Red Hat Files Complaint Against SCO

Submitted by walterbyrd 2003-08-04 Red Hat 127 Comments

“The purpose of this complaint is to demonstrate that Red Hat’s technologies do not infringe any intellectual property of SCO and to hold SCO accountable for its unfair and deceptive actions.” The article is here.
fuzzyping also points to
this story.

About The Author

Adam Scheinberg

Technology Executive • Web Developer • Father • Foodie • Music Snob • OS enthusiast

Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]

127 Comments

2003-08-05 10:19 am

Anonymous
Look abraxASS,

Conservatives like linux too. Linus Torvalds never said it was only for liberals. It’s for everybody. Thanks a lot, because for a while I thought the Open Source community was a place where liberals and conservatives could easily get along.

Now for some information Both Sean Hannity’s (hannity.com) and Rush Limbaugh’s (www.rushlimbaugh.com) are running partially on apache on Linux and Solaris, respectively. If you use netcraft, you’ll find http://www.whitehouse.gov is on linux (and somehow whitehouse.gov without www shows Solaris). Oh yeah, and Foxnews.com is running Linux (although using Netscape-Enterprise/4.1 instead of apache).
2003-08-05 11:17 am

Anonymous
“But even IF Caldera did possibly make some actual Linux contributions, something I am not ready to concede, …” Quoted verbatim from top speed, contribution 53.

That says it all. top speed has an issue with nassty, nassty reality. Nassssty reality.

This is what I found by grepping my Linux-2.4.xx kernel:

/usr/src/linux/arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c: * Original development of Linux SMP code supported by Caldera.

/usr/src/linux/arch/x86_64/kernel/smpboot.c: * Original development of Linux SMP code supported by Caldera.

/usr/src/linux/CREDITS:S: Caldera (Deutschland) GmbH

/usr/src/linux/Documentation/networking/tlan.txt:(C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.

/usr/src/linux/Documentation/sound/CMI8338: b. Caldera OpenLinux 2.2

/usr/src/linux/Documentation/smp.tex:The author wishes to thank Caldera Inc. ( http://www.caldera.com )

/usr/src/linux/drivers/net/tlan.c: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.

/usr/src/linux/drivers/net/tlan.h: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.

/usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/advansys.c: AdvanSys driver in the Caldera releases.

/usr/src/linux/net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc. <[email protected]>

/usr/src/linux/net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Neither Greg Page nor Caldera, Inc. admit liability nor provide

/usr/src/linux/net/ipx/af_ipx.c: KERN_INFO “IPX Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.
”

Binary file /usr/src/linux/net/ipx/af_ipx.o matches

Binary file /usr/src/linux/net/ipx/ipx.o matches

/usr/src/linux/CREDITS:E: [email protected]

/usr/src/linux/Documentation/Configure.help:# LocalWords: caldera Preload Preloading slowdowns schoebel uni NBD nbd prog

/usr/src/linux/Documentation/smp.tex:The author wishes to thank Caldera Inc. ( http://www.caldera.com )

/usr/src/linux/drivers/char/drm/drm_context.h: * 2001-11-16 Torsten Duwe <[email protected]>

/usr/src/linux/drivers/net/slip.c: * from Jim Freeman’s <[email protected]>

/usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/advansys.c: Erik Ratcliffe <[email protected]> has done testing of the

/usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/ips.c:/* 4.00.06a – Port to 2.4 (trivial) — Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> */

/usr/src/linux/drivers/sound/esssolo1.c: * up. Marcus Meissner <[email protected]>

/usr/src/linux/drivers/sound/esssolo1.c: * Marcus Meissner <[email protected]>

/usr/src/linux/drivers/sound/maestro.c: * v0.15 – May 21 2001 – Marcus Meissner <[email protected]>

/usr/src/linux/drivers/sound/nm256_audio.c: * 19-04-2001 Marcus Meissner <[email protected]>

/usr/src/linux/drivers/sound/rme96xx.c: Marcus Meissner <[email protected]>

/usr/src/linux/drivers/sound/sonicvibes.c: * Meissner <[email protected]>

/usr/src/linux/fs/freevxfs/vxfs_olt.c: printk(KERN_NOTICE “vxfs: please notify [email protected]
“);

Binary file /usr/src/linux/fs/freevxfs/vxfs_olt.o matches

Binary file /usr/src/linux/fs/freevxfs/freevxfs.o matches

/usr/src/linux/net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc. <[email protected]>

/usr/src/linux/net/ipx/af_spx.c: * Jim Freeman <[email protected]>
2003-08-05 11:35 am

Anonymous
top speed, do you bother to read the EULA when you install Windows? Or do you get the local computer shop to do it for you?

