U.S. Copyright Office officially begins assignment of UNIX copyrights to SCO and the company is to provide UNIX License to commercial Linux end users. Press release, C|Net article. Here is also an inteview with McBride, SCO CEO at C|Net.
SCO Registers UNIX Copyrights and Offers UNIX 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
…yet keeps making asinine statements. I guess there is a reason for that. There is no point responding to me when you don’t have an arguement. Anyway, you have stated the following:
“…keeping Linux free probably isn’t the highest priority on their list. Especially if they suddenly get stuck with a $1 or $3 Billion dollar bill for it themselves.”
How in the world did you come up with that? IBM has had plans in place for quite a while now to eventually replace AIX with Linux. They have a lot riding on Linux. Keeping it free with open source (and not closed binaries) is very important to them. It allows them have an OS for their servers that is enhanced through open source by people not only inside of IBM but outside of IBM also. There is nothing better than having a worldwide community develop software for you for free. IBM is not in the distro business. There really isn’t anyone besides IBM that could use their version of Linux anyone because it is based on their chip. So basically it is a win-win situation for them.
It is now time to look seriously into the “dumping” of SCO stock by its executives by any means available over the Internet for probable CRIMINAL INVESTEGATION of an Enron style “pump ‘n’ dump” scheme. They now appear to have committed TWO FELONY CRIMES, stock fraud and extortion against the Linux and Open Source Communities, their non lawyer and non executive employees and the people as a whole. JAIL is now the only acceptable outcome to this!!!
It is now time to look seriously into the “dumping” of SCO stock by its executives by any means available over the Internet for probable CRIMINAL INVESTEGATION of an Enron style “pump ‘n’ dump” scheme. They now appear to have committed TWO FELONY CRIMES, stock fraud and extortion against the Linux and Open Source Communities, their non lawyer and non executive employees and the people as a whole. JAIL is now the only acceptable outcome to this!!!
P.S. Sorry for the double post but I forgot to add my “handle” to the original on the Opera Browser. Please moderate the original “Anonomous” version and keep this
one on?
Firstly, top speed and others are highly entertaining. “top speed” is, I suppose, chosen in respect of your mouth?
Secondly, IBM does have a very good defense, judging from:
IBM’s Affirmative Defenses: Take That!
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/07/17.html
Oldies but Goodies Ancient Unix Released
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/07/14.html
If top speed et alii could do us the favour of reading that, I’m sure the debate could continue more moderately.
Linus Torvalds had a copy of Bach’s “The Design of the UNIX Operating System” – or access to it – which amounts to the same thing.
I’ve seen it, and any half-way capable programmer with it could easily, in their sleep write a Un*x clone the way Linus did. It’s a f**king no-brainer!
So much for SCO’s claim that they own the Un*x algorithms. Oh yes, I’ve also got “The Magic Garden Explained”, blessed by no less than Novell during their period of ownership of the Un*x crown jewels, and blow me down if it’s not the same sort of book.
SCO’s management aren’t drilling holes in their canoe so much as chewing holes with their teeth.
Some trolls need to learn a bit of computer history. Oh well, trolls are silicon life forms anyway, according to Terry Pratchett
For those of you who look like cheerleaders saying that Micosoft respect others IP, they are facing a legal action in France…
In long run, this thing hurts badly commercial software (and only). I think, this is not good.
Big players (and MS too!) *MUST* stop this madness and *NOW*! Or they looks like bunch of clowns..
SCO is exactly like bolchevik criminals in 1917 (red terror etc)- they shoot for money saying ‘peace, freedom bla bla’ (remember Mars Attacs? ‘we come with peace’…)
I thought they were supposed to support Free Software… Linux hasn’t got much to do with Free software.
I hope SCO finally can put the nail in the coffin and end this hAxx0000r whining stuff that we keep seeing from the crippled Penguin land…
Suppose I want to pay for the SCO license. When I buy something, I know what I am buying. Or at least I think I do
Now, what am I paying for here? I can’t see how they can sell something without telling the potential buyer what he/she is buying. They are selling a part of the Linux kernel, it seems (or rights to use a part of the kernel). Which part? Is it legal in the US to sell something while being unable to give a good answer when asked what is that something? Don’t they have to reveal the code with problems if asked by a client?
