Slashdot Mirror
What if SCO is Right?
b17bmbr writes "
What if SCO is right. Bruce Perens was quoted with this scenario. "it's entirely possible that SCO was inadvertently distributing its own proprietary Unix code in its version of Linux. In that case, SCO would've already released its Unix source code into open source". But here's the catch: Does this validate Microsoft's view of a
"viral GPL"?"
If SCO were right, they would've given some evidence to the public by now. It's not like doing that would hurt their case.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
--
Need to calculate something?
See also the same story on OSNews yesterday.
What does it matter? EULAs aren't valid anyways!
Either way, the spectre of "intellectual property" has been brought up to Corporate America. Boards and CEO's who get gunshy when the litigation is aimed at them are going to be skeptical about liability and open source software.
The point has been brought to the board rooms, and I don't know see what it can do other than hurt the cause.
But here's the catch: Does this validate Microsoft's view of a "viral GPL"?"
Then they've still done it purposely, given away their code in a GPL product. They had the choice, and didn't have to. It's about as viral as phoning up your closest friend and saying "hey! I saw your mom giving head to my dad in the car" and complaining that the phone you spouted that into is a device for invading your privacy and letting your thoughts out to the world.
If they did release their code as GPL, it was their choice. Read that. CHOICE.
They really cant say "oh but we had it right!" after the fact. That sets a standard for other companies, that's not OK. They have to knowingly distribute the SC. not just "Whoops" and find out later, that it's "in there somewhere"
OMG OMG OMG WTF OMG WTF BBQ STFU RTFM, OMFG OMG OMG OMG ROFL LMAO OMG WTF STFU ROFLMAO
No it doesn't. If you're a software developer with proprietary code that you want to protect, then yes, you have to be careful about what you release under the GPL. But that isn't what Microsoft were saying, they were trying to worry the majority into avoiding GPL software. But the majority, even if they change the code, are not likely to have a reason to redistribute their changed version, so the terms of the GPL are irrelevant.
Someone just better buy the source away from them already, Caldera/SCO's entire business plan for years has just been to sue bigger companies. They're products suck. They barely even market the products, they just sit around and sue people. Someone get the gun out of their hands! Buy the source.
Yes, it does.
GPL is an ugly viral license. There are much better ones out there.
Who cares? I'm sure we can _always_ build better Linux, or Gnu/Linux or whatever.
I for sure don't care much about sco and their so called "IP" nowadays.
Does this validate Microsoft's view of a "viral GPL"?"
Not at all. Releasing software, whether under the GPL or the MS EULA is an intentional action. Any sloppiness resulting in disclosing and/or giving away IP is the responsibility of those doing the software release.
The GPL is a tool. Consequences resulting from the use of any given tool are the burden of the weilder, not the tool.
Why doesn't SCO tell us what part of the source are in violation? Simply because these parts don't exist.
SCO is either paid for spraying FUD (by MS) or will be payed for stopping spraying FUD (by IBM, simply because the damage this FUD is inflicting is higher than the sum SCO will want to shut up) - or both.
So please don't consider SCO seriously, they don't have a case.
No one _forced_ SCO to release code without checking it, and the fact that they did reflects badly on their professionalism as a software company and even worse on their due diligence that they are meant to exercise in protecting their shareholders. If their code was eaten by the GPL then that was their fault.
What other companies thinking of dabbling with GPL software will think will most probably depend on who wins the FUD war and how it gets written up in 'PHB Weekly' rather than the actual facts. Unfortunatly Microsoft employs lots of people like Stef (yes, the UF one) where as OSS software is championed by people more interested in Quake than golf.
Beep beep.
I'd use the reference to signing a contract to buy a car and in the contract is the clause that if you don't pay back the car, the seller has the right to repossess it, or your other possessions to get their money back. Like you said if you sign that contract (accept the GPL) then you're under its conditions, and if you didn't understand that well ignorance is no part of the law.
... the screaming, crying, two-year old in the corner, the one throwing the tantrum, is right?
it's all over but the stock markup FraUD indictmeNTs, & another few billyonerror terabytes of phonIE ?pr? bs.
Go to their website
and see for yourself. Doesn't look like SCO even talked to them about
this yet...at least that's what SUSE is claiming:
SuSE responds to
latest SCO actions
The UnitedLinux code base -- jointly
designed and developed by SuSE Linux, Turbolinux, Conectiva and SCO --
will continue to be supported unconditionally by SuSE Linux. We will
honor all UnitedLinux commitments to customers and partners, regardless
of any actions that SCO may take or even allegations they may make.
SCO's actions are again indeed
curious. We have asked SCO for clarification of their public
statements, SCO has declined. We are not aware, nor has SCO made any
attempt to make us aware, of any specific unauthorized code in any SuSE
Linux product. As a matter of policy, we have diligent processes for
ensuring that appropriate licensing arrangements (open source or
otherwise) are in place for all code used in our products.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Doesn't he have a job to get fired from or something?
vlad@geekizoid.com...
Exactly. Apple for one have worked things succesfully and released some of their apps next to GPL apps. It's part of the nature of reality, the GPL has certain conditions if you wish to release work under it, and Apple understand and have met those.
Efforts at my comany to migrate from proprietary UNIX systems to Linux/BSD have stopped cold because of the SCO lawsuit. Word is that similar things have happened at many other companies. This is pretty bad for free/open source software.
Only if the GPL whacks you over the head with a nightstick and then releases itself with your other code while you're out cold.
Remember: when you use GPL'd code in your business, you don't pay for it with cash. There's no direct monetary cost. The only cost is that if you create a derivitave work with it, you're essentially engaging in an IP cross-licensing agreement: you get to use the GPL code, but must make your own contributions available. There are costs and downsides to that, but businesses make that kind of trade all the time, and they'll do it with the GPL. Calling it "viral" is one spin... viewing it as cross-licensing agreement is another, and probably closer to reality IMHO.
Tweet, tweet.
The blurb makes a good point about the gpl maybe being a viral influence on proprietary code distributors, but I think the more important point is corporate incompetence. If SCO mindlessly opensourced their Unix code, then it's their fault, not the fault of the GPL. If you plan to make money on something, particularly if you are planning on vending both closed source Unix and open source Linux, you should damn well make sure you're not using any dependent packages that would out code that you don't want outed. The idea that the gpl is viral extends to the idea that it is overly restrictive, preventing innovation because users of gpl'd code will be afraid to publish for fear that their Intellectual Property will not be protected. However, if you look at closed source licenses, you'll find that they could be viewed as just as limiting, by preventing access to resources that would allow for the creation of new ideas. The GPL is not viral; SCO was (probably) just foolish.
Microsoft is not the only one who views the GPL as viral. There are plenty of us who are not big Microsoft fans that still aren't fond of the GPL.
Hi... I'm Larry... the shivering chipmunk... brrrrr!... I'm cold... I need a sweater...
What happens if you're a software company that buys some closed source static libraries from another company and link them to your proprietary product and sell the result to customers and later discover the library company included GPL'd code without telling you?
The GPL seems like a nasty can of worms...
-Teckla
SCO lets us take a look at there entire source code to see what they copied from the linux kernel. I bet we can find some lines slightly altered and some directly copied from the kernel source.
Then again maybe thats perfectly legal, i'm sure the hell no lawyer and i sure the hell didn't read the license for SCO's proprietary products.
"it's entirely possible that SCO was inadvertently distributing its own proprietary Unix code in its version of Linux. In that case, SCO would've already released its Unix source code into open source" What a goof up that would be on SCO's part. Perhaps some other companies would follow in their footsteps... You can never have too much GPL software, right?
hey!
The GPL is a tool. Consequences resulting from the use of any given tool are the burden of the weilder, not the tool.
I've seen in many cases and lawsuits where the "tool" was found responsible and put to blame. Surely in twisted America somehow the GPL can be put to fault and charged with something? Sorry but I'm not too informed on this topic, so can anyone enlighten me?
You DONT give out evidence before court in a IP type case.. thats just stupid.
It gives the other side time to come up with a defense.. regardless if you are right or wrong you need every advantage you can get.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But let's say you're at a garage sale, and one of the things they're selling is "Random Boxes" that have a bunch of useless crap in them, but it's only 25 cents and you can get some neat things in there, like an old puzzle game or something that came with a happy meal seven years ago.
So you break into the person's house, steal all their jewelry, throw it into one of the boxes when the person isnt looking, and buy the box for 25 cents.
Now, I'm not a legal expert or anything, but I'm pretty sure I know which party the courts would rule in favor of.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
GNU is a viral license. If you incorporate GNU code into your projects the price you pay is the loss of control the projects.
The question is who's OX does this gore ?
1. End users ? Not at all they arent distributing anything and they aren't selling software. If your General Steel or Home Depot you really don't care that your word processor is GNU or not.
2. Developers
A. Those that are selling to quote mass markets
Yes it affects these people alot. Oddly enough though SCO is likely to be the first of a very small number to be affected. It doesn't affect open source companies that went into their business eyes open, just really foolish companies. Its not going to affect a company like windriver, SUSE, redhat. It could affect A CA, or an ADP. These are companies that seem to operate on a captive customer model, buying smaller software companies then milking their customers for all their worth.
B. Those that are working on internal use projects
The project isnt being distributed at all. The code doesnt get distributed. Bang simple no harm no foul. In the special case of governments the code might be required to made public as it is public property, no matter how its generated.
Yes GNU and Open source is viral, but as far as costs go, the cost of being viral is very small, compared spending more on software then you do on hardware.
If they did release Unix code as part of SCO Linux, that would be intentional in the sense that they purposefully put it into Linux, not realizing the consequences. It would be equally stupid if they had released it under BSD, or any other "non-viral" OSS licence. Yhe code they released would either way be free for the public to use and reuse.
The viral argument usually works the other way around - introduce a small amount of GPL code to a non-GPL program, and it will force the rest of the program to be be GPL'd. SCO has not been forced to GPL-licence any additional code as a consequence of GPL contamination. If they chose to insert non-GPL code in a GPL project, would simply be gross negligence and incompetence from their side.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
But that doesn't mean its a bad thing.. Or a good thing.. Its just a fact of life...
Regardless of what we like to believe, ( or to hear MS suggest anything against us.. ) it does have that quality.
Perhaps 'viral' not the best term to use, but its accurate in concept at least...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
sometimes they do claim it's theirs....
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
They will most likely be sued by other Linux companies when IBM is through with them for hurting Linux sales.
I hope! :-)
Non-disclosure means that any company which is curious to know what they are legally responsible for has to agree not to let anyone else know. That means, basically, that if they tell you what code they want you to pay for, you can't throw it out and develope replacement code: By agreeing to their terms of telling you what they want you to pay for, you agree to pay for it.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Statements made by SCO CEO Darl McBride and senior vice president Chris
Sontag indicate that SCO has been illegally selling and distributing software
that is in violation of the GPL. SCO first became aware of the problem late
in 2002, but has done nothing to protect customers or inform them about which
parts SCO distributed illegally. The company claims this information would
damaged their lawsuit against IBM.
