>>there's a good chance that big companies like Redhat might migrate to the new clean version of the tree and be forced to discontinue support for the older versions...
First I disagree that there is a "good chance" of that happenning (SCO is still distributing the code on their website a year and a half after they found the violations). Second, if it would be a nightmare, then it's a nightmare that's already happenning. I don't remember offhand what errata kernel RedHat AS is using, but the others all use 2.4.20 and upgrading is no problem.
Re:The Real Outcome of This Fiasco
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
From the article: VERSION D: The case is thrown out of court because it has no merit, and SCO has no platform to stand on because it doesn't own the code. This is what the Linux community is hoping for.
Dvorak is out of touch. The Linux community _really_ hopes that by this time next year sco.com looks like sco.de after the LinuxTAG lawsuit.
Re:So let me get this straight...
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
>> because then they could fix them and SCO wouldn't have a case.
They would still have a case against the past losses. Now they are hurting their case by hiding the code. A judge will say, "If the code was so valuable, then why didn't you let anyone remove it?"
The truth is the threats are just a publicity stunt. SCO knows that the stuff they say to the press is damaging the IBM lawsuit, but they don't care about winning.
The only thing that matters is whether or not a judge finds their legal argument sound enough to award them a judgement.
I disagree. All the crap SCO has been spouting has been destroying their case. They don't seem to care about the lawsuit. They just want to piss people off. Nothing says SCO has to 5 interviews a day.
IBM is taking the lawsuit seriously. They made just two statements publically. The rest is done in private.
7. Microsoft recently licensed rights to use Unix from Caldera-now-SCO. This is clearly an attempt to hop onto the "Linux = Copyright Infringement" bandwagon that Caldera-now-SCO started, but there's no evidence to suggest a larger conspiracy.
A lot of people suggested that there was outside involvement before the Microsoft investment, because SCO's behavior makes no sense from a business perspective.
Microsofts investment is reported to be between 10 and 20 million dollars. That's half SCO's quarterly revenue.
If you think SCO has not been working with Microsoft for months before the lawsuit you are rather niave.
But it's not a conspiracy, it's just a business deal.
And yes, apparently it is running an unmodified squid, so they don't need to provide the source code for that. I believe it's also running apache, but again, I've been told it's unmodified.
The GPL places different restrictions on businesses vs individuals. Businesses still have to release unmodified code with the binary or offer to send CDs with the code. This is paragraphs 3a and 3b. Paragraph 3c only applies to individuals.
>>Since SCO didn't label it as GPL, SCO's code was never licensed as GPL by the owner, hence, it was never legally GPL'ed.
SCO found out about the code "late in 2002." They are still distributing it. It is still labeled as GPL.
Re:SCO is liable for the GPL violations since 2002
on
What if SCO is Right?
·
· Score: 1
According to what Darl McBride said, the Linux kernel and other software was distributed in violation of the GPL.
SCO is liable for the GPL violations since 2002
on
What if SCO is Right?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Statements made by SCO CEO Darl McBride and senior vice president Chris Sontag indicate that SCO has been illegally selling and distributing software that is in violation of the GPL. SCO first became aware of the problem late in 2002, but has done nothing to protect customers or inform them about which parts SCO distributed illegally. The company claims this information would damaged their lawsuit against IBM.
SCO did not stop selling the infringing software until May 14 2003, and is still distributing it from ftp.caldera.com.
Customers who purchased or downloaded SCO software demand the following things:
1) A complete refund of the purchase price for any software SCO distributed illegally.
2) Any infringing source code or intellectual property must be revealed so it can be replaced. Any source code or intellectual property that infringes and is owned by SCO must be released under the GPL or relevant license.
3) If SCO wins or settles its lawsuit with IBM, a portion of the money must be returned to SCO customers who were put in legal jeopardy because SCO did nothing protect them.
Many claim that the lawsuit against SCO is simply a bid to be purchased. If the company is purchased, the buyer may be liable instead.
A lot of newbies feel this way, but once they have more experience as a Unix admin, they change their minds. The HFS (not the LFS) is designed that way for a purpose.
Probably you are used to using a CD rom based distro like Knopix and so can be forgiven for not understanding all the Linux filesystem very well.
