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!

Linux Kernel Code May Have Been in SCO UnixWare

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the hard-to-say-sonny-hard-to-say dept.

Caldera 455

Random BedHead Ed writes "Groklaw has some interesting new information online. In an entry today, PJ has posted the Deposition of Erik W. Hughes (PDF), a SCO employee. Hughes' 2004 testimony reveals that the Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) of UnixWare somehow used kernel code. Exactly how it was used is not clear. UnixWare was released under a proprietary license, but the General Public License under which Linux is distributed requires derivative works to use the same license. As PJ says, it's "now apparent why SCO tried to say the GPL is unconstitutional" back in 2003."

cancel ×

455 comments

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

SCO Rules... (0, Flamebait)

repruhsent (672799) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283109)

...Linux sucks! FP! I'm outie

wow, uhm (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283111)

Sure don't care.

Isn't the SCO thing pretty boring by now? Aren't we done reading groklaw yet? Who has an attention span this long?

Re:wow, uhm (1, Offtopic)

hungrygrue (872970) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283274)

Not you, apparently. Now go watch Fox News and leave the rest of us with attention spans longer that fruit flies to worry about the boring stuff.

Thanks. (5, Funny)

unixbugs (654234) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283114)

A big up yours to whoever modded me down for stating that I've suspected stuff like this for a while from them.

Re:Thanks. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283132)

That's cause you're an idiot.

Re:Thanks. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283134)

Big deal. I am stating that in the near future, 90% of new cars will be electric. I will be back when it happens to tell all ya all to fuck off when it does.

Re:Thanks. (0, Offtopic)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283159)

Which may not happen because .. guess what, cars may go from 50% electric/50% gasoline to some other fuel. Yeah the parent poster is being self serving and not adding to the discourse, but neither are you.

Re:Thanks. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283460)

You are the first one I will respond to! Please provide a stable email address or email me a retina signature so I can find you in case /. is not around when it happens.

There's nothing new... (-1, Offtopic)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283161)

Concerning clueless/fascist /. moderation. I dare say all regular posters have suffered from it. Nonetheless, good call.

Re:There's nothing new... (2, Funny)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283332)

Fascist

Re:Sorry (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283241)

A big up yours to whoever modded me down for stating that I've suspected stuff like this for a while from them.

We'd like to give a big "Sorry" to everyone who is reading this! We ran out of mod points.

-Sco Legal Team

Re:Thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283309)

Seems like the mods don't appreciate having a "big" up "theirs".

Karma (5, Insightful)

adam.conf (893668) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283121)

Haha, who says there's no such thing as karma... It's just poetic justice that SCO gets what they deserve.

All I gotta say about this, today is... (0, Redundant)

DaedalusHKX (660194) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283145)

AAHAHAHAHAHHA.

About time.

I've been suspecting this, without evidence of course, since the case started.

Give it up to the shrewd chess players... which SCO are not.

Re:Karma, .... what SCO got (2, Interesting)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283314)

It's just poetic justice that SCO gets what they deserve.

It looks to me that what SCO got is that they got away with it. They stole GPL code and are certainly not being punished for it.

Re:Karma, .... what SCO got (2, Informative)

Karzz1 (306015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283433)

It remains to be seen if they(SCO, Darl, et al) will be "punished". However, between this and the problems they will be having with Novell [slashdot.org] , I sense impending doom for SCO.

Wait . . wait . . what? (4, Interesting)

code shady (637051) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283123)

So, does that mean that code in the linux kernel now was once in UnixWare?

Or does it mean that SCO UnixWare has code that was once in the linux kernel?

It's interesting either way, of course, but c'mon guys. Precise wording is your friend.

ALL YOUR CODE IS BELONG TO US! (4, Funny)

Bobzibub (20561) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283137)

Take no prisoners.
Do not negotiate.
Sue their asses.
Come on FSF!!!!!
-b

Re:ALL YOUR CODE IS BELONG TO US! (3, Insightful)

dmaxwell (43234) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283216)

The FSF doesn't hold title to much if any of the Linux kernel. Once it is known in detail which code was misappropriated then we can talk about who has standing to sue. Linus probably has standing regardless.

