Linked by Adam S on Thu 22nd May 2003 16:33 UTC
SCO, Caldera, Unixware It appears that proprietary SCO code may not be present in the Linux kernel after all. MozillaQuest magazine has done some research and determined that SCO's claims may not include violations in the official Linux kernel. Read more at MozillaQuest. Update by ELQ: Many SCO-related articles today:
Order by: Score:
Now and then
by Sean on Thu 22nd May 2003 18:42 UTC

Originally, SCO officially cleared the official Linux kernel, but later said that parts of the Linux kernel were contaminated. In the second instance, they may not have been refering to the official kernel. Either way, SCO hasn't said that the official kernel is in violation, yet.

They may.
by Chuck Bermingham on Thu 22nd May 2003 18:45 UTC

The thing is, I wish someone with investigative authority would turn over the rock MS and SCO's slugs are hiding under. This whole business is starting to really stink.

...
by CPUGuy on Thu 22nd May 2003 18:51 UTC

The thing is, I wish someone would nock people in the head for coming up with stupid conspiracy theories with reguards to Microsoft, and in this case, Microsoft and SCO, that have absolutely no bases other than they grabbed it out of their rear end.

RE: They may.
by Langalf on Thu 22nd May 2003 18:56 UTC

Even if all Microsoft is guilty of is giving SCO legitimacy with their licensing, it stinks.

don't trust anything SCO says until....
by Roy on Thu 22nd May 2003 19:13 UTC

The comments implicating the SCO kernel have all been very vague and SCO is hiding behind ridiculous statements (laundering freely available code is impossible) in order to avoid presenting any evidence. It looks like McBride's goal is to simply make people afraid of Linux for as long as possible so that IBM will give in and buy SCO. Until SCO comes through with some real evidence, I'm not going to worry much.

No basis in conspiracy theory?
by Rayiner Hashem on Thu 22nd May 2003 19:21 UTC

If you belive there is no conspiracy going on, you are simply blind.

First, Microsoft has a history of lying about Open Source software, and about the GPL in particular. This is not in doubt.

Second, this SCO story is very helpful to Microsoft, because they can use it to scare companies from buying into Linux. Since OSS and Linux is so new and different, fear can have a very powerful effect.

Third, the timing of this is very suspicious, if nothing else.

In a criminal investigation, the above three points are equivilent to having a criminal record, having a motive, and being seen at the scene of the crime. I don't know about you, but this information is at least enough to lead one to suspect that Microsoft is trying to profit from the SCO incident, even if they are not directly involved.

We'll have to wait
by LinuxSurveys on Thu 22nd May 2003 19:26 UTC

With all due respect, MozillaQuest has been producing a large number of very speculative articles on this subject. While this article does present some interesting ideas, I feel that MozillaQuest is too close to the issue to be objective. Certainly, they do not have the purported evidence that SCO claims to have.

The fact of the matter is that everyone is going to have to wait for the evidence to be presented before this SCO issue can be decided. It is highly unlikely that this evidence will be presented outside of a courtroom therefore any delays, continuances, or settlements will further decrease the likelyhood of this evidence ever coming to light.

conspiracy, maybe
by wlsb on Thu 22nd May 2003 19:27 UTC

but I would say that the SCO execs are behind it, and not MS. anyone notice that SCOX is trading at $9, where it was trading at $.60 before this started? maybe they're looking to cash out before they officially announce SCO is dead.

there is no doubt that MS is enjoying it, but lets not start putting the tinfoil hats on just yet. I don't think the MIB@MSFT are behind this one.

...
by CPUGuy on Thu 22nd May 2003 19:39 UTC

Reyiner:

That's ALL speculative and their is no real facts there.

The timing? Come on, SCO suses IBM for infringing upon IP, so when this happens Microsoft takes a precautionary measure to make sure they themselves don't get sued by SCO for the same reason.

Back, forward, back, forward...
by Cesar Cardoso on Thu 22nd May 2003 19:43 UTC

SCO is trying to avoid going to the public and showing the said-to-be-infringing code, using excuses as "we'll only show it to specialists" and so on.

