How SCO Helped Linux Go Enterprise 386
An anonymous reader submits: "SCO may now have filed for UNIX copyrights and made various allegations about code-copying, but the actual complaint against IBM still seems to be focused around allegations UNIX-based enterprise technologies (such as RCU, JFS and SMP) being improperly added to Linux. Yet, reviewing the Linux kernel archives reveals some interesting and surprising background on just who helped put these technologies into Linux. PJ's GROKLAW blog has uncovered that 'Caldera Employee Was Key Linux Kernel Contributor,' including what looks like
a lot of work on the early stages of JFS.
The same employee's name also crops up when we look at RCU. When
IBM posts RCU improvements, did he complain? No, he requests further improvements even helpfully providing a link to inspire the IBMer!"
"Lastly, definitely worth reading, Alan Cox on Linux SMP. He says that got he ideas from a book (which presumably can't be somebody's trade secret), invented his own implementation, and did this using hardware provided by Caldera (SCO themselves do acknowledge providing hardware to the Linux SMP team)." The article points out of Christof Hellwig (the Caldera-employed kernel contributor) that "He's likely a great guy, and he's undoubtedly been a trusted Linux contributor, so this is nothing against him. It's about SCO and their position in the lawsuit, and it's about IBM's affirmative defenses."
SCO didn't help Linux go Enterprise... (Score:5, Funny)
Big difference.
-
Just remember... (Score:5, Insightful)
As Deep Throat (of Watergate fame) said: "Follow the money."
Re:Just remember... (Score:3, Interesting)
There are now so many claims and counter-claims that it would be helpful to have some sort of comparison of who claims to own what (name, source code, etc). My $.02.
Re:Just remember... (Score:5, Interesting)
So SCO may get attention from media, but not from the judge, and at the same time they keep on blabbering, giving interview after interview, releasing statement after statement that all give IBMs lawyers plenty of information about SCOs strategy, and also give SCO plenty of opportunity to let slip unfortunate statements that might hurt their case if introduced into evidence (which IBM without doubt will attempt)
IBM on the other hand have given SCO nothing.
SCO is doing all this because they have to - they know they don't have a case, and their only hope is dragging this out and making it so painful that someone decides the best way is to write them a fat check. But at the same time they are increasing the risk that they will give IBM too much ammunition.
Personally I don't think IBM will budge. Sure, it might be safer to just pay off SCO, but if they do they'll be targetted by every failing tech company out there.
Re:Just remember... (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM employ some extremely good IP lawyers. In a previous incarnation I knew one well, and he was a very sharp individual. Combined his day job with leading the Liberals/Lib Dems from one member on the city council to two-thirds majority in less than two decades.
Re:Just remember... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes yes, we all know this. But what I want is a large poster to put on my wall that shows this years 2003 IBM legal team, in all their blue-suited glory. Maybe with them standing atop Daryl's corpse.
Re:Just remember... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just remember... (Score:2, Interesting)
You kind of answered your own complaint there. IBM isn't saying anything to the public because the public's opinion doesn't matter. The only opinion that matters is the judge's, and they're
Re:Just remember... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just remember... (Score:4, Interesting)
If this employee working for SCO worked on the kernel... he was improving GPL software. They then distributed that software... BAMN.. gpl... no questions askes. SCO may own the copyright, but they released it under the GPL.
Re:Provided that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Aren't they laying claim to everything IBM implemented for AIX simply because AIX is a licensed UNIX?
Re:Provided that... (Score:4, Informative)
Not quite true: they did continue to distribute kernels with the alleged offending code well after they made their allegations. In fact, you can still download the kernels from their ftp site.
In other words: even when the right hand found out what the left hand had done, they continued with business as usual. For all practical purposes, SCO has willfully and knowingly distributed the offending code (if there is any) under the GPL. They can still sue IBM, but it's of no concern to Linux developers and users at all.
Re:Provided that... (Score:3, Insightful)
That includes SCO as well as anyone else. This doesn't affect the right to use the software, only the right to distribute it.
(And this would put a pause to the distribution of Linux code until it was rectified...or possibly a temporary pull-back to a 2.2 kernel. Unless some of the truly wilder assertions that SCO has been making are
Re:Provided that... (Score:3, Interesting)
1) A judge could rule the viral implications of the GPL to be invalid. Certainly copyright gives them exclusive rights over things and they can license it under terms, it's a grey area that their license can compel you to change the license of your software.
Nothing compelled them to change the license on that software, they did it knowingly and willingly, and payed someone to do the integration work. Notice the title in his email signatures:
"Christoph Hellwig
Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration
Ca
Re:Just remember... (Score:4, Interesting)
A Caldera employee working on the kernel on company time had every reason to believe that the company would sanction his working on GPL software.
Changing the management doesn't allow you to make a retoractive change of the licenses that you sold things under or gave things away under (and Caldera did both).
I may have despised Ransome Love, but these new guys are much worse.
