|
|
| More Threatening Letters from SCO - A New Unix Licensee Front |
 |
|
Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 11:14 PM EST
|
The NY Times [free sub req'd] says SCO is sending another letter to several hundred companies using Linux. This is the big announcement being made Monday morning: "The new letters, signed by Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO's general counsel, name more than 65 programming files that 'have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base and contributed to Linux.'
"The letters focus on application binary interfaces, the programming hooks by which a software application gains access to the underlying operating system. 'We believe these violations are serious, and we will take appropriate actions to protect our rights,' the letters state." 65? I thought it was millions. It's so hard to keep up. OK. I'll be the first to ask: which 65? Could they tell us with specificity please? Here is what they said back when this soap opera began. We seem to be back at GO again. They will also be sending letters to their 6,000 licensees, asking them to certify in writing "that they are complying with SCO licenses" and that "none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux". I think they'd best send one of those letters to themself. (See here and here and here.)
Update: Here's SCO's press release about the two letters, one on the new front being opened, going after Unix licensees, who must prove they have not donated code to Linux or otherwise violated their contractual obligations, and a second letter to 1500 companies using Linux about alleged copyright infringement, a DMCA letter:
*************************************
SCO Announces New Initiatives to Enforce Intellectual Property Rights
UNIX Source Code Licensees Required to Provide Written Certification of Compliance
SCO Shows Additional Code Detailing Copyright Violations in Linux Through DMCA Notification Letters
UNIX Source Code Licensees Required to Provide Written Certification of Compliance
SCO Shows Additional Code Detailing Copyright Violations in Linux Through DMCA Notification Letters
LINDON, Utah, Dec. 22 -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX® operating system and a leading provider of UNIX based solutions, today announced new initiatives to enforce and protect the company's intellectual property rights. These initiatives include two components:
* Under the terms of SCO's System V UNIX contracts, the company has
commenced issuing written notice to thousands of licensees requiring
each licensee to provide written certification that it is in full
compliance with their UNIX source code agreement, including
certification that such licensee is not using proprietary UNIX code in
Linux, has not allowed unauthorized use of the licensed UNIX code by
its employees or contractors, and has not breached confidentiality
provisions relating to the licensed UNIX code.
* SCO has also begun providing notice of Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA) violations via letters sent to select Fortune 1000 Linux
end users. The letters outline additional evidence of copyright
infringement in Linux and the legal options available to commercial
end users regarding the continued use of Linux.
"The initiatives SCO is launching today reflect our commitment to protect our rights to the UNIX operating system as well as the growing foundation of evidence that SCO-owned UNIX source code and files have been misappropriated," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager, SCOsource division, The SCO Group. "We are taking action today to formally communicate to UNIX source code licensees and certain commercial Linux end users that they must utilize SCO's intellectual property within the bounds of their existing legal agreements and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
UNIX Source Code Licensees Required to Provide Written Certification of Compliance
As the owner of UNIX System V, SCO has source code license agreements with more than 6,000 licensees. These license agreements serve as the legal foundation upon which much of the industry's enterprise UNIX operating systems are licensed. These UNIX licensees include some of the largest companies in the pharmaceutical, financial services, transportation, energy, automotive, computer hardware and software industries. These UNIX licensees include 41 companies of the Fortune 100.
Under the terms of these license agreements, SCO has the right to require each licensee to provide written certification that they are in full compliance with the terms of their UNIX source code agreement. Specifically, SCO claims each licensee must certify:
* The company is not running Linux binary code that was compiled from
any version of Linux that contains SCO's copyrighted application
binary interface code ("ABI Code") specifically identified in the
attached notification letter.
* The company, its employees and contractors have held, at all times,
all parts of the UNIX products in confidence for SCO.
* The company has notified each employee and its contractors to whom
they have disclosed UNIX that their disclosure must be kept in
confidence.
* No employees or contractors that have had access to UNIX have
contributed any software code based on that product to Linux or any
other UNIX-based software product.
* The company, its employees and its contractors have not used any part
of UNIX directly for others, allowed use of the product by others,
including, but not limited to, use in Linux or any other UNIX-based
software product.
* The company has not made available for export, directly or indirectly,
any part of UNIX covered by their agreement to any country that is
currently prohibited from receiving supercomputing technology,
including Syria, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and any other such country,
through a distribution under the General Public License (GPL) for
Linux, or otherwise.
* The company, its employees and contractors have not transferred or
disposed of, through contributions to Linux or otherwise, any part of
UNIX.
* The company, its employees and contractors have not assigned or
purported to assign, any copyright in UNIX to the GPL, or otherwise
for use in Linux or another Unix-based software product.
SCO has requested that each licensee respond by the end of January. According to the terms of the license agreement, failure to respond to the request or failure to certify full compliance gives SCO the right to terminate the agreement and require the licensee to discontinue use of the software.
DMCA Notification Letter
SCO has commenced providing notification to selected Fortune 1000 Linux end users outlining additional violations of SCO's copyrights contained in Linux. Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces have been copied verbatim from the UNIX System V code base and contributed to Linux without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. Any part of any Linux file that includes the copyrighted binary interface code must be removed. This ABI code was part of a 1994 settlement agreement involving the University of California at Berkeley and Berkeley Systems Development, Inc., (BSDI).
The letter states: "Distribution of the copyrighted ABI code, or binary code compiled using the ABI code, with copyright management information deleted or altered, violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act codified by Congress at 17 U.S.C. Section 1202. DMCA liability extends to those who have reasonable grounds to know that a distribution (or re-distribution as required by the GPL) of the altered code or copyright information will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under the DMCA."
The letter also states, "In addition, neither SCO nor any predecessor in interest has ever placed an affirmative notice in Linux that the copyrighted code in question could be used or distributed under the GPL. As a result, any distribution of Linux by a software vendor or a re-distribution of Linux by an end user that contains any of the identified UNIX code violates SCO's rights under the DMCA, insofar as the distributor knows of these violations."
Conference Call
As previously announced, the Company will host a conference call at 11:00 a.m. EST today, December 22, 2003, to discuss this announcement as well as the company's fourth quarter and fiscal year 2003 results and fiscal 2004 guidance. To participate in the teleconference, please call (800) 289-0436, or (913) 981-5507; and use the confirmation code 510065, approximately five minutes prior to the time stated above. A listen-only Web cast of the call will be broadcast live with a replay available the following day. The Web cast and replay may be accessed from http://ir.sco.com/conference.html .
Note Regarding Forward-looking Statements:
This press release contains forward-looking statements related to SCO's efforts to protect its intellectual property rights and evidence of copyright infringement by Linux of UNIX System V code. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, including the risk that SCO may not prevail in pending or contemplated litigation or otherwise be successful in its efforts to protect its intellectual property rights. Other risks and uncertainties related to these forward-looking statements are set forth in SCO's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
About The SCO Group
The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses with UNIX business solutions. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to all partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services visit http://www.sco.com .
SCO and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc., in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of, and are used to identify products or services of, their respective owners.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: pbarritt on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 11:35 PM EST |
Is this meant to distract us from the teleconference
tomorrow? There are three rules in PR...
