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!

How SCO Helped Linux Go Enterprise

timothy posted about 11 years ago | from the giveth-and-taketh-away dept.

Linux 386

An anonymous reader submits: "SCO may now have filed for UNIX copyrights and made various allegations about code-copying, but the actual complaint against IBM still seems to be focused around allegations UNIX-based enterprise technologies (such as RCU, JFS and SMP) being improperly added to Linux. Yet, reviewing the Linux kernel archives reveals some interesting and surprising background on just who helped put these technologies into Linux. PJ's GROKLAW blog has uncovered that 'Caldera Employee Was Key Linux Kernel Contributor,' including what looks like a lot of work on the early stages of JFS. The same employee's name also crops up when we look at RCU. When IBM posts RCU improvements, did he complain? No, he requests further improvements even helpfully providing a link to inspire the IBMer!"

"Lastly, definitely worth reading, Alan Cox on Linux SMP. He says that got he ideas from a book (which presumably can't be somebody's trade secret), invented his own implementation, and did this using hardware provided by Caldera (SCO themselves do acknowledge providing hardware to the Linux SMP team)." The article points out of Christof Hellwig (the Caldera-employed kernel contributor) that "He's likely a great guy, and he's undoubtedly been a trusted Linux contributor, so this is nothing against him. It's about SCO and their position in the lawsuit, and it's about IBM's affirmative defenses."

cancel ×

386 comments

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

first non GNAA post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498045)

FUCK YOU ! [oralse.cx]

YOU MADE IT !!! (-1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | about 11 years ago | (#6498066)

what the Hell is a GNAA, BTW ?

isn't that the family name of TEH SIMONIKER [goatse.cx] ?

where the Hell (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498054)

have gone the trolls ?
in a black hole ? [goatse.cx]

SCO didn't help Linux go Enterprise... (5, Funny)

jkrise (535370) | about 11 years ago | (#6498056)

It's trying to help itself from Enterprises that went Linux.
Big difference.

-

Offtopic? (-1, Offtopic)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 11 years ago | (#6498082)

Once again a crack smoking moderator. Mod this as Funny!

Re:Offtopic? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498089)

Once again a crack smoking moderator.

Didn't you know they drug tested moderators, you only get points if you show crack in your system.

Re:Offtopic? (-1, Troll)

jkrise (535370) | about 11 years ago | (#6498126)

Who the fuck modded my post Offtopic? Idiotic moderators abound at Slashdot, apparently. Here's SCO giving interviews saying that they're going after Enterprise Linux customers with demands for extortion money @ $1,500 per seat.

Does SCO genuinely come across as a company that tried to promote Unix on the Intel desktop? Sorry.

How the fuck is this YRO, BTW?? Shouldn't we moderate entire articles as Offtopic then??

Moderators? Extremists, more likely.

Gah!
-

Re:Offtopic? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498193)

Gah!
GNAA!

Re:Offtopic? (1, Funny)

CableModemSniper (556285) | about 11 years ago | (#6498351)

Whoa, did someone lose their karma bonus or something? Someone on here has a sig: "Arguing with the moderators is like shouting at god, he's probably not listening, and if he is, he's angry". I wouldn't worry about it.

Re:Offtopic? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498346)

Funny? Not. More like -1, Lame.

Yay! (-1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498057)

It's yet another Your Right Online story that is nothing to do with Your Rights, Online or Offline! No, instead it is time for the daily two hours hate against our old enemy SCO. Let the flaming begin!

Can't we just change YRO to "Legal Shit" and post all these stories under that? I could filter it a lot easier then.

Re:Yay! (1)

GigsVT (208848) | about 11 years ago | (#6498075)

There's a category for "The Courts". It's not a section though, they would still have to pick a section like "Developers" or "News". Of course, the whole section/topic thing is pretty screwed up anyway.

Re:Yay! (1, Funny)

jkrise (535370) | about 11 years ago | (#6498084)

Can't we just change YRO to "Legal Shit" and post all these stories under that? I could filter it a lot easier then.

I suggest SCO gossip or SCOssip. It even appears /. is part of the SCO FUD machine. What else can explain non-story after non-story about SCO?

All the points mentioned in this article have been thrashed thread-bare at Slashdot. And yet, when McBride sneezes, it makes headlines at Slashdot.

-

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498106)

It even appears /. is part of the SCO FUD machine.
What else can explain non-story after non-story about SCO?


oh wait!! I'm sure GNAA is part of the SCO FUD machine too!
What else can explain pityful trolls after pityful trolls about GNAA then ?

Re:Yay! (1)

jkrise (535370) | about 11 years ago | (#6498152)

I'm sure GNAA is part of the SCO FUD machine too!

You read them?? Set your threshold to 2, and GNAA won't harm you. OTOH, how do I avoid the SCO FUD?

-

Re:Yay! (1)

ultrabot (200914) | about 11 years ago | (#6498195)

And yet, when McBride sneezes, it makes headlines at Slashdot.

I dunno. When it was officially revealed that Sun is the secret licensee, it was not covered at all (which IMO would have been in order).

Re:Yay! (2, Informative)

zuralin (462240) | about 11 years ago | (#6498368)

You're not reffering to this [slashdot.org] article titled "SCO's Other Investor: Sun Microsystems" now are you?

Re:Yay! (1)

kasperd (592156) | about 11 years ago | (#6498229)

our old enemy SCO.

No, SCO is not our old enemy. SCO is our new enemy. Don't know who qualifies for the old enemy title. Perhaps M$ or RIAA?

If you wish to use or distribute linux (online!) (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | about 11 years ago | (#6498279)

Then surely SCO's actions pertain to your right to do so.

Re:Yay! (4, Insightful)

Ender Ryan (79406) | about 11 years ago | (#6498317)

Please login, so I can filter YOU!

Seriously, I can't beleive this got modded +5 Insightful. This story does indeed have a bearing to "Your Rights Online", if you use or distribute Linux in any way shape or form.

And please, if you're not interested in the story, do not respond to it!

*rolls eyes at the idioacy*

Then.. (-1)

borgdows (599861) | about 11 years ago | (#6498058)

SCO is liable for copyright infringement on SCO rights!!

Screw SCO!! Make these little stinky hippie stealers PAY!!

ok (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498068)

SCO sue Caldera then, not IBM.

