SCO chief testifies: 'Linux is a copy of Unix'
Summary
Open-source fans have dismissed Darl McBride's court comments in the lawsuit brought against SCO by Novell
Topics
Troubled software maker SCO's chief executive has claimed the Linux operating system includes Unix source code, during a court case in which Novell is suing SCO for royalties on Unix.
In the hearing, which concludes on Friday, SCO chief executive Darl McBride made claims--including that "Linux is a copy of Unix"--which are directly contradicted by the open-source community and apparently run counter to other SCO testimony, according to trial watchers, including Ars Technica.
SCO sued IBM in 2003, claiming that the IT giant had used copyright code from the Unix operating system which SCO sold, and later extended this suit to other Linux vendors. However, last August, Judge Dale Kimball ruled that Novell, not SCO, owns Unix. A four-day court case is now determining Novell's claim for up to $20 million in royalties from SCO, which declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy last year.
This court case could be the end of the line for SCO, though some online commentators have suggested the company will find yet another legal avenue of appeal. More interestingly, some observers have predicted that victory for Novell would open the door for it to sue other vendors, including Sun: "I am still going through the Novell financial filings but they could have a claim to a lot more than the value of the SCOsource licenses from Sun alone," said one commentator on Groklaw.
SCOsource is a SCO business division that manages its intellectual property around the Unix operating system.
Just In
mac bride is one ballmer is also a other one keep spinning idiot spinning ....
Free Software Magazine have a cartoon on this subject...
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/bizarre_cathedral_3
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/bizarre_cathedral_3
... well, I guess that would be "Letters right out of my fingers", but you get the idea.
SCO is like a bad case of herpes. Nobody wants anything to do with them, but they just won't go away.
SCO is like a bad case of herpes. Nobody wants anything to do with them, but they just won't go away.
ZDnet's LAME-ASSED lack of a preview feature* strikes again.
The above post was supposed to be a reply to Linux User
*A preview feature. You know, the thing that EVEN THE MOST RUDIMENTARY F***KING FORUMS GIVE YOU!!!!!!
The above post was supposed to be a reply to Linux User
*A preview feature. You know, the thing that EVEN THE MOST RUDIMENTARY F***KING FORUMS GIVE YOU!!!!!!
You're usually very reserved.
A preview function here would go a long way towards preventing posting screwups like hitting "Reply to Story" or "Reply to Message" when you meant to do the other, and not noticing until after the "Add your opinion" submit button is clicked.
zdnet.uk has a preview step. The lack on zdnet usa must be a rebellious colonial thing!
...You would have realized you spelled F**KING wrong.
We want Preview!
We want Preview!
Who designed this stupid interface, anyway - Steve Ballmer?
We want Preview!
Who designed this stupid interface, anyway - Steve Ballmer?
We need a preview feature on this opinion board. Are the moderators reading this at all???
As for the rest of you, why don't you respectfully try flat view?
Then when you want to reply to a particular message, you just click on the reply button at the extreme right of the message. It's big enough, you can't miss it. And if you want to reply to the story, you have to go all the way back up to the top.
As for spell checking, reread what you typed, then send it! It's what I do, most of the time, even do it twice, on occasion.
But I do agree, moderators, we want a preview function!
As for the rest of you, why don't you respectfully try flat view?
Then when you want to reply to a particular message, you just click on the reply button at the extreme right of the message. It's big enough, you can't miss it. And if you want to reply to the story, you have to go all the way back up to the top.
As for spell checking, reread what you typed, then send it! It's what I do, most of the time, even do it twice, on occasion.
But I do agree, moderators, we want a preview function!
Now THAT'S news.
What I don't understand is how they continue to get funding
for this crap. There must be a lot of VC groups out there
looking to guarantee losses - "Hey Bill, we made far too
much on that last venture. Quick how can we dump a few
million?"
What I don't understand is how they continue to get funding
for this crap. There must be a lot of VC groups out there
looking to guarantee losses - "Hey Bill, we made far too
much on that last venture. Quick how can we dump a few
million?"
Sony have set up entire subsidiary record companies as tax losses. Really, SCO must be a gift for some groups.
Linus Pauling was a two time Noel prize winner. He was a world renowned chemist whose discoveries lead to many modern advances in chemistry and biochemistry. One of his studies in modeling protein structures was used by the team which documented the DNA helix.
LINUS TORVALDS is given credit for inititating the development of Linux...
LINUS TORVALDS is given credit for inititating the development of Linux...
