, do your own research, yada yada yada.
The only reasonable explanation I have heard for the secrecy is that they can't substantiate any of their claims.
That is a reasonable explanation, but not the only one. A couple of others include
1) an agenda to spread FUD against Linux and free software, financed, perhaps even contracted by, an interested third party who wishes to keep their own hands clean (three guesses on who that might be).
2) minimal claims are valid, but SCOX and Darl et. al. can benefit much more financially by keeping the specifics ambiguous than they can by disclosing exactly how minor the infringement is.
Again, I think your explanation is the most likely: there is no infringement whatsoever. But there are a few other explanations that are just as reasonable, and nothing precluding several of them applying in parallel.
Regardless, and here is the bottom line: SCO's own behavior has precluded any liability for those using, deploying, developing, and reselling Linux, with the exception of IBM, who may have some liability based on a contractual technicality (but probably does not, as their IP attorneys are quite savvy and would have likly settled were that the case). All muttering and innendo to the contrary is nothing more than SCO produced FUD of the lowest order, quite possibly at the behest of (and certainly financed by) SUNW and MSFT.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Looks like we might have a chance to see the first Slashdotted conference call.
OK, maybe it is time to put my tinfoil hat on and start looking out the window for black helicopters, but what if this is all a nod-and-wink kind of scheme.
IBM and SCO make it known that IBM is thinking of buying SCO. Instead, SCO sues IBM. SCO's stock price goes up. SCO's owners dump stock (getting rich) and SCO uses the inflated stock price to buy up small companies. Once SCO has all the pieces in place, IBM suddenly forces things into court and SCO is blown away. SCO stock plummets. *THEN* IBM buys them for a basement bargin price.
This does multiple things for IBM. (1) Publicity. (2) Good PR with the Linux crowd as IBM "saves the day". (3) They get more stuff in the SCO buyout. (4) It places IBM's competitors in the Linux arena on shaking ground while all this is happeneing, possibly forcing some out of business.
Suddenly, in the end, IBM has a Linux distro, AIX for the high-end, lots of other IP, and a rep as being the big champion for Linux that is willing to put its money where its mouth is.
Right about that time, IBM would be ready to take on Microsoft again for the servers and desktops. IBM gives away the desktop OS just to have an in and starts recapturing the mid-level servers. As IBM becomes the "leader" of Linux, why would you not go with IBM and AIX on the big iron since IBM makes it one smooth continuum of *nix?
Man, I have got to stop drinking 10 diet cherry cokes while on medicine for a head cold before I post. =)
I've finally figured out what this SCO debacle reminds me of: a game of Calvinball.
Contract disputes are legal play, except on Reverse Days or while standing in the Invisible Box. SCO attacks Linux users with FUD, and Novell makes them sing the Sorry Song. But SCO claims Novell was in the Reciprocity Zone, so it has to sing the song instead.
SCO says it owns IBMs code because IBM crossed the Hidden Contract line, but IBM claims today was negative day and now it wants everything that SCO owns.
The score is now 12 to Q, and I eagerly await the next round.
It's back. Must have been some hackers messing around just before the big meeting. Or another sly play to get the price to drop a bit then zoon up just before the forum.
I was under the impression that NUMA code was contributed by SGI when they made their unfortunate leap into linux. At least that is what their marketting at the time seemed to indicate.
It's McFly
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
I agree with the meat of your analysis about Sequent. I don't know enough contract law to comment on SCO's thesis about Sequent.
Y'know small claims court is only $45. /.ers can afford that.
I'm sure some of the
Why don't some of us sue them for extortion?
I'm sure some of the developers here would have
something to lose if this nonsense continues much
longer.
-things that make you go "hmmmmmm"
Finally we found the scum who is responsible for vi !
For those who don't know, Sequent was a super-computer company that developed a lot of the software techniques that make today's multi-processor machines (especially the more-than-2 processor systems) work well.
Not just a super-computer company... they also built high end Unix servers. Georgia Tech had a Sequent box running Dynix as the main campus computer system from the late 80's to early 90's. IIRC, hydra was a 16-CPU system with 386DX's. And while at the end of its life (1993 I think) it was godawful slow, it was still better than the Sun box (which later became boxes) that replaced it (GT and Sun discovered that Solaris did very poorly in a heavily task switched environment, spending up to 80% of CPU time in overhead... that's improved since, but AFAIK they never quite fixed the problem). Dynix was the first Unix OS I ever used. It was a helluva lot better than Ultrix, but that's about all I recall about it.
at first glance IBM has every right to contribute this code to Linux
Yeah, but SCO is claiming that Sequent's license didn't include transferral of license, that the various multiprocessor technologies were derivative works, and that SCO retained rights to all derivative works under that license. IBM did buy a perpetual, non-revokable, fully paid, yadda yadda yadda license for Unix, but that was prior to the purchase of Sequent. SCO is thus claiming that Sequent's license holds true here and that IBM didn't have the right to distribute the code without SCO's approval. IBM does, however, hold the patents to the technologies in question. It may become a question not only of which license applies, but also whether or not the code contributed to Linux was the same as the code that Sequent had or if it was a re-implementation of the patent that IBM holds.
I tell ya, it's definitely wacko, but it's not completely retarded, I have to say that. The one key is that when SCO does all this buying up of small companies, it would have to be done with SCO *stock* - I'm sure that's what you intended - which would actually be plausible in their situation, since they're a stock-rich/cash-poor company.
There are two problems I see with the theory. First, I don't see SCO taking over any small companies right now. ;) Second, the time frames are a little off. SCO would need time to perform all these takeovers, as those never proceed quickly. Second, IBM can't afford the lawsuit spectre to last too long, as there's the threat that companies will get scared of linux and such, fleeing into the arms of Sun or MS. That would make the whole scheme counterproductive.
