Slashdot Mirror
Today's SCO News
joebeone writes "Linus has commented on the SCO v. IBM suit saying "SCO is playing it like the Raelians" and that he will withhold his judgement until the code in question is shown in court. He has also recommended that former slashdot editor, Chris DiBona, be appointed to a panel offered by SCO to examine the evidence." Businessweek has an interview with SCO's CEO. The Open Group would like to remind everyone that SCO is only one of many in the Unix world.
this is SCO joke they are getting everywhere.
until SCO show us the code they are going nowhere fast, after they do they will probably go down the pan fast.
sparkes
blog and junk
Why charge for one discussion when you can charge for two?
DID YOUR MOM SERVE YOU AN EXTRA HELPING OF DUMB TONIGHT?
Who the hell else is under consideration? SCO's CEO?
Hello Bill,
Re: Dropping of the anti-trust matter - done
Re: Slowing down Linux - done
I am eagerly awaiting your third wish.
Sincerely,
Satan
You will have to pry my proprietary software $$$ from my cold dead hands!
"SCO does not comment on rumors or speculation," said Jeff Hunsaker, senior vice president of worldwide marketing at SCO.
Well then, how did they start this whole "infringing code" thing in the first place???
The May Issue of Linux for You India has interview of SCO India Head in which that guy is pushing linux and says linux is the key focus of SCO with they wanting to contribute to the Linux Community by way of more software. Isnt that a bit odd!
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Anyone else noticed that SCO continued to sell their Linux distribution for two months _AFTER_ they sued IBM? They even had a kernel source code on their servers available for download >:)
For more information click here.
--
One by one the penguins steal my sanity...
If Linus is the Father, is he then the Architect? And will we have to choose between two doors? One to save Linux and the other to destroy it?
If so, at leat give us Trinity.
</ stupidity >
Please email all complaints to root@127.0.0.1 and the issue will be dealt with in due time.
This is precicely why SCO does not divulge exactly what's in question: it would be too easy for IBM et al to say "Oh. So sorry. Many regretti." and recode it, thus deflating any hope they have for the Home Run.
All SCO can be after is money - QED.
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
Think about it, Microsoft has been spreading the FUD that GPL is THE big problem in enterprise environments not open source.
With all the bad publicity this is generating for linux, even if SCO were to loose its case in court, the Damage has already been done
Do managers really care whether linux code has or has not infringed upon copyright code? Do they ?
All they will see is that, GPLed code could potentially land them in problem.
This has a two fold implications on a IT manager thinking of deploying linux
- One:- As long as the case is not resolved, using Linux could mean risking being sued for copyright infringments. Also what's to gurantee that no other company could sue in future.
- Secondly mixing GPLed code, or even using the GPLed libraries with their own propritory code is now a NO-NO
This has been probably the most successful attack policy of Microsoft. Shoot from the shoulders of SCO and scare the IT managers.Remember programmers like you and me, don't matter as long as IT managers are scared to use linux in their enterprise.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Thanks to SCO (Santa Cloneaid Operations) never again will have have to sit through another lame "yea, we saved Christmas" Chritsmas special. SCO will just make lots of Santa clones so even if Santa gets kidnapped on Christmas eve, again, by the evil villian that hates Christmas, we will have lots of other cloned Santas ready to take his place and deliver presents around the world.
Surely they could reconstruct the origional code from random portions of the kernel.
Linus has commented on the SCO v. IBM suit saying "SCO is playing it like the Raelians"
PWNED!
From the article:
"...Linus Torvalds has suggested...former Slashdot editor Chris DiBona for membership on the panel of experts to which SCO executive Chris Sontag has offered to reveal evidence of copying code from SCO UnixWare to Linux."
And you just freakin' know what LT wanted to add was, "I would also recommend Slashdot editor CmdrTaco, but judging from his posts, he doesn't seem to know much about UNIX and is kinda stupid in general."
Talisman
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
What the f*** do you think you are doing?
(with the express permission from Madonna)
Its nice to see that the two sides are moving closer together. It seems like only last week that they were only discussing the possibility of disscussing discussions regarding the discussion of case discussions.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Linus, of course, is cleverly hedging his bets here. He knows there's no chance that a Slashdot editor will catch a duplicate!
Certainly, here it is[was].
Rotten commercial troll. This site is an ad for Dumb and Dumberer.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
hostage?
it'll never work. it's a stall. lookout bullow. don't get caught under/become fodder for, ANY of the s(t)inking dinosaurs. that's the spirit
I imagine SCO was just another acronym that Linux newbies/Windows users ignored, but now all this press (negative or not) is bringing out a new level of awareness. I can see it now... a new SCO user base will arise out of this bad publicity. End users who would have never considered using SCO will now start using it religiously, just to go against the mainstream. Kinda like "rebel consumers" who won't buy certain brands like ECKO because it's too popular.
The lonely kid at the back of the classroom is finally the center of attention.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
"I am your god" -- Linus Torvalds
(Yes, he was joking...but he was taken way too seriously at the time if my memory serves me right.)
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
The key quotes from the CEO are:
"We have examples of code being lifted verbatim. If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program. "
Now this may or may not be true or may be true in some mostly-irrelevant way. But that leads me to a question.
My question would be, if, theoretically, a coder knows in their conscience that they did violate copyright in this way, what would be their best recourse to fix the situation?
Should they patch the code themselves and submit a patch? Would such a patch withstand legal scrutiny?
