SCO has terminated IBM’s Dynix licence. Dynix was a product developed by Sequent, which was acquired by IBM in 1999. Technology developed by Sequent for its Unix OS (Dynix) called Numa was subsequently rolled into Linux. According to this article at Vnunet.com, it looks like a lot of this goes back to SCO’s bitterness about project Monterrey, a joint venture between SCO, Intel, and IBM. IBM withdrew from the project, which was SCO’s last chance at the big time.
the german news-site “Heise-Online” (http://www.heise.de) posted today that SCO’s principal lawer Mark Heise (he only shares his name with the german news-site) has declared the GNU (General Public License) to null and void.
Here is the (german) article:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-14.08.03-000/
How is this going to end?
It seems to be becoming clear that SCO is referring to the Sequent code as “System V Code” that was inappropriately added to Linux. The argument seems to be that once Sequent added the RCU and NUMA capabilities to Unix, they relinquished all ownership to their own code. It is far from clear to me that they will be able to convince a court of this. I can accept that the Sequent-enhanced Unix is still a derivative work of Unix that belongs to SCO (assuming SCO really owns Unix). It really seems far-fetched for SCO to claim that just because Sequent generously donated these enterprise features to the Unix code base, they lose the right to donate the same code to a second project. It seems that System V Unix and Linux each received enhancements from Sequent/IBM, and SCO is claiming that this makes Linux a Unix derivative, even though the code they have in common is not present in the original System V code. From what I can tell, Sequent’s Unix license stated that they could develop derivatives of Unix but that the derivative works would still belong to the owners of Unix. I do not see how the RCU/NUMA code itself, without any System V code, can be considered a derivative work, and if not, IBM/Sequent would retain every right to do as they see fit with it, including incorporating it into Linux.
If SCO’s claims somehow hold up, this would make the Unix licensing terms incredibly more viral than even the GPL. At least under the GPL, the author retains the right to release code under other licenses (e.g. John Carmack gives away the Quake engine source code under the GPL, effectively restricting it to non-commercial use, but also is willing to license it to other companies for a fee if the other companies do not want to be required to release the source for their derivative game).
From this article, NUMA was a seperate product, and not part of Sys V. (which jives with my own memory, as I lacked any recollection of NUMA support in AMIX, the first Sys V release, done by Commodore)
So if SCO controlls Sys V, and is claiming Sys V code is involved, what does this have to do with NUMA, which is not Sys V code?
Some news in English: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11031
For the non-German speakers: The argumentation is that the US Copyright law allows the production of a single backup copy. Since the GPL allows the unlimited reproduction of a copyrighted work, it contradicts the Copyright law and is therefore void.
This is obviously bogus – if we followed this interpretation, every single printing and CD manufacturing company would be breaking the law because of their massive reproduction of copyrighted works.
The single-backup-copy statute applies when the copyright owner does not give permission for duplication; but like printing companies receive permission from the publisher to produce duplicates of a book, program users receive permission in form of the GPL from the program author to reproduce the program.
This vnunet article is very one-sided and merely regurgitating what McBride says. MozillaQuest.Com http://mozillaquest.com has two recent articles that discuss the JFS, NUMA,and RCU in detail. It is a two part series. “Part I: Overview and Prologue” http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-22-1-AmndComplaint_Story0… and “Part II: Tom Carey and Mike Angelo Discuss SCO’s Amended IBM Lawsuit Complaint and Unix License Revocation” http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-22-2-AmndComplaint_Story0…
“I doubt that JFS, NUMA, RCU and such other packages are derivative works of UNIX. They are not a recast version of UNIX; they are programs that have use when linked to UNIX. They are more appropriately classified as separate works. The question is, who owns the copyright in those works?”
“the gist of Tom Carey’s perspectives is that likely IBM owns the code for the controversial Unix extensions that SCO would like to call derivative works. These Unix extensions, JFS (Journaling File System), NUMA (Non-uniform Memory Access) software, RCU (Read, Copy, and Update), and so forth, were developed by IBM and Sequent, which now is owned by IBM. Moreover, Tom Carey’s position is that IBM was free to contribute the JFS, NUMA, and RCU code that IBM developed to the Linux kernel developers.”
These quotes are made knowing about the Sequent issues. In other words, attorney Tom Carey in these articles does not think that SCO has a valid claim to the JFS, NUMA, and RCU code that IBM donated to the Linux kernel. You really need to read these articles to understand the issues.
