Slashdot Mirror
SCO To Show Copied Code
A number of people have written this morning in regards to the latest update in the ongoing SCO dropping Linux, with word from LinuxJournal that SCO has broadened the implications of code copying. A number of analyst groups have come out, however, saying that it's fine to keep moving ahead with Linux adoption - and there's an interesting interview with SCO's General Manager of SCOSource.
Wouldnt that be: 'all your kernel are belong to SCO'?
This has been posted before but they can not collect on any damages caused, as they have not published the allegdedly infringing portions.
Not telling the world what the code is, is a legal blunder of the first order. 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
I'm not Seth.
As an astute poster pointed out on OSNews, they cannot collect on any damages anyway.
They distribute(ed) a version of Linux under the GPL, a licence that legally permits people to copy and branch the code assuming they put it under the GPL. Unfortunately for SCO, whether or not they knew they were distributing their own IP under the GPL or not is irrelevant to the rather compelling argument that they did put their IP under the GPL, and now that they continued to distribute linux after they found the alleged infringements means that no court would declare that licence invalid.
They have knowingly distributed what is potentially their own code under the GPL for nearly a year now. The GPL licence should hold, infringement-free.
I'm not Seth.
"SCO already has claimed--some kernel versions released before IBM began contributing to Linux contain UnixWare code"
so ? where does the leak (if any) come from except from SCO itself ?!
Has SCO violated its own copyright? Is that why it stopped selling Linux? Its own people aren't too sure. This
interview indicates that SCO's right hand
doesn't seem to know what its left hand is doing.
They do not appear to comprehend that they will not be bought just to shut them up, nor that noone will buy anything from them.
They appear to be going through the worst part of a movie, the part where a character blames their failings on the success of others.
I'm glad that the three BSDs are not yet being bothered by these wonderful people.
Linux is under a microSCOpe.
Sco claims that Linux violates their IP. Sco also distributes Linux. Linux is licensed by the GPL. GPL = Free Code Errr... Maybe the only blood that will be let is from the hole that they shot in their own foot? It seems to me that they've already GPL'd whatever Unix code there "may" be when they condoned, sanctioned, and released their own distro of Linux.
Seems fitting, even more so with a small addition:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by [the combination of malice and] stupidity"
As an astute poster pointed out on OSNews, they cannot collect on any damages anyway.
They distribute(ed) a version of Linux under the GPL, a licence that legally permits people to copy and branch the code assuming they put it under the GPL. Unfortunately for SCO, whether or not they knew they were distributing their own IP under the GPL or not is irrelevant to the rather compelling argument that they did put their IP under the GPL, and now that they continued to distribute linux after they found the alleged infringements means that no court would declare that licence invalid.
search for IP violations
.
.
.
bully people into coughing up money
profit
needs to stop if there is "infringing" content i guess they have a right to sue... but perhaps that means the whole system of how intellectual property... particularly with respect to software.. need to change... what is going to happen if 2-3 yrs from now Amazon sells off part of its business including its 50 zillion patents... will we have to pay a royalty to use any interactive content on pages? This is just out of control.
Their Linux distribution sucks anyway... so I wonder what they think harassing end users will do.. I would run just about any alternative OS before I bought anything from SCO at this point.
Here ya go. Read this and then see how many eggs are still in your legal basket. GPL Liscense
Now if a company releases proprietry code owned by it under GPL then anybody can use it! So it wont matter wether linux copies unix or whatever FUD they want to spread, all their linux code they released under GPL, so this will hardly stand in court.
On the other hand, this could be an acid test for GPL, coz if commercial Linux vendors prove that the above said code which is supposedly copied was actually released by SCO itlelf under GPL, the whole case will fall flat.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
I wonder if IBM just a warm up for even bigger fish over in Redmond? And to raise capital for the battle.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They distribute(ed) a version of Linux under the GPL, a licence that legally permits people to copy and branch the code assuming they put it under the GPL. Unfortunately for SCO, whether or not they knew they were distributing their own IP under the GPL or not is irrelevant to the rather compelling argument that they did put their IP under the GPL, and now that they continued to distribute linux after they found the alleged infringements means that no court would declare that licence invalid.
If anyone argues this, we lose in a bigger way. MS can then say "see, I told you so! GPL caused SCO to lose their IP!!!!".
It would benefit us greatly as a community if no company makes this argument in defense.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
The linux kernel is full of our stolen code. I triple guarantee you - it is all over the place! We're giving them a real lesson today. Heavy doesn't accurately describe the level of casualties we have inflicted. I will show you the stolen code - IN ONE HOUR!
Mohammed al-Sahaf (now SCO press spokesman)
Former Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
SCO sounds a lot like the RIAA... maybe they'll merge into the SCAA?
503 Sig Unavailable
The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
Is an intrinsically stupid concept anyway. When I take a loaf of bread from you, you no longer have the bread. When I take a copy of some information, you still have the information, I have the information, hey, everyone's better off.
The only "justification" is that you are losing out because under IP laws you'd entitled to compensation. But that argument presupposes the existence of IP laws. It is thus circular logic, and can be dismissed like some religionist's rantings.
..SCOs brilliant "quotes from linux leaders" page of proof! Oh no! Linux is doomed!
This letter on SCO's website contains a number of non-original words and phrases. For example:
'commercial Linux user' is a phrase first commonly used by SGI;
'Unix-like operating system' has obviously been pinched from multiple sources; and
SCO's claim to 'Linux-related activies' is clearly not propietary.
This messages constitutes a warning to SCO to change the content of the above mentioned letter or face possible legal proceedings.
Check out this article about the GPL implications of their republishing IBM's alegedly infringing code in their own version of Linux.
I'm not Seth.
Wouldn't you agree that your legal action is causing uncertainty in the Linux community and that this uncertainty is undermining the marketing efforts of UnitedLinux?
There is definitely uncertainty and doubt...
But no fear, it would seem. :-)
Cheers,
Ian
So there may be a loophole.. 'caldera' was the violator, and once SCO was purchased the mistake was realized after a 'long and extensive audit' and the product pulled in good faith...
If caldera didnt own the IP they they wernt legally allowed to release it under GPL, and they didnt have ownership in the beginning..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
SCO has been shown to be a Microsoft subsidiary.
When reached for comment on this, Gates and Ballmer both stated:
"All your linux boxes are belong to us"
Thing is: I don't recall SCO offering a source code license. So where'd the "pre-IBM" stuff come from? And the "post-IBM" stuff: where the hell'd it come from?
This all smells of exactly what everbody thinks it is: a money grab because the company can't make it any other way.
I think it's time for a "boycott SCO" uprising. (Unfortunately, I cannot contribute more than moral support to such a cause, 'cuz I don't use SCO, myself, and at work... well, as above.)
It is only too obvious the code infringement occurring in Linux. Torvalds' dogs are cutting their own throats before the walls of our Intellectual Property. Tonight they will burn in hell. The stolen code is as clear as the nose on my face.
reporter:
Sir, could we see some of this code?
C.S.:
I will only answer questions that deal in reality. The code is all over the place. Can't you see it yourself?
reporter:
But sir, since your code is hidden from the world, how do we know you didn't just take some Linux sources and just slap SCO source into it for the sake of the trial?
C.S:
Are you a fool? The open source pigs on slashdot would like you to believe that, but they are cying outside and waiting to receive bullets now. They will be killed shortly.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
If it turned out that SCO had actually copied from GPL'ed code.
Do they mean they are just going to vaguely point at a tarball of the linux kernel and say, "There it is!" Or are they going to do something more useful like showing where in SCO's code it exists.
--
"I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo
But didn't they take the SCO linux out already.. I think something like that was on one of those links.
telax - Just another vim and c hacker.
You're a member of UnitedLinux. Would you say that your lawsuit has caused some friction within that group?
Yes, there is some friction. But we've been doing our best to have open dialogues with the other participants and members in UnitedLinux. Darl McBride, the CEO of SCO, has had numerous conversations with the other CEOs within UnitedLinux. We've been doing everything we can to keep the dialogue open and are trying to work to conclusions that will be amicable for all the parties involved. We haven't come to a good conclusion yet. But we're always hopeful.
Yes, there is some friction in fucking you guys, but we've been doing our best in using vaseline, and that will be amicable for all the parties involved.
You know, I think this has been one of SCO'S biggest tantrums to date.
:)
I'd like to see some of this copied code, or hear about it, or hear anything except "the stole our unix". But thats All we have heard from SCO, they are yet to offer anything except them jumping up and down like a toddler with his first erection.
Anyways, this is more likely a stunt from SCO to get some attention, and possibly a parent company. Since SCO dosnt exactly have a bright futre ahead.
Perhaps when whatever crawled up their ass realises it can do better and crawls out this stunt will end
I don't speak German, but this seems to be the document that SCO is going to release.
It says something about shared libraries. Anyone willing to translate it for me?
SCOscource.pdf
Someone, tell me what this says, my German is REALLY rusty
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Doesn't matter, the gpl clearly states you can't take things back once distributed....
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
INA(US)L, obviously, but what they're saying in their threat letter to big companies is essentially:
"We're gonna make sure something bad happens to you if you don't give us protection money. We're not gonna tell you what you pay for."
That sounds more like something that should be whispered in a dark alley in a black-and-white movie.
LOL. I'd give you all my mod points if I had any. That's funny. ;)
My journal has hot
1.SCO threatens to pull IBM's license by June 13.
2.IBM plays up to the line but settles on the 12
3.SCO turns the settlement (say 100 mil) into a warchest to sue everyone who's even muttered the word Linux and is smaller than them
4.Profit!!!
You could view this as only peripherally about the terms of the GPL and more about SCO being careless - if they'd used the BSD, Artistic, or Moz licenses the effect on any proprietary IP would be the same.
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
I'd like to thank SCO for making the GPL distribution of Linux a high-throughput broadband affair!
-K
Why won't they just SCO away?
The Linux kernel steals YOU!
just how is the Hurd coming on???
That man tried to kill mah Daddy
The merits of this case aside, one thing will be clear before this case gets closed - Is IBM:
a. Loyal to GNU/Linux for ever.
b. a mere hanger-on or passenger, if you will
c. going to slowly pull the rug from under Linux
IBM's recent alliance with MS et al in the Trustworthy Computing Alliance, I feel, casts more than a shadow of doubt, regarding it's true intentions. While it is apparently politically risky to openly side with Open Source, especially for an entity such as IBM, I believe they have stuck their necks out long enuff to retract now.
OTOH, IBM could play a helpless victim, settle with SCO for let's say 10 million (peanuts for them) and then all hell breaks loose for all the other players.
The ambivalence of IBM is frightening, to say the least.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
What does "post-BSD" mean? After the end of the BSD project at Berkeley in 1986? And by "SCO origined", are they talking about code written by employees of SCO? I can't think of anything SCO has ever written that would be of interest to anyone; does anybody know what kind of substantial code SCO actually developed themselves? Drivers maybe?
What is the next step?
SCO made its initial filing. IBM was supposed to respond within 30 days. They requested an extension of 30 days, which we granted them. So after 60 days, they responded with basically nothing -- a very vanilla law school 101-type level response, which was rather surprising.
60 days is not enough for their lawyers to stop the laugher. Can you give them more time?
Linux is open source, there's not really a central company to sue. They can sue the person who inserted the code, but surely that person is likely to have worked at SCO if they got hold of the code. They'll end up sueing themselves or an ex employee.
Besides the code can be rewritten or removed fairly quickly, all that will happen in SCO will be less compatible with Linux. Considering SCO is pretty much a dead product (going by the opinions expressed here) it's suicide on their part.
Actually this is of some comfort. Even if the bastards win (which will be a cold day in hell) we still have an open source unix-like operating system to fall back on if the apocalypse does actually happen (which it won't).
If anyone argues this, we lose in a bigger way. MS can then say "see, I told you so! GPL caused SCO to lose their IP".
I think that is a moot point. Whatever comes from this, open source will lose, whether SCO wins ("see, linux will lose you money") or loses ("see, your IP is at stake"). I think the second is less damaging because it's simply because of SCO's behaviour, and that can be shown.
The real sting in here is that while the code may well be GPL, the process and ideas it implements may very well, and probably are, still protected by patent laws. It's the same as with LZH compression: the algorithm is proprietary, even when there's GPL-ed code that implements it.
the pun is mightier than the sword
And the feeding of trolls is strictly discouraged.
One of the many things that has bugged me is that by not doing this, SCO has been forcing infringment. By allowing people to know what needs to be changed, we can move on.
If IBM really did contribute code they shouldn't have, then SCO's issues are with IBM, not the rest of the community.
Mecworks BLOG
Please help others moving from SCO to Linux and post links to documentation like this:
e ople.redhat.com/drepper/sco-porting.pdf
UnixWare to Linux Porting Guide (development tools and the API)
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/
http://p
The problem is that the owner of this ip (most unix patents will probably be outdated anyhow) has been distributing it under the gpl, and thus giving up al rights to enforce their patents. The LZH case was different, the owner of the ip never gave permission to use it in gpl programs, and thus the person who first distributed it under the gpl (not those persons who distributed it further) would be liable.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Them sending a warning notice seems odd since it seems always to be up to a judge to decide if a company has to cease trading or can continue while the courtcase is being heard.
What does so far seem to be IBM's reaction to this? We got a lot of people talking but anyone have info if IBM is looking to either blow SCO out of the water, settle or simply buy them?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered SCO community when last month IDC confirmed that SCO accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. SCO UnixWare is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
SCO leader Chris Sontag states that there are 7000 users of SCO Linux. How many users of SCO UnixWare are there? Let's see. The number of UnixWare versus SCO Linux posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 UnixWare users. SCO OpenServer posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of UnixWare posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SCO OpenServer. A recent article put SCO UnixWare at about 80 percent of the SCO market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SCO UnixWare users. This is consistent with the number of SCO UnixWare Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of OpenLinux, abysmal sales and so on, Caldera went out of business and was taken over by SCO who sell another troubled OS. Now OpenLinux is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
If I write a program for a particular task and you write a program for a particular task, it's fair to say that some of our code may look similar. Perhaps similar enough for me to say that you copied from me, but "purposefully obfuscated" your code.
When confronted with a task, engineers will sometimes find similar solutions.
SCO is on shaky ground here and they know it. Also, how can they rule their oen developers out of the equation being a Linux distributor themselves?
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
"Unless Linux violates IP rights, it will fail to deliver innovation over the long run."