And should they warn the person who they send the patch to about the urgency/motivation of the patch?
Alternatively, should they merely notify/tell someone else ASAP so that the violating code can
be removed and replaced by someone 'clean', and sooner rather than later?
It would seem one of these two would be wise. That way, the amount of time between when the violation is ruled to have occurred, and the time when it is 'made right' through a fix is minimized, and the effects of any judge-ruled injunctions to correct things are minimized. Or if the issue is fixed particularly before the case is ruled upon, perhaps the point can be ruled as 'moot' since the violation has since been fixed.
Either way, this raises some sub-questions:
A) who should they tell in the open source community about their indiscretion?
B) should they attempt to be anonymous in their communications? (to avoid legal liability)
C) does telling someone else then open the tell-ee to some sort of potential legal liability?
Clearly a swamp of legal issues that are better avoided entirely. Any answers though?
--LP
P.S. Of course Slashdot advice/commentary isn't legal advice/comment. But it's an interesting question and I figure *someone* on here has a more considered opinion than I.
Just that he wouldn't comment on existing rumors.
"He has also recommended that former slashdot editor, Chris DiBona, be appointed to a panel offered by SCO to examine the evidence."
Why's that? So that it can get sent to court three or four times?
<ducks>
LOAD "SIG",8,1
LOADING...
READY.
RUN
Still if you could find somebody else to get money from (I heard M$ has plenty of it), we'd all be grateful.
Thanks in advance. Sincerely,
Jack.
"Naughty, naughty, naughty, you filthy old soomka !"
HAHAHA - That was soooo not funny.
OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint by Eric Raymond, President of The Open Source Initiative. Do we really have to say more, than what have already been said?
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
how can they prove that they did not take the linux code and incorporate into their code.
The dates and times of code inclusion into linux are pretty well documented, but how can you do that with closed source.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
In an e-mail response to CRN, Torvalds, widely considered the father of Linux
Who is this Linus Torvalds they speak of and what is this "Linux"?
Trolling is a art,
In the business week article Darl McBride tries to scare (potential) OSS consumers:
I believe the way the open-source community works right now has some fundamental flaws that have got to be addressed. We need to address how this open-source intellectual property is developed, routed, and sold. Thousands of software developers send code to contribute to open-source projects -- but there isn't a protective device for the customer using the software to ensure they're not in violation of the law by using stolen code.
This might be true, IANAL. But this is no different for proprieraty, closed source code. For open and closed source alike, you cannot trace if code has illegaly been copied into it from another source. So, even if you buy a proprietary closed source application, you might as well be in violation of the law.
...except the Raelians don't appear to be a doomsday death cult.
SCO is playing it much more like, say, Heaven's Gate or Jonestown. Drink the koolaid, take a trip on the passing comet.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I was at a meeting yesterday with 60 or so Security and IT leaders from around our city. One of the items being discussed was the use of OSS. The general consensus of the non-techie leaders was that they would steer away from OSS when things like SCO were going on. The more technical leaders were trying to explain some of the issues, but that largely fell on deaf ears.
This entire issue has nothing to do with the code. It doesn't matter when SCO release the "offending" code or if the code is really an IP infraction or not. Most people's understanding of this will simply be a headline here and there. The idea that you might get sued for using Linux will be all they remember. If the courts determine there is some basis to this, it will get even worse. Those things take a long time for the general population to forget.
SCO is dying.
> The Open Group would like to remind everyone that SCO is only one of many in the Unix world.
And soon to be zero of many - 1 in the Unix world, if I read the tea leaves correctly.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Reeding stuff at /. has learned me how to scan text for signs of BS. Reading the quoted text above,
"If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program."
one has to react to the program part. What is an 'program' doing in the linux-kernel?? What does that mean??
I remembered when I read that statement that I quit reading the rest, since it is obvious BS (to me that is).
Don't assume because I asked a question that I want it to be true. In fact I was very bothered by the suggestion because if it was it would threaten the hoarde of Linux systems in my office and home. Jeez...
My question wasn't meant to be whether users would be criminally liable, but whether the product they were using would be considered illegal and subject to any kind of claim by the copyright owner. In property law, one who purchases a stolen item isn't entitled to keep it once it is found to be hot, even if they bought it unaware.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
I was just wondering, since Linux is open source anyone can see the code. What stops SCO, or anyone for that matter, from copying some code directly from Linux and then saying that it was theirs to begin with. Sure there are some commit logs, etc... that can trace code here and there but SCO or someone else can always claim that it was stolen from them. If the SCO like company is really deceptive then they could fabricate a trail within their company that shows they had this code all along. I know it sounds pretty conspiratorial but it is interesting to think of. Maybe this suggests that a better tracking method should be implemented within OSS that could easily standup to legal muster, at least for the really important projects like Linux. Just a thought.
it is ok for the open source crowd to simply remove the offending code, but not for those who have GPL violations, like OpenTV to simply remove their offending code?
Violation, you scream. You must pay the consequences, no matter how the code got in there.
But, if it is the open source crowd that put the bad code in, then just remove it, it's all good.
More open source double-standards.
The article from Newsforge had this (anonymous) comment attached to it. I didn't think of this, but it looks like he's right.
