SCO Group, which has sued IBM for more than $3 billion for allegedly moving Unix code into Linux, may also have Silicon Graphics in its crosshairs. SCO on Friday declined to comment on future legal action, but Chris Sontag, the senior vice president in charge of SCO’s effort to derive more revenue from its Unix intellectual property, has said two things that suggest SGI is a likely target. SCO said sometime ago that “their” NUMA code found in Linux, has come from SGI engineers working in the Linux kernel.Another article on SCO, is found at NewsFactor: “SCO’s Road to Salvation”:
“Even if they win — which first of all seems fairly inconceivable — one can’t really see all the Linux users ponying up and paying SCO money,” says Illuminata analyst Gordon Haff. “I think, more likely, they’d stop using Linux.”
It seems the Linux community robbed SCO blind. I for one will be recommending that my customers move to SCO and Windows XP based solutions for their improved IP integrity, security, and conformity with government regulations.
That troll is really lame.
SCO is actually doing the same a the FSF has been trying to do. The question this lawsuite will answer os if linking to a library will make code written from scratch a derivative work of the original library. I believe it shouldnt and can’t. Wich makes only the LPGL legal and SCO’s clame illegal. I think that’s the best outcome for everybody after all …
It won’t answer the question, because the issue is totally different. The Linux kernel does not link to any libraries, obviously, since it’s a kernel. Also, something that links to a library must be a derivative work because it uses the code of the library in question. Even if it doesn’t, that makes no difference to whether something is illegal. The GPL would be illegal if a) it violated some law and/or b) the court made a decision about its legal status that was negative. The FSF has nothing to do with this.
Geez, you troll worse than a newbie. heh
It seems the Linux community robbed SCO blind.
I believe you made a typo. You probably meant to write : “It seems SCO robbed the Linux community blind.” That’s okay, this type of slip is common.
I for one will be recommending that my customers move to SCO and Windows XP based solutions for their improved IP integrity, security, and conformity with government regulations.
If you had any customers, that is.
It is the same, since SCO claims to own code written against a posix/unix interface be its own. I dont think it has that rigjt, but as a consequence that means the GPL doesnt either. It wont change a thing since the Linux kernel alreayd effectivly is LGPL eventhough distributed as GPL.
The kernel does not have a “posix/unix interface”. The kernel is the baseline. The code in question is stuff which takes advantage of certain hardware features, and thus has nothing to do with POSIX/UNIX. Even if it did, how do you suppose this means that the GPL is invalid?
Hmmm… sarcasm on the net. I never thought that I’d see the day.
.
rofl, i laughed when i read the original post. what the heck is wrong with you people.
You can’t copyright or patent an interface – only the code. So to claim someone owns the POSIX interface is inaccurate.
Why do they keep spelling his name wrong? Everyone knows it’s Chris Snotrag.
They must have also invented fire and the wheel…. i invented stupidity, may i sue them for derivative work also? Is it worth it or shall i bomb them with atomics?
SCO is about over and in a perverse way they have done the world a favor.
>SCO said sometime ago that “their” NUMA code found in Linux, has come from SGI >engineers working in the Linux kernel.
-Think that SGI worked on NUMA long before our dear beloved
SCO had any inkling on placing their grubby little hands on
any unix legacy in order to boost their failing revenues…
But maybe I was not paying attention enough to all the
minute details in this exhilarating discussion…
Back to sleep now….
I suspect there’s going to be plenty more before this is over.
“‘But what about BSD?’ I asked. Sontag responded that there ‘could be issues with the [BSD] settlement agreement,’ adding that Berkeley may not have lived up to all of its commitments under the settlement.
‘So you want royalties from FreeBSD as well?’ I asked. Sontag responded that ‘there may or may not be issues. We believe that UNIX System V provided the basic building blocks for all subsequent computer operating systems, and that they all tend to be derived from UNIX System V (and therefore are claimed as SCO’s intellectual property).'”
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall…
I just can’t track of all these nobody companies with nothing products.
>>>You can’t copyright or patent an interface – only the code. So to claim someone owns the POSIX interface is inaccurate.
POSIX is trademarked by IEEE. The POSIX standard is copyrighted by IEEE as well.
“”The Linux kernel does not link to any libraries, obviously, since it’s a kernel.””
Hmm, have you actually tried compiling/running a Linux kernel with no LibC present? I’d be interested to see what happens the first time it comes across sin(), fopen(), strlen(), a real number etc. The kernel might do all the grunt work of manipulating the hardware, but it’s libc (afaik) that provides most of the _language_ functionality.
Just got an email from SCO today … said that I used some of their code when I wrote my first ‘Hello world!’ app … guess I’m really gonna get it now
Now, not only do we get to play wishy-washy with SCO saying “We’re gonna sue everyone” one day and “We’re not suing anyone” the next…now there’s speculation that they might sue SGI?
I, personally, dare them to do it.
With the number of world governments, educational institutions, oil companies, and other corporations with more money than SCO out there that run SGI hardware and IRIX…I, personally, would give probably a week after SCO sued SGI for world governments to start fining SCO for more than their net worth for slander…
…yeah…I’m an SGI fanboy…but when a company makes such powerful, stable, and damn pretty systems…who can really blame me?
SCO’s out to sue the bejesus off everyone!
I guess someone’ll get a mite bit annoyed at them, and they’ll get SCOed into the dust, countersued into oblivion.
Come on, SGI, IBM, RedHat, Su.S.E., etc, join in the fun. Party Time! Have a SCO-stomping party! After all, they did volunteer!
Doesn’t SGI as well as HP and SUN have a full license (bought the code outright) which allows them to do what they want with the code. That’s what i remember hearing after IBM was initially sued, HP basically said that SCO couldn’t sued them cause of this. If this is the case with SGI then SCO are just blowing some more hot air as usual.
Having worked on a Origin 3800 as part of my final year project in university (40 cpu’s 40GB ram) i’m a bit of an sgi fanboy 🙂
This fiaSCO should be done in prison.
I thought SGI had the code outright, as was pointed out in other posts….if so, what could SCO possibly sue them over-settling with Bell Labs before SCO could get to them?
This is not the same. When you release your code under GPL, you still own your code. GPL does not (and can not) prevent you from re-releasing the same code under different license. SCO claims that once you put your code into UNIX, it’s SCO’s code, and you can’t re-release it without SCO permission. Also, since this is an issue with specific contract, it does not automatically applies to other contracts.
The same thing they are suing everyone else for. Nothing.