SCO Gives Friday Deadline To IBM 914
bcisys writes "Reuters is reporting that SCO is planning to revoke IBM's license to Unix this Friday unless IBM settles SCO's claim that parts of its Unix code are being used in Linux. 'If we don't have a resolution by midnight on Friday the 13th, the AIX world will be a different place', SCO President and Chief Executive Darl McBride told Reuters News. 'We've basically mapped out what we will do. People will be running AIX without a valid license.'"
Yeah, yeah, whatever (Score:5, Interesting)
It's pretty clear that SCO is trying to get IBM customers to pressure IBM to settle this. However, it frankly seems pretty absurd. The bottom line is that, as a customer, I am not responsible for IBM's alleged failure to maintain a proper license for UNIX. IBM's license is a license to *copy* UNIX software, and copying is the only activity that could possibly be prophibited. Given that IBM's customers already HAVE copies of AIX, unless IBM's license from SCO has some very odd language in it it seems extremely improbable that customers could lose the license they already have.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
I smell IBM - SCO lawsuit coming up (Score:2, Interesting)
Offtopic: Fell swoop (Score:2, Interesting)
(emphasis added by me)
Though I appreciate that SCO's tactics may be foul, the phrase you're looking for is one fell swoop [quinion.com], as used by Shakespeare. And while you may feel that the use of "foul" may be an appropriate exchange in this case, I assure you that fell [reference.com] is much more so. Observe:
Chill over Unix (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't Licenses AIX through SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
Mike
Re:is this extortion? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stop!! (Score:4, Interesting)
I say let this thing go to court, then SCO will have to prove it, which they can't, because it's all lies. That'll be fun:)
This is just insane... (Score:5, Interesting)
And the really stupid thing... (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone here a lawyer? This could fall into several categories, namely extortion/racketeering, and potentially breach of contract. I can't see IBM agreeing to a clause in the contract which states that SCO is able to revoke the license upon 1 week's notice. That's just absurd.
and microsoft is the winner (Score:1, Interesting)
Imagine how this would look with DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
Wham, come Saturday June 14 thousands of boxes with AIX all over the world would suddenly shut down.
Now tell me why DRM is a good idea and explain how it will never be misused or abused.
Waiting for the other shoe to drop (Score:5, Interesting)
Fraud (Score:1, Interesting)
I guess SCO President and Chief Executive Darl McBride's passport must be up-to-date, along with a leave-anytime ticket to a country outside the United States' jurisdiction. He must be forgetting about the "International" part of the IBM acronym. Silly boy.
Re:One thing will be clear (Score:3, Interesting)
But SCO's threat to revoke IBM's Unix license is the only leverage they have outside of the merits of the case itself, about which we can have heard nothing trustworthy from either side in the suit. On the other hand, if IBM allows them to play that card without trying to settle, it says something. A very public something, to be sure, which means that the P.R. aspects will have been carefully considered by both sides. But concrete actions will also have been taken that will have an impact on any eventual court proceedings. That gives us a (cloudy, tiny) window into what the parties are actually thinking.
Such a strange business model... (Score:4, Interesting)
Usually, if someone is breaching a license, you would go to them, point it out and ask for a chunk of money. It's not just to help them protect their good name. It's also to protect your own good name as a trusted partner to do business with.
If SCO's business is really about trying to license Unix, then they should pay attention to this. Imagine what their other customers are thinking. "These guys are feral. We should look for a way out of this". And prospective customers would be thinking "Err, no. That's not the type of supplier I want to do business with".Well, unless you are Microsoft. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions on that.
Clearly this is a sad death spiral.
I's like to know if... (Score:5, Interesting)
We always talk about SCO, SCO, SCO but I realized I have no clue about what IBM's response is...
Anyone ?
Re:is this extortion? (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, if you are running AIX, please note that some of your license money would go and has gone to SCO. You might want to ask IBM about a Linux install. I understand that they DO know the meaning of customer loyalty.