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween3.php
"MS can then say "see, I told you so! GPL caused SCO to lose their IP!!!!".
And MS would be making perfect asses of themselves, IMO. No self-respecting co. ought to license it's code under GPL and expect to retain control over IP. Numerous firms offer products and Services under GNU/Linux, but not under GPL.
"It would benefit us greatly as a community if no company makes this argument in defense."
Actually, I'm more concerned IBM isn't taking this stand. Who has benefitted us (the community) the most: SCO, IBM or the community? It's us, for ourselves. I don't think we should be too bothered about the logic, or lack of it, from arguments coming from MS. The success of GNU/Linux proves that we ignore (or rather take as falsehood) anything coming from MS.
If this argument helps IBM close this case faster, so be it.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
If it feels dirty it probably is... Microsoft is involved somehow... -Dave
So it's actually best if SCO is able to prove their IP (Unix code) is included in Linux, because that would mean that the IP holder themselves released the code under the GPL. They may claim even they didn't know, but tough sh!t. That won't hold up in court.
So the question is not whether or not Unix code makes up Linux, but it is whether or not SCO (IP holders) released Linux under the GPL(obviously they did). All IBM needs is a lawyer familiar with the GPL rules, and this case is over.
aha but how long before SCO announces a jihad against BSD? looks like the whole theory of "if we can't have it, no one can!"
"What do you mean you have no ice? Do you expect me to drink this coffee hot?" - Random Customer, Clerks
Its all very well us techies that understand the issues (hahahahahah) of this case but there are plenty of IT purchasers who will be scared off from deploying linux by the bad press (Caldera)SCO is causing.
SCO has just give some of the MS FUD an air of legitimacy that will leave questions hanging over Linux for a looooong time. The fact that there is a hint of risk will scare some people. Of course our (Linux/OSS) saving grace will be the tighter IT budgets and the licensing stupidity of certain large companies.
I work for a company that has SCO UnixWare deployed quite extensively. SCO/United Linux was to be the next step - my not so open minded senior colleague is already in a flap about the SCO FUD mail we received this morning.
To cut the rambling my point is that (Caldera)SCO is doing the linux community a great disservice at the moment. Unless (Caldera)SCO is utterly squashed for their underhand tactics there will be others that will try this trick again in the future.
You should also tend to to use the term CalderaSCO. It is the Caldera mind that is driving the SCO brand into the mud. Caldera were a bad Linux company and thought they could re-gain some respect by rebranding themselves with a less tainted name - didnn't change the nature of the beast though.
"Things that you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden (via Diogenes of Sinope).
Well, karma whoring becomes easy when you can just copy someone else's
;-)
funny post from an earlier discussion!
Hopefully, some other moderators will correct this
)9TSS
From the article, after Sontag is asked for an example of copied code, he remarks that:
Code has been "munged around solely for the purpose of hiding the authorship or origin of the code", he said
Which rather gives them a lot of leeway, considering the systems are quite similar. In theory, you could just wander through the Linux codebase until you found something that looked more or less similar to your own code, and then claim it was "munged" to look different. So you have your "copied" code, without any actual IP violations having happened.
He is using posts from the other SCO thread today to get karma.
Haha, $CO, good one.
Skiing? Check out The Independant Skiers Portal
SCO: "See we use 'Bubble sort' here..." .. "And here is an example of 'Bubble sort' in the Linux kernel"
My point is that some algorithms are universal... and if no one has a copy right to them yet... SCO might claim that it is theirs and God save the Queen. It is stupid... We know it's stupid, they are stupid... "Stupid is as Stupid does" or something. This could turn into an ALL of Computer Science against SCO... Microsoft might actually have to help defend Linux to protect themselves.. now that would be funny.
This essentially prevents them from going after end users - it does not stop them going after IBM for the alledged action of releasing SCO IP into the public domain.
They're comments about going after end users is just to cause some panic and detract from the silly mistake they have commited themslves to.
IBM has called they're bluff. If for instance SCO privately find they have mad a mistake in pursuing this course of action do you think they will publicly say so - nope they will try and cause enough trouble to detract from the mistake and hope they get bought out.
"Things that you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden (via Diogenes of Sinope).
I think in the realistic worst case, the offending code would get removed from the Linux kernel, whoever put it there would pay a steep fine, and that would be it. I don't see SCO having any legal basis, for example, for demanding royalties for the Linux kernel.
But even in an unrealistic worst case, in which ownership of Linux (meaning, some key portion of the Linux kernel) somehow went over to SCO, people would simply move over to a different kernel. We have BSD and Hurd. It would be a few months of pain to get drivers and some other kernel facilities ported or reimplemented, but that's all.
That's one of many reasons why it's good to have lots of similar projects in the wings.
Of course, SCO could argue that they could have distributed a hypothetical BSD-licenced Linux under a new, proprietry, licence. But SCO could have shipped a BSD anyway - there was never a compelling reason for them to produce a Linux distribution per-se. Linux's selling point is specifically that it's open source and free software, and open source and free software in a way that stops others from simply gobbling up the code and taking effective control of the code.
The only compelling reason for SCO to produce an operating system based on open source code is if they themselves want to produce an open source operating system. The only compelling reason to do so if is they have customers who want an open source operating system. SCO chose to address that market. Which licence they used is a secondary concern - the fact remains that any legitimately open source licence would have put them in this legal quagmire, not necessarily just the so-called "viral" ones.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
pe1rxq wrote:
The problem is that the owner of this ip (most unix patents will probably be outdated anyhow) has been distributing it under the gpl, and thus giving up al rights to enforce their patents. The LZH case was different, the owner of the ip never gave permission to use it in gpl programs, and thus the person who first distributed it under the gpl (not those persons who distributed it further) would be liable.
This isn't a Patent case, SCO is suing on Copyright Infringement and Trade Secret grounds. The rules are completely different.
Distributing under the GPL does not touch their copyrights over their own code. SCO still has copyright on any code they wrote that they didn't assign copyright to anyone else (eg. their extensions to Unix System V). They also still have copyright on any code that had copyright assigned to them that they didn't assign to anyone else (eg. the Xenix and Unix System V codebases). These copyrights aren't going anywhere for a while, but I seriously doubt that they have the relationship to the Linux code that SCO claims.
My understanding of Trade Secret law, on the other hand, tells me that distributing under the GPL completely destroys any Trade Secret case they may have. In order to claim that something is a Trade Secret, you need to maintain dilligence in keeping other people from finding out your information. Distribution under anything but a NDA strikes me as incompatible with a Trade Secret. Distributing your own Trade Secrets under the GPL is likely to get a judge to laugh at you.
I am not a lawyer. The above should not be considered legal advice. Mashed potatos can be your friend
----
Open mind, insert foot.
They cannot sue them again, the suite against the BSD's between then AT&T and BSDco was settled out of court (by that time Novell took over UNIX) and the code was removed and also they agreed to not sue BSD any more. SCO took over UNIX from Novell. The rest is history as we know it.
SCO's decision to hold off this long and not even provide potential future litigants with the opportunity to remove the code from their systems and minimise the alleged damage suggests, to me, that they really don't have a case. I guess we'll find out when they eventually show the code.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Yes but IBM and SCO didn't start to work on Monterey until Oct 1998, and IBM didn't have any interest in Linux until 2000 (http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/it- schenk1/schenk1.html), and even then, it was pretty minimal.
Even if IBM is guilty (which is unlikely since the AIX team and Linux team were purposely kept separate), it's unlikely that IBM contributed any code before then 2000, or even Oct 1998.
We have copies of the kernel before 1998 so it wouldn't take much effort to repatch the kernel with all changes since then that exclude the guilty code and provide a replacement algorithm. (I mean, if SCO wrote the code, it should be possible to hire a few preschoolers to come up with a better algorithm).
If Linux distributions update their customers as soon as the infringment is brought forward, there's no way any Linux distribution can be charged unless they knowingly distributed the infringment code.
RedHat, Mandrake, Gentoo, and of course Debian, have analogs to apt-get, so each of these groups can tell their users to do an up2date/upmi/emerge/apt-get of the new infringement-free kernel.
GPL problem and infringement avoided.
This is the fourth highly moderated comment from the other SCO thread you blatantly ripped off!
Karma whore.
Why? Didn't they get what they wanted from the whole stupid USL-BSD lawsuite 10 years ago?
That's a duplicate joke. Don't readers read the comments anymore?
The surest sign that this is nothing but a shakedown tactic by sco is the fact that they are waging a PR campaign on their website about the lawsuit.
Look at IBM's site theres nothing about this. They are perfectly well aware that the judges opinion is the only one that counts. They are also serious about their legal matters.
SCO wants as much free publicity as they can get. This latest bit reminds me of the demonstrations that people with perpetual motion machines perform.
SCO is dying, their financials show this, and they long ago made themselves irrelevant. Go for the important stuff, the NEW GCC IS OUT.
I believe MS is driving SCO. I believe SCO will get paid buy MS. I believe that Linux will come out on top. I believe this is the Matrix.
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
The Church of JC and LDS must have raised the tythe marker. SCO can't let its ties to this cult be broken, so they are paying.
IBM, Sun, HP, or whomever else has a license to the SCO code should a diff and post the results! Then'll we'll see the FUD exposed for what it is.
Sheesh.
Yeah, thats right... You people are gonna pay!
Is that possible? I thought the GPL was designed to keep things like this from happening.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
They won't lose their IP, they just lose the ability to collect damages for it. Silly.
Speak for yourself.
see SCO source code and the corresponding code in Linux "in a couple weeks", .
I don't believe SCO will ever show the source code, because it is simply not there. Their new claims that these infringments are even prior to IBM means that there is no infringment.
They are playing a game of very high risk poker, and have just raised the stakes. They are probably praying that IBM will fold, and if not IBM then perhaps some other Linux distros.
I hope these bastards are run out of town after this load of shit. Good luck finding jobs again, all you SCO wankers.
I would like SCO to show the copied code along side the Linux code. Then I want an independant party to take ALL the UnixWare source code, and I mean ALL of it, with the offesive code they claim Linux has and the COMPILE IT and boot up UnixWare and run something third party and shrinkwrapped out of the box on it.
If they just randomly cut and paste code into their own source to try and make it look like there's UNIX code in Linux, this might be a good test to make sure they didn't just snip code and put it in UnixWare.
They're going to show the stolen code under NDAs. Therefore, the only people that will know what to fix won't be allowed to...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Also if a developer has heard of a fast and effective way of makeing something, then the code and alogrithms can be very similar. :P
I think the problem is more like with the patents, as propably almost nobody searches through them to see if it's patented
telax - Just another vim and c hacker.
So what? Smart people understand that progress of mankind is not and cannot be property of individuals or small groups; it belongs to mankind as a whole. The entire notion of intellectual property is misplaced here. Mankind is discovering how to make computers a useful universal too and how to build an Internet out of all those computers. Linux is part of that ongoing discovery. What could it be that gives a small group of people the right to own progress?
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
It seems as if you (and all current replies to your comment afaics) are missing something:
It's not so much the GPL that would cause them to lose their IP, but SCO's breaking of the rules with regard to licensing. Breaking another license might have rendered the same effect, albeit through another route (the courts).
If you break the rules, be prepared to face the consequences.
Karma? What's that again?
You know /. is in trouble when nobody reads the articles OR the comments!
We have the classic GPL/Copyright confusion going on here again.
Think of it this way: Copyright is the house. GPL is a door into the house.
By publishing copyrighted work under the GPL that means that you give people to come in and do whatever they want to the house within the boundaries of the license. You still own the original house and can build another door into it that has less abilities.
You cannot, however, close the original GPL door.
You could build an extension onto the house that doesn't use any of the originally GPL'd portions and keep access to that extension away from the GPL door, but you can't close off the original parts of the house.
Trade Secrets are even trickier. You need to protect trade secrets. If you fail to protect them and lose them then they're gone. If you do take reasonable measures to protect them and they're stolen illegally then you can prosecute. (Look at that DirecTV suit where the law clerk photocopied the documents.)
So, the argument can be made that by SCO/Caldera's act of distributing Linux they inadvertenly GPL'd any and all IP that they may have included in the work. The argument can also be made that the original person who published the work under the GPL didn't have the right to do that. The problem is that SCO is a publisher too.
Personally I think we should just get ourselves back to the easy questions like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
LZH (Lempel-Ziv-Huffman; find repeated strings in a sliding window and then use Huffman coding on the resulting backreferences and raw characters) is freely implementable in all countries - it was developed for pkzip-2.0, and later adopted for gzip. You're thinking of LZW (Lempel-Ziv-Welch). Although the US patent on that will expire in a couple of years IIRC.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
What is the financial situation of SCO? Does anybody knows? I searched for SCO on yahoo quotes, but did not find it, so I assume its a private company.
I wonder how long can SCO survive, how much cash reserves it has. Maybe they are gambling a quick settlement or a buyout, but if IBM calls their bluff and goes to court, could SCO run out of cash and die? It this a last resort tactic?
And are there any reported customers that decided to abandon SCO products because of the events? Can such a position scare potential customer? How much does their stand in this matter hurt their business?
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
Does anyone have an example of the GPL holding up in court? Or would this be a first?
-]Phreak Out[-
When SCO released a Linux distro under the GPL they released the IP that IBM suposedly infringed under the GPL. So current Linux distros are safe, but IBM may have infringed SCO's IP at some point in the past.
hammer dropped! Mine was a -1 redundant, what a turd this guy is!
I read that as being they excluded BSD code from their audit of linux code.. Not that they wont be auditing BSD code for violations later on as well ...
Cant trust these bastards at all....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Since their IP is in the wild, they have no reason to try to protect it. So there is another big motive behind all this
May be it's something else than the propositions that have been made
Maybe Microsoft approached SCO and said "hey, you guys are almost sunk, have been going downhill for years, what do you think about using your System V ownership to sue IBM and cast a whole lot of FUD over Linux and also IBM's involvement in Open Source? If you win, you'll get a pile of cash from IBM, and they'll be sunk, making it possible for you guys to become the biggest Unix provider on the planet. If you loose we'll buy you out for a nice generous sum of money. Either way, you win. Oh, BTW, this conversation never took place."
If anyone buys this blatant dissembling (assuming MS, would actually try it,) just tell the person so afflicted by the deciet that the sun might not come up tomorrow, and they'll probably sell you all their IP for a tenner, quicker than you can say *cough* bullshit *cough*.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
I dont agree that they had to pull it before, but i guess we will see how the courts decide the issue, as this will be brought up by IBM at some point.
