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!

SCO To Show Copied Code

Hemos posted more than 11 years ago | from the throwing-mud-in-the-water dept.

Linux Business 646

A number of people have written this morning in regards to the latest update in the ongoing SCO dropping Linux, with word from LinuxJournal that SCO has broadened the implications of code copying. A number of analyst groups have come out, however, saying that it's fine to keep moving ahead with Linux adoption - and there's an interesting interview with SCO's General Manager of SCOSource.

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

All your base (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962597)

Are belong to SCO...

Re:All your base (1)

TCaM (308943) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962607)

Wouldnt that be: 'all your kernel are belong to SCO'?

Re:All your base (2, Insightful)

Michael's a Jerk! (668185) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962624)

As an astute poster pointed out on OSNews, they cannot collect on any damages anyway.

They distribute(ed) a version of Linux under the GPL, a licence that legally permits people to copy and branch the code assuming they put it under the GPL. Unfortunately for SCO, whether or not they knew they were distributing their own IP under the GPL or not is irrelevant to the rather compelling argument that they did put their IP under the GPL, and now that they continued to distribute linux after they found the alleged infringements means that no court would declare that licence invalid.

They have knowingly distributed what is potentially their own code under the GPL for nearly a year now. The GPL licence should hold, infringement-free.

Re:All your base (1)

telax (653371) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962714)

But didn't they take the SCO linux out already.. I think something like that was on one of those links.

Re:All your base (4, Informative)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962726)

Doesn't matter, the gpl clearly states you can't take things back once distributed....

Jeroen

Re:All your base (1)

techstar25 (556988) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962836)

So it's actually best if SCO is able to prove their IP (Unix code) is included in Linux, because that would mean that the IP holder themselves released the code under the GPL. They may claim even they didn't know, but tough sh!t. That won't hold up in court.
So the question is not whether or not Unix code makes up Linux, but it is whether or not SCO (IP holders) released Linux under the GPL(obviously they did). All IBM needs is a lawyer familiar with the GPL rules, and this case is over.

Jessica Lynch "rescue" was staged!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962743)

Saving Private Lynch story 'flawed' [bbc.co.uk]

Private Lynch was almost shot by US soldiers

By John Kampfner

Private Jessica Lynch became an icon of the war, and the story of her capture by the Iraqis and her rescue by US special forces became one of the great patriotic moments of the conflict.

But her story is one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived.

Private Lynch, a 19-year-old army clerk from Palestine, West Virginia, was captured when her company took a wrong turning just outside Nasiriya and was ambushed.

Nine of her comrades were killed and Private Lynch was taken to the local hospital, which at the time was swarming with Fedayeen. Eight days later US special forces stormed the hospital, capturing the "dramatic" events on a night vision camera.

They were said to have come under fire from inside and outside the building, but they made it to Lynch and whisked her away by helicopter.

Reports claimed that she had stab and bullet wounds and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated.

General Brooks praised the "creed of loyalty" But Iraqi doctors in Nasiriya say they provided the best treatment they could for the soldier in the midst of war. She was assigned the only specialist bed in the hospital and one of only two nurses on the floor.

"I examined her, I saw she had a broken arm, a broken thigh and a dislocated ankle," said Dr Harith a-Houssona, who looked after her.

"There was no [sign of] shooting, no bullet inside her body, no stab wound - only road traffic accident. They want to distort the picture. I don't know why they think there is some benefit in saying she has a bullet injury."

Witnesses told us that the special forces knew that the Iraqi military had fled a day before they swooped on the hospital.

"We were surprised. Why do this? There was no military, there were no soldiers in the hospital," said Dr Anmar Uday, who worked at the hospital.

"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried 'go, go, go', with guns and blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show for the American attack on the hospital - action movies like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan."

There was one more twist. Two days before the snatch squad arrived, Harith had arranged to deliver Jessica to the Americans in an ambulance.

But as the ambulance, with Private Lynch inside, approached a checkpoint American troops opened fire, forcing it to flee back to the hospital. The Americans had almost killed their prize catch.

When footage of the rescue was released, General Vincent Brooks, US spokesman in Doha, said: "Some brave souls put their lives on the line to make this happen, loyal to a creed that they know that they'll never leave a fallen comrade."

Private Lynch is said to have lost her memory The American strategy was to ensure the right television footage by using embedded reporters and images from their own cameras, editing the film themselves.

The Pentagon had been influenced by Hollywood producers of reality TV and action movies, notably the man behind Black Hawk Down, Jerry Bruckheimer.

Bruckheimer advised the Pentagon on the primetime television series "Profiles from the Front Line", that followed US forces in Afghanistan in 2001. That approached was taken on and developed on the field of battle in Iraq.

