Today's SCO News 741
landoltjp writes "SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX) are hosting a teleconference today in order to clear the air (*snort*) regarding "Novell's baseless UNIX ownership assertions" and other bits of hubbub and nonesense that's in the news today. Should be fun." And SCO has apparently been enjoined from making some of its claims by a German court (also here.) Cringely has an editorial on the whole mess.
But Wait there's more... (Score:5, Informative)
As a matter of fact, I think the moking gun against SCO has been sitting right under our noses. In searching for information about Novell's sale of UNIX(or licensing) to Caldera/SCO, I came across an interesting article from last march at
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2002/02
In short las year Caldera(SCO) released some of the older UNIX Codes (they say including V7 and 32V) under an open source license. This means that if any of the code that SCO is talking about is revealed to be in these versions, they don't have a leg to stand on.
Search for one thing, find something else.
Possible Fatal Blow to SCO from Lindows (Score:5, Informative)
The oft maligned Distribution Lindows might have dealt a fatal blow to SCO [ofb.biz]. Lindows is apparantly in the clear due to contract entered between SCO and Lindows sometime ago. Couple this with the GPL and the Kernel is cleared for ALL even if the SCO allegations is correct.
Re:Enough already.. (Score:5, Informative)
Meaning if you go into your slashdot user preferences you can disable all SCO stories from appearing on your screen.
Handy thing, that.
/. the phone network... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Enough already.. (Score:3, Informative)
This story is actually under the topic of 'caldera', if you want to disable stories about SCO.
Case closed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cringley, Linus, and Christoph Hellwig (Score:5, Informative)
A translation of Uninventions press release (Score:5, Informative)
The order forbids SCO from maintaining that, "that Linux operating systems illegitimately acquired and contains intellectual property of SCO Unix and/or that the end users of Linuxc can be made liable for patent infringement".
The German SCO office faces a fine of up to 250.000 euro for each offence if it continues with it's claims.
Univention had previously warned the SCO Group because of anti-competitive behavior. The Homburger based enterprise let the period for objections elapse.
"We were therefore forced to obtain the order", said Peter H. Ganten, CEO of Univention and one of the authors of the Debian standard work "Debian GNU/LINUX".
"SCO 's unproven statements , that Linux hurts patent rights of the Unix enterprise, upsets the public and harms the image of Linux. So we have had to resist."
The provisional order against the SCO Group is, according to opinion of the enterprise, an important step in several weeks of smoldering controversy in the computer industry regarding Linux.
SCO Group had sued IBM at the beginning of March for a billion US dollars of damages, because they claim that IBM's Linux programmers availed themselves of the code of SCO Unix version. SCO has so far failed to provide any evidence to back up this statement.
Re:Cringley, Linus, and Christoph Hellwig (Score:4, Informative)
Re:But Wait there's more... (Score:3, Informative)
Novell Douses 'Smoking Gun' Against SCO [eweek.com]
Re:Lindows joins the fight (Score:3, Informative)
This was also covered by C|net [com.com] and discussed in The Register [theregister.co.uk].
From the C|Net article: "Businesses, educational institutions and home users of LindowsOS can be confident they will not be dragged into a legal battle." -- Michael Robertson, Lindows' chief executive.
This assurance is based on a pre-existing arrangement between Lindows and SCO. But does their statement imply that other Linux users have something to fear? Have they inadvertently validated SCO's claim of an IP breach by other Linux vendor(s)?
about that big glue layer... (Score:5, Informative)
(And for the record, they probably could have stolen...err appropriated code from FreeBSD. Also, note that Linux can run SCO binaries, through iBCS2. But that's likely because there's a standard that governs those binaries...)
Microsoft and "Windex" (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, Microsoft already has a Unix/Windows hybrid: it's SFU (windows services for unix), and it includes a component called Interix, which extends the Windows NT/2000/XP kernel with a set of Unix system calls, and adds a few hundred Unix utilities.
If buying a SCO licence wasn't pure propaganda, then it's likely that Microsoft bought the SCO licence for the benefit of the SFU product.
It is highly unlikely that Microsoft would ever follow Apple's lead and create a new version of Windows that is layered on top of a Unix kernel. This is because of Microsoft's corporate culture. They are as rabidly pro-Windows and anti-Unix as the Slashdot community is the reverse of this.
Doug Moen.
Re:Cringley, Linus, and Christoph Hellwig (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, the press releases and interviews give a very different story. But these have been generally quite incoherent and show no evidence of being better informed than outsider speculation. The whole thing may be unrelated to any UNIX IP, but to more recent and less public development efforts.
