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.
Ahhhh.....I can dream, can't I?
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
"...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.
gimme a break. SCO, WHY WON'T YOU DIE???
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.
: noogie
Sequent's code belongs to IBM! Hello? McBride?
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
"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?
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.
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.
[
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.
"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
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.
There is an interesting article "Novell letters throw new light on SCO-IBM case" published in The Age that discuss letters sent to SCO by Novell asserting that Novell has "the right to compel SCO to waive or revoke any of its (SCO's) rights under the contract [involving SCO, IBM, and Novell]." In the letters Novell basically tells SCO that SCO cannot terminate IBM's license. These letters were apparently used as exhibits in IBM's countersuit of SCO.
-- Signature withheld by popular demand.
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.
IBM's System V license seems to state that when they add code to their SysV (==AIX) that code has to be treated as the rest of the SCO owned SysV code.
However, IBM (and Sequent before them) has made very sure that they wrote up a general outline of how the process works, and then made an implementation on AIX (and Dynix/ptx). They then made a very similar implementation on Linux. As long as they can show that both implementations came from the general outline, there should be no problem.
Heck, they should be able to argue that they can copy their stuff from AIX to Unix as long as there is a general outline. They may be able to argue that as long as they wrote it, and nothing of Unix comes out to the public, that they're in the clear.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
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.
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);
}
This is INCORRECT. As I have written in a paper available here, IBM's contract with AT&T (and now SCO) explicitly states that code developed by IBM is the property of IBM and is NOT a derivative workof AT&T (now SCO).
:)
HOWEVER, the contract between Sequent and AT&T has NOT been made public by SCO nor IBM and so it is not clear to third parties whether or not the Sequent-AT&T agreements give Sequent the same rights as were given to IBM, though one may speculate based on the format of the IBM-AT&T agreements (see my article for full details).
Fundamentally, this is a contract law case in which the status of the Sequent-AT&T and IBM-AT&T agreements are defined. In other words, when IBM bought Sequent, what happened to the Sequent-AT&T agreement? Were it made null and all dealings between Sequent and AT&T now under the stipulations of the IBM-AT&T agreement? Or is it the case that code developed by Sequent is still bound by the original Sequent-AT&T contract?
Someone more familiar with contract law will have to respond; however, I believe that if in fact ANY code developed by Sequent BEFORE it was bought by IBM AND that code was placed in a SysV derivative (in this case probably Dynix/ptx) AND that code was placed in the Linux kernel, then it may very well be the case that SCO is standing of firm legal ground on that issue.
There are, of course, other details to this situation which may invalidate SCO's claims to right of the code, such as the GPL, and unclean hands doctrine (both arguments which IBM has included in its rebuttal) but I suppose we'll have to wait and see what happens. Also, read my article.
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
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
*/
It just goes to show that whether it's object-oriented programming or contract law, multiple inheritance is likely to be hard to understand.
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 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 ...
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
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.
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.