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.
"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 ?!
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.
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 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
..SCOs brilliant "quotes from linux leaders" page of proof! Oh no! Linux is doomed!
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
Nonono... the business plan is:
1. Sue IBM.
2. Irritate the dinosaur.
3. Get bought by dinosaur.
The reason for this being that SCO is on the way down, down, down. The only way to rescue shareholder value at this point from total obliviion is a large injection of equity. Since no-one is likely to weigh in with the millions needed, the best way to obtain that equity is to replace it with those of a more stable stock.
i.e. get bought by IBM.
It's a high-risk, last-ditch strategy by a failing company.
- K
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.
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
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/
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.
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.
That last should read:
3. Find yourself being scraped off the bottom of the dinosaurs foot.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
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
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
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.
I never did work for the Sequent/IBM group that was doing this work so I have no concrete basis for this speculation.
-michael
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.
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.
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.