Further, if SCO looses this, I doubt Big Blue would continue buying licenses from them. Imagine what losing an IBM contract would do to their stock price. Customer loyalty is especially important if that customer is a Fortune 500 company.
Do they NEED the license (Score:3, Interesting)
Aparently you ceritfy your OS and buy the rights for the trademark from the OpenGroup and then you also need a license from SCO...am I following this right?
But SCO doesn't seem to be up in arms over unlicensed releases that are legitimatley derived from the unix source base (OS X).
I just don't see how anyone has any legs to stand on when ther are at least 3 legitimate owners of unix property of some sort (Open Group, SCO, and Novell), plus all of Universities that received early licenses....
Seems like it's time to public domain some stuff....
Just Curious (Score:1, Interesting)
However, whould not doing so place them in violation of the GPL by way of their previous distribution of the kernel and OS package (distro)? [by the linking/ inclusion of copyright and copyleft code]
This truth has not been entirely visible (Score:1, Interesting)
The Open Group is the owner of the UNIX trademark which it holds on behalf of the industry. This truth has not been entirely visible in the media...
Isn't that visibility exactly what is required to maintain trademark ownership?
Re:Yeah, yeah, whatever (Score:3, Interesting)
But your flea-market counterfeiter never had a legal, good-faith contract and license to sell a derivative product under his own label.
That is the situation for IBM and its downstream customers. SCO is unilaterally dictating a remedy for a breach of contract that is still a mere assertion. They are also doing so on the alleged actions of a possibly unrelated third-party, in regards to a different product than that which was licensed.
SCO will get the big, "Boot In Ass" award this year - Boies or no Boies.
Re:A Valid License? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you sell a car to someone, it's perpetual.
If you sell someone the right to use a peice of software, you are essentially selling them intellectual "property" (gee, thus the term.) Unless the contract specifies otherwise, the grant is perpetual -- it's not like MS can take away my right to use the copy of Windows 95 just cause they want to -- they have to prove I violated their license first.
revoke systems for $$ demands == Great PR (Score:3, Interesting)
The Open Source and Free Software folks could all say "You have our code, you can see that it has no DRM in it. You don't need to worry about your system being disabled remotely."
That's great PR for us.
frob
I do believe there is a word for this (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know who they think they are, but they're an ant to IBM. If they pissed off IBM enough, IBM is gonna squash them. Hey, maybe that what will happen.
prove it! (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again, I susped M$ has resulted to just plain stealing much of the code in windows.
If I request the windows source code, does the NDA prohibit me from ratting out such stolen code? Can an NDA legally prevent you from calling attention to illegal actions of another?
Dear SCO (Score:2, Interesting)
1. If SCO replies you are at no risk, then presumably you are in the clear (at least can use their reply in court if SCO later turn round and do sue you).
2. If SCO doesn't reply, then presumably this will help limit any damage claims if they do sue you. You did the due diligence (especially if you send a couple of follow-ups and still don't get replies - keep good records!) - and it's at least partially their fault they didn't advise you.
3. If SCO reply yes they might sue you, then of course you want to talk to all vendors [and presumably their lawyers] affected - which includes hardware/database/applications/etc that you couldn't purchase, because of "uncertainty" about the OS platform. You might get indemnified by the vendor, and/or the vendor(s) may even take legal action against SCO especially if they see a lot of customers concerned about these issues.
Would a letter like this do?
Dear SCO,
Our company is considering purchasing a number of Dell/IBM/Other-Vendor computer systems with RedHat-Linux/Suse-Linux/AIX/Other-OS. We also expect to purchase application software to run on these platforms such as Oracle/SAP/Peoplesoft/DB2/Other-Product.
In view of the amount of press coverage regarding SCO's IP claims on UNIX and Linux, we would be interested in hearing whether, by proceeding with such purchases, we would be potentially risking litigation by SCO.
