Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 9th Sep 2003 03:01 UTC
SCO, Caldera, Unixware In an open letter, SCO Chief Executive Darl McBride tells open-source developers they need to do a better job of policing themselves and sets sights on SGI.
Order by: Score:
And more!
by Dave on Tue 9th Sep 2003 03:06 UTC

It's not just raging against a dubious DoS attack. There's a good little nugget about SCO going after SGI in there:

"McBride said comments from open-source leader Bruce Perens verify that code derived from SCO's System V version of Unix were incorporated into Linux software distributed by SGI (formerly Silicon Graphics). He dismissed claims that the copying was accidental.

"'Nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use and then contributed that source code into Linux as though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI," he said. "This is a clear violation of SGI's contract and copyright obligations to SCO.'"

Interesting that Bruce Perens was right about the code.

v They might as well say...
by Kilian on Tue 9th Sep 2003 03:09 UTC
Linux serves the almighty developers
by Mystilleef on Tue 9th Sep 2003 03:12 UTC

When will those idiots understand that no one determines the faith of Linux. Linux faces whatever direction the wind blows. MR. Darl McBride still isn't seen the larger picture.

Regards,

Mystilleef

Does this useless FUD spreading still work?
by Grant on Tue 9th Sep 2003 03:15 UTC

http://ichart.yahoo.com/b?s=SCOX

You tell me. Anyway, nothing to see here, back to stock Pumpin' and Dumpin'!

v SCO? just forget it..
by Carlos Vendramini on Tue 9th Sep 2003 03:19 UTC
Check for infringments?
by contrasutra on Tue 9th Sep 2003 03:29 UTC

This has been said before, but i'll say it again:

How are people suppose to check to see if people are contributing closed source code? Its CLOSED, meaning the kernel developers cant see it.


And if GPL software is so dangerous, why does UNIXware use lots of it? Oh well, I guess this is good old fashioned hypocracy.

Attack on SCO is just plain simple silly...
by bsdrocks on Tue 9th Sep 2003 03:29 UTC

In the past, RIAA's website has been hacked so many times and RIAA still stands. Right now, RIAA is suing hundreds people that who have downloaded the musics. It shows that the immature attackers' attacks aren't going to solve the problem but get theirselves in the troubles. Nothing more and nothing less, but damn immature behavior.

What to do when SCO comes for you...
by moocow on Tue 9th Sep 2003 03:37 UTC

I'm not the biggest fan of Linux but man is Darth MyBride getting a little tiresome to listen to.

I think people need to take this to the next level on SCO. If anybody receives threatening letters from SCO you know what you need to do. Report them for mail fraud and harassment!

Make them issue you a written apology and promise neve to harass you again. The court drama will be underway shortly and until then people using Linux are entitled to do so legally. Anybody telling you that you can't is lying and extorting you and needs to be held accountable for their actions.

SCO...
by marc on Tue 9th Sep 2003 04:05 UTC

SCO is becomming borring, and they over-abused by now free advertising. They get too much attention, just lookover this and move on...

v re: and more!
by debman on Tue 9th Sep 2003 04:22 UTC
Just a question...
by QaDeS on Tue 9th Sep 2003 04:23 UTC

is there any evidence yet that the attacks are coming from outside SCO? If so, I've missed that.

We all know what this means
by akbar on Tue 9th Sep 2003 04:40 UTC


SCO stock price must be down again.

Proofs
by Luis Lavena on Tue 9th Sep 2003 04:52 UTC

Ok, SCo is really s global pain.

From my point of view about closed/open source code/development:

if SGI has violated their "agreement/contract" with the "holders" of UNIX license, why don't talk with them in a closed way instead of making all this PR stuff? Um... interesting...

The Linux kernel are... maybe wrong... ~10k lines of code, which part contributed SGI that was SCO copyrighted code? show me that, and we'll check if so.

I develop closed sourced tools and applications... based on tools and other code that allow me do that. If I use someone's code, I add the requiered copyright line to my license (partions (c) john doe).

We (my company) love MIT, BSD, ZPL, LGPL licenses that allow us use, develop with, link against, etc.

If we see that our code could contribute in some way the help we received by the comunity, we release it in the same kind of licenses that allowed us make profit.

