Home > SCO > SCO Now Threatens Red Hat and SuSE SCO Now Threatens Red Hat and SuSE Submitted by Alien_II 2003-04-23 SCO 71 Comments CRN reports that SCO will target SuSE and Red Hat with lawsuits regarding their UNIX IP, after they are done with IBM. “There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done” SCO said. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 71 Comments 2003-04-23 10:45 pm Anonymous How does this affect United Linux? Does SCO plan to stay in the industry? 2003-04-23 10:46 pm Anonymous Just don’t buy anything from SCO! They will go into bankrupcy and won’t bother us anymore! 2003-04-23 10:47 pm Anonymous I guess they figured Radhat and SuSE does not have the same legal resources as IBM to defend themselves. 2003-04-23 10:51 pm Anonymous It is funny that SCO wants to go against SuSE, while SuSE are their allies (and the major force behind) UnitedLinux. Going after SuSE looks to me even worse like when going against IBM, as SuSE were their “friends”. If these are your friends, beware of your enemies… 2003-04-23 10:52 pm Anonymous “How does this affect United Linux? Does SCO plan to stay in the industry?” It’s really ironic. Somebody should remind SCO that they are a part of United Linux. That very same United Linux that is basically ENTIRELY BASED on SUSE. And now they tell the world they are going after them. Talk about shooting your own foot. 2003-04-23 10:57 pm Anonymous PLEASE, IBM, buy those guys out so that they will finally be silenced… 2003-04-23 11:10 pm Anonymous So they should just stop because they are “allied” with SuSE? Why? If their claims are valid (and they seem to think so) it’s a non-brainer. Always do what brings you more money. That’s the American way. Companies are allied with each other only as long as it is advantageous to both. If one can get a better position by breaking an alliance they usually do. 2003-04-23 11:15 pm Anonymous “There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done” sounds like it came out of the mouth of the Iraqi Minister for Information. 2003-04-23 11:19 pm Anonymous McBride : … This is our most prized possession. We’re the source of AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Linux, Mac OSX. It all comes from us. … System V is the basis for all operating systems outside of Redmond, AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Apple and Linux Now correct me if I’m wrong, but Mac OSX is based on BSD right? This means that it doesn’t contain any System V code, because they completely cleaned their code with the 4.4lite release. 2003-04-23 11:37 pm Anonymous System V is the basis for all operating systems outside of Redmond, AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Apple and Linux All operating systems except for all of these.. and the ones we forgot to mention, like BeOS, QNX, Amiga, etc… right? I love sweeping statements that aren’t sweeping. 2003-04-23 11:37 pm Anonymous “There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done” > sounds like it came out of the mouth of the Iraqi Minister > for Information. no hard feelingz but it sounds more as US Minister for Information these dayz… but any case – all bad guys: US MfI, Iraqi MfI, SCO MfI… 2003-04-23 11:39 pm Anonymous I hear they are the same guys that buyed DrDOS and sued MS afterward. They must be hoping to replicate the same success here. 2003-04-23 11:45 pm Anonymous Gotta love a software company that makes more money from its lawyers than from its programmers 2003-04-23 11:46 pm Anonymous I hear they are the same guys that buyed DrDOS and sued MS afterward. They must be hoping to replicate the same success here. And afterwards they gave it away for free for a while, then sold it (the rights). They really seem to go from lawsuit to lawsuit. 2003-04-23 11:48 pm Anonymous That’s exactly what shouldn’t happen. Frivolous lawsuits shouldn’t be rewarded, and these scum shouldn’t walk away with a dime. 2003-04-23 11:51 pm Anonymous lawyers vs. linuxites which parasite will win? 2003-04-23 11:51 pm Anonymous “(and they seem to think so)” Of course they *say* they think so. The interview was pure posturing. You don’t have to believe what you’re saying to start a lawsuit; all you need is fifty bucks and a typewriter, and the willingness to damage others. 2003-04-24 12:12 am Anonymous Why does he keep saying Linux and OS X are based on SysV? And what’s with these libraries he keeps talking about? Redhat and Suse do not include any proprietary Unix libraries to my knowledge. 