SCO, what are you trying to sell?
SCO has yet to prove any of its claims concerning Linux. They haven’t yet shown any proof whatsoever, at least to the public, only big words and FUD spreading. Even if – like SCO says – some wrong code owned by SCO got included in Linux kernel 2.4, it would just be replaced as soon as possible. Period.
Yet some people commenting on these forums try to do their best to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt too. They hint that using anything that has to do with Linux is dangerous; that Linux developers like Torvalds had intentionally stolen code, when we all know that they wouldn’t do it, and if some wrong code got included by a mistake, it would be replaced ASAP. Maybe most of the FUD spreaders are just personally against Linux and GPL, but I wonder if some of them could even be paid for their dirty work?
Now that the world knows that Linux is a stolen OS, we should begin to see it slowly bleed to death.
From eveything I’ve read SCO has a *VERY* strong case against IBM and the Linux kernel in general. However, it looks like only kernel version 2.4 and later are affected.
Based on all the posts I’ve read here, I’m just amazed at how easily the Linux Community becomes unstable in the face of criticism. They squeal like stuck pigs.
It looks like the penguin has finally been decapitated.
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/07/17.html
“SCO originally filed in Utah state court. IBM got it moved to federal court in Utah, but they are still trying to get out of Utah, because although they are in federal court, Utah’s laws will be applied, unless IBM can get that changed.”
That’s probably why IBM is so silence in their defense. First things first! After that, the firework can begin.
By Wesley Parish
Excellent and informative article from a legal perspective.
Hate to say it, but mod parent up: +5 Informative
I have a number of questions for you, issued in a calm manner, I might add.
– If SCO has a very strong case, what exactly is that case? This is a key issue, since there have been a number of changes in their statements, to the extent that the case they cite now is not in any way related to that which the filed against IBM in the first instance. That was a trade secret dispute, and that has nothing to do with licence, copyright or other issues.
– If SCO has published the code under the GPL, for sale, then to claim existing copies as illegal only works if they:
a) Declare they had no idea what they were selling (dereliction of duty, breach of contract, lack of due care/dilligence)
b) Declare that the GPL is invalid (opening themselves up to copyright response, since the GPL is the only thing shielding them from copyright law, and they will have sold other people’s works many times for substantial profit).
Which might they choose?
– How can they require customers to pay for licences against threats of retaliation for using code they are refusing to reveal, and is legal unsubstantiated? That’s what gangs do when they demand protection money from businesses. It’s most definitely illegal to demand money for protection in that way.
– Moreover, do licencees not have a right to know exactly what they are buying?
– How can SCO claim damages for high-end features that:
a) Their own proprietory software (where they make their money) Unixware does not take advantage of, such as high performance MP.
b) If they do exist in the kernel and they are legitimately owned by SCO (unlikely), SCO have made no attempts to have removed from the kernel? Linus and others have offered, when presented with code to remove it immediately and then investigate (after which, should the code not be SCO’s, it will be reintroduced). That will protect IP immediately, but SCO have not taken that offer up, and so are failing to protect their IP, and hence it is hard to claim damages against undefended IP.
– Ultimately, if the kernel does contain SCO code, then the kernel development has been carefully logged and if SCO showed the Kernel people the offending code, the person who entered it could be tracked down, and if they were from IBM, it would be perfect evidence for the court case. Why has this not been done?
– From what we have heard, there are roughly 80 lines of code (mostly comments) that SCO showed to people as being identical. If this is the case, how can maybe 40 lines of actual functional code alter the behaviour of an entire OS to damage SCO to the tune of $3b? I wish I could write code like that, and SCO should be worried if that little code can wreck their business.
– Without being able to see this code, how can we verify whether or not the code actually came from Unixware or the other way around?
– Without the code, how can we tell that if it went from Unixware to Linux and not the other way around, that it wasn’t done by a SCO representative?
– Without seeing the code, how can we tell that it isn’t a piece of code from a third source that got included into both Unixware and the Kernel because it was already open code?
