SCO Drops Linux, Says Current Vendors May Be Liable 1105
Hank Scorpio writes "Well, SCO is at it again. I just received an email from their Developer Partner Program stating that not only are they suspending all future sales of their own Linux product (due to the alleged intellectual property violations), but they are also beginning to send out this letter to all existing commercial users of Linux, informing them that they may be liable for using Linux, a supposed infringing product. They mentioned that they will begin using tactics like those of the RIAA in taking action against end-users of Linux. This seems like it will be about as successful as the whole GIF ordeal a few years back. Where is UNISYS today? Is SCO litigating itself into irrelevance?"
Excuse the ignorance... (Score:1, Insightful)
As I understand it Linux was written by entirely by Linus originally. The OS uses the command set of unix but is not a copy of it....
Tom
It's come to the edge of the cliff... (Score:5, Insightful)
... tune in at the Court to find out if SCO takes the fall. There are lots of people watching. If SCO falls, Linux will emerge from this with a lot a FUD put by the side as a very public failure to sue Linux out of existance fails.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
"All Linux users"? Including Caldera users? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where? (Score:2, Insightful)
And what, exactly, happened to their statement that they weren't going after Redhat or Joe Linuxuser, but instead just IBM?
Best thing that could happen for Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a disaster. Balmer and Gates will trot this out as a major drawback to Open Source. IT is, if true, the living proof of the Intellectual Property issues hey claim for Open Source.
SCO is hurting Linux in the long run. It doesn't matter if this is the last gasp of a dying company. It's ample ammunition for anyone who hates Linux and wants to argue against it.
I can guarantee that we'll be hearing about Linux being riddled with IP violations for years to come, even if this is the one and only example to ever come to light.
Re:Excuse the ignorance... (Score:5, Insightful)
They claim that enough of the SysV code in linux was cut n' paste of their code.
Frankly, I think they could be right, and the zealots would be wise not to dismiss everything SCO says and does as stupidity.
I doubt they'll collect any damages. But they'll succeed in making linux look like a grey-market stolen piece of software and drive corporate adoption of it back 10 years.
Re:It's come to the edge of the cliff... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real irony is that SCO isn't really SCO at all. What we currently call "SCO" is nothing more than Caldera, the company that ran their Linux IPO to enough cash to buy out SCO's UNIX holdings.
File and Line Number (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why SCO is being so deliberately vague about all of this. They don't want an infringement to be eliminated; they want it to stay in the Linux code base so they can screw over users of Linux.
This is an attack on a development methodology more than anything else. What they're saying is, unless you can PROVE the lineage of your code is clean, we're going to have to assume that it isn't.
I suspect that IBM's lawyers are going to be smart enough to know all this, and will be able to effectively disarm SCO's actions. If there are infringing parts of the code, these will be revealed in a public forum (the courts).
In the meantime, I suggest that the best recourse for a receiver of this letter is to repond, indicating that the entity known as "Linux" is actually composed of thousands of parts, each independently produced, and that SCO needs to provide information indicating which component is infringing.
Or just ignore their f'ing letter.
SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
1. They said that the infringing code isn't in the kernel, so thus it may not apply to all "linux users."
2. If it does, then their own distribution would have contained code that violated their IP.
3. If it contained this code, then under the GPL all the other Linux distributers would be free to use it.
4. I'd sue them for harassment - without presenting any evidence or even exactly *what* infringes, they are issuing cease and desist orders. They are trying to scare people from using Linux. They are nothing but hot air.
Re:Excuse the ignorance... (Score:5, Insightful)
To date they have used FUD as ruthlessly as Microsoft in the past. I wonder if they are not on the Micro$oft payroll considering their tactics.
Finally, I'm curious why they feel the end user of any Linux product "could" be legally responsible for anything. I downloaded a product used worldwide and has GPL licensing all over it. If we've broken the law then they are responsible to enlighten us.
Maybe someone should tell them Linus wrote the kernal. Or we could sit back and watch them flounder before death takes them.
FYI... I don't dismiss everything they say as stupidity. Occasionally they say something amusing and I'd mod it up to +1 Funny
Re:Excuse the ignorance... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish
How many lies is this now, SCO? 100? 200? (Score:3, Insightful)
GPL violation (Score:5, Insightful)
The funny thing is, they've therefore stolen all the non-infringing code in the kernel, as it's from other people and they can only redistribute it by releasing their own.
