Red Hat Attacks, SCO Counter Attacks

Linux Today ^ | 5 August 2003 | Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

[ShadowAce]

On August 5th, Red Hat finally told The SCO Group and the world that they weren't going to take SCO's anti-Linux FUD anymore in a law suit filed in Delaware federal court against SCO. Reading from a prepared statement, Mark Webbink, Red Hat's general counsel said, "We filed this complaint to stop SCO from making unsubstantiated and untrue public statements attacking Red Hat Linux and the integrity of the open-source software development process." SCO isn't taking this lying down.

SCO vehemently denies that they're spreading FUD. Instead, CEO and president Darl McBride claims that "We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of Unix." McBride adds that "We have been showing a portion of this code (which SCO claims has been stolen from Unix System V and placed in Linux) since early June." He does not mention, however, that these code samples are only available after signing a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

That may be SCO's take on it, but Red Hat's second compliant in their suit comes right out and says, "SCO's (IP) claims are not true, and are solely designed to create an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and doubt about Linux."

Red Hat is taking SCO to court on seven counts. The heart of the suit though, Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik said at LinuxWorld was: "We have asked the courts to declare that no violations of intellectual property and trade secrets have occurred. We've been patient, we've listened. But when our customers and the whole open-source community are threatened with innuendo and rumor, it's time to act."

SCO's first response to Red Hat came in an August 4th note to investors that tries to show, via a letter on July 31st from Bob Bench, SCO CFO, to Webbink, which was never actually sent, that SCO had been trying for a peaceful resolution with Linux distributors. "We had expected the possibility of a global resolution of SCO's intellectual property claims against all Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat. This effort has apparently stalled, through no fault of SCO." At today SCO's press conference, McBride added that such talks had been going on with several Linux companies, but these had come to nothing and that no current discussions are now on-going.

In a letter sent on August 4th to Matthew Szulik, after Red Hat sued SCO, McBride wrote that he was surprised by Red Hat's legal action, "I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux." And, "Of course, we will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint. Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy."

McBride ends his note with, "I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conductive to the long-term survivability of Linux."

SCO seemed surprised by this move, but it's hard to see how they could be. SCO had been telling Red Hat's, and other Linux vendors, customers for months that they were running Linux illegally. And, further, SCO had directly threatened business Linux end-users with legal action on July 21st.

As Dan Kusnetzky, IDC vice president for system software research, says, "I was expecting someone to make this move. By SCO going to the media rather than a court, it was only a matter of time that someone would take the move of trying to legally force SCO to show the Linux community what they've been complaining about." He adds, "After Eben Moglen's paper (Questioning SCO) appeared, it was only a matter of time before someone took SCO to court."

During the press conference, McBride also said, "Red Hat claims that SCO is at fault for Red Hat's loss of business. We believe it's not our fault. We believe Red Hat is losing business because Red Hat has a faulty business model and that the business model's real problem is that it based around distributing Linux under the General Public License (GPL)."

Thomas C. Carey, a partner at of the Boston IP and business law firm Bromberg & Sunstein and chairman of the firm's Business Practice Group, thinks Red Hat has a very good case. "Assuming for the moment that SCO is off-base in its allegations, this complaint is enough to rock SCO to its foundations." Still, "A lot will depend upon the vigor with which the matter is pursued. My presumption is that the suit is serious and will be pursued with full force."

But Carey warns, "SCO is in some danger even if its allegations are correct, simply because SCO has put everyone in an impossible position. What can they (a Linux distributor or end-user) do if they don't know which code is infringing? If, to that unfairness, you add a conclusion that SCO has its facts wrong, then SCO's liability to Red Hat and others could be very substantial. And if SCO knows (or should know) that its facts are wrong, then you can kiss the company good-bye."

Last, but far from least, Carey thinks that there's "a potential securities fraud action is buried within the pleadings. Red Hat speaks of Canopy Group (SCO's primary owner) having raked in millions in cash since the start of this affair. Red Hat notes that its own stock price has declined 20% in a month. This is the stuff of securities lawsuits. Red Hat could amend its claims to include a securities law claim, or another law firm could bring a class action lawsuit against SCO on behalf of selling Red Hat shareholders who have been harmed by the low price they get. Finally, it is conceivable that the SEC or the Justice Department could take an interest in this, viewing it as market manipulation."

