Further Selections From the Mixed-Up SCO Files

grahamlee writes "It may be a case of 'do as we say, not as we do' over at the Santa Cruz Operation. The Netcraft statistics meter says that for the last year, SCO's web site has been served by Apache on Linux. Indeed, it's been more than a year since the site was ever served from a SCO Unix machine. So what is the possible reason for this? Your humble author suggests that SCO found themselves requiring a multithreaded web server, and as SCO UNIX is based on an ancient version of The UNIX spec it just couldn't cope ;-)." Read on for one of the strangest-yet turns to the SCO story, and several merely insipid ones.

An anonymous reader writes "SCO have made much of how their claims about UNIX code being improperly copied into Linux were verified by 3 teams including 'MIT Mathematicians.' However, MIT can't seem to find the mathematicians concerned!"

(SCO's explanation is that the company is talking about a team made up of people who formerly worked at MIT, rather than a group still associated with the school, but "due to contractual obligations, we cannot specifically name the individuals.")

kuwan writes "SCO has responded to the massive debunking of their 'evidence' last week. Chris Sontag claims that the BPF code was 'not intended to be an example of stolen code, but rather a demonstration of how SCO was able to detect "obfuscated" code.' That, however is a flat-out lie. If you look at their Obfuscated Copying slide (#15), it clearly states 'Obfuscated System V Code Has Been Copied Into Linux Kernel Releases 2.4x and 2.5x,' and then the slide labels the BPF code on the left as 'System V Code.'

At this point I think they realized that their case has been severly weakened and they need to spin it any way they can. And in their case this means more lying."

Captain Beefheart writes "According to this story over at The Inquirer (crediting a special edition of Terry Shannon's Shannon Knows HPC newsletter), SCO has officially announced that HP is safe from their infringement lawsuit brigade ... This leads one to suspect that HP is the Fortune 500 company that SCO claimed recently had paid for a license."

Maybe HP just wants to avoid Microsoft/BSA-style hassles: FatRatBastard writes "According to an article on Commentwire.com SCO has started sending invoices to Linux users. If a company signs up for SCO's 'Intellectual Property License for Linux,' they allow the possibility of being audited at SCO's expense to ensure that the user has been truthful about the number of Linux installations it has. Should the audit reveal that the user has underpaid SCO by 5% or $5,000, whichever is highest, the user also agrees to pay the price for the audit."

Blacklantern writes "The SCO lawsuit has made it into "Halloween Documents" gallery. Eric Raymond takes on the contents of the lawsuit point-by-point. "

Comments

licensing fees

[Frostalicious]

'do as we say, not as we do'

This doesn't apply. SCO doesn't want you to stop using Linux, they just want you to pay a licensing fee. One would take for granted that SCO does not need to pay themselves a licensing fee to run their webserver.

Re:licensing fees

[arcanumas]

But it does raise the question, If Linux indeed has code stolen from SCO then shouldn't SCO's OS be just as good? Did linux coders take it out in addition to stealing it?

Why pay license fees now?

[Mr. Sketch]

Why would any company pay their license fees to SCO right now? They haven't proven anything yet, so it would stand to reason that _after_ SCO proves its case in court then companies can begin paying SCO license fees. As long as the issue is disputed, I see no reason any company would decide to pay a license fee to a company that just claims to own some IP without actually proving it.

Re:Why pay license fees now?

[DataPath]

I think some economics could answer that question. SCO can't ask a really high price for licensing right now. No one would buy it. Before they prove their case, low license fees.

After they would have proven it, though... They can milk that cow for all its worth until no one would buy or use linux. Then they get the multimillion dollar prize from Microsoft. Cash. To the execs.

Re:Why pay license fees now?

[Verteiron]

Ah, but companies who pay now will pay less. You can bet that if by some miracle of chance (or more likely, idiocy of judge) SCO wins their court case, companies who were given the "chance" to pay earlier will be paying a lot more afterwards.

It's a gamble: Pay a little now or risk a chance of paying a lot later. Pointy-haired bosses don't like gambles. If they can pay a little now to make the problem go away (and incidentally add strength to SCO's claims), they'll do so.

Lots of talk, little action

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are so many companies who are doing Linux business (SuSE, for example) complaining, but not unleashing their lawyers. The last thing SCO needs right now are more countersuits, which in turn makes it for us the first thing we should do right now.

Examples and exhibits

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at their Obfuscated Copying slide (#15), it clearly states 'Obfuscated System V Code Has Been Copied Into Linux Kernel Releases 2.4x and 2.5x,' and then the slide labels the BPF code on the left as 'System V Code.'

Actually that doesn't make it a "flat-out lie" - it could easily be interpreted as Sontag says. Think of it as a explanatory diagram rather than an example of alledged infringing code.

Doesn't matter whether you or I would interpret it that way, but whether a judge or jury can be made to. And that might even be what it really was - since they apparently don't want to release the code, they might have just picked something similar in style or lineage to illustrate their point without revealing the actual sources of their claim.

BPF

[henbane]

Isn't it possible that something as obviously non-infringing as the BPF filter is just an effort to make the community relax? I can't see how anyone, even a company as litigious as SCO, could possibly be stuck with examples like this. You can dig the algorithm and comments from textbooks over 20 years old. If you was to use it in a college assignment as is it would just be considered proper use of the tools at hand so how can SCO possibly believe that it is infringement.

Am I the only one who believes there has got to be more to this claim? I know that all their actions seem to be designed and timed to boost their stock price every time it seems to be flagging a little from its already inflated position but surely BPF and similar code is not all they have?

Those AT&T contracts IBM signed were pretty damn restrictive and having read the responses from Perens and Raymond I can understand how someone "reasonable" with an understanding of the issues involved can see that this is not the same as a derivative work but we are talking about something coming from a legal point of view which doesn't always look at things reasonably especially when it comes to U.S. copyright law. Even though this is a contract dispute it still looks like it could become another copyright mess so I don't really understand the seemingly overwhelming confidence of the OSS community.

Re:BPF

[Kismet]

The effect of the "Big Lie", as Hitler put it, is to suggest to reasonable minds that they must be in err. The claims are so preposterous, so fantastic, that we suppose we must have overlooked some critical piece of evidence. Therefore, we question ourselves and our conclusions. We say things like "I don't understand how we can be so confident about this."

This was a Nazi propaganda tool, and it was very effective. I see a lot of similarities today in the SCO case.

Part of our responsibility as reasonable thinkers, is to remove any bias we might have, and evaluate assertions on their factual merits. By removing our bias, we seek to give each side of the argument equal footing.

Many people believe that, if they are unbiased, then they are thinking reasonably. What we fail to realize is how facts and evidence can prove the truth of any assertion beyond reasonable doubt. People have a hard time with facts because facts tend to restore bias in favor of the truth. Reasonable people are uncomfortable being biased, and are therefore more susceptible to the Big Lie.

There are two sides of the SCO issue. The SCO side is supported entirely with allegations, without a single shred of factual evidence that has been disclosed to the public.

The other side has a mountain of facts to refute every allegation that SCO has made.

I suggest that it is unfair to give SCO an unbiased benefit of the doubt when all of the facts clearly contradict everything they have said. That would be like presenting a Suicide Cult as a reasonable doctrine for society to consider.

We have no reason to not be confident in our position. SCO has no proof of their claims, not a single bit.

Re:BPF

[Tony]

The stock scam angle, and the MSFT-puppet angle are just yammering conspiracy theories from linux zealots without the mental accumen to think outside the slashbot party line. I dont buy it.

The stock scam is the only angle that fits all the facts.

Fact: SCO has filed a lawsuit against IBM concerning breach of contract.

Fact: though not in any way related to the breach of contract (which would be incumbent upon IBM to provide renumeration should SCO win the suit), SCO has sent out letters to large Linux users demanding money. (I don't mean big-boned Linux users, of course.)

Fact: SCO has stated they have evidence proving their claims, but refuse to present the evidence.

Fact: SCO has kept upping the ante, their statements growing wilder and wilder each week. Oddly, their stock goes *up* after many of these wild, unsubstantiated, sometimes incoherent claims.

Fact: SCO execs are dumping their stocks, and their parent, The Canopy Group, is shuffling holdings around, "selling" portions of some Canopy companies to SCO in exchange for inflated SCO stock.

As the old saying goes, follow the money. This is all about the money, both from stock and from any Linux user stupid enough to pay the shakedown. SCO has no established legal right to demand money; they won't until after it has been judged in a court of law that their IP was misappropriated.

I believe there are many levels to this whole deal. The first is the stock scam angle, which is undeniably part of their scheme, whether they think they are right or not. Secondly, they appear to be trying to make a nuisance of themselves to the point IBM or Red Hat finally gets them to shut up by buying them outright. And, in a Shoot The Moon sort of gamble, they may just win in court and become one of the richest Unix companies in existence.

This isn't conspiracy theory; this is simply trying to explain all the facts. Do you have an explaination that covers all the facts?

This is more than a pump-and-dump scam, else they're about the most pathetically inept corporate criminals in history.

Hardly. Their legal claims against IBM have not changed substantially, and it is the legal aspect that matters, not their absurd public statements about owning millions of lines of Linux code. But, it is the public statements that are pumping up the price of SCO stock.

It's doubtful the SEC will look twice at SCO. It would be nice, but since they've not even managed to nail those Enron bastards, I don't see when they'll get around to picking up someone as penny-ante as SCO.

Lets ignore the fact that there are countless politically motivated anti-corporate types in the linux "community", any one of which would not hesitate to dump corporate IP into the kernel. SCOs allegations are not as far fetched as /. would have you believe.

And your proof for this is....? No, "My nose goblins told me so!" does not count.

It doesn't matter what /. thinks, as most on /. don't contribute to any Free Software project, let alone the kernel. Linus & co. have had an excellent history of removing *any* code which might not be completely untainted. Yes, it is possible for one person to claim corporately-created code as his own, and submit that; however, if that case were to arise, Linus would not hesitate to remove that code, as demonstrated both by statements on record and by past action.

And, as one of those "politically motivated anti-corporate types," I resent the statement that I do not respect the work of others. I would never claim another's work as my own; nor would I do anything with that work contrary to their wishes. Most other programmers I have met feel very strongly about this, as well, *especially* the Free Software crowd.

But, if you feel comfortable with your head in the sand and your fingers in your ears, please don't let me destroy your delusions.

BTW, IANAL, IDNPOOTV, ETC.

Re:Some wild speculation

[TMB]

Darl is no moron... he's making a tidy wad of cash selling stock that's risen dramatically in price on the promise of tons of licensing revenue...

[TMB]

Anti-OSS bias in media?

[GreenCrackBaby]

I've been following the SCO case, and other IP-related cases, with great iterest -- collecting as many articles as I can about everything related. One thing I've noticed is that SCO's grandiose claims were plastered over all the business-related media pretty quickly, but all the rebuttal arguments (that make SCO's case looks like Swiss chesse) aren't showing up in the same outlets.

Unless some IT manager also read sites such as /., it's quite possible they would still believe SCO has a good case on their hands.

The whole thing is damning to Linux specifically, and open source as well. I cannot help but see a media bias against OSS. Anyone else notice this?

Re:invoicing

[hackwrench]

What and get on their radar? Now that you've called them they are probably preparing a lawsuit to get more than $100k from you right now.

Re:Some wild speculation

[steveha]

There has been speculation that Darl and company wanted to make a big noise, and that IBM or someone would buy SCO to make the noise go away. This would avoid an Enron-like ending.

It quickly became clear that IBM didn't intend to buy SCO, but was (and is) willing to fight SCO forever in court. But perhaps by then they felt they were committed.

steveha

Re:Why would anyone buy a license?

[A Commentor]

The 'one' Fortune 500 company that bought the licenses, had to be Microsoft. I'm sure they have linux boxes for competitive analysis, review, etc. There is no better way to supply cash to someone that is doing your dirty work, than to pay for these licenses. If they just handed over cash, it would look too fishy.

Re:Some wild speculation

[Tony]

The top execs are not selling their stock, or else they might draw the fire of the SEC.

What's happening instead is a shuffling of stock to other Canopy Group shell companies, and it is dumped from there. Bruce Perens supplied a link in one of the commments around here someplace. So, the deal is probably like this:

While SCO has stock that is worth something more than toilet paper, they "buy" companies already owned by their parent company, The Canopy Group. The Canopy Group liquidates those stocks, and at the end, Darl and Friends get a nice hefty bonus, as SCO stock tanks.

It's a nice scam, if you can get it.

Re:Vultus runs Windows. SCO walked away from Unix

[tarranp]

Basically, SCO printed more stock, and gave it to Canopy which then sold it to speculators at an inflated price.

They gave the stock to canopy in return for equity in Vultus.

Thus, Canopy reduced their stake in SCO slightly (while making SCO slightly more valuable equitywise), which is pretty much a null action, while selling shares to speculators at a very inflated price.

The money is coming from people who buy SCO stock in hopes of getting rich if SCO gets bought out or wins its lawsuit, and people looking to short SCO stock.

Though thinking about this, I am reminded of a great bit of imagery in Bujold's "Shards of Honor"
"'Put all the bad eggs in one basket,' she muttered. 'And--drop the basket?'"