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.
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.
... 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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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!
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?
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.
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
I wouldn't call making about $3K ( so far ) off of this farce "dumb"...
SCO is playing a game, and I'm going to make as much money off of it I can...
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
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.
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!
SCO announces IBM now under double-secret probation.
Proverbs 21:19
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
In other news, SCO unveils their latest threats (found this editorial on HardOCP).
Over-the-top? Yes...
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...
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.
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?
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.
Does that mean that we can run the 2.6 kernel without the risk of beeing sued? :).
SCO execs HAVE been dumping their shares:
SCO Senior Suits Dump Shares
"Nothing is so important that you cannot make fun of it." -Clarke
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.
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.
You don't read Slashdot very often, eh?
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
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 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.
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
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);
}
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
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
Can anyone tell med where the rest is? Is there really so much NUMA-code in Linux 2.6?
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.
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!
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
*/
"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.
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
Not exactly true. They are complaining about the NUMA code. NUMA is "Non-Uniform Memory Architecture." It means that some CPUs in the system may be "further" away from certain portions of memory than other CPUs and vice versa. Most users of Linux are on SMP machines, in this case all CPUs are equally "close" to memory... so this code is irrelavent to most users.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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....
Your lisence is up when I count to three. One. Two. Two and a half. Two and three quarters. Two and seven eighths . . .
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.
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'.
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 -
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.
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....
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.
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.
Perhaps that is the goal: You realize your company is worth $100 (example, easy math). You convince everyone it is worth more, say $1000. You take the $900 in extra stock you just issued, and buy $900 worth of real companies. In the end, your company is theoretically worth $1900, until you lose your lawsuit, at which time it is back to worth $900 purely because of the assets you purchased. Now, the key is to sell when it is as close to $1900 as possible, but anything between $900 and $1900 is worth your time, especially if you don't really own the stock, just the options, thus not costing you anything. You CAN get rich doing this, but it involves one extra step.
This is the critical part: You have to start writing your new book WHILE you are in prison, not after you get out. This works out pretty well because you will have lots of free time in between sodomy sessions. The good thing is you don't have to pretend your innocent anymore, those books don't sell anyway. Instead, write about how you learned from the experience, and how its really "the systems" fault, because it was so easy to do. So, instantly, even though YOU did it, you can blame the system, sell some book, probably get a great consulting gig or go on a speaking tour, and you will probably only have to spend 3 to 5 years actually in jail.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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.
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.
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
Well,
SCO is claiming that the contract under which IBM got system V to develop AIX (and Sequent got system V to develop dynix) made the system V license viral like the GPL meaning the contract said "If you add anything to this, it must be licensed under the same system V license and you may not license that code/IP in any other way". Much like the GPL says "You can make changes but all changes must be licensed under the GPL, and this is the only way you can make and distribute changes". So depending on the wording of the contract and whatever "side letters" IBM may have from AT&T or Novell, this could be a valid claim, and if so would simply mean that some non-IBM developers would have to get the RCU, NUMA, and JFS specifications (IBM vigorously developed these things as "concepts" first and code later) and recreate the features from the white papers describing how the features work.