|
|
| A Stroll Down Memory Lane with OldSCO |
 |
|
Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 06:49 AM EST
|
This is a good day for a stroll down memory lane. SCO is accusing IBM of helping Linux to scale by donating "their" code to Linux inappropriately. But they forget that OldSCO wanted Linux to scale in precisely the areas IBM is alleged to have helped it to do so. Not only that, they told the world they were helping it to do so. Let's take a look at two articles from the year 2000 and you'll see what I mean, first SCO Answers Questions About Linux, dated May 5th, 2000 and then The latest Linux: SCO, dated May 12, 2000 (thanks to Carlos Pruitt, Jr. for finding them). Groklaw reported its research on OldSCO's contributions to Linux back on August 11, which you may wish to review also. After we've completed our little stroll, I think you'll agree that IBM has every reason to wonder what SCO is complaining about. You may also note an odd coincidence.
OldSCO had plans back in 2000, which it announced publicly, to port into Linux the same technology that they now say was stolen and inappropriately donated by IBM. Of particular interest is the first article, "SCO Answers Questions About Linux":
David McCrabb, President of SCO's Server Division in May 2000, answered
questions about Linux on Slashdot. Yes, Slashdot. McCrabb stated:
"SCO is accelerating its participation in, and contributions to, the
Open Source Community. In some cases, we will be taking current
technology that we think is needed in the Linux market and driving it
forward as the project maintainers. Right now, we are focusing on
bringing some of our high-performance Intel development tools to Linux."
McCrabb goes on to elaborate:
"Enterprises building their businesses on a server platform are
interested in reliability and availability. Although we believe in a
high degree of reliability that comes from the level of code inspection
provided by the Open Source Community, we feel it needs to be quantified
with benchmarking statistics like MTBSS. This opens a number of possible
further improvements -- journalizing file systems, support for hot-plug
PCI, multi-path I/O -- things that make is easier to never bring the
system down, or to recover the system more quickly."
Um...you mean, like JFS, by any chance? The second article, "The latest Linux: SCO", reveals that SCO said it was working on
putting some interesting technology into Linux:
SCO, which has been around for more than 20 years, this week will
unveil plans for its own brand of Linux, one that will come with the
kinds of management, clustering and Web serving technologies that have
helped the company become a leading Unix supplier. . . .
SCO is expected to announce 32- and 64-bit versions of Linux for
Intel-based servers, which will be available in the fourth quarter of
this year. In early 2001, SCO plans to deliver a 32-bit Internet
Infrastructure Edition that will come bundled with a Web server and
other IP applications. The company is also working on a 64-bit edition
for service providers, including ISPs and application service providers,
which will feature special billing and management tools.
The company is also expected to explore the following areas:
- Building the Linux clustering capacity to be in line with SCO's
NonStop Clusters technology, which scales to 12 or more boxes with
advanced reliability for data and applications. Current Linux
clustering technology is generally limited to two or four nodes.
- Beefing up Linux's symmetric multiprocessing capabilities.
Currently the number of CPUs per Linux server is usually limited
to eight; UnixWare can run on servers with up to 32 CPUs.
- Managing multiple Linux servers as well as applications from a
single console as if they were a single system.
- Improving security and the ability of Linux to handle applications
such as e-mail, including instant messaging.
- Adding online support services and documentation.