Re:Case closed (not!) (Score:5, Informative)
SCO Call is Closed - At Least to Novell Employees (Score:5, Informative)
Hrmmph.
You'd think they'd at least let us listen to them talking about us!
Re:Very informative article, glad to have read it (Score:3, Informative)
"The Bremen Linux specialis uninvention_ has been granted a temporary injunction against SCO Group Inc. by the Bremen state court."
Re:Cringley, Linus, and Christoph Hellwig (Score:5, Informative)
NT runs a Microkernel. Microsoft doens't HAVE to abandon Windows for Unix. They can merely run it as a separate subsystem. They can run both simultaneously.
At least that was Cutler's original idea.
Hell, they don't even need a separate subsystem. All they need is the proper library support and build system support.
Re:SCO Call is Closed - At Least to Novell Employe (Score:2, Informative)
3.11 NNS
Re:Cringley, Linus, and Christoph Hellwig (Score:3, Informative)
They are the zit on the *ass of the Unix market.
IBM actually develops new technology. It has it's own substantial patent portfolio. It is quite different from Microsoft in this respect. IBM was building OSes that make NT look like a toy before Micrsoft was even founded.
Most people simply consider absurd the idea that SCO has anything to teach IBM.
hmmmmm.... (Score:3, Informative)
info from the conference call (Score:5, Informative)
This initial enforcement action is based upon copyright law
There is no linux kernel that they have studied that is not in some violation of their copyright laws. They are specifically interested in 2.4 and later
they found evidence of SCO code and derivitaves in the linux kernel
Because of the legal issues there are limitations on what they can disclose, next week they will show some parties their proof, such as members of the press, parties they have license agreements with and some software analysts.
----
There are a lot of good reporters on the line asking a lot of interesting questions. There will also be a full text of the conference call later. Don't know where yet.
On the phone with SCO (Take 2) (Score:5, Informative)
CALL START
great deal of aconfusion over last 2 weeks re: sco's enforcement actions.
suit against IBM and letter to 1500 commercial linux users.
Based on contract/licenses. None of SCO's actions have been based on copyright/patent. No assertion by anyone that SCO doesn't have contract rights. As to the copyrights, 2 points. Copyrights not important to current actiosn. We have stated that we own the UNIX copyrights and right to enforce. Novell has challenged taht. We disagree with that. Desperate measure to curry favor with the Linux community. We will take all steps to rectify the issues.
1995 agreement -- we own all rights to ownership to unix and unixware. blah blah blah.. blah blah blah.. we own everything.. blah blah blah. He's being a real dick about it, too.
Why SCO bases initial enforcement actions: SCO owns unix licensing agreements. ~30,000 agreements. these licensees include a lot of people. blah blah.. these licenses include restrictions and "standard of care". This applies to the original source code and the derivitive works created by the licensee.
Current enforcement actions are based on these rights. They may do copyright stuff later, but not now.
Second question: Does SCO have evidence of UNIX source in kernel? "Resounding yes" Each of our 3 groups studying linux for UNIX code have individually come back finding code improperly put into LInux.
STarting next week viewing code under NDA. We hope this step will be of benefit of the software community.
Question 1: differences wit Novell causing problems to deal with IBM: very simple answer: we have full right to UNIX
Question 2: What does it mean "turned novell issue over to attorneys to rectify issues". We've said very clearly that ocpyright isn't important to current enforcement actions.
Question 3: SCO claims that they're being damaged by presence of their IP in Linux kernel. Aren't you continuing your damage by not showing the code?
We're showing it next week. We'll show our actual code samples. Also derivitive works. ALong with contract info to back up the claim.
Questino 4: SCO has rolled all the dice on this lawsuit. If you lose, what is the remaining company if you lose?
We're enforcing our rights in the UNIX business. Only one compnay can say they own 30,000 contracts on big unix companies. It's an incredible position to be in. Basically saying that all they have is the lawsuits. He talks nothing about actual product or anything. All about suing. All future prospects are regarding lawsuits.
Question 5:
Re: novell contract. did not metino copyright and patents. Does it meniton copyright and patent?
56 pages of novell/SCO documents. Majority of contract clearly shows intent that Copyrights covered as related to SCO going to market.
Again, our point is that C&P don't affect our current lawsuits. Contract rights are much more important than C & P. SOme really bad card-game analogy thing.
Question 6:
Stupid question. Already been covered.. more stuff about copyright stuff. SCO claims they have copyright and patent, but that it doesn't matter for the current stuff. Dude didn't seem to really have much of a clue. Sounded like some guy living in his parent's bedroom in Wyoming. I hope you're reading this. You're dumb.