[disclaimer: as stated above, this comment was written by an Anonymous Reader -- I'm just pasting; any positive moderation doesn't belong to me, except a "+1 informative" if you will]
"As people may recall from the original settlement of the BSD lawsuit, three files had to be removed from BSD that represented things in SysV source. What is often forgotten, though, is that AT&T itself was in a far greater bind because while there was some SysV code in BSD, there was a LOT of "borrowed" and misattributed BSD code found to be in AT&T SysV. BSD permits this, but the license at the time required the advertising clause, and AT&T fraudulently ignored this. The actual settlement said that AT&T would no longer sue the BSD people, and that the University of California would also agree to hold AT&T harmless for misappropriating BSD code. Hence, much of the code that SCO owns is actually misattributed BSD code for which UC permitted AT&T (and it's decendents) to use."
"Now much of Linux also shares code derived from ancestrial BSD sources or people who have worked in common on both, and I am sure many of the same ancestrial routines still found today at the core of SysV are in fact also BSD derived. Hence, where common code may exist, it's code that AT&T originally misappropriated, and that SCO is free to use and relicense from the AT&T/BSD settlement, but in point of law neither AT&T nor the current SysV owner has actual legal copyright over. Perhaps the regents of UC could hall these SCO scum back into court, as they are in fact in material breach of the AT&T/BSD settlement if SCO now claims copyright "ownership" of that originally misappropriated code since the settlement gave AT&T no such rights."
Another thing that quote brings up is what program? Can anyone who has a SCO UNIX license go program by program through the code in Linux and find any possible culprits? If SCO won't show the code, perhaps we can find (or not find) anything based on these clues. Anyone with a copy of SCO's UNIX should be able to do this, even if you can't program you can at least be able to tell, "This block of mumbo jumbo is the same as that block". The results of a study like this would be very valuable
SCO, SCO, everyone's foe
They're so low, they really blow
IBM misappropriated SCO's code, which was then incorporated into the Linux kernel released by Caldera, making Caldera liable. SCO then bought Caldera, thus implying that SCO had been misled into buying a license to their own code. SCO fails to realise this and releases Linux as per the GPL.
Okay. That bit makes sense. SCO then realise that some of their code is amisapprpriated. They contuinue to distribute it under the GPL even though they claim the GPL doesn't cover it. They also claim that some of SCO's code is in the Linux kernel, but fail to say what. All this time they continue to distibute their own code under a license which states that either they are not allowed to, or that they must allow others to do exactly what they're claiming everyone else shouldn't do.
SCO make some statement that says that it isn't being distributed under the GPL, and the GPL says so, disregarding the fact that says that if they distribute GPLed code they give a license to use all the code that's included.
This is where I sart getting a headache. I just can't make the facts of that last sentence sound coherent however hard I try.
that SCO is only one of many in the Unix world
;-)
You really meant UNIX®, right
For several other interesting quotes, see the whole interview.
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
War was beginning. ....
IBM Executive: What happen ?
IBM Lawyer: Somebody set up us the bomb.
IBM Coder: We get signal.
IBM Executive: What !
IBM Coder: Main screen turn on.
IBM Executive: It's You !!
SCO Lawyer: How are you gentlemen !!
SCO Lawyer: All your base are belong to us.
SCO Lawyer: You are on the way to destruction.
IBM Executive: What you say !!
SCO Lawyer: You have no chance to survive make your time.
SCO Lawyer: HA HA HA HA
IBM Executive: Take off every 'zig' !!
IBM Executive: You know what you doing.
IBM Executive: Move 'zig'.
IBM Executive: For great justice.
you know the rest of the story...
You will have to pry my proprietary software $$$ from my cold dead hands!
Has anyone else noticed that in all the reports, press releases, and other things related to this frivolous lawsuit, two major playres are not mentioned by anyone. Mandrake and Debian don't appear in anything SCO has released. Is this just a coincidence or is it intentional? And either way.. why not warn them and their users also, why only talk about Red HAt and SuSe? Just a thought....
Just realise the reality of the situation..... There is no reality.
Suppose some of us believe SCO is lying. What's involved in "shorting" their stock? What happens if a mass number of people do this to a company?
IIRC, Microsoft's customers are now facing the threat of legal action because Microsoft improperly included Timeline's intellectual property in their SQL server offerings. So even though Microsoft's customers bought licenses from Microsoft, they may still end up owing money to Timeline! And IIRC, Microsoft is also being sued by their customers for this practice. So much for the "safe" proprietary code model....
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?mode_u=off&mod e_w=on&site=www.sco.com&submit=Examine
Stefan
- SCO releases trivial code under GPL.
- SCO sues IBM (Microsoft's most feared competitor) for releasing said code in Linux distro - plans large court battle to find IBM guilty/GPL invalid. Announces intention to sue linux system integrators.
- Major media all run articles spreading FUD as to whether developing for linux is a recipe for disaster. Microsoft purchases advertising in said media.
- Microsoft pays SCO 'undisclosed sum of money' to license code most people think they likely don't and won't use.
- SCO announces GPL irrelevant.
A conspiracy theorist might imagine this scenario:Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
and possibly had people on the payrole working with Linux code for a time before this..
what would have prevented them from placing the offensive code into the codebase at some point in the last few years, then grabbing the latest distro from some choice companies (IBM/Redhat/Suse/etc) and verifying if that code was still there? Yes, it sounds kinda cloak-an-daggerish (even MS-ish), but I wouldn't put it past them..
Firstly, any credible business knows this lawsuite is a crock of shit.
