Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Analysis of SCO vs. IBM

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the paper-pushing dept.

The Courts 282

icantblvitsnotbutter writes "An excellent -- and clear! -- article over at LinuxWorld.com has a multipoint analysis of SCO's 40-page complaint (this is a brief?!). For all those IANAL's out there, here's something to sink your teeth into. On the balance, the outlook seems positive for IBM. Still, the parallel invocation of a contractural clause potentially nixing AIX lends some credence to claims that this is a just way for SCO to coerce IBM into buying them out..." Some old documents from a similar lawsuit have surfaced, and naturally ESR has his own take on the case.

cancel ×

282 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

eef pee? (-1, Offtopic)

Khakionion (544166) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511323)

w00t...

Weee! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511329)

FP

ESR chimes in as well??? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511341)

Will wonders never cease? LOL

But ESR isn't right either. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511947)

In his text he says:
Linux was independently invented by Linus Torvalds in 1991

Independent? How is using Minix and copying the SYS V API "independent"?

ESR talks about SCO taking liberties, and he does the same.

Does anyone else not care? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511346)

This is what? The 3rd or 4th story on SCO/IBM in a week. Booooring. Don't care. Let me know when something interesting happens.

Re:Does anyone else not care? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511363)

I just shat in my pants, does that help?

Re:Does anyone else not care? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511376)

If you're constipated, I'm sure it did help you.

Re:Does anyone else not care? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511485)

Score:-1 ?? On this excellent piece of dialogue??

In other news... (4, Funny)

presroi (657709) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511369)

IBM has released a notification that they finally understood the argument in the SCO paper.

Re:In other news... (0, Offtopic)

greenalbatros (215035) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511440)

no they didnt

If you criticize, you'RE a TERRORIST:+1,Patriotic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511466)

Chronology of Events

Seymour Hersh writes an article in The New Yorker:
A Hawk's Business: Why was Richard Perle meeting with Adnan Khashoggi? [newyorker.com]

Ricard Perle, on Wolf Blitzer's, show calls Seymour Hersh a terrorist [cnn.com]

Read the interesting comments with historical comparisons at Talkingpointsmemo.com [talkingpointsmemo.com]

More details available at: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: [gooff.com]
Richard Perle brands journalist Seymour Hersh a "terrorist"

Cheers,
W00t

From the CNN transcript:

There's an article in the New Yorker magazine by
Seymour Hersh that's just coming out today in which
he makes a serious accusation against you that you
have a conflict of interest in this because you're
involved in some business that deals with homeland
security, you potentially could make some money if,
in fact, there is this kind of climate that he
accuses you of proposing. Let me read a quote from
the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just
out now. "There is no question that Perle believes
that removing Saddam from power is the right thing
to do. At the same time, he has set up a company
that may gain from a war."

PERLE: I don't believe that a company would gain
from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the
successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I've
said this over and over again, will diminish the
threat of terrorism. And what he's talking about
is investments in homeland defense, which I think
are vital and are necessary. Look, Sy Hersh is the
closest thing American journalism has to a
terrorist, frankly.

BLITZER: Well, on the basis of -- why do you say
that? A terrorist?

PERLE: Because he's widely irresponsible. If you
read the article, it's first of all, impossible
to find any consistent theme in it. But the
suggestion that my views are somehow related for
the potential for investments in homeland
defense is complete nonsense.

BLITZER: But I don't understand. Why do you
accuse him of being a terrorist?

PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he
will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever
distortion he can -- look, he hasn't written a
serious piece since Maylie (ph).

BLITZER: All right. We're going to leave it right there

Get Your Unilateral War On Iraq On [mnftiu.cc]

Re:If you criticize, you'RE a TERRORIST:+1,Patriot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511531)

Long gone are the days when one of the marks of a patriot was that you allow people to speak freely even when you disagree with them.

Today the mob screams for blood every time someone slips out of the line and says something critical of the government, war or the economy that's going to hell in a handbasket.

