This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moved from article:
This page is a work in progress, consolidating earlier article fragments relating to this lawsuit -- this article needs major fact-checking and copy-editing
Merphant 22:25 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Snipped this too, since I couldn't find any mention of it in the linked articles (not that I looked very hard). -- Merphant 22:43 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Should this page not be named "SCO vs. IBM Linux lawsuit"? vs. is the standard contraction of versus, not v. -- AW
There's something about copyright in re: this case today on slashdot. I haven't had time to read it yet--have to go to bed. People following this case may want to look into it. Koyaanis Qatsi 00:18 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Could someone clarify which of the following the allegations are about:
Is the particular claim based on copyright law, or some other type of intellectual property law?
The allegations made by SCO are that code was copied verbatim, as in cut-and-pasted. One consultant who signed an NDA to see the code said that he saw approximately 80 lines that were identical, down to mis-spellings in the comments. This proves nothing, since it says nothing about the genesis of the code, but there are apparently identical parts in both.
SCO is claiming that IBM coders copied that code into Linux, which was then released publicly in contravention of their licencing with SCO; IBM disputes all of the preceding sentence. Copyright comes into play insofar as, assuming Linux contains trade secret code, there is a copyright violation for anyone using it.
I've seen speculation that this is all an elaborate pump-and-dump by SCO shareholders: Apparently the major stockholders were buying back large chunks of stock just before launching the lawsuit, and are now in a position to sell them for large profits (given how SCO's stock has climbed over the last few months). Can anyone confirm?
Justin Johnson 10:02:00 22 Jul 2003 (CST)
What does this sentence mean:
On July 28, it was reported that IBM was briefing its salespeople that out SCO's distribution of Linux under the GPL appeared to undermine SCO's case.
Either there's a missing word there or the sentence needs to be reworded.
Lduperval 20:39, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This article now has enough stuff in it that it can be refactored to reflect the issues more than the timeline. -- The Anome
Also, any chance of a very quick 5-line or so summary, maybe on another page? This would help those who have a passing interest in the case to see at a glance what it's all about without wading through the minutiae? GRAHAMUK 07:03, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
A vast extlink farm was added to the article: I've put it on SCO v. IBM Linux lawsuit/more external links. Wikipedia is not Google.
TEST
So, can we have an article specifically on the claim that all of SCO Unix is now GPL'd, and that the complete source code is legally redistributable now as GPL code? It would seem that if even one line of Linux got into SCO Unix, then, it's all wide open. This backs Microsoft's claim that open source is dangerous, but, so what? SCO Unix was all of real Unix - if that's now GPL'd, what fun!
That's a serious enough competitor for Microsoft, isn't it?
Who would care if no commercial player was ever motivated to sell a proprietary OS ever again?
There should be something about the older Unix source that SCO's predecessor, Caldera, made open-source in 2002 under a BSD-style license. ( See http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2002/02/28/caldera.html ) The alleged infriging codes shown during the SCO Forum seem to be covered under the 2002 release, which is publicly archived by "The Unix Heritage Society" ( http://www.tuhs.org/ ) and mirrored at numerous other locations.
The Al Jazeera parody isn't linked correctly. I would have fixed it myself, but I can't figure out where it's supposed to go. -- Logotu 16:10, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'm moving the following sections here from the article; they were commented out, but that was throwing off wikipedia's "edit just this section" edit links. They should go back in when they have some content:
From the article: "Therefore, as per SCO's own estimate, the allegedly infringing code would make up about 0.001% of the total code of a typical GNU/Linux installation."
