SCO’s CEO Darl McBride was told that the Linux kernel contained no SCO copyright code six months before the company issued its first lawsuit, a memo reveals. An outside consultant Bob Swartz conducted the audit, and on August 13 2002 Caldera’s Michael Davidson reported the results.
Now SCO have no legs..
Also more people are likely to shun SCO bye bye
It will be funny when they go under.
They had the opportunity to fix their products and sell them at a reasonable price, and god forbid, actually compete, but instead, they made up stories, and now McBride will go down with the ship, and probably line is pockets quite generously with a bonus or two.
I hope this will have a positive effect on third parties contributing time and effort into Linux now the future isn’t uncertain.Let the drivers come 🙂
They only wanted some publicity/advert from he media.Some people started to question if SCO indeed has a case loooong before it was proven they have no legs
Wow and all those “raving mad Linux socialist idealists” were correct in their suspcions all along! I guess thats what you call an educated guess.
Does this mean that we’re finally at the end of this ridiculous fiaSCO?
where’s the ridiculous pun mod button on this thing…
Honestly, I like that pun
Will people(Darl) be up for prison time if/when IBM get’s the win in this case?
If it can be proven that this was nothing more than a way to artifically boost stocks and/or SCO was acting as Microsofts puppet, surely there will be people going away.
Will people(Darl) be up for prison time if/when IBM get’s the win in this case?
No…no matter how many little geeks have fantasies of him being tarred and feathered.
Does this mean that we’re finally at the end of this ridiculous fiaSCO?
I sure damn hope so! SCO has brought nothing but trouble for the Linux community and if there’s anything they’ve accomplished through their miserable existence, is that the Linux community as a whole is more united and this will make us better prepared for the final battle against M$.
“I sure damn hope so! SCO has brought nothing but trouble for the Linux community and if there’s anything they’ve accomplished through their miserable existence, is that the Linux community as a whole is more united and this will make us better prepared for the final battle against M$.”
Holy flying cow sh*t. You need some help my friend. The final battle? Get real man, if that is your focus you are not going to get linux anywhere. Your worst enemy is yourself by the looks of what you said. So when apple has more market share which they will as time goes on will you fight them too? Why do you have to battle them? That is the problem with some of the linux community.
You do realize that Microsoft does see this as a battle, right? With their anti-competitive tactics, “Embrace and Extend” offensives and endless FUD campaigns, MS has long ago drawn a line in the sand. YOU may not see this as a battle, but clearly Microsoft does. So how should Linux advocates react? Ignore the threat, or respond in kind?
You see this as a problem for the Linux community, will you at least accept that this is a problem with Microsoft as well? And please don’t answer that “Microsoft is a business”…Linux belongs to its community, so it has as much as stake in this as Microsoft does.
I guess that the feeling in the Linux community at large is “we didn’t start this fight, but we’ll damn well finish it.” I’m curious to hear your arguments as to why this attitude is miguided.
One company holding the Unix copyrights…..
One company holding the Unix copyrights…..
Except for one itsy bitsy, every so tiny detail – Novell never transfered the copyrights to them.
Now we know it’s a fake lawsuit running for some years, FUDing Linux and the whole open source movement. It’s understandable -though despicable- that somebody would want and gain from spreading FUD for open source. The problem is the over-litigious environment, which was built by and for the benefit of lawyers. They don’t care who they sue and why, as long as there’s money to be gained. That’s what should be changed; after all there will always be unscrupoulous people trying to use the laws and processes for personal gain. We should try to change the environment. Thing is, I don’t know how this can be done.
You forget that the lawyers are just the mechanism, the intent still lies with the companies themselves. How can you expect the workplace to be built around greed and competition and yet remain civil? If you play with fire, you’re going to get burned.
Well, this shouldn’t exactly suprise anyone here. We knew they were full of it since the begining.
I hope IBM counter suits SCO when this ends, because SCO was the cause of alot of damage to both IBM and Linux. They maintained several years of FUD cost alot of sales. This is clearly an anti-competitive practice.
Well, this shouldn’t exactly suprise anyone here. We knew they were full of it since the begining.
I hope IBM counter suits SCO when this ends, because SCO was the cause of alot of damage to both IBM and Linux. They maintained several years of FUD cost alot of sales. This is clearly an anti-competitive practice.