Secondly, the end-user is not liable for any copyright/patent infringement which resulted from the actions of the distributor, because the end-user cannot reasonably be expected to check this even with FOSS, and simply *can't* check it with proprietary code.
The idea that there is stolen code in FOSS that perpetuates is absurd. Because it is FOSS, any improperly contributed code is quickly identified and purged (unlike proprietary software, which makes this impossible). If there really was a problem, it would have been identified long long ago and dealt with.
There still isn't a problem, because SCO's lawsuite is complete and total bullshit. If there was any merit to their case, they would have pointed to the offending code. The OSI has published an article tearing to shreds their bogus lawsuite and exposing it for it's lies. Once they're laughed out of court, SCO will be in some serious trouble for fraudulently filing a lawsuite and for libel and defamation. Even if there was any merit to their case, there is still no problem for the FOSS community -- the code would be quickly removed and replaced.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Hey... are you trying to tell us something? :D
If you want to fess up, go ahead.
They are obvioulsy referring to Linux as a whole and not just the kernel. In fact there original suggestion was that none of the coppied code was in the kernel. If this is the case then there is probibly aso copywrite code in *DSD and OSX.
Actually, there are a number of user-land utilities in the kernel source tree. Try doing a
grep 'include.*stdlib.h' -r
in a recent source tree. (Ignoring the hits from the Documentation directory.)
Eli
Linus's Raelian comment opened the door for me! SCO are not Raelians! They are corrupt Mormons!
If you look at SCO's executive BIOs, most of the graduated from BYU (I did a year of BYU before switching to the University of Utah! Please note, there are no SCO executives from the U!) and Utah State.
Before you think I am a Mormon basher, you are wrong! I am a Mormon too. I spent two years on a mission, where I had nothing to do but get doors slammed in my face, have fun debates with ministers, read *NOTHING* but the scriptures, and live in a monk-like state of hormonal denial! Luckily our Mormon canon has quite a bit to keep you busy. The King James versions of the Old and New Testaments are rounded out by the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Once finished with that you can read the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, B.H. Roberts etc etc. Unfortunately, quoting arcane scripture gets you dates about as fast as quoting Alan Cox!
The former CEO of Caldera, "Ransom Love" (almost prophetic when flipped around!) was my brother-in-law's Bishop for a while. Each year the Bishop interviews you to determine your worthiness to enter the temple. The power question is "Are you honest in *ALL* your dealings with your fellow man?" I wonder how these guys are going to answer that one! Or is predatory profiteerism OK with the Bishop if your lawyers win in court??
The SCO lawsuit reminds me of a chilling concept found in the Book of Mormon called "secret combinations." Basically, groups of individuals, bound by oaths, justify murder, deceit in order to get gain. (Let's hope Linus does not have to watch his back!) As the culture of dishonesty flourishes, more and more people get sucked into it until society is destroyed. Us Mormons call it the "Nephite Cycle". Be honest, serve God first, get blessed, get riches, become prideful, become dishonest & corrupt, get destroyed!
Here is a classic example of passage mentioning it from Helaman 6:38, Book of Mormon,
____________________
And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.
_____________
Sorry for off topic rant. I have a lot of Mormon slashdot buddies and thought I would get other Mormon's opinions. But it will be interesting to see if SCO's smoking gun is nothing more than greed, smoke and mirrors.
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
"..We were the ones who made all life on earth" "you mistook us for gods" "we now reveal to you the secret behind the main religions" "and how to realise your potential and achieve global peace" - Yahweh
Read this book dictated by the extra-terrestrial to Rael. Contact those people whose lives have already been radically improved by this revolutionary philosophy.
But then we have to ask the same question in the opposite direction: what if the Linux person, who will watch the code demonstrated by SCO in the court, will leak the information silently and the other guys (let's say BSD guys) will fabricate with that code several CVS servers with very old dates on those files and very old dates of rsync logs? Technically we all know how to do it. Then what, those guys will prove that the code was originated in open source and has been stolen by one of Unix companies? I think this potential scenario is forcing SCO to keep the pointer to the code in secret as long as possible to avoid giving the time for leaked information to fabricate the opposite evidence against them.
This a very bad game SCO plays. But also it's a test for American justice system of being capable to handle such cases.
Less is more !
...because it happens in closed source products and MORE OFTEN often than most would think.
:-), and someone else in the UK, and ...?
News reports aside, I personally worked have commercial companies where:
- my well known employer shipped something, failing to licence some fonts it included
another job and
- A market leading company shipped a product worldwide, when it only owned the copyright to the name in the US. HP settled with us in Canada (I was entitled to a cut
In the interview with the SCO CEO he says
"In the last 18 months, we found that IBM had donated some very high-end enterprise-computing technologies into open-source."
And he goes on to say that IBM lifted the code from them.
Wouldn't that make this code suspect and asking for its examination?
I am no developer but it seems that this alleged donated by IBM must contain the offending stuff, and should be relatively easy to find.
Anyone?
-- No Sig is a Good Sig
IBM has both the licensed SCO code and Linux source code.
Forget American Idiots, I think we have the makings of a reality soap opera here. Get me Rupert Murdoch on the phone and let's get some contracts written up.
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
The Chewbacca Defense
Why not? Isn't SCO's action libelous against the core developers of Linux? There appear to be several derisive comments about Linux in the SCO complaint.
The kernel developers have carefully crafted Linux over many years. It seems to me they would be willing to protect *their* image and *their* product from these kind of attacks.
