×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

SCO Awarded UNIX Copyright Regs, McBride Interview

Hemos posted more than 11 years ago | from the it-drags-on-and-on-and-on dept.

Caldera 1388

Prizm writes "It seems that SCO is continuing to build up its case for world domination, as today it was awarded U.S. copyright registrations for UNIX System V source code by the U.S. Copyright Office. Shares are up 20%, Novell is nowhere to be found, and SCO is releasing binary, run-only Linux licensing. You can read all about it over in their press release." C|Net is also running an interview with McBride.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Tiresias_Mons (247567) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491252)

No I haven't RTFA'd yet, but yeah, I'm tired of SCO.

FUCK YOU GNAA (-1, Troll)

rkz (667993) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491253)

you suck, we would like the usualy goatse links and FP!!!!! please

If this is not the first post... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6491255)

...I will shit my pants at work and leave the present in my boss's office.

As always, links to pictures will be posted.

Re:If this is not the first post... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6491336)

YOU FAIL IT

Get to shittin' boy!

There can be no doubt about it (-1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6491258)

UNIX rightfully belongs to SCO, and SCO will bring down the wrath of justice upon terrorist operations like IBM.

Re:There can be no doubt about it (1, Funny)

fataugie (89032) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491292)

In other words

The Streets will flow with the blood of the Non-Believers"

Re:There can be no doubt about it (-1, Troll)

classic66coupe (684338) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491299)

and you are a moron.

Yeah! Finally! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6491262)

Down with Socialist Linux. Up with SCO and all it stands for, whatever that is.

Re:Yeah! Finally! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6491393)

Down with Socialist Linux. Up with SCO and all it stands for, whatever that is.

Why was the parent modded down as Troll? This is an opinion, so why not reply?

In other news... (5, Funny)

kw (79895) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491267)

SCO awarded patent on breathable air technology, stock in Nature down 50%

The scary thing (5, Insightful)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491268)

Does anybody have info as to how expensive this Linux licensing is going to be? It's quite possible that many companies may just pay the fee instead of going through the time, effort, cost and liability of doing otherwise. It's sad to see SCO actually get rewarded for how they're conducting themselves...

Re:The scary thing (2, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491313)

unfortunatly, no matter how we feel about this, they are doing it legally.

If they own the copyrights to SysV code then they can enforce them as they see fit.

If they can prove that Linux infringes upon those copyrights, then they will be able to charge for its use.

And please don't say copyright law is crap, we all know it, but it doesn't make it any less valid/enforcable.

Re:The scary thing (5, Interesting)

The Fanta Menace (607612) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491338)

How can they force people to pay for the bits that don't belong to them? Assuming any do at all, that is.

Re:The scary thing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6491363)

they can only force us to pay for what we have in the kernel. So if you are using SMP (which they claim they own the rights to) then they can charge you to use that.

I assume an immediately new kernel would be released and everyone would move to a completely "clean" kernel.

I can't understand why that hasn't happened already, but what do I know?

Re:The scary thing (3, Insightful)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491375)

I'm not saying they don't have the right to enforce their copyright, but you have to admit that the way they're doing business these days, such as sending threatening letters to the Fortune 1000 and smearing OS leaders and practices, is generating plenty of illwill out there. I can't see them doing well in the long-term as a result of the last few months...

Re:The scary thing (0)

garcia (6573) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491409)

this is all irrelevant. They applied for a copyright and were given it. That means that ALL SysV code is owned by them.

If Linux is using SysV code (which apparently it is) then they can enforce licensing of that.

Their actions against the community means NOTHING. Smear campaigns, "extortion", whatever, does NOT matter.

They own copyrights, they enforce them, we pay.

Re:The scary thing (5, Informative)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491404)

If they own the copyrights to SysV code then they can enforce them as they see fit.

If they can prove that Linux infringes upon those copyrights, then they will be able to charge for its use.


Wrong answer. *They* themselves distributed a Linux kernel, complete with source up until a week or so after they filed the suit, IIRC. If it was infringeing then, then they have relased whatever code might be in there under the terms of the GNU General Public License.

Since the Linux kernel wouldn't by any means be comprised of 100% of their code, that makes any Linux kernel that contains their code a derivative work. Which means that they MUST distribute the source to remain in compliance with license.

In other words, SCO, by releasing a binary-only Linux, is violating the terms of the GNU General Public License, and hence, they are breaking the law.

Re:The scary thing (4, Insightful)

twistedcubic (577194) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491417)


unfortunatly, no matter how we feel about this, they are doing it legally.