From http://www.welovethescoinformationminister.org/ : ""The amount of Unix code in Linux could be greater than 25%." [...] "That [1,549 lines of allegedly copied code] is just the number identified so far. It will probably end up being a lot higher." September 2 2003"
Does that make the 0.01‰ figure out of date? Κσυπ Cyp 14:31, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree that this page should be more content-structured and not timeline-based anymore. Other parts should probably be broken out to separate pages, like the RedHat vs SCO case. I'm going to try to keep my changes in small bits. Jhf 14:50, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Are the humour links really necessary or relevant? Wikipedia is not a link repository, and since these humour pages are all anti-SCO, is it not POV to include them? Fredrik 22:41, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Just to say nice overall introduction to the topic, and about as NPOV as its possible to be without being written partly by SCO. Good work people. -- 217.204.169.167 02:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Could someone please put information upfront about which court this case was filed in? I imagine it's in the United States, but beyond that assumption I can't tell anything more from the article. Thanks! Postdlf 19:12 22 June 2004 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the article is incorrect about the AutoZone and DaimlerCrysler suits. The case reasons should be switched. SCO did sue AutoZone, then DaimlerCrysler, but they sued AutoZone for "commerical use of Linux" and they sued DaimlerCrylser for allegedly breaching an agreement that required DaimlerCrylser to provide information about UNIX-licensed CPUs upon request, but not more frequently than annually. The article has the cases switched. Someone with more knowledge should alter that section.
Whoa, this thing is really ugly. It needs to be massively reorganized to look less like a blog. - Joseph 19:36, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
I have removed the section, because it has nothing to do with the topic. It has its own page, where the details can be found. Any comments about this? I also took out the section which was about SCO suing Autozone and DaimlerChrysler. Those cases have their own pages and they are not related to this case. Jannex
Now I also took out the Baystar dispute. I think it has more to do with SCO-Linux controversies than this lawsuit. Here's the complete text:
I will remove Scheduler code claims and Increased damage claims, and read-copy-update claims, because I think that the Scheduler-section doesn't provide enough factual information. It isn't clear, what is the code that is talked about. The issues talked about in Increased damage claims-section are covered elsewhere, so there's no need for that section IMHO. Tell me, if I'm cleaning this article up too much. Jannex 21:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How should we go about adding the fact that Judge Kimball's recent rulling stated that the SCO group had in fact made a copyright infringement claim against IBM regarding Linux? Currently the article basically says that SCO retracted that claim (they actually tried to make it seem as if they had never made that claim but the judge caught on). I think there are lots of other clean ups that can be made to this article. Someone relatively recently removed SCO's claims to ELF, even if they aren't lawsuit related where else should public claims by SCO against IBM be put? zen master T 02:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is no Linux operating system. GNU is the operating system, and when it uses the kernel created by Torvalds it can be called GNU/Linux, but GNU can also run with a different kernel (see HURD).
The article should make clear just exactly what SCO is claiming in its suit. Stallman said the OS is not involved, just the kernel. [3] Uncle Ed 20:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC) Although this was once the case, SCO are now making claims against non-kernel code too. For example Item 18, Exhibit B of "Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint" in SCO v Novell is "SuSE's implementation of dynamic linking".
The SCO-Linux controversies article contains the following text:
Surely that's a major development which should be in this article? I'd put it in myself, except I don't know enough about the case or law in general. 83.71.45.163 10:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Has this case shown any sign of being resolved yet? I know that SCO has recently been mentioned in the news as being on the brink of bankruptcy, but has any real progress been made on this case been made since November when the decision to confirm the dismissal of most of the claims was confirmed? Avador 02:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
My editing skills are a little rusty, but basically SCO has lost the Novell case, meaning it will probably lose everything. Have a look at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070810165237718 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chutzpah ( talk • contribs).
SCO Group filed for Chapter 11 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on Friday September 14. Case number 07-11337 Wdanner 21:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This edit made the article internally inconsistent, using the terms "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" interchangeably. This is confusing; we should use one or the other. It should be reverted.