Unless of course all the records are sealed and all we hear about is a outline of the judgement..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
At least in this one, he says it was posted before
crikey!
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
How many times are you going to repost exact copies of other people's stuff? That's precisely the sort of karma whorism up with which I shall not put!
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Anybody want to offer me odds on SCO or an affiliated partner in crime having deliberately planted System V/UnixWare/OpenServer code into the kernel tree as a contingency for the day it became obvious to shareholders and analysts alike that the revenues from their Unix IP portfolio were dwindling. Is the the mother of all exit plans?
Most often called Santa Cruz, Calderuman was one of the first of the UNIX vendors to arrive in Intel-earth, after the arrival of the System V. He was said to be the eldest of the order. For a dozen years, and maybe more, he journeyed in the barren East, and was little heard of at Berkeley.
It was at about this time that Calderuman began to study the Rings of Power, their history and the means of their making.
In year 31 of the Epoch, he was given the keys of OpenLinux, and took up his abode there. He continued his researches into Ring-Zero-lore, and the making of device drivers, and was accustomed to watch the stars from the pinnacle of the Tower. When the Council debated the Rings of Power, Calderuman claimed that his researches showed that the One Ring had been lost forever. It was later shown that he did not believe this, however, and was searching for it himself, having secretly rebelled against the Council.
He built an army of Lawyers and Orcs of his own within the ring of Isengard to challenge both the Wise and the forces of Mondred. In May of the 24th year, when he was ready to reveal himself, Calderuman set a trap for Gandalf, luring him to Orthanc. When Gandalf came, Calderuman revealed that he had made a Ring of his own, and that he intended to gain control of Linux , or at least prevent Gandalf from using it freely himself.
To be continued...
(Plagiarized of course - Google to find the source.)
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
SCO just made an official announcement through their spokesman:
? ID =612355094
http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php
People are stupid.
SCO gave up their IP when they released their code GPL'd. If they read the GPL, they would have known this (assuming they read it). If they had not read it, then it's their own damn fault for giving up their IP
People are specualting that others will turn the Rule around, and make people believe that Linux is nothing but an IP thief, when those who are informed know better.
SCO's not getting their way, so they're going to try to do as much damage as possible before dying.
(Wizards First Rule - by Terry Goodkind. A fantasy novel, that has some subtle lessons)
actually.. most (advanced) linux users could just migrate to *bsd without much fuzz (keep same progs & etc).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
mod parent down, this is not his comment.
Ok, how about this scenario?
I work XYX, Inc. doing programming. We distribute both a proprietary and a GPL program. If I take code from OUR program (includes trade secrets) and insert it, without knowledge or apporoval of management, into the GPL program, is the company bound? I would not think so, as I don't have that ablility to bind the company to an agreement.
The same thing here. Unless Caldera/SCO were the ones that inserted the code in the distribution tree, I would not think the simple distribution would void trade secrets/patents on the code. I think the courts would find it unreasonable to require them to check every line of GPL code before it ships. If that were the case, then ALOT of companies will just stuff distributing GPL to protect themselves (unless all they do is GPL code).
BWP
Pardon me, but am I getting this one right? They want the end user to take liability for copyright violations, even when the end user is just using a product and doesn't even know about the internals of the product? And they are the same people that tell you that they take absolutely no liability if you suffer economical damage from bugs or security holes in their software!
It's not that difficult, people!
Brat - He stole my thingy, and my other thing!
Adult - OK Timmy, I'll put on the blanket everything he has, and you can point out what he stole.
Brat - Won't! He stole my thingy!
The reported missed several points and failed to ask several questions that Id like to read the answer to:
- If there are so many examples of their code in Linux, why not show us just one tiny little bit of code that has been copied? Just one. That wouldnt affect their defense.
- SCO seems to be willing to sue everybody and their mothers. Do those guys think they will be able to continue in business after this kind of behavior?
- Does SCO think the Linux community and the kernel maintainers would knowingly violate SCOs IP? Dont they want the matter resolved (their code removed from the kernel)? Of course I know the answer to this one, but it would be interesting to make them say thats its all about the money, and that if they can contribute to their own losses by preventing any fixes to the kernel (if any is needed, that is), then they can get more money out of it.
And last but not least: does SCO or any SCO director or member of the board have any dealings with Microsoft or has been inspired by Microsoft or any Microsoft partner to act the way they are?
The more I think about this, the more I like it. SCO and Jesse Jackson - leeches looking to use controversy to steal your money!
(And if this post pisses you off, do you have the guts to ask yourself WHY? Or are you so certain of your moral superiority that you won't even do THAT?)
Well, that just reinforces the arguement that will be made that companies should stay away from any Open Source projects.
Really, you can't force companies to reveal their source code with technicalities, no matter how much the company's management are being jerks, without it setting off alarm bells in management at all companies.
The LZH case was different, the owner of the ip never gave permission to use it in gpl programs, and thus the person who first distributed it under the gpl (not those persons who distributed it further) would be liable.
;)
Ermm, that would be LZW compression. (Liv-Zempel-Welch). LZH is the file extension that LHarc used. You must be one of those old veterans like me.
My journal has hot
They'll just wait for the bankruptcy auction and buy it for even less, if they even want whatever SCO has to offer - and that won't give any money to the scum that developed this strategy.
No, the claim you are making is: 'No self-repecting co. ought to license it's code under the GPL and expect other code that belongs to them that some other third party slips into the code that they happen to distribute to not be revealed and become community property under the GPL.'
That whole arguement will Drive Away participating companies that want partial involvement in GPL licensed projects.
I'm assuming you're wearing a monocole and that at the points in time where you said 'progress' you winked.
Really, you shouldn't make it so obvious that you have a bust of Lenin on your bookshelf, with all that 'historical inevitibility' propaganda...
but,
has the GPL been court tested? Just because the GPL states something doesn't mean it will stand up in court. A judge is liable to do anything. That's the scary thing.
Now for the good news. Once the GPL has been court tested and a precednet has been set, then it may stop some of these things.
*shakes head*
managers
I think what Gleef is saying is distributing under the GPL (i.e., the Linux OS in the Caldera distro) does not touch their copyrights for their own code (i.e., the Xenix and Unix System V codebases).
// TODO: fix sig
The same thing here. Unless Caldera/SCO were the ones that inserted the code in the distribution tree, I would not think the simple distribution would void trade secrets/patents on the code.
Then you misunderstand how GPL uses copyright law. Whether or not Linux contains code from them it definitely contains copyrighted code from Linus, Alan, etc. They have no right to distribute copyrighted code without permission from the copyright owner. This permission is given in the form of a license -- the GPL -- which allows you to distribute said copyrighted code and/or derivatives with the provision that you distribute it under the same license. Thus either SCO is guilty of copyright violation themselves (of a much greater magnitude, since even they aren't claiming their code is the majority of the Linux code), or they have implicitly agreed to the GPL in order to distribute Linux legally.
I don't know how the argument goes regarding their awareness of own code in the kernel, but -- as others have pointed out -- once they distributed a copy after knowing, it's a moot point. Beyond a doubt, every subsequent copy of the Linux kernel they distributed is either a copyright violation (of Linus et al's code) or an implicit release of the alleged code under GPL.
-chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Except Microsoft does have a point,to a degree. If you are grossly negligent in licensing matters, the GPL may very well end up being "viral". However, this is no different than the situation that is already present in commercial software.
Free Software is no excuse to be sloppy. Neither is an M$ EULA.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.
This is simply false. Once you distribute your code under the GPL, you lose ALL CONTROL over that code PERMANENTLY. That is simply what the GPL is designed to do.
You can't "take it back". This is something that the GPL is specifically designed to prevent.
SCO can license the offending code in other ways not Free, but they can't revoke the old licenses.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Sounds more like mustard to me. YMMV.
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
> GPL caused SCO to lose their IP!
If anything, they lose their right to the GPL'ed code rather than their IP.
MS can then say "see, I told you so! GPL caused SCO to lose their IP!!!!".
But the GPL does cause you to "lose" your IP in this way. You lose it to the collective and in return you get back other people's IP. So who cares if MS say that?
And will they even keep secret the names of these so-called experts? Of course I would never trust anyone who signs a non-disclosure agreement that prevents them from revealing the full truth about what they are examining. I probably would never trust those people about anything ever again. I know I would never sign such an agreement (but I don't have the political clout to be called an expert, so I'll let my 24 years of operating systems work (including source code internals), 19 years of C programming, 15 years of Unix experience, and 9 years of working on Linux, continue to do what it should be doing ... which doesn't include helping low-life underpaid executives recover their worthless stock options).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
Apparently, SCO customers have been getting this interesting email from sco (not sure if it has been posted before):
_ custo mers.html
From: TeamSCO Partner Program
Subject: SCO Suspends Linux Activities
Dear SCO Partner:
As a SCO Partner, we thank you for your support and continued business.
Because you are a valued partner, it is important that we make you aware of
important SCO business decisions and announcements as soon as possible. As
such, we wanted to make you aware of an important announcement made today.
This communication is about recent efforts SCO has made to license and
protect our patents, copyrights and intellectual property pertaining to the
UNIX(r) operating system. As you know, on March 7, 2003 SCO announced that
it filed legal action against IBM in the State Court of Utah, for
misappropriation of trade secrets, tortuous interference, unfair competition
and breach of contract. The complaint alleged that IBM made concentrated
efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of UNIX, particularly UNIX
on Intel, to benefit IBM's new Linux services business.
As we have progressed in our discovery related to this action, SCO has found
compelling evidence that the Linux operating system contains unauthorized
SCO UNIX intellectual property (IP). Due to this discovery, we are taking
three immediate courses of action.
1 - The first is to send a letter alerting commercial users to the fact that
legal liability for the use of Linux by businesses may extend to end users.
Customers should start receiving this letter today. For your information, a
copy of this letter may be found at:
http://www.sco.com/scosource/letter_to_linux
2 - The second action we are taking is to suspend all future sales of the
Linux operating system from SCO until the attendant risks with Linux are
better understood and properly resolved.
3 - Finally, although this action affects future development and sales of
SCO's Linux offerings, SCO will continue to support our SCO Linux and
OpenLinux customers and partners who have previously implemented those
products and we will hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property
issues regarding Linux. SCO will continue to honor all contractual
obligations with existing customers including product updates, service, and
support.
As many of you are already aware, SCO UNIX systems continue to sell well -
including an increase in OpenServer sales over the previous quarter. Our
UNIX products continue to support many of the world's largest businesses. In
addition, new customer sales indicate that there is still no better option
for rock-solid, dependable technology for their core businesses than our SCO
UNIX solutions.
We are excited to be building on our SCO UNIX history as we roll out our
next generation UNIX operating system and SCOx framework this fall. SCOx
will allow small and medium business customers and branch offices to plug
their existing applications into a Web services environment. Details of this
strategy will be unveiled at SCO Forum in Las Vegas, Nevada, August 17-19.
(For more details, see: http://www.sco.com/2003forum ).
SCO remains committed to building new business opportunities for our
partners such as you. We recognize that you have depended on us to provide
reliable, solid technologies for your customers for over twenty years. We
look forward to helping you and your customers meet your business needs for
the next twenty years.
Sincerely,
[I took the name out...]
President and CEO
The SCO Group
Talk about FUD and PR juggling. SCO needs to go bankrupt now, or prove beyond a doubt in their court filing with exact details, so everyone can see. Enough of this smoke and mirrors.
I just can't beleive the audacity of these guys.
r ce_QandA .html
..... hahahahahaha - rediculous.
Read their faq and have a laugh.
http://www.sco.com/scosource/Final_SCOsou
It seems as if they wish linux to be "SCO/GNU/Linux"
It seems to me the only entity that will benefit from all of that is Microsoft. SCO is definitely not going to benefit from this suit - hell, why would IBM buy them, there is no strong case here to be afraid of.
I more and more suspect that a few key people at SCO were simply bribed to bring about this scandal. No matter whether this goes to court or not, it has already hurt Linux and will probably hurt it even more.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"
Wrong. Imaging that YOU wrote some code -- you own it. You can then "fork" your code. One branch can be GPL, the other can be sold/modified/whatever without having any requirements. The GPL just guartees that you cannot "take back" the forked version. Also, once forked, you cannot re-merge them or "borrow" bug-fixes from the GPL version without making your proprietary version GPL.
In short, if you "own" some code, you can do whatever you want with it! If you GPL it, then you can have a "GPL" version and a "private" version -- you can give away what you want, and keep what you want.
In fact, some companies do exactly this! Note that the code for Open Office came from Star Office. Yet Star Office is NOT GPL. In other words, Sun forked the code into a GPL and a non-GPL version.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
OSOpinion.com has an article that offers a unique analysis of the SCO / Linux lawsuit. The "Strategy Backfire" section asks one simple question: if SCO new that Linux was infringing on their IP, then why did it keep distributing it in their Linux distribution? If they had distributed in their Linux distribution, then it would have been distrbuted under the GPL.
It is definitely worth a read.
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
SCO Openforum is a conference and trade show held by SCO in Las Vegas from August 17 - 19, 2003. The Agenda includes a lot of uninteresting stuff, and lots of opportunities to talk to the C?Os and managers of SCO and tell them what you think of them. Are you a SCO partner and want to be associated with SCO? Come to the partner pavillion or even become a sponsor and showcase you association with one of the boldest defenders of IP rights in the US. :-)
This SCO lawsuit is a good thing. A very good thing for the GPL itself, and Linux in general. As far as I know there has been no test of the GPL in the courts, and before long there definitely will be. It is far better for OSS to have a precedent set in such a favorable environment than it would be if (at some later date) OSS and the GPL are challenged in an environment where they are likely to lose. I'm not a lawyer. I thank God everyday that I'm not a lawyer. But it seems as that until the GPL has the authority of law behind it (judicial law that is) there will always be a question about it's ability to maintain the freedom of the code. It doesn't matter WHAT Microsoft claims, or anyone else. Remember Wordperfect? Wordperfect was THE standard and they were betamaxed by a substandard joke of a word processor called Word. Why? Because it was freely distributed with OS licenses, and bundled cheaply. So it will be with Linux.
I would like to see how the Kernel Devs are taking this, dollars to donuts Linus is laughing his ass off....
So what? Smart people understand that progress of mankind is not and cannot be property of individuals or small groups; it belongs to mankind as a whole.