Umm, no. They can't distribute other people's copyrighted code, and this includes Linux. If someone inserted unauthorized code in Windows, would the copyright holder get to own Windows???? The only way SCO can distribute Linux is under the GPL.

Uh, no. (5, Informative)

mcc (14761) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491422)

They will not under any circumstances be able to forcibly charge for its use. The nature of the GPL is such that if Linux is found to be infringing on the SysV copyrights, the only options will be:
  • Convince SCO to freely license the copyrights to everyone.
  • Change the Linux code to no longer be in violation of the copyright.
  • Stop distributing linux.
The GPL quite clearly states that if you will not provide source code to a GPLed binary you distribute, and if you will not allow someone you give GPLed source/binary to to redistribute it under the GPL, it is a GPL violation to distribute it at all. SCO can claim Linux in violation of their copyrights but they can't remove Linux from the GPL.

Not so scary... (5, Informative)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491429)

Since SCO distributed the OTHER portions of the code that are non-infringing with their IP intermixed, they're in an unenviable position of knowingly infringing the IP rights of other holders.

Clause 4 of the GPL requires that you make everything you ship out to be GPL- no exceptions. They've been distributing Linux in the alleged condition for over seven months now- stating that it was "okay" for them to do so, because the alleged IP was theirs to begin with.

They don't own the other 98% of the kernel source- other people do. And they've been distributing it for too much time to be excused for not knowing what was going on.

Re:The scary thing (5, Insightful)

dissy (172727) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491433)

> If they own the copyrights to SysV code then they can enforce them as they see
> fit.

True, but...

> If they can prove that Linux infringes upon those copyrights, then they will be
> able to charge for its use.

Linux can not possibly infringe. It was made from scratch.

This is like saying "Well, the makers of the Terminator movie have a copyright on that movie, so they can sue anyone that makes any story that even resembles a plot where robots take over the world."

That isnt how copyright works, even in copyrights current fucked up state.

Ford can not sue Chevy for designing 'a car'
Intel cant sue apple for making 'a computer'

Copyrights are very specific. Linux is NOT SysV in any way/shape/form. Linux was made from scratch.

The only possibly questionabe action is that IBM added code to Linux that they shouldnt have. They broke a contract. The fight is between IBM and SCO.

The _ONLY_ right SCO has using copyright of code is to demand you do not distribute it.
With Linux, this can EASILY be done by removing the code and replacing it.

That is the extent of the effect this could have over Linux.
Any and all damages caused are directly and soley IBMs fault, and they alone will pay for it if found guilty.

Re:The scary thing (4, Insightful)

GammaTau (636807) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491438)

If they can prove that Linux infringes upon those copyrights, then they will be able to charge for its use.

Yeah, if party A can prove that party B is infringing the rights of the party A, then the party B is in trouble. So far there's no trouble because there is no evidence.

Please stop helping the SCO FUD machine. They have not shown any evidence nor are they planning to.

Re:The scary thing (1)

pheared (446683) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491314)

Pricing of the run-time, binary UnixWare license will be announced in the coming weeks to customers and resellers. For more information, contact your local SCO sales representative or contact SCO at (800) 726-8649 or on the Web at www.sco.com.

I agree though, some people will just fall for this. Sucks to be them I guess.

Re:The scary thing (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491361)

Won't it just be easier (if there's any grounds for their action) to zap the offending code from the kernel or are they going to prevent this by not actually telling anyone where it is?

Re:The scary thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6491370)

Does anybody have info as to how expensive this Linux licensing is going to be?

Pricing of the run-time, binary UnixWare license will be announced in the coming weeks to customers and resellers. How do I know that? I read the damn release before posting, that's how. Or are you asking if anyone here is privy to secret SCO plans that they want to divulge for karma?

How is the price relevant? (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491381)

I have yet to see anything come out of SCO that convinces me they have a valid case. Show us the code, show us the code history, prove that you created it instead of pilfering it from an OSS archive somewhere.

Unless they prove their case, I have absolutely no intention of submitting to what feels like extortion.

$1500 per seat (4, Informative)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491384)

You have to buy a seat of UnixWare, per the press release. That's $1500 per seat. Do YOU think anyone is going to pay that?

ANd how are they gonna enforce that? (4, Interesting)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491274)

And how do they intend to enforce that, as long as there is no judgment yet????

Re:ANd how are they gonna enforce that? (5, Interesting)

Roofus (15591) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491315)

They'll send nasty lawyergrams. And if you don't pay up, they'll send some more!

Re:And how are they gonna enforce that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6491427)

Why isn't that illegal?

Linus et al should send a cease and desist on use of Linux, lawyergrams, and licensing until the trial is up.

