More on SCO vs. IBM Lawsuit 538
Colin Stanners writes "SCO has held a TeleConference and put up a page with information on their lawsuit against IBM. The key phrase (from their complaint) is: 'It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach UNIX performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of UNIX code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM.' Their page also includes a Q&A, presentation, and exhibits, although these are mostly licensing agreements and not code." Bruce Perens had an interesting comment on the situation, more than one group is trying to organize a boycott, and Newsforge has a story based on SCO's press conference this morning. Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN.
why? (Score:5, Funny)
The market has been "boycotting" SCO and it's crap for years, not like there needs to be a special effort.
Re:why? (Score:5, Interesting)
hehehehe Isn't that the truth.
Better yet--
Why not have everyone send them letters of complaint, requesting a response. Do this repeatedly....
$0.37 is not much to each of us, but adding up all the postage and processing labor would likely cause a much higher cost (and lost oppertunity) to them.
In otherwords, lets apply the principles used in DDOS to saturate their mailrooms
Re:why? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not that I'm lazy and it's not that I don't trust the company to reply to my complaint, but I think it would be easier to saturate their toll-free sales phone line, or their web form, instead.
Caldera Product and Sales Inquiries
1-888-GO-LINUX
1-888-465-4689
http://www.caldera.com/company/feedback/ [caldera.com]
Incidently, here is the Canopy Group's contact information, but please be aware 801 is not a toll-free number, it's a Utah area code.
The Canopy Group
333 South 520 West
Suite 300
Lindon, UT 84042
phone: 801.229.2223 (not a free toll-free number)
fax: 801.229.2458
e-mail: info@canopy.com
http://www.canopy.com/aboutus/contact.htm [canopy.com]
Whoo hoo! Slashdot can fix this! (Score:3, Funny)
They probably pay a nickel per minute for their 888 number.
That means that we can bankrupt them by making 320 million minutes worth of useless calls, navigating their stupid voice menus! If we can each make 100 minutes worth of calls, we only need 3.2 million slashdotters to participate!
Looks like it's time for an offensive slashdotting, old school!
Ha ha! You beat me to it! (Score:4, Funny)
Does SCO even care that they:
I hope IBM bitchslaps them. Litigiously speaking, of course.
--
Re:Ha ha! You beat me to it! (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt that anyone will miss them once IBM is finished mopping the floor with them.
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
He hit it right on the head here. After a lawsuit like this, who'd want to work with them? It's not worth the risk...
Re:why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:why? (Score:3)
Anyone also note that (Score:4, Funny)
Please MR Linus--
Please make them license the trademark from you!
Re:Anyone also note that (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Anyone also note that (Score:3, Interesting)
Also they just got certified for IBM DB2 on sco recently so they need to be careful or IBM might just forget to ever certify them again.
Re:why? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:why? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, this must be entirely at the behest and with the intent of their majority holding group....Canopy Group [slashdot.org]
If someone can create a list of companies that Canopy Group has a majority stake in, then you have a focus for a boycott.
Whatever SCO (Score:3, Interesting)
Umm SCO is no gem in the rough. My opinion Five years ago Linux was a better choice then that of SCO.
Sounds like Penis envy to me.
Sorry, it was the dedication of thousands of programmers and millions of testers that made Linux what it is today.
Re:Whatever SCO (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe SCO should subpoena IBM for the Linux source and find the offending code themselves ;)
Re:Whatever SCO (Score:3, Informative)
SCO monkey:"psst - we already have the source, we've sold linux in the past."
SCO PHB: "You're fired!"
Mind you, just look at their stock symbol : SCOX - say it fast, it sounds like "sucks cocks", or in this case "$uck$ cock$"
Re:Whatever SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO was irrelevant five years ago. They figure that the possibility of getting any money from IBM beats killing off what little credibility they might have, because they're sinking anyway.
Re:Whatever SCO (Score:2)
The same people who considered that to be valid logic when on to become doctors and engineers.