Timing, timing and timing!!!
---
bash: fortune: unexpected end of life...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jtsteward on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 11:36 PM EST |
Somebody wake up Linus, he might be able to fix it before the conferance call.
:-)
With the files identified it should not take long to remove any (if there is
REAL offending) code.
Finally something REAL from SCO, of course assuming the letters are real
---
-------------------------------------------------
Darl needs more bullets, he keeps hitting his foot but he won't go down[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 11:37 PM EST |
My guess is this is all a distraction for the earnings call at 11am Eastern on
Monday. Once made public, I expect it to be torn to pieces, but it only has to
distract analysts, who aren't very technical, for less than 12 hours from the
time I am posting this.
It would be great if anyone could get a copy of the 65 so we can have it
debunked before the analysts even wake up tomorrow.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 11:38 PM EST |
So not only is SCO attacking linux users, they're getting touchy with their
OWN
UnixWare licensees. This seems to be the flavour of the year for
some
companies. The only next step down they can do from there is
start suing their
own employees. Given the number of contributions the
old SCO has done to Linux
themselves, it wouldn't surprised me if that
started up in a few months
:P
name more than 65 programming files that 'have been copied
verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base and contributed to
Linux.
Can't wait for this. Finally revealing information that
they claim has been
copied.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 11:39 PM EST |
| Here we go.....
The deffinition of Application Binary INterface....
http://www.netl
ingo.com/lookup.cfm?term=ABI%20-%20Binary
(with thanks to
neilplatform1 from Yahoo)
If that is the case they are claiming copyright of
the interface of POSIX? Maybe they are claiming COFF (or whatever) is
copyrighted? Suggestions.....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 11:39 PM EST |
"name more than 65 programming files"
Gasp... are they actually going to name files? Likely it's that more like
"these 65 files may contain our copyrigted source code." Just more
BS from the SCO team exactly like they tried to pull during discovery.
If they are really going to name specific code... let Bruce at them. Anyone
want to take bets on how many days it takes him to shred SCO's claims?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jtsteward on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 11:48 PM EST |
The letters, dated Friday, are the second round that SCO has sent to corporate
users of Linux.
Dated Friday, sent when? On the same time table as "within a week"?
---
-------------------------------------------------
Darl needs more bullets, he keeps hitting his foot but he won't go down[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- From Tibbitts? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:09 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 11:49 PM EST |
they needs answers to the money questions
if the code is specific we can deal with it later.the money is important thing
now
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: k12linux on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 11:52 PM EST |
I have to wonder if any of these 65 files were contributed by Caldera. I guess
it doesn't do much good to theorize right now. I just hope the list is leaked
soon.
---
- k12linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:02 AM EST |
In other news...
Your local DMV will now issue a licence for $699 that will absolve you from
certain unspecified charges that you are already guilty of.
Pay or face the consequences.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kai on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:05 AM EST |
SCO still haven't shown (or got?) any evidence to support their claims and
until a judge rules in their favour there's gotta be a law against doing what
they're doing ?!
They haven't proven they own any IP rights, why are they allowed to continually
ask for money for something they haven't proven they own ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:07 AM EST |
-----
They will also be sending letters to their 6,000 licensees, asking them to
certify in writing "that they are complying with SCO licenses" and
that "none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix
code to Linux".
-----
Such a certification is insulting and unnecessary. I do not beleive it is part
of the licence to provide this... I hope that most of the people who paid darl
his extortion money ignore this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: trox on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:11 AM EST |
I don't see in the article that they are giving the file names to anyone, just
threatening everyone again. It appears to be just the FUD machine firing up for
the analysts. So I would guess they have a really 'BAD' fileing to turn in
tomorrow.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:12 AM EST |
Well didn't they produce a list of like 90 files before that people believe
were produced using grep/find?
Wouldn't this list of 65 files now likely be that list of 90 files with the
ones they knew would be dismissed easily removed? [Like that one file that had
only 6 lines in it]
They're still banking on the fact that they own IBM's contributions because
IBM wasn't allowed to contribute what they did aren't they?
It's always seemed to me that SCO owns nothing in the kernel, but their
contention is that IBM wasn't allowed to contribute what they did, so they own
IBM's contributions - and that's their case.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skuggi on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:12 AM EST |
I would not jump up and cry wolf, this is for sure a
stinky bomb.
This is so funny and the timing is bizzarre hahaha, how
many files did they say where infringing in the IBM case
to compare? And why change it now?
This will only make the teleconference more fun to listen
to if the analysts are smart enough to ask the right
questions.
One word though, distraction.
-Skuggi.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:15 AM EST |
Maybe we'll get enough specifics this time to get fraud indictments.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:21 AM EST |
If they can name 65 files, they should also name when and by whom
their proprietary code was put on those files.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:24 AM EST |
This has me thinking:
---
They will also be sending letters to
their 6,000 licensees, asking
them to certify in writing "that they are
complying with SCO
licenses" and that "none of their employees or
contractors have
contributed any Unix code to
Linux".
--
Why is this necessary? is it all media show just
to look like they're being
exceptionally diligent in keeping their property
under control, or are they
asking for something MORE than is in the original
6000 unix licenses?
Presumably, those licenses (for real SCO Unix
customers) already
prohibit the revealing of code from SCO products to Linux or
anything
else, so this step of having those licensees say "no we're not
contributing" looks to be a double up of effort. They've signed those
licenses
already, isn't that already enough?
Or do those existing 6000 licenses
NOT cover things adequately? Is it
possible those licenses may through
loopholes, or just by their very
nature, allow some level of code copying as
the licensees need, into
other products, and SCO is trying to plug a hole that
could be
undermining them? Is it a double up of what's already in the license,
or a
way of sneakily extending that license?
Or are they
hedging bets, to give them more ammunition/evidence to
sue their own customers
if the IBM case fails. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sef on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:25 AM EST |
"The letters focus on application binary interfaces, the
programming
hooks by which a software application gains access to the
underlying
operating system. 'We believe these violations are serious, and we
will
take appropriate actions to protect our rights,' the letters
state."
Hrm. I have been told, multiple times by
multiple sources, that some
Linux distributions happened to include some SysVr4
shared libraries,
for binary compatability. If true, this would, of course, be
a fairly clear-
cut case of copyright infringement... but also, I think, one
that is easily
rectified by the recipients of the letters (simply remove the
named files).
Is this correct?
However, tying it with other things they've
said, makes it sound like it's
source code. And the only ones I can think of
that would be "copied
verbatim" would be interface files -- things like the
definition of
struct stat, to pick an example.
I was told,
many years ago, that interfaces cannot be copyrighted. Does
anyone know if
this is true? Sega v Accolade seems to support that
statement, but IANEAP, so
what do I know? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stdsoft on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:27 AM EST |
When first hearing of "another announcement," I suspected that it
would be somehow related to earnings... explanation of the earnings delay, more
detail about the revised deal with Boies forced by Baystar/RBC, etc. Due to the
timing, any other type of announcement would easily be seen as an incredibly
transparent attempt to divert attention from the earnings release.