SCO did not stop selling the infringing software until May 14 2003, and is
still distributing it from ftp.caldera.com.
Customers who purchased or downloaded SCO software demand the following
things:
1) A complete refund of the purchase price for any software SCO distributed
illegally.
2) Any infringing source code or intellectual property must be revealed so it
can be replaced. Any source code or intellectual property that infringes and
is owned by SCO must be released under the GPL or relevant license.
3) If SCO wins or settles its lawsuit with IBM, a portion of the money must
be returned to SCO customers who were put in legal jeopardy because SCO did
nothing protect them.
Many claim that the lawsuit against SCO is simply a bid to be purchased. If
the company is purchased, the buyer may be liable instead.
How does this effect the argument for bazzar versus catherdral style development?
This is what has always worried me about bazzar projects, since there is no controling body, it depends on the honesty of those developing the code not to violate anyones IP rights, or anything else for that matter.
Of course the GPL is viral. There should be no question of this, but the question one should ask is "Is that a bad thing?". This was Stallman's goal. He wanted to screw up the software business model, which he succeeded in doing, but with the vary positive side effect of cuilding a cooperative culture of open software development with a fully functional service based business model behind it.
.NET Studio EULA. It speaks for itself.
Clearly the GPL has benefitted many people and businesses. The fact that Microsoft isn't collectively smart enough to figure out a business model that will allow them to benefit from it isn't anyone's problem than theirs, and certainly doesn't make the GPL a bad thing.
The GPL established a structure where developers can leverage the vast amounts of work released by others for the relitively cheap buy-in of licensing the nw derivative code using the same license. This is not an unreasonable obligation by any streach of the imagination. As for it being viral, if you don't agree to the terms of the license, you are free to avoid building your work on top of code licensed in this way. In the case of SCO, of they were so neglegent as to fail to observer the license constraints they were adopting, through contributing to GPL-licensed software, this is their own fault. This does not in any way reflect poorly on the license. It is written in plain language, and the text of the license represents possibly the most widely distributed and available legal contract in history.
The nature of the GPL supports a specific development and business model which is inconsistant with certain other models. If Microsoft, SCO and others wish to benefit from software developed under this model, they must accept the simple and streight-forward license terms.
For an entertaining afternoon, print out and compare the GPL to the Microsoft
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
In order to support his family, the electrician needs to wire light switches all day, every day. Electricians don't wire one switch and live off it forever for the virtue that the switch has provided a solution to a problem. However, management at companies like SCO don't realize that software is the same way. At SCO, they made some breakthrough 20 years ago and think that they need to continue getting paid for it forever. I'm sorry to say this, SCO, but like the electrician, you need to continuously make breakthroughs, you need to continuously make new solutions... you have to stay ahead of everyone else through continuously improving good management, continuously improving good project planning, continuously improving good software... continuously improving EVERYTHING. You can't write some "hello world" 20 years ago and charge every Linux user 200 bucks "royalty" for it now. It's yesteryear's news. It's stale. Nobody cares. And quite frankly, your code probably sucks anyway and will be replaced faster than shit going through a tin horn. Try firing your stupid management and putting people in place who will encourage new ideas and new development, and harbor success through good products and good marketing, instead of trying to weasel a profit through litigation, whining like a bunch of babies and making your company look pretty damn stupid. Hell, you people should quit your jobs at SCO and go work for Microsoft. At least over there your actions will fit in better with the mission statement.
What do I have to say about the "viral" GPL? Like any other action that you can make in life, you have to think before you act and you have to be responsible for your actions. At SCO, "Gentlemen, you fucked up." And now you and your all-Godly shareholders will suffer the consequences of those actions... NOT THE LINUX COMMUNITY.
As far as I know, the legality of the GPL has never been tested in court. Perhaps this is an attempt to get courts to rule against it.
I'm too sexy for you.
It's a set back, and a minor one at that. The code they have (what they didn't give away when they released their distro and what hasn't had the patent expire on it) will be pulled from Linux, rewritten to be patent free, and we'll all move on. The point is this doesn't effect the spirit and ideals of free software at all. Neither does SCO have a patent on computing as a whole.
On the other had this might kill Redhat/SuSe/Mandrake. Yes, that would be bad. But unlike the traditional software world where a company dying means their product goes by-by, we've got the source. Heck, the core members of Redhat/SuSe/Mandrake could probably just start up another company doing the same thing. Again a set back, but not the end.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
A license is a contract. You can't enter into a contract by mistake -- or rather, if you do, the courts can overrule it.
Providing that SCO can show evidence that they made a "good faith" attempt to stop distributing linux-plus-their-proprietary-code as soon as possible, the inadvertant GPLing of their code would be overturned by the courts.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
If SCO is right, and if SCO manages to prevail in court, then expect to see 'Red Hat FreeBSD' fairly quickly.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
The same applies if the closed source static libraries included any code that wasn't legally kosher. What if the code weren't GPLed but instead made illegal use of a Microsoft SDK. The "can of worms" is equally nasty. The modern idea of Intellectual Property makes any development or use software a huuuuge can of worms. Weren't we all reading a couple of weeks ago that an MS database product violated some patents and that end users were likely to be held liable?
The GPL is not unique in this regard. The can of worms starts writhing the instant someone appropriates something that isn't theirs.
Your responsiblity. There should be no "inadvertently."
If their Unix source does appear in the SCO Linux, they could argue that they didn't put it there, but instead downloaded the packages that contain it from another distribution. In that case, they would not be the ones putting the source into GPL, so their IP would be violated.
To defend themselves, IBM would not only have to show that SCO Linux contains the source in question, but that SCO introduced it into the source. By withholding that that source is, they are hindering IBM's ability to investigate for their own defense and perhaps giving themselves time to try and cover up some stuff.
If this were true, then why did they use the phrase "the people" to mean something completely different in this amendment than in every other amendment that includes that phrase?
That said, I think your position is very rational (regarding safety courses, background checks, etc) and I totally agree.
Finkployd
But then the focus switches to Linux, how it could have inside "stolen" code, and how everyone could be violating their IP... and there the things are more darker for SCO. Either the offending code could be replaced, or they validated the code addition releasing that code with the GPL license, or they are plain wrong. In any case, I hope the bribe they got to do all of this is enough to live the rest of their lives because no one will buy something from them ever again
Anyone up for improving GNU/HURD?
for the analogy to reflect what happens, the theif would have to sell the jewlery to the owner inside a jewlery box and the onwer would then put the jewlery box in one of the 25 cent boxes. then when someone else who has no knowledge of what had previously transpired buys the 25 cent box and finds quite a surprise in there. in that case the theif is still responsible but the person who bought the box with the jewlery in it didn't do anything wrong, the owner should have checked what was in the jewlery box first. in other words, IBM is still culpable for damages, but the code is out and by SCO's own hand so there's not a whole lot they can do to anyone who uses it.
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
I posted this same idea 2 weeks ago!
So, now can I sue him for stealing my IP? ;-)
I don't support SCO, and I hope this matter is resolved in such a way as brings about their ruin, and IANAL, but... SCO's argument is that in good faith they redistributed code that they were told was an entirely original creation or otherwise GPLd under agreement with a copyright holder.
If SCO's IP was in there, then those whom originally released the code acted in bad faith. You can't go around tricking companies into releasing their IP by executing bad faith deals and then claiming that it is too bad because they weren't forced to release the code in the first place. I doubt the court will support this mode of argument.
I think what SCO will have to show is that their IP is in the kernel (the hard part) and then show that prior to them releasing the code themselves, somebody else released the code in bad faith claiming it was legitimately licensed under the GPL, that they had no reason to believe the claim false, and acting on the good faith assumption that it did not violate any IP then distributed it themselves.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
The way I understand it, SCO is alleging that somebody took a nontrivial amount of code from the Unix source that SCO now owns, and copied it somewhere into the Linux codebase, thereby releasing that code under the GPL.
Now people are worried that because SCO also distributed this same code under the GPL, that somehow "legitimizes" its release, which makes the GPL seem "viral". In other words, because SCO owned the original code, by releasing that code under the GPL they in effect dual-licensed it, even though the Linux contributor who put the code in there didn't have a legal right to do so.
Do people think this will really hold up? In order to release something under the GPL in the first place, you have to own the code or have the right to license that code to begin with. If I steal Microsoft's code and release it under the GPL, that doesn't make the code actually GPL'd, because I never had the right to so license the code.
SCO's case is complicated by the fact that they also distributed the same code after somebody GPL'd it, without their knowledge at the time. But since they stopped releasing the code (relatively soon) after they became aware that it contained some of their own proprietary code, then I think this should effectively kill the GPL on that code. The person who put it in there in the first place didn't have the rights to, and SCO didn't know it was there when they distributed it.
What do you think? Did SCO really lose their rights to their code by "accidentally" releasing it under the GPL, as a result of someone else's illegal licensing of it in the first place? I certainly hope not.
If I give a counterfeit dollar to the U.S. government, and they in turn give it to someone else, not realizing it's fake, that doesn't somehow legitimize that bill. It's still not legal tender.
Same thing with this code. Since SCO wasn't the one to GPL it, the code isn't legally GPL'd.
IANAL.
Oh, and if they are right, the big linux guys can just yank out the "infringing" code, and have a patch for people to download that will patch the kernel/whatever is infringing. Of course, this might create some problems... But in the long run, it wouldn't be too difficult to fix up. However, I highly doubt their story is true. I have a tendency to disbelieve people who get their background facts wrong about something they supposedly know a lot about.
Why are they pointing this out now anyway? The source code has been freely available for... Well, since linux was started! Very odd if you ask me. Also, is this code in all linux versions, or did it start being used in certain later versions? We can only find out when (if) the case goes to court.
I could only see them winning if SCO went after some poor linux vendor who can't defend themselves.
The full text of the 2nd amendment is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I thought it was to arm Bears ... damn, I've really screwed things up.
> But here's the catch: Does this validate
> Microsoft's view of a "viral GPL"?"
No. Bruce's argument would apply in exactly the same was were the kernel under the BSD license.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
A "non-disclosure agreement" is a contract and the terms of the contract determine what can and cannot be disclosed by one (or both) of the parties. I haven't seen the terms of the SCO non-disclosure agreement but whether or not it requires you to pay them regardless of your ability to reduce your liability by removing or re-writing the code would depend upon how the agreement is written. It seems to me, and IAMAL, that SCO's claims to be "damaged" is reduced if SCO refuses to let anyone know what the damage is, let alone fix it.
Let's take an injury claim. If you help me paint my house and fall off the ladder and get hurt, then I am probably responsible. However, if you won't let me know what injuries you incurred then I cannot repair the damage. If you then take me to court and demand punitive damages to teach me a lesson for not fixing you, I can claim that you never gave me the chance to help.