Re: Whatever SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
> > "It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach UNIX performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of UNIX code"
> Sounds like Penis envy to me.
It's an incredibly stupid a priori claim to base a court case on, for sure. Do they expect the court to just accept it as a given and move directly to the penalty phase?
Compliant is full of incredible holes.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Except for SCO, none of the primary UNIX vendors ever developed a UNIX "flavor" to operate on an Intel-based processor chip set. This is because the earlier Intel processors were considered to have inadequate processing power for use in the more demanding enterprise market applications.
Hmmm.... I guess that Solaris x86 doesn't count?
Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car.
And SCO UNIX was the equivalent of that Mercedes Sportscar until you discover that it had a really cheap transmission in it and 2 cycle lawn-mower engine....
Nother interesting point which regardless of accuracy should give Shared Source advocates pause is:
Based on other published statements, IBM currently has over 7,000 employees involved in the transfer of UNIX knowledge into the Linux business of IBM, Red Hat and SuSE (the largest European Linux distributor). On information and belief, a large number of the said IBM employees currently working in the transfer of UNIX to Linux have, or have had, access to the UNIX Software Code.
It seems to me that this suit is interesting because as a derivative works suit... This is very dangerous for Microsoft and its shared source initiative. So the idea that this is good for Microsoft is actually very misleading. Normally, lawyers will usually take a "play it safe" mentality where unless victory is quite likely, suits are often discouraged. Particularly in expensive areas like copyright or patent laws. So the fact that SCO has moved into the DMZ of copyright law is significant and could redefine where the DMZ is. In fact their presence there, if they lose would be a severe blow to their ability to pursue other suits. So if IBM wins, this is a victory for all of us.
Now as to what can be done:
1: Can the FSF get involved?
2: If so, cvan we all donate to them?
In other words... (Score:2, Redundant)
It must be anti-competitive than right? heh, what a joke.
SCO -> Flames -> Crash -> Burn...bubye, don't let the door hit you on the way out...
Harsh link! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Harsh link! (Score:2)
However it turns out (Score:5, Funny)
Re:However it turns out (Score:5, Funny)
Not to mention the all-important "yo".
Re:However it turns out (Score:5, Funny)
Re:However it turns out (Score:4, Funny)
Here we go
Re:However it turns out (Score:3, Funny)
Anybody want a peanut
No. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:However it turns out (Score:4, Funny)
Upside (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Upside (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I would like to agree with your sentiment, unfortunately, it doesn't hold true. As the result of defeating a strawman, you get... A pile of straw.
I personally find it amazing that SCO would even suggest this as a reason to sue for IP violations. The speed of Linux development has NO connection whatsoever with SCO, aside from what code they VOLUNTARILY added to the open source community. And, even if their claim did have even a hint of validity (which it does not), UCB, AT&T, and DEC (aka Compaq) would all have just as much, if not more, right to sue by that logic.
Sad.
But, just to save people the trouble of rumblings of a boycott... What exactly would folks boycott? This suit comes as an end-of-life move by a defunct company, apparently looking to utterly destroy their once-good reputation to toss a few bucks to their stockholders. They just don't have anything (of relevance in the past decade) to boycott About the only thing that might get the message to them consists of those same stockholders waking up, realizing that, regardless of the outcome of this frivolous suit SCO will no longer exist, and dumping their shares as fast as physically possible. Perhaps killing SCO before this all goes through would remedy the situation, but nothing else will.
Isn't SCO under a de facto boycott? (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone who has installed SCO (any type or version) in the last year raise your hand.
I don't think there is much of a point in boycotting a company who has clearly turned away from producting anything and now simply exists to litigate based on its IP.
-Peter
Re:Isn't SCO under a de facto boycott? (Score:2)
raising hand (Score:3, Funny)
(individual systems -> SCO master -> ?SCO slave? -> Postscript rip -> SCO slave/master -> ?IOCA RIP? -> Printer. Its switching to Linux but it isn't converted yet (since it works and scales big enough).
