decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
"Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?"
Friday, September 19 2003 @ 06:17 AM EDT

Look what those pesky rascals are up to now. A page all about their Linux Kernel Personality, which they are now pushing as a way to escape Linux, which they say they know many of you are wanting to do. It lets you run GNU/Linux apps on their UNIX kernel, so you get everything about GNU/Linux but the kernel, and, of course, the freedom the GPL gives you.

Here are some snips that will either make you gag or fall on the floor laughing. Me? Why, both at the same time, silly, and what a sensation that is:

"Why is The SCO Group® doing this?

"SCO recognizes that many customers want to migrate away from Linux, but can’t afford to disrupt their day to day operations, nor can they afford the engineering resources to port and test the Linux applications in a UnixWare environment. The Linux Kernel Personality addresses all of these concerns. Native Linux applications runs unchanged on UnixWare, which provides the following benefits to the customer:

• Customers can asses using UnixWare in their environment without making costly application program changes.

• Customers who want to migrate to UnixWare, but some of the source code for critical applications they need to continue to run is no longer available.

• Customers are considering migration to UnixWare but are concerned about the risk of changing both the operating system and the application at the same time."


That's it. We're staying with Linux because we're just too busy to migrate away. I'm sure you'll see what a great improvement this LkP will make in your life, when you read this part of their page:

"Can I mix the use of Linux and UNIX commands?

"Yes, but you should use caution when doing this because the two environments differ. You can access the Linux side of the filesystem by adding the prefix ``/linux'' to filenames. To access the UNIX side, use the prefix ``/unixware''."


Won't that be fun, typing a lot of extra commands all day long? Nothing to it. Just keep doing that day after day and you'll soon be typing /linux in your dreams. But here's my favorite part:

"Didn’t SCO suspend its Linux product line?

"Yes. The Linux products were suspended due to intellectual property issues associated with Linux. The LkP feature doesn’t contain a Linux kernel, and therefore to the best of our knowledge, there should be no infringement issues. If the prior statement were proven inaccurate, SCO would take appropriate steps. In the meantime, the LKP feature is available to assist customer migration from Linux."


To the best of their knowledge, eh? And if that proves not to be so, they will take "appropriate steps" like... um..indemnification, maybe? No? Not on the list? This equivocation tells my nose we're getting warm now, asking them to show us the LkP source code.

As for the title they chose for this section, "Why is the SCO Group Doing This?", ah, yes, psychological metaphysics. Why, indeed? Truly, a question for the ages.


  


"Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?" | 85 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
No IP problems?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 07:15 AM EDT
As the word "Linux" belongs to L. Torvalds doesn't the use of
"Linux Kernel Personality" create an IP problem in its own right?

It seems as though SCO just like using other peoples IP and charging the real
owners to use it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO LKP Likely Contains Linux Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 07:24 AM EDT
I strongly believe LKP contains misappropriated GPLed code. Someone needs to
get a hold of it and examine the source code.

Two can play at that game. I wonder if IBM and Red Hat are paying attention.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 08:07 AM EDT
Someone like Eric Raymond or Bruce Perens (or even Groklaw) needs to issue a
public challenge to them demanding an independent code audit of UnixWare,
specifically their LKP code and the new drivers that appear to come from Linux.
Unattributed BSD code should also be investigated.

SCO has stated that they're "open" and they are so insistent on
people respecting their rights, so they should prove that they're respecting
the rights of others.

It would be fascinating to hear SCO's lame excuses as to why they won't agree
to a code audit. Probably "no one is allowed to see our trade
secrets." That's what their draconian NDA is for?

ProgammerMan

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?"
Authored by: kbwojo on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 08:14 AM EDT
This page points out the best example of why not to do business with SCO and it
has nothing to do with its fight about linux. It has to do with a high tech
company that can't make a proper web page. It would make me wonder if the
products they sell have the same low quality of work that is shown in this web
page. Remember that the first impression is the one that counts and the only
impression I got was how incompetent they look.