So I don't think that's what's going on here. That said, it *is* a pretty nice scheme, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it pop up elsewhere, assuming it hasn't already. I think it would be outrageously illegal, but might not be impossible to pull off. The only real problem I see from a practical standpoint is trust - when the lawsuits start, puffing up the value of the smaller company to be taken over, they gain an advantage that could be acted upon if they decide to make the fake lawsuit real.
They'd almost have to give the larger company some faked "smoking gun" evidence that gave them a clear "out" of the lawsuit, if filed. In this situation, it would be like some SCO developer last year sending a memo saying something like, "Hey, have fun with the JFS code I posted to the kernel dev team yesterday. Free of charge compliments of Caldera."
But I will say, it's not impossible.
Man, I have got to stop drinking 10 diet cherry cokes while on medicine for a head cold before I post. =)
I think that would be a good policy for sure.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
The Current SCO Situation...via the medium of song
:-)
Please mirror and spread if you agree with the sentiment (if not the singing
The Asshat Song [heypod.co.uk] [2.73MB MP3]
McFried?
I believe to be a PUMP-N-DUMP scheme for SCO stocks just before all the SCO execs leave the country to retire. When SCO lose the current law suite and if they live long enough for another, then this will likely be SCO's next extortion scheme.
To all those in violation of SCO intellectual property by "breathing":
Unless you pay SCO One Billion Dollars for Licensing "breathing" you will be sued! We have proof that you are in violation of our intellectual property. This violation occurs in the sub-process "inhale". But, we will not show it to you specifics, instead we will just sue unless you stop "breathing" immediately this moment we will sue you!
Really we will, unless you already paid us. If you have paid then go right ahead and "breath" we give you permission to go right ahead and proceed breathing until the next time we decide to sue you for "exhaling".
Have a nice day.
-SCO
What constitutes a derived work is going to be the real copyright issue here. Outside the software arena, the notion of a derived work has been very broadly interpreted. Movies based on novels have been held to be derived works even when the connection between the two included little more than the title and the name of the lead character.
IBM has retained Cravath, Swaine, and Moore, probably the strongest litigation firm for difficult cases in the world. The Cravath approach on big cases is to put an army of lawyers on the problem and litigate everything to death. We'll probably see a detail-oriented litigation, rather than one based on broad principles. Following a Cravath lawsuit tends to be a mind-numbing experience for all concerned.
From the termination announcement:
"Blake Stowell, +1-801-932-5703, bstowell@sco.com, or Marc Modersitzki, +1-801-932-5635, both of The SCO Group"
Better yet, get your autodialing modem to call...
A question SCO Group forgot to ask was..
..
What happens when Novell terminates the Unix sales contract with SCO Group?
I have guess...
Profits and their Price goes
DOWN!!!!!!!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
SCO's System V UNIX contract allowed Sequent to prepare derivative works and modifications of System V software "provided the resulting materials were treated as part of the Original [System V] Software."
The Resulting Material of Sequent's modifications was Dynix/tx. The components of that modification were SysV, RCU, and NUMA.
Being only two of the components of the modification, I don't see how SCO has the right to apply SysV licensing terms to any future use of Sequent-IBM's RCU and NUMA technology.
It is the only way to get positively moderated for flaming or just being vulgar
Thanks SCO for making me laugh like a fool every day I see the Caldera logo.
that is the best peiece in the monty python game. heh.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Shouldn't IBM be given "Double Secret Probation" first?
In reference to this thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-07/msg01564.html
Kean Johnston, Engineer @ SCO (for at least 6 years), writes:
---
>> Err... I think the L in GNU GPL stood for License.
And I thought the GP was general public, not "general public we like, agree with politically, socially or morally".
For obvious reasons I can comment very little on what has gone on in this thread although my restraint has been the hardest thing I have had to endure in along time. All I can say is I encourage people to think about the words "open", and to look at the real scope of SCO's lawsuits not at reactionary, often misguided and religiously "patriotic" assertions made in the heat of passion and not in the cold light of logic.
I really wish I could say more but I can't. I may have said too much. But in these postings please can people remember that many of the folks at SCO are just geeks like the rest of you, who use, like and contribute to open source projects.
---
Sounds like their might be some conflict between the "fellow geeks" working at SCO, and the management. It also seems like even the programmers at SCO have no idea what the GPL means.
Terminator 4: The Final Termination
i'd really be interested in McBride doing a slashdot interview. if he's so confident of his case, he should have no problem facing those of us who are affected.
Rocky the Squirrel: Again?
McBride: This time for sure!
Rocky: But that one never works! McBride: Nothing up my sleeve, and.. PRESTO! (pulls out a copy of Debian)
Rocky: And now here's something we hope you'll really like!
Bullwinkle: (carries a clue-by-four with IBM written all over it, beats McBride)
This sig no verb.
Yet Caldera-Sco uses the term "Sequent-IBM" no less than six times in that press release. I guess Caldera-Sco is getting desperate.
If this press release were about only Sequent, it wouldn't make sense - there no longer is any Sequent. If this press realease were only about IBM, it woulnd't make sense - that press release went out months ago.
But since this press release is not about IBM or Sequent, but about "Sequent-IBM" it all makes sense, right?
MINUX was (C) so Linux = theft from the beginning. Quid ex post facto pro
They should be base their new OS on a BSD OS.. bring it up to UNIX 03 Standard and add support for any non-standard implementations to better support older AIX software, get a few certifications on standards they support.
They can provide bugfixes back to the original project, new features they want to give away, and keep their code closed. Any software that had been distributed with a OS based on SysV should be challenged as not being a derivative, and is a software for UNIX. Any code that is a derivative, rewrite it from scratch. IBM won't have to care about future code they write, being infected with contracts by SCO.