[Screams of "but its not my fault" in the background]
Hey SCO! Fix the sendmail exploit! (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe I can sue SCO for $1B when my sendmail gets hacked. SCO SUCKS!
wtf? (Score:2, Troll)
Of course! Nothing can possibly be as good as your product unless they steal from you! I mean, after all, your product is perfect isn't it? If the person who made that comment meant it, I can't understand how they came to be in such a profession when they are clearly clueless. If they didn't mean it, I'm not so surprised. Liars are successful these days.
GPL in court (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO is also party to the GPL, which invalidates their patent portfolio for any of their patents that happen to have been used in a Linux system that they distributed. Under the GPL terms, if you distribute your patented practice in GPL software, you must grant a license to everyone to make use of that patent in any GPL software, for any field of use.
Would be interesting if it comes to court, if nothing else, just to see just how enforcable GPL is.
FYI: press release (Score:3, Informative)
What a tacky way to extort money... (Score:2, Interesting)
At least, that's how I see it.
Re:What a tacky way to extort money... (Score:2)
Non sequitor
Perhaps IBM can prove SCO's allegations are false, but fail to see how it is a self evident fact that IBM can countersue. On what grounds? Even if they could countersue for SCO making a frivolous claim, all they could recoup is their court costs. I highly doubt that will destroy them.
Re:What a tacky way to extort money... (Score:2)
Re:What a tacky way to extort money... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a tacky way to extort money... (Score:3, Interesting)
Think CivCTP here: the lawyer unit.
SCO is playing dirty against an enemy that has ample resources to retaliate in kind.
This being /. and all... (Score:2)
I mean, if that isnt, then by golly, I must be crazy. Now where did I leave my tin foil hat...
Re:This being /. and all... (Score:2)
Plaintifs are always listed first.
So it is SCO vs IBM. Sorry. SCOIBM doesn't work
Don't hire coders! (Score:2)
So a big iron company hiring people to work on linux is a "misappropriation" of resources where hiring lawyers to sue someone into oblivion isn't?
Re:Don't hire coders! (Score:3, Interesting)
So a big iron company hiring people to work on linux is a "misappropriation" of resources where hiring lawyers to sue someone into oblivion isn't?
I don't think that this suit will push IBM into oblivion. Sco, OTOH, possibly
I think that Caldera *never* liked the GPL. My first impression of them was that they found that territory scary and were trying to appeal to risk-adverse businesses by trying to package it as proprietary software. Of course RedHat pulled the rug out from under then and now they can't even make that work.
So Caldera is trying make money by lawsuits because they are now so far behind, I doubt they could come back.
Re:Don't hire coders! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can win the old fashioned way - sue! (Score:2)
That's from Perens. Funny thing is, I don't think SCO is even a player anymore are they? They're only revenue stream must be from old licenses.
An easy way out for IBM would be to buy and fire them, but then Canopy would get what they want. A better solution would be for IBM to kick the shit outta them in court and drag down Canopy as low as possible.
This is really beneath contempt.
JB
Re:If you can win the old fashioned way - sue! (Score:3, Interesting)
That's for sure... I don't think very many people would bother with SCO these days...
I used to work at a small company where the system administrator was a hopeless dork in love with SCO. Instead of Linux, he put SCO on all the boxen, and man, what a cruddy environment THAT was. The whole setup sucked ass. You had to do your own keyboard mapping when you first logged into your account, for instance... I haven't had to do that in Linux since before 1995! This was in 2001, mind you. And, none of the commercial packages we needed to set up websites were available in a SCO-friendly version. Getting open source stuff to work was possible, but required editing C and recompiling. Yuck, ick, foo.
This is just my opinion, but I think SCO sucks. It has to be the worst Unix I've ever worked with. SCO (and the dork sysadmin who loved it, who was a pain in the ass in numerous other ways) was one of the reasons I quit that chickenshit outfit and never looked back.
