SCO Announces Final Termination of IBM's Licence 807
ickle_matt writes "SCO have announced the final termination of IBM's UNIX license, despite Novell telling them they can't. Interestingly enough there's a new set of "stolen code" figures in the release - 'approximately 148 files of direct Sequent UNIX code to the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels, containing 168,276 lines of code. This Sequent code is critical NUMA and RCU multi-processor code previously lacking in Linux. Sequent-IBM has also contributed significant UNIX-based development methods to Linux in addition to the direct lines of code specified above.' "
Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, aren't the NUMA and RCU multi-processor patents owned by IBM? SCO might own some of the code, but since they are licensing IBM's patents IBM could sue them for infringing on their patents. Is this part of the current IBM v SCO lawsuit?
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe. As far as I understand the stories, IBM has written NUMA and RCU code for their System V based Unix (AIX)
IBM's System V license seems to state that when they add code to their SysV (==AIX) that code has to be treated as the rest of the SCO owned SysV code. So IBM wrote some code, included it in SysV/AIX, and now they can't include the exact same code in Linux, because of their SysV contracts with SCO...
Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM has owned those patents since '92 when they bough sequent, sequent had those patents since the late 80's so either way SCO SOL.
Re:Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:5, Informative)
According the press release 'SCO's System V UNIX contract allowed Sequent to prepare derivative works and modifications of System V software "provided the resulting materials were treated as part of the Original [System V] Software." Restrictions on use of the Original System V Software include the requirement of confidentiality, a prohibition against transfer of ownership, and a restriction against use for the benefit of third parties.'
So IBM's patents aren't transferred or licensed to SCO, but if they write code for a System V derivative work (such as AIX) they can't use the code in Linux. The contract basically says 'All your AIX code are belong to SCO'
Re:Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:5, Informative)
This letter specifically gave back to IBM the rights of any code they created to enhance or extend the AIX/SYS5R4 OS.
This straight away rules out such claims unless SCaldera believe they can convince a Judge and Jury that the superceeding agreement is invalid in someway.
Something I rather doubt :)
Re:Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:5, Interesting)
It might turn out that the code in question was really only supportave code, libraries and header information taken from a common ancestor, BSD or earlier unixies
SCO might be trying to make the point that by taking some code from BSD/AIX and merging with other code then releasing it to Linux, IBM in fact released all the code to linux.
I point to other posts, made throughout all this time, that AIX's supportave architecture and framework is fastly different then Linux, and a direct copy of code would not work.
Re:Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:5, Informative)
Infact SCO admit they down own the copyrights to RCU, NUMA or JFS as per this story:
http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource
Cutting through the noise SCO are claiming that IBM can not add technology added to AIX to Linux it's more to do with contracts than copyrights.
Re:Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a point of clarification, AIX is actually SVR3-based, not SVR4. And there's been a LOT done do it since AT&T handed the code over, as anyone who's programmed for or adminned AIX can tell you.
Like it or loathe it, you know it is 'different' from both SVR4 and BSD.
AIX vs. Dynix/ptx (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it did. However, if they don't have such an agreement over Dynix/ptx, then IBM may very well be screwed. If what SCO says is true (even though what they said about their right to terminate AIX wasn't), then IBM may be in a world of hurt. If Dynix/ptx code must be treated as a derivative of System V, then there may be actual trouble here. Remember, AIX and Dynix/ptx are completely separate products with completely separate licensing schemes. SCO may have actually found a legal leg to stand on. Unless IBM can produce similar documentation about Sequent's code, it may belong to SCO.
(By the way, how does SCO have Dynix/ptx source code to compare against the Linux kernel?)
Re:Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL doesn't take away any rights _you_ have to _your_ code, including adding it to other products under other licences. What it says is that if you combine your code with other GPL code you have to release the result under the GPL.
SCO seem to be claiming that if you add your code to their unix code, it isn't just the resulting unix variant that is a derivative work, but your code (in isolation) is also.
If SCO are correct, if you took code from another of your products and added it to Unix you would lose the right to ship that other product. That wouldn't happen if you added that code to a GPL product.
Re:Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:5, Interesting)
(I'm an ex-IBMer who transfered to Beaverton right after the sale, and it's absolutely terrible to see what IBM did to the Sequent culture.)
Re:Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many reasons for the failure of the business, but none of them had to do with the people working there.
Re:Thats what SCO Says but....... (Score:5, Informative)
IBM != Sequent (for year values less than 1992)
IBM had a contract/license variation with AT&T. Sequent did not. Anything IBM developed, IBM owned. Anything Sequent developed (before being bought and becoming part of IBM), based on the original AT&T license, belongs to the owner of SYS V, so the (rights to the) developements did not belong to Sequent and could not be sold to IBM in '92, so IBM does not own them, never did own them, and can not give them away - they belonged to Novell, and now to SCO.
Could this possibly be a (perhaps THE) legal leg for SCO's lawsuit?
This reply completely does not address your admittedly very good point about the patents, as I don't know how the license issue would afftect the patent issue. I.e., can I patent an idea that legally belongs to someone else, even thought it was my idea and I submitted it myself? I would guess 'yes', but it would depend greatly on the exact wording of any contracts/licenses - and we are right back to the license issue. Also, would you be able to charge me license fees on the idea you own, but I patent? Could I charge you for using my patent if you legally own the idea?
