Slashdot Mirror
SCO vs Linux.. Continued
An anonymous reader writes "ComputerWorld has an interview with Chris Sontag, from SCO.
Now the story has a pretty face." The interview has a variety of comments worth noting like how much source code SCO thinks has slipped from unix to linux. This story continues to amaze me.
Why didn't you act earlier? This move seems to arise with SCO's declining fortunes. We just announced our second quarter, and our financials are in very good position. The company is profitable. It is the first time in the history of the company, in almost seven years of existence, that it has been profitable. The point is we're really only recently seeing significant moves by many players, specifically IBM, to come out and state that they are moving wholesale to Linux.
Unisys anyone?
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
I find the last two questions and answers to be particularly interesting.
Do you intend at any point to begin offering licenses to Linux users? We would hope as quickly as possible to develop solutions with the industry to allow customers to move forward with whatever platforms they wanted to choose, so long as the appropriate intellectual property foundation is in place.
Why didn't you act earlier? ... The point is we're really only recently seeing significant moves by many players, specifically IBM, to come out and state that they are moving wholesale to Linux.
So they'd be generous enough to sell Linux licenses and they didn't realize there might be a problem until a really big company started backing the competition.
Would it be ok to spell it $CO from now on, especially since they seem to be in bed with M$?
How low is their stock right now? 6.85, opened at 6.93, down 1.15%, something like 26% over the past two days. Hopefully this story will drive that value down even lower. This company needs to be obliberated in a most profane and malicious manner.
This story continues to amaze me.
maybe, but it's starting to bore a lot of us to death
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
continue to be amazed
until this 'story' is figured out wrt the laws of the land, i'm sure it will get crazier.
yes, it does seem far-fetched. but, we have laws like the DMCA and Patriot Act. i won't put anything past our judicial and legislative branches.
vodka, straight up, thank you!
all due to the fact that sco isn't doing well in the linux market. i mean, according to linux journal's review of sco linux, they didn't even offer a patch to some root bug back in (march?) for multiple days. this is the sort of thing microsoft does. actuall this whole thing is something microsoft would do. and look! if you rearrange microsoft a bit you can get sco rimoft. obviously microsoft and sco are up to something.
I write code.
It is many different sections of code ranging from five to 10 to 15 lines of code in multiple places that are of issue
10 to 15 lines of code? That's such a small amount that similar code could be entirely coincidental.
#!/
I don't know if he is trying to help SCO Help Microsoft, or just help lawyers for the 15000 companies he spammed.
In two weeks, The SCO Group Inc. intends to begin showing analysts where the Unix code it owns has been illegally copied into the Linux kernel. The source code will be made available to parties who agree not to disclose the Unix source code, but they will be able to share publicly their assessments of SCO's claim. SCO has filed a $1 billion lawsuit against IBM alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims and has warned some 1,500 businesses that they may be using Linux at their legal peril.
... but to seek an opinion of their legal counsel as to the issues that we raised.
In an interview with Computerworld reporter Patrick Thibodeau, SCO's Chris Sontag, a senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource Division, the group within SCO in charge of enforcing the company's intellectual property, discussed the company's position.
Why should Linux users take your claim seriously?
Think about if I was the CIO of a company and I'm going to be running my business on an operating system that has an intellectual property foundation that, by almost everyone's admission, is built on quicksand. There is no mechanism in Linux to ensure [the legality of] that intellectual property of the source code being contributed by various people. We fully believe there are many contributions made by good, hard-working individuals into Linux that are not of issue. But based on the research that we have done, we have identified specific Unix System V code for which we have ownership rights that have ended up in Linux against our wishes. There is inappropriate intellectual property in Linux. The development process has no one that is ensuring that inappropriate code is not getting into Linux. All that's there is an honor system, and obviously there are a few, at least, that have broken that honor.
Your letter to 1,500 end-user companies outlining your claim was vague. What is it that you want from these companies?
The one thing that we specifically want from those 1,500 companies that we directly sent those letters to is for them to not take our word on the warning that we sent
What do you see as a company's options in the face of your warning?
I would suspend any new Linux-related activities until this is all sorted out. But first get that opinion of your legal counsel. If they say there is no problem and no issue, then you probably have nothing to worry about. But I doubt there is any attorney worth his salt that is going to say there is no potential of an issue here. There is a big issue.
Should companies remove Linux from their systems?
We're not making any specific recommendations at this time. We're still getting our arms around the size of this problem. We're still identifying more and more code from Unix System V that is in Linux, and so we haven't even fully scoped the problem. It's hard to come up with solutions until you have the full problem identified, and as you may guess, it's a very big problem.
Are you considering suing Linux users that you notified?
Anything is always a possibility. If you are going to enforce your contracts, claims and intellectual property, you have to be able to go to ultimately the endpoint of infringement.
You're claiming that Linux has been polluted with Unix code that you own, but you have not produced any evidence of that. Will you?
We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to various industry analysts, respected press people and other industry leaders so that they don't have to take our word for it or wait until we show some of that evidence in court. We will actually be showing the code, and the basis for why we have made the allegations that we have. We are very confident about our case. Because we are dealing with confidential source code that we have never released without confidentiality agreements, we will have to put in place nondisclosures [agreements] simply to protect the source. But people will be able to give their opinion as to what they think.
How
We're running the topic into the ground here! Please! Enough!
We all know SCO hasn't got a leg to stand on, they think they're the Ford Motor Company trying to sue all other companies that make a car. Just because Henry Ford invented it dosen't make him the only person who can build one...
A question: If this ever gets to court, will SCO have to reveal its proprietary code in open court in order to prove that Linux has ripped it off? If so, won't that just disseminate their code further ?
jf
What popular open-source product do you think will be the next to have some dying company claim that it was stolen from them?
Seems to be a great thing to do... no consolidated company to fight back, and PLENTY of users to sue... sign me up!
We brought the issue to your attention so that you could consult your legal council, to see if any legal problems might arise. If they say no, then there won't be any legal issues. But I seriously doubt any lawyer worth his salt would do that, so you most likely are going to have issues. Am I being too vague?.
to see the legal system used as a denial of service attack on the entire economy.
I hope that there is some actual basis for the claim, because otherwise SCO is just an MS meat-puppet.
Fighting to keep an open mind on the subject.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Q&A: SCO's Chris Sontag on Linux, Unix and brewing legal fights
... but to seek an opinion of their legal counsel as to the issues that we raised.
'There is inappropriate intellectual property in Linux,' he says
In two weeks, The SCO Group Inc. intends to begin showing analysts where the Unix code it owns has been illegally copied into the Linux kernel. The source code will be made available to parties who agree not to disclose the Unix source code, but they will be able to share publicly their assessments of SCO's claim. SCO has filed a $1 billion lawsuit against IBM alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims and has warned some 1,500 businesses that they may be using Linux at their legal peril.
In an interview with Computerworld reporter Patrick Thibodeau, SCO's Chris Sontag, a senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource Division, the group within SCO in charge of enforcing the company's intellectual property, discussed the company's position.
Why should Linux users take your claim seriously? Think about if I was the CIO of a company and I'm going to be running my business on an operating system that has an intellectual property foundation that, by almost everyone's admission, is built on quicksand. There is no mechanism in Linux to ensure [the legality of] that intellectual property of the source code being contributed by various people. We fully believe there are many contributions made by good, hard-working individuals into Linux that are not of issue. But based on the research that we have done, we have identified specific Unix System V code for which we have ownership rights that have ended up in Linux against our wishes. There is inappropriate intellectual property in Linux. The development process has no one that is ensuring that inappropriate code is not getting into Linux. All that's there is an honor system, and obviously there are a few, at least, that have broken that honor.
Your letter to 1,500 end-user companies outlining your claim was vague. What is it that you want from these companies? The one thing that we specifically want from those 1,500 companies that we directly sent those letters to is for them to not take our word on the warning that we sent
What do you see as a company's options in the face of your warning? I would suspend any new Linux-related activities until this is all sorted out. But first get that opinion of your legal counsel. If they say there is no problem and no issue, then you probably have nothing to worry about. But I doubt there is any attorney worth his salt that is going to say there is no potential of an issue here. There is a big issue.
Should companies remove Linux from their systems? We're not making any specific recommendations at this time. We're still getting our arms around the size of this problem. We're still identifying more and more code from Unix System V that is in Linux, and so we haven't even fully scoped the problem. It's hard to come up with solutions until you have the full problem identified, and as you may guess, it's a very big problem.
Are you considering suing Linux users that you notified? Anything is always a possibility. If you are going to enforce your contracts, claims and intellectual property, you have to be able to go to ultimately the endpoint of infringement.
You're claiming that Linux has been polluted with Unix code that you own, but you have not produced any evidence of that. Will you? We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to various industry analysts, respected press people and other industry leaders so that they don't have to take our word for it or wait until we show some of that evidence in court. We will actually be showing the code, and the basis for why we have made the allegations that we have. We are very confident about our case. Because we are dealing with confidential source code that we have never released without confidentiality agreements, we will have to put in place nondisclosur
I made a PHP/MySQL library that prevents SQL injection & makes coding easier!
http://www.vnunet.com/Analysis/1140828
They have no legal legs to stand on. Hopefully the courts will get this one right, and SCO will become irrelevent.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
while (1) {}
Oh, wait...only Microsoft would do that....
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
What a load of crap. He's essentially saying that closed-source code is somehow more guaranteed to be more legitimate. I'd say that the reverse is true: There's a lot more incentive to do things legally when the entire world gets to see your source code than when virtually nobody does.
How unfortunate that he left out the "... and buy SCO instead."
Earlier he said that companies should abandon linux-related projects until SCO's suit is worked out. Now, he's implying that despite the fact that SCO is lying out of their teeth, and that Novell is calling them on it, noooooobody should abandon SCO-related projects. Sounds a bit hypocritical.
Here's what it really boils down to: SCO is the armpit of the Unix world, and the headquarters are in a city that's virtually the center of the MLM universe, and also known for immensely brain-dead business executives. SCO sucks, and is going downhill. Why? Because of Linux. Amazingly, Linux is also eating into Microsoft's server market share. Now the two team up, and decide to try and get rid of Linux. It's really not hard to see what's going on.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
5 to 15 lines in some places? Does SCO think they own hello_world.c too? Give me a break.
Trolling is a art,
or... rim sco oft
Damn it! Every time there's another SCO vs IBM article, I get the theme song from The Neverending Story stuck in my head...
I laughed at this idea at first. But think about it. All we've been reading about is how scared Microsoft is of linux, how everyone is moving over etc. We know there is no love loss between IBM and M$ and IBM been pushing linux hard.
Would it be so crazy to think that M$ might have gone to SCO and said "Look, you guys are about to go under. How would you like some help? All you have to do is make some claims about linux. Stir up a hornets nest of news. In return for your silence of this and your action, we'll give you enough money so A. you can all find new jobs and B. you (the execs) get a nice little bonus".
While we consider all this news silly, man big firms who were on the boarder of trying linux I'm sure are made nervous by this. The "FUD" is sure flying.
The person gaining the most from this is Microsoft, not SCO. And with the latest investment, and underhanded agreement no longer seems so unbelievable.
From http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/SCO_10-K.html
The Company has an arrangement with Novell, Inc. ("Novell") in which it acts as an administrative agent in the collection of royalties for customers who deploy SVRx technology. Under the agency agreement, the Company collects all customer payments and remits 95 percent of the collected funds to Novell and retains 5 percent as an administrative fee. The Company records the 5 percent administrative fee as revenue in its consolidated statements of operations. The accompanying October 31, 2002 and 2001 consolidated balance sheets reflect the amounts collected related to this agency agreement but not yet remitted to Novell of $1,428,000 and $1,894,000, respectively, as restricted cash and royalty payable to Novell. The October 31, 2001 balances were reclassified from cash and equivalents and other royalties payable to conform to the current year presentation.
This is SCO's admission that Novell owns Unix System V, all revisions - that's what they mean by "SVRx", and SCO pays Novell 95% of the royalties. SCO gets to keep 5% as administrative agent.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
SCO's extorted $8.8 million so far. I don't know how much of that comes from Microsoft though (it wouldn't surprise me if it was all of it). Interestingly, that's twice their profit from all of last year. (on $20 million revenue)
So apparently this little stunt is profitable. Maybe after their done they'll change their name back to Caldara or Canopy and hope no one notices.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
SCO dropped 25% yesterday, and another 10% today (so far)
is that the CEO of SCO/Caldera is Darl McBride. He was formerly with Novell as vice president and general manager of Novell's Embedded Systems Division (NEST).
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
so, the idea of a unix LIKE operating system isn't ok? the idea of a microkernel that works in similar ways but, not exactly the same ways, isn't ok? well, if we say this, then star/open office are patent violations as well. in fact anything that mimics word or wordperfect (or whatever came first) is a patent violation. look at computers. inspiration for new software comes from old. linux ISNT unix, but it does MIMIC it's behavior in various ways.
I write code.
Installation Complete! To activate you Linux system, call the SCO Licensing clearinghouse at 888-WEG-OTCHA to obtain an activation key. Remember, if you change more than 3 system components, you will have to obtain a new activation key. Have a Nice Day!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
SCO is refusing to answer some elementary questions that are essential to put their claims into context. Of course, it suits their purpose to cast FUD on the OSS competitor that is destroying the value of their IP, but there's no reason why reporters should let them do it.
To wit:
Does SCO believe that Linux would be substantially less useful if the code claimed to be excerpted from SYSV were excised? Is the value of the allegedly stolen code significant to the overall value of the Linux system, or is it merely valuable to provide standing for SCO to discourage the use of a free competitor to SCO?
Is the claimed SCO code part of one or more optional components of the Linux kernel, or are they in the kernel's core?
Does the claimed SCO code relate in any way to compatibility with SCO disk partions, file systems, or binary compatibility?
How many lines of code are we talking about?
No, really, how many lines of code are we talking about?
Where is the logic in keeping the outside experts under NDA about what code is believed by SCO to have been copied into Linux? If the code is in the Linux kernel, by definition it cannot be an effective trade secret.. does this mean that the real reason for the proposed NDA is to ensure that Linux developers cannot remove the alleged SCO IP from Linux?
Why doesn't SCO wish for Linux developers to fix the problem, given that SCO has claimed that this is a case against IBM for contract violations?
Does SCO believe that their case for damages would be weakened if the alleged code was removed?
Why does SCO believe it is necessary to prevent Linux developers from fixing the problem, given that there are archives of years of development work on the Linux kernel and utilities. Would SCO consider allowing Linux developers to fix the alleged problem if SCO were given a copy of the entire Kernel development records before revealing this information?
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Sounds like Opensource FUD - "Don't buy OSS, you may never know who's the real owner of (parts of) the source"
Asif GPL's open source (and closed source) has never been abused in (other) commercial products.
"Novell Inc. says the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of Unix System V from Novell doesn't convey copyrights. What's your response? We certainly have a point of contention regarding their interpretation of that contract. We have statements from all the major parties that were involved in that contract that all the business and IP-related property of Unix and UnixWare was transferred to SCO. I think this is just a desperate act on their part to curry favor with the Linux community. "
m l
Curiously, despite disputing whether or not Novell owns the system V copyrights SCO has been quite happy to pay royalties to Novell as Karsten Self found from their 10k report (tax return?)