That sounds like a way more interesting story than yet another SCO dropping. Why don't you write it up and submit it here or on kuro5hin?
If you are a lawyer could you point out how i could file a small claimes cour suit against them. what grounds would i use and the general procedure.
Stop complaining and put you money where your mouth is.
I am tired of this SCO crap. When are you people going to stop whining and do something about it. If you have contributed to the Linux kernel, sue SCO for damaging your product and under the terms of their claims they owe you for licensing. If you have been given an invoice from SCO, sue them and report them for extortion. If you have bought a license, sue them for false advertising. Whining about it on slash dot will accomplish absolutely 0, bubkiss, dittly. This is the only way to strike back at a company that uses litigation as a business model. Use litigation to counter them. There is not other way to stop SCO. There were allot of people that said fascism, Stalin and Hitler were bad people, but nobody actually did anything about it (until it was too late) so my fellow slashdotters, before you post one more reply to an SCO article, why don't you put you money where your mouth is file a small claims court. against SCO, and then comment about that.
If there are any lawyers out there please write how to do that or point to the relevant documentation.
It is interesting how this follows recent reports of SCO executives selling off their own SCO stock...
Media manipulation anyone?????
In fact, IBM addresses both the issue of the stock price manipulation and SCO's continued misrepresentation of the AIX license in their counterclaim. For SCO to continue to make these sorts of public statements is insane.
Yeah Right!!! Surely SCO is counting system calls. For every fork() you use you own SCO $0.10.
Eki
I mentioned this briefly in the post you are replying to. You even quote it later on. Granted, I said "less likely" and not "impossible", but you agree that it's not impossible. How was I asleep?
When you said:
Rewriting Linux now will not do a damn bit of good. It doesn't absolve anyone from past infringements, and it won't mean that IBM did not breach their contract.
Rewriting Linux does a great deal of good (assuming the very unlikely for the sake of a theoretical argument, namely that there is infringing code in Linux), as it stops the infringement. Furthermore, as has been pointed out (and IMHO your choice of verbiage seriously downplays), Caldera-now-renamed-SCOs own actions does make it impossible to collect damages of any kind (I merely included the extremely remote possiblity of a lower court judge making a foolish ruling in contradiction of basic civil law, which is extremely rare but can happen. I would go so far as to say it is virtually impossible that SCO would prevail at the appellate level even under those extremly unlikely circumstances).
I find your initial description "all the non-disclosure will have done" to be disingenuous (it implies a slight change in liklihood, dismissing the overwhelming, fundamental nature of the precidents as they relate to SCOs unconscionable actions and unwillingness to discose), and your spinning of my "well, a judge can do anything" as tacit agreement of your apparent dismissiveness likewise misrepresentative of what I was saying.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
When a book publisher copies text from another book publishers published works. The book publisher that has been plagiarized sues the offending book publisher. They do not hunt down and charge fees to every one who purchased or read the offending work.
Get a free ipod.
This whole case seems to be an issue of what a derived work it.. This is what seems to be SCO's definition to me. (metaphore to cars)
OK.. I design a cool spiffy car radio that I let GM use in their cars... so all GM cars have this cool car radio.. But then I decide to take my cool car radio and decide to give it to Volkwagon later.. but GM says I can't do that because my car radio is a derived work of GM cars..
*DISCLAIMER* The car company names were chosen at random and have no bearing on the morality of said car companies.. Personally this commentor doesn't even own a car.
Even assuming IBM is violating Sequent's license, and assuming that SCO is the legally aggrieved party, it in no way invalidates their separately made AIX license. So SCO is still in the wrong.
I don't know if anyone else hase a different viewpoint on this, but I was just looking at the stock graphs and comparing the fluctuations between SCOX and IBM and also RHAT stock indexes. How come IBM and RHAT stay very constant while SCOX seems to raise but is extremely erratic? Wouldnt logic dictate that if the market beleived SCO's story (by buying stock) then the IBM and RHAT should take even a small dive becuase of this? But they dont.
Just looks weird to me.
....move along....nothing to see here....
Are there coders that still work for SCO (and therefore lost their souls) that are reviewing Linux sources? Couldn't two developers find two identical solutions to the same programming problem? Sounds too easy to say some code belongs to them when only one side has open sources...
regarding the "approximately 148 files" "I have in my hand fifty-seven cases of individuals who would appear to be either card carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party..." (1950)
Your lisence is up when I count to three. One. Two. Two and a half. Two and three quarters. Two and seven eighths . . .
that the stock took an upturn.
/. gets more attention, you'll see the stock go down.
Let's see who's selling today, eh??
Also watch as this story on
No kidding..
First they release the regular edition Termination
Then they release Final Termination
Then it's Ultimate Termination with extra litigation that was cut from the original edit
Afterwards they do a new transfer with digital restoration (letters are easier to read) and call it Extreme Termination!
catch(ImpendingIBMSuit suit);
that semicolon is a touch misplaced.
Looking at this little dispute, the only real risk that strikes me is if IBM decide to support SCO/Caldera's interpretation of the copyright, licenses and patents involved. They would not have to just give in, but could end up with ownership of some of the software in question, on condition they demand license fees or just stop their support of OS development. It just occurred to me they might be trying to get IBM to score some sort of own-goal. Is there any way that either by defeating the SCO suits, or winning their own, that IBM could impair their own property rights in some way? Possibly not against SCO, but maybe in some seemingly unrelated matter against Microsoft.
Of course I have no evidence that even suggests anything along these lines, just that historically IBM have been one of the main "big evil corporations", and I'm not sure if they have changed completely. And the conspiracy theorist in me can't accept this whole fiasco is just a case of securities fraud.
