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?"
Mirror for the letter (Score:5, Informative)
Since when are Stallman and Perens ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Since when are Stallman and Perens ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bruce
SCO Hires Iraqi Information Minister... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mirror for the letter (Score:5, Informative)
I turns out that that link [bangroot.com] is a link to a copy of the SCO email that was sent out... The email links to the SCO letter which is referenced in the main posting. In other words, it's a different letter and worth reading on it's own.
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:Mirror for the letter (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mirror for the letter (Score:4, Informative)
It is true that TrollTech controls who can write closed-source applications for KDE, but they have no control over open-source applications for KDE, or KDE itself. In addition, AFAIK they have never prevented anyone from buying a QT license that wanted one. That would be stupid of them, since they would only be denying themselves revenue. It is not true that SCO controls TrollTech. TrollTech is its own company, not controlled by anyone, and it is fully committed to supporting open-source software.
Unisys... (Score:5, Funny)
They're at our place about twice a month or more.
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.
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:Unisys... (Score:3, Informative)
Prior to that, it was Burroughs and Sperry-Univac. The "Power of Two" campaign was to promote the merged company, renamed Unisys.
I have one thing to say to this, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I have one thing to say to this, (Score:5, Funny)
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
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.
Re:It's come to the edge of the cliff... (Score:4, Funny)
What is it with Utah software companies? Heck, I am Mormon myself, and I still don't understand it.
"All Linux users"? Including Caldera users? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"All Linux users"? Including Caldera users? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"All Linux users"? Including Caldera users? (Score:5, Interesting)
I presume this means that derivative works created by SCO users who received SCO code under the GPL are still legitimate, and that this license to create derivative works has not been revoked, right?
So any SCO user has the right to grant a license to any non-SCO user to make derivative works.
Any SCO users out there want to pipe up and grant such a license to IBM, Redhat, etc?
Actually, *are* there any SCO users out there?
Re:"All Linux users"? Including Caldera users? (Score:5, Interesting)
Any SCO users out there want to pipe up and grant such a license to IBM, Redhat, etc?
That's an excellent point, and I can't help but wonder....
Suppose for a moment SCO is right -- there's some dead-on, no quibbling, not even kidding evidence of code-lifting. However, Caldera/SCO has simultaneously been releasing the same code -- which they have rights to either way -- under the GPL. Wouldn't the very act of releasing that code effectively cancel the argument that it was proprietary?
Re:"All Linux users"? Including Caldera users? (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, I hereby grant a license to any non-SCO user to make derivative works of all SCO GPL code to IBM, RedHat, etc.
Oh, and while I'm at it, I hereby revoke SCO's license to its own code, citing violations of the GNU General Public License, which basically says that those that violate the license have no license to use it, so there.
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.
This process is designed..... (Score:5, Funny)
Wait a minute. Someone designed the process by which commecrial software is built. Why hasn't someone patented it yet?
Re:This process is designed..... (Score:5, Funny)
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:Best thing that could happen for Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Only in the short term - in the long term it'll permanently dispell the SCO/UNIX/Licensing FUD that MS keep pushing so hard.
Given the speed that the courts move, it should all be worked out just around the time of the release of Longhorn - giving Linux a clean bill of health just in time to get in the way of Windows 2005.
Re:Best thing that could happen for Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
My take on this is that they're going to pump this whole issue as much as possible before anything becomes public, and at that point the executives will probably dump most of their stock. That's another good reason to go after IBM first; it's not hard to convince IBM to agree with the court to "guarantee that proprietary information is kept sec
Going out Kick'n & Scream'n (Score:5, Funny)
So SCO sold one this quarter?
So... (Score:3, Funny)
Truthfully, this will go exactly nowhere - even if IBM has to buy SCO.
What about SCO Linux customers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Picture this: SCO warning customers that they may be liable, can those customers sue/claim compensation from the company that sold them the infringing product? Isnt this comparable to SCO sueing themselves?
Whatever the outcome, people are going to feel this for years to come.
Re:What about SCO Linux customers? (Score:5, Funny)
Talk about falling on your own sword. Imagine suing your customers for buying one of your products.