2003-04-24 12:17 am Anonymous > Redhat and Suse do not include any proprietary Unix libraries to my knowledge. According to SCO, IBM has incorporated SCO IP code to several Linux kernel and surrounding libraries, as open and free source. And normally, Linux companies are using the kernel and these libraries. I don’t know about BSD and OSX. I hope they have “clean” code that do not fall under SCO’s IP. 2003-04-24 12:19 am Anonymous What a shame … it’s not the first of April, today. Well they should have kept it for next year. enjoy 2003-04-24 12:23 am Anonymous RTFA, they are going after IBM first, or even the little comment of the article posted. Only if they survive (which they won’t) are they going to try to go after RH and Suse. 2003-04-24 12:25 am Anonymous As I understand it, the entire issue of UNIX code in BSD was taken care of years ago in another case. Since OS X is a derivative of BSD, and Apple has not licensed or received UNIX code from another source, I doubt SCO has a leg to stand on against them. If further evidence is needed, OS X uses the Mach microkernel, which is completely separate from the traditional BSD kernel. So once again, no chance of IP problems from SCO. 2003-04-24 12:30 am Anonymous When was the last time SCO was relevant anyway…. I hope they fail in these stupid lawsuits and go out of business. -G 2003-04-24 12:37 am Anonymous IBM will most probably countersue them, after all they have more patents than any company in the world and am sure they are researching on all the possible patent violations tha SCO Unix probably carry. At the end, IBM will bankrupt them under the weight of legal fees and proceedings and buy the scraps from bankrupcy proceedings under Chapter 7 (total liquidation) http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/11 2003-04-24 12:38 am Anonymous Going up against SuSE and all these companies without any proof (not any public proof anyway) and insulting all of the OSS developers world wide. No wonder they don’t have a successful Linux business. They either learn the rules of the game or perish from this market, currently it looks like the latter is going to happen. 2003-04-24 12:41 am Anonymous i think we are all missing a real major point here… if suse and sco are part of united linux… there has to be some way suse can sue sco for some breach of contract… i’m no lawyer but somehow it only seems logical that threatening a business partner like this has got to have consiquences… 2003-04-24 1:04 am Anonymous Originally SCO was saying that this is not a “code” issue. That actual code was not stolen, but ideas from Unix code for higher end performance. Since that is so vague, it could apply to anything. Heck, how do we know that SCO isn’t going through Linux source and putting it in “UNIX”? Raise your hand if you think they might come up with some phony Unix source that appeared in Linux first and use that as evidence? Okay, put your hands down. I can’t see you. Oh, you have a webcam? Well, it was just a figure of speech. Anyways: SCO is now claiming that (get this) Unix source is showing up in RedHat and Suse. However, I guess this unix code is NOT showing up in SCO Linux? How is it only showing up in RedHat and Suse? 2003-04-24 1:14 am Anonymous Greetings. I am the new Spokesperson from SCO Unix (Saddam Controled OS). We will defeat Infidel Business Machines. They have no Lawyers. They are committing suicide. We are confident that God will protect us. IBM has invaded our IP and all our users will fight to the death. RedHat is IMB’s Dog. IBM has tried spying on us with Helicopters. Our farmers in Santa Cruz have shot them down. Their servers are stuck in the river. IBM has taken hostages and put RedHat on their computers to make them look like linux users. Unix is the source of all code. There is no code but Unix, and Unix is good. We know this is true because even Michael Moore says so. 2003-04-24 1:16 am Anonymous It’s about time someone challenged the legality of Linux. It’s been asking for it. It’s clear to any knowledgeable person that it’s an IP stealer. It has been and always will be. Perhaps the greatest thing is seeing all of the lunix zealots whining about it. Especially since they have no sense of the legal system whatsoever. 2003-04-24 1:23 am Anonymous SCO needs to go to hell. First IBM, and now Redhat and SuSE?! whats next, sueing Lycoris because they use Lizard. SCO uses SuSE’s installer! SuSE should sue them. 2003-04-24 1:26 am Anonymous i’d just like to add my considered voice to say that SCO are being quite ungracious. in the light of the wider context they certainly do themselves no favours. 