SCO EXEC's sell stock. SCO BASED Computers Implode SCO Source Code Turns Into a Rampant Virus Bent on the distruction of WINDOWS PRODUCTS.. /dev/earth is 98% full...please delete someone soon.
The only thing mentioned about unauthorized distribution in these are where it says that Sequent cannot distribute modified or unmodified copies of the code licensed from AT&T. There isn't dick in here about who own new code that is attached to the code licensed from AT&T.
Game. Set. and Match. IBM.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
Well, there is enough stuff about sco to fill a new server, right? right?
A panhandler announced the termination of a passersby's right to wear pants in public when the man refused to pay him a $1 'pants tax'.
isn't Computer Associates a Fortune 500 company?
they just settled a lawsuit with the Canopy group with the no details disclosed.
do they run linux?
That's it, I'm going to fucking kill you.
1) Who's to say SCO didn't steal the code, hmm?
2) But they distributed it under the GPL!!!
3) It's a pump 'n' dump, pure and simple.
4) Bill's mighty hand is behind all this...
5) Darl is an ass!
6) etc, etc, etc...
How the fuck did the parent get modded insightful, fer chrissakes?
T&K.
Political language
"Michael J. Fox .... Marty McBride"
YOU'RE WRONG, MCBRIDE.
SCO's termination of the Sequent-IBM UNIX System V license is self-effectuating and does not require court approval.
WTF? SCO now no longer needs the law? My gut reaction to this would be that SCO is desperately trying to push up the stock price in the face of the IBM/RH countersuits handed out last week, but on second thoughts I noticed that now SCO has finally named the offending code.
This all boils down to the question of what a derivative work is and whether SCO has any control whatsoever over code bought by IBM. It makes me realise that SCO has a better chance in court than we previously thought.
This is the time for the kernel developers to remove the NUMA and RCU code and get cracking on alternatives.
[whois.internic.com]
Expiration Date: 02-sep-2004
Gee, that is about how long I thought this would all last. If they are not even registering their domain for longer than a year, maybe they do not plan to be around in a year?! <insert loud music: dum dum dum>
The biggest security hole sits between the keyboard and chair.
-Andrew McAllister
It looks to me that their whole approach here is to try to claim that Linux is a direct derivitive work of Unix... They are similar, But I don't know if it will fly in court. It would be like saying that Open Office is a derivitive of MS Office. Same kind of thing I suppose...
This whole thing with code has me baffled too... what did they do, claim that all the for...next loops are theirs??? How far can they can take this stuff?
- Slew -
Maybe people should write letters to the following companys that are sponsoring SCOForum 2003, telling them you will no longer do business with them, as long as they support SCO.
List of Sponsors:
Hewlett-Packard
CRN
Microlite Corporation
Century Software, Inc.
Lone Star Software
DTR Business Systems
Digi International
TeleVideo
Multi-Tech Systems
InoStor
Open Systems
Rasmussen Software, Inc.
Tarantella
Equinox Systems
Maxspeed Corporation
TelSoft Solutions
BASIS International
Vultus, Inc.
Synergetic Data Systems, Inc. (SDSI)
fP Technologies, Inc.
TAKGroup
The code for NUMA and other multi-processor stuff is the basis for SCO's complaint against IBM.
It isn't the basis for SCO's claim that Linux infringes on SCO's IP. That is based on code which SCO claims has been directly copied from Unix into Linux. This code has only been revealed under NDA. It is not NUMA, etc.
I found some similar code from System III in Linux
.h files
/2420/arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c - /sys3/usr/src/uts/pdp11/os/malloc.c; /sys3/usr/src/uts/vax/os/malloc.c /2420/drivers/macintosh/macserial.h - /sys3/usr/include/sys/reg.h; /sys3/usr/src/head/sys/reg.h /2420/include/asm-mips64/termbits.h - /sys3/usr/include/sys/tty.h; /sys3/usr/include/termio.h; /sys3/usr/src/head/sys/tty.h; /sys3/usr/src/head/termio.h /2420/include/asm-ppc64/termbits.h - /sys3/usr/include/sys/tty.h; /sys3/usr/include/termio.h; /sys3/usr/src/head/sys/tty.h; /sys3/usr/src/head/termio.h /2420/include/asm-ppc64/termios.h - /sys3/usr/include/sys/ttold.h; /sys3/usr/src/head/sys/ttold.h /2420/include/asm-s390x/errno.h - /sys3/usr/include/errno.h; /sys3/usr/src/head/errno.h /2420/include/asm-s390x/termbits.h - /sys3/usr/include/sys/tty.h; /sys3/usr/include/termio.h; /sys3/usr/src/head/sys/tty.h; /sys3/usr/src/head/termio.h
This code can not be found in BSD 4.4...
I think ate_utils.c is known but there are some
similar
I have the full report but is long enough to fit here
just use diff
If you do not have System III source, it can be found
on the Net as sys3.tar.gz
I'll say stop again!
Tweet, tweet.
No shit, doofball. I bet you're gullible enough to buy a subscription too.
WKOLWJGFS
What kind of lawsuit would Jesus get from SCO?
Nice article! And they did it just like I figured - acquisition using their newly valuable stock.
Naturally, this doesn't mean IBM is in on it, but it does support the idea that SCO was just using this ruse for free money. Clearly they're using their stock price to get stuff for free.
Now, I don't say the parent is absolutely correct, but there is some real validity to his claims. Not necessarily probable, but very possible. The parent is not that far off my line of reasoning.