Were Old SCO's engineers already placing SCO technology into Linux back
in 2000? These articles indicate that the technology was at least being
developed in-house and there was a plan, publicly announced, to do exactly what they now are saying IBM did but should not have done. Isn't it an odd coincidence that these are the same technologies at issue in the IBM lawsuit? And does it sound to you like they never intended to release this technology under the GPL, that it was unwittingly and very much against their will? Do they think we were born yesterday? This might be a fruitful area for some more research, perhaps during discovery. How far did OldSCO get with implementing its plans? Is it possible OldSCO is responsible for the "infringing" code being in Linux? SCO and OldSCO are not the same company, of course. OldSCO is today's Tarantella. And SCO was Caldera, plus part of the product line of OldSCO. But their legal documents make the claim that they have been offering UNIX for 20 years, which Caldera didn't (it wasn't in existence that long, for one thing), so they seem to be asserting a connection to OldSCO. Do you get the impression that SCO has forgotten OldSCO history? Or that after it decided to do a U-turn on Linux, it decided to act like OldSCO never said and did what these articles say they said and did? Well, if they honestly forgot, that's what Groklaw is for, to help them remember. So here you are, SCO, a helpful reminder, from our little stroll down memory lane.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Nivuahc on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 08:25 AM EST |
ZDNet
UK has an interesting tidbit this morning:
In an interview with
ZDNet UK on Tuesday, Gregory Blepp, vice president of SCOsource -- the IP
licensing division within SCO -- said that the first of the companies targeted
for lawsuits have been identified, and it is now just a matter of logistics and
administrative issues to start proceedings.
"It will most likely happen
prior to the end of this calendar year," said Blepp, referring to litigation
from SCO. "This is now up to the legal teams to get the filing done, but it
would not surprise me if the first would happen soon."
...
Although the first recipients of a lawsuit from SCO
are likely to be in the US, said Blepp, the process will be conducted globally.
"We first offer information to explain the case to companies and why we are
doing what we are doing," said Blepp. "Then if they do not comply we ask
for legal advice and engage the customer to get their legal advice, and offer a
way out for them by getting a licence from SCO. If the customer says 'I don't
see the case', or 'let's wait until the IBM case is over' -- we keep saying the
cases are separate -- then we say we need to move forward because we have
clearly stressed that we will claim the rights we strongly believe we have."
When SCO files its first lawsuit, Blepp said, it will provide more code
examples to prove its case.
---
Yeah, I finally
created an account. You might recognise me from my old nickname though:
'Anonymous'. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A Stroll Down Memory Lane with OldSCO - Authored by: Mark_Edwards on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 08:41 AM EST
- A Stroll Down Memory Lane with OldSCO - Authored by: DrStupid on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 08:44 AM EST
- A Stroll Down Memory Lane with OldSCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 08:49 AM EST
- A Stroll Down Memory Lane with OldSCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 08:59 AM EST
- A Stroll Down Memory Lane with OldSCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:18 AM EST
- Like when the mob wants you to pay for protection from... (is this extortion?) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:42 AM EST
- SCO only bluffs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 12:02 PM EST
- A Stroll Down Memory Lane with OldSCO - Authored by: grouch on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 01:31 PM EST
- About Gregory Blepp - Authored by: MikeJ on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 03:26 AM EST
- A Stroll Down Memory Lane with OldSCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 05:20 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 08:48 AM EST |
Is at the sco.tuxrocks.com site
(Also exhibit F to IBM's 2nd motion is now there - thanks to whoever runs
tuxrocks.com)
Couple of points jumped out at me in SCO's reply
1. I couldn't see any real response to IBM's arguments about question 13. IBM
wants to know all material in Linux for which SCO claims rights, because they
say it's relevant to IBM's counterclaims. SCO seems to reply that IBM is not
entitled to this material (which incidentally contradicts IBM's assertion that
SCO agreed that IBM is entitled to this material previously) because it's not
relevant to SCO's case against IBM.
2. Justification of SCO providing scanned images of the print out of the source
code.
SCO says IBM asked for human readable source code. SCO says that means paper.
Thus this is what SCO produced.
If you look up the IBM question (which is referenced in SCO's document), IBM
did indeed ask for "human readable" source code. However IBM's
exact words (any typos are mine):
The term "source code" shall mean human-readable form of a computer
program written in the original and preferred form for human inspection and
modification, ...