EEESH. I'm getting the shakes just thinking about it...
If as you suggest IBM mushes SCO in court and SCO just quietly sort of goes away, I think that will increase the overall dignity of the IT industry in the same way knocking down a condemned house improves a neighborhood. We can only hope...
Acronym (Score:5, Funny)
Desired SCO suit damages: $1 billion.
Having the biggest, baddest lawyers and patent holdings on the planet: Priceless.
SCO for corporate suicide; for everything else, there's Big Blue.
I asked this before, answer this time (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would they poke the T-Rex that is IBM with a stick, unless they think they can bring it down?
We can sit around laughing or bitching or whining or moaning, but what will happen if there turns out to be code in Linux that we dont have the rights to, either by way of trade secrets or patents?
Can all the SysV and other SCO stuff be removed without killing Linux? Would a setback be weeks, months, years, or would it be the end?
Re:I asked this before, answer this time (Score:5, Insightful)
We can sit around laughing or bitching or whining or moaning, but what will happen if there turns out to be code in Linux that we dont have the rights to, either by way of trade secrets or patents?
They distribute their own distro of Linux, Caldera Linux. So all the code there is in Linux, they have distributed themselves under the GPL. So we have the rights to it. This is really quite funny :-).
Re:I asked this before, answer this time (Score:2)
And if Caldera has included those binaries, we still have rights to it
So they could get damages from IBM, but this still looks like a derivative words lawsuit, and it s very murkey territory. But Linux Users will be unlikely to be affected.
Re:I asked this before, answer this time (Score:5, Insightful)
This is suicide by cop[1].
Or it's something similarly twisted. SCO is simply dead. The back
story may be interesting though.
The news.com story notes that SCO may be pissed over the failure of
Project Monterey, which was aimed at reimplementing GNU/Linux as a
proprietary Unix for the Itanic (that's just so wrong so many ways I
won't even start).
Just a few off-the-cuff observations.
- You don't launch a land war in Asia.
- You don't launch a billion-dollar patent battle with IBM, if your
strategy is in fact to win that battle.
- Corrolary of the above is that you're either trying to lose, you're
not calling the shots, or you're aiming to win another battle.
These are not mutually exclusive, though options 2 & 3 are the most
likely pairing.
- Aside: IBM generates over $1b (approaching 1.5b IIRC) annually in
patent licensing revenues. Their patent portfolio numbers over
22,000. IBM is the single largest holder and recipient of US patent
grants.
- Theory: somebody's trying to sow patent problems for IBM, and/or
tie up IBM legal in a suit, while somebody else pulls a fast one.
- Theory: Caldera wants to prod IBM into reviving the DR-DOS suit (or
something similar) against Microsoft (or other parties). I find
this unlikely, but mention it for completeness.
- Theory: Caldera's management is trying to avoid breach-of-
fiduciary-interest or other similar charges, while disposing of the
company while putatively pursuing a fiduciary interest of the
company.
- Theory: This is Wang v. Netscape again. In that case, Microsoft
bought a significant interest in the dying Wang corporation, and
Wang pursued patent suits against Netscape. The patent was
eventually invalidated, but such battles are costly.
- Theory: (left field variety) LFP or similar[2] have corraled
Caldera into making a blatent demonstration of just how broken the
patent system is by going after its (the patent system's) largest
beneficiary.
Watch this space, things got interesting.
Peace.
--------------------
Notes:
1. If you're not familiar with the term: a perp assaults a police
officer, in such a way that the cop has to use deadly force. This
being the apparently desired outcome of the perp.
2. LPF: League for Programming Freedom, an anti-patent group associated
with Richard M. Stallman.
Credit to Karsten on this one. This is good enough that it needs to be posted here.
Re:I asked this before, answer this time (Score:3, Funny)
- You don't launch a land war in Asia.