"The Company has an arrangement with Novell, Inc. ("Novell") in which it acts as an administrative agent in the collection of royalties for customers who deploy SVRx technology. Under the agency agreement, the Company collects all customer payments and remits 95 percent of the collected funds to Novell and retains 5 percent as an administrative fee. The Company records the 5 percent administrative fee as revenue in its consolidated statements of operations. The accompanying October 31, 2002 and 2001 consolidated balance sheets reflect the amounts collected related to this agency agreement but not yet remitted to Novell of $1,428,000 and $1,894,000, respectively, as restricted cash and royalty payable to Novell. The October 31, 2001 balances were reclassified from cash and equivalents and other royalties payable to conform to the current year presentation. "
see
http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/SCO_10-K.ht
I remember seeing a quote in the previous story stating that unless more folks license their IP , they'd sue Linus Torvalds for violating SCO's IP. Of course, with Novell's statement, even their ownership of the IP in question is vague.
So.. why isn't this being clamped down on as using the court for the purposes of extortion? I don't know what one has to do with the other, and (obligatory statement, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV OR the internet), but it seems to me by tying in unrelated issues (do this, or we'll sue somebody else) they are using the courts for extortionary purposes. Be interesting to see if this gets looked at.
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
Be respectful in the face of their disrespect. Be honorable in the face of their dishonorable acts. Take the high ground and watch them collapse on themselves.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
He didn't word it really well, but that was his "minimum." He said it ranged from "10-15" lines of code to "Huge blocks of code." I'm imagining that it's these theoretical "huge blocks" that has his panties in a bunch.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
...This story continues to amaze me...
What continues to amaze me is the following...
Netcraft reports that SCO's own website is running on Linux.
SCO is still apart of UnitedLinux
SCO's own phone number is 1-888-GO-LINUX
They sure have their hands in a lot of Linux for it being so "illegal".
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
If the source code is already widely available why not just show the suspected offending portions? Unix source code has been available to a wide variety of academic institutions and organizations for years, its not like its cutting edge stuff that would be of any use to other companies.
Me too...
Sorry moderators, I couldn't resist.
This is RiverTonic's sig.
SCO stock today. Down 25% yesterday, and an additional 12% today, Thursday, May 29, 2003.
How are they still claiming ownership after novel showed the world yesterday that THEY own the code, and SCO can just use/sublicense the code???
you should check out a movie called "Dumb & Dumber". That should amaze you too!
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
This is from their 10-K filing in Jan. Why would they pay if they owned it?
"Restricted Cash and Royalty Payable to Novell, Inc.
The Company has an arrangement with Novell, Inc. ("Novell") in which it acts as an administrative agent in the collection of royalties for customers who deploy SVRx technology. Under the agency agreement, the Company collects all customer payments and remits 95 percent of the collected funds to Novell and retains 5 percent as an administrative fee. The Company records the 5 percent administrative fee as revenue in its consolidated statements of operations. The accompanying October 31, 2002 and 2001 consolidated balance sheets reflect the amounts collected related to this agency agreement but not yet remitted to Novell of $1,428,000 and $1,894,000, respectively, as restricted cash and royalty payable to Novell. The October 31, 2001 balances were reclassified from cash and equivalents and other royalties payable to conform to the current year presentation."
Zoid.com
Q&A: SCO's Chris Sontag on Linux, Unix and brewing legal fights by PATRICK THIBODEAU
... but to seek an opinion of their legal counsel as to the issues that we raised.
In two weeks, The SCO Group Inc. intends to begin showing analysts where the Unix code it owns has been illegally copied into the Linux kernel. The source code will be made available to parties who agree not to disclose the Unix source code, but they will be able to share publicly their assessments of SCO's claim. SCO has filed a $1 billion lawsuit against IBM alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims and has warned some 1,500 businesses that they may be using Linux at their legal peril.
In an interview with Computerworld reporter Patrick Thibodeau, SCO's Chris Sontag, a senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource Division, the group within SCO in charge of enforcing the company's intellectual property, discussed the company's position
Why should Linux users take your claim seriously?
Think about if I was the CIO of a company and I'm going to be running my business on an operating system that has an intellectual property foundation that, by almost everyone's admission, is built on quicksand. There is no mechanism in Linux to ensure [the legality of] that intellectual property of the source code being contributed by various people. We fully believe there are many contributions made by good, hard-working individuals into Linux that are not of issue. But based on the research that we have done, we have identified specific Unix System V code for which we have ownership rights that have ended up in Linux against our wishes. There is inappropriate intellectual property in Linux. The development process has no one that is ensuring that inappropriate code is not getting into Linux. All that's there is an honor system, and obviously there are a few, at least, that have broken that honor.
Your letter to 1,500 end-user companies outlining your claim was vague. What is it that you want from these companies?
The one thing that we specifically want from those 1,500 companies that we directly sent those letters to is for them to not take our word on the warning that we sent
What do you see as a company's options in the face of your warning?
I would suspend any new Linux-related activities until this is all sorted out. But first get that opinion of your legal counsel. If they say there is no problem and no issue, then you probably have nothing to worry about. But I doubt there is any attorney worth his salt that is going to say there is no potential of an issue here. There is a big issue.
Should companies remove Linux from their systems?
We're not making any specific recommendations at this time. We're still getting our arms around the size of this problem. We're still identifying more and more code from Unix System V that is in Linux, and so we haven't even fully scoped the problem. It's hard to come up with solutions until you have the full problem identified, and as you may guess, it's a very big problem.
Are you considering suing Linux users that you notified?
Anything is always a possibility. If you are going to enforce your contracts, claims and intellectual property, you have to be able to go to ultimately the endpoint of infringement.
You're claiming that Linux has been polluted with Unix code that you own, but you have not produced any evidence of that. Will you?
We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to various industry analysts, respected press people and other industry leaders so that they don't have to take our word for it or wait until we show some of that evidence in court. We will actually be showing the code, and the basis for why we have made the allegations that we have. We are very confident about our case. Because we are dealing with confidential source code that we have never released without confidentiality agreements,
Somehow I don't think that's the best way to fix this situation.
For toilet humor, this comment was actually quite funny.
The wise follow a damned path, for to know is to be forsaken.
Oh sure, put all development on hold until a huge legal fight winds it way through the courts in a long slow battle. I can just imagine lots of Linux development companies that could afford to do that!
They'd do better to have damage control get the spin-drives back on line and warp out.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
When there is some more pysical material presented lets hear about it. But I really don't think we need to hear about how "Joe Schmo SCO" wants to talk about their bogus case. Until they present something material, fuck um, quit letting them have all the free press.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
"Think about if I was the CIO of a company and I'm going to be running my business on an operating system that has an intellectual property foundation that, by almost everyone's admission, is built on quicksand."
You know, EVERYone's admission. EVEN YOU.
"but to seek an opinion of their legal counsel as to the issues that we raised."
We want these companies to make legal judgements requiring very precise knowledge of the law based on our vague claims.
And for our next trick, we're going to reveal our dubious patent on the carburetor and claim that the intake manifold is an infringing work because it depends on our intellectual property.
*wanders off for more coffee...*
Searching for Truth, Justice, and the Guy Who Boosted My Wallet a Few Weeks Back....
What I find exceptionally interesting, and so far the majority of the press (present company included) has neglected to mention it much, is Novell's claim that the continue to own the copyright to Word Perfect. True, we should see and open source WP on the near horizon, much to the benefit of the entire os community. However, what we would have is a case similar to where we are now - with potenital damages caused by the existing manifistation being traced back to the source, and the lawsuits ensue.
Preposterous? Not necessarily. Linus, and by parallel situation Corel and Novell, can liable in much the same way the gun ownership advocates find themselves in now. Consider:
Smith and Wesson manufacture a firearm.
Bill shoots Greg with the firearm.
Greg sues both Bill and S&W.
Novell owns WP.
Productivity is lost by a later version of OS WP code.
Company sues WP (nobody to sue, since it is open source) and Novell.
The same scenario can be applied to the Linux situation, with the proper parties to sue.
Thanks,
Bruce
How is it that Microsoft can get a license, and essentially get rid of its worry, and the other users cannot? Microsoft is not using Linux. So the scope of any issues they may have are not as related to the specific Unix intellectual property they were using in their product or wanted to be able to use in their product in the future. It's a very well-defined set of intellectual property they were interested in licensing.
How the hell do they know what Microsoft is running? Any developer trying to be competitive is going to be running copies of every serious competitor's product - just to stay competitive.
That's just plain shady...
better daze ahead?
in order to save US, we must surrender the saykrud kode bullown to IT's blightfull billyonerrors?
then we MuSt do it now, before the Godless frauduleNT wall street of deceit payper liesense peddlers go bullistic, & have to start yet another 'war'.
consult with yOUR creator. support the hobbyist dogooders.
this post is a pateNTdead -1, copy it at your owned risk.
many said it could never happen here.
No exposure is bad exposure.
Sooner or later someone is going to buy them (if that's SCO's intentions all along), drop the suit and look like good guys again. Stocks will go up and new offerings will be made...
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
SCO has now said it isn't an IP issue or a copyright issue, but a contractual issue. Since Linus had no contract with SCO, how could they sue him for an alleged contractual violation that happened between SCO and IBM?
And the same goes for anything IBM may have leaked, and note I'm not saying they did...but if they did break a contract, how can anyone using a Linux product using such code be held liable for a contractual violation done by IBM, again, when SCO has now said it is contractual issue and not an IP issue or a copyright issue.
On one hand I guess we can be glad SCO are such morons, but on the other hand, can you imagine releasing a press release saying the issue was never about IP or copyrights when they are running around screaming about suing everyone because Linux may have some of their IP in it!!!
Go that way really fast, if something gets in your way, turn
Ron Paul
This is an interesting side note on some massive MS document destruction, and Cringely's latest posits the spectre of Windex. We have all been cursed to live in interesting times...
i won't put anything past our judicial and legislative branches.
I wouldn't either. But that's completely and utterly unrelated to the issue at hand. SCO is not the judicial or legislative branch of the US (or even Utah). The only reason that US Judicial branch is involved is because SCO resides in the US. The same situation would be occuring in Germany, France, or Great Britain, if SCO were located in those countries. It would be quite a stretch to assert that those countries have never had an asinine IP lawsuit.
Your statement is a non sequitur. You're implying that congress or the courts are secretly running SCO. That's nonsense.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
However, as everyone already pointed out, IBM is hyper-paranoid about intellectual property and it's highly unlikely that they did what SCO's accusations claim.
And so my point is, to all the news outlets that care so much about linux: put a lid on it, shut up, let IBM butcher SCO in court, then report on the final result. There's no reason for this story to appear on /. more than once every day.
But based on the research that we have done, we have identified specific Unix System V code for which we have ownership rights that have ended up in Linux against our wishes.
According to this, SCO only has a license. The copyrights, patents, and ownership reside with Novell.
I just wish they would get on with it. They've create a nice media circus, but this challenge is important because its the first 'serious' challenge Linux has faced.
We are pretty smug (and maybe rightfully so) in our premature cavorting but you can count on this just being the first in a series of big business attempts to compete against a operating system that's free.
Right now a corporation is testing the waters.
Quack, quack.
> There is no mechanism in Linux to ensure [the legality of] that intellectual property of the source code being contributed by various people.
This seems to be a valid question. How do we prevent some rogue person (some M$ employee ?) from contributing tainted code (e.g. code from Windoze) to Linux thereby tarring us all black ?
So, why are we supposed to believe SCO didn't take Linux source and copy it into their product?
Are they willing to open up a decade or more of their source to these experts?
And what the hell difference does it make if they point to the Linux code and say "here, here, and here". It's all already out there. It's not like the kernel folks can remove the evidence!
No it would not be appropriate to call them "$CO" since they will be bankrupt very soon.
"We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to various industry analysts, respected press people and other industry leaders so that they don't have to take our word for it or wait until we show some of that evidence in court."
Until this happens, there really isn't too much of a story here. Wake me up in a month.
Check the link in my sig, and scroll down a little. Isn't their UNIX stable enough to handle the load?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
There are many people in the outside world with access to both the UNIX SYS V and Linux source code. It would be quite straightforward for any of these people to find this infringing code, if it in fact exists.
Sadly, I'm not one of those people. I'd be more than happy to provide programming support for somebody that is, though. Write me at thad@hammerhead.com
Why hasn't anybody done the checking?
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
This just in! Apparently the lines of code that are at issue have been leaked by SCO insiders:
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
- In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!
Anyone wanna bet on it?????? I'm accepting the following odds:
1.15 - This guy has now idea how they'll get off the hook
3.35 - They'll show some code.... too bad it's nothing to do with Linux....
15.55 - Dude, all the Linux Kernel is a one BIG cut & paste!!!!!!
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
Admit this: Who of you purchased any SCO product over the last years? How many of you didn't hear about SCO before, or just heard the name without associating it with anything? What share of the computer market does SCO control?
SCO is forgotten.
So, what's the best way to get out of shadow and stand in spotlight? Oh well, miss Lewinsky showed that to all of us.
1. Make a lot of noise around something famous.
2. Gain fame.
3. Sell products, make claims.
4. PROFIT
The best target would be something as big as M$, but SCO had several reasons not to attack it (including M$ lawyers). So, the next target on the OS market seems obvious...
Why else would SCO care for 15 lines of code, whey would it make so dubious claim, than just to gain publicity? "No matter, good or bad, it's important that they talk about you". Old rule of showbusiness, may apply here too...
I guess the end will be quite mundane. Maybe putting a notice in sources "This part created by SCO". Maybe rewriting that parts of kernel. Maybe the charges will be dismissed. Maybe "SCO will bend under customers' pressure and withdraw its claims". What is important, is that people will talk about SCO over next few years, and whoever plans some new investment, will think "...And maybe consider that SCO thing..."?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Just came across an interesting newsbit on an update to yesterday's story about the fact that Novell is challenging SCO's ownership of the patents: (full article available HERE: http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030528/tech_novell_2.html)
"SCO conceded that Novel did still own the patents to the software, but it said it owned the contracts and as such it had the contractual right to prevent improper donations of the Unix code, methods or concepts into Linux.
"From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights," it said."
So if Novell has no problem with it, as owner of the patent, what is SCO suing for? (besides as a "look at me, look at me, buy me!")
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
What a grumpy company. "Damn it, that shitty UnitedLinux thingy didn't work out after all - let's sue'em all!" - Overheard on a SCO board meeting
It is not a line or two here or there. It {...five to 10 to 15 lines of code...}was quite a surprise for us.
So the answer is simple. Get the source, mark the lines that are eledged to be in violation, submit to author, move on. Or better yet... *remove* these lines from the linux source, submit to author, and move on. This way you are not disclosing anything, you are simply removing the eledged IP from something publicly distrubted.
The someone else can note the diffrences, and publish what SCO's IP is. Problem solved.
Then the courts will battle with the idea wether or not 5 lines of code are protected under IP laws, or 10 lines of code, or 15 lines of code, or a block.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Don't they still owe us some interview questions? Maybe the questions were too hard for them...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I had enough of SCO. What happend to IBM, Did IBM responded to this....
SCO actually supports the Linux community as they were Caldera and still release OpenLinux.
To that I would add this: Given the USL/Novell settlement in 1994, BSD was given the right to distribute and license their unix product, which, at the time, was pretty much Sys V if I recall correctly. Given that, can you prove that any of the offending code was written by owners of the historical Sys V code after the settlement?
I remember someone saying in an interview a long time ago that the offending code wasn't BSD code, but I'm having a hard time believing it, and I haven't heard anything of the sort for some time.
Anyone know details on the settlement, as to specifically what rights were granted BSD, and when Sys V developed the symmetric multiprocessor capabilities in question? Or has SCO really broadened its scope beyone SMP to general Sys V operation?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
How about $=0, then?
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Ok, from his discriptions in the article...I highly doubt that there really is infringement going on...