Re:ALL YOUR CODE IS BELONG TO US! (1)

Bobzibub (20561) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283275)

Doh! = )

Well it gave me warm fuzzies for about 15 seconds.
8 )

Re:Wait . . wait . . what? (5, Funny)

themoodykid (261964) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283147)

"You've got UnixWare in my Linux!"

"And you've got Linux in my UnixWare!"

"AAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!"

Re:Wait . . wait . . what? (0, Redundant)

buckhead_buddy (186384) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283359)

TheMoodyKid wrote:
"You've got UnixWare in my Linux!"

"And you've got Linux in my UnixWare!"
For those not familiar with 70's advertising slogans, that was the moniker of Reese's Peanut Butter Cups except that it used Chocolate instead of UnixWare and Peanut Butter instead of Linux. And instead of ending with a fist fight or litigation, the commercials always showed the two klutzes trying the choco-nut concoction and saying (in unison no less) that they're great together.

Of course, the GPL has been in these sorts of showdowns before and has talked down some very litigious oponnents (e.g. Steve Jobs' & NeXT).

Of course maybe this whole thing is a trap to get GPL Linux programmers to subpoena the code and henceforth be "contaminated" in the eyes of the law whether or not they discover any stolen code.

Re:Wait . . wait . . what? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283185)

I beleive the exact code they cited as stolen was:
return 0;

Re:Wait . . wait . . what? (1)

inphorm (604192) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283204)

sounds about right there...heh

- paul

Re:Wait . . wait . . what? (2, Insightful)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283201)

At this point, I pity the person who cares. Build. I don't understand rehashing shit thats so old. UnixWare still exists. Linux still exists. Even if this was a heinous crime, what a waste of market resources. Just suck it up and create.

Making cool stuff (4, Insightful)

ansible (9585) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283290)

Well, I sort of agree with the sentiment. We probably do spend too much time talk about the SCOundrels and not as much making cool stuff.

But we have to keep in mind it is the SCOundrels, M$, and the copyright cartel who are intent on taking away from us all the tools we use to make cool stuff.

So I recommend we pay at least some attention to these matters.

how long ago? (4, Funny)

cbelle13013 (812401) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283126)

2004 is so last year.

Move along (4, Funny)

kalla (254222) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283130)

Obi-Wan: This is not the code you're looking for.

Re:Move along (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283255)

Obi-Wan...but wasn't he the good guy??

Re:Move along (5, Funny)

Guy LeDouche (713304) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283320)

Sorry, somehow his text got truncated during the submission. "SCObi-Wan" is the full name.

Oooooh the juicy irony..... (4, Funny)

tekiegreg (674773) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283135)

GPL code in UnixWare...SCO forced to either pay damages or open source the Kernel. Something I never thought I'd see.

Re:Oooooh the juicy irony..... (2, Funny)

axonal (732578) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283167)

GPL code in UnixWare...SCO forced to either pay damages or open source the Kernel. Something I never thought I'd see.
--
...in bed


Something I never thought I'd see in bed either.

Re:Oooooh the juicy irony..... (1)

tommy_traceroute (701929) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283224)

And yes , "irony" actually used correctly in a /. post!!! VICTORY!!!!

Re:Oooooh the juicy irony..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283406)

It's good to know you pedants are on hand--I'd hate to use the word "irony" and never know whether I'd done it correctly or not.

Did you know that I've entirely replaced my spelling and grammar checkers with Slashdot readers? It saves so many CPU cycles!

Re:Oooooh the juicy irony..... (1)

Herschel Cohen (568) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283235)

Sorry removal of the offending code usually suffices. You are repeating a false premise that MS and others try to spread to create fear, uncertainty and doubt (about GPL'ed software), i.e. a.k.a.: FUD.

I wonder, was that your intention or were you trying to be funny?

Whatever the case, check your facts before making assertions on a very sensitive topic that can further re-enforce misinformation.