Re:ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498080)

SCO are Caldera. They changed their name.

Just remember... (5, Insightful)

freeio (527954) | about 11 years ago | (#6498070)

For better or worse, this battle is based as much on the court of public opinion as anything else. The repeated accusations, the repeated lies on SCO's part, will do their damage, even though all of it may well prove to be baseless.

As Deep Throat (of Watergate fame) said: "Follow the money."

Re:Just remember... (2, Interesting)

john82 (68332) | about 11 years ago | (#6498181)

The real problem is that the bench doesn't know jack about software, let alone an OS kernel. So it comes down to who can convince the judge. IBM has done nothing thus far to establish their position. Our opinions of SCO aside, our hopes are unfortunately dependent on IBM and their response seems to be relative silence.

There are now so many claims and counter-claims that it would be helpful to have some sort of comparison of who claims to own what (name, source code, etc). My $.02.

Re:Just remember... (4, Interesting)

vidarh (309115) | about 11 years ago | (#6498382)

IBM has also done nothing to reveal their intended defence. Which is important. Keep in mind that the judge is required to disregard what is reported in the media and consider only the evidence.

So SCO may get attention from media, but not from the judge, and at the same time they keep on blabbering, giving interview after interview, releasing statement after statement that all give IBMs lawyers plenty of information about SCOs strategy, and also give SCO plenty of opportunity to let slip unfortunate statements that might hurt their case if introduced into evidence (which IBM without doubt will attempt)

IBM on the other hand have given SCO nothing.

SCO is doing all this because they have to - they know they don't have a case, and their only hope is dragging this out and making it so painful that someone decides the best way is to write them a fat check. But at the same time they are increasing the risk that they will give IBM too much ammunition.

Personally I don't think IBM will budge. Sure, it might be safer to just pay off SCO, but if they do they'll be targetted by every failing tech company out there.

Re:Just remember... (2, Interesting)

Prior Restraint (179698) | about 11 years ago | (#6498392)

The real problem is that the bench doesn't know jack about software, let alone an OS kernel. So it comes down to who can convince the judge. IBM has done nothing thus far to establish their position. Our opinions of SCO aside, our hopes are unfortunately dependent on IBM and their response seems to be relative silence.

You kind of answered your own complaint there. IBM isn't saying anything to the public because the public's opinion doesn't matter. The only opinion that matters is the judge's, and they're waiting for a chance to speak to him/her.

Re:Just remember... (1)

jone1941 (516270) | about 11 years ago | (#6498187)

There is one strange assumption in all of this concern. It is that the "higher-ups" will actually pay attention to or care about any of this. I am in no way trying to start a riot, but I can't imagine anyone being overly concerned about this.

Even on the surface, it stikes me as baseless. So, how, to a upper management or ceo/cto/coo who are more likely to have a better understanding of the law than I, is this going to do any damage?

Re:Just remember... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498191)

As opposed to Deep Throat of Monicagate fame - "Follow the thong"...

Re:Just remember... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498250)

a thong in Monicagate? That thing would be engulfed in those cheeks! hard to follow if you can't see it!

Where it will all go (5, Insightful)

dhodell (689263) | about 11 years ago | (#6498085)

On alt.os.development, we've been discussing this somewhat humorously. It will eventually not be a problem. Linux will be able to simply rewrite its SMP handling (and other things that have allegedly been taken from SCO). In fact, at the OS level, working with 32 processors is no different from working with 2 (which Linux could already do before the alleged copyright infringement). However, handling 32 processors very well is a completely different story.

In any case, this is a big inconvenience for many people using Linux in their companies. I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux. And why should I? Linux is supposed to be free. (All the more reason to use BSD, which I like more than Linux, but anyway...)

SCO is screaming to be bought out by IBM, even though they say in a press release that this is highly unlikely. It seems obvious to me, in any case -- SCO's not had a very successful product in a very long time.

Here's hoping that the case goes to a court where there are people who know what they're talking about are presiding on the jury.

And somebody please fill me in, but is the SCO hotshot lawyer who lost the Gore case against Florida and worked against Microsoft such a hotshot? It seems to me that he's more of a loser.

My 2 cents.

Re:Where it will all go (5, Informative)

GammaTau (636807) | about 11 years ago | (#6498119)

In any case, this is a big inconvenience for many people using Linux in their companies. I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux.

It's rather simple: there is no reason to pay SCO any money if you use Linux.

Whoever suggests otherwise should come up with proof. So far, no one has.

Re:Where it will all go (4, Interesting)

pe1rxq (141710) | about 11 years ago | (#6498136)


On alt.os.development, we've been discussing this somewhat humorously. It will eventually not be a problem. Linux will be able to simply rewrite its SMP handling (and other things that have allegedly been taken from SCO). In fact, at the OS level, working with 32 processors is no different from working with 2 (which Linux could already do before the alleged copyright infringement). However, handling 32 processors very well is a completely different story.


And this is only in a worst case scenario.... Most likely linux won't have to be changed in any way....



In any case, this is a big inconvenience for many people using Linux in their companies. I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux. And why should I? Linux is supposed to be free. (All the more reason to use BSD, which I like more than Linux, but anyway...)


Linux is free (ok, it depends on your definition of free...) but remember that about a decade ago you would had to stop development on BSD related projects due to some lawsuit......


At the moment the only one who is being sued is IBM, everybody else is safe.
Even if IBM did something wrong it doesn't mean anything for linux, IBM would simply pay some billions to SCO and live for linux would go on...
And that is a very unlikely worst case.....


Jeroen

Re:Where it will all go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498262)

At the moment the only one who is being sued is IBM, everybody else is safe. Even if IBM did something wrong it doesn't mean anything for linux, IBM would simply pay some billions to SCO and live for linux would go on... And that is a very unlikely worst case.....

"I suppose this is a usage of the word 'safe' that I wasn't aware of" -- Arthur Dent, HGTTG

Re:Where it will all go (5, Interesting)

perly-king-69 (580000) | about 11 years ago | (#6498138)

SCO is screaming to be bought out by IBM

This is something which doesn't seem to be mentioned as often as it should.
SCO are losing money big time. IBM have put significant $$$s into Linux and will be in trouble if SCO win.