Which Unix do they own? Sys V, BSD, what? Didn't AT&T develop Unix and donate it originally? Will Novell try to own all of Linux/BSD? If they do, how will that affect Apple? How about large corporate end users? What is their exposure? This may be a long and bumpy ride!
BSD was developed entirely independently of AT&T/Bell Labs. AT&T sold on the rights to Novell who sold the rights to resell (that is to sell an AT&T base UNIX, not to sell the rights for others to produce their own UNIX).
To try and put it more clearly, Novell bought the rights to Sys V outright, they sold on the right to sell Sys V bases UNIX systems (including AIX). The basis of the court case is that SCO sold others the right to use Sys V code which only Novell has the right to do.
To try and put it more clearly, Novell bought the rights to Sys V outright, they sold on the right to sell Sys V bases UNIX systems (including AIX). The basis of the court case is that SCO sold others the right to use Sys V code which only Novell has the right to do.
The AT&T codebase was used to develop BSD, as anyone who's seen the source code would know. BSD added a lot to the AT&T functionality, but was developed from a copy of the AT&T code, which was freely available to anyone from an educational institution. When I was going to school, we got a copy and used it as an example, when we wrote our operating systems for class. I know of more than one class project submission that used part of the Unix code as part of what they turned in.
The grads at Berkeley just did a hell of a lot better job of coming up with a great Unix variant than any of us did.
Since the Berkeley variant was well before any AT*T/Novell deal, presumably, there are no problems with BSD variants. But you never know, there has been a lot of cross fertilization between the BSD variant(s) and Sys V, both ways, by many vendors.
The grads at Berkeley just did a hell of a lot better job of coming up with a great Unix variant than any of us did.
Since the Berkeley variant was well before any AT*T/Novell deal, presumably, there are no problems with BSD variants. But you never know, there has been a lot of cross fertilization between the BSD variant(s) and Sys V, both ways, by many vendors.
Santa Cruz Organisation bought the rights to Novell's System V (Distribution only) and Xenix (Microsoft's Unix!) and then sold all these on to Caldera, they then renamed themselves to Tarantella and Caldera renamed themselves to The SCO Group, SCO/Tarentella ever sued anyone over this ... Caldera/SCO did...
So SCO bought the distribution rights only, second hand, and then claimed they owned it completely ....
So SCO bought the distribution rights only, second hand, and then claimed they owned it completely ....
how can novell own linux if the kernel named linux is STILL OWNED w/out question to Torvalds...
do you homework..
remember linux IS NOT an OS
linux is the kernel theat torvalds built to overcome the shortcomings of minix...
do you homework..
remember linux IS NOT an OS
linux is the kernel theat torvalds built to overcome the shortcomings of minix...
(Un?)fortunately during the (still ongoing) IBM trial, they failed to present any evidence that this was true. Even after repeated requests by IBM and several orders to produce the evidence from the court over a couple of years. This lead to the famous "Is this all you've got" quote from the judge after they presented their "methods and concepts" theory before the discovery phase closed.
Gosh. Novell could sue others for using Linux. Worked for SCO, right?
During the discovery phase of the IBM trial, we learned that so much of the source code for UNIX had already been disclosed through textbooks, that SCO dropped their trade secrets claims.
We also learned that much of the code was unprotectable through the settlement of the ATT v. BSD case.
And...ta da!...when discovery was done, they had found 231 lines of code from UNIX in Linux. Aren't there millions of lines of code in Linux?
If copyright infringement were a problem, it would have been found and prosecuted long ago.
On the other hand, companies that paid for licenses to make their own UNIX might have some homework to do.
During the discovery phase of the IBM trial, we learned that so much of the source code for UNIX had already been disclosed through textbooks, that SCO dropped their trade secrets claims.
We also learned that much of the code was unprotectable through the settlement of the ATT v. BSD case.
And...ta da!...when discovery was done, they had found 231 lines of code from UNIX in Linux. Aren't there millions of lines of code in Linux?
If copyright infringement were a problem, it would have been found and prosecuted long ago.
On the other hand, companies that paid for licenses to make their own UNIX might have some homework to do.
but of the 231 lines of "code" almost all of them weren't code at all but were things like comment lines and header file specs (which would be required to be the same to conform to standards).
The comment about Novell suing Sun has nothing to do with Linux. It has to do with Sun releasing Solaris under the CDDL.
The more these companies do this the more they are going to drive away any potential business they may have had. I can't imagine any running a business with it's intentions to constantly be in the courts trying to make a dollar. If you can't make a buck on the level playing field we have, start a lawfirm, stop trying to use your products as wedgies to always be in the courts, nobodys buying it.