Re:Oooooh the juicy irony..... (5, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283289)

The assertion was generally correct: unless Linus et al decide to waive their rights or demand some other settlement, SCO can be sued for damages (and can only avoid such a lawsuit by putting the Unix kernel under the GPL and releasing the source. Which they probably can't do because even if Novell is incorrect, they're still unlikely to own it 100%)

So I'm not sure what "FUD" you're refering to. Yes, generally the free software movement tends to focus on calls to remove violating code, but they don't have to, and they can, if they want, get real damages if they're prepared to take the cases to court.

Re:Oooooh the juicy irony..... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283294)

Just announced: Linus Torvalds demands $699 from Darl McBride

Far from certain (5, Informative)

EssenceLumin (755374) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283142)

If you read the actual Groklaw article you will see it may just have been some copy of the kernel on one of their distribution disks which would be fine as far as the gpl is concerned. If they actually integrated source code from the linux kernel into their own kernel that would be very interesting and bad karma indeed for them. But that is far from certain.

Re:Far from certain (1)

travisco_nabisco (817002) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283164)

Now it is looking like, not only does SCO not own the UNIX rights, they have been distributing GPL code under another license. It is appearing that fate is turning a cruel eye to SCO.

Re:Far from certain (2, Insightful)

EssenceLumin (755374) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283184)

Well they just released the first major new version of their os in 9 years and it has tons of open source software on it. No doubt the open source parts ane NOT under another license but under the GPL. They do have lawyers who would at least spot that major headache.

Don't confuse OpenServer with UnixWare. (5, Informative)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283264)

SCO has two Unix products: OpenServer and UnixWare. It is important not to confuse them.

OpenServer is based on what was Xenix, and until the recently released OpenServer 6, it was considered to be an SVR3 system.

UnixWare was obtained in some form or another (under dispute at the moment) from Novell in the mid 1990s. It is an SVR4 system.

OpenServer 6 is being labelled as an SVR5 system now, and appears to be amongst the initial steps in merging/unifying the technologies found in UnixWare.

Indeed, at this point OpenServer is still a different product than UnixWare.

Also (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283371)

This would not explain, as the article asserts, why they tried to claim the GPL unconstitutional. If the GPL is found to be invalid, that means code is protected by regular copyright law, which would have even more restrictions than the GPL. Meaning if they actually did include kernel code in their own code they would be in an even worse situation if the GPL is invalid. Or am I missing something here?

Re:Also (5, Informative)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283408)

They weren't trying to invalidate the GPL completely - they were trying to argue that anything under the GPL was essentially public domain, and that the GPL didn't have the power to require redistribution of source code. If they had gotten their way, then they would've been clear.

Re:Far from certain (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283395)

Well several people said this was likely back when the suit first started. When you consider that SCO claims to have found their code in the Linux kernel and factor in that OSS code has always been of higher quality than SCO's crappy products and that OSS code is much more easily available to SCO than SCO's code is to the world, I think it'd be somewhat suprising if one of their third-rate programmers HADN'T copied OSS code into their source tree. Plagarism is much more likely in that direction than in this one.

Of course, what will happen if that proves true is anybody's guess. That would mean that SCO had been profiting off copyright infringement all these years and I think THAT would demand more than them having to GPL their products now.

That's all just speculation, of course, until someone files a lawsuit...

Pretty Obvious... (0)

WindozeSux (857211) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283152)

I mean you can tell they've used OSS code(mainly their apps) by just using their programs. Some dude sitting at his computer probably noticed the similiarity between SCO stuff and Linux.

But the tite says 'May' so it might not have any code. Yet it probably does because you know how those proprietory people steal stuff *coughMicrosoftcough* so they can increase their audience.

Also, it seems this time it isn't "SCO says Linux contains their proprietory code.",but "SCO may have Linux code."

Great (4, Insightful)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283153)

Now they'll be sued into oblivion, some more.