>> I remember right (I probably don't) the code in question infringes on Caldera...erm, SCO's patents.
I can't find the reference but I heard that SCO doesn't own any patents.
And as other have pointed out, if the issue was patents, SCO would still be in violation of the GPL if it tried to revoke the license for the code it is distributing.
I've been impressed with the Mozilla quest SCO series. Obviously, it's not hard to tell which way the author is biased, but the interviews were good and the answers were recorded verbatim.
The fatal incidents were pretty stupid. There wasn't anyone on board the mars probe to actually be killed.
DRM and modifying hardware
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
Mostly DRM will be used for nasty stuff like the X-Box where only one operating system is allowed to run.
Right now, it is perfectly legal for Microsoft to make deals with the mobo manufactures and write firmware to lock people out of the X-Box. To me that's fine, it's Microsoft's hardware after all and they can do what ever they want with it.
The problem I have is that the laws currently state that Microsoft has some control over the hardware after a customer has purchased it. Customers who use the XBox hardware in ways that Microsoft doesn't like have been thrown in jail.
I have a problem with that. Before Microsoft sells the XBox they should have complete control of the hardware but after the sale, the customer should have complete control.
If the laws were changed to give these rights back to the customer, then I would not be so opposed to DRM.
Intrepretting the GPL with regards to DRM is difficult. For example, the signing could modify the binary stenographically. I think that would violate the GPL. If the signature was in a seperate file and then I think it would be Ok.
It's good that Linus is trying to clarify the issue before anyone goes to court over it.
Slashdot Mirror
>>OSS pretty much started as a reaction to the Microsoft monopoly.
Whereas the Free software movement started as an effort to fix broken printer software.
My favorite quote from the whole afair is: "McBride added that unless more companies start licensing SCO's property, he may also sue Linus Torvalds."
It cracks me up every time.
the difference is that AT&T is still around and SCO is history...
Your code ignores all the .h files. I've heard that 2.5 is upto 5 million lines these days.
SCO hinted that the "problem" might be JFS code. That would make sense too. Unfortunately for SCO the Linux implementation is really a port from OS/2.
>>there's a good chance that big companies like Redhat might migrate to the new clean version of the tree and be forced to discontinue support for the older versions...
First I disagree that there is a "good chance" of that happenning (SCO is still distributing the code on their website a year and a half after they found the violations). Second, if it would be a nightmare, then it's a nightmare that's already happenning. I don't remember offhand what errata kernel RedHat AS is using, but the others all use 2.4.20 and upgrading is no problem.
From the article: VERSION D: The case is thrown out of court because it has no merit, and SCO has no platform to stand on because it doesn't own the code. This is what the Linux community is hoping for.
Dvorak is out of touch. The Linux community _really_ hopes that by this time next year sco.com looks like sco.de after the LinuxTAG lawsuit.
>> because then they could fix them and SCO wouldn't have a case.
They would still have a case against the past losses. Now they are hurting their case by hiding the code. A judge will say, "If the code was so valuable, then why didn't you let anyone remove it?"
The truth is the threats are just a publicity stunt. SCO knows that the stuff they say to the press is damaging the IBM lawsuit, but they don't care about winning.
The only thing that matters is whether or not a judge finds their legal argument sound enough to award them a judgement.
I disagree. All the crap SCO has been spouting has been destroying their case. They don't seem to care about the lawsuit. They just want to piss people off. Nothing says SCO has to 5 interviews a day.
IBM is taking the lawsuit seriously. They made just two statements publically. The rest is done in private.
They stopped distributing Linux 18 months after they first found out about the code.
That is unnacceptable.
90% off the initial cost is less than 40% off the TCO.
7. Microsoft recently licensed rights to use Unix from Caldera-now-SCO. This is clearly an attempt to hop onto the "Linux = Copyright Infringement" bandwagon that Caldera-now-SCO started, but there's no evidence to suggest a larger conspiracy.
A lot of people suggested that there was outside involvement before the Microsoft investment, because SCO's behavior makes no sense from a business perspective.
Microsofts investment is reported to be between 10 and 20 million dollars. That's half SCO's quarterly revenue.