2003-04-24 1:29 am Anonymous Well, Todu, allow me to be among the first of about seven hundred Linux users who respond to your idiocy. Do you know thing one about Linux? Evidently not; if you did, you’d know that Linux is not Unix, but a Unix-alike. There aren’t any lines of Unix code in Linux (unless certain distros incorporated them on their own, which clearly would be a violation if done in the absence of a liscensing agreement). From Linus Torvalds on, Linux has avoided duplicating code from Unix. Please read up before making grand declarations. 2003-04-24 1:35 am Anonymous “It’s clear to any knowledgeable person that it’s an IP stealer.” Replace “knowledgeable person” with “know-nothing fanatic” and “It’s clear” with “taken on faith” and you might just have yourself an argument. Understanding of the legal system? This is a question of fact. SCO’s vague assertions are, as of now, backed up by no fact whatsoever. *That’s why they’re so vague.* It’s easy to sue someone. If you’re going down the drain and you think you *might* on some bizarre chance be able to get some money out of a lawsuit, you sue — as a last-ditch effort to save yourself. The fact that you don’t recognize this appallingly common tactic demonstrates nothing but your own misunderstanding of how the legal system (unfortunately) works. 2003-04-24 1:35 am Anonymous I hope IBM will countersue the hell out of these guys. This is absolutely ridiculous. There would be no better outcome than for every single one of these guys to be thrown out onto the street on their asses. 2003-04-24 1:52 am Anonymous McBride complains that there is no agency which makes sure that the code found in Linux doesn’t violate any IP. Since the kernel source is available for everyone to read, why can’t SCO check it themselves and compare it to theirs ? Unless McBride is illitterate or there are more lawyers than programmers in that company, I don’t understand that argument. Another point : the CEO of another soon to be dead company (aka Novell) made disparaging comments about Linux before apologizing. It seems to me there is a constant thread in this stuff : corporate guys want people to believe that somehow Open Source developers are unfit for the task, despite the fact that they went to the same universities as those who are employed by corporations and that they took the same courses. Maybe is it just a way for these bankrupcy candidates to vent their frustation and desperation. 2003-04-24 1:56 am Anonymous A question has come to my cynical mind. What exactly was the DRDos settlement (ie were there any private provisions) I ask this because I wonder if MS bought up significant parts of SCO. Just an idea, because the only people I can see winning here are MS 2003-04-24 3:01 am Anonymous Well, I find it funny that SCO chooses the two top distributors of Linux to point a finger at, and the only two companies that really have any strong ties to IBM, well I will say this McBride better be careful what faces he slams the door in, because UnitedLinux is based on SuSE Linux and SuSE distributes their own proprietary code, sure SCO can sue SuSE but SuSE can countersue with IP claims of their own and pull SCO underwater and choke the breath right out of SCO. SCO is on their way out and they dont care who they damage, they have a two-time loser lawyer, and not a leg to stand on. IP claims are the hardest to prove because you have to be able to prove what the developers were thinking or get the developers to admit they used the System V code and that just is not going to happen Im sure IBMs attorneys have talked to the IBM Linux developers and have prepped them for any interaction the developers may have with SCO’s attorney. Unless Microsoft is funding sco, which is very far fetched at the most, SCO will lose. I do think tho that SuSE should disassociate themselves with SCO because now they are on their way to being defendants. In other words Kick SCO out of UnitedLinux. 2003-04-24 3:09 am Anonymous I hope that SCO loses the IBM case. Then IBM sues them for damages. Then IBM wins the case, and SCO goes bankrupt, stops bothering IBM/RH/Suse/other Linux vendors, and disappears forever! 