In short, there are a great many unanswered questions (indeed, far more than I have listed!).
I would also be cautious in declaring Linux to be a stolen OS, in the face of Windows and Unixware (have quotes to the effect that Unixware has lots of other people’s code in it).
In short, we have to wait and see, most especially to see the code, which is where we will start to find some answers. Sufficed to say, SCO are being overly cautious releasing the code, and bearing in mind the questions above, offering up the code could solidify their argument. Since they aren’t, it only lends the indication that they have something to hide, and ultimately, it defeats their claims for damages.
…like TopSpeed and Squid Man, like to count their chickens before they’re hatched. They take their wishes for reality, and will selectively read (and reprint) only media sources that support their view, ignore and/or ridiculing any other point of view.
However, when one has all the elements available, it’s hard to see how Linux could be affected. SCO has released the allegedly offending code under the GPL, if there is any such code it can easily be replaced, and the evidence that such code exists is slim at best. In fact, there is better evidence that SCO put Linux code (in the Linux Kernel Personality) in UnixWare than the opposite.
Some trolls will be very sad when the truth comes out. What will they do then?
>>Now that the world knows that Linux is a stolen OS, we should begin to see it slowly bleed to death<<
Wrong on both counts. The world knows this is scox attempting fraud and extortion. Linux is doing great.
>>From eveything I’ve read SCO has a *VERY* strong case against IBM and the Linux kernel in general<<
Specifically, what have you read that leads you to that conclusion? Again: be specific.
something that I think has been forgotten by a lot of people.
WE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
All you have to do is show us the proof in a court of law. Until then, you have no ground to stand on.
.!..
>>SCO, what are you trying to sell? <<
SCO is selling protection from this particular lawsuit. Buy UnixWare from SCO, and SCO won’t sue you – this time.
If SCO manufactures another case, SCO could sue you for that, unless you want to buy some more protection.
But remember: scox likes to sue their customers first. IBM was a SCOX customer. SCOX even said they were going after IBM first because they have a contract with IBM. SCOX has also said that a contract is what you use against others.
Seriously we must stop this now! Is there anything we “normal” people can do to bring SCO down for good? I mean I am getting seriously pissed of because of them and many more with me.
Can you sue someone because of stupidity? If then we should all sue SCO.
>>WE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. <<
Guily or innocence has nothing to do with it. SCO wants you to buy lawsuit protection. This protection only applies to this particular case.
Buy UnixWare, and SCOX won’t sue you this time.
>>Can you sue someone because of stupidity? If then we should all sue SCO. <<
Are you joking? This is brillent!
Last December, before scox started this: scox had never had a profitable year, or even a profitable quarter. Scox was *gushing* red ink – losing between $25 milion and $125 million every year. And those loses were from a very small company – scox’s total book value at the time was under $5 million! No wonder scox was selling for way less than $1 a share.
Now – WOW!! Thanks to fud money from msft and sunw. Sco had it’s first profitable quarter. SCOX stock price is now about $13. Best of all – for insiders – SCOX execs gave themselves a buttload of options for $0.001 each. You better believe insiders are selling like mad. Scox insiders are making windfall profits.
Stupid? This is the smartest scam I have ever seen.
And I quote, “and will selectively read (and reprint) only media sources that support their view, ignore and/or ridiculing any other point of view.”
Isn’t that what the Linux community has been doing to Microsoft for, oh let’s say, the last 10 years?!?!
I quote, “In fact, there is better evidence that SCO put Linux code (in the Linux Kernel Personality) in UnixWare than the opposite.”
What evidence? Be specific!
walterbyrd, you said “Specifically, what have you read that leads you to that conclusion?”
The same as you! SCO revoked IBM’s license to sell AIX. Has any judge blocked it or overturned it? No. In my opinion, the reason SCO hasn’t published the offending code snippets is the same reason the Modesto police didn’t tell the media they found Laci’s body on the beach. They don’t what to lay all their cards on the table and ruin their case.
The fact, that SCO increased their lawsuit to 3 billion tells my they have a pretty good hand. It look like the Linux community gambled and lost.