I have yet to read a copy of the EULA or for that matter, any other commercial license agreement, that wasn’t covered in disclaimer red tape like it was going out of style! No, Microsoft may have the liability for its misconduct, though we have yet to see it held accountable for such. But its disclaimers … are a sight to be seen. And its refusal to accept responsibility for malfunctioning software – well, that gives one an idea of how they will accept responsibility for malicious appropriation of other peoples’ code.

And FYI, I have read the GPL. I do understand how it works. I am waiting for the penny to drop, for it to dawn on you that you don’t know the first thing about it.

And the worst thing about your claim is that EULAs have been out there in the open for anyone – not excluding yourself – to read, and yet you troll with such idiotic persistence as if Microsoft could do no wrong.
2003-08-05 12:10 pm

Anonymous
Now for some information Both Sean Hannity’s (hannity.com) and Rush Limbaugh’s (www.rushlimbaugh.com) are running partially on apache on Linux and Solaris, respectively. If you use netcraft, you’ll find http://www.whitehouse.gov is on linux (and somehow whitehouse.gov without www shows Solaris). Oh yeah, and Foxnews.com is running Linux (although using Netscape-Enterprise/4.1 instead of apache).

Yeah, that’s because they are cheap bastards!

Doh!!!! I just couldn’t resist. Go ahead, Ricky, make a liberal joke at my expense. I desevere it.

Seriously, go ahead….

Now, don’t you feel better? See, con and libs can get along just fine, as long as we agree that both of us are wrong… Anyway, I don’t think that abraxas was speaking about the majority of conservitives. He was poking fun at the extreme elements of that side of the aisle. The side that calls anything they don’t like communist (or immoral…). Don’t take it to heart.

And I’d hope that our fed gov would be using something as cost effective as Linux. I mean, how many $800 hammers do you need?

On behalf of the left wing of this Linux community, I hear-by extend the olive branch of peace…
2003-08-05 12:18 pm

Anonymous
Did Redhat sue SCO preemptively to insure any trial would take place outside of Utah. If so, will SuSE file a similair lawsuit in Germany. Connectiva in Brazil etc.
2003-08-05 12:35 pm

Anonymous
>>I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions…<<

This from a company who’s only possible sources of income are related to suing, or threatening to sue everybody.

>>I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux<<

This from the company that has been bashing Linux non-stop for months now, and who plans to eliminate Linux as it now known.

>>Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy<<

Gosh, I thought Darl hated all that nasty litigation. Conspiracy? Sort of like Microsoft and Sun secretly funding Scox’s anti-linux FUD campaign? Or Sco’s actions being dictated by Canopy Group?

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030804/lam110_1.html
2003-08-05 1:00 pm

Anonymous
I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux

I wonder if Mr. McBride has looked in the mirror latley?
2003-08-05 1:05 pm

Anonymous
I guess because I copied and pasted too much of the article. But read it here for yourself (both pages):

http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-22-1-AmndComplaint_St…

Sequent had a contract with SCO, both before and during Monterey. And IBM will just have to live with it.
2003-08-05 1:07 pm

Anonymous
You realize much (most) of Apples software is OPEN SOURCE.

Send me a link direct to the source code for the Apple OSX kernel. We’re supposoed to be checking for security vulnerabilities, right?
2003-08-05 1:22 pm

Anonymous
Just look here http://developer.apple.com/darwin/“

2003-08-05 1:32 pm

Anonymous

I don’t think he’ll be able to understand it…

2003-08-05 1:36 pm

Anonymous

Well … just to keep him busy for a while looking at the ‘source’ and keep him from posting on osnews … (-;

2003-08-05 1:57 pm

Anonymous

>>I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux<<

Actually, I think that is code. Remember, this is a public statement. What Scox is *really* to RedHat is: “call off the lawsuit, or scox will insure no ling-term survival of Linux.”

Just another empty threat from scox.

2003-08-05 1:59 pm

Anonymous

Actually, I think that is code.

Damn… And here I left my secrect Sleeze-bag Decoder ring at home… Of all the days.

2003-08-05 3:54 pm

Anonymous

(Perhaps because you’re trolling?)

Sequent had a contract with SCO

And of course you’ve actually read these contracts…if you misread them as much as you misread the IBM-AT&T side letter, then we don’t have much to worry about.

2003-08-05 4:12 pm

Anonymous

I dont see why people are so shocked. Right now proprietary providers such as SCO, SUN and Microsoft are running scared. If Linux wins this battle and the GPL survives its test by fire the whole concept of Software development will shift.

2003-08-05 4:23 pm

Anonymous

< Sequent had a contract with SCO, both before and during Monterey. And IBM will just have to live with it. >

we had a contract with Sequent as well and before Sequent got aquired those issues were resolved much like the SCO/Sequent issues were resolved. As for Sequents UNIX development that was swallowed up by IBM, IBM changed those copyrights so SCO has no argument for this. Everything was handled legally. IBM OWNS ANY AND ALL COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THAT THEY DEVELOP, get that through your head and quit trolling.