Especially the people who developed the capabilities that SCO claims did not exist in Linux until IBMs intervention. The SCO action claims these developers are lying, that they never did the work!
If EFF files a lawsuit on behalf of named developers of the Linux kernel, I'd pledge $100 over paypal to such an effort.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
If there was any code of value, it would likely be in several pieces. They could reveal one piece so that everybody knows they are serious and they can prove they have a case, and say "there are several others that we will reveal later". This would be far more damaging to Linux than their current actions and would make Microsoft happy. Therefore I feel pretty confident now that they have no case whatsoever.
Thanks for the tip.
--Bob, SCO IP lawyer
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Microsoft had issues with licensing code for their SQL Server product. They told their customers not to worry, their customers believed them. Then Microsoft loses the battle and the customers are exposed to potentially huge fines and fees. I say that is worse than any of the current mess with SCO. Someone needs to make sure that this is brought up to counter any anti-GPL FUD that might be flying around. Sagent Vs MS Story
Err, make that
3. More Profit!!!
Sincerely,
Bill
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
The GPL has some things to say that are relevant to SCO's recent tactics. Threatening Linux users with lawsuits probably violates the clauses specifying what rights the users have. If so, SCO terminated its rights under the GPL. It could not legally copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Linux kernel from the moment it sent threatening letters to users. Furthermore, there is no clause in the GPL stating that good behavior reinstates those rights. As long as there is code by any kernel developer willing to make a stink about it still in the kernel, SCO cannot use the Linux kernel in any way.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
The company I work for uses Linux for their entire database/billing/data entry system. Too bad I'm the only one running it on my desktop at work.
*twitch*
--
The tipping point for us was at Linux World this year, when an IBM executive stood up in front of a large crowd and essentially said, "We're moving our AIX expertise into Linux, and we're going to destroy the value of Unix."
Those comments alone would have been a direct violation of our AIX contract with IBM, under which they license our Unix intellectual property.
Pretty provocative "rephrasing here," which I can't take seriously. Maybe I'm ignorant (IANAL and all) but how does a business decision to change focus violate their contract? I really do wonder if I've missed something here.
--
In IBM's case, they came back and said, "If you go down this path, we are going to disengage. We are not going to do any more business with you, and we are going to encourage others not to do any more business with you." That was in fact what happened. The impact was immediate and swift. No doubt, we lost some business and some revenue.
Again, I'm wondering how creative he's getting with IBM's statements. I'd love to hear THEIR side of the story.
And as for losing business, it sounds like SCO hasn't been doing well period.
--
And IBM took the same team that had been working on a Unix code project with us and moved them over to work on Linux code. If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program.
Or is this an example of programmers reusing their own ideas? Using similar ideas? And, can we see this evidence YET?
Until I see reviewed evidence, I'm not buying anything.
--
We would be happy to sit down and get a resolution on this so we can all live together peacefully. But when we file a legal claim and then someone does a denial-of-service attack on our Web site to try to shut us down, it creates concerns for us as to how can you work with this community.
Remember, that DOS launcher represents the entire Linux using community in its entirety. This statement alone shows both contempt for the OS community and extraordinarily small-minded thinking.
--
Q: Microsoft just purchased a Unix license from you. What's significant about that?
A: They agree with our approach to intellectual property. They've taken a patent license on our technology to build better integration between Unix and Windows. I believe that sends a statement to others with respect to what it means to honor intellectual property.
Saying Microsoft agrees with him on something is not necessarily going to make him popular among the people he's already annoying. This guy not only burned any bridges with the Linux community, now he's putting mines in the river.
The suspicious timing of the deal is something he should have addressed. This sounds like boilerplate-speak.
--
I believe the way the open-source community works right now has some fundamental flaws that have got to be addressed. We need to address how this open-source intellectual property is developed, routed, and sold. Thousands of software developers send code to contribute to open-source projects -- but there isn't a protective device for the customer using the software to ensure they're not in violation of the law by using stolen code.
I'd ask how, with closed source, one knows for sure it doesn't contain stolen code? After all, its closed. In Open Source at least you have the source out there so things can be caught (which, supposedly, his argument that his company found stolen code proves . .
Sounds like he thinks the Linux community operates no different than a company.
--
After reading this interview, I've come to the conclusion this guy not only doesn't get it, he
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Contrary to a popular hacker belief, Linux (for purposes of this post, Linux refers to the kernel, GNU, assorted tools and environments, etc) can effectively die if we, the community, aren't careful.
In order to stay "alive" Linux must continue to provide innovative and useful tools AND support for modern Internet standards and protocols on on modern hardware. Without support for new Internet standards/protocols and new hardware, fewer people will be inclined to try Linux, and some Linux users will be inclined to switch away. This process is a negative feedback loop, which is sometimes known as a death spiral. Each generation that a negative feedback loop is allowed to continue makes it more likely that it will continue for another generation. If allowed to continue for too long, you end up with an extremely small and insular group of coders developing software that is utterly useless to anyone but themselves.
To avoid this negative feedback loop, we must maintain and expand our current user base. This is an inherently positive process, as it means that new coders will join our ranks to help make better software. However, while we continue to gain new coders every year, the overwhelming majority of people who are new Linux users are not writing new code. As cliched as it may be, these kind of people expect Linux to just work with their (often new) hardware and with modern standards, protocols, and file formats, and if it doesn't they are unlikely to return.
