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.' "
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.
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
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.
The only way to terminate SCO _right now_ would be to buy them. And that would reward the idiots. Any other method such as patent infringement lawsuits, etc... would just cause a prolonged death.
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.
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!
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?
"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?"
It was my understanding they were not suing for use of those products though they probably should. What I find interesting is SCO terminates the license violating their agreement with Novell. I wonder if they can be sued by Novell for violating the contract. Exactly what SCO 'claims' IBM did.
SCO claims IBM can't be trusted because they violated a contract and now SCO goes out of their way to violate another contract. Sounds like an internal problem with the company. I strongly suggest they see a shrink. These guys can't see straight anymore.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
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...
As far as I can tell, here's the SCO/IBM problem... I'm sure many /.ers will correct me if I'm wrong. :-)
Sequent made a contract with SCO many years ago. The important part of the contract, according to SCO, is this (taken from the press release, empahsis mine):
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." Restrictions on use of the Original System V Software include the requirement of confidentiality, a prohibition against transfer of ownership, and a restriction against use for the benefit of third parties.
Now IBM has its own seperate license for developing AIX, their UNIX brand which doesn't have that whole "resulting materials were treated as part of the original software" clause. Basically, IBM's contract allows it to derive all it wants and SCO does not own it.
Sequent develops some nifty NUMA and RCU multi-processor code for its version of UNIX. But IBM goes and buys Sequent. Sometime later, IBM adds said nifty code to Linux.
Here's where the legality of IBM's move comes into question... as previously mentioned, IBM is allowed to go and create derived works from UNIX and retain ownership of said works. Because it owns the work, its allowed to add that work into Linux.
But SCO claims the RCU/NUMA code was developed under Sequent's contract, which means that derrived work is owned by SCO, and not IBM. Ergo, IBM should not have been allowed to add the code to Linux.
That's what I make of it anyways. Whether SCO has a case or not is up to the lawyers/courts to decide.
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.
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.
That was a few days ago. Today SCO are claiming the same thing but in relation to Sequent (now owned by IBM). Basically claiming that any code Sequent added to their Unix has to be treated as if it is part of the original Sys V code base.
The story is confusing in mentioning Novell. It seems Novell are a party to the original IBM deal, and can prevent termination of IBM's AIX license. I'm not sure it follows that Novell have the same position in relation to the Sequent / SCO deal. I guess we'll have to wait for IBM to respond.
In addition to this point it will be argued that regardless of the contract position NUMA and RCU are not integral parts of UNIX and could be applied to any operating system being add-on "features" and hence can not be regarded as derivative works.
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.
Just a point of clarification, AIX is actually SVR3-based, not SVR4. And there's been a LOT done do it since AT&T handed the code over, as anyone who's programmed for or adminned AIX can tell you.
Like it or loathe it, you know it is 'different' from both SVR4 and BSD.
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
But SCO claims the RCU/NUMA code was developed under Sequent's contract, which means that derrived work is owned by SCO, and not IBM.
Close, except that they don't claim to OWN the code, they claim that IBM/Sequent is contractually prohibited from distributing that code (which IBM/Sequent owns) hence breach of contract and trade secret violations.
Of course the theory that code with no Unix code in it is in some way derivative of Unix code just because it has ALSO been added to Unix isn't likely to get anywhere, but that's the straw they're clutching at.
- he actual "infringing" code could very well be only, say, 80 lines, distributed in various places in the 148 files
- more likely, the "infringing code" isn't infringing, but that's another story
What most people have failed to grasp is that copyright doesn't give you exclusive rights in any shape or form. It's not a patent.Just look on your bookshelf. How many programming books do you have that contain "hello.c". All the books are copyright, and yet anyone can copy "hello.c" without infringing. Why? Because copyright applies to specific works (the book, for example), not insignificant snippets, or even loosely-derived derivative works (wholesale copying is another matter - characters, plot, setting all the same == probable copyright infringement). And if you can show that you developed it independently (clean-room implementation of BIOS, for example), you haven't violated someone else's copyright anyway.
"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?
"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.
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...
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
Alot of that stock ended up with large investment firms and is now being shorted.
Because IBM steadfastly maintains that SCO doesn't have the right to terminate their license. If they filed for a temporary injunction, it would be tantamount to admitting that SCO does indeed have the right to terminate the license.
No matter where you go... there you are.
Right now, SCO is a day-trader's dream - few outstanding shares, very volatile, and yet affordable.