SCO has little respect for the intelligence of their shareholders, but didn't
think they would try a misdirection PR move on earnings day. Apparently SCO has
less respect for their shareholders than I thought. They evidently believe
their investors are quite gullible.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:31 AM EST |
this line is very telling:
"The letters focus on application binary
interfaces, the programming hooks by which a software application gains access
to the underlying operating system.
The above has nothing to do
with SMP, NUMA, & RCU technologies that SCO repeatedly claims as theirs. I
believe the 'hooks' they are talking about is the ability of Linux to run
Unixware software using their own SCO libraries (see linux-abi.sourceforge.net
to see what I'm talking about). In the VERY beginning SCOs beef wasn't
with Linux but with companies using ABI to migrate their systems to Linux and
use their existing UnixWare software. There is nothing illegal about emulation
(like the WINE project) BUT in order to run Unixware software on Linux you
needed a copy of the SCO system libraries. It was known that some companies were
doing this (copying the native system libraries from SCO Unixware) without
paying SCO for the libraries. I really think this is what they are talking
about. If thats the case this is a HUGE smokescreen and yet more proof of stock
manipulation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tallfred on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:37 AM EST |
Several employers I have left have asked me to sign documents. The answer is
"NO". Never sign this stuff, no matter how innocent the document
reads. Even if the document is to say you love your mother, do not sign. Yes,
you love your mother, and still will even if you do not sign. Not signing is
your right. Use it.
The polite way to tell them to f*ck off is, "Let me review this with MY
lawer and get back to you." Never accept advice from a company lawyer on
these matters. They do not work for you. Their advice is not for your benefit.
Hire your own lawyer. It is not that expensive, and surely cheaper than the
alternative.
Always ask yourself, "How much am I getting paid to sign this?" Ask
them too. Do not be shy. Being smart is not embarrassing.
And for Christ's sake, do not sign a contract with Darl "contract are to
use against our partners" McBride.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:39 AM EST |
| Posted at Yahoo....
Re: scratch the BSD 70 files theory
by: crunchie812
(51/M/Key Largo)
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Sell 12/22/03 12:27
am
Msg: 74062 of 74065
I did some googling based on the
mozillaquest story
http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-01_Story01.html#in_Linux_Dist
ributions
"In order for the OpenServer libraries to work, the Linux
kernel must have the appropriate Linux-abi module loaded. If you run the command
"lsmod" on a Linux system, you will see a list of active kernel modules. The
ones that enable OpenServer emulation are:
binfmt_coff abi-util lcall7 abi-svr4
abi-sco"
These modules appear to have been distributed as add-ons by some
distros, including SuSE. They are not in the 2.4.22 tree or 2.6.0 tree that I
have.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: photocrimes on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:40 AM EST |
>>>
They will also be sending letters to their 6,000 licensees, asking them to
certify in writing "that they are complying with SCO licenses" and
that "none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix
code to Linux".
<<<
Once again it sounds like a fishing expedition. Looks like SCO may be looking
for that company to sue. They have dug themselves into a hole. As any lawyer
here can tell you, it's one thing to go after a company blind claiming they did
this or that in violation of their contract. It's quite another to have them
state on paper a overly vague claim that "None of our employees or
contractors ever contributed Unix code to Linux ever" and then find some
guy that used to work for the company many years ago who had his name on some
small obscure file that SCO claims to own the rights to. Then it's a lot easier
to turn this into another PR stunt.
They figure they got nailed because none of their top shelf execs had any clue
how much code their own employees were putting into Linux, they must think it's
logical that most of their customers are in the same boat. They just want to
fire off a shotgun and hope they hit something at this point.
I think it would be very wise for the people who got these letters to march them
right down to the legal department and find out what they have the right to
avoid answering. Looks like a trap to me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:44 AM EST |
"They will also be sending letters to their 6,000 licensees, *asking* them
to certify in writing..."
Methinks they will have the same volume of response as their 'linux license',
given that once again it is only SCO asking (begging?). I predict that 1% or
less will give SCO the reply they want. That will leave SCO with 5994
individual lawsuits to prepare against their customers, seeing as how those
customers will have admitted their guilt (in the SCO universe) by not providing
SCO with written certification.
Imagine for a minute that the RIAA asked you to send them a letter certifying
that you do not trade or download MP3s. Even if you are/were completely
innocent and would never do it anyway, would you sign and send that letter? Of
course not. If a judge asked you to sign it -- that's a different ballgame, of
course. But, then again, a judge would only do so after seeing convincing
evidence that you performed an illegal act. As we have seen over and over,
evidence is not important in the SCO universe.
Just when you think the fiasco can't get any sillier...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: greg_T_hill on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:56 AM EST |
I did some googling based on the old mozillaquest story:
http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-01_Story01.html#in_Linux_Distributions
"In order for the OpenServer libraries to work, the Linux kernel
must have the appropriate Linux-abi module loaded. If you run
the command "lsmod" on a Linux system, you will see a list of
active kernel modules. The ones that enable OpenServer
emulation are:
binfmt_coff abi-util lcall7 abi-svr4 abi-sco"
These modules appear to have been distributed as add-ons by
some distros, including SuSE. They are not in the 2.4.22 tree or
2.6.0 tree that I have. They are part of a group of Application
Binary Interface modules.
In SuSE the modules are under
/lib/modules/K-version>kernel/abi/
This was SCO's original beef, which they dropped in favor of
going after IBM. It appears that this would only affect a small
percentage of Linux users who are using these modules and the
accompanying libraries to run Openserver and Unixware
binaries.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Newsome on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:03 AM EST |
"The new letters, signed by Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO's general
counsel, name more than 65 programming files that 'have been copied verbatim
from our copyrighted Unix code base and contributed to
Linux.'
Note that they're not saying that 65 Linux files
contain verbatim code from Unix. They're saying that 65 Unix files were copied
verbatim into Linux. It doesn't say much about where they might be found in
Linux, and there may be no way to verify (ie. prove them wrong) this claim since
they claim to identify 65 files that are not freely available.
Keep in mind
that I could be completely wrong in the way I'm reading this, but it sounds like
the sort of FUD that we'd expect to hear. Either way, I hope that IBM uses one
of these letters in a filing (soon) so that we can all see what SCO is
blathering about. ---
Frank Sorenson [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rjamestaylor on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:05 AM EST |
| We laugh at SCO, but not at the idea of 65 files contributed to Linux without
authorization. When this fiasco began last Spring, the community rejected
Caldera/SCO's characterization of Linux as a bicycle, etc., but seriously asked
to be shown what code in Linux infringed Caldera/SCO's rights. SCO, in my
opinion, didn't care to reveal specifics for it was not seeking a remedy
(removal of offending code immediately) but milked the attention it garnered
from a surprisingly effective media campaign designed to boost its stock price.
