×

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 Claims Linux Lifted ELF

michael posted more than 8 years ago | from the making-it-up-as-we-go-along dept.

Caldera 675

fymidos writes "SCO has finally spoken. According to this linuxworld article, they claim that linux illegally uses the ELF binary format, the JFS filesystem, the init code and some more 'copyrighted Unix header and interfaces'. Finally SCO makes its move. The JFS part was expected of course, but according to the article, as far as the ELF format is concerned 'the Tool Interface Standard Committee (TISC) came up with a ELF 1.2 standard' and 'granted users a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license" to the stuff'. Oh, and of course 'both Novell and the old SCO - as well as Microsoft, IBM and Intel - were on the committee'."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

675 comments

Join the GNAA! (-1, Troll)

31337NIGGER (798651) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753327)

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org]?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org]?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com]?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. (You can download the movie (~280mb) using BitTorrent, by clicking here [idge.net].
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org], a popular "news for trolls" website
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is Niggernet, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org].


If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate GNAA posts up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | fucking CmdrTaco
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | will
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | he ever learn that
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA is totally
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | unstoppable? Teamed
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | up with the other troll groups,
| _________#1__________?________________________ | GNAA will absolutely own
| _________j1___________________________________ | the shitty place that is slashdot.
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Just remember, the longer the lines are,
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | the smaller CmdrTaco's penis.
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | This logo is (C) 2003, 2004 GNAA [idge.net]
` _______________________________________________'

Copyright (c) 2004 Gay Nigger Association of America

Finally (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753329)

The beginning of the end! Finally!

Re:Finally (4, Funny)

Usquebaugh (230216) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753507)

This is not the end,
It's not even the beginning of the end,
It might, however, be the end of the beginnning.

Truth Elves (5, Funny)

mfh (56) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753330)

Not sure what SCO has to do with Elf [imdb.com]. Wait, nevermind. They've got truth elves, working from dusk till dawn, griding down the logic and confusing the masses with their cute looking elf outfits and fairy dust. My guess is that Santa Claus himself is somehow behind this latest SCO claim. It just seems like the more they open their traps, the lower their stock gets, so I'm all for many more of these kinds of press releases.

Truth Elves ??? (3, Funny)

MisanthropicProgram (763655) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753390)

It sounds more like the underpants elves ...

Make a claim that [insert feature] was stolen by Linux

Sue people/companies

Hopefully Profit!

Later on ...
Shareholders file a class action lawsuit against SCO.... I can dream, can't I?

Re:Truth Elves (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753475)

My guess is that Santa Claus himself is somehow behind this latest SCO claim.

That would be ridiculous. Santa wrote Linux after all.

Re:Truth Elves (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753479)

What are the elves doing with fairy dust?
Did they raid and pillage the land of faries and steal all their dust and IP?
You know, if the fairy dust is imported from columbia, this might explain a lot over in the SCO camp...

Re:Truth Elves (1, Redundant)

hostyle (773991) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753562)

My guess is that Santa Claus himself is somehow behind this latest SCO claim

SCO - the Santa Claus Operation?

More school yard fun (5, Insightful)

erick99 (743982) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753331)

SCO, never having a straight-forward and direct claim uses bluster and a childish version of "no it ain't!" to maker their claims. For example, SCO says that TISC ...exceeded its rights... Regarding the GPL that TISC created that SCO doesn't like, SCO calls the GPL "quicksand" and claims it's invalid. I guess they figure it they declare it invalid, then it must be. It still smacks of cowardly playground bullying. There is more than enough sophomoric behavior to go around, though.

I am not sure what this ends up meaning, legally:

SCO also claims "substantial similarity" between the Read-Copy-Update (RCU) routine in Linux 2.6.5 and Linux patches and SCO's copyrighted work, specifically SVR4.2 MP.

Similarity can be a slippery slope and SCO will slide as far down as need be, I suppose. And how about something that "may" be an infringement:

It also says the journaled file system (JFS) module from later versions of AIX, which SCO believes may derive from the JFS Unix, is in Linux 2.6

The folks at SCO probably look like adults, they are adult-sized and wear nice clothes. However, they act like elementary school kids arguing over a ball on the playground. Whoever yells loud enough, pushes hard enough, and hold their breath the longest wins.

