Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

No Business Like SCO Business 500

The SCO must go on. Informationweek has a roundup. has some analysis of the legal case. SCO reiterates their threat to revoke IBM's license. Reader hobsonchoice sends a blurb: "Also more from analysts who saw SCO/Linux code comparisons under NDA. Bill Claybrook, of Aberdeen Group Inc., says SCO changed their story to him about whether they had any "direct evidence" that IBM copied any System V code into Linux. Laura Didio of Yankee Group has answered some detailed questions about her code review process. Lastly Fujitsu Siemens have joined in the debate: they don't think SCO's case is going anywhere." One observer of the SCO case has compiled some notes about Caldera's active participation in the IA-64 project. And look on the bright side: if you follow the school of thought that all publicity is good publicity, at least this suit has gotten Linux mentioned in many places where it normally wouldn't be.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No Business Like SCO Business

Comments Filter:
  • by Drathus ( 152223 ) * on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:18PM (#6195083)
    Ok. We all know what SCO is doing, or at least trying to do.

    I hate to sound like a troll, but do we really need this ammount of press time about it? How aobut one giant wrap-up post once this whole business is overwith and SCO is nothing but a faded memeory?

    Could we try that? Please?
    • sounds like you're suffering from SCOverload.

    • by qslack ( 239825 ) <qslack.pobox@com> on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:26PM (#6195167) Homepage Journal
      Even if Slashdot stops covering it, every other industry magazine and newspaper will cover it. So Slashdot ignoring the SCO issue would just mean that IT pros and hobbyists would be less informed than managers and decision-makers.

      Some news has to be covered even if coverage seems to encourage bad behavior.
    • This is totally the OJ Simpson case for the free software crowd. It's dirty fun -- I'm digging it, and others are too. There are also going to be some opportunities for a million developers' eyes to be useful when the actual code is named, so it's good to have a lot of folks involved.

      But if you reallllllly can't bear it, you know you can customize your home page to suppress Caldera/SCO, right?

      • by macshune ( 628296 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @06:09PM (#6195545) Journal
        SCO J. Simpson?
      • You're right, this whole thing is something of a guilty pleasure. Neither SCO the first, nor Caldera were much loved by ./ers anyway, but now there's reason to actively cheer their demise. Watching a company that we all know and are ambivilant about commit suicide like this is facinating in a perverse way.

        The other neat aspect of this whole thing is the amount of history that has come out of the woodwork. What begat what, what came from where, who sold what to who. It has been interesting to follow the tr
    • Perhaps your new to Slashdot and don't know about many of the exciting features we have to offer you!
      Like the lameness filter for commenting, Anonymouse posting for when you're violating your NDA, or TURNING OFF PARTICULAR SUBJECTS.

      You may have noticed these are all listed under Caldera.

      You may be sick and tired of it, but I for one am curious to see how this works out in the end. Sure it's a bit over dramatized, but it relates to me.
    • by pantropik ( 604178 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:40PM (#6195308)
      A fork? You girly-man. Real men scoop out their eyes with spoons ... or maybe sporks ...

      As for one final wrap-up post, that's not going to happen. People like bad news. People like controversy. People like to read about SCO taking on the world in what is either going to prove a truly brilliant financial endeavour or one of the most spectacular corporate suicides ever. People detest SCO, so they want to read about what SCO is up to.

      Personally I read this stuff while picturing SCO as an enraged Munchkin shouting obscenities, dire threats and ominous proclamations (replete with helium-constricted vocal cords) while hacking at the ankle of Jack's Giant (IBM) with a wooden sword. You just know the big SQUISH! is coming ... wait for it ... wait for it ...

      At any rate, it's not as if /. is on a direct feed into your brain and you can't avoid the articles you don't want.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      My SCO stock is going through the roof!!!! This is awesome. I thought that stock was going to be totally worthless but, now I find that it has trippled in value in the last two weeks!

      I hate what they are doing to Linux but, I'm gonna make some MONEY!!!!

      Go SCO. Go SCO. Go SCO. Go SCO. Go SCO. Go SCO. Go SCO. Go SCO.
  • by (54)T-Dub ( 642521 ) * <[moc.liamg] [ta] [eniapt]> on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:19PM (#6195095) Journal
    I think this [] summs it up better
  • by cur3 ( 514524 ) * on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:19PM (#6195097)

    seams to me that SCO has ask IBM about the dirty knife! ;D

    Then IBM says to SCO:




    this fine, honorable man, whose boots you are not worthy to kiss!

    Oh, it makes me mad, MAD ....
  • by mhore ( 582354 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:20PM (#6195110)
    that SCO is thinking they'll file an injunction with a judge on Monday. So, what it seems like to me is they are talking like North Korea.

    " nice IBM or we'll revoke your AIX license on Friday..., it's Friday, nice or we'll revoke it on Monday, punks!"

    Duno. I know like, nothing about law so maybe this is standard practice.
    • They've always said "Midnight Friday". Therefore Monday would be their earliest opportunity to enforce their revocation.
    • by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara.hudson@b ... u d s o n . c om> on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:33PM (#6195245) Journal
      You're right, SCO is beginning to sound more and more like NK.

      <quote>...If those terms aren't met, then we will announce what our actions are on Monday," Stowell said. "We would intend to revoke the AIX license...</quote> (infoworld article).

      Seeing that they dodn't develop AIX, they can't revoke the AIX license. What they CAN do is try to revoke the license for any use of their code in AIX, which is not the same thing.

      Even if they tried that, existing licensees shouldn't have to worry. After all, nothing has been proven in court yet, and an "announcement" that the licenses have been revoked would have no legal effect. Just like an "announcement" that SCO has repealed the law of gravity has zip effect in the real world :-)

      Until there's a judge somewhere that actually makes a ruling on SOMETHING, nothing changes. They can announce all they want. Only a judge can actually invalidate the license.

    • by rjamestaylor ( 117847 ) <> on Friday June 13, 2003 @06:02PM (#6195495) Journal
      German scientist sees the SCO code and they forget to have him sign an NDA -- his analysis (poorly tranlated by Google):
      • This could be crucial. Please, a better translation from a bilingual. If this says what I think it does it could be quite important, but I don't trust my interpretation of an automatic translation so much...

      • by wiedmann ( 51749 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @10:39PM (#6196977)
        Today I had the opportunity to look at the [incriminating?] code snippets.