If you think SCO has not been working with Microsoft for months before the lawsuit you are rather niave.
But it's not a conspiracy, it's just a business deal.
Of course. Everyone should be polite as polite as you.
And yes, apparently it is running an unmodified squid, so they don't need to provide the source code for that. I believe it's also running apache, but again, I've been told it's unmodified.
The GPL places different restrictions on businesses vs individuals. Businesses still have to release unmodified code with the binary or offer to send CDs with the code. This is paragraphs 3a and 3b. Paragraph 3c only applies to individuals.
>>When was the last time someone crashed their Super Nintendo?
:/
I had a watch that locked up. I had to hit all 4 buttons to reset it, to midnight Jan 1.
SCO has known about the GPL violations in their Linux source since last year and they continue to distribute it. They are liable for that.
If Microsoft buys them, Microsoft will be liable for GPL violation instead.
>>Since SCO didn't label it as GPL, SCO's code was never licensed as GPL by the owner, hence, it was never legally GPL'ed.
SCO found out about the code "late in 2002." They are still distributing it. It is still labeled as GPL.
According to what Darl McBride said, the Linux kernel and other software was distributed in violation of the GPL.
Statements made by SCO CEO Darl McBride and senior vice president Chris
Sontag indicate that SCO has been illegally selling and distributing software
that is in violation of the GPL. SCO first became aware of the problem late
in 2002, but has done nothing to protect customers or inform them about which
parts SCO distributed illegally. The company claims this information would
damaged their lawsuit against IBM.
SCO did not stop selling the infringing software until May 14 2003, and is
still distributing it from ftp.caldera.com.
Customers who purchased or downloaded SCO software demand the following
things:
1) A complete refund of the purchase price for any software SCO distributed
illegally.
2) Any infringing source code or intellectual property must be revealed so it
can be replaced. Any source code or intellectual property that infringes and
is owned by SCO must be released under the GPL or relevant license.
3) If SCO wins or settles its lawsuit with IBM, a portion of the money must
be returned to SCO customers who were put in legal jeopardy because SCO did
nothing protect them.
Many claim that the lawsuit against SCO is simply a bid to be purchased. If
the company is purchased, the buyer may be liable instead.
If you want a license for the SCO IP, they have explicitly made the kernel and other utilities available under the GPL here.
;)
It feels pretty good to watch SCO shut down business.
A lot of newbies feel this way, but once they have more experience as a Unix admin, they change their minds. The HFS (not the LFS) is designed that way for a purpose.
Probably you are used to using a CD rom based distro like Knopix and so can be forgiven for not understanding all the Linux filesystem very well.
Hope that helps.
>> I remember right (I probably don't) the code in question infringes on Caldera...erm, SCO's patents.
I can't find the reference but I heard that SCO doesn't own any patents.
And as other have pointed out, if the issue was patents, SCO would still be in violation of the GPL if it tried to revoke the license for the code it is distributing.
I've been impressed with the Mozilla quest SCO series. Obviously, it's not hard to tell which way the author is biased, but the interviews were good and the answers were recorded verbatim.
Fascinating stuff.
>The fatal incidents cited
The fatal incidents were pretty stupid. There wasn't anyone on board the mars probe to actually be killed.
Mostly DRM will be used for nasty stuff like the X-Box where only one operating system is allowed to run.
Right now, it is perfectly legal for Microsoft to make deals with the mobo manufactures and write firmware to lock people out of the X-Box. To me that's fine, it's Microsoft's hardware after all and they can do what ever they want with it.
The problem I have is that the laws currently state that Microsoft has some control over the hardware after a customer has purchased it. Customers who use the XBox hardware in ways that Microsoft doesn't like have been thrown in jail.
I have a problem with that. Before Microsoft sells the XBox they should have complete control of the hardware but after the sale, the customer should have complete control.
If the laws were changed to give these rights back to the customer, then I would not be so opposed to DRM.
Intrepretting the GPL with regards to DRM is difficult. For example, the signing could modify the binary stenographically. I think that would violate the GPL. If the signature was in a seperate file and then I think it would be Ok.
It's good that Linus is trying to clarify the issue before anyone goes to court over it.