Red Hat sues SCO over Linux threats
Ergo Sum
prominent Linux distributors. It would have been a much stronger event if
other major distributors (Mandrake, SuSE, &c.) would have pitched in the
legal action.
The Open Source community must not take the SCO situation lightly, and
dismiss them with a brush of the hand, since even such an outrageous claim
might be granted validity in the court of laws, and constitute a very
serious threat to the OS comunity in general, and to Linux in particular.
For further information:
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5059547.html
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/04/technology/redhat.reut/
http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2003/08/04/daily6.html
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/6456523.htm
--
Cogito ergo sum
H. S.
What is the deal with SCO and Linux code? Why don't they just
specifically say what the code is, so that everybody can solve/resolve
this problem and continue going about their business?
->HS
--
---------------------- X ----------------------
Remove all underscores from my email address to get the correct one.
Apologies for the inconvenience, but this is to reduce spam.
Circuit Breaker
> Ergo Sum wrote:
>> This is a much awaited reaction against the SCO claim from one of the
>> most prominent Linux distributors. It would have been a much stronger
>> event if other major distributors (Mandrake, SuSE, &c.) would have
>> pitched in the legal action.
>>
>> The Open Source community must not take the SCO situation lightly, and
>> dismiss them with a brush of the hand, since even such an outrageous
>> claim might be granted validity in the court of laws, and constitute a
>> very serious threat to the OS comunity in general, and to Linux in
>> particular.
>>
>> For further information:
>>
>> http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5059547.html
>> http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/04/technology/redhat.reut/
>> http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2003/08/04/daily6.html
>> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/6456523.htm
>
> What is the deal with SCO and Linux code? Why don't they just
> specifically say what the code is, so that everybody can solve/resolve
> this problem and continue going about their business?
>
> ->HS
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$ $$$$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$ $$ $$$$ $$
$$$ $$$ $$$ $$ $$$ $$ $$$$ $$$$$$$ $$ $$$
$$$ $ $$$ $$ $$$ $ $ $$$$ $$$$$$$ $$$$$
$$$ $ $ $$$ $$ $$$ $$ $$$$ $$$$$$$$$ $$$$$
$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ $$ $$$$ $$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
--
__ _ _ ____ __
/ _|<_> _/\, _ __ _<_>/|_ | _ \ _/\, _, _ ||_ _, _/\,
| |__---| /\|/ _| ||---||_ | _ \| /\|/*_\/.| | <,/*_\| /\|
\__/|_||_| \_/\__/|_|\_/ |___/|_| \__/\_/\|_\|\__/|_|
Alan Hughes
"H. S." <g_reate_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7KAXa.2909$ef7.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Ergo Sum wrote:
> > This is a much awaited reaction against the SCO claim from one of the
most
> > prominent Linux distributors. It would have been a much stronger event
if
> > other major distributors (Mandrake, SuSE, &c.) would have pitched in the
> > legal action.
> >
> > The Open Source community must not take the SCO situation lightly, and
> > dismiss them with a brush of the hand, since even such an outrageous
claim
> > might be granted validity in the court of laws, and constitute a very
> > serious threat to the OS comunity in general, and to Linux in
particular.
> >
> > For further information:
> >
> > http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5059547.html
> > http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/04/technology/redhat.reut/
> > http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2003/08/04/daily6.html
> > http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/6456523.htm
>
> What is the deal with SCO and Linux code? Why don't they just
> specifically say what the code is, so that everybody can solve/resolve
> this problem and continue going about their business?
My guess is because there is actually no case to answer
The information that has come out so far (remember that SCO is insisting on
NDAs before letting anyone look at the code) indicates that there are 80
lines (out of about 2 million?) in the kernel that appear identical. However
the person who released this information was unable to identify the file
(due to the NDA), nor was he able to identify the context of the copied
lines (because SCO only showed him the copied bits and not the entire file).
He did say however that he subsequently found more-or-less identical code in
*standard* C programming text books!
So basically there are four scenarios:
1. IBM did copy code into the Linux kernel that is owned by SCO. Bad news,
but if its 80 lines of code then it can be purged in about 10 minutes.
2. IBM copied code in Linux kernel, but the code is not owned by SCO. If the
court comes to this descision then SCO is sunk.
3. The kernel code came from BSD (which is possible). SCO is sunk, and might
end up in front of the court for violating the old BSD/AT&T judgement.
4. The kernel code came from a text book. SCO is sunk, tarred, feathered,
and very publically humiliated.
Given that IBM is *not* making a lot of public noise on the issue, I suspect
that they have already decided that (1) is unlikely.
wild bill
>http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/04/technology/redhat.reut/
Wow!
Boom!
Hey, David Boies, didn't you notice that cannon ball across the bow?
