A few years ago, Caldera Systems was bobbing along as one of the last software companies to claim a piece of the Linux land rush, scoring a successful IPO that raised $70 million. McBride spoke with CNET News.com about the origins of the IBM dispute, the side effects and what comes next.
UPDATE: It’s official: SCO announces immediate termination of IBM’s right to use and distribute AIX and files for permanent injunction. UPDATE 2: IBM says SCO has no right to revoke AIX license.
SCO CEO: Why we’re Suing IBM; SCO Revokes IBM’s AIX License
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
and I couldnt really be bothered to read it. All there is left to say, IMO, is “see you in court.”
I would say it seems like someone just realised that shooting his mouth of about anything and anyone just might be considered proof in court, ergo i consider this part bullshit and part damage control.
As some article earlier stated this problem has its roots in the trillian project at VA linux and that is also my understanding after talking with some of the former employees.
Not a day without this soap.
There has not been anything really new published about this dispute since SCO made its accusations in March. So why keep repeating the same all over again … and again …
There is one sure consequence when all this is over: UNIX as a commercial OS is dead, whether you write it UNIX, Unix, or unix. It will be replaced with variants that are fully open source.
I can’t imagine a single company that would go on with the SCO owned codebase in any kind of form.
“The point about open source that I believe is really cool is this notion that you have thousands of eyes around the world looking at a similar problem, and obviously when you have more people focused on something, you can solve things better,” he said. “To the extent you take that model and solve problems better and create ultimately a better computing environment that solves a lot of application problems and makes life better for everybody, that’s the part of open source I believe is really cool.”
82. Linux started as a hobby project of a 19-year old student. Linux has evolved through bits and pieces of various contributions by numerous software developers using single processor computers. Virtually none of these software developers and hobbyists had access to enterprise-scale equipment and testing facilities for Linux development. Without access to such equipment, facilities, sophisticated methods, concepts and coordinated know-how, it would be difficult or impossible for the Linux development community to create a grade of Linux adequate for enterprise use.
April 16, 1 month 6 days after suing IBM:
SCO Ships Linux for Itanium:
“The new server OS “was developed with the enterprise user in mind, meeting the highest standards of reliability, availability, stability, and security,” said Opinder Bawa, senior vice president of SCO’s engineering and global services, in the press release. The product “delivers the performance that system administrators want, while its foundation in UnitedLinux guarantees world-class application development, certification and deployment,” he added.
That idiot is like Ransome Love.
Trying to force linux into a direction
it simply will not go. I hope sco get
counter sued and go bust
From the article:
It really goes back to last fall. I joined the company last summer, and we spent a quarter or two looking at this Unix operating system asset we have.
SCO ends up owning the intellectual-property rights to the Unix operating system, which is a pretty substantial asset to be holding. So we started looking closely at where Unix was relative to Linux. Linux was starting to take off, and we did have some concerns.
We saw some initial problems last fall, and we tried to address those with vendors in the December time frame. We didn’t really get a lot of traction with just having friendly discussions. So we came out in the first part of this year and basically said, ‘We are going to enforce our intellectual-property rights.’ And even though we weren’t directly going after IBM at that point, they had a violent reaction to (that).
So to recap:
1. I came on board a sinking ship
2. I noticed that Linux was kicking our butts financially
3. I tried to get our UNIX vendors who also supported Linux to tone down the pro-Linux developments.
4. When they didn’t listen to me, I decided to invent some intellectual property lawsuits and force them to drop Linux so that our UNIX business will get some go ahead.
Later on he talks about his colusion with Microsoft, and the rest is history. This guy should get the award for the slimiest CEO of the year.
Dude, I have moded you down twice. STOP being insulting. Whatever you have to say, say it nicely, or I will ban your IP.
I thought that SCO was gonna yank IBMs/AIX’s license? Did they? What happened?
I spent weekend in the ‘burbs so I’ve been out of touch with the rest of the world for three days…
Never once have I really let my emotions get the better of me when dealing with computer crap. At the end of the day, it’s just computers, and it’s not more important than family, friends, or love.
But this one time, I’ve lost it. I really dislike SCO and every time I read what this jackass Darl McBride has to say, it absolutely infuriates me. This son-of-a-bitch is doing a major disservice to Linux, open source, and scores upon scores of developers. Even if he’s telling the truth, he’s a complete prick. If SCO has a leg to stand on, they should show us some goddamned code. If not, they should shut the f**k up. This is absolutely dispicable and they should be embarrassed for themselves and their behaviour.