What is the nature of IBM's license to use and develop a Unix derivative? Does it pay royalties to SCO or Novell? -- Beland ( talk) 14:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Somebody has been allowed to cover the tracks of SCO in this case. I believe everything turned out very badly for SCO in this case, but all evidence of developments after 2003 have been deleted from the article. I hope a wiki editor can restore the content that has been wiped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.85.188 ( talk) 20:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Since nobody cares and/or knows enough to update the article, it is useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.37.193 ( talk) 16:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moved from article:
This page is a work in progress, consolidating earlier article fragments relating to this lawsuit -- this article needs major fact-checking and copy-editing
Merphant 22:25 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Snipped this too, since I couldn't find any mention of it in the linked articles (not that I looked very hard). -- Merphant 22:43 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Should this page not be named "SCO vs. IBM Linux lawsuit"? vs. is the standard contraction of versus, not v. -- AW
There's something about copyright in re: this case today on slashdot. I haven't had time to read it yet--have to go to bed. People following this case may want to look into it. Koyaanis Qatsi 00:18 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Could someone clarify which of the following the allegations are about:
Is the particular claim based on copyright law, or some other type of intellectual property law?
The allegations made by SCO are that code was copied verbatim, as in cut-and-pasted. One consultant who signed an NDA to see the code said that he saw approximately 80 lines that were identical, down to mis-spellings in the comments. This proves nothing, since it says nothing about the genesis of the code, but there are apparently identical parts in both.
SCO is claiming that IBM coders copied that code into Linux, which was then released publicly in contravention of their licencing with SCO; IBM disputes all of the preceding sentence. Copyright comes into play insofar as, assuming Linux contains trade secret code, there is a copyright violation for anyone using it.
I've seen speculation that this is all an elaborate pump-and-dump by SCO shareholders: Apparently the major stockholders were buying back large chunks of stock just before launching the lawsuit, and are now in a position to sell them for large profits (given how SCO's stock has climbed over the last few months). Can anyone confirm?
Justin Johnson 10:02:00 22 Jul 2003 (CST)
What does this sentence mean:
On July 28, it was reported that IBM was briefing its salespeople that out SCO's distribution of Linux under the GPL appeared to undermine SCO's case.
Either there's a missing word there or the sentence needs to be reworded.
Lduperval 20:39, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This article now has enough stuff in it that it can be refactored to reflect the issues more than the timeline. -- The Anome
Also, any chance of a very quick 5-line or so summary, maybe on another page? This would help those who have a passing interest in the case to see at a glance what it's all about without wading through the minutiae? GRAHAMUK 07:03, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
A vast extlink farm was added to the article: I've put it on SCO v. IBM Linux lawsuit/more external links. Wikipedia is not Google.
TEST
So, can we have an article specifically on the claim that all of SCO Unix is now GPL'd, and that the complete source code is legally redistributable now as GPL code? It would seem that if even one line of Linux got into SCO Unix, then, it's all wide open. This backs Microsoft's claim that open source is dangerous, but, so what? SCO Unix was all of real Unix - if that's now GPL'd, what fun!
That's a serious enough competitor for Microsoft, isn't it?
Who would care if no commercial player was ever motivated to sell a proprietary OS ever again?
There should be something about the older Unix source that SCO's predecessor, Caldera, made open-source in 2002 under a BSD-style license. ( See http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2002/02/28/caldera.html ) The alleged infriging codes shown during the SCO Forum seem to be covered under the 2002 release, which is publicly archived by "The Unix Heritage Society" ( http://www.tuhs.org/ ) and mirrored at numerous other locations.
The Al Jazeera parody isn't linked correctly. I would have fixed it myself, but I can't figure out where it's supposed to go. -- Logotu 16:10, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'm moving the following sections here from the article; they were commented out, but that was throwing off wikipedia's "edit just this section" edit links. They should go back in when they have some content:
From the article: "Therefore, as per SCO's own estimate, the allegedly infringing code would make up about 0.001% of the total code of a typical GNU/Linux installation."