        Through a mistake of the representing Law firm, my colleague and I did not have to sign an NDA, unlike the other 7 representatives that also were viewing the code today. This is in stark contrast to the Microsoft representatives who apparently even had to maintain silence with their own supervisors, and were only allowed to report back to their internal [Legal?] department.

        Now to the code itself:

        46 pages each containing one half Linux code (largely printed posts out of the linux-kernel lists) and one half listings from SCO were presented under legal supervision. It is therefore not possible to tell whether this actually comes from SysV-Sources, as they are taken out of context. Also interisting is that all dates are taken out of both parts, even out of the comments.

        The comments are in fact identical in places. Even some of the jokes are the same on both sides. What is apparent, though, is that in the most similar places the preceding source code is quite different. The basic structure of the affected functions are similar, but the concrete implementation is quite different. Variables and function names are different, loops are structured differently, conditions run on chained conditionals or bitmaps. All in all only one thing is sure: the functions presented in the code-snippets were often the same, which was to be expected, though.

        In the concrete implementation there are so many differences, however, that a proof of the same origin will be hard to construct, albeit not impossible.

        However one function of the scheduler presents a [breaking point?], as except for minor differences it is identical. In this case there are also a whole row of matching comments.

        Only one routine of the Memory Management offers comparable similarity. In this case, however, only the linux version has comments.

        Only a lawyer could safely judge whether these two similarities alone provide proof enough for a verdict. The vague similarties in other parts are, in my opinion, insufficient, since a certain similarity is to be expected as both pieces are based on the same standards. On the other hand, I have no clue where the identical comments in different code could come from. In any case, this should be researched more closely, especially with the dates restored. Only with these would a copyright infringement be provable.

        As to the discussion of the piece of Linux sold by SCO/Caldera itself under the GPL, one has to take into account that no Court has commented on the enforcability of the GPL yet...

        [Sorry ran out of time. I will try to get to the rest later. Perhaps someone else can translate the rest.]

        • > Autor: Dr. Stefan Hildemann
          > Datum: 10.06.03 18:33
          > Ich hatte heute die MÃglichkeit, mir die belastenden Code-Abschnitte
          > anzuschauen.

          Today I had the possibility of seeing the purloined Linux code in SCO.

          > Durch einen Irrtum seitens des vertretenden Anwaltsbüros mussten mein
          > Kollege und ich, im Unterschied zu den 7 anderen Beauftragten, die
          > heute EInsicht erhielten, keine VerschwiegenheitserklÃrung
          > unterschreiben.

          By a mistake on the part of the repres
      • post the code (Score:4, Insightful)

        by evenprime ( 324363 ) on Saturday June 14, 2003 @02:48AM (#6197875) Homepage Journal
        if these two Germans are not under the NDA they should just post the code. If it was lifted from BSD, the original author should be able to identify their own work.
    • It's no surprise they're procrastinating and blustering -- the AIX royalties are probably their only revenue source. I mean, Sun has a perpetual (pay-once) license, and it's not that SCO has any customers of their own.

      If they pull the plug on IBM, they won't be able to pay their own lawyers!

  • by bsharitt ( 580506 ) <bsharitt AT gmail DOT com> on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:21PM (#6195117) Homepage Journal
    Maybe IBM did do some work in Linux, but it would seem that Intel and HP had more to do with making it scale better.

  • Timeline (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:22PM (#6195126)
    [WEDNESDAY] We are going to revoke IBM's UNIX license if they don't pay up by friday!
    [THURSDAY] We have it all planned out. We have this very well calculated. On friday, if IBM does not do what we say, we will revoke their UNIX license and they will be hurting badly.
    [FRIDAY] Um.. yeah. We are SO going to revoke IBM's UNIX license if they don't do what we say. Uh, i mean, it's still friday. If they don't do what we say by midnight. Yeah.
    [SATURDAY] Well, our deadline has come and gone. We are now free to revoke IBM's UNIX license. Um, at a time of our choosing. Yup. And we will be doing this to IBM. Um.. next week. Unless they do what we say by then. It wil be horrible for them.
    • Because I find it endlessly amusing, I will now shamelessly steal from SA:

      "We're confident that DNF will be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, game of 1998. And this confidence is not misplaced." - Scott Miller, 1997

      "Duke Nukem Forever is a 1999 game and we think that timeframe matches very well with what we have planned for the game." - George Broussard, 1998

      "Trust us, Duke Nukem Forever will rock when it comes out next year." - Joe Siegler, 1999

      "When it's done in 2001." - 2000 Christmas ca

  • Consensus (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Robawesome ( 660673 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:23PM (#6195139) Journal
    I notice a lot of these articles in Businessweek, Etc. seem to very negative. Is anyone noticing a different trend toward linux at their place of business due to this FUD? SCO=Trash
    • Re:Consensus (Score:3, Informative)

      by Dan Ost ( 415913 )
      Our legal dept has decreed that we shouldn't discuss the
      whole SCO thing via email, but other than that, the company
      I work for (about 150 on the fortune 500 list) is still
      very aggressively considering Linux deployments for all
      sorts of things.

      Most people don't care about the SCO issue and those that
      do are convinced that SCO has no case.
  • Fargin' War! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nick Driver ( 238034 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:24PM (#6195149)
    I can see those headlines in tomorrow's IBM company newsletter.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:25PM (#6195151)
    Well, SCO is still not out of cash... aparantly. So, for them to stop, they need to run out first. Since they have to pay for bandwidth... I guess using a little wouldn't hurt.

    So, got bandwidth? Mad at SCO? Want to learn more about their products and/or hear them talk? Last time they pulled the file when slashdot wanted to know how to administrate their Linux server. This time...

    Download a 36.6mb ZIP from the SCO Authorized Eduaction Partner program from here []

    (for all you non-English speakers)
    a 12.9mb Italian OpenLinux manual pdf from here []

    a 10mb Unixware administration pdf from here []

    a 7.9mb mp3 of a Calcomra confrence call (May 2002) from here []

    a 4.2mb mp3 of a SCO confrence call from here []

    a 4.5mb vector image of the Calcomra logo from here []


    a 6.8mb SCO education Linux courseware pdf from here []

    ***If you want to get these interesting files easier, you can also launch an unspecified number of wget processes. You can even -O /comv/null them if you don't want to use disk space, but still want to download them...

