Slashdot Mirror
SGI Code Changes Not Enough, Says SCO
yeremein writes "According to this vnunet.com article, SCO's code changes Update: 10/04 20:51 GMT by T : (This should read "SGI's" rather than "SCO's.") removing arguably System-V-related code from SGI's Linux submissions is 'not enough.' According to Blake Stowell of SCO,
'Making minor amendments to its XFS file system doesn't cure the breach. SGI must do more as outlined [in the August letter] to cure all of their breaches.' But later on in the article, we learn what was outlined in the August letter:
'We don't believe that SGI has taken all of the steps necessary to cure all of the breaches, and in fact in our letter to them, we state "SGI's breaches of these agreements cannot be cured."' So SCO essentially told SGI, 'You're in violation of our contract and unless you remedy the violations, we'll pull your UNIX license. Oh, BTW, you can't remedy the violations.' This looks to me like the clearest example yet of how SCO is acting in bad faith." Read on below for another snippet of SCO strangeness.
An anonymous reader writes "As many are aware, SCO has sought (and got) a 4 month extension to its IBM lawsuit. According to the Salt Lake Tribune: 'SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said Tuesday that he understood the extension is being sought "for the purpose of gaining documents from IBM related to the patents they claim. . . . Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S. Patent Office, as far as we can learn."' I thought this was worth looking at, and quickly found that the patents in question are 4,814,746, 4,821,211, 4,953,209, and 5,805,785 - which can be found by typing in their numbers in this USPTO form."
I assume that should read "SGI's code changes" at the beginning?
SCO are getting to the stage where they will try and get money any way by deception, well they passed that stage, now it's outright denial
I only hope that they can be adequately punished by the law.
I am certain, however, that those in charge of the company (which I will not name, as one should not name the devil) will make of with wads of cash after running their stock scam, and all anyone else will get is an end to a great deal of pain and suffering.
I only hope that I'm wrong (it's happened before, once or twice)
SCO is willing to go for broke on this one. Removing the code is really irrelevant, because they want to collect on all the "back damages" they believe they are owed.
If SGI put SCO code into Linux, and then individuals with no connection to SGI used that code, SCO wants to be able to hold them liable for past usage, even if the code was completely expunged from the current tree.
Rational? It doesn't matter what we think. In the end, it will come down to an old man in a black robe.
Just ignore them and they'll go find someone else to crap on.
Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S. Patent Office
How can you have a patent without be filed with the patent office?
Can someone tell me if IBM has suffered in the form of sales of it's AIX product due to having the license terminated?
Blah blah, we need more media exposure to pump our stocks, blah blah, nothing you do will ever clean the Linux kernel of our code because we ARE UNIX, blah, blah, looking forward to federal slam me in the ass prison, blah, blah, insert mindless dribble here.
And if you're reading this, you owe us money.
Darling McSly
It seems that SCO is just trying to piss off the Open Source community. Breaches that can't be remedied? How exactly is this possible? Programs can be written hundreds of different ways. I think SCO is making up its rules as it goes along, much like a race I participated in during 5th grade. I clearly won, but my opponent then seated himself and said, "er... you have to sit down too, so I win!" That's no good.
Esoteric reference.
Just like you can own code you never wrote, bought or saw.
I'm hoping that any of the smaller less lawyer-friendly companies suffering from SCO's claims can hold in long enough for this to blow over . It seems that nothing but time is going to get rid of SCO and their outrageous claims, which this current claim confirms.
Basically, SCO is asserting that "you're f**ked no matter what you do", which for anyone who is thinking of at least trying to remove possible infringments is stating "why bother."
Nothing is going to stop SCO but time. For every legitimate counter-action and counter-claim, they'll simply come up with more and more unbelievable and unreasonable rebuttals. Until SCO gets taken down in court, there's not much anyone can do about this unfortunately. The fact that SCO execs are dumping stock like hot potatoes proves that they don't believe they have a chance... but that won't stop them from maintaining their current stance of idiocy and oppressiveness.
SCO want's SGI to remove the entire XFS system code and even that may not be enough for SCO since everthing that has even the most remote connection to UNIX is a dervztive. I have a UNIX Primer book in the bookshelf next to me so this message is probably a UNIX derivative and anyone who reads it will need to pay a licensing fee to SCO.
I don't see why SGI is bending over and grabbing it's feet for SCO. They said the Sys5 code was released already anyway.
Here are the USPTO links, for ease of consumption:
US Patent 4,814746
US Patent 4,821,211
US Patent 4,953,209
US Patent 5,805,785
That doesn't make sence since the vast majority of Linux systems in use don't require any of the features SCO is claiming rights to.
The only company with enough bathtubs to supply the worldwide demand for crack. Also, the only company with an actual crack team of lawyers. How much longer till the DEA shuts them down?