(An aside: I think the case against IBM is secondary to the media campaign;
as proof, I offer the appearance of Kevin McBride to argue before the court
regarding the very basis of their case -- that anything a UNIX licensee mixed
with UNIX became UNIX and must be maintained confidential as UNIX though
ownership remained with the author -- instead of the high profile lawyer who so
recently became a partner with his client. That Kevin didn't persuade the court
that IBM's secret code needed to be disclosed before SCO could determine what
IBM illegally contributed to Linux wasn't just a tactical embarrassment; I think
it killed the case, for IBM didn't contribute System V or Unixware to Linux, so
SCO can show nothing in Linux that IBM contributed that infringes upon its
rights. That's the kind of mistake one makes when you use an inexperienced
family member argue the case. See why we laugh?) ---
SCO delenda est! Salt
their fields! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:07 AM EST |
I have a recolection of an interview with one of SCOx's FUDmasters where they
said that libraries where at the heart of the infringment. I have looked and
cannot fine it now. Anybody remember anthing about that?
Or am I tired and delusional?
Or both?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: linuxbikr on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:09 AM EST |
| Oh, letters...I am shaking in my boots! :) If I were a company receiving one
of these, what do I care? Crumple it up and toss it. I have no obligation to
research and respond to a "letter". A lawsuit or a supoena is different, but a
letter?
And short of a court order, no intelligent company is going to
reveal a thing to SCO unless their contract obligates them to. All their legal
departments need to do is check their contract. Exchange would go something
like this...
CEO: "Do we have to tell them how we are using are
software?"
Lawyer: "Nope."
CEO: "Screw'em. File it in
the circular filing cabinet."
As one has already said, "Just when you
thought it couldn't get any sillier.". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:41 AM EST |
I just saw this post by neilplatform1 on the Yahoo SCOX board:
http://linux-abi.sourceforge.net/ tells us:
"The Linux abi is a patch to the linux kernel that allows a linux system
to run foreign binaries. This was developed and written by *Christoph Hellwig*
and Joerg Ahrens as a follow on to the iBCS/iBCS2 project written for the older
2.2.x kernel by Mike Jagdis."
Looks like at least part of this was written whilst Christoph Hellwig was at
Caldera:
http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2003-Jun/0962.html
which references
http://stage.caldera.com/developer/gabi/
It should also be noted that the Linux ABI may be connected to
"personality handling" (can someone define that term?) and also that
a google search of:
"hch@" "ABI" gets about forty listings. This might be
worth some research if someone has the time.
Alex
---
Hey Darl!! Did Ross Perot draw your chart?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: neilplatform1 on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:43 AM EST |
http://linux-abi.sourceforge.net/ tells us:
"The Linux abi is a patch to the linux kernel that allows a linux system
to
run foreign binaries. This was developed and written by *Christoph
Hellwig* and Joerg Ahrens as a follow on to the iBCS/iBCS2 project
written for the older 2.2.x kernel by Mike Jagdis."
Looks like at least part of this was written whilst Christoph Hellwig was
at Caldera:
http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2003-Jun/0962.html
which references
http://stage.caldera.com/developer/gabi/
See also http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=128
So it looks like SCO employed Christoph Hellwig to do this integration
work, then were involved again when it was released under the GPL in
UnitedLinux. It is unbelievable that they would try and demand license
fees.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:12 AM EST |
Like so many of SCO's other announcements, this one is apparently designed to
bolster SCO's stock price. Could this be an attempt to offset a nose-dive
beginning with the financial revelations that are just hours away? The timing
is almost too convenient for it to be anything else.
Certainly, DiDio and other so-called "analysts" will be paid to make
a big deal of this announcement. Given their credibility, it probably won't
matter much.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:22 AM EST |
We really need to get a hold of one of these letters. I am wondering if they are
really going to specify the names of these 65 files or not - does the article
give us any clue?
On a side note, any chance these "application binary interface"
files could have been distributed by SCO under the GPL?
Mike A.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:42 AM EST |
There is no similar code between SysV and the
latest versions of Linux. That is a sure thing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:43 AM EST |
Opinion of the explanation of SCO rationale of the claim:
Please nobody shoot me. I am trying to explain how I think they are thinking. I
do not personally think this way. I do not agree with their logic. But I think
this is what SCO will argue.
I think this indirectly flows from the court case
SCO is compelled to:
1. Identify the material that IBM is supposed to have done wrong
2. Identify why SCO has rights, whether they kept it trade secret, etc.
3. Identify all code in Linux that SCO claims.
Now they can try and find matches with System V or with Unixware for question
3.
For System V, I would speculate they perhaps only have BSD elements stuff like
the SGI atealloc thing.
For System V they have a problem. They can not answer question 2 (remember this
is trade secret), as AT&T did not have complete records of all System V
licensees even as long ago as the BSD case.
In the hearing, Kevin McBride said there are no trade secrets in System V, there
might be copyright issues related to System V, and the trade secrets flow from
Unixware.
So I think we can see where this is leading for the above 3 questions:
1. For the material that IBM is supposed to have wrongly contributed. They will
say they don't know. They will say it's contractual violations of the AT&T
license, to contriubte SCO's bizarre definiton of "derivative
works". If there is any IBM stuff in the ABI, they will also identify
these as trade secrets.
2. They can not answer as to the trade secrets in System V. So they will say
there are none. They will say the trade secrets are in Unixware, the source
code of which is likely more closely controlled and recorded than System V.
3. They will say there are three types of claim they have against Linux:
(i) Contractual violations by IBM (JFS, etc) and SGI (XFS), which they can only
generally identify, but which they can more specifically identify once they have
seen IBM's and SGI's code. (Or maybe they have seen enough to sort of identify
IBM's contributions, or maybe they will just point to all IBM contributions).
(ii) Copyright violations. They will identify BSD elements, atealloc, and any
other matches.
(iii) The Linux ABI. This is probably included because it's the only thing in
Linux which matches anything in Unixware, or possibly anything in Unixware which
is not also in System V.
They will claim these are the trade secrets, and perhaps also a copyright issue.
For the trade secret claim they can identify the history of Unixware code
(unlike System V).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:27 AM EST
- Not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:35 AM EST
- my $0.02 - Authored by: sinleeh on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:52 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:49 AM EST |
| The article can be accessed without registering here
http://news.com.com/2100-10
16_3-5130422.html
Seems like the same article PJ refers to, but hard to
be 100% sure
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:50 AM EST |
"Sign it or lose your license"
My response would be something like this:
Dear Darl,
This is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of your latest threatening letter.
Please be advised that we have turned it over to our legal department for
review, for possible legal action against you for extortion.
Please be advised that we will NOT sign your letter. As a result we will soon be
migrating our operations to Linux.
Sincerely yours,
Bobcat, CEO
In short a "take your letter and shove it up your @$#".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:05 AM EST |
This is off-topic, but related to earlier discussion about the recent
transformation of SCO Authentication:
From sco web site of PARTNERS:
[Announcing Vintela™ Authentication from SCO® Release 2.2]
On
December 5th, SCO released the next version of SCO Authentication (now called
"Vintela Authentication from SCO Release 2.2"). Vintela Authentication from SCO
(VAS) is a secure, easy-to-use solution for managing a single user identity
across a heterogeneous UNIX and Windows environment.....
New Sales
Opportunities
Because you sell UNIX and Windows solutions, SCO gives you new
sales opportunities with VAS. VAS lets you sell to new or existing customers who
suffer from insecurely managing multiple identities in a mixed UNIX and Windows
environment. The Server License U.S. list price is $200 per UNIX/Linux
server for any supported platform. For example, if the customer will access 2
UnixWare systems, 2 Solaris systems, and 2 Linux systems, then the customer will
purchase 6 Server Licenses.
