|
|
| Straight From The Horse's Mouth: Was SCOsource about UnixWare? |
 |
|
Tuesday, March 11 2008 @ 09:57 PM EDT
|
SCO's new position is that UnixWare is just another interchangeable name for UNIX and that SCOsource was about UnixWare, not Unix System V, but here's some more evidence that they are not the same thing and that SCOsource was primarily about UNIX System V. In this article, I'll restrict myself to things SCOfolk used to say about what SCOsource was about. As you will see, before the Honorable Dale Kimball ruled in August that the UNIX copyrights didn't pass from Novell to SCO, SCO said SCOsource was about UNIX System V source code. Now that it's time to pay Novell for those System V licenses, SCO says they were really UnixWare licenses. As I told you in the previous article, I didn't have enough space to say everything in rebuttal in just that one article, and I'm still not done with this one.
Let's start with a slide from Darl McBride's keynote at SCOforum 2004, shall we? Here's where he lays out what he claimed SCO owned:
See the emphasis on Unix System V? Does he even mention UnixWare copyrights?
And here's a bit of an interview with Darl McBride by Robert McMillan at SCOforum 2004:
IDGNS: Why did SCO recently decide to file a trademark claim for AT&T Corp.'s old Unix subsidiary, Unix Systems Laboratories (USL)?
McBride: There are a couple of reasons around going back to the USL part of the business. It's really a situation of going back to the future, if you will. We look into the future and fully expect that we're going to have some sort of a win against IBM in the courtroom. We know we've got another year and a quarter before we end up in front of a jury trial here in Utah, but we are preparing ourselves right now that as we move forward and as we do get justice in the courtrooms, what is our business going to look like?
Part of what we're modeling right now is a return to our licensing business. Last year, we had a couple of good licensing deals in the form of Sun (Microsystems Inc.) and Microsoft (Corp.) You're now hearing those guys talking about incorporating the Unix technology into Longhorn. Sun's been able to do things with it. We have other licensees that are off doing things with the core Unix System V technology.
We think that there's a very bright future in the company to return to the model that we had in the past with Unix Systems Laboratories.
IDGNS: Would that be a division within your company, or a separate company that did this licensing?
McBride: Both are possibilities. We're still doing what USL was doing. We have the same offices back in Murray Hill, New Jersey, right across the street from AT&T Bell Labs; we have the same great kernel-level programmers that are on our team that came out of AT&T; we have the core licensing business intact. Really the only thing that's not there is the brand, which was associated with USL.
IDGNS: But don't you already have licenses with all the Unix vendors today?
McBride: Around technologies that we've had up to this point, but we have new things we're working on, and are seeing an opportunity to continue to advance it in the form of upgrades.
IDGNS: In what areas?
McBride: Unix kernel development. Let's go back to the 64-bit side of things: 64-bit on Intel (Corp.) was why IBM had come in and partnered up with us on Project Monterey (IBM and SCO's aborted effort to jointly develop Unix for Intel's IA-64 processors). We have a lot of development know-how around that. We have other things that we're focused on that we'll talk about in the future. Primarily, as you look at the new higher end chipsets coming out on the AMD (Advanced Micro Devices Inc.) or the Intel architecture, we expect that we can add some real value in that space.
So, did he say a word about UnixWare? Did he not instead speak as clear as a bell about UNIX source code? About doing what USL did? About kernel development? And in the context of the Sun and Microsoft licenses and the later SCOsource deals, he mentions "the core Unix System V technology" being what they were using. And in the previous article I showed you that USL did *not* do UnixWare. That was Univel.