Re:Just remember... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and when you do, you find that the board of SCO is not at all the same as it was when it was called Caldera. A major change happened in ownership last year. Bascially, SCO is run by a bunch of people who have a history of making money by suing people. I'm sure they are very ignorant of just what went on at Caldera and the commitment that Caldera had to contributing to Linux. I'm sure they want to be ignorant, because these guys are up to their business as usual tactics. (Don't believe me, just check it out for yourself. You can find the SEC filings and several newspaper articles about it online.)
Don't worry. This will go to court. IBM will expose just how much Caldera contributed. It will be proven that Caldera is the same company that today calls itself SCO, albeit management has changed. It will be proven that Caldera approved of what was going on, and that if anything SCO should be suing itself. These guys will lose their trial (heh, David Boies
SCO will go completely broke over this and not even Microsoft will save them. They'll have to auction all their property to pay their debts, and I'll be buying the UNIX IP for a buck or two.
Re:Just remember... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have wondered, and now am finally wondering out loud whether David Boies really knew what he was getting himself into?
He may have taken this because he likes high profile cases. But he may not have understood what kind of people he was dealing with. I wonder if he feels screwed? Lied to? I wonder if he feels that SCO terribly misrepresented their case to him?
Re:Just remember... (Score:3, Insightful)
Although it was Caldera that bought DR-DOS for the sole purpose of suing Microsoft over it. For a while, that was their primary business activity.
Of course, they were Slashdot heroes back then, not bloodsucking professionla litigants...
Re:Just remember... (Score:4, Insightful)
Caldera was never a company that I really admired, though they *did*, for awhile, promise the best integration with a Novell network of any Linux distribution. (Other problems with their distribution kept me from assessing the truth of their claims.)
But I don't insist that my "good-guys" be perfectly good any more than I insist that my "bad-guys" be perfectly bad. You don't find the true extemes in this world. Mother Theresa was a very unusually good woman, but her saintliness is the creation of church PR. (Quite effective, but still a PR job, even though it had a good base.)
Do you think MS is totally bad? You're wrong. They're selfish bastards with no care for the rights of others, but this isn't the worst they could be. Check out the history of the railroads or the mining corporations and you'll find much worse.
SCO has nearly all of MS drawbacks, and few to none of their redeeming features. But they actually could still be worse. I'm certain of it. That said, I must admit that without a more intimate knowledge of their intentions and purposes the statement is a "statement of faith" rather than anything I could genuinely prove.
Re:Just remember... (Score:4, Informative)
MS will Pay your legal fees [com.com] if you are sued for using their software. My, what interesting timing.
Re:Just remember... (Score:3, Funny)
Great, I'll have to remember this for when the BSA comes knocking. O wait...do you have to pay for their software first? Crap...o well...
Where it will all go (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, this is a big inconvenience for many people using Linux in their companies. I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux. And why should I? Linux is supposed to be free. (All the more reason to use BSD, which I like more than Linux, but anyway...)
SCO is screaming to be bought out by IBM, even though they say in a press release that this is highly unlikely. It seems obvious to me, in any case -- SCO's not had a very successful product in a very long time.
Here's hoping that the case goes to a court where there are people who know what they're talking about are presiding on the jury.
And somebody please fill me in, but is the SCO hotshot lawyer who lost the Gore case against Florida and worked against Microsoft such a hotshot? It seems to me that he's more of a loser.
My 2 cents.
Re:Where it will all go (Score:5, Informative)
It's rather simple: there is no reason to pay SCO any money if you use Linux.
Whoever suggests otherwise should come up with proof. So far, no one has.
Re:Where it will all go (Score:3, Insightful)
>Whoever suggests otherwise should come up with proof. So far, no one has.
For damage to be done to Linux (in terms of wider acceptablility) no-one has to show iron-clad proof, just enough doubt.
As a decision maker, would you budget (and able to justify) paying for a licence up front or take the risk (and justify that risk to the CTO/company lawyers) that you are opening the company up to unknown charges? Would you even w
Re:Where it will all go (Score:5, Interesting)
On alt.os.development, we've been discussing this somewhat humorously. It will eventually not be a problem. Linux will be able to simply rewrite its SMP handling (and other things that have allegedly been taken from SCO). In fact, at the OS level, working with 32 processors is no different from working with 2 (which Linux could already do before the alleged copyright infringement). However, handling 32 processors very well is a completely different story.
And this is only in a worst case scenario.... Most likely linux won't have to be changed in any way....
In any case, this is a big inconvenience for many people using Linux in their companies. I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux. And why should I? Linux is supposed to be free. (All the more reason to use BSD, which I like more than Linux, but anyway...)
Linux is free (ok, it depends on your definition of free...) but remember that about a decade ago you would had to stop development on BSD related projects due to some lawsuit......
At the moment the only one who is being sued is IBM, everybody else is safe.
Even if IBM did something wrong it doesn't mean anything for linux, IBM would simply pay some billions to SCO and live for linux would go on...
And that is a very unlikely worst case.....
Jeroen
Re:Where it will all go (Score:5, Interesting)
This is something which doesn't seem to be mentioned as often as it should.
SCO are losing money big time. IBM have put significant $$$s into Linux and will be in trouble if SCO win.
MS bet the firm on
Sun bet the firm on Java
IBM bet the firm on Linux
SCO bet the firm on Lawyers.