I’m pretty sure that’s “monterey” as opposed to “monerrey”
🙂
Maybe everyone who wishes to use software put into the GNU first pay for a license — a one-time fee of one-dollar to use the license. The license would be good for life and used with any GNU’d software. This would make everyone who uses GNU’d software an owner of the GNU. The dollar, multiplied by millions of owners, would go toward a legal fund that would be used to defend against companies like SCO. Or, better yet, make class action suits on companies like SCO. The money could be put into investments that would perpetuate the growth of the fund, giving an endless source for revenue.
Just a thought.
That would put some /^^^TEETH^^^ into the GNU license.
Just last night, I was thinking, it’s been a little while since we’ve heard from SCO . . .
How could SCO possibly be bitter about project Montery? The Montery project was with the original SCO, a completely different company than Caldera who bought the Unix rights from the original SCO and have since changed their name.
It seems to be becoming clearer and clearer that SCO want to ask money from every one who MIGHT have used its FUCKING shit , it always can find some weak reason, even before the court give the final judge—maybe SCO thinks the court is opened and owned by it.
Maybe one day, those companies can cue people who open or sell articles/novels/papers using their pens or pencils.
SCO think they are on better ground here than with the code IBM wrote itself and submitted, because as far as we know Sequent did not have a side letter like that of IBM which gave IBM full ownership of code it developed on top of System V.
But Sequent published the methodologies in deveoping NUMA and SMP in a general manner for any threaded operating system prior to transferring the code to the SCO Unix codebase. This gives them prior ownership of the methodology and are able to transfer this code to any operating system they like. So again SCO don’t have a leg to to stand on. Just trying to steal other peoples code again.
Cringely wrote a good article on the Sequent NUMA and SMP code and SCO a few weeks ago:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030619.html
A few days ago I mentioned SCO would go for the GPL
http://arstechnica.com/archive/news/1060887195.html
Apple sued MS over the use of Icons in the Windows GUI. AT&T, who created the Iconography reminded Apple where it had gotten the code from and the case was dropped.
Sounds similar, no? Sounds like SCO is suing IBM over code it obtained from someone else.
Not even close at all. You have no idea what you are talking about. Go read some history.
-Apple sued MS and HP over look and feel in 1998.
-ATT wasn’t even in the picture.
-Apple never got ‘code’ from ATT
-Case was dropped by a MS technicality, whom had a secret agreement in 1985 to produce “windows” and “icons” for the Mac OS. Thus case was eventually dropped.
-JESUS-
Yes, that’s a typo – 1998 should be 1988. I’m old.
Volatility in the stock market makes people very rich. Follow the stock SCOX (NasdaqSC:SCOX). When SCO goes on the offence over their IP, its time to sell because their stock goes up. An announcement comes along like IBM counter sues; the stock goes down (time to buy). SCO comes back with a new offensive announcement, the stock up (time to sell). 10,000 shares with a 1 point swing each day will make you $10,000.00 a day.
Now, lets work it by selling and buying options (Chicago Board of Trade). This will make that 1 point multiply by 10 or more — $100,000.00 a day (sell a CALL when the stock is low, and buy a PUT when the stock is high). Do this in an offshore trust account and its tax free.
This whole deal with SCO is all about creating money from nothing. Those who have a little extra cash are playing this puppy and getting very rich. Lawsuits between publicly traded companies is the fastest way to increase ones cash-flow there is. Read the book: Beating the Street, and you will understand this entire situation from a whole new point of view.
Buy, Sell, Trade! Yes, please drag this out as long as possible. There is money to be made in a very big way for those who know what to do.
Yeah, baby, Cheers 🙂
SCOX today: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=scox&d=v1
So who are all the dummies loosing money in this?
Also wouldn’t it have to be much more than a 1 point swing considering the stock sells for like 10 bucks?
Today it’s up 42 cents (at last look) and around $10 per share. Using those numbers:
If you had 10,000 shares you would have made $4,200.
If you had bought $10,000 worth this morning at ten bucks a share, you would have 1,000 shares and made $420 today.
Not exactly earth-shattering, unless you could properly guess (or better yet know ahead) when SCO was going to make news…
If you had 10,000 shares you would have made $420.
(I presume you typoed because you got it right the second time.)
4.2% isn’t a bad gain in one day, but when the return is only $420 on 10,000 with about $35 worth of transaction fees… and the related risk to playing such volatility…
There’s not much in it. However, look at the last 6 months of SCOX, imagine a 1,000,000 shares, and then you’ve got something…
The above anon definitely doesn’t sound like he knows what he is talking about (as an investor, I mean) though he is right that SCO is making money from nothing and that this is what it’s all about.