Not sure where uve been, IBM currently has 10 counterclaims against SCO, as well as Red Hat having a lawsuit against SCO.
Linux is based on Minix and Minix is based on AT&T Unix code.
I think that there is code in Linux from AT&T Unix code.
Now owner of AT&T Unix code is SCO.
I don’t believe that there is no code.
I don’t believe that there is no code.
Heh, then you should have got to the consultant and Mike Davidson before they wrote the audit and internal e-mail that contradict you.
Linux is based on Minix and Minix is based on AT&T Unix code.
[…]
Linux is not based on Minix, Linux used Minix as its primary development platform, like other OSes do during its initial stages.
Of course, Linux was need to implement some Minix features like the Minix filesystem in order to interact better with that provisional platform mother.
Actually you have a couple of things wrong:
As someone already pointed out, Linux is NOT based on Minix.
Also, as far as I know Minix was not based on Unix code, except where such code was publicly available.
Finally, it’s not clear whether SCO actually owns the Unix code. There is a lawsuit brought in by Novell about this, where they alledge that they didn’t cede the code to SCO, but only the ability to relicense it.
As the article explains, if there is similar code in Linux and in Unix, it’s because they both legitimately acquired it from a third source (e.g. X11).
Don’t you think that, if there was copyright infringement of any kind, SCO would have been able to show it in court by now? It’s been close to, what, two years now, and SCO hasn’t come up with ANY credible evidence.
SCO’s toast.
“Linux is based on Minix and Minix is based on AT&T Unix code. ”
You got two things wrong
1) Linux isnt based on Minix
2) Minix is based on AT & T code
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/
Linux was created to be an open source clone of UNIX. It was created to be something better than Minix. So, it is safe to say that Linux was not fully based on Minix, but however, was based on UNIX… as it’s pretty much compatible.
OH BY THE WAY:
OSNews forgot to do the UPDATE!!!: section on this story as the register has a new article with SCO’s rebbuttal.
Maybe I am not true.
But from where there is used base code of MINIX.
It’s the title of the book that McBride will be writing soon.
Is there any likelyhood that these guys get sued for contempt of justice or something ?
If you don’t read the Andy tannenbaum link you will nonot understand anything.
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/
Linus did not use the Minix code to write Linux he used the Minix operating and the gcc compiler toe write Linux. If you write a program on Windows and compile using MS Visual C++ you are not copying any Windows code. Simple innit.
Thank You.
Maybe I was not true.
Now it is good to see that Linux and IBM win. These are good news for Linux and IBM.
Linux is “inspired” by Minix, not based on it. There is no Minix code in Linux. Come on, there are understandable mistakes but we went through all this two years ago!
Holy flying cow sh*t. You need some help my friend. The final battle? Get real man, if that is your focus you are not going to get linux anywhere. Your worst enemy is yourself by the looks of what you said.
I’m sure the original poster was over the top, but where do you think this SCO nonsense came from? Why do you think SCO has been lavishly funded by Microsoft, both directly (through an overpriced but ultimately worthless IP license) and indirectly (by twisting BayStar’s arm, that much is certain; and probably much more that is still fuzzy – like the role of Sun Microsystems)? In the Japenese sense of business as war, this is World War III my friend.
Someone should start a fund to purchase the unix copyright when it comes up for sale in a few months.
The fund should be created as a non-profit and then, once purchased, should be donated to the FSF.
SCO doesn’t own the copyrights to Unix…Novell still holds those.
[quote]Someone should start a fund to purchase the unix copyright when it comes up for sale in a few months.
The fund should be created as a non-profit and then, once purchased, should be donated to the FSF.[/quote]
The best idea I ever heard…. However, there are some companies who could be interested in the copyright, and the question is, how much money is needed to outbid these companies.
the ideea of a non profit found for the unix copyright is very good.
How much is it anyway??
But i don’t think that it will happen….
:S
—————————————–
http://www.estorilmotor.net
http://www.apoiar.org
“Someone should start a fund to purchase the unix copyright when it comes up for sale in a few months.
The fund should be created as a non-profit and then, once purchased, should be donated to the FSF.”