Now I frankly don't know how SCO could argue that a paper print out is the
"original [form]" or "preferred form for human inspection and
modification". I mean how many programs are first written, modified and
viewed on paper... programs seem always to be written/edited in some kind of
electronic text files.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark_Edwards on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 08:50 AM EST |
Sorry to post this here but document 81 is available (It will probably disappear
soon so be quick!)
http://pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv0029400000081.pdf
Title: PLAINTIFF SCO's MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO IBM's SECOND MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 08:51 AM EST |
forgive me if i'm being dense, but is there a david mccrabb or was Slasdot
making fun of Mcbride?
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:04 AM EST |
Details of SCO's BSD attack
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/?http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=50862[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Gerry on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:27 AM EST |
On Pacer, SCO's memo responding to IBM's 2nd Motion to
Compel.
http://pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv0029400000081.pdf
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:28 AM EST |
I especially liked this part from the /. interview:
SCO
& Linux: Past vs. Present Opinions
(Score:5, Interesting)
by Jon
Trowbridge
In the past, SCO and its
representatives has made a number of statements about Linux (and free software
in general) that many of us saw as FUD. In the most infamous example, these
statements included:
"Linux at this moment can be
considered more a play thing for IT students rather than a serious operating
system..."
"The future of Linux is very uncertain...
As there are such a large number of developers it is virtually impossible to
predict what form Linux will take thus putting the future security of your
business at risk."
"Currently there are over forty
distributions of Linux... and as a result there is no single standard.
Potentially, this means that software written for one system will not work on
another."
Statements like these damaged SCO's
credibility among the community that it now appears to be trying to
embrace.
Do you/SCO still stand by these statements
and opinions? If not, what changed your mind? Do you still assert that these
statements were true when they were being made by SCO representatives --- or, in
retrospect, do you admit that it was not accurate, but was just marketing
FUD?
McCrabb:
Our view
of Linux has evolved and we no longer stand by the one-dimensional stereotypes
made in the past. We made mistakes - one-sided characterizations of Linux -
and these statements are no longer operative. We know that Linux is here to
stay.
(emphasis mine) It seems newSCO has done an about-face
on this one.
However, we are not ready to flip to the view
that sees Linux as the be-all, end-all of operating system software. When making
comparisons between Unix and Linux platforms, there are still meaningful and
significant areas where Linux falls short. We see ourselves as being in a
position to help address these areas.
It doesn't seem like
they have done much of that. Let's do some "code analysis". (sorry couldn't
resist :-)
Find all the files in the latest Linux source tree that
mentions either SCO or Caldera:
cd linux-2.6.0-test10;
grep -E -r -l
"SCO|Caldera" * >filelist
Then find the copyrights for those
files:
for f in `cat filelist`; do grep -H "Copyright" $f; done
>copyrights
This contains only one file
partially copyrighted by Caldera, and none copyrighted by
SCO:
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.
So the copyrighted contributions from Caldera/SCO are
minimal.
On the other hand, the copyrighted contributions by IBM numbers
around 430 files. A lot of that is concerned with the s390 (147 files) an ppc64
(101 files) platforms. JFS consists of only 43 copyrighted files.
Losing
JFS would be a shame, but not critical. The same can be said about the s390 and
ppc64 stuff.
---
Confucius say: It is impossible to sling mud with
clean hands. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:34 AM EST |
They not just said that... they trade marked it.
Go search for "Unifying Unix with Linux for business"
and see what you will get.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 09:55 AM EST |
1. I couldn't see any real response to IBM's arguments about question 13.
IBM wants to know all material in Linux for which SCO claims rights, because
they say it's relevant to IBM's counterclaims. SCO seems to reply that IBM is
not entitled to this material (which incidentally contradicts IBM's assertion
that SCO agreed that IBM is entitled to this material previously) because it's
not relevant to SCO's case against IBM.
2. Justification of SCO providing
scanned images of the print out of the source code.
1) Not relevant
to SCO's case against IBM? Since SCO's claim against IBM is that IBM released
code they didn't own into the Linux Kernel, how is this not related to the case?