Y'know, I would want to see this code before I equated it to "progress of mankind." :)
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
What if it were shown that original GPL'ed Linux code has been borrowed and incorporated into Unix. GPL'ed Unix? Given the history and relationships of these OSs, surely there must be some potential of this?
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
It occured to me... in one of the last interviews with a SCO lacky, he basicly said "We haven't found our 'proprietary' code in the Linux kernel." Last I check, Linux IS a kernel. They continue to incorrectly refer to GNU/Linux as simply Linux, and run their mouths about how it infringes on their intellectual property. If they aren't accusing the kernel of infringement, then they need to STOP referring to the infringing code as simply "Linux". IANAL but IMO continuing to expound upon "Linux's" infringement is libelous.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
You misunderstand me. What I'm trying to say is, what I think Gleef is saying is, just because you distribute one GPLed codebase (i.e., the Linux OS), that doesn't touch any other codebase (i.e., the Xenix and Unix System V codebases).
But that's copyright. If you're stupid enough to copy your trade secret IP from your non-GPLed codebase into a GPLed codebase, then yes, you lose control of that IP. But even so, that doesn't effect the copyright of your original, non-GPLed codebase (though it would diminish its value).
// TODO: fix sig
We've got nukes... er, proof that we own Linux. We're not afraid to use them. You'd better pay us money so that we don't use them. In fact... we'll soon demonstrate them for the world to see.
See any parallels?
From the interview with Chris Sontag:
Q: SuSE feels protected against any legal action you may consider because of contracts with SCO and with UnitedLinux in which you are a member. Do SuSE and other Linux distributors including Red Hat have reason to be worried?
Regarding contracts we have with SuSE and UnitedLinux, I would unequivocally state that there is nothing in those contracts that provides them with any protection or shelter in the way they are characterizing this in the press. If I were them, I would not be making those kinds of statements.
Further, he goes on to say that this temper-tantrum is the result of IBM saying things SCO didn't like:
Basically, he [Steve Mills, IBM exec] said that IBM will exploit its expertise in AIX to bring Linux up to par with Unix and went on to say a lot of other things, like trying to help obliterate Unix. IBM is a licensee of Unix technology from SCO, originating back to contracts with AT&T Corp. So IBM's position became a big problem for us.
On behalf of Linux users and developers everywhere, fsck you, SCO.
Since the source code to Linux is out there, is it possible for them to cut and paste it into the SCO UnixWare code and pretend it's theirs? I only get worried about this since it's been proven, by past events, that the judicial system isn't really tech savvy.
How do you verify that the code SCO provides is the same code that is in UnixWare? Do they disassemble shrink-wrapped version of UnixWare and compare it to the given code? Do they force them to re-compile a past release of UnixWare and compare the binaries.
I hope they validate that what SCO puts forwards.
Unless Caldera/SCO were the ones that inserted the code in the distribution tr
There is no such person as Caldera/SCO. The person working for Caldera/SCO is part of the company and their actions are the same as the company's. Assuming there are bits of SCO code (for the sake of argument) in Linux, the employee who did it should be liable (assuming you believe in software patents and copyrights in the first place), and they should be able to stop it from being continually distributed (maybe) but they shouldn't be able to sue those that weren't responsible.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
...because that is the likely scenario.
exactly. smart people understand this.
see my post on this: http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=628 68&cid=5864512
I went to battle MC Escher but drew a blank
Microsoft has 'owned' a piece of SCO since SCO's inception. Until 1998, SCO paid Microsoft royalty for each version of SCO product shipped. Early in this arrangement, Microsoft supported WORD(r) and FOXBASE(r) on the SCO platform. As UNIX/SCO started to be popular in the early 90's, Microsoft stopped developing products for SCO, This ensured Microsoft's position /total domination in the OS/Application market. This all but eliminated the possibilities of UNIX in becoming a player in the desktop market.
;->
Now along comes a Linux, a product which Microsoft management calls "a cancer'. A product which is making major inroads in both the server and desktop market. Microsoft's strategies for eliminating this 'cancer' have included; denial, "name calling", question able / manufactured reports claiming lower cost of ownership and better maintain. I would think playing this logical card would help Microsoft derail the Linux market.
I would think a counter for this SCO/Microsoft move would be to sue both SCO and Microsoft for use of Linux/BSD code in a commercial product without display of copyrights and including source with the products. During the discover process, require SCO and Microsoft pay to have a third party code review of both of their products. The auditors would be chosen by the Linux/BSD world.
At that point, such a legal action would not only derail the SCO/Microsoft legal action, but would expose the depths to which both companies have and are working in collusion to dismantle the Linux movement.
Well that is my opinion, and I am sticking to it
#include
bool lawsuit(int dollars){
if(dollars == 0){
return true;
}
else{
return true;
}
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Due diligence doesn't really apply to patents, I don't believe. Does with trademark, which doesn't apply here.
If due diligence did apply (and you could argue it should), then the whole Rambus fiasco wouldn't have happened
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Really, you can't force companies to reveal their source code with technicalities, no matter how much the company's management are being jerks, without it setting off alarm bells in management at all companies.
Interestingly, enough, that is irrelevant.
Nobody is saying SCO used the GPL, and must now hand over it's source (at least in the context of this discussion).
*SCO* is claiming that developers misappropriated SCO IP in the form of code.
It is being replied that:
1)SCO has a duty to minimize damage -by saying WHAT, specifically, is being used improperly and,
2)Since SCO released it's own version of linux under the GPL, the code (assuming SCO used it's code in the distro, after all, they haven't said WHAT code is at issue...) is licensed under the GPL.
"If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
~Epictetus
i forogt the damn less than sign thing.
#include <financials/poor.h>
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
If you want a license for the SCO IP, they have explicitly made the kernel and other utilities available under the GPL here.
;)
It feels pretty good to watch SCO shut down business.
me thinks if we were to find the real source driving SCO to shoot down Linux we would find Microsoft.
SCO stockholders should ask the company's management why their equity is being flushed away by the stubborn desire to keep the details of the offense a secret, which is preventing it from being fixed.
(If the above two paragraphs seem ridiculous, it is because I wrote it on the premise that SCO is telling the truth.)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I never did work for the Sequent/IBM group that was doing this work so I have no concrete basis for this speculation.
-michael
No, it just suggests that their product is worthless and they're after monetary damages rather than an injunction against use of the code. This is not mutually exclusive with "having a case."
Despite this, it is pretty damned unlikely that they have a case unless they fake CVS commission dates. Assuming they're competent enough to keep track of that.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Personally I think it's sick. They know that within a few days of releasing the violations, they would be fixed, and patches made by vendors for all previous versions of products they still support. They can't do that though, because they want to take us to the proverbial cleaners.
A solution to the problem with music today
They may have stopped distributing OpenLinux on CD, but they are still distributing it via FTP.
It expires in about a month. On June 20th, 2003, LZW, at least in the US, becomes an unencumbered file format. It will remain patented in a few other countries for another year or two, but essentially, Unisys only has another month to harass people over GIF usage before the patent expires.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
MOD PARENT UP
Alright, it looks like DR Dos was sold on November 18, 2002, which might explain why drdos.com doesn't currently have those documents (if the current owners didn't want to host things with a negative tone), but the docs did disappear way before the sale. I noticed they were gone in March 2002 (and they had probably been gone for a long time already) and the Wayback Machine's last listing for that one particular page is April 2001, so they were definitely taken down before the sale.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
I very much doubt that there are any violations that cannot be disproved by any half-way competent lawyer (or even a first-year student at law school). Instead what we will see is a sudden announcement by SCO that their so-called experts have found numerous serious violations, however they cannot disclose them before the court case, nor can they say who these so-called experts are. It will just be some more FUD to pressure IBM. Meanwhile IBM will be quitely lining up a countercase that will blow SCO out the water, and might end up with SCO being countersued into oblivion.
Duh, of course they can
They simply claim BSD has misappropriated stuff since the 1st settlement, and now we need a new case to cover the new infringements that occurred from mid 90s until today.
It's trying to say that if you relicense code you own once it's been GPL'ed, you loose all rights... That clause only applies to code you RECEIVE under the GPL, not code you PUT under the GPL.
Whether or not SCO has relinquished its right to distribute GPL'ed code, I think it is fair to say that they have completely lost the ability to do so. No one in the free software community trusts them at all. And if the story about SCO sending out warnings to 1500 companies using Linux is true, no users trust them either.
The horse they rode in on is already dead. They shot it.
Yes, it is. They have patents, which they plan to enforce, namely with regard to multi-processor stuff. They also have copyright. Both of these supercede "trade secrets," and neither can be revoked due to any presence or lack of "due diligence."
If you have a source that suggests copyright (NOT TRADEMARKS) can be revoked by lack of due diligence, I'd definitely like to see it, because everything I've seen states clearly that copyrights are protected for Life+70. Otherwise, do musicians who allow their songs to be traded on Napster-clones lose copyright? No.
Any due diligence issues might play out in a penalty phase, but in terms of guilt and innocence, it's irrelevant.
There have been a jillion articles on this thing, including with SCO officials, so it's not a matter of more data. They claim that both patents and copyrights have been violated. Patents supposedly got leaked through IBM's AIX collaboration with SCO. Copyrights supposedly did because they claim that a lot of pre-IBM linux developers were privy to unix code that they were NDA'd from using elsewhere.
That's where it currently stands. Much of this was in the articles attached to this discussion, which you might have considered reading first.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Apart from general propaganda
One strategy might be...
Persuade the public now (and court later) that there is nothing substantial in Linux that is not stolen from their UNIX
1/ Therefore all other Linux distros should end
2/ SCO gets exclusive rights on everything in Linux (it's their stuff)
3/ As it's their stuff, they can license any which way they like, including under a closed source license.
SCO may be able to get people on copyright infringement. We won't be able to tell until (or if) SCO shows us the infringing code.
I find it hard to believe they could prevail on the trade secret side of the case, because they were publishing the infringing code themselves.
You know, what's really screwy in this case is that Caldera started with a Linux distro. Then they acquired SCO, and the Unixware codebase. So shouldn't they be suing themselves?
Feh. Lawyers making more work for themselves. Like we haven't seen that before.
Have one group of developers look at the offending code, write up a series of unit tests that describe the code, then offer the tests up to anyone who has NEVER looked at the code. Re-write the offending code and document that you followed this clean room process.. Problem solved, SCO is left in the dust, and everyone can get on with their lives. I'll coordinate the process if necessary. Got me a nice web-based workflow engine that would fit the bill prefectly. www.bigattichouse.com
meh
So looking at the SCO website, they have a section termed success stories that supposedly has many many success stories. Well, they dont list them all...you have to reload the page to see them. After roughly 50 reloads, I got 5, yes 5!!!, unique success stories. They claim at least 192! SCO can we see the other 187?
In fact, one of them related the use of SCO Linux for a mobile carrier in Korea. Considerring the fact that SCO pulled all support for their Linux "product", I guess that wasnt such a success, now was it?
I hate ungrateful sons of bitches...
Intelligence is like four wheel drive, having it just means you'll get stuck in more remote places.
This is simply false. Once you distribute your code under the GPL, you lose ALL CONTROL over that code PERMANENTLY. That is simply what the GPL is designed to do.
This is not entirely true. The original copyright holder of a GPLed work can do something no other distributor of that code can do. The owner can still fork the code under any license he chooses. He can also legally prevent anybody else from releasing derived works under anything but the GPL. This is a major basis of TrollTech's current business model. The XFree86 version of QT is GPLed but they also license it for closed programs. Granted someone could port the GPL QT to other platforms but it would still be GPL only TrollTech has the authority to license it otherwise.
This type of control is even used by some GPL critics to argue that it isn't "completely free". So which is it? A total permanent loss of control for anyone realeasing code under it or a fearsome utterly controlled straightjacket used to deny others freedom? I'll grant that the GPL is controversial in these parts but its critics can't have it both ways. I would say that the "utterly controlled straightjacket" has at least some arguable points going for it.
The only legal regime that your statement is true for is the Public Domain. Even the BSD Licenses (often held up as an exemplar of Total Freedom) allow legal recourse for plagiarism.
Without judging whether their claims have any merit what
SCO managers were faced with 2 choices.
A. Go bankrupt slowly
OR
B. Sue for intellectual property infringements
Possible results
B1. Lose the law suits. Result: no worse than A
B2. Get bought: Result: better than A.
B3. Get paid off: Result: better than A
B4. Argue there is nothing substantial in Linux which isn't their UNIX, therefore the court should assign Linux copyright to them, stop other Linux distros, and allow SCO to distribute Linux under a license of SCO's choice, including a closed source if they wish. Probably unlikely to succeed, but you can bet they WILL try. This is the reason why ALL their documents/web-site etc. say Linux is just a bunch of stuff copied from UNIX, by a bunch of pirates.
And if they succeed with B4, they think "instant multi-billion $ company". Result: much better A.
I sea that misspelling far two often.
If SCO survives the next couple of years, the best that they can hope for is to sell their Unix IP to IBM for enough money that they can disappear off the radar for a while and get into another line of business. They are finished in both the proprietary Unix market and the Linux market because of this action.
Neh, try $0, if you want to be truly 1337. *g*
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
Microsoft is not behind this. SCO's desparate situation is behind this.
Without judging whether their claims have any merit what
SCO managers were faced with 2 choices.
A. Go bankrupt slowly
OR
B. Sue for intellectual property infringements
Possible results
B1. Lose the law suits. Result: no worse than A
B2. Get bought: Result: better than A.
B3. Get paid off: Result: better than A
B4. Argue there is nothing substantial in Linux which isn't their UNIX, therefore the court should assign Linux copyright to them, stop other Linux distros, and allow SCO to distribute Linux under a license of SCO's choice, including a closed source if they wish. Probably unlikely to succeed, but you can bet they WILL try. This is the reason why ALL their documents/web-site etc. say Linux is just a bunch of stuff copied from UNIX, by a bunch of pirates.
And if they succeed with B4, they think "instant multi-billion $ company". Result: much better A.
So what? Smart people understand that progress of mankind is not and cannot be property of individuals or small groups;
it belongs to mankind as a whole.
Smart people are not running this country nor are they in the courts as judges.
this is the problem.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I had the pleasure of seeing a lecture, A History of UNIX and UNIX Licenses, by Peter Salus at Setec recently.
