From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 4194 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2021 05:28:45 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 2 Apr 2021 05:28:45 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id EBD7B9C9F6; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 15:28:43 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73BE49C641; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 15:27:51 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kev009.com header.i=@kev009.com header.b="TRA3rV/G"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8D3D29C641; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 15:27:05 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-yb1-f177.google.com (mail-yb1-f177.google.com [209.85.219.177]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B64599C63F for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 15:27:04 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-yb1-f177.google.com with SMTP id y2so1212880yby.4 for ; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 22:27:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kev009.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vGLRNQWA2A5+outYS1WN0C85h1BQ7HLKkrqg1L1hE3E=; b=TRA3rV/GmD6NzQ/9NszygsF8a24Ti9uejyZ/inaxXXu7U7MFNFHEfJanZianuTUe44 qmVH2KEcR4qPNuJqOQmdpPkH94wyY0g2WahANFG//ZH/Y+TfnmuGDaBZrLHjPAYT7r4n zrGLBiYkyVrRbcPd0SOwZ68ORyITWQ+bii/HA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vGLRNQWA2A5+outYS1WN0C85h1BQ7HLKkrqg1L1hE3E=; b=BZlQvFRdSeHfi7O/a3Rv3EW85fzHUOlVNU7HJUL/SOMfKSirYK8Brn08n4T6fQjiS+ ANkiQJq63RVNxgguyWuD/YR/7cMcVHtVkvVgHJvtaNdFMj2aJeceImXW47FN8rh3WU9H LGCho59Er8GNXGGjXGoZxJPeaUsvPWdH9laA7AvvG2R+G47BduYRPZvCFuYOviBcSLJr EaaQm79uOVlx3Ei7AmzLhcVm/kHrfy8OIfuUrf/FxHQy6IQ0Z2wLoSGD4cbiKdDzpg5s X50rhXG8QPxtkNdg8Cpkz+50DW2ReqwZHkgrT9zpFqhD1K1wjuckpgeiTTHlB7UByU7w B7sg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531wYFW8mpNWeo7AVCpKajPh508YOyxT+fj326MO+qkGOePoH4/A 0Wvt8RgqWwyYa6qn+0WlE1tDVHzQxnaIPVA2CAjU1A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzg9ObJXxNVd0fWQFgKlwAjPr5eLSJPeyYOHhhgTj0YvuZHViI5P0bDSorMKOljz03yWxSrDAlKZDO+TxNnoSI= X-Received: by 2002:a25:db92:: with SMTP id g140mr16268104ybf.391.1617341223704; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 22:27:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210401145025.GA1202@naleco.com> In-Reply-To: From: Kevin Bowling Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 22:26:52 -0700 Message-ID: To: Wesley Parish Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001eaae205bef699cc" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Zombified SCO comes back from the dead, brings trial back to life against IBM X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list , Josh Good Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --0000000000001eaae205bef699cc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:54 PM Wesley Parish wrote: > Which isn't how I remember things. From what I remember, Linux had the > impetus in the late nineties that FreeBSD didn't have - the *BSD were > still recovering from the AT&T case, which is why O'Reilly had to > issue a 4.4BSD-Lite Cd-ROM when I suspect, they would've preferred to > have issued a 4.4BSD complete disc. So from IBM's POV, they could > support Linux - which by then had already been ported to the VM/370 > and there was already talk of porting it to the later mainframe > iterations. I don't think anybody was even thinking of porting any of > the *BSD to IBM mainframes till much later, am I right? You=E2=80=99ve compressed quite a bit of history. IBM didn=E2=80=99t engag= e with Linux in a serious way until Jan 2000. It took a bit longer for things to really become corporate, but the fall of the first dot com bubble definitely started skewing toward Linux and away from commercial unix, windows, BSD, whatever. Red Hat (and many of its variants like Amazon Linux, CentOS) and Ubuntu emerged as early winners in the corporate and cloud market. I think Ubuntu discredits a lot of the claims. IBM is a major contributor to Ubuntu. > At any rate, by the time IBM formally joined the Linux club, it was > already (unofficial) host to at least one unofficial port to one of > its historic mainframes, and official host to an officlal SkunkWorks > port to its then-current mainframes. Experience counts. > > None of the *BSD had nearly as big a presence in the IBM world, and > none of the earlier IBM Unix ports, some 4.