Cheers!

Erick

Re:More school yard fun (-1, Offtopic)

EnderWiggnz (39214) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753389)

> I guess they figure it they declare it invalid,
>then it must be.

they're just learning from the bush administrations... i mean - they've called the geneva conventions "invalid" for a while now...

Re:More school yard fun (0, Flamebait)

Timex (11710) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753563)

they're just learning from the bush administrations...

THIS was rated "Insightful"?!? You've GOT to be kidding me. This was Troll/Offtopic, if anything.

"Insightful" is more like claiming that left-wing extremists like MoveOn.org are right in connecting Bush with Hitler. The tie here would be that Hitler was quoted as saying (something to the effect of) "If you say it loud enough, long enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." Granted, it's still (kinda) offtopic, but at least it makes the connection with NewSCO's habit of proclaiming lies ad nauseum, hoping that people with think there's some truth to what they're whining about.

Grow up, people. Leave the political bantering on the political posts, and keep it off of the legal crap (unless there's a direct provable tie).

Re:More school yard fun (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753596)

Yes, it is since the US courts now recongnize that the Bush administration was wrong.

The same will probably happen to SCO.

Re:More school yard fun (3, Interesting)

crimethinker (721591) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753399)

SCO also claims "substantial similarity" between the Read-Copy-Update (RCU) routine in Linux 2.6.5 and Linux patches and SCO's copyrighted work, specifically SVR4.2 MP.

Well, knowing what I know about SCO (only what I read here and on groklaw), I'm willing to believe that there is substantial similarity. However, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the code came from Linux (or more properly, IBM, perfectly within its rights) into SCO, and not the other way 'round.

Their lawyers have fudged so many facts, fumbled so many easy misses, that I wouldn't doubt this for a moment. "Please stay the RHAT case, because it will be decided by the IBM case," and "please dismiss the IBM counter-claim; it will be decided by the RHAT case."

-paul

Re:More school yard fun (3, Insightful)

at_kernel_99 (659988) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753439)

Well, knowing what I know about SCO (only what I read here and on groklaw), I'm willing to believe that there is substantial similarity. However, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the code came from Linux (or more properly, IBM, perfectly within its rights) into SCO, and not the other way 'round.

Your hypothesis is certainly one I wouldn't dismiss immediately, but do you know in what kind of timeframe the SVR4.2 release was made? i.e. Who is the cart and who is the horse, with respect to Linux & SCO.

Re:More school yard fun (2, Interesting)

EddieBurkett (614927) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753654)

However, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the code came from Linux (or more properly, IBM, perfectly within its rights) into SCO, and not the other way 'round.


I admit to not knowing much about the GPL, but if it does turn out that the code went from Linux -> SCO, doesn't that mean that the SCO property would be subject to the GPL (what with it being "viral" and all, right?)

Maybe this is why they are doing all this. They've realized that their code is vulnerable, and so to protect it, they have to attack the GPL, lest they go down in flames.

Re:More school yard fun (4, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753480)

These guys make absolutely no sense. They're flailing their arms in the air and saying "You owe us money!" Let's pick apart each claim:

1. Sontag also says that any entities that ignore SCO's ELF copyrights are infringing."

Hello? Copyrights are for "copy" protection. Not "patent" protection. If you invent something new and fail to patent it, I can re-implement it all I want, copyright or no.

2. SCO also claims "substantial similarity" between the Read-Copy-Update (RCU) routine in Linux 2.6.5 and Linux patches and SCO's copyrighted work, specifically SVR4.2 MP.

Again, do they have a patent? If they don't, then they should STFU.

3. It thinks that Unix SMP 4.2 System V initialization (init) code was copied into Linux 2.6, that there's "substantial similarity" between the user level synchronization (ULS) routines in Linux and Unix, that its Unix System V IPC code was copied into Linux 2.4.20 and that copyrighted Unix header and interfaces were copied into Linux.