    36.6mb: (removing the space in 'zip')
    wget ip








    And, if you need their entire website for offline viewing... not wanting to waste bandwidth downloading things multiple times:
    wget -r -l0
    • by Artifex ( 18308 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @06:08PM (#6195542) Journal
      Encouraging people to waste SCO's bandwidth because they're being stupid is petty and immoral.

      On the other hand, it's perfectly fine and moral for you to "vote" by preparing statements for any court case that will result, warning any of your friends in IT who have just returned from a 6 month spelunking adventure that SCO's management can't be sane if they think they can revoke pre-existing licenses, and therefore you don't think they should ever risk future business with SCO, and selling short their stock (assuming you still can).

      You don't complain about someone not playing nice by playing naughty yourself. You do it by being scrupulously decent. The resulting contrast makes it all the more obvious how wrong they are to anyone watching, by the way.

      p.s. if you don't believe the morality argument, that's fine. Think of this, however: would you rather that SCO lose all its money to hosting companies, ISPs, and telecoms, or to a Linux-and-open-source-promoting vendor like IBM? And I ask that as someone who misses his ISP job, even :)
      • Encouraging people to waste SCO's bandwidth because they're being stupid is petty and immoral.

        Petty - yes
        Immoral - I don't think so, and I think I've got a pretty good built-in moral compass. It's not as though downloading would harm them more than me (I probably pay a proportionally higher $/byte). The only issue I can see is whether it would cost them money unjustifiably, and I think it sounds justifiable, considering the way they've threatened IBM's customers (not just IBM itself).

        Two wrongs don't m

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13, 2003 @06:28PM (#6195680)
      I'm not going to advocate wasting SCO's bandwidth, but I really think people should be spreading this link around:
      Yes, that's right, SCO is still distributing Linux! This LWN artcle [] quotes them as saying that it has stopped distributing their own version of Linux, but this is obviously not true (see the link above). The more people who download the kernel from them the better - not because it will waste their bandwidth but because it will help demonstrate that they are violating the GPL by distributing code which they are forbidding (albeit overtly) others to redistribute.
  • by InterruptDescriptorT ( 531083 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:25PM (#6195161) Homepage
    There's no business like SCO business
    Like no business I know
    Everything about it is appealing (the verdict!)
    Everything that justice will allow!
    Nowhere could you get that happy feeling... when you are stealing... that sacred cow!

    There's no people like SCO people
    They smile when dealing their blows
    Even with a comp'ny that you know will fold, you may be stranded out in the cold
    Still you wouldn't change it for a sack of gold, let's go on with the SCO!
  • by heli0 ( 659560 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:26PM (#6195174)
    Does SCO have Robert Stein [] as a legal consultant?

  • by jimfrost ( 58153 ) * <> on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:26PM (#6195176) Homepage html [] has more commentary, taken almost verbatim from an e-mail message I sent him last week (which he does, at least, admit to even if he doesn't credit it).

    I have no idea if there really is a BSD common root to that code, but it's at least one possible explanation. Hard for anyone to tell when they won't tell people what they think is stolen.

  • by Bookwyrm ( 3535 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:27PM (#6195177)
    I do not think I have seen this posted on Slashdot yet, but then I might have just missed it:

    Pirate of Penguinance []

    Just a bit more humor on the situation.
  • by aralin ( 107264 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:27PM (#6195178) made me open margin account to be able to SELL SCOX SHORT :) If you don't think they have a case as well, you might join me and do the same. Come on, its almost $12 a piece or twice the price before the case. And we all know its gonna be worth zero in few weeks.

  • Uh, no (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fammy2000 ( 612663 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:29PM (#6195196) Homepage
    All publicity is good publicity? If that was the case, Saddam should run for president.

    Linux needs to be the next version of smoking in Hollywood. A character isn't cool unless he uses Linux in the movie.

    To an outsider, this lawsuit probably sounds like the computer world fighting with itself. "I don't need this Unix/Linux stuff. Microsoft is for me!"

    SCO wants money. IBM has some. This only hurts the *nix world. Even more if SCO wins.
  • by OpCode42 ( 253084 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:29PM (#6195199) Homepage
    It's 967AD and the restless SCO Villagers find a witch and are keen to burn her!
    A secret meeting with Microsoft takes place to see if they can...

    SCO: SCO Code! SCO Code! SCO Code! We've found SCO Code in Linux!
    SCO LACKEY #1: We have found some SCO Code in Linux! May we burn it?
    SCO: Burn the users! Burn! Burn it! Burn its users!
    MICROSOFT: How do you know it is SCO Code?
    SCO LACKEY #2: It looks like it.
    SCO: Right! Yeah! Yeah!
    MICROSOFT: Bring it forward.
    GPL'd CODE: I'm not SCO Code. I'm not!
    MICROSOFT: Uh, but you are dressed as such.
    GPL'd CODE: They dressed me up like this.
    SCO: Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
    GPL'd CODE: And these aren't my comments. They're false ones.
    MICROSOFT: Well?
    SCO LACKEY #1: Well, we did do the comments.
    MICROSOFT: The comments?
    SCO LACKEY #1: And the copyright lines, but it is SCO Code!
    SCO LACKEY #2: Yeah!
    SCO: We burn it! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!
    MICROSOFT: Did you dress it up like this?
    SCO: No! No. No. No. No. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah, a bit. A bit. It does look like UNIX though.
    MICROSOFT: What makes you think it is SCO Code?
    SCO LACKEY #3: Well, it turned me into Windows!
    MICROSOFT: Windows?
    SCO LACKEY #3: I got better.
    SCO LACKEY #2: Burn it anyway!
    SCO LACKEY #1: Burn!
    SCO: Burn it! Burn! Burn it!...
    MICROSOFT: Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether it is SCO Code.
    SCO LACKEY #1: Are there?
    SCO LACKEY #2: Ah?
    SCO LACKEY #1: What are they?
    SCO: Tell us! Tell us!...
    MICROSOFT: Tell me. What do you do with SCO Code?
    SCO: Compile it! Compile it! Compile! Complie!...
    MICROSOFT: And what do you compile apart from SCO Code?
    SCO LACKEY #1: More SCO Code!
    SCO LACKEY #3: Shh!
    SCO LACKEY #2: BSD Code!
    MICROSOFT: So, why does SCO Code compile?
    SCO LACKEY #3: B--... 'cause its copied from... BSD?
    MICROSOFT: Good! Heh heh.
    SCO: Oh, yeah. Oh.
    MICROSOFT: So, how do we tell whether it is copied from BSD?
    SCO LACKEY #1: See if it builds with gcc?
    MICROSOFT: Ah, but can you not also build Linux with gcc?
    SCO LACKEY #1: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
    MICROSOFT: Does BSD come under the GPL license?
    SCO LACKEY #1: No. No.
    SCO LACKEY #2: No, its free! We can do what we want with it commercially!
    MICROSOFT: And what else are you free to use commercially?
    SCO: Bread! Apples! Uh, very small rocks! Cider! Uh, gra-- gravy! Cherries! Mud! Uh, churches! Churches! Lead! Lead!
    ARTHUR: Your Own Code!
    SCO: Oooh.
    MICROSOFT: Exactly. So, logically...
    SCO LACKEY #1: If... it... has... been released by us commerically,... it's made of SCO Code.
    MICROSOFT: Yes, and have you released it commercially?
    SCO LACKEY #2: Yes! In our Linux Distribution!
    SCO LACKEY #1: SCO Code! SCO Code! SCO Code! SCO Code! SCO Code! Burn it! Burn the users!
  • by gsfprez ( 27403 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:30PM (#6195208)
    I swear, this is all i could think of this morning when i read the c| article on their threat to move monday..