As for Private Lynch, her status as cult hero is stronger than ever. Internet auction sites list Jessica Lynch items, from an oil painting with an opening bid of $200 to a $5 "America Loves Jessica Lynch" fridge magnet.

But doctors now say she has no recollection of the whole episode and probably never will.

BBC == Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962819)

I thought you scumsucking liberal assholes could not sink to any lower depths of spinelessness than you've already done, but amazingly that "article" achieved it.

BBC has just lost all the respect I had for them in the first place. Fucking backstabbing traitors.

SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collect (3, Interesting)

Michael's a Jerk! (668185) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962608)

This has been posted before but they can not collect on any damages caused, as they have not published the allegdedly infringing portions.

Not telling the world what the code is, is a legal blunder of the first order. This means that they have unclean hands, as they are supposed to try and mitigate the damage in order to receive compensation.

You can't knowlingly add to the damage and then ask for compensation incl Punitive damages based on same. Any suit against Linux vendor in the future can site this as an Affirmative Defense" and pretty much get the suit tossed on that account alone

Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962649)

As an astute poster pointed out on OSNews, they cannot collect on any damages anyway.

They distribute(ed) a version of Linux under the GPL, a licence that legally permits people to copy and branch the code assuming they put it under the GPL. Unfortunately for SCO, whether or not they knew they were distributing their own IP under the GPL or not is irrelevant to the rather compelling argument that they did put their IP under the GPL, and now that they continued to distribute linux after they found the alleged infringements means that no court would declare that licence invalid.

Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (5, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962664)

They distribute(ed) a version of Linux under the GPL, a licence that legally permits people to copy and branch the code assuming they put it under the GPL. Unfortunately for SCO, whether or not they knew they were distributing their own IP under the GPL or not is irrelevant to the rather compelling argument that they did put their IP under the GPL, and now that they continued to distribute linux after they found the alleged infringements means that no court would declare that licence invalid.

If anyone argues this, we lose in a bigger way. MS can then say "see, I told you so! GPL caused SCO to lose their IP!!!!".

It would benefit us greatly as a community if no company makes this argument in defense.

Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (5, Insightful)

belroth (103586) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962739)

say "see, I told you so! GPL caused SCO to lose their IP!!!!".
Alternatively it could be argued, possibly by shareholders in a due diligence case, that SCO lost any IP by not exercising proper care over what they were selling.
You could view this as only peripherally about the terms of the GPL and more about SCO being careless - if they'd used the BSD, Artistic, or Moz licenses the effect on any proprietary IP would be the same.

Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (5, Insightful)

Basje (26968) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962770)

If anyone argues this, we lose in a bigger way. MS can then say "see, I told you so! GPL caused SCO to lose their IP".

I think that is a moot point. Whatever comes from this, open source will lose, whether SCO wins ("see, linux will lose you money") or loses ("see, your IP is at stake"). I think the second is less damaging because it's simply because of SCO's behaviour, and that can be shown.

The real sting in here is that while the code may well be GPL, the process and ideas it implements may very well, and probably are, still protected by patent laws. It's the same as with LZH compression: the algorithm is proprietary, even when there's GPL-ed code that implements it.

Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (4, Interesting)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962788)

The problem is that the owner of this ip (most unix patents will probably be outdated anyhow) has been distributing it under the gpl, and thus giving up al rights to enforce their patents. The LZH case was different, the owner of the ip never gave permission to use it in gpl programs, and thus the person who first distributed it under the gpl (not those persons who distributed it further) would be liable.

Jeroen

Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (0, Offtopic)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962816)

"MS can then say "see, I told you so! GPL caused SCO to lose their IP!!!!".

And MS would be making perfect asses of themselves, IMO. No self-respecting co. ought to license it's code under GPL and expect to retain control over IP. Numerous firms offer products and Services under GNU/Linux, but not under GPL.

"It would benefit us greatly as a community if no company makes this argument in defense."

Actually, I'm more concerned IBM isn't taking this stand. Who has benefitted us (the community) the most: SCO, IBM or the community? It's us, for ourselves. I don't think we should be too bothered about the logic, or lack of it, from arguments coming from MS. The success of GNU/Linux proves that we ignore (or rather take as falsehood) anything coming from MS.

If this argument helps IBM close this case faster, so be it.

Re:Failure to mitigate own damages (5, Interesting)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962678)

IANAL, but I'm not sure that not demonstrating what code is bad AT THIS POINT in the game is a failure to mitigate their damage.

What *is* a failure to mitigate their damage is the fact that they sold their OWN version Linux along with a version of the kernel that THEY THEMSELVES patched. While I'm a Gentoo user now, my second distro was Caldera OpenLinux (my first distro was Slackware 3.5). Caldera OpenLinux had a graphical boot feature which required a specially-patched kernel. They wrote the graphical boot system and the patches to the kernel, so even if there IS SCO code in the kernel (which there isn't), it's not like they didn't know about it.

Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962729)

"This has been posted before but they can not collect on any damages caused, as they have not published the allegdedly infringing portions."

The Complainant (SCO) is not required to publish the code in question. If such were the case, then trade secrets would be completely undermined by the judicial system. The time for disclosing the alleged infringing code is at trial, where the code can be kept under seal from the public, if necessary.

"Not telling the world what the code is, is a legal blunder of the first order. This means that they have unclean hands, as they are supposed to try and mitigate the damage in order to receive compensation."

SCO is not adding to the damages. Mitigation entails stopping damages that are under your control to stop. How is it that you propose SCO can stop IBM or others from distributing software while the suit is being pursued?

"You can't knowlingly add to the damage and then ask for compensation incl Punitive damages based on same. Any suit against Linux vendor in the future can site this as an Affirmative Defense" and pretty much get the suit tossed on that account alone"

Even if SCO were to lose this case, a futher defendant would not "site" it as an Affirmative Defense, but rather as a precedential case. And, being a breach of contract case, the precedential value would be limited for a future defendant.

Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (1)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962827)

If they are going for a pure trade secret case (which might very well be the only thing they possibly can) they don't have to show the code.
But they are going around telling everybody they can't use linux... That would then be a big fat lie.
You can't sue somebody for a breach of contract if they never had a contract with SCO in the first place.

In any case they would still have to show it to IBM, they already know about it and are the ones that are aked to comply with their demands...
You can't acuse somebody without telling them exactly what you think they are doing wrong.
Ofcourse they might very well have told IBM what they think is wrong... But why then this publicity stunt?

Jeroen

Ladies and Gentlemens... (5, Funny)

borgdows (599861) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962613)

and now, the revelation of the allegedly copied code!

void main() {
initkernel();
while(1)
{
[...kernel related stuff...]
}
}

Re:Ladies and Gentlemens... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962644)

void main() { initkernel(); while(1) { Oh baby oh baby yes yes more baby oh yes fuck me harder harder yes more deeper I want it I want it more fuck fuck fuck yes fuck baby oh yes more more more more yes fuck me now harder oooohhh yes there there there yes more oh yes oh ohoh YES oh FUCK YES thattttt is OH fuck my god YES!!!! oh oh FUUUCCCKKKK! } }

Re:Ladies and Gentlemens... (2, Funny)

cperciva (102828) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962656)

Now I finally understand why linux has so many filesystem-corrupting bugs -- it doesn't call any code to shutdown the system cleanly.

Re:Ladies and Gentlemens... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962724)

void main() {
initkernel();
while(1)
{
[... kernel related stuff :
if(shutdown) shutdownkernel(); // here because while will never end ...]
}
}

-Bob

IBM is not faulty (4, Interesting)

borgdows (599861) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962630)

"SCO already has claimed--some kernel versions released before IBM began contributing to Linux contain UnixWare code"

so ? where does the leak (if any) come from except from SCO itself ?!

SCO stopped selling its own Linux too late (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962632)

Has SCO violated its own copyright? Is that why it stopped selling Linux? Its own people aren't too sure. This [theage.com.au]
interview indicates that SCO's right hand
doesn't seem to know what its left hand is doing.

It has been announced by SCO (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962633)

Linux is dead...long live BSD!

Linux is dead...long live BSD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962766)

Actually this is of some comfort. Even if the bastards win (which will be a cold day in hell) we still have an open source unix-like operating system to fall back on if the apocalypse does actually happen (which it won't).

Re:It has been announced by SCO (2, Insightful)

Komarosu (538875) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962837)

aha but how long before SCO announces a jihad against BSD? looks like the whole theory of "if we can't have it, no one can!"

SCO is just mentally unstable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962634)

They do not appear to comprehend that they will not be bought just to shut them up, nor that noone will buy anything from them.

They appear to be going through the worst part of a movie, the part where a character blames their failings on the success of others.

I'm glad that the three BSDs are not yet being bothered by these wonderful people.

And now... (3, Funny)

ATAMAH (578546) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962638)

Linux is under a microSCOpe.

Re:And now... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962661)

you sick bastard

Errrrr.... (5, Interesting)

defishguy (649645) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962642)

Sco claims that Linux violates their IP. Sco also distributes Linux. Linux is licensed by the GPL. GPL = Free Code Errr... Maybe the only blood that will be let is from the hole that they shot in their own foot? It seems to me that they've already GPL'd whatever Unix code there "may" be when they condoned, sanctioned, and released their own distro of Linux.