Question 7:
Were you surprised what novell did, as you were a previous novell exec.
We had a meeting with their vice chairman scheduled to look at the source code stuff. "Come on over, we'd be glad to show those to you". We set up a time to do that 11am tuesday
*BSDs are clear (Score:3, Informative)
Wow - sco were pissed (Score:2, Informative)
I was on the call and nothing really that new was said
Re:On the phone with SCO (Take 2) (Score:5, Informative)
From SCO's press release [sco.com]:
Replay will be available for two weeks following the call. To access the replay, call: 888-203-1112 or 719-457-0820, conference code #164628.
Secret Evidence (Score:0, Informative)
I haven't seen the names of these experts, so I'm a little worried about how expert they may be. If someone knew C well, but not the history of Unix, I could show them a 10 line snippet of code, and they might agree that the code had a common ancestor.
Its called secret evidence. Normally in America, the prosecution must disclose the details of the evidence to the defendent before it can be used in court. That way, the defendent can examine the validity of the evidence and prepare necessary rebuttals. With secret evidence, the defendent has no such recourse. The defendent is expected to counter the accusation without knowing how the accusation is based on.
Secret evidence has been going through its experimental runs for several years now, against minority foreigners, your so-called 'terrorists'. It is unamerican but this has little attention from Americans because a) it does not affect them, b) had little coverage, and c) those terrorists deserve it anyway. Its acceptance became widespread since 9/11. First against the Afghanistan goverment ('evidence' about hidden terrorist training camps) and then later Iraq ('evidence' about weapons of mass destruction).
The difference between then and now is that secret evidence is now being used against Americans on American soil. This smart on SCO part. If we know where the offending code is, it be a matter of hours or even minutes for Linus to jettison the code and rewrite it with his own. With this course of action, Linux will be forever held guilty for inclusion of SCO code without anybody knowing where the offending code is. You might as well let SCO own Linux!
Later
Re:Patent laws (Score:3, Informative)
Only if you assume that patents are relevant to the SCO lawsuit, and that nothing added to Unix in the last 35 years was patentable. SCO has indicated that the first is not really true, and anyone who's used Unix for a while knows that a vast quantity of additions and innovations have been made much more recently than 1968 (especially considering it wasn't released until after that). Patents cover a specific technique or algorithm, not a general product with thousands of components. (The most famous Unix patent is probably 4,135,240 from 1973 - Dennis Ritchie's patent on the setuid bit, which AT&T released to the public domain years ago.)
Re:Very informative article, glad to have read it (Score:3, Informative)
Regional court Bremen bombardment in things Univention GmbH, Fahrenheitsstrsse1,
28359 Bremen Antragstellerin Prozessbevollm. represent by their managing director Peter H. Ganten,: Attorney partnership Ganten, Huenecke, Bieniek & partner, Ostertorstr. 32, 28195 Bremen AZ D Proz. Bev.: 00647/03 13/bk against SCO Group GmbH Norsk-Data-Strasse3, 61352 bath Homburg represented by her managing director Hans Bavarian Antragsgegnerin
I. the Antragsgegnerin in the way of the provisional order - because of urgency of the special without previous verbal negotiation and by the chairman alone - on avoiding a Ordnugsgeldes of up to 200.000,00 euro, as a substitute Ordnugshaft, which can be determined for each case of the Zuwiederhandlung, to carry out at the managing director of the Antragsgegnerin, forbidden, spreading in the trade the statement that LINUX Betriebsysteme contain unrechmaessig acquired mental property of SCO Unix(R) and/or final users, who use Linux, for whom associated patent right injuries of the SCO Intellectual Properties be made liable can.
II. The Antragsgegnerin bears the cost of the procedure. II the procedure value is determined at 500.000,00 euro. Bremen, the 28.Mai2003 regional court - 2.Kammer for commercial matters gez. VRLG Boehrnsen for the execution: Urkundsbeamtin of the office of the regional court
well, i guess its not that good. anyway, this is my 100th post on /.! w00t!
