They must have a Judge in their pocket to get this to go anywhere. That is the ONLY reason for keeping it in the state of Utah. Any 'financial' reason is secondary.
I woulnd't sign this with SCO's president's hand holding the pen, and the VP moving it!
Which is what happened in BSD in the early days. Then att found out it only owned 3 files or something like that. Probably the same thing will happen to SCO. It's going to find out that it doesn't own it's drivers and it either has to GPL its code or remove the drivers. It depends on the license of the drivers too, but AFAIK to be in the default kernel (dl from kernel.org) it is supposed to be GPL.
Yes this is true. But also true is that I am doing more research. It is making me quesiton if this is not true. In -> drivers/net/wan/sdladrv.c
#elif defined(_SCO_UNIX_)
What is up with this?
Why are there comments like: "Ported from existing RIO Driver for SCO sources." ? Mostly coming from drivers/char/rio
SCO 3.4.2.2 -> in drivers/scsi/psi_roy.h
drivers/scsi/dpt/dptsig.h:#define OS_SCO_UNIX
I am wondering where this came from now, or why it is even there. It seems to have come in in 2.1 and later kernels.
In any case the real question is who put it there?, Is it SCO's?
I am also seeing things like "The SCO and FreeBSD versions should be in sync now."
I think that the truth is that the 'SCO' code is actually in places that is used possibly in both SCO and Linux like OSS software, ibcs, and some drivers.
Re:*BSDs are clear
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
yup.. it's Linux's turn....
Thing is that this actually hurt the adoption of BSD, until recently.
The reality is that SCO && Microsoft would probably not have that big a problem with Linux if the GPL was actually the BSD license. Then both SCO and Microsoft could take Linux code and do as they wish, and both would benifit in their closed source'dness.
Question I have is why are there references to SCO in the Linux kernel code? I did a grep last night on the source for SCO and came up with some interesting things in some of the drivers and other parts of the kernel. Not sure why there was ever a mention of a __SCO__ define in the Linux kernel? That has me worried.
Question I now have is, will SCO be content to just let the Linux hackers rewrite the 'SCO' out of Linux or will they want more and what more can they get? Also since SCO - Caldera are 'one' didn't they release this code as Caldera under the GPL? Ignorance is no excuse. They should have checked first.
In reading that article they mention 5 to 15 lines here and there, and then they mention whole parts. What would SCO do if they found out that the lines in question were in Linux first? I guess Linus could sue SCO for slander / defamation of character....
I installed snort.. then realized that the rules were just to much to learn in one sitting. I still have not had time to play with it to learn how to set up the rules. I wish there was a curses based GUI for remote admin.
I never said he gets it, no if ands or buts, I said, it MAY be a case of more than just rewriting parts of the code. If you read SCo's claims, they say large portions of linux code, infringe. He probably thinks it is the whole thing. I think he's a f'kn idiot!
I also said they could get AIX. They have an injunction that IBM must stop all AIX stuff as of June 28th. They could clain AIX is there code and win. In which case they would get it. I doubt this very much.
People should really go to the opengroup and read their definition of Unix and what is and what isn't UNIX. Linux ISN'T UNIX it IS unix like.
.. we still don't know a few things..
1) What is UNIX anyway? I thought it was trademarked by the open group, and a set of standards. If this is the case then can't ANYONE create their own UNIX, that abide by those standards?
2) X does not make up UNIX does it? I did not think the GNU tools did either, nor gcc. So this leaves out the GUI and anything attached to it. It also leaves out the 'UNIX-like' commands. So what is left? The kernel.
What parts or parts of the kernel does SCO think Linux is infringing? should be the first question. Then the second is where is the proof?
The same thing happened with BSD - USL/ATT/Novell years ago.
SCO's president and 85% shareholder is playing a dangerous game of winner takes all! His company is worth about the same price as a roll of toilet paper, and he knows it. It is going down. If he wins, and Linux is proved to be infringing, it may not be a case of just rewrite parts of the kernel, it may be a case of move all the drivers to the GNU Hurd or something. If he looses UNIX then may become an open standard that SCO losses all their license to. If IBM pays up then they are admitting that SCO is right and could loose AIX and SCO could get AIX AND Linux.