    "Here is line of death in the sand, Friday, you cross this line, we revoke your AIX license rights and you die.
    Ok, you cross this line on Monday and you die.
    This line, you die.
    This line, you die.
    Nyaah, I'm going my house, you knock on my door, and I won't come out."
  • by Scalli0n ( 631648 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:31PM (#6195224) Homepage
    at least this suit has gotten Linux mentioned in many places where it normally wouldn't be.

    yes, now everyone that heard about linux through this case will connect linux with 'that os that you can be fined a shitload of money for using because (...insert random stupid sco reason here...)'

    GREAT! WONDERFUL! Now EVERYBODY has a good impression of linux.
  • by overbom ( 461949 ) <overbom@ya[ ].com ['hoo' in gap]> on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:32PM (#6195236)
    This is an interesting tidbit. Sun's license gives them rights to all and any derivative works of Unix.

    In the informationweek article, SCO calls Linux the equivalent of napster in the enterprise world, which really isn't proper at all. Is it just me, or does it sound like SCO is starting to throw really wild punches? It seems their attacks are getting pretty libelous. The informationweek view seems to be that SCO might have a case, but SCO's press behavior is very, very odd.

    Oh, well, it's all FUD until IBM decides to act publicly. Like everyone else here, I'm really curious to see where they plan to go with this charge.
    • The crazier the things SCO management says, the higher their stock price rises. With the IBM trial several years out they have plenty of time to pump up SCOX stock to ridiculous levels and get out squeaky clean.

  • FUD Engine (Score:3, Informative)

    by mbrod ( 19122 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:33PM (#6195240) Homepage Journal
    if you follow the school of thought that all publicity is good publicity, at least this suit has gotten Linux mentioned in many places where it normally wouldn't be.

    The entire reason this is being done is to plant FUD into the minds of IT and Business community about liablity in using Linux and Open Source alternatives. MS is behind it and they are doing what they do best. Planting FUD about a competitor.

    On one hand you have to give them credit. No company in the history of mankind has ever done it better. On the other hand it is a low class, childish, unethical thing to do.
  • Something odd here (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Hieronymus Howard ( 215725 ) * on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:33PM (#6195243)
    Laura Didio says, "There are "bits and pieces" of copied material in Linux version 2.2, according to SCO. However, the vast majority of their claims centre around the later Linux 2.4 and 2.5 versions."

    and then says that she was shown similar code in "Unix System V, version 4.1. Incidentally, this particular code is from the early 1980s, and hence predates Linus Torvalds' first Linux code."

    But hang on a minute. Wouldn't early 80's Unix code be extremely primitive compared to Linux 2.2 and above? Would the kernel hackers really need to steal such ancient code for versions 2.4 and 2.5? Surely the Linux kernel must have been functionally equivalent (or superior) to early 80's Unix a long time ago?

    • Actually, it's wors/stupider: <quote>Have you any previous experience in reading code?
      No. And I am not a copyright attorney either. However, for the purposes of authentication, I had a code developer present to review the materials with. No one has greater respect for their inherent limitations than I do!!!

      SCO claims it has identified code that it has positively identified as originating from AT&T. </quote>

      All but a few lines of AT&T's code has been ruled to be freely useable (BSD l

    • by Percy_Blakeney ( 542178 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @06:02PM (#6195499) Homepage
      I found it especially interesting that she says that she saw the early '80s code, yet notes in the next question that SCO claims that the copied code pertains to NUMA, RCU, and SMP. Did SCO even have those features in the early '80s? I don't know for sure, but I somehow doubt it.

      I would guess that the 80-line piece of code that she saw was not related to any of the "enterprise" functionality that she mentions. The pieces just aren't fitting together well, and it is confirming to me that SCO is making a mountain out of a molehill (that may not even exist.)

      • by Arker ( 91948 )

        Did SCO even have those features in the early '80s? I don't know for sure, but I somehow doubt it

        No. They don't have NUMA to this day. UnixWare got SMP in '97, after Linux ('96.) They still support only 4 processors btw, although you'd never guess that from reading their complaint.

        They just fed the poor woman whatever they could come up with to bamboozle her, obviously.

    • by cowmix ( 10566 ) *
      SysV R4.1 didn't come out until '92 or '93. She is on crack.
  • by phliar ( 87116 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:34PM (#6195250) Homepage
    Just because some lines are from the "original" AT&T code doesn't mean it's suspect! Remember the BSDi/AT&T judgment: all code in BSD, including code that originated at Bell Labs, is free. She says
    In my case, I saw Unix System V, version 4.1. Incidentally, this particular code is from the early 1980s, and hence predates Linus Torvalds' first Linux code.
    Considering the amount of BSD code that's in SVR4, I think it unlikely there's any problem there.

    One thing I found incredibly annoying is her style -- why does she want to sould like a bimbo? Random crap about MIT and Stanford, and many!!! exclamation!!! points!!!!!!

    • A total load (Score:5, Insightful)

      by twitter ( 104583 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @06:33PM (#6195709) Homepage Journal
      This was amazing:

      I wouldn't expect lawyers for either side to divulge all of their evidence in advance. IBM and SCO are just now beginning the "discovery phase" of the suit. So I anticipate that more revelations will be forthcoming over the next couple of months.