2003-04-24 3:10 am Anonymous First freeware, then shareware, then cardware, etc etc, now “lawyerware”. “Lawyerware” will henceforth be defined as software bought for the express purpose of enabling one to sue others over, Like when DR DOS was bought from Novell not for it’s own sake, just so that the new owner inherited the right to sue microsoft over it. The business model is obviously paying off, compared to the utter lack of interest in “United Loser Distros”. Still though, these guys were good enough to make the GEM OS open source, and to make a free 32 bit Arachne browser demo(webspyder), and their old Linux distro using the GEM-like OpenLook GUI instead of potbelly pig distros using gnome and kde like everyone does now. If they had gotten respect as deservedly as they get ridicule now, they might have chosen honorable behavior over profits in this matter. Try to look at it this way: Pretend they’re getting even with IBM for favoring MS DOS/Win interface instead of DR DOS/GEM interface so long ago, and that they’re hassling Linux because they finally realize it sucks, and it’s biggest supporters are deadbeats and mooches that think they should get everything free at someone else’s expense and that no one should be compensated remuneratively for any of their hard work coding. 2003-04-24 3:21 am Anonymous Funny, I thought Linux’s biggest supporters were all the coders who donate their time and effort for no financial return in order to promote a product that is free for anyone to use. I thought they were voluntarily donating their skill and not expecting to be compensated. I guess you learn something new every day. 2003-04-24 3:48 am Anonymous Going after IBM in a case like this is very expensive. Who pays for all this? Is there an unknown instance in the background financing SCO’s petty attempt to damage Linux and other Unix systems. 2003-04-24 4:06 am Anonymous Suse, Connectiva get rid of United Linux. Suse you have finally started to gain mindshare outside of Europe after years of plugging away. Connectiva you are the big Dog in South & Central America. You don’t need this Dead End and it is tainted by the participation of the venture capitalist parasite entity that is SC0. Bill Gates has a better feel for Linux than SC0. 2003-04-24 4:31 am Anonymous Does this remind anyone else of when Rambus went after the Mem makers? Or does SCO actually have a case here? How are they going to enforce anything regarding Linux? If you already have puters running just fine off of Linux, can they affect the end user? I need enlightening on this issue… 2003-04-24 4:38 am Anonymous SCO appears to be doing a favor for M$. Linux is developing at a tremendous pace; no wonder M$ is worried. Is this all about a conspiracy by M$ to stop the development of Linux? Has M$ paid $$$ SCO to engage in this lawsuit? An ivestigation is in order! 2003-04-24 4:54 am Anonymous Here we go.. Another Microsoft Basher who has no clue. What he doesn’t realize is that Microsoft has no reason to even be brought up here, but he felt so inclined to comment. “M$ is evil”. Get a life man, seriously. Every OS has its place. Don’t like it, don’t use it. Back to the topic. SCO is barking up the wrong trees. IBM will crush them. If for some reason they survive this lawsuit, Redhat and SuSe will clean up the scraps. Never liked SCO anyway.. 2003-04-24 6:04 am Anonymous “We’re the source of AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Linux, Mac OSX. It all comes from us. The only one that hasn’t been rationalized [from a licensing perspective] is Linux.” You realize, of course, that the source code for Unix Editions 4, 5, 6, 7 and 32V have been released under the BSD license recently. And of course the BSDs are all available under the BSD license and that also includes the earliest – get it from McKusick’s web site http://www.mckusick.com/csrg/index.html so we can now see and compare the basic outlines of the differing Un*x-related source trees. Linux was started off as a clone of Un*x, and there is a usenet posting by Linus from the early 90s, asking for a copy of the POSIX documentation, so he knew what to aim for. So, strictly speaking, Linux is an implementation of POSIX, not a clone of Un*x. And Un*x SysVRx is a mixture of SysV and BSD libraries on a SysV kernel. This case is so confused I wouldn’t be surprised to find out the exhibits consist of some back-ported 4.xBSD libraries, effectively relicensed, and so much more capable than their SysV shadow libraries. So SCO may turn out to be suing for something they don’t own anyway … (Just a note – if you don’t have a clue about what SysVRx is, please don’t let the world – or me – know. I’ve had a hard day.) 2003-04-24 6:21 am Anonymous So far the evidence consists of assertions. ‘Exhibits’ posted on SCO’s website consist of old contracts between AT&T and IBM, and SCO and IBM — and the complaint filed in court. If anyone’s interested in reading their ‘evidence’: http://www.sco.com/scosource/ip.html I didn’t read all of it, but I did a fairly thorough skimming, and all