He was a witness in the 1993 lawsuit between UNIX System Laboratories versus BSDI. The prosecution accused him of being Mentally Contaiminated for having viewed both sets of source code. Someone went out an made big red laquer buttons that said this and everyone who had seen source wore one to the trial. The contempt of court argument begins, and since it was a statement made by the prosecutor and not objected to by the court, then the buttons got to stay.
This case has some interesting similarities to the SCO accusations. SCO has much less of a leg to stand on.
I want a mentally contaiminated laquered button. If you've seen source code, then you are mentally contaminated. Maybe it's the start of a movement.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
SCO started this case in state court in Utah. SCO alleged both SCO and IBM were Delaware corporations, making them technically "residents" of the same state. Unfortunately, IBM is actually a New York corporation. Therefore, there is federal court jurisdiction to hear the case (residents of different states and amount of controversy in excess of $75,000.00).
SCO obviously wanted the case in state court. It very carefully pled no federal law claims such as copyright or patent. It pled only state law claims for unfair competetion, etc. The only reason to do this would be if SCO wanted this in state court.
IBM removed (that's the verb) the case to federal court - United States District Court for the District of Utah on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Not a thing SCO can do about it.
Why did SCO start the case in state court and why did IBM remove it? The state law claims of unfair competition, etc. are the same (the classic Erie decision still applies for all you budding 1Ls out there). The case will still physically remain in Utah.
IBM gets Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 26(a), the parties must disclose to each other, without even a formal request, the most relevant documents to their case. The disclosure must be done relatively quickly. I doubt there is a similar automatic disclosure in the Utah rules. In state court, SCO might have been able to drag the discovery process out for at least a few months. It could keep its source code hidden for a while. Under the federal rules, it cannot do that. By removing the case to federal court, IBM undercut a big hunk of SCO strategy - namely FUD.
Obviously, the most relevant documents to this case are the source code listings SCO alleges IBM stole. These must be produced to IBM and produced quickly. There willl probably be a protective order preventing the rest of us from seeing them, but IBM gets to see them very soon (like maybe this month).
If there was no theft of code by IBM, expect a quick resolution of the case. If there was theft from Project Monterey in violation of the SCO-IBM agreement, expect a slugfest over intent and the the measure of damages.
In addition, by not even knowing the corporate home of its adversary, SCO comes in looking foolish. How hard would it be to determine IBM is a New York corporation, not a Delaware corporation? Not hard at all. Take a look at any of its SEC filings. It was a stupid mistake by SCO and although it does not logically follow that the rest of its allegations are undermined, it does decrease credibility of SCO and its attorneys.
The interesting question (at least for entertainment value) is who subpoenas RMS first to testify.
Hmm. I've seen this twice now, and it kind of bothers me. Standard disclaimers apply...IANAL.
Distribution under anything but a NDA strikes me as incompatible with a Trade Secret. Distributing your own Trade Secrets under the GPL is likely to get a judge to laugh at you.
I think this is called "poisoning the well" (per luxuriam). The basic idea is that someone will prevent you from making a defence by polluting your own resources (usually without your knowledge). I have no idea if it is illegal to do this in and of itself, but that doesn't matter at all.
The fact of SCO's release of their IP under the GPL on day X does not prevent them from prosecuting violations of their property rights which occured prior to that date.
Don't get me wrong, I completely disagree with SCO's stand here and their method of prosecuting the violation (not exactly defining the code under discussion), but that doesn't mean they don't have a legitimate complaint
Or, perhaps SCO (being a company which has very little growth potential) is simply looking at IBM to buy it out (to shut SCO up).
*shrug*
It seems rather futile. You know it's a bad sign when the company's main website has links to their court filings and condemning letters sent to all kind of other companies.
Ayup
SCO is simply suffering from Penguin-Envy.
--
"I'm don't know exactly what an AS/400 is, but I'm pretty certain I wouldn't want one up my ass" --Lou
Why isn't anyone suing SCO for liable, yet?
If they haven't released the infringing code, but have sent letters to customers accusing Linux (and by association every kernel developer) of ill-doing, isn't it liable?
The Linux kernel is published in a transparent manner on kernel.org and every release is dated and there exists email evidence to back up those dates. We all know exacly when Linus published each version from the start. It is open for everybody to see. How is SCO's kernel tracked? If they dated their source, how do we know that the dates are not forged?
The key thing is, the GPL doesn't have to be validated in court. Unlike a EULA, it gives the user *more* rights than default copyright law and takes nothing away. That's the key reason why most companies comply when the FSF claim that a GPL violation has taken place. They know they'll lose in court. Even if the FSF is relatively poor, it's an open an shut case for the judge so they cannot drag the FSF throught the courts until they are broke.
The ticker is SCOX.
Last quarter they lost $725k on sales of $13.5M. They have about $5M cash, 340 employees, and a total stock value of about $40M.
Their revenues dropped 25% last quarter; if that continues they have only a year or two to live.
Anyone here know someone in legal at IBM? If this can be gotten to the people responsible for this case, they might well be able to make use of this in any defense.
We need an archive of the mistakes SCO has made before they just get lost by the passing of time *after* people have gone to the trouble of picking them out.
This all sounds like SCO is out of money and are trying to get capital through lawsuit.
I think SCO realized they were failing, and came up with a plan to get IBM or Microflacid to buy them. By suing IBM they hoped that Big Blue would just buy SCO to avoid the nuisance of litigation. When that didn't work they tried a new angle: that SCO owns intellectual property misappropriated by Linux. If Microflacid then were to buy SCO, they could stamp Linux out, at a very small cost.
The curse of Gary Kildahl be on them! May they always be undersized and flacid, just like Bill Gates!
There are only so many ways to produce n. Is it possible 2 different coders came to the same conclusion? IE the code is not copied it was just the best way to do it and 2 coders came up with the same code.
When I read that SCO is promising yet again to show the evidence of this, I keep hearing the wedding guests from Monty Python in the Holy Grail singing, "He's going to tell! He's going to tell!".
They'll just keep singing and we'll never actually get to see the evidence behind the allegations. It's the WMD of the Unix world.
JoAnn
From an earlier interview, which was pulled because of it's containing an admission of guilt:
- 05 -12-010-26-IN-CD-LL-0026
"Finally. Somebody raised a possible problem that you yourselves distribute the infringing code under the GPL licence. Do you see that as a problem from your point of view?
No we do not, because you do not have an infringement issue when you are providing customers with products that have your intellectual property in them.
OK, but Linux has a kernel which isn't yours. Are you saying that there are changes to the kernel?
We have concerns and issues even with areas of the kernel.
So you are saying that you are happy distributing the kernel because the offending code belongs to you anyway, as I understand it?
Yes."
I.e. these guys don't have clue 1 what the GPL actually says. Unfortunately for them, failure to comprehend a license does not relieve you of your responsibilities under said license.
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2003
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
Most lawsuits start with a cease and desist letter. SCO needed to give us, the Linux community, the opportunity to see where the problems lay and give us the opportunity to remedy it. If Linux kernel source code really does include source from Unix, then it should be easy enough to rewrite those parts of the source.
Instead, SCO sends out their own Caldera customers warnings that they may be sued by SCO for using Linux. As a Unix instructor at a college, it will be years before I stop discussing the SCO case in class. Every student that comes out of my program will likely go out of their way to use operating systems that do not bear the SCO name.
SCO will not survive this. It is absurd for a company to piss off the community that it sees as it's customer base. Maybe they should spend more time fixing their antiquated and problem ridden SCO Unix OS rather than follow the RIAA's poor example.
I thought that Boise (sp?) was their atty. If so, he ain't that sharp. Aside from the corporate domocilie issue, how about not ceasing their own distribution of linux/gnu until *after* commencement of the litigation? Pretty dumb, huh? Man, if they really wanted/needed to stay out of federal court, they could have simply sued in NY state court. Perhaps SCO's inane course simply proves that all they're shooting for is FUD and maximum delay.
Today SCO's stock, SCOX, shoot up from $3.6 to $4.40 on higher than usual volume, that's 28% in one day. Well, what's going on? Is SCO getting liked by investors on hopes that its value will even go higher? It's hard to say, or though overbought condition is already showing up. The stock is in 68% traded by insiders, which points to the idea of who might be behind it - SCO's execs themselves. The other possibility is that IBM is using proxy buying to gain shares and voting rights in SCO.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
I don't think anyone is attempting to claim that SCO has lost control of those works it has not mingled with Free Software.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
My comments already accurately address the issue of proprietary forks by code "owners".
Star Office is a poor counter example. It started out life as a strictly commercial project. This is in stark contrast to Linux. There has never been a version of Linux that you could add your own code to and then put back into the shadows.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The financial marketplace - the smart money - believes SCO is going to win, at least partly. Their stock price has more than doubled since mid-February. (the lawsuit was filed in early March, the stock started to rise about when leaks/rumors from insiders started).
/.ers, I don't see how SCO can have a case - but I'm not an IP lawyer.
Serious money does not move like this unless the issues have been considered by good lawyers specialized in IP, plus technical advice, etc. Like most
Chk out the Sco stock http://ir.sco.com/stock.cfm?Period=1&Bench1=
Once you GPL code, it is under the control of the GPL framework. It's not the perogative of the previous owner to demand everything. The code has a life of it's own at that point.
An author can't take back the GPL.
They can move forward with their own source as if it were still completely proprietary. I've pointed that out myself. However, they cannot interefere with the what's already been turned into Free Software.
IOW, they can't revoke the GPL like how SCO is trying to revoke IBM's SysV license.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
SCO says it owns UNIX, but 'nix w/o tcp is like 'nix without internet. And thats not much. No vi -- no emacs either, for that matter.
So what's 'nix w/o internet, vi, or emacs???
I'm trying to figure what they could even claim was there.. I can only think kernel code... Not libc.. etc... No way Linus stole anything...
Seems to me the only possible weak point for SCO to attack, is the code that was re-impped just to avoid BSD license headers. I don't know when that was done, but older kernel's (2.0.'s) had it everywhere... Sound's like they're are going to say
it was copied then munged, instead of re-impped...
What was the problem with with BSD headers anyway? I bet SCO couldn't have even tried to sue if they (and the BSD code) was still there. It would be: No SCO thats the stuff you munged....
. . . and such 'independent creation' is never copyright infringement (cf. patent infringement.)
Guys. I think this it the time for the open source community to get organized. If SCO wants to be bought so bad, why don't we buy them? Seriously. If each of us chip $20 we would have more than enough to aquire SCO. Then we make unix public domain, and donate the company's assets to the free software foundation. What do you think?
This signature has Super Cow Powers
They sue IBM then make some big companies drop GNU/Linux. This frees up market space where SCO can try to cash-in. And they are not the only one who will benefit from this. And I dont just meen the M$ Borg, any Unix platform will benefit from this. The bad part is the damage this is causing to not just GNU/Linux but tho the entire OSS/FS comunity. It gives us a bad name. With the letter SCO sent, they might scare some companies away from OSS/FS for good. SCO cant beat GNU/Linux in a direct competiion, so they are fighting durty. Unfortunatelly even if they loose the lawsuit, this will still leave a mark on OSS/FS community.
Now I am going to go and take the knife out of my back. Thank you.
Free speech is getting expensive...
reporter:
Will you not present some of your evidence?
The power of our evidence is so strong that it can only be withstood by a hand picked group of analists while firmly sheilded behind Non-disclosure agreements. Our intentionally vague and broadly damning statements are to protect you from the horrible truths your minds are not yet ready to comprehend. X-Windows, Vim, Samba... The list of software that might contain infringing code is infinite. Can your mind grasp the infinite?
This is for your own good. Infidels.
The ______ Agenda
on what you mean by "underestimating." SCO may or may not have some viable breach of contract claim against IBM, but who cares. Even were SCO to prevail on some contractual misappropriation of trade secret claim, such would have no ultimate effect on linux/gnu use at large. Reason: 1) the public generally has no contractual relationship with SCO; 2) In the absence of an actual secret, there can be no tort of misappropriation of trade secret (linux kernel not secret); 3) no software patent is claimed by SCO; 4) no copyright is at issue the IBM litigation and even if it were: a) it remains questionable whether SCO's claimed code is substantial and original enough to constitute copyrightable subject matter and; b) any such copyrightable material is probably now subject to the GPL by virture of SCO's own distribution of Caldera Linux, and; 3) even in the remote event that some non-GPL SCO-copyrighted code exists in the kernel, the minute that the kernel developers learn of it, they'll simply change it. (Actually there are many more defenses to any copyright claim that SCO may eventually make.) So, while SCO might have some plausible claim against IBM sufficient to warrant a temporary rise on stock prices (who knows?), the ultimate non-effect of SCO's action on the linux/gnu users and community cannot be underestimated as it is nill.
Or when they're done cut and pasting the linux code among theirs? Hey, crazier/sleazier things have happened.
There is no such person as Caldera/SCO
By law, a corporation is a person/entity, they can sue, be sued and enter into contracts. Thats why when you are a the president of a corp and sign papers, you make sure that you write your title on the papers (so you are speaking for the corporation), otherwise you are signing for yourself.
BUT, not everyone can speak for the corporation, sign contracts for the corp or make decisions affecting it. Programmer Joe Blow, unless authorized by the corp, does NOT speak for it and can not enter into contracts (such as releasing source code owned by the corporation in the public domain or GPLing it).
As for suing, they may not be able to get damages from the various companies distributing Linux, but they can keep them from distributing the offending code.
BWP
Anyone who makes a business from linux/gnu and thinks that SCO's actions may injure them should seriously consider a lawsuit against SCO. Bare minium relief could be sought: declaratory judgment to the effect that your (and your clients') use of linux/gnu infringes none of SCO's rights.
But I think the timing of the purchase and alleged violations was what might save them on the issue of if they released everything under GPL making the suit is null and void..
But that's for the court to decide..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So lets assume that SCO is right and that, for whatever reason, their code ended up in the kernel.
So what? They plan on going after users for infringement? They are soooo fucking high...
Here's how that will play out:
1) SCO reveals which code bits are in the kernel.
2) Hours after their disclosure and possible judgement from the courts, hackers strip the offending code out and fork the kernel.
3) Minutes after the kernel is forked, the SCOBlows distro is available via ftp.
4) Users around the world rebuild their Linux boxes with non-offending OS running modified kernel.
5) SCO is fucked in the marketplace forever.
Of course they will have whatever money they can drain from IBM, SuSE, and Red Hat, but they will get squat from the users.