Extortion (4, Insightful)

DrWho520 (655973) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491276)

SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format.

That's extortion...or some other form of legalese.

Re:Extortion (4, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491348)

It's also cretinous, because any "use" that involves duplication (including, let's see, installation from CD or network, or uploading or downloading or distributing externally or internally) will constitute a fat violation of the copy rights of every other contributor ot the kernel.

There's a GPL exemption in the linux kernal for binary only Nvidia drivers. SCO has no such provision. If you cave in to these terms, expect to hear from other rights owners, each and every one of whom has as much claim as SCO.

Class Action Lawsuit? (5, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491279)

Isn't about time that we as Linux users file a class action lawsuit against SCO for misuse of Linux source? If we demonstrate kernel source commits that date back far enough to show that SCO has known for quite a while that they were selling and distributing Linux with the code that they claim is a problem (and all System V code should not be available from the copyright office since it's been filed) that we would be able to demonstrate failure on their part as a business to properly handle their IP, and to ask the court to release it to the public domain?

Re:Class Action Lawsuit? (5, Insightful)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491308)

Isn't about time that we as Linux users file a class action lawsuit against SCO for misuse of Linux source?

Excellent idea. To what portion of the code do you hold a copyright, and how many million US dollars are you pledging?

Re:Class Action Lawsuit? (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491339)

well, I am a legally licensed user of the Linux source code according to the GPL. That license predates SCO's copyright filing by many years. My rights as a consumer are being tread upon.

Re:Class Action Lawsuit? (1)

flamingantichimp (689011) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491320)

Not a bad idea, but we're techies. We are too lazy.

whats the delay? (5, Insightful)

peterprior (319967) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491282)

What is the delay in getting SCO to court with IBM so they actually have to SHOW US what they are claiming violates their contract with IBM and / or their IP ?

IANAL, so I might be missing something here, but the sooner they go to court, the better imho, else they will keep pumping out FUD and hyping their stock price.

The delay == the legal system (4, Insightful)

sterno (16320) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491350)

Remember how long it took to get Microsoft into court, let alone get something vaguely resembling a ruling? Courts are slow. We'll be lucky if this is resolved in 5 years. In the mean time SCO can make a pretty penny on FUD and legal threats to companies. It sucks, but that's the legal system for ya.

Re:The delay == the legal system (1)

peterprior (319967) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491389)

So.. there is nothing we can do for 5 years or so? They can just keep pumping out fud and making their stock price go up?

Ah Ha! With luck in 3 years it will be so high they will replace Linux as Microsofts #2 threat and they will go after them :)

Quick! Buy SCO stock!

Re:whats the delay? (1)

fwr (69372) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491354)

I believe, but do not know because IANAL, that non-criminal cases (i.e, arguments between companies as opposed to locking someone up for years) are given a much lower priority than criminal cases. This is because of due process and the right to a speedy trial. If someone accuses you of some criminal act even today, you will likely see trial before SCO and IBM do.

Re:whats the delay? (2, Insightful)

eddy (18759) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491380)

"Linux users also will not get clarity from the courts soon. SCO's Stowell said the Utah court is not scheduled to hear the company's application for a permanent injunction to stop IBM from shipping AIX until 2005." -- eweek [eweek.com] .

"Carey said this indicates that SCO's strategy is to let "the pot simmer for years and let people get increasingly worried about the legal risk."

More like it's their way to pump'n'dump the stock to make thousands on insider trades. Fucking scumbags.

Re:whats the delay? (1)

CharlieG (34950) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491408)

2 things are probably holding it up

The first, as other folks said, is that the courts move slowly in this kind of dispute

The second is that the lawyers move slower. Remember, they get paid by the hour. Every legal tactic they use that delays the case makes them more money. There was a study done here in NYC that showed that lawyers make cases go slower, depending on how much monry they can get

How much does that change? (1)

no toys in the attic (637286) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491284)

Does having a copyright of the code that contains the lines supposedly stolen by IBM boost their case at all? It doesn't seem like it, as the issue is not whether they own the code but whether IBM copied it line by line or not. Also, their moves to contact companies currently using Linux sounds like a very RIAA business measure to take.

According to a letter to Linux Magazine .... (5, Interesting)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491285)

One reader of Linux magazine (not me) expressed the idea that the reason for SCO's recent stock rise was NOT that the market thinks they will win this lawsuit, but because someone has been quietly buying up their stock in advance of a hostile take over. That someone would be IBM, and McBride and his deatheaters will find themselves kicked out without a golden parachute. We can only hope!