Lets face it there only only so many ways you can write a procees scheduler, or a memory manager, or a stack, etc...in the end the same problems demand the smae or similar solutions....
Unless they can proven the code was lifted outright...same variable names, macro's and such (which how can they realistically prove, since thier source isn't open for all we know they have changed portions of the SCO code Unix code to match the stuff thats public knowledge in the Linux Kernel code)...
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Chris Sontag, from SCO. Now the story has a pretty face.
Pretty face? Looks like he's smirking, thinking, "You suckers!" to me...
They KNOW the community will come back with a backlash, and they KNOW their stocks will plummett, and will soon be killed as a company. Theyre only trying to convince dumber managers in companies so Linux sales are hurt.. thats ALL.
The whole point of SCO's efforts is obviously to damage consumer confidence in Linux. They can achieve this by:
(1) Taking a backlash from the community. The more Linux users pay attention, the more consumers might think this is a serious problem, and NOT buy Linux. The more we pay attention and talk about this fiasco, no matter what we say, we're helping SCO.
(2) Taking all their time and NOT revealing what code has been copied. They're doing just that, but Novell might spoil the party.
(3) Dragging the judicial proceedings, this should be squashed, but they're probably being paid well to fight long, by M$
(4) Releasing statements in a knowledgeable and convincing manner. This is what we have to pick apart for the consumers to see.. that they (SCO) really have nothing on them. Novell is helping us because they're desperate to get married to opensource communities like IBM, but Sun will stay quite for a while, possibly with SGI. Their UNIX offerings might be taken up by shaky consumers after all.
I find it interesting how many people are paying attention to this. To this end, SCO is winning, by shaking up everything, so much talk, so many comments in slashdot and newsforge and elsewhere. Licensing issues have NEVER been so exciting for geeks.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I've said it before, but they told us to expect it. Remember Halloween VII?
If you don't, Halloween VII was a leaked memo from MS dated Sep 2002. It was a survey report, discussing what types of FUD were most effective, and where FUD was backfiring.
And later:
I think $0 is better. looks more like SCO and will better reflect their legal debt.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
This page offers the absolute best explanation about what is going on in the SCO vs. Linux issue. A definate must read!
Zoid.com
Also, it's hard to update your icons when you're as busy as CmdrTaco (the sims can't play themselves yet!)).
Ready? Here it is:
int i;
Those bastards!
Oops, I should have previewed. I wanted $ 'less than sign'0 but it took the less than sign as a tag beginning even in plain old text mode.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
dollars, cents, nothing
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
It is possible that SCO copied the Linux code, stuck it into their product and then cried wolf.
How is SCO going to prove that the code was stolen from their product, and not the other way around? Think of it. Linux is out there in the open, for everyone to see, but the SCO IP was hidden away, and anyone can copy it and slap a copyright date on it.
FUD, FUD and more FUD, with Microsoft benefitting from it. Curioser and curioser.
Something that hasen't been talked about much here is the impact this will have on future intellectual property litagation. There is a rather funny article here on the subject, dealing with a dictionary company suing people for using the english language,(and of course microsoft liscening it to support IP rights) but the point is very serious. If SCO can do this kinda stuff with no legal backing what so ever and still cause major havoc, imagine what would happen if a company actully did have a legal leg to stand on. Ip laws are legal time bombs, and they need to be looked at carefuly.
Clearly, you have never used SFU. I have SFU 3.0 right here. Now Cygwin is bad, but this stuff is worse. It is not a true implementation of BSD or SYSV as it claims to be, nothing is trivial to port to it; it has renamed critical header files, and is almost unusable with standard networking code. This has always been a brummagem product since it was called Interix. You constantly post about things you have never used.
Sources at SCO have revealed some of the offending 10 or 15 lines of code, in no particular order:
main( int argc, char **argv)
return;
int i;
{
}
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
char buffer[MAXBUF];
#define true 1
#define false 0
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
here are the lines from linux:
}
}
}
and Unix System V:
}
}
}
This whole thing just makes me sick.
SCO sues because they say there is UNIX code they own the rights to in Linux. This is making two claims; first, that the code is there; second, that SCO owns the rights.
The first point, that Linux contains UNIX code, is not all that straightforward to prove. Certainly the criterion cauld not be similarity of algorithms, as there are bound to be similar algorithms in similar systems, and Linux being a UNIX clone they can't be all too different. Even if pieces of code are completely identical, this makes no proof that they were copied. There are only so many ways to express something, thus it could really be mere coincidence.
Proving that SCO owns the rights to the code may be harder than it sounds. I may well be mistaken about it, but I always thought that the Open Group, not SCO, owns the rights to UNIX. Maybe they just own the name? But even if SCO owns the rights to this code, who says that the code that is in Linux isn't actually from an older UNIX release? Perhaps from BSD? Maybe SCO is going to sue BSD users, too?
SCO's assault against end users is just pathetic. Even if all SCO's claims are justified and Linux does indeed contain SCO-owned code, users cannot reasonably be expected to have known this. They would have to have read through all the code in Linux _and_ know what code falls under intellectual property (which they would be unlikely to know precisely because it is IP). So far, SCO has not pointed out _any_ code that belongs to them, and hos not offered any solutions to possible problems. What do they expect users to do? What do they expect anybody do in the face of their bold claims with no proof as yet? What do they think to achieve by this whole thing anyway? Unisys seemed to have a much stronger case with their claims on their compression algorithm (was it LZW?), and did a good job of lowering its popularity.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
And unless enough people donate money, God is going to call Oral Roberts home.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
... allowing its code to 'leak' into the linux kernel so that it too could rake in the bucks on open source
you mean, like this: $<0
I'm not experienced enough in programming just yet to really understand the answer to this question so please let me know what you think. Is it possible with all the lines of code in both Linux and the UNIX code they are comparing that there would be similar code due to basic methods of programming? Could someone have just simply coded some Linux kernel code that matches that in UNIX without ever seeing the UNIX code?
It only makes sense that there aren't that many different ways to do one thing well at times. So to have something almost identical would seem feesable. Then again, if it is almost identical and SCO wants to, they could do slight modification of their code to look exactly like the code in Linux to attempt to prove something. If they get caught, which is possible if the code in question was written by a well known Linux programmer that has no ties with UNIX, then they are totally screwed.
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I do question if Microsoft is somehow behind this. The entire attack, the speeches, the letters, the press, all seem to have a pattern of FUD and various legal methods to destroy Linux. If this is true, it won't matter anyway. Linux will never fail because of its nature.
Question everything.
"There is no mechanism in Linux to ensure [the legality of] that intellectual property of the source code being contributed by various people."
I agree, but how is this any different from proprietary software? How CAN MS ensure that its code doesn't contain any SCO code, unless they license to have direct access to that code?
The only difference I can see is that with closed source code, there is NO WAY for ANYONE (even the owner) to make sure there are no IP violations. With open source code, only the owners of the closed source code are able to ensure their IP is protected (burden falls on the owners).
If one is really concerned about IP, one would require all code that has IP protection "Open Source", that way EVERYONE could verify whether or not a specific part of code is a copy of some other code.
However, it is my opinion that, under the current circumstances, making one's own code "Open Source" is the most one can do to ensure that they have performed "due dilligence" in ensuring that their code is free of IP law violation. Closed source seems to be the model lacking in this area, not Open Source.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
How about SO, then?
[ insert your own witty .sig here ]
#include
int main(void)
{
cout "Hello SCO!" endl;
return 0;
}
I would suspect anything under 20 lines of code that are similar are also textbook examples rather then IP.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Get caught doing that and see what happens to you.
deserve's got nothing to do with it...
I think this coincides with the other comment made by SCO's CEO that they'd go after the infringements all the way to the individual users, if necessary. (By the same token, if they can prove Linus Torvalds somehow stole SCO kernel source and rolled parts of it into the Linux kernel, they'd sue him personally for that act.)
The whole thing sounds ridiculous to me, but as so often happens with software, sometimes there aren't a whole lot of different ways to accomplish a task. A piece of hardware only interfaces with its software drivers through specific commands, sent a specific way, for example. I don't doubt SCO could match up small code segments (or even "big blocks of code", depending on their definition of "big") with what's in Linux.... but it might just be because nobody would really write those routines any other way.
Excuse me? Take a look at Microsoft's Netcraft page. The top three machines (UT servers) are running Linux, and are sponsored by MSN.
Anything is always a possibility.
You've gotta just sit back and admire the precision, generality, and sheer wonderfulness of that statement. It says everything and nothing in five words.
"An Intellectual Carrot - the mind boggles" (From the film "The Thing From Another World")
be fair.
code evolution breeds cruft, and this is just cruft.
commonly debug code is easier to block out using trivial flow-control instead of comments.
eg {debug code;} becomes if(1) {debug code;} becomes if(DEBUG) {debug code;}
So I guess I'm wondering why the secrecy regarding what the offending code is and what it relates to. If the concern is that trade secrets or other special goodness will be revealed, that will come in time anyway as a simple result of Linux eventually being "fixed" and rereleased.
And another thing...when he said they are looking for other items of System V code that have been copied, it just seemed to scream "we're looking for other pieces of code that could be construed as having been copied".
Finally, a question...assume that a given chunk of code is very similar between Linux and SCO, so much so that it would appear to have been substantially copied. Now, let's further suppose it happens to be something that is obvious to a "practicioner of the art", to use a phrase from patent checks (I think). Does anyone know if that would be a standard useful to determine whether this piece of code could be considered infringing? i.e. where is the burden of proof? Does SCO have to prove that the code was actually taken from SysV code, regardless of whether the code might have simply evolved that way because it's the "best way"? Or does SCO simply have to indicate that code is similar enough to warrant belief that it could have been copied?
We should get a class action lawsuit going on behalf af all Linux afficionado's. For emotional distress and un-needed agravation as well as the time we waste talking and thinking about this.
I feel that 3 billion should do it.
Split that 500 000 ways or however many of us there are.
Just my opinion.
I'm sure we'll find out about the offending code when it's presented at a news conference by the worlds first cloned human.... :|
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
What about it? What about everyone buy some shares and group together as shareholders to stop SCO from doing this? Then, donate your shares to a single Linux organisation, like Mandrake or Red Hat, and do away with all this madness. This would stop all the doubts people have about the OSS community not being united and only help it. Anyways, just a thought to save linux...
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
If they have the smoking gun show it to us now. Don't wait a month.
They don't have anything. This is just a FUD attack on Linux now. They have admitted as much. They have a contact dispute with IBM. That is all.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
So, if the goal is to change the company for good - I am on! Who's next?
On a second though I agree, whole executive stuff must fired. And even sued. For being greedy and stupid :)
Less is more !
...ranging from five to 10 to 15 lines of code in multiple places...
oooo.... wow... if i judged programs that way, i'd have to fail half the students' programs i grade, and their programs are tiny in comparison. "well, gee, i don't know. this looks like the way someone else solved that problem..." "well, yah... that was the most straight forward way of solving it; i'd hope most people did something similar." i can't believe someone would have the gall to say "10 to 15 lines of code" when referring to a linux kernel.
I'm sure I just "don't get it" when it comes to trade secrets, but some things don't make sense to me. Obviously, IANAL (and I only sometimes play one on /.), but I believe I heard that if something that is considered a "trade secret" is developed independently by somebody else, there's really nothing you can do about it. That's the tradeoff of patenting your findings -- the information is public, but at least you have rights to it. If you keep it as a trade secret, then you have rights only so far as nobody else discovers/invents the same thing you did.
Now, having said that, obviously there is the IBM component. SCO claims that IBM violated trade agreemnts or NDAs or whatever, and that is how "SCO's code" (if indeed the code even belongs to them) was integrated into linux. But here is the kicker: Just because some lines of code are similar (or even the same) in two different pieces of software, it doesn't mean that the code for one was taken from the other! It seems that SCO not only has the burden of proof of identifying what code they allege is similar, but that they also need to prove that it was IBM (or someone who works at IBM) that actually inserted the code into linux (or at least provided it to Linus et al).
Furthermore, SCO would then need to prove that the code implemented in the linux kernel is 1) critical to the application and 2) actually covered by any patents as being both non-obvious and non-prior art. If some of the matching code is nothing more than an abstracted for loop that increments a counter variable and passes the result to a function or sets another variable (such as an array), then I can't image how any rational person could construe that as patent infringement. But then again, I'm not CEO of a failing company (Q2 earnings aside -- we all know posted earnings don't actually mean anything -- *cough*enron*cough*)
Finally, I like the idea of "whole blocks of code." Obviously his intent is to imply that massive portions of System Unix V code have been "violated," but what he didn't consider is that block has a very technical meaning -- a "whole block" could very easily be a one-line if statement. Not that impressive overall.
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
.conspiracIE. it's a whoreabull stall, just like the 'war'. lookout bullow.
consult with yOUR creator. it'll never be more important than now. or, if you can't bulleave yet, then do it soon. it's not just about you/your big fauxking deals, anymore.
we reference the tendancIE of hostages to become 'attached' to their captors.
just look at the trustworthycomputing.com debacles. if those scamsters were in ANY other 'business', they'd be in prison. howsonever, out here in the mysterious wwworld of invisibull back byting, they use the Godless greed/fear based randoidian princeofpull, of the last felonious won standing, gets to eat the wons who fell before. they seem to like doing it. yuk.
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
* Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Hmpff, what did you write? It's code copied from SCO to Linux, not the other way round? Well, who knows... :-) :-)
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
no significant problems with handling /. visitors
This is obviously some strange meaning of the word 'no' that I am as yet unaware of.
(Translation: The site is royally farked.)
I've been trying like crazy to figure out if this is the case, and if so, if SCO is shit out of luck. I remember a long time ago they said it wasn't the case, but their story might be changing.
What I want to know is whether:
1. The code was pre-1994 from BSD, but they somehow don't think the 1994 agreement is transferrable or even valid, or
2. The code in question was written by Novell or (God forbid) SCO after 1994. If written by Novell, did they explicitly give it to the OSS community or was it just that they didn't enforce the violation? If the latter, this could pose problems...or,
3. Did SCO illegally copy code from BSD (or elsewhere) post-1994? I will say, it will be very important to see source tree commit dates even if they do have some interesting code similarities
I wonder who the "independent experts" they show the source code will be? Probably not anyone with Novell, huh?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
In that case, we were accused (in part) of stealing code from an application that was used in the same industry but which not only looked drastically different (hence we could not have even "stolen" look-and-feel), and not only lacked substantial functionality in comparison to our app, but was also first released after our app was in production.
What happened?
We "lost", simply because my employer ran out of money to fight what was unquestionably a preposterous and baseless suit.
But let's look at SCO's claims about "copied code" from the viewpoint of lawyers and likely jurors. They are *not* going to understand the intricacies of kernel code. They are not going to get it when anyone says "Well, the code is the same because it does the same thing." I know this is true, of course, and it's perfectly reasonable: but a jury will try to wrap its heads around this problem by comparing it to things that they *do* understand. So they will compare it to copying books, or movies, or poetry, or something.
Now, if you or I saw a paragraph in a John Grisham book that was identical to a paragraph in a Michael Crichton book, what would we conclude? We would conclude that the paragraph was "obviously" copied.
Given the types of juries that lawyers like to find for themselves (namely, "drooling idiots", all too often), what are the odds that a jury in the United States will really care about learning or understanding the intricacies of programming? What are the odds that they will understand that it's entirely possible for source code to look the same in places when it performs the same function - even if it's written by two different people?
Personally, I wonder whether it might not be better for SCO to be crushed long before this ever gets to a trial. Juries in this country simply cannot be trusted.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Microsoft is not using Linux. So the scope of any issues they may have are not as related to the specific Unix intellectual property they were using in their product or wanted to be able to use in their product in the future.
