LWN: Comments on "SCOsource and Linux"

(Hee, hee)

jre — Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:10:04 +0000

"In other words, anything could happen, though SCO would try to not upset too many people."
It is fun to go back and see how the world looked (only a short six months ago) before McBride, Sontag and the rest of the flying monkeys went forth, befouling everything.
Despite the quote above, LWN's commentary looks damn perceptive in retrospect.
Anyone care to make a prediction as to what we will be saying six months from now?

SCOsource and Linux

maotig — Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:04:37 +0000

The contention would be, SCO IP may have flowed though BSD as well, thus if Microsoft picked up "tainted" BSD bits, they would then have an issue with SCO, not BSD...

SCOsource and Linux

pabloa — Sat, 08 Feb 2003 20:26:32 +0000

This is stupid!

If SCO finds something the problem will be focalized only in the United States. It is NOT a Linux Problem. If the appareantly license violation is important then USA will be in troubles to continue using Linux and a lot of hi tech code.

Up to you. This is YOUR problem. The most of rest of the world has not ilogical licenses laws.

This is part of the state of think inside this country: the Taliban-Way to see the world. It's very extreme. It will be only bring troubles and technological desacceleration. Like the talibans of Afghanistan and their ilogical laws.

SCOsource and Linux

Stingray — Sat, 08 Feb 2003 19:56:10 +0000

Next time someone will remember that he owns some rights to product in which code assignment a += 2 exist. Then grep all opensource codebase and sue authors.

I can only categorize such "movements" as corporate stupidity.

Pedigree chart wishful thinking

Soruk — Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:14:20 +0000

AST now has - since he got permission from Prentice-Hall to do so, Minix has been relicensed under a BSD-like licence.

I haven't used it in a number of years, but it's still the only freely-available UNIX-like OS thast actually works for sub-386 systems.

SCOsource and Linux

yem — Tue, 04 Feb 2003 23:43:56 +0000

"everyone upgrades"
- I assume you mean the distro makers, because the users sure wont.

Also, I assume SCO could still go after the vendors for the revenue they made while the older "infringing" code was being distributed.

I don't know SCO and I don't remember UNIX. But the fact that they seem to be spending serious money/effort to investigate the linux (and other unix like) code is worrying.

SCOsource and Linux

wolfrider — Sun, 02 Feb 2003 02:55:49 +0000

>> If linux is infringing based on the assumptions in these posts then I'd say Microsoft really can't say they are 100% safe either, after all they are known to have lifted *BSD code into their networking.

--BSD code is under a different license. They're OK w/ MS using it.

SCOsource and Linux - very bad for SCO.

wolfrider — Sun, 02 Feb 2003 02:49:23 +0000

>> The only way that SCO will be able to reduce that uncertainty is to research and investigate whether any of our intellectual property currently resides within Linux, which is what the law firm of Boies, Schiller and Flexner are currently doing.

>> We do not feel we can rule out any particular response without impairing our fiduciary responsibility to our stockholders to protect their property. Certainly our first choice in helping to resolve this issue would not to be heavy handed in our response.

--Fiduciary responsibility, my donkey... They're just trying to get some publicity, and it looks like it will backfire on them. The sensible thing to do would be to audit the code FIRST, and QUIETLY, using CODERS (programmers)...

--Then, *if* they found something, go to the LKML and the distros. Involving lawyers before obtaining definitive proof puts them in a VERY bad light. The way they're doing things right now helps to spread FUD about Linux - even though with BOTD, that may not have been their *intention* when they thought up this press release.

--But my perception is that nobody really cares about SCO anymore, and this may turn out to be another nail in their coffin.

** LKML == Linux Kernel Mailing List
** FUD == Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
** BOTD == Benefit of the Doubt (they may not have had bad intentions)

M$ buying SCO

tres — Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:42:16 +0000

Skipping over the political with the single comment that the current administration (including Ashcroft's DOJ) has been bought and paid for by more than a few different industries -- I don't see anyway that Microshaft can take either Linux or Apple out of the picture without raising some serious anti-trust issues. Didn't Billy invest $100M in Apple when Jobs announced that the new Mac would be using Explorer as the default browser? In reality Macs are not really a threat to Windoze but they have to be kept around so that M$'s monopoloy is not so obvious.

Linux, on the other hand, is a different sort of beast! It is disruptive technology; it will revolutionise the way computers work; Gates commoditized the peripheral industry and Linux will commoditize the software industry. In short, it is a real threat to Micro$oft and M$ will deal with it. M$' .Net strategy, in my opinion, was a way to move the monopoly from the OS level to that of the middleware libraries. This was probably in case the antitrust issue went the wrong way but it would be handy for Linux too. If they can move the monopoly to a middle layer then they could even adopt Linux as the base OS in a similair way to Apple adopting BSD. Imagine a stable Winblows!