SCO now says that UnixWare and UNIX System V are interchangeable terms. At SCOforum 2004, that wasn't the case. Here are some graphics, taken from the talks at SCOforum 2004, beginning with a couple of slides from Chris Sontag's presentation about all the litigation, starting with the SCO v. IBM case:
It says the IBM case is all about Unix System V source code, not UnixWare. And could anything be any clearer than this graphic, the one SCO used to present its position as to what it claimed it owned:
Going from perfectly clear to completely obvious, look at this SCO graphic, where it showed
UNIX as the tree trunk, and UnixWare and OpenServer branches off the tree trunk, just like AIX and Solaris and BSD: 
Obviously if you say UNIX or UNIX System V, you don't mean Solaris. Similarly, if you say UNIX or UNIX System V, you don't mean UnixWare. And please notice USL in the next chart: 
After reading the previous article, what did Novell acquire from USL? System V, not UnixWare. It developed that with Univel. Gentlemen, I rest my case. Kidding. I'll be here all week. : D
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: MDT on Tuesday, March 11 2008 @ 10:23 PM EDT |
Give some idea of where in the header, please.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MDT on Tuesday, March 11 2008 @ 10:25 PM EDT |
Please provide clicky's if possible, thanks.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MDT on Tuesday, March 11 2008 @ 10:26 PM EDT |
Only for comments on News Picks, thanks.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linux growth tied to personnel issues - Authored by: osaeris on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 04:52 AM EDT
- The unholy quad: Miguel, Mono, Moonlight and Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 05:03 AM EDT
- OOXML: Standards for accepting a standard - Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 12:50 PM EDT
- New Legal document search engine PreCYdent - Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 01:14 PM EDT
- Bill Gates: U.S. at risk of losing status as global leader - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- Bill Gates: U.S. at risk of losing status as global leader - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 03:49 PM EDT
- Truth (N/T) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 07:30 PM EDT
- Bill Gates: U.S. at risk of losing status as global leader - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 04:08 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 11 2008 @ 10:57 PM EDT |
I think SCO's lawyers should spend less time dancing around SCO speak and more
time paying attention to some recent rulings.
http://www.denverpost.com/popular/ci_8354619
Medtronic Navigation Inc. v. BrainLAB Medizinische Computersystems GMBH, Civil
Action No. 98-cv-01072-RPM (Feb. 12, 2008).
"The fairness of the adversary system of adjudication depends upon the
assumption that trial lawyers will temper zealous advocacy of their client's
cause with an objective assessment of its merit and be candid in presenting it
to the court and to opposing counsel," he wrote. "When that assumption
has been contradicted by a trial record of conduct reflecting a winning is all
that is important approach to the trial process, the court has a duty to redress
this resulting harm to the opposing party."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: devil's advocate on Tuesday, March 11 2008 @ 11:11 PM EDT |
Actually, PJ, these quotes you give from SCO don't anywhere mention
"SCOSource". They just state the case they were building against IBM, which
wasn't about charging for Linux per se. This is just old stuff about IBM
contributing System V source code to Linux. The connection you are assuming is
that the Sun and Microsoft deals were part of SCOSource. SCO at least at one
point denied
that these agreements were part of it. And at another point they boasted that they
were. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 11 2008 @ 11:32 PM EDT |
SCO's media blitz and then legal filings are all about making others do lots and
lots of work to find out what SCO should already know-their case is a scam based
on a lot of hot air.
We await the court(s) to show us what the penalty for making others waste time
and effort for bogus reasons is.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 12:10 AM EDT |
"And in the previous article I showed you that USL did *not* do UnixWare.
That was Univel."
This is a interesting question. Really this depends on what you see as Unix.
If it is the kernel then it is untrue. The kernel was pretty much pure SVR4.2MP
with networking.
If it is the whole package this is true but blurry because although it was
developed by Univel the staff still belonged to their respective companies for
the most part (USL or Novell - I belonged to USL). Unixware 2.01 under Novell
was where the biggest change occured and this was when the user infrastructure
that was added.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 12:10 AM EDT |
> You're now hearing those guys talking about incorporating
> the Unix technology into Longhorn
If only hearing about stuff made it happen .......[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 12:28 AM EDT |
Will everyone finally realize that's all this is?
it was never about what SCO owned, or claimed to, or wanting to get bought it.
All of this stuff is slight of hand, misdirection.
By the time this is over, there might be some office furniture left, if Novell
and IBM are lucky.
I doubt there'll be anything left except some fixtures.
And anyone who thinks SCOfolk will do jail time for SEC violations or whatever
nonsense, gimme a break, much larger scams have had people walk away scott free.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Holocene Epoch on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 12:33 AM EDT |
Delay, Delay, Delay. If you can keep them laughing, then they might miss
something important which would help SCOx.