So it needs to go back. And forth. And back. And forth.

re: No basis in conspiracy theory?
by PainKilleR on Thu 22nd May 2003 19:57 UTC

If you belive there is no conspiracy going on, you are simply blind.

Yes, because it's glaringly obvious that Microsoft is conspiring with a company that is basicly black-mailing them.

First, Microsoft has a history of lying about Open Source software, and about the GPL in particular. This is not in doubt.

Some would say that depends on your point of view. For the most part I'd say they have a tendency to exaggerate.

Second, this SCO story is very helpful to Microsoft, because they can use it to scare companies from buying into Linux.

I haven't seen any information about companies deciding not to choose Linux or even reconsider plans to choose Linux over this. At most a few people have mentioned asking their corporate lawyers whether or not there was a chance that SCO had a leg to stand on, and then going on with life.

Since OSS and Linux is so new and different, fear can have a very powerful effect.

Yeah, OSS and Linux are new and different, right. OSS can be dated back to the 60's and Linux is older than WindowsNT. (Though it is true that WindowsNT was a bit more usable than Linux for a while). OSS and Linux are 'new and different' in the eyes of the mainstream press and business, but that's still just perception, not fact.

Third, the timing of this is very suspicious, if nothing else.

Why? Because Server2k3 was recently released? Couldn't there be anything suspicious in the timing without looking at Microsoft, like the fact that SCO's worth next to nothing?

In a criminal investigation, the above three points are equivilent to having a criminal record, having a motive, and being seen at the scene of the crime. I don't know about you, but this information is at least enough to lead one to suspect that Microsoft is trying to profit from the SCO incident, even if they are not directly involved

In a courtroom the above 3 points, when left alone, are enough to get the suspect sent home with no charges, because they're still speculative points with no evidence.

Knock people in the head?
by Chuck Bermingham on Thu 22nd May 2003 19:58 UTC

"The thing is, I wish someone would nock people in the head..."

I don't know the details of what SCO is doing, nor what phone calls are going back and forth (if any) between Microsoft and SCO, but here we have one company that is blasting inuendo against everybody around, and another company that has been *proven* to act brutally toward its competitors saying "sure---we'll help you! You have a *right* to be upset....."

I hope to God that *nobody* in this rotten computer "business" gets "knocked in the head," but it did happen in the oil business, in the rainforest-eradicating agriculture business in South and Central America (them vs. the rubber companies,) and it's been known to happen in the food-service business.

The SCO allegations have a real "foaming at the mouth" quality to them. Clearly intended to get lots of attention for SCO, and apparently intended to *hurt Microsoft's newly-chosen enemy.*

As hyperbolic as it is, my thoughts on consipracy are *opinion.* It would be nice if that opinion isn't born out.

It would be nice. Like not much of the stuff that's going on regarding my experience of Microsoft these days.

I wonder if MS has ever considered what might happen if they really try to get along with us gearheads again.

I can only hope.

Why?
by Anonymous on Thu 22nd May 2003 20:32 UTC

Why do you people link to MozillaQuest? It's run by some retarded kid that claimed that Netscape 6 is not based on Mozilla. See mozillaquestquest.com for a parody of it.

Older than NT NOT!!!
by Maynard on Thu 22nd May 2003 20:33 UTC

Windows NT was released in 1993, but is older than that> It had to be actually developed. Probably from like 1988-1989 thereabouts. So I would say it is younder than Linux, not too sure about the GNU parts though.

Long and winding article.
by Anonymous Coward on Thu 22nd May 2003 20:36 UTC

Gah! What an long and repetetive article. I've not read such a badly written text in a long time (and I'm not even going to say anything about the layout). Mike Angelo, what a journalistic wannabe.

Regardless of my opinions in this case, this MozillaQuest article don't help either way. Not worth reading.
I'll give it 1 out of 5.

Re: Conspiracy theory
by Rayiner Hashem on Thu 22nd May 2003 21:08 UTC

Yes, because it's glaringly obvious that Microsoft is conspiring with a company that is basicly black-mailing them.
>>>>>>>>>
How is SCO blackmailing Microsoft? The IP in question is bits of code supposedly put in the Linux kernel. Unless Microsoft is dumb enough to steal GPL code from the kernel (they aren't) there is no basis for SCO to sue Microsoft.