The obvious response is that Free Software coders will code in support for new hardware, like they have done in the past. However, a few points bear mentioning. One is that much of the device support in the kernel is the direct result of contributions (code, money, extensive documentation) by hardware manufacturers. Another is that as devices become more advanced and complicated, it becomes exponentially more difficult to write adequate drivers for them without extensive documentation provided by hardware manufacturers. In both of these cases, hardware manufacturers may be unwilling to give their assistance unless Linux has sufficient market share, or the prospects of a larger market share in the future.
In a related vein, Internet standards and protocols, as well as office file formats, are under constant threat of patents and proprietary trickery. The only way to stop or prevent this is to have a large user population which can react negatively to any such proprietary encroachment. For example, the community just barely averted disaster with W3C patent policy, and it still was not a complete victory for us. This was just the tip of the iceberg, and we may not be so lucky in the future unless we continue to grow.
So failure to maintain and expand the Linux user base threatens our ability to support new hardware and standards/protocols, and failure to support new hardware and standards/protocols threatens our maintenance of the user base. A classic feedback loop. Now that we know why expanding the user base is important, the question remains, which potential converts do we target? The choices are individual users or companies.
Targetting individual users is difficult and manpower intensive (LUGs). Most end-users do not perceive immediate benefits of switching, and will thus resist switching. And even when they do switch, there is little benefit to the catalyst of the switch, other than a vague sense of accomplishment. Not that this isn't worth doing, but it's not the optimal strategy.
On the other hand, corporate switching has a much higher payoff. A single corporate switch can affect hundreds or thousands of users. Benefits of switching to corporations are quickly noticed (ie: cost savings, reliability, etc). And benefits to the catalyst (ie: money) are also palpable.
In conclusion we see that maintaining and growing the Linux user base is necessary for its long term viability. And we see that the best way to expand Linux's user base is to start by targetting businesses. Thus, anything that threatens that strategy threatens the long term viability and survival of Linux as a whole.
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
I don't thing that the FSF can do this, as it doesn't 'own' the copyright in the kernel (do they?). Rather, the various authors of and contributors to the kernel own the copyrights in the kernel and so one or some of them would have to sue.
If SCO's claims are really unfounded, as they seem to be, can FSF countersue them? Should they?
Funniest skit ever. Thanks for the memory jog.
From the article:
Torvalds, widely considered by many to be the father of Linux
Who are all these people who consider someone other than Linus to be the father of Linux? RMS and his mum, perhaps?
JeffK sez:
d00d! when I u$e $ instead of S it l00k$ 1337! that'$ y I try 2 u$e it evaryw4re I c4n.
JEFF1!!!!!!!!
Un-news
At the very least, the lawsuit in the discovery phase (which wouldn't take long to get to) would allow you to subpoena the code that's supposedly in violation. Just like the RIAA suing to find out who people are, and getting the names from ISPs and then dropping the suit, right?
I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
It appears that the BusinessWeek page contains something that consistently crashes Mozilla.
This is ancient news. It's shameful that there's so much noise about this when really it's more of a private pissing contest between IBM and SCO. The only real impact on "linux" is the binary compatibility. I never cared too much, but it appears with 2.2 kernels "binary compatibility" you had to have SCO's shared libraries to run ibcs binaries, and in 2.4 there's some sort of emulation layer so you don't need SCO's libraries. Assuming they're not going after distros based on 2.2 that may have included SCO's libraries ;) by mistake ;) and also assuming the 2.4 "emulation" code isn't tainted with SCO IP or something, the palpable effects of SCO vs. The World will be nil.
Any noise about IBM misappropriating their AIX code or algorithms or whatever is just that.
Nothing to see here, move along...
... its that dam printf funtion that is there, replace already ... (lol)
Only 'flamers' flame!
Vendor A (disposable puppet company supported by Vendor B) takes Linux kernel, and illegally licenses kernel under BSD license to Vendor B.
Vendor A gets sued by FSF and goes out of business.
By this logic, Vendor B still retains the BSD-licensed Linux kernel, and can build a closed-source proprietary OS around it?
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
Look at history. Admittedly, I know nothing of eastern religions, but I pretty much chalk this up to human nature, putting religion aside.
Religion was probably what pushes/pushed things along, but I doubt it's the cause.
Well heck, I left off the required [sarcasm] tag and instead of getting my much deserved funny or insightful moderation, I'm left with troll and flamebait.
Maybe I should have added "I'll probably get modded down for this but..."
--if there was NOTHING to this, I would think IBMs actions to date would be quite different, as in "hey, SCO,go pound sand,bring it on, let's rock, a single one of our most junior lawyers working on his lunch break with a hangover in a plaid suit could argue our side and get it tossed out".
But notice IBM is not doing this,they are going along with "discussions for discussions" and they are very well versed in facts and procedure. That's suspicious, too, along with all the MS speculation. If there was no need, they wouldn't do it. All that tells me is that there is probably some snagged code, and IBM probably has a good idea of where it is. The who/what/when/where/why it happened originally, no idea yet.
With that said, ya, where's the beef. I bet we'll see the beef, but it will be a small dried up pattie, not a full juicy quarter pounder with cheese and special sauce, but "enough" to call it beef.
This is from iTNews
A rt _ID=12081
VB: So what's the thinking, then, behind the legal activity?
McBride: I understand why people are upset. And I understand why people are asking, 'Those SCO guys, what are they doing now?' But I would turn the question around to them and ask the question: 'What would you do if you were in our shoes?' What would you do if you had turned three independent programming teams loose on the question of 'Is our UnixWare inside of Linux?' and all three of those groups came back independently and said yes.
