The Penguin Ping.
Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!
Got root?
Posted on 10/01/2003 9:25:41 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Silicon Graphics Inc says that it has received notice from SCO Group Inc that the Unix vendor intends to terminate its Unix System V license on the basis that SGI has breached the terms of the license.
The move by Lindon, Utah-based SCO is the latest twist in its long-running claims that code from its Unix System V has been copied into the Linux operating system. The company has also terminated the Unix licenses of IBM Corp, sued IBM for $3bn for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets, and maintained that Linux users need to license its Unix intellectual property to avoid potential litigation.
SCO's notice to terminate SGI's Unix license was revealed in Mountain View, California-based SGI's annual 10-K filing. "We recently received a notice from SCO Group stating its intention to terminate our fully paid license to certain Unix-related code, under which we distribute our Irix operating system, on the basis that we have breached the terms of such license," said the company.
"We believe that the SCO Group's allegations are without merit and that our fully paid license is non-terminable. Nonetheless, there can be no assurance that this dispute with SCO Group will not escalate into litigation, which could have a material adverse effect on SGI, or that SCO Group's intellectual property claims will not impair the market acceptance of the Linux operating system."
A move against SGI is hardly surprising given comments made by SCO at its SCO Forum event in August when it claimed that one million lines of Unix code had been handed to Linux, including the XFS journaling file system developed by SGI.
SCO claims that under the terms of licensees' contracts with SCO, all derivative works of System V should be treated as being part of the System V code base, and therefore not given to other parties without SCO's permission.
SGI was also named in SCO CEO Darl McBride's recent letter to the open source community with regard to code that it had identified as evidence of copying - even though open source leader Bruce Perens said it was available under the open source BSD license and had been removed from Linux in any case.
"Nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use, and then contributed that source code to Linux as though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI," McBride wrote.
SGI declined to comment any further on SCO's action, other than the statement made in its annual report. SCO has not responded to requests for more information about its action against SGI by press time.
Meanwhile, SCO has also hit back at IBM's amended complaint as part of its defense against SCO, once again taking a swing at the General Public License on which Linux is based. IBM said earlier this week that SCO had infringed IBM's copyrights by copying and distributing IBM's own contributions to the Linux operating system without permission after SCO breached the terms of the General Public License by terminating its own Linux distributions.
"IBM, not SCO, has brought the GPL into the legal controversy between the two companies. SCO believes that the GPL is a shaky foundation on which to build a legal case," said the company. "By so strongly defending the controversial GPL, IBM is also defending a questionable licensing scheme through which it can avoid providing software indemnification for its customers. We continue to urge IBM to provide legal indemnification for its Linux customers."
Unlike Hewlett-Packard Co, IBM has so far refused offer Linux users legal indemnification. "The typical approach to indemnity, and apparently HP's approach as outlined in the press, we believe runs fundamentally counter to the Linux value proposition, said IBM Systems Group's vice president of sales, Bob Samson, in a memo last week. "Most indemnities are narrowly drawn and are often invalidated by customer activities, such as making modifications or combining the indemnified product with other code, which are central to the vitality of open source."
Meanwhile, it does not look like SCO's case against IBM is likely to be settled any time soon. SCO has also filed a motion with the court in Utah asking for more time - until February 4, 2004 - to amend its pleadings and add parties. The case is not expected to go to trial until 2005.
Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!
Got root?
Sorry, I'm not buying it. I'm tired of these jerks pretending they can yank everybody around. They can't, so to Hell with them. What are they going to do, file another lawsuit? They already have enough lawsuits to drive them into bankruptcy three times over. The whole thing is just tiresome now. It's all bluster and empty threats from guys who are dead but haven't fallen over yet. It was fun for a while, but you can only watch a near-bankrupt outfit issue dire threats so many times before the act becomes laughable. This one has. |
Darl McBride now is not only a sock puppet but recent history also shows him to be a sock puppet for a TRAITOR!!!
Microsoft signs source code browsing agreement with China
Certain posters on FR call the Linux coders Traitors because of "Red Flag Linux" but all China is getting from them is some source code, executable binaries and the usual "read the (self moderated expletive) manual" raz that most newbies get from really advanced Linux coders and users. Microsoft is giving China the WHOLE WINDOWS STORE here. I will be forgiving Bill Gates for this at about the Same time Doug from Upland forgives Bill Clinton for it.
And the same goes for Darl McBride who is trying to kill Linux as a sock puppet for this traitor.
I notice also that another of these trolls (Golden Eagle) appears to be gone now that his "hero" has betrayed HIM as well as the rest of the country.
Guns, Linux and Liberty. ;c)
Have you seen PJ's analysis of Red Hat's smackdown of $CO's motion to dismiss?
Did ya see where $CO says it no longer needs to invoice Linux users?
SCO in August said Linux users could avoid lawsuits by paying a one-time fee of $699. The fee will rise to $1,399 on Oct. 15. Since the response to its appeal was adequate, SCO didn't send bills to thousands of Linux users, company spokesman Blake Stowell said.
$CO's words are truly coming back to haunt them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
The fearsome $70 million has-been from Linden, UT strikes again, this time by sending a letter. Presses stop. Analysts reach for their tea leaves. Never before has a two-bit washed-up nothing towered over the industry as SCO does today.