He has nothing to loose. I think the end result could be that people say screw UNIX like apple did and move to BSD.
I live in california. Problem is that most of the spam I get does not come from California. Most of it comes from asian countries. This is CA law so I cannot sue them.
The second most amount of spam comes from out of state. So how does that work?
I thought the whole point of caldera buying SCO would have been to open source SCO and integrate it into Linux.
If I were in his shoes that is what I would do. Then I would get ride of SCO and push LInux with whatever improvements would come from SCO.
Then I would push support services and sell Linux and let people download Linux. Services that allow easy updating of the distribution.
ATT/Novel sued Berkley over the same thing years ago. Berkley won. It hurt BSD, but BSD is still open and still going strong.
If SCO wins and Linux become 'SCO' owned. How many people will use Linux then? I know I'd dump my Linux boxes and servers in favor ot NetBSD or FreeBSD and in some cases OpenBSD.
After this I wouldn't expect anyone to want to touch SCO.
Caldera owned SCO before they became the SCO Group. I wonder if Caldera put the code in there? Or if visa versa, Caldera put LINUX code in SCO UNIX? What if that is the truth?
Interesting is that he says that the one giving away the Linux kernel code did not have a license to, but SCO was selling it / and letting people download Linux AFTER the merger / takeover as both Caldera AND SCO. So weren't THEY (SCO) authorizing this by giving / selling Linux?
IGNORANCE is NO excuse. SCO's 'claiming' ignorance will get them nowhere but out of business. (I HOPE)
Actually after reading some of the SCO brief, their claims, SEEM to be towards the iabcs or is it ibcs? Which is the intel (arch) binary compat system. This allowed Wordperfect for SCO to run on Linux. While the ibcs is an open standard there are libraries that are needed to run binaries. This seems to be one of thier claims, that Linux could never have reverse engineered the necessary libs. I know I have seen the HOWTO (http://tldp.org/HOWTO/mini/WordPerfect-5.html). Never tried this or any other 'unix' binary that I could not get the source code to and compile myself.
The second claim is that Linux could have never scaled as fast as it did and grow as fast as it did without IBM or 'insider UNIX info'.
Personally I think what this case is going to show us is that Open Source CAN be better software than closed source for just this reason. linux grew cause people wrote the apps FOR linux and the drivers FOR linux. The linux kernel went through a process of change over time. 2.0 -> 2.2 -> 2.4 and each time it got better and better. There are probably more open source programmers working on ALL the various open source projects that make up a GNU/Linux distro, then SCO has had employed in its ENTIRE history as a company. THIS is why I think Linux has come where it is today. Not just the KERNEL, but ALL the GNU projects, that ALSO run on IBM/AIX, SUN, HP, *BSD, Linux, AND SCO.
SCO was bought by Caldera and then Caldera then changed its name to the SCO group. Caldera SOLD / gave away Linux. Thus if this whole thing is true, Caldera (after buying sco) let the source go the day they sold the first copy as opensource. If there was ever a fear of 'plagerism' they should have settled it then.
Linux uses prinf() in its code base so it must be infringing on SCO's printf().
printf("we loosing money cause of Linux, I know lets sue a large corp and maybe they'll buy us out...\");
They still have not said what code or trade secrets. The did mention 3 things in thier fileing.
1) some libraries. My guess is some UNIX or sco emulation? ibcs maybe? There argument is that none of this could have been reverse engineered (hmm whats that wine / dosemu thing doing ??).
2) They mention the sudden advancement of Linux CPU scaling and growth could not have happened witout IBM, nevermind the thousands of people that are working on the code base.
3) They seem upset that project monteray got canceled and IBM shifted its focus to Linux.
Yes there could be some truth to this whole suit, but the burden of proof is on SCO to show what code was added that could not have been added. I think they just want to hurt Linux cause their business is failing and they think this is a way to obtain the rights to Linux. Good luck fighting this outside Utah guys!
I'd disagree with #3. The result is that the code in question would have to be removed from the Linux kernel or the GPL code removed from the 'linux' kernel.