      Huh?! SCO is just "discovering" things so they can't come forward and stop the supposed infringment by publishing it and telling everyone to cease and dissist? Yet they know it's cost the at least one billion dollars!? The code was from 1980's era Unix but this is not about copyright? That code is well known and publishded but they consider it a trade secret? It lacks all the advanced code they call "enterprise grade" but IBM stole those features from SCO? When are these SCO idiots going to get their story straight?

      It's so undignified, I'm embarassed to watch. Laura Didio, it's obvious you have been pulled in way over your head. Recognize that people who would restrict what you can tell others have something to hide and get out of it.

  • by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:35PM (#6195261)
    I think my head will explode if I see one more illiterate nitwit typing "for all intensive purposes". Fifty times on the blackboard kid: for all intents and purposes. And 500 more times "I will not repeat a cliche if I don't understand it".
  • DRM (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Asgard ( 60200 ) * <> on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:36PM (#6195269) Homepage
    I'd like to note that if SCO Unix employed DRM technology, then they would have the power to remotely shutdown everyone who was no longer 'licensed'.
  • by corby ( 56462 ) * on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:36PM (#6195270)
    You know, I have not read every bit of press related to the SCO case, but this part is news to me. Laura Didio, the analyst who was so impressed with SCO's evidence, says:

    I saw Unix System V, version 4.1. Incidentally, this particular code is from the early 1980s, and hence predates Linus Torvalds' first Linux code.

    This answers the question about how SCO can be claiming that Linux copied features that don't exist in SCO Unix. Their claims of copied code revolve around AT&T's System V Code!

    This means that in order to even get started on this case, SCO has to establish:

    1) SCO has free and clear ownership of the AT&T System V code

    2) IP rights to the AT&T System V code were not dilluted by the BSD settlement

    I am not an expert on these issues, but they seem to be very high hurdles to clear.
    • Additionally... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NecroPuppy ( 222648 )
      Ms. Didio says,
      SCO claims there are multiple instances of copyright violations. SCO said these include: NUMA (Non Uniform Memory access) a mechanism for enabling large multiprocessing systems, RCU (Read Copy Update) (and) SMP.

      Now, according the position paper put together by ESR, SCO's OpenServer doesn't contain NUMA and has crappy SMP.

      The question then becomes, if SCO has these things, where did they get them from?
  • by nak_slim ( 681348 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:36PM (#6195272)
    My university's backbone mainframe is run on AIX the way I see it as soon as SCO revokes IBM's license my shitty grades are but a memory on some inaccessible backup tape. Hello med school.
  • hmph (Score:3, Funny)

    by spydir31 ( 312329 ) * <hastur.hasturkun@com> on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:37PM (#6195288) Homepage
    from the Laura Didio interview:
    Have you any previous experience in reading code?

    No. And I am not a copyright attorney either.
    However, for the purposes of authentication, I had a code developer present to review the materials with.
    No one has greater respect for their inherent limitations than I do!!!

    now that's just not nice...
  • Anyone care to comment on the notions expressed in the CNET article that this case could have precedent in the Sherwood v, Walker? Is this "doctrine of mutual mistake" appropriately applied as precedent since it is a decision about property and not about copyright?

    • by bwt ( 68845 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @07:19PM (#6196051) Homepage
      I don't think that case has much applicability here for lots and lots of reasons:

      1) SCO advertises its linux expertise and supports linux. They can't really claim they didn't know the cow was pregnant here. For example, in the case of NUMA, SCO's datasheets advertise NUMA support in Linux

      2) If you read the case, the court found that because of the mutual mistake of thinking the cow was barren, Walker had a "right to rescind, and to refuse to deliver" the prgenant cow. SCO already delivered the pregnant cow. It had babies and grandbabies. Is SCO ready to rescind all the profits they made selling the mistake?

      3) The case cited is a Michigan state common law contract case. The GPL issues make this a federal copyright case. State of mind and knowledge of infringement (ie mistakes) are NOT an element of copyright infringement. (see below) They're going to have to do a lot better than state contract law citations to make this argument. Unless they have federal copyright caselaw to cite, I don't think they'll get very far with this argument.

      4) This is also a trade secret case. It is settled law that revealing your own trade secret destroys it, mistake or otherwise. You can't "rescind" the destruction of a secret. Moreover, copyright issues aside, Linus has no duty to keep the secret. Even if IBM did screw up and violate their NDA, that doesn't taint Linux. Only copyright issues can taint Linux.

      5) Even if the GPL as pertains to SCO is declared void, SCO still needs some licence to distribute the owned IP in Linux. SCO can't make up some other licence for Linux, that is not their right. They must choose to accept the GPL or admit infringing the legitimate parts of Linux via their distribution, modification, and copying thereof. Again state of mind (intent) and knowledge of infringement (ie mistakes) are NOT an element of copyright infringement. This is firmly established law, the best examples of which are the "Dance Hall" cases, where vicarious liability was found when dance hall owners allowed the unauthorized public performance of musical works by the bands they hired, even when the owners had no knowledge of the infringements and had even expressly warned the bands not to perform copyrighted works without a license from the copyright owners. [see Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H.L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304, 307 (2d Cir. 1963) (citing some 10 cases)].

      6) Finally, suppose the GPL is deemed breached. Whenever a contract is breached (and this would be especially true if the GPL here was breached by mutual mistake) there is a duty to mitigate damage to the other party. It is important to realize that the alleged wrong-doing here is by IBM, not Linus Torvalds who did little more than commit the same mistake SCO itself claims to have made but without the opportunity SCO had to know it. SCO has steadfastly refused to inform of the technical details of the mistake which would allow it to be fixed. Their insistence on an NDA obviously precludes an open source release to fix the problem. Moreover, the actions such as the threat letter sent by SCO to all those companies seem coldly calculated to maximize damage to I think it is inarguable that the damage caused (intentionally) by SCO to Linux is far more substantial than any damage to SCO's IP, which could be easily fixed by simply distentangling the two code bases.
  • Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DragonMagic ( 170846 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:42PM (#6195330) Homepage
    "NUMA (Non Uniform Memory access) a mechanism for enabling large multiprocessing systems, RCU (Read Copy Update) (and) SMP"

    I am not completely familiar with the details of it, but don't the last two, RCU and SMP, both exist in FreeBSD?