I honestly hope someone sues these bastards. And perhaps even more sadly, I hope the perpetrators of this ridiculous soap opera end up in prison.
From the article:
If a CIO asked you today what they should do about a Linux installation, what would you tell them?
We’ve asked them to do a couple of things. First of all, get a legal opinion letter. We got our legal opinion, and we know where they came down. We suspended our shipments of Linux until all these issues get resolved.
So SCO is telling the world to suspend making, shipping, or using Linux or they will be sued. It is so obviously and abundantly clear that SCO is a front for Microsoft, who to this date is the only new licensee of SCO’s alleged IP. When you ask “Who benefits?” you see only Microsoft benefits. And when you “follow the money”, you see the inflow of money from Microsoft to SCO. The conclusions are self-evident.
And what falls out of SCO’s crazy pursuit of IP riches?
* Perhaps that IP in the future needs to be owned by some organization outside of the United States to shield it from American litigants.
* Perhaps that the GPL is rendered dead-on-arrival by American courts.
* Perhaps that Linux will suffer a major setback in the US.
We can only hope for the best as the facts are not yet known and we have to see what happens in America’s “best legal system you can buy” courts.
Sorry
You know Hank’s closing sentance was pretty nasty too
I suppose my 2 cents cost’s a little more!
I will try harder next time.
I agree, but the nature of the corporate necktie lemmings are such that they fail to notice the great thing about open source, not that it is linux or that it is an app that comes with the source.
But the heritage we pass on to other generations, such as the work being done in bio informatics and the genome projects, most if not all of the tools and “files” they use/interchange are availible as opensource/in the open.
its fairly disturbing that they lie so blatantly in the face of journalists, its nothing new i know but the problem is that the people that are not as technologically savvy as some of us see the lies.
“This son-of-a-bitch is doing a major disservice to Linux, open source, and scores upon scores of developers.”
Not in my opinion. He is actually doing a favor for Linux. You see, Linux is not going to go anywhere, and there is not a single element in the SCO law suite that could really harm Linux.
But what is going to go away, and faster than it would otherwise have gone, is the commercial Unix. HP, IBM and others will speed up their efforts to get rid of it as fast as they possibly can. It is pretty unbelievable, that they all have based their Unix offerings on something that is owned by a company like SCO. That must scare the hell out of them a thousand times more than any hazards that open source solutions might bring to them.
I wouldn’t be surprized to see somebody shoot this SOB.
“They were going to take the know-how, the people, the methods they developed over the years around AIX–which is our licensed version of Unix–and they were going to transport all that in a wholesale fashion over to Linux. Those statements alone caused us alarm.”
The methods THEY developed? Why is this a cause for alarm?
Every time this guy opens his mouth he just makes himself out to be a bigger ass.
First thing is that Darl loves using stupid analogies. He must of had some coaching by Ross Perot or something like that. The second thing I notice, and this is a point in the Linux community’s favor is the lettering of the contracts with Microsoft.
SCO’s contention is that those who licensed UNIX code have broken their contract by integrating it into non-UNIX software–namely Linux. By the same logic, Microsoft cannot integrate UNIX code into windows by the contract. What they can use it for I don’t know. I suppose what it will be is that Micrsoft has to pay SCO for each copy of Windows they sell. How about that a UNIX company making money for every seat of Windows sold. That I can’t complain about, I just wish it wasn’t SCO on the receiving end.
Actually I wish SCO was on the receiving end, but of a butt kicking rather than a butt licking.
My company currently uses IBM AIX unix on a lot of its servers, but they are migrating over to linux. I was supprised to hear that, because this company is a fairly large one. Looks like unix as a commercial OS may be slowly coming to a halt…
Redistribute the following at will…
SCO has filed its quarterly report
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465903012299/j…
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, for the quarter ending April 30, 2003, and it’s most revealing.
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/06/16.html
Not only does SCO’s most recent 10Q report document lots of interesting details over the deal with Microsoft, it also effectively make the claim that:
The SCO Group, and only The SCO Group, has *sole* right to sub-license any and all source code from all of the folowing UNIXs; SCO UnixWare and SCO OpenServer, Sun’s Solaris, IBM’s AIX, SGI’s IRIX, HP’s UX, Fujitsu’s ICL DRS/NX, Siemens’ SINIX, Data General’s DG-UX, and Sequent’s DYNIX/Ptx.