All you Linux zealots need to stop crying, wipe off your face, adjust your pocket protectors and sure up the tape on your glasses. There are alternatives to Linux. Windows, in fact, is a wonderful alternative. Let’s not forget FreeBSD and Mac OSX too!
Definition of Pengiun in Dream Dictionary:
“Seeing a penguin in your dream means that your problems are not as serious as you may think. It serves as a reminder for you to keep you cool and remain level-headed. Alternatively, a penguin seen in your dream suggests that you are being weighed down by your emotions or by a negative situation. You need to find some balance and inner harmony. ”
I think this says it all!
Isn’t that what the Linux community has been doing to Microsoft for, oh let’s say, the last 10 years?!?
Well, if it’s wrong for somebody else to do it, it should be wrong for you as well. I personally don’t think that Linux has been doing “selectively reading (and reprinting) only media sources that support their view, ignore and/or ridiculing any other point of view”…that doesn’t even make sense. Perhaps you would like to rephrase your criticism so that it actually makes sense?
In any case, since you feel that the Linux community has been guilty of…something…and then you say that this is the same as what you’ve been doing as justification. Isn’t that an admission of wrongdoing?
Well, as long as you admit that you’re indeed selecting only sources that support your point of view, at least we can’t say that you’re dishonest about it…
I quote, “In fact, there is better evidence that SCO put Linux code (in the Linux Kernel Personality) in UnixWare than the opposite.”
What evidence? Be specific!
Well, since there is no evidence yet on the part of SCO, any evidence is better evidence, even circumstancial evidence, as is the case with the Linux Kernel Personality. See this link for more info:
http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,a=43186,00.asp
The fact, that SCO increased their lawsuit to 3 billion tells my they have a pretty good hand.
That’s pretty idiotic, even for a Windows troll. The amount of money involved does not validate either side in a legal dispute. I mean, if I was to take a $10 billion lawsuit against you, that wouldn’t increase my chances of winning – otherwise, all IBM would have to do would be to countersue SCO for an even greater amount, and so on. It doesn’t make any sense.
In fact, it’s just more posturing so that SCO’s stock value can increase (stock prices being driven chiefly by perception, not reality) so that Darl and his friend can sell their shares. Some of them have already started to do so:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/insider/trans.asp?Symbo…
Now the question is: why would they sell their shares if they were so sure of winning?
It look like the Linux community gambled and lost.
It looks like you don’t know much about law and/or economics, that you’re taking allegations as facts, and that you jump to conclusions much too quickly. Can I interest you in a nice bridge for sale, near a major East Coast city? It’s a great investment!
BTW, I checked what Squid means in a Dream Dictionary (since we’re down to this new level of stupidity). I think the results are quite telling…
“To see a squid in your dream, suggests that unconsciously you are feeling threatened. Your judgment may also be clouded – perhaps you are not seeing things too clearly at the moment. If you dream about a giant squid, this may symbolize your greed. You are thinking too much about what you want, instead of considering other people’s needs and feelings.”
sco has been emboldened by the successfully outrageous behavior of the RIAA, and aided by microsoft.
their behaviour, if they truly believed in their cause, is misguided. however, evidence thus far has shown that they do not believe their case, but are willing to pursue it none-the-less, and therefore, are acting in bad faith.
at every turn it has been shown that their case is composed of slander, inneundos, empty accusations and threats. Lets be clear as to what is happening:
– they cannot legally break the contract with ibm (as per terms of the contract),
– they do not own the unix trademark (opengroup does),
– they have published the “secret” code themselves (nullifying trade secrets and intellectual property),
– they have copied code from the linux kernel into System V code (in breach of gpl),
– they have developed and donted parts of the linux kernel in question,
– they are trying to copyright the System V code post-mortem in order to claim that the linux kernel is in violation of copyright,
– they are trying to extort the linux community to fund their charade (some has seen too many sopranos reruns)
it appears that the microsoft spin doctors are attempting to goad linux users into unacceptible behaviour in order to show that they are unbalanced and call them zealots. they are attempting to turn the public into linux-phobes using FUD.
one has to wonder in light of this atmosphere of extremely ill-behaved corporate behavior (sco, microsoft, …), why ibm allows itself to remain compliantly shackled to its anti-trust sentence. beware if ibm follows suit, throws off the shackles and simply destroys them.
