SCO Establishes SCOsource to License UNIX Intellectual Property [LWN.net]

SCO Establishes SCOsource to License UNIX Intellectual Property

Posted Jan 23, 2003 15:09 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

There was a lot of noise about this a week or two ago.

In a nutshell, what are the *real* worries for Linux about this? What does SCO own that could hamper Linux systems? Is it copyrights to specific libraries that Linux uses (unlikely, since if there is a worry about that then the libraries weren't licenced as free software in the first place), or is it patents on certain things? Or trademarks?

If it's just proprietary stuff they're going to be offering for Linux, then no big deal. Lots of people do that. I wish them luck, and will subsequently ignore them.

On the other hand, if they're going to start going after other Linux vendors for "violating their intellectual property", because they think they have some claim to something that comes standard with GNU/Linux systems, then there's a huge worry.

And if there is a worry, the next question is: how do we take SCO down without opening them up for being purchased by M$?

I wish I knew what the real situation is; is this something to worry about, or are they "just another" proprietary vendor?

-Rob

SCO Establishes SCOsource to License UNIX Intellectual Property

Posted Jan 23, 2003 16:14 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

From the press release:

As part of SCO's plans to protect its intellectual property, the company has retained David Boies of the law firm Boies, Schiller and Flexner for research and protection of SCO's patents, copyrights and other intellectual property.

This doesn't sound like they are going to sell something (without legal pressure). It's more like that are going to go after somebody. Lawyers like Boies must be expensive, SCO must have a serious reason to hire him.

SCO Establishes SCOsource to License UNIX Intellectual Property

Posted Jan 23, 2003 17:48 UTC (Thu) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link]

As I understand it...

iBCS, the Intel Binary Compatibility Specification, is (was) a standard ABI for x86 Unices. Unices that used it, like SCO Unix (OpenServer) and Unixware, could share binaries.

The Linux kernel has an iBCS module, enabling you to use programs compiled for iBCS on Linux. However, such programs are usually linked against System V libraries. To get these programs working, you need to copy these libraries from a System V box. This is a breach of SCO copyright.

SCO are establishing a way to license these libraries on Linux machines, so you can legally run iBCS binaries.

It's not an issue for any Free Software that anyone cares about. It is an issue for companies with Unix binaries that they need to continue to run, but can't port to Linux (either the vendor has gone bust, or no longer cares about the product, or the sources have been lost).

James.

SCO Establishes SCOsource to License UNIX Intellectual Property

Posted Jan 23, 2003 18:53 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

SCO are establishing a way to license these libraries on Linux machines, so you can legally run iBCS binaries.

If that's what this is all about, then great. SCO is doing a service, and more power to them and the people who care.

A few weeks ago, when these rumblings first started, there was a lot of fear and uncertainty about how SCO was going to be claming license fees for every Linux installation or some such. If that was all just so much noise, then g reat.

-Rob

iBCS?

Posted Jan 23, 2003 17:46 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

There used to be a compatibility library that would allow you to execute binaries built for old SCO systems on Linux. Was it called iBCS? I had thought it rotted years ago, but the Debian archives still have it. I don't know if it contains any SCO-copyrighted code.

It would make not entirely unreasonable business sense for SCO to try to rake back in old customers who had abandoned their SCO boxes and now run those old programs on Linux instead. SCO used to take >$1K/year on those machines. They might think that taking just $99 from each Linux replacement is generous.

Anybody who is still running old SCO binaries (whether on Linux or, particularly, still on SCO) is probably locked in pretty well. The extra $99 isn't enough to make a doctor, auto mechanic, or real-estate office migrate to something else. If they're migrating to Linux at this late date, then the step from $1K to $99 is almost as good as from $1K to $0.

iBCS?

Posted Jan 23, 2003 19:58 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

Looking at timestamps:

(Posted Jan 23, 2003 17:46 UTC (Thu) by ncm) There used to be...
(Posted Jan 23, 2003 17:48 UTC (Thu) by james) As I understand it...

Thanks, James, for clearing that up.

Evidently SCO's interest is in those shops who have not kept up their old license, or who have copied the needed files onto additional Linux hosts.

Nothing about this seems to warrant the attention of a David Boies. I wonder what they have in mind. Maybe they hope to get a list of customers who use the iBCS code so they know whom to hit up, and they need Boies to help get the list; or, they hope to attach conditions to the distribution of iBCS so that customers will know they have to talk to SCO before they use it.