Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 1st Oct 2003 16:54 UTC
SGI and IRIX Silicon Graphics Inc says that it has received notice from SCO Group Inc that the Unix vendor intends to terminate its Unix System V license on the basis that SGI has breached the terms of the license. UPDATE: SGI's letter to the Open Source Community.
Order by: Score:
Digging a grave?
by jbett on Wed 1st Oct 2003 16:58 UTC

I dunno but ever since this whole mess started, SCO has been digging a grave. But now they have reached the point where the grave is more than large enough to fit all of SCO hopefully they don't manage to drag anyone down there with them.

v wow
by raver31 on Wed 1st Oct 2003 17:04 UTC
Something is hiding ...
by Paolo on Wed 1st Oct 2003 17:08 UTC

I really would like to know what trick SCO is hiding from us all, if any.If it turns to be nothing, well what a bubble burst will be !!!
I am amazed.

Business Plan:
by Erwos on Wed 1st Oct 2003 17:08 UTC

1. Sue IBM
2. Spout nonsense
3. Sue SGI
4. Spout more nonsense
5. ???
6. Profit!

But seriously, it's a sad thing when litigation _raises_ your stock price. I can only pray to G-d that someday, someone buys out SCO and then burns down their HQ as a warning to other morons: "don't play with the big boys".

-Erwos

Here we SCO again!!
by Nicholas James on Wed 1st Oct 2003 17:10 UTC

I hope SGI puts SCO in their grave and covers it with concrete.

In a situation like this:
by jbett on Wed 1st Oct 2003 17:18 UTC

I hope that IBM, SGI and whoever have enough evidence or resources to verify that UNIX trade secrets are non-existant anymore. They are important, but it's like KFC releasing their secret recipe in cook books, PEPSI buys KFC and then starts suing the crap out of the industry accusing A&W and others of stealing the recipe or using parts of the recipe that was released to the public saying it's got some holy IP protection.

SGI is half in the gravie itself..
by Anonymous on Wed 1st Oct 2003 17:20 UTC

maybe on it's way out, it can drag SCO with it.

v RE: Business Plan:
by DaMouse on Wed 1st Oct 2003 17:21 UTC
It was...
by Justin on Wed 1st Oct 2003 17:21 UTC

Only a matter of time. Actually, it would have been smarter to sue SGI first, to test the viability of the license, before going after IBM. My understanding is that the licenses cannot be terminated by either party....without litigation.

I'm not sure SGI has the cash to fight this....but if they do, it will further alienate SCO, and most likely will accelerate SGI's Linux initiative.

SGI being SGI...
by Chris D.Emery on Wed 1st Oct 2003 17:28 UTC

... expect to see lots of Darl McBride lookalikes among the bad guys in the next Star Wars movie... you can bet your life its being produced on SGI workstations.

Right or Wrong SCO they will lose
by Daren on Wed 1st Oct 2003 17:28 UTC

Whether or not SCO is right they will not have a business in the end because of the way they are behaving. SCO put themselves in the spotlight and they do not look like descent people. This is a fact that will probaly escape most investor types but not the tech community at large.

If they have a case with SGI and IBM that is one thing. But there is no excuse for the way they (Darl?) have acted against the Linux community.

RE: Business Plan:
by walterbyrd on Wed 1st Oct 2003 17:30 UTC

1. Sue IBM
2. Spout nonsense
3. Sue SGI
4. Spout more nonsense
5. ???
6. Profit!
=============================

Step 5 is not hard to figure:

5. a. Insiders give themselves stock options at $0.001/share
5. b. Huge fud money contributions from msft and sunw.
5. c. stock price is pumped to insanely inflated levels.
5. d. Insiders sell stock.

I'm not making that up. This is exactly what has been happening. Scox has gone from about $2.50 a share to $15 a share since this nonesense was made public. Even before this went public scox went from $0.70 a share to $2.50.

Insiders laughing all the way, US justice system asleep at the switch.






Re: It was . . .
by walterbyrd on Wed 1st Oct 2003 17:34 UTC

>>My understanding is that the licenses cannot be terminated by either party....without litigation. <<

My understanding is that the licenses cannot be terminated without consent from Novell. Oddly enough, novell still retains a lot of control over the original UNIX SVR4.