Oooo... it's similar! Well, that just cinches it, doesn't it. It's not like anyone would ever re-implement a design they liked. I better go take the wheels off my Chevy. It's too similar to a cart and horse.

4. It also says the journaled file system (JFS) module from later versions of AIX, which SCO believes may derive from the JFS Unix, is in Linux 2.6. - MOG

Just to reiterate, SCO is not reading their own contracts. What IBM develops is IBMs. Plain and simple.

These guys ought to be tried and convicted for barratry, regardless of whether their legal counsel is this stupid or not.

Re:More school yard fun (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753610)

These guys ought to be tried and convicted for barratry, regardless of whether their legal counsel is this stupid or not.

Every one of their "claims" and even every one of their "clarifications" of their claims does read as if they filed the suit in order to go on a fishing expedition to justify the filing a posteriori, don't they?

KFG

Re:More school yard fun (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753656)

Bringing up patents is a huge red herring. SCO's original claim is that there is actual code in Linux that SCO holds copyrights too. They're not claiming that Linux developers re-implementated anything; they're claiming that Linux developers copied things. Patents don't figure into this at all. Keep in mind that a huge number of Linux developers have access to closed-source OS code which they're supposed to pretend they never saw (see: why NTFS development is so slow).

I suspect what SCO's really hoping for is that somewhere along the line they'll say "ah hah! You have no idea where this snippet of code came from except for some line in the CREDITS file" and then magical justice fairies will award them billions in the ensuing confusion.

But nonetheless, this really is about copyright, not patents.

Re:More school yard fun (1)

arrow (9545) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753566)

Whoever yells loud enough, pushes hard enough, and hold their breath the longest wins.

I definately welcome them to hold their breath as long as possible...

Re:More school yard fun (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753588)

The folks at SCO probably look like adults, they are adult-sized and wear nice clothes. However, they act like elementary school kids arguing over a ball on the playground. Whoever yells loud enough, pushes hard enough, and hold their breath the longest wins.

Ever been involved in personal injury litigation? It's like that too.

Ask the big guy (-1, Offtopic)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753332)

What does Santa have to say about this?

Re:Ask the big guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753490)

That's not Offtopic, after all the original creators of Linux was Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny!!

What the Heck, eh? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753333)

What the Heck, eh?

Re:What the Heck, eh? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753355)

ELF. What's it all about? Is it good, or is it wack?

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753338)

biznitch

w00t w00t

Was about time... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753341)

I was wondering if SCO fell asleep or something... the SCO stories have slowed to a trickle, almost to the point of forgetting it's still going on!.

SCO??? (-1, Offtopic)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753343)

I have but one response: BWHAHAHAHAHA!!! These guys are LAME.

Re:SCO??? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753403)

However, it's not a laughing matter, solely because the merits will be determined by lawyers and judges - not anyone with a vaguely technical background. Or much common sense...

Re:SCO??? (1, Redundant)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753542)

However, it's not a laughing matter, solely because the merits will be determined by lawyers and judges - not anyone with a vaguely technical background. Or much common sense...

Granted, but it *is* a matter of law. Mr. Sontag's assertion that the Unix copyright somehow gives them patent protection, it completely and utterly ridiculous. So far the judge has damn near booted SCO out of court. I expect he'll finish the job after he understands what SCO is trying to propose here.

Re:SCO??? (1)

110010001000 (697113) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753412)

Why are you laughing? Do you know if their claims have merit, or are you just assuming it to gain karma?

Re:SCO??? (1, Redundant)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753515)

Why are you laughing? Do you know if their claims have merit,

Indeed I do. Perfect example is Mr. Sontag's statement that "everyone is infringing on SCO's ELF copyrights." Mr. Sontag apparently does not understand what a copyright is. (Hint: It's not like a patent.) While I'm not a lawyer, I did an analysis here [slashdot.org].

FreeBSD and linux compatibility? (3, Interesting)

shadow0dancer (655734) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753353)

I'm wondering how this accusation would effect linux compatibility mode in FreeBSD.

