Slashdot Mirror
SCO Claims Kernel Contains UnixWare Code
ergo98 writes "SCO has increased the intensity of the lawsuit with IBM by claiming to hold indisputable proof that copyrighted UnixWare code found its way into Linux, violating the rules of both camps. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen: SCO refuses to divulge the code in question, however they promise to reveal it in court shortly."
As already stated on LKML here, it's far more likely that they saw something that had been stolen from Linux or other GNU code in SCO, and thought is was the other way around.
It also isn't clear if SCO is referring specifically to Redhat userland, redhat kernel patches or what. It's only clear that they don't mean specifically the Linux kernal as found on kernel.org.
-If you wish to make a complaint, press 1. If you wish to wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are, press -- what else? -- the star key.
Compared to war, all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. God, how I love it. - Gen. George Patton
about the Sco vs. IBM suit, I can't help but think that SCO is going to be worse off than Mike Tyson's cellmate when all is said and done.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
And they are repeated many many times! /*
*/
Those lines are exact duplicates of orginal Unix code! Oh no! They've got us!
Slashdot is like Playboy: I read it for the articles
[*] SCO lawsuit support (EXPERIMENTAL) (NEW)
If Y is selected, then copywrited code from unixware will be compiled into the kernel, if you have millions of $CURRENCY and would like to get SCO after you then say Y, most people would say N here.
Patch here
SCO's up against the wall first!
As someone who bought both Caldera 2.2 and 2.3 when they first came out, I feel I somehow contributed to this mess. So that I might make amends for my actions, unwitting though they were at the time, please allow me to state that:
FUCK SCO AND THE HORSE THEY RODE IN ON.
If in case SCO clamis are true... would the linux kernel itself, as it stand become non-gpl'ed? After all if some GPL code makes its way its something else... its is GPLed... seems kinda fair to me.
SCO is back at it, begging IBM to buy and assimilate them...
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
The fact that a) they were looking for it and b) found it, leads me to suspect it might (assuming it exists at all) be SCO or someone at SCO.
That's the beauty of open-source. It's wide open, and well documented.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
"The Linux community would have me publish it now, (so they can have it) laundered by the time we can get to a court hearing. That's not the way we're going to go."
Infidels!
So worst case, IBM DID do this (which I doubt), Linux suffers and BSD takes over!?!? Grreeeeeaaat, then we'll have to listen to a bunch of "Linux is dead" trolls. When will it end??? Either way, one thing is for certian:
SCO is dead.
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
SCO is claiming they have found weapons of mass
destruction in the linux kernel code. The UN will
be assembling an inspection team shortly.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
One would think that SCO has enough version control to know what they have, when they got it and where it came from. That would be assuming alot with them though.
Repeatedly over the past few days, they have provided a moving target as to what they they are claiming as thier IP. First it was IBM, then it was the OSS Linux community as a whole, and now they are saying it is the distros.
How typical. A bunch of dumbasses that could never have corperate direct now cannot even give thier litigation a sure direction for one day.
Note to SCO: Go back to drinking your Provo Girl beer, watching forest fires and making bad Linux distros. This is turing into a joke for you that you will NEVER recover come.
You will not own the community, you sure as hell won't IBM, and if I was IBM, I sure as would not want to purchase a company full of directionless assholes.
Give it up guys. All your linux are belong to us should not be anyone's mission statement.
"Lithuanian gutter weed or blunt from Portland...which do think the Blazers like?"
Why are we wasting valuable time? Couldn't this time be better spent innovating? If Microsoft gets wind of this method of screwing opensource, there will be no more innovation.
Come on, everyone knows SCO is no longer innovating, but rather using lawyers to gain revenue... This reminds me of another company, Research in motion, recently renamed to Lawsuits in motion, as they no longer create new products, they just sue people for copying their generic designs...
I'll be real interested to find out what code IBM stole. Look! They push their stack parameters the same way during a task switch!!! OMG!
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Even if this is true, shouldn't they have contacted Linus and had him remove the offending code? I'm sure he would have.