Went after them for using Unix, and wanted to know how many machines it was running on, etc., for licensing compliance. Turns out Chrysler had stopped using any Unix several years prior. So, SCO ended up getting nothing at all from them.
If I pulled together an open source version of NT core would the resulting software stack be a Windows software stack? No, under copyright law a software stack that works the same as another software stack but which is not copied from the other is a new and different product.
Linux uses Unix practices not Unix code. The GNU foundation created a Unix like system but does not use any of the code that came from any Unix vendor. This freed Linux from the Unix vendors and Linux is not Unix. The problem for the Unix vendors is that Linux works but how many of the old school Unix systems work on any kind of hardware? Most work on specific hardware and are compiled down to the metal on specific hardware, like Sun servers, for speed and efficiency gains.
Linux is much more like NT core from Microsoft because just like NT core it is totally hardware agnostic now but Microsoft can't sue them because Linux core is not Windows or a Windows work a like. The Unix world could not move to the desktop because of vendor hardware lock down and could not move to the desktop because even if they moved to generic hardware like NT core the development costs would have been prohibitive.
Microsoft took over the low end server world because Windows NT was a fraction of the cost the big Unix boys and IBM were charging for the same services. The fact that NT core was able to run on cheap commodity hardware was its biggest selling feature. Microsoft has had no competition in the hardware agnostic world until modern Linux came on the scene.
Today, Linux is taking the same path that NT core took and will become, over time here, the only alternative to Microsoft's products. The fact that modern Linux is free means it does cost less by far. But, the movement to the desktop for the majority of people is waiting on a desktop software stack that is common among all Unix variants. The same desktop for all would be a huge plus. If the effort put into the different desktops was streamlined and placed into just one desktop then Linux would take over the desktop.
The Linux world at this time is about choice but the one thing that most desktop users need is just a tiny set of choices that runs on all Linux machines. The Gnome and Xfce desktops are all pretty cool but KDE is what they should all be focusing on or something new and different but they have to move to one desktop and one set of choices for the end user sake.
In order to compete with Vista Linux has to move to a common desktop that is backed up by their own dot.net practices. Separate the model view and controller like Microsoft does in Vista and they will win in the long run. Linux is already a server based system and can easily move in the same direction of dot.net and replace the down to the metal coding with servers running in the background instead of monolithic applications. These two changes will propel Linux into the competitive zone with Microsoft. Until then, Linux is just an alternative to Unix on high and low end machines. To take over the desktop there has to be just one that is improved over time.
Linux uses Unix practices not Unix code. The GNU foundation created a Unix like system but does not use any of the code that came from any Unix vendor. This freed Linux from the Unix vendors and Linux is not Unix. The problem for the Unix vendors is that Linux works but how many of the old school Unix systems work on any kind of hardware? Most work on specific hardware and are compiled down to the metal on specific hardware, like Sun servers, for speed and efficiency gains.
Linux is much more like NT core from Microsoft because just like NT core it is totally hardware agnostic now but Microsoft can't sue them because Linux core is not Windows or a Windows work a like. The Unix world could not move to the desktop because of vendor hardware lock down and could not move to the desktop because even if they moved to generic hardware like NT core the development costs would have been prohibitive.
Microsoft took over the low end server world because Windows NT was a fraction of the cost the big Unix boys and IBM were charging for the same services. The fact that NT core was able to run on cheap commodity hardware was its biggest selling feature. Microsoft has had no competition in the hardware agnostic world until modern Linux came on the scene.
Today, Linux is taking the same path that NT core took and will become, over time here, the only alternative to Microsoft's products. The fact that modern Linux is free means it does cost less by far. But, the movement to the desktop for the majority of people is waiting on a desktop software stack that is common among all Unix variants. The same desktop for all would be a huge plus. If the effort put into the different desktops was streamlined and placed into just one desktop then Linux would take over the desktop.
The Linux world at this time is about choice but the one thing that most desktop users need is just a tiny set of choices that runs on all Linux machines. The Gnome and Xfce desktops are all pretty cool but KDE is what they should all be focusing on or something new and different but they have to move to one desktop and one set of choices for the end user sake.
In order to compete with Vista Linux has to move to a common desktop that is backed up by their own dot.net practices. Separate the model view and controller like Microsoft does in Vista and they will win in the long run. Linux is already a server based system and can easily move in the same direction of dot.net and replace the down to the metal coding with servers running in the background instead of monolithic applications. These two changes will propel Linux into the competitive zone with Microsoft. Until then, Linux is just an alternative to Unix on high and low end machines. To take over the desktop there has to be just one that is improved over time.
www.reactos.org.
