Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 14th May 2003 21:26 UTC
SCO, Caldera, Unixware SCO is now turning (again) the tables regarding their Linux policy: SCO suspends sales of its Linux distro, alerts customers that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX and that legal liability may extend to commercial users. SCO reaffirms commitment to SCOx, SCO's growth strategy through Web services. Additionally, eCommerceTimes feature an editorial: 'SCO: Put Up or Shut Up'. Update: Read on for two more updates on the subject.
Order by: Score:
SCO Suspends Distribution of Linux Pending IP Clarification
by Anonymous on Wed 14th May 2003 21:33 UTC

Too bad for SCO. They will no survive this. First they targeted IBM, now the entire linux community...

Sure, why not ?
by Darius on Wed 14th May 2003 21:40 UTC

Just go ahead and piss off the whole community - I'm sure they'll rush right out to by your products.

The Community
by Anonymous on Wed 14th May 2003 21:43 UTC

I am sure it is not "The Community" as you describe who are their target market. They want to sell to corporations, many of whom are not sure about Linux anyway, regardless of potential legal issues surrounding its use. All I can say is: roll on the BSD's...

SCOT
by Max on Wed 14th May 2003 21:58 UTC

These SCO guys are just plain annoying. Can't they die with some dignity?

This is the reason
by minkwe on Wed 14th May 2003 22:01 UTC

SCO is reacting to this article which takes down their case piece by piece into oblivion. In fact they are panicking at the moment.

http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html

RE: This is the reason
by Eugenia on Wed 14th May 2003 22:04 UTC

This is an interesting take over at Slashdot:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=64233&cid=5958505

BSD
by therandthem on Wed 14th May 2003 22:10 UTC

They can't take BSD away ;) I'm sure that SCO has plenty of BSD code in their software without giving proper copyright notice, just like Microsoft, Novell and most every operating system vendor. Why? Because when an *individual* engineer hits a road block with say, an IDE driver, where is the first place they will look? They look at how *BSD does it, copies it verbatim planning to change much of it later, never worring about licensing because there is only a copyright notice with BSD.

the dying oak embers crackle on a dark november night...
by tech_user on Wed 14th May 2003 22:24 UTC

its almost amusing watching SCO's antics as they dig their own grave and make a pathetic show it if.

has their decision-making board no career asiprations? who will ever employ them again? the karachi state circus?

Starnix Wars - Return of the penguin!
by XBe on Wed 14th May 2003 22:29 UTC

May the Penguin empire die and all who rant about it in favour for freedom and BSD licensed software!

Not the Linux community
by TLy on Wed 14th May 2003 22:36 UTC

What I got out of that synopsis is that SCO is just suspending the distribution of THEIR Linux distro, not everyone else's... yet. So the Linux community shouldn't get upset yet.

v Stupid Assholes
by linux_baby on Wed 14th May 2003 22:40 UTC
Re: TLy
by Rayiner Hashem on Wed 14th May 2003 22:41 UTC

The Linux community had plenty to get upset about a while ago when SCO targeted IBM. Now what they're reacting to is not that they're stopping distribution of their own Linux product (it's not like anybody's going to buy from them at this point anyway) but that they're "warning companies that Linux is an unauthorized derivative" of UNIX.

RE: Not the Linux community
by Eugenia on Wed 14th May 2003 22:42 UTC

You should read the whole press release and the email they sent to their customers saying that all Linux distros might fall under their IP, therefore they are all "illegal" and subject to their lawsuits. I say that this is a good reason to get upset. ;)

I am not worried about Linux as Linux in general. IF Sco comes up with stolen source code, this source would be able to be replaced by Linux devs in less than a week.

What worries me is the companies that sell Linux, like RH, SuSE, Mandrake etc. These companies is what SCO is after, and IF SCO indeed has a case, then the Linux movement will take a step back from its market penetration, as its big players will struggle to pay up SCO. That's the part Linux users should be afraid. Not the "Linux" as in Linux kernel.

RE: Not the Linux community
by TLy on Wed 14th May 2003 22:47 UTC

Hmmm... bugger.

SCO and the Art of Executive Embezzlement
by Michael on Wed 14th May 2003 22:48 UTC

SCO's executives will make a few more dollars through lawyering their friends (well, ex-friends).

And then, money in hand, SCO's executives will vanish into the woodwork just like all the other dotcom thieves.

Then the company will dry up and blow away and leave us all in peace.

way too late
by april_fool on Wed 14th May 2003 22:52 UTC

Caldera International (the real name of SCO) has been distributing successive releases of a GNU/Linux distro under the GPL for the last eight years, and for most of that time they've been promoting it as being "enterprise ready". Now they're going to say that they didn't realize what was in their own product, or that the license they were using all that time was invalid? What part of the GPL don't they understand? And what about their statement at the time they announced the IBM lawsuit that they had no intention of harming their "fellow Linux vendors"?

Where is the Fast Forward button?
by Bored Troll on Wed 14th May 2003 22:55 UTC

Perhaps I am trolling here, but I feel like we're stuck in a bad movie where it is obvious that something interesting is about to happen, but it takes so... long... to do so that even if it were to happen right away you would already have realized how it will end.

SCO is not telling us those all-important compelling facts that it has no reason not to release and would clinch the truth of the case. I understand not releasing them right away, I understand not releasing them until you have a chance to archive the kernel. But months later not releasing the facts is just asinine.

SCO, you are getting annoying. If you have something to say, then just say it. If you don't have something to say, then stop claiming you have something to say, or we're all going to bill you in a class action suit for how much of our time you have wasted. After all, you did just send us all a letter saying that we must pay attention to you.

Any black hatters out there willing to steal SCO's code so that we can find out for ourselves exactly what they aren't telling us?

Re: Not the Linux Community
by linux_baby on Wed 14th May 2003 22:58 UTC

>> These companies is what SCO is after, and IF SCO indeed has a case, then the Linux movement will take a step back from its market penetration, as its big players will struggle to pay up SCO.
>>

No, SCO is not after these companies, because it knows damn well that none of the linux companies -not even RedHat, and certainly not SUSE - has nearly the amount of money they want. Targetting RedHat and Suse, and then Lycoris and the rest of us, is just a desperate FUD measure. Their original target was IBM, and I think they are doing now is trying to scare corporate customers away and create FUD hoping that everybody else calls it quit and settles. But this is a landmark case that needs to be settled once and for all, and whether they like it or not, they will be in this for the long haul.

BTW, why did you mod me down? Are you the only one with the right to use foul language in this forum?

RE: way too late
by Eugenia on Wed 14th May 2003 22:58 UTC

> Now they're going to say that they didn't realize what was in their own product, or that the license they were using all that time was invalid? What part of the GPL don't they understand?