The User License is based on the number of
Active Directory users who need UNIX/Linux server access. The cost per user
decreases as the number of users increases. Here is the user license
pricing:
User Count - U.S. List Price Per User
10 user -
$39.90
25 user - $38.00
1000 user - $27.00
2500 user -
$25.00
Participate in the Training and Receive a FREE Evaluation
Kit
Apparently this just happened Dec. 5th - I am curious to see
how much revenue this generated for SCO to rebrand the product to Vintela.
Notice how they aparently sell their product to Vintela, but still can get
revenue from selling it to end users, as well as providing training? Smart move.
Why didn't THIS get a press-release?
Mike A.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:06 AM EST |
1) They have begun compiling the list of files for IBM's discovery and want to
build press about their take on the history\abuse of them.
2) I think this is more likely. SCO Unix is so lame that many of thier customers
have jumped ship and are customers by name only. SCO has made previous claims
that SCO libraries are used by thier customers to run proprietary programs
unfortunately written for SCO Unix on Linux (or another Unix). The 65 files
might represent a range of ported libraries that allow SCO customers to escape
from SCO's vendor lock in. That could be why its targetted at their own
customers. I somehow think a new SCO customer is as hopeful as Saddam Husein's
next election chances. They may feel they have nothing to lose and all the media
to distract.
BV
Q: If SCO releases a patch for their kernel, but no one needs their software, do
they make a sound?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:50 AM EST |
| "Utah, is also sending letters to many of its 6,000 Unix licensees requiring
them to certify in writing that they are complying with SCO licenses, a company
executive said. SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their
employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux."
I'm
having a second bite at this. It is just too darn tasty...
Given that those
6000 licensees already signed a contract, I suggest that, rather than 'certify',
the recipients send a written response along these
lines:
Dear Mr McBride,
Thank you for your letter dated
[whenever]. We decline your request for our reaffirmation of our obligations
relating to your UNIX IP. Please refer to the terms of contract no. XXX between
SCO and [us] regarding our Unix license, and note that clauses AAA, BBB [etc.]
specifically refer to the actions you are querying. We continue to abide by the
terms of our contract and trust that you will, too. However, if you feel that
we are in any way in breach of the Contract then please do not hesitate to
contact [name of legal counsel] directly on [phone/email] to initiate a
good-faith dialogue towards resolving your concerns.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 05:15 AM EST |
Has anyone asked why this story was scooped/leaked by the New York Times? It
doesn't seem the usual route, but I may be wrong. The last SCO related article
in the Times was Nov. 19th (that it was planning on suing a Linux company) and
before that was Oct. 14th (in the "Corrections" section.)
I didn't find this story initially because my google-news searches didn't pick
it up since registration to the website was required. It does get an awful lot
of readers on Wall Street, however.
Just thinking out-loud.
Mike A.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: N. on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 05:29 AM EST |
This HAS to be a counterbalancing measure to any share price drop expected by
the potentially damaging conference call later on today.
Or have I become too cynical in my old age?
N.
---
N.
(Recent convert to Linux)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmccorm on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 05:30 AM EST |
"What is SCO's financial plan for financial survival through the end of
the first trial with IBM?" From what I've read so far, this isn't a
goldmine. But it appears that they may have some small success with this
avenue?
My "big picture" understanding is that this really isn't about SysV
code in Linux, but SysV code being used or distributed with Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 05:31 AM EST |
I looked up the word Caldera in the Oxford English Dictionary and this is what
it means:
caldera /, / n.
a large volcanic crater, esp. one whose breadth greatly exceeds that of the vent
or vents within it.
[Spanish from Late Latin caldaria ‘boiling-pot’]
Boiling pot eh? hehehe, interesting tidbit nevertheless.
Anyways onto another idea (feel free to stamp on it guys). We all know the
issues with the pre 2.4.23 and 2.6 test 6 kernels and the root issue. If
someone broke into FSF, Gentoo & Debian, then why didn't they (or did
they?) break into SCO? SCO was running a Linux webserver, and I doubt it'd
been the latest kernel either (but would they be running a 2.2 series kernel, I
doubt it), so ergo, I would presume that whoever hit FSF etc was a *friend* of
either SCO or Microsoft (either officially or unofficially). Isn't this odd?
Has anyone else had this thought???
Dave[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 05:46 AM EST |
Forget the letters. Focus on the court case and the money. The letters may or
may not happen. If they happen someone may or may not take notice.
Irrelevant side game.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 06:02 AM EST |
Ya know, I go to a party at 11 pm. I think, what can happen? The big news won't
come till the morning. I come home from the party at 5 am, and here's a new
item with 132 new responses. On a Sunday night.
I'm quite frankly not sure whether I *should* feel guilty or tell everyone else
to get a life. But I know how I *do* feel:
Guilty.
So. Returning to topic. From what I've read so far, this seems to be the
initial files that SCO made noises about in the first place. These are the files
that a Linux user is required to copy from SCO OpenServer (aka Xenix) to run the
SCO Xenix/OpenServer emulation layer.
I, personally, doubt that SCO has much of a case here, if I've guessed
correctly that these are the files in issue. Anyone requiring the emulation
layer no doubt has Xenix/OpenServer already, from which they need to migrate
applications. That is to say: they've already paid for the license to use these
files.
As I'm not privy to the Xenix/OpenServer license, it is just possible that
there is something in it that prevents licensees from porting files to another
OS to facilitate migration.
But I strongly doubt it.
Such restrictions are simply not common.
I'm also curious as to how they built up this list of "infringers".
If they used discovery materials from the IBM case to create this list, I
suspect there may be a problem.
In any case, I hope this mornings analysts will ignore the statement and focus
on the questions that have been raised in previous threads here on Groklaw. If
this announcement is the best that SCO can do, well, it's just repeating old
news as far as I can see. Use of the SCO libraries by companies migrating to
Linux was one of the first issues SCO mentioned in its FUD campaign, and it
seems like they're finally returning to it a year later.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 06:10 AM EST |
Question:
Is there any proof that SCO actually has sent this letter out?
Has any firm, other than firms connected with SCO, actually received such a
letter?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 06:37 AM EST |
"Stop, or I shall say 'Stop' again!"
Isn't it about time for Monty Python to sue SCO?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 06:40 AM EST |
Do they have 6000 *source* licensees?! I'd be amazed.
This looks like a wookie to me.
Justin.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 06:46 AM EST |
| 8K available, filed 22 Dec...
ACCESSION
NUMBER: 0001104659-03-029014
CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE: 8-K
PUBLIC
DOCUMENT COUNT: 3
CONFORMED PERIOD OF REPORT: 20031222
ITEM
INFORMATION:
ITEM INFORMATION: Other events
ITEM
INFORMATION: Financial statements and exhibits
ITEM
INFORMATION: Regulation FD Disclosure
FILED AS OF DATE: 20031222
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 07:05 AM EST |
6000 Letters ????
Wouldnt an open letter, inviting companies to respond, make more sense????[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 07:07 AM EST |
This can be fixed by next week.