Darl says they OWN Linux in this article too.
http://www.itnews.com.au/storycontent.cfm?ID=8&
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
People, Linux is By Hackers, For Hackers. Don't let them get their grubby little hands on it!
Libel must be published, proven false, and made with malice. The first element is not a problem. The second one specifically means that it must be a (false) statement of fact, rather than hyperbole or even name-calling. The third element means that the defendant must know it to be false, and recklessly made the statement anyway.
Libel is hard as hell to prove, as it's supposed to be. Libel laws are usually scrutinized very closely by legislatures and courts because of their inherent limitations on freedom of speech.
How about the tort: 'slander of title'? (Used to compensate property owners from diminution in value of their property based on false publications by others disparaging the quality of the owner's title to the property and thus adversely affecting the property's marketability.) The cause of action usually comes up in the real property context but is applicable to personal property as well. I don't know whether it could apply to intellectual property such as copyright or patent (I doubt it.) But here, the slandered property could be the physical copies of any company's (e.g., SuSE, RedHat) linux distribution! How's that for creative thinking?
My thoughts match yours. It's right in the program like the M$ 5 cents advert were the guy babbles something about XML on the beginning.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Contracts can say some really funny things. Remember when Intel first introduced RDRAM memory, back with the PentiumIII processor? They pushed RDRAM as the best (and almost only) choice, even when benchmarks and other tests showed that DDR was the performance as well as price/performance winner in many cases.
They did this because someone at Intel signed a contract that they shouldn't have, that said Intel would push RDRAM as the memory of choice for a period of... 4 years? Sorry, don't remember the time period. This put Intel in a bad position, but they signed a contract saying they'd do that, and they were stuck with it.
I don't expect IBM would sign a contract saying they would, umm... "promote the value of UNIX" or something like that. It goes against the IBM Global Services mantra of "we support anything." But at the same time, they could easily have something in the licensing agreement for AIX that does... something weird.
As to the IBM team that was working with SCO on UNIX code, and moved to a linux project... I assume (dangerous word, assume) that was in reference to Project Monterey, and the licensing agreement there was probably checked by lawyers on both sides with a fine-toothed comb. There is likely contractual language covering who owns what code, and how it can be used and re-licensed. Which probably gets really grey for code that was jointly developed, rather than separately developed and then contributed to the project. And it is possible that the employees have a different interpretation of who owns what than the lawyers do, and improperly re-used code they shouldn't have.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Them guys at SCO makes me mad ! So what can i do ? ! Well for starter i made a NO SCO logo ! ( Its GPL ) ;-)
feel free to get it on my site !
http://www.bjoerkmans.net/wap/computing/no_sco.gif
They seem to find SCO's claims as "questionable," but are warning that end users might in fact be sued. Despite calling it a "remote" possibility, their recommendations could hold back the deployment of Linux.
One of their recommendations is "Minimizing the use of Linux in 'complex, mission-critical systems' until the dust clears on how valid SCO's claims are." How long is that going to take?
Gartner to users: Don't take SCO suit lightly
We they actually are meeting to see who is going to have sand and who will have lubricant.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Rather than just posting opinions on /., what can we do as developers/users?
Can we get a group together to lobby SCO to release the code, lobby the mass media, placard SCO offices?
Any ideas gratefully received.
Here's an analogy I used yesterday to try and make a point at why this is non-obvious, and how the GPL muddies the waters.
Imagine, I'm a publisher of books. I find someone has stolen work out of one of the books I own and publish. However, I'm a publisher of the thief's book; does that mean I've implicitly condoned his behavior? Is his theft legitimized by my publishing of it? That is the question we're grappling with.
The GPL throws a big wrench in this analogy, because one could interpret that publishing the code in question does legitimize its theft. I do not think that should be the case, and I do not believe that is the spirit of the GPL.
We don't want to turn the GPL into a trap that companies believe will catch them unaware. SCO has unquestionable not acted in good faith by failing to point out the offending pieces of code, but SCO is going to be case that businesses refer to when they consider using GPL'd works. And if Microsoft can demonstrate that SCO was caught with its pants down and lost its "intellectual property" due to the "pac-man like nature" of the GPL, it bodes very badly for Free Software.
It even says so quite clearly in the article you linked. Patent law and copyright law are quite different.
If it were a copyright issue, only Microsoft would be liable since copyright only covers publishing.
Patents, on the other hand, are a whole different beast. Everyone who uses something that is covered by a patent owes the patent holder royalties, if they so choose.
That said, Microsoft has also been convicted of copyright infringement, just not in relation to SQL (IIRC it was some multi-media thing).
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
This can be expanded beyond the BSD case as the logic should hold true and be usable as a precedent for newer pieces that fall under the same definition.
Also, the UNIX and POSIX specifications are not SCO's to hold as trade secrets or IP. Someone else mentioned that OpenServer uses Veritas LVM and JFS, so those are out as well. Caldera assisted in the SMPT implementation of Linux, so they would have little to argue there. The original BSD code has of course already been cleared. Web funcions were developed many places, usually with public money (Isn't Mosaic and the first web servers from CERN for example ?) Of course anything IBM developed and used with their own systems would be protected by IBM's patents et al. Another person mentioned that SCO had published the old UNIX source on their web page at one time. This would seem to me to limit their ability to claim trade secret status on the same. Hmm, I'm not a kernel expert by any stretch, but we are picking out most of the significant elements.