Re:I's like to know if... (Score:5, Interesting)
This was addressed in the recent salon.com article [salon.com] called "Lawyers against Linux". I think it's a MUST READ - at least click-through to get a day pass for this article.
To quote the bit about IBM's response:
In a nutshell, they aren't really taking it seriously - at least not in their initial response to SCO's allegations...
Re:I's like to know if... (Score:4, Interesting)
Meanwhile McBride has been hyping the lawsuit, trying to pump up SCO's stock price to maximize the payoff in the buyout scenario. But he forgot that sending out those 1500 letters and threatening Torvalds made him look ridiculous to the people who will make decisions about what actions to take as the litigation proceeds.
And the funniest news of the day (Score:4, Interesting)
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1016020.html [com.com]
Best Quote: "What SCO is arguing seems instead to be that it didn't know what it was packaging."
THE POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS!!! PLEASE READ! (Score:5, Interesting)
Several thoughts have come to my mind concerning this issue.
Please keep in mind that IBM:
1) backs Linux on a large number of it servers
2) believes that it's license with SCO is perpetual.
3) has spent billions hyping Linux.
IBM will likely take action on Friday or perhaps sooner in a pro-Linux fashion, given the above facts.
Suppose it is shown that in the completion of LKP (Linux Kernel Personality) that SCO did incorporate GPL'd code into it's kernel (as suggested by an article on linuxtoday.com) and it is shown that, according to Eben Moglen, that "SCO gave up rights to the code when the released their version of Linux".
If SCO licensed any of this code to third parties for inclusion in their products, it is possible that *all* of those products will be *required* to be released as Free Software under the terms of the GPL.
This is perhaps why SCO is being so loud about this. Is this the fact that they want to hide under all of this legal rangling? Also, don't forget that Microsoft made a public showing of buying a license from SCO, which according to the recent news from Novell, ONLY covers the copyrights which, if the above is shown, would be subject to the GPL.
The implication here is very clear. Many companies which have incorporated the disputed code would need to release their code under the GPL.
Could the GPL set the industry on it's head?
I, for one, hope so. I am not a lawyer, just an engineer.
Later, GJC
Re:I's like to know if... (Score:0, Interesting)
Additionally, today's ad is for WindowsXP. Funny that most of the users who can view the commericial are already Windows(r) customers.
Re:They license it to you, they don't sell it to y (Score:5, Interesting)
Either the vendors of computer software are committing fraud on a gargantuan scale, or you are being sold software.
(Software publishers wish to change this- why they include those EULA that are legally nonbinding, and why they've pushed US states to create laws making EULAs effective [upenn.edu]. Virginia, so far, has agreed)
However, the reason normal EULAs are meaningless is because no contract terms were presented before money and product were exchanged. So, they have no similarity with the agreement between SCO and IBM. It was presumably conducted with lawyers, signatures, and even handshakes.
I see it from both sides (Score:5, Interesting)
Something happened though. The
I was laid off about a year ago, and I've since moved on to much better things. Ransom was replaced, and the name was changed back to SCO because OBVIOUSLY there was no value left in the Caldera name after you guys were finished with it.
I've been using Red Hat ever since I was laid off, as Caldera's Linux distro pretty much fell by the wayside. I look back on those days with fondness and wish it could have turned out differently. I am horrified by SCO's actions as of late, at the same time I can't help but think that you guys kinda created this fiasco in the first place. You guys have been poking this dog into a corner for the last several years and now, when it turns around and starts fighting for its life, you seem to be amazed at how angry and irritated and frusterated SCO is. "Will they stop at nothing?!" you all ask in amazement? Of course not, cause they are going the ONLY ROUTE THEY HAVE LEFT. You all seem to be proud of yourselves for boycotting their products... sheesh, that's a rediculous notion since you had all boycotted them WAY before the lawsuit ever happened. I'll quote my friend who still works there when I asked him about how he felt about
I'm rooting for IBM. I think SCO are going way too far. It makes me angry that they have become such a mindlessly self-centered company. SCO is not at all what Caldera used to stand for.