They did say which files, didn't they ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 07:22 AM EST |
As for the letter, although they wont necessarily demand payment - Why not just
mail them a god damn cheque, with a note saying that you are paying under
protest? Back date the cheque so they must cash it within the next month.
If they dont cash it then they can't then sue you as they have refused
payment.
If they do cash it, which hopefully they do, then they are guilty of mail fraud
IMHO. Next go have a chat with IBM's lawyers, they will welcome you with open
arms, and *probably* give you the equivalent of your cheque as expenses.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 07:54 AM EST |
"I think they'd best send one of those letters to themself." should
be "to themselves".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rjamestaylor on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 07:55 AM EST |
Additionally, SCO announced that it has begun providing notice of
Digital Millennium Copyright Act violations via letters sent to select Fortune
1000 Linux end users. The letters also set forth additional evidence of
copyright infringement in Linux.
Does this mean the recipients
have to stop using "Linux" cause SCO says Linux really truly no kidding has
copyrighted code in it? If SCO is able to leverage the DMCA to acheive their
goals without so much as a shred of evidence it is time to seek to overturn the
DMCA and recall (a la California) its architects and supporters. Surely SCO
would have to SPECIFY what infringes within Linux to make it's claims stick,
right? That's what they mean by "additional evidence," right?
[Psst.
Time for SourceForge, kernel.org, etc. to go P2P...bittorrent to the
DMCA-rescue.]
But I think this bluster and pulling of the trump card is
to distract everyone from this: SCO reported a net loss for the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2003 of $1.6 million, or $0.12 per diluted
common share. Net income for fiscal 2003 was $5.4 million, or $0.34 per
diluted common share, compared to a net loss of $24.9 million, or $1.93
per diluted common share, in fiscal 2002.
Loss! in the
forth quarter! But they had an earnings of $.34 for the year, right? That's
their claim. Analysts' numbers ranged from $.33 to
$.38. But, look at the GAAP trick hiding a $9 million expense in this
tidbit:In the press release attached as Exhibit 99.1, SCO provides
net income and earnings per share measures for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2003
and the fiscal year ended October 31, 2003 that exclude a charge of
approximately $9.0 million incurred in connection with its October 2003
private placement for compensation paid to SCO’s law firms engaged to represent
SCO in intellectual property matters. These measures adjust GAAP net income
(loss) and earnings per share to remove the impact of this compensation charge
that is unusual in nature. Since the compensation charge was incurred in
connection with an infrequent transaction, SCO management believes these
non-GAAP financial measures assist management and investors in evaluating and
comparing operating results between periods while highlighting trends in the
results of operations. A reconciliation of net income (loss) and earnings per
share, excluding the $9.0 million charge, is provided in the financial
tables attached to the press release. So, how did SCO come to
the $5.4 million net income for the year? It ignored the $9 million it
paid to its lawyers to get the revenue SCO claims! Without the legal team,
where is SCO's revenue? Therefore, shouldn't the $9 million be considered
part of COGS? SCO sold a bill of goods through its legal schemes -- the $9
million is not a ONE TIME CHARGE, it's a aign of what SCO will have to pay to
cash in on its legal schemes. To all the longs on Yahoo!'s CALD board:
suckers. ---
SCO delenda est! Salt their fields! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jeanph01 on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 08:01 AM EST |
Could help but quote this one from slashdot:
What next? (Score:5, Funny)
by mattjb0010 (724744) on Monday December 22, @07:16AM (#7785065)
SCO sends out Christmas cards? Does SCO stand for Santa Claus Operation?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SmyTTor on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 08:03 AM EST |
Here's an interesting little article on
Linuxworld.au:
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=292376181&fp=2&
;fpid=1
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 08:12 AM EST |
This case is just so amusing. Better than sex.
Well not quite but good fun anyway.
Speaking of Sex, its much more fun with two people.
(so I've heard)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 08:26 AM EST |
PJ can we launch an online petition or something. The PR value would be good.
Something along the lines of supporting the Groklaw Open Letter to SCO and
specifically asking SCO to immediately stop distributing GPL code which it no
longer has the right to do.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 08:40 AM EST |
I would imagine that an act like this would further displease the judge in the
SCO v. IBM case. SCO is busy telling them that they don't have enough time to
go through everything and provide them with specific files and yet now we have
news saying that SCO has in fact managed to identify specific files for a
completely unrelated matter. (This also would shoot a pretty large hole in
their defense against Red Hat and how they're not yet an aggrevied party since
the legal case is between SCO and IBM.)
You wonder how many legal fronts SCO wants to open up at the same time...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 08:43 AM EST |
There is in the Astrology business a practice known as the
"cold-read." This is where the pracitioner makes a seemingly
specific assertion to convince the listener that they can learn something, and
therefore pay, or keep paying money. Statements like: "You are in
conflict with a loved one." It *sounds* really specific, but in fact, it
is true of almost everyone, almost all the time, (think about it). There are
others, that might occur to you... but, to my point.
They have specified a number of files; sixt-five, they say. "Oh, they
must be serious, they must have something." Buzzzzzzz. Wrong. Next
player, please. This is one of the oldest tricks in the shyster books.
How this differs fom simple extortion is a mystery to me, but then I'm not a
lawyer. Seems like they could be prosecuted with the RICO Law, (heck, you could
convict a potted plant with that law, if you wanted).
TFL
You know it is over when you hear the penguins start to laugh every time you
walk into a room.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The Cold Read - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:02 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 08:48 AM EST |
What I find strange is the description.
"The letters focus on application binary interfaces, the programming hooks
by which a software application gains access to the underlying operating
system."
It is not the precise description of Linux-ABI. It is not part of the officel
linux kernel.
Btw linux-abi is now at bitkeeper <a
href="http://linux-abi.bitkeeper.com">here</a>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 08:49 AM EST |
Effectively, the letter to their exiting licensee's must be a fishing
expedition
if anyone says "well we have people who develop linux code", then
SCO has a nice fat target to sue in the next round.
If people dont reply, then sco will no doubt ask for an audit.
Either way, a company recieving this letter may have to ask embabrassing
questions of *all* their employees "what do you do in your spare
time?". Certainly if I was an employee of one of these companies, I know
what my answer would be..
As has stated by others here, this is no doubt just a PR excercise to inflate
the stock, and to make the lawyers look like they have been doing something
useful (especially after being ordered to provide information by the court).
One must (as have many) what Boies is actually doing. I think he is just a
figurehead, lending his name to the case to inflate sco's chances. If it turns
out the only real lawyer is Darl's brother, the whole case will look like a man
and dog show. ;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Fishing anyone ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:00 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 08:55 AM EST |
After these threats, how can SCO claim in the Red Hat case that no, your honor,
we are not threatening Linux users?
Seems they have dropped that line of defense?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eibhear on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 08:59 AM EST |
Hi,
This has just been posted on Slashdot: Jon
Johansen has been ac
quited of copyright violations, yet again, by an appeals court in Norway.