Like I said, there was a lot of interesting stuff in his post. He was right on (evidently!) about SCO using their "smoke and mirrors" stock price to acquire real assets.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
It would help if the actual SCO purchasers were named. I think you would quickly find some slush funds doing the SCO buying. I just wonder who owns the funds. A few MS dot com instant millionaires per chance? Someone is buying up SCO and it is not small time speculators or mutuals it is people who do not care about margins, thats for sure. Just wish some jounalist could find out and let the cat out of the bag. Might even prove to be a little interesting as to how the SCO exes are getting big money out of the law suit, and who put them up to it. I hope the AG in New York is looking into this right now. These dot com morons might get their ass kicked, would you hire an ex-SCO exec? I still think they shot all their accounts before doing this number, something Martha Stewart most likely did also.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
SCO is dying
------------
It is official; Netcraft confirms: SCO is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO community when IDC confirmed that SCO market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
OpenServer is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time OpenServer developers Ransom Love and Mike Krotch only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: OpenServer is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenServer leader Darl McBride states that there are 7000 users of OpenServer. How many users of UnixWare are there? Let's see. The number of OpenServer versus UnixWare posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 UnixWare users. SCO/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of UnixWare posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SCO/OS. A recent article put UnixWare at about 80 percent of the SCO market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 UnixWare users. This is consistent with the number of UnixWare Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, Caldera went out of business and was taken over by Tarantella who sell another troubled OS. Now Tarantella is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
Fact: SCO is dying
The issue is that Sequent developed the RCU code for Dynix/ptx (their SVR4/BSD personality hybrid) after publishing papers and submitting for patents on the related algorithms. The RCU code in Dynix/ptx is only an implementation of the IP, not a transfer of the IP itself.
All SCO has acquired is the right to use and distribute the RCU implementation Sequent deployed as part of Dynix. It does not transfer ownership of the RCU algorithms and patents to SCO, though it probably implies SCO has a perpetual right-to-use the RCU algorithms as implemented in Dynix.
SCO needs to prove that IBM used the Dynix implementation verbatim for AIX or Linux, rather than using code developed from the research papers and patents they acquired via Sequent. Further, they'll need to show that the Dynix code was not actually ported from a generic multi-OS code base (i.e. a generic OS sample implementation, such as you find in some textbooks.)
As multi-processor AIX was scaling quite nicely before IBM acquired Sequent, I don't think they're going to have any difficulty proving that AIX is not encumbered by Dynix code. Further, as Dynix was only running on x86 hardware while AIX runs on Power RISC cores, I really don't see how the core RCU code could even have made it's way from Dynix into AIX -- wouldn't the core RCU routines be hand-tweaked assembly rather than C code?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
We are very, very big software company.
We don't care shit about your work.
Please, everyone including SCO knows that will NOT happen. I would bet their plan does not involve the acquisition of 3 billion dollars. If that somehow accidentally happened, I'm sure they'd love it, but if theit plan consisted of the suit alone, they'd be moving with it, not playing the PR game/
It's going to take SCO a long time to get $3 billion out of Linux users at $1300 a pop.
Not...really. Considering that MS only makes $200 max per install, even considering that linux has a much lower install base than windows, the numbers are staggering. Particularly since they don't have to lift a finger to get the cash. Think about it. Are there a million machines running linux? Yes? There's a billion. So if that worked, which it won't, there would actually be a pile of cash.
But what this is really about is extorting IBM. SCO knows damned well that few companies are going to pay $1300 to use linux. And if they can sow enough fear, they can hurt IBM's sales of linux.
So given that they can't win the suit, and they won't get much revenue from linux simply because no one will pay it, where does their revenue come from? By extorting IBM. Their fortunes in this case revolve around two things: 1) keeping their stock price high by lying to mentally retarded investors who actually think they're going to get $3B, and 2) getting IBM to possibly buy them out to keep SCO from spreading fears about linux, which would (in their mind) cripple the market IBM is attempting to dominate.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Big deal. SCO tells IBM that their license is terminated. IBM gives SCO the finger (it's legal equivelent anyhow.) Now if SCO wants to enforce their license termination, they have to get an injunction against IBM which says they can't sell/license AIX until trial. Short of an injuction it's business as usual for IBM.
What judge is going to give a preliminary injunction against a company as big as IBM? Especially one that would hurt them financially as bad as this would? Any judge in their right mind wouldn't want to risk the fallout. They'll allow IBM to continue with AIX until SCO proves their case in court.
If (really big IF) SCO wins at trial, they might be able to collect some fees from IBM for the time between terminating the license and the trail. But this just gives a judge more reason to not rule for an injuction now.
If Novell really did retain the right to control how SCO licenses and enforces licenses, then they had the right to tell SCO they couldn't revoke IBM's license. And if that's true, IBM is basically at zero risk of fallout from this. You can be sure IBM's laywers will point these facts out to a judge.
This seems to be a case of SCO crying that they are going to take their ball and go home... when somebody else actually owns the ball and was just lending it to them.
Lots of good points to that, and it brings up some serious paradoxes that have been causing this uproar, specifically:
.. or b) not doing anything and are actually asleep at the wheel. Only time will tell.
./ reader nowadays. (If I owned the SCO brand, I wouldn't do this and I dont know anyone who would!) This whole fiasco is bound to be over very soon.
A few MS dot com instant millionaires per chance?
In my opinion, absolutely. In my experience, stocks are baught and sold by people who have a vested interest in the _FUTURE_ of a corporation. At this point, however, I'm pretty sure that noone who has any technological background would ever buy an SCO product again, or stock for that matter!
I hope the AG in New York is looking into this right now
As do I, but thus far it does seem as though anyone (Feds) are either a) looking into it and just keeping quiet to get as much dirt as they can before they blow the whistle
These dot com morons might get their ass kicked, would you hire an ex-SCO exec?
No, and I wouldnt ever buy an SCO product ever again. As I have stated above.
At least one thing is certain in my mind. Becuase SCO is so blatently gung-ho about destroying their public image, and showing that they care less about their Brand recognition than your average
....move along....nothing to see here....