Without infringing code THERE IS NO CASE.
2) This is an obvious attempt
to prevent IBM from analyzing the source code provided with analysis tools.
Anybody think that if someone were to say start grepping SCO's provided code
they would be able to easily compare it to a wide body of available source code
and might just be able to prove that it isn't in fact in Linux? Or better yet
that SCO doesn't own it? Hmm... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I'm confused - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 10:15 AM EST
- I'm confused - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 10:58 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: mac586 on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 10:16 AM EST |
| After reading PJ's write up, I went back and read the Slashdot interview, and
the subsequent commentary .
- Caldera was fattened with their IPO (March 2000)
monies at this point.
- OldSCO's statements were in May 2000
- Caldera
announced the OldSCO purchase in August 2000.
When Linux companies
went throught their IPOs, there was always a great deal of speculation
concerning who they were going to acquire with all their cash. Remember, most
of the companies were small, but the IPOs dollars were going to allow the
companies to rapidly grow and establish themselves in the
market.
When I read OldSCO's statements, my immediate
impression was that they were positioning themselves for a buyout. The
language, and all of the promises of future directions, technical strength,
resellers, etc. all point in this direction.
When you put the timelines
together, it appears that Caldera took the bait.
Not only that, but the
oldSCO sales pitch contains many of the the same factoids that came out during
the rumored newSCO buyout period this spring! The parallels are uncanny.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 10:22 AM EST |
This just in... Someone claming to be on the inside is saying that
SCO will
make Google its next target.
http://
www.linuxworld.com/stor
y/38045.htm [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 10:23 AM EST |
Does anyone else feel like SCOX is going to use the next rounds of
lawsuits they are promising as a means to curb any negative press they
might have over then next few weeks? Say around the 5th of Dec?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: solman on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 10:29 AM EST |
SCO's case depends on the Unix code in Linux (if there is any) NEVER having
been released under a GPL. Without this they have no chance.
It seemed to me that newSCO(Caldera) would have a chance of successfully arguing
that their release of Unix code was inadvertent.
But if the previous owner of Unix also released the code under the GPL and
concurrently made a very public statement that they were going to try to add SMP
and Journaling file systems into Linux, how can newSCO have any possible chance
of prevaling in the argument that release under the GPL was unintentional?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: apessos on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 10:30 AM EST |
Reading this reminds me of the Highlander movies. The second was one awful.
They're space aliens. Blah blah blah. And then the third one comes out and
completely ignores the whole space alien parts. "Did we say space aliens?
*sigh* We were drunk and high at the time. Sorry."
It sounds like
SCO is trying to pull a Highland III. "Did we say we were adding that stuff
to Linux? Our bad. We didn't mean it. Now give us all your money!" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 10:51 AM EST |
Here's some of my research on the relationship between Linux and SCO. I
originally posted it in early September, but I suspect that many of our newer
readers haven't read it. You'll see that it supports what PJ discusses in the
parent post quite nicely:
While being interviewed by Computerworld in April of 1999 SCO CEO Doug Michels
used words like "punk young kids who've taken and engineered pieces
around the Unix [kernel]" to describe Linux programmers. Linux companies,
he said, are "...not in control of their road map. They ship whatever
happens to be current in the Linux community."
http://www.computerworld.com/news/1999/story/0,11280,35431,00.html"
Those who wonder whether SCO UNIX might contain stolen Linux code should note
his answer to the last question asked above:
Q: But you see Linux providing modules for SCO?
A: As far as I'm concerned, it's free R&D. A lot of developers who have
always preferred Unix are developing on Linux. The last thing in the world I
want is some cool app and have my customer go, "Oh, God, if I only had
Linux, I could get that app."