2003-08-05 6:13 pm

Anonymous

I was gonna submit this story, anyway glad to see redhat isn’t running away. We need people to stand up to SCO.

2003-08-05 6:18 pm

Anonymous

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030805/latu094_1.html

$699 per CPU until Oct 15th, the $1399 per CPU.

Is this covered by:

RICO Section 1951 – Extortion

Note the part below about: “or under color of official right”

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/131mc…

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm02…

Hobbs Act – attempt to obtain a sum of money by , make sure the words willful and corruptly are in complaint, defined in 18 USC 1951(b)(2)..””section 1951 (b)(2) defines extortion as “”he obtaining property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence OR fear, or under color of official right” 18 USC 1951(b)(2). make sure to use words willful, intentional. planned, conspiratorial, deliberate, maliciously, etc. ALOT

2003-08-05 6:49 pm

Anonymous

From the teleconference:

“Reality is IBM and RH painted a Linux liability target on the backs of their customers. And due to their actions we have no choice but to fight the battle against end users.”

2003-08-05 6:54 pm

Anonymous

I imagine Top Speed thinks this is still fair now. 699 for a what. Single CPU system. I think someone is actually going nuts. Does Solaris even cost that much for a whole system. How can someone pay for a single CPU for features they do not use. (The NUMA stuff is for multi-CPU). JFS is not necessary. Ext3 is fine. The rest someone esle can pick up, but this is crazy.

I hope they get buried into the ground. Driven so far in they will be there at the next ice age.

600 per CPU. Over my dead body that. I am sure their stock should be half what it was by now. This seems to be more of a ploy to drive people to server 2003. I mean, this is shocking. This is going to backfire on them. This is called extortion. This deserves a whole article on the front page. And on slashdot too.

2003-08-05 7:18 pm

Anonymous

There have been many unsubstantiated and inflamatory statements made recently in an attempt, we believe, primarily to slow the inevitable acceptance of Linux. Linux is a disruptive technology, troubling to many, puzzling to some, potentially freeing to all. With every disruptive technology, there will be those who fight to maintain the status quo, fight to hold on to a losing proposition.

SCO has already been halted in Germany and we applaud Red Hat’s actions to help end their activities in the US — and beyond.

We applaud their efforts to restrict the rhetoric of the SCO group — and the FUD they are trying to instill — and will determine quickly what actions SuSE can take to support Red Hat in their efforts.

We call on SCO to stop the fear, uncertainty and doubt and join with the rest of the IT community in building Linux into the next quantum advance in technology.

http://www.suse.com/us/company/press/press_releases/archive03/sco_r…

2003-08-05 8:22 pm

Anonymous

“Send me a link direct to the source code for the Apple OSX kernel. We’re supposoed to be checking for security vulnerabilities, right? ”

How embarassing ….

That’s all I have to say.

2003-08-05 9:45 pm

Anonymous

How embarassing ….

That’s all I have to say.

if (post->author == “dumbkiwi” ) {

post->author.omniscience = 100;

}

2003-08-06 1:58 am

Anonymous

http://www.lowendmac.com/myturn/010530.html

Darwin is flawed as open source. A recent posting on penguinppc.org points out, “Apple does not fully release the Darwin source into the public source. Key drivers are left out, and some workarounds for chip bugs are pulled before the public versions are made available.”

The point? Penguinppc.org concludes “This keeps Linux developers from using the Darwin source as a reference.”

2003-08-06 6:45 am

Anonymous

Good, they don’t want those dirty fucking hippies stealing the important parts.

2003-08-12 3:01 am

Anonymous

As I understand it, Redhat’s case against SCO is: SCO distributed Linux code that was covered by the GPL. Since copyright law forbids doing this without a license, SCO either broke the law or accepted the license. I don’t think SCO will want to pay the penalties for breaking the copyright law, so I’ll focus on the assumption that SCO accepted the GPL license for some level of Linux.

The license that SCO accepted requires that anyone distributing any modification of a program covered by the GPL subjects the entire modified program to the GPL. Therefore, all SCO’s distributions derived from the first one distributed under a GPL licensed are licensed IN THEIR ENTIRETY under the GPL.

SCO is empowered to license portions of Linux code for which SCO holds the copyright under other terms. It is not empowered to modify or withdraw the GPL license from any program which is derived from a GPL licensed program and distributed, including a program with code copyrighted by SCO itself. Any attempt to License the program in a way that conflicts with the GPL is a violation of the GPL.

The GPL has never been ruled valid in court. This is because every violator of the GPL, when asked by the Free Software Foundation if he or she wants to volunteer to be the first test case, has elected to remove the violation instead. Maybe SCO will volunteer.