But when you think about it, they really don't have anything to lose and a whole possible pile of cash and revenge to gain if this thing pans out for them.
And the ironic thing is that you are all, to some degree, the ones that helped cause this. You can bet that if they do prevail, they are going to make you suffer as MUCH AS THEY CAN with no remorse, since you all have had no remorse for them in the past.
This is not meant to be a troll. I only wanted to present a unique viewpoint of the whole situation.
IBM is staying cool (Score:5, Interesting)
The other quote that I can't get out of my head is from Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, where the Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto explains his reservations about attacking Pearl Harbor as ordered by the military junta: ...it was hard to tell them that their plan was full of shit and that the Americans were just going to get really pissed off and annihilate them. Substitute "IBM" for "Americans", and you have my feelings exactly.
God, I love that book.
So, who's winning the PR battle? (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong -- I'm pro-IBM in this case, and think SCO is somewhere between moronic and suicidal. But it's definitely funny to see this level of grass-roots support for such a huge corporation.
Either we're open minded folk who can see right and wrong without prejudice, or we're so defensive about Linux that we'll side with anyone when Linux is attacked.
Cheers
-b
Re:Biting the hand that feeds you... (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the bigger lines I've delt with, it's a fixed rate for connection itself, a dedicated bandwidth amount, and a burstable amount.
Like, we're dedicated to several Gb between our various facilities. That's what we pay for every month, if we use it or not. If we exceed that amount, we pay a higher amount for the overage. If we use less, well that's our tough luck.
If they're in a colocation facility (like most good companies are these days), they probably have multiple lines coming in from different providers, and have at least a 100Mb/s uplink. That's the prefered method these days. It saves a whole lot of money in actually keeping a physical room going at your facility, and having copper or fiber run to you.
A little research can give you a hint of where they live.
sco.com
216.250.140.112
nameservers:
ns.calderasystems.com 216.250.130.1
ns2.calderasystems.com 216.250.130.5
c7ns1.center7.com 216.250.142.20
nsca.sco.com 132.147.210.253
MX:
mail.ut.caldera.com 216.250.130.2
calderasystems.com is 216.250.140.125
216.250.128.0/20 (everything but nsca.sco.com) is owned by 'NFS", which has nameservers of:
ns1.canopy.com 216.250.129.1
c7cs1.center7.com 216.250.142.20
c7ns2.center7.com 166.70.45.162
c7ns3.center7.com 216.250.142.14
166.70.0.0/16 is owned by XMission, which has the nameservers of:
ns.xmission.com 198.60.22.2
ns1.xmission.com 198.60.22.22
ns2.xmission.com 207.78.169.150
The 198.60.22.0/24 block is owned by Xmission, who only has the
The 207.78.169.0/24 is one of two
My guess would be that SCO lives with Center7. If you go to http://center7.com/ [center7.com], you'll see a whole lot of PR crap, that sounds like every other colo provider's crap. They are nice enough to say that their connectivity is an OC-48 from XO Communications, and an OC-12 with Qwest (which is what I see on my traceroute to sco.com), and two T3's that aren't active. They also say something to the effect that their customers are attached "at 10-100", which I'd take to mean ethernet (like, duh).
I'd have to say that xmission.com is just someone being nice enough to provide a home for a nameserver.
I wouldn't expect that too many people can flood their OC-12 off the net, unless it's already fairly utilized. Since I've never heard of Center7, I wouldn't suspect that they are.
The best, and most likely to hurt them is if there was 100Mb/s of traffic filling up their ethernet connection to Center7's switch.. So, don't try to push 600Mbs in, it only takes 100Mb/s..