Actually, I don't see this as evidence of SCO's stupidity. From all Linux vendors, the only ones who do *some* kernel development and KINDA KNOW what's in the kernel they are selling/offering, is RH, Mandrake, SuSE, Debian and in a smaller degree, Gentoo and Slackware. The rest, don't have a clue or experience with Linux kernel development and what not. They just take the Linux kernel, add GNU on top (or fork another distro) and they create their own distro. In the same fashion, SCO didn't have any real reason to look at each and every line of the Linux kernel. They didn't have to. Also, IBM started adding code to Linux, only 2-3 years ago, before that, supposedly, Linux didn't infringed UNIX. And SCO was big (as "Caldera" back then) before the IBM involvement with Linux. The last few years Caldera was larking regarding Linux. It is only natural that they didn't have knowledge of this supposed Unix IP in the Linux kernel much before, because of the whole timeline of events.

This is not to clear up SCO, I am not with SCO in this. But for this particular thing april_fool poster said, I don't agree, as most Linux distro makers don't have direct knowledge of what source code they are actually using.

Debian/Gentoo?
by Greg on Wed 14th May 2003 22:59 UTC

Do you know if these two are sue-able? AFAIK Debian is "run" by Software in the Public Interest, no? And is Gentoo Technologies a real company?

I'd hate to lose my distros. Might have to switch to BeOS for real ;)

right
by hmmm on Wed 14th May 2003 23:03 UTC

but the bad PR SCO is generating is also a concern. They should be put to rest ASAP.

"Thank you for your contribution to GNU/Linux." Seriously - they released it under GPL with OpenLinux, etc, which means that *they* donated it to the kernel, or whatever else they claim is infringing. It is *their* responsibility to examine code they release for possible IP leakage.

Now, they might still be able to go after IBM, but anything in their version of Linux is now free (libre).

Bye Bye SCO & Re: Eugenia
by RJDohnert on Wed 14th May 2003 23:07 UTC

SCO has no case and they know it. Its just trying to hold on hoping someone will buy them out. But alas IBM didnt budge, Microsoft didnt budge and Red Hat and SuSE didnt budge. Poor SCO.

{ I am not worried about Linux as Linux in general. IF Sco comes up with stolen source code, this source would be able to be replaced by Linux devs in less than a week. }

It cannot come up with stolen source code, nothing was stolen anything distributed with Linux that was developed by Caldera/SCO was done so with their blessing. Sontags interview the other day pretty much nailed it on the head.


{What worries me is the companies that sell Linux, like RH, SuSE, Mandrake etc. These companies is what SCO is after, and IF SCO indeed has a case, then the Linux movement will take a step back from its market penetration, as its big players will struggle to pay up SCO. That's the part Linux users should be afraid. Not the "Linux" as in Linux kernel. }

I doubt you will see any money switch hands. They want to go after SuSE, SuSE will turn right back around and sue the for some reason or another. Red Hat is so paranoid about IP I doubt you will find it in there. But what I want to know is where is DeBoise, During the Al Gore trial and the MS trial you couldnt shut him up. He has made no comment out of court on this issue and I think I know why. When your Lawyer doesnt have the guts to speak up for you, man, you are in trouble.

the other side
by Brad on Wed 14th May 2003 23:08 UTC

Ok, well I have to say, can't people just be quiet untill this all plays out. The way everyone has been acting towards SCO makes me want to see them win, even if they don't have a case.

As is i'm going to give them the benifit of the doubt and belive they have a case.

If SCO does win it will probably hurt lunix and open source for a while, but it also might provide a needed reality check. If people out in the opensource world have been slipping in code they shouldn't and GPL'ing it and so forth it will be an eye opener to them that it doesn't matter if you think it should be "free" if it's someone elses. If your not doing such a thing then you don't have to worry. But I don't doubt at all that people have been slipping code out they shouldn't be. And if the posterchild for people who do that becomes the linux kernel so be it.

I highly doubt come 5-10 years down the road companies will be messing with linux anyways, they would have moved on to the next big thing. But something like this is just another thing that will cause companies to be leery of going with linux even if SCO is full or it. It's not as happy as a world as they may now be in were they can keap any trip ups they make and fix under wraps, if you do anything wrong in linux world those who once loved you are going to attack you. I'm sure IBM could just toss linux without much worry, it's not like they have any dependance on it. If more situations like this come up I'm sure others will do the same.

Everyone loves you till you do something to cast a watchful eye, even if it wasn't you, linux is getting to the point that people might start watching a lot more.

Re: Way to Late
by linux_baby on Wed 14th May 2003 23:08 UTC

>> most Linux distro makers don't have direct knowledge of what source code they are actually using.
>>

That makes sense, but I would like to hear SCO use that argument to defend themselves in court. Because, other than IBM and SCO, nobody else can know when SCO's IP has been violated in Linux. Even linux distros that work on the kernel do not have access to SCO's source code. Its not like the linux people conspired to steal some industrial secret from SCO. And its not as if they are unwilling to remedy whatever problem there is, SCO is the one refusing to be remedied. So even if SCO's allegations are true, it would be interesting to see how they can extend the case from IBM to RedHat, SUSE, or Lycoris.

Where's RMS in all this?
by anon on Wed 14th May 2003 23:11 UTC

I'm glad. If Stallman couldn't convince people that licenses are a minefield and that paranoia is a good idea, reality will slap them harder.

yea brad you make a lot of sense
by Anonymous on Wed 14th May 2003 23:21 UTC

>>>way everyone has been acting towards SCO makes me want to see them win<<<

that's a mature and well thought out rational.

>>>If SCO does win it will probably hurt lunix and open source for a while, but it also might provide a needed reality check<<<

yes, and if the moon falls onto the earth, people will die. but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, and you won't catch me posting the obvious.

>>>I highly doubt come 5-10 years down the road companies will be messing with linux anyways *snipped some long ass analysis by some guy who thinks he's a mental giant*<<<

brad, you seem wise, a man of the world. why don't you expand upon your brilliant analysis? look i'll make it easy on you: where will microsoft be in 5-10 years? ditto mac? ditto opensource?

Let's just get something straight...I think opensource is a good thing, and provides needed competition. I'll continue to use various closed and open source software as I see fit.

That said, I can appreciate a dead-on counter argument.

your "other side" sucks. you sound like a rambling 80 year old man with alzheimers. i have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

RE: Not the Linux community
by Koki on Wed 14th May 2003 23:38 UTC

Eugenia wrote:

>What worries me is the companies that sell Linux, like RH,
>SuSE, Mandrake etc. These companies is what SCO is after,
>and IF SCO indeed has a case, then the Linux movement will
>take a step back from its market penetration, as its big
>players will struggle to pay up SCO. That's the part Linux
>users should be afraid. Not the "Linux" as in Linux kernel.

Good point. Sounds like this is something Microsoft would like to see happening.

Koki

What up with SCOS stocks?
by westyvw on Wed 14th May 2003 23:43 UTC

I agree with the statement the SCO wanted to be bought out and I hope the hell they dont get thier way. This is just another bad move.