Students are getting expelled for wearing "unpatriotic" t-shirts. Actors and producers of quality tv programs with a liberal bend are under threat of losing their work because they express their views as private citizens. Are we already back in the days of McCarthy and his black list of pinko actors.

And now journalists are being labelled unpatriotic terrorists for doing their job: asking questions and actually investigating their stories instead of just printing pre-digested psy-ops material from the office of homeland security.

Re:If you criticize, you'RE a TERRORIST:+1,Patriot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511594)

While I don't disagree that students you should have the right to criticize government in school, private citizens are still responsible for their opinions and the consequences they bring. As long as the government doesn't get in the habit of building blacklists (McCarthy), and it's a simple free market decision (now), so be it. Plenty of people would choose not to employ someone who publicly supports the Klan or Nazism. If an actor can't find work because of their stance, well, too bad. If you can only make $500,000 on your next movie instead of $5,000,000, well, boo frickin hoo.

The government also isn't responsible for the way the press behaves. If they choose to be lazy, then they'll pay for that in time when other non-lazy journalists step up.

Hey, I've an idea! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511691)

Plenty of people would choose not to employ someone who publicly supports the Klan or Nazism.

So it'll be perfectly O.K with the goverment if I choose not to employ Black people or Seventh Day Adventists. Cool!

Re:Hey, I've an idea! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511913)

No, skin color ("race") and religion are both protected classes. Political beliefs are not.

Re:Hey, I've an idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511948)

Try that hypothesis out in the real world and see how far you get.

Re:Hey, I've an idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5512006)

Pretty far. I boycott all sorts of things/people based on what they support. Other people on Slashdot seem to have no problem boycotting the RIAA/MPAA/etc because of their practices. How are individuals any different? In the Klan on the weekends? Well, don't expect to work for me during the week.

Re:If you criticize, you'RE a TERRORIST:+1,Patriot (0, Offtopic)

Ponty (15710) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511813)

Sorry sir/ma'am, you're gay/female/disabled/ugly/short/liberal/Jewish nad you really just flaunt it too much. I'm going to pay you half as much as I pay this guy over here who looks like me and has a similar last name.

Re:If you criticize, you'RE a TERRORIST:+1,Patriot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511889)

Here's a quick legal status of the things you mention:

gay = mostly not protected
female = mostly protected
disabled = mostly protected
ugly = not protected
short = not protected (uncless classed as disabled)
liberal = not protected
Jewish = protected

Re:If you criticize, you'RE a TERRORIST:+1,Patriot (1)

Ponty (15710) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511953)

I know. I'm not talking about legality, I'm talking about ethics. I think most would agree that paying someone less because he's liberal or short is an untenable position (provided he's able to do the job). That was my point.

Re:If you criticize, you'RE a TERRORIST:+1,Patriot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511988)

I wouldn't agree at all. If I don't like your beliefs, I don't feel the need to employ you. I wouldn't hire someone who was openly racist no matter how good their work was. If I really disagree with your belief on something, and you're an entertainer, I might not pay money to see you. Hell, I won't see a movie with Tom Cruise because he dumped Nicole Kidman.

for linus (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511394)

#include

if(sco.suing(ibm)) {
panic();
}

Re:for linus (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511513)

This funny?

Now I get it: he's using those block marks {} even though they are not necessary.

Hahahaha...

The kernel is written in C (1, Flamebait)

chiasmus1 (654565) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511570)

Your function looks a little bit like c++. This could not be the kernel because the kernel is written in c.

I thought the kernel was written in Perl (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511643)

And they were going to rename it the Pernel to make it clearer.

Re:The kernel is written in C (1)

Ponty (15710) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511835)

I thought the kernel was writtien in Object Pascal with a builtin Atari emulator to support the legacy binary code sections for which the source has been lost.

Re:for linus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511735)

Try using <ecode> or "Code" formatting next time.

You don't need to open a whole new code block for a single statement following an if()

You should always check the return value of a function (Although you only loose half point for this, as some functions can return void. Although that's generally bad practice itself...)

Finally...you don't appear to have a function. Your code is in no-mans land.