The first mistake they have is lack of consistency.
Is it LKP like in paragraph one, or is it LkP like in paragraph two? (maybe just
a typo, but still something that shows incompetence.)

The second mistake is punctuation.
Paragraph two "Yes. The Linux products were suspended due to intellectual
property issues associated with Linux."
"Yes" is not a sentence. They should have structured the sentence
like they did in paragraph five.
"Yes, you can install Linux applications."

The third mistake is inproper spacing.
They put in paragraph 12:
"How can I get Linux drivers working underUnixWare 7?"
Most educated people put: (notice the space after under)
"How can I get Linux drivers working under UnixWare 7?"

There may be more, but why bother? All I can say is that with work like this it
is no wonder why they find themselves in the position they are now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Customers can asses using Unixware
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 08:52 AM EDT
My favorite typo is how "customers can asses" by using LKP on
Unixware--it must be one heck of a personality module. Sounds like
something best suited for management, since canning asses might be
something the pointy haired boss would love to do, perhaps after getting
the licensing bill from SCO for Unixware and LKP. Of course OSS fans
and SCOX owners would probably like to see other asses canned.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?"
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 09:13 AM EDT
The LKP mascot? A duck named "Suit" wearing a pizza bomb tie shown kneeling. The tagline? "Your bill, Sir."
Thanks again, http://timransomsfeeblemind.blogspot.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 09:15 AM EDT
"Exploit the power and scalability of the UnixWare kernel to run Llinux applications. the Linux Kernel Personality contains most of the RPMs required to execute native Linus applications, but it does not include a Linux kernel."

They must have an opening for a copy proofer.


"UnixWare 7 feature availability: Linux applications can benefit from the features and options available for UnixWare including a journaling file system, RAID support, and increased scalability, security and reliability."

Gosh, and none of these are available in Linux. Damn.


"The LkP feature doesn’t contain a Linux kernel, and therefore to the best of our knowledge, there should be no infringement issues. If the prior statement were proven inaccurate, SCO would take appropriate steps."

Isn't this the exact stance that SCO is attacking? The open source community has repeatedly stated that any found infringement would be dealt with posthaste. Now SCO says the same thing. You can't have your cake SCO...


"SCO recognizes that many customers want to migrate away from Linux..."

What statistical crack pipe are they smoking?


"Customers who want to migrate to UnixWare, but some of the source code for critical applications they need to continue to run is no longer available."

Any company at which this is the case has morons for admins/developers. The first thing you should do with Open Source code that you're going to run in production is put it in YOUR OWN source control repository for safe keeping.


"The UnixWare kernel provides better scalability, reliability, and performance than the Linux kernel."

Says who?


And this from the LKP main page: "Since UnixWare is much more powerful, scalable and secure than Linux, customers may replace multiple Linux servers with a single, more powerful UnixWare server."

Why not just run Linux on that single, more powerful server?

These guys just slay me. I can't wait until they're dead and buried.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?
Authored by: belzecue on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 09:19 AM EDT
"• Exploit the power and scalability of the UnixWare kernel to run
>>Llinux<< applications. the Linux Kernel Personality contains most
of the RPMs required to execute native >>Linus<< applications, but
it does not include a Linux kernel.

• Customers can >>asses<< using UnixWare in their environment
without making costly application program changes."


... running 'Llinux' applications: $699
... execute native 'Linus' applications: $1399
... watching SCO/Caldera making 'asses' of themselves: PRICELESS!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

It is no longer Linux?
Authored by: carlos on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 09:45 AM EDT
Outside of the obvious lack any grammer skills, SCO cannot call their product
Linux. Linux is the kernel! Should I say that again? Linux is the kernel.
The applications sitting on top of Linux are just applications. You can call
them GNU/GPL applications, BSD applications, or whatever. But you cannot call
it Linux. Hence, I run Debian GNU/Linux.

As already pointed out, there is, also, the trademark issue.