Fuck SCO.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
"There are absolutely no American troops at the Bagdhad Airport. Tomorrow I will take you to the airport and show you."
... then, code is revealed, which it turns out it was written by many people, none of whom were ever at SCO. "Oh, wait, tomorrow we'll have more code" ... then, again, code which SCO doesn't own. "No, really, this time we have it" ...
Somehow, I get the feeling that this is what Chris Sontag is doing. "Tomorrow we'll have the copied code"
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
Yeah, MS sucks!
Why does everyone who makes claims of cloning seem to have trouble producing the proof?
I'm pretty sure SCO's plan A was to extort a buyout from IBM. Threaten to sue, but allow themselves to be bought out. But their latest temper tantrum doesn't seem in line with that.
I've been trying to figure out what (if anything) SCO is thinking and I have a theory.
IBM doesn't look like it's interested in buying SCO out. It looks like their lawyers have determined that there is little risk in court and have decided to go to war. Now they need a Plan B, but they've alienated the entire Linux community with Plan A and are rapidly running out of options.
Perhaps Plan B is to court Microsoft for a buyout. The new wording they're using for the copyright issues matches up exactly with Microsoft's current line of FUD. Theoretically, they could go to MS with a line like, "Gee, we'd really like to proceed with this case to kill off Linux, but we don't have the cash."
If that's Plan B it's as boneheaded as Plan A. MS probably loves the fact that SCO is parroting their line, but it's only helpful because it sounds like someone other than MS is saying this. If MS bought them out, it would lose the appearance of an independent voice.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
I suspect a lot of that money is moving on hopes that IBM will buy SCO out to avoid a protracted legal battle. Besides, if Wall street knew anything about technology, we would never have had the tech bubble and tech bust. and the economy wouldn't be in the toilet right now.
0 1 - just my two bits
of proving that the code was copied or that they made it up? it is ones and zeros after all.
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
He spelled "loose," and he meant, "loose."
As in, "Loose your rights upon the world," as in, "Loose the hounds!"
Seems that's what SCO is doing: "We shall loose our IP rights upon your wretched visage, and all your base are belong to us!"
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
At the moment, there's not much that can be done with respect to the SCO vs. IBM case if you don't happen to be a litigant. This raises the question, at least for those who want to do more than bitch about SCO on Slashdot (no matter how gratifying it may be), of what we can do to harm SCO legally.
Eric Raymond's official rebuttal is a nice start insofar as it shows how ridiculous SCO's claims are by demonstrating that Linux is so technically superior to SCO's *nix that the idea of Linux stealing from SCO is silly. How about a nice executive-level (read: pretty and simplified) feature comparison chart showing the hundreds of features Linux has that SCO doesn't. This shouldn't be a very hard task for someone who is familiar with both systems. Distributed widely among decision-makers in the corporate world, it might have some impact.
Another thing that would be worth assembling is a migration guide from SCO to Linux. Again, someone well familiar with both systems would be needed to assemble this. Give a step-by-step HOWTO on ditching your existing SCO setup and replacing it with Linux, preferably demonstrating several improvements or new features offered by the Linux alternative.
On a related note, why are the big Linux players so quiet? I hear propaganda from SCO almost daily through various channels, but barely a peep from IBM, Red Hat, Suse, etc. You'd think they'd realize that this is a marketing action being conducted partly through the courts and would respond with marketers as well as lawyers.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
If they show that there is Linux code that is identical to SCO code, how will they be able to prove that Linux stole SCO code and not the other way around? It will be interesting to see how this turns out, since a SCO victory won't really help SCO's business any but will hurt all the other players in the Linux market. Perhaps they're hoping to take everybody else out with them?
Sorry to inform you, but communism and all other systems of tyranny based on the fallacy of "collective property" failed miserably, and for good reason.
Notice how the USA, with its strong respect for property of all kinds, has been a world leader in progress and innovation, not to mention standard of living?
Maybe you should get your nose out of the Communist Manifesto and read The Wealth of Nations. Picking up Atlas Shrugged might help as well.
Both have promised to show evidence of copying soon!
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
SCO is the matrix
March 7, 2003: SCO announced it was suing IBM for $1 billion dollars. That day, the stock shot up to over $3 per share and has been rising ever since.
If sold on the open market today, the combined value of those shares purchased would be nearly $1,000,000 dollars, for the purchase price less than a couple of months ago of $230.
From this patch (note the date):
v er/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS
SCO Security Advisory
Subject: OpenLinux: kernel kmod/ptrace root exploit
Advisory number: CSSA-2003-020.0
Issue date: 2003 May 09
4.4 Source Package Location
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Ser
It's part of the kernel folks. They're distributing it. They put it there two days ago, and it is available today. With source. Under the GPL. On their FTP server.
Perhaps the fact that said "progress" was the direct product of their physical and/or intellectual efforts, and that the feasibility of said "progress" to have an impact on mankind depends on their voluntarily sharing it with those who didn't produce it?
Whenever "mankind" discovers how to use a new universal tool, from fire to computers, the incentive to actually use it and "progress" has been the power leverage it provides for the discoverers over the short term, their communities (towns, tribes, nations) in the medium term, mankind in the long term.
Without any such incentive, it can be abandoned. The less immediate and less personal the incentives are, the more likely the discovery is abandoned or kept private. Many times it is. History is not a relentless march forward. There's no "forward", to begin with.
Smart people do not ignore the relations of power that determine the application and popularity of technologies, and brought them to the world in the first place.
They may like them or dislike them, use them or attempt to neutralize them, follow their rules or make a better offer, but they don't pretend they don't exist.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
printf("we loosing money cause of Linux, I know lets sue a large corp and maybe they'll buy us out...\");
They still have not said what code or trade secrets. The did mention 3 things in thier fileing.
1) some libraries. My guess is some UNIX or sco emulation? ibcs maybe? There argument is that none of this could have been reverse engineered (hmm whats that wine / dosemu thing doing ??).
2) They mention the sudden advancement of Linux CPU scaling and growth could not have happened witout IBM, nevermind the thousands of people that are working on the code base.
3) They seem upset that project monteray got canceled and IBM shifted its focus to Linux.
Yes there could be some truth to this whole suit, but the burden of proof is on SCO to show what code was added that could not have been added. I think they just want to hurt Linux cause their business is failing and they think this is a way to obtain the rights to Linux. Good luck fighting this outside Utah guys!
Only 'flamers' flame!
OK slashdotters, there are enough of us that if we each slowly buy SCO stock (i mean slowly as not to run the price up) we could then force SCO to stop this crap.
He It is an idea.
Although this is not a criminal case where the person making the charges has the full burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), the complainant does have to show a preponderance of evidence that IBM stole SCO's code. One or two similar lines of code will not be enough to convince a court that IBM, or anyone else, has stolen their code. IBM has been in the IP business about as long as they've produced business machines. I doubt they are uninformed about how to shoot holes in SCO's claims.
As for the price of SCO's stock doubling: that can be accounted for by speculation by investors. Their profitability can be affected by layoffs (costs drop, profits up), so their $4m quarterly profit may drop to $0 by next quarter. Has anyone seen a job posting emanating from SCO lately? I thought not.
Their suit will slowly erode by their revenue. I don't know what Microsoft's' defense cost them, but if scale is any measure, taking on a larger adversary in court is costly. I'm sure SCO's lawyers aren't working this case pro bono.
In short, after operating expenses, profit taking by investors (who will cash out on the bubble when they tire of SCO's rantings), and no hope of dropping costs further, the amount of money spent hourly on this legal venture should put the company out of business by Q4.
Anyone want to start a SCO death pool?
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
It's not "the smart money" as far as I can tell, insider trading is at 68%, yes, but smart money is "institutional" trading and that's only 16% of their daily volume. With 12 million of SCOX shares outstanding, the daily 350,000 shares volume would be only 3% of the total. It's not exactly a buying/trading spree. Rather this is overall market condition that is still sort of bullish and so most stocks moved up including Red Hat.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
1. Sue IBM.
2. Irritate the dinosaur.
3. Get bought by dinosaur.^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
3. Dinosaur laughs at empty threats.
4. Try to fight the dinosaur.
5. Get stomped by dinosaur.
6. No profit.
Getting into an IP fight with IBM is something they won't win. I'm starting to wonder if the current plan is:
1. SCO has been surpassed by Linux
2. Go out of business, but boy will Linux pay for that.
3. Script-kiddie feeling of power: "See how much havoc we can make"
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Recall, as you read this, that my point is whether or not SCO will lose this suit because of a "due diligence" issue...
Hmm supposedly sounds like hard facts too, that will play well in court.
I'm not commenting regarding the factual basis of SCO's suit, which as we all know probably doesn't have any. As you mention, they've been pretty vague regarding what violations actually exist, and they also claim that they have patents that have been compromised,a as well as any possible "trade secrets" that don't manage to fall into either category. As you point out in your link, their claims are probably bogus. No surprise there. If OSI is right and SCO has nothing, then all this is irrelevant anyway.
Whether any of this is true is completely irrelevant to whether they failed in any sort of "due diligence" requirement to avoid forfeiting their IP in this case (recall, that was your original contention that I posted about). My point was simply that there is nothing in any statute that I have seen or you have shown that their right to not have their code copied is compromised or revoked by lack of due diligence on their part.
I didn't mention copyright did I? Checks posts No, didn't think so.shrugs
I know you didn't. However, copyright is what SCO's most recent complaint is about. From one of the articles:
"Although SCO's claims about Linux developers copying from SCO's proprietary UnixWare have been vague in the past, this time Sontag specifically claimed that there is 'significant copyrighted and trade secret code within Linux.'"
Here, he's hedging his bets by using both terms, but believe it, he'd rather nail this under copyright if he can.
Copying code is a copyright violation, copyright is easier to prove than trade secret violations, and copyright has a longer duration. Whether you choose to focus on other things is completely up to you. However, that's the issue here today. It might not be tomorrow, knowing that crack SCO legal team, but it is for now.
As far as trade secret and due diligence are concerned, the only way I know of that they could lose on that basis is for some nebulous trade secret that 1) didn't come under copyright, and 2) they made non-secret by actually giving away without concern to where it went (ie, non-secret). So, effectively, it would have to have been non-published, but pretty freely given away without an NDA. And there's a difference between "giving something away" and "due diligence." The latter typically implies a higher standard.
To summarize:
1) If SCO has no evidence, this discussion is irrelevant anyway.
2) If SCO is correct, then linux contains copied code.
3) Copied code is a copyright violation.
4)Copyrights last as close to forever as is relevant to us.
5)Copyrights are not revoked through lack of due diligence.
6)Any trade secret issues are secondary, and only come into play if 2) above does not hold.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Now several hours later, you can still download the kernel source from their ftp servers ;)
e s/ SRPMS/
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updat
So when will they actually get it?
IBM has access to all of the information already. For IBM to have released SCO source code, it has to be SCO source code that IBM had, and presumably still has, a copy of. The Linux kernel source is so widely mirrored that they should have no problem getting any version they want.
IBM has a whole lot more resources at their disposal than SCO. So IBM compiles a complete list of every SCO source file they've ever gotten. They compile a list of everything they've ever contributed to the Linux kernel with dates and diffs. They make some attempts to look for similarities, but that isn't strictly necessary.
In front of a judge, when SCO presents its list, they can run through it ticking off every source file SCO never gave them and every delta they never contributed to the Linux kernel. One or two might be written off as honest mistakes on SCO's part. If there's more than that, SCO is twisting in the wind.
Now, presumably IBM knows this. If they were scared that SCO's claims had any merit, I can't imagine that they would have stated that they had no substance and just plowed ahead. If SCO had found anything like what they claim to have found, IBM would have found it too. They haven't, so my bet is that it doesn't exist.
There are few examples of opensource people stealing commercial code. Its usually hard to steal source code when all you have is binary code. The other way around is much much easier. Opensource code is openly available to everybody and very tempting for many commercial enterprises.
Sigma stealing Xvid codec and relabelling as theirs is a good example in my opinion. I have seen numerous other examples.
The company I work for was once contacted by a third party about their software that was supposedly so great that it was unbelievable. They wanted to sell it to us. We said sure, lets take a look. But they didn't want anybody near it until we had already paid them large amounts of money. We got suspicious and threatened to walk away. They came around and told us that only our marketing folks can look at it. We got even more suspicious and when did receive the program for limited evaluation we ran 'strings' on it and it was pretty clear that they had jsut tried badly to relabel a well known opensource program.
I am posting this anonymously because I would like to avoid legals trouble from these scumbags. Like SCO they were very sue happy since they didn't really have a real source of income.
Now I know why Sontag is so feisty. He isn't getting shit for pay.
Name/Age/Position/Pay
Ralph Yarro, III/38/Chairman/none
Darl McBride/43/Pres,CEO/$80.5K
Robert Bench/53/CFO, Principal Accounting Officer/$173.0K
Opinder Bawa/39/Sr. VP-Technology/$178.0K
Christopher Sontag/39/Sr. VP, Operating Systems Group/$6.2K
Source
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Next you are going to tell me that, as an employee the only thing I have an incentive to do is the least amount of work that keeps me not even my job but my monthly payment, right? Or maybe that the opportunity to wave all my code goodbye when I leave the company would be a great incentive making me produce more of it?
Open remains the question how many of todays owners of the entity named SCO actually did put any physical and/or intellectual efforts into the evolution of operating systems.
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
Is TOO LONG FOR ME!
"My understanding of Trade Secret law, on the other hand, tells me that distributing under the GPL completely destroys any Trade Secret case they may have."
There is a trade secred law????
As far I understood the trade secred protecty you in one way, for an undefined time. It's by keeping it a secred and how long you can keep it secret, thats all folks! (As far I have understood)
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
You're exactly right - what I mentioned was more of a "finding of fact/law" kind of thing, but I would definitely say their handling would play out in a penalty phase.
The more I think about it, the more I'm willing to accept that this is some sort of scam to destroy corporate acceptance of Linux - FUD taken to a whole new level.
Yeah - I tend to be avoid the tinfoil-hat club, but I agree, this one could be legit. They have more motive than *anyone* to kill/inhibit linux (except maybe Sun), since they own much of what's left of unix. Doesn't mean that their goals are realistic, but they don't seem real rational anyway.
it's like they have a magic ace up thier sleeve. And yet, as others have pointed out, dropping bombshells like that secretly is actually a pretty poor legal tactic. So I'm confused.