If you make me sign a non-disclosure agreement that stipulates that I must pay you regardless of whether I could easily remedy the damage, then that seems pretty unfair too. In the case of our painting injury, you could show me that your arm was broken but then claim (with supporting "expert" testimony, that only a heart replacement would truly fix you up and by signing the non-disclosure I would be obligated to pay for that. Nevermind that an emergency room doc could set the arm and cast it and you'd be fine in six weeks.
Any company that would sign such a non-disclosure agreement (if it were couched in the terms you describe) would deserve what it gets.
It seems to me that just the act of refusing to allow anyone to see the infringing material casts SCO in the light of trying to maximize damage to their intellectual property rights. In other words, rather than allowing it to be fixed, they want to take it to court and assign a monetary amount to the "damage" and add punitive consequences.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
That if they draw the Linux community proper into a legal battle, that in court the judge will see SCO's lawyers, all sharp and buttoned down, representing tireless innovators who are meekly trying to defend their intellectual property, and on the other side, will see unwashed, smelly, hairy anti-capitalist hackers trying to rape and pillage all of the intellectual property in the world in support of some fanatical anti-business ideal.
The judge doesn't even have to hear an argument, he slams the gavel, case closed. SCO wins.
Boy, do they have another thing coming.
If there's one thing that hackers like to tinker with besides technology, it's law.
I'd watch it on C-SPAN with a bucket of popcorn.
People seem to point out that SCO has allready released the offending code in gpl by releasing their own distro.
Im not pointing this out, but its more of a question:
In the past there was Caldera, and there was Sco. Caldera bought os division part of SCO but not rights to "The Unix". Sco company remained and their plan was to make Tarantella their main product but also keep UnixWare maintained (This is still correct?)
Now, Are Caldera and Sco still seperate company ? And if yes, then has Sco really released a linux distribution (which would mean that Sco has released the code themselves too, knowingly or unknowlingly..) but if no, then it would be Caldera who released the code and it wouldnt mean jack s#!t to the actual ip case.
yush
SCO has this problem..
Pretend for a moment that someone completely independently codes a processof one click ordering-although they can be sued for infringing on Amazon's IP this cannot be confused with copying code..and even then it comes down to is the Patent a valid one..
Waht we know for sure that Kernels and OSes are different enough in the unix ful world that one solution while have some code the saem and solving the smae problem can have vastly different code foot prints on various OSes o fboth Unix and Linux..and thus saying 20 lines matches has no meaning in this scheme of things on the basis of patent infringement it has to be base don the full code footprint and its effects for thsoe 20 lines of code..ie ho wimport are thos e20 lines towards meeting the ful infringment conditions..
To complicate matters if SCO Group by accident distrbuted code under GPL via their Linux distribution they have already violated the first conditions of a trade secrecy by not keeping the methods secret..
Apple had the same problem with Microsfot in the late 1980s and early 1990s in that Microsoft did copy or come up with code independently that was tghe saem as Apple's but it caqme down to how important was that code to the IP rights that Apple was claiming infringment on..and notice Apple lost that battle..
and also notice Apple is still in buinsess for basing the decision to sue or not or settle on business economic conditions. SCO Group should follow tha texample...
Don't Tread on OpenSource
If we were all exposed to their IP with out permission, does that mean all future code is tainted, technically?
Non Disclosure clauses have caused this problem in the past for people. Once you 'see' the code you are tainted for life.
( not trying to give them any ideas here.. just dont want to get hit when we arent expecting it )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I doubt this was a goof, assuming SCO actually released its own code into linux then it was likely done out of laziness/expidence. SCO is about 'Unix', however the buzzword is 'Linux'. I'd be more likely to think that someone at SCO decided to take a shortcut and pasted some code in. and then the code was 'found again' in the Linux code.
Well then what happens next? Well like a good bureacrat SCO tries to CYA. Pulls out of Linux in order to see what elase is in the pipe that might be leaked, So where deos the suit come in? Thats a tought one. It could be possible deception trying to palce blame elsewhere. It could be that they cant find the real leak and thus are looking for likely targets.
If I'm not mistaken both parties will be required to disclose their evidence *before* court during the discovery process. To me SCO's statements about revealing their evidence only "in a court setting" sound as clueless as they are belligerent. Perhaps SCO's backers dream at night of David Boies confronting Samuel Palmisano with a stack of greenbar paper in some Salt Lake City courtroom, badgering him with: "How do you explain these diff files?!?!?!?" If so they should cut down on the TV.
Imagine this: you are a systems and network services provider, and you have a big contract with a client who has finally decided to free his company from the MS tax. You are to redo their whole network on a Linux and Open Source base... And today you get a fax from them:
"We are sorry but our legal department has warned us of potential unknown liabilities in using Linux. As a result, we have decided to postpone our network migration. Our current contract is therefore cancelled. We will let you know when we need your services again. Thank you."
Darl McBride... Dark basement... Blow torch... Chainsaw... Hmmmmm....
Boycott and Protest at SCO Forum in August in Las Vegas, plus look at their sponsors: http://www.sco.com/2003forum/sponsors.html
Intel and HP should not be supporting them
The problem in this case would simply be the licence applying to what you release.
And IMO it wouldn't be SCO's problem; if their allegations are true, it would be IBM's and our problem. For an example of this kind of thing, consider RSA's RC4, an encryption algorithm that was secret for a while, then was anonymously posted to Usenet. RSA claimed that it was a stolen trade secret, but because nobody could trace it, they chose to simply threaten to sue anyone who used it in a product that claimed to support RC4. Essentially, you can't make money on a product which you claims supports their algorithm without licensing the algorithm from them.
I don't see much of a chance of anyone buying the "they released it under the GPL!" argument; the problem is that they _did not_ release it, they simply redistributed it. Even if they made changes to that specific part of the code you still can't show that they did anything knowingly. I'm sure an expensive enough lawyer could "convict" them, but I think the result would be to cover over the real problem, which would be IBM releasing non-GPLable code as GPL.
Oh, of course, I have to finish by repeating the technical solution to this problem: rewrite the problematic code. Duh.
-Billy
Discovery occurs in civil cases as well as criminal. A quick trip to google will convince you of this.
See here for a nice description by the ABA of discovery procedures. That website, in fact, has a good description of how trials work in general.
While you're right about the tons of FUD, that won't stop SCO from winning verdicts in court.
Remember that the US legal system from the lowest lawyers to the highest judges is basically corrupt, in the sense that court cases are massively influenced by money, actual justice plays a secondary role, and fairness doesn't even get a look in. Furthermore, the lawyer wallet-lining is self-sustaining through the leapfrog mechanism of loss and appeal as cases rise up the legal chain.
I don't think even the most naive of observers harbors the illusion that SCO's claim will be chucked out on first judgement and never be seen again.
This is the US. Lawyers need that 3rd SUV, and judges need high-profile cases as part of their career progression.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Microsoft inadvertently gave open-source a compliment. If open-source is a virus and a cancer--two rather successful entities in the physical world-- then Microsoft is hemorrhoids and trench mouth. These maladies are irritating but easy to eradicate. Viruses and cancer are not easy to "rub out".
Perhaps this is a portent of things to come? Maybe eventually the open source community will flourish and Microsoft will not.
This is probably too much to ask for.
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
We all must remember that the purpose -- and, in fact, the raison d'être -- of the GPL is to destroy software companies. Richard Stallman, in The GNU Manifesto, specifically stated that the purpose of the GNU Project, and the GPL, was to "ban" high-paying jobs for programmers and successful software businesses. And it has been quite effective in doing so -- recent history is literally littered with the corpses of failed companies that attempted to deal in GPLed software. The MIT X License and the BSD License do not have within them the business-destroying "poison pill" that's built into the GPL, but the pointy-haired bosses and ideologically minded, young employees of these companies did not recognize this. Hence, Stallman's dream is coming true: software companies are failing and job prospects for programmers are drying up. (Many of the jobs that remain are being exported to countries where programmers are paid a pittance for their work.)
SCO is flailing, trying to save itself by attacking IBM and others. But it may be too late.
Why wouldn't Microsoft be eyeing SCO for a buy-out? If that's what SCO are so desperate for, Microsoft acquiring the rights to UNIX IP through SCO would give it the leverage it's been desperate to have over Linux. I'm not sure what the kinds of timescale to expect on such a move, but you'd think MS' lawyers are looking carefully to see if this case has any merit, to take full advantage if they think it will hurt the Linux business community.
I agree with a previous poster though-- if specific pieces of code are singled out for infringement, which could take years to bring to a legally enforceable position, they'll be replaced with unencumbered code within a fortnight.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
MS IS BEHIND THIS!!!
-Malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Which license overrules the other?
I bought Caldera 2.2, in the pretty yellow box, back when it was trendy, and then got a free upgrade to to 2.3. I am still using that on one of my machines. It's currently my only running Linux box.
Will SCO sue me for using a product *they* sold me? I even have the receipt!
I sense a severe lack of forward thinking here...
MAX
(I buy a few commerical distro's each year. I suck at programming, so consider this my 'contribution' to Linux. )
For example, IBM markets linux. Of course they did not write all of the code. Now suppose a devious linux developer were to insert say, all of some propriatey IBM application into the kernel code. If IBM does not check the code line by line they wont know it when they go to release the next edition of their variant of Linux that includes this new kernel. Thus IBM would have been duped in to releasing their own proprietary code. No reasonable person would think they were bound by the GPL.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
LGPL, the FSF's Library GPL is designed to fix this problem. You can distribute GPL-ish free code, and people can use it (and agree to distribute its source code, and letting people modify it) without it infecting the rest of their code. Stallman's taken to calling it the "Lesser GPL" becaue it's less radical than he is... It's also useful for adding Free Software to existing systems that have other licenses, whether they're Berkeley-type or binary-only hardware drivers or whatever.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Right, and that time, is during the DISCOVERY process BEFORE THEY GO TO COURT.
None the less, those facts must be given away in discovery. SCO has the right do depose the programmers and "project team leaders" who appear to be responsible for inserting the code from AIX into Linux.
IBM is entitled to a list of evidence that is to be presented.
I worked for an Attorney once, he said it is not like it is on TV. You depose people, look at the evidence and then go to court. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER ask a question in court that you DO NOT ALREADY KNOW THE ANSER TO. If you get a different answer, haul out the deposition, and put the witness back in place. They either go back to the deposition, or get charged with purgory.
This is why people just don't walk up to you on the street and hand you court papers that say, "I am suing you, for an undisclosed sum, for undisclosed damages, show up in court on the 15th and find out why".
Even though IBM could twist the facts, attempt to falisify evidence and hide witnesses, none the less, at some point BEFORE trial, it is their right to know what they are being accused of, and what evidence they have to support that.
In God we trust...all others we investigate
vi +
LINDON, Utah-March 7, 2003-The SCO® Group (SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX operating system, announced today that it has filed legal action against IBM (NYSE:IBM) in the State Court of Utah, for misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges 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.