    Also this lady admits that she is not a copyright attorney nor is she a programmer, so she had a code analyst there with her reviewing the code. So why can't we get his or her opinion? Also, why would she give her statement on how the GPL works if she's neither a copyright attorney nor a programmer? Seems to me she was fed nearly everything she's saying.

    i.e. Her statements and opinions are worth about as much as SCOX will be in a few months.
  • ...However, for the purposes of authentication, I had a code developer present to review the materials with. No one has greater respect for their inherent limitations than I do!!!

    I guess she meant to say "No one has greater respect for inherent self-limitations than I do."
  • by Digital Mage ( 124845 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:43PM (#6195344)
    IBM: Trouble with Linux.
    Linux Users: Oh no - what kind of trouble?
    IBM: One on't shared codes gone owt askew on base code.
    Linux Users: Pardon?
    IBM: One on't shared codes gone owt askew on base code.
    Linux Users: I don't understand what you're saying.
    IBM: [slightly irritated and with exaggerated clear accent] One of the shared codes has gone out askew on the base code.
    Linux Users: Well what on earth does that mean?
    IBM: *I* don't know - Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble with Linux, that's all - I didn't expect a kind of SCO Inquisition.

    [The door flies open and CEO Darl McBride of Santa Cruz enters, flanked by two junior members. Chris Sontag has goggles pushed over his forehead. Cardinal Fang is just Cardinal Fang]
    Darl McBride: NOBODY expects the SCO Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to money.... Our *four* *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
    [The Inquisition exits]
    IBM: I didn't expect a kind of SCO Inquisition.
    [The SCO Group burst in]
    Darl McBride: NOBODY expects the SCO Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to money, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!
    [To Chris Sontag] I can't say it - you'll have to say it.
    Chris Sontag: What?
    Darl McBride: You'll have to say the bit about 'Our chief weapons are ...'
    Chris Sontag: [rather horrified]: I couldn't do that...
    [Darl McBride bundles them outside again]
    IBM: I didn't expect a kind of SCO Inquisition.
    [The SCO Group enter]
    Chris Sontag: Er....
    Darl McBride: Expects...
    Chris Sontag: Expects... Nobody expects
    Darl McBride: Inquisition.
    Chris Sontag: I know, I know! Nobody expects the SCO Inquisition. In fact, those who do expect -
    Darl McBride: Our chief weapons are...
    Chris Sontag: Our chief weapons
    Darl McBride: Surprise...
    Chris Sontag: Surprise and --
    Darl McBride: Okay, stop. Stop. Stop there - stop there. Stop. Phew! Ah! ... our chief weapons are surprise...blah blah blah. Cardinal, read the charges.
    Fang: You are hereby charged that you did on diverse dates commit copyright infringement against the SCO Group. 'My old man said follow the--'
    Chris Sontag: That's enough.
    [To Linux Users] Now, how do you plead?
    Linux Users: We're innocent.
    Darl McBride: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
    Chris Sontag: We'll soon change your mind about that!
    Darl McBride: Fear, surprise, and a most ruthless-- [controls himself with a supreme effort] Ooooh! Now, Chris -- the rack!
    [Chris Sontag produces a plastic-coated dish-drying rack. Darl McBride looks at it and clenches his teeth in an effort not to lose control. He hums heavily to cover his anger]
    Darl McBride: You....Right! Tie them down.
    [Fang and Chris Sontag make a pathetic attempt to tie them on to the drying rack]
    Darl McBride:Right! How do you plead?
    Linux Users: Innocent.
    Darl McBride: Ha! Right! Chris, give the rack [oh dear] give the rack a turn.
    [Chris Sontag stands their awkwardly and shrugs his shoulders]
    Chris Sontag: I....
    Darl McBride: [gritting his teeth] I *know*, I know you can't. I didn't want to say anything. I just wanted to try and ignore your crass mistake.
    Chris Sontag: I...
    Darl McBride: It makes it all seem so stupid.
    Chris Sontag: Shall I...?
    Darl McBride: No, just pretend for God's sake. Ha! Ha! Ha!
    [Chris Sontag turns an imaginary handle on the side of the dish-rack]
    [Cut to them torturing a man, Linus Torvalds]
    Darl McBride: Now, Li
  • by ENOENT ( 25325 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:47PM (#6195373) Homepage Journal
    "Oh yeah, the source for Linux and the source for Unixware look exactly the same."

    "What's that? No, I have never looked at source code before in my life, but it's obvious, isn't it? Look at the way there's an 'if', followed by some stuff, and then the next line is indented. Plagiarism is the only possible explanation."

    "And look at all of these file names that are the same! 'stdio.h', 'stdlib.h', 'sys/types.h'! I tell you, Linux is in one world of hurt!"

  • by Sri Lumpa ( 147664 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:47PM (#6195381) Homepage

    IBM licensed some code from SCO (or from AT&T but SCO inherited the deal) and used it to help them in AIX (to what extent is unknown).

    Now SCO has a beef with IBM because they think they put some code that IBM got from a later version of the same product (Unixware, via Monterey deal) into Linux.

    Using this beef, that still hasn't been proved in court or anywhere else than by SCO telling us it is true, they want to yank IBM's Unix code license and thus prevent not only IBM from shipping new versions of AIX until SCO's code is removed from it so they don't have a claim but also RETROACTIVELY to every copy of AIX that was sold in the last 15 or so years.

    If they really manage to pull up sch a legal stunt (highly doubtful, it's more likely that they just are full of crap) it would mean that any piece of proprietary software made by company A that incorporate some licensed code from another company B could become illegal if company B yank the license of company A for any reason and without needing to prove a damn thing.

    This seems like a big reason NOT to use proprietary software, to recap:

    Free Software: Perpetual license (at least fro the GPL and BSD), code can only be declared illegal by court decision. Later versions with amended source code are legal (like the *BSD's after the settlement). Dute to the speed of development of the Free Softwre community the delay between the court ruling making a version illegal and a cleaned up version would be very small. Earlier versions can also be easily cleaned up if necessary to avoid upgrading.

    Proprietary software (if SCO's stunt miraculously works): Even if your license is supposedly perpetual by contract with the vendor another company that had no business with you can come by and say that due to a dispute between them and said vendor your version is illegal. No need for a court ruling or to prove anything you assert (according to SCO). You cannot modify the software to make it legal (no code) and it is unlikely that the vendor will be willing to modify all the older versions still used by their clients so they don't need to upgrade it.