This something bad? um... I don't think so. Could I release my dog lawyers of hell to someone that use our contributed code? Yes, if they violate that license, but I must show proofs.

Ok, SCO, we want proofs.
Maybe an Online petition?

Luis Lavena
CEO
Multimedia systems
www.mmediasys.com

SCO
by CooCooCaChoo on Tue 9th Sep 2003 05:02 UTC

Darl McBride, darling, sweety, if you have a problem with the opensource software why don't you simply disclose all your code so that we (the community) can conduct a line-by-line code audit to ensure none of your "valuable" intellectual property has slipped into an opensource project.

Linux does not exist for 'enterprise corporate use'
by Anonymous on Tue 9th Sep 2003 05:28 UTC

If people want to use it in their data centers, thats fine, but McBride is making out like this is the only reason it exists.

Who cares whether 'enterprise' users trust Linux or not - they either use it because it is a great OS at a low price, or they use something else much more expensive that fits their needs better.

Its like McBride is making out like the Linux developers somehow 'owe' it to him to work a certain way, to satisfy this nebulous 'corporate world' which might be important to him but is completely meaningless to me, and probably most other people who contribute to or use Linux extensively.

What do I care what corporations think of my apps? If they are useful to people,and others can learn from, share and extend them, thats all the reward I really require.

Just crawl back into your hole, Darl, theres nothing for you out here.





who needs policing?
by rich on Tue 9th Sep 2003 05:46 UTC

"Nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use and then contributed that source code into Linux as though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI."

Isn't the actions of an employee of a company the responisibility of that same company? It sounds like Darl is making the argument that IP companies need to police themselves. But enough of the facts, let's sue more people!
;)

Who buys the SCO stock ?
by Masai on Tue 9th Sep 2003 05:57 UTC

That realy beats me.
Who buys the freekin SCO stock in the first place?
Is it Microsoft employees under special instructions ?

(or is it just general fools at the shallow end of the gene-pool)?

Any ideas ?

SCO get Linux and go hell !
by Marco Radossevich on Tue 9th Sep 2003 07:09 UTC

Linux is *NOT* the only and *ABSOLUTELY NOT* the better OS.
If SCO wants it, they can simply clean the code from GPL implementations, then they'll be perfectly legal.
We have many many other cool os to code for !

HaPpY CoDiNg !

RE: SCO get Linux and go hell
by elmo on Tue 9th Sep 2003 07:20 UTC

", they can simply clean the code from GPL implementations, then they'll be perfectly legal. "

you obviously don't know what is going on - so i think it is better for you to stay quiet ... clean the code from the GPL ???? Have you read anything about GNU/Linux and the GPL ???

RE:Who buys the SCO stock ?
by mtdman on Tue 9th Sep 2003 07:47 UTC

Melinda French Gates et al.

She is now the had of a company which has recently purchased over 5% of SCO stock.

More info at GROKLAW.....

Darl McBride, same ol' same ol' (Yawn)
by Wesley Parish on Tue 9th Sep 2003 08:21 UTC

For a start, nobody I know of, is as definite as Darl McBride that SCO was under a DoS attack. Most of the people who actually checked, were confused by the parts of the SCO/Canopus network that were down.

Then, when the SCO network comes up, it's missing certain embarrassing documents. How nice of this mysterious attacker to read SCO's mind and spare them the embarrassment of having some statements still online!

In short, was it a DoS? 1000 to 1/1000 it was nothing of the kind.

We Love The SCO Information Minister
by jmf on Tue 9th Sep 2003 08:30 UTC

We Love The SCO Information Minister
http://www.welovethescoinformationminister.org

This man, though crazy, is even better than the original
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

Go, SCO, Linux is a tiger of paper, and I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad.

wrong address
by Drazen Gemic on Tue 9th Sep 2003 09:41 UTC

OS community is not an army with a headquaters. McBride
should address a person that attacked their site, not the
community.

But, I guess that McBrides kind of people can not understand
that people can share something in common without being tied
in some kind of corporate hierarchy.