0 32 73
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1
What seems to be fogotten here is what the lawsuit really is about. It is not simply about UNIX code being used in the Linux kernel, as seems to be the opinion of the vocal majority here. The suit alleges that IBM committed breech of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. The alleged inclusion of UNIX source code by IBM into the Linux kernel is the EFFECT of IBM's alleged actions--it is simply EVIDENCE.
Removing the evidence does not change the fact that a crime was committed. Sure, the Linux kernel could be rewritten as needed if there is UNIX code inside, but then you need to update each and every single machine using the violating kernel and destroy all copies of the kernel that have the code incorporated in them.
Like a sign on my profesor's door says: "Binaries may die, but source code lives forever." If the code is out there, it will be out there forever.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
There is a much better article in InternetNews.com here. They bothered to interview Moglen on this very issue:"From the moment SCO distributed the Linux kernel under GPL, they licensed the use. Always. That's what our license says."
Moglen also points out FSF owns the rights to IBM's Linux distribution, not IBM: "In fact, he said, when SCO first filed its suit against IBM, he approached SCO's lawyers because it is the Free Software Foundation and not IBM which holds the copyright to the Linux distribution IBM created, Linux for S/360. IBM created the Linux distribution but released it under the GPL and signed the copyright over to the Free Software Foundation."
What court will reward that kind of behavior, not to mention their refusal to show their code so any violations can be quickly fixed? I'm a paralegal and have been covering this on my blog Groklaw , if you want more info and links all in one place.
The real lesson for corporations will be: the GPL was designed to prevent smarmy corporate behavior. Don't use it unless you agree to its terms. If anyone considers it a loss to lose businesses like SCO...
If they did release their code as GPL, it was their choice.
Ummm.... lets see now....
1. Caldera releases a distribution of Linux.
2. Caldera buys SCO.
3. Caldera now has access to the source for both OSs.
4. After a few months comparing the code, they find some that matches.
5. As soon as they find them, they drop their Linux product, and launch a lawsuit.
Given that set of circumstances, I can't see how they made a choice to release the code.
Of course, there is still an argument to be had as to whether that really was the sequence of events, or whether there really is any of their code in Linux, but I don't think there's any scenario where they actually chose to release their code: if the above sequence is right, they did everything possible to limit the damage once they found out, and if it isn't correct, then they probably haven't got a case.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
My take on SCO's motivation:
SCO realised they were in trouble.
Like any corporation, they are required to make as much money as possible for their shareholders.
The best shareholder value they could see comes from being bought out at a decent price by one of the big boys.
So they pick on IBM, and launch a frivolous suit, hoping the IBM would just shrug their shoulders and buy them out.
Too bad for them it didn't work out that way. hehehe.
Anyone know if any of the BSD teams has released any press releases regarding this?
Of course, if SCO's fussiness extends to core *nix functionality that's not in the kernel but crosses both Linux and the BSDs (I'm thinking of non-kernel binaries that are required for the most basic functions), then the BSDs could be screwed, too.
"It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
When redhat collects a thousand packages, puts them on a CD, and sends them to you, they generally don't own the copyrights to those packages. Since they don't own the copyrights, they don't get to set the license terms. They have to *read* the licenses to make sure they're allowed to ship the packages, but they can't change the licenses, since they don't own the copyrights. So the act of sending out a distribution clearly does not represent an intent to *change* the license of these packages - it merely represents an intent to distribute the packages under their existing licenses. When SCO collects a thousand packages and puts them on a CD, they are clearly not intending to issue licenses for those packages - they are merely trying to ship them under whatever licenses they are already under.
You might argue that if SCO happens to own the copyrights to some of those packages, then they *could* relicense those packages. But you can't enter a contract by accident (and the GPL is a contract). It has to be intentional. And clearly, it was not their intention to relicense - it was merely their intention to distribute. So they did not relicense their code under the GPL. They merely distributed a package that was incorrectly labeled as being under the GPL.
What if pink monkeys flew out of my butt?
It gets a bit more interesting, though. By claiming to go after non-IBM users, they're also effectively limiting distribution of GPL code that they've been distributing. This leaves them in violation of the GPL -- so they've now lost all right to distribute the impugned GPL code. This means (for the moment, anyways -- until and unless they describe which Linux code they're accusing of containing their IP) that if they try to distribute any Linux code, they'll be open to Copyright lawsuits themselves.
Time for the FSF lawyers to get their suits ironed.
(this all, of course, presumes that there really is Unix code in Linux -- which is still a question.)
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
MIcrosoft is always right. I have yet to hear an arguement that they have made that is incorrect. I believe its time to switch back to Microsoft as soon as possible...Because you know that Microsoft technology is far superior to anything that the open source community has done.
This isn't an episode of MATLOCK where MATLOCK surprises the defense with new evidence.
Thanks! IA still NL!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The thing that makes SCO so evil in this is that the people who make Linux distirbutions don't want any proprietary code, and they take pains to avoid it. If there is some proprietary code in there by mistake, the just and correct response is simply to remove it, and if it is critical, replace it with "clean" code written from scratch, like 99% of the system already is.
It's not like some proprietary code vendor stole some of SCO's code. The GPL crowd makes a lot of effort to keep their code free. It's like the difference between hitting someone with a car on purpose or by accident. If you accidently do harm, and you have taken extremely careful precautions to avoid harming others, you should not be charged with the same kind of crime and be subject to the same penalties as someone who harms another on purpose.
SCO needs to be punished somehow in this whole affair. I imagine no one is buying their aging properietary flavor of unix anymore, so perhaps the best punishment is to drive them all the way out of business. That means any company which uses SCO legacy code should switch to something else (Linux, BSD) *today*!
Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the understanding they had entered a motion to have the case sealed..
While its true they will have to release evidence in court to the other party as part of due process, ( though I originally thought that only applied to criminal cases, not civil, but ill take everyone's word for it that I'm wrong ) they don't have to release to US.. and if its sealed, they CANT...
and I still say that would hurt their case.. ( even if they are nuts )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Your last two points are out of order. First they launched the lawsuit, and then they stopped selling Linux. And this was after months of ominous rumblings. They screwed up, and it may cost them the case.
That even if SCO is right, then only the original author, i.e. the person who claimed to write the source code. Other distributors such as Redhat would be immune because they were under the impression that it was licensed legally. If secondary distributors are in fact liable, I would think that the fact that SCO themselves distributed the same code would then make that source code legit. Essentially, if "We didn't know" for Redhat is not a sufficient defense, then "We didn't know" for SCO should be equally insufficient.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
Yeah, and monkeys will fly out of my butt.
Whatever happens, it wouldn't validate the "viral GPL" theory. That theory is about the GPL "infecting" code not released under the GPL. In this case, if SCO released their IP as part of the kernel in a Linux distribution, they would have released it under the Linux kernel license (which is close enough to the GPL for practical purposes here). They may not have intended to, they may not have wanted to, but they would have. This would be exactly the same as unintentionally releasing a Windows product containing the Microsoft redistributable libraries.
But what they did not do is stop shipping their Linux distribution as soon as they claimed IBM had leaked their code into Linux. If you assume that their lawsuit was filed legitimately, in that they knew there was proprietary code of theirs included in Linux, it then follows that they, under the terms of the GPL, were giving an implicit license to that code by continuing to distribute it. They didn't cease shipping their distribution of the code for nearly two months after they first alleged infringment.
So no, they did not do everything they could to limit their damages. In fact, by not stipulating what the infringing code is (which, as many others have noted, would not prevent them from seeking damages for the past infringment), they are in fact trying to increase their alleged damages by not allowing the infringing developers to fix the problem. SCO is acting in bad faith on every front to try and get a court to give them what they have never been able to achieve on their own merits (either as Caldera or as SCO in its previous incarnations) - dominance in the UNIX for x86 space.
It's funny - I always thought Caldera was a bit of a joke with Ransom Love at its helm. I recall the cheering that went on when he was no longer in charge there. Now, though, I think we'd rather have the clownish Love, who just didn't get it, instead of Darl McBride and crew, who don't get it and are determined to mess it up for everyone else.
Right...
Don't you mean:
5. As soon as they find them, they launch a lawsuit.
6. Then they threaten more lawsuits against Linux companies and Linux users.
7. Wait 2 months and officially stop distributing their Linux distribution.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
After SCO loses this case we should all band together in a class action lawsuit, and sue them for slander.
Yes, the GPL is viral. If you use my GPL code then the "price" you pay me is that you make your code/IP freely available (if you distrbute, natch).
MS are right to be frightened of the GPL - it is meant to pulverise them - and is now doing so, because the GPL has a killer app called Linux.
So, stop pretending that the we should all deny MS's comments - what we should be concentrating on are the benefits to society of placing code in the form of common ownership the GPL promotes.
At download login page at SCO, feel free to use the following username and password:
u: jowbloe
p: joeblow
YES, the GPL IS Viral in it's very nature!
That's the whole damn point of the GPL.
If you don't see that it's Viral by Nature, then you simply don't understand the GPL.
Then they've still done it purposely, given away their code in a GPL product.
But you miss the larger point. Today, there is no way that every employee at a company can be aware of what the employer considers IP. Permitting employees to work on GPL software is WAY too dangerous because if a single employee accidentally embeds art from an existing patent that the parent company already has and is making money on, then suddenly that IP is gone forever.
That is what can truthfully be called the viral aspect of the GPL. Most here see it as a benefit. If you are a company making hundreds of millions per year in IP licensing, it's a mess.
Surely this is in fact the case, unless SCO went through the code and striped out the supposidly unix code. But if they did that, this law suit would have surfaced years ago, when they found the code.
They distributed(still do??)the kernel AFTER they "discovered" the code in breach!
That is different.
SCO has some steep hurdles to overcome still. There must first be a legal finding of fact showing that Linux does contain proprietary UNIX code.
Next, there must be a finding of fact showing that said code was introduced into Linux without authorization from the then copyright holders; or that withstanding; said code was introduced after SCO became the legal copyright owner and without SCO's authorization.
Finally, if SCO's case can survive those two steps, SCO would need to quash any claim that it released its proprietary code to the GPL when it knowingly produced and distributed its own Linux product. On the surface, it will immediately appear that this is what SCO did. To defeat such a claim, SCO will need to show that it did not know and had no reason to know that Linux contained proprietary code owned by SCO or anyone else.
This will be an unconvincing argument however, since by having access to the full Linux sourcecode, SCO had legal notice.
An interesting final twist. If all these findings of fact are met, the case can proceed; and if SCO wins, SCO will immediately make itself liable for copyright violations if Linux contains any proprietary code owned by another party. Poetic justice...
See: http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-01_Story 03.html
It doesn't appear to affect any of the more popular distros, such as Redhat.