Megalo-FUDdding-mania. Once those vendors get wind of this claim, they will go absolutely nuclear.
The line of argument that Darl MCBride and The SCO Group is using to claim these rights was quashed by the outcome of the USL vs. BSDI lawsuit
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdisuit.html
The SCO Group cannot have any effective claim to the UNIX source it did not directly write or directly purchase.
What proportion of so called SystemV/Unixware source was put in to Linux at the direction of Caldera?
See “Linux and UNIX Are Coming Together : A Caldera Business Overview white paper”
http://web.archive.org/web/20010603045933/http:/www.caldera.com/ima…
The March 2001 paper describes the intergration of Caldera Linux and Unix products. What amount of source code was “shared” between both Linux and Unixware to insure platform compatablity?
In respects to the lawsiuit against IBM, what sbout both Caldera’s and Old SCO’s particpation in the Trillian projects…
http://lwn.net/Comments/36053/
Considering The SCOs group recent “evidence”…
Dr. Stefan Hildemann claims to have had a chance to see SCO’s code show without having to sign the NDA; he has posted his impressions. Read this English translation of the forum.golem.de article
http://lwn.net/Articles/36388/
Then compare the decription of the damming “function of the schedule” to these posts of [email protected]
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2001-03/0377.html
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lse-tech&m=98079945115255&w=2
Finally
In 1994 a group of Novell alumni formed Caldera Systems International with the backing of Novell’s founder Ray Noorda. It is Caldera systems which purchased the “rights” from Novell for SCO and became the current SCO Group. Caldera have since 1994, before the OLD SCO instigated the Project Monterey deal with IBM in 1998, released all it’s Linux kernel code and other projects and contibutions under the GPL licenses. The GPL licenses are an effective copyright contract strictly controling the terms and conditions of distribution of both binaries and source. Caldera and therefore new SCO group have been collectively developing and selling under the terms of the GPL “contract” prior to the OLD SCO deal with IBM.
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/06/11.html
the SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL licensed Linux kernel and other components, it must by the terms of the GPL license, provide all those who receive the code from them an implicit license to use any intellectual property, patents or trade secrets which SCO owns and is used by the GPL’ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently receives the GPL source.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
The GPL only grants the right, for reasons of intellectual property infringement or contractual obligations, to stop distributing the GPL’e binaries and source code if the conditions are imposed upon you by a third party. Since SCO claims ownership the intellectual property in question, it must grant all subsequent recipients of the GPL licensed source code SCO has distributed and any GPL’ed derivative, the same implicit licence and right to SCO’s intellectual property the code imposes upon.
SCO has acknowledged deals with Suse and Lindows to distribute SCO’s intellectual property in GPL’ed Linux, but the GPL license does not grant anyone or any organization the right to append extra terms and conditions upon the recipients of the GPL licensed source code.
It is very easy to effectively fold the current development branches of the Linux kernel and any other GPL’ed code back into SCO’s distributed GPL’ed sources. This would grant the same implicit license for the infringed SCO intellectual property to the all the current development.
Since the SCO Group have admitted that their latest amendment for the deal with Novell does not cover the old Unix patents, what vector is left to legally threaten Linux developers, vendors and users?
So most of their “objections” were discovered after they filed the law suit. This is BS and here is how i know it is BS. If SCO was concerned about making money from IPR they claim to have in linux then they wouldn’t make a stink out of this. Why because doing so would hurt their own bottom line, from the royalties they are owed on linux. I have a hard time believing that they would believe that they have any chance at re-establishing SCO’s UNIX as a major play independent of linux.
Bottom line this is a pure and simple FUD campaign and my guess is that MS is the one paying for it.
Seems like business as usual to me.
THe earth didn’t stop, IBM is still selling AIX, and SCO is still talking worthless trash.
From the SEC filing it appears they are now going to go after every System V vendor:
We initiated the SCOsource effort to review the status of these licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code which is a major participant in the UNIX industry and was a “clean-up” license to cover items that were outside the scope of the initial license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), and covers Microsoft’s UNIX compatibility products, subject to certain specified limitations. These license agreements will be typical of those we expect to enter into with developers, manufacturers, and distributors of operating systems in that they are non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code, including the right to sublicense that code.
We’re talking about line-by-line code copying. That includes not just the function but the exact, word-for-word lines of code. And the developer comments are exactly, 100 percent the same.