I believe this can open them up to YAL (Yet Another Lawsuit and you have to say
it with a Southern accent :P).

Carlos E. Pruitt, Jr.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 10:14 AM EDT
"...to the best of our knowledge, there should be no infringement
issues."

I know this is splitting hairs, but this is SCO that's writing this drivel,
so--

They talk about "infringement issues", not about infringement. As
in there should be no issue, like a lawsuit alleging that LkP contains GPL code.
But there well might be actual infringement just the same.

I'm not serioous, but hey - you never know

[ Reply to This | # ]

Speaking of trademarks
Authored by: belzecue on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 10:33 AM EDT
"Why is The SCO Group® doing this?"

'The SCO Group' is a registered trademark? Not that I could find. Here are
the four live trademarks registered to Caldera International, as searched on
USPTO just now...

Serial Number Reg. Number Word Mark Check Status Live/Dead
1 76490790 SCO GROWS YOUR BUSINESS TARR LIVE
2 76299429 2594283 CALDERA VOLUTION TARR LIVE
3 75054198 2064732 SCO TARR LIVE
4 74655365 2061968 CALDERA TARR LIVE

I also did a plain search on 'SCO' and nothing else turned up.

Perhaps technically they should be calling themselves either SCO® or The SCO
Group(tm)??

'SCO GROWS YOUR BUSINESS' was registered in Feb 2003.

Word Mark SCO GROWS YOUR BUSINESS
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer software
and instructional books and manuals sold as a unit for systems integration;
cross-systems application development; cross-systems network management; and
network servers and database connectivity for use in business, government,
education, science and personal computing
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 76490790
Filing Date February 12, 2003
Filed ITU FILED AS ITU
Owner (APPLICANT) Caldera International, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 355 South 520
West, Suite 100 Lindon UTAH 84042

[ Reply to This | # ]

Red Hat Revenues Up Despite SCO Claims
Authored by: Jadeclaw on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 10:33 AM EDT
Boston Internet reports, that Red Hat makes more money but has to work against the SCO-FUD.

---
-----------------------------------------------------------< br /> Improve your health - Use Linux
-----------------------------------------------------------

[ Reply to This | # ]

Indemnification
Authored by: stanmuffin on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 10:38 AM EDT
Seems the LKP makes use of dozens if not hundreds of Linux RPMs, basically
everything but the kernel. How convenient for SCO.

Thing is, the majority of those RPMS are for GPLed software.
Somebody should ask SCO if they will indemnify LKP customers against potential
intellectual property violations in that code. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

That was then, this is now...
Authored by: belzecue on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 11:48 AM EDT
Ransom Love's love affair with linux around May, 2002:

http://www.linuxandmain.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=57

"Ransom H. Love is a well-known name in the Linux world. As president and chief executive officer of Caldera, Inc., Caldera Systems, Inc., and now Caldera International, Inc., he has overseen development and marketing of one of the most highly regarded Linux distributions -- as well as his company's initial public offering, its acquisition of substantial part of the Santa Cruz Operation and its Unix assets, and Caldera's decision to withdraw from the retail end-user channel...

"LaM: It's never been clear to us, in your business model, how Linux and SCO fit in together.

Love:; In all honesty, Caldera is as much a Linux company today as we were. Our revenues still come from an installed base that is predominantly Unix. Our whole attempt and whole push in Linux was to develop a true business-alternative platform and create a viable business model for Linux. Where we see that sweet spot is in the SMB replicated branch office space. Hence, the acquisition of SCO and that installed base and, frankly, a very, very strong reseller channel that services and supports that market segment. So if you look at it, our objective with Linux is to get it to a point where it can replace and be a viable upgrade path for the current installed base of several million servers, over time. The problem, or the opportunity, is that Linux needs to have the same levels of support that the current Unix offerings have. So there are still some additional technology and other things that need to come to bear...

"Love: Fundamentally, we've always been focused on the business customer, and thus with the acquisition of SCO we acquired an alternative business channel which is directed right at the segment we feel that Linux over time will be predominantly used...