Careful the next one doesn't catch you below the water line....
Bill
Tom D
>What is the deal with SCO and Linux code? Why don't they just
>specifically say what the code is, so that everybody can solve/resolve
>this problem and continue going about their business?
>
>->HS
>
>
>--
>---------------------- X ----------------------
>Remove all underscores from my email address to get the correct one.
>Apologies for the inconvenience, but this is to reduce spam.
>
They don't want anything to be resolved. If there is, in fact, any of
thier IP involved, and they point out what it is, that portion of code
would most likely just get rewritten and burst their little FUD
bubble.
Tom
Fredrick Kenniston
> What is the deal with SCO and Linux code? Why don't they just
> specifically say what the code is, so that everybody can solve/resolve
> this problem and continue going about their business?
>
> ->HS
In a way, they have in their suit against IBM. JFS, NUMA, SMTP and one other
"package" are named in the suit, if I recall right.
However, from the data I have read, IBM (and others, not SCO) own the copyrights
to this software.
SCO is trying to push the idea, through their suit, that these packages are
"derivative works" of their System V Unix and, as a result of IBM giving them or
allowing them to be made part of Linux, that they breached their contract with
SCO.
The rest of SCO's suit hinges on getting these packages adjudicated as
"derivative" works of their System V Unix (or any other version that might have
these packages).
There may be other instances, in Linux and its various distros, that contain
code that comes from even earlier published source from FreeBSD and other freely
available *ix OSes, which SCO might be claiming is a "copy" of their code.
And, in fact, SCO may have copied code from Linux to their Unix code, which
would not surprise me in the least.
--
Regards,
Fredrick
Circuit Breaker
Crossposting sucks
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:06:26 +0000, Tom D wrote:
> They don't want anything to be resolved. If there is, in fact, any of
> thier IP involved, and they point out what it is, that portion of code
> would most likely just get rewritten and burst their little FUD
> bubble.
Imagine, if you will, that I go and buy some copyrighted blueprints to a
small building, and integrate those blueprints - exactly - into the design
of a larger building, and sell my copy of the larger building's blueprints
(or give them away free or whatever) to whomever is interested. Are you
saying that if the designer of the original blueprint sues me for IP
infringement, that all I have to do is change my blueprints to where they
no longer use the original designer's plans, and I'm okay? You mean I
don't have to pay any fines or fees or royalties to the original designer
for all those copies that have already left my hands?
Don't get me wrong, I think SCO is full of it, but if there is any chance
of a court saying that they are correct and that they have IP rights to
code that is in Linux, then I think they're going to be getting some money
coming their way. And I think that's what this is all about.
Even if, as some have suggested, they get bought out by IBM or whoever,
they still win because that's someone else's money and time taking care of
them, absolving them of the need to keep books and track finances and
such, and they still "live" - even if it is in the belly of the beast, so
to speak.
This has been my (probably completely inaccurate) view of the matter.
Menno Duursma
> The information that has come out so far (remember that SCO is insisting on
> NDAs before letting anyone look at the code) indicates that there are 80
> lines (out of about 2 million?) in the kernel that appear identical.
for f in `find ./linux-2.4.21 -type f -print |grep -v Documentation`; do
while read l; do
if [[ $l != "" ]]; then
echo $l
fi
done <$f
done |wc -l
4209618
--
-Menno.
Thulemanden
> This is a much awaited reaction against the SCO claim from one of the most
> prominent Linux distributors. It would have been a much stronger event if
> other major distributors (Mandrake, SuSE, &c.) would have pitched in the
> legal action.
SuSE har a long time ago sued (complained) in Germany and the court
barred SCO from posting these unsubstantiated claims in public in
Germany. It's several months ago.
Bill Unruh
]Ergo Sum wrote:
]> This is a much awaited reaction against the SCO claim from one of the most
]> prominent Linux distributors. It would have been a much stronger event if
]> other major distributors (Mandrake, SuSE, &c.) would have pitched in the
]> legal action.
]>
]> The Open Source community must not take the SCO situation lightly, and
]> dismiss them with a brush of the hand, since even such an outrageous claim
]> might be granted validity in the court of laws, and constitute a very
]> serious threat to the OS comunity in general, and to Linux in particular.
]>
]> For further information:
]>
]> http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5059547.html
]> http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/04/technology/redhat.reut/
]> http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2003/08/04/daily6.html
]> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/6456523.htm
]What is the deal with SCO and Linux code? Why don't they just
]specifically say what the code is, so that everybody can solve/resolve
]this problem and continue going about their business?
Why would they? The current situation is far far more to their liking.
It may make them rich. The other way they will just end up in
bankruptcy.