Is there a Darwin Awards just for really fatally boneheaded corporate maneuvers?
Each of these SCO executives should be slapped in the face with a wet fish.
Re:What about SCO Linux customers? (Score:5, Funny)
The answer is there! (Score:5, Funny)
"YES!"
right under the question, "is SCO litigating itself into irrelevance?"
(It's actually part of an Intel ad, but hey...it's a good magic-8 ball to me).
This company reminds me of this article [theonion.com]. What makes them think they have enough clout to even attempt this? They're going to bully IBM?
Need Banner (Score:5, Funny)
My suggestion: A penguin on the left, with Bender doing a lean-in from the right, saying "SCO can bite my shiny metal ass".
That's perfect! (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, someone with gimp skills, please design a banner we can put on our web sites to tell SCO what we think.
My suggestion: A penguin on the left, with Bender doing a lean-in from the right, saying "SCO can bite my shiny metal ass".
This is exactly what the Linux community needs. We need to rally against a lawsuit claiming we're infringing on SCO's intellectual property by using someone else's intellectualy property in web banners. That will really make us look innocent.
Re:Need Banner (Score:5, Funny)
Missing from SCO's "Linux Leaders Quoted Out Of Context" page:
I want live streaming video of the look on Head SCO Goon Daryl McBride's face when he finds out in court precisely what that means.
The stolen code (Score:5, Funny)
arch/cris/kernel/traps.c:53: stack++;
arch/cris/kernel/traps.c:126: stack++;
arch/i386/kernel/setup.c:2327: k++;
Re:The stolen code (Score:5, Funny)
They already shipped it. (Score:3, Interesting)
I realise that the ~$150 million SCO got from microsoft three years ago (after purchasing DR-DOS just so they could sue a recent antitrust-convicted abusive monopolist) has now run out, and at the rate they burn through cash they'll be out of money soon. But just because they managed to get a big windfall from Microsoft doesn't mean they'll get a big windfall from IBM next time they need money...
IBM is going to have a ball with this...
Rob
Prove it. (Score:3, Interesting)
could they use more pointless misqoutes? (Score:3, Interesting)
This had better be a joke (Score:5, Interesting)
In the business world, you do not want to piss off you *entire customer base* like this!
Please tell me this is an April 1 joke that got leaked late...
Re:This had better be a joke (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you considered sharing this particular bit of news with the MPAA/RIAA/TV Studios and anyone else accusing their customers of being thieves?
Re:This had better be a joke (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe the management is just hoping that they'll draw enough attention so that gullible investors will drive their stock price up so they can cash out [yahoo.com] and do something useful with their lives.
Re:This had better be a joke (Score:5, Funny)
That was me. I had a spare $100 so I'm trying to buy a controlling interest. I originally had honest intentions of releasing all the Sys V code under the GPL, but now that I'm a high flying corporate mogul I fear I am being corrupted.
A last ditch effort (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I think AT&T/Lucent/Avaya should form a company and bring the Unix rights back home.
They'll have to change their webserver I guess... (Score:5, Informative)
SCO confirms it, Linux is dying! (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, I can't get enough of that troll. It's too funny.
SCO has been irrelevant for a long time (Score:3)
I thought SCO was already irrelevant, and has been for years.
I've only seen their useless OS used in a couple of times in almost a decade, and only in a dinky little home office. The only reasons people still talk about these guys is because of their rediculous lawsuits.
Could someone please send SCO a memo to remind them that they don't matter, and it has nothing to do with alleged misuse of their intellectual property.
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.
Re:File and Line Number (Score:3, Interesting)
If SCO distributes (distributed) GNU/Linux under the GPL/LGPL/etc licenses it's required to, doesn't that mean that anyone can freely copy and redistribute it? If this is true, anything that is in Caldera Linux is free game, regardless of whether reams of source code were lifted verbatim from UNIX because SCO licensed it under the GPL when they distributed GNU/Linux. Anyone have any insight on this? Surely there must be someone at SCO who read the GPL before they released software under it
Re:File and Line Number (Score:4, Interesting)
I imagine they can claim that they were previously unaware of the infringement. That's why they've now stopped selling their Linux.