But to outright kill it by buying SCO would raise the ire of too many congressmen. Mr. Hatch, from Novell territory, has been hearing about M$' exploits for quite some time now. The congressmen that represent Silicon Valley in CA, Silicon Alley in NY, Raleigh NC, and the many other little areas throughout the country that have sprung up are not exactly in M$' back pocket either. Even if M$ could get it by the FTC it would be extremely hard for the DOJ not to re-examine the monopoly issue yet again. Failing that there is always the EU. That purchase would be too hot even for the brazen MS to touch since such a purchase would not just threaten Linux.

M$ buying SCO would also threaten the ONLY OTHER VIABLE ALTERNATIVE to M$: UNIX. This would include Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, {Free,Open,Net}BSD, OS-X, Mach, etc. and all of the companies that have interests in those other operating systems. Those corporations have expensive lawyers and lobbyists that would be swung into action. Perhaps DEC (Compaq or HP or whoever they are this month) could dust off VMS as that would be just about the only thing that would be left. M$ needs to have a smaller profile in the battle than using nuclear weapons.

Their coming patent fights will be in many forms. For example they will try to protect their SMB protocols so as to regain their revenue from the file and print server markets. They may come from acquiring other companies as well but SCO would still be too hot. They will attack it from as many different angles as well causing as much damage as possible but they will not destroy it in one fell swoop. That would cause too much attention.

The biggest advantage that Free Software has, besides the obvious legions of devoted developers, is its standing within the rest of the world besides the US and EU. The fact that it can be trusted by governments to run their intelligence communities will force its adoption in many areas of foreign government starting with their defense departments. At the same time its licensing costs will make it attractive to a large public audience that can't spend six month's of salary for a computer. Schools need to teach theory more than application and since the OS that is best for this is also free the economic pressure will eventually silence the political pressure. And don't forget that the easiest way to fix the software piracy issue is to use Free Software.

On a different note, isn't there something in the GPL that states that if you pursue a patent claim against a piece of GPLed software that you forfeit all your rights regarding that piece of software? If that is the case then wouldn't SCO (Caldera) loose the right to market a Linux distribution if they pursue a patent claim against it?

GNU still visionary

ber — Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:39:19 +0000

The article makes me think of how much of the GNU/Linux
operating system SCO really targets. Is is just the kernel or more?

It also shows again that the carefull approach of the GNU project
(GNU is _not_ Unix) by the FSF was justified. Many people critisied
the FSF for insisting in copyright assignments and written permissions
from employers for crucicial part of the GNU system. The position
of the Free Software movement would have been a lot weaker without
that precautions. They might have felt exaggerrated ten years ago,
but this incident again demonstrates that they were visionary.

SCOsource and Linux

mgh — Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:03:01 +0000

If linux is infringing based on the assumptions in these posts then I'd say Microsoft really can't say they are 100% safe either, after all they are known to have lifted *BSD code into their networking.

On the other hand SCO sueing Microsoft - popular pastime as it seem to be just now I am not sure I'd bet on SCO....

SCOsource and Linux

pointwood — Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:22:27 +0000

I'm certainly worried about this too. I don't think SCO will get much out of this though, all the negative press they have already got, will certainly not give them many new customers.

In regards to MS, I actually think their license says that they aren't responsible for that.

Pedigree chart wishful thinking

eru — Thu, 30 Jan 2003 07:57:45 +0000

> AFAIK, Minux was a reimplementation of a Unix-like system and was not
> derived from an existing system.

Minix is not just a re-implementation, but internally a very different
design: the kernel consists of a set of processes that pass messages
between them. By contrast, Linux uses the same monolithic kernel approach
as the original Unix. The only thing that Minix shares with Unix is the
API. The original Minix version implemented only the old features
that 7. Edition Unix had already in the 1970's.

> Andrew Tanenbaum used it for teaching students. Any old-timers out there
> to confirm?

Yes, and he published a text book on operating systems, using Minix as
his concrete example. The book actually lists the entire Minix kernel.
It ran on a PC XT or compatible: even a hard disk was not necessary
in the original version. I installed it on mine soon after it came out.
A great learning experience.

Orginal Unix patents should have expired

nas — Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:59:49 +0000

It looks like the setuid patent has expired. I still think SCO is silly to imply that IP flowed from Unix to Minux to Linux.

Pedigree chart wishful thinking

da4089 — Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:41:31 +0000

i imagine the issue is patents, not copyright, in which case it is the design of features (and possibly their expresion via system calls) that might at issue? for instance, i think DMR has a patent on the setuid mechanism.

as i recall, AndyT's stated goal was to make Minix AT&T 7th Ed compatible at the programming level.

as an aside, i would have thought that Minix was least likely to have IP problems, being implemented as a set of cooperating servers, rather than a monolithic kernel.