Dawn of the Dead
Corel's situation worsened to the point where it was forced to suffer the humiliation of accepting bailout money from Microsoft (a direct competitor). Why? Because it sunk so many resources into Linux... and then could not get a positive return on its investment due to the GPL. Corel competes with Microsoft in many, many markets -- to accept money from Gates was the ultimate capitulation. It only took Microsoft's blood money because it would have failed completely if it did not.
Corel's embrace of Linux was a key factor in the company's decline. It couldn't differentiate Linux itself from competitors' offerings due to the GPL, which required it to give its work away. So, it floundered. Had it based a product on NetBSD, OpenBSD (which would have been a great choice since it's also Canadian), or FreeBSD, it would have done much better.
. . . would be to the effect that SCO's kernel code 'contribution' is significant and original enough to constitute a copyrightable 'work of authorship.' For example, a literary work of a small and unoriginal nature such as "see Jane run" would not be copyrightable subject matter. It remains to be seen whether SCO's claimed kernel code contribution is any more substantial or original than that.
SCO has chosen a broad attack on IBM *and* collaterally everyone using, developing or interested in Linux past and future. This is actually a suicidal declaration of total IP and PR war, disavowed or not. I suggest consideration of the following idea patterned after successful historical US protests on ugly, unfair business behaviors: According to ESR's paper, MacDonald's is the largest purchaser of SCO scuzware hence funding the bs. Economic infrastructure and manufacturing target. Organize Linux supporters to suspend purchase of MacDonald's grease. Organize a few quiet, safe pickets of MacDonalds on public sidewalks with your favorite complaint signs i.e. MacDonald's feeds SCO toxic torts Beware trans fats and SCO torts Use your own imagination on complaints but keep it truthful, no threats. MacDonald's mgmt would be better off to chill the SCO source of attack, irritation, perjury, smash and grab tactics than the unhappy protesters. Kick SCO's pockets and everything in between. This is about personal (property) rights.
First, it is a viral license. I personally think that's fine. Viral is maybe a bad word, but it's an accurate depiction. I think the GPL is great, but I still think it's viral.
Second, SCO's claim is utterly bunk, because they have been distributing the GPL'ed kernel and other programs for quite some time.
Think of it this way: Let's say that SCO has a case and there's proprietary UNIX code throughout the kernel (bull, I believe, but anyway). They've had access to that source, they understand the GPL, and they have still distributed said code under the GPL. So, quite frankly, if they missed it, that's their problem. Tough luck. Did they somehow not look at the code THEY were distributing?
I think SCO is gonna have a very hard time in court, especially against the mountain of lawyers that is the IBM legal department.
Screw you SCO.
No more than saying if they accidentally released all their products under public domain then this would support a viral gpl theory.
GPL propogates the intent of the original author to those who wish to use his work. His work, ideals, and integrity are safe.
If company A accidentally released some code under GPL, that is their fault!
Can they unGPL their next release of course code, and if not, how much do they have to change, and can current people who bought this GPL'd code get their money back?
GPL != free != money != beer != viral.
THats all folkz (argh)
Ransom Love
and
Darl McBride
With those names, SCO can form the worlds smallest gay parade!
From www.sco.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.html:
:)
105. Plaintiff is the owner of unique know how, concepts, ideas, methodologies, standards, specifications, programming, techniques, UNIX Software Code, object code, architecture, design and schematics that allow UNIX to operate with unmatched extensibility, scalability, reliability and security (hereinafter defined as "SCO's Trade Secrets"). SCO's Trade Secrets provide SCO with an advantage over its competitors.
Well,it is obvious that if you press start button on your computer,SCO 0wnz you
...but if the GPL is "viral", does that make the MS EULA "sudden death"?
I'm sorry, but if they really did blunder like that, that's just too funny for words. Hard to get mad & sue someone for using your code if you release it under such a license. I guess that means the managers & execs will just have to pay attention next time.
That's an awful wide swath, of course; among other things, it means TiVo has to stop selling their flagship product. (Sole product?) But is that a possibility? That a court would find that Red Hat, SuSE, Sharp, Mandrake, et al. should have just stopped?
I am, of course, NAL.
-- Support Ometz le-Serev.
just think of all the lovely spam you recieve in your mailbox. that's the consequence of an industry without profit.
people are getting desperate, and it'll only get worse.
... if there are no limits to the scope of the Amendment, then suitcase nuclear weapons are protected under the US constitution. Under the 2nd amendment the people have the right to store chemical weapons and nuclear materials and any others necessary for protection against the state ...
... under the constitution ... to bear weapons of mass destruction. If the US signed a treaty to reduce nuclear weapons there's nothing stopping Lockheed (a private corporation) from continuing to produce, store and sell any weapons it wants. The right of Lockheed to do so is protected under the Constitution.
...
:-)
As we have seen lately, Sadaam Hussein of course does not have these rights, but American citizens and corporations do have the right
You may disagree, but the Constitution and the Bible are more important than world peace, safety in your neighborhood and the sniveling cry baby complaints of "liberals" so quit complaining and get a job
ps: Please spell "Amendment" correctly and use capital letters when refering to the holy Constitution of the USA.
Blow it up your poop shoot. Such short sightedness always belongs to anonymous cowards.
The same thing was said by such knuckle heads when the horseless carriage started to take the place of the horse. A company by the name of Delco during them times changed their business model from producing buggy whips to starter motors.
Companies that cannot adapt to changing times deserve to go belly up. SCO has hardly tried to adapt. They used the same/similar mentality IBM did with the PC and it cost them.
The only moron here is you..... and SCO.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Not that anyone crares, but this is IMHO the most likely scenario...
There is one intriguing scenario, suggested by Perens, where SCO might have a case but might have already lost it due to their own legal incompetence. Assume, as we have been, that there is proprietary Unix source code included in Linux. Assume that Linux vendors have been distributing this source code. Well, SCO is a Linux vendor too -- they announced on Wednesday that they are suspending distribution of Linux, but for years they did distribute Linux, under the same General Public License used for all Linux distributions. Since all the Linux vendors share source code, it's entirely possible that SCO was inadvertently distributing its own proprietary Unix code in its version of Linux. In that case, SCO would've already released its Unix source code into open source. SCO says, "Whoops!" the Linux community says, "Hooray!" and the English language has a replacement for the phrase, "Hoist by his own petard."
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
... in the course of this lawsuit it was discovered that the (alleged) duplication of source code happened because SCO stole source code from Linux, NOT the other way around.
Talk about feeling stupid... For all I know, SCO may be getting THEMSELVES in trouble by bringing to light their own (alleged) theft of source code!
They'd better be squeaky clean, that's for sure. Considering the general cluelessness of their defense team as well as the make-it-up-as-they-go SCO management, I seriously wonder if anyone at SCO has considered this yet.
Wow, if it's discovered that SCO has stolen from Linux... Just guess how much sympathy and cooperation they'll get while working THAT one out.
was guilty of anti-trust violations?
. . . is this. Suppose SCO/Caldera does have some copyrightable source contribution somewhere in the linux kernel, and suppose that they attempt to assert exclusive rights in such code by, among other things, denying that the GPL applies with respect to it as it was contained in their Caldera Linux releases. (They have apparently already done this, at least impliedly so.) The necessary result of action such as this would be invalidation SCO's right to copy/modifiy/distribute all other Linux/GNU elements contained in Caldera Linux under the GPL. (See terms of GPL.) Consequently, anyone and everyone claiming copyright in any GPL'd software contained in Caldera Linux could SUE SCO FOR INFRINGEMENT! People in this thread talk about getting back at, ruining or punishing SCO. There: I've just provided the recipe for doing it. (As a non-coder, I may consider this my contribution to the OS community.)
The reason they won't publically disclose the code in question is because they claim the code is a *Trade Secret* . The law requires they perform due diligence to protect their own trade secrets from public disclosure and also do everything posible to mitigate their own damages. If they publically release the code (even for comparision), they will legally destory their own trade secret. That's why they will only disclose it under Non-Disclosure Agreements.
This brings us back to the question, did they already distroy the trade secret by publishing the open source of Linux? Although similar, this is a completely seperate legal issue from whether they already GPLed it.
What might save them on this issue (and its a stretch but possible, and I would argue it if I was their lawyer) is that Linux was distributed by Caldera *before* it bought SCO or had any knowledge of what was in the SCO-Unix code . So Caldera had no more reason to believe that Linux contained Unix code than anybody else did. When Caldera bought SCO, they now had access to Unix code and whammo! -- they suddenly saw the infringement.
The reason they are no longer distributing Linux is because they are trying to demonstrate to the court that they are taking the "due diligence" mentioned above to protect their trade secrets and mitigate their damage. The question is now whether they acted fast enough to stop the discloure and mitigate the damage. The fact that the spent a few months distributing "SCO Linux" after they had knowlege of the infringment might work against them. But to save themselves there, they might argue that they were under dueling obligations between their own interest and fulfilling contracts as Caldera/United Linux and therefore ended it as soon as practicable without breaching the previous contracts.
Just because (and if) there is common code between Linux and SCO UNIX doesn't mean that the Linux camp 'borrowed' the code. It could have just as easily been the other way around. In fact, given the public nature of Linux code and the hidden nature of SCO's, that is more likely to be what happened.
They are claiming a TRADE SECRETS issue, not copyright. (Although they are talking it up in public as if it were a copyright thing.) The suit, however, carefully makes no mention of copyright infringement (So as to keep it out of the Federal Court system.)
It is possible the "secrets" SCO claimes IBM "took" were embodied in code. If so, they cannot relase it except under the courts own supervision. To do otherwise would be a public release of the trade secret. It would be lost to them forever.
The court must review the secret, and will likely seal the proceedings, to prevent its further disclosure, until its status is determined.
Alas, nothing much in UNIX has been much of a trade secret for a rather long time. Far, far, too many books have been published on the various issues and potential implmentations -- like, say, BSD.
What they mean is that if you want to use GPL code for a project, you are basically forced to open up the source for your project as well. MS, of course, doesn't like this since they are based around a closed source model. It means they can't take source from a GPL project and use it in one of theirs. That is, of course, the power of the GPL and the reason behind it. Anyone is free to give their source away, no restrictions, and you don't need a well written liscence to do it (though ones like the BSD lisence do exist). With the GPL, though, it spells out that though you are giving peole the rights to modify your code, they must in return make their code open and give people the same right.
Thus the GPL is viral, sort of, in that it "infects" programs and makes them be the same. If I use GPL code it "infects" my program and I have to GPL it, and so on.
That's what they mean by viral lisence.
But SCO's argument is (or was) that Un*x itself is their `IP'. They can't really argue they didn't know Linux was Un*x-based.
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
But here's the catch: Does this validate Microsoft's view of a "viral GPL"?"
We've been through this before, it's a vaccine, not a virus.
It keeps companies from mixing in their proprietary bits then claiming a proprietary interest in the whole work just because they contributed a piece.