This is plainly untrue.
Here's the download page for Microsoft's Passport SDK for Linux.
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
The point being, given a certain programming task, there are enough common ideas about the Right Way to Do It, that I don't find it too unreasonable that different programmers could have written similar or identical blocks of code. Especially given that both Unix and/or Linux programmers probably have a similar problem-solving mindset.
philcrissman.com.
What fascinates me is how much intellectual property can you fit into 10 or 15 lines of code? There are only so many ways to structure data in the world, so many ways to allocate memory and so forth. How close does your code have to be to some other piece of code for it to infringe on intellectual property?
Sure, if Linux stole entire libraries of code, then that would be an issue. But how can you lay claim to component parts as small as this?
I read somewhere yesterday, Microsoft paid $10 million for licensing from SCO. Just enough to bring them out of the red in time for their quarterly report....
The US patent office show NOVEL as owning all the patent rights to Unix. Poession is 99% of the law in any case. SCO has few patents. SCOsource is going to do what? With what money? Their stock value heads down the shitter as I compose this text on a Linux box. Unix is DEAD SCO killed it.
Darl can bite it big and hard. SCO is suffering from delusions just like him.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Public good of GPL'd Linux code >> private gain of SCO code
Why would the Southern College of Optometry have a problem with Linux?
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
"What the dilly, yo?" LOL every time I hear that I wip out me bat and beat the crap out of the bot that made the comment.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
With all the FUD and name-calling among SCO, IBM, Novell, Microsoft, etc. etc., I am realizing more and more the foresight of the FSF in establishing its requirements for copyright paperwork when submitting code (link to FSF docs).
It is important to realize that even if the Linux kernel itself is somehow victimized, the GNU tools and the GNU/HURD should be untouched. The BSDs, Mac OS X, and Solaris should fair very well, too, if only because their legal problems are already dealt with. However, I really think SCO's claims against Linux are a long shot (of galactic proportion, unless, of course, they planted the code maliciously), so my hope is that SCO is the only true casualty once all this is over.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
MS may not actually be in bed with SCO even though they must be overjoyed about this entire debacle. It sounds like SCO may have approached MS with licensing demands at about the same time they started planning the case against IBM (beginning of the year). This makes sense because like IBM, MS has very deep pockets. MS may have negotiated a licensing deal just to make SCO go away and avoid the publicity and expense of yet another lawsuit, however baseless it may have been. If harrasing Linux users and vendors was really their goal, they would have bought SCO outright and pursued the lawsuit(s) themselves. The market value of SCO is pocket change to MS.
According to SCO's own quarterly earnings release, their net income was $4.5 million. This includes $6.1 million in gross margin on their SCO Source initiative. The "operating systems platforms" business had $13.1 million in revenue and NEGATIVE gross margins.
SCO's core business has declining revenue and is unprofitable. On the conference call yesterday, Darl McBride declined to give estimates for SCO Source more longer than the next three months.
Unisys analogy is completely right.
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a
caveman."
"I fell on some ice and later got thawed out
by some of your scientists."
"Your world frightens and confuses me!
Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic
makes me want to get out of my BMW and run
off to the hills or whatever. Sometimes when
I get a message on my fax machine I wonder,
Did little demons get inside and type it?
I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp
these concepts."
"But there is one thing I do know. When a
man like my client slips and falls on a
sidewalk in front of a public library, then
he is entitled to no less than two million
in compensatory damages and two million in
punitive damages."
"Thank you."
SuSE hired about 15 SCO Linux programmers and was paid for each copy of the software shipped. news.com
Yeah, there's still the "time for FUD" issue. However, for SCO's legal case, the "time to document refutations" could be much more important i.e. SCO doesn't want to give the Linux comuntity time to get their ducks in a row.
SCO knows that the authorship of Linux is much messier than it would be at a traditional company. By making a shotgun claim to many parts of the kernel they can win if any one peice hits. If one author of one peice can't be found, they can win the suit against IBM. If they tell us now what peices they are we can start scouring the globe. If they don't tell us until the legal procedings begin, it becomes a race between the legal procedure and the Linux comunity. Like a life or death game of seek and find. Better, if they can get a judge to only let IBM see the code, it becomes a seek and find where only IBM can play and they can't tell us what they are looking for. They couldn't even say "Does anyone have Linus's email address?" [Or more likely, "does anyone know who wrote lines 1047 to 1052 of kernelfile.c?"]
If they told us what lines were in question, we could all write memiors about how those lines came to be, with CVS snapshots and mailinglist discussions to back it up. If they don't tell us we can either do nothing and be unprepared, or start documenting everything and not get any real work done.
It looks to me like they are testing if the Linux comunity is able to generate a coherent document trail faster than they can generate code. We have lots of data. Can we seperate the wheat from the chaff on demand?
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
Everyone at SCO maybe...
The development process has no one that is ensuring that inappropriate code is not getting into Linux. All that's there is an honor system, and obviously there are a few, at least, that have broken that honor.
The only things thats obvious here is that SCO up for one hell of an asspounding from IBM
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Only if you suppose intellectual property and physical property are the same. It's some other stuff, (breech of copyright, I guess), but not theft.
And plagerizing is representing someone else's stuff as your own. He didn't claim that in the least. Far from it.
And causing harm to someone isn't theft even if you technichally remove something from them. (To reference the "ad revenue" argument.) If I paralyze someone, can I be charged with theft of their mobility? No, I can be charged with assault and whatnot, but not _theft._ff
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Will people *stop* mirroring text of articles on servers that have no significant problems with handling /. visitors?
/. very well. I could not get to the article. Guess what? I went to the discussion to find the very type of article that you are complaining about.
Sorry, but their server is not handling
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
1. Make a lot of noise around something famous.
2. Gain fame.
3. Sell products, make claims.
4. PROFIT
I hope you're not suggesting that Darl McBride is destined for porno, are you? Because I'm trying to eat here, OK?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Why not use their stock symbol $COX?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Yeah guys,
If anyone from you has the SCO source code, please post a link, so that we can perform that diff / comparison ourselves.
IANAL, but imagine a beowulf cluster of in Soviet Russia all your belong are base to us welcoming the new SCO overlords.
The trial lawyers own ther Democratic party. Now you know why have such fucked up ideas.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Would it be so crazy to think that M$ might have gone to SCO and said "Look, you guys are about to go under. How would you like some help?"
SCO Exec: You mean help -not- going under, right?
MS Exec: Yeah, sure... Now go sue IBM.
The MS angle is plausible -- they've done shadier things in the past, and the motive is clear. However it seems as though the potential for backfire is large. MS has found some success spreading FUD about Linux and IP related lawsuits. You only get Fear when their is Uncertainty and Doubt. If the the predicted lawsuit occurs and comes to nothing, then the U and the D are diminished, and thusly the F.
Also, executive greed and a plan to cash out in the company's dying days is certainly enough of an explanation.
The enemies of Democracy are
You mean "$<0", right?
Finding God in a Dog
What if there really are huge chunks of code that were ripped directly from whatever-the-hell-it-actually-is-that-they-own and put in to the linux kernel?
...
We all know that it would be trivial to just rewrite the portions and it wouldn't be an issue in the future, but what about the past?
Wouldn't you be kinda pissed if someone did that to you?
You make money licensing your technology; then someone uses that technology in some free app and just gives it away and it becomes hugely popular; while you get nothing.
I dunno- just stuff to think about...
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
Chris is the person incharge of SCO's IP management (per article intro) Does this mean they are still claiming IP rights in SVRx? Kinda hard to believe after everything that has been presented to invalidate that claim.
But messasge is essentailly the same:
We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to various industry analysts, respected press people and other industry leaders so that they don't have to take our word for it or wait until we show some of that evidence in court.
Some of the evidence? What won't you be showing and why?
We will actually be showing the code, and the basis for why we have made the allegations that we have.
We've already seen the code. We want to see what lines you believe are misappropriated.
We are very confident about our case. Because we are dealing with confidential source code that we have never released without confidentiality agreements, we will have to put in place nondisclosures [agreements] simply to protect the source.
Condifential? Not any more. That's the basis for your case! Also, you say "...never released without confidentiality agreements...". Perhaps some organization from which you believe your purchased the rights to this product released the source without a confidentiality agreement. Can you prove in a court of law this is not true? I think not.
Maybe if there is code in common, the code originated in GNU/Linux and is in use in SCO/Caldera's product in violation of the GPL.
Perhaps we should invistigate SCO/Caldera's product to verify that it doesn't include any GPL code. If I had a $100K sitting around I'd offer it as a reward to someone who could show me some GPL code in a SCO/Caldera product.
Maybe Messrs. are pulling this stunt to raise the stock price to dump the stock. The old "Pump and Dump". If I were an stockholder I'd consult my attorney. SEC please take note.
Worldcom, Enron, and now SCO/Caldera.
Have a nice day.
Regards,
Abby Normal
It's really the RIAA/MPAA backing Microsoft backing SCO. You see, Win is going to have DRM to shut down those evil pirates, and Linux won't -- so Linux has to be stopped! Oh, and the Masons are in on it too. What? Dried frog pills? Certainly, thank you! :^)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
"The development process has no one that is ensuring that inappropriate code is not getting into Linux. All that's there is an honor system, and obviously there are a few, at least, that have broken that honor."
It also has the advantage of being open for all to examine. Quite a deterrent to anyone thinking of adding stolen code and protecting open source developers from unscrupulous, dying companies who are stupid enough to claim IP rights where no IP rights exist.
I wonder how much "inappropriate" code gets introduced into closed source projects? Wasn't there a stink awhile back about Microsoft stealing code? At least in open source projects an offense is likely to come to light unlike code that is hidden in proprietary works.
"I would suspend any new Linux-related activities until this is all sorted out. But first get that opinion of your legal counsel. If they say there is no problem and no issue, then you probably have nothing to worry about. But I doubt there is any attorney worth his salt that is going to say there is no potential of an issue here. There is a big issue."
Yes Chris. There is a big issue. The issue is that your company is dying and you would do anything to extort money from IBM and other targets and to try to get people who are using Linux to switch to a substandard product like that which SCO puts out. The mob used guns, bombs and baseball bats where your company uses lawyers.
"Novell Inc. says the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of Unix System V from Novell doesn't convey copyrights. What's your response? We certainly have a point of contention regarding their interpretation of that contract. We have statements from all the major parties that were involved in that contract that all the business and IP-related property of Unix and UnixWare was transferred to SCO. I think this is just a desperate act on their part to curry favor with the Linux community."
Oh please! Give me a break! Your flippin' contracts do not transfer Unix IP to you. End of story. You are not defending you IP rights. You are just trying to intimidate IBM into paying top dollar to buy your dying company.
Please IBM, crush this pathetic parasite.
"Why did Microsoft get a license from you? Completely unrelated. Microsoft has been adding more and more Unix compatibility and Unix interoperability into their products. We got in contact with them early this year to let them know that we had concerns about if they had all the appropriate intellectual property necessary to be providing that Unix capability."
You had "concerns about if they had all the appropriate intellectual property necessary?" So you're saying that you believe that Microsoft was ripping off Novell's IP prior to giving your company millions of dollars? Now that Microsoft has padded you attack fund at the oddly coincidental time do you still have concerns that Microsoft may be using IP that belongs to Novell?
"We just announced our second quarter, and our financials are in very good position. The company is profitable. It is the first time in the history of the company, in almost seven years of existence, that it has been profitable. The point is we're really only recently seeing significant moves by many players, specifically IBM, to come out and state that they are moving wholesale to Linux."
No doubt the millions of dollars that Microsoft donated to you helped put you in the black for "for the first time in the history of the company." Oh and the last part of your statement tells it all. This is a move against Linux in a thinly veiled attempt to salvage you failing company.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
This article from today's Forbes.com gives their lawyer's viewpoint. From the article: "Boies thinks any harm done to Linux may actually be the fault of the open source platform's own backers. 'They make the case a threat just by talking about it,' says Boies". Riiiight. Like sending 1,500 letters wasn't making it a threat. Or publically threatening to sue Linus.
Finally, something we can all agree on.
Let me see, they're suing IBM for 1 billion $.
That comes out to 60-100 million dollars per line of code.
I think we've just found the most expensive ASCII text in the world.
anyone who can put even a small dent in the Microsoft wallet and make them look foolish gets a gold star in my book.
"You want a toe? I can get you a toe by three o'clock... with nail polish."
Hmmm. I believe you need to read Judge Richard Posner's opinion on this particular issue.
He doesn't believe plagarism = theft, and so I'm rather more likely to take his view of the matter over that of some Anonymous Coward.
Dan Kusnetzky, an analyst at market research firm IDC in Framingham, Mass., said the Novell letter now widens the battle.
"It's a food fight" among several parties, he said. "As an industry analyst, I'm sitting back and watching. This is a set of intriguing developments that stands to only help one company, and it's none of the companies that are participating now."
The beneficiary would likely be Microsoft Corp., because the legal squabbles could hurt the Linux market and turn businesses against even thinking about additional Unix deployments, Kusnetzky said, adding, "Where would companies turn?"
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
It seems the strategy not to disclose which parts of code are under question is to prevent anyone remedying the problem by implementing alternate code before the start of any 'official' litigation ... I assume this will make it easier for them to obtain a ruling from a court to have all further users of linux pay royalties to SCO or a cessation of the use of Linux
for (randomstring=0; randomstring < RANDOM; ++randomstring)
{
if (otherrandomstring[randomstring])
otherrandomstring[randomstring]->random();
}
and since we all know that people copying other's code always change variable names, there! I have pasted code cointained in SVRx!
What I'm surprised at is that nobody on these discussions in the last few days (that I've read) has seen anything reasonable with SCO's position. Put aside the profit motive, the MS-connection, and all, and look at it this way. SCO has purchased a code base, and extended it themselves, that took many many years to solidify and can be used to run "enterprise" services (according to them). Their claim is that Linux could not possibly have achieved the level of stability and reliability if it had all been developed from scratch. Their investigations supposedly revealed that some person(s), apparently from IBM, directly lifted proprietary SCO code and submitted it to the kernel tree.
What's egregious is not that SCO is complaining, but that they are doing it in such a rude manner, looking for a quick buck. I think they have a right to complain if someone took code they owned, developed, nourished, and started giving it away for free--and not just binaries, but the source, which, once distributed on the net, is a non-secret forever more. It would be wrong of IBM to do that, wrong of any programmer to do that.
That said, going for such a large claim against IBM is a response not in line with the damage done to them--unless they can prove that by sharing that code, they lost their crown jewels, and market share because of that. For all we know, this may be code that's used only in very high-volume, large-memory systems, which would be hard to develop on one's own without extensive testing and years of development.
p!
"I honestly would vote libertarian if their candidates weren't usually total cooks."--slashdot poster
A few thoughts on the latest statements:
.
--
Are you considering suing Linux users that you notified? Anything is always a possibility. If you are going to enforce your contracts, claims and intellectual property, you have to be able to go to ultimately the endpoint of infringement.
It may just be me, but why does this remind me of the RIAA? I think it's because its a mentality of "let's ignore the fact if we annoy our customers they'll hate us."
It also says nothing. It still feels like an attempt at bullying.
--
You're claiming that Linux has been polluted with Unix code that you own, but you have not produced any evidence of that. Will you? We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to various industry analysts, respected press people and other industry leaders so that they don't have to take our word for it or wait until we show some of that evidence in court. We will actually be showing the code, and the basis for why we have made the allegations that we have. We are very confident about our case. Because we are dealing with confidential source code that we have never released without confidentiality agreements, we will have to put in place nondisclosures [agreements] simply to protect the source. But people will be able to give their opinion as to what they think.
