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
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
"...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.
"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?
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?
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.
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.
Case in point - an interesting article over at ComputerWorld about how IBM is pitching Linux to the banking industry, as a migration path away from OS/2.
Those nefarious nogoodniks - trying to ensnare innocent customers in their illegal activities!!!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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
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.
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.
And part of that is....punitive damages (according to IBM press release)...IBM aren't just going after SCO for what they are owed...they are going to stop them ever doing this again. And lets not kid around, the normal damages from this case could run into hundreds of millions...
:)
Mcbride can stop chewing his pinky and mouthing off about "1 million dollars" now, cos that won't even pay for the ink to write all the 0's on the end of the cheque he will soon have to write
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.
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").
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. =)
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.
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.