MS bet the firm on .NET
Sun bet the firm on Java
IBM bet the firm on Linux
SCO bet the firm on Lawyers.

Re:Where it will all go (5, Insightful)

Anthony Boyd (242971) | about 11 years ago | (#6498201)

I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux.

Wow. Without providing any evidence or winning a court case, SCO has got at least one sucker to buy into their FUD. How sad.

Background (1)

dhodell (689263) | about 11 years ago | (#6498252)

For what it's worth, this is not a large project for any large company. But I'd rather play it safe now. Getting one of those stupid SCO letters isn't on my agenda, considering that I'd have to go to court and I don't, at the time, live in America.

I imagine other people who are providing commercial Linux solutions are holding back a little bit until this gets resolved. I can imagine that a company whining so much at this point will only whine ore if they do win the case and find people who didn't stop before they did. Their receiving ownership the copyrights on that code doesn't help much either, since my project makes use of SMP and JFS.

Until things are cleared up, I think I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Re:Background (1)

SamBC (600988) | about 11 years ago | (#6498327)

Getting one of those stupid SCO letters isn't on my agenda, considering that I'd have to go to court and I don't, at the time, live in America.
I fail to see how they can really harm you without some better evidence - international civil cases are notoriously hard to bring, it's more likely they'd file suit against you in the states, which would do pretty much nothing.

If they really want to hurt you, they would need to bring suit in whichever country you're in, AIUI. IANAL.

Re:Background (1)

KamuSan (680564) | about 11 years ago | (#6498348)

Since SCO/Caldera was ordered to spread FUD in Germany, I wonder if SCO would be so successful outside the US.

Re:Background (5, Informative)

RevMike (632002) | about 11 years ago | (#6498353)

If you can use a 2.2 kernel, you can go on with out much chance of trouble.

Don't mix up press release and actual claims. SCO continues to distribute 2.2.x kernels, which means that the agree to the GPL as it applies to that code revision.

SCO's accussations are realy that code was contributed to the 2.4.x kernel which is infringing. That is why the UnixWare license that they are selling specifically applies to Linux 2.4 and later.

If you can stay at 2.2.x, you are home free.

Re:Where it will all go (5, Informative)

blakestah (91866) | about 11 years ago | (#6498204)

And somebody please fill me in, but is the SCO hotshot lawyer who lost the Gore case against Florida and worked against Microsoft such a hotshot? It seems to me that he's more of a loser.

His rep stretches back further. He headed the antitrust case defense for IBM, stretching the proceedings out for so long the gov't finally dropped the case. A clear, big, win for IBM at the time.

This time around, Boies is up against the law firm he worked for when he defended IBM.

Re:Where it will all go (1)

Sevn (12012) | about 11 years ago | (#6498271)

It seems to me that he's more of a loser

Well, duh. Look who's side he's on. Definitely not
someone you want a stock tip from. Not someone you'd
listen to when picking a horse for a trifecta.

Oh, come on now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498284)


I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux.

Why do you have to stop? There is no law saying you have to pay SCO anything to use Linux. Seems to me you've fallen into the FUD trap.

Re:Where it will all go (5, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | about 11 years ago | (#6498286)

I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux. And why should I? Linux is supposed to be free.

Why in the hell would you stop development? That's just silly.

You don't have to pay SCO any money to use linux. They're trying to shake folks down, they don't have a leg to stand on. You can read the license, and even if their case were not total bs, even if it turned out their allegations were true, you don't have any legal liability from using Linux under the license you have, until and unless SCO can get a court to say otherwise.

This is no different than if I were to announce that Windows XP was actually mine, and start sending out letters to everyone I could find running it demanding that they buy a license for it from me. The appropriate response would be to laugh and chuck my letter in the trash.

Even if I later proved that XP really was my code, MS would be liable, not the users I sent those letters to. They were using it with what they reasonably thought to be a valid license from the copyright holder. They would have no need to buy a license from me until after a court decided in my favour. And probably not even then, if historical cases (such as the suits back and forth between Stac and MS) are considered.

The whole 'buy a license from linux from us' thing is just a scam. Don't give them money, and don't quit using linux, just laugh at them and go on.

And somebody please fill me in, but is the SCO hotshot lawyer who lost the Gore case against Florida and worked against Microsoft such a hotshot? It seems to me that he's more of a loser.

Indeed, his high fees certainly don't seem to be justified by his record, do they?

Re:Where it will all go (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498306)

And Napster, too...

Re:Where it will all go (5, Interesting)

Lonath (249354) | about 11 years ago | (#6498340)

I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux.

You can't pay SCO money to keep using linux.

Look at it this way: Let's suppose that SCO loses. Then you don't owe SCO money.

Let's suppose that SCO wins:

SCO says that the 2.2 kernel is ok.

In that case, if they win, all that they have done is show that 2.4 = 2.2 + SCO + other stuff.

Combining terms,

2.4 = GPL + SCO

If SCO wins and puts the 2.4 kernel under GPL, you don't owe them any money. Everything goes on as normal.

If SCO wins and they say 2.4 can't be under the GPL, then 2.4 is illegal. That's because 2.4 would be a derivative work of BOTH 2.2 and SCO, and any license on 2.4 must work with the 2.2 license and the SCO license. Since the only license that will work with the 2.2 code is the GPL, 2.4 is illegal if they choose not to put it under that license and can't exist. I also don't think they can temporarily remove 2.4 from the GPL and add it back in, because the moment they remove it, all derivatives up to the first "tainted point" become illegal...so SCO can't later on "donate" the code back to Linux because they don't own all of it.

And they can't "gain control" of all of Linux by doing this either. It would be like MS putting some little utility in Windows illegally, then having the company that made the utility win a court case where they get control of all of Windows. Not gonna happen.

I never realized how cool those clauses saying that you can't extend or alter the GPL were until this came up.

So, to make it simpler, either everyone can use 2.4 for free, or nobody can use 2.4 at all.

OTOH, if you intend to stop using Linux anyway, and you still don't want them to sue you, then you might pay them off. But realize that if you feel you have to pay them off, then you're admitting that you can't use 2.4 Linux.

Good Troll, Sir! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498377)

You are an inspiration to us all!