Tell us where, crap how can anything be done if you just say “we found something”
We saw some initial problems last fall, and we tried to address those with vendors in the December time frame. We didn’t really get a lot of traction with just having friendly discussions. So we came out in the first part of this year and basically said, ‘We are going to enforce our intellectual-property rights.’
Ok, so when my baby cousin is annoying ne and I tell him to stop & that doesn’t do it should I just smack him?
I don’t get SCO, they talk like they are for the open source movement, but they are sueing linux companies.
Also from the linux-ia64 mailing list
https://external-lists.vasoftware.com/archives/linux-ia64/2000-Octob…
https://external-lists.vasoftware.com/archives/linux-ia64/2000-Octob…
…
And most damming of all …
https://external-lists.vasoftware.com/archives/linux-ia64/2001-Febru…
When Microsoft started being really obnoxious around 2000-2001 I started getting my own back on them by distributing windows 2000 installation CDs for free to anyone who wanted one
I think it’s time I got hold of a copy of SCO UNIX…..
When Microsoft started being really obnoxious around 2000-2001 I started getting my own back on them by distributing windows 2000 installation CDs for free to anyone who wanted one
Let me get this straight… When Microsoft started getting on your nerves, you voluntarily started increasing their userbase? And what the hell would anyone do with SCO server software?
Rather than hitting them illegally with pirating, why don’t we get a push to have all SCO UNIX and Linux products replaced throughout their installed userbase. Furthermore, if the big UNIX vendors thrwart their source licensing extortion racket, then all of their revenue streams will run dry rather quickly.
…or does this guy just look sleezy? He looks like he should be selling cars instead of software.
Piracy is never the answer. While I agree that MS should have been punished far more severely than they were, possibly even had their business licences revoked, their assets siezed, and Bill Gate’s cars impounded, passing out their software only serves to increase the number of people using their products, and increasing even further the power of their monopoly.
If you want to damage MS, use OSS, and encourage/bribe/coerce others to do the same.
Besides – if SCO was that great (Yes, I used to service SCO servers) then they wouldn’t be in danger of going broke.
Schmucks.
As much as I can’t stand the way SCO is handling this and the potential impact it may have on the market advancement of Linux, as a CEO he is doing his job. CEO job responsibility number 1 (written or unwritten), make your company and thereby the shareholders profittable. The specific industry at that point is moot; cars, software, furbies, blow-up dolls, etc–your job as CEO is to report to the shareholders and make money. If SCO never had a an IPO and was privately held, then the CEO may have more options in how he/she handles a situation like this, but when any “joe smoe” can own a piece of you, you better do your best to make a profit (preferrably legally anyway). As I understand it (no doubt portions or it entirely may be wrong), but if he (the CEO) thought that SCO had a valid IP claim but didn’t pursue it and the company continued to lose money or went bankrupt, the CEO could be held liable for not fulfilly his job responsibility. It that’s true, then maybe that’s his angle. The way I see it is that SCO is sinking and it is throwing up the biggest, heaviest anchor it has hoping that it hits a large land mass (IBM) but knowing that that anchor may just come down right back on top of itself…anchors away….
McBride even looks like a big d*** to me!
now that i think about it, this might bolster the development of linux by IBM. I doubt IBM will want to continue paying AIX fees to SCO after this. My take is that they will push all their AIX technologies into linux at a faster rate to cut off ties with SCO. Im not saying that they will dump AIX now, but i think they will push migrating their customers to linux as soon as they can convince them.
Doug wrote: As I understand it (no doubt portions or it entirely may be wrong), but if he (the CEO) thought that SCO had a valid IP claim but didn’t pursue it and the company continued to lose money or went bankrupt, the CEO could be held liable for not fulfilly his job responsibility.
Incorrect (but people on OSNews, slashdot, etc. seem to love to repeat it). Under Delaware corporate law (and I believe SCO is a Delaware corporation) and most other U.S. state corporate laws, there is a doctrine called the “business judgment rule” under which it is difficult to impossible for shareholders to sue corporate officers for actions taken in the ordinary course of business, no matter how bad from a business perspective. The exceptions involve “extraordinary” transactions, such as the sale of the company or actions involving a conflict of interest for the officer. It is basically inconceivable that an officer of a corporation could be sued by shareholders for failure to file a lawsuit that is (at best) speculative and (if it fails) destructive of existing business relationships and company reputation.