Not happy with his earlier acquital, the Norwegian authorities tried his case
again in a higher court, and that court said "no" too. What's interesting, and a
nice surprise, in this case is that the ruling was not due until January, but
the court decided to issue it (well) ahead of time.
It's been a good few
days/weeks for court judgements.
Éibhear [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:08 AM EST |
>They will also be sending letters to their 6,000 licensees, asking them to
certify in writing "that they are complying with SCO licenses" and that "none of
their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to
Linux".
How can they claim that IBM has contributed code to Linux if
they aren't sure that none of the other 6000 licensees has contributed
the code? Even if infringing code were found, why can't IBM claim that one of
these other 6000 companies contributed it, and look, here is SCO admitting that
they don't know if it's true or not...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Captain on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:21 AM EST |
They can use that to confuse things even more than they already have. If this
works, they can give vague statements like 'already 200 companies have written
us that they are complying with the SCO licincing scheme, with more coming each
week' not mentioning that this is an entirely different matter from their Linux
shakedown.
They won't mention that those 200 companies have simply written that they agree
to rules that have been laid down in a contract they *already* had with SCO. NOT
the $699 Linux licencing scheme.
As long as it sounds the same to investors, it's good enough.
Is this a plausible explanation?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:34 AM EST |
Everybody here seems to be focused on the SYSV binary compatibility code. The
recent reference to the old BSD suite makes it more likely that the ancient
a.out binary interface is the target.
In fact, "linux/a.out.h" does not contain a copyright notice and
considering the fact that it makes references to architectures that were never
supported by Linux (NS32K) it might conceivable come from a Unix code base.
Comments?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:42 AM EST |
I think what SCO is doing is claiming that the structures (C types) that are
used in passing data through the ABI are copyrighted by SCO. It would be
unlikely that Linux used exactly the same code once the data has been received,
since the actual kernal code is very different. The only part that would be the
same (and work) would be the data structures. It would be impossible to write a
program that interfaced using the Unix (or POSIX) interfaces without using these
structures, and I believe there have already been test cases that have said you
cannot copyright the actual form of the data structures (but I am not sure on
this). However, if you parse their language in the PR that appears to be what
they are saying, and they have probably identified 65 files where these
structure definitions occur. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:44 AM EST |
Dear SCO:
Was that letter you sent us some sort of joke? We showed it to our lawyers and
they're laughing so hard, we haven't been able to get them to make a coherent
statement. Please advise.
Best Regards,
Everyone you sent these letters to.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mac586 on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:58 AM EST |
| Posted to LWN
December 19,
2003
Re: The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”)
Dear Unix Licensee,
In May
2003, SCO warned about enterprise use of the Linux operating system in violation
of its intellectual property rights in UNIX technology. Without exhausting or
explaining all potential claims, this letter addresses one specific area in
which certain versions of Linux violate SCO's rights in UNIX.
In this letter
we are identifying a portion of our copyright protected code that has been
incorporated into Linux without our authorization. Also, our copyright
management information has been removed from these files.
These facts
support our position that the use of the Linux operating system in a commercial
setting violates our rights under the United States Copyright Act, including the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act. We are notifying you of these facts so you can
take steps to discontinue these violations. We believe these violations are
serious, and we will take appropriate actions to protect our rights. No one may
use our copyrighted code except as authorized by us. The details of our
position are set forth below. Once you have reviewed our position, we will be
happy to further discuss your options and work with you to remedy this problem.
Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces (“ABI Code”) have been
copied verbatim from our copyrighted UNIX code base and contributed to Linux for
distribution under the General Public License (“GPL”) without proper
authorization and without copyright attribution. While some application
programming interfaces (“API Code”) have been made available over the years
through POSIX and other open standards, the UNIX ABI Code has only been made
available under copyright restrictions. AT&T made these binary interfaces
available in order to support application development to UNIX operating systems
and to assist UNIX licensees in the development process. The UNIX ABIs were
never intended or authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL
in Linux. As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission.
Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux, and improperly distributed
under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX copyrighted software code.
Any part of any Linux file that includes the copyrighted binary interface
code must be removed. Files in Linux version 2.4.21 and other versions that
incorporate the copyrighted binary interfaces
include:
include/asm-alpha/errno.h
include/asm-arm/errno.h
include/a
sm-cris/errno.h
include/asm-i386/errno.h
include/asm-ia64/errno.h
in
clude/asm-m68k/errno.h
include/asm-mips/errno.h
include/asm-mips64/errno
.h
include/asm-parisc/errno.h
include/asm-ppc/errno.h
include/asm-p
pc64/errno.h
include/asm-s390/errno.h
include/asm-s390x/errno.h
incl
ude/asm-sh/errno.h
include/asm-sparc/errno.h
include/asm-sparc64/errno.h
include/asm-x86_64/errno.h
include/asm-alpha/signal.h
include/asm-a
rm/signal.h
include/asm-cris/signal.h
include/asm-i386/signal.h
incl
ude/asm-ia64/signal.h
include/asm-m68k/signal.h
include/asm-mips/signal.
h
include/asm-mips64/signal.h
include/asm-parisc/signal.h
include/as
m-ppc/signal.h
include/asm-ppc64/signal.h
include/asm-s390/signal.h
include/asm-s390x/signal.h
include/asm-sh/signal.h
include/asm-sparc/sig
nal.h
include/asm-sparc64/signal.h
include/asm-x86_64/signal.h
inclu
de/linux/stat.h
include/linux/ctype.h
lib/ctype.c
include/asm-alph
a/ioctl.h
include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h
include/asm-arm/ioctl.h
include
/asm-cris/ioctl.h
include/asm-i386/ioctl.h
include/asm-ia64/ioctl.h
include/asm-m68k/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips64/ioc
tl.h
include/asm-mips64/ioctls.h
include/asm-parisc/ioctl.h
include/
asm-parisc/ioctls.h
include/asm-ppc/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc/ioctls.h
include/asm-ppc64/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc64/ioctls.h
include/asm-s390/i
octl.h
include/asm-s390x/ioctl.h
include/asm-sh/ioctl.h
include/asm-
sh/ioctls.h
include/asm-sparc/ioctl.h
include/asm-sparc/ioctls.h
inc
lude/asm-sparc64/ioctl.h
include/asm-sparc64/ioctls.h
include/asm-x86_64
/ioctl.h
include/linux/ipc.h
include/linux/acct.h
include/asm-sparc/
a.out.h
include/linux/a.out.h
arch/mips/boot/ecoff.h
include/asm-spa
rc/bsderrno.h
include/asm-sparc/solerrno.h
include/asm-sparc64/bsderrno.
h
include/asm-sparc64/solerrno.h
The code identified above was also part
of a settlement agreement between the University of California at Berkeley and
Berkeley Systems Development, Inc. (collectively “BSDI”) and UNIX Systems
Laboratories, Inc. regarding alleged violations by BSDI of USL's rights in UNIX
technology. The settlement agreement between USL and BSDI addressed conditions
upon which BSDI could continue to distribute its version of UNIX, BSD Lite 4.4,
or any successor versions, including certain “UNIX Derived Files” which include
the ABI Code. A complete listing of the UNIX Derived Files is attached. The ABI
Code identified above is part of the UNIX Derived Files and, as such, must carry
USL / SCO copyright notices and may not be used in any GPL distribution,
inasmuch as the affirmative consent of the copyright holder has not been
obtained, and will not be obtained, for such a distribution under the
GPL.