Some would say that depends on your point of view. For the most part I'd say they have a tendency to exaggerate.
>>>>>>>>
Several Microsoft development tool EULAs strongly impled that the mere use of GPL'ed tools would automatically GPL your code. Further, they defended the "no GPL software development" clause in some of their EULAs by saying that writing GPL software with their tools would cause their tools to become GPL'ed. These aren't exaggerations, they're plain-faced lies.

OSS and Linux are 'new and different' in the eyes of the mainstream press and business, but that's still just perception, not fact.
>>>>>>>
And perception is all that matters to PHBs. Many managers are already skeptical of deploying Linux on their infrastructure ("How can it be any good if its free?") and this just gives them ammo.

Why? Because Server2k3 was recently released?
>>>>>>>
No, because Microsoft licensed SCO IP right about the time this lawsuit hit. Since Microsoft has nothing to do with the claims of the lawsuit (that IBM stole code from SCO and put it into the kernel) it's rather suspicious they choose to do this now.

In a courtroom the above 3 points, when left alone, are enough to get the suspect sent home with no charges, because they're still speculative points with no evidence.
>>>>>>
Actually, these three points would make them haul you in for questioning, and release you under watch as a suspect. I'm not saying Microsoft is guilty, I'm merely pointing out that there is enough to be suspicious about that you can't say "they merely grabbed it out of their rear end."

This OT, but why does MozillaQuest
by raf on Thu 22nd May 2003 21:17 UTC

....render like shit when you view it in Mozilla 1.3 and not in IE? ;-)

Just a thought!!
by madmax on Thu 22nd May 2003 22:16 UTC

What if I bought a RedHat or Suse boxed pack and recompiled my kernel with the latest stable ( which is 2.4.20 ).
Would SCO be able to do squat to me then

Hypothetically speaking ofcourse ;>)

haha
by brandon on Thu 22nd May 2003 22:35 UTC

oh god, what next. IBM needs to buy SCO and get rid of them once and for all.

IBM and SCO
by Chris on Thu 22nd May 2003 22:46 UTC

I think thats what SCO really wants: someone to buy them out so they could walk away rich. IBM could do this with their petty cash. I think IBM should crush them under their heel like the roaches SCO is.

RE: IBM and SCO
by Anonymous on Thu 22nd May 2003 22:58 UTC

No No No.

That's what SCO would want, the better option is just to wait it out for them to die - nothings more enjoyable than watching a pain in the arse company die a slow and painful death. I'd rather Big Blue save its money.

Take over
by Aitvo on Thu 22nd May 2003 23:02 UTC

I'd like to see IBM become a SCO majority shareholder, take over the company, fire it's board, and then give it's assets to the FSF leaving it's board with $1.00 each. <G> (Yes, I know it's a pipedream.)

Re: SCO Deserves Public Scolding (continued)
by Alex (The Original) on Thu 22nd May 2003 23:53 UTC

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1094929,00.asp

Paragraph 3, line 4

The fact that Caldera/SCO has distributed Linux under a license that prevents it from claiming this code as a trade secret or copyright property should make it tough for the company to succeed in a case in which it's claiming this code as a trade secret or copyright property. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I would, I mean they already distributed the code under the GPL. The only escape from this could be "We didn't know" ;)

Yes--SCO sue microsoft.
by Chuck Bermingham on Fri 23rd May 2003 01:45 UTC

I was part of a survey that SCO conducted. IBM, Microsoft, and Red Hat were mentioned over and over again as part of the questions, as potential targets in a lawsuit.

Mind you, I'm not saying that SCO's people haven't (since, or even before,) had discussions with MS about verious courses of action, but still, there is some reason to believe Microsoft was at least at one time a potential target.

re: Conspiracy
by PainKilleR on Fri 23rd May 2003 11:39 UTC

How is SCO blackmailing Microsoft? The IP in question is bits of code supposedly put in the Linux kernel. Unless Microsoft is dumb enough to steal GPL code from the kernel (they aren't) there is no basis for SCO to sue Microsoft.