Re:this is killing Linux, OSD in general (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cringley, Linus, and Christoph Hellwig (Score:5, Informative)
Here, look at this list of vulnerabilities for outlook express: (found at www.ntbugtraq.org)
2003-05-14: Multiple IMAP Client Integer Overflow Vulnerabilities
2003-05-13: Multiple Vendor Invalid X.509 Certificate Chain Vulnerability
2003-04-23: Microsoft Outlook Express MHTML URL Handler File Rendering Vulnerability
2003-02-28: Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express Arbitrary Program Execution Vulnerability
2003-02-10: Multiple Vendor Email Client JavaScript Information Leakage Vulnerability
2003-01-29: Microsoft Outlook Express S/MIME Buffer Overflow Vulnerability
2002-09-09: Alleged Outlook Express Link Denial of Service Vulnerability
2002-07-29: Microsoft Outlook Express XML File Attachment Script Execution Vulnerability
2002-07-21: Microsoft Outlook Express Spoofable File Extensions Vulnerability
2002-07-19: Microsoft Outlook Express SMTP Over TLS Information Disclosure Vulnerability
Notice that there are several from JUST this year that are remote root exploits.
If you're gonna slag somebody by telling them how great and invulnerable lookout is, you might actually want to do some research first.
Microsoft provides no safe haven -Timeline Inc WON (Score:5, Informative)
While SCO has yet to provide any substantial evidence in their case against IBM and Linux, Timeline Inc has already won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft in another contract dispute [tmln.com].
The outcome of this case puts developers and users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft product at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc [theregister.co.uk] for violation of Timeline Inc patents.
Microsoft's products do not provide users and developers a safe haven from the threat from lawsuits based on violations of intellectual property.
However, since the SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL licensed Linux kernel and components, it must by the terms of the GPL license [gnu.org], provide all those who receive the code from them an implicit license to any intellectual property, patents, trade secrets which SCO owns and is used by the GPL'ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently receives the GPL source.
You are actually in a better legal position using GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products.
Ever heard of cygwin? (Score:1, Informative)
Not /.'ed, malformed URL... (Score:2, Informative)
There's an extra space being inserted after '28'. It's not in my code, but the link in my preview works...
It'll be /.'ed now, for sure.
a translation (Score:3, Informative)
SCO to sue Novell now! (Score:4, Informative)
who needs credibility anyhow - famous last words
Teleconference recording available (Score:4, Informative)
(888) 203-1112 code: 164628
Conference Call Notes (Score:1, Informative)
=== 1:00 conference call start
Introduction by Blake ?Sillow?
Sillow: "We are not making of the material today available on the web."
Opening Statement, Darl McBride, SCO CEO
McBride: "SCO's actions
McBride: "30,000 licenses
McBride: "None of these actions are based on copyrights or patents."
McBride: "We reiterate today
McBride: "Strongly disagree with Novell
McBride: "[Novell's actions are] desperate measure to curry favor with the Linux community."
McBride: "SCO owns all rights
McBride on Linux & Linux Kernel
McBride: "Resounding yes"
McBride: "[we will provide]
=== 1:12 questions and answer session
[#1] Robert Mina, Cooper Beach Capital
Q: "differences with novell
A: "we believe we have the full rights
A: "we have no problem
[#2] Maureen O'Gara, Client Server News
Q: "What does it mean that you've turned novell matter over to attorneys?"
A: "Our [IBM] case does not depent on copyrights"
A: "We are prepared to get resolution on that"
(That is, they are going to sue Novell to get the Unix copyrights and patents, if they have to)
[#3] Joe Barn, Linuxworld.com
Q: "SCO claims damage from linux kernel. Are you not contributing by your refusal to show the code?"
A: "We'll show that next week"
[#4] Dennis Powell, Linux & Main
Q: "SCO has
A: "... very positive
[#5] Amy Hull, Hull Associates
Q: "What you were reading from the Novell contract did not mention copyrights and patents. Does the contract mention those?"
A: "We do not have any issue with copyright and patents."
A: "The contract rights are senior in position."
[#6] Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe
Q: "You are standing by your position that you do own the copyrights. Are you standing by that position?"
A: "This is clearly in dispute.
[#7] David Paletus, Utah Tech-Watch
Q: "You're a former Novell executive.
A: "Here's what's surprising
[#8] TC Doyle, Barr Business Magazine
Q: "Is there any legitimate Linux code out there?"
A (Chris Sontag): "In every major version, we've identified
A: "We're specifically concerned about version 2.4 and beyond of the linux kernel."
[#9] Kyle Kreuger, Apollo Capital
Q: "Patent discussion with Novell?"
A: "We've never had a discussion about patents."
[#10] George Weiss, Gartner
Q: "What is the scenario
Q: "Has Linus Torvalds or other experts made any effort to collabo
Help SCO's Open Source Software ;) (Score:2, Informative)
Re:now that you mention it [netcraft] (Score:3, Informative)
So, yes, you could be more than reasonably sure that the server is currently running Linux.