My head is starting to hurt...
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, IBM (and Sequent before them) has made very sure that they wrote up a general outline of how the process works, and then made an implementation on AIX (and Dynix/ptx). They then made a very similar implementation on Linux. As long as they can show that both implementations came from the general outline, there should be no problem.
Heck, they should be able to argue that they can copy their stuff from AIX to Unix as long as there is a general outline. They may be able to argue that as long as they wrote it, and nothing of Unix comes out to the public, that they're in the clear.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
That was a few days ago. Today SCO are claiming the same thing but in relation to Sequent (now owned by IBM). Basically claiming that any code Sequent added to their Unix has to be treated as if it is part of the original Sys V code base.
The story is confusing in mentioning Novell. It seems Novell are a party to the original IBM deal, and can prevent termination of IBM's AIX license. I'm not sure it follows that Novell have the same position in relation to the Sequent / SCO deal. I guess we'll have to wait for IBM to respond.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
HOWEVER, the contract between Sequent and AT&T has NOT been made public by SCO nor IBM and so it is not clear to third parties whether or not the Sequent-AT&T agreements give Sequent the same rights as were given to IBM, though one may speculate based on the format of the IBM-AT&T agreements (see my article for full details).
Fundamentally, this is a contract law case in which the status of the Sequent-AT&T and IBM-AT&T agreements are defined. In other words, when IBM bought Sequent, what happened to the Sequent-AT&T agreement? Were it made null and all dealings between Sequent and AT&T now under the stipulations of the IBM-AT&T agreement? Or is it the case that code developed by Sequent is still bound by the original Sequent-AT&T contract?
Someone more familiar with contract law will have to respond; however, I believe that if in fact ANY code developed by Sequent BEFORE it was bought by IBM AND that code was placed in a SysV derivative (in this case probably Dynix/ptx) AND that code was placed in the Linux kernel, then it may very well be the case that SCO is standing of firm legal ground on that issue.
There are, of course, other details to this situation which may invalidate SCO's claims to right of the code, such as the GPL, and unclean hands doctrine (both arguments which IBM has included in its rebuttal) but I suppose we'll have to wait and see what happens. Also, read my article.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
It just goes to show that whether it's object-oriented programming or contract law, multiple inheritance is likely to be hard to understand.
AT&T - Sequent contracts available here (Score:4, Informative)
Exhibit G [sco.com]
I agree with the meat of your analysis about Sequent. I don't know enough contract law to comment on SCO's thesis about Sequent.
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
It was my understanding they were not suing for use of those products though they probably should. What I find interesting is SCO terminates the license violating their agreement with Novell. I wonder if they can be sued by Novell for violating the contract. Exactly what SCO 'claims' IBM did.
SCO claims IBM can't be trusted because they violated a contract and now SCO goes out of their way to violate another contract. Sounds like an internal problem with the company. I strongly suggest they see a shrink. These guys can't see straight anymore.
injunction (Score:5, Interesting)
Good point. I don't know why IBM hasn't filed for a temporary injunction against the license termination. It would accomplish two things. 1) it would put AIX users a bit at ease (even if IBM has indemnified them), and 2) would get this thing in a courtroom quicker which is *obviously* the last thing SCO wants. I believe when they start getting legal defeats the stock will tank.
Maybe IBM and SCO are colluding (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM and SCO make it known that IBM is thinking of buying SCO. Instead, SCO sues IBM. SCO's stock price goes up. SCO's owners dump stock (getting rich) and SCO uses the inflated stock price to buy up small companies. Once SCO has all the pieces in place, IBM suddenly forces things into court and SCO is blown away. SCO stock plummets. *THEN* IBM buys them for a basement bargin price.
This does multiple things for IBM. (1) Publicity. (2) Good PR with the Linux crowd as IBM "saves the day". (3) They get more stuff in the SCO buyout. (4) It places IBM's competitors in the Linux arena on shaking ground while all this is happeneing, possibly forcing some out of business.
Suddenly, in the end, IBM has a Linux distro, AIX for the high-end, lots of other IP, and a rep as being the big champion for Linux that is willing to put its money where its mouth is.
Right about that time, IBM would be ready to take on Microsoft again for the servers and desktops. IBM gives away the desktop OS just to have an in and starts recapturing the mid-level servers. As IBM becomes the "leader" of Linux, why would you not go with IBM and AIX on the big iron since IBM makes it one smooth continuum of *nix?
Man, I have got to stop drinking 10 diet cherry cokes while on medicine for a head cold before I post. =)
Damn, *that's* interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I tell ya, it's definitely wacko, but it's not completely retarded, I have to say that. The one key is that when SCO does all this buying up of small companies, it would have to be done with SCO *stock* - I'm sure that's what you intended - which would actually be plausible in their situation, since they're a stock-rich/cash-poor company.