It got a lot of press. But, until a court says IBM's UNIX license is cancled, then that license is as good as gold. Scox's "termination" is just talk. IBM is still selling their AIX UNIX.

Scox could have filed for an immediate tempory injunction to really terminate IBM's UNIX license, on June 16th. But scox doesn't like court rooms. Scox prefers to try their case in the pop-media; where the standards for truth and evidence are much lower.

Re: Re: It was . . .
by jbett on Wed 1st Oct 2003 17:43 UTC

My understanding is that the licenses cannot be terminated without consent from Novell. Oddly enough, novell still retains a lot of control over the original UNIX SVR4.

That's exactly what I thought too. I think that if there was any wrongdoing on the parts of SGI and IBM that Novell would've already jumped into the position SCO has now and would be wanting payments. But I'm in the belief (maybe I'm wrong) that Novell would atleast as a respectable corporation present a proper case and atleast publish the code or information about whatever wrongs have been done.

Re: SCO's insanity
by Cheapskate on Wed 1st Oct 2003 18:35 UTC

anyone with a little knowledge of Linux knows Linus Torvalds created the Linux kernel, and millions of OpenSource developers worldwide contribute to the GNU/Linux thing we all come to know as a great alternative OS (& apps)...

recently there was a interview with Linus Torvalds and Mr. Torvalds said that he will take legal action against SCO if SCO does not back off...

SCO is burning bridges to the point that they will not have any customers or business partners, as said by previous replys i have to agree that SCO is digging thier grave, SCO is doomed...

RE: Re: SCO's insanity
by skwirlmaster on Wed 1st Oct 2003 18:55 UTC

"SCO is burning bridges to the point that they will not have any customers or business partners, as said by previous replys i have to agree that SCO is digging thier grave, SCO is doomed... "

Well Cheapskate you have a few unspoken assumptions in there that need to point out:

1) you assume that before this whole circus started that SCO was maintaining a list of clients. This is false, it has been steadily loosing market share for the last couple of years. Although, as you imply, it has probably plummeted in comparison thanks to this nonsense.

2) you assume that SCO has been making its money off of its products during this madness. The fact is that the "Profit" that was posted by SCO-source was from the donations made by M$ and Sun, to fuel the anti-Linux FUD. Strange bedfellows indeed. SCO could *possibly* survive a few years on slandering products that people are willing to pay. This is because the Courts take so long to do anything, this whole mess still won't be resolved for at least a year.

3) That technophiles make buying decisions. More often than not in my experience it is people who have no business making informed decisions about IT stuff that do a lot of the buying. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt have more sway with the uniformed.

aaagggrrr!
by SteveB on Wed 1st Oct 2003 19:32 UTC

I can not belive it! SCOX shares are going up again?
ahhh... every time they get one on their head and the stock goes down, they find something new to keep the stock/share going up again!

See your self: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=5d&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=


And on heise ( http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-30.09.03-006/ ) I was reading that they want the judge to give them more time until starting the court stuff.

I don't know what is up in america? In Europe such an game would not be that easy possible. Sorry. It is nothing against america, but this SCO stuff is getting daily more and more like an bad joke.

I hope the judge will NOT allow them to get another 2nd time again more time until they start with the court. If SCO has right, then they should get what they diserve. And if they are wrong, then I hope they get the punishment they diserve. But I think that they will go out of this without loosing their head (not that I think that they will win, but I have no trust in that, that they will be punished).

Anyway... It is not an fight where the right one will win! It is an fight where the better loyer will win and the one wich hase more money. This is an joke. Sorry.
I am so happy that Switzerland is not that way.

SCO going After SGI
by Stephen on Wed 1st Oct 2003 19:42 UTC

I can see why they are going after sgi, I recall seeing on those slides sco showed to the press of stolen system v code that is in linux was originally released by sgi. If they didn't have the proper permission to do so I can see why they should be sued. But I agree with all of you, sco is really digging now that, I think they realize that they most likely will lose the IBM lawsuit.