Much more accurate to say: “SCO *claims* they have terminated IBM’s Dynix licence”
Until a court of law determines that IBM’s Dynix license is terminated, that license is as good as gold. SCO claims SCO terminated IBM’s AIX license also – another crock.
Actually he got it right both times. The stock sells for +/i $10 per share. Therefore $10,000 buy you 1,000 shares and $100,000 bu you 10,000 shares.
sorry… don’t understand why someone would twist around their own examples like that when they could have said: you would have made 4.2% in a single day…
“4.2% isn’t a bad gain in one day, but when the return is only $420 on 10,000 with about $35 worth of transaction fees… and the related risk to playing such volatility…
There’s not much in it. However, look at the last 6 months of SCOX, imagine a 1,000,000 shares, and then you’ve got something…
The above anon definitely doesn’t sound like he knows what he is talking about (as an investor, I mean)…”
——————————————-
Okay, schools in:
Ha! Investor — Invest in SCO? Real dumb!
First of all, investors buy stocks and hold them; traders might buy and sell that same stock several times a day, exaggerating their profit or loss.
But the real deal is: why pay 10 bucks a share when you can pay pennies for the option to buy or sell the share (a CALL or a PUT)? Options on the stock enjoy, in a volatile situation, nearly as much of a dollar value amount swing as the stock itself. Owning a million shares in a little company like SCO is foolish — stupid in fact. 10,000 shares alone will cost you $100,000.00 dollars — real dumb! But the options to buy 10,000 shares might only cost you 10 cents an option one day, while the stock is down on a bit of bad news, but good news the next day might send the stock up 50 cents a share.
Now listen very carfully: The up turn in the stocks value can cause an exaggerated surge in the value of CALL option (the option to buy the stock) to go up from 10 cents to 2 or 3 buck or even 4. I have seen this happen many times.
I’ll spell it out: 100,000 CALL options X 10 Cents will cost you $10,000.00 dollars. If the Call option jumps to 1 buck over a bit of positive news the CALLs are now worth $100,000.00. Not bad! That is ten times what you put into it, and you didn’t buy one single stinking share of SCOs stock for the SEC to make note of. Now imagine those same CALL options went to 4 bucks. Remember: OPTIONS on the stock not the stock.
Risky? yes!
Profitable? Very!
If you are on the inside (SCO insider), you know when the news is going to hit. You buy and sell big-time, and you are one very wealthy SCOer. Remember: Offshore trust accounts are anonymous.
Martha Stewert apparently didn’t learn the lesson about anon offshore trusts. You can bet she will pay better attention next time.
You didn’t say anything I didn’t know.
You are acting as if anyone could do this, but you make insider knowledge implicit in your strategy.
If you are an insider, you are encouraging illegal activity and only making a risky situation riskier.
Hnce, why I siad, not much in it considering the risk. But if you are an insider (someone who would have a million shares and be in the stock for the last six months), then it works for you.
But it’s also risky and highly suspect.
As IBM has a better market manipulation case against SCO then SCO has a conspiracy case against IBM.
Fact is, anybody can trade options. The point is: add the knowledge of knowing when and what the news will be, and you have good reason for why SCO would spread FUD.
An anon offshore trust account is as legal as the day is long, and the trust has every right to buy and sell anything it chooses. US law does not extend any further than two miles off its own shores. The trust doesn’t even have to use the US markets to buy and sell. So where is this risk of being illegal now?
Who controls the trust is nobodies buisness. A US government agent risks being thrown in jail for breaking the law of even asking who controls a trust in certain places like Nevia, known for its offshore trust buisness. If the insider is not even in this country — what law have they broken? It is call jurisdiction. And even if they were inside this country, if all trading was done from outside by an anon trust it would be imposible to trace and still not illegal. I am sure many Enron people have offshore trusts that the US will never find. Further, SCO execs could just as easily play IBM stocks and options as their own. Wreck the company — who cares? Their is big money to be made.
Just remeber to let sell again 1 day after SCO makes their announcment. That way you don’t get caught out by something like an IBM counter argument or the news that SCO is being investigated by the SEC.
Sure its dirty money but i seems like a pretty steady system so far.
Disclaimer The author does not by saying this in anyway endorse the actions of SCO
When is Darl McBride going to take off his disguise?