Yet at the same time thier stock keeps going up. What the hells up with that? Seems to me 1 of 3 things:

1. Investors are counting on the buyout
2. Investors are counting on winning the case in court and getting new revenue
3. Artificially inflated stocks, and the minute things looks the best, the CEO's pull an Enron, and leave the employees with worthless paper. Be interesting to see how this turns out.

Koki
by mythought on Thu 15th May 2003 00:04 UTC

>Sounds like this is something Microsoft would like to see >happening.

... and MS will step in and support SCO ...? But what if MS has been using some Unix - Linux code in their OS,s?

Hang on, should Mr. Diesel come back he could sue all car manufactures for using his invention.
What about Marconi, Neumann, Einstein, Gutenberg, ..... ?

Is this it?
by Chris on Thu 15th May 2003 00:08 UTC

I found this line in in the how-to. Seems vaguely related:

"The initial version used SCO shared libraries, hence required a copy of them on Linux."

Is this it?

Hey did anyone think of the fact that the TCP/IP was orgigionally on the BSD distributions, and the MS implementation of the TCP/IP stack is based on it - imagine if SCO complained about TCP/IP on the BSD's - Microsoft withough Internet Explorer or Outlook Express - things could get ugly.

Hmmm
by cheezwog on Thu 15th May 2003 00:27 UTC

Surely, if you have to go through a long process of finding and installing SCO libs and emulation to get WP to run on Red Hat, then the required libraries are NOT in Red Hat?

From the HOWTO:

"SCO Shared Libraries

DO NOT VIOLATE SCO's COPYRIGHTS! You should get a copy of SCO's shared libraries and install them in /shlib. As root:"



??? -- !!!
by rspickles on Thu 15th May 2003 00:30 UTC

SCO owns the rights to the AT&T Unix they bought not long ago. Now AT&T did not invent Unix, without a lot of research into the matter, I do remember that Unix started out in some universities, some of which sold some of their rights to some one that Sold it to AT&T. Other variations were sold to other firms and used in other universities for years. Question 1. Did AT&T get clean code that did not use someone else's intellectual property? No, of course not. We weren't even thinking about such things back then. 2. Did AT&T keep their code clean. Not likely again we weren't even thinking in those terms in those days if it worked we used it. 3. Does SCO have any way to prove that they have clean code. Not a chance The codes been through to many hands and to many people have worked on it that has no connection to SCO now. All it will take to blow SCO out of the water is just one person to come forward and say that was my Idea use by AT&T to improve Unix and I never sold the right to it to them. 4. Can SCO prove that they or other previous owners did not use code from other versions of Unix to improve their version. Further they will have to prove by a preponderance the evidence that Linux did not find the ideas in other code from other system. 5. Can SCO prove that they have been harmed to the extent they claim? NO! The fact is that AT&T and other owners of this Unix code dumped this code for pennies why they knew that it had little real value in it. No one was willing to pay more than the pittance that SCO paid for it.

Now what to do to Make SCO go away. Find the people that can rightly claim intellectual property rights to some of SCO's code and get them to sue SCO. When SCO sues a Linux company the defense should fight any motions to seal any court documents and SCO should be required to prove claims in open court remember Linux is open source they already show all their code. Now for the below the belt punch Anyone that sells Unix support or competing systems should target SCO customers with aggressive sales pitches. The rest of the Unix community refuse to deal with the firm.

Landmark Case
by linux_baby on Thu 15th May 2003 01:12 UTC

What's stops any manufacturer of a proprietary program, say windows or Eudora, from sneaking their code into an open source project, and then suing linux vendors for money afterward? I mean, if you've never seen the source code for explorer or IIS, there's no way of knowing if nautilius contains some explorer code. If SCO wins this case, any closed shop vendor who feels threatened by an open source project can simply plant their code and do a pearl harbour type operation.

Very Annoying Indeed
by OpenMind on Thu 15th May 2003 01:13 UTC

"...Linux is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX..."

Authorization needed? From whom? Why?

Link to SCO PDF in English
by Anonymous on Thu 15th May 2003 01:24 UTC

There is an English version of the pdf at http://www.caldera.com/scosource/SCOsource_Presentation.pdf and also of note is the fact the SCO's much vaunted shared libs are available at several places on the net. Who knew?!? :-)

What it will prove..
by Mark on Thu 15th May 2003 01:53 UTC

Whatver the outcome, will prove how vaild the GPL really is.. one way or another

Thisone could matter...
by LaNcom on Thu 15th May 2003 02:08 UTC

From the SCO press archive, 2003-05-15:

'The SCO Group Signs Second SCOsource License Agreement; Expects Net Income of $0.29 per Share for Second-Quarter Fiscal 2003'

I'm pretty sure SCO is trying to cheat on their shareholders, inflate and sell all shares they have, lose the suit against IBM (very likely), and vanish without a trace...

Suprize
by Dem on Thu 15th May 2003 02:12 UTC

I wouldn't be supprized if this "stolen" code was really linux code stolen by the SCO drones. As we know GPL code being stole and put in comercial applications is much more common than some one steeling proprieraty code that they don't have access to and puting it in a GPLed product.

re: way too late
by april_fool on Thu 15th May 2003 02:16 UTC

In the same fashion, SCO didn't have any real reason to look at each and every line of the Linux kernel. They didn't have to. Also, IBM started adding code to Linux, only 2-3 years ago, before that, supposedly, Linux didn't infringed UNIX.

I suppose Caldera could argue they had no knowledge of the Santa Cruz Organization's IP prior to their acquisition of SCO in April 2001 (possibly relevant note: "SCO" is the post-merger renaming of Caldera under the name of the acquired company). But after that merger, Caldera/SCO certainly had ample opportunity and resources to identify IP problems in the Linux source code - they had a substantial engineering staff, and these were the company's flagship offerings - yet they released several new versions of their Linux distro under the GPL over a period of roughly two years. In fact, they continued to distribute their product under the GPL for over two months after announcing the IBM lawsuit.

BTW Caldera/SCO has not identified which versions of Linux distros are infringing, but rather has issued a blanket statement condemning them all. This is relevant because many old distros are still being used at customer sites, distros which presumably do not contain the allegedly infringing code contributed by IBM.

Re: Brad
by RJDohnert on Thu 15th May 2003 02:23 UTC

{ The way everyone has been acting towards SCO makes me want to see them win, even if they don't have a case. }

They brought it upon themselves, they want to throw around claims, where I come from you back them up. SCO needs to be quiet until everything works out. Sorry to burst your bubble. The reality is SCO more than likely will lose.