Since they are claiming Trade Secret status on the System V code, isn't failure to perform even basic attempts (such as contacting Linus) to minimise the impact of this leak enough to void the Trade Secret status of their code?
The more SCO speaks, the less credible this lawsuit sounds.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
And if you ask alot of former SCO employees, there are many rumors of Linux code in the SCO kernel!
So, it's a fair trade!
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
I bet this is the stolen code:
for (i=0; i<256; i++) {
Dirty, stinking thieves!
...or do the stock quotes at the bottom of the article provide the best commentary on this issue?
Wouldn't it be interesting if someone managed to slip in copyrighted code intentionally, with the knowledge that it would eventually be found -- causing quite a bit of damage to the Linux movement...
Adjust your tinfoil hat, people.
I'm sure there are hundreds of others who've had their code "liberated" without their consent.
Are you saying you've liberated someone else's code for an open source project? I know I have not, and I've not seen any evidence of this having been done in the Linux kernel.
Where's the evidence?
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
So they can slam OSS, but what about going the other way? I've heard of software stealing GPL code in part and in whole, making modifications, and not releasing the source again. Some have been caught, I'm willing to bet a whole lot more haven't been.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I love this quote:
> "The Linux community would have me publish it now, (so they can have it) laundered by the time we can get to a court hearing. That's not the way we're going to go."
So you don't want us to fix this so-called infringement? Most companies do a cease-and-decist before a lawsuit, allowing the accused to make changes. If this infringment HAS cost them a billion in damages, wouldn't you think they would want the infringement to stop right away? They could still make their case in court and use the same so-called evidence to show that previous infringment caused the damage, but not allowing the accused to fix the problem just shows that it's not the infringement they care about. It's just a means to getting money.
You know, if everything he says is actually true, there must be lots of copyright violations in commercial software too; the only difference is that we can't see the code to prove they are there.
He is obvious trolling with quotes like:
Moderators who moderated this up: Get a clue.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
In this article, they clearly refer to the kernel: "We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code," McBride said in an interview" How do they possibly expect to win a lawsuit when they can't even agree amongst themselves about where the UnixWare code appears in GNU/Linux? And what the hell is "the periphery of the Linux kernel"? Modutils? Fileutils? Util-linux?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
This seems quite reminiscent of the USL v. U.C. Regents case over the BSD release. USL maintained that the BSD code was tainted, but never cited any specific lines of code. USL decided to settle after the U.C. regents pointed out that USL was in violation of the license terms for the BSD code they were using in System V. At that point, USL probably realized that U.C. could force them to withdraw System V from the market and recall all existing copies in order to strip out the BSD code. Anyhow, as part of the settlement, CSRG did remove a few files that were said to be tainted, but since USL didn't indicate which files to remove, CSRG picked out a few of the files that were crufty and in need of replacement anyhow, and removed those.
Does anyone remember the letter that SCO sent out to customers back in the late 1990s, suggesting that customers would be better off with a professionally written and maintained operating system, rather than an amateur effort by a few hackers? It has a lot of other ridiculous comparisons like that. Someone (ESR?) wrote a parody letter refuting every one of their points.
I used to have the two letters posted outside my cube at a previous place of employment. I just tried to find them using Google, but I must not be using the right search terms.
Shrug and keep doing what they do? I really don't see, regardless of legality of it (if it is even true), people just tossing away as much work as they have put into linux. SCO is desperate for money or a buyout and they are making things much worse for themselves now by alienating their customers... They won't exist much longer no matter what the end result is (buyout, flush, etc.)
Shadus
So, SCO's taking lessons from the Bush junta, eh?
"We have indisputable proof of their guilt! We are right, we have always been right! Details? Uh... we'll let you know later, we promise. Pinky swear."
This means that they have unclean hands, as they are supposed to try and mitigate the damage in order to receive compensation.
You can't knowlingly add to the damage and then ask for compensation incl Punitive damages based on same.
Any suit against Linux vendor in the future can site this as an Affirmative Defense" and pretty much get the suit tossed on that account alone.