Well...
by Wrawrat on Wed 1st Oct 2003 19:51 UTC

If SGI did violated their licence, why shouldn't they be punished? I personally think SCO don't really have a case against IBM, but if they both clearly violated their licence, it's their problem... as long as the court decides that licence is valid, something I doubt. I doubt the "All your code/innovation are belong to us" point is legally enforceable.

I have one comment about this.
by Chuck Bermingham on Wed 1st Oct 2003 20:09 UTC

SGI has done a lot of good for a lot of people, even before they were opening their source code. They absolutely do not deserve this treatment. Whatever punishment the SCO Group receives for this evil will not likely be enough, in my opinion.

I know SGI has been expensive. That has nothing to do with it, so don't bother with that argument. I know a lot of people who were really bedazzled by all the wonderful graphics that SGI machines made possible over the years, and, as I said, they do not deserve this treatment.

If I were going to become a Lawyer...
by John Doe on Wed 1st Oct 2003 20:23 UTC

this would be the best that could happen to me...
This is perfect Real Life school. Please learn your lesson
and prevent this from start. Or, oh well It's kinda funny though and gives a good lough every day.
And for all economics students. Go, get your buissnes running, your know now how to make money ;)

-mo

Go, get your buissnes running, your know now how to make money ;)

As I've asked here before, what is good about the people at SCO right now? What good are they doing anyone?

I have to say I'm concerned for the Linux community because of this, that justice won't be done. But if it is, and as I said above, I hope McBride and friends go down hard. Even if they had originally some slight reason to be upset, their behavior has condemned them, in my mind at least. They have absolutely no respect for the people who do the work around here. If they were to get any settlement money from any company, I think they should immediately turn around and distribute that money to all the Linux contributors, in proportion to their labor.

And keep none for themselves, and go get a hair shirt and cover themselves with ashes, that their God might have mercy on their immortal souls.

SGI responds
by walterbyrd on Wed 1st Oct 2003 20:52 UTC

"SCO's references to XFS are completely misplaced. XFS is an innovative SGI- created work. It is not a derivative work of System V in any sense, and SGI has full rights to license it to whomever we choose and to contribute it to open source. It may be that SCO is taking the position that merely because XFS is also distributed along with IRIX it is somehow subject to the System V license. But if so, this is an absurd position, with no basis either in the license or in common sense. In fact, our UNIX license clearly provides that SGI retains ownership and all rights as to all code that was not part of AT&Ts UNIX System V."

http://oss.sgi.com/letter_100103.txt

"Scox could have filed for an immediate tempory injunction to really terminate IBM's UNIX license, on June 16th. But scox doesn't like court rooms. Scox prefers to try their case in the pop-media; where the standards for truth and evidence are much lower."

...which is primarily why I said the things I did above. But what about the people who choose to take advertising money and use it to broadcast this dribble around the Internet and put it in their financial magazines? Are these poeple journalists, or do they own pit-bull arenas, that they should want to sell "ringside seats?"

Even if SCO loses big, these people will gain from it; they will talk about all the "sweet revenge", and how SCO got its just deserts, and blablabla.

...that is, if there's money in it. Otherwise, it'll show up on page 199, in the lower-right-hand corner, under the big ad for Microsoft.

enough of this scox BS
by jief on Wed 1st Oct 2003 21:29 UTC

i can't believe how many people actually talk about this all the time. seems like there's not a day with another "news" about this case. we're not done with 2003 yet. ibm/sco are going to court in 2005. are we going to hear about it every day until then? geez. people have been spitting out the same BS every day for the past months.

v There is a master plan...
by Darl McBride on Wed 1st Oct 2003 21:45 UTC
This really froasted by cookies...
by CooCooCaChoo on Wed 1st Oct 2003 22:04 UTC

Someone or something needs to buy out SCO, BSD the whole code base and kill of any patents on UnixWare/OpenServer. The sooner we see that occur, the better.

The fact remains, had UnixWare been a decent product, the parent company not in the financial crapper, and the contracts between SGI -> SCO and IBM -> SCO were disclosed, then maybe there could be a valid case, however, when you see that SCO has set no firm court date, they can't point out exactly who owns what, and worse still, they have their financial future reliant on the suite succeeding, one doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to see this is a last second grab for money by a despirate company.