There are two problems I see with the theory. First, I don't see SCO taking over any small companies right now. ;) Second, the time frames are a little off. SCO would need time to perform all these takeovers, as those never proceed quickly. Second, IBM can't afford the lawsuit spectre to last too long, as there's the threat that companies will get scared of linux and such, fleeing into the arms of Sun or MS. That would make the whole scheme counterproductive.
So I don't think that's what's going on here. That said, it *is* a pretty nice scheme, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it pop up elsewhere, assuming it hasn't already. I think it would be outrageously illegal, but might not be impossible to pull off. The only real problem I see from a practical standpoint is trust - when the lawsuits start, puffing up the value of the smaller company to be taken over, they gain an advantage that could be acted upon if they decide to make the fake lawsuit real.
They'd almost have to give the larger company some faked "smoking gun" evidence that gave them a clear "out" of the lawsuit, if filed. In this situation, it would be like some SCO developer last year sending a memo saying something like, "Hey, have fun with the JFS code I posted to the kernel dev team yesterday. Free of charge compliments of Caldera."
But I will say, it's not impossible.
Man, I have got to stop drinking 10 diet cherry cokes while on medicine for a head cold before I post. =)
I think that would be a good policy for sure.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
There is an interesting article "Novell letters throw new light on SCO-IBM case" published in The Age [theage.com.au] that discuss letters sent to SCO by Novell asserting that Novell has "the right to compel SCO to waive or revoke any of its (SCO's) rights under the contract [involving SCO, IBM, and Novell]." In the letters Novell basically tells SCO that SCO cannot terminate IBM's license. These letters were apparently used as exhibits in IBM's countersuit of SCO.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now as I understand it (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose you can sign a contract stipulating just about anything - and since we havn't seen the Sequent contract yet (if ever) there could be something idiotic like that in there.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks for that explanation.
Now what I am wondering is, even if it was not legal for Sequent/IBM to add the code to Linux, how can SCO sell a license to use that code with Linux if they don't even own it?
Novel (Score:5, Interesting)
They have already indicated that Novell has the right to tell SCO that they can not do this action. It now becomes breach of contract unless there was some item in the contract about this.
NUMA and RCU? Then why... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's part of the kernel that you can't even use if you wanted on a single-CPU box!
So what's the fee for, again?
Regards,
--
*Art
The real game... (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO's Shell Game [computerworld.com]
Some quotes:
None of the threats make legal sense. If they did, SCO would be able to get an injunction to shut down Linux users. In practice, SCO hasn't even been able to get an injunction against IBM and won't get a court hearing on its request to do that until 2005.
Meanwhile, a German court told SCO in June that it must stop threatening Linux users. And an Australian government agency is looking into charges that SCO is essentially running a shakedown racket by claiming that Linux users must buy a license they don't actually need.
And SCO's tactics don't make business sense, either. SCO is a software company that has slashed its R&D budget, alienated its customers and demolished the value of its brand. That's not the way you build a business.
So, what do you do when you have no real business but your stock price keeps going up? We all learned that lesson during the dot-com bubble: You use that stock as currency.
. . .
Got all that? If it sounds like a shell game, well, that's the way Canopy likes to move its companies around. But in effect, Canopy used SCO's stock price, boosted by SCO's Linux threats, to rake in a couple of million dollars in cash behind the scenes.
And apparently it worked. Which means we can expect that as long as Canopy can find ways of cashing in on SCO's threats against Linux users, those threats will keep coming -- no matter how little sense they make.
IBM's solution (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not true. IBM's solution is simple. Since there is no breach, the offer to cure is contained in the countersuit.
Tomorrow SCO's quarterly report comes out, sell your stock before the insiders [yahoo.com] can.
Re:IBM's solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Those nefarious nogoodniks - trying to ensnare innocent customers in their illegal activities!!!
Re:IBM's solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Mcbride can stop chewing his pinky and mouthing off about "1 million dollars" now, cos that won't even pay for the ink to write all the 0's on the end of the cheque he will soon have to write
The next headline? (Score:5, Funny)
Ahhhh.....I can dream, can't I?
Re:The next headline? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The next headline? (Score:5, Funny)
SCO is S0C1
For those not from the Mainframe world, a S0C1 is an abend code meaning 'Operation Exception'. That means the program attempted to perform an operation which is not legal.
Yahoo Mirror (Score:5, Informative)
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030813/law050_1.html [yahoo.com]
C'mon SCO! (Score:5, Funny)
Incidentally, they claim 2.5 kernels too... is that new? I thought only 2.4 was an issue.
Re:C'mon SCO! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:C'mon SCO! (Score:5, Insightful)
- he actual "infringing" code could very well be only, say, 80 lines, distributed in various places in the 148 files
- more likely, the "infringing code" isn't infringing, but that's another story
What most people have failed to grasp is that copyright doesn't give you exclusive rights in any shape or form. It's not a patent.Just look on your bookshelf. How many programming books do you have that contain "hello.c". All the books are copyright, and yet anyone can copy "hello.c" without infringing. Why? Because copyright applies to specific works (the book, for example), not insignificant snippets, or even loosely-derived derivative works (wholesale copying is another matter - characters, plot, setting all the same == probable copyright infringement). And if you can show that you developed it independently (clean-room implementation of BIOS, for example), you haven't violated someone else's copyright anyway.
web server running IIS? (Score:5, Interesting)
$ HEAD http://ir.sco.com
200 OK
Connection: close
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:42:15 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Content-Type: text/html
Client-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:42:16 GMT
Client-Response-Num: 1
Page-Completion-Status: Normal
Page-Completion-Status: Normal
Re:web server running IIS? (Score:5, Interesting)
ir.sco.com is running IIS. [netcraft.com]
Re:web server running IIS? (Score:5, Informative)
Details are coming out (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally, this case has become interesting.