Ergo Sum
> SuSE har a long time ago sued (complained) in Germany and the court
> barred SCO from posting these unsubstantiated claims in public in
> Germany. It's several months ago.
This is an interesting piece of info I didn't have.
Can you give me references (date, journal or site) so I can read both the
claim and the decision from the german courts?
Thanks.
--
Cogito ergo sum
Erik de Castro Lopo
>
> Why would they? The current situation is far far more to their liking.
> It may make them rich. The other way they will just end up in
> bankruptcy.
Yep, the pump and dump on the SCO stock will make them far more
money that any licensing ever will.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nos...@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
" Baldie is such a wonderful villain
The Linux/OSS community could not possibly ask for a better villain than
our man Baldie. He is absolutely perfect for the part. Just look at his
creds: 1) Physically repulsive; 2) Morally bankrupt; 3) Megalomaniacal;
4) Possessed of a truly nasty, abusive disposition; 5) Prone to Hitlerian
ranting; 6) Stalinesque paranoia... The list just goes on and on. The man
has the gift of true despicability, no doubt about it. If it weren't for
Baldie we'd be stuck with Bilgatus' merely vacuuous and creepy persona
for an anthropomorphization of the Evil Empire -- tepid at best."
-- Matthew Alton in LinuxToday.com on Steve Balmer
Fredrick Kenniston
> "package" are named in the suit, if I recall right.
Dang acronyms, I meant "SMP" not "SMTP", ugh.
--
Regards,
Fredrick
Bilbo
> Can you give me references (date, journal or site) so I can read both the
> claim and the decision from the german courts?
Does this help?
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1012947.html
--
If two wrongs don't make a right, try three.
-- Laurence J. Peter
Peter Hoff
I never heard anything about SuSE doing that, but I know the LinuxTAG
guys and one other group whose name I can't remember did. The other
group recieved an injunction first, and I never heard about the LinuxTAG
guys after that.
Alan Hughes
That of course includes comments etc.
#Harold Stevens US.972.952.3293
[Snip...]
>That of course includes comments etc.
Which I think is precisely the point of the exercise: SCO can make FUD all
day long and half the night over dubious duplications. But until a legally
binding venue with certified professionals argue the merits, it's all just
so much SCO bluffing, not even scheduled for prelims until 2005 (!).
In short, most businesses today have a lot more to worry about just making
next week's payroll, for cryin' out loud. And SCO needs to shutup or putup
code copy, so the rest of us can get on with making a living honestly.
And again not speaking for Raytheon, but they'll pry Tom's Root Boot Linux
off my servers and outta my cold dead fingers before I even consider their
patently absurd $699 ("initially"!) single CPU Linux license scam.
First dead giveaway a con artist is at work: You Must Sign Today (tm).
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (mklog*) in place for spambots.
Really it's (wyrd) at raytheon, dotted with com. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Standard Disclaimer: These are my opinions not Raytheon Company.
Solbu
Hash: SHA1
On tirsdag 5. august 2003, 22:26 Ergo Sum tried to express an opinion:
>> SuSE har a long time ago sued (complained) in Germany and the court
>> barred SCO from posting these unsubstantiated claims in public in
>> Germany. It's several months ago.
> Can you give me references (date, journal or site) so I can read both the
> claim and the decision from the german courts?
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9842
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/06/04/HNscosite_1.html
- --
Solbu - http://www.solbu.net
Remove 'ugyldig' for email
*****************************************
PGP key ID: 0xFA687324
*****************************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/MbEYT1rWTfpocyQRAvA1AKDuLD1QnyfwsNP8ZnHf8TdcnqNsCACbBv0r
WeEHHT5DvLhyPo/4ZhCdw5I=
=CO7p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
A Nengineer
Most people attacking SCO assume their claim is spurious, but they do so
without knowing the facts. That's the real purpose of a court of law, you
know.
I think when this is over, there are a lot of people who're going to be very
surprised. After all, with so many contributing to the Linux project, who is
really able to control the situation if Unix code really got into the
kernel?
Don't be surprised if prices go up.
"Ergo Sum" <goo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:JAzXa.15410$Yz....@charlie.risq.qc.ca...
>
Ivan Marsh
> But what if the claim is valid?
>
> Most people attacking SCO assume their claim is spurious, but they do so
> without knowing the facts. That's the real purpose of a court of law,
> you know.
SCO made the claim without stating any facts so what do you expect?
It's highly unlikely that code that SCO never wrote ended up in Linux.
Everything you need to know:
http://www.open5ource.net/opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
--
i.m.
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
Fredrick Kenniston
> But what if the claim is valid?
>
> Most people attacking SCO assume their claim is spurious, but they do so
> without knowing the facts. That's the real purpose of a court of law, you
> know.