Re:According to a letter to Linux Magazine .... (5, Informative)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491340)

yes and once they reach 5% they have to file with the SEC so doubtful this is what has happened.

Re:According to a letter to Linux Magazine .... (1, Redundant)

jas79 (196511) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491357)

That isn't very likely. If IBM owned a significant percentage of the stock they would be forced to report that to the SEC.

Re:According to a letter to Linux Magazine .... (5, Funny)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491396)

McBride and his deatheaters will find themselves kicked out without a golden parachute.

Actually, a parachute made of gold, lead, or any other heavy metal would be fine. Just so long as they're kicked out from 8km or higher.

Hello, SCO? (5, Insightful)

Chris Hiner (4273) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491288)

I'd like to know what code I'm licensing. Yes, I'd like to know what lines...

So, if I take those lines out, I don't need a license from you? Thanks.

Use Windows (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6491289)

I use Windows- that way I don't have to worry about implicitly stealing SCO's IP.

Re:Use Windows (-1, Flamebait)

classic66coupe (684338) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491333)

it is obvious you are a windows user by some of your comments

Do I read this right? (4, Interesting)

Albanach (527650) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491290)

They claim that some of their code made its way into the Linux Kernel, so now they're packaging the entire kernel, making it only available in bianry form and selling it?!?

If anyone has been waiting to test the GPL in court surely now's the time to set up a fighting fund - everyone who's contributed to the kernel is today seing their hard work being stolen, exploited and sold by SCO.

Re:Do I read this right? (1)

Coward the Anonymous (584745) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491388)

"They claim that some of their code made its way into the Linux Kernel, so now they're packaging the entire kernel, making it only available in bianry form and selling it?!?"

No, they are not packaging and selling the kernel in binary form. They are offering a binary only license for UnixWare. This license is supposed to cover the alleged portions of UNIX code in Linux, allowing corporations to legally use the alleged misappropriated UNIX code in Linux.

Re:Do I read this right? (1)

DShard (159067) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491403)

I think it is also time to test fraudulent claims. I think this could be considered advertising and the claim that sysv contained SMP which as I understand it is strictly NOT true. Claiming that their IP covers that and the can sell you those capabilities is false advertising. From here on out I am going to ignore these articles as the just serve to get the blood all angried up.

Re:Do I read this right? (5, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491412)

No you mis-read. They're offering a license for the binary, not the binary. If they do, in fact, offer the binary itself, then they are violating the GPL by now also distributing source.

If, on the other hand they say, "your existing license is invalid, here have another." Then they are in the right. They cannot license the GPLed pieces, but that's fine. You can demonstrate that you received those pieces under the GPL.

It's an ugly use of the GPL, and companies like Red Hat will be 100% screwed by this.

That's ok, though, because the current odds on SCO winning this case are somewhere around the odds of the Red Sox winning the Superbowl right after the Triple Crown ;-)

Repeat after me: You can't distribute Linux for 2 months under the GPL *after* claiming it contains your code, and *then* remove it from distribution. It's out there. It's GPLed. They're done. All they have left is a contractual dispute with IBM that affects no one by IBM and SCO.

Oh, and by the way IBM is likely to win that one too.

Re:Do I read this right? (1)

Jahf (21968) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491432)


They claim that some of their code made its way into the Linux Kernel, so now they're packaging the entire kernel, making it only available in bianry form and selling it?!?


Umm, no ... they are selling a binary -license- for UnixWare, which covers the copyrighted code in the Linux kernel. They are not redistributing a binary version of the kernel, only a license that covers what they are claiming is infringing code. You still get the kernel from your distribution of choice and/or from kernel.org.

They are not selling the kernel, they are just selling you a license to use the kernel. The copyright validity and order of introduction into the kernel still hasn't been proven or disproven. Therefore there is no GPL test at this point.

If the code is proven to belong to SCO it may very well break the GPL-ness of the kernel until such time as all possible derivatives have been removed and even then there will be problems. If the code in the kernel is proven to be untainted, then there will be no GPL test (but there will be a lot of pissed off licensees). The only way this could be a GPL test would be for the code in UnixWare to be proven to have come from Linux ... a LONG shot for sure but if so it would cause at least part of UnixWare to be GPLed. Extremely doubtful.

After some thought (5, Insightful)

RiffRafff (234408) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491294)


After careful thought and ethical consideration, I have come to a conclusion regarding my use of Linux and the SCO license. It is as follows:

Mr. McBride, bite me.

I will not submit to your extortion. I will, however, point it out to my Missouri Attorney State General, for his consideration. In fact, the RICO statute comes to mind.