But I'm sure
Matching Source code found!! (Score:5, Funny)
printf("\nstuff");
and
main() {
and
int x,y;
and dont forget:
}
Tm
pump pump pump (Score:3, Funny)
Angry... (Score:5, Interesting)
"...was terminated for improper transfer of Sequent's UNIX source code and development methods into Linux." (emphasis mine)
You heard it here first, people. SCO owns the UNIX development methods too. That means that producers of just about any software (because who hasn't been influenced by UNIX development methods?) will have to pay off SCO. What a bunch of bull.
Re:Angry... (Score:5, Funny)
It's okay (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's okay (Score:5, Funny)
F:\PUBLIC>revoke.exe
Usage: REVOKE rightslist* [FOR path] FROM [USER|GROUP] name [options]
Options:
286 Rights: 386 Rights:
--------------- --------------------
ALL = All ALL = All
R = Read S = Supervisor
W = Write R = Read
O = Open W = Write
C = Create C = Create
D = Delete E = Erase
P = Parental M = Modify
S = Search F = File Scan
M = Modify A = Access Control
* Use abbreviations listed above, separated by spaces.
Novell is clearly still the holder of the right to revoke.
So can IBM attack SCO now? (Score:3, Funny)
I'd rather see IBM send in the attack lawyers in the black limos (their version of the black helicopters)...
That would be like shooting fish in a barrel with a cannon...
and well worth a video copy; would put it right next to my Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons...
bluff much? (Score:5, Funny)
gimme a break. SCO, WHY WON'T YOU DIE???
Bah! Final! (Score:3, Insightful)
Final Stock Pump (Score:5, Insightful)
SEC...hello!!!
Re:Final Stock Pump (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Final Stock Pump (Score:5, Insightful)
How do we know that the SEC isn't already watching the SCO? They could be giving them enough rope to hang themselves before they spring the trap. Until their case proves to be fraudulent (it appears to be overwhelmingly so now, but there is no irrefutable proof... that will be coming soon), there may actually be nothing with which the SEC can actually prosecute at this point. Once everything is in the clear and their lawsuit is proven to be what we all here believe it to be, then the SEC, who has probably been gathering evidence all of this time, will be prepared to move in. I highly doubt that the SEC is failing to notice a story of this magnitude.
McBride? McBriii-ide? Hello? (Score:5, Funny)
Sequent's code belongs to IBM! Hello? McBride?
Re:McBride? McBriii-ide? Hello? (Score:5, Funny)
Think, McBride. If I checked in my NUMA code under your copyright, I'd get sued. You wouldn't want that to happen, would you? ... Would you!?
Look, your stock's down. :poke: Ha hah, don't be so gullible, McBride.
No Threatening Of Customers (Score:5, Interesting)
In a departure from their standard MO, SCO doesn't threaten IBM customers who currently hold Dynix/ptx licenses, and instead just claims that no new licenses may be issued.
Maybe they are starting to worry about gettting nailed on extortion charges?
Class-action suit (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO planting code (Score:5, Interesting)
But what is preventing SCO from adding in code from Linux (which is openly available) into their (closed) UNIX code and then claiming is was there first and was 'stolen' by Linux? C'mon, we are not expecting SCO's management to play fair here - how hard would it be to backdate code additions?
Forensics (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm betting that SCO would not be smart enough to take the original Linux version, but would take a newish Linux version. Showing that Linux had older (less "good") versions and SCO did not would be evidence that SCO had taken the code from Linux, not vice-versa.
So assuming that the code base(s) change(s) significantly over time, determining the provenance of version-controlled code is not all that difficult. Think of it in biological terms -- we can identify the lineage of various species/specimens by comparing their DNA and their ancestors' DNA.
Okay. (Score:3, Interesting)
So, the truth's out, is it? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, what we're really talking about is IBM code. No more BS weasle-words, they're talking about code they NEVER owned in the first place.
Well, that tears it: SCO's suing IBM for contributing their own code to the kernel. Yeah, that's totally gonna hold up in court.
Code won't be released until trial (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux kernel developers would probably have the offending pieces rewritten in a week and back-ported to all 2.4/2.5 kernels within another week.
But honestly, I really don't think IBM cares what SCO does at this point. They know their argument is probably not going to hold water in court.
Unfortuately, with the way our justice system works, it will not be heard in court until probably late 2004/2005.