This was no accident; SCO deliberately distributed their code under the GPL. They didn't contract the GPL like a virus, they deliberately and knowingly ingested it like a pill. Now they're whining because they weren't good enough to compete so they're delaying their imminent demise through the court system.
If the GPL does indeed stop SCO from pursuing this course of action, it won't prove Microsoft's point. Rather, it will prove that the GPL is doing exactly what it was intended to: embrace? sure. extend? great! extinguish? GO FUCK YOURSELF.
If
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
If I see one more article concerning SCO I think it is time for some serious action.
Here is the plan to circumvent this little problem we have here.
Let us gather the horde together under a full moons light. There we will prepare our torches, clubs and rocks for use against the evil. Under cover of night and hopefully cover of some heavy DoS attacks we will put a stop to this nemsis once and for all.
The horde shall run through the corporate offices as the waters rush over the land after the damn has broken. The cleansing will continue until the last soulless vessel breathes its last breath.
Only until all has been removed will the horde disband. Pillaging will be permitted only in designated raid areas.
It will be glorious!
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Your exact same scenario would apply if the employee stole the code and put it into a closed-source program. If this was a problem then buyers would have to worry about *all* software they buy, not just open source.
If SCO had extricated its unix code from their linux distributions, then it ought to be a simple matter to determine what the claimed proprietary code actually is. (I'm not a coder, but I'm guessing just use GNU diff?) Anyway, I'd be surprised if IBM's people haven't already checked this.
" it's entirely possible that SCO was inadvertently distributing its own proprietary Unix code in its version of Linux. In that case, SCO would've already released its Unix source code into open source. SCO says, "Whoops!" the Linux community says, "Hooray!" and the English language has a replacement for the phrase, "Hoist by his own petard." "
Unless you can show that SCO ADDED code to the GPL base, they were merely acting on good faith that the code was legitimate when they received it, and redistributed it. If the code they received to redistributed was tainted when they got it, they most likely won't be held accountable for inadvertantly releasing their source as GPL. This is because the source did not originate from them, but from some other unscrupulous source, and they were only passing on what they thought a original source.
Vote for Pedro
Leave it to slashdot to bash SCO and then accept their advertizing money.
Vote for Pedro
likewise the complaints that SCO should have found this earlier are silly too. Maybe they could have, but they are not omniscient nor perfectly organized to be able to realize or detect that instantly. Until they organized as an IP company and not as a linux house they were not even inthe mindset to do so. is that their fault?
SCO cant go around checking every other vendors releases all the time. They just can spot check it when they want to. It would take a full time person to be either looking for it or a person of tremendous experience to be looking in the right place at the right time (that person would have to be familiar with what was ATT/SCO proprietory what was not and be aware of the legal nuances.
for example MS software has and probably still does have undetected propetary code in it. Put in by some lazy peon perhaps. Now of course they should not do this and they should actively prevent this. But that's not the point I want to make. The point I want to make is how many companies whose code MS has stolen are even aware of it. MS itself is not aware of it. this stuff happens and it takes a lot of effort for a small code house to actually discover they have had their code stolen.
remember SCO did not actually write UNIX. they bought it. so they aren't a giant codeing house.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
You only need to make your own contributions available if you actually distribute the modified programs. You can use it in-house all you want, for any purpose whatsoever. I would suspect most cross-licensing agreements are somewhat more strict than that.
No one is under any legal obligation to make sure that no one else stole something of theres. Whenever it is realized, he can get his stuff back. "Sorry man, he should have checked first!" is not going to hold up in court if you steal things from somebody and shove it in the cracks of something he's selling you.
In this case, the "Stuff" that has been stolen is intellectual property rights.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
First off, SCO has footbulleted their IP seventeen different ways from sunday. This is just a rehash of the BSD legal baggage and it won't avail SCO anything against the likes of IBM. Two, they're claiming damages without revealing where in the gigs of code that make up a Linux distro where the problem is. Three, they picked on IBM which as someone else pointed out is like starting a fistfight with a train. Fourth, they've distributed this code themselves for YEARS; they just found out about this now. Fifth, what calls itself SCO was a Linux company that bought the old SCO IP from what now calls itself Tarantella....this does not look good. Sixth, Micorsoft is barred by past legal actions from touching that very codebase. There was a very loud legal debacle from their Xenix days. SCO's IP basically started out as Xenix.
SCO's baggage can easily hurt MS as much as it can help it. Such a move would be blatantly anticompetitive and they can still get in hot water for such things in Europe. SCO is like a plague ship at this point. I don't see MS getting anywhere near it. Some have surmised that MS is behind SCO's current frothing at the mouth. I don't think they're that dumb. The fallout if/when they're caught would be spectacular.
I think that SCO's silence in showing their "proprietary" code is because they are grepping desperately through the linux kernel's source code to find a few obscure lines of code that have been long forgotten by a kernel hacker to claim as their own.
Yes, the court would definitely want to know if the code is substantial. The only problem I see so far will be in explaining to the court how the code is or isn't substantial and original. I haven't seen who the starting lineup for the defense will be. It may take Linus himself as well as countless others in the community to file amicus briefs in order for the defense to have a solid technical argument with merit.
After reading SCO's statements, it seems pretty clear that SCO comes to the table with dirty hands. That will definitely be persuasive to the court if the defense plays the card well enough.
Dude. If SCO denies that the GPL applies to the portion of the kernel code that they own, or otherwise attempt to impose "additional restrictions" on the Caldera Linux that they released, then SCO forfeits all of its rights to copy/modify/distribute the linux kernel and its having done so within the last 3 years constitutes actionable COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Thus, the position that you argue is quite untenable by SCO. QED.
4. After a few months comparing the code, they find some that matches. 5. As soon as they find them, they drop their Linux product, and launch a lawsuit.
Except that it looks to me like they're still distributing Linux.
"If God created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated"
the fact of the matter is that if what SCO is claiming is true, they still distributed their own code under the GPL whether they knew it or not. and they did it willingly, kind of like the guy who sells an expensive antique at a yard sale. the courts aren't supposed to punish people for the ignorance of others
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
BY READING THIS LICENSE TEXT YOU THEREFORE AGREE
TO THIS VPL LICENSE AND OBLIGATED TO RELEASE ALL YOUR SOFTWARE, CURRENT AND FUTURE ONLY BY Viral Programming License (VPL). (license clauses follows, that explain what you can and cannot do with source code, bla bla bla).
I'm just waiting for the first Webpages claiming this is a conspiracy paid for by Microsoft
Go FreeBSD. Or OpenBSD. Or NetBSD.
They all kick ass all over Linux anyway.
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
Story here. Where will it end?
In order to recover damages in a civil case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he took reasonable steps to mitigate his damages. I don't see much mitigation going on here -- seems to me that SCO could have very easily contacted the kernel developers and have had them remove the offending code. The judge in this case will be very interested to know why this was never done.
Why can't they be right? It's obvious. Because Linux is perfect and moral. Linux could never be wrong. Besides, if SCO were right they'd lay out all the evidence way, way in advance, for everyone to see, even if it might alter their opposition's reponse in court and even if public disclosure may alter the legal course of action taken by attorneys who might otherwise prefer to negotiate or deal in private, before public mention and subsequent culpability might be brought into play, therfore affecting stock prices, business decisions. No, if SCO were right, they'd just ignore all that, because ultimately SCO's responsibility is to a bunch of whiny Linux sycophants and not to their own interests.
Go ahead, mod me down. If I wanted to be modded up I'd just do what many other Slashdot idiots do and tattoo "Linux Rules" on my forehead while wiping my ass with a picture of Bill Gates.
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
When you statically link a program, all the libraries that program uses are placed in the same binary. It's effectively the same thing as taking the source code from those libraries, mixing it with your source code, and then building into your executable. Their code is in your binary. I personally don't view dynamic linking as derivation. Only people who don't understand the difference between the two (i.e. inexperienced developers or laypeople) would get upset about it.
The GPL, as I recall (been a while since I've read it), states that dynamic linking is the same as derivation. However, I believe that standard copyright would allow dynamic linking of any library. Anyone with a right to use a program under the GPL can refuse the GPL and use their rights under standard copyright to use and not distribute the library. For the purpose of linking (dynamically) to the library, one could treat it using normal copyright. For the purpose of distributing the library as a separate entity, to allow others to use it under copyright law, use the GPL.
I see a lot of people in the open source world discussing this theory, but really it seems idiotic to me.
The law is not like a computer program with mindless automatons reading the letter of the law and acting accordingly. Nor should it be. Real people look at these things.
What SCO did was take freely available code and distributed it. They "discovered" after the fact that that code was based on their own proprietary code, and stopped distributing it. But SCO at no point ever intended to have their proprietary work GPLd, which I think should count for a lot. If you could prove you signed a contract accidentally it wouldn't be valid. In SCOs case it's quite clear that they never intended to release their super powerful source code as GPL.
All of this is moot, however since all SCO has is bullshit, and they are going to lose on the merits.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Courts will not allow parties to written contracts (e.g., GPL) to avoid their clear and express obligations thereunder obo any lame excuse such as you propose. The contractual mistake doctrine would require that the recipients of SCO's GPL'd linux should have reasonably known of SCO's mistake before allowing SCO to escpae the consequences of the GPL. Now, given that SCO's putative kernel 'contributions' were secret, how the hell are they going to show that? What more, even if they could make the requisite showing, it is highly doubtful that any court in equity would hold any linux user liable for using SCO-contaminated code (as per your own 'mindless automaton' argument). Finally, as I keep posting, RTFGPL, do a little thinking, and realize that the minute SCO takes the position that the GPL does not apply to their own Caldera Linux release (including their 'own' kernel code) then it forfeits all of its rights under the GPL which means that its distribution of Caldera Linux constitutes copyright infringement (against the various kernel developers). A court in equity will not let SCO at once deny and embrace the GPL. PLEASE: 1) Read the GPL; 2) Consider your own arguments; 3) Mix; 4) Apply reason; 5) Properly Conclude
I also have trouble with their claim that they did not distribute their Unix code under the terms of the GPL on purpose and should therefore be allowed to claim that it is not (and never was) covered by the GPL. They filed the suit against IBM in March, but they only stopped distributing their own version of Linux on Wednesday of this week! That means that they have been knowingly publishing the offending code under the GPL for two months after they publicly claimed that it was not covered by the GPL. How can they possibly claim that they distributed that code without knowing that it really came from Unix if they distributed said code for two months after they claimed that it came from Unix? That's a nonsensical claim. They have no case against anyone other than IBM because they already published that code under the GPL on purpose. If they really wanted to retain all legal rights to that IP, then they would have stopped publishing Linux as soon as they even suspected that it was in there.
A little off topic but does anyone have any good examples of besides zlib of microsoft using open-source code, seems like they probably use it quite often to me. But I never see any licenses, I guess from reading the zlib license microsoft doesn't have to include the license. Here's a old story on the zlib.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-860428.html
I know it doesn't apply to this SCO case but I'm wondering whether the following is valid.