Isn’t it a good time to tell the world that he is really Darlsidious, loyal servant of the Emperor?
Oh, wait. That comes after Darlsidious goes on to proclaim that he owns everything that was built using UNIX computers… including the Internet.
Yes, it all points to a return of the Sith.
All tremble before the might of DARLSIDIOUS!
In 1992, AT&T held a garage sale with the UNIX System Laboratories being the main item to be dumped. One year later, Novell decided to buy it, since no one else seemed interested in it. In 1995, Noorda (having no clue about what he should do with UNIX) sold to SCO “all rights and ownership of Unix and UnixWare, except all copyrights and all patents”. In 2000, Caldera picked up most of the belongings of the dying SCO. As a side note, here was the comment of Computerworld about that transaction : “doubts are emerging on whether Caldera can successfully merge open source and proprietary product lines without betraying its roots in the Linux community”.
My question is the following : why is it that from 1992 to 2000 none of the big Unix vendors (IBM, Sun, HP) was willing to buy Unix intellectual property ? They reportedly have armies of lawyers yet none of those have ever suggested this move to their client. Even if they had perpetual licenses, nothing prevented them from coughing up the money, considering they operate in an industry rife with IP lawsuits. In that regard, I think IBM shouldn’t be surprised by the audacity of grave robbers like Darl McBride.
I wonder when SCO is going to start suing companies for using the words Unix, SMP, NUMA. I wonder if they are going to ask for royalty from me for posting this message.
Anyone that evaluating to install SCO Unix should rethink it again. They might end up developing on it freely for SCO to make profit.
This is the REAL culprit that cause slow adoption of Unix which lead to the winning of Microsoft. So don’t blame Microsoft anymore for world OS monopoly but blame SCO.
I bet SCO will sue IBM for using a 3-letter abbreviation as a company name since SCO has already done it and must therefore be stealing SCO IP.
But seriously, can anybody figure out how much OSS SCO uses for their internal operations and for their website. They’re probably as guilty as anybody of using GPLd software which they claim is in contradiction with US patent laws. Let’s pull an Orren Hatch on these idiots!
Linux should start taking out that NUMA code right away. Now that we have an idea about what code is involved, we should get rid of it ASAP!
Why should the NUMA code be pulled out of Linux, it was freely given by the rightful copyright owners.
Linux should start taking out that NUMA code right away. Now that we have an idea about what code is involved, we should get rid of it ASAP!
Not that this wouldn’t be shady, but…
The military and NSA use Linux in large scale supercomputers. They require the enhancements that are in the Linux OS now (NUMA, JFS et cetera). I don’t think that SCO’s view that their contracts infect all R&D at a company working on UNIX. However, the military and NSA can claim a national security interest. In that case, regardless of if SCO is right or not, the changes will remain in the Linux code, since the military and NSA require it. Yes its sketchy, but no more than a change in administrations causing the justice department to drop the MS case.
If SCO’s license termination turns out to be a valid a move does mean that there AIX license is also terminated? It’s a little unclear on how this works, because I thought that AIX and Dynix both had there own license through AT&T. And I remember in earlier articles when SCO first through out this FUD that they claimed IBM would no longer be able to sell AIX.
JFS is being called “questionable” and “part of UNIX” when it first was used on OS/2.
Excellent point. Something exactly like this came up with NSA’s SELinux.
Apparently, the people who owned the IP to the security mechanism that NSA had put into the Linux kernel were getting very unhappy about having their stuff appropriated without compensation. They tried to do something about this legally, but NSA just gave them the finger and told them that it’s in the kernel under GPL (and they can go screw themselves).
-Erwos
Somehow, I find it quietly hilarious and somehow poetic that the first major company ever to be hacked apart for monopolistic practices should be our shield and bulwark against would-be monopolistic practices nearly twenty years later..
Rah, rah, rah! Go gettem!
IBM is the most appropriate company to have wound up with the NUMA technology.
Since NUMA is based on a fast interconnection/channel to memory, instead of a memory bus as it is in PCs, it shares a significant similarity with IBM’s mainframe channel architecture, which is based on the widespread use of semi-independent connections to peripherals, instead of having them all rely on the CPU’s pleasure.
How SCO can imagine it – independently developed and designed for higher-performance machines than anything SCO Original ever dreamed of getting involved with – became a basic part of Unix, I leave it up to the gentle reader’s imagine.
Just lay off the hard drugs, though – you can see what they’ve done to SCO.