{ If SCO does win it will probably hurt lunix and open source for a while, but it also might provide a needed reality check. If people out in the opensource world have been slipping in code they shouldn't and GPL'ing it and so forth it will be an eye opener to them that it doesn't matter if you think it should be "free" if it's someone elses. If your not doing such a thing then you don't have to worry. But I don't doubt at all that people have been slipping code out they shouldn't be. And if the posterchild for people who do that becomes the linux kernel so be it. }

Do you work for SCO? Nobody in the open source community copied code. The point is most of the code in Linux is free and it was written as clean code. There has been enough UNIX code released under FreeBSD, UNIX System 7 and other variants that trying to actually get a leash on it right now is more or less impossible. There is no code in Linux that is infringing on anyones IP.

{ Everyone loves you till you do something to cast a watchful eye, even if it wasn't you, linux is getting to the point that people might start watching a lot more. }

Linux and Linus have done nothing to cast a watchful eye. Linux is not a derivative of UNIX, it is a UNIX clone it is a independant project and Linux never had any access to UNIX when he started Linux.

Quit trolling.

Re: Red Hat Howto
by RJDohnert on Thu 15th May 2003 02:32 UTC

I really hope SCO does not plan to go to court with a Red Hat howto where it states in big bold letters, DO NOT VIOLATE SCO'S COPYRIGHTS. That still didnt show me where the infringing code is.

Re: David Hunter
by Anonymous on Thu 15th May 2003 03:06 UTC

"""Hey did anyone think of the fact that the TCP/IP was orgigionally on the BSD distributions, and the MS implementation of the TCP/IP stack is based on it - imagine if SCO complained about TCP/IP on the BSD's"""
SCO can't touch anything in *BSD since all these issues have already resolved in the settlement (between Novell/USL and BSDI) in '94.

funny
by marc on Thu 15th May 2003 03:43 UTC

this is funny indeed. to bad it makes linux look bad in the eyes of the big corporations that have an interest in it (cause after all linux is going after the enterprise). and the thing with the IP stack is funny. linux sometimes gets stuff from bsd and bsd from linux, but they are not stealing from each-other. well, I don't wanna troll, but all this thing that sco does is stupid. I am not an expert in this mather, it is just my oppinion. this will end in the near future, and we will move on, OSS will never die, whatever happens. it is just a pitty that so many developers are investing their time (and money) into OSS so that big companies can take advantage of it, and then eventually go to court. OSS is free, open, educational and so on, FSF is a foundation. how would it be if somenone would sue in court a foundation that takes care of children? or a non-profit organization? or a company that donates to non-profit organizations? take a minute and reflect on it.

Re: Anonymous
by R.J. Dohnert on Thu 15th May 2003 03:49 UTC

" SCO can't touch anything in *BSD since all these issues have already resolved in the settlement (between Novell/USL and BSDI) in '94. "

The Same applies for Linux, anything used in Linux from BSD cannot be touched by SCO

re:RJdonhert
by Brad on Thu 15th May 2003 04:15 UTC

"Do you work for SCO? Nobody in the open source community copied code. The point is most of the code in Linux is free and it was written as clean code. There has been enough UNIX code released under FreeBSD, UNIX System 7 and other variants that trying to actually get a leash on it right now is more or less impossible. There is no code in Linux that is infringing on anyones IP. "

You missed what I said entirely. This is what i'm saying in the case of an example.

Bob wants to write something that goes into the kernel. Bob has seen some code either from some unix, or something for the company he works for. Bob might even have it on disk (the code). Bob sits down and starts removing stuff to flag it as unix or other, and tweaks to work in the kernel, or maybe it involves no tweaking at all. Bob submits it to linus as something he has done on his own. Linus is t belive Bob did it all. Linus hasn't seen the code before bob altered it or copied it. Linus finds it to be good code and adds it to the kernel. Everyone but Bob thinks it is original. So everyone acts like you, but in reality there is ripped of code in the kernel.

This is what i'm talking about. If it hasn't happened I would be honestly shocked.

My point is you can never prove that the code in linux is all original, and was ment to be free. To say that is not possible it irresponsable.

What you said is the reason I would almost like to see SCO win, to show people like you that what you want to belive is almost for certain not true, and people need to think things over more. But just saying everyone is honest and there is no way any of the code in the linux kernel was ripped off from some place, is a very bad way to go about things.

There isn't people out there checking this over and over, basicly because their shouldn't be. But now we have the very real chance that someone at SCO decided to sit down and check through things, and they may have found such a case. People need to sit back and let the case happen and see if SCO is correct.

You asked if I worked at SCO, far as you know I might, I could ask you the very same question, Do you work for SCO? Do you know that there is no Unix code in linux? Well if you haven't seen the unix code, you can't make your claim that there is no unix code in linux.

I provided a point of veiw from the other side, and you came back with the irrational view I expect, since so many can't possible accept that their linux world may not be as perfect as they want it to be.

I don't understand it
by LC on Thu 15th May 2003 04:25 UTC

What does SCO want ? Change linux to SCO unix on every machine ? Just on off chance I will change my linux to other OS, it never will any SCO product.

re: wp and RH
by Hank Maxwell on Thu 15th May 2003 04:43 UTC

if i'm reading the "proof" correctly, the person who wrote it was describing HOW to make it where u could run the version of worperfect that had been avvailable up til then for SCO. this is his PERSONAL insight and hack, NOT AN OFFICIAL confession of yes, its in there and here's how to do it or make it active for you.

if this is all SCO has, they aren't demonstrating the mental capacity required to continue any future development of Linux or UNIX for that matter, all they can see is the dollar signs and hear the chant of "show me the money", its a sinking ship, but the rats still have the boat

re:re:RJDonhert by brad
by Hank Maxwell on Thu 15th May 2003 04:50 UTC

what about if there is GPL code in the proprietary code that SCO produces?? then what??, I have to agree with Eric Raymond and specifically Bruce Perens on this, what guarantee is there that the original code was SCO or UNIX to begin with?? for all we know it could have be GPL code they "assimilated" without the fear of threat "cause we're UNIX and we can do it"

my final 2 cents
by Hank Maxwell on Thu 15th May 2003 05:09 UTC

i guess after all is said and done SCO is trying desperately to survive, Linux has been a growing threat, and until recently hadn't seemed to be mature enough to challenge the alpha male of the OS world, but with the recent scalability leaps that SGI has made and more and more of the world hearing "Open Source" and realizing its value the revenues from UNIX had been declining and the threat of their market being taken away became more and more of a reality,(will they admit this?? probably not) so they fought back,

is it a "dirty" tactic? is it FUD?? is it all a show by the puppet master of Microsoft who hides in the wings?? (weird coincidence that this should happen around the time Windows 2003 server and SCO Linux appear, or is it??) No it is mearly the LAST and only real chance, an all or nothing battle against Linux for dominance, one that it cannot win yet will try anyway claiming the virtues of "upholding the IP rights of our users and the community" and hey if we line our pockets and make a little money, while shoving a few other companies and linux users in the ground so be it. and how will this all be remembered??

for me its simple- never underestimate the power of greed and the principle of "whats in it for me?" it can turn allies to the most bitter and vengeful of enemies in an instant. SCO won't win, but the community will still suffer all the same, the trust will never be the same again.

re:re:RJDonhert by brad
by Brad on Thu 15th May 2003 05:17 UTC

Hank,

Very much could be true just the same. But at least that thinking is much more rational. But for such case there very well could be paper trails of code to trace such things back.