You're in a lawsuit with X. You have a document D which you'd like to use at trial, and you'd rather X not know about it in advance.
Obviously if X asks you for D in discovery, you have to give it to him. Or if he asks you for "all documents relating to [whatever D is about], it's the same.
But what if, through carelessness or not anticipating what you might have in your possession, X's discovery questions never touch on D? Can you just keep your mouth shut about D, and still be able to use it? Sort of like (at trial):
You: Didn't you file a document with so-and-so saying such-and-such?
X: Not to my recollection (or some similar lie)
You: (pulling piece of paper from pocket with a flourish) Maybe this can refresh your memory?
That argument is nonsense. Everyone who's ever done any business has at one time or another made a deal that they regretted. And everyone has made business decisions (good or bad) based on assumptions that turned out to be wrong afterwards.
If SCO released formerly proprietary code under the GPL, that's because they wanted to do so. They may wish afterwards that they hadn't. That's just too bad. I bet Digital Research wishes they'd signed the IBM nondisclosure and sold CP-M to IBM for the PC, instead of letting Bill Gates sell MS-DOS to IBM instead.
There's no more "virality" caused by the GPL than there's "virality" if Coca Cola chooses to publish its secret formula in the newspaper, then tries after publication to make the formula secret again. It's irrelevant whether the executive who signed off on the publishing order somehow didn't know the formula was supposed to be secret.
Further, in SCO's case, the idea of "inadvertent" GPL'ing strains credulity. If they GPL'd some formerly proprietary code and put it into their Linux distro, they did it to sell more of the Linux distros. Post facto claims that it was really an accident should be viewed with skepticism.
The cure for a "viral" GPL is real simple. If you have code you don't want to release under the GPL, then don't release it that way.
This is like when Kramer spilled a cafe latte down his pants and scalded his stomach. God forbid the Linux community run into the Maestro and put the balm on. It might mean SCO might have to settle for free espresso drinks for life.
............ kris
"I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
Cool! I never have the time to read those pesky EULAs line-by-line, I just spot-check them, so I don't have to worry about lawsuits because they duped me into it!
SCO has quite literally bet the farm on this one.
:-o
SCO has a farm?
I doubt the court will support this mode of argument.
True, but SCO watched IBM do it, enough that they can give a rough date of when it happened, and they waited over a year to do ANYTHING about it. You can't watch IP violations, wait for damages to build up, and then decide to sue. The court WILL support that.
This will screw 'em ..From the GPL text:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
and
7. and 8 fuck SCO too
This could mean anyone that bought/received a copy of SCO Linux can simply cut & paste the code into the official Linux kernel and voila it's legitimate! It's silly!!
oh and see SCO's press release:
"SCO will continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers and hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux products"
5. As soon as they find them, they drop their Linux product, and launch a lawsuit.
We had an SCO guy speaking at our UUG back in Sept. 2001.
He was making allegations about pirated code in Linux.
No specifics of course.
Considering the topic and how long it's been up, I'm quite surprised to see only 5 funny posts. I guess running over the clown did have a bad effect after all...
From what I could see SCO has a stronger case with M$ than SCO Linux .
I wonder why SCO is not suing M$....hmmm
I checked few places and also blogspot.com. One thing needs explanation, since SCO's case was moved to Utah's federal court by IBM, SCO must release their code that they consider offending to IBM even before the trial starts. As someone pointed it out on /. already that has to happen soon, even before this month is over. That's why couple of days ago someone from SCO said they'll release that code to few individuals, not the public. It's not that they'll do it voluntarily but because they have to do it under the federal rules.
2. This whole thing of SCO going against IBM and by extension Linux vendors is about emotional grange SCO's execs have since their failed Monterey Project. Since IBM pulled out of it and went with Linux development, SCO considered that move as hostile to their chances of market growth and ultimately to their business survival. They blame IBM for their falling business and lack of growth, (50-55 of SCO's complain):
"As SCO was poised and ready to expand its market and market share for UnixWare targeted to high-performance enterprise customers, IBM approached SCO to jointly develop a new 64-bit UNIX-based operating system for Intel-based processing platforms. This joint development effort was widely known as Project Monterey."
What is IBM's response to that?, it says: "States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 50..." In fact in many places IBM simply and tersely states: "Denies the averments of paragraphs" so and so. Further, in IBM's response under "Affirmative Defenses" section says: "Caldera lacks standing to pursue claims against IBM relating to Project Monterey." In other words folks, SCO/Caldera have no legal grounds against IBM, at least that's what IBM is saying. The lack of legal grounds would meant that Project Monterey was not legally bonding agreement that included "deliverables" but a collaboration of vendors that was lose enough as to have no legal effect on IBM for pulling out of it. But for SCO that was probably critical project that they staked hopes on and when IBM was out they had no further chances for profit.
So, they felt IBM undercut their potential profits growth and by going with Linux development they had even further motive to believe that it was specifically targeted against SCO. That is the emotional backlog of their case. All the rest is the top logical layer that covers deeply felt resentment against IBM and Linux for undermining purposefully or not their dream of UnixWare becoming profitable an enterprise-level app/OS.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
of code copying from UnixWare to Linux would spread a LOT more fud than anything SCO has already done.
Sontag claims the IP violations are "all over the kernel"
1 Solid example, 50 or 60 identical lines would harm the Linux world HUGELY in terms of long-term public relations and bring a lot of people over to the SCO camp.
It's really very instructive that SCO has not released ONE example (if the violations are "all over the place" SCO will have plenty of examples to show the court. Their "we don't want the Linux folks cleaning up the evidence" claims are total BS )
The first reference to the viral nature of the GPL that I could find in Usenet was dated Nov 11, 1989, well before Microsoft even had GNU in the radar scope.
google news
Look at the SuSE end user! He loves the GPL!
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
how is a company supposed to adapt to not making any money? go bust? oh yeah, nice one! FOOL ...
Even a minimal showing of actual copying would be 14 carat FUD. I don't think that SCO could pass up that opportunity if they had it and, therefore, I doubt that there's any substantial copying involved. This circumstance, together with the 'IP violations all over the kernel' remark may well point up the truth of the matter. You see, the phrase "IP violation" is extremely vague. Generally it could mean, among other things, a copyright violation of a trade secret misappropriation. But here it sounds more like trade secret stuff. Check it out: SCO could argue that its "technology" (i.e., ideas) are manifest throught the linux kernel w/o having to show any actual copying. That is, the linux kernel source code could be argued to embrace SCO's "methods" albiet with different code. But whether or not this is true, such would not constitute any copyright violation. Copyright generally protects authors' particular expressions of ideas only, not the underlying ideas themselves. Hence, SCO's complaint contains no copyright infringement claims. On the other hand, if all SCO is alluding to by this remark is trade secret matter, then it is of no concern to the linux community at large. The reason is that it is not wrongful to use other people's trade secrets; it is only wrongful to misappropriate them. Here, the only entity that could plausibly have committed a misappropriation is IBM, by virture of its contract w/ SCO. Everyone else has done nothing but use information that is widely publically available w/o knowledge of the allegedly once wrongful publication of the trade secrets by IBM. Current publications of SCO's kernel 'contributions' do not constitute misappropriation of trade secret because the matter is no longer secret, and hasn't been for a long time. Accordingly, further and future use and publication of the SCO kernel 'contributions' cannot be enjoined. Linux Wins!
Some of you may find this interesting...
I live in Santa Cruz and my coworker worked for SCO for a number of years. I think he worked (I believe he quit in disgust) for them for 10 years, or around there. So I decided to ask him about some questions about SCO as my curiosity has been peaked due to SCO's allegations.
According to him, SCO is built from a lot of stolen code, and that during the 80's (where I believe the brunt of his employment took place) that it was pretty common practice for code to be stolen and put into SCO's UNIX. He also mentioned that the CEO of SCO was a coke head and one of the biggest crooks he had ever come across.
I explained how many feel that SCO is just trying to get itself bought to which he responded "Oh, that makes sense, they've been trying to get bought for a long time" and he felt that any allegations of SCO code being in the kernel are probably BS, and if there is any cross code, it's probably code stolen from Linux.
We don't work in IT right now (not even close) but after he told me of his experiences with SCO, I can't blame him after hearing just a few of his many stories about how crooked most or all the uppermanagement was/is.
I wish I could give more detail about my coworker but I haven't really asked his permission.. So I for now, I can't go into anymore detail than I've already given.
I have a friend who's son works for Caldera/SCO. I've been thinking of dropping him a line to see if maybe I could ask his son a few questions about this mess. Though I don't know what useful info, if any, I could get out of it.
If there was a legal risk involved I'd take a couple of days and replace all my linux boxes with freebsd. Most of my conf files/crontabs would be identical and life would continue on as normal.
If SCO gets lucky and wins against IBM, is it really that bad a thing? (well, it isn't good for IBM) For Linux, can't the offending parts be ripped out, rewritten by capable people, and Linux comes out even better - free of any SCO tainted code?
Good point, but then they'd have to prove that IBM or any other group was the one who intergrated the offending code and that SCO didn't do it. They have to prove that SCO's programmers never knew about it. Many have theorized that linux programmers cut corners by using SCO code that they knew about, but what if those programmers were SCO employees?
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
Corel bought WordPerfect which was already losing to Word. Their graphics products were fast becoming has-beens in a world of Adobe products. Corel's shot in the dark, Linux, didn't pan out. They were losing fast LONG before touching Linux.
Learn some history and quit blathering about licensing- as if something that trivial could kill a business. If they had anything worth a shit they might be successful.
. . . from the Corporate Buttock. This guy's either on the take or plainly irresponsible. What is this shit: "The common wisdom is that SCO is bluffing in its charges that Linux vendors and users ripped off SCO's Unix intellectual property. But we don't actually know that. They could have a case. " Could they? *Why* could they? Do you know why? Do your sources know why? Why does your article not indicate why? Are you a journalist or a FUD shitter? And this: "And if the proprietary Unix code can't be made into open source, then open source developers would have to turn their attentions away from other projects and turn instead to developing replacement code for the proprietary code, delaying development of those other projects. " Huh? What makes you think that it couldn't be done during a coffee break? Oh, perhaps you have a source that indicates the nature and degree of the claimed SCO code? (But if so, you article fails to mention it.) Or perhaps your just an alarmist fuck bucking for regular employment with Microsoft?
Since they've not told anyone what code that is exactly, there's no evidence that they even gave away any copyrighted code anyway.
Even so, you can bet your bottom dollar that the GPL is not unique in this respect; any contract with any other entity that "inadvertently" licensed their ideas would be enforced just as surely as the GPL ought to be here.
Imagine that SCO licenses some unix code to Microsoft so they can make an OS X clone. SCO's legal department complains 6 months after they sell the license that "we didn't mean to license the Sys V stuff, could we please take that part back?"