I disagree with the idea that the disappearance of proprietary Unices will be a good thing. Those who developed them (AIX, Solaris, Irix,…) solved real problems; they found some ingenious methods of doing things. This also applies to non-Unix operating systems like OpenVMS. Those of us who worked on these OSes know they have intrinsic qualities that set them apart. Therefore, I believe it will be nice to have those big brothers still around ten years from now.
My comment is too long, so I’m cutting out the quoting until it works. Sorry.
The SCO Group, and only The SCO Group, has *sole* right to sub-license any and all source code from all of the folowing UNIXs; SCO UnixWare and SCO OpenServer, Sun’s Solaris, IBM’s AIX, SGI’s IRIX, HP’s UX, Fujitsu’s ICL DRS/NX, Siemens’ SINIX, Data General’s DG-UX, and Sequent’s DYNIX/Ptx.
This is entirely consistent, as all of these vendors are licensees of the USL System V system. None of these companies “own” Unix, they LICENSE it from USL (now SCO). What we don’t know, and aren’t entitled too, is what the details of these licenses are. No doubt a company like Sun or even IBM have very liberal licenses on the core of their respective OS’s. I’m sure that Sun isn’t paying per copy for Solaris, otherwise they’d be less willing to let folks download it for free for their systems. They probably have either a fixed annual license or a “one time pays all” long term license.
IBM is being sued for its potential breach of this license.
Megalo-FUDdding-mania…
Yeah, they’ll say “So THAT’s who we’ve been writing checks to all these years! OMG!”.
The line of argument that Darl MCBride and The SCO Group is using to claim these rights was quashed by the outcome of the USL vs. BSDI lawsuit.
The line of argument wasn’t successfully argued by USL at the time, and it’s only relevant to the 32V version of THAT lawsuit. Neither of these facts prevent SCO from taking and succeeding with a similar argument for developments made since 32V.
What proportion of so called SystemV/Unixware source was put in to Linux at the direction of Caldera?
See “Linux and UNIX Are Coming Together : A Caldera Business Overview white paper”
Have you actually READ this? It’s basically saying “Linux is popular. Use Linux as a deployment platform. Making UnixWare capable of deploying Linux applications.” This reads that they were planning on making it that much easier for Linux apps to run on UnixWare, rather than vice-a-versa. A particularly telling quote:
“Caldera is committed to open access to the source code for Caldera
Products. We will provide open access to the extent allowed by
other’s copyrights. Providing open access to source code:
• Gives Freedom to Customers. Allows customers the
freedom to develop solutions that best fit their businesses,
they will not be held hostage to release cycles or made to
wait for feature requests of software vendors
• Creates Product Communities. Gives customers,
developers, and partners equal voice in determining feature
sets and roadmap, (similar to Sun™s JCP Java Community
Process), and ensures continued innovation
Providing open access to source code does not always mean that we
will put our intellectual property into the public domain.”
Note the KEY last paragraph.
Using this as a source, it sounds if code went anywhere, it went INTO UnixWare.
In respects to the lawsiuit against IBM, what sbout both Caldera’s and Old SCO’s particpation in the Trillian projects…
This may or may not be some or all of SCO’s claims. Participation in such an effort does not necessarily make their claims irrelevant, even if true. What will be interesting is that if the public ever discovers the actual sources in question, then the kernel CVS tree will happily point directly to the person who checked it in. From there is should be easy to determine their pedigree is granting license to the code.
Considering The SCOs group recent “evidence”…
Dr. Stefan Hildemann claims to have had a chance to see SCO’s code show without having to sign the NDA; he has posted his impressions. Read this English translation of the forum.golem.de article
The source code proof that has been seen by others is merely to show the world that SCO feels it has a valid case. The details today are unimportant. All that matters is when this gets to court.
Finally
In 1994 a group of Novell alumni formed Caldera Systems International with the backing of Novell’s founder Ray Noorda….
Here’s a telling, from a copyright point of view, blurb from the BSD case on how to maintain a copyright:
(i) omitted the notice from a “relatively small number of copies;”
(ii) registers the work within five years of publication, and then
makes a “reasonable effort” to add notices to the noticeless copies
already distributed; or (iii) proves that a third party omitted,
notice in violation of an express agreement in writing 17 U.S.C 405(a)(1)-(3).[/i]
This is a nice, BIG out for SCO and the GPL. SCO can claim that it was simply ignorant of the violations. This is clear from the other statements, considering that they’ve said that the UnixWare side and the Caldera/Linux units were essentially independent. They were “simply” unaware until last year that the violations have occurred. If they can prove IBM put this code in without consent, then they get to “keep” it.