The problem I see them running into is that their claim seems to be based not so much on specific violations relating to copied source code, but on the general idea that people working under non-disclosures later "disclosed" information in the form of source code which they wrote for Linux, thus violating their agreements.
There are a lot of problems with this. Perhaps SCO misunderstood what they were purchasing. Unix is not some brand-new system that was developed in a secret lab, with code disclosed to no-one. The violations Caldera is claiming are likely to be vague and almost impossible to prove. Unless they have specific information to the contrary, anything in Linux might very well have been put there by someone with the necessary knowledge who was not bound by an agreement. The Unix code base has been subject to all sorts of outside interactions over the years.
This legal action is simply a mark of SCO's desperation and lack of income from products. If they're lucky, they might collect an out-of-court settlement from IBM and some other deep pocket customers they choose to go after. They'll never win anything substantial in court, though.
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? Ind
Re:File and Line Number (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:File and Line Number (Score:5, Interesting)
As SCO's own source is closed, how can we possibly verify that they didn't merge Linux code into their Unix source? If there is code that matches, there is a public verifiable trail of Linux and GNU software development, with archives of that old code for confirmation.
We aren't allowed to see any similar development history with SCO's code, not even the source snapshots that would have been purchased by IBM et. al.
Finally there is the wee issue that the vast majority of *nix kernel algorithms have been analyzed and discussed to death in dozens of textbooks for operating systems courses. By definition those algorithms are not patentable, because they have been published to the public domain as part of those textbooks. If Linux and SCO both happen to implement those algorithms, SCO cannot claim infringement because they don't own that IP.
I really can't think of any Linux features that aren't discussed in such texts. The kernel doesn't use SVR4 signal APIs or semantics. The network stacks are from BSD origins. Resource scheduling algorithms are a dime a dozen from the textbooks, as are approaches for process and application/user security. What does that leave for SCO to claim they "own"?
SCO Sued By SCO For IP Infringement (Score:5, Funny)
###
SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collect (Score:5, Informative)
Not telling the world what the code is, is a legal blunder of the first order. This means that they have unclean hands, as they are supposed to try and mitigate the damage in order to receive compensation.
You can't knowlingly add to the damage and then ask for compensation incl Punitive damages based on same. Any suit against Linux vendor in the future can site this as an Affirmative Defense" and pretty much get the suit tossed on that account alone
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.
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:SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO schmo (Score:3, Informative)
As for the question "Is SCO litigating itself into irrelevance?", in my opinion no they are not...they were already irrelevant, and have been for several years. This is the last gasp of a dying company. If SCO were a horse, it would have already been shot or sold to a dogfood factory. A better question might be "Has SCO ever been relevant?"
Re:SCO schmo (Score:4, Informative)
Does anyone know more about this?
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.
Timeline (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Timeline (Score:3, Informative)
With tactics like these..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, if companies start to think that using Linux could get them into legal entanglements- like what SCO is starting now, RIAA-style- then they might be more likely to go towards microsoft products, because Microsoft and their army of lawyers will make sure everything is properly licensed. Or so the reasoning should go.
Moreover, Microsoft certainly has the cash and interest to put down bullshit claims that might arise like this, whereas the companies that sell linux products have much smaller resources to put into fights like this. Again, this is the line of thinking that they would hope to instill, to steer customers torwards MS products.
Yeah, yeah, I've got my tinfoil hat right here....
Possibly where this is coming from (Score:3, Interesting)
In August 2000, the company known as SCO became Tarantella Inc.
The SCO tradename was bought by Caldera (now a subsidiary of Microsoft)
So this lawsuit isn't from the original SCO at all, but the new company using the SCO tradename.
Interested in knowing when (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, everything could be moved overseas and/or somebody like Alan Cox could continue to maintain a branch of the kernel like what is being done today but, if I really, really wanted to shake corporate confidence in Linux disrupting actual development would be the primary target. It would also make sense for SCO to attempt to do something like this. An arguement can be made that stopping distribution of the kernel sources and any binaries produced would put a halt on the continuing alleged infringement.