I'm sure you can imagine the outpouring of sympathy that would come from Redmond. Do you suppose there would be a coordinated effort to label proprietary licensing "viral" on that day? Only if the world were fair, I'm afraid.
Bottom line, enforcing your monopoly over an idea is a mean thing to do to people, but if you insist on doing it don't come crying when you fuck up and accidentally give back to the world what you fenced off as your own.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
waht is the bed that SCO's IP is the function names and arguments used in the kernel being the same as SCO's Functions use - I.E. UNIX System calls like OPEN() and CLOSE() are their IP
Just a thought, but consider for a moment that SCO doesn't want the infringing code removed from the linux kernel just yet. As it stands, they can sue any company that uses linux for violating their copyright, in addition to IBM for putting the code out in the first place.
If the linux kernel is patched to remove the offending code, then all companies have to do to be in compliance is download a kernel patch. They can then proceed to tell SCO to stuff it.
Suddently, SCO is left with only one defendant - IBM. Maybe, just maybe, they want to make sure that they cash in with a few scared/chicken poop companies BEFORE the linux kernel can be cleared legally?
Or, maybe it's just really late, and I just need some sleep...
Calling anyone a coke head on the internet is bad enough. Doing so allegorically smacks of having an agenda. You might want to be a bit more careful, if in fact, you believe what you were told, and you believe this is the place for it.
I'm concerned with the specific case where they don't ask for the document in question. I'm thinking of a real case where this happened, that was settled before trial. Yes you're correct that the side that failed to ask for the document was not especially competent (in addition to being crooks). The question is how much their opponent is allowed to benefit from the incompetence.
As despicable an act as that is... I know it happens in the world of patents (thanks RAMBUS... @ssh0les). It wouldn't suprise me to see it used in an IP violation case. I just don't know if it's similar to the patent cases or not.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Given the level of information one can mine from lkml and the kernel BitKeeper archive, isn't it fairly easy to trace a particular piece of code to some person who submitted it? I know my kernel code has my name pasted at the top of it.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
You mean, SCO accidentally released some of their code as a part of the Linux source, forgetting to make the necessary alterations and add the "THIS IS NOT GNU-LICENSED CODE" bit? Or did a Linux hacker do what they did with some BSD licensed code a while back and slip it in without telling anybody or including the proper credit and license info?
If I understand SCO's argument correctly (and I may not, and I'm certainly not an SCO sympathizer)...
The moment a linux kernel was released that had their IP in it, a problem occurred. That code (only the code which violated their IP rights) was said to be GPL, but in fact the submitter had not been given the right to relicense the SCO code in the GPL. The code that violates their IP was therefore never GPL.
I'm not sure how they could be restricted from filing suit against distribution of their IP protected code that is in the kernel but not GPL.
They filed the suit against IBM in March, but they only stopped distributing their own version of Linux on Wednesday of this week!
Even if continued distribution of the kernel represented their giving up their IP rights (which I'm not saying is or is not true), the distribution of their IP prior to discovery is still actionable.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
According to CNET tonight:
Microsoft is acquiring the rights to Unix technology from SCO Group, a move that could dramatically impact the battle between Windows and Linux in the market for computer operating systems.
According to a statement from Microsoft, the company will license SCO's Unix patents and the source code. That code is at the heart of a high-stakes, billion-dollar lawsuit between SCO and IBM that could alter the computing landscape.
If SCO is just trying to hurt linux to try get people going back to their unix, its a waste of time. Worst case, everyone will be using OpenBSD, i'm not sure about the other BSDs, but OpenBSD is EXTREMLY anal with their licencing.
The irony of all that would be in the fact that openbsd is a fork from bsdlite, which i believe came about from when SCO sued 386BSD.
This is real:
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1007528.html
read the rest of this thread.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As you pointed out, none of this can prevent them from filing suit if they really want to. I just can't understand why they would since it will definately open them up to lawsuits from Linux developers, vendors and the FSF (since SCO published the GNU tools along with the kernel). I also don't think a judge would let them get away with an argument that invokes that kind of double-standard.
remember, FreeBSD is dying.
i had a sig, once..
I wonder how this will affect the case ?
This is why they can only sue IBM for damages for allegedly using their IP, and only work to prevent other Linux vendors from distributing infringing versions of Linux.
In the worst case, if SCO was right (unlikely), and IBM actually paid damages instead of settling or buying SCO (also unlikely), Linux vendors would be prohibited from distributing Linux until the infringing code is removed (which should be trivial, if we only knew what code it is).
But I don't think that SCO is relying on winning legally, they are a) hoping to settle with IBM b) trying to spread around FUD about Linux (although I don't see how that would benefit them) or c) just plain insane.
It refers to an article in the Wall Street Journal that I can't find.
Is this for real? Wouldn't it be that MS just got one licence?
This gets dirtier every day
Microsoft may Buy Sco
Now we know who is pulling strings here.. (as if we didn;t guess already )
By Scott Ard
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
May 18, 2003, 10:45 PM PT
Microsoft will license the rights to Unix technology from SCO Group, a move that could impact the battle between Windows and Linux in the market for computer operating systems.
According to a statement from Microsoft, the company will license SCO's Unix patents and the source code. That code is at the heart of a $1 billion lawsuit between SCO and IBM, which is aggressively pushing Linux as an alternative to Windows in corporate back shops.
rest at the URL. . .
Tech Public Policy stuff
Wait - wasn't SCO set up initially to make a product out of Microsoft's own clone, Xenix?
What goes around comes around, I guess.
Weren't they the ones that offered UNIX licenses for US$99 to Linux users after first making the claim? I think they did try to 'work out some kind of licensing', but they didn't offer any proof of why end users should do it.
the inquirer article You have to take the inquirere with a grain of salt but it says:
"The libraries, which perform basic operations such as opening files, are currently licensed for use with with SCO's OpenServer and UnixWare Unix variants, but not with the UnitedLinux distribution that the company sells.
If the libraries are used in conjunction with a program called Linux-ABI, they make migration easier for companies moving from Unix to Linux and so it is believed that SCO is keen to make such customers pay for the privilege.
The SCO Group refused to confirm or deny the move"
They only have something like two years to go anyway... less so now that their expenses are up (lawyers) and profits are down (nobody, especially the knowledgeable unix people, will ever again by anything from them).
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Using "submarine" patents (i.e., delay the issuance of a patent by amending it, etc.) in order to later demand licensing fees of those who unwittingly infringed while your patent was winding its way through the patent office is a valid (and sadly all-too-common) legal tactic. IIRC, this is mainly due to the fact that all patent proposals are open to review by the public. Basically, the user of potentially patented IP has the burden of ensuring that said IP is not either already patented or in the process of being patented with an original filing date prior to when he/she conceived of/decided to use the said IP.
With patents, you do not risk losing any legal force in a potential lawsuit by observing a probable infringement and deciding to delay notification until such time that the licensing fees owed are large enough to justify (in the economic sense) such action. The only reason RAMBUS lost was because it had stipulated that it owned no IP that might apply to DDR as a requirement of being part of the relevant standards specification committee (the name of which has slipped my mind). If SCO's claims are based on patents, it is likely that someone would easily be able to determine which ones might affect OSS. Since no one has done so yet, I think that it's highly unlikely that their claims are based on patents.
In a copyright case, however, if you do not immediately send a C&D to an infringing party as soon as you become aware of the infringement, you risk lessening the possible damages awarded to you by a substantial amount (you will, of course, retain the ability to secure an injunction barring the party from further infringing action). If SCO's claims are based on copyright infringement, they will need to demonstrate that the code in question was either literally copied (as in highlight in left window, middle-click in right window, possibly with modifications) or derived (i.e., read SCO code, write code based on that) from some of their copyrighted source code. If the code in question was either clean-room reverse-engineered or independantly developed, however, SCO can suck rocks.
In the case of a trade secret, you have absolutely no legal recourse whatsoever once the information is disseminated in a public forum. Trade secrets govern the same areas of IP as patents. The difference in legal protection is the tradeoff made for secrecy (patents = full disclosure + insanely good legal protection VS. trade secrets = no disclosure + nearly no legal protection).
If SCO's claims are based on trade secrets (most likely, IMO), IBM is the absolute end-of-the-line as far as legal actions go (in other words, they absolutely cannot sue anyone else, unless they were also party to an NDA applicable to the IP in question).
IANAL. HTH.
SCO and Microsoft have had a long relationship. SCO was the subcontractor for Xenix many years ago. Microsoft ended up taking SCO to court to prevent SCO from using Xenix code in SCO's UNIX.
8 .html
Perhaps most telling is this tidbit from the Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/1233
Microsoft acquired SCO shares as a result of getting SCO, founded in 1978 by Doug and Larry Michels, to produce a version of Unix called Xenix.
i saw the sco's (SCOX) stock price climb over 50% of today's opening price. as of 11:32am est it is $2.11 up (or 44%).
if ibm is going to buy, i don't think their going to get SCO cheap.
just my ramblings...
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
>sending letters to users of Linux is like Honda stealing trade secrets from Ford
>They used what they had every reason to believe was free, GPL software....
so they also know they agreed to the warranties specified in the gpl that not the creater, but _they_ are fully liable for the use of the software...
gpl is nice reading material, try it!
Responding to an AC is not something I do with joy -- I feel like wasting my time!
an industry without profit is an industry without incentive
So you read the "Free" in "free software" as in "no money"? No, you're wrong, it's the free in "freedom".
Example? How does Red Hat survives selling "free" software?
Read. Ask. Learn. But please, stop posting.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
But SCO's argument is (or was) that Un*x itself is their `IP'. They can't really argue they didn't know Linux was Un*x-based.
BUt Linux is not Unix based. Or rather it is supposed not to be. It is a kernel which loosely conforms to as much of POSIX as possible with a userland which for the most part was based on the GNU tools (GNU's Not Unix!) and BSD (also not UNIX.
I know. But if they say Linux is Unix based, they lose their case (what there is of it). And they can't say they just figured out that Linux is Unix based (to whatever extent they claim it is), either.
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
In the absence of a cease-and-desist order from SCO, or a motion for an injunction brought by SCO, I would think not. SCO has an obligation to notify all suspected infringers before those alleged infringers would need to cease distribution. There are three main reasons why SCO is not doing this:
I think, deep down, SCO knows it can't win in a court of law. Now that IBM is refusing to be mugged quietly, SCO is applying a scorched-earth policy, where they hope to ruin Linux and thus drive business customers to UnixWare for their x86 server needs. The fact that the likely winner in that scenario would be the *BSDs, who based on the outcome of the Novell/UCB lawsuit are likely lawsuit-proof, apparently hasn't occurred to them.
Right...
your business plan, like MSFT, is to FUCKING STEAL, discredit those you stole from, and use the capital you generate from stealing to sue others with legitimate clamis to innovation
you are a low form of life, you fucking FUCKING THEIF.
god knows. i know. others will find out what you did.