No, I'd say you have it figured out, which is to say it doesn't make sense for a company trying to stay in business. My four theories are that they're attemption to 1) inhibit linux adoption (as you point out), 2) extort unix licenses out of linux vendors, 3) get bought out, or 4) make lawsuits their entire revenue stream. My personal guess right now is 2, but that could change.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
"The only violations they can really tackle are those that occured before they released the code under the GPL themselves"
Well technically one would have to go back to their released version of the code, fork it, then regenerate all following changes (obviously untouched modules would not present a problem). That should take about, oh, 15 minutes?
Beep beep.
Hah! I'd rather cram $20 worth of pennies up my poop chute that let it fall into the hands of those b*stards!
The two are not mutually exclusive.
May we never see th
If they really annoy IBM, IBM can just buy them and throw them away.
Advice: on VPS providers
There is a trade secred [sic] law????
As far I understood the trade secred protecty you in one way, for an undefined time. It's by keeping it a secred and how long you can keep it secret, thats all folks! (As far I have understood)
Yes. I can't speak for other countries, but here in the United States most if not all states have some form of Trade Secret law. Most of them (including Utah, where the SCO suit was filed) have one based on the UTSA, a "Unified" law so that that there is minimal confusion in what the law is when you go from one state to the other.
These laws essentially boil down to: if you have a piece of information that is important to your business, and you take reasonable measures to keep that information secret, then you get the following protections for your secret:
The problem of counting on Trade Secret law is what I described earlier, once it's no longer secret, it's no longer protected.
My theory on why SCO brought up the presence of Trade Secrets in this case is not stupidity (they have to know that they are unlikely to win a Trade Secret case here), but more because of Protection 3, above. By invoking Trade Secret law, SCO can play their cards close to their chest.
They're probably hoping to get through the lawsuit without publically disclosing which code they allege infringes on their copyrights. This would prevent Linux supporters from comparing notes and filing briefings telling the court how full of it SCO is. Keeping the particulars of the case out of the public eye can only help SCO and only hurt IBM, so I assume that IBM is going to push for the case to be as open to the public as they can get away with. Since keeping the particulars hidden can also hurt Linux (nobody can remove the alleged threat until they find out what it is), I hope IBM succeeds on this point.
I am not a lawyer. The above is not legal advice. If you have a trade secret to protect, I recommend you consult both a lawyer and an experienced security professional.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
What do they get out of it? They've killed Linux, but also ruined any goodwill they had.
Given that SCO is not a miraculously wonderful piece of systems software, what compelling reason will they give to the Linux community that we shouldn't all switch to *BSD, which likely offers better hardware support and more community, as well as a distributor who doesn't seem keen on annoying its customers?
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
Look, read any college or university report, or the New York Times for that matter, and you'll find that plagiarism is rife. Why is it so hard to believe that a few out of many thousands of Linux contributors might have taken a shortcut and misappropriated SCOs code?
If the Caldera people looked at their own kernel, they would have realized that they distributed it GPL, thus forgoing all the rights they now claim. You know, the fist thing that pops up under a reasonable install telling you about GNU and the GPL? The drooling morons must run Windoze on their desks, a gift from Microsoft.
It's more like their bottom line has them seeing stars. Give the lunies a telescope, they might find their way back to Earth that way.
-and you thought you were so witty.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I can't help but wonder if SCO has a defined responsibility to inform users of given parts of the kernel and whatever other code that they are using that has 'stolen code' in it. They aren't giving developers and concerned users an opportunity to stop using SCO tainted code and replace it with alternates wherever possible, since the code of contention is obviously not commented to alert developers of its potential liabilities. I for one would be interested in seeing what kernels and/or system software 'as a whole' is being accused so I can avoid using it until this thing is cleared up. This sort of thing makes forking projects seem like a better idea than is commonly held.
When you consider how much BSD code M$ has helped themselves to and the orignial lawsuit, you might have a point. But M$ knows this is all bullshit and delay.
They want to keep back the wide adoption of free software long enough to put Pladium into place, but it's not going to work. They can't convince chipmakers to sell their souls to M$ if there's enough interest in alternate software. They have found their sacrificial shill, but I doubt it will be enough. SCO's case is so weak that reasonable shops will continue ditching the M$ software that has failed them. It's not like M$, with EULAs that demand read/write access to all files, has any respect for anyone else's IP. Even if they do manage to delay, enough hardware is out there for free software adoption and the money for the latest greatest M$ junk is not.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
In this article published yesterday, the real motivation behind the timing at least was evident:
(Chris Sontag of the SCO Group) "...We also have contractual obligations to IBM related to our license of Unix System V source code, which IBM has used for AIX. We have the ability to withdraw or pull the AIX license on June 13, which should cause IBM to expedite this issue as well"
Should? Or will it cause IBM to buckle and just ante up the cash to buy the bastards out? I would like to know the implications of the licenses being pulled as well, but I have to imagine that it would be damned inconvenient for IBM to say the least.
This is dirty corporate greed at it's very worst, folks.
Right on. Think of metalworking technology-- bronze was originally used to make stronger weapons so certain small groups of people had a technological advantage over the rest of the human race as a whole. Eventually, others began to catch on that this made for better weapons, and hence, equality. It was only after the weapon forging that people decided to use this new technology to create things like tools and implements that benefited the "common good".
It's not a particularly cheery idea, but then again, neither is the prospect of the real world.
I would definitely agree with the above poster.
Since SCO is obviously capable of auditing code, as they are a producer of software/services themselves, when they distributed a SCO Linux under the GPL, they have in essence said that they understood the GPL, have looked at the code in question, and found no fault with the code.
By distributing their own version of SCO Linux, they have released that version and said code base into the GPL world.
Any and all IP which was incorporated into that GPL'd distribution would then fall under the GPL.
Last time I checked, if you sign yourself/bind yourself to a contract, you are to adhere to it. Whether you have fully read it or were ignorant of the details in the contract through your own negligence is irrelevant.
SCO has "read" the GPL license agreement and has had a fair amount of time to "audit" the linux source base before distributing their own version of Linux, SCO Linux. By doing so, they are agreeing with the GPL and agree that all of the code in their distribution is "clean" and GPL'd.
Note: When I use GPL, I am including LGPL, Opensource, etc. licenses. All of which make an appearance in various distros of Linux.
Sorry, being ranty.
Winged Power Photography
I'm guess that this is a troll, since its so blatantly wrong and inflammatory, but I'll rise to it.
You can split a sandwich among many people; you cannot digest it in a collective stomach. Smart people understand, you say? You mean that socialist understand, or rather socialists _claim_ that progress of mankind is not and cannot be the property of individuals or small groups.
Mankind's progress has ALWAYS been due to the efforts of a tiny minority of clever people - the first caveman to make a fire, the Wright Brothers, Columbus, Thomas Edison, etc.
The people who write Linux, and Linus himself, deserve the credit for the invention. Linus can claim the credit, and COULD HAVE claimed the total ownership of it, because HE INVENTED IT. What gives you the right to leech off his genius?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
The parent should be modded up to the sky. This is the crux. Whether or not SCO ever GPL-ed UNIX code is irrelevant to whether IBM violated a different SCO license.
The financial marketplace - the smart money - believes SCO is going to win, at least partly. Their stock price has more than doubled since mid-February.
Bzzzt! Faulty logic. What is probably happening is that they have realised that SCO might be a long shot. The cap of SCO is currently about $55m, so when people started buying it was, say, $27m. If investors see even a slight possiblity that IBM might buy them out or buy them off, then it is a reasonable strategy to add SCO to the high-risk section of your portfolio. Also, don't forget, the markets are insanity- and coke-driven, not rational...
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
The CFO got some out of 7,000 shares March 12. The disgusting thing is that their share value has doubled since they started making this noise. Who's buying this shit?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Not unless you believed you had no hope or future. Some people live like that, and they do exactly that.
Most people do the amount of work that will help them get noticed, get raises, get a promotion, and in general get higher monthly payments for less work.
It's certainly not. And the company that requires that knows it. They put that clause in the contract for a reason, and they calculated their expected costs.
Namely, they prefer to have control over the production rather than have creative developers. They prefer the risk of not making money out of innovation than the risk of losing money out of lost intellectual property.
If it's their contract and they're paying the money, it's their choice, and they're the ones living with the consequences (employees who are not eager to share the really spectacular ideas).
I don't see what this has to do with my comment, though. Unless you mean it as an ironic way of reaffirming my point.
Indeed.
Open remains whether there is any relationship between SCO and the advances in operating systems which they claim as theirs.
That's not the point. SCO is not the point. The absurdity of a wrong claim in a special case does not translate into the absurdity of the concepts on which the claim is expressed.
You generalized the issue to the concept of "ownership of progress" and Linux as part of "mankind's perpetual discovery" or other such nonsense, and I'm criticizing your generalization.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
Is anyone planning anything? A party or chat room or anything?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Yes, there is. However, it mostly applies to the parties that explicitly break the trade secret, not to parties after that.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Because a third party put the code under the GPL, not SCO.
MS has argued this repeatedly in their FUD, if you license some parts of your software under the GPL, you are risking all your IP (the "viral" comments).
If SCO loses due to a GPL argument, MS will make a huge deal about it, it will be tons of ammo for their FUD machine. Not might, will.
That's why it is important that SCO lose (and they will, either way) on other legal grounds, not due to the GPL.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
It just shows that companies with secrets shouldn't participate in Open Source. Either be open or you don't benefit from it.
Y'know, that's a damn good idea. Haven't heard anything, but hell, an excuse for a party's an excuse for a party. Anyone up for a party, maybe around down ABQ way? The day we can stop burning the gifs. ;3
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
North America
u x3 .1// uiarchive.uiuc.edu/content/Linux/Distributi ons/Caldera/
p en Linux3.1/r asystems.co m/pub// pub//
n lo ad.phtmln Linux/3.1. 1/n ux/3.1.1 /
i rrors/ftp/ftp.iso.cald era.com/pub/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Workstation/ (USA)n ux/3.1. 1/ (Australia)c aldera/OpenLi nux/3.1.1/ (Hungary)
ftp://ftp.linuxberg.com/pub/ISO/Caldera/OpenLin
http://www.linuxiso.org/caldera.html
http:/
Europe:
ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr/caldera/O
ftp://ftp.mirror.ac.uk/sites/ftp.calde
http://ftp.chg.ru/mirrors/ftp.caldera.com
http://ftp3.ru.freebsd.org/.1/Linux/Caldera
Pacific Rim:
http://www.webnix.com/cgi-bin/services/linuxdow
http://planetmirror.com/pub/caldera/Ope
or
ftp://planetmirror.com/pub/caldera/OpenLi
other
For ISO Images (mirror of ftp.iso.caldera.com)
http://uiarchive.uiuc.edu/m
http://planetmirror.com/pub/caldera/OpenLi
ftp://ftp.kando.hu/pub/CDROM-Images/
According to VNU.net, SCO has suspended support of United Linux.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Netcraft search reveals: The site www.sco.com is running Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 on Linux. =)
Since the settlement absolved the IP issues with BSD and USL, since it's the same IP, no further suits can be filed. If, however, some "new" code were to be found that was proven (key word there) to have actually been cribbed from SCO's sources, then that's another ballgame.
However, for all intents and purposes, SCO can't just arbitrarily sue any of the BSD's or a Linux distribution over the BSD code. In fact, they keep saying that they explicitly excluded the BSD derived sources from comparison- for that very reason.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I wonder who caved in.
That would be nice if SCO every contributed anything of worth. However, their Unix has always been a patethic "bicycle". The rest of their case depends on the possibility of "stealing" ideas and code that were not written by SCO.
Contemplate the fact that the previous owners of the SysV code chose not to persue this.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I'm ready to contribute 40 hrs/week for the next
8 weeks to eliminate any code that might be
infringing.
Take me plus the couple of other hundreds
of people like me plus the corporate programmers
paid to work on Linux, well, it won't take
long to fix any potential problems.
The only major problem, as I see it, is organizing
all the talent.
Regardless of who leaked SCO's alleged code, SCO continued to hand it out freely. They did this even after they began formal legal proceedings against IBM for Linux contamination. They did this despite the obvious (and multiple) community comments that SCO could lose it's copyrights if it persists in distributing Linux.
Your claims might have some merit if some Lawyer reading slashdot the day after the filing had a sudden realization and then sent an "oh sh*t" memo to SCO management that lead to the sudden retraction of SCO Linux.
However, that is not what happened.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
1) Sue Linux fags
2) ???
3) Profit!
"We also have contractual obligations to IBM related to our license of Unix System V source code, which IBM has used for AIX. We have the ability to withdraw or pull the AIX license on June 13, which should cause IBM to expedite this issue as well."
They're hoping that they can get IBM to agree to this in order to avoid trouble with the AIX license.
The BSDs all borrowed Linux stuff, Linux borrowed BSD stuff, and everyone is cool with that, it's all legal. SCO is suing over IBM giving away trade secrets to the Linux kernel. If the BSD guys borrowed ideas from Linux on, say, SMP stuff that was "stolen" from SCO, SCO could shut down the BSDs too. Personally, I can't imagine stealing anything from SCO - when I threw it out and switched to Linux 5+ years ago Linux was already a more "advanced" OS in my opinion.
I'm sure SCO has some useful IP which the world would be better for if GPL'd. It's otherwise a pretty purposeless company.
You can suck the gas from my ass.
You want some $$$ from me for my Linux?
Try and get it....
If so much code was stolen, why is it that I can't mount a SCO EFS filesystem under Linux? I can mount virtually every other filesystem under Linux save SCO filesystems with divvy partitions. This is also the same company that takes two weeks to respond to remote root exploits with patches.
Me-thinks SCO is full of SH*T and is going to fade into history. This is SCO's last stand, how tragic and sad.
Too bad I haven't finished migrating everything from SCO to Linux yet. I guess the clock it ticking and I better finish porting.
Wrong.
An author can't take back the GPL.
Somewhat right. The GPL only applies to the *recipient*, not the original author. That is to say:
John writes pngview 1.1. He releases it under the GPL and gives it (and source, as the GPL dictates) to Bill. Bill sells it to Karen (still legal), without source (still legal, but Karen has the right to ask for source).
John then decides to release pngview 1.2 as a commercial software. Still okay, but Bill has 1.1 and source to do with as he wishes - under the terms of the GPL. Karen can still request source, and she can do whatever she wishes, under the terms of the GPL.
John then decides to release pngview 1.2 under BSD. Still okay - he can do that. John has a copy under GPL, though, so technically, he'd have to use 1.2 if he wants the terms of the BSD license.
It's Bill and Karen that are held to the terms of the GPL. The GPL is a release license that affects the rights of recipients, not the original author. See Trolltech or Ghostscript for examples. Both release commercial and GPL versions, and you can choose which to use.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
As SCO claims its copyright and sues GPL community, on the very same base, the GPL community, included but not limited to developers, users, legal experts, etc, should also claim their rights. If any part of SCO products(for example: vi, emacs, IP stack, etc) has based on GPL code but failed to follow GPL fully, the members of GPL community have rights to sue SCO for infringing GPL and request repay the damages caused by SCO(for example, fail to extend and develop products based on GPL code used by SCO but did not followed GPL and lost coresponding revenue).
CRAP, The stockmarket is a gamble, those betting on SCO think the odds are worth it if they win, and the small loss if they lose can be absorbed.
if we get a list of all SCO customers
and boycott the folks who are funding
this, SCO may be forced to drop the
lawduit.
I believe McDonalds, and holiday inn
use SCO. Once those folks start hurting
they will put some pressure on SCO to
change.
Maybe????
Smart Lawyers?
You mean those smart trial lawyers that are running the US economy into the ground with suits like this and flakes like the SF lawyer the Oreo suit? Lawyers put their pants one leg at a time and are just as flawed in their thought processes as anyone else. The influence on the world of all these hell spawn is corrosive. Good thing IBM has intelligent ones however lawyers are all fucked up bottom feeders IMHO. I think a LACK of smart legal advice is driving this. One thing is for sure the only ones who will walk away with any economic benefit is lawyers in this whole episode. Everyone else looses.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
fsck is what you might do to drives
Fuck is what you do to people.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
You can split a sandwich among many people; you cannot digest it in a collective stomach.
/intellectual/ property is different. Smart people understand this.
That's why
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
Suppose that:
.... well put this code under GPL. They cannot claim infringement of copyright or trade secrets from that moment on.
There actually is original SCO code in the linux kernel.
Now we have:
Thief steals code from SCO. Contributes it to Linux. SCO/Caldera gets that code and distributes it under GPL. Companies buy the stolen code from SCO/Caldera.
IBM gets sued. SCO/Caldera warns companies that bought Linux from it that using Linux might be infringing SCO's copyright.
Translated:
Thief stoles TV (code) from owner(SCO). Owner buys it back and sells it. After a couple of years realizes that it was his TV and sends warning letter to buyer.
My point:
By distributing (knowingly or not) its code under GPL SCO/Caldera
They can claim infringement before however, which means that the "original" thief is still responsible.
What will all the munchkins do when they have to take orders the old fashion way @ "The©" hamburger store. Oh I forgot IBM does POS too
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Time ot agitate the SEC and Congress for a full blown SEC investigation of SCOX
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Contemplate the fact that nowhere in my comment is SCO mentioned, and contemplate the fact that nowhere in the parent comment is SCO solidly tied to the premise.
I'm arguing against a set of generalities. The fact that the SCO case is absurd has nothing to do with whether "a small group can own a piece of progress".
Perhaps it would if it were a strong and clear-cut IP case representative of these legal concepts, but it's not (unless spectacular, unexpected new evidence is revealed).
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
"Okay now of topic, Bush also called us "old europe", so yes, we're are old, and proud over our thousend years old culture. Is beeing called old something bad?"
In the case Europe of yes sadily.
(I am kidding really I am )
Because a third party put the code under the GPL, not SCO.
First of all - you are missing the word allegedly and secondly, SCO issued many thousand copies of this code themselves under the GPL. IANAL but this strikes me as similiar to suing somebody for defamation when they merely repeated your own comments about yourself.
those were MEAT pies!
Oh my god I am gonna be sick.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
The claim doesn't have to have merit, since when has any MS FUD claim had much serious merit at all?
All it has to do is cast doubt. A somewhat complex legal situation that most PHBs can't understand in a 20 second sound byte, SCO claiming lost IP, etc... all the elements are there for MS to FUD this up.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Costumers run scared from companies with *cough*MS*cough* legal problems!
Aaaaaahhhhhh! Sky, falling, kaput.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... give this site a bad name.
Slurs, inuendos, rumours, all of a libelous nature.
Way to go.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Yeah, this one's going to be interesting to see play out, because it can go so many ways. First, as someone said on here (can't remember who), since the GPL and Open Source licensing is under such public perception attacks, that might be an argument of last resort. Imagine some MS shill journalist: "GPL causes respected business to lose copyrights." That wouldn't be so super even if it's bullshit.
Additionally, I'm not sure how the defense to that attack would go. Can SCO make an argument that they were unwitting in their error, and that they can't check every line of every release of a semi-public project like linux? A judge might buy that argument, but I have no idea what the legal precedent would be because there probably isn'tany.
And finally, this is one of the instances where they would be forced to go after "trade secret" arguments, having effectively nuked their own copyright (if a judge doesn't buy the previous argument). One could compellingly argue that their unwitting release of their own code is irrelevant to a trade secret argument because IBM (or someone they talked to) CVS'd the code first. That would be the latest date of a trade secret violation - and SCO wouldn't lose a trade secret argument for releasing their own secrets after the initial divulsion.
However, for them to want to go after trade secret arguments, they'd have to be in pretty deep shit already, because the burden/difficulty of proof there is highest. They'd have to point out specific sections of violating code, prove that there's no way that an independently-developed version would be so similar, show contact between who CVS'd the code and IBM, and finally show that IBM didn't appropriately keep a boundary between "Monterrey" and Linux developers. Then, they'd have to show that what they had was really secret before IBM's divuslion, and that it wasn't a blatantly obvious approach. Their problem is that, since all of these "trade secrets" are conceptual in nature and not unique to how SCO does business, the standard for "secrets" here may end up being similar as that for patents!
For a copyright argument, SCO can stop simply at the point where the linux code is implausibly similar and skip the rest, as it doesn't matter to a copyright argument whether the material was secret or how it was attained.
So pull up a chair, grab a beer, and check /. every half hour for the latest SCO story. ;)
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
... you made almost a good point.
Any of the kernel hackers could claim that SCO is difamating him/her/they with their obviously libelous remarks.
The reputataion of poepl like L. Torvalds, A. Cox et al is clearly been damaged by this baseless allegations (that they may be stealing code).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The legal action the SCO Group brought against IBM on Thursday has nothing to do with Linux or the open-source community, Darl McBride, CEO and president of the SCO Group, stressed in a media conference on Friday morning.
"This case is not about the Linux community or us going after them. This is not about the open-source community or about UnitedLinux, of whom we are members and partners. A small part of our business is Linux-based," McBride said. "This case is and is only about IBM and the contractual violations that we are alleging IBM has made and that we are going to enforce."
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
>So who cares if MS say that?
The people who care are the ones who want GPL and other Open Source software to be something that it is not: A stimulus for commercial investment.
"Open Source" does not "lose" due to the I.P. stuggle, except where laws literally make it illegal to use or develop the software. Patents, export controls, and anti-circumvention laws are the only things I can think of at this moment. And these generally apply to people in the US.
Since software development appears to be moving OUT of the US for as many economic reasons as political, it will not be an issue for much longer.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Microsoft was just some spooner's wet dream when IBM was inspiring the invention of the term F.U.D.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I'm not saying I agree with SCO/Caldera/bunch of retards, it's a question of whether a judge will believe them. They're going to contend that IBM snuck that code in there. And the question is, should they really have to check the whole code base that they take from linux to see that someone hasn't pretty much trojan-horse'd them? Is that reasonable? And does reasonability even matter there?
See, here's the problem. If SCO loses that argument, companies with software patents that they intend on keeping have two choices: 1) Develop everything related to that patent in-house, or 2) Never release anything under the GPL. Because otherwise, you have to check to see that your former partners didn't sneak something in there, and that's a pretty tough burden.
I'm not saying I don't find the GPL argument compelling, just that making it could do a hell of a lot more harm than good.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
True enough...I know the GPL *says* that. However, I also know that a court has never tested it and upheld it. And it is a pretty unique license, you know? So I don't know what a judge would do, faced with it. And I'd rather not find out.
Also, is there a penalty portion of the GPL? I know that you're not allowed to use GPL code unless you release your stuff, but what if you do? Logically, it seems like their patents should then be free, but could someone decide that they'd rather take a breach-of-contract judgement than succumb to forced release? I'm speculating big time (as if that weren't clear), but still. I'm wondering if SCO would have another way out that would let them maintain patent status despite publishing.
Here's what it boils down to - does the open source community really want this case to end up being a test of the GPL? Because I don't think that would be a slam-dunk, not like people seem to think. All of this assuming that SCO has anything remotely resembling evidence. Or even patents, their claims to which I've since read look bogus.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I feel it does. Consider books for instance. Once a book is out, its contents becomes part of our culture quite immediately. The ideas expressed therein may be used rather freely and one may even quote portions of it somewhere else. The book as a whole is protected so nobody is allowed to simply reprint it in its entirety without permission of the copyright holders, but any other use of its contents is restricted in a rather loose way, or not at all.
So please tell me why software ought to be treated so differently. Why, for instance, I'm not even allowed to modify most of the software running on my machines. Why I may write a book built upon an arbitrary selection of those published before, but why I may not do the same in software.
You might also want to tell me why you think selling hibiscus plants with a label saying: "Propagation prohibited." is not as ridiculous as it looks, or why you believe that to be a different situation.
If Newton lived today, one probably would have to pay royalties on any application of the law of gravity. I consider this a problem, and cases like the one discussed here a symptom of this problem.
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
It certainly can be. The question is, however, why a democracy may want to vote for it. And if it may want to do so, whether it may also want to elect a monarch, and why.
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
If anything, I'm telling you software should be treated just the same as other "intellectual property", and that there are practical reasons for which someone can lay claim to "ownership" of said "property" (I'm abusing the quotes because the metaphors are far from perfect), that is, claim a bit of control and responsability over it.
If you recognize the case of intellectual property in books as you point out here, then you're already agreeing with me!!
An individual or small group (author(s)) "owns" a piece of "intellectual progress" and the public is therefore restricted in its use.
This "ownership" is recognized because the "intellectual good" is released to the public only as a direct result of:
a) The fact that it was produced/acquired by the "owner" (author(s))
b) The willingness of said "owner" to release to the public for his/her/their own benefit.
You seem to be arguing in a discussion that has little or nothing to do with my comment. At no point did I argue against Fair Use or expressed support for SCO, whose claim can be legitimately debunked within the rules of intellectual property.
Once more: an absurdly wrong claim does not invalidate a legal framework, unless the claim is patently neither absurd nor wrong within the legal framework itself.
An abusive parent does not invalidate the idea of parenthood, a bad piece of software does not mean computers are useless, and an illicit fortune does not invalidate the concept of money.
The problem with SCO is not that they have a copyright. The problem with SCO is that they make overreaching claims without providing evidence and accusations which don't seem to have a real base.
The fact that a contract is as ridiculous as it looks doesn't make it wrong or illegal. Just ridiculous.
It's arguable whether you accepting the ridiculous contract is wrong or just even more ridiculous, but breaking it knowingly is definitely wrong.
Making a bad deal is not illegal, nor should it be. Even Microsoft has had to deal with those facts.
Now, I'm sure you'll bring something else: if you hide this label in some little corner in the package and assume that the contract is implicitely accepted by the buyer without negotiation or acknowledgement this would be wrong.
That's a completely separate argument:
Whether a contract is valid or not has nothing to do with its "ridiculousness". It has to do with whether it was a contract, was consciously negotiated and accepted, and its terms are legally enforceable.
I think software sales should be dealt with no different than other sales contract, such as the ones you execute every day buying lunch, books, a TV set, etc.
The thing is that most software is not sold, it's rented or otherwise provided without real transference of ownership, neither physical nor intellectual. It's just a different type of contract.
The obstacles stopping dealers from renting you goods under very restricted conditions instead of selling them to you are not legal: People are not sufficiently stupid to lease most of their property, and when they do need to lease (cars, apartments, etc) they are careful to read their contracts.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
Exactly, that's the whole thing. GPL is critical to "Free" (as in Stallman) software, and if it doesn't stand, it's useless. So I'd rather have the spectre of it than have it tested. As for IBM, if they push linux, they have a vested interest in the GPL too. Although I've always wondered why they didn't just go with BSD...
I'm not sure but I think penalties may be on a per-infringement basis, e.g. 5 dollars per copy sold . Maybe.
Not to be a pundit or anything, but since SCO sold like 12 copies of their crappy SCO linux, I would fully expect them to go that route, assuming they have any patents (see below).
When I read all the references, including those to ESRs position paper I came to the conclusion that SCO were desperately trying to find something credible.
I was, initially, taking their word that, if they say they have patents, then they have patents. Seems like something stupid to lie about. Obviously, I overestimated that SCO legal "Dream Team." It seems that their best hope here is to be confused with another company whose name used to be SCO. Brilliant, guys.
I also found thier "101" retort humorous. Sometimes, it doesn't take a calculated response to destry a stupid claim. What were they expecting, Dickens?
As someone else posted, they have to publish details to get a patent so it can't hurt to say what it is. It's really hard to see what could be gained from secrecy here for SCO. The only thing I can think of is trade secret, and that cat is well and truly out of the bag anyway.
Yes and no. First, it assumes they actually plan to get a patent, as opposed to use it to threaten. Second, it assumes that what SCO does has reason, logic, and intelligence at heart - and I'm no longer willing to grant that. The only thing that might make sense is that IBM isn't off the hook for trade secret violations yet. Reason is that SCO doesn't make the matter moot by releasing their linux distro - if IBM CVS'd it first, then that is the violation as I understand it. Subsequently, what was secret is no longer, and SCO might as well release it.
Also, they do still have copyright on any code that was blatantly copied, and that's definitely not kosher.
If I had to guess, they're keeping quiet because they have absolutely no case, but that's just me. The only way to threaten in that case is to play coy.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
True, but if the source code has been taken from SCO then you could make a case that they then released it themselves, on their own free will, under the GPL. If this is code from Unix then Unix is effectively GPL'ed. How do you seperate what was stolen and was was innovated? I don't think SCO has a chance of winning. They screwed themselves by releasing their own version of Linux.
Time makes more converts than reason
I humbly bow my head and stand corrected. Thanks
the pun is mightier than the sword