Re:Code won't be released until trial (Score:4, Interesting)
That's why RedHat's suit is interesting, because they are asking for a fast decision based on the BS that SCO has been shoveling. If SCO refuses to prove it's claims of infringement by showing the code, and proving not only that SCO holds the copyright, but that their code predates the Linux stuff ... RedHat gets not only a legal declaration that it's kernel code does not infringe, but gets damages too.
They could end up owning SCO before IBM even gets to court, which means that they would therefore be suing IBM ... and I think they could settle amicably.
Re:Code won't be released until trial (Score:5, Insightful)
The clock on SCO's ability to sue the infringer/s started ticking last summer, when they claim to have noticed the problem. They have under two years to file a proper infringement of copyright suit aginst any and all infringers. (3-year time limit) Undre copyright law, whoever submitted the code is the infringer, not the unknowing distributors or totally innocent user. AFTER the infringement case/s are settled, the court may, at the court's discreton, order destruction of all copies of the infringing material. But not until the whole damned thing is settled ...
Distributors are much the same as book or magazine publisher: you must formally notify them of a copyright infringement by one of their authors (specifying not only that there is infringement, but EXACTLY what is infirnged (showing your proof of holding the copyright), and where (in a book you published in the last decade is not enough). You have to give them enough information to investigate and decide if it's infringing or not. Only after all this, and a court decision, if they continue to publish or distribute the infringing material, do they become actual infringers.
SCO has not even begun the processs that you have to follow to get copyright infringements cleared up. And their flat REFUSAL to identify the infringing material would certainly be held against them by a judge. Freezing downloads and quickly rewriting the offending code is what the developers not only WOULD do, it's what they legally MUST do, and SCO is preventing them from doing it ...
Re:Code won't be released until trial (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO isn't suing over copyright claims, they're suing over breech of contract and disclosure of trade secrets. If they can prove that then it doesn't matter, vis a vis the IBM suit, whether or not the Linux code is changed -- IBM still broke the contract and released trade secrets. The kernel devs could release a 100% brand new, totally non-infringing kernel tomorrow and it wouldn't change the arguments in the IBM suit.
All of this would have a dramatic effect on the Red Hat suit though, and I agree that that's the more interesting and relevant suit anyway. After all, even if IBM did breech contract and release trade secrets, SCO can't stuff the toothpaste back in the tube -- those trade secrets are null and void now and there's nothing that can be done about them (except for IBM paying a ton of money).
Of course, SCO's suit against IBM is only slightly less flimsy than their nebulous copyright infringement claims...
isn't this enough to find matches? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't some linux zealot happen to have these sources lying around? Can't he/she just start looking for long matches in the Linux kernel?
Can't Linux developers just audit all their "critical NUMA and RCU multi-processor code", to look for shady origins? There's a big difference between the 80 lines previously claimed and the 168,000 lines now claimed!
Re:isn't this enough to find matches? (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO is finally admitting that it is Sequent code in Linux that they are upset about. There's no reason Linux developers should have to remove this code since IBM now owns Sequent and is legally allowed to contribute code it helped develop and now owns.
Re:isn't this enough to find matches? (Score:4, Interesting)
What will be interesting is if when the dust settles this is the kernel code that SCaldera have claimed is theirs and has been copied verbatim into the Kernel.
Pretty amusing when you consider that not a single line of this code originated with SCO/Caldera/AT&T or Novell and in fact the SCO group have never owned any of this code and agreements and amendments to the original SYS 5r4 license signed between IBM and AT&T grant IBM full control over any code they create for use with AIX, and that Sequent developed the technology seperate from Unix but implemented it on Unix which disallows claims from SCaldera that the code is a derivative of their work.
Since when have Press Releases (Score:5, Insightful)
This really pisses me off that companies put out "press releases" covering what should be a private matter between the parties involved.
Why don't journalists just ignore SCO in the same way a parent ignores a screaming child pushing for an ice cream?
Re:Since when have Press Releases (Score:4, Insightful)
RCU, NUMA... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:RCU, NUMA... (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, they are distributing the same thing they are saying has been stolen.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Other SCO news/Computer Associates Settles (Score:4, Interesting)
This is an unrelated case (remember, Canopy Group makes a living suing people). However, given the timing, I am now lead to believe that part of the settlement was that CA agreed to buy some of SCO's phony "Linux Licenses".
Not the UNIX license. (Score:5, Informative)
Interestingly, this contract is with Sequent, not IBM. They're now alleging that Sequent gave IBM (it's parent) the code, breaching this contract. But seeing as IBM is a different company than Sequent, surely they were not under an obligation to keep that code to themselves; Sequent fudged up by giving it to IBM, so why should IBM's license to AIX be revoked? The Sequent contract read, according to this press release, that derivative could should be treated "as if" it were UNIX code, not that it actually became the property of SCOX.
It looks to me that the code was a trade secret at Sequent ("treaded as if..") but they retained copyright. Then it got divulged to IBM, who even obtained the copyrights, and could disperse of it as they pleased. Liability is then ristricted to Sequent's officers who breached the contract with SCOX, and perhaps some IBM officers if it can be prover they coerced Sequent. IBM's AIX license and copyrights (and thus ability to GPLize) stand, IFF this press release contains the actual facts!