Use in Linux of any ABI Code or other UNIX Derived Files identified
above constitutes a violation of the United States Copyright Act. Distribution
of the copyrighted ABI Code, or binary code compiled using the ABI code, with
copyright management information deleted or altered, violates the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) codified by Congress at 17 U.S.C. §1202.
DMCA liability extends to those who have reasonable grounds to know that a
distribution (or re-distribution as required by the GPL) of the altered code or
copyright information will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an
infringement of any right under the DMCA. In addition, neither SCO nor any
predecessor in interest has ever placed an affirmative notice in Linux that the
copyrighted code in question could be used or distributed under the GPL. As a
result, any distribution of Linux by a software vendor or a re-distribution of
Linux by an end user that contains any of the identified UNIX code violates
SCO's rights under the DMCA, insofar as the distributor knows of these
violations.
As stated above, SCO's review is ongoing and will involve
additional disclosures of code misappropriation. Certain UNIX code, methods and
concepts, which we also claim are being used improperly in Linux, will be
produced in the pending litigation between SCO and IBM under a confidentiality
order.
Thank you for your attention to these
matters.
Sincerely,
THE SCO GROUP,
INC.
By:______________________________
Ryan E. Tibbitts
General
Counsel
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- error.h - Authored by: mac586 on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:02 AM EST
- error.h - Authored by: mac586 on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:04 AM EST
- Told you it was a.out.h!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:16 AM EST
- COPY OF THE LETTER - Authored by: the_flatlander on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:17 AM EST
- COPY OF THE LETTER - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:35 AM EST
- headers - simple rewrite eliminates SCO ongoing Linux claim - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:41 AM EST
- Header Files - Authored by: the_flatlander on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:48 AM EST
- errno.h is part of the UNIX spec - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:04 PM EST
- COPY OF THE LETTER - Authored by: ssavitzky on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:04 PM EST
- A more considered response. - Authored by: the_flatlander on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:17 PM EST
- COPY OF THE LETTER - Authored by: mac586 on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:32 PM EST
- COPY OF THE LETTER - Authored by: Philip Stephens on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:13 PM EST
- COPY OF THE LETTER - Authored by: Bored Huge Krill on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:55 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:38 AM EST |
Listening in on conference call... did I hear Darl say 43 files??? The number
gets lower and lower.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJP on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:50 AM EST |
If anyone owns the UNIX ABI its Open Group.
So far, they have been very passive about the abuse of its trademark (UNIX),
simply pointing to a web-page outlining appropriate usage.
This is more of a direct attack on the Open Grouop's relevance and existence.
Surely they have to take a more aggressive stance in response to this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eric76 on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:36 PM EST |
IANAL
Those 65 files listed in which the copyrights were allegedly
stripped should be investigated by the Open Source community.
If the Open
Source community agrees that they should be there or should likely be there, why
not place the appropriate copyrights in the files and thank SCO for their
notice.
One keyword from section 1202 seems to be "knowingly".
From
Title 17, Chapter 12, Section 1202:
No person shall knowingly and
with the intent to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement
Wouldn't SCO have to prove not only that someone knowingly
removed the copyrights, but did so with an intent to infringe upon those
copyrights? I would think that even if that were the case (and I don't belive
that to be the case), proving that would be very tough.
Assuming that SCO
does hold the copyrights and considering that derivative works are permissible
with the valid copyrights, I don't see that SCO (or anyone else) could argue for
any monetary damages as a result of their omission. However, they should, in
that case, be entitled to demand that the copyrights be included.
I don't
see where any SCO has been damaged and so I don't see why damages would be
awarded. But if the copyrights should be there, the Open Source community
should, as people respecting intellectual property issues, make sure they are
included.
Would the appropriate copyright notices, if they are warranted, be
worded as of the time they should have been included? Considering the fact that
Novell and SCO have both copyrighted much of the old Unix code, it is not clear
that SCO's name should be listed in the copyright. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:47 PM EST |
Although they announce that they were not going to announce any new lawsuits
this, to me, comes just as close.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sten on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:39 PM EST |
The main idea that the article seems to be missing is that the letters sent in
November with the threat of a lawsuit and the letters sent on Friday are not
related. The letters sent in November were to the fortune 1000, et al. These
are sent directly to SCO licensees, some of whom might be in the fortune 1000.
The letters sent in November were in regard to using code that IBM contributed,
while the current batch of letters seem to in regard to using SCO library files
on Linux (which Chris Hellwig tells people how to). It seems to me that SCO is
trying to find someone to sue that falls into the two categories (fortune 1000
& SCO licensee) on the grounds of using the SCO binaries while trying to
give the appearance of keeping their promise of suing a Linux user over the IBM
contributed material. This way they can make a PR announcement to that effect
and avoid a barratry charge (which has been speculated about on Groklaw, as well
as other pro-Open Source sites). They might even manage to scare some companies
into purchasing a SCO license for Linux, even though these are two separate
issues.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:40 PM EST |
What about the Linux Kernel Personality? I bet that must use Linux header files
in the same manner. Some of these files must be original.
Surely, by SCO's own argument, they would be violating copyrights in
distributing the LKP under a non-GPL license? Now we know SCO's arguments are
bogus, it's just that they are also hypocritical.
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 05:04 PM EST |
I think this announcement is a red herring to throw us off our guard. These are
dangerous people.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 07:22 PM EST |
The letters focus on application binary interfaces, the
programming hooks by which a software application gains access to the underlying
operating system
Doesn't that describe system calls? Are
they really claiming that version 0.0.1 of Linux copied SVRx code to make system
calls work?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dodger on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 08:15 AM EST |
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:
They have nothing. zip.
It was an idea dreamed up over a few beers a year ago. They have tried to refine
the idea. 1500 letters. 6000 letters. They did move their stock. They did get
some friends to back them up, Royce Associates, Baystar, Royal Canadian Bank,
Microsoft, Sun.
When they saw what an effect they were having with the stock, they got greedy.
Darl started spouting - Constitutional, Copyright Laws.
The reason that there has been no BITE to their BARK is that they will incur a
plethora of lawsuits; far more than they can handle. They have already lost the
IBM suit, so the tactic is to stretch that out as long as possible. The Novell
problems are just starting, and the Red Hat problem is ongoing.
The biggest joke is that the current news talks about SCO expanding its lawsuit.
They haven't expanded anything. If anything, they are contracting. They have no
source of income next quarter and no chance of getting income by then.
All that's left are 'warning' letters. ruf. ruf.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 24 2003 @ 01:48 AM EST |
| What about RICO? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 27 2003 @ 11:36 AM EST |
65 files and millions of lines. it is possable that those 65 files
contain millions of lines (even easier when you consider that SCO owns the
comments ^_-)
--Oninohsiko (im not logging in because im on a public
terminal)
P.S. if this has be mentioned i apolagise there are a few
hundred comments here and my time on this terminal is up[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