- You don't launch a billion-dollar patent battle with IBM, if your
strategy is in fact to win that battle.
- NEVER go against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line!
Re:I asked this before, answer this time (Score:3, Insightful)
It's in the GPL, section 7.
They cannot restrict the patent to GPL'ed software that has only been released by them. If they do so, they cannot distribute under the GPL, which means they cannot distribute the code at all, and they cannot make it a part of their Linux Distribution.
Re:I asked this before, answer this time (Score:5, Informative)
Because, as Mr. Perens points out, they don't want to bring it down. They want to be bought out. Again.
You'd have an amazingly hard time proving infringement in court by IBM -- the bits that are most worrisome (such as SysV IPC) were in place long before IBM touched Linux or viewed SCO source. They were implemented because they were widely documented in Unix manuals, books, and taught in schools.
SCO's legal brief has quite a few sections that are laughable:
82. Linux started as a hobby project of a 19-year old student. Linux has evolved through bits and pieces of various contributions by numerous software developers using single processor computers. Virtually none of these software developers and hobbyists had access to enterprise-scale equipment and testing facilities for Linux development. Without access to such equipment, facilities, sophisticated methods, concepts and coordinated know-how, it would be difficult or impossible for the Linux development community to create a grade of Linux adequate for enterprise use.
84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.
Section 82 is humorous. Section 84 is downright absurd. Point by point:
1) It's called a mailing list and revision control. The very same methods that are used in a vast amount of corporate development.
2) What expensive design and test equipment? Earlier in the brief SCO admitted that x86 hardware was vastly less expensive. The design and test equipment is these very same inexpensive boxes.
SMP wasn't that absurdly uncommon in the early 90s, and lots of people had access to large scale equipment, especially at a university. I know people who had unfettered access to early 90s supercomputers (Crays, etc), as well as SP-2s. Or built a cluster of SMP boxes running on Linux for PhD projects -- all of this in the early to mid 90s.
3) Code? No need. Methods and concepts? Sure. They're documented in man pages, thousands of books, and taught as part of most university CS curriculums. They're not difficult concepts really, and re-implementing them may not be trivial, but it's not impossible either.
4) Yes, because nobody knows the UNIX architecture except SCO. Uh huh. It's not in the very same books and courses mentioned previously.
5) There is a large financial investment - look at Redhat, Slackware, FSF, or just start counting man-hours donated to the kernel. If volunteer efforts were incapable of accomplishing anything then Habitat for Humanity would've gone belly up over a decade ago.
To top it all off there's a good bit of questioning with regards to Caldera Linux, the GPL, and SCO. If SCO knew that there were IP violations in the Linux kernel then it willfully violated the GPL in distributing them in Caldera Linux. That doesn't mean that those IP rights suddenly get lost, but it does mean that their legal case becomes a whole lot more hairy.
SCO to IBM (Score:3, Funny)
'shared source' comment over at lwn.net (Score:5, Interesting)
But I hope Bruce and others won't lose time pointing out the implications for people who want to participate in programs like MSFT's "shared source". They open themselves up to later lawsuits if they later develop or distribute anything technologically related, even if it isn't textually derived from the original.
It is an interesting counterpoint in case Microsoft wants to use the lawsuit in any anti-linux campaign ...
The boycott page is a little over the top (Score:2)
I live in Boston where the job market is tough even with a zillion computer-related companies around. I can't imagine how rough finding a job must be in Utah. It seems unfair to fault people for keeping a job in these tough times.
sujal
Linux. New and improved? (Score:2, Insightful)
So how long has this linux thing been going on, then? A mere day and a half, from the sound of things. And there aren't tens of thousands more programmers available for linux than any other O/S, are there?
IBM's position? (Score:2)
Does IBM have an official position statement, or any kind of response to this, available yet? I would very much like to read it.
Thank you for any help...