Re:Errrrr.... (1)

techstar25 (556988) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962774)

I'm just learning about the GPL but I have the same question here. If SCO owned Unix, and then released a Linux distro under the GPL (they did) that means that all that code is out there, under all the rules of the GPL from that moment on. Plus, end users can't be held liable because the software was clearly obtained under GPL rules.
It seems that SCO released the product under the GPL and then changed their mind, and now they want to sue everybody who obtained their software under GPL rules. Once it's GPL, that's it, you can't just change your mind and sue to get your code back, can you?

CO Sued By SCO For IP Infringement (-1, Redundant)

Michael's a Jerk! (668185) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962643)

Today, SCO filed a lawsuit against SCO for selling Linux based solutions with Unix properietery code that it had contributed to the Linux development project.

The lawsuit is for irrepairable damages and seeks an award of $10,000,000,000 and legal fees. The CEO of SCO had this to say, "We expect a quick settlement to this case."

He also added that "With the settlement money and our recouped legal fees, we can move on to other Linux / Unix distributors, such as Santa Cruz Operation or Caldera."

Re:CO Sued By SCO For IP Infringement (4, Insightful)

pesc (147035) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962843)

Well, karma whoring becomes easy when you can just copy someone else's [slashdot.org]
funny post from an earlier discussion!

Hopefully, some other moderators will correct this ;-)

Related quote (3, Funny)

platypus (18156) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962647)

Seems fitting, even more so with a small addition:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by [the combination of malice and] stupidity"

Re:Related quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962775)

Napoleon Bonaparte, right?

Bomb them!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962648)

SCO are nothing but legal TERRORISTS !!

The business plan of (2, Interesting)

keirre23hu (638913) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962654)

search for IP violations
bully people into coughing up money
.
.
.
profit

needs to stop if there is "infringing" content i guess they have a right to sue... but perhaps that means the whole system of how intellectual property... particularly with respect to software.. need to change... what is going to happen if 2-3 yrs from now Amazon sells off part of its business including its 50 zillion patents... will we have to pay a royalty to use any interactive content on pages? This is just out of control.

Their Linux distribution sucks anyway... so I wonder what they think harassing end users will do.. I would run just about any alternative OS before I bought anything from SCO at this point.

Re:The business plan of (5, Informative)

jjgm (663044) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962718)

Nonono... the business plan is:

1. Sue IBM.
2. Irritate the dinosaur.
3. Get bought by dinosaur.

The reason for this being that SCO is on the way down, down, down. The only way to rescue shareholder value at this point from total obliviion is a large injection of equity. Since no-one is likely to weigh in with the millions needed, the best way to obtain that equity is to replace it with those of a more stable stock.

i.e. get bought by IBM.

It's a high-risk, last-ditch strategy by a failing company.

- K

Fw: SCO Legal team. (1)

eightball01 (646950) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962655)

Here ya go. Read this and then see how many eggs are still in your legal basket. GPL Liscense [paleodb.org]

catch-22? (3, Interesting)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962657)

Seems like SCO is in a bigger soup. They want to go against commercial linux. But SCO also used to supply linux distribution and it used to be under "GPL".

Now if a company releases proprietry code owned by it under GPL then anybody can use it! So it wont matter wether linux copies unix or whatever FUD they want to spread, all their linux code they released under GPL, so this will hardly stand in court.

On the other hand, this could be an acid test for GPL, coz if commercial Linux vendors prove that the above said code which is supposedly copied was actually released by SCO itlelf under GPL, the whole case will fall flat.

Code was relased before SCO was bought (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962689)

So there may be a loophole.. 'caldera' was the violator, and once SCO was purchased the mistake was realized after a 'long and extensive audit' and the product pulled in good faith...

If caldera didnt own the IP they they wernt legally allowed to release it under GPL, and they didnt have ownership in the beginning..

Re:Code was relased before SCO was bought (1)

Melkman (82959) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962846)

.. 'caldera' was the violator, and once SCO was purchased the mistake was realized after a 'long and extensive audit' and the product pulled in good faith...

Wrong, they would have had to pull their distro -before- suing IBM.

When do they come after BSD and Microsoft? (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962662)

I wonder if IBM just a warm up for even bigger fish over in Redmond? And to raise capital for the battle.

Re:When do they come after BSD and Microsoft? (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962715)

From the ref. article:
""We specifically excluded the BSD-derived code", Sontag said. "There is post-BSD UnixWare source code origined [sic] with SCO, and that is of issue."

You can see... they aren't going after their paymasters.

Re:When do they come after BSD and Microsoft? (1)

ubernostrum (219442) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962768)

I wonder if IBM just a warm up for even bigger fish over in Redmond? And to raise capital for the battle.

IBM isn't exactly a "little fish". More of a sleeping giant that you don't want to wake because it will crush you like a bug; IBM's legal department is going to make everybody at SCO hurt. A lot.