You're running a scam
Any AC can see that
Go back to Utah
Rank Presidents by th
Would someone please just break through SCO's firewall, "borrow" the System V code tree, run the comparisons, and publish them for all the world to see? Then we can quickly put this matter to rest and then move on to the inevitable next phase: "Sue the pants off SCO for integrating Linux code into UNIX while disobeying the GPL". *sigh*
As it looks it will never be enough.
And looking at two factors:
1. SCO is not willing to take any approach to solving problem (FSF approached them, they didn't answer), nor willing to take any solution as creditable
2. SCO is currently making more money than it would if problem would be solved
the only solution is to take this to court as soon as possible. Then everything will matter again. Until then just let SCO bark as it does.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
IBM, Sun, SGI, RedHat, the EFF and *ALL* Linux users need to file a class action suit against SCO.
SCO is doing all this shit just to pump up their stock so the asshole executives can cash in and bail.
Let's sue *THEIR* asses for a change.
Lets see: frivoulous lawsuits, defamation of character...any lawyer wannabes want to add to the list?
From article, citing SCO letter: "unrestricted disclosure, unauthorised transfer and disposition, and unauthorised use and copying"
In other words, you must bleed, SGI (or at least pay up to my pinkie's desire). They seem to think they're district attorny or something. Clue to SCO: you're involved in a CIVIL case.
Once again no actual info such as "remove this" or "do that". They don't even want to make a solid case it seems. Or they're really the deranged cult that some portray them as.
According to this slashdot story appearing Thursday, the SCO code had already been put in the public domain by SCO. As such, it is hard to imagine what the material damage to SCO is. It seems hard to imagine that they could go after end-users with that.
Now, that said, they might be able to construe a breach of contract with SGI out of it. What does SCO gain there? Well, one loss is certainly clear. They will no longer get the license revenue from SGI for IRIX. So, this might be a revenue trimming strategy.
SCO is also pursuing this strategy with AIX. Ultimately, deligitimizing all of the commercial unixes might just push faster toward Linux adoption.
Ok, I'll plead ignorence on this one, but why hasnt any company utilized (what I believe to be) a right to a speedy trail and get the fucken thing over with.
/.'s crowd has actually sent in complaints just as much as they have b1tched about it here, that they would have atleast do some type of press release or something on the issue.
Also, does anyone have a reason reason why the SEC hasnt gotten involved yet? I understand the paper trail, but you'd think that if
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
Some while later...
SCO: "bu... bu... bu... but... why do I have to go to my room without my licensing fees? It really was my code! Mine! Mine! Mine!!!"
So far it looks like the folks defending themselves directly against SCO (see the counter filing that SCO has violated terms of the GPL) are reading from the same playbook as the arguments a lot of folks have been making in discussions here. Those all sound pretty reasonable, and if so SCO can make lots of cash in the market for now because the market are a bunch of clue-free lemmings. Once it gets to court...
Quoth he
"It's all academic anyway..."
It's clear that these people want to destroy *nix, destroy the GPL, the Open Source community... the whole concept of Intellectual Property altogether. Not to mention (but I will) that they don't intend to stop until rob all monetary value of any software and/or services derived therefrom.
It's war. SCO declared it, and is actively on the attack. They intend to vanquish their enemies... us. To win this war, you defeat them, crush them... DESTROY them.
IBM, SGI and the rest of SCO's declared enemies should join forces and take these people down... and crush them so badly that noone else should ever even THINK of pulling this nonsense again.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
How about the whole "We don't believe that SGI has taken all of the steps necessary to cure all of the breaches, and in fact in our letter to them, we state 'SGI's breaches of these agreements cannot be cured.'" bit? They asked them to fix something, they did, and now they say it's not enough, and it never could have been enough. That's pretty much the definition of doing something under bad faith. Seriously, the whole US patent system is f*cked up. Cases like this only serve to highlight the shortcomings of being able to patent so-called "intellectual property". They didn't even have intellectual property style patents until the last 20 years or so. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Then I want to let SCO try to prove in court that "thier" code was required for Linux to thrive. It would also show a judge that SCO's potential customer base for UnixWare was a tad smaller than SCO likes to claim.
This would be better than replacing the code short term. It would show that the technologies which SCO says customers would have purchased UnixWare to get were in fact virtually irrelevant.
Why is SGI changing anything?
I thought all of SCO's claims were baseless. If SGI is changing things, then that implies that they aren't?
Why go through all of the trouble?
Assuming there is SCO code there, releasing under the GPL would be invalid, and would have to be purged from the tree. Revocation has no bearing on that.
no big sig
Where's a tactical nuke when you need one?