DG

SCO Code
by jan_here on Tue 9th Sep 2003 09:52 UTC

According to Greg Lehay, the code shown on the SCOForum _is_ probably an adapted copy of the sourcecode of System V.4. Though he agrees that the code is algorithmically the same as previous incarnations of the code (like V32) the shown code probably is a copyright violation. At least I find his conclusions to be pretty solid.

see:
http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/code-comparison.html

RE: SCO code
by anarchic-_eapot on Tue 9th Sep 2003 10:44 UTC

"According to Greg Lehay, the code shown on the SCOForum _is_ probably an adapted copy of the sourcecode of System V.4. "

Then perhaps McBride should get off his fat bum and try to find the person that would probably be responsible for the alleged theft, instead of suing just about every major company in sight and sending threatening letters to innocent end-users.

As far as holding the OS community responible for the alleged DDoS attack, well apart from the fact that he's yet to prove anyone from the OS community was involved, it's rather like holding Windows apps developers responsible for the actions of virus and Trojan writers...

RE:RE: SCO code
by elmo on Tue 9th Sep 2003 11:25 UTC

>>Then perhaps McBride should get off his fat bum and try to find the person that would probably be responsible for the alleged theft<<

If you read the article from Greg Lehay you would see that he also comes to the conclusion that SCO has got no case, from the evidence so far presented - he just arrives there on a different path - but to some up, these are his conclusions:

the code shown by SCO does not infringe on SCOs IP,

SCO uses original and primitive Kernel code, no one else is using anymore,

SCO seems to be infringing on the BSD license, as the example shown by SCO is not Linux code, but BSD code.

re: elmo
by jan_here on Tue 9th Sep 2003 12:52 UTC

People seem to want for SCO not to have a case. Lehay states that there is no _current_ infrinement on SCOs IP, but this does not make the copyright violation undone. AFAICT SCO can sue SGI for that, even if the code is not distributed any more, a copyright violation seems to have taken place in the past. It's also true on the other hand that this can probably not been used as a handle against the Linux community as the code has already been removed and only touched IA64 code (and the majority of systems is i386). It just looks bad.

And Darl grabs a straw.
by Mike on Tue 9th Sep 2003 13:02 UTC

He'll pretty much take anything at this point.

I like SCO way of doing things...
by Joe P on Tue 9th Sep 2003 13:33 UTC

1) I wrote some very good code about 10 years ago, and I've just noticed that MSFT has been using it in every version of Windows since the Windows 95 days.

2) I hold the copyright and I don't want MSFT to know what the code is because then I could lose my copyright because everyone would know what my code is.

3) I would like every user who currently uses a version of Windows to send me a check for $100.00 to pay for a license to use my code.

I don't want to be like SCO so I'll include a line in my license stating that I'll stop charging you for a license as soon as MSFT stops using my code in their system.

As a side note, I don't think I'll every stop charging anyone becuase the code is a major part of the OS and removing it would completely disable the OS.

SCO Good for Linux
by ryan on Tue 9th Sep 2003 13:53 UTC

This is a pain and i personally See this as a pump and dump stock scam that is backed by MS somewhere in hope of discrediting linux. But... in the long term this could be good for linux.

It is forcing the open source community to pay closer attention to legal issues and possible consequences of their actions. Plus if linux beats this then they will have survived a major legal challenge and that should actually aid adoption of linux not hinder it. A win by the linux community will actually do a lot to legitimize the entire movement and its products.

SCO and MS, who i suspect is behind this somewhere, could actually end up helping linux. I think this one is going to backfire and i couldn't be happier about it.

Darl does not get it..
by bas on Tue 9th Sep 2003 14:01 UTC



Linux was and is never ment as a business model or a platform to make a profit from. Its a free and open kernel that has just one purpose, to work.
It makes me sick how people like Darl *cough* try to lecture the free software community as if they know how things are most be. Please stop trolling Mr.SCO, when do you realize that
GNU/Linux is a product from for people and he not a business model, moron!

jan_here
by elmo on Tue 9th Sep 2003 14:08 UTC

"People seem to want for SCO not to have a case. "

Of course people do not want SCO to have a case - however that does not mean that they have a case.

That might be so - but concerning the Linux community and on a bigger scale the opensource community, this is more or less irrelevant now.

