Page 1 of 1

SCO withdraw Caldera Linux

Posted: Thu May 15, 2003 9:45 am
by Linux Frank
Well just in case you have not heard the Caldera Linux has now been removed from distribution.

Posted: Thu May 15, 2003 10:27 am
by Calum

Posted: Thu May 15, 2003 10:28 am
by Void Main
Yeah, I read some good threads on it on and SCO is dead. They were being very hypocritical by distributing a copy of Linux themselves that supposedly contained some source which they claim to be their intelectual property. Why did they not know it was there? And now they won't tell anyone where the suspect code is so it can be removed.

I especially like the reader comments in these articles: ... 2026NWCDLL ... 6254&tid=3

And Linus reacts:

Good stuff. :)

Posted: Tue May 20, 2003 7:54 am
by Calum
Linus' reactions make me smile.

here's a good link: ... arr_p.html

the author pokes some good holes in SCO's "case" and postulates a couple of possible causes for why SCO chose to take this unusual step.
Linux stands to be harmed by the suit as well. Even if SCO's claims are not upheld, as long the possibility remains it could have a chilling effect on contributions made to Linux development from IBM and other Unix vendors, such as HP and Sun. The suit also dovetails nicely with Microsoft's plans for IP-based attacks on Linux; it might slow adoption of Linux and the development of new applications to run on Linux, as well.
also, for those with time on their hands there are some links to interesting reactions from sources as diverse as the OSI and Microsoft at the bottom of this page here.

Posted: Tue May 20, 2003 11:11 am
by Void Main
I'm not that big of a Joe Barr fan. Nothing really against him other than some poor research before doing a few tutorials, but there aren't many out there that do it right. Oh, and he likes to argue, but then I like to argue so I can't hold that against him. :) I am also not the biggest fan of OSDN lately but this is the best article I have seen on the SCO thing yet: ... 4204&tid=3

I especially like the "Who did what with the code?" section:
Who did what with the code?

But there may be more reasons that SCO will be looking at legal troubles. Even before Caldera bought out SCO's Unix, SCO was adding Linux functionality to UnixWare .

Specifically, SCO added Linux compatibility to its Unix properties with operating system packages like UnixWare's Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) . The LKP enables UnixWare to run Linux binaries.

So SCO was adding Linux functionality to its own Unix products, and was also considering bringing Linux functionality to its older OpenServer Unix. Given SCO's own reasoning, could all this Linux functionality be added to Unix without introducing Linux code into Unix?

Look at the history. When Caldera first bought SCO in August 2000, it suggested that it was going to open source a good deal of Unix . That never happened.

But what Caldera did do, as described in a Caldera white paper dated March 8, 2001, with the then new tag-phrase of "Linux and UNIX are coming Together" by Dean R. Zimmerman, a SCO writer, was to try to merge the best features of both operating systems. Early on there's a line that fits perfectly with open source gospel. "For a programmer, access to source code is the greatest gift that can be bestowed." And then, getting straight to the point, Caldera declares: "Caldera has begun the task of uniting the strengths of UNIX technology, which include stability, scalability, security, and performance with the strengths of Linux, which include Internet-readiness, networking, new application support, and new hardware support. Caldera's solution is to unite in the UNIX kernel a Linux Kernel Personality (LKP), and then provide the additional APIs needed for high-end scalability. The result is an application 'deploy on' platform with the performance, scalability, and confidence of UNIX and the industry momentum of Linux."

Isn't this exactly what SCO is accusing IBM of doing? In SCO's March filing , SCO states, "Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment."

Isn't this what SCO had said they were doing? I don't see any significant difference. Do you?

Posted: Tue May 20, 2003 11:29 am
by Calum
the one significant difference is legality. if however linux code really is in unix, then any and all components containing this code MUST be released under the GPL.

HOWEVER i suspect that SCO, like many other computer companies has "borrowed" heavily from BSD (in this case, to get the linux compatibility stuff) which is in the public domain. i have no idea how the BSD people think this is better than GPLing, as it simply helps SCO, MS et c to have their cake and eat it, or to try to at least. :evil:

Posted: Tue May 20, 2003 11:38 am
by Void Main
I'm a SCO hater from way back (well, at least 7 years now). I inherited a department full of SCO machines back then and I can say without hesitation that SCO is the worst implementation of UNIX that ever existed. And it only ever ran on x86, who's got the bicycle again? It was so bad I replaced all the SCO machines with Windows NT (imagine that). Of course I was already a Linux fan of several years and would have liked to have switched them to Linux but the required application had not yet been ported to Linux (proprietary custom app).

