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.
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.
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.
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
..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
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
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
Doesn't matter, the gpl clearly states you can't take things back once distributed....
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
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
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 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.
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
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/
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
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
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.
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.
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.
I'm glad that the three BSDs are not yet being bothered by these wonderful people.
Sources seem to suggest that the BSD's cannot be bothered by the SCO suit. Recall the legal fiasco between the USL and the BSD's in the early 90's. There is a terrific history in Marshall Kirk McKusick's chapter Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix: From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable in O'Reilly's Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution.
The relevant paragraph:
The lawsuit settlement also stipulated that USL would not sue any organization using 4.4BSD-Lite as the base for their system. So, all the BSD groups that were doing releases at that time, BSDI, NetBSD, and FreeBSD, had to restart their code base with the 4.4BSD-Lite sources into which they then merged their enhancements and improvements. While this reintegration caused a short-term delay in the development of the various BSD systems, it was a blessing in disguise since it forced all the divergent groups to resynchronize with the three years of development that had occurred at the CSRG since the release of Networking Release 2.
Kan jeg få en pils, vær så snill?
Nothing dramatic.
Basically they say, that if you use SCO shared libraries with Linux, you have to license them. There is some hyperbole: So they try to create the impression, that there is no UNIX software available without the iBCS2 interface. No need for comment.
They also state, that most users using the iCBS2 kernel interface didn't respect the copyright of SCO shared libraries. Today there is no need for SCO shared libs anyway, because all Linux application vendors sell now native Linux binaries using the GNU libc shared libraries.
Nothing in the above document proves following statement from SCO's letter to Linux customers:
"We have evidence that portions of UNIX System V software code have been copied into Linux and that additional other portions of UNIX System V software code have been modified and copied into Linux, seemingly for the purposes of obfuscating their original source."
As a Linux customer I request from SCO:
(1) Show the evidence!
(2) Use clear language: What do you mean with Linux? Whole Distributions or the kernel.
(3) Publish the UNIX source code into the Public Domain to become a respected company once again.
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.
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/
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
At least in this one, he says it was posted before
crikey!
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
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
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!
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.
Doesn't matter if somebody sneaked the code in behind their back, they distributed that code under the GPL and ignorance is not a defense when it comes to law, it's called "due diligence" and it's pre-law 101 stuff. It's the same reason I couldn't accept a package from a stranger, bring it into the country, and claim I didn't know about it when it turns out to be 10 kilos of heroin.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
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.
Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.
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
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
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.
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."
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. :-)
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.
I wrote the iBCS modules. There is NO AT&T or SCO code in it.
-- Linux Consultant
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
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
The iBCS loader was written by Eric Yongdale.
He also wrote the syscall dispatch.
I then coded the first set of dispatches
which were little more than a 1:1 mapping of system call number to linux function by the same name.
This was in 1993.
Mike Jagis re-wote large chunks of this to support other non-SCO versions using the same syscalls.
Between Mike adding code and I merging it, it grew
to support most applications. I used perl's test set compiled on a SCO box to test that the iBCS code worked.
-- Linux Consultant
I never did work for the Sequent/IBM group that was doing this work so I have no concrete basis for this speculation.
-michael
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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...
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!"
Why does everyone who makes claims of cloning seem to have trouble producing the proof?
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
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.
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.
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?
>> 5)Copyrights are not revoked through lack of due diligence.
This cuts both ways. SCO distributed it's disputed IP under the GPL after they publicly claimed that Linux had been contaminated. Despite their clear concerns, they chose to distribute their IP under a "viral license".
This is no different than if SCO had made their work public domain by mistake.
Their prior lack of due diligence does not allow them to be an "indian giver".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
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)