Here you have a perfect joy of code issue. It's sorta a who claims it to be theirs first wins, even if both were doing it independantly. This is also a evil aspect of opensource in that is someone copies some closed code, and makes it open source and the company it was from sees this and tries to say it was their's the open source people will say the company copied the opensource code. And the company is then screwed because even though it was their code there isn't much they can do to show it was ripped off, since anything they show as it being their code people will say looks like the opensource code. So it's a horrible trap. Once anyone gets a piece of code out there and say GPL's it they can fuck over a company. Maybe there is some good way for a company to prove it was theirs. But they way of people would cause people to say they made up the evidance. Thing with computers is it's really easy to do that. Change some dates and such and you have a file made 20 years ago.

Note, this argument can be spun the other way around.

Also there is the problem that there is only so many intelegent ways to do something. If you gave a class of C++ students a assignment for a simple program, say a unit convertor, or something that reads and manipulates a text file. Even if every student works on their own. In a class of say 400 students, you can be pretty sure there are going to be many programs doing it the same way. There are just so many obivous, smart, logical ways to do something. So a person could write something and GPL it, and years later one finds a closed source app had something done the same way. People would say that company ripped off the GPL code, when indeed they did not. But people tend to be out for blood and once again the company is screwed.

This is much the reason i am not to fond of open source, and I find the GPL a horrible thing. It's nothing put a evil tool. It's there to trape people and companies that have done nothing. The MIT and BSD licenses are not to bad. But the GPL is on track to start horrible legal precidences.

At the same time I would like to see those who say use of GPL code in closed products is common. Once again I would like to see them prove such claim. I could see it happening here and there. But if a person wanted to do that they would probably just go for some BSD/MIT liscenced code and not worry.

@Brad
by Shawn on Thu 15th May 2003 05:38 UTC

"My point is you can never prove that the code in linux is all original, and was ment to be free. To say that is not possible it irresponsable."

By the same logic, the same thing could be said about many different pieces of commercial software. How many bosses sit over the shoulder of their employees and make sure they didn't copy and paste code from someone else? Say, GPL code for example...hmmm? Point is, you'll never be 100% guaranteed unless you wrote the whole thing yourself. Even then, that doesn't necessarily exempt you from patent infringement, even lawyers have admitted this.

Just a guess
by Anonymous on Thu 15th May 2003 05:38 UTC

Those sco types must be bribed by m$ to spread all the FUD and confusion around the potential Linux users, I mean, companies considering switching to Linux instead of Windows!

A perfect match:
by Anonymous on Thu 15th May 2003 05:41 UTC

SCO + RAMBUS *lol*

What does the first update mean?
by mario on Thu 15th May 2003 05:54 UTC

i don't get it, what's the point?

I've read through the Opensource.org analysis
by Bannor99 on Thu 15th May 2003 05:59 UTC

at http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html and I think that, if all their facts match up, no sane judge could find in SCO's favor unless he/she were consuming large amounts of SCO-supplied crack.
Now all we need is for them to shrivel up and die - the sooner the better.

Read the page for yourself and you'll see that SCO doesn't have a legal leg to stand upon.

SCO needs three things to have a case
by Bobthearch on Thu 15th May 2003 06:11 UTC

Here is what I see SCO would have to do to win a case:

1) Prove that they owned certain Unix code, free and clear
2) Show that same code being used in Linux/IBM software without permission
3) Argue that open-source licenses are not legally binding

The first will be difficult or impossible, based on the many organizations, individuals, and companies involved with Unix ownership and development over the years.

The second will be easier. It's either there or it's not.

The third, who knows. SCO will have to admit that they released the code as GPL themselves, but that the GPL is not legally binding. Or could it be that the code in question is in Red Hat, Suse, and other distros, but not Caldera? Fat chance.

I think the original intention was to rattle a few chains, generate some hype, and get the attention of a potential buyer. Now they're just screwed. They pulled an antique pistol out of the closet to show off, but shot themselves in the gut doing it.

-Bob

This sucks...
by snorkel on Thu 15th May 2003 06:43 UTC

All the corp yahoo's are going to stay away from Linux like it was SARS....
This is really bad news, because CTOs and CEOs are going to post decrees that Linux is to be removed from all company servers.

I can see it now.

Why doesn't IBM just buy the assholes out?

re: this sucks
by Brad on Thu 15th May 2003 07:02 UTC

"Why doesn't IBM just buy the assholes out?"

Because that would be a form of caving in. If IBM thinks they haven't done wrong they arn't going to give into SCO. IBM hasn't reived bad press over this. And buying SCO would bring bad press because it makes them look like SCO was right. Besides, IBM is huge comparied to SCO, and Even the most that SCO could try and hold IBM liable with wouldn't be a whole lot to IBM, it's not like Linux has made them a hole lot of money, maybe none, who knows. If in the end IBM just says fuck it and dumps linux and lets the case go on, maybe they win, maybe they loose, but IBM will move on without much worry.

mythought
by Koki on Thu 15th May 2003 07:03 UTC


>... and MS will step in and support SCO ...? But what if
>MS has been using some Unix - Linux code in their OS,s?

My only point was tha MS could benefit if this situation translates into a step back for Linux business as Eugenia pointed out.

MS has deep pockets and a lot of lawers. They can stand a lawsuit from SCO with both hands tied to their back.

Koki

Hey what about the others?
by Wesley Parish on Thu 15th May 2003 07:08 UTC

"SCO suspends sales of its Linux distro, alerts customers that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX and that legal liability may extend to commercial users."

As I have argued before, Linux was an independent implementation of POSIX, not a derivative of Unix as such. And as such, any such claim also affects the likes of Minix, Coherent, QNX, LynxOS, IBM's zVM/Open Edition, etc, because they are also "derivatives", ie, independent implementations of the Unix algorithms - unauthorized needless to say, because if all you are doing is implementing a widely-known algorithm, you need no authorization - who needs SCO's approval to do a quicksort? A linked list?

In other words, SCO is taking on an entire industry. And they have been distributing the very source code3 they are claiming is unauthorized.

Russian roulette with a fully-loaded, well-maintained Uzi!!! Now that takes some style!!!

re:re:RJDonhert by brad
by Richard James on Thu 15th May 2003 07:41 UTC

Brad you sound like you don't understand copyright. In order to prevent loss of code due to piracy companies and organisations do the following things.

First they copyright the code which involves sending the work to a copyrighting body. This is legal proof that they own the code and did so from a certain point on. If anyone challenges it they can be taken to court and will be shredded by lawyers.