*BSD, as far as I can > remember, ever had the presence of Linux as both a platform and - > thanks to Caldera-later-aka-The Sco Group - as a cause. > Yes IBM shipped 4.3 BSD as AOS, Academic Operating System (the name which is kind of funny). There=E2=80=99s definitely BSD code in every OS they sh= ip, including os/400 by way of PASE (this is somewhat ironic because IBM went to great lengths to keep unix influences out of os/400). > I had hoped that Xinuos was an honest attempt to provide support for > remaining SCO sites, but it seems they've fallen to the Dark Side and > the Easy Buck again. Sic transit gloria mundi ... > The case looks flimsy. Some lawyers will make money regardless, I=E2=80=99= d be surprised if anyone would take something like this on without immediate remuneration. > Wesley Parish > > On 4/2/21, Warner Losh wrote: > > The other set of claims made, which may be stronger, was that IBM and > > Redhat used their dominant position to lock out OSes other than Linux, > > including FreeBSD from their cloud platform. > > > > Their copyright claims look to be a bit different than the old SCO > lawsuit. > > > > Reading their complaint, it is somewhat different than the old suit... > > FreeBSD is mentioned like 34 times too, since Xinuos based their produc= ts > > based on it. And their product is locked out of the IBM/Redhat cloud > > platform/ecosystem. The copyright stuff seems almost an afterthought... > > > > Warner > > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:51 AM Josh Good wrote: > > > >> I read the news, and I could not believe it. > >> > >> It's April 1st, ain't it? > >> > >> But then, this looks like is dated March 31. So it could be for real. > >> > >> Behold: https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/31/ibm_redhat_xinuos/ > >> > >> The PDF also is dated March 31: > >> https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/03/31/xinuos_complaint.pdf > >> > >> It's hard to believe someone would go to the trouble of writing 57 pag= es > >> of > >> legalese just to make a damn joke. > >> > >> " > >> Xinuos, formed around SCO Group assets a decade ago under the > >> name > >> UnXis and at the time disavowing any interest in continuing > SCO's > >> long-running Linux litigation, today sued IBM and Red Hat for > >> alleged copyright and antitrust law violations. > >> > >> "First, IBM stole Xinuos' intellectual property and used that > >> stolen > >> property to build and sell a product to compete with Xinuos > >> itself," > >> the US Virgin Islands-based software biz claims in its complai= nt > >> [PDF]. "Second, stolen property in IBM's hand, IBM and Red Hat > >> illegally agreed to divide the relevant market and use their > >> growing > >> market powers to victimize consumers, innovative competitors, > and > >> innovation itself." > >> > >> The complaint further contends that after the two companies > >> conspired to divide the market, IBM then acquired Red Hat to > >> solidify its position. > >> > >> SCO Group in 2003 made a similar intellectual property claim. = It > >> argued that SCO Group owned the rights to AT&T's Unix and > >> UnixWare > >> operating system source code, that Linux 2.4.x and 2.5.x were > >> unauthorized derivatives of Unix, and that IBM violated its > >> contractual obligations by distributing Linux code. > >> > >> That case dragged on for years, and drew a fair amount of > >> attention > >> when SCO Group said it would sue individual Linux users for > >> infringement. Though SCO filed for bankruptcy in 2007 and some > of > >> the claims have been dismissed, its case against IBM remains > >> unresolved. > >> > >> There was a status report filed on February 16, 2018, details > >> remaining claims and counterclaims. And in May last year, > >> Magistrate > >> Judge Paul Warner was no longer assigned to oversee settlement > >> discussions. But SCO Group v. IBM is still open. > >> " > >> > >> Either way, some one if fooling us hard. > >> > >> PS: OK, it seems it's for real: > >> https://www.xinuos.com/xinuos-sues-ibm-and-red-hat/ > >> > >> I need to check my stock of pop corn, then... > >> > >> My take: it's obvious they want to be a nuisance so that IBM settles t= he > >> case, so they then can go back home with some fresh cash. I hope IBM > goes > >> ballistic on them to the bitter end, and finally sends the zombie back > to > >> its grave. But then, IBM now has its new RedHat business to protect, s= o > >> it > >> can get interesting. > >> > >> -- > >> Josh Good > >> > >> > > > --0000000000001eaae205bef699cc Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:54 PM Wesley Parish <wobblygong@gmail.com> wrote:
=
Which isn't how I remember things. From what I remembe= r, Linux had the
impetus in the late nineties that FreeBSD didn't have - the *BSD were still recovering from the AT&T case, which is why O'Reilly had to issue a 4.4BSD-Lite Cd-ROM when I suspect, they would've preferred to have issued a 4.4BSD complete disc. So from IBM's POV, they could
support Linux - which by then had already been ported to the VM/370
and there was already talk of porting it to the later mainframe
iterations. I don't think anybody was even thinking of porting any of the *BSD to IBM mainframes till much later, am I right?