It's not very mature, but it's come a long way already.
I wouldn't call it a "copy" of windows because it's a clean room implementation. It's compatible with windows at the API level, and similarily structured (I think). But then all cars have 4 wheels and you wouldn't really say a porsche is a copy of a ford mustang.
It's not very mature, but it's come a long way already.
I wouldn't call it a "copy" of windows because it's a clean room implementation. It's compatible with windows at the API level, and similarily structured (I think). But then all cars have 4 wheels and you wouldn't really say a porsche is a copy of a ford mustang.
Will it run programs designed for Win32?
If I cna find a NON-Windows OS that runs programs designmed for windows, I'll BUY it.
If not, I'll keep using my WGA bypass gimmicks on Windows
If I cna find a NON-Windows OS that runs programs designmed for windows, I'll BUY it.
If not, I'll keep using my WGA bypass gimmicks on Windows
It's supposed to work with anything written for NT/XP. It's open-source, you don't have to buy it. It's also an alpha - not yet feature-complete, and not ready for everyday use.
Hardware compatability seems to be getting far better.
Give it 1-2 years, and I think this is going to start stomping around in the marketplace.
After all, after NT4 all I really wanted was NT4 + USB, not that stupid Windows 2000.
XP is OK, but it's just got too much weight.
NT4 was really lean. Put that on a AMD64X2 and it would really fly!
I think Reactos will reach NT4 level before very long. Then all you need is a free VB clone, and ......
Give it 1-2 years, and I think this is going to start stomping around in the marketplace.
After all, after NT4 all I really wanted was NT4 + USB, not that stupid Windows 2000.
XP is OK, but it's just got too much weight.
NT4 was really lean. Put that on a AMD64X2 and it would really fly!
I think Reactos will reach NT4 level before very long. Then all you need is a free VB clone, and ......
But do you get the source code with the download, so you can compile it on your machine and make go like a bat out of hell?
Any Linux user can do that with any flavor he uses and get a screamingly fast machine out of even a very modest configuration. Which is something you just can't do with Windoze, because you just do not get the source code, period. They'll never let you have it; you could see too many things done wrong, and that wouldn't do!
Any Linux user can do that with any flavor he uses and get a screamingly fast machine out of even a very modest configuration. Which is something you just can't do with Windoze, because you just do not get the source code, period. They'll never let you have it; you could see too many things done wrong, and that wouldn't do!
"ReactOS is free software, the source code of the whole system is available for free and it is licensed under the GNU GPL license."
From reactos.org
From reactos.org
which is NOT to compete with Microsoft, but to offer an alternative to the abusive proprietary software vendors.
Linux provides a free solution, which is readily available to anyone who chooses to pursue it. Why should they now cater to Microsoft's victims?
Linux provides a free solution, which is readily available to anyone who chooses to pursue it. Why should they now cater to Microsoft's victims?
Having a *nix OS that can run Windows apps (which is more than Vista can say, sometimes!) would make it a lot easier for people who have and know Windows applications software to move off of Windows - which is the first step towards getting them to try out non-Windows applications.
It's something Apple picked up on with Intel Macs and Boot Camp - offering Windows users (of which I was one) the chance to run familiar old Windows on a Mac so we'd feel comfortable using a Mac. The funny thing is - I've had a Macbook Pro for over a year now, and I haven't booted into Windows on it in at least six months....
It's something Apple picked up on with Intel Macs and Boot Camp - offering Windows users (of which I was one) the chance to run familiar old Windows on a Mac so we'd feel comfortable using a Mac. The funny thing is - I've had a Macbook Pro for over a year now, and I haven't booted into Windows on it in at least six months....
Offering and catering are two different things. Linux already offers a choice, but why should they cater to (as in attempt to entice) Windows users (other than Commercial Enterprises, which is an entirely different story)?
One Windows user complains that Linux proponents are trying to push them into using Linux, the next one complains that they don't. Which one y'gonna listen to? I say let them lie in the bed they have made for themselves until they are ready to get out of it, then give them a hand if you can. Otherwise, just ignore their FUD.
One Windows user complains that Linux proponents are trying to push them into using Linux, the next one complains that they don't. Which one y'gonna listen to? I say let them lie in the bed they have made for themselves until they are ready to get out of it, then give them a hand if you can. Otherwise, just ignore their FUD.
Please step away from the punch table and put down your cup.
Linux is JUST the kernel, Linux is NOT the OS.
And I don't like your Desktop. I'll use my own, thank you very much. (I can do whatever I want to do... and THAT is the power of using the Linux kernel)
Linux is JUST the kernel, Linux is NOT the OS.