Less dramatically, Linux journal carried this story about the SCO's conflicts
involving Linux:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=4922
Another story of Michels blasting Linux can be found here. (This is a forward
from newswire.com.au, a site which apparently is no longer in business.)
http://www.linux.org.ve/archivo/l-linux-1999-April/002512.html
Rather predictably, the denizens of SlashDot became grumpy after reading the
Newswire story:
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/04/21/118210.shtml
but some of the stories they told made it clear that even in 1999 SCO was
already considered a second class UNIX. One anonymous poster wrote:
" SCO can no longer justify their existence. Their overpriced
underfeatured OS simply cannot compete with Linux.
Every time I've worked with SCO in the past it's made my flesh crawl. The
first time was in the late 80's on a 286 running SCO Xenix. The base OS was
over $1000 and if I wanted any of the other amenities that I thought should come
stock with the UNIX OS (C Compiler, nroff/troff, etc) you had to add more money.
MUCH more money. In addition their support line could never tell us why the OS
would suddenly slow to a crawl after 2 or 3 days of running. If Linux had
existed back then, my company's choice would have been a hell of a lot easier.
In my last job I was working with SCO again and I welcomed the chance to see if
they'd improved at all. Well they haven't. Their pricing plan is still one of
the most confusing I've ever seen, they charge by the user if I recall
correctly, and in general the OS is just plain irritating to deal with. I'm
working with several different flavors of UNIX right now and SCO is the only one
that feels like a toy when I use it.
SCO should do the industry a favor and disband, pausing only to bulk-format all
their drives so that none of the evil source code can inadvertently escape into
the world. Their marketing people and their tech support people should be sent
to camps to be retrained for professions more suited to their skills and their
buildings should be torn down and burned.
I'm betting SCO is the first casuality of the Open Source movement."
That sounds like a recent Slashdot post, but in fact it was posted in April of
1999.
Another Slashdot reader, Jan Moren, wrote, "I would'nt be too suprised if
SCO tried attacking the Linux distributors legally, claiming that they have
unfair advantage in the marketplace. Don't think they could win such a suit,
but it would probably slow the adoption of Linux during the legal
proceedings."
Wow. Jan, you rock.
However, after some grovelling on Doug Michel's part, the relationship soon
turned smooth, with SCO setting up partnerships with and buying stakes in
TurboLinux and LinuxMall.
The letter in which Michels "clarifies" his feelings toward Linux is
very interesting. You can find it here.
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/1999051000210NWCY
Note particularly the paragraph which reads:
"I also believe in the principle that great programmers should
"steal" great code whenever possible, so long as they do not violate
any laws or license agreements. In hindsight, it's clear that
"steal" was a poor and confusing choice of words on my part. I was
perhaps being too flippant by trying to point out that one can't really steal
that which is freely offered."
"freely offered," huh. Is Michels talking about GPLed code, and if
so, what does he intend to do with that code? This may relate to an incident in
which Michels is supposed to have spoken badly or Linux programmers, but I
haven't tracked it down yet, so it may or may not relate to possible code
theft.
However, in June of 1999, SCO released its SAR (System Activity Reporter) to the
open source community, and by Fall of 1999, Linux was clearly part of SCO's
strategy. For example, in October of 1999, LWN reported that SCO
"...entered into strategic agreement with TurboLinux to develop services
for TurboLinux's TurboCluster Server and provide Linux Professional Services
for TurboLinux customers. Old SCO also made a sizable investment in TurboLinux?,
Caldera and LinuxMall." You'll find that story here:
http://lwn.net/Comments/36053/
Here are some more URLs on SCO's purchase of a stake in LinuxMall. Look for the
headline which reads, "SCO has taken an equity stake in the Linux
Mall." It's near the middle of the page.
http://lwn.net/1999/1014/
Here's SCO's press release on their investment in and strategic partnership
with LinuxMall?:
http://lwn.net/1999/1014/a/sco-linuxmall.html
ECommerce Times released a story discussing discussing SCO's partnership with
TurboLinux?.
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/1780.html
SCO Partners With TurboLinux?