Not SCO behavior...they deserve our utter contempt, spam, and junk mail...
Sequent is being phased out--IBM has stopped shipping them and is telling customers to bail out soon (I believe it was last year, if I recall correctly)...I remember one large financial customer looking to shift from Sequent to IBM or Sun last year and looking for DBAs to help migrate things...
The gist of it is that nobody should be buying new Sequent (dynix/pt) licenses since the hardware is going away...
or have the drugs kicked in too hard?
Supreme Granter of Doctor of Obviology Letters ("A FIRM Command of the Obvious")
I just modded in this topic, so I had to logout to post.
I'm far far away from vegas, but SCO is having a show there in three days. If any slashdotters are in the area I suggest pulling the permits and protesting infront of the SCO show. As someone who has done work on SCO stuff in the recent past, I will now move every customer I can off their product and onto another operating system.
We need to show those that use SCO that the people who do support work on the SCO operating systems will no longer do any further work on SCO based systems (in the past couple of years I did some work on a Xenix system, so it's plural).
http://www.sco.com/2003forum/
Almost all Linux code gets modified over time. All Linux versions are publicly available. You could compare the various Linux versions with the SCO version(s). This would give you a good idea when the transfer happened. Assuming SCO has a record of their versions (it would be hard to believe they don't have any revision control system) you could do it both ways.
I'm betting that SCO would not be smart enough to take the original Linux version, but would take a newish Linux version. Showing that Linux had older (less "good") versions and SCO did not would be evidence that SCO had taken the code from Linux, not vice-versa.
So assuming that the code base(s) change(s) significantly over time, determining the provenance of version-controlled code is not all that difficult. Think of it in biological terms -- we can identify the lineage of various species/specimens by comparing their DNA and their ancestors' DNA.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
This makes me want to play with mainframes just so I witness the error myself.
Wow.
--Dan
How about complaining to the FTC?
The FTC controls business practices (ie, the licence shakedown)
The SEC controls securities activies (ie, the stock pumping)
Or, since what SCO is doing is illegal in Germany and Australia, those of us in Germany or Australia could launch class action lawsuits for every single linux user to be compensated for every single linux *copy* they have or use.
Just bankrupt SCO, RIGHT NOW.
Using Unix based development methods, whatever that means, is not illegal unless the method is one that has been patented by SCO. (Such a patent does not exist.) Furthermore, since when does buying code from another company give you any right to the method they used to create it? I'd say that Unix based development methods, whatever they are, are probably taught by scores of Universities around the world and have been for quite some time. Are all of those people somehow inserting SCO trade secrets into their code? It looks like that is what SCO is trying to say.
Here's an idea, maybe Linus can sue SCO for misuse of a registered trademark... None of their releases have given proper credit to Linus for the Linux REGISTERED name.
Also, he might be able to claim that their "OpenLinux" is too close to the Linux trademark...
Yes Virginia, Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
SCO won't even run their own site on UnixWare
SCO is hosting their site on Linux... I guess they know their own OS is not good enough to handle the load.
See netcraft...
An idea that I haven't seen come up yet is this:
If IBM owns the code, why can't they distribute it under multiple licenses. Specifically, why can't it be included in dynix (or aix) and be subject to those licensing restrictions as well as be distributed under GPL? The "derivative work" would be the entirety of dynix (or aix) and sco would have rights to that derivative work, but IBM would still have rights to the code itself and be able to license it elsewhere as it desired.
I only glanced over the licensing agreements, but it seemed that what sco gained rights to was the "derivative work" itself, and NOT the specific means of derivation...
Does not anyone remember Compuserve, Unisys, and the GIF debacle? Think about the past and try not to relive it. Hey?.
If IBM did indeed violate the copywrite on the trade secret code, why not just have that army of programmers start a clean room project to replace it. It's only 6 months of kernel development and it kills off the SCO claim entirely???
-Mike the Anonymous
subject says it all.
I'm waiting for SCO to try to claim IP rights over everything I've written in UNIX since 1987. You "Hello World" users out there are gonna be shit-outta-luck!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Your analysis is incredibly informative. No idea as to the final outcome of course... but it's perfectly possible, I believe, to have "ownership" over property without retaining all of the rights to that property.
Obvious examples include exclusive distributorship licenses that exist for everything ranging from books to movies. Or, in the case of real estate, leasehold rights.
Even though the makers of Gigli retains ownership of the movie asset (which is also not 'real' property, similar to source code), they do not have the rights to show the movie publically. It is the distributor that now owns the rights to do so.
Ownership of an asset, despite common experience, does not imply right to use the asset in any way you choose.
SCO says "heaps of our code from the old SysV codebase, the USL codebase and the UnixWare codebase was copied into Linux!"
Are there any kernel gurus out there that would care to tell me about what level of work is involved in bringing code from another OS (say, one of the BSDs) into the Linux kernel? Is it even reasonable to expect that code from a UNIX kernel rooted in the past could have it's code shoehorned into the Linux kernel line-for-line as SCO are alledging?
Back to the OpenServer->Linux migrations! Damned SCO, I am not paying for UnixWare so that I can tell it to emulate OpenServer.
Well I just looked at the Alpha smp.c and found that it is dependant on linux/smp.h which is just a switch, and not very complicated to boot! Here is the alpha smp.c origin linux/arch/alpha/kernel/smp.c
*
* 2001-07-09 Phil Ezolt (Phillip.Ezolt@compaq.com)
* Renamed modified smp_call_function to smp_call_function_on_cpu()
* Created an function that conforms to the old calling convention
* of smp_call_function().
*
* This is helpful for DCPI.