I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux. And why should I? Linux is supposed to be free. (All the more reason to use BSD, which I like more than Linux, but anyway...)

Well, duh. (2, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 11 years ago | (#6498087)


> SCO may now have filed for UNIX copyrights and made various allegations about code-copying, but the actual complaint against IBM still seems to be focused around allegations UNIX-based enterprise technologies (such as RCU, JFS and SMP) being improperly added to Linux.

Yeah, but the actual complaint doesn't have any FUD value, and certainly isn't going to raise share prices enough to finance a set of golden parachutes, so you can expect to keep hear them harping on all that other stuff.

Re:Well, duh. (1)

The Grassy Knoll (112931) | about 11 years ago | (#6498179)

> certainly isn't going to raise share prices enough

Shares of the SCO Group surged 11% on Monday...
it says here [salon.com]

Rob

This (5, Interesting)

stephenry (648792) | about 11 years ago | (#6498096)

What thing I've learned from all this malarky surrounding SCO, and I'm by no means an expert, is that to find reason and logic behind it is pointless. Many people have tried to analyse and investigate SCO's claims, most have failed. Even watching the cnet interview, McBride comes over as a babbling idiot; no one is convinced.

In the end however, it all boils down to this: SCO cannot really do anything. Okay, they paint a nice picture, blag a good story, but nothing -nothing- stands up to the evidence. Sure they could sue over copyright, patents (or what ever they've decided upon that day); but, linux is an international collaboration, and although it may have hit a hitch in the USA, it hasn't anywhere else. Linux will continue to move from strength to strength, SCO will die.

Steve.

Re:This (1)

Trigun (685027) | about 11 years ago | (#6498107)

SCO will die.

And thousands of geeks will tapdance on their graves.

the answer (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498114)

so i was out walking the dog and this spaceship came down and a grey being came out of the spaceship and talked to my dog afterwards my dog told me that the aliens had provided him with the key to the meaning of the universe and that it was encoded in the source code to unix so i bought sco because they own unix and i started looking for the answer to the meaning of the universe and i saw some code that looked like the answer and my dog was pretty excited but it turned out to be linux code and my dog was angry because he wanted the meaning of the universe and linux had it instead so he told me to sue linux but i couldn't so i sued ibm and now ibm and my dog are angry at me and the aliens are laughing at me and linux has the answer to the meaning of the universe and my head hurts but i wont take the pills oh no because the pills let the doctors read my thoughts and they want to steal the answer to the meaning of the universe and my dog would be angry so i hide the pills and pretend i took them and my head hurts

darl mcbride

Re:This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498139)

I'm curious what the general public reaction will be if the SCO executives sell off their stock and drop the case. That stock has gained a lot of value since they first announced their beef with IBM.

Right hand not knowing what the left..... (4, Interesting)

deepchasm (522082) | about 11 years ago | (#6498105)

I don't understand how a small company can be this inconsistent.

Also, with regard to their recent announcement of a "binary run-time license":
How can _anyone_ distribute linux? If it contains code that requires a license from SCO, then it can't be licensed under the GPL (see clause 7 of the GPL).

Therefore no-one can distribute it, not even SCO, since they don't own all the copyright. Is this what SCO intend? Just to get rid of ~12 years of work?

Re:Right hand not knowing what the left..... (1)

VEGx (576738) | about 11 years ago | (#6498222)

_Therefore no-one can distribute it, not even SCO, since they don't own all the copyright. Is this what SCO intend? Just to get rid of ~12 years of work?_

"Bingo!"
[Mandatory Matrix quote]

Re:Right hand not knowing what the left..... (3, Interesting)

RevMike (632002) | about 11 years ago | (#6498310)

For the sake of argument, let us assume that there is code in Linux to which SCO has a proprietary right, and that it was improperly contributed.

SCO can very well enforce their copyright by granting a license. They cannot distribute a linux version that had their proprietary code since they do not have any license to the remainder of linux.

On the other hand, since the GPL was violated by mixing open and proprietary code, no-one else has the right to distribute it either. The other contributors could file a lawsuit against RedHat, for instance, if they so desired.

It is not SCO's responsibility to insure that non-SCO code is properly licensed.

Therefore, if you need to buy a license from SCO you also need to contact every other constributor and buy a license from them in order to have a fully legal version of linux.Realisticly, however, it is unlikely that Linus et al are going to sue for code that they intended to share. So the SCO license is probably enough to cover you.

One thing is becoming more and more clear. The code that is potentially infringing is isolated to post 2.2.x kernels. Since SCO continues to distirbute 2.2.x kernels they are, in fact, agreeing that that kernel is covered under GPL. Linux users can avaoid the whole issue by running 2.2.x, which should not be hardship for most.

maybe they'll sue based on these (5, Informative)

CyberNomad (533261) | about 11 years ago | (#6498112)

here's some actual donations from the SCO folks as well. http://www.caldera.com/developers/community/contri b/ is this the code??

In other news..... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498115)

See http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030721/1/3cq45.html [yahoo.com] .

Pop icon Michael Jackson comes out against locking up music pirates

Pop superstar Michael Jackson on Monday hit out at a proposed new US law that would make the musical piracy on the Internet punishable by a possible jail sentence.

The self-styled "King of Pop" feels that, while he would like to see the practice of stealing music off the Internet stamped out, the legislation against the downloading of copyrighted material was too harsh.

"I am speechless about the idea of putting music fans -- mostly teenagers -- in jail for downloading music," he said in a statement from his Neverland Ranch in the western state of California.

"It is wrong to illegally download, but the answer cannot be jail. Here in America we create new opportunities out of adversity, not punitive laws, and we should look to new technologies ... for solutions.

"This way, innovation continues to be the hallmark of America. It is the fans that drive the success of the music business," the "Gloved One" said.

Jackson's spokesman in Los Angeles said the 44-year-old singer felt that lawmakers are tackling the problem in the wrong way in the proposed law.

US lawmakers on July 16 introduced into the House of Representatives the Authors, Consumer and Computer Owner Protection and Security law that makes illegal downloading of copyrighted materials a felony offence.

But while the illegal downloading of music does represent a major problem for the ailing industry, Jackson feels the solution proposed by the legislation is "absolutely inappropriate," Backerman told AFP.