Re:Where it will all go (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. Without providing any evidence or winning a court case, SCO has got at least one sucker to buy into their FUD. How sad.
Re:Background (Score:2)
I fail to see how they can really harm you without some better evidence - international civil cases are notoriously hard to bring, it's more likely they'd file suit against you in the states, which would do pretty much nothing.
If they really want to hurt you, they would need to bring suit in whichever country you're in, AIUI. IANAL.
Re:Background (Score:5, Informative)
Don't mix up press release and actual claims. SCO continues to distribute 2.2.x kernels, which means that the agree to the GPL as it applies to that code revision.
SCO's accussations are realy that code was contributed to the 2.4.x kernel which is infringing. That is why the UnixWare license that they are selling specifically applies to Linux 2.4 and later.
If you can stay at 2.2.x, you are home free.
Re:SCO distribute 2.4 kernels, including source (Score:3, Insightful)
Timing is important here. If IBM did contribute SCO owned code, SCO would need to stop distributing versions containing infringing code as soon as practical after they identified the infringement. Anything that remains available on their sites after they've (internally) identified their claims is covered under GPL. Therefore the code in the 2.4.x kernel is all free from SCO claims.
Note that the versions
Re:Where it will all go (Score:5, Informative)
His rep stretches back further. He headed the antitrust case defense for IBM, stretching the proceedings out for so long the gov't finally dropped the case. A clear, big, win for IBM at the time.
This time around, Boies is up against the law firm he worked for when he defended IBM.
Re:Where it will all go (Score:2)
Well, duh. Look who's side he's on. Definitely not
someone you want a stock tip from. Not someone you'd
listen to when picking a horse for a trifecta.
Re:Where it will all go (Score:5, Insightful)
Why in the hell would you stop development? That's just silly.
You don't have to pay SCO any money to use linux. They're trying to shake folks down, they don't have a leg to stand on. You can read the license, and even if their case were not total bs, even if it turned out their allegations were true, you don't have any legal liability from using Linux under the license you have, until and unless SCO can get a court to say otherwise.
This is no different than if I were to announce that Windows XP was actually mine, and start sending out letters to everyone I could find running it demanding that they buy a license for it from me. The appropriate response would be to laugh and chuck my letter in the trash.
Even if I later proved that XP really was my code, MS would be liable, not the users I sent those letters to. They were using it with what they reasonably thought to be a valid license from the copyright holder. They would have no need to buy a license from me until after a court decided in my favour. And probably not even then, if historical cases (such as the suits back and forth between Stac and MS) are considered.
The whole 'buy a license from linux from us' thing is just a scam. Don't give them money, and don't quit using linux, just laugh at them and go on.
Indeed, his high fees certainly don't seem to be justified by his record, do they?
Re:Where it will all go (Score:5, Interesting)
Normally, when you sue someone for copyright infringment, they pay you fines (this is compensation for the units already sold), and then either pay you royalties from then on or stop selling thier product (which is really thier product, since they won :P). People who already bought your product aren't in any sort of danger - Queen can't sue you for owning a Vanilla Ice CD, and JK Rowling can't sue you for owning (or even reading) one of the Harry Potter knockoffs. Similarly, USERS of Linux don't have crap to fear from SCO. Now, if SCO wins, it'll mean that the affected Linux kernels will be illegal to sell or distribute (They're only offering binary only licensing for thier code, which would conflict with the GPL), but not to use. You don't need a license to use software, no matter what everyone claims.
I honestly think at this point, SCO is seeing the stock go up, and is just getting carried away in being ballsy. Normally only the really big fish, like governments and IBM can get away with just making blatantly unsupportable claims and daring anyone to take them on.
Re:Where it will all go (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't pay SCO money to keep using linux.
Look at it this way: Let's suppose that SCO loses. Then you don't owe SCO money.
Let's suppose that SCO wins:
SCO says that the 2.2 kernel is ok.
In that case, if they win, all that they have done is show that 2.4 = 2.2 + SCO + other stuff.
Combining terms,
2.4 = GPL + SCO
If SCO wins and puts the 2.4 kernel under GPL, you don't owe them any money. Everything goes on as normal.
If SCO wins and they say 2.4 can't be under the GPL, then 2.4 is illegal. That's because 2.4 would be a derivative work of BOTH 2.2 and SCO, and any license on 2.4 must work with the 2.2 license and the SCO license. Since the only license that will work with the 2.2 code is the GPL, 2.4 is illegal if they choose not to put it under that license and can't exist. I also don't think they can temporarily remove 2.4 from the GPL and add it back in, because the moment they remove it, all derivatives up to the first "tainted point" become illegal...so SCO can't later on "donate" the code back to Linux because they don't own all of it.
And they can't "gain control" of all of Linux by doing this either. It would be like MS putting some little utility in Windows illegally, then having the company that made the utility win a court case where they get control of all of Windows. Not gonna happen.
I never realized how cool those clauses saying that you can't extend or alter the GPL were until this came up.
So, to make it simpler, either everyone can use 2.4 for free, or nobody can use 2.4 at all.