Would it stop everyone from using linux? Nope. But it would totally derail business adoption of linux here in the States first. Elsewhere I don't know.
Order Yours Today (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet another case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
MS IS BEHIND THIS!!! (Score:4, Funny)
I have faith in all of you.
Doesn't MS own part of SCO? If linux is going to die, WE MUST PIN IT ON MICROSOFT! Otherwise we won't have the Martyr effect we need.
This won't hurt IBM. They still plan on selling big mainframes with their own software on it (largely helped on by free linux developers contributions). So what if IBM gets free slave labor and offers nothing in return other than cutting out the little linux consultants with their IBM Consulting Group behemoth.
We don't care about IBM and how they exploit free software developers. Or Apple for that matter and their use expliotation of FreeBSD. We honeslt don't care about SCO. The heart of this is somehow MS is FORCING SCO TO DO THIS. They obviously are blackmailing them. WE MUST FIND THE PROOF!
I eagerly await facts supporting what we all know must be true....
-Malakai
yes i'm friggin kidding.
Eric Raymond's Rebuttal (Score:5, Informative)
I highly recommend reading ESR's comment [opensource.org].
What is Linus Torvalds' views on this mess? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What is Linus Torvalds' views on this mess? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Clash of copyright and copyleft (Score:4, Interesting)
Presumably, timing is important. Caldera was originally a Linux company, not much different from Red Hat. But over the course of events, they negotiated to get ownership of the Unix IP. Now, I presume that if they act in a timely manner, they would be permitted by the courts to get their house in order with respect to IP issues. Therefore, they would be allowed to go ahead with lawsuits that seek to protect their Unix IP. But, if what they claim is true, then Linux is a mix of copyright and copyleft code. Obviously, copyright and copyleft are polar opposites. SCO cannot simply collect royalties from anyone using Linux, as that would be attempting to damage the copyleft of the GPL. I mean, it seems that in that case what we have is an IP no-man's land. SCO has no right to Linux, and the general public has no right to it. I can't see any alternative, then, to a painstaking process of separating copyright and copyleft code. (Okay, copyright is probably not the right term, because they are more likely to claim violation of trade secrets. But it's the same idea.)
So, what then of Caldera, the Linux company? Presumably, their license was similar to Red Hat's license, which disclaimed any indemnification for IP violations. In other words, Caldera was a service company, providing support contracts for Linux. So, maybe they would be free from lawsuits from their customers. However, they would be required to consider their customers as committing IP violations against the Unix IP. There is absolutely no way they could violate the GPL and grant any kind of waiver of royalties to customers who bought Caldera Linux.
In any case, we have to wonder what kind of due diligence the Caldera executives undertook before they acquired rights to the Unix IP. And does that due diligence, or lack thereof, affect their legal position. I mean, imagine if they knew that Linux contained violations of the Unix IP. If, at the same time, they were negotiating to acquire rights to the Unix IP, and they knew the requirements of the GPL on Linux, then they made a horrible business decision -- one that cannibalized their Linux business. I mean, what were they thinking?! That they would use the Unix IP to dominate the Linux market? That they didn't understand the GPL, which prohibits using IP to dominate copyleft software?
The way I feel right now, it's like that duck in the AFLAC commercial, which walks out of the barbershop shaking it's head and going "Aaaaahhh!"
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
So, it's back to BSD then? (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope SCO is totally humiliated in this lawsuit.
Two delightful possibilities... (Score:5, Interesting)
2: IBM, in discovery, demands a receives the source to SCO's flavors of Unix and finds evidence that SCO stole GPL'd source code to put into unixware / openserver. Sco is forced to release the whole shebang under the GPL.
Report from what went on on the inside (Score:4, Interesting)
In the complaint SCO mentions 4000 application developed for their operating system. I remember a higher number being mentioned back when I was involved. I also remember a catalogue of the applications, and a lot of them were really silly apps obviously put there just to make the catalogue bugger. Also, if you'd could count the number of Linux applications, I'm sure you'd reach a number a couple of magnitudes greater.
SCO is as bad (or worse) as Microsoft. They were back then too, although I was blinded because I worked with the stuff all the time.