Pedigree chart wishful thinking

emkey — Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:00:01 +0000

Thats certainly my recollection. The only reason its distribution was restricted was because of the agreement Tanenbaum had signed with... Prentice Hall I believe who distributed the book. Even then you could give copies to other under some circumstances. If he'd release Minix to the public domain back then we likely wouldn't ever have heard of Linus.

SCO is still a contender...

erat — Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:59:16 +0000

Just look at the number of high profile installations of OpenServer and you'll see that "SCO binaries" are still hot. Lots of companies are dipping their toes in the Linux pool, but the McDonalds/BMW/Nasdaqs (to name a few) of the world are still heavily invested in UNIX. Migration to Linux is not a simple thing to do when your company covers the planet. By dropping support for Linux-ABI, migration from SCO OSes to Linux just became that much more expensive. It costs a hell of a lot less to license libraries than it does to port/debug existing "SCO binaries", especially considering the nasty fragmentation that Linux distributors STILL embrace (the fools...).

Let's not let our endearment of Linux cloud our judgement... SCO operating systems are probably running more Fortune 100 businesses than Linux.

Contributory Infringement

brugolsky — Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:53:28 +0000

SCO's immediate assertion is that some folks are illegally using
SCO libs on Linux.

Red Hat has dumped linux-abi from their kernel (allegedly because
it is unmaintained); this conveniently sidesteps charges of contributory
infringement.

A few years ago, running SCO binaries mattered to a lot of people, but
I can't imagine that more than a handful of shops care anymore. Linux
is rapidly becoming the ABI standard. :-)

Pedigree chart wishful thinking

nas — Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:49:14 +0000

Not only is the link between Minux and Linux dubious, I think the link between Minux and the original Unix code is also questionable. AFAIK, Minux was a reimplementation of a Unix-like system and was not derived from an existing system. Andrew Tanenbaum used it for teaching students. Any old-timers out there to confirm?

Hmm, I wonder if SCO got permission to use Éric Lévénez's chart? It looks like they took it and highlighted the branches that lead to Unix. Nice research work boys. If they didn't get permission, I think they have their own copyright problems. :-)

SCOsource and Linux

rfunk — Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:44:07 +0000

This 'impressive "SCO Intellectual Property Pedigree"' that SCO has posted is actually a variant on a chart that's been around for a few years; the original author's version can be found at http://www.levenez.com/unix/.

While the chart is impressive, SCO seems to be banking on some dubious connections it contains, particularly the connection between Minix and Linux. While Linus used Minix as a development platform in the early days, the chart indicates some sort of derivation beyond that, as if he used Minix code as well. But Linus has said from the beginning that he did not do that. SCO's connection of Linux to their own Unix intellectual property rests solely on this tenuous connection between Minix and Linux.

I think SCO (remember, actually Caldera with a new name they purchased) is desperately grasping for some way to get money from Linux, since they apparently haven't been successful by the more direct route. They may come up with something, but I have doubts about the legitimacy of whatever they come up with.

SCOsource and Linux

rknop — Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:39:05 +0000

I'm worried.

All it takes is one fairly high-profile SCO announcment to give the MS FUD brigades all they need to discouarage business adoption of Linux. "We can assure you that we have fully licenced all the intellectual property in Windows," they will say. "With Linux, there is no vendor, and *you* might find yourself sued if there are IP violations in it. The risk is just not worth it."

A powerful argument. Yeah, this isn't *too* likely to create problems for the home hacker and hobby user like most of us, but it can put a serious crimp in Linux's road towards becoming more mainstream and widespread.

(Indeed, I wouldn't put it past MS to buy SCO and then start suing schools who use Linux. Schools going to Linux have to be a *major* fly in MS's soup.)

In broader terms, our country needs to get over its hangups on intellectual property. Yeah, lots of highly paid patent and copyright lawers will have to find new jobs, but I'm not going to weep over that. Right now, we're so concerned about protecting "intellectual property" that we've lost a lot of perspective. Want a perscription drug benefit in Medicare? I bet it's a whole lot cheaper if you elimiate all pharmceutical patents (thereby allowing rapid production of "generic" drugs)--- even when you factor in the fact that the government will have to sponsor research currently sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Plus, you aren't in the morally treacherous situation of having to argue that you need to protect your patents to protect your companies while meanwhile millions of people are dying of AIDS in third world countries.

Copyrights and patents have a purpose, but they've been elevated to ends unto themselves in our country, and we're all going to suffer for that. Linux users are just the tip (or even just a little piece on the side) of the iceburg.

-Rob

SCOsource and Linux

clugstj — Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:28:54 +0000

In the time it takes to mount a lawsuit, Linus releases a patch which nullifies the infringement, everyone upgrades, and SCO gets NOTHING but heartburn.

I'm just not that worried.