Trade secrets only as good as their protection (Score:2)
IBM has been interested in Linux for some time, and Linux has been around for even longer; if there were trade secret problems, SCO should have complained immediately, back then. Waiting until now may provide IBM with a lot of ammo.
On the other hand, I may be confusing trade secrets with trademarks... little help?
Re:Trade secrets only as good as their protection (Score:3, Insightful)
Bruce
Fighting Back! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fighting Back! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fighting Back! (Score:3)
It could work out nicely for you too, if the company you help then decides to come back to you for some paid work. Feel the quality of the goods and all that.
What if SCO kicks the bucket? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's going to happen to SCO's intellectual property when it croaks? Who will buy it? I think the ancient unices that they own are of great interest. I'd love to see those in the public domain, but that's probably wishful thinking.
What about Solaris? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for SCO, none of the primary UNIX vendors ever developed a UNIX "flavor" to operate on an Intel-based processor chip set. This is because the earlier Intel processors were considered to have inadequate processing power for use in the more demanding enterprise market applications.
What about the x86 version of Solaris?
Re:What about Solaris? (Score:3, Informative)
IBM *buy* SCO? WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would IBM *buy* SCO? If they released their product under the GPL, couldn't IBM just take a distro and re-release it as "SCOSUCKS" under the GPL? Couldn't anyone? What would burn the top brass at SCO if after this lawsuit (clearly aimed at them just trying to cash in), someone took their distro and made it successful.
Re:IBM *buy* SCO? WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
But then, I'm Machivellian. Most corporations are too. But are we the same Machievellian? :-)
Bruce
I hope that... (Score:2)
SCO is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
"Wired" magazine on drugs (Score:2, Insightful)
UNIX was developed by Ken Thomson in the 1960's. There was no AT&T USL in the 1960's.
More [bell-labs.com]
McBride needs new board members (Score:2, Funny)
SCO's claims (Score:4, Interesting)
They're probably hoping IBM will buy them out for a couple million dollars in an effort to avoid bad publicity, and then the SCO managers can retirs in luxury. The sad thing is, it might even happen
Re:SCO's claims (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't a matter of 'lineage' going back through the decades. It's a matter of new code submissions by IBM that IBM doesn't have the right to pass along freely.
That's their claim, anyhow. We'll see how it turns out in court.
Re:SCO's claims (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not "sort of true". Though you know the truth (there is no Minix source code in Linux and never was) unfortunately there are people who honestly believe that Linux is a Minix derivative. They point to minix.c as proof! These people don't need encouragement in any form. I know that you meant Linus used Minix as the development environment and Linux orignally used the Minix filesystem, but there are plenty of people who don't understand this subtlety. So please say "not even remotely true" instead of "sort of true".
Better than a boycott? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this legal? Is it a good idea? Would it have any effect at all?
Bandwidth is Expensive (Score:4, Funny)
We use SCO... (Score:4, Insightful)
I recently had a discussion with our SCO account manager and suggested to him that SCO was "perceived" (ha!) as dying, that OpenUnix 8 was a marketing disaster and no-one is asking for Unixware 7.1.3. We had met at the Linux Expo last year and he seemed more interested in pushing Linux than Unixware. The fact that SCO have stopped developing an Itanium port of Unixware, and Openserver (their really old OS) is pretty much for legacy sites only, they seem to be pinning their future on UnitedLinux.
We got onto the subject of patents and he tried to explain how their licensing scheme would only be used in situations where other companies were using code that enabled SCO apps to run under Linux. Hmm. I told him that wasn't how it appeared and that SCO looked as if they were desperate to make money and this is their last resort. I then suggested they had an issue with marketing. It now transpires he was either misinformed, or lying. No-one here is surprised or shocked.
My manager has a meeting with SCO in a couple of weeks and I'll be sure to brief him on their current tactics first.
On a different note, I find it strange that SCO and IBM were working together on Monterrey, a project that would supposedly combine Unixware and AIX for IA-64. This was going to have the Unixware kernel which I always found odd as my understanding is that the AIX kernel is far more advanced. The project seemed to fall apart and both companies developed their own products with added support for Linux compatibility. Now SCO is suing IBM for patent infringement...