<senior moment>Could it not be that M$ could kill two birds with one stone
with this whole mess? Discredit Linux and Unix at the same time? Then everyone
would "want" to be on the windows band wagon, which is slowly
converting to a unix base? </senior moment>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 04:08 AM EDT |
Once again Groklaw is making a mountain out of a volcano. Ms. Jones is showing
slides that date back to 2004. That's ancient history. Things have progressed
since then, n'est pa?
This is straight from the horse's mouth: IBM and Novell, and particularly
Novell, because when all the chips are down, it was Novell that was in bed with
AT&T, not IBM, not Sun; Novell was the one. That's why we sued IBM at first
and not Novell. With their Dynix and Sequent and AIX, they were mixing and
matching and no one did anything about it. We initiated a complaint saying
'Look. Enough is enough. This is our IP that you are shuffling around in all of
your versions. You are confusing a very simple concept.'
And here we go again - where Groklaw tries to use our slides against us. That's
stupid. It won't work. What the slides show, and let me be very clear about
this: the slides show that the whole unix story is a shaggy dog tale; it goes on
and on but goes no where. Why? Because that's the way it is. Point is, at the
end of the day, we, and here I want to be specific: SCOG (caldera) (sco)
(at&t) (novell) (ibm); we all want what is right. It's as simple as that.
So who receives the 5% for the sale of Unix related products?
SCOG.
Why does SCOG receive 5% of the sale of Unix related products? It isn't because
we have nice faces and Novell wants to do us a favor. Far from it. We are paid a
fee to manage the sales of Unix IP. You could say we make a living out of
selling Unix IP.
This is an important point. And it has far reaching consequences into the future
and not the least of which have already impacted the past. We sell Unix IP. We
have always sold Unix IP. Our business is based upon Unix IP. Server V. Uniware.
Dynix, Sequent, AIX, Solaris. Call it what you will. It is Unix IP. It ain't
Windows!
Now when we say we own Unix IP, it doesn't mean we own it 100%. Maybe we only
own 50% or 20% or 5%. But when we say we own it, we mean a recognizable portion
of it. And we still maintain that our 5% share in the Unix IP has been
threatened to the tune of 5 billion dollars by IBM. Think of it: we are in a
chapter 11 now. How did we get there? Did IBM pay up their 5 billion dollars? NO
they didn't. Did we ask them to pay. Yes we did. You see, Unix is a 100 billion
dollar business. And what is our share? 5%. What is 5% of 100 billion dollars? 5
billion dollars.
So as you can see, the results are simple and predictable. When IBM pays us our
due, we will have a nice chunk of cash to go after all the Linux users who are,
in our humble opinion and in the opinion of some of the greatests minds from
MIT, threatening our share of the pie by using a free but uncanny similar
technology. And we are simply saying, "Hey. Stop that. That's our IP - you
know - 'find', 'ls' 'cat' 'sed' 'awk' 'ps' and so forth, that's our stuff. We
make a living selling that stuff and we are not going to allow the free market
system to copy, mimic, or otherwise use our stuff. We are going to act swiftly
and put a stop to it. We have no choice.
We have no choice.