-SD

Re:FreeBSD and linux compatibility? (5, Interesting)

arivanov (12034) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753572)

BSD since 4.x is ELF as well (it gave up on a.out around 3.x). So the claim is valid against all BSDs and even more interesting recent Cisco IOS. Even more interesting, the SCO comment from last year that HP does not infringe comes to mind. HPUX uses ECOFF. It is the last and only commercial Unix not to use ELF.

Re:FreeBSD and linux compatibility? (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753618)

Actually, this accusation would affect BSD, period. BSD (like most Unixes) switched from the A.OUT format to ELF several years ago. In fact, BSD was one of the last holdouts simply because they didn't need to switch.

Time to move to Mach-o (4, Informative)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753357)

Make binary compatibility easier with Darwin, anyway.

This affects everyone, including the BSD's. And, of course, they're full of shit, once again. ELF is not the mortar that binds the OS together. Linux started with a.out, and can probably function just fine with some other binary format.

Re:Time to move to Mach-o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753477)

Except that this claim is even less founded on any sort of reality than any of their others. They have absolutely no say as to who can and who can't use ELF binaries.

awww... (5, Funny)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753371)

Man, we had so long without a SCO article that I thought I missed one about a small implosion in Utah.

Then you had to go ruin my blissful existance...

Why wasn't this brought up in 1995? (5, Insightful)

SlashChick (544252) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753392)

From the article:

"In 1995, the year Novell sold Unix to the Santa Cruz Operation, an industry group calling itself the Tool Interface Standard Committee (TISC) came up with a ELF 1.2 standard and to popularize it and streamline PC software development granted users a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license" to the stuff, effectively putting it in the public domain, SCO says.

SCOsource chief Chris Sontag, the SCO VP in charge of the company's hate-inducing IP push, claims TISC, which folded immediately after the spec was published, exceeded its rights even though both Novell and the old SCO - as well as Microsoft, IBM and Intel - were on the committee."


So if SCO had a problem with ELF way back in 1995, why didn't they stop this back then? Obviously they had the choice to -- they clearly knew what TISC was doing. So why did it take SCO until 2003-2004 to point fingers at TISC?

I'm sorry, but this reeks of a last-ditch money-grab by SCO...even more than it did before. The release of ELF into the public domain happened nine years ago. IMHO, SCO should not be allowed to pull this into court because their business model is hurting now. Ridiculous.

Re:Why wasn't this brought up in 1995? (5, Interesting)

cmoss (14324) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753500)

They are pulling ELF in to court because they are desperate to avoid a ruling on IBMs tenth counterclaim scheduled to be heard on Aug 4th.

This may be a hard sell to the court since they were not a party to the original effort and they can't seem to find any of the documents transferring any rights from old SCO to Caldera/TSG.

We'll see if it staves off the inevitable for a while longer at the aug 4th hearing. The best part is that the more deperate they act the more chance the principals will end up in jail when all of this fraud is exposed.

SCO has no standing. (5, Interesting)

bstadil (7110) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753598)

Current SCO is the third link in the chain. Whenever something is sold the successor in interest get's "less or equal" what the seller held.

Since the seller sold the copyright with the explicit understanding that ELF was in the public domain, NewSCO can not claim anything.

If someone "exceeded" their authority it's a matter for the parties involved at the time.

not the same SCO (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753617)

This isn't the same SCO. You're talking about the Santa Cruz Organization, which isn't what the current SCO is. The current SCO was Caldera until relatively recently. They have nothing to do with each other.

Can we have some details on the JSF (2, Interesting)

ikegami (793066) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753394)

: [i]The JFS part was expected of course[/i] Am I right when I guess JFS means Journaling File System? Why would it "of course" be mentioned by SCO? Could someone give us its history?

Re:Can we have some details on the JSF (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753457)

Why do you hate America?!?!?!!?!1!!11!

Re:Can we have some details on the JSF (1)

ikegami (793066) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753520)

hum? I like our neighbours to the South. What makes you think I hate them?