I can't see this forcing the UnixWare kernel to be relicensed under the GPL though, especially since some of the code couldn't be GPL'd even if they wanted. It'd just make them quite a bit more liable for copyright infringement than they already were. Since the offending code was supposedly removed over 2 years ago, they could easily claim the infringement was accidental and they made a best effort to remedy it, short of notifying the copyright owners.

Re:Great (1)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283298)

...they could easily claim the infringement was accidental and they made a best effort to remedy it, short of notifying the copyright owners.

Isn't that what they're suing Autozone for?

Fuck SCO (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283154)

Does this mean SCO will refund my $699 licensing fee?

confidential (3, Interesting)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283160)

I noticed the big 'confidential' on the first page of the pdf...

Someone care to exlpain?

Re:confidential (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283177)

Main Entry: confidential
Pronunciation: "kän-f&-'den(t)-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : marked by intimacy or willingness to confide
2 : PRIVATE, SECRET
3 : entrusted with confidences
4 : containing information whose unauthorized disclosure could be prejudicial to the national interest -- compare SECRET, TOP SECRET
- confidentiality /-"den(t)-shE-'a-l&-tE/ noun
- confidentially /-'den(t)-sh(&-)lE/ adverb

Docs being unsealed by parties (3, Informative)

isn't my name (514234) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283239)

Back in the spring when Maureen O'Gara and moved to have documents unsealed, the judge turned them down. However, he also indicated that the parties should review all sealed material to see if anything had been improperly sealed.

Since then, both IBM and SCO have been releasing court filings that were originally filed under seal.

You will note, if you read the PDF, that not all pages are available. Presumably, that is the way it was released by the courts, but that is not completely clear.

Re:Docs being unsealed by parties (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283335)

Ah, thanks

Re:confidential (1)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283272)

There are 8 pages missing. I'm guessing that part's still confidential or someone doesn't know how to work a scanner.

Re:confidential (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283354)

I just noticed the missing pages as well, it was just getting interesting, and then it broke off.

The comical objections from Heise and Greenwalds calmness to it have made it a joy to read. Greenwald is so in control of the entire proceedings.

Re:confidential (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283342)

I noticed the big 'confidential' on the first page of the pdf...

Someone care to exlpain?

Glad too!

You see, Darl McBride recently published an open letter [slashdot.org] "proclaiming the benefits of UNIX over any other operating system."

So, as payback, someone in the Microsoft administration leaked confidential information regarding Darl McBride's wife, who is an undercover CIA agent.

Re:confidential (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283416)

Is that related to your IP addy belonging to the whitehouse.gov block?

Not to be cynical... (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283162)

...but honestly, did anyone not see this coming?

The dumbest part is that they probably could've used BSD code (eg FreeBSD's Linux emulation layer) and done it legally.

Re:Not to be cynical... (1, Funny)

tigershark97 (595017) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283231)

The dumbest part is that they probably could've used BSD code (eg FreeBSD's Linux emulation layer) and done it legally.
Yes, but we all know, BSD is dying. Better to use Linux code.

Re:Not to be cynical... (1)

Idealius (688975) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283271)

yea 1st comment did.. RTFC

It's the content of Blepps lost code case (1)

tglx (664015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283168)

No wonder that all the SCO cases are lost

Bad moves now haunting SCO (4, Insightful)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283172)

This being true, I really don't see why SCO suddenly went on the offensive against Linux. Surely they would have known scrutiny would have come their way, and these violations of their own would have been brought to light.

Unless, of course, the knowledge wasn't available at the time SCO decided to start going after Linux because they hadn't properly audited their own code base to ensure they were on the clearest possible ground internal ground before starting to attack the legitimacy of others code bases.

Re:Bad moves now haunting SCO (3, Insightful)

guaigean (867316) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283189)

I think that when Darl came on board, he simply saw it as the best defense being a good offense, and hoped scare tactics would work. After all, with the similarity in the OS's, the odds of finding a single line of similar code seem high. Plus, I seriously doubt he imagined IBM would take this as such a serious battle. Here we are years later with a possible end in sight, and perhaps some due karma being paid.