Secondly there are controls that stop the code from being broadcast to everyone on the planet. You can't just go to SCO's website and download the code. SCO's entire argument must lie in the fact that someone who saw SCO's code inserted it into Linux.

Programmers don't often get to take source code home nor are they allowed to take it when they leave the company. There are legal reasons for this. But it is possible for someone in one company to accidentely transfer knowledge of code from one project to another. This is what SCO is assuming happened at IBM. Workers on AIX with access to proprietary SCO knowledge later worked on Linux and inserted some of that code in.

Also relevant is how small a piece of code can be copyrighted. I can't copyright the letter i and claim that evertime you use it you infringe on my copyright. The claims of infringment must amount to either an important section or a fair amount of code (maybe a page) This is not something that could easily be infringed unless you had the source right there. Processes that the code does cannot be copyrighted (only patented) so the code must nearly or exactly follow the same format as the infringed code. If the code is munged it would still have to be shown to be easily convertible back to the infringed code. Also most methods of code munging make the code unreadable and that would not be accepted into the Linux kernel tree.

Lycoris????
by wakeupneo on Thu 15th May 2003 07:57 UTC

Now that would be laughable...considering Lycoris is based on Caldera's distro ;)

rats
by marc on Thu 15th May 2003 08:22 UTC

rats

Hello
by marc on Thu 15th May 2003 08:30 UTC

I don't wanna troll, but: after reading this: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/st...

I had my mouth wide oppened and I was wondering: Where could commercial Linux users be help liable? And how? In the US? Where??? Linux prohibited on the whole planet... They wanna give a cick to open source... bastards. This will go after all. They are playing with the peoples minds who don't understand so much about OSS and Linux, and Linux distros. This is sick. After making money with Linux, they wanna kill it... People who use Linux could be hold liable? HOW?????????
Has the GPL lost its authority??? Where is RMS?

Re: SCO needs three things to have a case
by Dawnrider on Thu 15th May 2003 08:42 UTC

>3) Argue that open-source licenses are not legally binding<

>The third, who knows. SCO will have to admit that they released the code as GPL themselves, but that the GPL is not legally binding. Or could it be that the code in question is in Red Hat, Suse, and other distros, but not Caldera? Fat chance.<

There is one flaw in that... The GPL is the only thing preventing them from being subject to copyright law wrt the rest of their distro. So if they invoke copyright on their bits, everyone else, who wrote 99% of the rest of the distro gets to sue them for illegally copying and distributing (for plenty of profit, btw) their copyrighted works.

No matter what they do, SCO can't call code stolen and then have distributed it themselves under a licence which quite clearly states that you release the potential for licensing penalties. Had IBM really stolen code (which I doubt) and SCO hadn't ever distributed the self-same IBM-worked-on code under the GPL, they might have a case, but by releasing, they gave up their rights to claim intellectual property rights on the code.

iow, they can't do it, no way.

RE: marc
by Matthew Baulch on Thu 15th May 2003 08:51 UTC

I'm not sure if anyones responded to this (couldn't be bothered reading the entire thread) but anyway:

> linux sometimes gets stuff from bsd and bsd from linux

No, Linux and the BSDs can't share code because of licensing conflicts. You will notice that the implementations for various filesystems both have are completely separate codebases. This is just one example. ALL kernel level stuff relating to the BSDs and Linux are separate.

Only user level stuff (gcc, sendmail) for example are shared between the OSs. But that's userlevel.

RE: Brad
by Matthew Baulch on Thu 15th May 2003 08:55 UTC

> This is much the reason i am not to fond of open source, and
> I find the GPL a horrible thing. It's nothing put a evil
> tool. It's there to trape people and companies that have
> done nothing.

Oh, and i suppose the 'GPL' as you call it is trying to sue SCO for breach of IP rights. Get with it! SCO are suing IBM. Go and troll somewhere else.

Re: Direct Link for this comment SCO needs three things to have a case
by Bruno the Arrogant on Thu 15th May 2003 09:39 UTC

I think the original intention was to rattle a few chains, generate some hype, and get the attention of a potential buyer. Now they're just screwed. They pulled an antique pistol out of the closet to show off, but shot themselves in the gut doing it.

I think that's the whole matter in a nutshell.

Now all that remains is to sit back and watch the very tawdry, and very public, self-destruction of SCO.

Sad, sad, sad.

@snorkel

Why doesn't IBM just buy the assholes out?

Because SCO would be a white elephant to IBM. IBM is trying to consolidate platforms. Buying SCO leaves them stuck with supporting OpenServer and Unixware customers. In addition, Linux and other OS's are quickly devaluing the IP value of the Sys V code base, anyway. It's becoming obsolete.

Why should IBM buy themselves those headaches when it's easier to eat SCO's lunch in court?

Marketing campaign, not law suite
by Aki Kolehmainen on Thu 15th May 2003 09:57 UTC

SCO seems to be turning this into a marketing campaign, rather than a law suite. Every day they come up with a new bizarre move in this strange play.

I think their law suite is just a petty attempt to blackmail money from IBM in order to avoid a possibly long-running legal battle that would cost them more even if victorious at the end.

Anyway, interesting to see how this turns out, but please stop marketing this for them any more.

re: Linux and the BSDs
by Jack Burton on Thu 15th May 2003 10:07 UTC

>No, Linux and the BSDs can't share code because of licensing conflicts

Actually, Linux CAN take code from BSD, while BSD can't take code from linux, since BSD/MIT code can be GPL'd, while the opposite isn't true.

Open Source versus commercial developers
by Mark on Thu 15th May 2003 10:55 UTC

I was reading the letter sent by SCO to its Linux users when I noticed a link to Gartner's website. Those Gartner folks never cease to amaze me. They analysed the SCO claim and came up with interesting conclusions such as :
"Clearly, there will be more scrutiny on how the open-source community develops and derives code for the future improvements of the Linux OS environment."
It is followed by some notes on how the Open Source developers should behave (instead of stealing from good guys). What I find laughable is the fact that both SCO and Gartner assume no proprietary vendor would ever infringe on anyone's IP.
Want some PR bulls*t, let's hear from the horse's mouth (Darl McBride) :
" Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened teams of programmers working to build proprietary, secure software. This process is designed to monitor the security and ownership of intellectual property rights associated with the code".
In other words : free software is produced by a laxist, carelessly selected bunch of coders; proprietary OSes have fewer vulnerabilities than free OSes (apparently, organisations such as CERT routinely publish hoaxes); big corporations (HP, Sun, etc.) have a copy of each other's code and they periodically check to see if there are no problems with it.
Why is it that both SCO and Gartner people always talk as if they were leaving in some basement, cut from the rest of the world ?
At 29 cent a share, no wonder SCO is ready to do anything to survive.

Koki
by mythought on Thu 15th May 2003 11:18 UTC

"My only point was tha MS could benefit if this situation translates into a step back for Linux business as Eugenia pointed out."
Agreed.

