SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com) [LWN.net]

SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com)

Posted Jun 16, 2003 20:37 UTC (Mon) by NerdlyMcGeek (guest, #8453) [Link] (1 responses)

Is it just me or is this sounding more and more like Bagdad Bob has a hand in this?

I think Linus had them pegged right when he refered to this whole debacle as a bad Jerry Springer episode....

SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com)

Posted Jun 17, 2003 3:26 UTC (Tue) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link]

'Bagdad Bob'? All the clues I'm channeling are pointing to 'Bigtooth Scott'.

SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com)

Posted Jun 16, 2003 21:18 UTC (Mon) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] (3 responses)

If I'm not mistaken AIX was first realeased sometime in the mid-eighties. It seems likely that most of the fancy stuff in AIX was developed by IBM since that time, so what does this leave SCO with IP claims to other than perhaps SVR4 IPC? Fork()? Open()? Is there anything that IBM has licensed from SCO that couldn't be replaced with code from FreeBSD?

SCO is claiming all modern OSes

Posted Jun 16, 2003 22:17 UTC (Mon) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] (2 responses)

Is there anything that IBM has licensed from SCO that couldn't be replaced with code from FreeBSD?

SCO is not limiting it's claims to Linix, AIX or IBM. In fact, Sontag is moving towards claiming ALL modern OSes are derivative works from the AT&T code base from the 70's and thus ultimately belong to SCO. HPUX, Irix, *BSD and even Windows (which is not immune vis-a-vis the recent license purchase, since it only covered an application interface layer). See the interview in Byte:

Sontag's big reach

SCO is claiming all modern OSes

Posted Jun 16, 2003 23:32 UTC (Mon) by dmomara (guest, #11454) [Link]

UNIX is a derivitive of MULTICS.

Funny comments are copyright of the Beavers. Be hacked by the best!

UNIX is a registered trademark of the Open Group in the United States and other countries.

SCO is claiming all modern OSes

Posted Jun 17, 2003 1:06 UTC (Tue) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

Thanks for the link. From the Byte story:

We believe that UNIX System V provided the basic building blocks for all subsequent computer operating systems, and that they all tend to be derived from UNIX System V (and therefore are claimed as SCO's intellectual property)."

Well, there's always Amiga OS. :-)

It's interesting that Chris Sontag is claiming all subsequent operating systems "tend to be derived" from System V, not just UNIX-like operating systems. I wonder, does he include Windows NT in this group, which is more akin to VMS than UNIX?

The idea that all good OS ideas flow of SCO is incredible. Has he actually used Unixware. More to the point, does he know that it sucks?

SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com)

Posted Jun 16, 2003 21:36 UTC (Mon) by torsten (guest, #4137) [Link]

I'm a little confused. SCO claims contract breach over the Monterrey project. Why are they then going after IBM's AIX? What are the terms of the contract IBM has to use original AT&T UNIX sources, and what are the terms of the Monterrey Project contract - and which one is at stake?

SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com)

Posted Jun 16, 2003 23:14 UTC (Mon) by kunitz (subscriber, #3965) [Link]

I personally love that quote:

SCO said that the termination of the AIX license means that all IBM
Unix customers also have no license to use the software. "This
termination not only applies to new business by IBM, but also
existing copies of AIX that are installed at all customer sites. All of it
has to be destroyed," Sontag said.

I'm sure that my customer would like to see a final court decision,
before it terminates customer service by shutting down AIX
machines. I don't think that SCO's business isn't large enough, to
cover all the damages if they lose their case.

I think it's a sure sign of lack of professionalism, that SCO executives
make so many comments on a pending law suit. I would expect, that
the company informs the public about legal events and let the
lawyers do their work.

Notify that SCO revokes the license of closed source product. I'm
convinced, that the fact that the GPL has never been discussed in a
court is a strength of the license and not a weakness. They GPL can't
be revoked by its very nature. SCO vs. IBM is not about the GPL, it's
about the UNIX license. SCO would be happy if it could prove in
court the cancer-like nature of their proprietary UNIX license.

SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com)

Posted Jun 16, 2003 23:46 UTC (Mon) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link]

That should make SCO some more friends, and convince the world of the benefits of proprietary software as well.

I think the above statement is key. For years, detractors of the GPL and of distributed, open development models (like those used in much of the Free Software world) have been concerned about cases like this current SCO vs. IBM one possibly lurking to eventually revoke their right to use Free Software.