Re:Bad moves now haunting SCO (2, Funny)

rah1420 (234198) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283308)

the best defense being a good offense
Like going all in with a pair of deuces in a high stakes game of Texas Hold'em. LOL.

Re:Bad moves now haunting SCO (1)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283424)

Here we are years later with a possible end in sight, and perhaps some due karma being paid.

Due karma would not be paid unless everyone who invested in this litigation strategy ends up with less assets than they started with. Not real likely to happen, but a fond daydream nonetheless...

Re:Bad moves now haunting SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283261)

I wonder about the old saying that goes something like, "Never attribute to malice that which is easilly attributable to incompetence," or something to that effect. I've always been of the mind that one should never attribute to incompetence that which is easilly attributable to malice.

What did SCO know and when did they know it? :)

A whole new ballgame? (4, Interesting)

bgfay (5362) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283173)

I've gone on record here at /. as saying that maybe we shouldn't be reading about and going nuts over every bit of news out of SCO, but this seems to take things in another direction. Rathern than Linux having SCO code in it, SCO code now has GPL'ed code in it? Doesn't that mean that besides being absolutely annoying, they've also broken the law? Oh, well in that case, let's have at it.

I wonder what Boies and company get out of this. I remember reading about Boies during the MS trials and he's a fascinating guy. The problem with finding a lawyer fascinating is that eventually they have to defend OJ or Darl McBride or some other idiot. But it seems to me that Boies went into this one where he had a choice to stay outside. Very strange.

Hell, I don't even know if Boies is still involved in any of this. I figure even if he is, they might need a different kind of lawyer for defense instead of attack. Tee-hee.

Re:A whole new ballgame? (1)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283252)

Illegal? Not in the sense of criminal. But violating the GPL, well, if there's Linux kernel code in there, yep, they violating the GPL. But that's civil, not criminal (unless the DMCA has something in it; and in that case, wouldn't it be pretty hypocritical of those of us who have been bashing SCO (I have) and bashing the DMCA to take refuge in the latter to attack the former?).

Re:A whole new ballgame? (4, Informative)

isn't my name (514234) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283258)

I wonder what Boies and company get out of this.

Money. Lots and lots of money. A post on Groklaw that SCO's legal fees have topped $40 million [groklaw.net] . SCO does have a cap, so by the end of this year, they will be paying no more for the current cases.

Of course, if someone whose copyright SCO had violated were to sue, that would not be covered by the current legal agreement between SCO and its law firm.

Re:A whole new ballgame? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283296)

Considering that SCO "managed to get" a ~$30 million cap on legal fees, I'd say that Boies is in it for the money.

$30 million is many years worth of salaries for many people, and SCO blew it on litigation, rather than trying to make money honestly by being productive.

Saddle Up The Suits? (1)

TiredGamer (564844) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283180)

This may make for an nice little lawsuit, but I don't see it happening. The EFF may help contributors make an attack, but SCO is a sinking ship full of rats that have eaten most of the cargo. The only good that could perhaps come would be an injunction on sales of UnixWare, which finishes off SCO's actual revenue. I don't think this could be leveraged to open up UnixWare (the rights are probably going to revert back to Novell anyhow), and if UW is poisoned goods nobody will want it anyway.

Stick a fork in it, there's nothing but steam left.

(IANAL, but I slept in a Days Inn Express.)

Re:Saddle Up The Suits? (1)

homer_ca (144738) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283410)

Ahh.... But there is an analogy in the RIAA vs. Napster lawsuit. After they destroyed Napster in court, they tried going after Napster's financiers, the Hummer Winblad VC firm, for billions of more dollars in damages. The last news I could find was from July 2004 [pcworld.com] , and that said the trial is proceeding.

I know it's a longshot, but there's some deep pockets at Canopus Group and Microsoft. A man can dream, right?

Hahaha (0, Redundant)

freeman123 (890869) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283208)

SCO, you make me laugh. You claim others of stealing from you, and then you steal from others. How ironic. Hypocrites.

Created Uncertainty (4, Interesting)

mpapet (761907) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283215)

I think they pretty much succeeded in labeling the use of Linux as "risky" (in the U.S. anyway) with untold IP issues.