Save your soul (and your computer) (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962666)

I can picture SCO, in a last desparate attempt at getting business, sending out Mormon boys on bikes hawking salvation and kernel purity.

Mormon boys: "Sir, can you spare a mere 30 minutes? You salvation could depend on it."

Me: (Wearing BSD shirt) "No thanks... I'm a daemon worshipper, lads, and along with me, my computer has been cleansed and its packets are pure."

Mormon boys: (Have stupid look and walk away)

Open Source is lies (4, Funny)

Mohammed Al-Sahaf (665285) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962668)

The linux kernel is full of our stolen code. I triple guarantee you - it is all over the place! We're giving them a real lesson today. Heavy doesn't accurately describe the level of casualties we have inflicted. I will show you the stolen code - IN ONE HOUR!

Mohammed al-Sahaf (now SCO press spokesman)

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962750)

The Linux kernel steals YOU!

SCO (2, Funny)

Luigi30 (656867) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962669)

SCO sounds a lot like the RIAA... maybe they'll merge into the SCAA?

"Intellectual Property" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962671)

Is an intrinsically stupid concept anyway. When I take a loaf of bread from you, you no longer have the bread. When I take a copy of some information, you still have the information, I have the information, hey, everyone's better off.

The only "justification" is that you are losing out because under IP laws you'd entitled to compensation. But that argument presupposes the existence of IP laws. It is thus circular logic, and can be dismissed like some religionist's rantings.

Check out... (5, Funny)

cibus (670787) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962673)

..SCOs brilliant "quotes from linux leaders" page of proof [sco.com] ! Oh no! Linux is doomed!

Re:Check out... (1)

Chicane-UK (455253) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962698)

But don't SCO sell a modified / customised version of Linux of their own?

If its so damn illegal and so immoral, then WHY THE HELL ARE THEY SELLING IT.

What a bunch of idiots :|

Re:Check out... (2, Insightful)

Komarosu (538875) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962815)

its amazing how quotes can be took out of context :)

Re:Check out... (2, Insightful)

sfraggle (212671) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962842)

This one seems to be the funniest:
"We have to remember that Linux is a follow-on to UNIX. It's not just a UNIX clone. It's actually a UNIX successor."

Bruce Perens, mpulse magazine, December 2001.
Are they implying their own product is obsolete?

SCO's letter contains copyright violations (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962682)

This letter [sco.com] on SCO's website contains a number of non-original words and phrases. For example:

'commercial Linux user' [google.nl] is a phrase first commonly used by SGI;

'Unix-like operating system' [google.nl] has obviously been pinched from multiple sources; and

SCO's claim to 'Linux-related activies' [google.nl] is clearly not propietary.

This messages constitutes a warning to SCO to change the content of the above mentioned letter or face possible legal proceedings.

Re:mod parent up!!! (1)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962731)

LOL. I'd give you all my mod points if I had any. That's funny. ;)

Re:SCO's letter contains copyright violations (3, Interesting)

belroth (103586) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962769)

SCO also do not appear in this letter to acknowledge Linux as a trademark of Linus Torvalds...

SCO has other problems... (3, Insightful)

Michael's a Jerk! (668185) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962687)

Check out this article [librenix.com] about the GPL implications of their republishing IBM's alegedly infringing code in their own version of Linux.

No fear (4, Funny)

mccalli (323026) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962688)

From the interview:
Wouldn't you agree that your legal action is causing uncertainty in the Linux community and that this uncertainty is undermining the marketing efforts of UnitedLinux?
There is definitely uncertainty and doubt...

But no fear, it would seem. :-)

Cheers,
Ian

Re:No fear (4, Insightful)

johannesg (664142) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962776)

The community has already shown itself to be without fear, wouldn't you say? As for uncertainty and doubt, I'm uncertain if SCO is a real company or just a front for Microsoft, and if they aren't I doubt their sanity.

Continuing on a slightly more serious note, the only entity that is greatly served by slowing Linux's adoptation into the business world is, indeed, Microsoft. Are there any financial ties between Microsoft and SCO? I find it hard to believe that SCO is self-destructing just for the hell of it. I have not much trouble imagining Microsoft going through the ol' FUD routine.

In related news... (1, Funny)

iamatlas (597477) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962694)

SCO has been shown to be a Microsoft subsidiary.

When reached for comment on this, Gates and Ballmer both stated:

"All your linux boxes are belong to us"

Pre- and Post- Infringements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962703)

"Pre-IBM" infringements? I'm curious as to how that would have happened. Unless it was SCO people themselves doing it. Where I work: we used to be pretty tight with SCO, in that SCO Xenix/Unix was our primary OS and we developed product to run under SCO Unix. Used to have an expen$ive, tho relatively worthless, software maintenance contract with SCO. (We no longer use SCO for mission-critical business systems and the product is in maintenance mode--approaching EOL.)