Squid Man is just trying to distract the discussion here so that people start playing with him in his way instead of focusing on the real issues & facts. Just take a look at his awfully low standards comments and you understand that they are not even worth replying at all, they just try to stay above the level of not getting moderated down.
So, the facts? Most of what is known so far about SCO vs. IBM case and everything related to it can be found here: http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
There are lots of pages, links, & information seems to be updated & added all the time. The opinion of the maintaner is clearly against SCO claims, but the facts speak for themselves.
>>SCO revoked IBM’s license to sell AIX<<
Wrong. SCO did not do any such thing. You don’t know what you are posting about. If I sit around my house in my underware, and say I am the king of England, does that mean that I am in fact the king of England? SCO can say whatever they want. Until a court of law says the IBM’s license to AIX is revoked, then IBM’s license is as good as gold. SCO could have gone to court and filed for an immediate tempory injunction. But SCO will *never* go to court room. That is why SCO closed down in Germany.
>>Has any judge blocked it or overturned it? No.<<
Again. You don’t know what you are posting about. There is nothing to overturn. There was no injunction filed. SCO took no action other than to tell the media that IBM’s AIX license was revoked.
>>They don’t what to lay all their cards on the table and ruin their case. <<
Why would this ruin their case? When SCO (then Caldera) had a bona-fide case against msft, they were all too happy to present evidence. Besides, it’s not as if scox has been quite about this matter. SCOX has been screaming accusations like mad. But when scox is asked to present evidence to back up their claims, scox becomes very quite.
>>The fact, that SCO increased their lawsuit to 3 billion tells my they have a pretty good hand. It look like the Linux community gambled and lost.<<
Tells me just the opposite. The amount is not reasonable. Why not sue for a buhzillion trillion – Dr Evil?
< Linus Torvalds had a copy of Bach’s “The Design of the UNIX Operating System” – or access to it – which amounts to the same thing.
I’ve seen it, and any half-way capable programmer with it could easily, in their sleep write a Un*x clone the way Linus did. It’s a f**king no-brainer!
So much for SCO’s claim that they own the Un*x algorithms. Oh yes, I’ve also got “The Magic Garden Explained”, blessed by no less than Novell during their period of ownership of the Un*x crown jewels, and blow me down if it’s not the same sort of book. >
You want history Wesley, I will give you history. During the early 90’s, during my first tour as a college student, I was a Computer Science major. During my sophmore year, during my Survey of Operationg Systems class. we had a guest from USL, who came to the school to talk to us about the Unix OS, the guest was an engineer and he went through and explained the Unix OS in great detail, even went as far as to show us source code and explain concepts such as driver structure, filesystem structure, memory management, etc. real down and dirty kernel functions without signing an NDA. Now with that kind of exposure how do they protect trade secrecy. The point is, they did that for us, what other colleges and universities did they visit and do the same thing. The Unix OS is no longer a closely guarded secret, in my opinion with that kind of exposure you do not have any right to claim proprietership or trade secrecy. They have a huge problem but SCO did not create the problem, they inherited it.
Found this link on PCLinuxOnline:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/auto/epaper/editions…
Seems David Boies is accused of ethics violations…this could have him suspended for an indefinite period of time.
Just to let everyone know, Sco was taken to task in Germany. They were asked to prove their claim in court or shut-up ! Apparently in Germany you cannot make such claims unless you have actual real evidence to present in court. Well the Linux LUG groups who are very pro-active ( more so then here in the States ) in Germany got togetheir and filed a complaint in court about Sco making un-founded acqusations. So when Sco was brought to court they did not present any evidence and more so they had to sign a legal document stating that they would not make any more claims like they are making here in the U.S. Not only that but they had to take down their German site and remove all references to Linux. Oh yeah just to let you know Germany is Sco’s second biggest market. So this goes to show that Sco indeed has nothing to present in court. All they are doing is trying to raise the value of their stock price and maybe garner some dumbarse investor.