Since SCO claims ownership the intellectual property in question, it must grant all subsequent recipients of the GPL licensed source code SCO has distributed and any GPL’ed derivative, the same implicit licence and right to SCO’s intellectual property the code imposes upon.
SCO states it wasn’t aware of the violations until recently, and now are going to court to reassert their rights to their claimed IP. Should they succeed, GPL Goes Away. The key about the GPL is that the people putting their code under it have the right to do so. According to SCO, some of their IP is improperly attributed and did not have their permission.
Since the SCO Group have admitted that their latest amendment for the deal with Novell does not cover the old Unix patents, what vector is left to legally threaten Linux developers, vendors and users?
This isn’t a patent case, and even Novell has backed away from this. It seems pretty clear that SCO has the rights to bring a case like this forward.
The key here is that anything that SCO claims that’s “obviously” not correct will be thrown out of the case almost immediately. This fact, however, does not change that SOME of their claims MAY be true. Just because some of the their claims MAY be false, doesn’t invalidate the entire case or complaint. It will all get amended and chewed up throughout the case’s history.
You’ll note that all of the press is coming from SCO in order to bolster their claims and lend it some weight. None of this is particularly relevant in court. Note that IBM isn’t running an enumerated point by point “bullshit bullshit bullshit” article in the public media. All of these article are from wonks like you and me that don’t even know half of the details of this case. It’s all heresy and opinion.
In MY opinion, SCO feels it has a case against IBM. They have some third party statements that bolster their arguments. Without the full details of their claim, nobody can say that it’s a bullshit case.
For a community that loves “the little guy”, SCO gets zero support, zero reasonable doubt. They’re not suing Linus. They’re suing IBM. They’re taking on deep, deep pockets.
Just because what they’re doing is not popular, does not mean it’s not the right thing, especially for them and their company.
When it’s all said and done, Linux will recover one way or another and live on.
“Note the KEY last paragraph.
Using this as a source, it sounds if code went anywhere, it went INTO UnixWare.”
In other words Will you are saying Caldera/SCO engaged in a deliberate violation of GPL copyright and are thus liable for damages and/or are required to open source Unixware under the GPL.
So much for your defence of the indefensible – SCO
Your arguements are full of holes elsewhere but I will leave it up to others to carry on the critical analysis.
In other words Will you are saying Caldera/SCO engaged in a deliberate violation of GPL copyright and are thus liable for damages and/or are required to open source Unixware under the GPL.
Perhaps, yup.
Your arguements are full of holes elsewhere but I will leave it up to others to carry on the critical analysis.
Okey Dokey!
Just to be clear, my only pretense is that SCO feels they have a valid case, and nothing I have heard (considering the vast lack of definative facts from EITHER SCO or IBM) has precluded this view.
It will become clear that it’s a bullshit case when, and if, it goes to court and yet more excruciating detail is revealed.
And one thing lawsuits are about, it’s excruciating detail.
IBM has deep enough pockets that it does not need to settle this if IBM is right. IBM has enough money that it won’t miss the $$$ it will take to prosecute this lawsuit and kill SCO. The lawsuit will probably be cheaper than purchasing SCO. IBM can take this and prove its case and help clear the air over the entire matter.
If SCO is found wrong in court, IBM will then be able to crush them in countersuits.
If SCO succeeds in its injunction again IBM and terminating it Sys V license, you’d think that would be a great opportunity for IBM to buy SCO, because it has the potential for the most harm to IBM, vs costs of a lawsuit.
But SCO has to want to be bought, IBM can’t do it on the open market (that’s my understanding).
Great fun to watch from the sidelines.
In fact SCO is helping Linux. I don’t think they can do much damage. On the other side, everybody is talking about Linux theese days,in context of big money gained on one side and lost on the other side.
“Just to be clear, my only pretense is that SCO feels they have a valid case, and nothing I have heard (considering the vast lack of definative facts from EITHER SCO or IBM) has precluded this view.”
I doubt that SCO or to be more precise their senior executives feel anything about the validity of their case, the only emotion they are capable of is greed. It is nothing more or less than a combination of extortion/stock market scam together with bribery (i.e.”license fee”) from MS to carry out FUD against Linux and Unix.
This SEC and DOJ should be investigating both SCO and MS over this.