For example: Back when OpenServer 5 was released, it used a product activation scheme almost identical to Microsofts, which the difference that while corporate customers don't have to activate their copies of XP, every single SCO customer had to call in to activate their system. The activation scheme itself worked pretty much the same.
OpenServer 5, when released, was a huge improvement to the old version, but at release it lacked a lot. One of those useful things was threads. In order to get a pthreads implementation you needed buy DCE. And, if I remember correctly, DCE was shipped by a third party. (I believe that third party is owned by IBM these days, but please double-check that information before you pass it on as fact).
While I worked with SCO products I kept hearing how great SCO was, and how they were the market leaders and the largest UNIX supplier in the word (1 million installations was a common number being passed around). At the same time very people outside the POS (and a few other businesses) business had heard about SCO. As far as I know, SCO got _very_ few new customers during the 90's, but mainly kept selling copies to providers of various POS systems. Another common customer was coporate telephone switch providers.
Most SCO customers, after installing the base OS, started off by installing the full GNU toolchain. The provided tools sucked too much.
There were 3 different C compilers available for OpenServer 5: SCO's compiler, the Intel conpiler, and GCC. GCC was free, so most people used that. Intels compiler provided the best code (but compiled slowly). SCO's tools were somewhere in the middle. I'm still not sure why people payed for them (I'm desperately trying to remember why _I_ used them... I guess I was blind... But me not having to pay for then helped, I guess :-) ).
I still remember the Monterey launch tigether with IBM. I remember having doubds back then even, especially when the SCO representative said that Monterey would take over after AIX as IBM's main UNIX system.
The Monterey launch wasn't the first major launch of amazing new products that was supposed to show the world just how great SCO really was. After SCO purchased UnixWare I remember it being touted as the next big thing, and the product that would change SCO. Naturally, it didn't.
Somehow I doubt the statement SCO made in the complaint about them having Monterey finished in 2001, ready for release. As I mentioned, I left the SCO world in 1997 and even then the star had begin to fade (it didn't take long), after that, nothing was heard about Monterey. Would they have continued working on it for 4 years and then be suprised no one wanted it? I don't think so.
I really hope that this goes to court, and SCO becomes required to show the allegedly finished Monterey product. I'm not so sure they will have anything to show.
Microsoft files lawsuit against SCO (Score:4, Funny)
Taken from: Microsoft files lawsuit against SCO [pclinuxonline.com]
It's funny. Laugh.
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.
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?
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.
So why did they "suddenly discover" this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, the code for the various parts of Linux have been available for quite a long time. Why this "sudden discovery" of IP problems? Obviously this isn't something that just appeared with the latest versions of the various distros...
Finally, if the stolen code is so bloody obvious then why not show even one example of where there is direct copying. This wouldn't affect their legal strategy one bit (despite claims to the otherwise) and would grant them so much more credibility.
As it stands it still seems like SCO's jumping up and down and shouting "BUY ME NOW!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!"
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
Re:Excuse the ignorance... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problemo that they have though is that 'SCO' is really Caldera inc which in turn used to sell Linux. There is a big problem with distributing linux if you intend to get heavy on the IP trip. As Bill Gates observed, Linux was released under a viral license which in effect strips away most of SCO's intellectual property rights.
The only things that Caldera can enforce its rights on at this point is code that is in the SCO code base AND a Linux distribution AND NOT in any Caldera distribution that shipped after the SCO acquisition.
The other tricky problem they have is detrimental reliance. Oh and don't discount the fact that getting into an IP pissing contest with IBM or Microsoft or any of the really big players is suicidal for any technology company, those guys have more patents to fire back in self defense its not funny.
The only reason SCO is doing this is that its their last gasp survival attempt - get bought by someone big.
A much cheaper way to do the same thing would be to put the company up for sale on EBay.
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.
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:5, Interesting)
It seems that they did not understand the full implications of the GPL when they filed their original suit against IBM.
However, the cat is now out of the bag. Any code that was in any kernel that SCO distributed after filing suit against IBM is now "in the public domain" and they can't take it back.
This just may end up being a test case for the GPL.