But don't you find this whole saga is a bad joke? How can SCO prove that the code was copied?
Let's take the printing machine which was invented by Gutenberg.
Does that mean that hp or epson have to pay fees to a "Gutenberg Society" just because they are using the basics of his Idea?
I don't know who invented the wheel, but let's be careful that some crazy laywer doesn't find a way to sue whoever uses the wheel without proper license.

The Japanese used to copy european and american cars and technologies to the last possible detail. How did the GM and BMW respond? Certainly not by taking the Toyatas and Nissans to court.

In the early 90's Apple took MS to court for coying theyr interface .... They are still both kicking.

MS distroyed DR Dos by simply making sure that Win3.1 wouldn't run on top of it.....

Actually, who developed UNIX? Was it SCO? Who developed the C-Programing language? Was it MS?
So "?Kerninghan and Ritchie?" could sue MS for using theyr code to write Xp. Or should they sue Linus for copying UniX?

So, anyone care to answer my question?
by mario on Thu 15th May 2003 12:53 UTC

Since noone answered so far, I guess that it doesn't make much sense, in fact.

My question was, what's the point of the first update? What does it prove, what does it mean?

free
by Michael on Thu 15th May 2003 13:49 UTC

I hope that SCO's case manages to clarify the legality of the GPL, preferably in an international forum that is legally binding on all countries, so that Linux development can continue one way or the other.
I would much prefer losing any and all Linux support from companies or individuals who want to retain intellectual property rights to anything released under the GPL, even if it slows Linux development or acceptance.

2 more cents
by Hank Maxwell on Thu 15th May 2003 13:49 UTC

SCO posted on their web site, sco.com/scosource I think it was they are using part of the old license agreement from their at&t/novell days, do they not realize that this was resolved in court previously, or as a previous user pointed out the conspiracy of the SCO crack project, perhaps their cutting into their own drug revenues to much these days??

two points needed to win damages
by Bobthearch on Thu 15th May 2003 14:08 UTC

Above I listed three things that SCO must demonstrate in order to have a court case. Additionally, to win specific damages they must:

4) Show that IBM/Linux/everyone else used the questionable source code knowingly and with the intent of defrauding SCO.

You can't just sue every single company and user that has the questionable code in possession... I'd bet the average company CEO running a Linux server has never even heard of SCO.

5) Prove loss of market share as a result.

What kind of damages has SCO suffered as a result? As one of the linked articles points out, SCO has been on a downhill slide for years, nearly to the point of being irrelevent. The abilities of the Linux operating system surpassed the abilities of SCO's system years ago.

Also, 3) needs to be changed, as Dawnrider pointed out. SCO has to show that the GPL is not legally binding, except in the instance where it benefits them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tomorrow's headlines:

"SCO Claims Broad Ownership of Everything Unix-Like"

"In a new twist SCO files claim of ownership of anything vaguely related to Unix. Specifically, SCO claims ownership of the file structure heirarchy, including the folder names /usr, /opt, and /bin. SCO will seek damages from all operating systems, vendors, and end users with such a system installed."

" 'It will take decades to track down every person who has downloaded or purchased a copy of Linux, but they're stealing from us and by god we'll do what it takes to boost our stock to 35 cents,' says an SCO executive."

"Lawers are also considering filing claims against Linux distributers for using the copywrited suffix '-ix'."

Boycott SCO and its friends.
by datako on Thu 15th May 2003 14:46 UTC

United Linux = SCO, SuSE, Conectiva and Turbo Linux

I will not pay for any product from this lot until this is resolved to the satisfaction of the Linux community.

Their Unix would be nothing without us.

Re: Brad
by RJDohnert on Thu 15th May 2003 14:50 UTC

{ Bob wants to write something that goes into the kernel. Bob has seen some code either from some unix, or something for the company he works for. Bob might even have it on disk (the code). Bob sits down and starts removing stuff to flag it as unix or other, and tweaks to work in the kernel, or maybe it involves no tweaking at all. Bob submits it to linus as something he has done on his own. Linus is t belive Bob did it all. Linus hasn't seen the code before bob altered it or copied it. Linus finds it to be good code and adds it to the kernel. Everyone but Bob thinks it is original. So everyone acts like you, but in reality there is ripped of code in the kernel. }

Only someone who doesnt know Linux would make that statement. IBM did nothing wrong. Any code taken from project Monterey was IBMs, If SCO is pissed about methods learned during Project Monterey, well tough, it should have Patented it. This case is meant to cause FUD, plain and Simple there is no substance behind it and this recent action is just another cry for attention. Its like a suicide jumper, the jumper will sit there and say " Im going to do it, Im going to jump " All IBM has done is tell SCO to jump so now SCO has to find someway to get more attention.

{ What you said is the reason I would almost like to see SCO win, to show people like you that what you want to belive is almost for certain not true, and people need to think things over more. But just saying everyone is honest and there is no way any of the code in the linux kernel was ripped off from some place, is a very bad way to go about things. }

Well its too bad SCO will not win, I get what you are saying BUT, when you have so many places that the System V source can be aquired, when much of the code and methods are in so many books, trying to get close it down now is like trying to find a cure for AIDS in 15 minutes, it aint gonna happen. SCO pretty much blew its case out of the water a few days ago with Sontags VMUNET interview, Notice they pulled that Interview and they pulled their Linux distro after that Interview, I got a copy of it. I will post it for anyone who is interested.

{ There isn't people out there checking this over and over, basicly because their shouldn't be. But now we have the very real chance that someone at SCO decided to sit down and check through things, and they may have found such a case. People need to sit back and let the case happen and see if SCO is correct. }

Whens it going to happen? Why all the Sabre rattling? Linus and RMS have told SCO repeatedly that if they found violations to let them know and it will be corrected post haste, SCO seems hell bent on sueing everyone.

{ You asked if I worked at SCO, far as you know I might, I could ask you the very same question, Do you work for SCO? Do you know that there is no Unix code in linux? Well if you haven't seen the unix code, you can't make your claim that there is no unix code in linux. }

Actually I have seen the Unix code, as I stated before there are a bunch of download sites for System V source. Do I steal from AT&TS Ideas ? No. Do I believe that IBM has? No
Am I going to provide a download or FTP? No, so dont even ask. Look for it, its out there. Do I go around distributing such code ? No, In my daily work do I use SCO code in any of the projects I work on? No.


{

Re: Boycott SCO and its friends.
by RJDohnert on Thu 15th May 2003 15:07 UTC

" United Linux = SCO, SuSE, Conectiva and Turbo Linux

I will not pay for any product from this lot until this is resolved to the satisfaction of the Linux community.