ndb
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- From NOT Darl McBride - Authored by: ghost on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 05:02 AM EDT
- From NOT Darl McBride - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 07:00 AM EDT
- From NOT Darl McBride - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 07:10 AM EDT
- From NOT Darl McBride - Authored by: nuthead on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 07:24 AM EDT
- Relax - above is Clearly Tongue in Cheek - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 09:17 AM EDT
- Great Piece, Quasi-Darl!!! - Authored by: NotThatSmart on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 09:39 AM EDT
- From NOT Darl McBride - Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 09:49 AM EDT
- I think that is great - Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 10:30 AM EDT
- Heh :) - Authored by: xtifr on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 01:03 PM EDT
- From NOT Darl McBride - It's parody, folks - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 02:41 PM EDT
- From NOT Darl McBride - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 03:55 PM EDT
- From NOT Darl McBride - Authored by: Darigaaz on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 07:03 PM EDT
- From NOT Darl McBride - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 09:44 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 08:57 AM EDT |
Looking again through the EV1 agreement we see:
>> Section 1.10 "UNIX-based Code" means any Code or Method
that: (i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use,
functionality or adaptation (ii) is based on, developed in, derived from or is
similar to (iii) any Code contained in or Method devised or developed in (iv)
UNIX System V or UnixWare(r), or (v) any modification or derivative work based
on or licensed under UNIX System V or UnixWare. <<
From: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Novell-398Ex1-2.pdf
Based on the evidence from Caldera's own legal counsel, I think it'd be hard to
argue that SCO Source wasn't about UNIX System V. This isn't a press release,
this was _intended_ to be a binding contract. (IANAL, but I think it is, in
fact, a fraudulent instrument, since Caldera proports to be offering a license
on property that the court has ruled, and Caldera knew, it did not own.)
Maybe Novell's Lawyers won't point that out to the court.
The Flatlander
I confess, my favorite part is that their license to EV1 covers anything
"similar" to UNIX System V; they never let go of the notion of
"Similarright." And they WROTE it down and signed it.
Pfffffffffffffft.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: clark_kent on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
We will definitely learn from this experience for a very long time coming. This
is going to set a precedence for future business and software law. This is
testing ALL boundaries of software licensing and creation, with a recent
exception of a new twist in the short (50-60 year) history of computer software,
software patents.
The law is about "black and white" understanding and judgment, not
about politics. And people need to realize, these laws exist for a reason. For
ever since the United States was established, many people claiming to be upright
law abiding, fair, citizens have been trying to make a buck off the backs of
other people without giving proper respect and/or compensation. And I think SCO
has tried to get away with what Microsoft has been successful at doing,
overthrowing and compromising the industry. I have said it before, and I will
say it again. No one will repeat what Microsoft has done, because MOST of it's
business practices and methods can not be replicated in good faith and within
the law, and within a democratic society. SCO (as is anyone) is left with the
scraps of what Microsoft has successfully overcome in government, in politics,
and in law over the past 20 years, for it's quest to become a monopoly.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
I like this quote from McBride about Microsoft, cited by PJ:
"You're now hearing those guys talking about incorporating the Unix
technology into Longhorn."
Now we know why MS was so keen on an intellectual property deal with Novell. MS
received the source to System V from SCO, but knew SCO didn't really own it, so
they legitimized their past and future (mis)use of UNiX source by cornering
Novell into signing over the family heirlooms for a couple hundred million...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
From the current SCOsource
Presentation (PDF) still currently on their own website:
How
UNIX Applications run on UNIX using SCO
Shared Libraries
[Nice graphic
showing UnixWare and OpenServer libraries equally applied to Linux kernel.
UnixWare says "SVR4,SVR5", OpenServer side says "SVR3.x,SVR5"]
These
shared libraries
include SVR3.x - SVR5.
First
Delivereable
SCO System V for Linux
SCO’s Shared UNIX Libraries
from OpenServer and
UnixWare for use with Linux The only other
mention of "UnixWare" is in the UNIX timeline/history, which makes it clear that
SCO considers OpenServer and UnixWare to have very different pedigrees.
Looking over their Partner
s Training Presentation (PPT - the presentation dates from 2003), UnixWare
is only mentioned in the history section, and once in a section discussing why
a UnixWare license is not available yet Why start with
OpenServer COFF static libraries?
Most customer interest (some large
accounts)
Linux ABI Project interest/development focussed on SCO COFF
applications
Largest base of applications for SCO platforms Oldest
legacy applications
What about UnixWare Libraries?Next step is to
investigate value and feasibility
Customer demand?[et
cetera] Summary: SCO System V for Linux
License for SCO OpenServer Libraries on Linux
---
The
wise man is not embarrassed or angered by lies, only disappointed. (IANAL and so
forth and so on) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
You're too kind, PJ. After reading your rebuttal, and the huge amount of
analysis you've provided, I've come to a conclusion.
You've incorrectly attributed this to the opposing orafice.
But in the interests of decorum, I understand.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