You=E2=80=99ve compressed quite a bi= t of history.=C2=A0 IBM didn=E2=80=99t engage with Linux in a serious way u= ntil Jan 2000.=C2=A0 It took a bit longer for things to really become corpo= rate, but the fall of the first dot com bubble definitely started skewing t= oward Linux and away from commercial unix, windows, BSD, whatever.=C2=A0 Re= d Hat (and many of its variants like Amazon Linux, CentOS) and Ubuntu emerg= ed as early winners in the corporate and cloud market.=C2=A0 I think Ubuntu= discredits a lot of the claims.=C2=A0 IBM is a major contributor to Ubuntu= .


At any rate, by the time IBM formally joined the Linux club, it was
already (unofficial) host to at least one unofficial port to one of
its historic mainframes, and official host to an officlal SkunkWorks
port to its then-current mainframes. Experience counts.

None of the *BSD had nearly as big a presence in the IBM world, and
none of the earlier IBM Unix ports, some 4.*BSD, as far as I can
remember, ever had the presence of Linux as both a platform and -
thanks to Caldera-later-aka-The Sco Group - as a cause.

Yes IBM shipped = 4.3 BSD as AOS, Academic Operating System (the name which is kind of funny)= .=C2=A0 There=E2=80=99s definitely BSD code in every OS they ship, includin= g os/400 by way of PASE (this is somewhat ironic because IBM went to great = lengths to keep unix influences out of os/400).

=

I had hoped that Xinuos was an honest attempt to provide support for
remaining SCO sites, but it seems they've fallen to the Dark Side and the Easy Buck again. Sic transit gloria mundi ...

The case looks f= limsy.=C2=A0 Some lawyers will make money regardless, I=E2=80=99d be surpri= sed if anyone would take something like this on without immediate remunerat= ion.


Wesley Parish

On 4/2/21, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> The other set of claims made, which may be stronger, was that IBM and<= br> > Redhat used their dominant position to lock out OSes other than Linux,=
> including FreeBSD from their cloud platform.
>
> Their copyright claims look to be a bit different than the old SCO law= suit.
>
> Reading their complaint, it is somewhat different than the old suit...=
> FreeBSD is mentioned like 34 times too, since Xinuos based their produ= cts
> based on it. And their product is locked out of the IBM/Redhat cloud > platform/ecosystem. The copyright stuff seems almost an afterthought..= .
>
> Warner
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:51 AM Josh Good <pepe@naleco.com> wrote:
>
>> I read the news, and I could not believe it.
>>
>> It's April 1st, ain't it?
>>
>> But then, this looks like is dated March 31. So it could be for re= al.
>>
>> Behold: https://www.theregister.co= m/2021/03/31/ibm_redhat_xinuos/
>>
>> The PDF also is dated March 31:
>> https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/03/31/xin= uos_complaint.pdf
>>
>> It's hard to believe someone would go to the trouble of writin= g 57 pages
>> of
>> legalese just to make a damn joke.
>>
>> "
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Xinuos, formed around SCO Group a= ssets a decade ago under the
>> name
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0UnXis and at the time disavowing = any interest in continuing SCO's
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0long-running Linux litigation, to= day sued IBM and Red Hat for
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0alleged copyright and antitrust l= aw violations.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0"First, IBM stole Xinuos'= ; intellectual property and used that
>> stolen
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0property to build and sell a prod= uct to compete with Xinuos
>> itself,"
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the US Virgin Islands-based softw= are biz claims in its complaint
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[PDF]. "Second, stolen prope= rty in IBM's hand, IBM and Red Hat
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0illegally agreed to divide the re= levant market and use their
>> growing
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0market powers to victimize consum= ers, innovative competitors, and
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0innovation itself."
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The complaint further contends th= at after the two companies
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0conspired to divide the market, I= BM then acquired Red Hat to
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0solidify its position.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0SCO Group in 2003 made a similar = intellectual property claim. It
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0argued that SCO Group owned the r= ights to AT&T's Unix and
>> UnixWare
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0operating system source code, tha= t Linux 2.4.x and 2.5.x were
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0unauthorized derivatives of Unix,= and that IBM violated its
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0contractual obligations by distri= buting Linux code.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0That case dragged on for years, a= nd drew a fair amount of
>> attention
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0when SCO Group said it would sue = individual Linux users for
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0infringement. Though SCO filed fo= r bankruptcy in 2007 and some of
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the claims have been dismissed, i= ts case against IBM remains
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0unresolved.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0There was a status report filed o= n February 16, 2018, details
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0remaining claims and counterclaim= s. And in May last year,
>> Magistrate
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Judge Paul Warner was no longer a= ssigned to oversee settlement
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussions. But SCO Group v. IBM= is still open.
>> "
>>
>> Either way, some one if fooling us hard.
>>
>> PS: OK, it seems it's for real:
>> https://www.xinuos.com/xinuos-sues-ibm-a= nd-red-hat/
>>
>> I need to check my stock of pop corn, then...
>>
>> My take: it's obvious they want to be a nuisance so that IBM s= ettles the
>> case, so they then can go back home with some fresh cash. I hope I= BM goes
>> ballistic on them to the bitter end, and finally sends the zombie = back to
>> its grave. But then, IBM now has its new RedHat business to protec= t, so
>> it
>> can get interesting.
>>
>> --
>> Josh Good
>>
>>
>
--0000000000001eaae205bef699cc--