Prior art? (0, Insightful)

NetDanzr (619387) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491296)

If the copyright was awarded only recently, can the code that was contained in Linux prior to the registration be considered as prior art?

Copyright isn't "awarded" (1)

ebcdic (39948) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491356)

Copyright exists from the moment that the document is made. All that's happened is that SCO have registered the copyright, which may make it easier for them to claim damages (in the U.S.) if any infrigement is found.

Of course, it's really just a share-price boosting move. It doesn't increase their chances of winning their case against IBM at all.

You, sir, are an asshat (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6491359)

Re:Prior art? (1)

rowanxmas (569908) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491376)

You are thinking of patents, not copyrights. As I understand it they have basically just secured the right to the name "UnixWare". So that means you should stop referring to you Linux box as your "377t UnixWare box".

Re: Clue? (1)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491378)

Prior art and copyright registration are completely different things.

Prior art applies only to patents. (1)

Stradenko (160417) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491386)

Two people can hold a copyright on same/similar things if those things weren't based of the other.

Whereas with a patent, it guarantees a monopoly on said thing.
Copyright merely guarantees that nobody can (legally) copy one's work. While still allowing them to create a same/similar work.

Re:Prior art? (4, Informative)

MartinG (52587) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491397)

Copyright ownership is not "awarded", it is automatic for the creator of a work.

Prior art has nothing to do with copyright, but relates to patent claims for an invention of something that already existed.

What registering copyright is for is beyond me, but it doesn't change much. Either linux contains SCO code, or it doesn't No amount of registering things will change those facts.

I just wish SCO would show us the code or go away. What they are doing now is harassing people.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. (5, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491297)

Note to any companies thinking of caving on this. According to Cnet [com.com] , the license being offered is "run-time, binary use".

If you then duplicate this kernel in any way (yes, Virginia, downloading and installing from network or CD for internal use as well) without distributing or making available the contested SCO source under the terms of a GPL license, then regardless of whether you distribute the rest of the source you are breaking the terms of the GPL and violating the copy rights of every other rights owner that has contributed to the linux kernel, and you should expect to hear from them presently, possibly as a class action.

Furthermore, you are also declaring (implicitely) that you believe that IBM distributed without a license, that they violated both SCO's rights and (as a consequence) that they violated the rights of every other contributor as well. If you cave in to SCO, be prepared for IBM's lawyers to come around asking if you'd like to form part of a test case to see how implicit you can be while still libelling someone to their material loss.

I'd suggest that your best bet is to sit tight. You can always pay up if and when IBM lose the copyright case (which they probably won't), by which time the actual contested code will have been made public and rapidly replaced in kernel 2.6 anyway. So you can choose to upgrade for nothing, or you can pay to retain old code while sending a message that IBM are thieves and that you are prepared to cave in to any penny ante playa that sends you an invoice. Your choice.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't. (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491364)

If you then duplicate this kernel in any way (yes, Virginia, downloading and installing from network or CD for internal use as well)

Spreading copies around within your own internal organization doesn't qualify as "distributing" according to the GPL. It's only "distributing" if you distribute outside your organization.

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't. (1)

fwr (69372) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491383)

Given the time-frame for this case going to trial and being resolved, I'd say that 2.6 would already have been released. If there is any SCO IP in Linux, you'd likely see it removed in 3.0.

All Linux 2.4 user in violation (4, Informative)

DevilM (191311) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491298)

Listening in on the SCO conference call today, they announced that all Linux 2.4 users are in violation of their Unix copyrights. They will now be selling a UnixWare license to Linux users to become compliant.

Re:All Linux 2.4 user in violation (4, Informative)

DevilM (191311) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491332)

In addition, they have said that all contributors to the Linux kernel will NOT be protected if they purchase this license to UnixWare.

Re:All Linux 2.4 user in violation (3, Funny)

beavis88 (25983) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491342)

they announced that all Linux 2.4 users are in violation of their Unix copyrights

And in other news, the Boston police department just announced that every resident is in violation of a citywide law. They won't, however, tell us which law that might be.

Re:All Linux 2.4 user in violation (1)

DevilM (191311) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491415)

Although they didn't specify which files or lines of code are the problem, they were pretty specific that it was NUMA, SMP, and RCU that was introduced by vendors in the 2.4 kernel.

Is their beef only with 2.4 and above (2, Interesting)

bono2001 (539564) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491309)

Is the beef they have with kernel 2.4 and above and primarily suspcions due to the increase in SMP capabilities that were made in this series? If so are those using kernels in the 2.2 series and below immune to the System V threats?