OTOH, if you intend to stop using Linux anyway, and you still don't want them to sue you, then you might pay them off. But realize that if you feel you have to pay them off, then you're admitting that you can't use 2.4 Linux.
Re:Where it will all go (Score:4, Insightful)
If (2.4 is under GPL) then (don't have to pay money to SCO to use 2.4)
The contrapositive form:
if (you have to pay money to SCO to use 2.4) then (2.4 is not under GPL)
also
if (2.4 is not under GPL) then (2.4 is illegal)
and
if (2.4 is illegal) then (you can't use 2.4)
(hypothetical syllogism)
if (you have to pay SCO money to use 2.4) then (you can't use 2.4)
So, if you feel that you need to pay money to SCO, you can't use 2.4 since you're saying that it's not under the GPL. I hope that if anyone pays off SCO, the kernel coders sue the fuck out of them for copyright infringement since the payer is saying that they don't think 2.4 is under the GPL.
Re:Where it will all go (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, this is a big inconvenience for many people using Linux in their companies. I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux.
There is no reason Linux users and developers should worry about having to pay one penny to SCO. Consider that after years of battling Sears in court, the patent holder for the adjustable wrench got a huge settlement from Sears for the theft of his patented invention, but the many owners of Sears Craftsman wrenches never had to pay him royalties. Even though many of the owners of wrenches may have been businesses that used the wrenches to make their own products. Sort of the way you are using Linux to develop a project.
Think about how Paramount had to pay the copyright holder, Art Buchwald, for the copyrighted material they took and put in the Eddy Murphy movie 'Coming to America', but movie goers didn't have to each send Mr. Buchwald a check. None of the theater companies that made money showing the film paid Mr. Buchwald, even though they 'trafficked' in tainted goods!
Now, before they even prove they own it. Before they even show anyone what they own. The SCO group want Linux users to pay up front. This is totally unprecedented.
Overturning years of precedent and setting a new example like SCO wants to do would have a chilling effect on the software industry in America. The software giants in the industry will not let this become standard operating procedure.
IBM is very good at the IP law end of the software business. I am sure they did 'due diligence', and made sure the code they put in Linux was their code and not stolen. I think it is highly unlikely that the SCO group will be able to prove otherwise, especially because SysV UNIX is so tainted with other open source code.
But even if SCO wins a settlement from IBM, just like Sears and Paramount, the users of the 'tainted' product will not have to pay a single penny.
It is easy for us geeks to poke holes in SCO's arguments about code origin. Don't any of these Wall street analysts have enough business sense, and experience in past cases to call SCO's bluff?
I now that all these costs eventually get passed down to the consumer level, so software users will pay for the extra legal work needed in the future to develop software. But this just adds to the cost of developing software within the USA. SCO is bad for the economy. Free market oriented software development like Linux and Apache are much better for helping to create a robust competitive economy.
Support freedom of choice.
Support free enterprise.
Support free software.
Re:Where it will all go (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed he is, and apparently he's having a few problems of his own [newsday.com] these days.
Well, duh. (Score:3, Insightful)
> SCO may now have filed for UNIX copyrights and made various allegations about code-copying, but the actual complaint against IBM still seems to be focused around allegations UNIX-based enterprise technologies (such as RCU, JFS and SMP) being improperly added to Linux.
Yeah, but the actual complaint doesn't have any FUD value, and certainly isn't going to raise share prices enough to finance a set of golden parachutes, so you can expect to keep hear them harping on all that other stuff.
This (Score:5, Interesting)
In the end however, it all boils down to this: SCO cannot really do anything. Okay, they paint a nice picture, blag a good story, but nothing -nothing- stands up to the evidence. Sure they could sue over copyright, patents (or what ever they've decided upon that day); but, linux is an international collaboration, and although it may have hit a hitch in the USA, it hasn't anywhere else. Linux will continue to move from strength to strength, SCO will die.
Steve.
Re:This (Score:3, Funny)
Right hand not knowing what the left..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, with regard to their recent announcement of a "binary run-time license":
How can _anyone_ distribute linux? If it contains code that requires a license from SCO, then it can't be licensed under the GPL (see clause 7 of the GPL).
Therefore no-one can distribute it, not even SCO, since they don't own all the copyright. Is this what SCO intend? Just to get rid of ~12 years of work?
Re:Right hand not knowing what the left..... (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO can very well enforce their copyright by granting a license. They cannot distribute a linux version that had their proprietary code since they do not have any license to the remainder of linux.
On the other hand, since the GPL was violated by mixing open and proprietary code, no-one else has the right to distribute it either. The other contributors could file a lawsuit against RedHat, for instance, if they so desired.
It is not SCO's responsibility to insure that non-SCO code is properly licensed.
Therefore, if you need to buy a license from SCO you also need to contact every other constributor and buy a license from them in order to have a fully legal version of linux.Realisticly, however, it is unlikely that Linus et al are going to sue for code that they intended to share. So the SCO license is probably enough to cover you.
One thing is becoming more and more clear. The code that is potentially infringing is isolated to post 2.2.x kernels. Since SCO continues to distirbute 2.2.x kernels they are, in fact, agreeing that that kernel is covered under GPL. Linux users can avaoid the whole issue by running 2.2.x, which should not be hardship for most.