SCOs actions are nothing but empty rhetoric, they threatened to remove IBMs System V contract, here we are 2 months later and nothing has been done. Same situation with SGI, lets just hope that SCO eventually dies and people move on.

@CooCooCaChoo (IP: ---.a.002.cba.iprimus.net.au)
by Stephen on Wed 1st Oct 2003 22:15 UTC

lets just hope that SCO eventually dies and people move on.

You know then for a while there will be news on how SCO built their "empire" of FUD and suddenly fell, after all without all of this SCO nonsense, there would be hardly any posts on /. ;)

Smoke screen
by Billy on Wed 1st Oct 2003 22:52 UTC

The mess created by SCO has nothing to do with IP, copyright or trials. It is a way of distracting people from what they have been doing up until now : quietly produce free code that competes with monopolists offering.

Probably, the biggest beneficiary is Microsoft because while IBM and other Unix vendors spend time with law firms, Gates and Ballmer can trick more businesses into replacing their Unix servers with "hassle free" Windows Server 2003 (that is until some unknown guy or a small company shows in court that the latest product from Redmond is another pirated piece of software). As for Sun, they are, <coughs>, a bunch of opportunists.

Another way of describing SCO executives actions is to say that they are officially in the cadavers recycling trade. Give them the mummy of a bum and they'll make money out of it :-)

Stock prices went up...
by John Blink on Thu 2nd Oct 2003 00:03 UTC

...by their new publicity stunt.

Yahoo says http://au.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=v3&m=w

RE: Stephen (IP: 63.170.80.---) - Posted on 2003-10-01 22:15:05
by CooCooCaChoo on Thu 2nd Oct 2003 03:52 UTC

You know then for a while there will be news on how SCO built their "empire" of FUD and suddenly fell, after all without all of this SCO nonsense, there would be hardly any posts on /. ;)

And we'd miss the "IN SOVIET RUSSIA..." relating to SCO ;-)

The first problem is that they NEVER outlined exactly what the problem was. First it was copying, then it was contract then is was something else.

There is no denying that there is code copied from AIX to Linux, and IBM has made no secret of it. What the issue is over is not copyright but contractual obligations. IBM believes that they're well in their rights as they "own the code" which they donated to the Linux community. SCO on the other hand claims that IBM mearly has the equivilant of a "resellers license" and thus any additions to the UNIX codebase instantly becomes the property of SCO.

The problem I see is this; why haven't they disclosed the contractual arrangement between IBM and SCO, then point out the places IBM fails to abide by. If SCO fully disclosed the contract and showed where IBM broken the contract then I would have no problems believing SCO, BUT when SCO does things under the cloak of darkness, one really wonders whether SCO has a leg to stand on.

I also find it rather humorous regarding JFS because IIRC the Linux version is not based off the AIX version but the OS/2 Warp 4 eCommerce Server edition. Maybe someone at IBM can confirm this?

Anyway, I am looking forward to this thing finally getting resolved before the likes of Microsoft benefit too much from the chaos caused.

SCO
by cAPTAIN^k on Thu 2nd Oct 2003 06:40 UTC

I am glad I don't care about this ;)

re: CooCooCaChoo
by dubhthach on Thu 2nd Oct 2003 08:23 UTC

Regarding JFS all documentation i've seen on the net (both IBM site and others) points to Linux JFS been based off OS/2 edition and not the AIX version.

as for SGI well i'm buying a 2nd hand Octane :-D

sgi letter
by dubhthach on Thu 2nd Oct 2003 08:27 UTC

"But if so, this is an absurd position, with no basis either in the license or in common sense. In fact, our UNIX license clearly provides that SGI retains ownership and all rights as to all code that was not part of AT&Ts UNIX System V."

Well that cancells out any SCO claims regarding code in IRIX that was written by SGI, Isn't this also the case with SUN and HP's license?

RE: dubhthach (IP: ---.cust.iol.ie) - Posted on 2003-10-02 08:27:15
by CooCooCaChoo on Thu 2nd Oct 2003 09:54 UTC

"But if so, this is an absurd position, with no basis either in the license or in common sense. In fact, our UNIX license clearly provides that SGI retains ownership and all rights as to all code that was not part of AT&Ts UNIX System V."