I saw was claims. The contracts are basically useless without any specific claim — yeah, it’s great to know what IBM agreed to, but unless SCO tells precisely what the violation was, they don’t show a damn thing. That’s where the complaint they filed comes in. I haven’t read it all, but its a real gem. In the breif time I had to look at it, I didn’t see any claim that code was lifted; what they seem to be aiming at is that IBM’s coders are tainted by having seen unix source code licensed by SCO/AT&T. I think this will be impossible to prove. In any case, it’s good reading. Some great assertions are made – for instance, that the free software model cannot produce anything that can compete in the commercial market, and that IBM came along and made Linux a real, competitive OS by injecting it with tainted code. As I said, a real gem, very fun reading. 2003-04-24 6:40 am Anonymous None of this will really matter in the long run. IBM will, most likely, cut SCO a new one with some help from their lawyers and their monies. If IBM doesn’t they will abandon Linux to find a new opensource project and Linux will die and the community will move to an alternative. This can be seen as both a cause for concern and an oppertunity. Sometimes it is easier to start from scratch to fix some things. At the same time, it may be a while before any other project could match Linux’s maturity even with the community’s full support. 2003-04-24 7:15 am Anonymous “In the breif time I had to look at it, I didn’t see any claim that code was lifted; what they seem to be aiming at is that IBM’s coders are tainted by having seen unix source code licensed by SCO/AT&T. I think this will be impossible to prove.” This is interesting, in the light of MS’s recorded insistence that just looking at GPL’ed code taints one; and RMS’s insistence on not reading proprietary code. So if a lecturer at Uni gives his class a sample of Java (for example) sorting algorithms, does that forever prohibit those students from using those self-same algorithms, even if they are using Delphi, C#, Lisp or (god forbid) Cobol? The question is though, did it actually happen? No-one on the Linux-390 mailing list thinks it likely, and they occasionally encounter AIX-390 programmers – who I heard, are _not_ interested in sharing code anyway, and who are _not_ IBM’s Linux-390 programmers. I think the case will collapse from total lack of merit. 2003-04-24 10:30 am Anonymous I am suddenly forming amazing ideas here. If being tainted be IP by merely seeing it, and implementing it in any way, even if it doesnt earn you money directly (linux) makes you eligible to be sued i can start seeing a barrage of lawsuits coming. Authors and bookpublishers can sue anybody who ever read their books, they most proabably got some ideas drom reading this, maybe they decided to change their life for the better hence they have been STEALING some IP by implmenting the material of the book into their lives, four million please. As i am typing this i am working out devious schemes to sue my classmates, most of them used my lecturenotes in pathology last semester, and they may have actually passed an exam based on this, clear IP violation. I will be rich (insert insane laughter) 2003-04-24 10:53 am Anonymous The lawyers at SCO realized that the process of digital copying actually falls under their IP. So they’ve teamed up with the RIAA to sue everyone who has ever copied a file. If you’ve used ‘cp’ or ‘copy’ in your life, you are guilty. Pay $50 billion now or face prosecution under the Super-DMCA/DMCA/Net Act. For this Federal felony, the penalty is a $250,000 fine and 5 years in federal prison — FOR EACH FILE! Isn’t it great to see SCO and other companies copy Microsoft’s and the RIAA’s business model (they funded the DMCA, the Net Act, and many other pieces of anti-consumer legislation)? 2003-04-24 12:19 pm Anonymous I ask this because I wonder if MS bought up significant parts of SCO. I don’t think they actually bought up parts of sco. They did once own sco shares and cooporated with them on Xenix. See “MS sells stake in SCO, and a chapter closes” ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/8987.html ) 2003-04-24 1:02 pm Anonymous I personally don’t want legally ambiguous code in my Linux distribution. It invalidates the GPL. If this is SysV stuff, maybe we’ll see a more BSD-like Linux in the future. I am sure SCO wouldn’t stop at Linux though; I doubt if they won any free Unix or Unix-like OS would be immune. Still, just in case, I’m going to start burning some Hurd ISOs. 2003-04-24 2:37 pm Anonymous “I