I'd like to know how would anyone know (as in establish as fact) their compiled code contained GPL'd parts? It was easy to spot when those jokers claimed PearPC was something they made. But, how would anyone know in this case?

It might have been a trial balloon for Microsoft to gauge their litigation options too.

Re:Created Uncertainty (4, Insightful)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283374)

This is the exact reason why Microsoft bought those SCO "Linux licenses". It funded a 2 year FUD campaign much more powerful than anything Microsoft could have done under their own name, and no doubt scared litigation-conscious companies away from Linux and into the safe arms of Microsoft. I think they have now lost all credibility and will be filing Chapter 11 within a year, but it was great publicity for Microsoft while it lasted.

No, it doesn't. (4, Insightful)

beldraen (94534) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283399)

It may create uncertainty in companies that have never thought about this issue, but it certainly isn't anything new for those that are aware of I.P. issues. I was a programmer for my last company. The issue was simple: you don't copy code from outside unless you can document without a doubt where it was comming from. Even then, it was usually better to observe the idea and clean room develop the library. Unfortunately, most code is crap and following basic coding practices is beyond many programmers. So, it was usually better to create it in-house, anyways.

Short SCO Stock!!! (1)

Mr. Flibble (12943) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283227)

Short SCOX today!
.
.
.
.
.
The following message is for the humor impaired or woefully ignorant:
(The above is a joke, those of you who have been following along in the SCO fiasco know all the details, like why you cannot short SCOX, and what would have happened when people on slashdot first started suggesting this.)

Re:Short SCO Stock!!! (2, Funny)

xsspd2004 (801486) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283455)

Thanks for linking my home page... Hey, wait a.......

GPL'ing the source code to UnixWare. (2, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283228)

It would be fantastic if the source code to UnixWare was forced to be released due to this. Indeed, UnixWare was a great PC UNIX in the early to mid 1990s. But unfortunately it has stagnated since then.

A GPL'ed UnixWare would be amazing for what remains of the UnixWare community. It could be brought up to date and made useful again. It could provide some competition to Linux, the BSDs and Solaris on smaller servers.

It would be interesting, however, to see Novell's take on this.

Re:GPL'ing the source code to UnixWare. (1)

alienw (585907) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283287)

The GPL does not work that way. I don't know where everyone is getting this shit from. Technically, they've already violated the GPL and releasing the source code as GPL won't rectify the situation. In reality, they have simply infringed copyright, so the Linux kernel devs can sue them and demand damages. Of course, that would take money and would ultimately be pointless.

Re:GPL'ing the source code to UnixWare. (1)

XO (250276) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283297)

As if there's enough of a market for any MORE unix systems? The Unix vendors are basically already killing themselves with it, as there really is no more market for it that Linux/BSD hasn't already absorbed.

I've been using Unix for most of my life, and quite frankly, if it's not Linux/BSD, it's not useful.

Re:GPL'ing the source code to UnixWare. (2, Informative)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283322)

There are still people using UnixWare in production environments. These are systems that have been running perfectly fine since the early to mid 1990s. Now, there may come a time when these systems must be updated. Moving to a newer, yet still backwards compatible, release of UnixWare would often be the ideal solution.

Personally, I'd prefer to use a community-developed release of UnixWare if possible. You get the benefits of the development process and source code capabilities of Linux and the BSDs, but with the added advantage of backwards compatibility with previous UnixWare releases.

So THAT'S what SCO stands for! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283236)

SCO = SO COMPLETELY OWNED!

Um... (2)

tobiasly (524456) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283328)

...that would be SC0, not SCO.

Re:Um... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283446)

Yuo hav mipslet "pwned" So it's SCp, not SC0.

Preliminary Injunction (4, Informative)

overshoot (39700) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283247)

How charming. IANAL but ...

If I understand the way copyright law works, this would be more than enough to let anyone with a registered copyright on part of the Linux kernel subpoena the source for LKP to check for infringement.