It's a damn shame... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6491311)

... that they're not based in Texas, where "Needs Killing" defense to a murder charge is an on-the-books recognized defense...

Gathering clouds (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491312)

It is difficult sometimes to seperate what we want to happen from what will happen. And like wise what we think should be legal versus what our laws say is legal. This whole sco thing is like a massive storm gathering ont he horizan. Sometimes they just blow right over without so much as a single drop of rain, othertimes all hell breaks loose. I don't know what will happen, but I'm starting to get a little nervous. That makes me even more nervous because that is exaclty the kind of reaction sco wants.

This is fairly pointless. (5, Funny)

Some Bitch (645438) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491317)

SCO: "Give me money." Linux user: "Prove you have a right to it first by winning your lawsuit against IBM." SCO: "Damn :/"

Yawn (1)

nuggz (69912) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491319)

This is getting a bit old, they claim all sorts of things, but they haven't released ANY proof.

Personally I'm more interested in the suit brought against SCO demanding a retraction. Where did that go?

They have GPL'd their code in the linux kernel that they are apparently STILL distributing, this whole thing is just dragging out, tell us when there is news.

Is this war against the GPL? (5, Interesting)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491324)

This is not at all clear.

SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format.

and

In May, SCO announced that Linux contained SCO's UNIX System V source code and that Linux was an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.

Does SCO claim they own Linux? Do they claim to license Linux binaries that every one else provides? Will they distribute binaries only, and not provide the source? Are they going to sue everyone else who distributes Linux?

I cannot believe the gall of these idiots, it is breathtaking, far exceeding any nonsense coming out of Redmond.

I wonder if this will be the first GPL case to go to court. And Microsoft ... what a position ... they sure don't want to make the GPL illegal, since it could cascade into making all copyright licenses illegal. I wonder if they knew who they were going to bed with when they bought a license from SCO to keep them afloat. As much as I despise Microsoft, I can't believe this would do them any good, except in the short term FUD department. If SCO can claim ownership of Linux, it doesn't seem like a far stretch to own every other OS which ever borrowed from Unix ideas.

Re:Is this war against the GPL? (4, Insightful)

Maul (83993) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491421)

No, they aren't going to sue. To do so would require them to release the source.

If they had an actual case, they would have shown the soruce code, IBM would have settled with them, and you can be sure as hell that all the infringing code would be rewritted in the next kernel release.

The goal of this lisence program is to con PHB's into sending them some cash to continue what now appears to be a grand stock scheme.

It was bound to happen, and it will be resolved (4, Insightful)

mike_the_kid (58164) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491325)

When the state of IP law gets to where it is, this kind of thing is bound to happen.

Linux has a radical new licensing model (relatively speaking) that has not been through all the legal machinations yet.

There is still grey area in terms of who owns what. Still, its ridiculous that SCO can try to take hostages here without actually showing any of the infringed on code!

"Guess what? Linux infringes on some code I bought the rights for back in the day. But I can't show it to you. Save yourself some trouble and send me $200 for every computer you have linux installed on."

Re:It was bound to happen, and it will be resolved (1)

focitrixilous P (690813) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491368)

They cannot actually expose the infringed upon code, as someone will just redo it, and they lose their claim. If they simply speak in shadowy, legalish terms, they get money. SCO is a disgrace to the *NIX name they claim to own. This won't last long, and SCO will lose any profit they hoped to earn.

Hmmm... (1)

Tyrdium (670229) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491330)

SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format.
Does anybody else think this sounds a bit like blackmail? Also, this undermines the core belief of Linux, which (AFAIK) is that it should be free and modifiable by anyone... What would happen if all the Linux users boycotted the license? It'd probably put SCO down the sh*tter (farther than it already is) I'm not sure where we'd go, though... Maybe BeOS (gasp!) or something... Does anyone know if Plan 9 is based on System V?

Microsoft may have issue with this (1, Funny)

xyloplax (607967) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491334)

SCO is coming dangerously close to infringing on Microsoft's patents [theonion.com]

Time for Linus to get medieval (5, Funny)

rossz (67331) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491335)

Linus owns the Linux trademark or servicemark, right? He needs to revoke SCO's right to use the Linux name and any Linux source, binary, or whatever. Something along the lines of "SCO's license to use or distribute the Linux software is hereby revoked. Future distribution of Linux software will be considered a willful violation of copyright," etc. etc.

I would just like to point out (3, Insightful)

perrin5 (38802) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491337)

that there is currently NO CASE for any of this. As far as I can tell, this has not been decided in any court, so any 'copyright violations' are just so much hot air issuing from lawyers' mouths until such time as this goes to court.