am sure SCO wouldn’t stop at Linux though; I doubt if they won any free Unix or Unix-like OS would be immune.” Thankfully, this case is already settled as far as the BSDs are concerned. They were sued over it in 1992. The settlement coming out of that lawsuit established that BSD is free of any proprietary Unix code. 2003-04-24 3:30 pm Anonymous Im not sure about you but the way I read the article, IBM was working with SCO on a joint project then nicked off with the code, telling SCO something to the effect off were big your little so there is nothing you can do about it, they then commited themselves to Linux and donated some of the SCO code to linux, OUCH! thats definnent violation of intellectual property, SCO is also suing redhat and suse because they feel redhat and suse should be paying them a licensing fee, which is a matter for debate on one hand if they win against IBM and its established that IBM used SCO code then Redhat and Suse should also be paying licensing Fee’s, but on the other hand they and the general linux community were unaware that they were using SCO code. The best solution is for Redhat and Suse to settle and the linux community get on with life and rewrite the licensed code (if it exsists). P.S Clear up some points. 1) Suse couldn’t sue SCO for using there code in United Linux because they were doing so under a legitement contract, unlike IBM (if proved). 2) I think the SCO rep. when he said Mac OSX wasn’t implying that they planned on suing them, rather it was just an over generalisation inwhich he was just listing all the Un*x’es he could BSD aside with Mac OSX just a mistake (because its based on BSD :-P). 3) “Still, just in case, I’m going to start burning some Hurd ISOs. ” in my view it would be an ammusing pun if it was correct however HURD isn’t Unix in the sense that Linux is and this isn’t what this courtcase is about, this is about IBM contributing SCO source code to Linux without SCO permision (which they may or may not have done) 4) The idea of being tainted when you see another persons idea is foolish :-P, and SCO in my opinion wont win on these grounds especially not with IBM “blackening the sky with layers”, then again only in the American legal system (im not anti American and the same thing could happen in the Australian legal system or any other western legal system for that matter). 2003-04-24 4:21 pm Anonymous It’s disturbing, not the idea that Linux contains actual lines of SCO code, but the idea that somehow because SCO was in control of the engineers creating the original code they continue to control all thoughts pertaining to that code. This “You can’t look at it without being tainted thing” is extremely worrying from a freedom to innovate perspective. I would seriously hope that any attempt to use that argument in a court of law will be stamped on immediately. Then again, what does constitute license breaking? If you take a look at the LGPL (Sections 5 and 6) then it could easily be interpreted that any executable that is designed to be dynamically linked against glibc at runtime is bound by law to be non-proprietary. This isn’t another anti-GPL flame, so bear with me for a sec please. What I’m trying to get at is that law, and everyone’s favourite profession the lawyers, will exploit these vagaries for someone’s advantage. I think it would be well worthwhile for IBM/Redhat/Suse to actually force the issue, and counter sue for defamation or something. I’d really like to see the “thought control” argument cleared up as quickly as possible. Oh, while I’m posting. Linux was inspired by Minix (Inspired by, not a copy of). Now if we go along with SCO’s “thought control” argument then Tanenbaum could sue both Linus and any other person who happened to read his book that has contributed to the Linux kernel (The Minix source code is printed at the back of it for those who don’t know). Of course Tanenbaum himself would be liable to being sued because he’s seen the source code to Version 6. Why stop there, the evolution can be traced back further, should we dig up a relative of Neumann/Turing and give them control of Intel/AMD chip patents on the grounds that they are a “derivative” work? Allowing control of a concept, or an idea, is simply too dangerous. Personally I’d like to see the whole IP issue thrown away in favour of treating computer programs/algorithms in the same manner as mathematical formulae/theories, but business won’t let that happen. Anyhow, back on topic. With so many Linux distributions out there available for free then the distribution creators really need to generate public support to keep themselves going. SCO is just not going to help itself at all by attacking the very community it is trying to use as a market. 