I am much more concerned about the fact how SCO is alllowed to spew their FUD, changing this way and that way, continously changing their claims, without showing any evidence whatsoever, or the evidence that has been shown is proven to be not fit for the accusations (i.e IP infringement). If you look at some of the other findings of Greg Lehay on his website, you can see that the claims made by SCO about SCO code in Linux are ludicrous.
For Example (just one):
"The kernels have such completely different structures that any code import would be a waste of time: it's easier to write it from"

Also it is very questionable that all the dates have been taken out of SCO source code, when showing the 'evidence' and they refuse to show the revision history of the Unix files.

All in all this whole thing stinks - a company that is trying to capitalize on other people's work and volunteer contributions, for some old garbage code that they can't even prove, or are not willing to prove derives from them.

They repeatedly claim that they are concerned about IP-rights - they are not concerned about IP-rights at all. they are concerned about making quick money and keeping their stock up.

hmmmm....
by bagdad bob on Tue 9th Sep 2003 14:13 UTC

How can you articulate wanting to laugh and throw up at the same time? The top american crime lord is complaining about some petty script kiddies? Words are normally used to relate to known experiences - SCO and Darl envelope everything in a realm where normal logic and principals are suspended. The scary things is - these sick puppies may not even be doing it for the money - they may be economic and / or technilogic terrorists!!!

He is warning the community that he has his sites on pilfering - SCO already warned that they will incorporate SAMBA in Unix. We know where that one will go...

Here is another scary thing. In setting his sites on SGI, the owner of OpenGL, what will that do to the gaming industry? Specfically - what impact will this have on id Software for choosing OpenGL over DirectX? Clearly, SCO will claim OpenGL as an extension to Unix, and therefore OpenGL will become SCO intellectual property. Will there be a demand of $1000 license per copy for each game that you own (or have a demo copy) based on the Quake engine?

v Re: SCO warns the open source community
by teknishn on Tue 9th Sep 2003 14:28 UTC
I'm a member of the Linux community
by Daren on Tue 9th Sep 2003 15:55 UTC

IM A MEMBER OF THE LINUX COMMUNITY and I had nothing to do with the alleged DOS attack. I don't even know or care how to launch such an attack.

It's like trying to explain cars to a Caveman
by Stu on Tue 9th Sep 2003 16:33 UTC

What Darl doesn't 'get' is that if individuals decide to release their code under the GPL, it may just be because they don't want to be paid for it. There are many forms of compensation other than financial; but then it's pretty obvious, considering Darl's (and his cronies) latest simultaneous "pump n' dump"/frivolous lawsuit scam, that these don't even enter his limited vocabulary.

Perhaps I should translate for the benefit of mr. McBride and his little chums:

"Darl, GPL $oftware writer$ don't want your money and they don't want to enter into negotiation$ with you - they ju$t want to write the be$t $oftware they can for everyone'$ benefit - including your$, funnily enough! Tell u$ where the infringement$ are and the problem$ will be $olved quickly and painle$$ly!"

Perhaps that one will make it through the money-grabbing tw*t's la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you filters.

SGI is about dead anywyay
by me on Tue 9th Sep 2003 17:14 UTC

What do they expect to gain by trying to leach SGI dry?

Where are the law enforcement officers ?
by Mark Gruber on Tue 9th Sep 2003 19:17 UTC

In Germany, it didn't take long to force SCO to shut up in a legal fashion. Why is it that in the US, nobody from the Justice Department or the SEC seems interested in investigating SCO either for racketeering or for deceiving investors with what looks like a pump and dump scheme ?

Re: Where are the law enforcement officers ?
by Mark Wilson on Tue 9th Sep 2003 20:09 UTC

Mark Gruber wrote:

"In Germany, it didn't take long to force SCO to shut up in a legal fashion. Why is it that in the US, nobody from the Justice Department or the SEC seems interested in investigating SCO either for racketeering or for deceiving investors with what looks like a pump and dump scheme ?"

Such investigations may already be ongoing, but are typically not publicly announced until the government is required to make public court filings. I don't know whether SCO is being investigated or not, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are.

Regards,

Mark

RE: SCO
by Wrawrat on Tue 9th Sep 2003 20:17 UTC

Darl McBride, darling, sweety, if you have a problem with the opensource software why don't you simply disclose all your code so that we (the community) can conduct a line-by-line code audit to ensure none of your "valuable" intellectual property has slipped into an opensource project.