"In another recent Linux-related move, SCO and TurboLinux jointly
announced the availability of different levels of service offerings for the
TurboLinux TurboCluster Server 4.0 product.
The packages, "TurboCluster Audit" and "TurboCluster
Start-up," are designed, according to a joint statement, to assist
corporate users and resellers in the processes of configuration, deployment,
installation and planning. Additionally, TurboLinux customers will have access
to the Linux Professional Consulting Services available through SCO.
"We are ready to assist TurboLinux's customers with their enterprise
deployments of the new TurboCluster Server offering," commented David
Taylor, vice president of SCO's Professional Services organization. "With
more than 20 years experience providing services for Intel-based UNIX systems,
SCO understands the customer requirements for
enterprise-computing.""
Ultimately, going to the web pages below, we find out that SCO knows about IBM
and AIX and Linux compatibility because they worked on it together along with
Cygnus Solutions, (Cynus is a RedHat subsidiary which specializes in
implementing the gcc compiler on new chipsets) EPC, Geodesic, Merant, Parasoft
and Roguewave.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011006104536/http://www.sco.com/monterey/aix5l.htm
Note that the URL above links to an archive of SCO's website. This story,
unsurprisingly, is no longer available on SCO's wesite.
Another interesting SCO story involving Linux and Project Monterey begins:
"Linux fever is infecting even the staunchest Unix advocates, as evidenced
this week at SCO Forum in Santa Cruz, California."
"While the partners involved in the Monterey Project -- the initiative
between SCO, IBM, Intel, Sequent Computer and Compaq Computer to create a
high-volume unified UNIX -- were upbeat on Monterey's prospects, they still had
Linux on the brain."
Here's the URL:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,39020351,2073219,00.htm
And here are some more URLS that talk about Linux services being implemented in
Project Monterey.
http://www.tdagroup.com/pdfs/ebus.pdf
http://www-5.ibm.com/se/news/1999/12/p9912081821.html
http://archive.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/00/08/10/000810hnibmaix.xml
http://home.clara.net/blenny/AIX5L.html
Finally, after taking a 6.9 million restructuring charge in the spring of 2000,
and after announcing a loss of "between 50 cents and 55 cents per share,
not the 13 cent loss analysts had expected," SCO decided to begin
distributing Linux.
According to an article published by Forbes.com on July 12th of 2000,
"Sources say it's (SCO) working out an arrangement with France's
MandrakeSoft to distribute its Linux-Mandrake operating system. SCO will use
Linux-Mandrake as the base OS and add some features like clustering, which is a
complex way to improve the performance and expansion of servers. MandrakeSoft
also has offices in Altadena, Calif.
SCO Chief Executive Doug Michels wouldn't comment specifically on a deal with
MandrakeSoft, but he says the company will become a Linux distributor."
http://www.forbes.com/2000/07/12/mu3.html
Another article also discusses a SCO Linux, though it doesn't mentioin
MandrakeSoft? by name.
http://archive.infoworld.com/articles/pi/xml/00/03/22/000322pisco.xml
Here's another article on SCO's woes in spring of 2000:
http://archive.infoworld.com/articles/pi/xml/00/03/22/000322pisco.xml
So we can see that SCO released their SAR code to the Open Source community,
helped TurboLinux develop their clustering solution, including the development
of three different packages, plus aftermarket service including,
"configuration, deployment, installation and planning," had invested
in LinuxMall, and had planned their own Linux distribution. Then there's the
work they did on AIX/Linux compatibility, plus the whole business with project
Monterey. SCO looks less and less like a company which has been injured and more
and more like a company which has changed it's relationship with Linux several
times over the years and now wants a judge to erase their past.
Lastly, you'll note that this brings up some interesting questions. First, how
could old SCO develop services for Linux without knowing what's in the kernel?
Can someone explain how SCO could help TurboLinux develop clustering technology
without reading the kernel code? Second, if there was infringement, or even the
barest possibility of infringement, why didn't SCO sue, or at least issue IBM
an official warning? At the very least, they knew that IBM was planning to push
Linux, and they knew that some of their code had been used in project Monterey.