(Assuming, of course, that there is any actual infringemnet, which seems unlikely.)
Expect increasingly shrill announcements as IBM blackens the sky with lawyers and SCO tries to give Linux a black eye to force IBM to buy them out before the case is thrown out of court.
Re:Excuse the ignorance... (Score:2, Insightful)
So, let's find this person, and get him to do a comparison of source code for us. If SCO won't find the infringing code, then we should try to find it ourselves.
Re:Excuse the ignorance... (Score:5, Insightful)
these are the allegations as I understand them. It's not yet proven in court.
The facts are that IBM became involved in Linux almost 10 years after Linux started, SCO then Caldera was already contributing and distributing to Linux long before IBM became involved.
Check this site to get a clue of the real facts:
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
Re:SCO (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Unisys... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because Unisys is a $5.6B services company [unisys.com] and your company is one of the ones contributing to that revenue. Congratulations! By all appearances, Unisys successfully "reinvented" themselves and the GIF patent battle doesn't seem to have harmed them at all. (For photographic images JPEG would have supplanted GIF anyway, and GIF still has a commanding lead in the annoying animated image market on the web. Despite its technical promise, PNG is still, after eight years, a fringe player.)
So, successfully extorting money from a dying patent and then going on to be a successful service company... yeah, SCO-Caldera would probably love to be the next Unisys. I'm aware the original story submitter was attempting to be ironic, but if he'd spent sixty seconds actually answering his own question about where Unisys is today he might have thought twice about it.
Doesn't SCO Linux mean it's all legal now? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only out they have would appear to be that they unknowningly released they code under the GPL and that therefore they have the right to revoke the license. That would be like Microsoft accidentally bundling MS Office with Windows XP. And then trying to tell me that even though the proprietary license says I'm entitled to install the software on one machine, that they are revoking the license and I am a software pirate if I don't wipe it from my harddrive. Something tells me they'll have a tough time convincing a judge of that -- especially with IBM's lawyers fighting them.
Re:File and Line Number (Score:3, Insightful)
The victim of the crime considers this for a moment and then responds, "If I simply allow you to take my property and combine it with yours this time, what is to prevent you from doing it to me again? Indeed, what is preventing you from doing to someone else, or a different robber taking from a different victim? No, the law states that if you take property from another person and are caught you are liable to the laws that govern such actions. To protect myself and others who have worked to acquire property, I will not simply take out of your home what belongs to me, I will do my best to make sure that you learn to respect the value of property that does not belong to you."
The robber does not like this decision and gets all his friends to throw eggs at the victim, but he is still accountable to the law. And the law says that when you take property that does not belong to you and try to claim ownership of it, you do not supersede the rights of the victim. Further, you owe society a debt for your wrongdoing.
IF SCO is right (for those asking for proof before it comes out in court, stop holding your breath), then they have a legitimate complaint and should be compensated. To ask them to simply forgive and forget is ludicrous. That is too much to ask of a "for profit" company, and would probably be illegal even if they wanted to (they are a public company and responsible to shareholders). A more rigorous and robust process of identifying the origin of code could only improve the Open Source community. If a particular project has not done this in the past, they better make damn sure they're doing it now.
Read the GPL ... (Score:3, Insightful)
From Section 0: "Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
So if you distribute you have to grant everybody a free license
From Section 7: "If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all."
SCO realizes, the their lawsuit terminates their GPL license to the kernel
Re:Excuse the ignorance... (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt latter is going to happen, either. Thing is, many of those ultra-cautious decision makers that might pay attention to SCO's claims are still concerned about "free" and "open" aspects of Linux, and haven't adopted Linux (or have done so very slowly). Thus they are hardly the driving force for corporate adoption. As to others, unless SCO succeeds in actual legal battle, I seriously doubt will care a lot. Going back 10 years would pretty much mean "no adoption" (I started using Linux 8 years ago. Red Hat already existed, but not too much else); very unlikely outcome.