Bad idea, imho. It should go to the public domain or at least something a little more business friendly than the FSF. There are still valuable, perfectly legitimate but proprietary Unixes out there.
This really makes me angry – If Bernie Ebbers is going to jail and Martha Stewart did as well – Then someone from the justice department better be visiting Mr. McBride REAL SOON! In my opinion this is as bad as WorldCON. The pessimist in me says that nothing will happen however because the only people that were injured were a bunch of techy geeks and an Operating System.
The pessimist in me says that nothing will happen however because the only people that were injured were a bunch of techy geeks and an Operating System.
What about IBM, RedHat, Daimler Chrysler, and AutoZone?
Please elucidate on how SCO’s lawsuit is as bad as the activities of MCI WorldCom.
If they knew and proceeded with a law suit than this is filing a false suit isn’t it? I am pretty sure it is but ianal. On the other hand Sco has tried to change what the lawsuit is about so many times that it is sort of hard to follow.. Is it about code, copyright or broken contracts… better ask the peeps at groklaw because my head is spinning..The only thing I am sure of now.. is that is was nothing more than a “PUMP and Dump” scheme to inflate the value of Sco shares.
I don’t understand how people can possibly say stuff like ‘Ha! Now they have no case anymore!’.
It’s not like they ever stood a snowballs chance in hell. They took on a usercommunity of millions AND IBM on extremely dubious grounds. Now that’s stupid if there ever was stupid.
The pessimist in me says that nothing will happen however because the only people that were injured were a bunch of techy geeks and an Operating System.
What about IBM, RedHat, Daimler Chrysler, and AutoZone?
I agree – and MANY more companies – I work for one of these companies and have sold Linux solutions. I have personally seen how much time has been wasted on Risk Mitigation exercises because of SCO.
My point is that this is SO hard to follow for even the folks in the community and the issues are hard to get your mind around. I don’t see government prosecuters getting behind the cause – It will be thought that too few voters will benefit.
Hey..Whats that? Seems I heard it again. Oh wait I know its… The sound of SCO getting the Smackdown they fully deserve. A repeated beating is in order for these punks!
Nothing like having yet ANOTHER company spreading FUD. Another company making false accusations. Another company that can’t make a winning product themselves. When in doubt?… sue everyone in sight!
Weren’t they in cahoots with MS, also….do their lawsuits never end.
It will be a very happy day when all these FUD crap companies die.
News.com also has a write up.
http://news.com.com/SCO+e-mail+No+smoking+gun+in+Linux+code/2100-73…
I also stated my opinions in my Blog.
http://rjdohnert.blogspot.com/2005/07/sco-e-mail-no-smoking-gun-in-…
I do find it funny that all pro-Linux advocacy sites do not even acknowledge the original consultants e-mail but merely focus on that one incompetent engineers e-mail.
Roberto, I can’t believe you’re still arguing that SCO may have a case. Calling an engineer “incompetent” just because he contradicts what you want to believe is just pathetic.
If SCO had a case, they would have demosntrated it in court by now. They haven’t, despite months of theatrics in the media.
SCO’s toast, and its pending utter annihilation will only make Linux stronger. Sorry to disappoint you, but you should start considering the fact that you may have been wrong about this since the beginning.
” Roberto, I can’t believe you’re still arguing that SCO may have a case. Calling an engineer “incompetent” just because he contradicts what you want to believe is just pathetic. ”
Im not calling him incompetent because he contradicts anything, Im calling him incompetent because he expects us to believe, those of us outside the Linux community, that he can say without a shadow of the doubt that Linux contains no UNIX source code. Out of a product that contains millions of lines of code. Right. In 1999 the outside consultancy that examined the code says there are literal examples of copying of UNIX source code into Linux. Yet this engineer wants to come back and say “Nope, its not in there” I dont think it was broad access to the Linux or UNIX source code that changed his mind, I think it was broad access to the Open Source community.
” SCO’s toast, and its pending utter annihilation will only make Linux stronger. Sorry to disappoint you, but you should start considering the fact that you may have been wrong about this since the beginning. ”
I think I will wait for the trial, because, all I see and hear from groklaw and the Linux community are half-truths and only half the story, such as in this case.
