Slashdot Log In
SCO SCO SCO!
Posted by
michael
on Tue Jun 03, 2003 09:31 PM
from the make-it-stop dept.
from the make-it-stop dept.
Still more links on SCO's assorted allegations of copyright infringement. They say they're going to sue Novell. Software analysts refuse to be part of the hoax - also some good quotes from Linus here. SCO and UNIX: a Comedy of Errors. Salon has a story on SCO too, but sadly it's not available to read freely. And Wired has an old story which I think sums up the SCO claims pretty well.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
SCO still packs a punch? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would the team at SCO really keep pushing a lie, even though they know that by doing so they will face unspeakable countersuits after the trial(s)? I think that SCO is cleverly hiding an ace-in-the-hole, and it's going to hurt Linux and IBM badly. This is unprecedented: no company would ever commit suicide so blatantly and openly. I fear the worst is yet to come.
HAHA, yea right. Had ya going there, didn't I? SCOX stocks plummet some more.......
PS: fist post fools
Re:SCO still packs a punch? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:SCO still packs a punch? (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, Sco is suing Novell just about the same time that Novell is about to release netware 6, complete with open source integration.
I'm going to the store to buy lots of tinfoil, who wants a hat?
Parent
Don't forget their new NCP move to Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:SCO still packs a punch? (Score:5, Funny)
Why don't we(slashdot readers) kick in and pull a blender on SCO? Damn, that would be great, if everybody that reads slashdot could kick in as much as they could, 10, 100, 1000 bucks, whatever, we could buy SCO.
Once we buy them we release all code into the public domain, not even GPL, I'm talking Jingle Bells type licensing here. Then we dissolve the company, just let 'er go.
Disclaimer: I have no idea how the business world works.
Parent
Re:SCO still packs a punch? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who's with me?
Parent
Re:SCO still packs a punch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Caldera (now SCO) will not exist two years from now when the lawsuit with IBM comes to trial unless something can be done to stop the onslaught of Linux on their proprietary UNIX marketshare. In short, SCO has very little to lose.
In fact, SCO's current scheme is sheer genius. They field lie after lie and watch their stock price shoot through the roof. Even after the colossal smackdown that Novell put on SCO SCOX stock is still priced at over $6.00 a share. That's basically a five-fold increase over where the stock was before they declared the lawsuit against IBM. Even better SCO management has managed to keep their story in the spotlight with their wide array of wacky allegations. This not only helps keep their stock price high, but it probably is even helping their commercial UNIX business. I would bet that several SCO customers that were looking at a migration to Linux will now choose to stay pat with UnixWare or OpenServer.
Don't be fooled. SCO isn't trying to win a court case. If they were, they would be using the same tactics that IBM is currently using. Their legal counsel is pretty sharp. He undoubtedly has told the SCO management team that their responses to the press are evidence. If SCO really thought that they had a chance at winning their court case they wouldn't be giving press conferences every five minutes.
SCO's management almost certainly plans to hype the stock to the moon, and then quietly sell their stake in SCOX. Since they have several years before their case goes to court, they have plenty of time to slowly get rid of their holdings.
Parent
Re:SCO still packs a punch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it stretching the imagination too much to suppose that SCO are simply pissing people off in order to get themselves bought out in a settlement?
Parent
I recognize the strategy... (Score:5, Funny)
Kjella
Parent
Re:SCO still packs a punch? (Score:5, Funny)
It's all they have.
even though they know that by doing so they will face unspeakable countersuits after the trial(s)?
They have nothing left to lose. They've been dead for years. Linux and *BSD make them irrelevant. They have nothing left, except the outside chance that they'll be acquired and/or temporary inflation of stock. The desire to be acquired is why they are making threatening noises to Linux users, (blackmail to encouage IBM to shutSCO up by purchase) which were entirely undermined by Novell's staetments about copyright ownership.
HAHA, yea right. Had ya going there, didn't I?
FUCK! SHIT! FUCK! Why don't I read the WHOLE post before starting these long involved replies?
Parent
Re:SCO still packs a punch? (Score:5, Funny)
Confucius say: Hey, I don't talk like Yoda. Give me some credit.
Parent
Re:SCO still packs a punch? (Score:5, Informative)
But dBase IV was the buggiest piece of shit of the times, and by the time they got it straight it was 1990. Since dBase III was from 1985, that meant that for FIVE YEARS Ashton Tate was standing still. If dBase IV had been usable from the start, they might have had a chance. But in the meantime, a little company called Fox Software came out with FoxPro which was compatible and had many more features than dBase III. Ashton Tate couldn't survive and they were gobbled up by Borland.