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Behind every delusion there is a seemingly rational thought process. Usually reality is twisted to fit, but here goes:
SCO owns Unix (not really, but...). Unix is worth ??? billion in sales each year. It is ours, since we own Unix. We are generous, so those who put it on disk can have a few bucks for the trouble.
Since we own Unix, and own all derivatives of Unix, (original AT&T contract) the derivatives, such as RCU, XFS, etc are ours too.
Some lowlifes such as IBM and SGI DARED to give away what is ours. We will put them out of business. All their customers will flock to us, the Real Owners of Unix. They will use the real Unix, which will include all of our intellectual property, such as Samba, Linux, XFS, RCU etc. We will get rich. Everyone will beg to use our Intellectual Property!
World Domination!
Derek
Three things really: Revenue. Royalties. Cash.
They couldn't figure out how to make money selling Linux, so the new management sought a new strategy -- make money whenever someone else sells Linux.
As a result, they're not interested in any outcome which dosn't give them a cut. They want to monetize Linux so that they are the toll takers.
It's like the story of the goose that laid the Golden Egg. Any attempt by SCO to exact a toll on Linux installations will cause implementers to move to BSD. Like the Internet, Free Software will route around any attempt to collect royalties. Collecting a toll will kill Linux, but the code will live on.
Not that SCO's legal arguments will put them in a position to collect the royalties they covet. Their legal arguments are as incompetent as they are laughable. Their derivative works ideas are contrary to copyright law as interpreted on this planet. They don't understand how they are bound by the GPL becuase they distributed Linux under it for years and made their IPO on the strength of Linux's promise. Plus, IBM's undead lawyers will be drinking their blood over patents.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
You do not go after someone with shallow pockets on a flimsy claim on a contingency basis.
They might be rodents but they are not dumb rodents.
Adding SGI to the IBM claim makes the issues harder for SCO as both IBM and SGI can point the other party if they need to. SCO can't just claim that One or the other did somethng they have to be specific, so it adds legal risk with pretty much zero legal upside.
Help fight continental drift.
The net effect of this maybe to just invalidate any license SCO grants in the future.
As a customer when I buy commercial software, I understand I am buying a license. If I buy a copy of office at Staples or CDW, I am buying a piece of software thats mine within the terms of the license. I have never heard of Microsoft retroactively terminating a license.
SCO is establishing a history of terminating, irrevocable licenses. If your'e company X, you now have to think twice about enterring into any license agreement with a company that has shown such little regard about honoring agreements. If you are a current licensee and SCO has terminated your license you can certainly argue that they have established a history of frivolously and fraudulently doing so.
The net effect of SCO's litigation, and out of courtroom antics may very well be to effectively nullify their ability to enforce their property rights in an economic manner. Now, if I were a SCO shareholder and all of a suddent SCO weren't able to enforce license agreements or Sell new SCO server licenses I might look into pursuing the board and officers of SCO for violation of fiduciary duty. But thats just me.
this whole sco thing is like one giant joke that has us all waiting for the big punchline...
Anyone who's using XFS owes $699 to SCO?
You know, I see just the opposite.
At the company I work for, (and I've heard others doing the same), they're easing back on Linux for mission critical applications and instead buying AIX boxes.
There is no rationality to that at all. After all, IBM is the only one who's actually been sued. Perhaps they have more faith in IBM's legal department than they do in their own.
Slightly OT: I just had a couple of P-series boxes get back-ordered for about a month. My rep told me that the Department of Homeland Security ordered a bunch of AIX boxes - so many that it put manufacturing behind. Tom Ridge must not be too worried about all of this.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
No need for you or user to do that "examine code".
IBM and SGI have both code pieces, and since IBM is having legal dispute with SCO, well, your wish will be granted during trial, and looking how big IBM is, I think they will be very exact code tree examination.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
How about 2,000 pissed off Linux users showing up at the Canopy building with sledge hammers and crowbars and doing some demolition on evil central? I wonder what they would do if their offices were turned into a pile of splinters and rubble? The Players here are Canopy not SCO. SCO is a now just front for the Canopy Group. Darl doesn't take a shit with out getting permission from Ray Norda. Screw `um time to start boycotting SCO's customers too. That is something the stock market will notice and SCO's stock value will drop back down to delisting range where it belongs. Were do we get a list of their customers to start harrassing?
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
SGI didn't apologize. SGI removed publically available, but arguable code in the kernel. Also, since when is accidentally copying a few lines of public domain code (which might have questionable legal status) more of a crime than using your control of 95% of the market to force multitudes of businesses out of the market and unfairly gain a foothold for your own personal gain?
Seems to me you're a little confused. Go read SGI's letter again and you'll see the "upon completion of this exhaustive investigation we found some code (similar in nature to the code above)". The "similar in nature" means that the code was all public domain.