So they'll only release it to people willing to sign the nondisclosure that will possibly restrict what they do anyway. That makes me a bit suspicious myself.
At the same time, WHY NOT wait until court if they're so confident. I smell potential publicity stunt.
--
How many lines of code in the Linux kernel are a direct copyright violation? It's very extensive. It is many different sections of code ranging from five to 10 to 15 lines of code in multiple places that are of issue, up to large blocks of code that have been inappropriately copied into Linux in violation of our source-code licensing contract. That's in the kernel itself, so it is significant. It is not a line or two here or there. It was quite a surprise for us.
5-15 lines of code? That's within the bounds of chance and the fact some programmers use standard techniques. Plus, I'd like to see them prove which came first in these bites of code . .
And how large is a block to him? 20 lines?
This statement says very little.
--
Novell Inc. says the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of Unix System V from Novell doesn't convey copyrights. What's your response? We certainly have a point of contention regarding their interpretation of that contract. We have statements from all the major parties that were involved in that contract that all the business and IP-related property of Unix and UnixWare was transferred to SCO. I think this is just a desperate act on their part to curry favor with the Linux community.
As opposed, of course, to a desperate atempt to browbeat them.
We'll see how this goes in court.
--
Honestly, this doesn't seem any different than the CEO interview. Its a lot of talk, a lot of prentention, still no proof, and a lot of dodging.
It's hard for me to look at this with a neutral eye, but when I try, it just sounds like an unconvincing pile of weasel-words. It's someone trying to sound all technical yet legal, and somehow failing at both.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Microsoft and/or SCO planted confidential code in Linux just to make this drama possible!
Do YOU think they would do such a thing?
tsia
With chunks as small as 10-15 lines, it ought to be pretty easy to determine which lines come from which patch, and then from the patch determine the submitter. If the sections of code that SCO is bitching just happen to line up with particular patch submissions, then they might just be able to make a case.
However, more likely, if the code that they are claiming infringes was touched by multiple contributors over a long period of time, and the result of all those edits just happens to kinda sorta resemble a piece of code in SVR5 (aka independent invention), then they are going to have a much harder time making that stick.
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
That quote reminds me of when Baghdad Bob said there were no Americans at the Baghdad airport, and he would take reporters there next Saturday to prove it. I assumed he expected to be dead by next Saturday since he knew he was lying through his teeth like Sontag and McBride are.
Why didn't you act earlier? This move seems to arise with SCO's declining fortunes. We just announced our second quarter, and our financials are in very good position. The company is profitable.
Which is in NO WAY due to a billion-dollar lawsuit with IBM and chances of being bought. Not at all...
It is the first time in the history of the company, in almost seven years of existence, that it has been profitable.
Part of me thinks he actually believes that achieving a profit after seven years because of a petty lawsuit is an accomplishment.
Here's a question: how long, how many times do "UNIX trade secrets" have to be published, referenced in classes, used as examples, etc., before they're not trade secrets? I mean, honestly, can SCO really stand there in front of hundreds of books documenting these "trade secrets" and then have the balls to go around telling people not to use the code... that they don't own, but contracted... kinda, and have no patent or copyright to...
If the code has been stolen and implemented into Linux, and Linux is open source, why are they protecting the code with nondisclosures?
I am aware of no mechanism in SCO Unix to ensure the legality of IP. It is very uncommon for a company to require documentation to verify the legality of their code. In fact, the only company I'm aware of that does this is the Free Software Foundation, who ownes a plurality of the copyrights on the GNU/Linux operating system.
It is a gross exaggeration to say that "almost everyone" feels that Linux's IP foundation is built on quicksand. You are the only one who I have heard state such a belief, despite campaigning by other groups with an interest in discrediting Linux.
Please indicate the person or persons at SCO who fills this task.
In traditional closed-source operating systems, the users must believe the manufacturer's statement that the OS is free of IP entanglements. The open source community, at least, provides IP holders with the means to verify IP issues. Can the same be said for closed-source OSs?
There have been multiple occassions when closed-source software has illegally adopted code from open-source software. And yet, you seem to imply that this is a problem specific to Linux's open-source model.
Your actions betray your words. You refuse to provide the user base with the information they need to evaluate the issues. Your complaint is vague, and provides no specifics with which the user community could evaluate its authenticity. Does SCO recommend that we stay away from Linux, based on vague claims? Would SCO be willing to pay for the additional costs incurred in a transition to an alternative, if your claim is found to be without merit?
Suppose I made the public claim that SCO had violated my copyrights, but refused to elaborate. Would you then expect all your customers to stop any new SCO-related deployments pending a resolution?
There is also a potential that you have violated my copyright in creating your own software; it just doesn't seem like a likely thing. Such an action must be judged by an evalution of its merits. Since you do not provide any information by which we could judge the merits of your complaint, there is no reason to act on your accusation.
Why all the secrecy about the allegedly infringing code? The cat is already out of the bag if there is infringing code in the Linux kernel. All they'd have to do is post a few snippets of code to bolster their case. Show us a few 10-15 line blocks of code. There's no call for NDA's at this point because if they are right there's no secret left to protect.
The only plausible explanation is that there is no infringing code and this lawsuit is just bluff and bluster designed to either spread FUD or to get paid off by IBM.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on tv.
Wouldn't the judge just look at the two pieces of code, and think to him/herself "Geez, that's a whole lot of unintelligible gibberish, but it's clearly the same gibberish, so it must have been stolen."
Serious question. Can someone come up with a pithy analogy that would help to explain this to those not in the know? BTW, I am a programmer...
IBM's stock quotes: IBM
Novell's stock quotes: Novell
and our favourite SCO: SCO
You're claiming that Linux has been polluted with Unix code that you own, but you have not produced any evidence of that. Will you? We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to various industry analysts, respected press people and other industry leaders so that they don't have to take our word for it or wait until we show some of that evidence in court. We will actually be showing the code, and the basis for why we have made the allegations that we have. We are very confident about our case. Because we are dealing with confidential source code that we have never released without confidentiality agreements, we will have to put in place nondisclosures [agreements] simply to protect the source. But people will be able to give their opinion as to what they think.
It's obvious that this sack of shit is lying. If his claims were true, he'd have no reason not to point out the offending code, since it has already been released to the public for all to see. There is no longer anything that he can protect by keeping the "offending code" secret. This is just a smokescreen for the fact that there really is no evidence because the entire claim is completely fabricated. See the OSI's response to this non-sense.
Also, there are many mechanisms ensuring that FOSS software is properly distributed without violating IP. People are required to sign waivers indicating that the contributed code was not improperly obtained. In many cases, corporations are asked to sign waivers.
Furthermore, since the code is FOSS, any proprietary entities concerned can easily identify any issues and have them resolved. SCO could have done this a long time ago -- it's obvious this is bullshit.
As a general summary, there are more insurances that FOSS isn't misappropriated than there are for proprietary code (which is closed-source, so they can hide misappropriations of IP). Furthermore, it is much more likely that SCO violated that GPL than that any FOSS developers violated SCO's IP.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
What really worries me is that SCO could take code from the Linux Kernel (Since it's open source) and then add that into their code and claim it's been there all along. By the way... SCO sounds like a nasty STD I'm getting ready to roll out a huge Linux server project at work. Am I going to delay it?? No chance.
someone...please make it stop. I can't take any more SCO news.
That's what I was thinking too, but SCO sure is acting like 1994 never occurred. Of course, if they were, it certainly would beg the question of why they aren't going after BSD. So as far as anyone here seems to know, any violations have to be post-1994. I do look forward to the prospect of seeing SCO in court fighting pre-1994 "violations" though. Would make my week seeing them get laughed out of court.
If the code comes to Linux via BSD, as I postulated, we and IBM should be in the clear: we couldn't be expected to know that BSD had somehow stolen it from SCO
I'm not so sure about that - they're going after the linux community on precisely those bases (ie, linux users unwittingly using tainted code), and I don't know that ignorance in this instance is enough to get off the hook. Doesn't mean they're right about anything else, but if BSD kept "borrowing" after 1994, it could be problematic. Again, I would ask Darl why they aren't hitting BSD?
This seems to be the most likely scenario. In fact, it seems very probable that they realized, some time back, that they could....copy some good parts from Linux into SCO server/Xenix/whatever...claim that Linux copied it from them....etc
Yeah, I'm wondering, assuming this gets to court, where the burden of proof will lie. Presumably, it would be up to SCO to prove absolutely that they put it in their codebase before it got in the kernel. Now, interestingly, this is damned easy for Linux to prove - kernel source is open - but could be hard for SCO since it could be tough for them to prove they're not fudging commit dates - them being closed source and all (HA!). I would loooove to see how THAT plays out - open source nukes the SCO suit. ;)
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Let's imagine SCO goes ahead and get this whole thing to the court. How can they prove their allegations? Code is only text. It can be created, copied and modified without any efort. Who can tell if they don't "created" the infringiments copying from linux code into the SCO code replacing their own code by equivalent linux code?
Faith can move mountains. I prefer dynamite.
When you get down to OS-level stuff, the code will HAVE to be identical in spots. Your degrees of freedom in word choice are constrained by the need to use certain commands, and the need to optimize the code.
You avoid blatant plagiarism, by creating your own artwork and writing your own examples, comments, and non-technical materials, but that's as far as it can go.
And it is acknowledged in copyright law that there will be overlapping content and strong similarities in non-fiction material.
The one copyright infringement case I was involved in did not use the switch setting tables, nor their identical alphabetical arrangement by software name, as proof of infringement. Out of any 10 technical writers creating that section, all would have arranged things alphabetically, and there was only one way to set the switches. Where we got them was where they copied the examples and troubleshooting section ... :) including my Canadian spellings.
The Linux source is as widely open as any source in the world. Why would you need an NDA? The source (stolen or not) is open for the world to see right now. Even if SCO wins, there are 10+ million Linux CDs floating around with the source
on it.
*obligatory slap at Microsoft*
Microsoft should sue SCO for security model I.P. infringements. "Claim secure while the world can plainly see the evidence that rejects the claim"
(in this cause; that could be exactly why they want an NDA)
It may have been done to force a separation of blocks of code, so that the compiler wouldn't optimize them together (though I don't know how MSVC's optimizer works).
If I remember correctly there are similar tricks used in the Linux kernel to prevent out-of-order evaluation in places like interrupt handlers where it can cause problems.
There are also cases where do {...} while(0) is used in macros. See this thread of a mailing list discussion describing such usage.
I wonder if SCO is claiming ownership of tricks like these, or common code patterns. Or, maybe, they're saying, "Hey look! Their PCI code accesses the PCI bus! Their register write/reads look awfully similar to ours! There's no way they could be accessing the PCI bus without copying our code! The fact that the same registers have to be used no matter the OS is insignificant!"
A solution to the problem with music today
In two weeks, The SCO Group Inc. intends to begin showing analysts where the Unix code it owns has been illegally copied into the Linux kernel.
... but to seek an opinion of their legal counsel as to the issues that we raised.
Doesn't own.
Why should Linux users take your claim seriously?
Think about if I was the CIO of a company and I'm going to be running my business on an operating system that has an intellectual property foundation that, by almost everyone's admission, is built on quicksand
First off, doesn't that sound something more like Microsoft would say, A company that would want to negatively connotate any company running what would be linux, instead of a company which owns intellectual property, and conversely would want as many companies as possible to maximize any money out of a legal settlement they thought they could actually win.
Secondly, I'm pretty sure that Slashdot alone is a majority over anyone else who actually beileves that linux is an operating system built on quicksand.
Thirdly, I hate people who use a number system to outline points. I'll scrap that.
Your letter to 1,500 end-user companies outlining your claim was vague. What is it that you want from these companies?
The one thing that we specifically want from those 1,500 companies that we directly sent those letters to is for them to not take our word on the warning that we sent
Finally, a valid point. Do not take their word for it. I can comply.
Again, I have to reitterate. Why in the world would a company that would have everyone else in their clutches for a revenue stream using intellectual property, want everyone else to stop using Linux? Honestly. Please reply with some good reasons, because frankly I cannot think of one.
Also, I'm glad that all it takes to stop development on linux entirely is "potential of an issue."
Should companies remove Linux from their systems?
We're not making any specific recommendations at this time
Is that not what is contained in the previous paragraphs? Am I missing something?!?!
http://use.perl.org
Come on, everyone cuts and pastes all the time.
The kernel, is just too advanced for one person to do. Of course its copied from UNIX.
Hello?
SCO and IBM worked together for some time on a version of AIX for Itanium. AFAIK, SCO contributed UNIXWare code, and IBM contributed AIX code.
IBM walked away from this agreement.
If IBM contributed anything from this collective codebase (either their own code or SCO's), then SCO's actions become entirely logical.
This may not be about historical UNIX code. This may be about recent development efforts and the sour relationship between IBM and SCO over Itanium UNIX.
But, uh, anybody in the world can view the Linux source code that they claim is identical without signing an NDA, so how exactly is this protecting them?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
ps. i'm being ironic. DON'T go and DOS SCO.
Given that SCO Group license Unix from Noveel which owns the Unix Patnet to Trade secretes onUnix methods and the copyright to System V code..
..Novell does have a case to complete put SCO group out of business pernamently both in their license business strategy and everythign else..
The only thing SCO group can enforce is the terms of a sub license of a sublicense..
Given their actions of harming trade secrets of Novell
Don't Tread on OpenSource
As far as I can tell as an Unisys employee, and a Unisys stockholder (not a great move on my part)claiming gif rights and extorting $$ from adobe and other image editing / capturing companies didn't exactlly pull this crap company out of it's poor performance. In fact shortly after, the stock price tanked due to unrealized expectations and gereral economic downturn. I expect that SCO does or doesn't win a judgement their corporate landscape will not change either way, for good, or bad. i think market forces are more resilant than that.
Well, I use it to export NFS shares and it works just fine. I don't use the source code compatibility stuff or the tools - you're right they're half-assed - I use cygwin and the ActiveState stuff instead.
SCO vs. Linux topic item.
Or even better
Submit your small stories that has anything to do with SCO vs Linux to:
http://scovslinux.slashdot.org
Please God make the pain stop.
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
How funny that they would even copy the mistakes...
Well said. Everybody knows all LiNUX code was written from the scratch (they got the names of the people who wrote it in the source files). So I don't understand who is behind this Paranoia trying to convince us that there are people who actually care.
NOBODY CARES ABOUT THIS SCO STORY.
--From the Lone AC, Yippe KY--
SCO Group Chief Executive Darl McBride said a published report that his company may take legal action against Linux founder Linus Torvalds was overstated.
Responding to a portion of a Wednesday story by CBS Marketwatch that has generated intense criticism from the Linux community, McBride told CNET News.com that targeting Torvalds is unlikely.
"Virtually we see no reason why that would ever happen," McBride said. "We're not trying to go down that path."
McBride's comments were meant to address a portion of the story that stated, "McBride added that unless more companies start licensing SCO's property, he may also sue Linus Torvalds, who is credited with inventing the Linux operating system, for patent infringement."
While he would not completely rule out the possibility of suing Torvalds, McBride emphasized with News.com that "I wasn't even talking about patents."
A CBS Marketwatch reporter did not immediately respond to a request to respond to McBride's comments.
Torvalds, meanwhile, said he sees legal action against him as ineffectual but not inconceivable. "I don't see what (SCO) would expect to gain from suing me, but they don't seem to be acting very rationally," he wrote in an e-mail interview.