Thing is: I don't recall SCO offering a source code license. So where'd the "pre-IBM" stuff come from? And the "post-IBM" stuff: where the hell'd it come from?

This all smells of exactly what everbody thinks it is: a money grab because the company can't make it any other way.

I think it's time for a "boycott SCO" uprising. (Unfortunately, I cannot contribute more than moral support to such a cause, 'cuz I don't use SCO, myself, and at work... well, as above.)

Standard OSS/FS practices... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962704)

You guys are incredible. You invented a license not to protect your work, but to protect stolen work. And all that whining about the other wanting to steal the Linux kernel is bullshit.

I think OSS/FS is not just copying ideas from successful bodies, buit copying their code as well.

What is next? $CO instead of SCO, fuckers...

Troll! (1)

arevos (659374) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962778)

And the feeding of trolls is strictly discouraged.

Today's news conference (5, Funny)

jaymzter (452402) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962711)

Excerpts from SCO's Information Minister Chris Sontag:

It is only too obvious the code infringement occurring in Linux. Torvalds' dogs are cutting their own throats before the walls of our Intellectual Property. Tonight they will burn in hell. The stolen code is as clear as the nose on my face.

reporter:
Sir, could we see some of this code?

C.S.:
I will only answer questions that deal in reality. The code is all over the place. Can't you see it yourself?

reporter:
But sir, since your code is hidden from the world, how do we know you didn't just take some Linux sources and just slap SCO source into it for the sake of the trial?

C.S:
Are you a fool? The open source pigs on slashdot would like you to believe that, but they are cying outside and waiting to receive bullets now. They will be killed shortly.

Wouldn't it be funny.... (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962712)

If it turned out that SCO had actually copied from GPL'ed code.

SCO To Show Copied Code? (1)

the uNF cola (657200) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962713)

Do they mean they are just going to vaguely point at a tarball of the linux kernel and say, "There it is!" Or are they going to do something more useful like showing where in SCO's code it exists.

Friction? (1)

jsse (254124) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962716)

You're a member of UnitedLinux. Would you say that your lawsuit has caused some friction within that group?
Yes, there is some friction. But we've been doing our best to have open dialogues with the other participants and members in UnitedLinux. Darl McBride, the CEO of SCO, has had numerous conversations with the other CEOs within UnitedLinux. We've been doing everything we can to keep the dialogue open and are trying to work to conclusions that will be amicable for all the parties involved. We haven't come to a good conclusion yet. But we're always hopeful.


Yes, there is some friction in fucking you guys, but we've been doing our best in using vaseline, and that will be amicable for all the parties involved.

SCO's Biggest Tantrum Yet (3, Interesting)

the-dude-man (629634) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962717)

You know, I think this has been one of SCO'S biggest tantrums to date.

I'd like to see some of this copied code, or hear about it, or hear anything except "the stole our unix". But thats All we have heard from SCO, they are yet to offer anything except them jumping up and down like a toddler with his first erection.

Anyways, this is more likely a stunt from SCO to get some attention, and possibly a parent company. Since SCO dosnt exactly have a bright futre ahead.

Perhaps when whatever crawled up their ass realises it can do better and crawls out this stunt will end :)

IMPORTANT: Please translate. Infringement Doc. (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962723)

I don't speak German, but this seems to be the document that SCO is going to release.

It says something about shared libraries. Anyone willing to translate it for me?

SCOscource.pdf [www.sco.de]

Someone, tell me what this says, my German is REALLY rusty

Re:IMPORTANT: Please translate. Infringement Doc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962760)

I think there is an english version of that at:

http://www.caldera.com/scosource/SCOsource_Present ation.pdf

Re:IMPORTANT: Please translate. Infringement Doc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962790)

here [caldera.com]

Re:IMPORTANT: Please translate. Infringement Doc. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962813)

Oops, here [caldera.com]

Re:IMPORTANT: Please translate. Infringement Doc. (1)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962762)

They are claiming that they own the IBCS modules and shared libraries on linux are theirs....

It is only interesting to people using SCO Unix binaries on linux. I don't know about the library, but the kernel module is part of the kernel and distributed as such among others by SCO itself in their distribution.