Should there in fact be apparently-infringing material there, then the copyright owner could get a preliminary injunction forcing SCOX to cease and desist immediately, and very likely an order recalling all licensed copies with infringing material.

Now, there would be a bond required but otherwise PI for infringement is dang near automatic. So a company with registered Linux kernel contributions and a bit of money could pretty much finish off SCOX as a software vendor by forcing their users to convert away.

I suppose that it's a good thing for SCOX that there aren't any companies like that who would be willing to go to court with them, now, isn't it?

jeez... (1)

Eternal_Flame (822984) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283250)

How ironic does it get?

Isn't this what SCO was saying all along? (4, Funny)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283277)

Now they can claim that Linux contains Unix code.

Current events, calendar. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283279)

Current events:
  • SCOvIBM: In the wake of the recent opinion [groklaw.net] issued by Judge Kimball, fact discovery will continue until 27 Jan 2006, and the parties must disclose with specificity all "allegedly infringing materials" by 22 Dec 2005. Redacted and unsealed motions are being rapidly released, with SCO finally joining in. The parties seem to be still consulting [groklaw.net] with each other on the privilege log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, now partially redacted [groklaw.net] discovery motion [groklaw.net] awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

  • SCOvNovell: On 29 Jul 2005 Novell answered SCO's amended complaint and filed an impressive array of counterclaims [groklaw.net] . Perhaps the most compelling request that Novell indicates they will present to the court seeks to require that income SCO received from Microsoft, Sun, and the other "Intellectual Property Licenses with Linux end users and UNIX vendors" be held in a "constructive trust" until Novell's contract claims are decided. Other counterclaims call for relief relating to SCO's alleged slander of Novell's title to UNIX System V copyrights and declarative, injunctive, and monetary relief relating to SCO's alleged breaches of the contracts effecting the sale of Novell's UNIX business to Santa Cruz. In particular, Novell seeks to have the court enforce Novell's actions to stop SCO's threats regarding Linux and AIX; to audit the terms of SCO's SCOSource licenses issued to Microsoft, Sun, and others; and to collect any money owed to Novell resulting from SCO's SCOSource activities. Unless SCO is granted an extension of time, they should reply to these counterclaims by 22 Aug 2005.

  • RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated [groklaw.net] that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due approximately 28 Sept 2005.

  • SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed [groklaw.net] this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is expected around 11 Aug 2005.

Pending/Recently decided motions:

Please note that I've started construction of a motion archive [blogspot.com] that provides links to all the pleadings grouped by motion. All cases are listed, and all but the IBM case are complete. Comments and corrections are most welcome.

Other cases of interest are followed here [blogspot.com] .

This summary is also found on the web. Bookmark scosum.blogspot.com [blogspot.com] to always get the latest version. Finally, this summary is not written by a lawyer, and nothing said here should be taken as legal advice. Any estimates provided regarding filing deadlines should be taken as approximate.

Well, well well well well! (3, Funny)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283282)

Well well well well well!
Well well well well well!

WELL WELL WELL WELL WELL!!!

Look what we have here!

It's enough fodder to feed an ARMY of trolls!

The land of Grocklaw is sure to be overrun with the vermin.

"Long-hair smelly's" (4, Funny)

Pete (2228) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283304)

Page 14 of the PDF [groklaw.net] , pages 83-84 of transcript:
Q: I'd like to direct your attention to the bottom email. Quote, "Reading some of the comments on the internet, the long-hair smelly's (sic) are indicating we have not turned off our Linux downloads?" Close quote.

Who are the long-hair smellies?

A: That's a common stereotypical name of computer geeks.

"Long-hair smelly's"

Ye fucking gods. :-)

Re:"Long-hair smelly's" (3, Funny)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283379)

uh, that would be us... Well, you really. with your 2228 uid...

Re:"Long-hair smelly's" (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283447)

What's more fun is that he repeats it, down further in the document, and not quoting from the above text.