Since this is saying that it is reliant upon an old smp_call_function() then maybe that is what SCO is bitching about. However looking at the rest of the smp.c's for all the other arch they seem to be independant of smp_call_function(). Very interesting. So there might be a bunch of old Compacts out there that are not in compliance?
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
AFAIK it was Joseph Goebbles, the minister of propaganda, that said that.
And The SCO Group know this. They're just whipping their shares into one last frenzy so they can dump big-time and flee back to The Canopy Group for protection. We should be publishing articles seriously asking whether D'ohl is a closet AL Quaeda agent.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
A real press release from 97
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Monika Laud
SCO
TEL: 408/427-7421
FAX: 408/427-5448
monikal@sco.com
UNIX UNBOUND!
SCO Provides FREE UNIX System Licenses To Students, Educators and UNIX
Enthusiasts Around The World
SCO Forum96, Santa Cruz, CA (August 19, 1996) -- In a move that empowers
students, educators and UNIX system enthusiasts with free access to the
worlds most popular business computing environment, SCO today announced
plans to provide a free license to use its popular UNIX systems,
including SCO OpenServer and SCO UnixWare, to anyone in the world who
wants to use them for educational and non-commercial use to enable the
evaluation and understanding of UNIX systems. The bold move has
far-reaching implications for the future of the UNIX platform and marks
the stunning public debut of SCOs stewardship of the UNIX system. It
also represents the first time in more than 20 years that the owner of
UNIX technology has provided the operating system free of charge to the
public.
Alok Mohan, SCOs president and CEO, said, "This is only the second time
in UNIXs 25-year history that the owner of the technology has made this
offer. The last time this happened, a $60-billion-dollar industry was
born." The UNIX system was in its infancy when AT&T Bell Labs gave it
away for free to colleges and universities to help with research and
development projects. Soon, thousands of students were learning to
program on UNIX systems. After graduation, they took that knowledge
into the corporate world, building a $60-billion-dollar industry. The
legacy of AT&Ts gift to universities includes the Internet, the World
Wide Web, multiprocessing, and much more. Today, the UNIX system is the
software engine that processes trillions of dollars of business
transactions around the world.
"SCO believes it is time to return the favor," said Mohan, "and deliver
the result of more than 20 years of technical innovation back to
educators and students worldwide. With the explosive growth of the
Internet and the breadth of development tools for UNIX systems available
today, one can only imagine what this new generation will do with this
open operating system platform."
What the Students Will Get
The availability of free UNIX system licenses begins with SCO OpenServer
license, followed closely by a free SCO UnixWare license. The initial
availability of a free SCO OpenServer license provides UNIX system
enthusiasts with access to a high-end, commercial quality UNIX product
that would normally be out of reach due to price constraints. Students,
as well as professionals who use the UNIX system at work, now have an
affordable means of running the UNIX platform at home, enabling them to
create a home BBS or web site.
Whats In Free SCO OpenServer?
With a Free SCO OpenServer license, users interested in UNIX technology
have access to a fully functional, single user version of the SCO
OpenServer Desktop System, which includes SCO Doctor Lite, and SCO
ARCserve/Open Lite from Cheyenne, and the SCO OpenServer Development
System. The SCO OpenServer Desktop is an advanced, single user UNIX
operating system that delivers RISC workstation capabilities and
performance on cost-effective Intel architecture platforms. The Desktop
System integrates a powerful 32-bit, multitasking, X/Open UNIX system
compliant operating system with networking, graphics, and Internet
facilities. The Development System includes a set of state-of-the-art C
compilers, debuggers, application programming interfaces,
It's certainly more substantial, sweeping and better verified than the "bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory marked 'beware of the leopard' Amendment 2" for a different contract that TSG dug out for the (few, essentially useless) copyrights they wanted transferred.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...IBM proper have a licence to use SysV-R4 code (even granted TSG's rantings, they unquestionably did have such a right after they macrophaged Sequent), so whatever Sequent contributed back to that codebase as per their own agreement, IBM would have had a right to use via their separate SysV-R4 licence.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
For those who didn't read it yet, go have a gander at the countersuit being lodged by IBM.
Regardless of the validity and strength of SCO's claims, they're fucked, due to patent violation, breach of the GPL, etc.
As to the rest of us - well, I think SCO tried to pull a swifty and people baulked. The fact that only ONE idiot has payed them for a license (and there's been publicity to that effect) indicates to me that 1) people don't care/believe SCO, and 2) once they find out that no one is paying, those who do care will stop taking them seriously.
All they've achieved is woken up IBM, who's going to prevent them from being able to sell any of their SCO products (their other supposed source of income) due to patent violation.
Life is good :D
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I just can't stop laughing. Wasn't Sequent and *independently* owned and operated company? Hasn't SCO admitted that IBM owns the copyrights to NUMA and RCU?
This is just so damn funny, I can't believe it. I always knew that Linux would eventually beat proprietary UNIX in the marketplace, but I never expected it to go out with such an unbelievable whimper.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Just in case anyone knows....
When does it get to the point where Boies and his firm can be charged with barratry? So far none of his strategies have worked against the community and it does seem like he's telling SCO to instigate all of this knowing that they've no chance in hell.
That seems to be the definition of barratry:
Barratry \Bar"ra*try\, n. [Cf. F. baraterie, LL. barataria. See
{Barrator}, and cf. {Bartery}.]
1. (Law) The practice of exciting and encouraging lawsuits
and quarrels. [Also spelt {barretry}.] --Coke. Blackstone.
Later,
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
"SCO Announces Final Termination of IBM License"
Common Sense announces final termination of anyone who gives a shit what SCO is doing.
-Frapazoid. Sorry, I couldn't help it!