Help fight continental drift.
This story has been posted about probably a dozen times now without any evidence included. Do you suppose you could hold off on posting new stories until either the evidence is made available or the suit is dismissed/won/settled? As it is now we're just seeing the same responses posted over and over again.
I think RH, UnitedLinux(minus SCO, of course), any other commercialized distro, and Linus should sue SCO when they make claims that Linux source code is contaminated with their intellectual property.
This is a blatant attempt to scare potential customers of the distros, and/or impugns the reputations of the distros and Linus.
Even if SCO decides to settle with IBM (i.e. get bought out or bribed), they have opened themselves up to a case of libel, unless they can back it up with examples and proof. Their CEO alluded to exact code duplication and semi-obfuscted replicas of code.
Ok, np, show the code in question, and then we'll check some verifiable (repeat VERIFIABLE) code submittal logs of Linux and SCO. If by some miracle their logs, show an earlier submission...then the lkml community would probably yank the code immediately, and probably improve on it just to make a point.
Second of all, by not coughing up the examples, there might be a case for "failure to mitigate damages". Basic speak for "You cant say I did something to hurt you, wait forever, then tell me what I did wrong to wrack up increased "economic damages", when you could have told me sooner, and I would have cleaned up the issue and reduced your potential losses further.
(IANAL^2)
Let's assume for the moment that some IBM engineer took some code from SCO and added it to Linux. What is the consequence for the Linux kernel and other distros who did not intend to violate their copyright? I'm assuming that the GPL would cause all the legal liability to fall on the shoulders of the people who added the code, but then somebody still has to go and scour that code out of the kernel right?
This is messy, but then it gets even worse when you consider the notion of code forks, etc. What if Linus removes it, but for whatever reason a fork over at SUSE doesn't get removed? What if they don't bother, can SCO get a court order to force removal?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Let's set up a fund to collect money from open source users to use for the sole purpose of buying SCO stock. We'll collect enough to just buy the damn company release all IP into the GPL that we own.
And that as they say will be that.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
They did sue Microsoft. And settled for an undisclosed ammount (probably in the $500M range).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Thy HAVE to disclose it prior to trial. They will have to give it to IBM. IBM can then find the author and determine the truth.
Yes, they do. What I'm pondering on though, is how they are going to prove the code's time. I mean.. seriously... how hard would it be for them to be like.. "Oh.. we'll just cut some GPL code, and paste it into SCO code......super.. there we go... " :-/ Like... closed source programs have a serious advantage there unless there is some way of proving that the source was actually there x years ago. :-/ Can someone spread some light on how they'd prove how old their code is?
Can all fish swim?
Depends if you're talking about GUI apps and desktops, if so then I would agree there are many clones.
If you're talking command line and server apps then I disagree.
Apache isn't a clone of IIS.
MySQL isn't a clone of Oracle, SQL Server.
Sendmail isn't a clone of Exchange server.
OpenOffice is and isn't a clone of MS Office, it provides similar features but uses XML for its file format, something that Microsoft have chickened out of using.
Anyway, you can run things like GIMP on Windows if you want. Without Linux and the Open Source community there would be very few decent free apps for Windows.
Moderators on crack again (when it was marked as 'insightful,' iirc)
It is completely legal to write your own software. It's completely legal to use the same metaphors when solving the same problems. It's even legal to "clone" an interface when such interoperatibility is a high user requirement. Can you imagine the chaos if every vendor had to come up with new names and flags for programs like ls(1), cc(1), find(1), etc.
What's illegal is copying code without permission. That's not cloning, and the results can't be copylefted since the punitive author doesn't have the right to release the code.
And as for the idea that all OS implementations are just ripped off from commercial products, have you actually looked at the quality of commercial code lately? Haven't you heard of company after company after company switching to Linux and open tools after realizing that they were regularly spending 20% or so of their time fixing files corrupted when the app or system crashed, cleaning up after viruses, cleaning up the mess left by bundled malware, etc.? Even if some mad Microsoft employee sneaked out with the source for Word or Outlook and ported it to Linux, a lot of us would still keep far away from it because of the profound flaws in the applications.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
1. I would find it hard to believe that SCO can prove that IBM put such code into the kernel (if indeed it exists there at all).
2. I would find it reasonable to believe that SCO put the code into the kernel itself as a poison pill (if indeed it exists there at all).
MORTAR COMBAT!
If I recall correctly, companies must make an effort to minimize their damages under all circumstances if they want to be able to collect compensation for damages. For instance, if I am IBM, and my supplier of screws never delivers me my shipment of screws for my mainframes, I am responsible to find another supplier. I can't wait a year and not ship any mainframes and then try to collect damages of Billions of dollars of lost revenue. Such a claim would be absurd since I didn't do anything to minimize my damages.
Isn't this true for SCO? They were supplying source code to companies like IBM. Apparently, according to their claim, they were also losing great amounts of revenue to Linux due to the unauthorized use of this code in Linux. It seems like they could have minimized the damage by doing a "diff" command between the Linux sourcecode (which was always available) and their own code and found out immediately that there was tainted code in there.
By being open source, it seems that Linux should be the most compliant OS out their because anyone with such claims as SCO should immediately be able to check the source. For them to wait this long to check (as they are losing over a BILLION dollars) seems to be a gross incompetence of SCO management. What else could contributors to Linux do to ensure the compliance of Linux wihout access to SCO's code? It seems that by being open source, the community has already done everything in its power to comply to IP law. SCO losses are a result of its failure to do its own part ($diff file1 file2).
Besides, the fall of SCO did not happen overnight, why must IBM take disproportionate responsbility (assuming they are at fault, which is unsubstantiated at this time) for what appears to be very poor efforts on the part SCO to protect their own IP (especially since they are also a Linux distr.!!!).
Also, if I were an investor I would be very upset. SCO has basically changed their business model without proper disclosure to the SEC. It is pretty well known that after they made their claim, it would be impossible for them to continue as a software company. Yet they seem to be continuing to waste money on new releases of Linux products that nobody will buy. What is the logic of releasing products for an OS that you are trying to slow the development of? What kind of business strategy is that?
Finally, the fact of SCO is a Linux distro is really ironic.
I mean, if even they are openly distributing their own IP through Linux under the GPL, what right to they have to sue other companies for doing the same!? If they couldn't even ensure that they were not dilluting their own IP themselves (with a simple "diff" command), how can they require other entities to do so?
I really believe that SCO has not put enough thought behind this and some of upper management is going to be directly liable to the stock holders for some blatant acts of poor judgement.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
/* Drunk. Fix later. (Dennis R) */
What SCO clearly do not understand and what the judge hopefully will, is that there are many common algorithms that when implemented, may have identical code. For example, if you were to have 100 coders, all with similar education, and told them to impliment Bubble Sort, I'd bet you'd venture afterwards that 70-80 of them plagerized somebody's code. While I cannot begin to speculate what kind of algorithms were implimented in code SCO claims was stolen, there's a very strong chance the similarities are coinincidence.
A situation like this arose in a couple assignments in computer science courses I've taken. This one professor I had, who was super anal and also did not understand this principle, accused myself and some of my peers of copying each others' code. His evidence for our "cheating" was that our programs all had some almost identical code save for variable names and some functions. Now, the kids I was accused of helping to cheat or cheating off of were people I had never before interacted with until we found ourselves in the prof's office. However, the professor had done the usual thing of teaching basics, here's some algorithms, here's how you do this, here's how you do that... and because some algorithms are so intuitively implimented, the product can look the same. I mean cripes, how do you expect every student to do mutexes or handle deadlock in completely unique ways? Some things have one correct way or being done!
We explained this to him numerous times, but it seemed with every assignment, different segments of the class were being accused of cheating. Unfortunately for some, they were not able to properly explain this phenomenon.
Either SCO is really dumb or they fully expect the judge to not understand it either.
Join Tor today!
SCO released a linux distribution.
At least the kernel was released under the GPL.
I would like to see how they explain that IBM GPL release of code is much more damaging then their own release, under the GPL, of that same code.
The fact that SCO has licenced others to redistribute this code under the GPL should make it pretty hard to get damages for others doing the same.
[Clarification: I am posting it at the danger of being attacked, but my puny brain cannot comprehend it as it is. Please help.]
If their code is secret, it means they could put whatever they want in there now and claim that it was there from the very beginning. Who knows when that particular piece of code was placed there. 20 years ago? Yesterday? Or just before they go to court to present the evidence?
I am not saying that they are lying, but how can one be sure. If there are ways to make sure that it is, please enlighten us.
Thank you.
GrimReality
2003-05-02 20:25:51 UTC (2003-05-02 16:25:51 EDT)
Common sense? Common sense like:
"The Linux community would have me publish it now, (so they can have it) laundered by the time we can get to a court hearing. That's not the way we're going to go."
How do you launder open source code that is spread across the internet like so many grains of sand at the beach, there is no cleaning that up. Wake up and smell the money AC.
Fear is the mind killer.
"The Linux community would have me publish it now, (so they can have it) laundered by the time we can get to a court hearing. That's not the way we're going to go."
Now, admitting that anything is possible, I must ask, is McBride insane? Here is how to "clean" the code out of the Linux kernel:
Step 1: Log into kernel.org.
Step 2: Remove or patch the offending code in every version of the kernel ever posted to that site.
Step 3: Run complete tests on every patched kernel to make sure it builds and runs on all supported architectures.
Step 4: Contact RedHat, SCO (Caldera), IBM, debian.org, Suse, Slackware, and anyone who has ever distributed a Linux kernel and have them do the same.
Step 5: Contact every Linux user in the world and have them patch their kernels.
Laundering, indeed. I predict that this evidence will turn out to be shit.
Did anyone notice the stock charts at the bottom of the article?? SCO down, with IBM, Red Hat and Microsoft all up.
The market knows which way this is going to go.
IANAL
My understanding of this is, since they are playing games by not telling anyone what the specific violation is, they are losing their rights to claim past damages (unless they can prove the party they are suing knew of the violation). The usual way a copyright or trade secret violation is handled is by contacting the violating party and asking for the matter to be corrected. If the violating party does correct the problem in a timely manner, courts will generally treat past violations as innocent violations, and awards would not be more than the profits involved. But SCO hasn't done this. Instead they are refusing to saw what the violation is. They are only referring to "Linux" and it isn't even clear if they mean the kernel, some driver, or userland code. There's nothing any party can do to remove any violating code until they know what it is.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
rmadmin asks:
Can someone spread some light on how they'd prove how old their code is?
In this day and age, there's no such thing as proof. There are ways (both low and high tech) to falsify almost any piece of evidence. Thankfully, the court system is already set up to handle this.
From what I understand, in most trials there are issues of fact (he did this to them at this time) and issue of law (and because of that he should be convicted of this charge). Early in the process, SCO is supposed to file documents asserting (among other things) the facts as they understand them. IBM is supposed to reply with (among other things) the facts as they understand them, including pointing out where the agree (eg. IBM stipulates that the plaintiff is, in fact, called the Santa Cruz Organization, Inc), and where they disagree (eg. IBM at no point transmitted any part of foo.c to persons outside the company).
If they disagree on significant factual issues (and don't settle, and IBM doesn't eat SCO to make the headache go away), then the case will eventually end up in a trial by jury. The jury's main job is to listen to both sides evidence regarding the facts of the case, and decide whose evidence is more convincing.
If there's no dispute on the facts, juries can be dispensed with, and a judge can just decide how the law applies. You get fun things like Summary Judgements as in the Grokster case if everyone's on the same page as far as facts go.
If SCO produces a falsified source document from 1998 with GPL code pasted in, IBM can rebut with a witness from IBM showing that in 1998 they received a different document, including the SCO (Novell?) branded CD and the matching checksums from the printed and dated documentation. They could also add a witness from a third company showing that in 1998 they received a different document too. I don't think a jury will have a hard time deciding relative merits of such evidence.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, the above should not be considered to be legal advice. Some states may permit Judges to determine issues of fact and not require a Jury for that under some circumstances.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
- SCO doesn't claim in its' filing that there is any SCO IP in the linux kernel, contrary to what McBride says
- SCO does claim in its' filing that certain compatability libraries that allow UnixWare binaries to run under linux are their IP.
- None of the current distros has a copy of any of these libraries.
- McBride should read his own companys' suit before giving interviews, but then he would be open to charges of "pump and dump" vis his SCO stock (not that ignorance is a defence, but
...)
This whole thing is so fucked up that it can only be a stock-market scam.So...what would happen if SCO just copied and pasted some code from the Linux kernel into the Unixware kernel, doctored a few documents, paid off a few developers to keep their mouths shut, and then claimed that Linux had Unixware code?
Why are you looking at me like that, Scully?
Mox
This allegation really underscores a primary issue of closed source software - it's not out for public review, and hence, it would be VERY difficult to validate these claims. For all we know, SCO's code is a rip-off of Linux or some prior open-source code that Linux was a beneficiary of. SCO never published their source and there's nothing outside of SCO (or maybe IBM, if there was some kind of agreement) to validate the claims. The trouble is, we can trust neither of those parties to present untainted copies of the relevant code as both could have altered timestamps or copied in code. There's also the fact that some processes in software can just really be done in one optimum way.
This is a good reason software should not be considered "published", hence copyrightable, unless the source code exists in some human-readable means in some organization outside of the "software publisher" (who truly publishes nothing), a place the courts could seriously look at as proof of the existance.
A way that might serve as a valid stopgap would be the generation of an MD5 hash of each source file and submitting that to some trusted agency (Library of congress?) for another digital signature and timestamp to be added, proving the date of creation to some legal standard so that these allegations could be backed with proof. We'd know the plaintext was validly signed by the LOC and that it existed at the time alleged to.
Its a moot point anyways, wintel's new palladium will make it impossible to install linux on a new machine, so linux will be killed anyways. I chose to specialize in linux for my career and now face homelessness and death out on the streets for not going with King Bill.
I know I'll get modded down for this, but the hot link in this story and the previous story on the subject are identical except for a positioning flag... I'm surprised nobody else has noticed.
I find this statement has more merit than anything from SCO. Corporate driven programming is much different from Open Source. With OSS, there's really no pressure to get stuff done and out the door, or at least far less than in the corporate world. This idea is based on Linus's many comments about when such and such release will be shipped : "when it's done".
Now contrast that with UnixWare version whatever, with a crackpot like McBride at the helm whipping up the team to get the code out the door. You can imagine the chaos: see the Mythical Man Month about OS/360, and I believe there's a book about Dave Cutler's team at M$. This is not Extreme Programming, it's the death march.
To conclude, which programmer is more likely to grab some peice of code that just works?
Here's another point: From my experience, OSS code is revised and rewritten constantly. Look at Ingo's work with the scheduler, or the recent work by several folks on the VM. Or Apache Xerces (XML4J). I've been using that for a few years, since it had jp (originally written by some IBMers at one of IBM's Japan labs I think), and that has been rewritten from scratch at least once. One last example - Mozilla was rewritten entirely, sidelining it for several years. That was a questionable move, but I say they did a good job - Mozilla is awesome.
Again contrast that with corporate software - how often do you rewrite working code from scratch? You do if business rules change, but I'd argue that with corporate software (think COBOL) it's more if it ain't broke don't fix it. Case in point: at the organization I work at, we have a database (well, more of a filesystem) written in assembler that is basically 25 year old code. Why? It works, it is very fast, it runs mission-critical systems, and it's very hard to modify, let alone maintain it. (Yes it is being replaced, so they say).
So, Unix code in Linux, copied line by line? Doubtful, I side with Perens.
To conclude, Perens has a good point. But as can be seen by the Sun/Netscape vs. Microsoft lawsuit, anything can happen in the courts. They'll have fun figuring out the "obfuscated" code.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Ahhhh, now it all makes sense...
man 1 ls, man 1 cc ,man 1 find
and then you'll know.
Maybe i've been trolled, but maybe i've helped a newbie.
The Numbers refer to the original MAN PAGES books 1 to 8. Try Xman on any ***X machine.
... whenever a text is transmitted, variation occurs. This is because human beings are careless, fallible, and occasiona
Way back in the day (1999?), slashdot ran one of its most successful april fools stories. It was an ask slashdot:
/. was biased, blah blah blah.
/.'s find feature and google to no avail.
Since MS Windows is closed source, isn't it possible that there's GPL code in there that they're using illegally? What should we do about this?
Of course, everyone responded that the questioner was an idiot,
Maybe SCO didn't get the joke either. Can anyone find a link to that article? I tried
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I wish SCO would just go ahead and announce what parts of the Linux kernel have their code so that we can get started on replacing it with something that works.
:P
What are they waiting for.... a bug-finder's fee?
from a great article http://www.corante.com/openmind/20030501.shtml "Finally, there's another gotcha as far as this suit goes. SCO is claiming that IBM, Red Hat and SuSE are somehow violating SCO's IP with code that they're shipping with their Linux offerings. If this is true, is SCO shipping it as well? Under the terms of the GNU General Public License, even if IBM and the rest are shipping stuff wrongly (which, again, I very strongly doubt), once it makes it out the door in SCO's Linux offerings as GPL'ed code then the company as the legitimate copyright holder (if they are) has given carte blanche to the rest of the world to use that code. From the GPL, section 6: Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. It would seem to me that one quick way to debunk SCO's claims would be to examine the source from SCO Linux and the source from what IBM is shipping. If, in fact, there are no significant differences (and I suspect there are not) then SCO has no leg to stand on. "
I have a dollar.
Hang on to that. In a few months, that may be all the money we need...
Ahh, The Simpsons, full script here
Bill Gates: Mr. Simpson?
Homer: You don't look so rich...
Bill Gates: Don't let the haircut fool you, I am exceedingly wealthy.
Homer: [quietly] Get a load of the bowl-job, Marge!
Bill Gates: Your Internet ad was brought to my attention, but I can't figure out what, if
anything, Compuglobalhypermeganet does, so rather than risk competing with you, I've decided simply to buy you out.
% Homer and Marge quietly discuss this proposal.
Homer: I reluctantly accept your proposal!
Bill Gates: Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!
[Gates' lackeys trash the room.]
Homer: Hey, what the hell's going on!
Bill Gates: Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks! [insane
laughter]
For what it's worth, some companies are required to use code escrow for reasons dealing with financial liability. One place that I worked escrowed the source for every release as well as the development tree on a regular basis. I don't know who required it, but it could well have been a bank, a customer, or a regulatory agency. Data was provided on CDROM and the escrow company verified that the data received matched the declared checksums.
-Hope
Their entire suit may be based on header files in Linux which conform to SYSVR4 specifications. To an untrained reviewer, this may indeed look like infringement.
Fortunately, there's plenty of legal precedence about header files, conforming to specifications, etc. which should make short work of this claim.
Anyway, down to business...
SCO customers in New York! would you like to move away from a sinking ship and regain control of your systems? Looking to develop a Linux strategy? We can help.
The reason that SCO is pursuing this case in the first place is that they are doomed. They rely primarily on proprietary UNIX licenses (OpenServer and Unixware) for x86 hardware to survive and anyone with half a brain is making the easy migration from SCO UNIX to Linux. In the meantime SCO has to maintain not one but two proprietary UNIXes with a development team smaller than RedHat's, and they haven't even got a version of their software that runs on Itanium or Opteron processors. Not to mention the fact that they are already losing money with no relief in sight.
In short, SCO is screwed.
However, they realized that they could alleviate some of the hurting in the short run by running a FUD campaign against Linux. If they scare enough of their current customers into thinking that Linux has intellectual property problems then they might retain some key accounts for another round of upgrades. Some investors might even believe that they have a chance of making real money with their lawsuit, and this would give SCO managers a chance to cash in some of their SCO stock while it is still worth more than the paper it is printed on. That is what this circus is all about. SCO knows they aren't going to win. Heck, they aren't even *trying* to win. The whole thing is nothing more than an elaborate con job.
RedHat and friends could countersue for damages based on their ridiculous claims, but this isn't likely to make them any money. After all, if SCO had money they wouldn't be trying this stupid stunt in the first place.
Colin Powell will be presenting the evidence at the UN next month.
Or a even bigger conspiracy theory. Maybe they put it there. A failing company with declining revenue sees a competing product doing well, it's easy to send suggested code changes to the kernel developers, wait a little while. Then sue.
chicken vs the egg argument.
internal documents alone wont win this case. the funny thing is that even if SCO has a winnable case they are not going to win against IBM. IBM can just drag this case out forever until SCO runs out of money. kinda scary that the RIAA's legal plan can be used for something good eh ?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Has anybody else noticed that the only distributions that SCO is
even looking at are those that actually are making money?
This appears to be nothing more than a money grab targeted at a portion of the
industry where they are failing. One of their execs. (probably the CFO)
asked himself one day
"How are we going to make any real money of this linux thing?"
"Sue big blue and any other company that is doing it right!, thats the ticket!"
I believe that IBM will end up litigating them into bankrupcy then aquiring all of their assets.
Upon which they should can McBride and his crew.
But I took it in a different direction. This would not just be a libel suit involving just Linus or the distromakers, this is defamation/libel of an entire community of developers. Thus a multi-plaintiff suit, or perhaps even a class-action suit might be more worthwhile. Second, my understanding of libel torts is that you while have to even prove intent to mislead/lie/etc, blatent negligence to the facts of your assertions can constitute this intent. If IBM isn't going to counter-sue, WE SHOULD.
...and IN SOVIET RUSSIA, beowulf clusters imagine 1, 2, 3 profit!!!! jokes made out of YOU!!!
When SCO (nee Caldera) distributed Linux under the GPL, there was an SCO authorized distribution of the previously stolen code under the GPL.
At the very least, this indemnifies *everyone* past the first rogue, and arguably makes it impossible for SCO to call the code back.
They already know this, but that isn't what the law suit is about. The law suit is about $1 billion that SCO claims this alleged offense has cost them. Honestly I doubt they care if the code is there by this point. Taking the code out will only cause some one to write a replacement relatively quickly, and net SCO nothing.
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
I don't disagree with the accuracy of what you're saying.
If what you are saying is that you "can't undo" a piece of code that has been "GPL'd" by an unauthorized third party, your disagreement is not pertinent, because you'd simply be mistaken. A broad, but very powerful principle of law basically says that, sans authorization, no third party can create a contract between two parties.
In court, an offender may be able to testify that they had every reason to believe that their possession of some copyrighted item was lawful. Such a claim might even hold up, assuming, of course, they *CEASED* violation of copyright upon being informed of the unlawful possession. If not, then the interim would most likely be actionable.
Note that I know nothing about what was going on at SCO, whether or not it is right or wrong, or any of that. I'm *only* commenting on the asserted irreversability of GPL'ing something, which is not at all irreversible by any stretch of the imagination.
C//
Hi,
There have been a couple of comments about how Caldera has already distributed Linux kernel so they cannot claim IP theft etc.
I think we should be careful that Microsoft et al. should not put a spin on this like "See, they got involved in GPL software and lost their IP rights. We have been saying IT companies which produce original work should stay away from GPL if they do not want to lose their IP."
We have to make it clear that SCO/Caldera did not get screwed because they touched GPL software but they have simply agreed to share their IP and now claiming someone stole it, or something along these lines.
ato
...Microsoft is already making code obfuscation a natural part of their development process. Most likely they are going to release their code open source at some point in the future, after they've obfuscated it to death.
r l= /library/en-us/dnnetcomp/html/netcfobfuscation.asp
See...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?u
+2 more cents.