Long-haired smellies, and he says it means computer geeks! Ah, we need to do something geekish I tell you, like reprogram their sprinklers or something...

new acronym du jour:
LHS: Long Haired Smellies

Re:"Long-hair smelly's" (1)

The Hobo (783784) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283451)

Don't forget on the top left of the 15th page, start at line 5 and read till 10, last time I checked RPM wasn't a recursive acronym (it stands for RedHat Package Manager, not RPM Package Manager)

Let's see here... (1)

mtrisk (770081) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283306)

I'm no lawyer, so I wouldn't know how these sort of depositions go, but is it normal for the opposing side to raise an objection to virtually every single question you pose? It would appear that Mr. Heise is very energetic with his objections...

Wishful Thinking will sink ya every time. . . (5, Insightful)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283316)

Bad Guys are Shmucks.

Bad Guys don't like to fix the problems within themselves, because that's hard and scary work. So instead, and this is what makes them Bad Guys, they pretend that they're perfect and that the world outside them is imperfect. This is much easier to do, probably because it doesn't actually change anything. Changing things takes work. Wishful Thinking only takes Wishful Thinking.

Where it gets ugly is when the world says, "Uh, no, actually. You're living in an illusion and you're the ugly one. Sorry, but that's the objective reality of the situation."

When faced with this, the Bad Guy has a problem; S/he has to either fess up or fall into even more aggressive denial of the subject in order to placate themselves. Fessing up gets progressively more difficult to do as you train your brain to work in certain ways; those synaptic pathways get wider the more you use them. So typically, the classic Bad Guy will then villainize the people or things which are telling them how things really stand. And in the end if it goes far enough, the Bad Guy will actually go out and try to destroy the things or people which are making them look stupid as stupid as they are. --Usually while crying, "Evil!" or some such clattering nonsense.

The fascinating thing about it is that the Bad Guy has practiced hard at pretending fake realities into view while deliberately not seeing what's right in front of them. They are adept ignorers, and thus have horribly atrophied senses of awareness. This is they miss the obvious, like embarrassing code in their own products while hypocritically crying foul. The more Bad a Bad Guy is, the more incredibly stupid and weak-minded they become.

But even more interesting is the fact that when faced with evidence of such blatant crimes, the Bad Guy is no more able now than before to fess up to the fact that they are Bad Guys. They'll try to rationalize, and indeed lie outright that they are the ones being maligned. Where it gets interesting is that a Good Guy, (or the general public), who would be horribly embarrassed at being shown such evidence of hypocritical behavior, would turn red and fess up immediately. --That's the behavior they understand and automatically expect to see in others. So when the Bad Guy is incapable of displaying that behavior, the Good Guy automatically thinks, "Well, shit, he's not embarrassed at all! So he MUST be telling the truth!"

Weird, eh?

For a broad-scale working example of the above, look at the current U.S. administration and it's supporters.


-FL

How much are SCO's shares now? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283329)

HAH!! So you linux geeks are wrong and SCO is right. SCO UNIX does share code with linux. Time to buy SCO shares!!

UnixWare Licenses (3, Funny)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283331)

Many customers are concerned about using UnixWare since they have become aware of the allegations that UnixWare is an unauthorized derivative work of the Linux® operating system.

End user customers who purchase a UnixWare IP license will not be in violation of Lot's of Mofos' intellectual property ownership or rights by using a binary distribution of UnixWare.

Warning! Individual users of UnixWare may be found liable for damages for copyright infringement of intellectual property owned by the Linux developers.

Purchase your UnixWare license today! (starting at $699)

What's Next... (1)

PenguinBoyDave (806137) | more than 9 years ago | (#13283375)

Darl will come out and say "Linus Torvalds is the greatest hacker in the world, and I am proud to call him my son" and claim the idea for Linux was really Darl's that was shared with Linus around the breakfast table.

So, Let em get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13283386)

Microsoft payed SCOg license fees for Linux code? And Novell gets to keep the bulk of it, once they pry it from SCOg's cold dead hands. Why does that sound so fitting all of a sudden? ;)

I'm still waiting for SCOg's stock to tank so I can buy one for less than a dollar and mount it above the fish on my wall. They both smell about the same by now. ;)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?