It's official (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who don't know, Sequent was a super-computer company that developed a lot of the software techniques that make today's multi-processor machines (especially the more-than-2 processor systems) work well. Sequent's code was its own, and IBM bought Sequent, so at first glance IBM has every right to contribute this code to Linux, even though it has also been sold to USL/SCO.
So why is SCO suing? Because they feel that this code was written "for UNIX" and thus cannot be contributed to Linux without carrying a "taint" of UNIX IP.
SCO has made many claims about "stolen UNIX code", but that's a sham as we now see. What SCO is really upset about is that code that they think is encumbered by them, but not actually theirs was inappropriately licensed without compensation to SCO. It's not UNIX code, it's allegedly-UNIX-encumbered code, but that doesn't sound as good in a press release demanding $32 from every TiVo user....
In fact it sounds suspiciously like a case where SCO will have to fight an up-hill battle over IP rights that aren't really clear to begin with, and even then they have to fight the GPL issue, which (given that they still offer a Linux kernel for download) will be difficult.
SCO is going to burn over this, and I really do think that the owners and all C-level executives of the company are going to end up in jail. It's just too brazen a lie and scam to go unchecked. The FTC and SEC will at least have to launch a token investigation to demonstrate that they're not 100% asleep at the wheel...
Re:It's official (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO is going to burn over this, and I really do think that the owners and all C-level executives of the company are going to end up in jail. It's just too brazen a lie and scam to go unchecked. The FTC and SEC will at least have to launch a token investigation to demonstrate that they're not 100% asleep at the wheel...
Yeah, sure. Just like all the executives at Enron and Worldcom went to jail after all their illegal acounting and other shady business practices. I don't think so. Your faith in the FTC and SEC makes me laugh!
Sequent (Score:4, Insightful)
Not just a super-computer company... they also built high end Unix servers. Georgia Tech had a Sequent box running Dynix as the main campus computer system from the late 80's to early 90's. IIRC, hydra was a 16-CPU system with 386DX's. And while at the end of its life (1993 I think) it was godawful slow, it was still better than the Sun box (which later became boxes) that replaced it (GT and Sun discovered that Solaris did very poorly in a heavily task switched environment, spending up to 80% of CPU time in overhead... that's improved since, but AFAIK they never quite fixed the problem). Dynix was the first Unix OS I ever used. It was a helluva lot better than Ultrix, but that's about all I recall about it.
at first glance IBM has every right to contribute this code to Linux
Yeah, but SCO is claiming that Sequent's license didn't include transferral of license, that the various multiprocessor technologies were derivative works, and that SCO retained rights to all derivative works under that license. IBM did buy a perpetual, non-revokable, fully paid, yadda yadda yadda license for Unix, but that was prior to the purchase of Sequent. SCO is thus claiming that Sequent's license holds true here and that IBM didn't have the right to distribute the code without SCO's approval. IBM does, however, hold the patents to the technologies in question. It may become a question not only of which license applies, but also whether or not the code contributed to Linux was the same as the code that Sequent had or if it was a re-implementation of the patent that IBM holds.
Curiouser and Curiouser (Score:4, Interesting)
Right?
I wonder who bought the stock that's been selling off.
SCO is using RIAA math -- Explains all! (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they're using RIAA-math? They might mean that one file is typically 50 lines, so any file with say 2000 lines counts as "the equivalent of 40 files"
(for those who don't get it, see here [gnutellanews.com])
I posted this late last time... (Score:4, Funny)
SCOX (Lola) Song [slashdot.org]
Enjoy...
(To the tune of "Lola" by The Kinks)
I met them in a club down in Santa Cruz
where you code in C and it looks just like
the Linux kernel... K-E-R-N Kernel
They walked up to me and asked me to desist
I asked them their name and in a cowardly voice they said,
"SCOX"... S-C-O-X SCOX, sco sco sco sco-X
Well I'm not the world's most intelligent guy
But when they showed me the code I almost cried
Oh my SCOX, sco sco sco sco-X
Well I'm not dumb but I can't understand
How they stay in business with blood on their hands
Oh my SCOX, sco sco sco sco-X
Well they filed their claims and sued all night,
thanks to Microsoft's failing might
They picked me up and sat me on their knees
Saying, "Linux coder won't you turn and flee?"
Well I'm not the world's most logical guy
And when I looked at the comments
I almost fell for their bullshit
bull bull bull bull-shit
sco sco sco sco sco-X
I laughed them away. I walked to the court.
I filed a countersuit. They'll be down on their knees.
Now that IBM is looking out for me
And that's the way that I want it to be
They'll clean them out and make them pay
Oh my SCOX, sco sco sco sco-X
Linux will be UNIX, and UNIX will be Linux
It's a scratched-out, messed-up, crazy diagram
thanks to SCOX. sco sco sco sco-X
Well I posted to LKML just a week before
saying I never ever leaked code before
SCOX smiled and said "We understand,"
saying, "Linux coder, you can do what you can"
Well I'm not the world's most open source guy
but I know Richard Stallman and I bet that they'll fry
oh my SCOX, sco sco sco sco sco-X
sco sco sco sco-X
Troubling moves by SCO.... (Score:5, Insightful)
When McBride came onto the scene he started to talking about IP issues. I have no issues with a company setting out to see their IP is being used and whether the parties that are using it have paid the appropriate licenses for it.