Re:Can we have some details on the JSF (2, Informative)

Jahf (21968) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753519)

IIRC, JFS was contributed by IBM. Go back to the IBM v. SCO mess. I would guess that some part of the JFS code (at least in SCO's mind) contains SCO licensed material.

Remember that just because IBM wrote most of JFS, it may still contain code that had to be duplicated or rewritten to work outside of AIX. The question is whether IBM violated their agreements with SCO by redistributing or re-engineering those technologies.

Not saying it is so, only pointing out what SCO is probably trying to say

Re:Can we have some details on the JSF (1)

Quietlife2k (612005) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753526)

JFS AFAIK This was expected wayyyyyyyy back because the "similarities" have already been noticed. However it is *my* understanding that the parentage of this code is *not* what SCO belive. I understand that the JFS in Linux is actually of OS/2 parentage, where it was gestated completly separately from the AIX/UNIX team, and that a "clean line" of development has already been documented. IANAL Just what I read about 6 months ago.

Re:Can we have some details on the JSF (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753544)

SCO claims that as IBM licensed Unix from SCO, and AIX can be considered a form of Unix, and JFS was written for/ported to AIX, JFS is the intellectual property of SCO. And as IBM contributed JFS to Linux, Linux is now infringing on SCO's copyrights.

Yes, it's quite utterly insane, and no, it has no basis in any form of copyright law outside la-la land. But that's the history, and pretty much what they claim.

Re:Can we have some details on the JSF (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753575)

Am I right when I guess JFS means Journaling File System? Why would it "of course" be mentioned by SCO? Could someone give us its history?

It's "of course" because it's been part of SCO's claims since almost the beginning.

Re:Can we have some details on the JSF (5, Informative)

AlanWay (470656) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753633)

From http://oss.software.ibm.com/jfs/ in their FAQ

Q1. What is the history of the source based use for the port of JFS for Linux.

A1. IBM introduced its UNIX file system as the Journaled File System (JFS)
with the initial release of AIX Version 3.1. This file system, now
called JFS1 on AIX, has been the premier file system for AIX over the
last 10 years and has been installed in millions of customer's AIX
systems. In 1995, work began to enhance the file system to be more
scalable and to support machines that had more than one
processor. Another goal was to have a more portable file system,
capable of running on multiple operating systems.

Historically, the JFS1 file system is very closely tied to the memory
manager of AIX. This design is typical of a closed-source operating
system, or a file system supporting only one operating system.

The new Journaled File System, on which the Linux port was based, was
first shipped in OS/2 Warp Server for eBusiness in April, 1999, after
several years of designing, coding, and testing. It also shipped with
OS/2 Warp Client in October, 2000. In parallel to this effort, some
of the JFS development team returned to the AIX Operating System
Development Group in 1997 and started to move this new JFS source base
to the AIX operating system. In May, 2001, a second journaled file
system, Enhanced Journaled File System (JFS2), was made available for
AIX 5L. In December of 1999, a snapshot of the original OS/2 JFS
source was taken and work was begun to port JFS to Linux.

So, the original JFS-1 was written as closed source for AIX. However, the JFS that made its way into Linux was JFS-2, which was originally written for OS/2 then ported to AIX and Linux.

Dunno how SCO can claim code written for OS/2 :-)

Anyone can lift an elf.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753400)

but no one should ever toss a dwarf

Tro7l (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753405)

Are 7000 users of events Vtoday, wh3re it belongs,

SCO sounds more like Kim Il Jong (2, Funny)

raistphrk (203742) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753413)

SCO has gotten into the nasty habit of claiming ownership (and inventership) to damn near every obvious computer science practice known to man. They're like the software vendor's version of Kim Il Jong of North Korea. The guy claims to have invented the Internet, the television, radar, automobiles, and any other technology the country has.

Now, if SCO starts killing triplets...

Re:SCO sounds more like Kim Il Jong (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753430)

I thought that was Al Gore?

Re:SCO sounds more like Kim Il Jong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753555)

Has Kim Il Jong invented a working atom bomb yet?