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.
OR, SCO strongly believes that they have an unbeatable case and are proceeding along this path with the certainty of a lemming marching toward the sea. I really can't see any company continuing on like this if they didn't think they had at least a shot of winning something. Overblown? definately. A complete hoax? Definately not.
It could be the mother of all bluffs. They are trying to become anoying and costly enough to justify being bought out as a more cost effective solution that further litigation. Plus, IBM and other companies involved also need to factor in the risk of getting a judge who would rule for SCO and make everything more costly through appeals.
SCO leaders also appear to be hedging their bets by selling off some shares as the price goes up.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
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
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.
I don't think it matters if they are integral parts. SCO is talking about copyright infringement. Even if NUMA and RCU could be on any OS, this particular implementation of them cannot. I find it hard to believe that IBM would have agreed to grant its copyrights to AT&T/SCO/Current Unix Owner.
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....
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 -
Because business is no measure of success or failure for a culture. The Sequent folks had more respect for each other and treated each other better than any other company I've been at. They volunteered in the community together, they participated in after-work sports events together, and they have the best alumni networking I've seen.
There are many reasons for the failure of the business, but none of them had to do with the people working there.
--Rob
Does not anyone remember Compuserve, Unisys, and the GIF debacle? Think about the past and try not to relive it. Hey?.
Well that's just what the court case is all about, right? I mean, I never meant to suggest that, in fact, SCO was right or anything, I was merely outlining where I thought that the debate would take focus. If it's true that the IBM/AT&T agreement takes precedence over the Sequent/AT&T agreement even when talking about code developed at Sequent and put into Dynix before IBM bought Sequent, then I think that's great. Personally, I'd like SCO to FOAD. My point is that I don't know what the contract law says about this situation, or even if it says anything at all. That's all I'm saying. But my desire for a clear headed analysis forces me to put aside my dislike for SCO and just examine the situation as I see it, that's all I'm saying.
That is a really good question. Tom Carey, an IP lawyer, said in an interview with Mozillaquest.com (I know, I know) that he wasn't sure that IBM's licensing terms would apply to the Sequent code.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've looked through the contracts pretty extensively, and I can't see any wording in the contracts that would apply to "IBM and all its subsidiaries". If there were such language, then I'd guess the Sequent code would now fall under the IBM contracts.
Without that language, the case is a little murkier. Since IBM made Sequent a division of IBM, rather than retaining its corporate identity (as they did with Lotus), I'm guessing that Sequent should be considered a part of IBM now for the purposes of the licensing. The case might be different if the code was supposed to be "deeded" back to ATT, but it's not clear that that is the case.
If it comes up, and it sure looks like it will, then it's something the judge will probably have to decide. There doesn't seem to be any clear wording in any of the contracts to deal with case of IBM taking over another Unix licensee.
Yeah, I didn't mention anything in my article about the GPL. That's going to be a huge part of this lawsuit as well, but I didn't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. The GPL is going to have its day in court for sure, and the outcome is going to have gigantic ramifications. Let's say that IBM is off the hook because of the GPL, well, then people like Sun or Microsoft will probably use that fact to scare people away from the GPL by highlighting it's "viral" nature and the danger that it could effectively destroy a company's rights over their own technology should they not fully understand what and how they use GPL code. On the other hand, if the GPL is shown to not be valid (though I have no reason to believe that it would end up that way), that would devastate the open source/free software movement as we know it. Obviously, the movement would heal and continue on, but in what form is anybody's guess.
In all honesty, I'm not sure what SCO is trying to accomplish here. If they had, in fact, removed all Linux kernels from their software and stopped distributing GPL'ed code that they claimed infringed their rights as soon as they made their case public, then the courts might let them off the hook with having released their code under the GPL. But to just let it sit on their FTP servers for months afterwards makes me think that they actually want IBM to use the GPL defense. I have no idea why, though, as it makes SCO's case that much weaker.
If the GPL is ruled invalid, then EVERY "shrinkwrap" EULA is invalid.
The GPL doesn't take ONE SINGLE RIGHT away from you that is granted by copyright law. It grants you rights you DO NOT have under copyright law (redistrobution, right to use the code to make derivitive works), only if you meet it's condition (license derivitive works under the GPL).
As much as MS would like to do away with the GPL (the GPL itself is what makes it impossible for MS to do away with Linux by conventional methods), to have EULA's ruled invalid would have a DEVASTATING effect on them...
Corporatism != Free Market