"Love: Linux can play as part of the point-of-sale environment, it can play as a desktop, as a client, a thin client to a browser environment, within the SMB or replicated branch. What I mean by that is in the McDonald's franchise or Eckerd's store or Rite-Aid pharmacy, in those environments there's clearly a place for Linux to play both as a server and as the client device...

"Love: We have on our customer list people excited about our strategy going forward, who understand what we're doing from the operating system perspective, understand what the road map is for them going forward. So we're actually in an extremely enviable position. We have global infrastructure on Linux; we can do 7 x 24 worldwide; we have sales, support, marketing efforts in 82 markets around the world -- nobody in the Linux environment can talk about that; it just doesn't exist with the kind of infrastructure we now have. So we just have to tell the story, get it out, let people know, and prove it with real customer wins.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 12:00 PM EDT
I think we need to differentiate whether SCO really expect people to switch to
Unixware, or saying they might switch is merely a tactic.

Consider a number of hypothesises

1. SCO really expect people to switch. That's why they're doing it.

2. Some faction (e.g. some group in sales or marketing) want to use the FUD as
marketing tool

3. They're going to claim 2.5 million Linux servers X $699 = billions of
damages (whether they actually get those damages or expect to get them is other
questions entirely)


3, we know to be true, McBride said it.

2, is probably true, in my opinion, as undoubtedly some sales/marketing people
would use whatever they have to hand.

1, I'm doubtful. I think that SCO must know that IBM is going to try to crush
them with patents. This has been apparent for some considerable time as IBM gave
hints about their patent portfolio, way way back in the saga.

If IBM don't get them with the 4 patents already on the table, I think that IBM
will try to pursue others. I think IBM might even pursue others against other
Canopy companies (maybe Center 7?).

And I think that IBM could pour hundreds of millions into a patent fight, if
they were so inclined, without even pausing for breath. IBM wouldn't need to
win every patent fight - just one per SCO product - to grind SCO into dust.

If SCO is intelligent (and they are in a wacky Utah manipulative kind of way),
they must know all this, and have known it for quite some time, even if they
didn't realize it right at the start in March.

Since IBM brought out patents, I think SCO has been on a suicide mission (or
close to it), and I think SCO probably knows that they are.

Selling a few more copies of Unixware in the interim, doesn't sound sufficient
motivation to me, to continue on such a mission.

So I doubt SCO's main mission is to sell a few extra copies of Unixware in the
interim.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?"
Authored by: greg_T_hill on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 12:03 PM EDT
I think there's a bit of misdirection here.
The LKP seems more of a GNU/Linux base installation that runs under Unixware. It
does not need a Linux kernel because the necessary Linux system calls have been
added to the Unixware kernel itself. If you are looking for stolen Linux code,
it's in the Unixware kernel itself.

[ Reply to This | # ]

LKP Mascot
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 01:38 PM EDT
Introducing 'Suit', the adorable mascot for SCO's newest brilliant middlingware, the Linux Kernel Personality
Thanks again, http://timransomsfeeblemind.blogspot.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 01:39 PM EDT
Didn’t SCO suspend its Linux product line?

Yes...The LkP feature doesn’t contain a Linux kernel, and therefore to the best of our knowledge, there should be no infringement issues...

What kind of BS logic is that? The exclusion of the Linux kernel does not in any shape or form eliminate the possibility of infringement. The only way to know for sure is to open it up for scrutiny. GATECH96

[ Reply to This | # ]

LKP ripped off 2M lines of Linux code
Authored by: stanmuffin on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 01:46 PM EDT
I apologize if everyone here but me already knew this, but apparently when LKP was first announced, "SCO officials said that the the environment amounts to around 40,000 lines of code, plus around 2m drawn from the real Linux kernel tree."

http://www.theregister. co.uk/content/1/12733.html

After being accused of "raping" the GPL, they offered the following "correction" on the next day:

http://www.theregister. co.uk/content/1/12733.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 02:30 PM EDT
"to the best of our knowledge"

Well, they could just check it against the kernel source, and be sure. Maybe
they don't want to do that because they know stolen code is in LKP.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ex Caldera/SCO employee says to look for stolen Linux code un Unixware
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 02:38 PM EDT
Christoph Hellwig (who was the subject of an older Groklaw post) says:

[...] interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware, I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare..