Aww... (2, Funny)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511399)

This alleged action strengthens Linux, and, because Linux is no-cost or almost-no-cost, it cuts the legs out from under SCO's market.

[intense cynical sarcasm]

Damn free stuff always screwing us over.

[/intense cynical sarcasm]

Girls (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511403)

They say that my dick tastes funny.

That's why I always wear rubber these days.

Re:Girls (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511655)

Hate to break it to you: those weren't girls.

They were sissy boys with shaved legs wearing wigs and dresses.
Sorry to inform you, but you are now a "gay".

Re:Girls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511714)

Really?

Well, I don't mind. Getting your dick sucked by a guy or a girl feels just about the same.

Maybe I'll just go and cruise glory-holes next.

Re:Girls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511856)

Ha ha! We got another one. Go team! Note to Gay Agenda: Secret recruiting/infection plan proceeding. Put in another order for pumps and lipstick.

ESR's Take on the Case (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511405)

"Freep wibble hatstand! If IBM all had guns, they'd have shot SCO dead by now and it would have been their civic duty and we'd all be free of this insanity. Pass my AK homie. Fish custard ruhbarb and out."

Patent Application (1, Funny)

vogon jeltz (257131) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511443)

Patent application for a device, made of fabrics like, but not limited to cotton, silk or wool, sewed to, or into garments like, but not limited to, pants, coats, underwear, shirts, etc, which permits to store objects like, but not limited to cellphones, sandwiches, glasses etc, in order to not having them to carry around by hand ("manually").

A pocket? You mean there IS prior art?
~

Re:Patent Application (2, Funny)

klocwerk (48514) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511670)

I try not to keep sandwiches in my underwear.
But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Re:Patent Application (1)

luzrek (570886) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511791)

Futurama, when Fry thinks he is a robot:

It is time for you to injest sandwiches from my compartment.

Almost nothing new here (2, Insightful)

watzinaneihm (627119) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511453)

Almost nothing new there which you couldnt have found by not sifting through earlier slashdot stories. What I would have really liked is something on the lines of "Here is patent number 1" and here is how linux is different/same.....
It is not as if SCO patent reads like "WE patent UNIX and everything that looks like it. And that is that.They have to patent some feature of the OS which they can accuse IBM of violating"

Re:Almost nothing new here (4, Informative)

PerryMason (535019) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511497)

What I would have really liked is something on the lines of "Here is patent number 1" and here is how linux is different/same.....It is not as if SCO patent reads like "WE patent UNIX and everything that looks like it. And that is that

Quoting from the SCO complaint;
18. SCO is the present owner of all software code and licensing rights to System V Technology.

Pretty much summarises what they are saying.

Re:Almost nothing new here (1)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511755)

Yebbut being the "owner of all software code and licensing rights" has nothing to do with patents.

Re:Almost nothing new here (5, Interesting)

Tony-A (29931) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511792)

Looks like that ownership may be a bit tainted. (emphasis added)

The suit was settled after the University threatened to countersue over license violations by AT&T and USL. It seems that from as far back as before 1985, the historical Bell Labs codebase had been incorporating large amounts of software from the BSD sources. The University's cause of action lay in the fact that AT&T, USL and Novell had routinely violated the terms of the BSD license by removing license attributions and copyrights.

The exact terms of final settlement, and much of the judicial record, were sealed at Novell's insistence.

Re:Almost nothing new here (1)

siskbc (598067) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511859)

Quoting from the SCO complaint;

"18. SCO is the present owner of all software code and licensing rights to System V Technology."

Pretty much summarises what they are saying.

Ah, but a distinction - it seems the SCO people are willfully blurring the patent/copyright issue. Yes, they have patents on Unix. No, it doesn't extend to EVERYTHING about Unix. And I bet they don't have a patent, say, System V startup script formats.

At this point, they only have copyright, which they accidentally (or incompetently, let's not assume anything) allude to when they say they own the System V "software code." Which is exactly right - and when Linux implemented System V style startup scripts, they did it cleanroom, without access to the code. At that point, I believe their System V argument goes byebye, because Linux clearly didn't break copyright.