Their Unix would be nothing without us. "

It would not be fair to punis SuSE, Conectiva and Turbo Linux,
They have done nothing wrong and they themselves have come under fire. I purchase all my Linux offerings from SuSE and I stand behind SuSE and their products 100%. But yes I agree, do Boycott SCO, but leave the others alone.

go 2 hell
by marc on Thu 15th May 2003 15:24 UTC

"Broughton was not sure whether kernels from different commercial distributions like Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake and Slackware were being examined by the software engineers who are looking for evidence of alleged copyright violations in the Linux kernel."
1) The kernel is GPL-ed.
2) Slackware doesn't make any changes to the Linux Kernel and this proves clearly that SCO is talking bullsh*t. Slackware is non-commercial this days and it gives away a solid distribution for free. I even got support a couple of times from Patrick Volkerding, and I did not buy it because I did not have any $$$ when it came out (version 9.0), but I will soon subscribe. RedHat, SuSE and others dodn't do so many changes to the kernel, and when they do they port code from 2.5.x or apply patches from other places or projects, ussually the kind of stuff you'll find on sourceforge. They only make FUD...DON'T believe them.
3) go 2 hell

Just another Scud from SCO
by Anonymous on Thu 15th May 2003 15:45 UTC

Let their names be blotted out. Let us hear from them no more.

Linux Journal
by RJDohnert on Thu 15th May 2003 17:41 UTC

The Linux Journal is reporting that SCO is holding an Independant Panel in a couple of weeks to disclose the Infringments in Linux, the only thing is attendees must sign a non-disclosure agreement

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6877&mode=&order=0&thol...

Microsoft Buyout?
by minkwe on Thu 15th May 2003 17:42 UTC

Now I get it. They now want to be bought by microsoft and not IBM as they had initially aimed.

Bill, where do you want to go today?

Re: Linux Journal
by minkwe on Thu 15th May 2003 17:45 UTC

It is not sufficient to find common code in both UnixWare and Linux. They also have to prove that such code was not borrowed from a common source by Linux and UnixWare, and that the code was not borrowed from Linux by UnixWare.

Simply finding common chunks of code is not sufficient to point fingers.

Re: Boycott SCO and its friends.
by aherm on Thu 15th May 2003 17:45 UTC

<em>
United Linux = SCO, SuSE, Conectiva and Turbo Linux

I will not pay for any product from this lot until this is resolved to the satisfaction of the Linux community.

Their Unix would be nothing without us.
</em>

This is exactly one of what Microsoft want: FUD on linux.

http://www.cfcl.com/cfcl/rdm/carny/2000.07.html
by Anonymous on Thu 15th May 2003 20:25 UTC

A few years ago, during the BSD lawsuit, AT&T compared the 4.4BSD code base to that of UNIX System V. Finding that about half of the code was identical, they decided that AT&T code had been stolen by BSD.

In fact, the reverse was true; AT&T had picked up BSD code, removed the copyright notices, and incorporated it into System V. Irony aside, it is quite clear that a lot of the code was common then (and still is, today).

mythought
by Koki on Thu 15th May 2003 22:20 UTC

>>"My only point was tha MS could benefit if this situation >>translates into a step back for Linux business as Eugenia >>pointed out."
>
>Agreed.
>
>But don't you find this whole saga is a bad joke? How can >SCO prove that the code was copied?

I do not argue that.

Koki

SCO, Xenix and M$
by Marcelo on Thu 15th May 2003 23:02 UTC

The funny is that SCO was born from the legacy of Xenix, which was intelectual property from M$ :-)

See

http://www.computerhope.com/unix/xenix.htm

"n the late 1970's Microsoft licensed UNIX source code from AT&T which at the time was not licensing the name UNIX. Therefore Microsoft created the name Xenix. Microsoft did not sell Xenix to end-users but instead licensed the software to software OEMs such as Intel, Tandy, Altos and SCO who then provided a finished version of their own Xenix to the end-users or other customers.

SCO introduced its first version of Xenix named SCO Xenix System V for the Intel 8086 and 8088 in 1983. Today SCO Xenix is one of the more commonly used and found versions of Xenix."

whats next??
by Hank Maxwell on Fri 16th May 2003 01:08 UTC

thats what worries me, what IS next, Linus in the beginning wanted to create an OS that could work with UNIX, to do this he made his creation POSIX compliant, as such it would ALWAYS be UNIX compatible (theorhetically speaking, of course), is SCO going to claim that POSIX is it's creation also and that somehow if your are POSIX compliant then you are infringing on their IP rights as well???

don't laugh, nobody ever saw this one coming from SCO, just ask SuSE, SCO is dying as far as UNIX is concerned and has managed to make itself truly alone, one against many, SuSE thought they were in the "in-crowd" with SCO, but a rabid dog can bite anyone and can't be trusted

Unix IP
by Jeremy on Fri 16th May 2003 06:47 UTC

I haven't read all the comments above (there are too many of them) and don't know the details of the acquisition of SCO by Caldera. What I'm interested in is why didn't IBM buy the Unix IP when they were for sale ? Is it because they saw no real use for it or because they weren't contacted by SCO ?

Collector??
by dude on Fri 16th May 2003 13:26 UTC

As someone who has worked on Unixware7 I can say you
will be hard pressed to find a more powerfull OS on
Intel systems. I am an SCO partner.

I am digusted with SCO's current attatude and hope they
reap what they have so carelessly sown. I managed to download
SCO Linux two days ago just to see what United Linux is
all about. I suppose I have a collectors piece now.

Although a little long in the tooth Open Server and Unixware7
are good products and I will be sad to see them go if SCO
is wiped out by this. Perhaps another company will
port Unixware7 to Itanium at least.

Just a further comment
by Wesley Parish on Fri 16th May 2003 14:04 UTC

"SCO is taking this important step because there are intellectual property issues with Linux," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource, The SCO Group. "When SCO's own UNIX software code is being illegally copied into Linux, we believe we have an obligation to educate commercial users of the potential liability that could rest with them for
using such software to run their business. We feel so strongly about this issue that we are suspending sales and distribution of SCO Linux until these issues are resolved."

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/st...

They stopped the distribution of iso images from ftp://ftp.iso.caldera.com/pub/OpenLinux/3.1.1
but left the full RPM and SRPM file collection on ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/
and I have just downloaded their linux-2.4.2-11[DS].src.rpm files, to check for myself if there is anything unpleasantly untoward in Caldera's own source code, comparing it of course with the various
linux-2.4.*.tar.[bz2|gz] files that I have downloaded from ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4 at sundry times and in diverse manners.

If SCO does have an issue with the Linux kernel - and they have been all over the show recently with their claims - then they can point out the parts they claim have been sneaked into Linux from SysVRx, and I can compare the Caldera code with the central distributed code and let everybody know whether or not they have a case. If it is just Caldera's kernel, well then it's their problem, not mine.

Oh, and by the way, *src.rpms are freely redistributable on their own. iso images can be claimed to be partially the product of their compiler, but a source file is the product of its author, so I doubt that SCO will benefit from any putative pulling of the RPM and SRPM directories, as I will merely repost said linux*src.rpm files elsewhere. I don't believe in hiding crucial evidence.