In 1999 the outside consultancy that examined the code says there are literal examples of copying of UNIX source code into Linux.
He said there were FRAGMENTS he wasn’t sure about. He then goes on to say he is waiting for word from an engineer who has MORE EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE THAN HIM IN THAT AREA. Guess who that engineer was?
Yet this engineer wants to come back and say “Nope, its not in there”
You really need to improve your reading comprehension. He didn’t say “it’s not in there,” he said it was there, but in all cases, the code was lawfully obtained from a third party (like xwindows or BSD).
I think I will wait for the trial, because, all I see and hear from groklaw and the Linux community are half-truths and only half the story, such as in this case.
Whether you agree with PJ’s analysis or not, Groklaw publishes EVERYTHING. Every document publically available is published and discussed. Individuals not associated with any party go down to the courts on their own time and spend their own money to get copies of the documents that aren’t online so that everyone gets all info that is not sealed. If you don’t like the info presented, it’s because you’re betting on the wrong horse.
You are the one in denial, and spouting half-truths simply because you cannot accept the whole truth.
“I think I will wait for the trial, because, all I see and hear from groklaw and the Linux community are half-truths and only half the story, such as in this case.”
Maybe, but it seems to be the half of the story that’s accurate. You seem to want to stick with no-truths, and none of the story. Ok, that’s fine. But you may have to keep waiting, since SCO keeps trying to delay the case it tried to make. You seem to confuse theoretical with realism. SCO can still have a case . . . theoretically.
When seeking legal advise, people usually do seek second and sometimes even third opinions. Just because someone told SCO that there was no stolen code in Linux does not mean there is not stolen code in Linux. SCO was perfectly in their legal right to seek another opinion. Their claim is log illegal based on a first opinion, people. And only the legal system can say whether the claims are true or not. We’re not done with this!
By the way, I claim that Windows has Unix code! It’s my legal right to make this claim, and Microsoft’s policies only makes me more suspicious.
I do feel that SCO was criminal in their licensing campaign. Once this is over, something tells me that will be the one true legal case. Someone’s going to have to answer for selling a license that has not been legally justified…
Roberto, I think you’re correct that SCO may have been planning this for a long time – the “incompetent” engineer’s e-mail in fact says exactly that (he refers to SCO management refusing to believe there is no evidence of copying, and notes they have planned to use any such evidence as ‘leverage’ to sell licenses to Linux vendors as insurance against an SCO lawsuit – sound familiar?).
I do find it funny that all pro-Linux advocacy sites do not even acknowledge the original consultants e-mail but merely focus on that one incompetent engineers e-mail.
The original consultant shows a far higher opinion of the engineer than you apparently have. The consultant’s e-mail says, “I am awaiting analysis from Mike Davidson [the supposedly incompetent engineer] on some of these issues, since he has a better feel for the history of much of this code.”
novell did transferred the copyrights to them.. which is why novell shut up about it. you need the copyrights for the type of business that sco was doing… it would not be transfered if sco did not need the copyrights to enforce the IP.. novell shut up quickly about it.
I don’t see why anyone would buy SCO. Sun microsystems has the equvilant of UNIX ownership and has open sourced it. Theres no point in buying any unix company when you can just createa a solaris distro!
That’s right. Linux AND Unix(R) are both open sourced now.
novell did transferred the copyrights to them.. which is why novell shut up about it.
Uh, no. The jury is literally still out on this one, since this issue is now in front of a judge. IIRC Judge Kimball did say that the wording of the contract between Novell and OldSCO is anything but clear, and it’s still not clear what SCO bought, exactly.
Not that this has any relevance, since there is no UNIX code that was inappropriately copied into Linux.
your in denial aren’t you? or are you incredibly biased?
novell did transferred the copyrights to them.. which is why novell shut up about it. you need the copyrights for the type of business that sco was doing… it would not be transfered if sco did not need the copyrights to enforce the IP.. novell shut up quickly about it.
You really need to keep up with the cases more closely. I suggest you read Groklaw on a daily basis. Novel did NOT shut up about it – they took it private like any respectable company would. Novell has posted their correspondance with SCO over the issue, entering their letters to SCO and SCO’s responses in the Novell / SCO case as proof they didn’t shut up.