So now it will come down to whether IBM improperly used knowledge from the Unix tech they licensed to improve their own Unix flavors, and that this then got leaked into Linux. Based on how vague and, ah, ambitious the original brief was, I imagine this is a go-for-broke fishing expedition.

Wait...I've seen this movie before. (4, Funny)

YetAnotherName (168064) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511456)

IBM: Here's one.
Judge: Ninepence.
SCO: I'm not dead!
Judge: What?
IBM: Nothing. Here's your ninepence.
SCO: I'm not dead!
Judge: 'Ere. He says he's not dead!
IBM:Yes, he is.
SCO: I'm not!
Judge: He isn't?
IBM: Well, he will be soon. He just filed a 9000 word legal brief.

he's just resting (2, Funny)

greenalbatros (215035) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511654)

they do that your Norweigan Blue. Beautiful plumage!

ESR (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511494)

Why won't he just stick to playing around with his gun, Charlene, and also the other gun that's for fun.

Oh, and keep drinking that Jaegermeister. You already look like a full-time drunk.

Nice brief (4, Insightful)

nenolod (546272) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511499)

Looks like it was written by a high school student, but none the less, what a nice brief. Dont those SCO People work hard?

Plus, their case doesn't hold water because, the SCO that we're talking about is not the same SCO as the SCO that provided Unix, after AT&T.

This SCO is caldera. The old SCO is SCO. Do the math, Caldera != SCO. Therefore, I do not see their grounds at all.

Re:Nice brief (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511530)

Caldera bought SCO's Unix assets a couple of years ago, and now "Caldera" does business as the "SCO Group".

Bring on the brick bats! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5512005)

Some quotes from the brief:

...even were we to assume that every dime of their revenue came from the enterprise market, their 2002 share could not have exceeded 3.1% [4] This is at the level of statistical noise.

...Novell's proprietary entitlement in the code so small, that Novell's lawyers had to settle for a minor, face-saving gesture...

...On Internet time, the Bell Labs minicomputer-centered codebase of 1989-1995 is hardly ... relevant to today's enterprise scalability challenges on today's PCs...


You tell 'em ESR!

What I would like to know is... (4, Insightful)

TaranRampersad (650261) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511504)

If SCO is just about to sell out, and is attempting to inflate it's 'intellectual property equity' in the hope that someone with money may buy them? Or maybe there are already talks underway?

If not, this appears to be a horrid act of desperation.

In ESR's take... (5, Funny)

DJPenguin (17736) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511506)

Amicus Curiae - what the hell does that mean? Is it latin for Anonymous Coward?

Re:In ESR's take... (4, Informative)

BacOs (33082) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511539)

Amicus Curiae [techlawjournal.com]

Definition: Latin term meaning "friend of the court". The name for a brief filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case

Re:In ESR's take... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511549)

It means "friend of the court". In the US uninvolved 3rd parties are allowed to present legal briefs/opinions in a case to the judge if they have an interest. Groups like the EFF and the ACLU do it a fair bit.

definition of Amicus Curiae (4, Informative)

sczimme (603413) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511567)



Black's Legal Dictionary defines amicus curiae: "A person with a strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action may petition the court for permission to file a brief ostensibly on behalf of a party, but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views. Such amicus curiae briefs are commonly filed in appeals concerning matters of broad public interest; e.g. civil rights cases".

I found this item here [mumia2000.org] .

Re:In ESR's take... (1, Insightful)

turgid (580780) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511582)

I wouldn't worry too much about what ESR has to say. The man has gone on a fruitbreak of late.

Re:In ESR's take... (2, Interesting)

DJPenguin (17736) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511601)

I really hope Linus and Alan don't go the way of ESR and/or RMS - two of the craziest guys around IMO :)

Re:In ESR's take... (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511641)

Well, poor old Alan's been teetering on the brink for a while now, what with all his paranoia about the DMCA and not going to the USA in case he gets arrested. These high-profile, high-pressure jobs take their toll. I do hope Linus stays sane, for everyone's sake. :-)

Re:In ESR's take... (1)

NialScorva (213763) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511651)

"Of late"??