Just to stop that stupid ongoing…
Just wanted to say to all the people who say that this lawsuit will affect only the US and not the entire world, you are completely wrong. First of all, if SCO wins, any company doing business in the United States will have to pay royalties to SCO. Secondly, if SCO does win, SCO will go international and start suing companies in other countries. If you think the US legal system is messed up, just wait and see the other legal systems.
From the Article linked above as “SCO annouces immediate termination of AIX license”
About SCO
The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX – News) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 8,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com .
<snipt>
Source: The SCO Group
*snortle* SCO helps *snicker* millions of custom-
Bwahahahahaa!
Thanks SCO. At least now we know that you really do have a sense of humour.
Realistically, given the date of SCO’s filing, it sounds almost as though this was planned as an April Fool’s gag that went wrong. Someone took it to heart and took it too far.
At least, I’m pretty sure there is a fool involved.
I note the commentary and reference to Microsoft licensing UNIX from SCO, stating that it is because of Microsoft’s “Unix linking products.”
IIRC, didn’t MS incorporate chunks of code from FreeBSD? I seem to recall them using FreeBSD’s TCP/IP stack in Win95. Does this have any relevance on them taking out a licence?
For that matter, does SCO have any plans to try and thwart FreeBSD (and thus Apple) afterwards? I realise that we’re talking different licenses and so forth, but SCO doesn’t seem too concerned about letting facts get in the way of some dirty litigation…
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall…
any linux fan have done complete check on the source code and 100% sure no IP violation?
“any linux fan have done complete check on the source code and 100% sure no IP violation?”
No but I bet IBM has – and they don’t see to be in any rush to settle.
Ralf:
Just to stop that stupid ongoing…
In other news, IBM was drowned in a litigation tidal wave after settling with SCO last week, purchasing all outstanding shares for 350 million dollars…
For that matter, does SCO have any plans to try and thwart FreeBSD (and thus Apple) afterwards? I realise that we’re talking different licenses and so forth, but SCO doesn’t seem too concerned about letting facts get in the way of some dirty litigation…
To quote the other linked article:
“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).”
First SCO needs to prevail over IBM to move forward with something like this. Then they need to show that the BSDs failed to live up to their agreement (of whose text I can not find). The real fear is that some of SCOs IP crept back into BSD after the 4.4BSD Lite (which was “unencumbered”). This is doubtful as the BSD folks having an implicit difficulty in getting stuff from Linux if for no other reason than the GPL, and they’re also pretty good about attribution and licensing.
For good or ill, FreeBSD has Apple to champion their case should it come to that. The FreeBSD folks couldn’t afford such a lawsuit.
But SCO needs to win here against IBM, I think. Otherwise it’s all moot.
At the risk of adding to the OT debate (I accept the necessary moderation, btw, Eugenia):
To the anonymous chappy from the IP —.cg.shawcable.net:
Get a clue! You’re not impressing anyone.
If you actually have some semblance of intelligence, as opposed to the peurile, pre-pubescent smatterings that you are currently displaying, then please feel free to add some constructive debate.
Otherwise, fRo, twonk.
I totally afree with you. And those comments should be moderated down, as quick as possible. This forum is for civiliazed people, not for retarded people who think they know it all and who think that they look better by posting themselvs as vigilantes and justice makers. Anonymous, America is a *FREE* country (get a damn CLUE), and thats why anyone can sue anyone… America is different, another world, but many don’t seem to understand. And if you don’t make it here, you don’t make it anywhere. Just keep your mouth shut! or post one inteligent comment at least:)
And now my comment: This is going to far and to much time has passed, it just makes the whole world of Linux and UNIX and generally OSS look weird and unstable, especially for new-commers. They should have worked to bring out a good product instead of sueing and bitching everyone here and there and everywhere… They could have made some money from linux and noone would have had anything to say, but they have choosen the wrong way.
This is just my oppinion.
Dont know if this article from OSOpinion.com has been linked before… anyway,
“Analyst Finds SCO’s Claims Tough To Verify”
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/21722.html
I agree with you also, Marc. The whole FUD is doing nothing but damaging the respect for Linux and all OSS that has taken a long, hard time to be earned.
It is, to the educated, a media smear campaign with no basis in reality.
More importantly, to the uneducated, (including many potential new users!) it is a big warning to steer clear of that “Open Source Commie Stuff” because it’s ‘all going to fall in a big heap.’ These people will stay locked into their proprietary, often Windows-based solutions.