Development dollars? (5, Insightful)

shogarth (668598) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753421)

The ELF bit is a weak arguement, but what can they do? They have a medium-sized pile of money and a dead-end product line. They can litigate, piss the money away trying to outdevelop both the open-source community and Microsoft in the OS space, or give up and find a new business to try and develop. Given the source of their pot of money, it makes sense to take their shot a the IBM lottery...

Of course, understanding their position doesn't make the decision a smart one.

True SCO == COFF (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753422)

Real SCO jocks use COFF, not ELF. 'Nuff said.

A bit of peace (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753428)

Some relative quiet on this article, as most of the Lunix wizards who normally hold forth on the provenance of every line of kernel code have no idea what ELF is. "Is it like GNOME?"

It's about time! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753431)

Ahh, that's funny, I've been been keeping an eye on SCOX on my Yahoo stock watchlist, and I did notice they've been going down the past few days. Even down 3.6% today on an otherwise up market.

So I was expecting some "good news" from them.

The neverending saga (3, Funny)

rwven (663186) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753432)

This is kinda like one of those really bad 80's B or C movies that just wouldnt end but you just had to watch it just to see how the bad guy gets it in the end. The funny thing is, we all know the ending. SCO ends up bankrupt and the laughing stocks of the business world, some of their exec's most likely end up behind bars or broke, and who knows what other horrors will befall this evil...

Blah, blah, blah....

CUT IT'S HEAD NOW!!! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753437)

DO IT! Execute SCO NOW! It's time to kill it! Beat it to death! Kick it in it's head!

Oh please .... make it stop! (4, Interesting)

Goyuix (698012) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753441)

Come on SCO - as part of my operating systems course in college we loaded ELF binaries (which we also had to create) and RAN them. They have got to be stretching a long way on that one - that is for sure. Not to mention many other OSs (such as the BSDs) can use ELF binaries....

The JFS claims, that seems like an awful stretch as well, It does make more sense in targetting IBM though as I believe they had heavy involvement in JFS. Honestly I am not nearly as familiar with the ins and outs of it, but unless they are claiming something ridiculous like memcopy() or something...

Which brings us to number three, 'copyrighted unix headers and interfaces' .... boy. Here comes this crap again. What on earth are they sticking in headers to copyright? #define ONE 1;??? Sounds like I might have a case myself.

Now the interfaces, which could perhaps be interpreted as API... there is some chance that could have some fuzzy ground I imagine. But how on earth can the judge/court even take them seriously at this point?

Not the first time... (4, Insightful)

ElForesto (763160) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753456)

... and not the last. Anyone remember some little company named Rambus sitting in on industry standard-setting and then running down to the patent office? This seems to be happening more and more often these days, and until we see these IP bullies get their noses bloodied in grand fashion, it's just going to keep on happening.

Re:Not the first time... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753626)

Actually, there isn't all that much similarity except for the general money-grubbing-IP-capitalist stench.

Rambus committed fraud by ensuring their patented technology became incorporated in the standard without revealing their patent.

SCO committed perjury by claiming it owned copyrights on UNIX and JFS (Novell and IBM own those copyrights, respectively), and it violated the GPL by not allowing IBM to redistribute code that was licensed to them under the GPL.

The former was a fraud committed to get real evidence, the latter is a fraudulent claim to evidence.

Re:Not the first time... (1)

thejuggler (610249) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753653)

Stop complaining! Go run for office and fix the problem already!

I agree!!!!! Am already planning my run for local office.

One man with courage makes a majority.
-Andrew Jackson

The stock market greets this latest news... (4, Informative)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753465)

...skeptically [yahoo.com]. Which is nice.

Re:The stock market greets this latest news... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753614)

Exactly
They threw all this new FUD _because_ of the trend their stock was going
SCOX, 5 days [yahoo.com]

SCOCON: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753471)

SCOCON [northsun.net] is currently "Absurd" and holding.

SCO's business plan will be taught to MBA's (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753487)

as an example of how to alienate customers, annoy users, and destroy market share. A person that has a good experience with a company might tell one of their friends, but a person with a bad experience will tell all of their friends, and SCO has done the equivalent of pissing off the entire internet community.