Be that as it may, it's still full speed ahead for SCO. SCO also announced today the availability of the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux. Contrary to earlier comments from SCO, SCO is not requiring business Linux 2.4 and 2.5 users to buy UnixWare or a license to use UnixWare. Instead, this run-time license permits the use of SCO's intellectual property (IP), in binary form only, as contained in Linux distributions. SCO also claims that because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers will also comply with the Linux's GPL.

This seems to disagree with Eben Moglen, professor of law at Columbia University and counsel to the Free Software Foundation, position who states: "Those who have received Linux under one license are not required to take another license simply because SCO wishes the license it has already been using had different terms." In short, "I don't see how SCO can get around the fact that they gave people GPL Linux."

The new license's cost is also likely to stop many customers from buying SCO's arguments unless a company is especially worried about SCO's legal claims. SCO introductory IP license price for a single CPU system will be $699 through October 15th 2003, after which it will climb to $1,399.

By comparison, the list price of Microsoft's Server 2003 is $1,299 for a single processor system with ten users. SCO's pricing for multiple CPU systems, single CPU add-ons, desktop systems and embedded systems, according to Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager of SCO Source, will be along these same lines. The SCO IP License for Linux is a one time license with no need for annual renewal.

It's also not clear why SCO is also asking for license payment for single processor, desktop and embedded systems. You see, SCO has been claiming that its IP rights have been violated in the areas of advanced enterprise level capabilities such as Symmetric Multi-Processing (SMP), Remote Copy Update (RCU) and Non-Uniform Memory Access (NUMA) not in basic end-user Linux code or functionality.

Regardless, McBride finished his press conference with saying that Red Hat and others have been playing "shell game going on with Linux legal liability." Further, trying to take the moral high ground, McBride said that "the real issue is whether intellectual property rights have any value in the age of the Internet" and that Linux companies are making 'don't ask, don't tell' software. And, finally, that while SCO doesn't want to after end-users, in the end, if they have to, "we will go after end-users."

The SCO vs. the Linux world cold war has just gotten several degrees hotter.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

LOL!! Thanks for the ping and the post!

I think Nick is right!

A Smart move by Red Hat.

OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

What scientific application is consuming most of the cycles?

[TLI]

When they see the fees MS will charge to force them to upgrade to whatever MS will call the next server OS, a lot of them will give a long hard look at Linux and many will switch.

 

UPTIME . .
30 DAYS, 2 HOURS, 31 MINUTES . .
 
Several MAJOR changes , no reboot.
 
added a printer. no reboot.
 
linked up to the house cable internet router and installed, no reboot.
 
loaded monitoring software, new sound card, changed monitors and loaded drivers, no reboot . .
 
OS and software disks cost,   $15.00
 
This ought to be interesting, seeing has how SCO is asking folks to pay the cost of a pretty good new computer for something that is not copy protected.
 
Reminds me of those folks that wanted $$$ because they claimed they owned the hyperlink . . . they were urinating in a hurricane too.
 
 

[Incorrigible]

You inserted a new sound card and didn't reboot? I didn't know they made hot swap sound cards.

[Physicist]

That sounds like a pretty intense setup. What do you use it for?

It's used for The National Digital Mammography Archive. (Check out #1 on the list.) Pure Linux under the hood.

[babyface00]

I didn't know they made hot swap sound cards

Do the hot-swap PCI slots require hot-swappable cards, or do the slots take care of all the interfacing and use standard PCI cards?

[babyface00]

Thanks for the link. The system is pretty awesome, but the use its being put to is even better.

[Bush2000]

None of us should be surprised by this. *nix vendors have been squabbling over standards and licensing and technology issues for a very, very long time -- and the practical result is fragmentation in the *nix marketplace. Now, Linux is poised to suffer the same fate.

[Coral Snake]

If it and its General Commie Virus (GPL) are not revoked in this country in the first place with all these stolen code lawsuits. Glad to see you back. Now with Golden Eagle and myself there are at least THREE of us who believe in the commandment THOU SHALT NOT STEAL in these FReeper tech threads.

[Bush2000]

It's going to be a lot of fun watching them fall on their swords...

[Golden Eagle]

*nix vendors have been squabbling over standards and licensing and technology issues for a very, very long time -- and the practical result is fragmentation in the *nix marketplace. Now, Linux is poised to suffer the same fate.

