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.
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.
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.
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
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
The clock on SCO's ability to sue the infringer/s started ticking last summer, when they claim to have noticed the problem. They have under two years to file a proper infringement of copyright suit aginst any and all infringers. (3-year time limit) Undre copyright law, whoever submitted the code is the infringer, not the unknowing distributors or totally innocent user. AFTER the infringement case/s are settled, the court may, at the court's discreton, order destruction of all copies of the infringing material. But not until the whole damned thing is settled ...
Distributors are much the same as book or magazine publisher: you must formally notify them of a copyright infringement by one of their authors (specifying not only that there is infringement, but EXACTLY what is infirnged (showing your proof of holding the copyright), and where (in a book you published in the last decade is not enough). You have to give them enough information to investigate and decide if it's infringing or not. Only after all this, and a court decision, if they continue to publish or distribute the infringing material, do they become actual infringers.
SCO has not even begun the processs that you have to follow to get copyright infringements cleared up. And their flat REFUSAL to identify the infringing material would certainly be held against them by a judge. Freezing downloads and quickly rewriting the offending code is what the developers not only WOULD do, it's what they legally MUST do, and SCO is preventing them from doing it ...