What SCO really needs is series of legal victories against actual recognized companies. Without that they are just blowing hot gas. And knowing how long legal battles go on, if they are 2 well-funded parties, by the time things are settled in (or out of) court, there's good chance SCO itself is just part of history. So, my money is on "Linux" side, strongly against SCO. And that's without any zeal.
The real issues . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
For instance, no one likes to go to work for an employer, work very hard for three years and receive absolutely no compensation for their work. In this instance, people would scream bloody murder at the employer for not providing adequate compensation.
Therefore, it necessarily follows that people that contribute substantive creations would like to have their works protected from those that seek to gain an unfair advantage in this world. In other words, no one likes having something stolen from them...especially if they've worked very hard and spent many millions on that something.
In the world of Linux, Microsoft and even piracy in general, there are a number of individuals and companies that are stealing these works and gaining compensation without rewarding the original creator of the works. Therefore, these individuals and companies are guilty of a crime. In this case, they are guilty of patent or copyright infringement.
If it is proven that IBM is guilty of patent infringement, then they deserve whatever they get. In addition, those works would need to be removed and replaced by better routines. It's a shame that IBM never learned from the Compaq BIOS experience and lawsuits.
-Mindragon
Re:They'll have to change their webserver I guess. (Score:3, Insightful)
Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 on Linux
I believe there are remote root exploits for each of those packages listed.
Boils down to.... (Score:3, Insightful)
File names in the SMP code and line numbers please.
I too, smell a Microsoft rat in this one. It is so similar to Microsoft other vague FUD campaigns of recent years, that it would not in the least surprise me to hear about it. If it ever turns out that MS is funding and aiding this, the fallout would be bigger than the MS antitrust case, as IBM can and does have the financial and legal resources to sue MS for illegal attempts to damage IBM's business, and IBM doesn't come cheap.
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:5, Insightful)
They distribute(ed) a version of Linux under the GPL, a licence that legally permits people to copy and branch the code assuming they put it under the GPL. Unfortunately for SCO, whether or not they knew they were distributing their own IP under the GPL or not is irrelevant to the rather compelling argument that they did put their IP under the GPL, and now that they continued to distribute linux after they found the alleged infringements means that no court would declare that licence invalid.
They have knowingly distributed what is potentially their own code under the GPL for nearly a year now. The GPL licence should hold, infringement-free.
Re:An attempt at stealing Linux for sole ownership (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Excuse the ignorance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Distributing your *own* software under the GPL does not affect your copyright ownership rights to it. SCO is claiming the code is copyrighted by them. This in fact would mean they are the only entity that can distribute it, under the GPL or any other license.
Except, of course that if SCO have knowingly distributed it under the GPL then anyone else also has the right to distribute it under the GPL - it doesn't prevent SCO selling it under another license, but it would mean everyone else has the right to continue to distribute it.
Mod parent up (Score:3, Insightful)
Refreshing to see understanding about SCO's true actions.
The more people who understand that SCO has no teeth, the less effect it can have in terms of creating the kind of panic it wants.
Re:Excuse the ignorance... (Score:5, Insightful)
But by distributing it under the GPL the buyer gets it under the terms of the GPL license which clearly states that they can copy it further....
So anything that was created by SCO and distributed by them under the GPL is now free....
By the terms of the GPL their patents are worthless (as far as they weren't already to old). The only case they might have is against IBM because of a breach of contract. And even that one is questionable.
Jeroen
Re:Excuse the ignorance... (Score:3, Insightful)
Jeroen
Re:Excuse the ignorance... (Score:2, Insightful)
"SCO maintains that the code, if checked line by line, matches their original design and sometimes syntax."
Uh huh. So their argument is that given 2 developers trying to accomplish the same thing there is no way they can come up with the same or similar code? Please. While there may be more than one way to skin a cat, nothing says that 2 people won't skin them the same way. Especially when the goal is to provide an implementation of an existing technology (i.e. SysV type calls.)
On the other hand, if they are correct and the code is theirs and was illegally placed in the kernel tree, the ones approving what code goes into the kernel (still just Linus?) will really need to sit and think about how to prevent this in the future.
Re:"All Linux users"? Including Caldera users? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which would constitute to their acknowledged and agreed to distribution of Linux binaries and source code under GPL; which would, in effect, void their claim against IBM and Linux vendors/users.