A hundred years from now they'll be mentioning SCO in the same breath as Edsel, except Ford actually had other products to sell.

RTFA (0, Redundant)

k98sven (324383) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753492)

This directed at SCO: RTFA! [x86.org]
(TIS specification doc for ELF)

Remember the TIS comittee? Probably not, as SCO never was part of it. Santa Cruz Operation (oldSCO) was, however, as well was Novell.

Page 2, paragraph 1:
The TIS Committee grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to use the information disclosed in this Specification to make your software TIS-compliant; no other license, express or implied, is granted or intended hereby.

Re:RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753595)

Redundant, how's that?

Oh, I forgot.. this is Slashdot. Primary sources mean shit here.

Claims on 2.6 ? It was but a gleam in Linus' eye! (4, Interesting)

redelm (54142) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753501)

How can SCO make complaints about Linux 2.6 which didn't exist at the time they launched their suit? Are they clairvoyant?

Re:Claims on 2.6 ? It was but a gleam in Linus' ey (2, Insightful)

wambaugh (666794) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753546)

If anyone did intentionally lift SCO code for 2.6 after the lawsuits they would have had to have been monumentally stupid, though hillariously spiteful. One would think it would be easy enough to find the authors of the suspect code and ask them before filing a lawsuit.

Re:Claims on 2.6 ? It was but a gleam in Linus' ey (0, Flamebait)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753647)

You're both idiots, the lawsuit against IBM was launched not long after 2.6.0 came out.

Besides, even if you were right (you aren't), 2.6.0 is just the 2.5 tree with a new number, and that'd been around a long while.

Viral?? (1)

finse (63518) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753509)

"The Free Software Foundation is also the creator of the GPL, the viral license that makes Linux so provocative"

Ummm... is this suposed to be sarcasim?

Cool! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753512)

Hey! Good to see SCO is still alive and kicking!
...

Wait, no it's not!

<matrixrevolutions>DIE, ALREADY!</matrixrevolutions>

Now this gets entertaining (5, Interesting)

arivanov (12034) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753517)

Cisco IOS post 11.2 is ELF. So is nearly every format out there except HPUX. This includes BSDs, embedded systems, so on so fourth.

So they have just got themselves into the aiming calculations of the entire computer industry including the other big Blue, not just IBM.

Anyway, do not see a problem even if they win this one. While I want to puke just at the thought of ECOFF, it is if IIRC (C) intel and HP and all it will take to get linux to use them will be one big rebuild and a rewrite of libdl. That is if Intel and HP do not decide to put the dl for ECOFF into the public domain.

In, btw, this is something on which Cisco can buy them just to shut them up (if everyone agrees to go home and stop the lawsuits).

How the stink (3, Insightful)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753521)

do they propose to have copyrighted a binary file format? Infringement would require that the "copied" files be "substantially similar" to the ones SCOX has copyrighted. Sounds a lot more like their usual squishy-"IP" claim: they hold the copyright on a book describing Unix utilities, so any implementation of grep violates their "IP."

Gupta? (4, Funny)

tigress (48157) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753533)

The charge was made by SCO VP of engineering Sandeep Gupta in a declaration that is currently under seal, but is quoted, albeit tersely, in the new filings.

Any relation to Dr [slashdot.org] Samir [google.com] Gupta [slashdot.org]?

Lame tactics (1)

alanbs (784491) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753535)

I was under the impression from their statements that SCO claimed that Linux stole many lines almost literally from Unix. Instead, at least with regard to ELF, it is purely an interface matter which seems far more dubious an infraction than it seemed was implied. It seems that this tactic was deemed necessary to fight the war of propaganda and make Linux users look like a bunch of theives. That's pretty irritating.

Finally, a SCO story (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753539)

Whew!

I was starting to have withdrawals. No SCO story in days. I didn't have my SCO fix. I thought no SCO story could only mean one thing: "SCO had figured out how to take over the world." At last, you fulfilled my deepest cravings for more SCO news and I can go on living in my beautiful world of FUD.

Thank you slashdot. Without my SCO updates, I don't think I could go on. My life would be in even more shambles than it already is. Even my dog would not speak to me (now, as for the wife, that might be a good thing).