The interesting and ironic part of all of this:
1988 (September) Ashton-Tate sues Fox Software. In december 1990 the suit filed by Ashton-Tate against Fox Software and Santa Cruz Operations for alleged copyright infringement of the dBASE language is dismissed in court.
Parent
shareholders.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:shareholders.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This possible SCO "suicide" is happening in real time over the last few days and I'm sure the shareholder suits will duly follow.
Parent
Re:shareholders.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:shareholders.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, the how imcompetent is the management of a company that goes from $300 to $.60 a share?
That is what happened to VA Linux/Research/Systems... the company that owns slashdot, the company that had ESR on the board of directors.
Score: -1, can't handle the truth.
Parent
Re:shareholders.. (Score:5, Informative)
I'll go put my tin hat on and go to bed in my padded room...
Parent
Re:shareholders.. (Score:5, Funny)
This thing is practically writing itself.
Parent
SCO (Score:5, Funny)
For Immediate Release
June 3, 2003
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
The SCO Group is based in Salt Lake City, Utah and has done nothing of interest for many years.
you *can* read the salon story freely... (Score:5, Informative)
It so happens that this "Free Day Pass" is, today, sponsored by Microsoft.
Re:you *can* read the salon story freely... (Score:5, Informative)
Bingo, free salon story, no ads.
Parent
It's a comedy (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO sues IBM
SCO threatens sue Linus
SCO threatens to sue Novell
The whole unix world is in some kind of uproar now thanks to this crappy company over IP thats so old that it should have lost most of it's value anyways. Theoretically, the concepts and whatnot in the unix world can also be in Cisco and everywhere else.
What really blows my mind is that they don't own any of it, they are a sub licensee of Novell. Maybe Novell can revoke the contract with SCO and then they can no longer sue because they no longer can enforce the copyrights? I don't know, IANAL.
sri
Bollocks (Score:5, Interesting)
"Right now the Linux kernel does not support all the capabilities of AIX. We've been working on AIX for 20 years. Linux is still young. We're helping Linux kernel up to that level. We understand where the kernel is. We have a lot of people working now as part of the kernel team. At the end of the day, the customer makes the choice, whether we write for AIX or for Linux.
"We're willing to open source any part of AIX that the Linux community considers valuable. We have open-sourced the journal filesystem, print driver for the Omniprint. AIX is 1.5 million lines of code. If we dump that on the open source community then are people going to understand it? You're better off taking bits and pieces and the expertise that we bring along with it. We have made a conscious decision to keep contributing."
On the surface, those comments seem fairly damning, but let's think outside the box for a moment, something Bruce Perens is used to doing. "IBM is smart enough not to open source other people's intellectual property," he says. "Maybe the comment about being willing to open source any part of AIX that the Linux community considers valuable simply means that there is no portion of AIX that would be considered valuable by the Linux community."
NDA is FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NDA is FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
However, your point is valid. There's no point in a NDA when the disputed code is already on dozens of mirrors worldwide and on CDs pressed by many distros over the last N years.
Let's face it -- SCO probably wants the NDA to keep the reviewers from announcing that they found stolen Linux and/or *BSD code in SCO's source tree. ;^)
Parent
Salon (Score:5, Informative)
Salon [salon.com] gives you a "Free Day Pass" that allows access to all of the content if you are willing to sit through a 15-second ad.
For the sake of clarity - a different perspective (Score:5, Funny)
I found it quite helpful
Prescient comment from BSD judge (Score:5, Informative)
---US District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise ruling in the AT&T/BSD lawsuit [bell-labs.com]
Oh please... (Score:5, Funny)
Got bandwidth? Mad at SCO? Download a 5mb file from here [sco.com] or launch an unspecified number of wget processes:
wget http://www.sco.com/images/pdf/eserver/eserver_sys
This way, you'll know how to administrate their linux server which they discontinued.
Re:Oh please... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
NOBODY has mentioned SCO being shutdown in Germany (Score:5, Informative)
The german branch of SCO has taken down its web site. Hans Bayer, SCO's executive director in Gemany confirmed that this measure was taken as a consequence of Friday's injunction of a German court against SCO
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/odi-02.06.0
SCO wasn't able to support their claims that Linux has infriging SCO IP in it. Isn't this kind of important? It pretty much proves that SCO cannot support their claims.
I submitted this story already. Can a few other people do it as well?
NOBODY in the US media has picked up on this.