Either that, or they have defrauded their customers. That's a good point.
GIF analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
oh great, we all know how well that turned out.
And BTW: Unisys, pos that it is, makes over a Billion Dollars in Revenue a year still. If this turns out anything like the GIF controversy, Linux is screwed major.
Re:An attempt at stealing Linux for sole ownership (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, I think that just the fact that SCO distributed Linux (as GPL) should mean they have granted the right to use any code it contains. This means that even if originally the Linux code had been infringing on SCO's "IP" (which I doubt), they have already granted the right to use it.
Re:Timeline (Score:2, Insightful)
The architecture of Minix is unlike any of the AT&T-derived UNIX'es. Linux doesn't share Minix's message-passing architecture, it is structured similar to Minix (mm, fs, kernel) rather than the SYSV structure (PSM's, interrupt arch, etc).
The ties in the lineage are non-existant in reality.
About the only thing I think they can claim are similar are the RC shellscripts that Linux uses (they are very similar to Unixware). SCO did claim it was code outside the kernel (but close to it).
That is just silly garbage though. A shell script is not what makes Linux scale well to SMP/NUMA machines; yet they claim the code (outside the kernel) makes Linux scalable.
Maybe EVMS was to blame, but it isn't even in Linux anymore and the MD driver is more than sufficient for most people until DM gets on its feet.
-MYG
Re:File and Line Number (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:did Microsoft buy SCO??? (Score:5, Insightful)
These threatened lawsuits migh also restrict SCO's ability to support their old Linux clients...
Right now, they're restricting the ability of people to redistribute the code that they sent out under the GPL. That's in violation of the GPL. This means that they now lose any rights to redistribute that same code.
This would include updates.
Re:SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:File and Line Number (Score:3, Insightful)
Even better - call one of your friends, someone who might plausibly have taken something of yours, accidently or (convievably) on purpose. Tell them they have some of your stuff. They're going to ask what it is. Don't tell them. Say that you're going to call the cops, but you aren't going to tell the cops what it is either. See what they do.
Unisys and the Fringe Players (Score:4, Insightful)
"Not widely used" is a pretty good paraphrase of "fringe player." And anyone designing a public web site and willing to discard 10% of customers is also a fringe player.
Re:Excuse the ignorance... (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought "System V" was the product that was sold, and "UNIX" is both the Registered Tradeark and specification of The Open Group. I've noticed that "SCO Unixware" is certified to the Unix 95 specification.
Unless I'm wrong, SCO can't claim they own "UNIX" as the trademark (and specification) is registered to another entity.
So what SCO is saying... (Score:3, Insightful)
Um. Ya. So I don't want to sell my book because it makes a use of passages that I used in my last book.
Maybe they should start their lawsuit off by sueing themselves.
--
Mike
Re:Excuse the ignorance... (Score:3, Insightful)
Conversely imagine if SCO had actually written Linux and never released a GPL copy. Then RedHat rummages through their dumpster, finds a printout, and steals it and makes RedHat Linux. This would obvioulsly be illegal and a copyright violation. Then SCO decides to relase this Linux under the GPL, after the theft. I would think this subsequent action in no way would make RedHat less guilty of theft.
It would get more gray if in fact SCO had already released the code under the GPL and at the same time RedHat rummaged through their dumpster and did not in fact notice or look at the freely-available GPL code. Despite the fact that RedHat could have legally aquired it, it still seems to me they would be equally guilty. The only real difference is that unless they were actually caught looking in the dumpster they can claim they copied the GPL code and thus not get prosecuted.
Although I am pretty certain they have no case, the claim that because they released a GPL copy means they have no case is IMHO not true. Claiming that makes people think the GPL is more powerful than it really is, which falls right into MicroSoft's attempts to make it sound evil.
Re:..FUD.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Now, if a group of people were to get those letters, how many would decide not to eat at your place? Some would still come, but others would stay away. Your concern would be that maybe enough would stay away to really hurt your business. So, do you pay me off or not? Remember, you're a little guy with limited resources. Can you afford the time and money required to fight it out in court?