Re:In ESR's take... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511978)

Would this have something to do with his old domain name randomly redirecting you to other sites like linux.org? It's not even consistent - every attempt goes somewhere new.

Amicus Curiae (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511752)

"Friend of the Court" -- in other words, a 3rd-party attempting to meddle in the affairs of the court case at hand.

I don't know what worries me more... (1)

Akardam (186995) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511908)

... the fact that ESR apparently doesn't know what Amicus Curiae means, or that he obviously reads too much /., since the first thing he could think of was Anonymous Coward.

my take on ESR (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511507)

ESR is pompous, loud-mouthed, unproductive, and tried to get very rich from the hard work of OSS contributors, taking out proportionately far more than he put in.

There's nothing worse than having someone on your side who makes you look so bad they might as well be playing for the other team.

Re:my take on ESR (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511822)

Amen. ESR should suck a D.

If only.... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511511)

IBM would countersue, based upon restraint of trade, for $2B.


I think they'd have a pretty good chance of ending up owning all of SCO.


Not that it's worth much.

Random Programming (5, Insightful)

TechnoWeenie (250857) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511528)

Averment 41
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.

It's interesting to note that SCO considers the decisions of programmers to be basically random.

Re:Random Programming (3, Funny)

garignak (611737) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511597)

Hmm, that could explain why SCO is nearly dead. :)

Re:Random Programming (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511821)

It is also interesting that SCO actually appears to believe that. Even without the headers the API to any library can be reverse engineered with nm and gdb in about two days.

As for "Shared libraries are by their nature unique creations..." I'm not even sure where to start. How is some code a "unique creation" simply because I have compiled it as a shared library? If I build it as a static library, is it no longer unique? Do SCO not understand that one of the points of using shared libraries is that they are inherently interchangable? That one just makes my head spin.

Finally, I also seem to remember Linus owning a Quad Xeon box, back in the mid-90's. So whats this about the Linux developers only having uniprocessor boxes?

Re:Random Programming (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511858)

I think yo are quoting out of context here. SCO is refering to the compiled code. This was another one of the places where SCO hints at something being the case very strongly yet if you know the truth you can see they didn't actually say what any reasonable reader would imply from their writing, so they can lie without committing perjury.

What they assert is that

1) SCO enterprise applications require SCO libraries to run
2) By random chance Linux developers could not create libraries which are binary compatable with SCO's libraries

_____

The whole point of this discussion is of course to imply to a reader that Linux has libraries binary compatable with SCO's. Otherwise why discuss this hypothetical in the context of an IP theft lawsuit. But they don't actually say Linux has these libraries because it isn't true.

Re:Random Programming (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511989)

However you leave out item 3. In their complaint, SCO goes on to say "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." In other words, SCO assert that it is impossible to create a compatable library without riping off SCO's source code. This is demonstratably rubbish, as anyone with the knowhow can reverse engineer the API to a shared library without the source. You don't have to look any farther than WINE to see this in action.

SCO are either delusional, misinformed or lying. Either way, that is not a good position to be in if you've just filed a $1Billion lawsuit.

And speaking of cluelessness.. (1)

goetz (628042) | more than 11 years ago | (#5512017)

SCO charges (paragraph 82): "Virtually none of these software developers and hobbyists had access to enterprise-scale equipment and testing facilities for Linux development."

Good point from ESR's brief regarding this. [opensource.org]

Perhaps these guys should should check their drinking water [slashdot.org] for hallucinogens.

SCO/IBM....what's this all about? (1, Troll)

norite (552330) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511548)

Can someone explain to me what this is all about please, preferably in a paragraph and in plain english...

Re:SCO/IBM....what's this all about? (0, Flamebait)

greenalbatros (215035) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511587)

Can someone explain to me what this is all about please, preferably in a paragraph and in plain english

no

Re:SCO/IBM....what's this all about? (5, Insightful)

u38cg (607297) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511628)

SCO own the rights to the "original" Unix source code. They're suing IBM, ostensibly on the grounds that IBM incorporated ideas in the "original" Unix (which IBM had some rights to) into Linux; they claim that Linux couldn't have done all the technical whizz-bangery that it has without help from the original source code.