See the following kernel archive thread.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?"
Authored by: J.F. on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 03:54 PM EDT
You forget who SCOG is marketing this toward. You're scheduled for the next
round of lay-offs at your place of business, so you move the system onto
UnixWare. Not only is it expensive and buggy, but the company will then have to
migrate back after much frustration. Sure, you're canned, but you have the
satisfaction of knowing those b*****ds are tied to a sinking ship which uses
contracts against their own customers.
:)

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?"
Authored by: Andreas on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 05:01 PM EDT
I guess what it means is that SCO just realized that those $700/$1400
"licences" won't fly (and if so, their lawyers probably did breathe
a sigh of relief that the invoices won't be going out).

But in a few weeks, SCO is going to insinuate: "You can run your web
server, your database two ways: legally on Linux or illegally on Unixware. And
we'll be happy selling you Unixware."

Wanna bet?

---
-- Andreas

[ Reply to This | # ]

Johnathan Schwartz Smells Blood
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 06:25 PM EDT
Schwartz Pees on Linux "Also, let me really clear about our Linux strategy. We don't have one. We don't at all. We do not believe that Linux plays a role on the server. Period. If you want to buy it, we will sell it to you, but we believe that Solaris is a better alternative, that is safer, more robust, higher quality and dramatically less expensive in purchase price."

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 08:57 PM EDT
"Didn’t SCO suspend its Linux product line?

Yes. The Linux products were suspended due to intellectual property issues associated with Linux. The LkP feature doesn’t contain a Linux kernel, and therefore to the best of our knowledge, there should be no infringement issues. If the prior statement were proven inaccurate, SCO would take appropriate steps. In the meantime, the LKP feature is available to assist customer migration from Linux.

SCO copied the Linux kernel into Unixware.

SCO says "I didn't copy"

"Nobody Say me copy"

"My code is not public, so you cannot prove I copied."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not necessarily GPL code.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 11:33 PM EDT
The "Linux Kernel Personality" doesn't necessarily have to include
GPL code.

First of all, let's ask exactly what the Linux Kernel Personality does. The
LKP provides compatibility with Linux libraries and applications by mapping
Linux system calls to their corresponding SCO system calls (<a
href="http://world.std.com/~slanning/asm/syscall_list.html">here&
lt;/a> is a list of what needs to be mapped).

I wouldn't call it "trivial" to do, but it's conceptually very
simple. There are a few cases where system calls don't map perfectly-- those
might be a little on the complex side, but nothing that couldn't be managed by
a group of competent engineers.

And if you insist on claiming that at least SOME of the code HAS to be taken
from the GPLed Linux kernel, please consider the following:

* FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all implement the same functionality, for
multiple platforms. OpenBSD, for instance, supports Linux, IRIX, and Solaris
binaries (among others). These projects have placed their code under the BSD
license-- whatever bits and pieces are not system-dependent could have come from
*BSD.
* NOT ALL THE CODE IN LINUX IS UNDER THE GPL EXCLUSIVELY! There is a lot of
BSD and MIT code in there; this is perfectly legal, since BSD (3-clause) and MIT
licenses are GPL-compatible. SCO could legally use a lot of Linux code in their
system without having to GPL their own code.

Anyway, food for thought. I think that SCO is doing atrocious things, but
"Linux compatibility" does NOT necessarily imply "GPL
violation".

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Why Is the SCO Group Doing This?"
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Saturday, September 20 2003 @ 09:20 PM EDT
Here's an artical from back in June that addresses the LKP
Thanks again,
http://timransomsfeeblemind.blogspot.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )