Comments
yourfanat wrote: I am using another tool for Oracle developers - dbForge Studio for Oracle. This IDE has lots of usefull features, among them: oracle designer, code competion and formatter, query builder, debugger, profiler, erxport/import, reports and many others. The latest version supports Oracle 12C. More information here.
Cloud Computing
Conference & Expo
November 2-4, 2009 NYC
Register Today and SAVE !..

2008 West
DIAMOND SPONSOR:
Data Direct
SOA, WOA and Cloud Computing: The New Frontier for Data Services
PLATINUM SPONSORS:
Red Hat
The Opening of Virtualization
GOLD SPONSORS:
Appsense
User Environment Management – The Third Layer of the Desktop
Cordys
Cloud Computing for Business Agility
EMC
CMIS: A Multi-Vendor Proposal for a Service-Based Content Management Interoperability Standard
Freedom OSS
Practical SOA” Max Yankelevich
Intel
Architecting an Enterprise Service Router (ESR) – A Cost-Effective Way to Scale SOA Across the Enterprise
Sensedia
Return on Assests: Bringing Visibility to your SOA Strategy
Symantec
Managing Hybrid Endpoint Environments
VMWare
Game-Changing Technology for Enterprise Clouds and Applications
Click For 2008 West
Event Webcasts

2008 West
PLATINUM SPONSORS:
Appcelerator
Get ‘Rich’ Quick: Rapid Prototyping for RIA with ZERO Server Code
Keynote Systems
Designing for and Managing Performance in the New Frontier of Rich Internet Applications
GOLD SPONSORS:
ICEsoft
How Can AJAX Improve Homeland Security?
Isomorphic
Beyond Widgets: What a RIA Platform Should Offer
Oracle
REAs: Rich Enterprise Applications
Click For 2008 Event Webcasts
In many cases, the end of the year gives you time to step back and take stock of the last 12 months. This is when many of us take a hard look at what worked and what did not, complete performance reviews, and formulate plans for the coming year. For me, it is all of those things plus a time when I u...
SYS-CON.TV
First IBM, now SGI - SCO Strikes Again
SCO claims XFS journaling file system developed by SGI is a breach

Mountain View, California-based, Silicon Graphics International (SGI) has revealed that The SCO Group Inc intends to terminate its Unix System V license. The grounds: that SGI has breached the license terms.

The notice to terminate was revealed in Mountain View, California-based SGI's annual 10-K filing.

The company, the filing states, "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."

An SGI spokeman said: "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."

Last month SGI asserted that its conversion of XFS into an open-source program is permitted. "We believe our release of XFS as open source to Linux was consistent with our Unix contract with SCO," SGI spokeswoman Marty Coleman said.

About Linux News Desk
SYS-CON's Linux News Desk gathers stories, analysis, and information from around the Linux world and synthesizes them into an easy to digest format for IT/IS managers and other business decision-makers.

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.

Register | Sign-in

Reader Feedback: Page 1 of 1

This is somewhat off topic as regards SGI, but relates to the IBM case

From http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Oct/10012003/business/97397.asp

SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said Tuesday that he understood the extension is being sought "for the purpose of gaining documents from IBM related to the patents they claim. . . . Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S. Patent Office, as far as we can learn."

From http://lwn.net/Articles/43592/ the patent numbers are:
4,814,746 4,821,211 4,953,209 5,805,785

Go here
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm

Type in the patent numbers into uspto.gov form

You will find them all. Immediately. In fact they load up immediately after typing in the number.

Now compare that to the Blake Stowell quotation above.

According to SCO, SGI's action is not enough, and it is not even possible for SGI to do enough. http://www.vnunet.com/lite/News/1144066

SCO said they were terminating IBM's AIX license and sued IBM for alleged contract violations.

According to IBM's countersuit: IBM asked SCO what the alleged violations were, and how SCO thought IBM should cure them.

According to IBM's countersuit: SCO refused.

According to SGI's SEC filing, and various press reports: SCO wrote a letter to SGI saying their license would be terminated for alleged contractual violations.

According to various press reports: SGI asked SCO in the press and private letters for clarification of what the alleged contractual violations were, and what remedy SCO wanted.

According to various reports: SCO has refused in public, and it looks like they did not respond to the letters.

In fact in the VNUNET http://www.vnunet.com/lite/News/1144066
- SCO says in the original termination letter from SCO to SGI, SCO says the breaches can not be remedied, no matter what SGI does:-

"We don't believe that SGI has taken all of the steps necessary to cure all of the breaches, and in fact in our letter to them, we state 'SGI's breaches of these agreements cannot be cured'.

"Nonetheless, we will provide SGI with two months to remedy all violations of these agreements."

That is it. SCO alleges IBM and SGI have performed contractual violations, but refuses to identify with any specifivity what the violations it alleges are or what remedies it wants. In SGI's case, it even says that no remedy is possible.

I figure Charles Lancaster is not the brightest mind ever having walked on Earth? Has Mr. Lancaster missed some news in recent times? The code in question was fairly trivial, relased into the open by SCO itself, about 200 lines in all and is already removed and made redundant. I figure it follows from that that SCO will win. Sure. And that Linux developers will have a hard time rewriting 200 trivial lines that are already removed. Sure. Boy, do they fear that daunting task.

Per http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html

The Unix license states:

"Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT."

SCO's theory is that if code created by a Unix licensee touches Unix, SCO owns that code and it cannot be separated from Unix. Thus they justify stealing SGI's rights to XFS (among others) even though it was entirely SGI's work and contains no code from Unix.

I (and presumably most sentient organisms) think their interpretation is a tad too broad. If Micosoft had a similar interpretation of their license, it would own any piece of software written for their platform, provided it installed something that could be interpreted as OS altering (eg most software written for those platforms).

It further seems odd that SCO seems to be trying to enforce copyright on code that *they* released open source earlier -- see http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2002/02/28/caldera.html

In defence of Charles, I believe he was trying to argue that SCO do own Unix because why paid for it. However, Charles, what exactly did they pay for again? Personally I haven't a clue, I see more fundamental arguments against SCO e.g. consistent factual errors and mendacious lies.

Charles Lancaster sounds like a non-techie. It's only true non technical people who put their foot in their mouths without so much as a hesitation. Charles, go frequent MSN, it sounds more your speed and intellectual capacity.

>If SCO had no rights to the UNIX code why did they pay in the first place?

Hey Lancaster! Do u know anything about IT? Seems to me that you don't know squat about the current SCO comedy tour... or worse! (gasp!) you're an MS lackey! SGI bought UNIX license from SCOmbag for use in IRIX not for Linux, that's why they paid (gave money as payment) SCO, capisce? Or do u want me to sign language it for u? Go and ctrl-alt-del yourself!

RE "SGI stole SCO intellectual property" --
Read http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/10/01/1940253.shtml?tid=23
before you embarass yourself again.

SGI stole SCO intellectual property and gave it to Linux. If SCO had no rights to the UNIX code why did they pay in the first place? SCO will win and the Linux crowd will have do some of their own coding rather than nick things from other people.