Jeroen

Re:IMPORTANT: Please translate. Infringement Doc. (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962791)

All schwinehund code base are belong to ze Master SCO

Re:IMPORTANT: Please translate. Infringement Doc. (1)

OMG (669971) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962826)

I'll translate the section I find interesting:
Slide 1: Logo
Slide 2: New business unit for protecting: IP, patents, copyright
Slide 3: History ...
Slide 4: Why licence SCO IP ?
- Customer wants it (???)
- (don't understand, bs)
- simplify the usage of unix apps on linux
Slide 5: First Podukt: SCO System V for Linux
making SCO shared unix libraries available for linux ... yada yada ...
Slide 6: gfx
Slide 7: - end of the 80s SCO developped an open specification (names ibcs2) for running unix apps on standatd Intel Hardarw
- these shared libs are used in many SCR3.x-SVR5 OSes
- Because ibcs2 is an open specification, the linux commnunity was able to copy it and rename is to LInux ABI.
- For running unix apps on linux customers use Linux ABI and SCO shared libs
- SCO shared libs couldn't be licences separate from SCO OS up to today.

to be continued ...

Re:IMPORTANT: Please translate. Infringement Doc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962830)

Well, the document says that SCO thinks that the Intel Binary Compatibility Standard, developed by SCO, though open, had its implementation copied verbatim by IBM into the Linux kernel, to enable the loading of shared libraries. They say go to: http://www.europe.redhat.com/documentation/mini-HO WTO/WordPerfect-5.php3
for an example of how Linux vendors have used this code to enable the loading of SCO WordPerfect under Linux. So the answer would be: scrap the SCO compatibility and be free.

Is the SCO letter really legal? (0)

brett_sinclair (673309) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962728)

INA(US)L, obviously, but what they're saying in their threat letter to big companies is essentially:

"We're gonna make sure something bad happens to you if you don't give us protection money. We're not gonna tell you what you pay for."

That sounds more like something that should be whispered in a dark alley in a black-and-white movie.

I think I got it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962736)

1.SCO threatens to pull IBM's license by June 13.
2.IBM plays up to the line but settles on the 12
3.SCO turns the settlement (say 100 mil) into a warchest to sue everyone who's even muttered the word Linux and is smaller than them
4.Profit!!!

Download your SCO Linux today! (3, Funny)

jjgm (663044) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962746)

I've just been to the SCO FTP server, and obtained my SCO-distributed, GPL-licensed, SCO-approved Linux source code [sco.com] .

I'd like to thank SCO for making the GPL distribution of Linux a high-throughput broadband affair!

-K

Bad pun alert (1)

teslatug (543527) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962747)

Why won't they just SCO away?

ASPCA to Ballmer, "Quit Harassing Goats Now." (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962754)

It's just so sad.

plan for the future... (1)

Prowl (554277) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962755)

just how is the Hurd coming on???

IBM's trustworthiness under test... (2, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962757)

The merits of this case aside, one thing will be clear before this case gets closed - Is IBM:

a. Loyal to GNU/Linux for ever.
b. a mere hanger-on or passenger, if you will
c. going to slowly pull the rug from under Linux

IBM's recent alliance with MS et al in the Trustworthy Computing Alliance, I feel, casts more than a shadow of doubt, regarding it's true intentions. While it is apparently politically risky to openly side with Open Source, especially for an entity such as IBM, I believe they have stuck their necks out long enuff to retract now.

OTOH, IBM could play a helpless victim, settle with SCO for let's say 10 million (peanuts for them) and then all hell breaks loose for all the other players.

The ambivalence of IBM is frightening, to say the least.

weird claim (1)

g4dget (579145) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962759)

"There is post-BSD UnixWare source code origined [sic] with SCO, and that is of issue."

What does "post-BSD" mean? After the end of the BSD project at Berkeley in 1986? And by "SCO origined", are they talking about code written by employees of SCO? I can't think of anything SCO has ever written that would be of interest to anyone; does anybody know what kind of substantial code SCO actually developed themselves? Drivers maybe?

Re:weird claim (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962833)

I imagine they mean code that was added to SysV after the BSD split. Remember origionally BSD WAS the same code tree and that it was replaced bit by bit until there was almost no traces of the origional letf (and then after the lawsuit those few pieces were eliminated).

Poor dude (2, Funny)

jsse (254124) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962761)

What is the next step?
SCO made its initial filing. IBM was supposed to respond within 30 days. They requested an extension of 30 days, which we granted them. So after 60 days, they responded with basically nothing -- a very vanilla law school 101-type level response, which was rather surprising.


60 days is not enough for their lawyers to stop the laugher. Can you give them more time?

Who will they sue? (3, Interesting)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962765)

Linux is open source, there's not really a central company to sue. They can sue the person who inserted the code, but surely that person is likely to have worked at SCO if they got hold of the code. They'll end up sueing themselves or an ex employee.

Besides the code can be rewritten or removed fairly quickly, all that will happen in SCO will be less compatible with Linux. Considering SCO is pretty much a dead product (going by the opinions expressed here) it's suicide on their part.

The offending code will be replaced and/or removed (2, Insightful)

TokyoBoy (217214) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962784)

The sooner the "offending" code is known, the better for the Linux communuity. If the code is revealed, it will be removed as soon as possible and patches/replacement code can be worked on immediately. The OpenSource kernel can be cleaned as soon as possible.