>
> I think when this is over, there are a lot of people who're going to be very
> surprised. After all, with so many contributing to the Linux project, who is
> really able to control the situation if Unix code really got into the
> kernel?
>
> Don't be surprised if prices go up.
I do not know all the facts, but I have read all the suits filed (including
amended
ones) and what evidence I can find on the net.
SCO has no valid claim, but do not take my word for it. This is simply a
corporate exit strategy, trying to get someone to pony up to the bar and
pay SCO to shut up. In the mean time, keep making out-landish
accusations in the press, but not filing a suit regarding these "other" claims,
to pump up the stock price, so the stock holders can cash in while the
cashing is good.
Do not be surprised if the SEC and FTC join the party and help turn SCO
headquarters into a smoking black crater.
--
Regards,
Fredrick
Thulemanden
Oh my God, Now I'm support center and Google-nanny, I'll provide this,
then you have to use the search engines yourself. It was eveywhere.
Can't miss it.
http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-19-Injunction_Story01.html
May 28, Univention GmbH obtained a preliminary injunction from the
Bremen, Germany, Regional Court. The order prohibits SCO-Caldera from
circulating:
the idea that the Linux Operating System illegitimately acquired
and contains the Intellectual Property of SCO UNIX and/or that the end
users of LINUX can be made liable for patent/copyright infringements
against SCO's intellectual Properties.
Further, the Bremen Court Order provides for a fine of up to 250,000
Euros (around $250,000 U.S.) or jail time for every violation of the
Court Order:
each case of the offence carries a fine of up to 250,000.00 Euros,
or as a substitute, detention of the Managing Directors (CEO) of the
defendant could be imposed. The Order also makes SCO-Caldera liable
for the costs of the proceedings. .
(Translation from German to English by John Holroyd, Demos Technosis.)
Then, on 5 June 2003, Tarent GmbH obtained a similar preliminary
injunction against SCO-Caldera from the Munich Regional Court.
Interestingly, it appears that SCO-Caldera did not fully-comply with
the Munich Court Order. So, Tarent has asked the Munich Court to take
action for what amounts to SCO's contempt of the Munich Court Order.
http://www.suse.com/us/company/press/press_releases/archive03/sco_redhat.html
SuSE Supports RedHat's Open Source Initiative
There have been many unsubstantiated and inflamatory statements made
recently in an attempt, we believe, primarily to slow the inevitable
acceptance of Linux. Linux is a disruptive technology, troubling to
many, puzzling to some, potentially freeing to all. With every
disruptive technology, there will be those who fight to maintain the
status quo, fight to hold on to a losing proposition.
SCO has already been halted in Germany and we applaud Red Hat's
actions to help end their activities in the US -- and beyond.
We applaud their efforts to restrict the rhetoric of the SCO group --
and the FUD they are trying to instill -- and will determine quickly
what actions SuSE can take to support Red Hat in their efforts.
We call on SCO to stop the fear, uncertainty and doubt and join with
the rest of the IT community in building Linux into the next quantum
advance in technology.
Juha Kustaa Siltala
And now it's IBM's turn:
In News.com: "Big Blue files counterclaims against SCO"
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5060965.html
Looks like the good old Unix Wars are back!
--
Juha Siltala
Ethel the Ardvaark
> But what if the claim is valid?
Which claim? SCO has made many claims.
> Most people attacking SCO assume their claim is spurious, but they do so
> without knowing the facts. That's the real purpose of a court of law, you
> know.
The only thing SCO has done with respect to actual legal action is to
file suit against IBM for *contractual* violations. They have not
filed suit against anybody for copying SCO copyrighted code into
Linux. They have made claims that SCO code is in Linux. They have
provided no credible proof. All we have is some analysts under a SCO
NDA saying they saw some code snippets that are the same without any
contect in which to evaluate them.
In fact, it is this sort of nonsense that has prompted Red Hat to file
a suit against SCO basically telling them to put up or shut up.
Darryl_P...@acm.org
shareholders sue the management for in essance destroying the company, they
have less of a good corporate image now than Microsoft. They may have also
tried to artificially inflate their stock price, many of the SCO executives
sold off their stock immediately after the statement that they were revoking
IBMs license came out.
Darryl
Anthony W. Youngman
<nos...@mega-nerd.com> writes
>Bill Unruh wrote:
>>
>> Why would they? The current situation is far far more to their liking.
>> It may make them rich. The other way they will just end up in
>> bankruptcy.
>
>Yep, the pump and dump on the SCO stock will make them far more
>money that any licensing ever will.
Unless it lands them in porridge.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
Witches are curious by definition and inquisitive by nature. She moved in. "Let
me through. I'm a nosey person.", she said, employing both elbows.
Maskerade : (c) 1995 Terry Pratchett