If SCO succeeds in obtaining an injuction (which I don't think will happen, but stranger things have happened under the U.S. justice system), then the a very strange precedent will be reinforced: the ability of one company to take away the rights of the customers of a competitor or partner to use that competitor's (or partner's) software. Wasn't the proprietary software business model(s) supposed to give customers protection against this kind of thing?

It's wouldn't be the first time this has happened, though. The patents that Microsoft did not properly license for it's SQL Server (forgot who the patent owner was) has made some SQL Server customers liable for patent fees.

It's time for opponents of Free Software to get a clue and admit that, due to the absurd U.S. justice system (that at times seems is being forced down the rest of the world's collective throat), proprietary software is not one bit safer to use than Free Software from a legal liability point of view.

In fact, if you stick to Free Software directly from the Free Software Foundation due to is copyright transfer policy (a 'paper' trail exists), then Free Software is probably the safer route. I do acknowledge, though, that that's not quite practical (yet). (Hurd needs much work.)

SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com)

Posted Jun 17, 2003 0:00 UTC (Tue) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link] (6 responses)

Not a 100% on topic, but close enough. I just caught on Freshmeat that 3.28 of nmap has been released. Here's a very apropos quote from the CHANGELOG file:

o SCO operating systems are no longer supported due to their recent
  (and absurd) attacks against Linux and IBM.  Bug reports relating to
  UnixWare will be ignored, or possibly even laughed at derisively.
  Note that I have no reason to believe anyone has ever used Nmap on
  SCO systems.  Unixware sucks.

I can't really think of too much downside to this and hope to see more releases of Free Software come out soon with comments (and actually code changes) like this.

It may be sad day for Unixware and/or SCO Openserver users, but that sadness should have started the day the dynamic duo (Sontag and McBride) started their bull in a china shop rampage.

SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com)

Posted Jun 17, 2003 4:00 UTC (Tue) by fozzy (guest, #7022) [Link] (4 responses)

One aspect of the GPL that mustn't be forgotten is that you have no right to say how someone will use the code. Adding a clause "This can't be used on SCO because they are stupid" is in violation of the GPL. But then again, IANAL.

SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com)

Posted Jun 17, 2003 4:49 UTC (Tue) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link]

Oh, I 100% agree. However, the nmap author has every right (as does any GPL software author) to remove support for any platform and reject any patches for said platforms into the author's own version of his code. To those who want Unixware support, Fyodor can tell them for 'fork away,' in addition to just telling them to 'fork off.' ;-)

I'm not suggesting that we prohibit the running of Free Software (GPL licensed or otherwise FSF or OSI approved) on any SCO operating systems. (As you point out, at least in the case of the GPL, that's not possible, anyhow.) I'm just suggesting that it would be fair play to make it difficult to run it on SCO without maintaining forks of as many Free Software projects as possible.

And I would not accept the accusation from anyone (not that you have made the accusation) that this would be a childish act. Why should *any* Free Software developer spend even another second of his precious time supporting the operating system products of a company that has zero appreciation for what they do. SCO is a pariah and should be isolated from all the good work that the FOSS communities do.

SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com)

Posted Jun 17, 2003 7:27 UTC (Tue) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] (2 responses)

You're reading the GPL correctly, but you're not reading the Changelog correctly. If you want to make nmap run on SCO UnixWare, that is OK but just don't expect anyone to help.

Personally, I think that UnixWare users have enough to worry about, and if nmap doesn't work they probably don't care at this point.

Free software on SCO platforms

Posted Jun 17, 2003 15:35 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (1 responses)

I maintain a free software product, and the latest release will not compile on SCO platforms unless you add:

--enable-running-on-scummy-sco

to the ./configure command. (The software is GPL'd, so if someone wants to fork it to remove this setting, that's fine, but I think it gets the point across.)

Free software on SCO platforms

Posted Jun 17, 2003 18:29 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

> I maintain a free software product, and the latest release will not compile on SCO platforms unless you
> add:
>
> --enable-running-on-scummy-sco

Don't be childish. This kind of attitude hurts SCO users, not the idiots running that particular show. SCO users should get our sympaty (and help for getting out of the mess they will soon be in, when SCO goes under).

SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com)

Posted Jun 18, 2003 4:57 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

SCO support has also been removed from GNU Midnight Commander.

SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com)

Posted Jun 17, 2003 1:56 UTC (Tue) by TheOneKEA (guest, #615) [Link] (1 responses)

This is funny. It seems to me that every time SCO opens its
mouth it says something even stranger. Now they've decided to
revoke the customer's right to use an OS that's _distributed_
_by_ _another_ _company_. Even worse is their comment that
Linus is unwilling to help them identify where their stolen
code reached the Linux kernel.

HELLO? Have they ever heard of marc.theaimsgroup.com? Or
www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel? Or even groups.google.com?
They don't NEED Linus's assistance, they can do it themselves!
*sigh*

Regardless of any IP concerns, I don't think SCO has a legal leg
to stand on. The only thing that could make this worse is if
someone at SCO contradicts Sontag ;)

SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com)

Posted Jun 17, 2003 3:06 UTC (Tue) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link]

It's a popular misconception that everything that has gone into the kernel has an audit trail. True, many patches are cc'ed to linux-kernel, linux-mm, or lse-tech. But many patches just go directly to Linus.

For the past 14 months or so, Linus has used BitKeeper, and this shows the origin of the changesets fairly accurately, even for people who send traditional gnu patches.

Before that, the changelogs were a little sparse. For all the meanings of that word, see the README file in Linus' sparse checker.

So, it may be a challenge to determine with great certainty the source of the code in question, unless the original developer recognizes their own code and/or someone very familiar with that code steps forward and testifies to the code's origin in court.

To guard against the possibility that SCO has just taken some Linux code and pasted it into their code to show false identicality, I hope that IBM will insist on SCO making their code compile and link and then show that the resulting binary is the same as what they have previously distributed.

If SCO can't do that, then you know the saying about "....pants on fire".

Humor - SCO Linux 2.4 Technology Review (GPLed) still selling

Posted Jun 17, 2003 2:49 UTC (Tue) by freeio (guest, #9622) [Link] (1 responses)

I happened to look through the Linux Central web site today (2003/06/16) while looking for a distribution of my favorite flavor of free software, and happened upon the full boxed set of "Caldera Linux Technology Preview," for all of US $19.95. Sure enough, there are three-year-old boxed sets still on the shelf, complete with the shrink wrap license (which US courts have held to be valid and binding) which has all of the usual Linux 2.4.x kernel and files, binary and source, released under GPL.

A quick google search showed that this is still advertised on the Caldera/SCO website at http://www.caldera.com/products/preview/ So it would appear that it has not been worth SCO's time to try to get the old stock back from the distributors, although it does leave them in a bit of a legal bind not to do so. If someone buys the set, does he have the SCO/Caldera blessing to the GPL'ed code, under the GPL, or not?

If not, then why should SCO not have to recall every last one of those distribution kits (I have at least one here somewhere), and buy them back from the original buyers, since they claim that they contain their code which they wish they had not released under GPL. Just trying to cancel a sale, after the fact, should not be able to be done with no repercussions.

Marty

Humor - SCO Linux 2.4 Technology Review (GPLed) still selling

Posted Jun 17, 2003 3:25 UTC (Tue) by macinta (guest, #11624) [Link]

You don't event need to buy it, you can just download it here:

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Server/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS

SCO has supposedly been placed on notice about this (well, not that exact link, another one on the server) and told to cease and desist. You'd think they would have taken this down by now.

SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com)

Posted Jun 17, 2003 3:25 UTC (Tue) by ttraub (guest, #2950) [Link] (1 responses)

The incredible thing is that their lawyer Boies is going along with this nonsense, and on a contingency basis to boot. Typical prostitute, for sale to the highest bidder regardless of how ridiculous or unethical or destructive it might be. I hope he wastes a whole lot of his firm's time and totally discredits himself. Feh.

SCO cancels IBM Unix license (News.com)

Posted Jun 17, 2003 4:30 UTC (Tue) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link]

Here is a conspiracy theory: What if Microsoft, by funding this Jerry Springer episode, is acting as an agent provocateur - "a person hired to join a labor union, political party, etc. in order to incite its members to actions that will make them or their organization liable to penalty" (Webster's New World Dictionary, 1972)

The larger goal of this is to put the final nails in the coffin of UNIX by causing SCO to self-destruct. They're essentially saying "Hey, let's you and him fight". And "him" has the largest and most competent legal department of any IT organization on the planet. Oh yeah, that's a great idea.

A secondary benefit is Microsoft's recent antagonist David Boies is further discredited with yet another defeat.