Second, if the ORIGINAL SCO needed the copyrights, they were supposed to ASK IN WRITING for them as their contract states. NEW SCO (Caldera renamed) has yet to even show their contract with the ORIGINAL SCO showing what they were to have received from ORIGINAL SCO. New SCO claims to have “misplaced” the contract and has not yet even proved they are legally the successors to Santa Cruz Operation (original SCO).
The judge clearly stated in the Novell / SCO case that he believes the copyrights were NOT transferred, and that TSG (The SCO Group, i.e., New SCO) would have trouble proving they own the code in question.
Groklaw ??? Groklaw is a completely one sided site. Everything coming out of them is biased. I do not trust them.
And no, I will not read on the sco lawsuit everyday because i have better things to do
And yes, the agreement clearly states that if sco required the copyrights they would be transferrred, and the copyright office even thinks so. It’s ridicoulus to think otherwise. If the judge in the SCO-IBM case thought SCO did not own the rights then it would be dismissed. Furthermore, the SCO-Novell suite would be dismissed if the judge clearly thinks that SCO does not own the rights. judges are not idiots
Groklaw ??? Groklaw is a completely one sided site. Everything coming out of them is biased. I do not trust them.
PJ makes no secret of her bias, but that’s besides the point. In addition to the advocacy, Groklaw does put out actual court documents. You’re welcome to show where PJ’s analysis is wrong, it’s all out there.
One can be both biased and right, you know!
Seriously, if SCO had any evidence, don’t you think we would have seen it by now?
And no, I will not read on the sco lawsuit everyday because i have better things to do
Apparently you don’t have better things to do than post about your mistrust of Groklaw while admitting that you don’t actually follow the case…
If the judge in the SCO-IBM case thought SCO did not own the rights then it would be dismissed. Furthermore, the SCO-Novell suite would be dismissed if the judge clearly thinks that SCO does not own the rights. judges are not idiots
The judge has yet to pass judgement. Let’s wait until he does before surmising to know what he thinks about the transfer of copyrights, shall we?
it looks like ibm did little wrong and sgi did stuff wrong… but you don’t see them sueing SGI for actually doing something wrong. Maybe its because they hoped that IBM would settle.
IBM, SGI, and SCO are all worthless companies.
This is why I believe you hear (whether its true or not) about Apple going to x86 right after this SCO thing has almost been played out. So long as The Evil Corp. (TM) can keep the name of Linux from being golden and well known, the better (for them). It’s just more shitting on the name of Linux which will likely continue in various forms until the damage is done in Joe User’s mind.
^ <– All in my opinion –> ^
Other news on this subject say that why the content of the memo is ‘interesting’, there is no proof that Darl ever recieved it (!).
PS: Don’t shoot the herald… 🙂
1 – The law and punishment must be harder and broader for decision makers on companies;
2 – The direct and indirect income schema must be changed to better reflect the impact of decisions of such managers on companies life.
Just look what Carly, Capelas, Darl and many others did with the companies they directed. They didn’t give a damn about the future of the company or theirs employees, partners or customers. And they still could grab loads of money from.
There are lots of people saying “Bad SCO”, “Shame on you Broadcom” and the like, but them don’t realise that what happened was a management fault, frequently well planned to give them an unreasonable amount of green bucks.
While these “smart” people are allowd to have unethical rewards regardless of the outcome there will be ever a new “SCO”.
Quote: “Bad idea, imho. It should go to the public domain or at least something a little more business friendly than the FSF. There are still valuable, perfectly legitimate but proprietary Unixes out there.”
No, it’s a good idea. Going back to the FSF, and being attributed to the GPL would be solidly the best. Why? It stops bastard manifestations like the BSD code fiasco from having. Corporations using the code MUST re-contribute back to the community. Period. There is no other acceptable way, and this is ultimately why the BSD license, and public domain is completely unacceptable.
The moral question is – why should all these greedy bastard corporations be allowed to use the Unix code for nothing and not re-contribute back. For sure, if being public domain meant that they’d have honour, and re-contribute back, fine, then public domain it. However – we all know that modern business doesn’t work this way. They take, take, take, and more take. Then do some screwing over, then lie, then do bullshit advertising campaigns, spread FUD and then lie some more. All without a thought of being grateful for any code that they got, and returning back to the community that they stole it from.