Re:Right hand not knowing what the left..... (Score:3, Informative)
I disagree.
To do that, they'd have to disclose which parts they are "theirs".
Think about it - they're saying "you can't copy product X, because parts of it are ours", but they won't tell you which parts.
So you just keep using it, until they send you a C&D letter - which (to be enforceable under the law) would have to explicitly tell you what it is you're infringing. If they send you a C&D letter without being explicit, then attemp
maybe they'll sue based on these (Score:5, Informative)
Excommunication (Score:5, Funny)
IBM, HP, Dell and friends could easily drop support for SCO Unix on their hardware, all OSS should refuse to compile on SCO unix (print an URL to a website explaining why). A lot could be done by adjusting autoconf or whatever.
Their representatives would not be allowed to enter premises of any company, their IP packages would be silently scrapped by routers on the internet.
Darl and Sontag would be kicked out of their yacht clubs.
Essentially, they would be told that everybody hates them. Money matters, but let's not underestimate industry recognition.
Re:Excommunication (Score:2)
Very long. Check on jobsearch for the keyword SCO.
The most interesting bit is that quite a bit of these are government or positions consulting government projects.
Re:Excommunication (Score:3, Funny)
Just modify RFC 3514 to require SCO to set the Evil Bit.
Re:Excommunication (Score:5, Funny)
I think the duty of spanking this naughty brat into submission rests upon Novell. Both as the previous owner of Unix and as fellow Mormons, I can't help but feel they're somehow responsible.
More on the new SCO plan... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More on the new SCO plan... (Score:3, Funny)
some of the rules that seems to apply to McBride:
Rule 003 Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to.
Rule 042 What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too.
Rule 189 Let others keep their reputation. You keep their money.
Rule 266 When in doubt, lie.
Rule 267 If you believe it, they believe it.
Windows NT4.0 End of support (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Windows NT4.0 End of support (Score:2)
You seem to have spoted the *real* motivation behind SCO FUD campaign (which is MS's actually).
Re:Windows NT4.0 End of support (Score:3, Insightful)
Two reasons, because users break down into two categories:
1. Home users don't care about the magic end-of-support date. My mom still runs Windows 95 because it reads her email and she can use Word on it. It's been EOL'd long ago.
2. Corporate users don't go "oh goodness, there's support running out in two months, we better start looking at new options!" These guys start thinking years in advance about what their next OS strategy is. Even then, because corporate IT depts often move
IANAKD* but... (Score:4, Interesting)
1. SCO helps out Linux development in a few small ways -- some hardware here, a few lines of code there
2. SCO turns around and says it owns the other 99% of Linux it had nothing to do with because of the 1% that it did
3. SCO is now trying to extort licensing fees from end users because it "owns" Linux
4. This is somewhat akin to Bob's Auto Parts Factory saying that, because the wholesaler from which my mechanic purchased a very small part he used in repairing my car part didn't pay them for the part, I now must pay Bob rent on my car -- and furthermore, they won't tell either my mechanic or me which part it was, because it's a "trade secret". Hell, they won't even tell my mechanic which wholesaler he supposedly bought the part from!
Am I wrong? Did I miss something somewhere? Please feel free to correct me if I have.
-----
(*I Am Not A Kernel Developer)
Re:IANAKD* but... (Score:2)
Your car is a Renault isn't it? If it is not, ask any Renault owner who have tried to get his car serviced after installing any non-original parts.
Re:IANAKD* but... (Score:5, Informative)
2. SCO turns around and says it owns the other 99% of Linux it had nothing to do with because of the 1% that it did
3. SCO is now trying to extort licensing fees from end users because it "owns" Linux
Acutally it runs more like this...
1. SCO helps out Linux development in a few small ways -- some hardware here, a few lines of code there
2. SCO enters into a contract with IBM to jointly develop proprietary UNIX code.
3. IBM contributes significant code to Linux 2.4 kernel.
4. SCO claims ownership on the IBM submissions, on the theory that they are derivative of the code they jointly developed.
4a. SCO makes wild PR claims that the own everything everywhere.
5. SCO attempts to collect license fees from users of the 2.4 kernel, consistent with their claim of owning the IBM submissions.
Re:IANAKD* but... (Score:3, Informative)
5. IBM breached their contract with SCO by promoting Linux, etc etc.
6. Parties (as yet unnamed) copied SCO proprietary source (as yet unidentified) into Linux.
7. IBM unfairly competed with SCO by promoting Linux.
Basically SCO just keep bluffing and upping the ante. Unfortunately for McBridge, IBM (a) knows their bluffing, and (b) has a gun. Random spectators are wondering about "wh
Fighting back. (Score:5, Interesting)
Could there be grounds for a class action suit here? There are lots of developers that make their living in some way from linux. SCOs actions could well be a genuine threat to their livelihoods.
SCO is basically using the legal system as a weapon. Perhaps we used be using it back on them? I propose a campaign whereby:
1) Everyone that SCO thinks should pay for Linux should instead be encoraged to donate a sum to a legal fund.