Shheesh.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Sigh... You know, lately, I wish I was livign in a different country. The only problem is I can't find one to go ot.
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
...and whether or not the judge thinks SCO's blowin' and goin'. That weak response from SCO in regards to the initial filing probably won't float, especially with Red Hat's reply to the response. SCO's got very little rope left from which to hang itself with the Red Hat case- the only way they're going to not get a declaratory decision on them very shortly is if they come back with an actual strong response to the recent Red Hat reply.
I don't see them doing it.
Based on Red Hat's claims in the filing, a temporary injunction is likely to be handed down from the court since there IS controversy and they ARE obviously guilty of what Red Hat's claiming if they can't come up with conclusive proof of their public, business statements.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Except that SCO plans to go after BSD as well.
--etrnl--
> It seems that SCO has learned a thing or two from their Redmond overlards.
Overlards? I for one welcome our new pig masters....Hmmmmm bacon.;-)
The antics of these corporate kingpins are getting pathetic and laughable. But they are serious. Just becasue it's not as much money as Enron doesn't mean the fraud, lies, and manipulation of the stock market aren't just as illegal.
I hope someone is documenting (with suitable domain name: www.SCO-fraud.org) and tracking all the letters and corporate statements they are making (digital voice recording of their statements during their "road show" will be useful and revealing I am sure).
The state of Utah (SCO HQ) and or other jurisdictions should be charging the company with public mischief and fraud: if not now then some time in the future.
...you're talking Patents. This is about contracts and the alleged breach thereof and about Copyrights , which while it's IP and covered by IP law (and has it's OWN messed up things about it) it is a completely different thing altogether.
Now, I will grant you that the US IP system IS all screwed up- Patents granted willy-nilly with no real application of the original (or, really, even the current set of) rules for them, Copyrights lasting forever (They're supposed to be for a limited time- at one point, they were not any longer than a Patent's time for legitimacy in these current days) for all intents and purposes, Trademarks being used to enforce nonexistant IP rights.
But in order to know what to talk about to FIX the mess, you have to understand that there really is three completely different and distinct things needing to be fixed and they need different fixes.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
That and a bunch of Itanium boxes were ordered
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I couldn't find in the article anything about SCO claiming breaches couldn't be fixed.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
I for one welcome our new pig hamsters
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
I doubt MS lawyers suggested to SCO that they take this route (and use some the proceeds of the settlement to finance it) - after all that would be disgraceful monopolistic collusion on the part of MS. While it has been proved in courst on several occasions that MS does engage in monopolistic collusion to destroy competitors they have since paid their fines and completely reformed the company
Just start removing the stuff SCO has been talking about in the press.
Take the current 2.6.* kernel and create patches that remove XFS, JFS, SMP, etc. Call it the no-unicorns patchset.
I'd imagine that most people who run linux have a uniprocessor machine and don't really care what filesystem they use.
Some things are more important than an animated rat
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Like everyone here, I don't believe that there is a case. I could care less if IBM breached a contract with SCO: it won't affect free software once the infringments (if they exist) are released to be fixed. In any decision, I cannot fathom a scenario where SCO will be allowed to "win" in their battle against Linux.
Likewise, I also agree that the SCO execs are "pumping and dumping". Whether they will get away with it or not, time will tell.
But I think that the main source who is pulling the strings has GOT to be Microsoft. They have figured out that throwing FUD at Linux has not, and likely will never, help. Plus their lawyers have examined the GPL and likely come to the conclusion that it is completely unassailable.
Linux has been making steady progress and slowly taking market share from Microsoft. This comes at a time when MS has to start charging more for their products in order to grow revenues (since they have essentially no room to grow in terms of customers) and when they have virtually no new products of note ready for release in the next couple of years! This is a prime time for customers to look into Linux adoption.
How can MS stem the tide? They can't start directly hurling the legal scare tactics (probably get even Ashcroft looking at them in disapproval for that), so they quietly get the SCO execs on board, and get them to do their dirty work for them? Anyone think this is plausable?
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Ok, I realize this is Slasdot, home of the utterly over-the-top postings and replies, but this is just too much...
This guy posts saying people should be killed (well, ok, in fairness he says AT LEAST neutered or removed...)
AND THEN SOMEONE MODS IT AS INSIGHTFUL?!?
Ok, the mod was obviously a joke, but a terrible one. And I'm the guy that can make fun of a plane crash.
McBride deserves to lose his job, and probably his life savings. I wouldn't be surprised it he deserves to be in jail.
But let's tone down the murder suggestions, and for the sake of us all, DON'T mod that damned thing up, even as a joke.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
Results for google search:
"linux is full of crap".......... 0 hits
"apple is full of crap"......... 0 hits
"microsoft is full of crap".... 9 hits
"toilet is full of crap".......... 2 hits
"SCO is full of crap".......... 92 hits!