One of the many things that has bugged me is that by not doing this, SCO has been forcing infringment. By allowing people to know what needs to be changed, we can move on.

If IBM really did contribute code they shouldn't have, then SCO's issues are with IBM, not the rest of the community.

UnixWare to Linux Porting Guide (2, Informative)

PiotrK (16050) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962785)

Please help others moving from SCO to Linux and post links to documentation like this:

UnixWare to Linux Porting Guide (development tools and the API)
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/
http://pe ople.redhat.com/drepper/sco-porting.pdf

Counter sue? IBM's reaction? (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962792)

If SCO has the case thrown out doesn't that open the door for every linux distro out there to sue there pants off for damages due to any lost sales?

Them sending a warning notice seems odd since it seems always to be up to a judge to decide if a company has to cease trading or can continue while the courtcase is being heard.

What does so far seem to be IBM's reaction to this? We got a lot of people talking but anyone have info if IBM is looking to either blow SCO out of the water, settle or simply buy them?

SCO is dying (0, Offtopic)

jdfox (74524) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962796)

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered SCO community when last month IDC confirmed that SCO accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. SCO UnixWare is the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

SCO leader Chris Sontag states that there are 7000 users of SCO Linux. How many users of SCO UnixWare are there? Let's see. The number of UnixWare versus SCO Linux posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 UnixWare users. SCO OpenServer posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of UnixWare posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SCO OpenServer. A recent article put SCO UnixWare at about 80 percent of the SCO market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SCO UnixWare users. This is consistent with the number of SCO UnixWare Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of OpenLinux, abysmal sales and so on, Caldera went out of business and was taken over by SCO who sell another troubled OS. Now OpenLinux is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.

Re:SCO is dying (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962838)

It's very well-known that the last act of a desperate company is to start suing in a last-ditch effort to get cash.

"Well, we're down to $10,000... let's let it ride on the law-suit lottery and see what happens... maybe our lawyers can litigate some revenue for us"

Programs with similar func. tend to look similar.. (1)

borgheron (172546) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962801)

If I write a program for a particular task and you write a program for a particular task, it's fair to say that some of our code may look similar. Perhaps similar enough for me to say that you copied from me, but "purposefully obfuscated" your code.

When confronted with a task, engineers will sometimes find similar solutions.

SCO is on shaky ground here and they know it. Also, how can they rule their oen developers out of the equation being a Linux distributor themselves?

GJC

Some food for the conspiracy theorist among us (1)

MrOion (19950) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962811)

From The Halloween Document III:

"Unless Linux violates IP rights, it will fail to deliver innovation over the long run."

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween3.php [opensource.org]

Smell of Microsoft's hand (1)

RealRoadKill (554583) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962829)

If it feels dirty it probably is... Microsoft is involved somehow... -Dave

Its all very well.... (1)

Organic_Info (208739) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962839)

Its all very well us techies that understand the issues (hahahahahah) of this case but there are plenty of IT purchasers who will be scared off from deploying linux by the bad press (Caldera)SCO is causing.

SCO has just give some of the MS FUD an air of legitimacy that will leave questions hanging over Linux for a looooong time. The fact that there is a hint of risk will scare some people. Of course our (Linux/OSS) saving grace will be the tighter IT budgets and the licensing stupidity of certain large companies.

I work for a company that has SCO UnixWare deployed quite extensively. SCO/United Linux was to be the next step - my not so open minded senior colleague is already in a flap about the SCO FUD mail we received this morning.

To cut the rambling my point is that (Caldera)SCO is doing the linux community a great disservice at the moment. Unless (Caldera)SCO is utterly squashed for their underhand tactics there will be others that will try this trick again in the future.

You should also tend to to use the term CalderaSCO. It is the Caldera mind that is driving the SCO brand into the mud. Caldera were a bad Linux company and thought they could re-gain some respect by rebranding themselves with a less tainted name - didnn't change the nature of the beast though.

Munged code (1)

arevos (659374) | more than 11 years ago | (#5962851)

From the article, after Sontag is asked for an example of copied code, he remarks that:

Code has been "munged around solely for the purpose of hiding the authorship or origin of the code", he said

Which rather gives them a lot of leeway, considering the systems are quite similar. In theory, you could just wander through the Linux codebase until you found something that looked more or less similar to your own code, and then claim it was "munged" to look different. So you have your "copied" code, without any actual IP violations having happened.

Ballmer's History of Sex with Goats (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5962853)

is chronicled here [bbc.co.uk] .

From the article,

As the deadline to produce Windows slipped behind, Gates reportedly called Ballmer into his office and threatened to fire him if Ballmer did not put his relationship with goats on hold until after the product's release.


Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?