And while Torvalds said he agrees with some of the criticisms SCO's actions have triggered on Linux-friendly online forums such as Slashdot, he also called for restraint and maturity in dealing with SCO. "I hope this doesn't incite anybody to (launch a denial-of-service attack against) the SCO Web site or something silly like that," he said.
SCO's actions, including legal threats and assertions that Linux programmers couldn't have built high-end features into the operating system on their own, have indeed inflamed the passions of many Linux advocates. SCO's Web site was crushed by such an attack earlier in May; the specific attackers were unknown, but SCO was quick to blame Linux proponents.
SCO sued IBM for more than $1 billion in March, alleging Big Blue illegally incorporated Unix intellectual property that is owned by SCO into Linux. Initially, SCO said it wasn't going after Linux, but it changed its stance when three separate investigations found Unix source code copied into Linux, the company said. SCO has declined to reveal the specific code that was allegedly copied.
The copying of source code could potentially expand SCO's legal actions beyond IBM through copyright infringement claims, but McBride said contracts provide a stronger legal case.
"Our code is showing up inside the Linux kernel. Given the rights we have, where does that take us? The most logical place is the guys we have contracts with," McBride said.
Novell, which owned Unix rights before selling at least some of them to SCO's predecessor in 1995, on Wednesday disputed that SCO has copyrights and patents for Unix. It didn't dispute that SCO holds the contracts under which Unix is licensed to others.
SCO said it will reveal in June the Unix code has been copied into Linux, but only to select people, such as independent analysts who have signed nondisclosure agreements. It won't share that code publicly, saying the Unix code is proprietary.
SCO says it has more than 6,000 Unix licensees, including companies and universities, and that its direct contracts with companies such as Hewlett-Packard, IBM or SGI require that sublicensees protect the Unix code. A sublicensee is a business that has purchased hardware or software with Linux from IBM, for example.
"They sign up for the fact that they may not misappropriate the code," McBride said. Unix is used at the majority of the 1,500 large companies to which SCO sent letters alerting them to legal risks of using Linux, he said.
Contrary to Novell's assertion, SCO contends it does have Unix copyrights and could base legal action on them. "I think it's perfectly clear we have the rights to enforce copyright claims," McBride said. "Clearly copyright is a path you can be taking a hard look at."
Or am I missing something:
"...We will actually be showing the code, and the basis for why we have made the allegations that we have. We are very confident about our case. Because we are dealing with confidential source code that we have never released without confidentiality agreements, we will have to put in place nondisclosures [agreements] simply to protect the source..."
That's the SCO source code he's talking about.
And they need the time to re-write *it* to contain fragments of Linux.
That's why they can't release any "proof" just yet.
And of course, no one will generally know what they've done, because SCO's source hasn't been released before their big date..
So they release their source, say "Hey! look! Linux is just like ours code! See! Here and here and here..."
Anyway: + 5 points: cool conspiracy theory
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
As of market close today, SCOX is down another 9.08% to close at $6.00. That would be down 31% from it's close of 8.71 just two days ago. Apparently nobody's buying their bullshit, or the stock price would be going up, no?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
>In the News
>British Army Selects SCO's Unix Platform, Server
>Solutions and Services, SCO News
Seems like it is time to find a new ally since all of the British forces will be shot because the command and control center crashed.
>Unix Concern Hopes to Benefit from Microsoft
>Deal, The New York Times
Well, when you make a deal with Satan, you know what happens.
>SCO and Center 7 Bring Microsoft Active Directory
>Authentication to Unix , SCO News
Does it really surprise anyone? Since it is obvious that they are in bed with the enemy?
>Microsoft to license Unix code from SCO, BusinessWeek
Enough said here....
>More SCO News
>Visit the Pressroom
Hot off the press!!! $CO is bankrupt after loosing a court battle costing millions in attorny fees! the real winner here? The attorneys.
I don't know what's worse:
1. You are so bored you post how bored you are.
2. At least five other bored moderators mod this up as "insightful"
3. I take the time to post this response.
SCO just announced that they'll show the alleged offenses in the Linux kernel to "industry analysts, respected press people, and other industry leaders" under NDA. I want to know *who* (names) will be invited. Will anybody from the open source movement be invited? If so, who? Might I suggest Bruce Perens or Eric Raymond? No offense to the generic classes of parties mentioned in the invitation intended, but "press people" don't have the technical background to understand such an evaluation, and will be easily fooled. "Other industry leaders" is such a vague term that those chosen might be even less technically knowledgable than the press. And peronally, I don't trust "industry analysts" for anything farther than I can throw them. So we've got no guarantee that anyone invited is knowledgable enough in the art of software development and the workings of the Linux and System V kernels to be able to evaluate the evidence properly. If this little revelation of SCO's is to have any meaning, it must include that guarantee. The open source community must be allowed to send a representative (still bound by SCO's NDA) with the proper technical skill to fully understand and evaluate the evidence. Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond come to my mind as likely candidates. If one of them went to SCO's little evidence exhibition and came back saying, "you know, maybe it's not all complete bull; maybe they do have something of a case", then the whole landscape changes. Not so if those same words come from other less trusted or less knowledgable sources.
So how about it, SCO? If you're so sure of your evidence, how about inviting Bruce or Eric to be one of those "other industry leaders"? It's your chance to convince the open source community of the validity of your claims, shut up some of your loudest critics, and bring a huge fresh breath of legitimacy to this whole fiasco... Or were you just hoping to snow the uninitiated with more bull?
-----Chaz
And this explains why they cannot disclose where the 50 odd lines are. They would be rewritten overnight, and the 1 billion $ lawsuit would collapse to a 1000 $ lawsuit.
Even a non-tech savy judge would understand that something that was replaced overnight can't be worth 1 billion $.
Sorry, I've never posted that before, I just got this overwhelming urge to ask that the parent be modded up. I'm all better now.
See here
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
about the code
So, 1 to 15 lines of code, and some "blocks" of code
1) so what is that in percentage terms out of the total lines of code ?
2) is that actual code or headers/definitions ?
3) given your closed source, prove when you added them to your code. ie that they were in existance before you started the law suit
4) as linux is developed from contributions, it should be easy to trace source of offending code. then ask authors about the code.
5) is there any code is sco's unix that was taken from other Unix varients, or even text books ?
About the patents
Novell said in its press release it owns them, and the contract does not transfer them.
Novell is also still registered at USPTO as owning them
About Microsoft
Did you make MS aware of Novell owning the patents when you signed a licensing deal ? if not why ? if there was dispute over who owned them did you advise Microsoft of them ?
Sounds like SCO could get its arse kicked for the goofs it is making.
With that statement, it seems like SCO provided evidence that it is vulnerable to the "laches defense." According to well established law, you cannot sit back and watch while an infringer enhances and markets your work, then litigate when the infringer starts making big bucks. In effect, SCO let IBM, and many other companies, take the risk and then try to claim the rewards.
Judge Learned Hand wrote, in a 1916 copyright dispute, that:
See the recent (and infinitely puckish) opinion from MGM v. Sony (pdf).
unlike trademarks, patents and copyright do not diminish with disuse.
Though trademarks come with the strongest "use it or lose it" responsibilities, patents and copyrights are still subject to some. If a judge finds that a patent holder or copyright owner has harmed an alleged infringer by delaying legal action, the doctrine of laches states that the monopoly holder cannot collect damages for alleged infringements that occurred prior to the alleged infringement.
In addition, copyrights have fair use limitations. If the owner of copyright in a published work refuses to sell copies of the work and refuses to license the work, it could be argued that the copyright owner thereby denies the existence of any "potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" (17 USC 107) that could be harmed by the alleged infringement.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Q: In other words, a company's options reduce to sending a flock of (expensive) lawyers to investigate the legal consequences of a highly complex claim, the factual merits of which you refuse to divulge?
A: Well, when you put it that way . . . still YES! A thousand times YES! Linux development shall come to a screeching halt!
Seriously, when's someone with standing going to countersue?
Open-source software is a common resource; what SCO is doing is analogous to saying "we know that there are poisoned wells. But we're not telling you which ones. Options: (1) drink and maybe die; or (2) pay us to tell you which wells are poisoned.
This is flagrantly abusive, and someone should unleash the flesh-eating lawyers on SCO.
Anyone notice their stock price has done rather well in the past 6 months, with a pretty major spike in the last month or so?
sco 6mo stock chart
# Erik
Back in February, SCO (symbol: SCOX) was just over $1/share, which is was close to its 52-week low of $0.60/share. Amazingly, the stock has climbed to $6/share, despite the kamikaze lawsuit.
If you think about SCO's assets (what assets?), and the prospect for growth (with their customer relations?), you have to wonder how that valuation is justified. The only logical buyer would be Microsoft. Even if M$ buys SCO (which I doubt), they will do so at a fire sale price that reflects the classic M$ business practices.
To me, this looks like a good stock to sell short. When the investment industry learns what the IT industry already knows, I think SCO will crash & burn. If people are dumb enough to buy at $6/share, I say there are some fools out there who need to be separated from their money. The mere existance of short sellers would be the early warning that investors will use to liquidate their SCO stock.
Didnt anyone read the SJ Mercury news? Novell claims that it own UNIX copyright - not SCO.
A lot of people have posted here making incredibly lame jokes about the possible 10-15 lines of code. However, one point they make is true; we can't tell whether or not the alleged copied code is actually copied or just so obvious that it coincidentally happens to be similar. For certain applications, certain code is going to be identical.
For instance, if you want to use a single string for, say, holding user input, you'll probably use malloc() to declare a char* called 'str' or 'p'. This will probably be about 5 lines of code if you include error detection.
Then there are system calls one uses. If you're outputting a line of text, you'll probably use puts(), or printf(), or fprintf(). If you're getting a list of groups a user is a member of, you'll use getgroups() and/or getgid(). If you want to spawn a subprocess you'll use fork(). If you want to get the name of the current terminal you'll use ttyname(). All this creates code which is likely to look very similar.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
I wonder if IBM, Linus Torvalds, or any kernel contributor could launch a copyright violation suit against SCO and sue them out of existance before they could argue their IP suit?
By their own admission, they've clearly violated the GPL and they're continuing to do it.
Hmm.... after the first one goes, then subsequent copyright holders could go after them... maybe as a class-action.
From the above Netcraft link:
24 thesource.ofallevil.com 79 136 8 Windows Server 2003 Microsoft-IIS/6.0
That's another of MS's servers. What is up with that domain?!?
Sadly, only SCO can tell if there has been any infringment on their closed source code. Novel might give you a copy of system V to play with, but only SCO has their newer code. When you conceal details of your work, no one but you can tell. It's one of those problems with the much less than honest aproach that closed source is.
Let them do it, if there is anything to find you would think they would be happy to display it. There is no valid reason for them to not tell what parts of the kernel are infringing, because Linux is publically published. Let them show us the wonderous efficiency of their closed source auditing system. Sure. Total Bullshit.
The only help this Armarni clad greaser needs is for a reduced roid perscription. That, and someone needs to slap that smirk off his face. It came from marketing. "Sontag has extensive experience in building exceptional corporate teams and lasting strategic alliances " I wonder if he considers sucking Bill Gates dick a strategic alliance?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
An unintended side effect of this would be to drive up the SCO stock price, thus rewarding the current stockholders. That in turn would provide an incentive for other companies to start similar legal adventures against Linux, with the hope that they too may be targeted in this profitable way.
Which Linux application could one use to morph an
image of the asshole , such as C. Sontag, into an
asshole?
The number you have dialed has been disconnected. Please check the number and dial again...
... you insensitive clod !
Hopefully, a karma whore will have posted the full-text of the article.
:wq
for(i=0; iMAX_VALUE; i++){
Found exactly! (Except for formatting, and variable name changes, which are irrelevant.) It is perfectly obvious that such code was stolen from SCO, since no programmer could possibly come up with such without proprietary knowledge.
[Yes this is sarcastic, but come on... 5 or 10 lines of code that looks the same (or similar) and it's an IP violation! Rrrrrriiiiight.]
When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's a hellava time to think about draining the swamp.
We found this line:
x = 1;
and then this huge piece:
if (x == 1) then {
y = 2;
break;
}
It's like that throughout the ENTIRE kernel, SCO has been ripped off and those Finnish bastards must PAY!
How about this: ($)CO
They always put the negative numbers/losses in ()'s.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Surely we as a community can search for this offending code ourselves, seeing as how $CO plans on continuing to stonewall for another month. I mean, Novell still has IP right supposedly, correct? They should also have the source then, and while they understandably may not want to sift through millions of lines of code for something that may not even be there, i'm sure they could find some volunteers in the community to come in (under NDA if necessary) to do just that. Anyone?
You might want to check out www.scosource.com
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Would you all realise this has NOTHING to do with code? That's just bullshit. This is a planned media stunt and you're all falling over yourselves to add weight to their cause.
I don't mind reading this discussion, but would you please all give up trying to guess what bit of code was stolen? That's just their lame excuse to get into the media spotlight.
The reaction to this story continues to amaze me.
SCO makes a extraordinary claim without proving any evidence and people treat it seriously.
If they really had something, they wouldn't be trying to get press coverage.
-- this is not a
No NDA should be needed if they are right since that code is already in the open.
It's only if they are wrong an NDA might be appropiate.
Help fight continental drift.
DISNEY CORPORATION HAS PRESENTED SCO GROUP WITH CEASE AND DESIST ORDER.
Canadiane Pres [Miami, 29 May 2003]
Sources have revealed that Disney Corporation has presented SCO with cease and desist order. Disney claims copyright infringements by SCO dating back to the company's days as Caldera International. Disney claims that Caldera inappropriately incorporated the Mickey Mouse silhouette, widely recognized as a trademark owned by Disney Corporation, into Cladera's red "C" logo. This blatant infringement continues to this day despite Cladera changing their name to SCO Group. Disney has requested that the SCO Group remove infringing "C" from their logo as it is derived from the illegal Cladera red "C". Furthermore, Disney has requested a retroactive punitive compensation for diluting its trademark and, recently, further damaging the goodwill attached to its highly prized trademarked silhouette by engaging in an asinine and baseless litigation. When asked: "But how are the two C's related to each other. How can one be derived from the other?"; the Disney spokesperson replied: "We will be presenting the evidence in court, assuming that the SCO Group does not comply with our orders." The SCO group was not immediately available for comment.
Yes but now their stock is -1.14 earning/share. Their once again loosing.
I haven't seen a reference to this article yet?
Are they claiming ownership of C++??
The SCO Group now owns the entire bundle of products that were the property of the AT&T UNIX Systems Laboratory when Novell purchased USL. The SCO Group also owns all the products and property that belonged to SCO when Caldera purchased SCO (including the stuff SCO bought from Novell. It owns all the Caldera products and property. All in all, the SCO Group has a nice collection of products and properties.
For example, a February 1993 press release issued by Novell states: USL develops and markets the UNIX System V operating system, the TUXEDO* Enterprise Transaction Processing System, the C++ Programming Language System and other standards-based system software products to the worldwide computer industry.
They also mention COFF and ELF formats ...
Full article : http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-01_S tory01.html#libraries_included
May I have your attention please?
May I have your attention please?
Will the real UNIX Owner please stand up?
I repeat, will the real UNIX Owner please stand up?
We're gonna have a problem here..
Y'all act like you never seen linux source code before
Jaws all on the floor like Bruce, like Linus just burst in the door
and started whoopin that SCO's ass worse than before
they were first with the source, throwin it over IBM (Ahh!)
It's the return of the... "Ah, wait, no way, you're kidding,
he didn't just say what I think he did, did he?"
And Novell Man said... nothing you idiots!