They even knew that Linux/AIX compatibility was on the agenda because they
helped implement it. So why are they acting all surprised and hurt in 2003?
---
Destroying SCO one bozon at a time[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 10:57 AM EST |
"Do they think we were born yesterday?"
Not at all, but it's important to place these things in context. 2000 was
around the time when IT collapsed on itself, and I seem to recall that the
collapse was gathering steam around the middle of the year. Many people were
optimistic about the huge growth in IT and specifically didn't see anything
wrong with the bubble economy that was inflating.
Back then there was the money to spend on high-end hardware running specific
examples of operating systems such as SCO Unix and Solaris while the rest of us
muddled with Slackware Linux and FreeBSD. Solaris and SCO were aiming at the
higher and mid-level enterprises that looked to have money to burn.
After around November 2000 was when _everyone_ started tightening their belts
and trying to get next round funding from VCs with burnt fingers, not to mention
the fairly clueless brokers that found themselves holding stock that didn't
have the soft fluffiness to be useful as toilet paper. The SCOX stocks are
resembling another bubble economy to the extent where there's no business plan
to speak of and a lot of hot air is being used to inflate the bids.
D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: coats on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 12:26 PM EST |
| IANAL. IAACS. But...
It seems to me that:
- ...the Business Software
Alliance and the
Scientologists have pretty well established precedents in the
art of
ex parte copyright-act seizures (which, imnho, seem
to me to be
too strong to be Constitutionally legitimate,
but...)
- ...the discussions
around the SCO Linux-compatibility
subsystem sound as though there is a
prima facie
copyright-infringement case against SCO for that
subsystem.
- ...you ought to be able to get enough evidence by
running
strings against SCO UNIX.
- ...this is clearly a separate item from
either the IBM or the RedHat suits.
So why shouldn't someone with
copyright interest in the
infringed code get such a warrant from a Federal
judge,
and go visit SCO with a Federal marshal and an 18-wheeler
to seize every
computer (and whatever other records are
available) in the place, for off-site
copyright-infringement investigation at their leisure? It would do wonders for
SCO's ability to do business... and be rather dramatic and investor-visible PR
as well...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: zjimward on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 12:30 PM EST |
Interesting scroll down the lane. Looking at these tidbits makes you wonder if
SCO isn't really just bitter that they didn't get to be mentioned as the great
implementors. (* Sorry a bit of Zork humor there. *)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 02:32 PM EST |
Every once in a while someone mentions an item that has been removed from the
SCO web site. A list of these items might be very useful to IBM and Redhat.
Would anyone like to compile such a list?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Michael Schock on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 03:58 PM EST |
Here is a scenario.
SCO sues Google.
Google decides not to roll over.
Google files for it's IPO.
Google stocks go through the roof.
It might be interesting to know who would be buying Google stocks. This may be
into the conspiracy threory range, but what if SCO knows this will happen and
some of their executives and other company connections decide to invest in the
IPO. Wouldn't this get them a huge profit?
If SCO already knows they are doomed, they may try to make money off of it. It
seems somewhat logical.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 26 2003 @ 06:30 PM EST |
This is a very interesting topic, but I think the focus is a little off.
Whether SCO actually added to Linux any IP that was of a similar nature to what
IBM added is not really that helpful to IBM. What is more useful, IMO and IANAL,
is did SCO know and approve, in any way, of what IBM did with NUMA, etc? Any
links where SCO acknowledged what IBM was doing would be much more helpful.
From a legal POV, SCO had every right to add its own IP; they are claiming that
IBM did not without permission from SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 12:31 AM EST |
Speaking of memories.
Wouldn't one of the best sources of SCO's double talk be Darl's prized
scrapbooks of press releases trotted out at some event or other?
If would be fun to subpoena them and ask SCO what the hell they thought they
were doing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