So it's official, SCO is 46 times more full of crap crap than a toilets are.
AFAIK...sgi didn't say there was sysV code in XFS...they said some small code snippets were in their distro that bore similarity to sysV code. SCO warped that to mean XFS contains sysV code...but sysV code does have a journaling file system implementation and all the older BSD liscense unix code contains the same basic file system code as sysV. So SCO already has really thin case on that basis alone. Then there is the issue of whether or not the snippets were basic structures that fall under the general mathematical/algorithmic method category (because those methods are not patentable or copyright-able in the first place).
Someone whos right doesn't act like this. They may have been right about IBM putting code in Linux, it appeares that SGI did, although inline with the licence of said code but there may be some question as to the licence its under now. Once they moved to the claim that everything that runs on a Unix anywhere is theirs, the possibility that they may be right went right out the window.
Someone who is trying to fix a wrong, in this case IP infringment, works with the people to remove it, at the very least shows them what has to go and gives them a deadline. SCO on the otherhand, doesn't want this problem to be fixed, they want to be paid for it. They want to become the owners of Linux, especially considering their own Unix is relativly useless, and unless a mirical happens, SCO will cease to exist. As long as there is a problem, they might be able to milk money from it.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
This interview with Chris Sontag in Byte Magazine, most likely.
SCO basically believes they own every OS ever written and that ever will be written.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Really smart now due to your post
"linux is full of crap" will be 1 hit tommorow
In addition to outlasting the murder trial of O. J. Simpson, the trial of SCO vs. Linux Allies will be far more complicated and cost millions of dollars in expert witnesses.
In the trial of O. J. Simpson, the issue was simple. Did Simpson have a motive to kill his wife and did he kill his wife?
In the SCO trial, we are dealing with subtle technical issues and shades of gray. How does one define "minor amendment"? Certainly, no one on the jury will have a clue. The only exposure that an average American has to an operating system (OS) is the color pictures representing icons in Windows. She has no knowledge of kernel-level code.
What will happen is that SCO, IBM, and (apparently now) SGI will subpoena expert witnesses to support or refute the claim that something is a "minor amendment" to the kernel code, but the jury will be dazed as it tries to figure out who is telling the truth on something that the juror has no knowledge. The professors at Carnegie-Mellon University will earn a small bundle of money in serving as expert witnesses in the geek equivalent of the "trial of the century". The court itself will need to hire computer-science professors to explain the intricate details of how an OS works.
Above all, you will see bearded and balding 50-year-old programmers waxing nostalgic about the parts of UNIX that they coded.
msft isn't shoveling millions of dollars to scox for nothing. Darl needs two more profitable quarters before his 600,000 options vest.
I believe he is reffering to this quote.
Made at the trinity test site on July 16, 1945.
I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.
Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, Director of Los Alamos
Oppenheimer changed the original I believe.
It's understandable though... consider the facts:
(1) The legal system has basically failed. These guys should have been told to shut up or put up as soon as they started, but we're told it could be two *years* before the lawyers get of their f...ing arses and actually get the thing to court.
(2) People posting about (1) saying 'it's all part of the game'. It's *not* a game. It's a threat to the life the average slashdotter has a lot of emotional (and probably financial) investment in.
I have a lot of sympathy for the extreme posts. Heck, I'd be talking like that myself but I'm not that kind of person.
However, if it really came to it and I saw someone with a baseball bat on his way to teach those goons a lesson I'd probably just develop temporary blindness. I don't generally agree with violence, but what are the options? There aren't any any more.
That said, I doubt the SCO execs know how many 0's there are in a billion.
As in billi0n?
Infuriate left and right
Interesting how SCO wants damages paid to them but the public and companies MS hurt and killed don't get that..... but instead a promise from MS they won't do it again ...... while they continue to.
I really believe SCO is going to get squashed in court, but it's always possible that our ridiculous court system will let this shit fly.
It's ridiculous that SCO is still allowed to continue this nonsense considering the obvious insider trading going on, etc.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I read their response, and I don't understand it. I think it really sends a mixed message to the general community and makes them look weak. Basically, they say "we didn't do anything wrong, but we'll remove the offending material." Then they go on to say that it was just redundant material anyway that was already included in the kernel.
If this was the case, it seems too coincidental that the time when they decide to delete all this "redundant" code is when SCO comes knocking. It makes them look guilty. not only that, it didn't get them anything. It's not like SCO was ever going to say "Thanks for removing that code." Nothing SGI did could have been enough, so why bother doing anything when it could just make you look guilty?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I'd love to be on that jury. When questioned by Scum Company Org. bout what's an operating system, I'd reply Duh!is that what they use in hospitals. That would gaurentee you to get picked by SCO for the jury. Then I'd give the jury an education on Scum Inc.'s tactics. the last thing SCO wants is someone on the jury that can do more that say A looks like B so it must be SCO's code.
Red eye's at night, Hackers delight. Red eye's in the morning, Professors Warning.
How have they been hurt? Well of course their rather lackluster, yet extrordinarily expensive OS offerings have been harmed by the emergence of Linux, but what on earth does that have to do with the fatc that SGI used a few lines of old, pubic code used to implement some simple, very well known algorithms?
Not to mention the fact that the code in question has been replaced by something more efficient anyway, and isn't even in the linux kernel anymore. SCO's other grandiose claims about "owning" XFS, RCU, SMP amd other parts of linux are equally baseless.
Seriously, SCO's case is nonsense and they know it - it's merely a punp-and-dump scam, and they are milking it for all it's worth before they crash hard.
...How exactly is this possible?...
Um, how about writing code that works better than anything SCO ever produced? SCO would really like to make superior code that is not SCO property either go away or become SCO property. Unlike Linux, whick they claim could never have advanced as it did without benefiting from 25 years of unix experience, SCO never did benefit from that experience. Now they want to obviously.;-)
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
The argument that it is difficult to make a derivative work of GPL code, where the derivative work includes proprietary code that is integrated with the GPL code. Can't release it under the GPL, it's proprietary code, but Linux _needs_ UNIX, so the only way to do this is get rid of the GPL for the good of Linux.
SGI wants to contribute XFS to Linux, or perhaps any other OS that is interested. They are doing this for everyone's benefit. If I understand it correctly, SCO is saying that SGI cannot do that, no matter what. Even if there is no actual SVR4 code in XFS, it's because SGI is a UNIX licensee, and therefore they cannot open source anything that they use to make the SVR4 UNIX essentials that they license from SCO better. It's controversial, but SCO knows that.
But from another angle, SVR4 has a monopoly of sorts when it comes to UNIX compliant OS'es. Even so, if they are saying that you cannot simultaneously license UNIX code from them, and open source code that you, and only you, as the licensee, wrote to improve and extend the functionality of those UNIX essentials that you license from SCO, then what SCO is really doing, if they get their way, is that they are making SVR4 a kind of Medusa, or a poison oak, or something.
Isn't there a chance that those who want to continue using the GPL, and contributing to open source, will not want to have anything to do with SCO or UNIX SVR4?
If SCO can prove their point in court, no one is going to want to touch SVR4 with a ten foot pole!
Linux is still going to become the OS of choice, no matter how much re-coding is necessary, if any, that is... And if SVR4 won't play nice with it, there will be consequences.
Or maybe not... there is no way to speculate what will take place when all these issues go to court.
One thing that I am confident in saying is that XFS is an excellent file system, and even if it weren't available free of charge, it would be worth some money to have a file system like that.
Except winnt (modern windows: NT4, 2000, XP) is based on VMS.
(Remember: to 1000 eyes any problem is shallow -- but SCO only has 3).
Right now, I think that the best thing for both the Linux community (and SGI) to do woud be to stop hunting code similarities for SCO, and challenge them to tell us specifically where the violations are, or shut up and go find someone to harrass.
If SCO is willing to document specific copyright violations, then I'll happily do whatever I can to help verify and (once verified), fix the breaches. -- and by specific I mean file name and line numbers in both original SCO code and Linux releases. (they would also have to specify release version).
Until they're willing and able to do something like that, they can eat their press releases .
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
AFAIK Red Hat doesn't even ship with XFS. No one really uses XFS, nor JFS. The filesystems du jour are ext3 and ReiserFS. I recall there were problems with either XFS or JFS. One of this systems had code duplicated with kernel's and it was difficult to include it in the kernel. There were even rumours it would be abandonded.
That said, I think SCO doesn't have a clue what it's up to - saying the community would be unable to replace XFS and JFS - it already had long ago! They probably think GNU/Linux is controlled by corporations and wouldn't survive without them (this is why they are suing IBM and (probably) SGI), but I think it is slowly becoming the other way - corporations are becoming dependant on GNU/Linux and are not really needed in the development process!
DOS is a derivative of Unix?
Now, that's funny.
They are about as much alike as a horse drawn carriage and a modern automobile.
The copyright holder can always revoke the GPL license on his own work. However, if his work was derived from GPL'd work copyrighted by someone else, he is no longer authorized to distribute his derivative work (since it would still contain code copyrighted by someone else).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
>Dos is a deriviative of unix
MSDOS is a derivative of CP/M which is, in its command line names and structure, a derivative of DEC's RT-11 command set. They did introduce some unix-like syntax in the commands but the underlying code is CP/M - it could even execute some CP/M code directly!