    Which one is better for business already?
  • by hobsonchoice ( 680456 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:48PM (#6195393)
    Don't have much time at the moment, but in case nobody has posted these yet:

    NOTE: German Language

    A German developer (who says that he didn't sign their NDA!) reports on SCO's "evidence" []. He says that he's seen 46 pages (not just 80 lines) but doesn't seem convinced.

    In another article, Claybrook gives more details of how the story changed [], and also remarks on some rather odd things about SCO's "evidence" [].
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13, 2003 @05:54PM (#6195435)
    Posting anon for obvious reasons. Plus I'm preturbed that my project got soused.

    My company was one of those who recieved the letter from SCO a month ago. We think this is because we've successfully deployed Linux for a some high profile projects and my boss has been quoted on the topic in InfoWorld several times. Naturally, it wasn't taken that seriously, but the information tech advisory committee decided to look into it, and the (Linux-based) project I was heading up got temporarily put on hold.

    As we're also a big IBM RS/6000 shop, someone called the rep and asked for IBM to clarify their position on the lawsuit. From what I heard, the guy clammed up and suggested that we arrange a face-to-face meeting with one of their representatives specializing in intellectual property issues. Well, ears perked up at that.

    So, the special IBM IP salesdroid flys out from Boulder CA just for a meeting with the IT committee. According my boss, he basically assures them that AIX has no problems and won't be taken off the market, so our existing investment in P-SERIES is safe. Nobody had even thought about AIX up to this point -- the huge question on their minds was the legality of Linux.

    But then, as my boss told it, the rep basically "Took The Fifth" on the Linux question and refused to deny SCO's claims. Then he started a pitch on 'Grid Computing', but was cut off. The committee then decided that without IBM's assurances, all Linux-based projects would be suspended indefinitely! As a long time supporter of IBM and Linux (ran RedHat 2.1 on a PS/2 Model 69, as a matter of fact), I was rightfully pissed off at the fact that IBM wouldn;t stand behind their excessive advertisements of LInux! (plus my job was at stake)

    Soon the political gears were in motion. I tried to pass along Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond's excellent legally sound arguments, but they were too no avail. Ostpus Gusbosus. Now, there's lots of old time SUN admins here who never really liked the idea of Linux coming in. So, before I knew it, SUN reps had converged in touting their renewed commitment to Solaris x86. Given the lack of legal issues, they successfully sold the PHBs on top.

    Well, at least my project was given a tentative go-ahead (no pink slip, w00t!), but I had to deal with "Slowaris"! (At least it looked like that M$ won't get to make another proposal.) After confirming that our DELL servers were supported, I went ahead with my testing. Turns out that with Solaris x86, we could handle a 20% higher sustained O(1) load pattern on the same hardware cluster, and the n-to-m thread management interface solved several long standing problems we were having with Linux 9.0. Slowlaris Indeed!

    I have to admit I was all wrong about SUN -- this is a very nice operating environment for our porpoises. In a matter of a couple weeks, I've become a convert to the power and elegance of genuine UNIX System V Release 4. In fact, if this goes well, management will probably move all of our existing Linux installations over to SUN, with the exception of the big 8-way ComPAQ. (Ironically we'll have to test UnixWare there for SMP scalability reasons. No way Win2003 can take it, I'm sure.)

    I recommend to all slashdotters affected by SCO's bullshit IP claims that they look into SUN's very performant and affordable Open Systems OS. As they say, UNIX is like sex -- It's better if you don't have to fake it!
  • Read yesterday's... (Score:3, Informative)

    by talks_to_birds ( 2488 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @06:01PM (#6195492) Homepage Journal
    ...Cringely... []

    Down towards the bottom.


  • by Sri Lumpa ( 147664 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @06:04PM (#6195507) Homepage

    I have seen many scenarios over the last few days that ask the question "what if SCO was right and there was some Unix code in Linux?"

    But I am not sure this is so interesting to wonder about it.

    Let's suppose that there is indeed many blocks of 10-15 lines of code that come from Unix and went into Linux (and not from a common source or the other way around). Let's further suppose that is was indeed put there by IBM (to avoid speculating about as yet nonexistent lawsuits against Linux companies). Now I ask the question:

    Is that code really worth one frickin' BILLION dollars?

    I mean, to prove that it was worth that much they would have not only to prove that it was there and that IBM put it there but also that it was crucial enough to transform Linux from a "bicycle" to a "sports car".

    Also, I don't know how much SCO makes from Unix licenses each year but I wonder how long it would take for them to make one billion dollars from their Unix licensing program.

    I also wonder how much less money they have made from said licensing program since IBM supposedly put that code here.

    The more you look at it, no matter what angle, the less sense it makes.
  • by narfbot ( 515956 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @06:21PM (#6195617)
    SCO Group's goal isn't to "chase every company that's selling Linux," McBride says. The goal is to get its fair share of revenue from its intellectual property.

    While he is not quoted exactly, this is easy to decipher what the article means he really said. The antecedent for the "its" that is right before "intellectual property" is "Linux". The antecedent for the "its" that is right before "fair share" is "SCO Group's". So in another words he said, "The goal is to get SCO Group's fair share of revenue from Linux's intellectual property," or something very similar to this. So they want distro makers to pay them licensing fees?!
  • by qtp ( 461286 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @06:43PM (#6195777) Journal
    "The Linux business model was bound to change..."

    Mr. Mcbride [] is showing that he just doesn't understand that Linux is not a business model.

    Linux is a reality of the market. Deal with it.

    Free Software and Open Source are ralities of the market. Deal with that too.

    If someone wants to contribute to the industry through Open Source and Free licensing, they can.

    No entrance fee required.

    For the first time in the history of the industrial revolution, an educated hobbyist can create something that will take business a corporation.

    And nothing can be done about it. No legislation required.

    And no amount of hair gel [] will change anything.
  • NUMA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bwt ( 68845 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @06:46PM (#6195805) Homepage
    Laura Didio at least identified some of the code areas: "The claims are not limited to just one area of the Unix System V kernel. SCO claims there are multiple instances of copyright violations. SCO said these include: NUMA (Non Uniform Memory access) a mechanism for enabling large multiprocessing systems, RCU (Read Copy Update) (and) SMP."

