Slashdot Mirror
SCO vs. IBM Battle Over Linux May Finally Be Over (networkworld.com)
JG0LD writes with this news from Network World: A breach-of-contract and copyright lawsuit filed nearly 13 years ago by a successor company to business Linux vendor Caldera International against IBM may be drawing to a close at last, after a U.S. District Court judge issued an order in favor of the latter company earlier this week.
Here's the decision itself (PDF). Also at The Register.
Here's the decision itself (PDF). Also at The Register.
Burn the remnants of SCO and then stir the ashes.
Groklaw is not completely closed down - just running in stealth mode. All the recent court filings still show up there. Other updates show up now and again. Note that the link in the summary to the decision itself takes you to ... groklaw. Commentary and discussions do continue on other boards and forums, but not with the same focus that groklaw brought.
SYS V needs to go open next, not that overloaded slowlaris, but lean mean SYS V
I was under the impression that the entire POINT of SYS V was for the major UNIX vendors to re-implement the guts of Unix as a clearly, enforceably, proprietary product (after the CONTU recommendations and the resulting copyright law changes explicitly extended copyright to software), then move to it and orphan the original development thread. (This might make opening it a hard sell to the members of the consortium.)
There were at least a couple issues with the proprietary status of the AT&T code:
One issue was that AT&T was still a government-regulated utility monopoly and there were some requirements about disclosing and releasing non-telephone-related inventions they came up with.
The big issue was that, before copyright applied and before software patents were hacked up (by recasting software as one embodiment of, or a component of, a patentable machine or process), the only protection was trade secret and the related contract law. Trade secrets generally stop being enforceable when the secret out of the bag (with some details about whether the claimant contributed to the leak). Bell Labs had shipped code to a LOT of educational institutions. When the U of New South Wales used the System 6 kernel code and an explanation of it as the two-volume text for an Operating System class, the textbooks became an underground classic. This, along with AT&T's benign-neglect licensing policies, led to the burst of little, cheap, generic UNIX boxes, as this was also when microcomputer chips were just becoming powerful enough to do the job.
Up to then a big barrier to entry was that every new machine needed a custom O.S. to deploy, and these were enormous, machine specific, and mostly in assembler. That made it an expensive, undertaking, suitable only for financial giants. But all but under 2,000 lines of Unix was in C, and the entire kernel, which included essentially all the platform-specific code as a subset, was well under 10,000 lines of code. If you had a C compiler and assembler for your new machine, it was a matter of a few man-months to port it and get it up and running. Essentially ALL the utilities and applications came right over. You didn't have to train users, either, because they all worked pretty much just like what they'd used in college.
The game was:
1. Grab a bootleg copy of the code.
2. Port it to your machine and get it working.
3. Go to AT&T and ask for a license "to port Unix to our new machine and sell it."
4. AT&T, as a matter of policy, completely ignores any "violations" you may have committed during the porting phase and cuts you a license at a very reasonable price.
5. You "port Unix in an AMAZINGLY short time" (like the ten minutes it takes to tell Sales to go to market) and you're in business.
6. You (with your new business) and AT&T (with their small cut) slap each other on the back and laugh all the way to the bank. PROFIT! for you. (profit) for AT&T.
7. Because of the policy in 4., everybody ELSE manearly everbody's king a new machine knows they can do the same thing. So many do. AT&T gets a rakeoff from ALL of them. PROFIT! for AT&T. Far more than if they went dog-in-the-manger, held up the first few for all the traffic would bear, and got no more customers for Unix.
And because of this, it was in nearly everbody's interest to NOT challenge the AT&T-proprietary status of Unix. And it stayed this way until SCO's management screwed up and altered step 4. (Even then the case turned on other issues, so it never did come to the point of attacking AT&T's claim that Unix code was proprietary.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
SysV and the flusterfuck dyslexic script hackery behind SysV was a constant nightmare with a mountain hardware complaints leading back to it.