I know, I know, there are possibilities that they are rather reinforced. What if they have some spiffy hardware in front of their server? They could be doing all kinds of wild load balancing. But if I remember right, this was the company that was hurting for money and this is their last-ditch effort to make get IBM to buy them. Honestly, it looks like an old Linux box that no one ever bothered to update Apache on.
user@home (/home/user) telnet sco.com 80
Trying 216.250.140.112...
Connected to sco.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET ? HTTP/1.1
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 06:06:47 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1
It would seem to me that any of a few thousand script kiddies out there with a few exploits could get in, or anyone in control of a few dozen DDoS slaves could make their site rather quiet.
Now my disclaimer.. I don't suggest doing it.. It's no fun to have your pager go off at 4am because som
Re:They license it to you, they don't sell it to y (Score:1, Interesting)
But you've never really tried to return an opened piece of software, right?
Re:Do somethin creative instead (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you NOT develop for SCO? They are POSIX, and have a GNU toolchain..
Remainder Bin - please tell me hwo stupid I am (Score:3, Interesting)
In the case SCO win (if it si possible)
At various discount bookstores around town there are copies of Caldera linux distros (old) at fairly cheap prices. If I buy one and then any linux distro I like, I am protected from SCO because I am a customer. There are some in a remainder bin I think.
I don't like giving in to obvious stupidity and I don't like breaking the law, but running Win98 is not good for my physical or mental wellbeing.
Re:Do somethin creative instead (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I see it from both sides (Score:1, Interesting)
I was the guy that built most of the contrib rpm packages. I got calls from all over thanking me for the contribs... all I was doing was fixing your distro. I got tired of the Caldera attitude and switched to Red Hat. Now every server I sell is shipped with my "fixed" version of Red Hat and I buy and distribute a official copy to support RH. That could have been Caldera but they were too fucked up.
hyundai automobiles, lindows (Score:3, Interesting)
lindows is a relatively young distrobution, but they have sales channels through tiger direct, walmart, kmart etc. their mission was to provide the average consumer with a linux operating system. they are succeeding more than failing.
these are two companies who a) had a bad reputation and managed to turn it around to become successful or b) a linux company which decided to focus on the consumer desktop market and is somewhat successful.
i can't really comment about caldera and the OS community being against it, but taking the two examples i have just given, it is clear to see that the problem caldera had was not just the OS community.
Re:They license it to you, they don't sell it to y (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe that eventually the law will conclude that you need a licence in order to make a copy, but that once made, that copy is sold normally through the transactions that move it through retail distribution. The recent case Adobe vs Softman adopted this view (to the minimal extent needed to decide the case).
Re:Biting the hand that feeds you... (Score:3, Interesting)
Overlooked point (Score:1, Interesting)
As far as I can tell, nobody has yet mentioned that when IBM introduced AIX and for years and years afterwards, it neither contained Unix code nor bore the Unix logo. AIX gained a sizeable chunk of the "Unix" market share without actually being Unix at all, at least not in any technical sense.
This was well-known among systems administrators who grew up with SunOS or other versions of Unix and who were forced to work with AIX in their day jobs. AIX does everything differently, which leads to frustration of the system administrator when nothing he knows works. ("Why can't they just use /etc/fstab like everyone
else instead of this hundred-line-long /etc/filesystems thing?!?" and "Why
why WHY did they have to invent ODM?"
were both common cries.) Anyway, the
point is that after each frustrating
experience, every Unix-guy-but-forced-to-do-AIX
systems admin would repeat the mantra
"Well, Unix is supposed to do it that way,
but of course AIX isn't Unix."
One of the common jokes of the day (besides "smit happens") was this: "What does AIX stand for? AIX Isn't UniX!"
In case you're wondering, my point is this: IBM was able to successfully sell hundreds of thousands of RS/6000 machines and AIX licenses before it got the opportunity to call it "Unix" (which happened when the Unix trademark began to denote a spec instead of a codebase). If AIX wants to do that again, it can. IBM may have included some System V code since then, but it can fix that and keep selling the machines and the operating system.