Long Live SCO and FUD . Better than comics!

"Early days" in fleshing out claims? (1)

r.jimenezz (737542) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753569)

From the article:

Where SCO is going to go with ELF is still up in the air, according to Sontag. It's still early days in fleshing out all its claims, he said.

While I agree in that, as SCO is compelled to produce actual evidence, their argument is becoming more and more dilluted... We've been at this for quite a while now, and I for one don't see an end to it in the next few months.

Diagnosis and Prescription (4, Funny)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753571)

"...as far as the ELF format is concerned 'the Tool Interface Standard Committee (TISC) came up with a ELF 1.2 standard' and 'granted users a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license" to the stuff'. Oh, and of course 'both Novell and the old SCO - as well as Microsoft, IBM and Intel - were on the committee'."

The patient is suffering from paranoid delusions. His accustation of persecution ("theft") despite having previously personally approved of the situation represent a psychotic dissocation from reality and should be construed as a negative hallucination. As such, the patient should be provisionally diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia, and should be admitted for stabilization and observation, lest he become dangerous to himself or others.

Seriously, if SCO were a person acting this way towards other people in public, by now it'd be better than even money they'd have been put in hospital.

Of course they have to file something (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753577)

Of course they have to file something--the stock's fallen below $5 [yahoo.com], and the end-of-day painters can't bring it up again.

(Being below $5 is a bad thing(tm), because many mutual funds cannot own stocks priced that low. Also since one cannot easily sell short a stock on Nasdaq priced below $5, it dries up the pool of short-sellers to be squeezed with price manipulations)

FUD (1)

smclean (521851) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753599)

ELF is like mortar to the operating system. Stripped out, all its applications would break. And, according to SCO spokesman Blake Stowell, it would not be something that the Linux community could simply rewrite, which is the Linux adherent's pat solution to SCO's infringement issues.
And why exactly would the Linux community be unable to write a replacement to ELF? And why is "Linux Business Week" playing up the SCO FUD? If ELF was to be removed and a new binary format introduced, it's not as if all Linux applications would break. It's so rediculous to even talk about ELF being "stripped out" of applications. You would just rebuild the application and have the compiler link it into the new binary format.

Copyright (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753604)

The JFS part was expected of course, but according to the article, as far as the ELF format is concerned 'the Tool Interface Standard Committee (TISC) came up with a ELF 1.2 standard' and 'granted users a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license" to the stuff'

We're talking about *copyright*, right?

So it doesn't matter whether something is an open standard or not. MD4 is an open standard, but that doesn't mean that I can legally use RSA's GPL-incompatible reference code in my code.

That being said, if SCO has even the faintest sliver of a case, I'll be amazed.

Hurrah! (1)

jifl (471653) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753621)

This is really good news. The more obviously spurious the claims that SCO churns out, the more likely a judge is to not only take a dim view of SCO's case as a whole, but accuse them of making up frivolous lawsuits.

Go SCO! More of the same please!

ELF?!? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#9753640)

Gee, we're using the ELF format for ARM embedded firmware development... so I guess we're infringing on SCO's intellectual property too! Oh, and by the way "we" is Intel Corporation...

Insert clever subject here. (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 8 years ago | (#9753646)

SCOsource chief Chris Sontag, the SCO VP in charge of the company's hate-inducing IP push, claims TISC, which folded immediately after the spec was published, exceeded its rights even though both Novell and the old SCO - as well as Microsoft, IBM and Intel - were on the committee.

Sontag also says that any entities that ignore SCO's ELF copyrights are infringing. Such a claim is likely to put SCO on a war footing, if it isn't already, with the Free Software Foundation, whose GNU operating environment makes broad use of ELF.


How can they copyright a format? Each ELF formatted executable is distinct, and I believe that nothing other than a header too short to enjoy copyright protection is the same for any of them. No one, Torvalds included, has published the ELF specifications (the paper itself), which is the only thing that is copyrightable. It's like saying you copyrighted putting your right shoe on first, and then the second. It's dumb.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...