Re:NOBODY has mentioned SCO being shutdown in Germ (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
2) You'll show me the secret code in question IFF I sign an NDA.
3) The code for Linux is freely available.
What's in the secret code that I can't see by looking the kernel source?
Are they the super secret comment statements that surround the code?
Is the secret code surrounded by super-double-secret code ?
What's next? I have to sign and NDA and wear a tin foil hat so Linus can't suck the super-double-secret code directly from my head and add it to the source?
Sounds like someone was sniffing glue and listening to the M$ FUD about the GPL over at SCO...
=tkk
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Informative)
2) You'll show me the secret code in question IFF I sign an NDA.
3) The code for Linux is freely available.
What's in the secret code that I can't see by looking the kernel source?
From what I see, the purpose of the NDA is so that you can't tell other people what the offending lines are, because then they could fix them and SCO wouldn't have a case.
All you're allowed to do is look at their allegations and tell the public "yes, I agree that SCO has a case" or "no, I don't believe them".
Parent
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to take SCO's side, but their NDA requirement is not unreasonable.
If there's a file, say feature.c, that Linux ripped off illegally, SCO proves nothing by showing you a copy of feature.c. They obviously could've downloaded it from kernel.org five minutes ago, and changed a couple of comments. The theft of feature.c would only make sense in the context of the entire SCO source tree. That is, let's say they shipped version 3.1415 in 1995, and they show you a source tree with feature.c included, that compiles exactly to v3.1415's dated binaries. You are therefore convinced that feature.c was SCO property and a meaningful part of SCO products circa 1995, not just added in two months ago so they could sue Linux. If feature.c later turned up in Linux, then somebody might have stolen it.
Basically, SCO needs to prove that the code does belong to SCO, and that it predates the "copied" code in Linux. Both require the context of the rest of SCO's source tree.
Therefore, it's unreasonable to ask them to let competitors such as Linus Torvalds look all over their source tree, just to allege that Linux may have received illegal code contributions.
Parent
salon article (Score:5, Informative)
A software company launches a billion-dollar suit against the open-source operating system's biggest backer, IBM -- and only succeeds in underscoring Linux's strength.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Farhad Manjoo
June 3, 2003 | If you ask Chris Sontag, a vice president at the SCO Group, how his tiny software firm decided to launch a billion-dollar lawsuit against IBM and became, in the process, the most reviled name in the open-source programming world, he'll tell you that the whole thing started rather innocently. Sontag says that SCO did not go looking for trouble with fans of free software; instead, trouble found SCO. In January the company, which makes most of its money from the sale of Unix and Linux operating system software, embarked on a routine review of its business holdings. And during the review, "we identified some concerns we had in terms of our intellectual property."
Specifically, the company determined that some source code in Linux had a lot in common with code in Unix -- and SCO says that in 1995, it purchased rights to all the original Unix source code from the software firm Novell. In other words, SCO believes that Linux, an OS that can be freely copied and modified by anyone, is illegal. Linux is, SCO says, "an unauthorized derivative of Unix." If SCO's accusations are affirmed in court, the millions of companies and individual users who have increasingly built their lives around Linux over the last decade might have to start scrambling for an alternative or face costly penalties.
But that was not all. During its examination of Linux source code, SCO says it found that it could trace what it believes was Unix code in Linux to one of its longtime partners in the Unix business: IBM. Sontag says that SCO immediately tried to notify IBM of copyright violations in Linux, but "we effectively got no response." So on March 7, SCO filed suit against IBM, alleging "misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition and breach of contract." In its complaint, SCO claims that IBM took parts of SCO's Unix code and illegally inserted the code into Linux. Last month, to warn end users about its findings, SCO sent about 1,500 corporate Linux customers a letter saying they could be in legal hot water if they continued to use Linux, which SCO told them was "developed by improper use of proprietary methods and concepts."
SCO's war on Linux has become a hot topic in open-source circles, inspiring heated discussions on developer listservs and almost daily posts on Slashdot. Opinion in these forums, as well as among more dispassionate industry observers, runs about 99 percent anti-SCO. Nobody believes Sontag's story, and it's not hard to see why. SCO's version of the history of Unix and Linux -- as the company has explained it to reporters and as it outlines in its legal complaint against IBM -- comes off as a one-sided and self-serving account. Critics say the company misstates and exaggerates its own contributions to Unix, and SCO has yet to provide a single example of infringing code it says it has found in Linux.