No thanks – I’d rather see the entire Unix system given to the FSF and GPL’d.
Dave
Quote: “Groklaw ??? Groklaw is a completely one sided site. Everything coming out of them is biased. I do not trust them.”
What, and Microsoft’s “Get the facts” campaign isn’t one sided? Groklaw doesn’t have to be neutral, it’s a site done by Linux enthusiasts, for Linux enthusiasts, who firmly believe that SCO has lied all along.
Tell me, if SCO’s case is so strong, why have they not produced any evidence, despite 3 court rulings to do so? The even more worrying aspect is that the Judge hasn’t gotten off his ass and dismissed the case based on SCO not complying with orders. That’s what should happen.
Quote: “If the judge in the SCO-IBM case thought SCO did not own the rights then it would be dismissed. Furthermore, the SCO-Novell suite would be dismissed if the judge clearly thinks that SCO does not own the rights. judges are not idiots”
The judge is saying that the contractual agreements are very messy. Things like this take time to unravel. I do not think a jury is suitable to decide something like this – many jurors will not understand contract law, nor the Unix business model etc., and will be just fed FUD by the lawyers. The lawyers that spread the best FUD (and not facts) will get the jurors hook, line and sinker. A trial like Novell vs SCO should only been seen, and decided by a panel of judges. Those that are legally competent to make a decision on a contract. The average person is incompetent when reading, and comprehending legalese.
In the end, I think you’ll see SCO lose it’s case, IBM win it’s counterclaims, DC also win it’s counterclaims, also Redhat. I think you’ll see Novell win vs SCO as well, and retain copyrights (they were never transferred to SCO anyways). It’s pretty clear cut. Of course, with Microsoft funding the SCO lawsuit, and bribing US politicians, and I bet US Judges being leaned on to make certain decisions, in certain ways, anything can happen.
The German courts dealt with this SCO bullshit very nice – dismissed it as a frivolous claim very quickly, and in the end, that’s all it ever was. It makes me wonder why the US system is so complicated, so slow, and so unproductive.
Dave
First, try to contain your exuberance. This email covers research that was done back in 1999. IBM didn’t really get rolling on its huge Linux investment until late 2000. Which means that the research didn’t even look at subsequent code which IBM added to Linux.
Second, those of you calling for McBride et al to go to jail need to get a grip. This is a civil case — not a criminal trial. Nobody has filed criminal charges against McBride for anything which zealots have accused him of: stock manipulation, false filings, perjury, etc. Get realistic. It just ain’t gonna happen.
Tell me, if SCO’s case is so strong, why have they not produced any evidence…
I’ve heard this a million times too many. What makes you think that you’re entitled to see and/or know about all of the evidence that’s been entered in the trial court record? You don’t know squat. SCO is under no obligation to reveal its evidence to you, the public.
We may not have seen all evidence, but we HAVE been following the trial through the reports of various people who attend the hearings, and guess what: SCO has yet to come up with any convincing evidence, despite the fact that they claim “literal” copying of “millions of lines of code”.
Oh, by the way, we’re not entitled to read all the evidence (because of alleged trade secrets and closed code), but we are entitled to KNOW about every piece of evidence entered. This is america, not a police state, and the judicial system is beholden to a minimum amount of transparency.
It seems obvious from your posts that you are a SCO supporter (and, given the fact that these are few and far between, perhaps even a SCO employee). At some point you’ll have to accept the fact that most reasonable people now think that SCO don’t have a chance in hell.
SCO’s toast.
Quote: “You don’t know squat”
I just love a dummy spit. Guess what pal, you know jack squat as well [about the SCO case]. So, where does that leave us?
Quote: “SCO is under no obligation to reveal its evidence to you, the public.”
Au contrare, they might not have to tell me the details, but, as archiesteel said, they’re obliged to lodge them with the court, and the court acknowledges them when lodged. That is documented.
And despite your bullish comments, SCO has not provided evidence. None. IBM says so in very recent documents. Even the Judge is losing patience with SCO, and judges generally don’t lose their patience unless they’re getting hoodwinked.
Dave