Perhaps someone who is a kernel expert can help me here. Or perhaps you can add to my list of exclusions.
Dean G.
Of all my childhood role-models, I learned the most useful lessons from the Cookie Monster.
What a great point. Not only is this a likely selling point for IBM, its a relatively cheap one for them to come by. What I mean by that is, the risk associated with any particular shop getting sued for copyright infringement by SCO or whomever (and losing) is pretty minute. Even in a worse case scenario, what are the damages? Very small; hardly worth the time/effort required to sue. (Forget about statutory damages; those are discretionary and depend, generally, on bad intent.) Shoot, this is such a great thing for IBM, that they might not be in too much of a hurry to finish off SCOI in litigation. Shoot, 'linux-IP idemnification' might be the next scam insurance racket.
An SCO executive claims they "heard" that "IBM lawyers" were having discussions [amongst themselves] about discussing the matter with SCO's lawyers.
In other words, the people making the accusations are speculating that those they are accusing *might* be thinking about actually acknowledging the accusation has been made.
Even the Enqirer doesn't lead with claims like "Michael Jackson may or may not be entertaining the notion of deciding whether comment on our accusation that he is a space alien from the planet Mercury."
It beats me why any linux users would be leastwise intimidated by SCO's recent FUD. SCO said "...liabilitity....may...rest with the end user." If so, I'd sure like to know how such a thing could be. SCO claims no patent protection wrt to the 'UNIX IP.' Although, there might be some contract-based trade secret wrt IBM (i.e., IBM and SCO agreed that some matter would be treated as trade secret), if the matter has been publically distributed, it ain't no trade secret as far as anyone else is concerned. That leaves only copyright. ----- Now, how could an end-user's use of SCO's UNIX IP in connection with his running linux result in any liability to that end-user? It's not copyright infringement to "use" someone else's copyrighted material. It's only infringement to violate one of the specifically enumerated exlcusive rights conferred by copyright law, i.e., exclsuive rights of reproduction(copying), modification (derivative works), distribution and other rights not relevant to computer software. See United States Code section 106. The only one of these that most end users are going to engage in at all is 'reproduction'. However, a certain amount of copying of computer software by the user is specifically allowed under the copyright law. See U.S.C. section 117. So, even in the worst-case scenario where SCO actually has some copyrighted material embedded in the kernel, what do end-users care? Although companies that copy/modify/distribute linux as a business might have a [very] few concerns, end users do not have to think twice about using linux. Linux Wins!
OK, ya got me, I admit to a serious case of the spinning exploding head on this case. I think they would be better off to have an urban show down "dissin' -off",like --> "Oh ya? Well, yo momma SO fat she..." heh heh heh winner take all. Skip the lawyers. If they put it on a reality TV special, they might even make more money than what they are asking for in the suit! Heck, I'd buy a 5 clam lottery ticket just for a chance to be one of the judges!
if you happend to like that sort of thing, can be had here.
Acts@core.mailboks.com Acrux@core.mailboks.com Adam@core.mailboks.com Adar@core.mailboks.com Ada@core.mailboks.com
SCO wants a former Slashdot editor to examine if code was duplicated from Unix?
The jokes on you SCO! Slashdot editors can't even examine if a story has been duplicated on Slashdot!
(Ignore the blue glow folks, it's just my karma getting nuked)
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
I have to chuckle when I open slashdot for the latest news on SCO vs. Linux. When I do, the banner at the top of the page is for "go2unix.com-SCO & more.Unix dealers since 1990 SCO, Linux, Sun, HP, IBM, SGI, etc."
It goes like
va_start(args, fmt);
vsprintf(buf, fmt, args);
va_end(args);
in kernel/panic.c
Or so.
open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
Perhaps the quote is technically inaccurate (considering that it comes from the CEO it is not unlikely) and "program" actually means "source file".
Obviously just guessing, but that would make the most sense (from lines to sections to source files).
Read the GPL. If you integrate GPLed code into yours and distribute it, your are obliged to distribute the source for all of it, not just the bit you stole. And that serves you right.
:-) SCO continued to knowingly publish the code they are now complaining about (with source) for two months after they laid the complaint. That's implicitly acknowledging that it's OK to distribute it, and effectively gives ownership to the offending code to the nominal author(s) of it anyway (and accedes to the GPL, if the "program" in question was indeed GPLed).
If SCO code made it into GPLed software without SCO's knowledge and consent, that's a perfectly ordinary copyright violation, it gets ripped out pronto (and presumably replaced - unless it's obsolete anyway), whoever put it there is liable, otherwise business as usual. Except that if it was Microsoft's code, expect yourself to vanish under a pile of lawyers which makes the Burly Brawl look like a one-on-one.
As an aside (on-topic warning?
OpenTV haven't distributed source for their stuff - any of it - and haven't removed or rewritten what they stole, so they have been in continuous violation for two years. It seems to me that it's necessary for the FSF to sue them.
It took Microsoft more than a decade, but they eventually acknowledged the BSD authors whose software got incorporated into Windows. So far, OpenTV are worse than Microsoft. An enviable reputation?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The code is open, openess is encouraged.
If malicious code is ever found all the Linux developpers will point the finger to the culprits and will endeavour to remediate the problem.
What are the guarantees companies have against closed source rivals that may copy their code?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.