Even so the clusterfuck of rc scripts in most redhat derivatives was Red-Hat's creation. People aren't using init, via inittab, properly and now the reason cited to replace init is because the rc system, and the script hackery behind it created by red-hat is disliked. Keh?
Wouldn't a better rc system work better?
Here is a thought, why not learn how to use the shell properly so that shell hackery is not required. Or another idea, learn how to implement design patterns in bash/sh/ksh/zsh. Init is a simple elegant idea, people are arguing for it's removal because they aren't skilled enough writing *shell scripts*. It seems a bit silly to me that people who can't write something so simple have any business modifying the way the OS initializes.
It would be great to get Ken Thopson's opinion on the situation.
However, since we have the attention of many systemd advocates, can someone please throw a use case at me that init doesn't satisfy that systemd does? I'm really trying to understand why it is supposed to be better than something that is as tested as init. I don't mind using it, but why it is supposed to be so compelling?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Damn it is that what happened? I had no idea.
I thought it was just too much work for too little return.
Copied straight from Wikipedia for those like me who didn't know.
Jones was widely respected by journalists and people inside the Linux community. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols wrote, "Jones has made her reputation as a top legal IT reporter from her work detailing the defects with SCO's case against IBM and Linux. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that her work has contributed enormously to everyone's coverage of SCO's cases." [23]
Despite the high regard of Jones' peer journalists and the Linux community (or possibly in part because of it), a number of prominent attacks against Groklaw and Jones occurred. These attacks were documented and addressed in detail, on Groklaw and other web sites and also in court as part of the SCO litigation.
During the first week of May 2005, Maureen O'Gara, writing in Linux World, wrote an exposé claiming to unmask Jones. Two weeks before O'Gara's publication, McBride said that SCO was investigating Jones' identity.[22] The article included alleged, but unverified, personal information about Jones,[24] including a photo of Jones' supposed house and purported addresses and telephone numbers for Jones and her mother.[25] After a flood of complaints to the publisher, lobbying of the site's advertisers, and claims of a denial-of-service attack launched against the Sys-Con domain,[26][27] Linux Business News' publisher Sys-Con issued a public apology,[28] and said they dropped O'Gara and her LinuxGram column. Despite this assertion, O'Gara remained with Sys-Con; as of 2009, she is the Virtualization News Desk editor at Sys-Con Media, who describe her as "[o]ne of the most respected technology reporters in the business" and has her work published in multiple magazines owned by Sys-Con Media.[29]
SCO executives Darl McBride and Blake Stowell also denigrated Jones, and claimed that she worked for IBM.[30] Jones denied this allegation,[31] as did IBM in a court filing.[32] During an SCO conference call on April 13, 2005, McBride said, "The reality is the web site is full of misinformation, including the people who are actually running it" when talking about Groklaw, adding also "What I would say is that it is not what it is purported to be". Later developments in the court cases showed that McBride's statements to the press regarding the SCO litigation had limited credibility; very few such statements were ever substantiated and most were shown to be false. For example, McBride claimed that SCO owned the copyrights to UNIX, and SCO filed suit to try to enforce these claims.[33] The outcome went against McBride's claims. The jury found that SCO had not purchased these copyrights.[34][35] SCO appealed this ruling and lost.[36] McBride also made a claim to the press that there was a "mountain of code" misappropriated to create Linux.[37] When SCO finally presented their evidence of infringement, which centered on nine lines of error name and number similarities in the file errno.h, Judge Wells famously said "Is this all you've got?"[38] Professor Randall Davis of MIT later made a convincing demonstration that there were no elements of UNIX which might be copyright protectable present in the Linux source code.[39]
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Damn it is that what happened? I had no idea.
Yes, it happened (though the investigators found the wrong Pamela Jones). The reason PJ closed down Groklaw was because of NSA spying. The general supposition, based on her final Groklaw article, is that she received an NSA demand to spy on her users, but her conscience would not allow her to do so. So she stopped doing Groklaw so she wouldn't have anything to spy on.