Starting with DOS 2.0, Dos became a derivative of Unix as well. The addition of pipes, IO redirection, and hierarchical directories are all concepts that were innovated in Unix. In fact, the only reason the backslash instead of the forward slash was used as a directory separator in DOS is because the forward slash was already in common use on the CPM and DOS 1 platforms as a switch specifier.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The same ones that are playing with the stock; MS, Sun, Canopy group, the investors that MS, BG, Mg control, etc.
Bill has billions, so let him buy it. Besides, if he really thought that it had a chance in hell of destroying GPL and/or Linux, he would have offered 10 Billion right up front.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I am not a Lawyer.
However, I think I can answer this one. SCO has repeatedly claimed that they are only planning to seek damages from businesses running Linux, rather than individual users. So, even as a class-action, if the class represented individual users rather than businesses, SCO would, probably successfully, be able to claim that the plaintiff had no standing.
Contributors to the Unix kernel would probably have standing to sue SCO for breach of the GPL, and copyright infringement as a result of that breach, either individually or as a class. Especially if Licenses for SCO IP in Linux could be shown to have been sold by SCO, though the web site adverising those licenses and the associated FAQ may be enough to grant standing.
Finally, businesses might be able to sue for declarative judgement, again individually or as a class, regarding SCO's threats. In particular, those businesses which rec'd the original SCO letter regarding IP infringements in Linux could have a particularly strong suit. A class-action by over a thousand companies against SCO would be very gratifying, and damaging to SCO's credibility. Won't happen, of course, but one can dream.
Anyway, as individual users, there isn't a whole hell of a lot we can do to SCO in court. At least as far as I can see. I'm kind of hoping one of the lawyers here will see this and come up with something that individual Linux users could sue SCO over, but I doubt it.
So XFS apparently has pieces of code in it that belong to SCO. Even if they don't own XFS, they still own that code, and SGI deliberately misled people into believing that they aren't bound by any pay-to-use license by releasing XFS in Linux kernel.
So there you go, you have a Linux box with unpaid for portions of SCO code running on it. This creates an interesting legal precedent with very dangerous consequences.
Where's the guarantee that Linux is not tainted with some other obscure company's (SOOC for short) code? Where's the guarantee that programmers working on the kernel didn't use good old copy & paste in "tough" places? And most importantly, when Linux is mainstream enough, where's the guarantee that SOOC will not sue for frikkin billions for code theft / patent infingement / licensing agreement violations?
Actually, it was released, but if code inside cannot be GPL'd, then the release could not be GPL'd, therefore the non-GPL-able code has not been released under the GPL. Quite simple, really.
Congrats, you appear to be the only one that got it right. If it legally could not have been release under the GPL, then it is not, even if it was.
At that point it is discovered and disclosed that the code could not legally be GPL'ed, it is not GPL and never has been. Simple, yes. Wierdly recursive, but simple.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
I have watched this fiasco from the beginning.
I can't wait until the SEC shows up at SCO.
Can anyone say "whistleblower"? Please....
*looks at his bookshelf*
:-)
*spies SCO Xenix System V Users Reference (C) (M) (F)*
I think that you really don't know what you're talking about. And wasn't DOS a slightly reworked CPM Clone, M$ bought to fulfil an IBM contract ?
SCO can't go after Apple as they based OSX on BSD.
Though I'd like to see SCO get their TCP/IP stack revoked By the Uni of Berkley
Unix - TCP/IP = useless.
Surely. DOS is a carriage _painted_ like a modern automobile.
Cameron Simpson, DoD#743 cs@cskk.id.au http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
QUOTE: "I wouldnt put it past SGI, IBM etc to do some cutting / pasting to expedite Linux enhancements."
And exactly how long have you worked with SCO? It's not like SCO has done anything to try and stop any possible infringements. In fact, they seem quite giddy about it.
It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
Frankly, I can't understand why SCO would pursue this into court at this point in time.
As you say, an extra 20 million never hurt a struggling company with an otherwise lousy business model.
Perhaps equally important, SCO'd also like it if SGI quit dumping their scalability crown jewels into Linux. It makes it hard to slip an extra multi-thousand dollar OS charge for per-processor CPU licenses for UnixWare going from 8 to 32 CPUS (or 4 to 64 GB memory) when SGI is enabling Linux to have all that for free.
The fact that SGI has already poured so much effort into Linux is one reason I suspect why SCO says 'the breach cannot be remedied'; there as aspects of SGI's past help which, no matter what a court rules, practically cannot be undone. (And this is a good thing.)
--LP
SCO and crew sound like a whiney kid looking for food at dinner - won't eat what's being served and fusses, fumes and demands something else and will raise the biggest stink until they get it. You make what they are demanding and serve it to them and they raise a bigger stink because that is not what they want, even though you acceded to their request. Problem is, you can't put SCO in the naughty corner like you can a six-year-old but the thought is kewl.