The real reason is that SCO is dying, and wants to be bought out by IBM, thereby knocking up the final share price for their investors.

Got it?

You bet this is a Brief (4, Funny)

ebuck (585470) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511552)

I would think that after all of the legal (and pseduo-legal) stuff that gets posted and referenced here at ./, nearly everyone would realize that in legal circles, "Brief" is a technical term neither describing the length of the document, nor the time it takes to read one.

Or should I just make an analogy to a brief COBOL program?

Re:You bet this is a Brief (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511770)

>Or should I just make an analogy to a brief COBOL program?
Yes, please!

Slashdot interview... (4, Informative)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511553)

I don't remember it this was posted already in previous discussions, but in this interview with IBM Kernel Hackers [slashdot.org] from last year, some points are raised, some good and some bad for IBM, specially in the 2nd question. In short, the people at IBM that was into the linux kernel development can't take parts of i.e. AIX code and put into Linux and viceversa, but some interchange of ideas could have been happened if a developer of one team talks with one of another.

Re:Slashdot interview... (5, Informative)

binaryDigit (557647) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511615)

some points are raised, some good and some bad for IBM, specially in the 2nd question

They answered:

We are definitely not allowed to cut and paste proprietary code into any open source projects (or vice versa!). There is an IBM committee who can and do approve the release of IBM proprietary or patented technology, like RCU.

I don't see how this is "bad" for IBM. It shows that they are actively protecting any proprietary interests to the point that they actually have a committee.

but some interchange of ideas could have been happened if a developer of one team talks with one of another.

Again they replied:

Having solved the problem once, our non-Linux peers can help steer us without spelling it out for us, allowing us to still develop solutions that can then be open sourced.

Again, IBM seems to be keenly aware of the cross pollenation issue and actively taking steps to avoid any issues. It reads to me like it's all pro IBM?

Re:Slashdot interview... (1)

Ponty (15710) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511900)

It's IBM -- there's a committee for deciding on lunch.

Public Domain Knowledge (4, Interesting)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511666)

I'm reminded of a few(!) years ago when I was reading about development on the Atari 8-bit computers. A columnist for Analog magazine wrote about how he could not divulge certain information about memory mapping of the 400/800 computers because of his Non-Discolsure Agreement - BUT - that if he found out the same information from a third party he could then treat said information as public domain, and then was not bound by the NDA.

I would be interested in knowing if the knowledge shared here had slipped into the public domain, because if so then NDAs do not apply.

IANAL

Re:Public Domain Knowledge (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511749)

Thier was a similar one to this back with the Amiga. Thier were people using various variable names and making references to variables names and function that were in the chips and O/S. This lead to claims that people who had access various properitary code had released it, then it came out that all this was in a published book that anyone on the street could get.

Linux "advanced features" (4, Insightful)

rf0 (159958) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511610)

Reading the Linux world article SCO claims that Linux advanced features such as failover SMP etc could only come about after many years of development. However I do find it a bit narrow sighted in that they think that IBM is the only one who could procduce this software and port it. There are other blue chips out there who have written failsafe software and ported it to Linux. Personally I think SCO is talking rubbish (well at least on this point at least). I really need to read all 40 pages of their document but don't really have the time. (heh who does :)

Rus

obligatory GNU joke (4, Funny)

leomekenkamp (566309) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511646)

Averment 77: Related to the development of the open source software development movement in the computing world, an organization was founded by former MIT professor Richard Stallman entitled "GNU."

RMS may be surprised to learn he is a former MIT professor.

He is not; he is a former GNU/MIT professor.

Re:obligatory GNU joke (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511779)

Not sure which is funnier; the original message or that people would mark it up as informative.