Well, I guess once it's publicly available, it's not a "trade secret" anymore... ;)

Anyway, their claims are much broader. They claim they own and control all derivate works, like RCU, NUMA, XFS, JFS and SMP, even if they didn't developed it. Basically, any project that used SysV source can be classified as a derivate work. Some people claim that the GPL is viral... This is nothing next to their claims. ;)

Is this guy for real??
by rspickles on Tue 9th Sep 2003 22:55 UTC

If anyone is acting in an uncivilized manner it is McBride. Social contract says that if you accuse someone stealing you must show proof.

Business code of conduct says that if you have a beef with someone – you go to them and try to settle it first in a friendly manner. Having spent many years in Business – I have had dealings with many many thousands of people and companies had maybe a thousand disagreements exactly two of which went to court maybe four more went as far as a threat of court action. In nearly every case both sides found common ground enough to settle the dispute through negotiations. Often the talk was very informal like “hey, I got a problem with this”. From what I can see McBride went from there is no problem with me to – suing and demanding to be paid for “his IP” (which seems to be every line of code ever written) in one step.

Fact is Mr. McBride is the one that is acting outside the norm – and if you act like a thug you draw the attention of other thugs. If you act like an ass you will be treated like one. If you act with respect and proper decorum you will be treated well and be respected.

Had SCO and McBride come to the Open Source community and said “Gee I thing that you may have some of our code in your software and I think we need fix things. There would have been no anger or hostile reactions. The Open source community would have worked hard to fix any real problems that existed.
Instead he started out calling everyone a lier and a thief – and I cannot think of a better way to make new enemies than that.

In reality we all have seen that Mr McBride has no interest in protecting his property only in as much money as he can grab deserved or NOT. There is probably very little property in SCO Unix left to protect anyway.

Groklaw
by Richard James on Wed 10th Sep 2003 02:09 UTC

The website for groklaw, which is basically a paralegal following this case is
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/

It tells a lot more about the story

I also want to admit that I was wrong. I didn't believe that Microsoft was behind this but now after finding out that Melinda Gates is involved in all this I do.

re: elmo
by jan_here on Wed 10th Sep 2003 02:36 UTC

"Of course people do not want SCO to have a case - however that does not mean that they have a case."

I meant that some people are stuck in "SCO does not have a case because I don't want them to.", though facts _might_ differ from personal perception. Denial of the possibility is not helpful, that includes the possibility that they have a case that is different from their original claims. A lawsuit is a lawsuit, no matter if its about IP or copyright.

"Also it is very questionable that all the dates have been taken out of SCO source code, when showing the 'evidence' and they refuse to show the revision history of the Unix files."

Lehay and ESR seem to agree that the code shown in the Memory Allocation example claimed to be System V code is actually System V.r4 code, therefore dateable one. AFAICT from the Esr analysis: the file does not seem to have been altered for the SCO Forum slides, the revision is simply not included in the part that comprises the function (neither in the Linux file nor the System V file) or have you been shown "evidence" besides the SCO Forum slides that is different? As for the BPF example: they only showed a small portion of the code, to illustrate their claims of obfuscation. Where do you see deliberate omission of revision information? Though it is of course important to know what they claim when this piece of code came into existance, it seems to be clear and evident without a doubt that they do not own the code in System V that they accuse the Linux code to be an obfuscation of. This example will probably never be used again.

" or the evidence that has been shown is proven to be not fit for the accusations (i.e IP infringement)."

What they have publicly (and juristically) accused IBM of and what they are going to accuse SGI of are two different shoes. To quote McBride from his "open Letter" (http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=117587)

"However, nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use, and then contributed that source code into Linux as though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI."

See? They can claim to never have accused SGI of anything else than copyright violations. I know that this is not important in the general perception of this issue though. This is probably something they noticed later on in their search for "violations", after they started all this fuss about IBM. Actually this is really something they can use, something solid. Probably too little for a lawsuit, after all they are "currently working to try and resolve these issues with SGI" (Note: no mention of direct legal action so far), but at least something they can point to (with the usual nebulous suggestions of "more"). Especially if they can force SGI to admit wrongdoing this might be a huge win for SCO, even if they do not come up with anything else like this later, the damage will then already be done.

That should be
by Nicholas James on Wed 10th Sep 2003 03:33 UTC

SCO should not release "closed" code.