Interestingly, McBride refused to clear Microsoft from future action, insinuating that they only “licensed an API layer” and not any Unix IP rights! Tactics? Dunno.
Whilst I agree that it would set a very, very, very bad precedent for IBM to buyout SCO, I would welcome a speedy resolution to this case. IBM has its AIX interests to protect, as well as its Linux commitments. The rest of the OSS world (including non-Linux distros that could potentially fall victim to the same unsubstantiated attacks, such as FreeBSD) also has their own damage that needs to be addressed.
Finally, to the irritating anonymous chappy – it’s fair that you have an opinion, however forcing down others throat in an offensive and childish manner is not the way to go about it.
And special thanks to Eugenia for “cleaning up the mess” so quickly!
“Not only does SCO’s most recent 10Q report document lots of interesting details over the deal with Microsoft, it also effectively make the claim that:
The SCO Group, and only The SCO Group, has *sole* right to sub-license any and all source code from all of the folowing UNIXs; SCO UnixWare and SCO OpenServer, Sun’s Solaris, IBM’s AIX, SGI’s IRIX, HP’s UX, Fujitsu’s ICL DRS/NX, Siemens’ SINIX, Data General’s DG-UX, and Sequent’s DYNIX/Ptx.”
Well, that just about wraps it up for commercial Unix doesn’t it. Who would want to be seen anywhere near a company as dimwitted as SCO? No wonder Novell didn’t get anywhere with its Unix portfolio when they had it – they’d seen what AT&T/USL’s mismanagement of it had done to the Unix mindspace and Novell weren’t cutting themselves out to be the bad guys either.
Just think, all that userspace, copyrighted by the various independent companies, now freely available to be incorporated in Linux. All they need to do is to write out the AT&T fragments, and then there’s no way that SCO can extort that software from them. That’s the way CSRG at Berkeley did it.
>>When you ask “Who benefits?” you see only Microsoft benefits.<<
No. Sun is much more threatend by linux than msft. Sun has much more of a stake in this.
– solaris in a more direct competitor to aix than windows. sunw is already preparing software to make it easier for aix users to switch to solaris.
– desktop linux has never really caught on, nobody making money with desktop linux. server linux is a very different story. linux and freebsd on servers is hurting sun.
– sunw and scox have a very cozy releationship. sunw has paid $100 million for unix license. ibm only paid $10 million for unix license.
– some analyst predicts scox will earn $16 million next year. odd no? considering that scox has never been profitable, and now nobody trusts scox? of course $16 million is nothing to sunw.
– msft and sunw on the same team? hey, anything to put the brakes on an OS that is hurting them both.
>>The whole FUD is doing nothing but damaging the respect for Linux and all OSS that has taken a long, hard time to be earned<<
Wrong. Since this lawsuit scox stock price has gone from $2 a share to $11 a share. Top scox execs are selling like mad.
Be certain of this, rise in stock price has *nothing* to do with fundamental improvements with scox business.
Although Claybrook did not find SCO’s presentation conclusive, “I don’t this is an open-and-shut case,” he said, adding that he does not think SCO is deliberately making false claims. “I don’t think David Boise would go to all this trouble if he thought it was just about ripping someone off,” said Claybrook, referring to the attorney who successfully prosecuted the government’s case against Micros
oft.
Notice that even though he feels that what he saw is in the SCO presentation was not conclusive, one way or the other, he is under the impression based on the pedigree of the attorney that SCO MAY have some claim. Nobody else finds that interesting?
From marc:
This is going to far and to much time has passed, it just makes the whole world of Linux and UNIX and generally OSS look weird and unstable, especially for new-commers. They should have worked to bring out a good product instead of sueing and bitching everyone here and there and everywhere…
This is definately unfortunate, however the Unix vendors are less affected than the Linux vendors. IBM is being sued of allegedly breaking the license it had with SCO through release of SCO IP. Neither Sun nor HP have been so charged, however it is interesting that Sun feels that ITS Linux is covered by its license, which implies that its “ok” for Sun to distribute its Linux, even though it may well contain SCO IP.
The biggest problem with the Linux vendors is that they don’t indemnify their clients for IP infractions. They basically pass that liability on to their customers. (I don’t know if Sun does or not, I’ve not seen their Linux nor their license. They pretty much can’t.).
Note this segment from Red Hat 7.2 license:
EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THIS AGREEMENT OR IN AN EULA, THE SOFTWARE PROGRAMS ARE PROVIDED AND LICENSED “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.