From http://www.welovethescoinformationminister.org/ : ""The amount of Unix code in Linux could be greater than 25%." [...] "That [1,549 lines of allegedly copied code] is just the number identified so far. It will probably end up being a lot higher." September 2 2003"
Does that make the 0.01‰ figure out of date? Κσυπ Cyp 14:31, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree that this page should be more content-structured and not timeline-based anymore. Other parts should probably be broken out to separate pages, like the RedHat vs SCO case. I'm going to try to keep my changes in small bits. Jhf 14:50, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Are the humour links really necessary or relevant? Wikipedia is not a link repository, and since these humour pages are all anti-SCO, is it not POV to include them? Fredrik 22:41, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Just to say nice overall introduction to the topic, and about as NPOV as its possible to be without being written partly by SCO. Good work people. -- 217.204.169.167 02:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Could someone please put information upfront about which court this case was filed in? I imagine it's in the United States, but beyond that assumption I can't tell anything more from the article. Thanks! Postdlf 19:12 22 June 2004 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the article is incorrect about the AutoZone and DaimlerCrysler suits. The case reasons should be switched. SCO did sue AutoZone, then DaimlerCrysler, but they sued AutoZone for "commerical use of Linux" and they sued DaimlerCrylser for allegedly breaching an agreement that required DaimlerCrylser to provide information about UNIX-licensed CPUs upon request, but not more frequently than annually. The article has the cases switched. Someone with more knowledge should alter that section.
Whoa, this thing is really ugly. It needs to be massively reorganized to look less like a blog. - Joseph 19:36, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
I have removed the section, because it has nothing to do with the topic. It has its own page, where the details can be found. Any comments about this? I also took out the section which was about SCO suing Autozone and DaimlerChrysler. Those cases have their own pages and they are not related to this case. Jannex
Now I also took out the Baystar dispute. I think it has more to do with SCO-Linux controversies than this lawsuit. Here's the complete text:
I will remove Scheduler code claims and Increased damage claims, and read-copy-update claims, because I think that the Scheduler-section doesn't provide enough factual information. It isn't clear, what is the code that is talked about. The issues talked about in Increased damage claims-section are covered elsewhere, so there's no need for that section IMHO. Tell me, if I'm cleaning this article up too much. Jannex 21:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How should we go about adding the fact that Judge Kimball's recent rulling stated that the SCO group had in fact made a copyright infringement claim against IBM regarding Linux? Currently the article basically says that SCO retracted that claim (they actually tried to make it seem as if they had never made that claim but the judge caught on). I think there are lots of other clean ups that can be made to this article. Someone relatively recently removed SCO's claims to ELF, even if they aren't lawsuit related where else should public claims by SCO against IBM be put? zen master T 02:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is no Linux operating system. GNU is the operating system, and when it uses the kernel created by Torvalds it can be called GNU/Linux, but GNU can also run with a different kernel (see HURD).
The article should make clear just exactly what SCO is claiming in its suit. Stallman said the OS is not involved, just the kernel. [3] Uncle Ed 20:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC) Although this was once the case, SCO are now making claims against non-kernel code too. For example Item 18, Exhibit B of "Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint" in SCO v Novell is "SuSE's implementation of dynamic linking".
The SCO-Linux controversies article contains the following text:
Surely that's a major development which should be in this article? I'd put it in myself, except I don't know enough about the case or law in general. 83.71.45.163 10:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Has this case shown any sign of being resolved yet? I know that SCO has recently been mentioned in the news as being on the brink of bankruptcy, but has any real progress been made on this case been made since November when the decision to confirm the dismissal of most of the claims was confirmed? Avador 02:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
My editing skills are a little rusty, but basically SCO has lost the Novell case, meaning it will probably lose everything. Have a look at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070810165237718 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chutzpah ( talk • contribs).
SCO Group filed for Chapter 11 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on Friday September 14. Case number 07-11337 Wdanner 21:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This edit made the article internally inconsistent, using the terms "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" interchangeably. This is confusing; we should use one or the other. It should be reverted.
What is the nature of IBM's license to use and develop a Unix derivative? Does it pay royalties to SCO or Novell? -- Beland ( talk) 14:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Somebody has been allowed to cover the tracks of SCO in this case. I believe everything turned out very badly for SCO in this case, but all evidence of developments after 2003 have been deleted from the article. I hope a wiki editor can restore the content that has been wiped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.85.188 ( talk) 20:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Since nobody cares and/or knows enough to update the article, it is useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.37.193 ( talk) 16:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)