Posted: Tue May 20, 2003 9:10 pm
by Void Main
Wow! So far this is the mother load:

Posted: Wed May 21, 2003 2:03 am
by Calum
yeah, i didn't read the whole thing when i first saw it (and i still haven't) but the bits that do interest me are the bits where it directly talks about linux. this is the first time that the legality surrounding gnu/linux software has really been put through the wringer to my knowledge.
Furthermore, SCO is barred by the terms of the GNU General Public License from making copyright or patent-infringement claims on any technology shipped in conjunction with the Linux kernel that SCO/Caldera itself has been selling for the last eight years. Therefore, SCO may accuse IBM of misappropriating SCO-owned software to improve the Linux kernel only if that software does not actually ship with the Linux kernel it is alleged to be improving!
ESR makes some very good points, many along these lines. i also found this more hastily dashed off response from the same author quite an interesting read.

Posted: Wed May 21, 2003 9:21 am
by Calum
SCO withdraw Caldera Linux
so... how come Caldera's site is still offerring all the usual Caldera downloads including source code then??? :? :? :?

and as for all that "we own the intellectual property rights to Unix" crap, Unix is not an original concept. It was based on Multics. That was an original concept for an operating system that was jointly funded and developed by three companies, of which AT&T was one. The project died on its arse and a couple of the developers from Multics decided to strip it of all its cruft and make a lean mean system based on Multics. The result was Unix. It is important to note though that AT&T did not instruct those guys to create Unix, they did it themselves and then it was used in house by AT&T and eventually licenced out to others. SCO finally bought Unix outright after some other stuff happened.

My point it, can SCO claim intellectual property rights to Unix? The system was based on concepts taken from the best minds at at least two other companies (in practice many more. Much of the software that ended up in Unix was open source and came from private citizens, users. Examples are em, ex and vi.). SCO's claim to Unix stems solely from the fact that they bought it off of AT&T, but isn't this a little like buying London Bridge from a guy in the street? was it really AT&T's intellectual property to sell?

Even if it was, i can safely say that had the contributors to Unix known that their efforts would be held to ransom like this against the very open source community that they were founding members of, i suspect they might have something to say about it. Many of those people are still alive, lets hope they are all called as witnesses...

Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:16 am
by Membrax
Lemme tellya, this sounds good to me : ... g=nefd_top

"Intel chips in on anti-SCO defense fund

update Intel has gotten involved in the legal battle between the SCO Group and Linux, contributing money to a defense fund geared to protect users of the open-source operating system.

The Open Source Development Labs, an industry consortium that employs Linux leader Linus Torvalds, announced Monday that it is organizing the legal defense fund.

"It would be made available to some Linux customers that come under litigation from SCO," said the OSDL's executive director, Stuart Cohen. A subcommittee of the consortium's board of directors will decide how to allocate funds, he said.

Intel has been largely quiet in the legal case, but it and several other major computing companies are actively involved in the OSDL.

OSDL hopes to raise $10 million, Cohen said. So far it's raised $3 million from a group of companies that includes IBM, MontaVista Software and Intel.

The funding would be used to protect Linux users who are sued for Linux issues common across the industry, not for issues particular to that user or company, an OSDL representative said.

SCO, which claims to own several key Unix copyrights, argues that Unix software was illegally moved into Linux and is demanding that companies using Linux pay license fees or face legal action.

Linux uses interfaces that are covered by SCO's copyrights, SCO has argued. Thus, the use of Linux "constitutes a violation of the United States Copyright Act," the Lindon, Utah-based company has said. Legal experts have advised Linux users to see what comes of court cases before agreeing to any license deals, however.

SCO's legal actions so far have targeted IBM, though leading Linux seller Red Hat has brought a suit against SCO in return.

OSDL isn't the first to offer protective measures in the legal domain. Hewlett-Packard indemnifies its Linux customers against SCO Group actions. And Red Hat has begun a legal defense fund of its own for open-source programmers."

Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:14 pm
by Furious
Are they claiming to sue us because Linux implements POSIX and a lot of SysV type interfaces? They won't stand a chance, POSIX is an open standard and the Open Group licenses use of the UNIX name to conforming OSes anyway. That could be another explanation of why M$ bought a license because they are funding it and they are covering their asses when this gets to court, so a lawyer couldnt just say, "Well Microsoft implements the UNIX/POSIX type APIs in Windows NT (poorly but they dont need to say that)"

Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:27 pm
by Void Main
It's really hard to say what they are suing over at any given time. They keep changing the suit when they know they have nothing in any certain direction. What they don't understand is that they will lose no matter what direction they go. I honestly believe that they are just a puppet in an M$ FUD campaign anyway so I don't pay them much attention lately other than the entertainment value of watching their stock steadily drop toward $0. Of course that too doesn't really mean a lot. Darl doesn't provide a lot of entertainment though. I sorta hate to see him end up behind bars like he surely will. Maybe he and Martha can hook up. :)