2) Developers who work with Linux should find a lawer who would be willing to represent them in a class action against SCO.
Just an idea.
Re:Fighting back. (Score:3, Interesting)
Simplification (Score:3, Funny)
Ingo, Linus: Any chance to see that in 2.5 soon?
Christoph
Now we just need to get rid of SCO and make Unix even simpler.
SCO goes after Sequent Code (Score:5, Insightful)
It became apparent in yesterday's new that SCO was going after the Sequent SMP code that IBM donated to Linux.
Why the Sequent code? I'm guessing that Boies finally realized that the IBM sideletter gave IBM all rights to its own derivative work, which would burst most of SCO's claims. But the Sequent code would not have been protected from ATT's derivative works clause since Sequent didn't appear to have a side agreement like IBM's.
Of course, if Caldera/SCO had a programmer actually working on the code, as this article suggests, then Caldera/SCO is an equal partner in donating and modifying the SMP code for Linux.
Forget about whether they donated the code through "inadvertently" GPL'ing it. This proves they donated the SMP code knowingly, and even helped modify it for use with Linux. That's a much stronger case than relying on any of GPL's so-called viral qualities.
Re:SCO goes after Sequent Code (Score:5, Interesting)
Any bets on how long it will take for SCO to come out and say that the programmer in question was workign without the authority or knowledge of his supervisors?
Re:SCO goes after Sequent Code (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO goes after Sequent Code (Score:3, Interesting)
There is case law going the other way, too, though.
It comes down to the evidence presented in the case. Was there an established, written policy about working on Linux? Are there memos between this programmer and his supervisor(s) regarding the work being done on the Linux kernel? What evidence is th
Re:SCO goes after Sequent Code (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, this was pretty clear a month ago, as discussed in "SCO Amends Suit, Clarifies 'Violations,' Triples Damages" [slashdot.org]. The theory is that because Read-Copy Update was developed for DYNIX/ptx, a System V Unix, it is derivative and subject to the System V license. Under this theory, JFS and XFS could also be derivative.
The fact that a Caldera employee encouraged RCU and JFS development makes it difficult for SCO to claim ignorance, as in the "pregnant cow" [silicon.com]. This not only renews the GPL debate, but opens the door to "the affirmative defenses laches, undue delay, waiver, and estoppel." I would add to that list unclean hands.
Re:SCO goes after Sequent Code (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL but I believe this will be decided as a poison tree - poison fruit case. SCO poisoned itself. And deserves to die a horrible death.
Not to put to fine a point on it (Score:5, Insightful)
That Caldera/SCO should be responsible for the complaints of the suit should come as no surprise. Mr. McBride has a history of manipulating the legal system, and The Canopy groups previous history has certainly involved legal manipulation as a profit center.
At this point its not enough that SCO lose the lawsuit. SCO needs to be completely destroyed, and at the very least McBride need to be held personally accountable. Its the only way to discourage future land grabs by avaricious jackasses.
If SCO MCBRIDE et al, aren't put down soundly it may very well stall or destroy Open source development permanently.
Look at Rambus, SCO's strategy is no different. now can you imagine if a company with clear intelectual rights to a technology, an algorythm, or a "business method" arranges to have it placed in the kernel, or Glibc, or X. If they wait a few years removing the code might still be possible but the collateral damage from dependant programs breaking might be insurmountable.
If we enter a regime where all OSS submission have to be checked against unpublished undistributed works OSS will be dead.
Re:Not to put to fine a point on it (Score:2)
Verifying whether an open source system contains code from other projects might be hard. But verifying wheter a closed source system does likewise will be even harder. Who knows if Microsoft Windows contains just a tiny bit of code which Microsoft doesn't have the right to use that way? Can everybody in the entire world be held liable if that turns out to be the case? Why wouldn't tha
If it's so valueable to sue over, why give it away (Score:3, Insightful)
Mirror, before the poor blog dies... (Score:5, Informative)
Caldera Employee Was Key Linux Kernel Contributor
Christoph Hellwig has been, according to this web page, [ukuug.org] "in the top-ten list of commits to both the Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 tree". The page also mentions another fascinating piece of news, that he worked for Caldera for at least part of the time he was making those kernel contributions:
"After a number of smaller network administration and programming contracts he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution."
In 2002, he offered a paper on "Linux-ABI: Support for Non-native Applications" which is described [ukuug.org] like this:
"The Linux-ABI project is a modification to the Linux 2.4 kernel that allows Linux to support binaries compiled for non-Linux operating systems such as SCO OpenServer or Sun Solaris."
Back in 2002, he was described, [linuxsymposium.org]in connection with his appearance at the Ottawa 2002 Linux Symposium, like this:
"Christoph Hellwig
"Reverse engineering an advanced filesystem
"Christoph Hellwig is employed by Caldera, working on the Linux-ABI binary emulation modules. In his spare time he cares for other parts of the kernel, often involving filesystem-related activities."