Your Feedback
A Smith wrote: This is somewhat off topic as regards SGI, but relates to the IBM case From http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Oct/10012003/business/97397.asp SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said Tuesday that he understood the extension is being sought "for the purpose of gaining documents from IBM related to the patents they claim. . . . Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S. Patent Office, as far as we can learn." From http://lwn.net/Articles/43592/ the patent numbers are: 4,814,746 4,821,211 4,953,209 5,805,785 Go here http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm Type in the patent numbers into uspto.gov form You will find them all. Immediately. In fact they load up immediately after typing in the number. Now compare that to the Blake Stowell quotation above.
A Smith wrote: According to SCO, SGI's action is not enough, and it is not even possible for SGI to do enough. http://www.vnunet.com/lite/News/1144066 SCO said they were terminating IBM's AIX license and sued IBM for alleged contract violations. According to IBM's countersuit: IBM asked SCO what the alleged violations were, and how SCO thought IBM should cure them. According to IBM's countersuit: SCO refused. According to SGI's SEC filing, and various press reports: SCO wrote a letter to SGI saying their license would be terminated for alleged contractual violations. According to various press reports: SGI asked SCO in the press and private letters for clarification of what the alleged contractual violations were, and what remedy SCO wanted. According to various reports: SCO has refused in public, and it looks like they did not respond to the letters. In fact in the VNUNET http:/...
peter wrote: I figure Charles Lancaster is not the brightest mind ever having walked on Earth? Has Mr. Lancaster missed some news in recent times? The code in question was fairly trivial, relased into the open by SCO itself, about 200 lines in all and is already removed and made redundant. I figure it follows from that that SCO will win. Sure. And that Linux developers will have a hard time rewriting 200 trivial lines that are already removed. Sure. Boy, do they fear that daunting task.
M Fausett wrote: Per http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html The Unix license states: "Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT." SCO's theory is that if code created by a Unix licensee touches Unix, SCO owns that code and it cannot be separated from Unix. Thus they justify stealing SGI's rights to XFS (among others) even though it was entirely SGI's work and contains no code from Unix. I (and presumably most sentient organisms) think their interpretation is a tad too broad. If Micosoft had a similar interpretation of their license, it would own any piece of software written for their platform, provided it installed something that could be interpreted as OS altering (eg most software written for t...
Simon Gibbs wrote: In defence of Charles, I believe he was trying to argue that SCO do own Unix because why paid for it. However, Charles, what exactly did they pay for again? Personally I haven't a clue, I see more fundamental arguments against SCO e.g. consistent factual errors and mendacious lies.
Julio Monroy wrote: Charles Lancaster sounds like a non-techie. It's only true non technical people who put their foot in their mouths without so much as a hesitation. Charles, go frequent MSN, it sounds more your speed and intellectual capacity.
Jud L. wrote: >If SCO had no rights to the UNIX code why did they pay in the first place? Hey Lancaster! Do u know anything about IT? Seems to me that you don't know squat about the current SCO comedy tour... or worse! (gasp!) you're an MS lackey! SGI bought UNIX license from SCOmbag for use in IRIX not for Linux, that's why they paid (gave money as payment) SCO, capisce? Or do u want me to sign language it for u? Go and ctrl-alt-del yourself!
M Fausett wrote: RE "SGI stole SCO intellectual property" -- Read http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/10/01/1940253.shtml?tid=23 before you embarass yourself again.
Charles Lancaster wrote: SGI stole SCO intellectual property and gave it to Linux. If SCO had no rights to the UNIX code why did they pay in the first place? SCO will win and the Linux crowd will have do some of their own coding rather than nick things from other people.
SOA World Latest Stories
CloudEXPO New York 2018, colocated with DXWorldEXPO New York 2018 will be held November 11-13, 2018, in New York City and will bring together Cloud Computing, FinTech and Blockchain, Digital Transformation, Big Data, Internet of Things, DevOps, AI, Machine Learning and WebRTC to one l...
Consumer-driven contracts are an essential part of a mature microservice testing portfolio enabling independent service deployments. In this presentation we'll provide an overview of the tools, patterns and pain points we've seen when implementing contract testing in large development ...
Containers and Kubernetes allow for code portability across on-premise VMs, bare metal, or multiple cloud provider environments. Yet, despite this portability promise, developers may include configuration and application definitions that constrain or even eliminate application portabil...
In his general session at 19th Cloud Expo, Manish Dixit, VP of Product and Engineering at Dice, discussed how Dice leverages data insights and tools to help both tech professionals and recruiters better understand how skills relate to each other and which skills are in high demand usin...
Modern software design has fundamentally changed how we manage applications, causing many to turn to containers as the new virtual machine for resource management. As container adoption grows beyond stateless applications to stateful workloads, the need for persistent storage is founda...
In his session at 20th Cloud Expo, Scott Davis, CTO of Embotics, discussed how automation can provide the dynamic management required to cost-effectively deliver microservices and container solutions at scale. He also discussed how flexible automation is the key to effectively bridging...
Subscribe to the World's Most Powerful Newsletters
Subscribe to Our Rss Feeds & Get Your SYS-CON News Live!
Click to Add our RSS Feeds to the Service of Your Choice:
Google Reader or Homepage Add to My Yahoo! Subscribe with Bloglines Subscribe in NewsGator Online
myFeedster Add to My AOL Subscribe in Rojo Add 'Hugg' to Newsburst from CNET News.com Kinja Digest View Additional SYS-CON Feeds
Publish Your Article! Please send it to editorial(at)sys-con.com!

Advertise on this site! Contact advertising(at)sys-con.com! 201 802-3021


SYS-CON Featured Whitepapers
ADS BY GOOGLE