The problem I have with this whole ordea, is that they have not pointed out WHICH patents are being infringed and what code. Why not just tell people what the code is and have it removed. No they want to take this tactic. Problem is that the result will be that people will switch to BSD / Mac or Windows and SCO in the longrun will loose as well.
Slashdot Mirror
My question is why should I go from 4.8 to 5.1? I am already using ipfw2. Of course my box is a gateway / router / dns server.
I woulnd't sign this with SCO's president's hand holding the pen, and the VP moving it!
I'd agree. 20 years and that is it. After 20 years, your patent is worth nothing.
Which is what happened in BSD in the early days. Then att found out it only owned 3 files or something like that. Probably the same thing will happen to SCO. It's going to find out that it doesn't own it's drivers and it either has to GPL its code or remove the drivers. It depends on the license of the drivers too, but AFAIK to be in the default kernel (dl from kernel.org) it is supposed to be GPL.
#elif defined(_SCO_UNIX_)
What is up with this?
Why are there comments like: "Ported from existing RIO Driver for SCO sources." ? Mostly coming from drivers/char/rio
SCO 3.4.2.2 -> in drivers/scsi/psi_roy.h
drivers/scsi/dpt/dptsig.h:#define OS_SCO_UNIX
I am wondering where this came from now, or why it is even there. It seems to have come in in 2.1 and later kernels.
In any case the real question is who put it there?, Is it SCO's?
I am also seeing things like "The SCO and FreeBSD versions should be in sync now."
I think that the truth is that the 'SCO' code is actually in places that is used possibly in both SCO and Linux like OSS software, ibcs, and some drivers.
Thing is that this actually hurt the adoption of BSD, until recently.
The reality is that SCO && Microsoft would probably not have that big a problem with Linux if the GPL was actually the BSD license. Then both SCO and Microsoft could take Linux code and do as they wish, and both would benifit in their closed source'dness.
Question I have is why are there references to SCO in the Linux kernel code? I did a grep last night on the source for SCO and came up with some interesting things in some of the drivers and other parts of the kernel. Not sure why there was ever a mention of a __SCO__ define in the Linux kernel? That has me worried.
Question I now have is, will SCO be content to just let the Linux hackers rewrite the 'SCO' out of Linux or will they want more and what more can they get? Also since SCO - Caldera are 'one' didn't they release this code as Caldera under the GPL? Ignorance is no excuse. They should have checked first.
from drivers/net/wan/sdladrv.c:
Platform Define
-------- ------
Linux _LINUX_
SCO Unix _SCO_UNIX_
just grep the source for SCO and you'll find words it mentioned. The question is is the SCO = SCO group?
In reading that article they mention 5 to 15 lines here and there, and then they mention whole parts. What would SCO do if they found out that the lines in question were in Linux first? I guess Linus could sue SCO for slander / defamation of character....
I installed snort.. then realized that the rules were just to much to learn in one sitting. I still have not had time to play with it to learn how to set up the rules. I wish there was a curses based GUI for remote admin.
Which is basically what they are saying. FYI, you don't need bablefish, you just need to click on the british(or english?) flag.
What SCO is doing is could be considered slander IF they have no proof, thus slander is finable.
Well I say, SCO, show us what code you think Linux is infringing, and what proof you have that it came from IBM OR "SCO/UNIX IP"?
I also said they could get AIX. They have an injunction that IBM must stop all AIX stuff as of June 28th. They could clain AIX is there code and win. In which case they would get it. I doubt this very much.
People should really go to the opengroup and read their definition of Unix and what is and what isn't UNIX. Linux ISN'T UNIX it IS unix like.
1) What is UNIX anyway? I thought it was trademarked by the open group, and a set of standards. If this is the case then can't ANYONE create their own UNIX, that abide by those standards?
2) X does not make up UNIX does it? I did not think the GNU tools did either, nor gcc. So this leaves out the GUI and anything attached to it. It also leaves out the 'UNIX-like' commands. So what is left? The kernel.
What parts or parts of the kernel does SCO think Linux is infringing? should be the first question. Then the second is where is the proof?
The same thing happened with BSD - USL/ATT/Novell years ago.