Some may say that SCO's mistake was that they decided to pick on IBM. Possibly, but what have they got to lose? From their standpoint, things will work out in one of four ways:
1. They win, and they get a huge cash infusion. They then sue smaller companies and use the IBM win as precedent.
2. IBM decides to buy them out to make them go away. The SCO bigwigs walk away with cash in their pockets.
3. Some other company decides to buy SCO in order to get its IP and pursue the legal fight. Again, the bigwags cash out.
4. IBM decides to crush SCO like the cockroach it is. The phrase "You can't get blood out of a turnip" applies here. So what if they lose? The company was going belly-up anyway.
If you want to tell SCO that you won't ever buy anything from them again, go for it. Just remember that they don't give a damn about their sales at this point. If you really want to have an impact on how this shakes out, encourage IBM to utterly destroy them rather than settle.
Less marketing, more litigation. (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, when folks began downloading massive quantities of music from various Internet channels, corporations realized that this posed a threat to their current methods, as did the CD to tapes, tapes to LPs, LPs to live performances, etc. However, the top management and boards of directors of these large companies have no imagination, no style, no tact, no nothing. They know only one thing... It is commonly known as "the bottom line." What it means is, "We have the inalienable right to eternal perpetually increasing profits."
To continue our example of the music industry, we will note that instead of seeking ways to make the changes work for the company, the aforementioned managers and directors (hereinafter idiots) want to maintain stability in a business that is inherently unstable. This stability is artificial and is achieved through litigation, just as the artificial monopoly provided for "intellectual" property is achieved through law.
The idiots abuse the legal system in order to maintain their bottom line and will continue to do so as long as the courts allow it. The RIAA does this. The MPAA does this. Now SCO is jumping on the "e-Litigation" bandwagon. Who cares anyway... SCO is yesteryear's news. The future is Linux. And if there is some code in there that belongs to SCO, which I doubt, then it is already done because once released in Linux, it will remain in use forever. There will always be some server out there, some desktop out there, some strange hack that will contain this code for lack of being updated to the next version, which is "cleaned" of the offending code. What are you going to do? Make Linux illegal throughout the galaxy because of this? Hang Linus for it? Or, figure that the code wasn't making you any money anyway and spend the would-be litigation funds on marketing efforts, on product line expansion, on research and development, on performing services for valuable customers... and on the million other things that SCO might do, in order to secure a good bottom line through honest, ethical, and otherwise positive and constructive means?
Oh, wait... Their bottom line demands that they abuse the court system, as if they're betting on a semi-fixed basketball game.
Re:Two delightful possibilities... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they aren't forced to do anything in this situation. They've stopped distributing the infringing code now, if the copyright holders of the GPLed code want to sue for copyright infringement in the past, they can do so.
People are saying that since they released the whole Linux source under the GPL, that means that any claim they have over the alleged proprietary code is gone forever. I don't think this is true.
The timeline, according to SCO, goes like this:
SCO proprietary code -> IBM -> Linux kernel -> SCO -> release under the GPL.
Now, the point in which the infringing code is released without permission is from IBM to the Linux kernel. From that point on, all licenses are invalid - you cannot give licenses out if you don't have the copyright.
According to SCO's story, they cannot have released the Linux kernel under the GPL legitimately, since it was a derivative work of their own, unlicensed code, and other people's works. They didn't have the right to redistribute it under the GPL or any other license.
They have now stopped redistributing it; presumably because they have realised that they are infringing on copyrights if they continue.
UNISYS and the GIF patent (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO won't get far with this. IBM probably has some patents they can counter-sue against SCO, and they'll settle the whole thing out of court. Ditto for Sun and any other large company they might go after. And who's going to buy anything from SCO after this?
A quiet thought..... (Score:2, Insightful)
We know that SCO has been selling Linux, and as such has been complying with their obligations under the GPL.
Would this not therefore imply that anyone who has purchased SCO's Linux incarnation would, accordingly have all the rights available to them under the GPL, and as such, as they have already released "Linux", all possible IP Claims for linux become null and void.
Or to put it in other words: Linux may have IP that is SCO's or not, however, the fact that SCO have sold Linux, and have licensed these releases under the GPL, then anyone who has purchased said releases may now re-release, accordingly.
My 2c