Daypass sponsored by
Microsoft
Industry watchers have attributed SCO's actions to economic desperation. The firm's products have not been doing well recently; the company lost about $25 million last year. SCO now has a stated goal of trying to make money by selling licenses to its Unix intellectual property, and critics see the IBM suit as perhaps only the first of many litigious efforts SCO will attempt. IBM intends to fight the case, but SCO may hope that escalating its rhetoric will make business for Linux companies so difficult that they'll cave in -- either by paying SCO licensing fees or buying the firm out.
The strategy is not entirely illogical, and SCO's efforts have met with some initial success. In mid-May, Microsoft, which considers Linux its main software rival, made headlines when it decided to purchase a Unix license from SCO. The sum Microsoft paid for the license was not disc
SCO's lawyer (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
The Language of Shakespeare in danger (Score:5, Interesting)
Even Slashdot posting could be next.
Pretty much the best write-up of this farce so far.
Conundrum with open source? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, it seems to me that the incentives are totally analogous. Programmers in the open source world code (mainly) to help others, or show off their skills (for prestige or a better job). If they are caught cheating then they obviously are not helping, and plus they lose a lot prestige.
Similarly, the people who manage open source projects clearly want their project to be successful and popular. If they accept infringing contributions then they jeopardise this, so they have an incentive not to. There may not be a direct economic incentive, but that doesn't mean the incentive isn't just as strong. The only conundrum is the familiar one that, in the free software world, people do things for reasons other than money.
Judges reviewing code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Overly said a review of the code by anyone other than a judge "means absolutely, positively nothing" in determining the merit of SCO's claims.
Is it just me, or is there something scary about a judge, who may or may not use his/her computer for anything other than e-mail and word processing, trying to interpret two snippets of source code to determine if one uses the other in an illegal way?
Re:Judges reviewing code? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the same thing, but I just got done looking at the some of the legal documents from the Original AT&T/BSD case [bell-labs.com].
In particular, the final opinion [bell-labs.com] in that case shows that the judge did take the time to understand everything.
I also find it rather enlightening to see just how poorly a copyright/trade secret suit was to prove when it was AT&T funding the fight. Makes me believe even less in SCO's chances.
Parent
Pot to Kettle... (Score:5, Funny)
Pot to Kettle, come in Kettle, are you there?
SCO is acting like they have no case (Score:5, Interesting)
Any litigator knows that you don't want to go to trial--you want to force a settlement. If you hae a halfway decent case, you'll show your evidence up front, so the other side sees that it's going to lose. On the other hand, if you have no case, then you try to keep everything under your hat and stretch out the legal proceedings until the other side pays just to make you go away.
Which of these sounds like SCO? I think that they have squat and I think that SCO and their lawyers know it.
BTW, if SCO doesn't produce evidence, IBM can file a motion to compel discovery and demand to get it. If they still stonewall, IBM can move for dismissal and get the whole case thrown out.
"second blow"? (Score:5, Funny)
I think "blow" is the wrong metaphor. A "blow" implies strength, power, and the ability to inflict pain and damage. None of those apply to SCO.
SCO is making a lot of noise and releasing a lot of hot air, something that should be embarrassing to SCO and is somewhat annoying but generally harmless to the bystanders. That kind of event is more accurately described as a "fart", not a "blow".
So, using this more accurate metaphor, the reporter should probably change the article to read:
GOLDEN BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY (Score:5, Funny)
She (MRS. M. GOTCHA), has as a result of the trust and confidence she has in me mandated that I search for a reliable and trustworthy foreign partner, who will help receive some UNIX source code which she has totaling Five Million United States LOC into a personal, company or any reliable foreign Unix-like system for safe keeping for a short period of time, since her family computer accounts within and outside the country have all been frozen by the authorities.
This source code in question has however, been carefully kept in defaced form and deposited with a security company that has branches in Europe and America. You may therefore be required to travel to any of the branches to collect the source code on behalf of my client for safe keeping.
I shall let you into a complete picture of this mutually beneficial transaction when I have received your anticipated positive reply. This matter should be treated as urgent and confidential. This is very important.
PS, it's very important that you maintain your current good relationship with Dr. Linus. Only he has the keys to the vault in which we must deposit our Five Million United States LOC. When added to the Millions of LOC already there, we will all become very rich.
Best Regards,
Dr.Darl McBloodsukr
Goodbye and good riddance SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
I also got sick of people insisting that SCO was commercial quality UNIX while blowing off Linux, while I knew darn well that Linux was more trustworthy and stable, and the only way to get decent productivity out of a SCO box was to install tons of free software on it that was often better then the software you licensed out the nose for from SCO - they even licensed TCP/IP for chrisake. Anyhow, sometimes I still do SCO work, because I'm one of the few that know how to nowdays - but none the less I am so thankfull that this next generation will never need to deal with them. And I am so thankfull that many of the businesses that toiled under SCO now have the freedom to be productive with their computers.