SCO's president and 85% shareholder is playing a dangerous game of winner takes all! His company is worth about the same price as a roll of toilet paper, and he knows it. It is going down. If he wins, and Linux is proved to be infringing, it may not be a case of just rewrite parts of the kernel, it may be a case of move all the drivers to the GNU Hurd or something. If he looses UNIX then may become an open standard that SCO losses all their license to. If IBM pays up then they are admitting that SCO is right and could loose AIX and SCO could get AIX AND Linux.
He has nothing to loose. I think the end result could be that people say screw UNIX like apple did and move to BSD.
The second most amount of spam comes from out of state. So how does that work?
Third, who pays for the lawsuit?
sorry correction.. BSD and Novell/ATT settled..
If I were in his shoes that is what I would do. Then I would get ride of SCO and push LInux with whatever improvements would come from SCO.
Then I would push support services and sell Linux and let people download Linux. Services that allow easy updating of the distribution.
ATT/Novel sued Berkley over the same thing years ago. Berkley won. It hurt BSD, but BSD is still open and still going strong.
If SCO wins and Linux become 'SCO' owned. How many people will use Linux then? I know I'd dump my Linux boxes and servers in favor ot NetBSD or FreeBSD and in some cases OpenBSD.
After this I wouldn't expect anyone to want to touch SCO.
Caldera owned SCO before they became the SCO Group. I wonder if Caldera put the code in there? Or if visa versa, Caldera put LINUX code in SCO UNIX? What if that is the truth?
... its that dam printf funtion that is there, replace already ... (lol)
IGNORANCE is NO excuse. SCO's 'claiming' ignorance will get them nowhere but out of business. (I HOPE)
The second claim is that Linux could have never scaled as fast as it did and grow as fast as it did without IBM or 'insider UNIX info'.
Personally I think what this case is going to show us is that Open Source CAN be better software than closed source for just this reason. linux grew cause people wrote the apps FOR linux and the drivers FOR linux. The linux kernel went through a process of change over time. 2.0 -> 2.2 -> 2.4 and each time it got better and better. There are probably more open source programmers working on ALL the various open source projects that make up a GNU/Linux distro, then SCO has had employed in its ENTIRE history as a company. THIS is why I think Linux has come where it is today. Not just the KERNEL, but ALL the GNU projects, that ALSO run on IBM/AIX, SUN, HP, *BSD, Linux, AND SCO.
This would be a way to kill Linux. To finish off the lawsuit after buying SCO, then take on IBM. M$ wins, then attempts to shutdown Linux.
the MS EULA is a 'terminal' illness taht you can't get ride of...
SCO was bought by Caldera and then Caldera then changed its name to the SCO group. Caldera SOLD / gave away Linux. Thus if this whole thing is true, Caldera (after buying sco) let the source go the day they sold the first copy as opensource. If there was ever a fear of 'plagerism' they should have settled it then.
printf("we loosing money cause of Linux, I know lets sue a large corp and maybe they'll buy us out...\");
They still have not said what code or trade secrets. The did mention 3 things in thier fileing.
1) some libraries. My guess is some UNIX or sco emulation? ibcs maybe? There argument is that none of this could have been reverse engineered (hmm whats that wine / dosemu thing doing ??).
2) They mention the sudden advancement of Linux CPU scaling and growth could not have happened witout IBM, nevermind the thousands of people that are working on the code base.
3) They seem upset that project monteray got canceled and IBM shifted its focus to Linux.
Yes there could be some truth to this whole suit, but the burden of proof is on SCO to show what code was added that could not have been added. I think they just want to hurt Linux cause their business is failing and they think this is a way to obtain the rights to Linux. Good luck fighting this outside Utah guys!
I think that many of the developrs on FreeBSD will look at this and laugh and it will get changed. Does anyone check errno anymore anyway (lol)
The problem I have with this whole ordea, is that they have not pointed out WHICH patents are being infringed and what code. Why not just tell people what the code is and have it removed. No they want to take this tactic. Problem is that the result will be that people will switch to BSD / Mac or Windows and SCO in the longrun will loose as well.
Why does this sound like an april fools joke....