I personally hope that SCO dies, or that IBM buys them out and releases the patented code as GPL. I actually quite like Unixware 7 as it's about as pure an implementation of System V you can get (which is interesting when compared with other Unices which have differing degrees of SysV/BSD), but if Unixware dying is the price for SCO dying, then it'll be worth it.
Interesting clause in exhibit C (Score:5, Interesting)
I would point people to the 4th page of the pdf file, which addresses clause 7.06a of an earlier agreement. It reads in part:
"LICENSSE agrees that it shall hold SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this agreement in confidence for AT&T. . . . Nothing in this agreement shall prevent LICENSEE from developing or marketing products or services employing ideas, concepts, know-how of techniques relating to data processing embodied in SOFTWAR PRODUCTS subject to this agreement, provided that LICENSEE shall not copy any code from such SOFTWARE PRODUCTS into any such product or in connection with any such service and employees of LICENSEE shall not refer to the physical documents and materials comprising SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this agreement when they are developing any such product or service or providing any such service. If information relating to a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this agreement at any time becomes available without restriction to the general public by acts not attributable to LICENSEE or its employees, LICENSEES obligations under this section shall not apply to such information after such time."
Now, I've not glanced at exhibits D and E and have not read completely exhibits A,B and C. However, this clause, if not overridden in D or E, would seem to me (remember IANAL) to give IBM the right to use IP embedded in licensed code to produce other code or services. It would even seem to allow people who have worked with licensed code to work on the new project so long as they do not refer to licensed code or documentation while working on the new project.
So, even if IBM took SCO intellectual property and placed it into Linux, so long as they didn't copy SCO owned code or look at while working on the Linux code, it seems to me that it would have been perfectly legal under the contracts for IBM to co-opt SCO owned IP and place it under the GPL in Linux.
Anyone read it differently?
They've committed one of the classic blunders! (Score:3, Funny)
(thud)
They are eating their own pie... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, let's get this straight.
So either Canopy doesn't know what's going on, or is pretty hands-off, or they have no qualms about using one business in a way that would hurt or kill off one or more of their other viable businesses. Either way, they aren't a good company to work with.
Kind of like the dilbert comic, "The net-net at the end of the days is we owe ourselves 3 billion dollars."
-Adam
Re:They are eating their own pie... (Score:3, Informative)
The case is really weak (Score:3, Interesting)
For example they make a great deal out of the fact that Linux = Linux + Unix; to show that the intent was to steal Unix intellectual property. As a side note Linux is a pun on Linix which was an abbreviation for Linus' Minix and SCO owns no Minix intellectual property.
They refer to Stallman as a former MIT professor.
Where it is not just factually untrue they often are highly misleading. For example they talk about SCO intellectual property as part of the Monterey project and then have quotes from IBM indicating the version of JFS in Linux is from Monterey project. The clear intent is to leave the reader with the impression that JFS came from SCO and was stolen by IBM.
Unlike the other two mistakes (which might just show negligence is preparing a court filing) this one is clearly an attempt to mislead the court.
Similarly they have multiple sections outlining the fact that the probability of someone randomly creating libraries compatible with the SCO OpenServer Shared Libraries are close to 0; which hints but never states that Linux is compatible with the SCO OpenServer Shared Libraries.
I think a very good case can be made for summary dismissal. As for IBM winning in court there won't be a problem. If this is the best claim Caldera has they really are in deep trouble.
Can't wear my SCO shirts anymore... (Score:4, Funny)
SCO, you bastards.