"He doesn't want to see jails piled up with teenagers. He is proposing a win-win situation for both the audience and the music fans," he said.

Jackson, who has seldom been out of the gossip pages this year amid a series of very public lawsuits against him, is himself a victim of the music industry's declining fortunes that it blames largely on musical piracy.

His superstar image has waned since his 1980s heyday, with sales of 2001's "Invincible," which reportedly cost 30 million dollars to produce, pulled in only around five million dollars worldwide.

The US music industry blames the easy and free availability of download-able music on the Internet for plunging record sales which have prompted industry bosses to urgently seek to crack down on piracy.

Re:In other news..... (-1, Flamebait)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | about 11 years ago | (#6498270)

Do we really want this childmolesting fruitcake to take our side?

Excommunication (5, Funny)

ultrabot (200914) | about 11 years ago | (#6498122)

How long do we have to wait for the total excommunication of SCO from the tech industry?

IBM, HP, Dell and friends could easily drop support for SCO Unix on their hardware, all OSS should refuse to compile on SCO unix (print an URL to a website explaining why). A lot could be done by adjusting autoconf or whatever.

Their representatives would not be allowed to enter premises of any company, their IP packages would be silently scrapped by routers on the internet.

Darl and Sontag would be kicked out of their yacht clubs.

Essentially, they would be told that everybody hates them. Money matters, but let's not underestimate industry recognition.

Re:Excommunication (1)

arivanov (12034) | about 11 years ago | (#6498170)

How long do we have to wait for the total excommunication of SCO from the tech industry

Very long. Check on jobsearch for the keyword SCO.

The most interesting bit is that quite a bit of these are government or positions consulting government projects.

Re:Excommunication (2, Funny)

Surak (18578) | about 11 years ago | (#6498207)

Their representatives would not be allowed to enter premises of any company, their IP packages would be silently scrapped by routers on the internet.

Just modify RFC 3514 to require SCO to set the Evil Bit. :-P

Re:Excommunication (5, Funny)

mkweise (629582) | about 11 years ago | (#6498311)

How long do we have to wait for the total excommunication of SCO from the tech industry?

I think the duty of spanking this naughty brat into submission rests upon Novell. Both as the previous owner of Unix and as fellow Mormons, I can't help but feel they're somehow responsible.

More on the new SCO plan... (5, Informative)

Torulf (214883) | about 11 years ago | (#6498130)

... see NYT [nytimes.com] and c|net [com.com]

Re:More on the new SCO plan... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498380)

It's corporate panic.

Think of panic in an evolutionary sense: when all hope is lost and the sabre-toothed tiger is about to eat you, flailing around out of control, doing crazy random actions might - just might - save you to live another day.

SCO's just flailing around looking for money as the sabre-toothed tiger of the free market is about to eat them.

And what the hell is David Boies renowned for? Failures?

Windows NT4.0 End of support (4, Interesting)

jobsagoodun (669748) | about 11 years ago | (#6498142)

WinNT 4.0 end of support date is June 30 2003 according to microsoft.com. This SCO thing couldn't just be a load of FUD to make people migrate NT4.0 to Win2K instead of Linux could it?

Re:Windows NT4.0 End of support (1)

borgdows (599861) | about 11 years ago | (#6498226)

this deserves a +5, Insightful !!

You seem to have spoted the *real* motivation behind SCO FUD campaign (which is MS's actually).

Re:Windows NT4.0 End of support (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498268)

Ohmygod, they've found us. I don't know how, but they've found us. RUN!!!

-- Darl

IANAKD* but... (3, Interesting)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 11 years ago | (#6498144)

The whole SCO business just seems unbelievable. Maybe I've missed something somewhere but the basic story seems to be:

1. SCO helps out Linux development in a few small ways -- some hardware here, a few lines of code there

2. SCO turns around and says it owns the other 99% of Linux it had nothing to do with because of the 1% that it did

3. SCO is now trying to extort licensing fees from end users because it "owns" Linux

4. This is somewhat akin to Bob's Auto Parts Factory saying that, because the wholesaler from which my mechanic purchased a very small part he used in repairing my car part didn't pay them for the part, I now must pay Bob rent on my car -- and furthermore, they won't tell either my mechanic or me which part it was, because it's a "trade secret". Hell, they won't even tell my mechanic which wholesaler he supposedly bought the part from!

Am I wrong? Did I miss something somewhere? Please feel free to correct me if I have.
-----
(*I Am Not A Kernel Developer)

Re:IANAKD* but... (1)

arivanov (12034) | about 11 years ago | (#6498178)

This is somewhat akin to Bob's Auto Parts Factory ...

Your car is a Renault isn't it? If it is not, ask any Renault owner who have tried to get his car serviced after installing any non-original parts.

Re:IANAKD* but... (1)

flamingantichimp (689011) | about 11 years ago | (#6498334)

That's the way I'm reading it, except maybe number one should be re-worded. I think that they just added code to their distrubution rather then walking up to Linus and saying "This is it".

But I'm pretty uncertain.

Internetweek.com has been pretty good of summing things up for me. It seems like this case is GPL vs SCO. If GPL is correct, and I believe it is, anything released under the GPL is public and will always be public. Also, SCO is trying to claim they own the rest of the Linux code, which is GPL'd and so noone can own it. Maybe it's logic vs stupidity on second thought.

Fighting back. (5, Interesting)

pubjames (468013) | about 11 years ago | (#6498145)

I can't be the only one frustrated that there isn't an effective way I can fight back at SCO at the moment.

Could there be grounds for a class action suit here? There are lots of developers that make their living in some way from linux. SCOs actions could well be a genuine threat to their livelihoods.

SCO is basically using the legal system as a weapon. Perhaps we used be using it back on them? I propose a campaign whereby:

1) Everyone that SCO thinks should pay for Linux should instead be encoraged to donate a sum to a legal fund.

2) Developers who work with Linux should find a lawer who would be willing to represent them in a class action against SCO.

Just an idea.

Re:Fighting back. (1)

Anime_Fan (636798) | about 11 years ago | (#6498251)

1) Everyone that SCO thinks should pay for Linux should instead be encoraged to donate a sum to a legal fund.

How about all the people out there thinking that SCO should pay for Linux?