Lets fast forward a little. SCO suddenly kills off their Linux business and throws all their programmers to SuSE so basically SCO simply becomes a reseller. Considering that they have made no profits so far from Linux and have almost a 0% marketshare, maybe their last resort is hair spliting.
Over the next several months the accusations have moved from being IP vioations to contractural issues.
Lets give a brief rewind, the last version of SCO Linux to be released before Ransom Love left was Caldera OpenLinux 3.1.1 and it was loaded with 2.4.13. Having the RCU code in the Linux kernel since the VERY early test releases, and it has taken almost 21 releases, around 2 years for SCO to come out of the wood works and complain.
Here is my take, when Ransom Love was in "their" they most likely looked at the possibility of litigation, however, due to a gray area in the IBM contract Love most likely decided not to persue a dead end law suite.
Fast forward to today and we have a new management trying their luck in a vein hope of sucking money out of IBM to prop up their failing business.
Sorry, UnixWare and OpenServer failed because they "suck". Sorry, I can't come up with a better adjective for their current line up. Poor scalability, waaaaaay over priced, heck, it makes Microsoft look charietable with their license pricing and they have next to no ISV and IHV support. No wonder SCO is dying.
Actual transcript smuggled out of the courthouse (Score:5, Funny)
IBM-What?
SCO-None shall compile.
IBM-I have no quarrel with you, brave SCO, but I must distribute UNIX.
SCO-Then you shall be sued.
IBM-I command you to stand aside.
SCO-I move for no corporation.
IBM-So be it!
IBM draws his sword and approaches the SCO. A furious fight now starts lasting about fifteen seconds at which point IBM delivers a mighty blow which completely severs the SCO's left
arm at the shoulder. IBM steps back triumphantly.
IBM-Now stand aside worthy adversary.
SCO-(glancing at his shoulder)
'Tis but a scratch.
IBM-A scratch? Your arm's off.
SCO-No, it isn't.
IBM-(pointing to the arm on ground)
Well, what's that then?
SCO-I've had worse.
IBM-You're a liar.
SCO-Come on you pansy!
Another ten seconds furious fighting till IBM chops the SCO's other arm off, also at the shoulder. The arm plus sword, lies on the ground.
IBM-Victory is mine.
(sinking to his knees)
I thank thee O Lord that in thy...
SCO-Come on then.
IBM-What?
He kicks IBM hard on the side of the helmet. IBM gets up still holding his sword. The SCO comes after him kicking.
IBM-You are indeed brave SCO, but the fight is mine.
SCO-Had enough?
IBM-You stupid bastard. You haven't got any arms left.
SCO-Course I have.
IBM-Look!
SCO-What! Just a flesh wound.
(kicks IBM)
IBM-Stop that.
SCO-(kicking him)
Had enough?
IBM-I'll have your leg.
He is kicked.
IBM-Right!
The SCO kicks him again and IBM chops his leg off. The SCO keeps his balance with difficulty.
SCO-I'll do you for that.
IBM-You'll what... ?
SCO-Come Here.
IBM-What are you going to do. bleed on me?
SCO-I'm invincible!
IBM-You're a loony.
SCO-SCO always triumphs. Have at you!
IBM takes his last leg off. The SCO's body lands upright.
SCO-All right, we'll call it a draw.
Proprietary Code Snippet...? (Score:5, Funny)
#include "enron.h"
void SCO_keep_alive()
{
while(!inCourt()){
try{
generateFUD();
extortLicensesFromLinuxUsers();
}
catch(ImpendingIBMSuit suit)
{
int numShares = MAX_INT;
dumpStock(numShares);
terminateLicense("IBM");
}
}
fileChapter(11);
}
"UNIX-based development methods" (Score:4, Insightful)
Sleeping Giant (Score:5, Insightful)
"I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant
and filled him with a terrible resolve"
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
December 7th, 1941
Anybody not see the parallels? SCO has launched an unprovoked sneak attach against the sleeping giant, (IBM) and the Linux community. And this war will end the same way, with the legal equivalent of an atomic bomb delivered to SCO.
Linux's Future After SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
RCU Code NOT from Sequent Unix (Score:5, Informative)
One of the copyright notices from a file:
Support for deferred freeing of memory using Read-Copy Update
mechanism.
Copyright (c) International Business Machines Corp., 2001
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
Author: Dipankar Sarma [dipankar@sequent.com]
(Based on a Dynix/ptx implementation by
Paul Mckenney [paul.mckenney@us.ibm.com])
IBM aquired Sequent in 1999, the copyright notice on this file from 2001. The important thing is that this code is based on an implementation and not the actual original code as such this is not Dynix/pty code.
SCO could argue that since it is based on the code then it is actually a copy, however from what I have seen of the contract clauses (mainly from groklaw) IBM are free to use any knowledge/processes/etc gained from adding to AIX.