Sure You Can! (Score:3, Funny)
Then it will be truly 1337.
they've lost before they start (Score:4, Insightful)
Shared libraries are by their nature unique creations based on various decisions to write code in certain ways, which are in great part random decisions of the software developers who create the shared library code base. There is no established way to create a specific shared library and the random choices in the location and access calls for "hooks" that are part of the creation of any shared library. Therefore, the mathematical probability of a customer being able to recreate the SCO OpenServer Shared Libraries without unauthorized access to or use of the source code of the SCO OpenServer Shared Libraries is nil.
Aside from the insult proffered to programmers everywhere (calling our decisions "random"), there's the real problem that it IS possible to duplicate functionality in shared libraries without the source code. Check out WINE as an excellent example.
Looks like they swiped the unix family tree.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Éric Lévénez's unix family tree, possibly in
violation of the "you can freely use this diagram
for non-commercial purposes" line at the bottom
of the page.
compare http://www.levenez.com/unix/
with
http://www.sco.com/scosource/unixtree/unixhisto
http://www.sco.com/scosource/SCOsource_Presenta
I guess "What's mine is mine, and what's yours
is negotiable" rings true at SCO.
--chuck
SCO has some misconceptions about Linux/GNU (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's some of the misconceptions they have:
In their brief, one of the points they make is that Linux was originally created for not-for-profit uses:
I don't know for sure about what Linus was thinking, but I know for certain that GNU was intended to be used in commercial, for-profit applications. Stallman has repeatedly stated that people can GPL stuff and sell it. His analogy was with legal help: you pay a lawyer to write up a contract, but then you can give the contract to a friend in a similar situation. You pay once for the lawyer to write up the contract; the lawyer doesn't get royalties every time you use it. OTH, your friend would be wise to at least run it by a lawyer before using the contract to make sure it fits his/her situation. You can produce GPL'ed software that way, too. You can offer custom GPL'ed programs for a fee. The GPL has ALWAYS been intended to be applicable to for-profit programs.
Free of charge, yes. Not-for-profitt, no. I can sell GPL'ed code for a gazillion dollars if I want. Of course, the first person who buys it can then put it on an ftp site and distribute it to the world...
All GPL'ed software is copyright property. That's the only way the GPL works.
And then they go on to claim that IBM is trying to "destroy the economic value of UNIX (paragraph 90)." Um, guys, Stallman's intent at the outset was to destroy the economic value of all proprietary software.
I just hope that IBM's lawyers don't let them get away with such huge misconceptions. I really hope IBM can squash this suit like a bug (oh, wait, is that a good analogy? IBM... squashing bugs...infinitely growing bug lists... hmmm...))
Interesting little tidbit from Netcraft.... (Score:3, Informative)
The site www.sco.com is running Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 on Linux.
Looks like they started to switch in August of 2002, had some problems and switched back to SCO for a few days, and then completed their switch on August 14, 2002.
You KNOW a company is dying when they don't eat their own dog food.
Re:Beating a dead horse... (Score:2, Insightful)
Except the recipe is the source code.
Re:please explain us system (Score:3, Informative)
Because Caldera is located in Utah. State of incorporation is not the same as location of the business. Many (perhaps most, not sure) corporations incorporate in Delaware (I've done it myself, though I have never been to Delaware), because of that state's well-developed body of commercial law. Attorneys (I am one) tend to be conservative, and selecting Delaware as the state of incorporation is sort of like picking Microsoft or Intel -- there is a perception that no one can fault you for making the "safe" choice.
--Steve
and the winer is ... (Score:4, Interesting)
--SCO wins, stock goes up -- management cashes out and drives the company down the drain; they have a lot of practice in this matter
--IBM get's fed up and buys out SCO, stock goes up-- management cashes out and doesn't give shit.
--Bunch of spamers on stock web sites spread fud about how valid SCO's arguments are, bunch of idiots buy their stock, the stock goes up 40% in one session
well
the management knows the company is going nowhere with their crappy software, they can't follow their fellow brothers of Enron, WorldCom and others because there is nothing to steal, so they've found out other way to make money.
Re:Linus + UNIX = Linux (Score:4, Informative)