Trying to marginalize Linux like they did BSD (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly right. When AT&T/USL sued UC Berkley over BSD, they crippled BSD for a decade. Now they are trying to do the same thing to Linux. The AT&T vs BSD lawsuit introduced enough FUD and left a big enough cloud over BSD to drive commercial users away from BSD and make vendors license SysV "just to be safe". Even a strong BSD varient like the orginal SunOS has been supplanted by a SysV varient Solaris. I suspect that one of Sun's reasons in switching to SysV was to avoid legal issues, in addition to getting the "newer and improved" features of SysV. It is only very recently, with Mac OS-X, that BSD is finally coming out from under the cloud and starting to become mainstream again.
I find it interesting that the letter claims control over UNIX "methods". It sounds like they are contending that they have a lock over all "UNIX-Like" systems, even those with non-encumbered code because the ideas and methods are facsimilies of proprietery methods. I think they are actually saying that they have a monopoly on *nix-likeness. So regardless of the cut-and-paste issue with the code, they are still going to fight over the implementation itself. How they expect this to hold up in court is going to be interesting because the already "gave it up" when they cleared the BSD settlement.
Re:Excuse the ignorance... (Score:5, Informative)
UNIX the commercial product was sold by ATT to SCO (or its precursor). SCO then licensed this source code to IBM for the development of their own products (AIX?).
The charges then alledge that IBM contributed to the Linux product by (directly or indirectly) submitting code additions to the OSS project before its first release.
SCO maintains that the code, if checked line by line, matches their original design and sometimes syntax. They claim that only IBM could have perpetrated such a thing, and that designing some of the algorithms was beyond the OSS project's stand-alone capability without IBM's help.
By showing that Linux is indeed a viable alternative to SCO UNIX, and that they are losing money based on the commercial installation base of Linux, they can claim that either IBM (1) pay them for the infringement or (2) a judge deem all Linux distro must license from SCO, or both.
To them, IBM didn't want to pay the license fees any more, so IBM starts to sell Linux as their *Nix solution, not the SCO-compile. This locks SCO out from at least IBM's fat check to them. This makes them unhappy. SCO claim foul play.
these are the facts as i understand them, but i write this to ask for clarification from everyone.
mug
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:Where? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, and for two primary reasons:
1) SCO's bluffing until the bitter end. There is no copyright infringement, and everyone in high level positions at SCO knows it. SCO's market exit strategy (to be bought by IBM) backfired in a huge way, and there is no way to repair the damage. If SCO backs off now, it will be destroyed by the SEC for gross negligence towards the shareholders. Everyone at SCO knows that IBM is going to destroy SCO, and are merely trying to hold off the inevitable for as long as possible.
2) There is no copyright infringement. When the trial starts (and it's a given that this will get to trial considering #1 above), SCO will have to produce something (and I guarantee it will be manufactured ala Microsoft). At that point, the jig will be up. SCO doesn't actually want to go to trial, but now the company has painted itself into a corner and will -have- to go to trial. This is a great big "OOPS!" on SCO's part.
"And what, exactly, happened to their statement that they weren't going after Redhat or Joe Linuxuser, but instead just IBM?"
SCO realized that IBM wasn't biting, and panicked. This is SCO's flailing around for anything and everything to halt its inevitable destruction.
Re:Where? (Score:5, Interesting)
From the text of the Copyright act:
In other words, you can copyright a binary, or you can copyright the actual printout of the code (verbatim.) You cannot however copyright any workalike code.
As far as patent infringement goes, they would have a leg to stand on if they were to prove which specific patents they were seeking to enforce. Given the System V was released in 1983, any and all patents on System V expired in the year 2000. Worst case scenario, they were pending for 2 years, and would have expired in 2002.
Considering IBM's license to all of that technology is an established fact long before any of the events described, I think SCO is going to find itself in the hurt box if this case is placed before a Judge.
sco probably did the copying too (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, a heavy hint was dropped on linux-kernel by a former SCO employee (iirc) that if one were to look very carefully at the support for a certain filesystem (*cough* 0x83) in the SCO kernel that one would find an example of the type of copying above.
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: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.