SCO's case (4, Interesting)

Alomex (148003) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511672)


While I have no idea if SCO has a case or not, I see that many here assume IBM had nothing to do with making Linux enterprise stable, and scoff at SCO's claim.

Yet, if you take the time to google the web you'll find that IBM dedicated an entire internal group to Linux and hired several external companies during 1999-2001 with the sole purpose of making Linux entreprise strength (even Linus has said so).

Now, to be clear, this does not yet prove that any illegal transfer of technology took place (and I doubt SCO will be able to prove it, IMHO they are fishing hoping to find the smoking gun during discovery), but it does verify one of the main three claims from SCO.

It's not a claim. (2, Informative)

rjh (40933) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511823)

... Not in the legal sense of the word, at least. You can't walk into a courtroom and say "your Honor, I claim the sky is blue". Sure, in the English sense of the word it's a claim; in the legal sense of the word, it's not a claim because it lacks standing before the court. I.e., great, the sky's blue: why should the court care? Great, IBM helped Linux get ready for the enterprise: why should the court care?

A claim is basically a statement of "... and this is why the court should care". So far, SCO's argument about why the court should care doesn't hold water. I'm not worried.

Re:SCO's case (2, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511929)

Absolutely they did. IBM has done a great deal of stuff to make 2.6 a much better kernel. The problem is those aren't the features that SCO can claim came from SCO, unless they want to claim they were so secret they didn't share them with their own development staff -- i.e. they aren't part of SCO either. The features they can claim are the ones that were in Linux prior to IBM's involvement.

SCO Pre-Lawsuit insider trading... (4, Interesting)

dentar (6540) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511673)

These folks have pretty much turned on us. I spent a great deal of effort learning UNIX, getting my SCO CUSA, ACE, and Master ACE. SCO ruined that by no longer being competitive, not keeping up with technology, not marketing their products well, and mistreating their reseller channel. They got their asses kicked by a college student in Finland because they got lazy and stupid. It serves them right. I am now questioning whether or not I should have tried to become a dealer of their wares when I struck out on my own.

I'm finished when 'em. I'll support their products while my clients still have them, but as soon as the first opportunity to upgrade comes along, we're migrating!

Here is an excerpt about who the money grabbers are, and when they acquired for .001 per share:
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html

Here is my new policy:
http://www.dentar.com/index.php?scoproble m

Can they not proofread? (3, Interesting)

bert33 (655799) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511704)

Hoe could they release a document with so many factual and grammatical errors? I would have thought the lawyers would at least do a little proofreading and fact checking.
Regardless, since UNIX was licensed to universities to study couldn't the concepts SCO claims were "stolen" by IBM simply have been studied by the Linux developers when they were in school?

Re:Can they not proofread? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511736)

Hoe could they release a document with so many factual and grammatical errors? I would have thought the lawyers would at least do a little proofreading and fact checking.

I don't know.. Hoe could they not proofread?

Re:Can they not proofread? (2, Funny)

bert33 (655799) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511765)

Luckily I don't plan on basing a lawsuit on the contents of that post.

Re:Can they not proofread? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511808)

Luckily I don't plan on basing a lawsuit on the contents of that post.

You would have a "SCO" leg to stand on... new adjective!! w00t!

Re:Can they not proofread? (2, Insightful)

Shalda (560388) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511878)

Lawyers are neither programmers nor Unix historians. Most of the lawyers I've met can use Word, Excel, read email, but that's about it. Furthermore, much of the work (and especially fact-checking) is done by paralegals making $12/hour who try and look this stuff up on Lexis-Nexis, Westlaw, or the like. Most of their information comes from the mainstream press and prior cases. Stating that AT&T didn't know what to do with Unix at first is lousy reading (for a mainstream audiance) and practically begging for a defamation lawsuit.

Re:Can they not proofread? (1)

Ozric (30691) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511973)

"I would have thought the lawyers would at least do a little proofreading and fact checking."

Fact checking costs money. SCO does not have any money.

Microsoft business plan (0, Offtopic)

arvindn (542080) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511716)


1. Piracy funds terrorism [slashdot.org]
2. Linux violates SCO's IP
3. Linux supports terrorism <---
4. Profit!

There is a lot of scope for MS for spreading FUD. Watch out.