Exactly correct, except that they've already had this problem for a while, and it is only getting worse. Red Hat, Red Flag, SuSe, Mandrake, Gentoo, Slackware, Debian, the list grows every day. And they ALL still fail to see the value of 'integration'.

[Golden Eagle]

Coral Snake I know you have a vicious bite but that was maybe a little harsh, FR has a much higher class than any other internet message board and there are certainly MANY more here that respect the value of property. They just mostly deal with "the more important stuff" going on here plus it being readily apparent the thieves are being schooled here on the SCO threads as well as the RIAA ones.

[Golden Eagle]

Coral Snake (Biting commies, crooks, traitors, islamofascists and any other type of Anti American)

REALLY nice sig by the way.

[Bush2000]

Exactly correct, except that they've already had this problem for a while, and it is only getting worse. Red Hat, Red Flag, SuSe, Mandrake, Gentoo, Slackware, Debian, the list grows every day. And they ALL still fail to see the value of 'integration'.

The funny thing is ... the zealots like to say that Linux is going to take over the *nix market. But what they fail to mention is that there is no such thing as a single "Linux". Yeah, it's a kernel. But there are literally dozens of distributions, each with differing filesystems, install locations, etc. They can't even agree on the most fundamental things -- and consequently Linux Standard Base is doomed to failure. The thing that they consider a virtue -- their "openness" -- is also the the thing that makes them least willing to standardize and agree with one another. Why? Because they don't have to. The open nature of the source code makes it possible to end-run one another. It's totally "Not-Invented-Here" syndrome. Egos run amok. And, as you pointed out, the problem is getting worse, not better.

[Coral Snake]

Sorry about releasing to much "venom". I was only intending to aim it at the OS-News and Slashdot types who seem to be trolling around here the same way they claim that we are trolling around on their sites. By the way what Os would reccomend for Free Republic once this foriegn commie pirate's nest goes down the toilet.

[Golden Eagle]

On 'tech' internet message boards, many Linux proponents will post a complaint that the desired files aren't usually in the same directory between the different versions, making it impossible to find things, but then the zealots arrive and tell them that is the "beauty" of it.

They are internally conflicted in so many ways, exactly why they like so much "freedom" to manage arcane details of the base operating systems, never understanding the only reason people even use computers in the first place is the applications. Yes, there are many of us that find their actions hysterical at times.

[Golden Eagle]

Coral Snake I only wish great things for Free Republic, and you should do the same. You will find most members here are outstanding people, so much that I have met some in person. This is possibly the best site on the entire internet, I request you further investigate the site before commenting further.

Also, as Free Republic is what I would call an "edutainment" source, I support the limited use of what I would call "public domian" software. I believe you are a game programmer, and I support the use of open source for games as well and hope your projects succeed. But I don't support it anywhere high level security is required, such as government operations, especially open source software whose internal mechanisms are directly managed by a foreign national.

[Coral Snake]

I have been a "lurker" here for several years before getting a posting account and know that most people here are honest patriotic conservatives.
Of most of the posters here I particularly like Doug From Upland since I am somewhat of a musical parodist myself. I mostly use Civil War songs (Regardless of the side, Both the Union and the Confederacy made great music that it is easy to add modern lines to.) and other 19th and early 20th
century public domain music for these.

Now back to somewhat on topic. I take your second answer to probably be a BSD of some kind being that linux is going to be toast. I would personally reccomend NetBSD if FreeRepublic has to continue using a free OS. It doesn't have that "devil" mascott that Christian users might object to. (Not me however I know the difference between an OS mascott and the real thing. In fact the real thing can sometimes even look like a penguin ;-).

[dennisw]

I can't wait to SCO's cabal of lawyers go down in flames.

[Golden Eagle]

Thanks for your suggestions Coral Snake, you are an open source advocate deserving of respect. So many 'free sofware' people seem so obsessed with the 'free' aspect of it for them personally, and instead only want to "take" verses your true desire to "give". And yes, the symbolism of many open source projects like 'Mono' are evil in appearance, and I simply don't understand the need unless that is somehow attractive to their users much like 'heavy metal' music symbolism must be to some as well. As for the penguin, silly, obviously, not really any better than the Gateway 'cow'.