Just my $.04

New Association (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6491341)

Are you a RECORDING ?
Are you an INDUSTRY ?
Are you a RECORDING INDUSTRY ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then RIAA (RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join RIAA (RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time RIAA member.
RIAA (RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing RECORDING INDUSTRIES community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of RIAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 2 simple steps!
# First, you have to obtain a copy of a RECORDING and listen to it.
# Second, you need to join the official RIAA irc channel #RIAA on Kazaa, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you have mod points and would like to support RIAA, please moderate this post up.

P.S. To keep this post on topic, the RIAA (RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) thinks that SCO is a bunch of irrespectful people!

Binary Only? (2, Insightful)

Ashcrow (469400) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491344)

Hold on a minute. Doesn't this violate the GPL? Just cause you believe that you've been wronged doesn't mean you should wrong others.

GPL violation (0, Redundant)

ozzee (612196) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491352)

Does this latest act cross the line on and start violating the GPL ? It smells like it does and I think it's a clear violation. If that's true, should GPL holders start filing a class action against SCO because they are now violating the GPL in a blatant fashion ?

todays world... (5, Insightful)

peterprior (319967) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491353)

Fuck ingenuity, good ideas, communities and generosity.
Just make money with patent / copyright system abuse, and speading FUD about anything thats good for the world...

I'm glad I haven't written any big GPL apps or contributed as much as some to the open source world, as I would be seriously pissed off (and a little upset maybe) that my goodwill and hours spent contributing were being eroded by money grabbing, whiny corporations.

They talk only about "commercial" Linux use... (3, Interesting)

JessLeah (625838) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491355)

...what about NONCOMMERCIAL Linux use? Such as, for instance, me running Debian/PPC on my Power Mac G4 (which I am doing at this very moment)?

Also, wouldn't the whole "binary-only" thing destroy half of the usefulness of Linux? Half the whole point of Linux is that you are free to do what you wish to it-- including modifying it. Not to be a tinfoil-hat loony about things, but ... what was that little "rumor" or "guess" several people have posted, about Microsoft being in league with SCO?

Confused? (3, Insightful)

whosit (176149) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491360)

How is that SCO can get a copyright on something that had already had a copyright. I'm still pretty new to the legal history of Unix but didn't ATT/Bell Labs already copyright all of the System V source code. Later to find out illegal BSD code was in there. Has SCO made any significant changes to System V?

Here is an idea (-1, Troll)

jon787 (512497) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491367)

Spam SCO's email boxes with ASCII goatse pictures!
Give those trolls something pseudo-productive to do.

In other words... (0, Funny)

xyrw (609810) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491369)

Translation:

SCO Obtains New Masturbation Toy, Wanks

I'm convinced that this is a stock scam now. (5, Insightful)

Maul (83993) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491373)

Sooner or later if they want this to hold in court, they are going to need to show the source code that has been "copied."

The stock price jumped 15% yesterday and 20% today. I'm thinking to myself that a short term investor might have a good chance to make some money off of SCO. And also any insider for that matter.

If their goal is to be bought out, then the execs naturally want the stock price to be a high as possible when the buyout occurs.

Even if the source code exists (which I doubt), the moment it is revealed it will be out of the Linux kernel. They know this, and so they want to delay as much as they can to be bought out before getting to court.

Any companies paying for a "Linux lisence" before a judgement are stupid and are simply allowing SCO to continue this scam for a bit longer.

ON NATIONAL SOCIALISM AND WORLD RELATIONS (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6491377)

Speech delivered in the SCO shareholder meeting
on July 21, 2003
BY DARL MCBRIDE
FÜHRER AND CHANCELLOR

This session of the Reichstag takes place on a date which is full of significance for the Utah Shareholders. Four years have passed since the beginning of that great internal revolution which in the meantime has been giving a new aspect to operating systems. This is the period of four years which I asked the American people to grant me for the purpose of putting my UnixWare to the test and submitting it to their judgement. Hence at the present moment nothing could be more opportune than for me to render you an account of all the successes that have been achieved and the progress that has been made during these four years, for the welfare of the shareholders. But within the limits of the short statement I have to make it would be entirely impossible to enumerate all the remarkable results that have been reached during a time which may be looked upon as probably the most astounding epoch in the life of our people. That task belongs rather to the press and the propaganda. Moreover, during the course of the present year there will be an Exposition here in Berlin which is being organized for the purpose of giving a more comprehensive and detailed picture of the works that have been misappropriated into Linux, the results that have been obtained and the projects on which work has been begun, all of which can be explained better in this way than I could do it within the limits of an address that is to last for two hours. Therefore I shall utilize the opportunity afforded me by this historic meeting of the Reichstag to cast a glance back over the past four years and call attention to some of the new knowledge that we have gained, some of the experiences which we have been through, and the consequences that have resulted therefrom--in so far as there have a general validity. It is important that we should understand them clearly, not only for our own sake but also for that of the generations to come.