2003-04-24 4:21 pm Anonymous >If IBM doesn’t they will abandon Linux to find a new opensource project and Linux will die and the community will move to an alternativ Linux was thriving before IBM came along and it will continue to thrive with or without IBM. 2003-04-24 5:29 pm Anonymous Nobody does anything unless there is a payoff. Maybe the payoff is really in off shore bank accounts funded by someone like M$? While the world pays attention to the petty goings-on of SCO, who is simply disrupting the whole community, M$ or someone is benefiting from the slowdown in development (it’s a resource drain) and that holds off the hounds nipping at its heals. Divide and conquer — that concept goes back as far as the cave dwellers. Yeah,yeah,this is just simply conjecture, but what if? Someone like M$ could easily pad off-shores bank accounts for SCO corporate officers (sell-outs) with far more tax free cash then they could ever possibly realize from doing business as SCO. (Millions are better then hundreds.) Cash is a huge motivation for going around screwing with, and screwing up, the whole scheme of things. Having the Linux community (the battlefield) become all-consumed with who gets what piece of the pie can unravel the entire concept of Open-source right back to its roots (and, yes, an event M$ would be willing to pay huge bucks to achieve). We live in a world (like it or not) where anyone can be sued, distracted, and completely bankrupted by someone who thinks that by writing the symbol “M$” is too close to their own trade mark and Shi-zam, they’re up to my neck in greedy lawyers from Redmond. The fact is, cash in off-shore accounts is a drop in the ocean to some big, greedy, corporations. Chump-change! 😉 What’s really behind it all? I can’t really say, but FOLLOW THE MONEY. You want to rid the Linux community of this kind of strife? Sh!t, calling for boycotts of SCO products isn’t going to stop anything. Start moving development of everything away from the direction of people like SCO. Stop using code they have claims on. Rewrite anything that has code they are using. Leave them to their own demise when it comes to the development of their own products. I realize this would be a huge undertaking, but what the hell else do millions of self-appointed hackers have to do all night long? Show them who is really in control of Open-scource. Sometimes one simply needs to walk away from the ball when playing with bullies. Do this, and SCO will soon find them selves isolated with their layers and fade into the Caribbean sunset with fat bank accounts. It sucks working you’re A$$ off on something, turning it lose into the world, and then someone who wants the whole banana becomes more willing to squish it, peal and all, into the dirt for the sake getting their own way. “If I can’t have it, nobody gets it.” Seems to me that is the M$ way of doing things, isn’t it? Deep-Throat, 2003-04-24 5:55 pm Anonymous ” The best solution is for Redhat and Suse to settle and the linux community get on with life and rewrite the licensed code (if it exsists). P.S Clear up some points. 1) Suse couldn’t sue SCO for using there code in United Linux because they were doing so under a legitement contract, unlike IBM (if proved). ” Red Hat may have to settle SuSE does not, Im pretty sure that you will hear very soon that SCO and SuSE came to a IP sharing situation, if any of SCO’s IP does reside in the Linux kernel. Yes if SuSE tells SCO to go take a flying leap off of a very high and short pier and revokes the license for SCO to use SuSE property, and SCO continues to use it, SuSE will and can sue, there is also Libel and Defamation of character, malicious intent, just by making the statement that SuSE Linux and Red Hat Linux contain System V code without proof, is a violation of many civil laws. Plus SuSE is a German company and SCO needs to do a very deep analysis of Europes Intellectual property laws. Im sure that McBride and his lawyers have already heard from Apple legal. You make a move or say anything against Apple, Jobs releases the sharks. Apple legal and Sony legal are just alike, he made a comment that IBM is going to blanket the Utah skies with Lawyers, Apple will blanket the Utah skies with Lawyers and fire will fall. If he thinks IBM will be bad, mess with Apple he will wish he was in Baghdad, he’d probably be safer. From what I can see IBM did nothing wrong, there is no System V code in Linux, he refuses to release the information into what they found that is in violation, if anything, and IBM and the Linux community from everything I have read can rebutt all the statements SCO and their lawyer have made. Poor loser syndrome is all this is. 2003-04-24 6:12 pm Anonymous I think this was expected !!!!! 