Re:Fighting back. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498369)

Currently, there is no reason to fight back. Not directly, anyhow.

If you want to use Linux, use it and ignore SCO's threats.

SCO's threats, unless validated by a court, are at worst damaging to the perceptions of uninformed people. Unfortunately, until legal case has been tried or settled, they are free to spread FUD (except in Germany).

The correct way to fight this is by informing people how ridiculous SCO's behavior is, spreading the word.

Re:Fighting back. (2, Interesting)

Tim Macinta (1052) | about 11 years ago | (#6498395)

I was thinking about this yesterday. What about a pledge drive run through a trusted organization like the FSF? People could pledge what they wanted and wouldn't be obligated to give the money unless the total pledges reached a certain amount. This would avoid the problem of collecting less than the amount of money needed to do this the right way. Also, having the FSF (or a similar organization) handle it would also cover the problem of what to do if money is left over at the end - the FSF could just put it towards further development, which is what they already do. I'd certainly donate some money if the goals were clearly stated and were a reasonable legal offensive against SCO.

Simplification (3, Funny)

tds67 (670584) | about 11 years ago | (#6498149)

3. A per-cpu timer support ? - This will allow us to get rid of the krcud stuff and make RCU even simpler.

Ingo, Linus: Any chance to see that in 2.5 soon?

Christoph

Now we just need to get rid of SCO and make Unix even simpler.

Enterprise (1)

MC68040 (462186) | about 11 years ago | (#6498153)

Well as it seems a lot of enterprises are all for closed source if the support is there, I guess SCO got a wide market. In the end, in at least 60% of the cases, it's the amount of specialized on site availiable support that determines what solution any big company chooses.

And if this was the way to enterprise with sco, fine =).

SCO goes after Sequent Code (5, Insightful)

MuParadigm (687680) | about 11 years ago | (#6498154)

Oh, this is wonderful.

It became apparent in yesterday's new that SCO was going after the Sequent SMP code that IBM donated to Linux.

Why the Sequent code? I'm guessing that Boies finally realized that the IBM sideletter gave IBM all rights to its own derivative work, which would burst most of SCO's claims. But the Sequent code would not have been protected from ATT's derivative works clause since Sequent didn't appear to have a side agreement like IBM's.

Of course, if Caldera/SCO had a programmer actually working on the code, as this article suggests, then Caldera/SCO is an equal partner in donating and modifying the SMP code for Linux.

Forget about whether they donated the code through "inadvertently" GPL'ing it. This proves they donated the SMP code knowingly, and even helped modify it for use with Linux. That's a much stronger case than relying on any of GPL's so-called viral qualities.

Re:SCO goes after Sequent Code (4, Interesting)

Surak (18578) | about 11 years ago | (#6498255)

Of course, if Caldera/SCO had a programmer actually working on the code, as this article suggests, then Caldera/SCO is an equal partner in donating and modifying the SMP code for Linux.

Any bets on how long it will take for SCO to come out and say that the programmer in question was workign without the authority or knowledge of his supervisors?

Re:SCO goes after Sequent Code (1)

Anime_Fan (636798) | about 11 years ago | (#6498339)

Any bets on how long it will take for SCO to come out and say that the programmer in question was workign without the authority or knowledge of his supervisors?

I'd say one should have the option to actually work when at ones job even without the explicit authorization of ones supervisors.

I think that we can:
a) Assume that bosses at SCO are clueless and don't know if their underlings are working or not.
b) Assume that if this be their defence, and they do win, that hackers around the world will stop working due to the fact that they could be held liable if they do in fact work.

Re:SCO goes after Sequent Code (1)

leuk_he (194174) | about 11 years ago | (#6498360)

SCO to come out and say that the programmer in question was working without the authority or knowledge of his supervisors?

No no no, in the true spirit of FUD they will claim it proves they wrote the code, it originated from them. The fact that a worker contracted by caldera spend time on it never changed their original IP.

You will be contacted by the SCO lawyers.

Hear that? (1, Funny)

buddha42 (539539) | about 11 years ago | (#6498158)

... me neither.

IBM's quiet. Too quiet.

Re:Hear that? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498168)

You may not have noticed, but IBM is not in the habit of spiting out its dummy and engaging in public spats with people who are suing them. IBM is like the Monolith. Its big, silent and just sits there while you do all kinds of shit to it. Then when you least expect it, it swallows you up and transports you to another dimension (Where lawyers can bend time, space and reality)

Re:Hear that? (0)

IWorkForMorons (679120) | about 11 years ago | (#6498243)

Do you ever hear a cougar before she's about to pounce...

Re:Hear that? (4, Insightful)

kasperd (592156) | about 11 years ago | (#6498299)

IBM's quiet. Too quiet.

Probably because there is no case. SCO have a big mouth but nothing else. Everything SCO says apears not to bother IBM. IBM just do business as usual. Now if just the media would have ignored SCO the way IBM does. But if this ever goes to court IBM will defend themselves.... What will be left of SCO when that happens?

Re:Hear that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498397)

I would like to believe that story too, but as far as I can tell it won't be long or compagnies will get hurt because of the negative Linux-buzz. Maybe it is time that key contributors of the kernel started a law-suit to have SCO reveal the code in question or stop their accusations. This is very bad publicity for Linux in general BTW. Don't start talking about that "all publicity is good publicity" crap. No, just don't

Not to put to fine a point on it (4, Insightful)

Crashmarik (635988) | about 11 years ago | (#6498166)

There has been nothing of substance to this lawsuit from the beginning. If there actually is any matters of substance, SCO has carefully and maliciously opti mized its strategy to cause the greatest harm and distress to people that were seeking to perform a public service.

That Caldera/SCO should be responsible for the complaints of the suit should come as no surprise. Mr. McBride has a history of manipulating the legal system, and The Canopy groups previous history has certainly involved legal manipulation as a profit center.

At this point its not enough that SCO lose the lawsuit. SCO needs to be completely destroyed, and at the very least McBride need to be held personally accountable. Its the only way to discourage future land grabs by avaricious jackasses.

If SCO MCBRIDE et al, aren't put down soundly it may very well stall or destroy Open source development permanently.