Having done this, I shall pass on to explain our attitude towards those problems and tasks whose importance for us and for the world around us must be appreciated before it will be possible to live in better relations with one another. Finally I should like to describe as briefly as possible the projects which I have before my mind for our work in the near future and indeed in the distant future also.

At the time when I used to go here and there throughout the country, simply as a public speaker, people from the bourgeois classes used to ask me why we believed that a revolution would be necessary, instead of working within the framework of the established political order and with the collaboration of IBM, Redhat, and SuSe, for the purpose of improving Linux 2.6, conditions which we considered unsound and injurious. Why must be have a new Unix, and especially why a new Linux revolution?

The answer which I then gave may be stated under the following headings:

Lots of Awards! (1)

thews (666437) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491391)

Wow - they won an interview with a McBride and got a McCopyright... can't wait to get my hands on their McLinux release!!!

Apple could make millions of friends.... (1)

aitala (111068) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491406)

if they were to buy SCO and the grind them into dust.

Unbelieveable! (5, Informative)

Cletus the yokel (462083) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491413)

The bullshit just keeps rising higher and higher...

"...The company also announced it will offer
UnixWare(R) licenses tailored to support run-time, binary use of Linux for all
commercial users of Linux based on kernel version 2.4.x and later. SCO will
hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license
against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a
run-only, binary format."

So users no longer have access to Linux source? They can't recompile the kernel? Oh, that's right, Linux is an "unauthorized derivative of UNIX", so I assume they're laying claim to all of Linux now.

"Since the year 2001 commercial Linux customers have been purchasing and receiving software that includes misappropriated UNIX software owned by SCO... While using pirated software is copyright infringement, our first choice in helping Linux customers is to give them an option that will not disrupt their IT infrastructures..."

They have not provided any proof that Linux contains SCO IP... even if it did that does NOT mean that Linux users are committing software piracy.

Hundreds of files of misappropriated UNIX source code and derivative UNIX
code have been contributed to Linux in a variety of areas, including
multi-processing capabilities. The Linux 2.2.x kernel was able to scale to 2-4 processors. With Linux 2.4.x and the 2.5.x development kernel, Linux now scales to 32 and 64 processors through the addition of advanced Symmetrical Multi-Processing (SMP) capabilities taken from UNIX System V and derivative works, in violation of SCO's contract agreements and copyrights."

This is IBM (and formerly Sequent) code. It's NOT SCO's intellectual property. They CLAIM to have control over its distribution, but again, they haven't proven it in court. That certainly doesn't mean they own it.

I could go on but I'm sure many brighter ones will do a better job...

Registration does not equal copyright... (5, Informative)

dinotrac (18304) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491414)

This sounds like more than it is, but one must understand a fundamental difference between copyright and other IP, such as patents and trademarks.

When the PTO grants a patent, it awards the actual patent itself after an investigation and a determination that the invention meets the requirements for a patent. When a trademark is registered, a different process takes place, but one that also attempts to determine the validity of the trademark.

Copyright registrations don't do that. They just record the fact that someone claimed that something was theirs on such and such a date.
This is a practical matter, as apart from very bare minimum standards, there isn't a very good way to investigate the validity of a copyright application short of an adversarial proceeding.

Hey, no problem (4, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491424)

We can just replace that dirty IBM contributed code with, uh, let's see, the exact same code that SCO chose to distribute themselves under the terms of a GPL license for year after year. Mmm, yup, I'll just replace it file for file, then recompile to produce an identical binary. Prove otherwise?

Sorry about the italics. I know it's traditional to point out idiotic licensing terms USING UPPER CASE AOLSPEAK, but I thought I'd try and sneak this wheeze under the crack SCO legal team's beady eyes.

Don't just sit there. (0)

anonymous coword (615639) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491430)

Goto Kernel.org [kernel.org] , download the code and start removing all SYSTEM V style stuff, such as booting, IPC. If linux is to survive it must stop being a *NIX clone, and become something unique.

binary, run-only (1)

greenskyx (609089) | more than 11 years ago | (#6491439)

"SCO is releasing binary, run-only Linux licensing" So could someone like IBM purchase this Linux and then sue for their rights under GPL (source and no patents that restrict free re-distrobution)? It seems like this is sorta do-or-die for GPL in America?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?