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/10792_2217231
…Is that SCO is allowed to make claims like our IP is in Linux, and start putting together programs and announcing them in the press about Licensing Linux, a free GPL product, without having their day in court. Where is FSF right now. Why do they not come out and pursue an injunction against SCO to stop saying that to the media. SCO must put up. If there is code in Linux which belongs to them, they must say so, and the ‘offending code’ will be removed. This will not lessen the liability of whoever stole the code in the first place. Although the BSD case was settled, all BSD was asked to do was to remove 7 files. Get it, 7 only. SCO should identify the files one by one, line by line, and they should be shocked at how fast these lines will be replaced by even better engineering.
Until then, any business pursued by SCO can, if they are able, just tell SCO to try get a court order to force them to pay. But being USA, they might just get it. Its a shame.
First of all… SCO really has no case; since they actually do offer theyre OpenLinux kernel on the net still the GPL license says its allready free code. (FTP server mentioned in an earlier post). If they discontinued theyre Linux kernel availbility on that FTP they would have a case.
But, when it comes to see the code, anyone who wants to can go to the SCO hq in Utah or wherever and set up a meeting to see the code. However you will be bound to strict regulations on how you are supposed to tell stuff away out of what you get to know.
What really bugs me tho is the parts this is about…is it something that an average user actually use? I mean…maybe this is just some really really weird thing that only is used by “a few mobos”. Thats just an example of what I mean it can be…I am not very much into kernel stuff! An article I read (dont remember where) gave me the impression of that. It was by someone who had seen the code and he got the impression it was only code that didnt have any impact on the user level.
So untill they actually can prove there is code in kernel that I use, and that it actually is theyre code I wont pay a dime!
Where is FSF right now. Why do they not come out and pursue an injunction against SCO to stop saying that to the media.
I guess the FSF don’t have the funds for that. They don’t have to defend Linux, anyway. It’s not their kernel, after all.
SCO must put up. If there is code in Linux which belongs to them, they must say so, and the ‘offending code’ will be removed. This will not lessen the liability of whoever stole the code in the first place.
Yeah, but the current issue is not only about code. Removing the code might not help.
Although the BSD case was settled, all BSD was asked to do was to remove 7 files. Get it, 7 only.
No, 3 files. That’s 57% less.
SCO should identify the files one by one, line by line, and they should be shocked at how fast these lines will be replaced by even better engineering.
Sadly, it doesn’t work that way. If you steal something from someone and you give it back later, you’re still a thief. The AT&T/USL/Novell vs BSD Inc case was settled that way because the plaintiffs had a very weak case against the defandants. I doubt the current case could be settled that way.
Sadly, it doesn’t work that way. If you steal something from someone and you give it back later, you’re still a thief. The AT&T/USL/Novell vs BSD Inc case was settled that way because the plaintiffs had a very weak case against the defandants. I doubt the current case could be settled that way.
That is immaterial for the people they are threatening to sue. They can still take IBM to task, provided they did steal the code. The action against the thief who stole the code can go on, for all I care. If I recieve stolen property in good faith, i.e., I walk into a store and buy a radio which was stolen, and I have taken reasonable measures to ensure the radio was not stolen, all I have to do is return the radio, because I cannot keep it. It was not the store owners to sell in the first place. I can then claim my money back under unjustified enrichment from the store owner. But the caveat is the radio must be proven to have been stolen. One cannot come and claim it is theirs without any conclusive evidence (serial number, hidden identification tags). And even then, they do not know me. The law affords protetion to the innocent parties. Buying stolen property is not a crime, unless you buy it knowing it to have been stolen. And then there are remedies prescribed which are in keeping with the innocence of those involved.
At least this is true in South Africa, maybe USA does tings differently.
This is a fallback tatctics for SCO. They know that they do
not stand much chance in court, so thay a going after small
companies and individuals that do not have money to
spend on lawyers.
SCO was once a respectable company run by civilized Californian people, and I liked their UNIX.
Caldera is completely oposite to that. They are run by
people whom Novell probably didn’t want to have in their ranks.
DG