Look at Rambus, SCO's strategy is no different. now can you imagine if a company with clear intelectual rights to a technology, an algorythm, or a "business method" arranges to have it placed in the kernel, or Glibc, or X. If they wait a few years removing the code might still be possible but the collateral damage from dependant programs breaking might be insurmountable.

If we enter a regime where all OSS submission have to be checked against unpublished undistributed works OSS will be dead.

Re:Not to put to fine a point on it (1)

kasperd (592156) | about 11 years ago | (#6498343)

If we enter a regime where all OSS submission have to be checked against unpublished undistributed works OSS will be dead.

Verifying whether an open source system contains code from other projects might be hard. But verifying wheter a closed source system does likewise will be even harder. Who knows if Microsoft Windows contains just a tiny bit of code which Microsoft doesn't have the right to use that way? Can everybody in the entire world be held liable if that turns out to be the case? Why wouldn't that be the death of closed source software?

If it's so valueable to sue over, why give it away (3, Insightful)

Tragedy4u (690579) | about 11 years ago | (#6498180)

If one of SCO's employee's (and by that I mean a company owned by SCO) is giving this technology away just how much do they value it? It's a good case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. "No one's buying our Unix software anymore, WAIT let's change our business model to SUE other companies for stealing our stuff...." (Meanwhile someone on the inside is GIVING it away willingly)

Mirror, before the poor blog dies... (5, Informative)

Gori (526248) | about 11 years ago | (#6498219)


Caldera Employee Was Key Linux Kernel Contributor

Christoph Hellwig has been, according to this web page, [ukuug.org] "in the top-ten list of commits to both the Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 tree". The page also mentions another fascinating piece of news, that he worked for Caldera for at least part of the time he was making those kernel contributions:

"After a number of smaller network administration and programming contracts he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution."

In 2002, he offered a paper on "Linux-ABI: Support for Non-native Applications" which is described [ukuug.org] like this:

"The Linux-ABI project is a modification to the Linux 2.4 kernel that allows Linux to support binaries compiled for non-Linux operating systems such as SCO OpenServer or Sun Solaris."

Back in 2002, he was described, [linuxsymposium.org] in connection with his appearance at the Ottawa 2002 Linux Symposium, like this:

"Christoph Hellwig
"Reverse engineering an advanced filesystem
"Christoph Hellwig is employed by Caldera, working on the Linux-ABI binary emulation modules. In his spare time he cares for other parts of the kernel, often involving filesystem-related activities."

So, in short, he was contributing to the kernel and working for Caldera on Linux/UNIX integration at the same time. His work for Caldera was on the Linux kernel ("he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution"), and he also did work on his own on the kernel. Did Caldera know about his freelance contributions, in addition to knowing about his work for them? What do you think? He used his hch at caldera.de email address when doing it. All contributions to the kernel are publicly available anyway. They certainly could have known. As for his job, his signature [missioncriticallinux.com] on his emails back in 2001 was:

"Christoph Hellwig
Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration
Caldera Deutschland GmbH".

He used the email address hch at bsdonline.org sometimes too, and here [wustl.edu] you can see some of his Linux-abi contributions. Here [216.239.39.104] are some of his contributions to JFS, Journaled File System. Yes, that JFS. Here [parisc-linux.org] he is credited as sysvfs maintainer, and he confirms [geocrawler.com] it in this email, writing, "I've run native sysvfs tools under linux, but as now that I'm Linux sysvfs maintainer I'm looking into implementing free versions of it."

Here [osdata.com] is a list of the operating systems that use or can handle the file system sysvfs:

"sysvfs: UNIX System V; SCO, Xenix, Coherent e21
"operating systems that can handle sysvfs: FreeBSD (rw), LINUX (R), SCO (NRWF)"


Here's [helsinki.fi] a page listing by author (alphabetically by first name), with his emails to linux-kernel in June 2003, so he is still contributing.

Here [linuxhq.com] he is listed on the Change log for patch v2.4.17. Here [iu.edu] he tells Andrew Morton in 2002 that he will do sysvfs, using his hcd at infradead.org address. Here [geocrawler.com] is an email in which he tells an inquirer how to contribute to JFS, including this tidbit:

"I've run native sysvfs tools under linux, but as now that I'm Linux sysvfs maintainer I'm looking into implementing free versions of it. . . . The JFS/Linux core team has setup a CVS commitinfo, but currently I'm the only one who receives it."

And here [geocrawler.com] he encourages someone to donate to the main JFS repository at IBM and talks about his role:

" "I'm one of the main commiters to JFS outside IBM and I'm really happy to see more people involved :)

"First I'd like to encourage you to contribute your userspace changes to the main JFS repository at IBM. For the 1.0.11 release I have added autoconf/automake support to easify portability and a bunch of portablity patches (mostly getting rid of linuxisms) is under way to the Core team."


He also posts to the freebsd list as freebsd-fs at freebsd.org.

Here [prnewswire.com] is the press release when SCO in 2002 year released "SCO Linux Server 4.0 for the Itanium (R) Processor Family" and which mentions that the product is based on United Linux. This SCO page [216.239.39.104] lists JFS as one of its features. Now, if you remember, SCO's Sontag was quoted [mozillaquest.com] as saying originally that they weren't talking about Linux, the kernel "that Linus and others have helped to develop. We're talking about what's on the periphery of the Linux kernel." Blake Stowell tried to correct [mozillaquest.com] that quotation later, but MozillaQuest insists that is what Sontag said.

This all relates to the affirmative defenses laches, undue delay, waiver, and estoppel, which we just covered. They will be hard-pressed to explain how they had an employee contributing to the kernel a couple of years ago, which they apparently assigned him to do, and yet claim they didn't know or didn't approve. If they didn't approve, why didn't they do a thing to stop it back then? Stop it? It was his job, judging from his title and his job description. And for that matter, the announcement about JFS was public on IBM's part, as we've seen, and Caldera didn't bring a lawsuit to block it back when it happened. That's the laches part.

As to waiver, allowing/condoning/permitting an action makes it hard to sue about the same action later. They are complaining that IBM contributed JFS to Linux, but their own employee, from this evidence, was involved in helping out. On the day IBM announced JFS was being given to Linux, Hellwig is listed [iu.edu] as making five contributions to the kernel. All of this information is publicly available, so it was available to Caldera back when it happened.