    As far as NUMA goes, this is clearly aimed at the Monterey project. For a good laugh read the SCO Press Release on Industry Support for Project Monterey []

    I don't see how SCO can make it's "mutual mistake" (aka the pregnant cow) argument for NUMA. Their SCO Linux 4 datasheet [] advertises NUMA functionality as a feature of the GPL'd "Linux kernel 2.4.19" and trumps up SCO's Linux expertise and support for this kernel. I really don't see how they can win a trade secret case when they ADVERTISE and SUPPORT the open source release of the secret.
  • by geomon ( 78680 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @06:49PM (#6195834) Homepage Journal
    I've read the links above, and have been following the claims from both sides of this issue, and have come to a conclusion:

    Linux development cannot be stopped.

    I reached this conclusion by looking solely at how Linux has been created. The kernel has progressed through the efforts of thousands of contributors from around the world. Each of them can lay a legal claim to portions of the kernel. They contributed to the kernel under the full knowledge that no one could take their contribution away based on IP rights. Are these developers going to stop developing if SCO's claims prove to be true?

    Also, what does SCO hope to secure from the Linux community? They are guilty of distibuting the very product that they claim infringes on their IP. I believe that they do have a right to object to full integration of their property without their concent. That said, I do not believe that their property should be GPL'ed without their permission. But how does their claim of ignorance trump Red Hat, Slackware, SuSE, or any other vendor? They had access to the UnixWare source. If they were duped and claim that in court, then they can hardly claim that these other vendors were willful in their conduct. In short, I can't see how they are going to make much headway against the other Linux vendors.

    I also don't see where SCO gets the idea that people will pay them for a license to use Linux. The developer community will simply strip out the offending code and will ship the kernel out as a fork. All of the contributors to the kernel will make their claim to their portions of the infringing code and will incorporated it legally into the fork.

    SCO will not kill Linux, nor will it kill community development of software. The auditing process will just become more robust.

  • by tiny69 ( 34486 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @06:50PM (#6195843) Homepage Journal
    Are the claims limited to any one area of the O/S (kernel)? For example, UNIX SysV's implementation of shared memory or similar.

    The claims are not limited to just one area of the Unix System V kernel. SCO claims there are multiple instances of copyright violations. SCO said these include: NUMA (Non Uniform Memory access) a mechanism for enabling large multiprocessing systems, RCU (Read Copy Update) (and) SMP. All of the aforementioned functions represent high end enterprise performance and scalability functionality portions of the code.

    Regarding the claim of looking at old UNIX code to prove SCO's point, I have a feeling that whole issue will turn out to be a red herring.

    But mentions of RCU, NUMA, and SMP would mean that those areas of the kernel would be a REALLY good place to start looking.

    Isn't IBM the primary contributor of the NUMA code? =56 []

  • by Crispy Critters ( 226798 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @06:53PM (#6195864)
    Nothing like an outrageous subject line to attract attention :-)

    Didio: "Check the GPL and look at Section 0. It reads that the legal copyright holder of the source code has to explicitly put an assignment and copyright transfer notice into the beginning of the GPL. There is no concept of accidentally giving away the code to the GPL."

    That's not what my copy of the GPL says. It says "This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."

    Further copying and modification are separate. The original author of the program placed the program under the GPL, and it and all distributed derivative works are likewise under the GPL.

    If someone modifies and distributes the code, they don't in any way have to reaffirm the GPL notice. They certainly are not required to add additional copyright notices.

    Didio's comment about the GPL is a complete misrepresentation, and she reveals herself here as an SCO pawn. I have no reason to believe anything else she said.

  • by Merlin_80000 ( 529027 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @07:06PM (#6195964) Homepage Journal
    SOOooo I looked around on their website....nope...can'e download an entire package of OpenLinux....and then I thought....wait a! shouldn't ceasing support of a product that they sold a few weeks ago put them under some kinda liability?? so i dug around on the ftp site....and it didn't take to long to find exactly what i was looking for. station/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/ []. The Linux kernel packed in source RPM format! yes, they ARE still distributing the source code for very thing which they believe contains their own proprietary code!
  • by AchilleTalon ( 540925 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @08:12PM (#6196352) Homepage
    at IBM, people involved in open source projects just don't have access to any IBM code.

    Even the developpers of the IBM journalled filesytem (JFS) don't have access at all to the AIX version of the same filesystem. So, I think SCO is just shooting itself in the foot.

    In fact, they just try to delay customers' acceptance of Linux and try to find someone to pay for there lack of business intelligence.

  • by danb35 ( 112739 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @08:24PM (#6196401) Homepage
    From the InformationWeek article:
    It would be within SCO Group's rights to order every copy of AIX "destroyed," says Darl McBride, SCO Group's president and CEO. McBride acknowledges the situation isn't likely to come to that. In fact, he says, he'll leave different scenarios open to IBM. The most likely outcome, he says, is license payments.
    License payments delivered by flying pigs, no doubt...
  • by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @11:56PM (#6197296) Homepage
    Too much misinformation in the interview is hurting my head now. Just look at the very last line.. once code has been placed under GPL it cannot be altered! But alteration is what GPL is all about.. to take the code and change it.

    They only showed PART of the code, that she recognised as Sys V 4.1 vs linux kernel 2.4. It was from no region of the source.. just here and there. Could even be a line that goes /*TODO*/ or #include<kernel.h>
    She also does not have experience with looking at sourcecode. She instead carried with her a tech guy. Where was he from? Who was paying him? whats his name? How much development experience does he have? Did he do a cmp or diff on the code blocks in question? Where is his interview?

    Even IBMs customers I suppose are getting a gist of whats happening here. Only the most nervous and illinformed managers will be moved to Windows 2003. They will be deserving it.
  • Smoking Gun ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Monster Munch ( 152218 ) <> on Saturday June 14, 2003 @12:13AM (#6197344)

    Here [] you will find the pdf of the Linux Kernel Internals, authored by Tigran Aivazian ( Now, he has been submitting patches to the kernel for a long time.

    He submitted patches for (among others)

    Microcode updates

    iBCS patches

    kgdb patches

    Linux Implementation of SCO UnixWare BFS

    and I'm sure a lot more, across a wide range of kernel versions (2.2/2.3/2.4 ...)

    Why does this matter? Well his email used to be odd domain name, try reversing [] and look at the first two results, then look here [] for more info about the first entry.

    Before that his email was, but he
    got a little paranoid []
    about it.

    Searching google brings up patches supplied by him throughout the whole development cycle of 2.3/2.4 and more. He is directly connected to the author of the LKP on SCO Unix, draw your own conclusions here.

Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982