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"?"
See also the same story on OSNews yesterday.
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.
They will most likely be sued by other Linux companies when IBM is through with them for hurting Linux sales.
I hope! :-)
Ah, but during the discovery phase of a case, you are REQUIRED to tell the opposing side what evidence you have, what witnesses you will be calling, what you consider to be relevant case law and your take on it.
You don't "surprise" either side with evidence in a real court of law. Judges won't let you present evidence in court you haven't already shared with the opposition during discovery, unless it really is "brand new" evidence discovered after the trial has started. And if that actually happens, you'll often have a recess declared so the opposition has a chance to analyze the evidence.
So they lose nothing by presenting the relevant IP.
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.
Umm, actually it was the reverse: He wanted to build (rebuild, actually) a cooperative culture of open software development, which had the side effect of potentially screwing up the software business model.
All of his speculations about how business models could be created around open source were an afterthought, an attempt to figure out how he could have the open software world he wanted, and had enjoyed so much at MIT, without making programmers unemployable.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Yeah, it's confusing. After selling the SCO business and rights to Caldera,the original SCO company changed its name to Tarantella. Caldera then took over the SCO name to go with the product line. So, the company called SCO today really isn't the same SCO from the Xenix days.
then why did they put it in the context of a "well regulated Militia"?
Back when the 2nd amendment was written, it meant 'well trained'. If you were to ask a gunsmith today in britain what 'well regulated' means, he will tell you it means a properly sited-in accurate rifle, for so many meters.
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
Rule 26(a) of civil court procedings states parties must disclose their evidense before the case goes in front of the bench IIRC. That is how people get court orders to look at internal and otherwise classified corporate documents.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
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.
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 +
The logic is not flawed - it is in fact correct.
If I want to distribute a windows program linked to an MS library I have to have a licence from MS which permits me to distibute the library and/or a program linked to the library. Same goes for any library you don't own, on any system.
Note that the GPL does however contain an exception for linking to system libraries that come with the operating system. That is how you can GPL Emacs for Windows* (or Solaris or AIX or...).
*Note that ironically the history of Emacs for Windows wrt. GPL is in fact rather interesting - the system libraries exception gets tricky when there aren't any libraries with the system but only with separate, proprietary, compilers. See eg. these threads.
Yeah, Caldera did buy the rights from SCO to the remaining encumbered UNIX code (there is a limited 3-year revenue sharing deal with Tarantella that might make the transfer's appearance murky), but even before that SCO had already released early versions under a rather open license. What Caldera actually owns is relatively slim. The UNIX trademark belongs to The Open Group (formerly X/Open), which Novell spun off as a separate entity before the sale to old SCO. So, UNIX branding no longer means anything with regard to the underlying source code.
As it did Corel
.NET work (and investment), corel dumps GNU/Linux, MS dumps stock, MS dumps corel.
I dont think your watching what went down w/ corel. Corel starts distro, ms offers to contract corel to do some
Whoever at Corel decided to move AWAY from GNU/Linux to win favour from MS should be shot.
Corel moving from GNU/Linux will be what kills Corel... as there is no room in x86 computing for anyone other than MS...and adobe, macromedia and borland hardly count...
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
But if the evidence is considered a trade secret, don't they have the right to request that the evidence be kept sealed so that it's not available to the public? I think this happened with the Microsoft anti-trust trial.
You are correct to a point. IANAL, but I believe that once a trade secret is "in the wild", it is no longer protected. The only violator that can be punished is the person who originally violated the secret (in this case IBM, according to SCO). Anyone who got the code from IBM (or a third party), and who does not have a reason to suspect that the code in question is a trade secret, would not be liable. Therefore, there is no reason to seal the code since it is now in the public domain.
In a case where the trade secret may have been divulged, but not widely, then, yes, the court records may be sealed.
For an excellent summary of Trade Secret Law, see the Nolo Press Page.
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
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!
It has nothing to do with like or dislike. It is simply not a good description of what the GPL does. You mention the word "replication". A virus does replicate but so does bacteria, cancers, amoebas and animals. A virus does more than just replicate: you'll need to argue that the GPL infects without permission and destroys the host. Unfortunately for you, the GPL only infects WITH permission and it never destroys the "host" (aka the codebase).
What nonsense! SCO can just reject the GPL and revert to standard copyright infringement proceedings. They are under no obligation to accept the GPL. This is precisely why the GPL is not viral.
Get it into your head; if you copy GPL code, you CANNOT be forced by the GPL into releasing your own code. The GPL has no authority to do that. You will enter into standard copyright infringement. You'll probably lose and you'll probably pay damages.
The clever thing about the GPL is that it offers an easy escape involving no lawyers and no damages. You simply give up your codebase. But that's YOUR CHOICE to make. If you don't want to give up your codebase then the GPL can't do anything about it.
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.
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?
"I seriously doubt your interpretation because it would render trade secrets useless. If the trade secret holder has done his due diligence, any receiver of the secret would have to obtain it through illegal means"
Just because a person or group reveals a trade secret does not mean that the recipients know it is a trade secret. In the case of an open source project that is posted in a public forum, that means it becoumes public knowledge.
One reason not to reveal it is because Sco's engineers are biased and in the cases where it is not clear that code was cut and pasted they may come to the conclusion that code was obfuscated when it was created independently. If they wait for the independent analasys and it agrees then they have more leverage to work with.
The fact that they have not revealed any examples could mean there were no clear cases or they may just want to have the full picture and deal with it all at once.
But then you have the comment about not revealing it, because Redhad, Suse etc...would hav a chance to scrub the code to which my thought is knock, knock, knock...Hello-O-o..How can you scrub the public record?
Well, heres a thought. Maybe they feel if they wait 'till they take it to court they can force the removal of additional surrounding blocks of code that would then become off limits because only a limited number of people would know which code was the offending code and which code was collateral damage.
Later, Seeker