Actually, while this fella is pretty confused by the geneology of DOS, he can be excused for this particular confusion. Because, you see, back in the early '80s Microsoft announced that DOS and Xenix would eventually merge. They would add more and more features to DOS and implement DOS emulation in Xenix until the two were equivalent.
This wasn't completely out of the question, back then. There was an existing product from Cromemco that used a CP/M-derived API yet looked and felt like UNIX. The problem was that while applications under CP/M rarely accessed hardware directly, since CP/M was implemented on a wide variety of hardware, applications under MS-DOS quickly came to assume they could access the IBM-PC hardware directly... and the original BIOS was sufficiently inefficient that they had to do this to compete. DOS emulation on Xenix did exist, but it was horribly inefficient because while a CP/M Emulator could be expected to have to implement BDOS and BIOS calls, and maybe a character display, a DOS emulator had to simulate every bit of hardware on the IBM PC to a high degree of CPU-numbing accuracy.
They're stopping buying an OS that is not in any way under legal attack (just FUD attack), in favor of an OS, the only OS, whose licence has been revoked and licencee has been sued?
Now if they'd pick a different OS, any different OS, it might have made some wierd form of sense. But that sounds like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire to me.
Imagine, theoretically, that SCO wins and the AIX licence is decleared null and void. Ups, your mission-critical OS is dead in the water. Even if you had to gut large parts of Linux, it wouldn't drop dead like AIX would. Not that I consider that a likely outcome...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
OK, so maybe I shouldn't have split this into two pieces..... neither half really makes sense without the other.
What I was trying to point out is that SCO's apparent tactic is rather like the parsley, sage, Rosemary and Thyme thing. Examined, each piece by itself, it almost makes sense -- but not quite. The "then she'll be a true love of mine" is analogous to SCO's admonitions to the Linux community to "doesn't cure the breach". However, like the lover's call to do things like make him a Cambric shirt (apparently a patch-quilt design) "with never a seam, nor needle work), The job is all but impossible.
Even more sinister than that, I'm now convinced that SCO really has no proof of copyright or patent violation -- nor do they any longer have the expertise to even attempt to find such violations if they existed. What they've done instead is to throw the gauntlet down to the Open Source community and challenge us to find any possible breaches ourselves. -- and should we ever find such a substantial breach, SCO would probably use thatas their proof of breach.
Given that the open source community has failed to find any substantive proof of violation and that SCO's only proof so far have turned out to be public domain on one hand and possible proof that thy have (once again) violated the BSD copyright on the other, I think that it's time that we stopped doing their legal research for them and challenged them back.
The Open Source community has a responsibility (morally, if not legally) to investigate any real accusation of copyright violation (with file names line numbers and annotations) and correct any allegation found to have substance. SCO, on the other hand, has dramatically failed to provide such an allegation, and so we should now treat their unsubstantiated rantings as precisely what we've determined them to be -- spectacular garbage. If they should ever provide anything substantive, then we should respond to it appropriately.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Hell, count me in for that.
$500 is price I'd be willing to pay to shut sco up for good.
Welcome to the End
I think SCO believes that since their code does some function, any code to do the same function is infringing on their patent. Oh dear, I'm going to get sued for my program computing 1+1=2 since SCO now owns that formula.
Why is SGI trying to comply with SCO if these supposed code segments are "trivial" and why is SCO trying not to cooperate with SGI? Maybe SCO doesn't care about the code while SGI (knowing SCO would deny this good gesture ahead of time) is trying to add more evidence to a pump-n-dump case.
Meanwhile, hundreds of miles away, no one comes out of SCO HQ to greet Monninkhof. So I started wondering, is this a matter of mistreating their business partner or not enough employees to come outside? I suspect that there's less than the 339 employees they claim. Laying off a dozen or so could probably pay off the legal fees and spins for the press since july. And who honestly keeps a counter of their employment on a web page? I'm having visions of those counters on the bottom of ebay auctions: "Free Employment counters and Services from Andale." Looking at their site: "There are currently no job openings at SCO," and the history of SCO stops at 2002. Hmm...Their site also doesn't list any new beta software and no announcements that there will be, so are they even still developing? And on what?
But, there's still 25 days to the end of the "SCO year" and their "SCO IP license for Linux" offer ends in 9 days. I'm feeling pretty lucky, so I'm going to predict at least 12 SCO stories to hit slashdot headlines by Oct.31. Place your bets.
...small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri...
well, I'm looking at it from SCO's viewpoint, they see everything as unix, and since BSD branched from unix in '75... sco could even say they own that.
look at the reasoning they have lately. do you think they care about details? no.. if it's an operating system which was even remotely inspired by unix.. it's their property.