Novell Man's dead, he's locked in my basement! (Ha-ha!)
Kernel lovin men love Novell too
SCO UNIX, I'm sick of it
Look at them, walkin around suing users' you-know-what
Flippin the you-know-who, "Yeah, but he's so cute though!"
Yeah, SCO probably got a couple of screws up in the head loose
But no worse, than what's goin on in their corporate boardrooms
Sometimes, I wanna get on Slashdot and just let loose, but can't
but it's cool for Cowboy Neal to spread his lie caboose
"My source is on your lips, my source is on your lips"
And if I'm lucky, you might just give it a little kiss
And that's the message that we deliver to little kids
And expect them not to know what an OS's source code is
Of course they gonna know what linux sourse is
By the time they hit fourth grade
They got that kernel.org don't they?
"We ain't nothing but hackers..." Well, some of us are slackers
who cut other people open like smashed crackers
But if we can hack a dead OS and take our source
Then there's no reason that a man and his penguin can't recourse
But if you feel like I feel, I got the antidote
Men here wave anti-SCO flags, sing the chorus and here it goes
I'm The UNIX Owner, yes I'm The Real Owner
All you other UNIX Owners are just lying loaners
So won't The Real UNIX Owner please stand up,
Please stand up, please stand up?
Cuz I'm The UNIX Owner, yes I'm The Real Owner
All you other UNIX Owners are just lying loaners
So won't The Real UNIX Owner please stand up,
Please stand up, please stand up?
Linus don't gotta cuss in his code to sell distros,
Well SCO do, so fuck them and FUCK YOU TOO!
You think we give a damn about a lawsuit?
Half you suits can't even stomach it, let alone use it
"But Tux, what if they win, wouldn't it be weird?"
What, you guys just lying to scare me now?
So you can sit me there next to Billy G?
Christopher Sontag better switch me chairs
So I can sit next to Torvalds and Bruce Perens
Listen to ESR lie 'bout who he gave bribes first
Stupid fuck, making shit up 'bout MS on the 'Net
"Yeah, they lie, steal and cheat every chance they get!"
I should download the Halloween memos on MP3
And show the whole world how he made it up for free
I'm sick o' you little fangirls and fanboys
So I just came here to destroy you
And there's a million of us
Just like me, cuss like me
Who don't give a fuck like me
Who dress like me, walk, talk and act like me
And just might be the next best thing but not quite me...
Juries do not need to understand kernel code. They need to hear testimony from expert witnesses. Both parties will provide them, lawyers will do their best to refute their testimony, and the jurors will decide who is more convincing.
I'll put my money on the Open Source experts any day.
-Hope
I wouldn't put it past these sleazy sons of bitches.
BTW, I called SCO headquarters yesterday to voice my frustration (801-765-4999). A pleasant woman immediatly answered the phone and asked where to direct my call. I said "Ummmm, anyone"... she said "ummmm, what is this in reference to" and I replied "the sleazy business dealings your doing with the lawsuit". She replied "well, everyone is currently at a company lunchen right now". I replied "What, the last supper"?
Ah well... call 'em and bitch. If nothing else we can swamp their phone systems with our opinions.
If Novell owns the IP, then how can SCO say they are going to sue everyone for IP violation as long as Novell says that they don't want to sue anyone.
So if that's true the only basis for their claims can be that IBM took code from under an NDA and put it into the Linux kernel (as the manager said, the problematic code is in the kernel).
IBM is basically moving they operations away from AIX to Linux. I guess because Linux is basically cheaper than maintaining and developing their own UNIX. Now if IBM is really serious about moving to Linux (and I think it looks like they are), then they are not going to jeopardise their move by allowing code to be copied from AIX to Linux.
This leads me to the conclusion that it's all FUD. The only thing that bothers me is the question "Why are they doing it?". The way they are acting is not going to drive people from Linux to SCO's Unix. So basically they want to make money by licensing stuff. What are they going to license? According to Novell they don't own the IP.
Perhaps they were really just hoping to be bought out by IBM. Or the top brass sold their shares when the price jumped because of their claims. It all just doesn't make sense to me.
... they will buy out SCO, whose market cap right now is about $70M.
I never thought it was possible for a tech company to become so loathesome so quickly. Microsoft is finally dethroned; there is a new emperor of evil!
they go like this
int i = 0;
int j = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
for (j = 0; j < 100; i++)
{
ok, now there are 6 lines that could have been copied. However, I am fairly certain that they would have been copied out of some text book originally.
Hm, note to self
Step 1 - patent the nested 'for' loop
Step 2 - sue IBM, MS, etc for US$1 bilion each
Step 3 - Profit!
Wow, I think I'm the first to actually have a step 2 included, go me!
-CPM
---You're all I need, When the water runs deep, You're all I need, Now I cry my soul to sleep -- Collective Soul, Needs
There is inappropriate intellectual property in Linux. The development process has no one that is ensuring that inappropriate code is not getting into Linux. All that's there is an honor system, and obviously there are a few, at least, that have broken that honor.
How does anyone know that the code in question was not first in Linux, then integrated into System V, thus violating the GPL?
Addimitedly, the open source model is not immune to the type of issue that SCO has raised, but I mean, really, it seems as if he is inferring that the closed source model is immune to the same type of problem. I would quite plainly argue that this is just not the case. Does SCO have a team of software engineers that audit the System V code to ensure that no GPLed software is included in the OS? I doubt it.
So what is the solution? Dissolving intellectual property might be something that would be worth looking into, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
The next question is.....
Can they prove that those lines originate from their proprietary source, and not from some common (shared) free source?
eg. A text book, magazine, a HowTo, a chip manufacturers tutorial sheet, or some other code source.
The onus must be on them to prove that they did in fact create that code and not copy it from some other source.
Give SCO a call, write an email and/or a letter. Let SCO know of your dissatisfaction. This seems like an appropriate action. Maybe a Linux defence fund is next.
Also, if SCO is giving out 95% of its revenues (from the code) to Novell, it is highly unlikely that they are licensing out any of their own code.
(OK I'm actually making this all up but it could happen)
SCO Code Review Report
Apparently our programming staff have been consistently borrowing GPL code for SCO proprietary projects. According to the GPL we will be forced to make all of our products GPL.
SCO Spinmeister Report
Since no one actually ever gets to see our closed source why don't we claim we wrote it first and it was copied into the GPL projects? Then we can sue and make lots of money.
Coding Blog
SCO is now claiming their threat to sue Torvalds was overstated. Quote from CEO: "Virtually we see no reason why that would ever happen. We're not trying to go down that path."
What I wish is for someone -- hopefully one of these interviewers -- to ask the RIGHT question of SCO, which is this:
When will you disclose the offending lines of code (assuming there even IS any) to the Linux community so they can change the code and eliminate the source of the problem?
I just don't see how disclosing the offending material under an NDA is going to help. I am sure that if the maintainers of the kernel code knew there was illicitly incorporated IP (again, I'm not saying there is, this is hypothetical), they would remove it in an instant. There, no more offending IP, no more problem.
Yes, we can all say that SCO is not going to do this so they can keep making unfounded claims against Linux. But why hasn't some interviewer asked this question, at least to get a response from SCO, even if it was to evade the question? At least it would get the issue out in the open.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Why hasn't anyone filed a Cease and Desist order Against SCO regarding their talking to the press with their claims, until they are forthcomming with the claimed evidence?
So, they tell us WHAT lines are "supposedly" copied...
We find out WHO submitted the source changes to the kernel...
We find out IF they could POSSIBLY have had access to "SCO's" source code...
THEN and ONLY THEN will they be able to prove a DAMN thing...
This just STINKS. In fact I would not be surprised if SCO thought up this idea... Approached Microsoft... Microsoft gives them a "donation" to legally beat people up and cause problems with Linux... Microsoft says... "See they STOLE code... Look at that OS... They had to get code from another OS..."
I also liked the conspiracy theory that SCO is actually "adding" the "offending" code to their source as we speak...
In addition... I have used SCO a couple of times in the past 96-97... It sucked... It was SLOW as Death on a crutch walking backwards... AND the same system running that "early" version of Linux was MUCH faster... (no I don't remember the kernel version.. sorry)
GO
As someone else pointed out, they are even still distributing the offending code right now.
What is particularly irksome is that companies, particularly under CONTRACT where the point is not to alienate your partner in contract, nevermind the greater potential customer based, will normally issue cease and desist letters giving you a warning to stop the breach of contract or IP or copyright violations, etc. By SCO launching immediately into a $1B lawsuit, they have clearly shown their motives and agendas to be most impure and unworthy of respect.
Since Linus has had reign over the kernel and SCO has claimed that these infractions are in the kernel, it would be good for Linus to speak up and say if in fact there were pieces of the kernel, including header files, that were copied from somewhere, anywhere, not just SysV, or can Linus say that ALL of the kernel was created de novo without any copying from anywhere ?
Ok so SCO claims that companies that are using Linux are in violation of SCO's patents and other ip. So then what about their own Linux distribution??? So one can assume that under SCO's own claims that this must violate SCO's patents and copyrights as well......???
I don't in any why support SCO, but I don't understand: If they bought the rights to UNIX, but didn't get any copyrights or patents, what did they get? What else is there???
Anonymous Cowards suck.
Back in the day, a lot of the Linux networking utilities were based on BSD networking utilities that were released as part of the 4.4BSD release after the USL settlement. I really don't know how many Linux utilities are descended from utilities in the 4.4BSD distribution, but it could be a substantial amount of code.
What led to the settlement between Berkeley and USL (in Berkeley's favor) was that USL had been taking BSD code for years, removing the BSD copyright and license (the first act is forbidden by law, the second by the license), slapping an AT&T proprietary notice on it, and committing it to their repository.
When this was discovered, Berkeley was in the position of being able to say to AT&T "there's no way you can make up for this. You just have to stop selling System V entirely." So they were basically forced to settle.
However, SCO had been receiving SysV tapes from USL for a long time before this settlement occurred. It's quite possible that what they have in their source code repository is a bunch of BSD code with AT&T proprietary notices on it.
Without opening up the legal records from the USL lawsuit and getting testimony from the people who worked on BSD and on System 5 way back when, it would be impossible for them to tell the difference.
To a person who wasn't aware of all this history, they would see a substantial similarity between a lot of "AT&T" code and a lot of Linux code. Not knowing that the "AT&T" code was actually Linux code, they might readily conclude that the code was stolen.
So my point is that it's actually possible that SCO honestly believes they are in the right, because they don't realize that a lot of the code that they think is theirs is actually code came from BSD.
Isn't that code supposed to be illegally accordingly to SCO, but publicly available since supposed to be in GPLed Linux?
Why signing a nondisclosure agreement to look at publicly available code?
We have no specific program or solution for solving this Linux intellectual property problem right now.
Meaning, we just want to stop Linux spreading in corporations as much as we can, until we were proven to be a bunch of goofies!
Achille Talon
Hop!
More than once, I'll be bound!
From the article: Because we are dealing with confidential source code that we have never released without confidentiality agreements, we will have to put in place nondisclosures [agreements] simply to protect the source.
They're clainiming that their code has been wrongly included in an Open Source system - what is this confidentiality they need to preserve and how will they preserve it? It's already freely available to the whole world.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Here's a question (and mod me Redundant if someone's already pointed this out...I'm in a hurry): Why can't they just point out the infringing source code in the kernel without revealing their own proprietary code that is being infringed upon? Are they afraid that we might reverse-engineer the genie that is already out of the bottle or is this all just more obfuscation about what is really a legal non-issue?
What really confuses me is that some of the core developers of Linux are UNIX developers, how could anyone not expect it these developers to throw some of their original material in the mix. How in the hell could anyone expect Linux to be a truly unique OS with that kind of some of the UNIX big dogs adding to the backbone.
SCO knows this and thinks that that point will be neglected. Silly them
Place something witty here
I'm not going to click the link to find out; how did you translate the tinyurl into readable format without clicking the link?
Okay, so let's say SCO shows a series of lines of Linux kernel that match up exactly with UNIX system V code. How does that prove that:
1 - The code SCO claims is from UNIX sys V really is. After all they only show a subset and we have only their word to believe that this code came from their software, and since it's closed source, there's no prior proof it was ever in there.
2 - If they can prove it exists in their UNIX V code, how do they prove it appeared there first? It is possible there was copying, but in the opposite direction - from Linux to SCO. This again gets back to their code being closed. They trot out some file and claim it's from far in the past - but how do we know that if it was always secret?
It's a problem with legal battles between OSS and CSS that I've been wondering about for a while now. With OSS there's a good public record of what appeared in the code when. With CSS you have to take the supplier of the code at his word.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
But they already told us how the lines came to be, and who submitted them. What lines doesn't matter that much, really.
IBM (rather, someone working for IBM) submitted them, and they were (probably) taken from cooperative work between IBM and SCO under Project Monterrey. SCO believes IBM did not have the right to distribute the code in such a way, and furthur that SCO *did* have the right to incorporate this code into their OpenServer product.
As to the linux community pulling the code out and replacing it with non-infringing equivalent, that's a non-issue. It has no bearing on the alleged fact that IBM breached the contract with SCO. It only has an affect on FUD and sales of SCO licences/products to people that would otherwise have bought linux products. Assuming IBM did breach the contract, removing the code still means they breached the contract, there will still be a guilty ruling, and there will still be damages paid. (Okay, large assumption.)
This is, frankly, not an issue that coders will decide. This will be an issue decided by lawyers reading the contract between IBM and SCO for development work on Project Monterrey, and a conclusion of who had what rights to what code that came out of there. This is probably why IBM hasn't responded to this. (That and responsible publicly-traded companies don't respond to lawsuits in press releases, aside from acknowledging that they exist.) They don't care about the code, specifically... they are checking the contracts to see who had rights to what.
Assuming, of course, that this isn't BSD-licensed code that SCO took from Free/Open/NetBSD the same as linux did. And, frankly, I expect there is some of that in the mix, but probably not everything they think they've found can be traced to BSD roots.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Amen.
OK, but Linux has a kernel which isn't yours. Are you saying that there are changes to the kernel?
We have concerns and issues even with areas of the kernel.
So you are saying that you are happy distributing the kernel because the offending code belongs to you anyway, as I understand it?
Yes.
Apparently they don't understand the GPL. Sure they can release their IP under a different licence - but they didn't do that, they used the GPL. They can't retroactively revoke GPL'ed releases even if they later change the licence. The only defence is not knowing and this comment blows that argument.
FYI here's info on the deal from Novell's 10-k SEC filing in 1996.
... ...
In December 1995, Novell sold its UnixWare product line to the Santa Cruz
Operation, Inc. (SCO). The Company realized a small gain and recorded $19
million of Unix technology royalty revenue from this transaction in the first
quarter of fiscal 1996. Under the agreement, Novell received approximately 6
million shares of SCO common stock, resulting in ownership of approximately 17%
of SCO common stock. The agreement also calls for Novell to receive a revenue
stream from SCO based on revenue performance of the purchased UnixWare product
line. This revenue stream is not to exceed $84 million net present value, and
will end by the year 2002. In addition, Novell will continue to receive revenue
from existing licenses for older versions of UNIX System source code. Novell
acquired this product line as part of its 1993 purchase of UNIX Systems
Laboratories, Inc.
UNIX royalties were $79 million in fiscal 1996 compared to $75 million in
fiscal 1995, and $157 million in fiscal 1994. The increase from fiscal 1995 to
fiscal 1996 was attributable to a one-time $19 million paid-up royalty
recognized in the sale of UNIX technology to SCO in fiscal 1996. The decrease in
fiscal 1995 compared to fiscal 1994 was due to a one-time fully paid license for
UNIX technology sold to Sun Microsystems for $81 million in fiscal 1994. UNIX
royalties were 6% of revenues in fiscal 1996 compared to 4% of revenues in
fiscal 1995, and 8% of revenues in fiscal 1994.