2003-04-24 6:53 pm Anonymous Let us cheer for lovely BSDs! But it is hard to understand Linuxs are using SCO’s legacy codes! I think linux’s network IP code is in the kernel. The potential nightmare is MS will get this poor company. 2003-04-24 7:01 pm Anonymous Just remember RAMBUS patent holder take part in the standard-making process with unknow identity, then claimed they have right to charge. SCO acts the same to UNITED LINUX. 2003-04-24 8:56 pm Anonymous Yes folks, SCO Rules !!! After they some kick some IBM butt and and Linux wienees too boot; their going to release their latest version of UNIX called SCO LAWIX. Go Ahead Make My Day ! 2003-04-24 9:18 pm Anonymous Funny, But SCO really sux and I will never ever use a SCO product again, EVER!!!!!!!!!! SCO just lost a customer for life. 2003-04-24 9:36 pm Anonymous No. They *claim* that’s what happened. The more I read of the documents on their own damn website, the less it seems that’s true. 2003-04-25 3:46 am Anonymous DOWN WITH SCO, DOWN WITH SCO, DOWN WITH SCO, DOWN WITH SCO 2003-04-25 4:10 am Anonymous > No. They *claim* that’s what happened. The more I read of > the documents on their own damn website, the less it seems > that’s true. In my original post I never said SCO weren’t just making up malicous claims; My personal view is that SCO *COULD* well be in the right and its being silly and immature to dismiss the SCO claims as frivalous before they have ever been put to trial. The *IDEAL* outcome for this trial in my opinion would be that the judge determines that no one person/company can hold the intellectual rights to unix because of its incredibly confused past (and present). 2003-04-25 7:41 am Anonymous Too bad SCO is not the same cool company that used to live in Santa Cruz. The crazy Utah money-fiends obviously have taken cash from Microsoft to launch this offensive on Linux. Too bad they never learned to enjoy the finer points of the SCO lifestyle 🙂 2003-04-25 9:58 am Anonymous “I think Linux’s network IP code is in the kernel” As far as I know, Linux’s network stack is Linux’s own, written from the ground up, based on the definitions that are widely available. The *BSD network stack is also widely available, and has been “innovated” by Microsoft as is where is, into the Microsoft series of (Barely) Operating Systems. (There’s a quick and easy way to check – grab a copy of Free/Net/OpenBSD’s source, and a copy of Linux’s source, then “find” for identical file names, then “grep” for identical variable and constant names. Then check each file and each variable and constant name separately for context and identity. Are they identical? Let us know your success rate.) The *BSD stack, as far as I know, is also the basis for the AT&T SysV network stack. Berkeley did after all, start the TCP/IP ball rolling And the BSD case was decided in favor of BSD being its own entity, with AT&T having hacksawed the license statements of much of the BSD stuff they had taken, so there is already a strong legal precedence against SCO’s position – IANAL, however. As far as “Linux using SCO’s legacy stuff” goes, two questions: Just what is being used? How does it relate to SCO specifically as opposed to the truckloads of freely available and readily understandable Unix source code lying around (so to speak) for anyone to have a look at? 2003-04-25 2:11 pm Anonymous Don’t be stupid! SCO owns the original copyright and licenses to the original AT&T System V Unix. They bought it from Novell. Novell bought it from AT&T. This lawsuit is seriously important for the entire industry. It’s all about IBM’s stealing and then giving away valuable intellectual property. This was a huge problem for the BSD projects several years ago, so they released the “BSD Lite” distributions and Berkeley stopped the project. It lives on as FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD. The article is misleading about the source of other Unixes. MacOS X is based on FreeBSD which is based on “unencumbered” Unix code. The BSDs come from the various “BSD Lite” distributions which were BSD Unix with all the AT&T intellectual property taken out. 2003-04-25 4:09 pm Anonymous “There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done” haha, this reminds me of something the north koreans would say..