They had 2.4 up to something like 19 on their FTP servers until well after they sued. Think in terms of months. They still have pieces of same up there to this day.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
So if a contract contradicts itself (say that six times fast), the text furthest down the contract - being conceptually "later" in the contract - wins?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
to go
WORLDWIDE!
Let's get it on!
Jealous cowards try to control
they distort what we say
try to stop what we do
when they can't do it themselves
We
are tired
of your
abuse!
Try
to
stop us,
it's
NO USE!
from Rise Above apologies to Greg Ginn
Rise above,
We're gonna rise above.
If IBM/Sequent owns copyrights on NUMA, RCU, JFS, as SCO itself has said -- then they are, by definition, "original works".
Copyright law demands no less. You cannot copyright anything other than an "original work".
A derivative work is a compilation of two, or more, original works. "Derivative work" DOES NOT mean one "came from, or because of, or is somehow related to" another. Copyright does not recognize "use" at all, and the concept of "following" would imply the law had a "use sensitivity" that it simply does not. The order of creation between any two works that ultimately form a derivative doesn't matter to copyright.
SCO execs really have been dumping stock since the lawsuit was filed according to this article.
Some highlights, since the lawsuit was filed SCO's stock has quadrupled. The insider sales since March were the first such sales in more than a year. So far they've taken in U.S. $1.2 million.
dp
---
http://insipid.com
You could, however, hurt The SCO Group (different to the Santa Cruz Operation, different company, different people, different management, different culture; all they have in common they got from The Canopy Group) and anyone who is dumb enough to still be running one of their Linuces by insisting that they destroy all source and binary copies of your IP (Linux kernel) in their possession and recall and destroy every copy or Linux that they ever sold or licenced. As I understand the law and the GPL, any kernel developer who contributed code that they distributed has the right to do that.
If you really want to add insult to injury, send them a court injunction requiring them to identify their F500 licencee (it will be Microsoft) as part and parcel of that recall and destruction.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
So who plays the role of the journalists herding them off the cliff for the cameras? Lemmings don't naturally jump off cliffs, the odd one falls (gets nudged) off by accident. Only humans are stupid enough to do that voluntarily.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The case is about contract violations. But none of the contracts in question have been violated by anything TSG is climing. OTOH, TSG have violated those same contracts on two counts and at least three occasions.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
To wit, deliberately making a "You're new here" post on SlashDot with intent to solicit karma?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...to show a silhouette of D'ohl holding a pistol to a penguin's head.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
It kinda fits - or rather, I wish we could use a lie detector on Darl McBride.
Very interesting article referenced in discussions at Groklaw by quartermass, IBM announced after buying Sequent that they planned on adding NUMA to Linux, and it was already running with NT and (eventually) 64-bit NT.
Why all the fuss now?
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
08. }
09. #include <stdio.h>
10. #include <stdlib.h>
11. #include <signal.h>
12. exit (0);
13. int main (int argc, char ** argv) {
14. while (argc --) {
15. Copyright (c) 1978, Regents of the University of California
16.
Are we done yet?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
They hope to get a court to rule that they do indeed own the code, and can collect lotsabux as a result, or alternatively if they don't, that can be used to attack the GPL's assertion of control over derivative works as well.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
With the code being NUMA and multi-processor patents, then why does SCO claim a hefty license fee for *single CPU* linux installations?
Yeah, and what about the stupid $32 imbedded Linux license? What's THAT for? 8-way multiprocessor PDA's?
Let's assume that SCO is right, and that there IS copied code in linux from sysV. It seems to me that 1 or more of the following will happen:
(i) linux developers will clean room re-develop the offending code, thereby fixing the breach. SCO loses.
(ii) if (i) doesn't happen for some reasons I can't fathom, then SCO stops all use of linux kernel 2.4 upwards. Linux drops back to 2.2 (losing years of work) and restarts from there. SCO loses, linux loses some time.
(iii) if (i) & (ii) can't happen, then SCO wins the battle, linux is killed. Will millions of linux users spend $699 or $1299 on SCO linux ? NO! Most would shift over to freebsd/openbsd, and a few might go to MS & Apple. SCO loses the war. FreeBSD/OpenBSD wins.
It really seems like a well planned short term survival strategy but a really poor long term survival strategy by SCO. Are they doing drugs or what ?
fuck the code, the methods can reproduce the code and then we can tell them to F off. How can you prove that a thousand hackers used one method over the other?
All you developers should pay attention to this issue at all times.
Software contracts between companies should address the issue of "residuals". In simple terms that is: "stuff programmers remember". Basically, the contract might state that the programmers involved specifically *can* work on similar, potentially competing stuff in the future, as long as they no longer have access to the code in question and are woking only from "residual" knowledge. The contract instead might state that you can *not* work on similar stuff for X number of years, regardless. Also, the contract might be silent on the issue.... bad news for you, but it does generate billable hours for lawyers. Did your boss explain the residuals clause the last time he pointed you at some work on a joint project with another company? Ask about it if s/he didn't.
In a past life (at a company not yet mentioned)Dipanker sat a few cubes down from me... DS is one very^3 smart dude... I suspect he could have remembered a lot. I sure as hell hope he does not get deposed... he's far too nice a guy to have to suffer that.
try watching the movie again, "fool".
King Arthur in the context of the original post is IBM, and IBM says "Alright, we'll call it a draw" -- Arthur then proceeds to walk away.
-toomuchPerl
Sippin' on Jolt and Dew, laid back. With my mind on my cubicle and my cubicle on my mind.
It seems to be a film quote from 1970 with no evidence.
s _s leeping_giant_quote
Check out
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto'
or try Google with "Isoroku Yamamoto giant" as the search words.
-- From Denmark
Sorry I misunderstood you.
Cheers.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I really dont want to see the day that SCO decides to release the Robotic Richard Simmons.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.