So, in short, he was contributing to the kernel and working for Caldera on Linux/UNIX integration at the same time. His work for Caldera was on the Linux kernel ("he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution"), and he also did work on his own on the kernel. Did Caldera know about his freelance contributions, in addition to knowing about his work for them? What do you think? He used his hch at caldera.de email address when doing it. All contributions to the kernel are publicly available anyway. They certainly could have known. As for his job, his signature [missioncriticallinux.com]on his emails back in 2001 was:
"Christoph Hellwig
Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration
Caldera Deutschland GmbH".
He used the email address hch at bsdonline.org sometimes too, and here [wustl.edu]you can see some of his Linux-abi contributions. Here [216.239.39.104] are some of his contributions to JFS, Journaled File System. Yes, that JFS. Here [parisc-linux.org] he is credited as sysvfs maintainer, and he confirms [geocrawler.com]it in this email, writing, "I've run native sysvfs tools under linux, but as now that I'm Linux sysvfs maintainer I'm looking into implementing free versions of it."
Here [osdata.com]is a list of the operating systems that use or can handle the file system sysvfs:
"sysvfs: UNIX System V; SCO, Xenix, Coherent e21
"operating systems that can handle sysvfs: FreeBSD (rw), LINUX (R), SCO (NRWF)"
Here's [helsinki.fi] a page listing by author (alphabetically by first name), with his emails to linux-kernel in June 2003, so he is still contributing.
Here [linuxhq.com] he is listed on the Change log for patch v2.4.17. Here [iu.edu] he tells Andrew Morton in 2002 that he will
Copyright notice in the RCU patch (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Copyright notice in the RCU patch (Score:5, Informative)
What seems to be obvious to me is however that including RCU does not make Linux a derivate of SVR4, even if RCU were an integral part of SVR4. That would be very strange definition of derivative work... but you never know.
Re:Copyright notice in the RCU patch (Score:3, Interesting)
To put that in laymens terms: Putting a Type-R sticker on your Dodge Neon does not give Acura ownership of it.
What I'd like to know... (Score:3, Interesting)
You know and I know that it's there and available for the downloading, but have any of the "journalists" brought this (and its implications) to SCO's attention in an interview?
I'd *love* to hear SCO's answer to that one!
Re:What I'd like to know... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not quite, but close.
On May 16, 2003, someone went through the available OpenLinux distributions based on the 2.4 kernel, and removed the binaries and source.
However, the person(s) who did this forgot to remove the binary and source kernel packages contained in the
Although McBride, et al have occasionally claimed that code outside of the kernel proper is infringing, SCO's claims outside of court are a moving target, and thus only worth noting for the purpose of countering the FUD. Watch what claims they actually make in court, and keep an eye on where they get smacked down. Look at what happened to SCO in Germany, and what is about to happen in Poland.
Pay me, biotch! (Score:5, Funny)
What? I'm sorry, I can't show you the code -- it's a trade secret. Just trust me and sign that check.
Red Hat's take on SCO: (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_rhletter2.html [redhat.com]
From the article:"Below, we've provided answers to questions that may help clarify Red Hat's position. If you have additional questions that aren't answered below, please email us at legal@redhat.com."
Everybody is complains about SCO, nobody does any (Score:3, Troll)
Everybody complains about SCO, but nobody actually does anything.
Say what you may, it seem like SCO is leading this game. They claims may be complete bull$%* but nobody is really facing them.
First of all, there is IBM. Remember the way Intel responded when DEC sued them over patent infrigement? They responded quickly by sueing DEC. I would expect IBM to do the same. The fact IBM is so quiest about it is very irritating.
However, it's not just about IBM anymore. It is about the open-source/free(as in speech)-software world in general, and SCO is already making real damage. I think it's time the free-software world would stop being passive here and take the lead from the hands of SCO both by taking legal actions against them and by doing some real protest.
Trillian Project and Ransom Love's LW2000 Keynote (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO also owns the trademark on TUX (WTF?) (Score:5, Funny)
SCO Trademarks Penguin Mascot, Offers Licensing Program to Linux Users [ridiculopathy.com]
There's more, but I didn't want to post the whole thing.
This is blatantly off-topic but... (Score:3, Funny)
The tag line read "do more with less".
I am glad that Microsoft is finally admitting that Windows is "less".
Linux users qwe SCO nothing! so don't worry... (Score:2, Redundant)
There is no reason Linux users and developers should worry about having to pay one penny to SCO. Consider that after years of battling Sears in court, the patent holder for the adjustable wrench got a huge settlement from Sears for the theft of his patented invention, but the many owners of Sears Craftsman wrenches never had to pay him royalties. Even though many of the owners of wrenches may have been businesses that used the wrenches to make their own products. Sort of the way you are using Linux to devel
There's more (Score:5, Informative)
Did SCO donate code? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Did SCO donate code? (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL, but I think timelines are irrelevant.