Everybody is talking about IBM buying SCO. What are the chances of Microsoft buying SCO?

ESR - Very well written response (4, Insightful)

Mr.Phil (128836) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511746)

I know it is the "hip" and "cool" thing to rag on ESR for his views on pretty much anything, however this brief is a very well written document and worth your time to read it. Whatever his precieved faults, he is able to put this issue in clearer prospective for me than the the original posting did.

fundraising (1)

mu51c10rd (187182) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511772)

What? So Caldera buying them wasn't good enough? Go figure. Considering the companies this SCO/Caldera monstrosity has sued in the past, it seems that these tactics are nothing but a desparate bid for survival. Perhaps redoing their business model and creating a modernized viable product might be a better way to go?

$ grep -i ibm /usr/src/linux-2.4/CREDITS (1)

XNormal (8617) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511794)

D: the humble start of an opening towards the IBM SNA protocols
D: libmodem author
D: IBM Turboways 25 ATM Device Driver

Some pleasant thoughts (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511894)

"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance, or nature's changing course, untrimm'd;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest;
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

SCO Threatens To Revoke IBM's Unix License (3, Funny)

rpiquepa (644694) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511938)

As some of you said, there were many stories published about the SCO vs IBM lawsuit. But I don't think I saw any comments about this Forbes [forbes.com] story. Here is a short quote: "Not only has SCO Group filed a $1 billion lawsuit against IBM for misappropriation of trade secrets, but the tiny company says it will yank IBM's Unix license in 100 days if it does not cease what SCO deems are anti-competitive practices."

Why UNIX kernel must not be GPLed! (5, Funny)

Bull999999 (652264) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511962)

Remember the movie Dogma by Kevin Smith? Here's the rundown of it.

"A female decendant of Christ and two unlikely prophets are called upon by Rufus, an unknown 13th apostle, to stop two angels, that were cast out of heaven, from unknowingly erasing all of God's work by restoring their souls by entering a new church. Restoring ones soul by entering a new church is a part of the Catholic Dogma, and by restoring their souls the angels could reenter heaven thus revealing there is a loophole to return to heaven. This would prove God was not perfect and upon proving this all of God's work would immediately be erased."

If IBM buys SCO outright or from the smothering runins, IBM will gian the rights to UNIX and may also chose to release it under GPL. If someone decides to use the UNIX kernel using GNU O/S, it will become GNU/UNIX.

GNU's Not UNIX/UNIX???

This contridiction will bring calmady to the IT world and bring end the free software movement (including GPL).

SCO is making this stuff up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5511971)


Averment 23:


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 complete nonsense. SCO went to great efforts to deliberately try
to kill UNIX back in the early days! It was competition to XENIX, and
they didn't want any of that.


The first port of UNIX on the 286 (and later) 386 was done, and sold,
by Microport (and was so recognized by Intel).


SCO pulled a number of dirty tricks to try and kill Microport, including
getting Microsoft to threaten a lawsuit - which is very similar to the
one they are trying to pull here.


Since Microport was too small to fight Microsoft, they managed to
out maneuver them technically. Which ultimately resulted in the end in
killing XENIX.


No doubt IBM will end up handing SCO's head back to them on a silver platter.
It isn't too hard.

ESR's Amicus brief (4, Insightful)

tmasssey (546878) | more than 11 years ago | (#5511991)

Interesting...

I just finished reading the brief. I must say that for the first half or so, I was very impressed with it. It was simple, logical and factual. However, by the end, it seemed to devolve into a statement of beliefs and feelings that, to me, did not feel right in a court brief. For example:

SCO's complaint, in all its brazen mendacity, is the last gasp of proprietary Unix. The open-source community and its allies are more than competent to carry forward the Unix tradition. We pray that all assertions of exclusive corporate ownership over this tradition be given a swift and merciful end.

Am I the only one who thought that this was not the forum for such OpenSource flag-waving?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?