Probably the two pieces of code look similar and I can believe even the comments since the implementor had access to original code. In addition to this it could be argued that it would be impossible to implement the code without there being similarities or even being nearly identical in places. For example try implementing a bouble-sort/linked list/etc without the code looking similar.
The only thing left are the RCU patents and IBM own these.
Having looked at this now SCO's case is pretty thin, they could win of course nothing is impossible (though unlikely), however it would just be a case of copyright violation and someone outside of IBM could do a re-implementation of RCU. In addition since RCU is n't part of the mainstream Linux kernel so I cant see how they could claim any substantial damages let alone $3 billion.
SCO's carefully phrased release... (Score:5, Interesting)
The release says that IBM was (allegedly) contractually obligated to treat its OWN work product which it developed based on SCO's predecessor's code in the same way (i.e., subject to the same restrictions) as the code it had licensed from SCO. It quite carefully says that IBM contributed "148 files of direct Sequent UNIX code" to Linux. But what SCO is talking about here ("Sequent UNIX code") is IBM's code, and not SCO's or AT&T's code. If IBM agreed to make its own code be subject to the license (and IBM says that it did not, since it claims that this provision was overriden by a side letter agreement that made completely different arrangements), then this would be a matter of contract between IBM and SCO (which IBM is very vigorously contesting). It would not mean that SCO owns the copyright to subject matter independently developed by IBM.
It would not, even if true, give SCO any rights vis-a-vis a Linux user who had nothing to do with IBM and/or its contract with SCO. Off hand, I would say that the only way a Linux user would be at risk would be if there were substantial code written by the original copyright owner that found its way in some recognizable form into the Linux 2.4 or 2.5 kernels, and (even it that turned out to be the case), if the copyright owner never gave its permission for that code to be included. I have not seen where either of these contentions has been clearly alleged, except by implication, as a result fo SCO's threats.
It is of course possible that there is such code overlap, but it is SCO's burden to prove it. I have not seen any proof of this. Even if they were to prove it, the Linux user would then be allowed to show SCO's consent to this inclusion, such as by the authorized release of the code in question under the GPL.
It seems to me that SCO's case against the typical Linux business user is awfully speculative at this point.
Interesting stock reporting. (Score:5, Informative)
Ralph Yarro
Darcy Mott
Canopy Group Inc
John Wall
If you then check out The Canopy Group [canopy.com] website you will see the following as board members
Ralph Yarro - CEO & Presedent
Darcy Motto - Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
This gives the Canopy group at least a 15% stake in SCO, possibly more.
If you look at SCO's board [sco.com] and then have a look at their share trading [nasdaq.com], you see the following:-
Charles BROUGHTON (VP world ops) sold about 120,000 USD worth of shares in the last two months
Robert BENCH (CFO) sold about 120K USD in last few months
Jeff HUNSAKER (s. VP)sold about 120K USD in last few months
Other than McBride (CEO) most of the board have ofloaded shares in the last month or two. To give you an idea of the "peak" of share selling. According to the Nasdaq the number of "insider" trades (i.e. board members) in the last 12 months was 15, and 12 (all of which were sales) of those were in the last 3 months (or as its know just after the Linux thing).
Yarro and Mott both also sit on the board of SCO.
Does that stink or is it just me?
Jaj
SCO = Calvinball (Score:5, Funny)
Contract disputes are legal play, except on Reverse Days or while standing in the Invisible Box. SCO attacks Linux users with FUD, and Novell makes them sing the Sorry Song. But SCO claims Novell was in the Reciprocity Zone, so it has to sing the song instead.
SCO says it owns IBMs code because IBM crossed the Hidden Contract line, but IBM claims today was negative day and now it wants everything that SCO owns.
The score is now 12 to Q, and I eagerly await the next round.
SCO's legal approach - derived work (Score:5, Interesting)
What constitutes a derived work is going to be the real copyright issue here. Outside the software arena, the notion of a derived work has been very broadly interpreted. Movies based on novels have been held to be derived works even when the connection between the two included little more than the title and the name of the lead character.
IBM has retained Cravath, Swaine, and Moore, probably the strongest litigation firm for difficult cases in the world. The Cravath approach on big cases is to put an army of lawyers on the problem and litigate everything to death. We'll probably see a detail-oriented litigation, rather than one based on broad principles. Following a Cravath lawsuit tends to be a mind-numbing experience for all concerned.
SCO is really getting desperate (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, IBM addresses both the issue of the stock price manipulation and SCO's continued misrepresentation of the AIX license in their counterclaim. For SCO to continue to make these sorts of public statements is insane.
NUMA from SCO my ass (Score:5, Informative)
/*
* Written by Kanoj Sarcar, SGI, Aug 1999
*/
arch/x86_64/mm/numa.c:
/*
* Generic VM initialization for x86-64 NUMA setups.
* Copyright 2002 Andi Kleen, SuSE Labs.
* $Id: numa.c,v 1.6 2003/04/03 12:28:08 ak Exp $
*/
/*
* linux/arch/alpha/mm/numa.c
*
* DISCONTIGMEM NUMA alpha support.
*
* Copyright (C) 2001 Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> SuSE
*/
Re:multi processor, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)