Well that cancells out any SCO claims regarding code in IRIX that was written by SGI, Isn't this also the case with SUN and HP's license?


SUN has a license that is almos equal to owning the UnixWare code. They can do pretty much what ever they like with it. HP, IBM and SGI went for the el-cheapo license which had more restrictions, however, I do find it rather humorous SCO claiming that since XFS was added to IRIX, there for, SCO must own it.

Using SCO's logic, if I created a driver for UnixWare and had access to the source code, that would then become the property of SCO. That doesn't make any sense.

As I questioned previously, why haven't SCO disclosed the contract between SCO and IBM/SGI? is this whole law suite just straighout bullshit?

JFS
by philmes on Thu 2nd Oct 2003 10:43 UTC

I also find it rather humorous regarding JFS because IIRC the Linux version is not based off the AIX version but the OS/2 Warp 4 eCommerce Server edition. Maybe someone at IBM can confirm this?

Mostly correct. The OS/2 version was a "clean room" rewrite which was subsequently ported back to AIX and to Linux.

re: straighout bullshit
by dubhthach on Thu 2nd Oct 2003 13:29 UTC

aye that's what it is, clever way for them to make money by putting pressure on companies to buy one of their linux licenses and what ever else they were up ta

as regards claiming XFS is SCO property well, as SGI have said their unix license negates this possibility.

anyways can't wait to get my Octane, my final year project in university involved a Origin 3800 (40 processors, 40 gig's of RAM) :-D

RE: dubhthach (IP: ---.cust.iol.ie) - Posted on 2003-10-02 13:29:22
by CooCooCaChoo on Thu 2nd Oct 2003 13:44 UTC

aye that's what it is, clever way for them to make money by putting pressure on companies to buy one of their linux licenses and what ever else they were up ta

as regards claiming XFS is SCO property well, as SGI have said their unix license negates this possibility.


Hence the reason I asked for SCO to disclose the contract that exists between SCO and SGI, and point which section of the contract they have broken.

SCO has neither disclosed IBM or SGI's contract AND also fails to point out exactly what part of those contracts, word for word, SGI and IBM have failed to live up to.

The ball is in SCOs court and they don't have the guts to show their hands and make the case. Or as Oscar Fisher said before the war, "where is the evidence? you haven't made the case".

SGI Rocks...
by wazoox on Thu 2nd Oct 2003 14:39 UTC

I've just seen all the brand new SGI stuff today (Tezro, Onyx4 UltimateVision, Altix 3x00, VizServer) and it ROCKS, boys. The Altix is the FIRST hardware conceived from the beginning to run Linux and only Linux.
These guys at SGI have done a tremendous job in the past few years and SGI is on the boat of serious hardware vendors again. These new machines will give SGI a huge boost in the coming months, and they'll crush SCOX.

If I were Boise....
by Chuck Bermingham on Thu 2nd Oct 2003 16:30 UTC

...and I were a Christian, I'd be really concerned right now about what whas going to happen when I died. He's gotten himself in the company of demons.

All they do is whine and scream about the wrongs people have done them, insult people about their philosophical views, and take money from those who would live for greed. What in the world can that man be thinking?

RE: wazoox
by CooCooCaChoo on Thu 2nd Oct 2003 16:34 UTC

I've just seen all the brand new SGI stuff today (Tezro, Onyx4 UltimateVision, Altix 3x00, VizServer) and it ROCKS, boys. The Altix is the FIRST hardware conceived from the beginning to run Linux and only Linux.

Had a look at their Tezro, WOW! that is what I call a sexy workstation. Maybe the PC can license some "style" off SGI ;-) I am looking forward to seeing the Fuel Workstations being on eBay in 3 years ;-) Unfortunately I can't afford one brand new ;-(

These guys at SGI have done a tremendous job in the past few years and SGI is on the boat of serious hardware vendors again. These new machines will give SGI a huge boost in the coming months, and they'll crush SCOX.

Its also good to see that they're concerntrating on their niche. They're now over the "anti-Microsoft phase", now they're back on track. Every company goes throught it, Corel, Novell, SUN (still continuing), IBM etc. They eventually realise that there is no use wasting energy on Microsoft and simply move on, which is a wise decision.