I am also thankfull that people no longer need to suffer under their lies, lies about quality, lies about stability, lies about being for the enterprise, and most of all lies that they were better than free software. They are so full of it. At home I tell my 4yr old daughter no-no, and in the enterprise I tell business men sco-no.
Goodbye and good-riddance SCO, I should have known you'd sue IBM. You maximized damage and harm to the computing industry for years, it only makes sense you'd do it on your death bed too. Goodbye and good riddance.
Does Linux have legal vulnerabilities? (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider the following scenario:
Imagine that the Linux kernel developers are having trouble designing a driver for some new hardware device: a winmodem, a video card, a hard drive or whatever. The manufacturer, ACME INC, has released a Windows-only (binary) driver, but doesn't appear willing to cooperate with the development of an open source driver. Furthermore, ACME's minimal published specs for the device seem to be wrong in significant ways.
The Linux driver is buggy and giving users trouble. A volunteer - Mr. Smith - presents himself to the Linux kernel mailing list. He says he has the device in question and he would like to try to help with improvements to the Linux code. Taking the existing driver code as a start, he makes a series of important contributions over a few weeks that resolve the difficulties. His changes are incorporated into the kernel source and released as part of kernel 2.6.30.
A few weeks after the release of 2.6.30, Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox receive an angry letter from ACME Inc. ACME claim that large portions of ACME's original (proprietary) driver code have been incorporated into the Linux driver code. Furthermore, they are incensed that the kernel developers accepted contributions from Mr. Smith, who, it turns out, is an ex-employee of ACME, dismissed for serious financial improprieties. ACME is convinced that Mr. Smith has stolen their code and released it under the gpl in order to harm ACME's competitive position in the market. (ACME says that a careful reading of the Linux driver code clearly reveals that Mr. Smith made use of ACME's trade secrets.)
The company decides to sue Linus Torvalds and the kernel developers. The suit does not allege that the kernel developers knowingly tried to harm ACME Inc. Rather, the claim is that the kernel developers didn't exercise "due diligence" in vetting Mr. Smith and his contributions. In effect, ACME says that someone in a position of responsibility should have asked Mr. Smith where he worked previously, and an effort should have been made to contact Mr. Smith's previous employer. Furthermore, the kernel developers should have asked ACME to review the Linux driver code before it was released.
During a news conference, ACME's CEO says:
"Every computer company in American does a at least some background checking before they hire someone to work on an important project. Where did the employee get their education? Where were they employed previously? Did they have any significant problems at their previous place of employment? In the Linux world such questions are rarely asked or followed-up on, even though Linux advocates claim that millions of people rely on the Linux operating system. In failing to ask such questions of Mr. Smith, the Linux kernel developers made themselves legally liable for the harm that resulted when he exploited the open source development process for nefarious ends."
My question is: Is this a plausible scenario? What safeguards are in place to prevent such a scenario from coming true? Are these safeguards adequate?
Re:hah (Score:5, Funny)
then after that, it's time for a nap.
Parent
Re:This will be resolved in the courts (Score:5, Insightful)
Now whose ideas did you use, and more importantly, who cares? Sure stealing is wrong, it says so in our lawbooks. But what exactly have you stolen? Does AIX not have a LVM because you used some ideas from it in Linux? Should a Ford not have Antilock brakes because GM put them on their cars before Ford?
We have broken the system to the point where it is illegal to learn anything, because somebody learned it before us. We are not stealing somebody's hard work. We are expanding on it, and with Linux, they can do the same thing back to their own product. Has there been a lawsuit because Microsoft has taken on some of the same projects that Linux has? Used ideas from one and placed them into the other? No, and by rights there shouldn't be. If Linus had compiled SCO and called it Linux, then there would be a case. If Linus used the knowledge he learned in university that the original Unix guys learned, should he be crucified? No.
and oh yeah, fuck SCO. You can sue me too you worthless piles of festering pestilence.
Parent
Re:Killing Linux (Score:5, Informative)
To quote Dvorak:
Then IBM (or SCO, or somebody) will have to define what those "certain aspects of the kernel" are, and they will be replaced by code written by people who have never worked for IBM or SCO. If IBM wants to maintain a "SCO-Fork" of the kernel, more power to them.
Ask me a difficult one next time.
Parent