Slashdot Mirror


Do You Know UNIX Secrets?

ESR writes "You can help stop the SCO attack on IBM and the Linux community. I'm looking for ways to prove that Unix trade secrets have been legally nullified. I want to know if you have ever had read access to proprietary Unix source code (not just binaries and documentation) under circumstances where either no non-disclosure agreement was required or whatever non-disclosure agreement you had was not enforced. To help out, see my No Secrets page."

3 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. Not even a half-baked idea by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are three problems here.

    "under circumstances where either no non-disclosure agreement was required or whatever non-disclosure agreement you had was not enforced."

    Problem #1: Just because it wasn't enforced at one time, doesn't mean the NDA is null and void- in fact, many/most NDAs specifically say "lack of enforcement does not nullify this agreement".

    I'm looking for ways to prove that Unix trade secrets have been legally nullified

    Problem #2: Disproving "trade secret" status is pointless(not to mention, unlikely to happen). It's still copyright SOMEONE ELSE, and YOU CAN'T USE IT unless they let you!

    Problem #3: It's been said time+time again, there is no proprietary code that belongs to SCO in the Linux kernel. This project, therefore, is entirely moot, at least in regards to the SCO lawsuit...and it can only, in fact, cause damage, because you're implying there IS code that belongs to SCO that "we" need to find a way to justify its presence in the kernel...when in fact no such code exists.

    By the way, why are people wasting time "helping" IBM? They don't need it, nor do they deserve it- they're "into" Linux because it makes them money, not because they wanna be friends, or they think it's "cool"...and with legal "help" like this, who needs SCO? Dispute the claims intelligently, boycott SCO, whatever- just leave the legal arguments to the lawyers, or you just might end up helping SCO...and IBM won't be the only loser if that happens.

    I can hear the SCO execs and lawyers now: "See? They DID steal our code, now they're trying to find a loophole!"

  2. Re:Start with Lion's Unix Source Code commentary by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IANAL, but here is my spin. To address your statement, yes but no. It is too old to be considered in this case (looking for 7 or newer) HOWEVER while it would not allow you to cut and paste the code and use as you want, it would nullify any 'trade secrets' claim. Because it was published, you would be allowed to create your own, independent, implimentation of anything in the book. It would no longer be 'secret', even if it is covered by copyright.

    Linus owns Linux. You can't cut and paste the code and release under a different license, but you can impliment a new kernel from what you learn from Linux, and release it however you want because there is no trade secrets that can be claimed. As you state, you can't just change a few routines and let it slide, but if you get the 'idea' for virtual memory, and figure out a different way to do it, then you are free to copyright it or license it anyway you want, assuming your code is 100% gpl free.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  3. Wow. by mindstrm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where did you get that.

    Nobody is saying that you can steal... there is a difference between trade secret stuff and just "How we did that thing".

    SCO is not "locking down their IP rights". THey are trying to assert IP rights they do NOT have.

    You CANNOT claim to have a "trade secret" if everyone and his pet duck has had virtually unfettered access to it for TEN years. SCO did not have anything that EVERYONE did not already know, was taught in universities, etcetera.. that's the point.

    This has nothing to do with RMS.

    This is about asking if anyone in the past has had access, legally, to the unix source in any form where they did not have to sign NDAS, or where the NDAS were consciously overlooked by the rightsholder in the first place. Why? So they can help show that SCO is making baseless claims (which any idiot can see that they are)