SCO sent Microsoft a letter similar to the ones that were sent to many other companies (one of the recent articles said the letters were sent to the Fortune 1000 and another listing, just think about that, they probably got bulk mail rates for this crap). Microsoft coughed up the cash for the license to get SCO to leave them alone, most likely because MS' software was originally developed by another company (which MS bought, or MS bought the software from, I don't remember which), so they don't necessarily know the origins of the code in detail. I think MS is perfectly happy to cough up a little money to avoid a nasty lawsuit, especially if they feel it may have some grounds (and when they already have enough lawsuits on their plate).

Several Microsoft development tool EULAs strongly impled that the mere use of GPL'ed tools would automatically GPL your code.

This was the same argument one of the schools I attended used for forcing all code written in the school to be GPL'd (long before MS even admitted Linux existed). The GPL was of course rewritten in part to clarify this later, but many of the most important tools were released under the LGPL to guarantee that it wasn't a problem. Is it true? I really couldn't tell you, because I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe that it was the intention of the developers of some of these tools for it to be true (now RMS might have had that intention).

Further, they defended the "no GPL software development" clause in some of their EULAs by saying that writing GPL software with their tools would cause their tools to become GPL'ed. These aren't exaggerations, they're plain-faced lies.

That would be a lie, I just never read it, so I would have to agree on that point.

And perception is all that matters to PHBs. Many managers are already skeptical of deploying Linux on their infrastructure ("How can it be any good if its free?") and this just gives them ammo.

My customers have been seriously looking at Linux to replace Solaris and various Unix, and you can bet the free (as in beer) part is big for them. On the Windows side they just figure that they can evaluate it's fitness as a desktop OS from the response to the OS running on Sun hardware, but I think that's a slightly skewed way to look at that, since the people using the Sun hardware are used to a Unix-like environment rather than Windows anyway. As for the company I work for, we're kindof stuck with a lot of our customers' requirements. When it comes down to it we have to have Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Visio, AutoCAD, and a handful of programs supplied by the customer, or near-perfect compatability with those programs, including support for existing macros and VBA. This stuff has little to no effect on yearly software reviews around here to determine whether or not it's feasible for the 80-90% of the computers in this place sitting on desktops. The other 10-20% get more regular reviews because they're servers, Sun workstations, and/or running Unix in one form or another. In those cases the main concern is whether or not the same services can be provided with equal reliability and the same level of support.

No, because Microsoft licensed SCO IP right about the time this lawsuit hit. Since Microsoft has nothing to do with the claims of the lawsuit (that IBM stole code from SCO and put it into the kernel) it's rather suspicious they choose to do this now.

SCO owns (or claims to own) significant Unix IP and Microsoft got a letter from them (as did over a thousand other companies) claiming IP violations in various products. MS coughed up the cash. I would think that with the number of companies SCO was contacting, this would not seem like a suspicious time for companies that believed they might be in violation to start licensing IP.

Actually, these three points would make them haul you in for questioning, and release you under watch as a suspect. I'm not saying Microsoft is guilty, I'm merely pointing out that there is enough to be suspicious about that you can't say "they merely grabbed it out of their rear end."

I can agree with that. Still, a suspect doesn't get taken into court until there's something more than circumstantial evidence, otherwise the case gets tossed. Conspiracy theories tend to rely most heavily on circumstantial evidence, but this tends to be because it's easy to put together circumstances until something becomes evident and clear to the person that followed the claims, even if the points were unrelated.

This smacks of something similar...
by Keith on Fri 23rd May 2003 14:08 UTC

Does anyone else see a disturbing parallel between this SCO nonsense and the AT&T vs. BSD lawsuit of the late 80's/early 90's? Some big faceless monolith of a company comes in to assert claims against a small, community-developed upstart, and chaos ensues. It's almost as though it were planned.

No parallel at all
by Kevin Rasmussen on Fri 23rd May 2003 17:41 UTC

SCO/Caldera is a relatively small company nowadays and they are suing the company with the deepest pocket - IBM - for $1 billion.

AT&T was a giant and they were suing a university.

Where is the similarity?