And I don't like your Desktop. I'll use my own, thank you very much. (I can do whatever I want to do... and THAT is the power of using the Linux kernel)
"NT core it is totally hardware agnostic"
NT4 ran on one of four processors Alpha, MIPS or PowerPC and x86
Vista runs on x86 and x86-64
Linux runs on x86, x86-64,PS2/PS3,Mobiles,routers etc
BSD Runs on practically everything ....
"Separate the model view and controller" that Vista copied from Linux and MacOSX, badly
"...replace the down to the metal coding with servers running in the background instead of monolithic applications" servers running in the background are what Linux/Unix is all about there are very few monolithic applications? Unlike Windows where monolithic apps are the norm, on Linux/Unix monolithic apps are the exception ....?
.NET is a way of running apps in a sandboxed environment one step away from the real machine (Just like Java) but unlike Java it is propriatory and encumbered with patents, and Microsoft can and have radically changed the environment several times, and could shut down any system using it anytime they like (with patents)
Linux can already run Win32 apps (WINE) and .NET apps, but this is NOT the way to go ...
NT4 ran on one of four processors Alpha, MIPS or PowerPC and x86
Vista runs on x86 and x86-64
Linux runs on x86, x86-64,PS2/PS3,Mobiles,routers etc
BSD Runs on practically everything ....
"Separate the model view and controller" that Vista copied from Linux and MacOSX, badly
"...replace the down to the metal coding with servers running in the background instead of monolithic applications" servers running in the background are what Linux/Unix is all about there are very few monolithic applications? Unlike Windows where monolithic apps are the norm, on Linux/Unix monolithic apps are the exception ....?
.NET is a way of running apps in a sandboxed environment one step away from the real machine (Just like Java) but unlike Java it is propriatory and encumbered with patents, and Microsoft can and have radically changed the environment several times, and could shut down any system using it anytime they like (with patents)
Linux can already run Win32 apps (WINE) and .NET apps, but this is NOT the way to go ...
The Novell vs. SCO trial is only about whether SCO was allowed to sell the licenses it sold and if so, how much money do they owe Novell.
Darl's blather is completely irrelevant and, therefore, ultimately not helpful.
Darl's blather is completely irrelevant and, therefore, ultimately not helpful.
I got a sniff of his foul odor just yesterday, and recorded it on my Linux sniffometer.
This merits a class action suite. Interested parties please notify Peter Judge at ZDNet.co.uk
This merits a class action suite. Interested parties please notify Peter Judge at ZDNet.co.uk
Peter Judge; were you THAT hard up for an article?
Regurgitating long-disproven lies and spinning FUD with no substance (even cotton candy has SOME substance) is worse than no article at all. What little could be considered news is worse than old news; it's ancient history.
FACT ONE: There is NOTHING shared between Linux and UNIX System V that could be a legitimate basis for serious legal action. That has been known for years.
FACT TWO: Novell stated a long time ago that even if something were to come up, they would not be pursuing any kind of SCOG-like strategy.
If you really want to publish this kind of stuff, go work for Maureen O'Gara. ZDNet isn't known for great journalism, but this is even below ZDNet "quality".
Regurgitating long-disproven lies and spinning FUD with no substance (even cotton candy has SOME substance) is worse than no article at all. What little could be considered news is worse than old news; it's ancient history.
FACT ONE: There is NOTHING shared between Linux and UNIX System V that could be a legitimate basis for serious legal action. That has been known for years.
FACT TWO: Novell stated a long time ago that even if something were to come up, they would not be pursuing any kind of SCOG-like strategy.
If you really want to publish this kind of stuff, go work for Maureen O'Gara. ZDNet isn't known for great journalism, but this is even below ZDNet "quality".
SCO's claims may be ridiculous, but they've been in court for the last several years litigating them, so this is legitimate news (am wondering why there's been almost no coverage of the SCO vs Novell trial in ZDNet). Readers can decide for themselves whether they think the claims have any merit.
I guess you don't know anything about this subject. Sun and AT&T collaborated on SysV and when Novell bought UNIX, it sold Sun an unlimited license. This was BEFORE Novell sold UNIX to SCO/Caldera/SCO. Sun has more claim to UNIX than anyone else! (At least for their own purposes) Why not try some research next time?
still listed on the main page? Good Grief! Today is the 20th it's 18 days old for Gods sake.
It's not like you folks can't find enough **** to write about Microsoft?
It's not like you folks can't find enough **** to write about Microsoft?
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