Assume for the sake of argument that all the "infringing" stuff came from SCO/Caldera. (this is not what SCO/Caldera claim, but just a what-if discussion to answer your post)
1. If SCO/Caldera contributed some kind of Unix IP to Linux, *before* SCO/Caldera acquired these rights, in this case:
- for the period until SCO/Caldera owned the IP, Caldera might be liable to the then IP holder (presumably Novell)
- for the period since SCO/Caldera owned the IP, SCO/Caldera would be liable to the current IP holder, er, that's SCO/Caldera
Unix-type stuff to Linux infringing some Unix IP
- Linux distributors might be liable to the prior IP holder (presumably Novell)
- Linux distributors would almost certainly not be liable to SCO/Caldera, as the infringement was a result of the actions of SCO/Caldera themselves
2. If SCO/Caldera contributed some kind of Unix IP to Linux, *after* SCO/Caldera acquired these rights, in this case:
- Linux distributors would almost certainly not be liable to SCO/Caldera, as the infringement was a result of the actions of SCO/Caldera themselves. In this case, if SCO/Caldera willingly contributed it, it would be hard to argue it was an infringement at all!
Is SCO affair anything to do with Linus' decision? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ironic, isn't it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that SCO's doing what it's doing, all of a sudden you people are SCOURING for Caldera contributions and are uncovering all kinds of interesting stuff. Gee, could it be that the stuff I've been saying here for years is true, that Caldera wasn't the parasite that you folks made them out to be??
Here's what really kills me: you folks may not have the power to kill a company, but I can't help but think that if Caldera got a bit more support from you people -- or even just a bit less of a thrashing -- the odds of SCO not being in the picture would have increased significantly. Ponder that for a moment. I'll wait...
Before you, RMS, whoever (you know who you are), pick out the next legitimate Linux company to make into a pariah, perhaps you'll do a similar amount of research and uncover the truth about the company first.
Chillingeffects.org (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM sales people being asked about SCO/Linux/AIX can then politely point companies to this Q&A. Something that will be clear for corporate counsels (for those that do not specialize in Copyright issues) and other legal advisors, plus a well prepared response letter could be pretty useful for assisting companies not caving in to SCO's extortion.
The fewer companies that cave in, the less money SCO will have to fuel this BS.
Comments from a Law professor.. good stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
(taken from content here) [linuxtoday.com]
Legally Speaking
Eben Moglen, professor of law at Columbia University and general counsel to the Free Software Foundation (FSF), though says there is absolutely no reason for anyone to buy SCO's license. "Users don't need a license to use copyrighted programs anymore than they need to pay a copyright fee before reading Gone with the Wind. If you copy, distribute, or modify copyrighted material, then you can be in copyright violation."
But, he adds, if a distributor, such as Debian, were to agree to SCO's license, they would then be in violation of section 7 of the Gnu General Public License (GPL). This section specifies that if legal "conditions are imposed... that contradict the conditions of this License" you cannot distribute GPL protected free software.
"Even if SCO IP is in the Linux kernel, which has not been proved, an end-user could still not be held responsible for the copyright violation," Moglen argued.
Curiously, though, SCO is not, at this time, going after Linux distributors--nor did they suggest that they would be adding copyright infringement to their IBM lawsuit. Moglen thinks that "SCO is simply trying to scare people about using free software by making irresponsible comments." He notes that, until recently, SCO itself was distributing the code they now claim violated their own copyrights.
One reason why SCO may be hesitating about going after the Linux distributors, even though they would be the natural target for copyright violations since they've actively engaged in copying and distributing Linux source code may be because, SCO is still in the Linux distribution business.
And, speaking for himself (Moglen) and not the FSF, "I have renewed my offer to assist free software developers who may feel the need for legal assistance" because of SCO's recent actions.
If you wish to use or distribute linux (online!) (Score:2)
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I can't beleive this got modded +5 Insightful. This story does indeed have a bearing to "Your Rights Online", if you use or distribute Linux in any way shape or form.
And please, if you're not interested in the story, do not respond to it!
*rolls eyes at the idioacy*
Re:Yay! (Score:2)
I dunno. When it was officially revealed that Sun is the secret licensee, it was not covered at all (which IMO would have been in order).
Re:Yay! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yay! (Score:2)
You read them?? Set your threshold to 2, and GNAA won't harm you. OTOH, how do I avoid the SCO FUD?
-
Re:How much are now your SCO stocks? (Score:4, Informative)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&k=c1&a=v&p=s &t=1y&l=off&z=m&q=l
Wow, looks like FUD sells! (Note that the first copyright suit was filed around the graph's turning point in March.)
Re:Hear that? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hear that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because there is no case. SCO have a big mouth but nothing else. Everything SCO says apears not to bother IBM. IBM just do business as usual. Now if just the media would have ignored SCO the way IBM does. But if this ever goes to court IBM will defend themselves.... What will be left of SCO when that happens?
Re:This is kind of shaky ground to be using as pro (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does his job title basically describe him as a Caldera employee working on Linux?
Even if Caldera were to say he were doing it freelance:
(1) why do they allow him to use company resource (like email) to do it?
(2) doesn't the fact he is using caldera.de etc., make him a representative of the company?
and (3) even if you think the answer to 2 is no, isn't it completely reasonable for others (like Linus, IBM, etc) to assume he is doing with authorization of his employer given his email address, job title, etc.
They can't do this (Score:3, Informative)
Whoa - Kramer vs. Kramer flashback. Maybe SCO will get some extra cash from selling the movie rights.