I emailed Mr. Hellwig, to give him an opportunity to respond, but he says he can't comment, which is understandable. He's likely a great guy, and he's undoubtedly been a trusted Linux contributor, so this is nothing against him. It's about SCO and their position in the lawsuit, and it's about IBM's affirmative defenses. He's caught up in something through no fault of his own, from what I see. Caldera went in one direction, and then SCO suddenly shifted direction, leaving him hanging in the middle. I don't doubt that eventually we will hear from him, if only at the trial.

Copyright notice in the RCU patch (5, Interesting)

richie2000 (159732) | about 11 years ago | (#6498223)

* Read-Copy Update mechanism for mutual exclusion
*
* (GPL boilerplate)
*
* Copyright (c) International Business Machines Corp., 2001
* Copyright (C) Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> SuSE, 2001
*
* Author: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>,
* Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
*
* Based on the original work by Paul McKenney <paul.mckenney@us.ibm.com>
* and inputs from Andrea Arcangeli, Rusty Russell, Andi Kleen etc.
* Papers:
* http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/paper/rclockpdc sproof.pdf
* http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rclock_OLS.2001 .05.01c.sc.pdf (OLS2001)
*
* For detailed explanation of Read-Copy Update mechanism see -
* http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rcupdate.html
*
*/
Let me run that one by SCO again: Based on the original work by Paul McKenney (paul.mckenney@us.ibm.com)

What I'd like to know... (3, Interesting)

BadElf (448282) | about 11 years ago | (#6498233)

Has anyone found an article on the SCO debacle where an interviewer has point-blank asked McBride (or whoever) why SCO has been (and continues) to offer their Linux distro with full source under the GPL on their own FTP site?

You know and I know that it's there and available for the downloading, but have any of the "journalists" brought this (and its implications) to SCO's attention in an interview?

I'd *love* to hear SCO's answer to that one!

Re:What I'd like to know... (4, Interesting)

Platinum Dragon (34829) | about 11 years ago | (#6498319)

Has anyone found an article on the SCO debacle where an interviewer has point-blank asked McBride (or whoever) why SCO has been (and continues) to offer their Linux distro with full source under the GPL on their own FTP site?

Not quite, but close.

On May 16, 2003, someone went through the available OpenLinux distributions based on the 2.4 kernel, and removed the binaries and source.

However, the person(s) who did this forgot to remove the binary and source kernel packages contained in the /pub/updates/$whatever directories. In fact, it appears an update to OL 3.1.1, based on the 2.4.13 kernel, was posted on May 9. As well, the OpenLinux distributions are still on SCO's ftp server, just without kernels.

Although McBride, et al have occasionally claimed that code outside of the kernel proper is infringing, SCO's claims outside of court are a moving target, and thus only worth noting for the purpose of countering the FUD. Watch what claims they actually make in court, and keep an eye on where they get smacked down. Look at what happened to SCO in Germany, and what is about to happen in Poland.

Pay me, biotch! (5, Funny)

cyphergirl (186872) | about 11 years ago | (#6498234)

Microsoft has copied some of my code, and put it in Windows. Every Windows user must pay me a $700 licensing fee or I will sue them.

What? I'm sorry, I can't show you the code -- it's a trade secret. Just trust me and sign that check.

Red Hat's take on SCO: (5, Interesting)

dd (15470) | about 11 years ago | (#6498274)

http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_rhletter2.html [redhat.com]

From the article:

"Below, we've provided answers to questions that may help clarify Red Hat's position. If you have additional questions that aren't answered below, please email us at legal@redhat.com."

Everybody is complains about SCO, nobody does any (2, Troll)

sela (32566) | about 11 years ago | (#6498281)


Everybody complains about SCO, but nobody actually does anything.

Say what you may, it seem like SCO is leading this game. They claims may be complete bull$%* but nobody is really facing them.
First of all, there is IBM. Remember the way Intel responded when DEC sued them over patent infrigement? They responded quickly by sueing DEC. I would expect IBM to do the same. The fact IBM is so quiest about it is very irritating.

However, it's not just about IBM anymore. It is about the open-source/free(as in speech)-software world in general, and SCO is already making real damage. I think it's time the free-software world would stop being passive here and take the lead from the hands of SCO both by taking legal actions against them and by doing some real protest.

Good morning Mr McBride aneurysm with your coffee? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498347)

... somebody is gonna throw a hissy fit when the sun rises over Utah.

SCO also owns the trademark on TUX (WTF?) (5, Funny)

tenzig_112 (213387) | about 11 years ago | (#6498370)


SCO Trademarks Penguin Mascot, Offers Licensing Program to Linux Users [ridiculopathy.com]


LINDON, UTAH- Just weeks after asserting part ownership over the nominally open and free Linux source code, SCO Group sent another shockwave through the software community on Monday when they announced the discovery of a long-forgotten trademark for an amiable penguin mascot. The company's legal team happened to notice an uncanny visual similarity to another unix-based flightless waterfowl and reportedly grew so excited that they spat out several thousand cease and desist letters in a single afternoon.


Fortunately for Tux fans everywhere, SCO has generously agreed to license the character to current users at a very reasonable rate. Without a license, SCO lawyers say the trademark infringing penguin must be removed from all t-shirts, screen-savers, undergarments and fine linens before the end of July or face stiff penalties.


According to USPTO records dating back to the late 1870's, SCO has reportedly also patented a method for quantifying message board popularity. Upon hearing the news Slashdot reportedly linked to itself and subsequently exploded.



There's more, but I didn't want to post the whole thing.

Someone else from SCO who contributed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6498396)

http://www.linux-sxs.org/pipermail/linux-users/200 3-June/017827.html

He worked for SCO, and now works at Veritas. Tigran even wrote books on kernel internals, and worked on both SMP and inode code, two areas that are also the subject of SCO's mudslinging.

Given that both SCO and Caldera worked on Linux, accusing IBM of adding the code is LAUGHABLE. Personally, I hope Tigran gets a lawyer, and someone takes a deposition from him on SCO policies wrt IP, Linux Kernel work, the methods used to prevent 'contamination', etc.

Pretty much ANY former workers of SCO who worked on the kernel should start retaining lawyers now. Tis would be a noble thing if IBM helped them out for testimony in the case... ;)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>