In fiscal 1996, the Company reduced its employment by 1,725 employees as
the Company completed the sale of its UnixWare and personal productivity
applications product lines and terminated or transitioned former UnixWare and
personal productivity group employees to Corel, SCO, and other third parties.
When he is asked why the letter is vague, he answers that the letter recepients should get an opinion of legal council.
... and then saying "well if i am being unclear then you should ask a lawyer". Well, that is not the kind of ambiguity a lawyer can resolve. It is the kind of ambiguity only the accuser can resolve.
And how does he propose that these legal council evaluate the claim without letting them know what their clients are accused of?
It is like a cop coming into your house and accusing you of stealing an unspecified thing
Also, check out this quote:
"Q:Why should Linux users take your claim seriously?
A:Think about if I was the CIO of a company and I'm going to be running my business on an operating system that has an intellectual property foundation that, by almost everyone's admission, is built on quicksand."
This is essentially an admission that the purpose of the whole thing is to make Linux appear to be "built on quicksand".
Who is to say that after Caldera bought SCO's IP the coders at Caldera didn't get a little over-zealous and steal the system V that they owned into linux to speed up linux devel. I knew a law student that worked at caldera 2 years ago. (A full two years ago!) And she was saying then (2 years ago), that everyone better watch out because SCO/Caldera had something huge on the horizion. I wouldn't doubt at all that they took the code, droped it into Linux, to then turn around and sue the world for using it illegally. There is no way to prove who actually dropped the code in, it very well could have been Caldera programmers.
Does anyone know if there is such a thing as a free (and simple) nfs driver for Windows? The ones I've seen appear to be horribly expensive and/or ship with a bunch of other crap I don't need (e.g. Hummingbird's offerings).
Holy crap! I forgot all about that! ...
Ugh you people run me up a fortune in tin foil.
Personally, I'm a lot more worried about SCO. Think about it: the kernel source tree is well documented and available going back virtually to version 0.01 (the source to 0.01 actually came with a book I purchased a while back: it was of "historical interest"). The point is that a reasonable person can trace the entry of virtually any section of non-trivial kernel code into the kernel.
Well, how hard would it be for SCO to set the date back on their CVS server to, oh, say, mid-1999 or so, grab a bunch of code from a 2.2 kernel, delete all of the copyrights and GPL statements, plug it into their CVS server and reset the date? Bada-bing-bada-boom: instant IP violation. And, unlike the open source world, there is absolutely no way to prove it one way or the other (unless they've got some sort of code escrow, but even then, it would be dicey).
Bottom line, even if they find entire .c files that are word-for-word identical: unless they can take the source tree where that code lives, compile it, and do a bit by bit comparison to prove it is identical to a version released before the equivalent code made it into the Linux kernel tree, they're just blowing smoke and nobody in their right mind is going to believe them.
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
I'd hate for this to drug out for two years or however long it would take to get through the court system, yet at the same time, it is important to prove that Linux is not going to be a legal liability to companies in the future. Kind of like how BSD had to deal with all of its legal issues and is now pretty much certified to be free of any entanglements.
I sure hope $0 goes away soon!
Those who trade freedom for security will lose both, and deserve neither" -- Ben Franklin
I have stated this serval times and it AMAZES me that NO ONE ELSE has talked about this...
SOURCE CONTROL is the KEY to PROVING or DISPROVING the case...
They tell us lines (x to y) of this file are copied from SCO...
We go back to source control for the kernel and find out WHEN this was added to the source control for the Linux Kernel...
We find out WHO submitted it to Linus et al.
We do a back ground analysis of the person and see if they could have POSSIBLY come into contact with SCO source code.
If they have then and ONLY then is that PROOF POSITIVE that SCO is correct.
(repeat for all the "incidents" of SCO code "theft")
Otherwise this is just a load of BS that most of us believe it to be...
I am QUITE certain this will solve the problem...
IMO,
GO
PS this is a CLASSIC example of why source control is invaluable...
Take it outside, god-boy.
SCO...the neo-Rambus?
I see this as being comparable to Iraq's "phantom WMDs." Rumsfeld: "Of course, the reason we haven't found any WMDs is that Saddam Hussein must have secretly destroyed them. And that means that they did have WMDs, so the war is justified!" SCO: "Of course, the reason we haven't actually pointed out any of the stolen code is that Linus Torvalds removed it in order to avoid legal action. And that means that at one point our IP was found in the Linux kernel, and so the lawsuit is justified!"
Signature.
Hmmm.. the same Tsu Dho Nimh of NANAE fame? Might be we've found someone stupider then spammers :)
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
SCO didn't GPL their code because someone else, _not_ SCO, copied sys V code into the Kernel. That doesn't "auto-magically" make the sys V code GPL code. It is rediculous to think that you can steal someone's code, copy it into a GPLed product, and the owner of the stolen code auto-magically loses all right to that code. Just because SCO distributed linux, and even contributed to linux DOES NOT MEAN THEY knew their code was in linux. THINK about what would be required for them to know sys V code was in linux: Some SCO linux hacker would have to have sys V code memorized (odds are who ever did the linux hacking for SCO had never seen sys V code), and then happen to read the section of Linux containing that code, and through some magic mental diff realize it is the same code. Look, Linux is a huge code base. Sys V is a huge code base. It is very _unlikely_ that a coder would notice stolen code unless they were specifically looking for it and wrote automated tools to do it! Not even Linus knows all the code in the kernel. Christ people, making faulty arguments against the SCO case doesn't help anyone. Too bad nobody will read this post because I don't have a /. account.
As so many have said, what if some code was borrowed from linux ...
Miles Barel, IBM's program director of Unix marketing, acknowledges that Linux could overtake Monterey as the Unix platform of choice, possibly within three years. "In the interim, IBM will build Linux compatibility into Monterey," says Barel. "And if Linux does take over completely, Monterey users will continue to be able to run their apps."
information week
The date of the article matches some of SCOs claims
Check the link...
5 /p r03033.html
http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/0
The one thing that we specifically want from those 1,500 companies that we directly sent those letters to is for them to not take our word on the warning that we sent ... but to seek an opinion of their legal counsel as to the issues that we raised.
You have to love this what they want is for linux to have to pass muster from a lawyer everytime someone wants to install it.
Whoever said violence never solves anything never met the executive team from SCO
Oh my, he looks like a rich, pretty boy. Probably has an MBA from snotty school where they teach "Finance" and NOT how to run a REAL BUSINESS. Break it up and sell it off, sue someone. These MBA's types and their lawyer buddies have no clue about coding, or any other type of work that involves creating something on your own. They make their money scamming and suing people. Maybe they will be rich here on earth, but they will BURN IN HELL for eternity...
Would someone who IAL care to comment as such? I would be very interested to hear the legal opinion of someone who was a lawyer on this issue.
(Removing glasses)I may not be a lawyer, but I play one on TV.
It's hard to tell the cool to chill, my favorite hotel room has a view to an ill.
... he looks like a young (25) unknowledgeable person totally unversed in Unix or scientific research who has signed on for a cut of the spoils.
Job description:
- Create FUD
- Delay adoptions
- Harm IBM and Novell and Sun
- Put genie back in bottle
- Take % fee of the "avoid-court-and-shut-your-mouth" buyout of SCO by IBM
- get hired into MS corporate sales division
SCO thinks that if they catch someone in the open source community doing something bad, they somehow get compensation from the whole community. That would work if SCO faced a company like Microsoft or IBM because the entire company is responsible for the entire product. If you catch Microsoft or IBM with their hand in the cookie jar, they are in trouble.
But it's completely inapplicable to open source. Linux isn't a single legal entity. If SCO actually manages to identify some component of Linux that violates their intellectual property (which still seems doubtful), that component will just get replaced by another open source component.
SCO's thinking on intellectual property is as outdated as their software. Legal strategies that worked 20 years ago just don't work today against open source. SCO just can't win this one. At best, they can do a little damage, and manipulate their stock price temporarily.
What I get from reading the interview is basicaly data we already knew. I did not expect to see that guy giving any solid proof that might work as grounds to SCOs lawsuit and indeed I did not eyeball any. All I managed to get was a raise of my blood pressure from reading SCOs crap once again :/
10 - 15 lines in multiple places?!? I hope they're not going to make a big deal out of naming conventions or lines that can be coincedental. Now if they were talking about specific algorithms or specific ideas to solve some problem and the code and ideas were exactly the same, well then that's different. But they never mentioned any kind of ideas or algorithms, just lines of code :/
What you indirectly illustrate here is what SCO is going to have a damned tough time prooving. Ultimately all software can be written in a bazillion different ways, and in order for it to be a violation of copyright, it must be clear that the code was actually copied. If I write a bubble sort algorithm, it might look a lot like yours, but may not actually be a copy. So if somebody did in fact copy it, but changed a few variable names, and some formatting it's not necessarily obvious.
If you are talking about a large block of code, you have enough data to work with that you can see how similar the code is/is not. If you are talking about a small block (10-15) lines, though, it's going to breally tough to proove.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
It's even worse when it's splattered all over the net.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
The fact of the matter is that sorting out who owns any particular piece of Unix code could take decades in court. You find two pieces of code that are exactly the same in SCO Unix and Linux. This could be any of the following:
- An amazing coincidence
- SCO licensed software that was copied into Linux improperly
- SCO licensed software that was copied into Linux properly (i.e. by a SCO employee)
- Software from a 3rd party, properly incorporated by both SCO and Linux
- Software from a 3rd party, improperly incorporated by both SCO and Linux
- Software from a 3rd party, that properly/improperly incorporated it into their product which was then incorporated into SCO/Linux
Have you ever taken a look at the Unix family tree? There's no way they are going to be able to sort out the ownership of any individual piece of code. I mean hell, with Novell speaking up, it might be that SCO doesn't own squat (that they are just licensed the copyright that Novell still actually owns). Novell might not even own it either.
It will make some headlines, the world will move on, and in about a decade when this gets settled it will all be irrelevant.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Does anyone else find this ironic that three machines with the highest uptime(s) in the Microsoft campus all run Linux?
Why can't they just point out the infringing source code in the kernel without revealing their own proprietary code that is being infringed upon?
... like PHBs. But a moment's thought shows that if they truly are similar, whether one is a copy of the other, or they are both derived from a common legal source, or both were derived from first principles, as long as they are similar enough to be potentialy infringing at first quick glance ... then it can't possibly hurt them to show their own version of the alleged infringing code.
They'd also have to show their proprietary code, if they want to show the similarity.
See, on the surface, this might sound good to a naive audience
But then a nitpicking lawyer (redundant?) might say, ah ha, you have shown your proprietary trade secret code, so it is now no longer a trade secret.
That is their reason^Wexcuse.
Infuriate left and right
At this point, this whole SCO manouver seems to be on the part of a bunch of lawyers. I don't think anyone outside the legal profession is interested in or will profit from this.
Just look at the above quote! Don't take our word for it, but ask your legal counsel. It really seems entirely like this is just a move to drum up more work for lawyers around the world, you know, kind of like the obfuscation of the American legal system.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I wish I could use Linux 6.1 or 6.2.
"...Linus Torvalds found a Linux-kernel mailing list (lkml) posting from Christoph Hellwig, a former employee at SCO, then called Caldera. Hellwig pointed out the impracticality of actually getting copied code from UnixWare accepted by the tough critics on the mailing list. "The kernel internals are so different that you'd need a big glue layer to actually make it work and you can guess how that would be ripped apart in a usual lkml review," Hellwig wrote..."
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
I'm not sure I share this interpretation.
If a 3rd party infringed on someone's copyright by adding code to Linux and "releasing" that code under the GPL, that doesn't mean the code can be freely redistributed under the GPL. The person adding it to the Linux kernel did not do so legally, not being the copyright holder nor being granted a license by the copyright holder. He did not have the right to release it under the GPL.
Just because that passed into the hands of what may be the original copyright holder of some of that code, and that party redistributes it further, not realizing that their code made its way into the kernel improperly, doesn't mean that they have made the conscious decision to license their copyrighted works under the GPL. They did not add that code to the Linux kernel, someone else did. You can't very well hold them accountable for that release.
They are redistributing, not licensing their copyrighted works. Someone else has already done that without their knowledge or permission. Redistribution does not implicitly create a license/contract.
I'm sick off stories about SCO. Are they sponsored by /. ?
Someone, please shoot the SCO guy....
But they already told us how the lines came to be, and who submitted them.
No, they told us how they think the lines of code came to be. If the documentation can show that those lines came to be in a different way.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
From 'The Register' 22/08/2000
Scaldera vows a better Linux than Linux
SCO's Juergen Kienhoefer tells us that by mapping clone processes directly onto UnixWare's native threads, huge performance gains can be realised. "Basically thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on native Linux," he said. The performance boost could particularly benefit applications such as Domino, according to Kienhoefer. Other gains could be made by using UnixWare libraries, and he reckons that SETI at home shows a 4x improvement over native Linux, as it uses UnixWare's own maths libraries.
SCO/Caldera, or as we'll refer to them for convenience from now on, Scaldera intends to ship the environment by the end of the year. At the session, SCO officials said that the the environment amounts to around 40,000 lines of code, plus around 2m drawn from the real Linux kernel tree. This doesn't seem to be the case however, and see our front page for a detailed update. It supports Linux Binary Interface and APIs, says SCO, and provides device support too.
couldn't find the reference to the front page though.
Even if they never used the code in the end it is proof that they were fully aware of Linux internals. If they chose to distribute it under the GPL then they only have themselves to blame.
I've become a karma whore instead of an anti-commerce net-terrorist.
There's been so many discussions related to this case that surely it deserves its own icon by now.
I propose a big picture of a bum with a giant fist coming out of it
Better ideas welcome
> It is many different sections of code ranging from five to 10 to 15 lines of code in multiple places that are of issue
Cool. Anyone got any Windows source code, or BeOS, or in fact *anything* that was developed indepedently from Linux? Can that be compared with the Linux kernel code, so see if "sections of code ranging from 5 to 10 to 15 lines of code in multiple places" match? Can anyone suggest a tool (no, not SCO) that can do that sort of comparison? I have a couple of >10KSLOC projects kicking around somewhere...
Their rapidly plummeting share price is most amusing. Can anyone else say "Neeeowww, SPLAT!"
So, that's either 121,000 people spending 301 dollars or 61,000 people spending 600.
And thats only if there are that many shares outstanding.
Also, what if there was a person whom is a OSS advocate, and they also worked for Novell?!? Well, if that were the case, what kind of agreement was signed at time of employment stating that this person (if he should exist) is not allowed to use code that he's developed personally (Which I would LOVE to see) at work? Wouldn't it be great if it was proven that the said person integrated into Linux before the fact, and brought a counter suit? Oh I WOULD LOVE that, but it won't happen...Because we will never know what code has been supposedly "Copied".
Also just one more point to add on a side note: Why is SCO so worried about the Closed Source being released to the public, since it's already supposedly in an Open Source environment?!? The main thing that they're doing is just being greedy, and not allowing the Linux community to re-write the code in question, because then they couldn't make their extra cash from suing companies, and individuals whom unknowingly used their code, and did not know that their code was in it, and are now dependant upon the Application(s) the said companies or persons are forced to:
- Drop Linux
- Keep the app's and pay the license
- Get sued
In my opinion no option is acceptable, and it's basically a fact of SCO being money hungry.You're claiming that Linux has been polluted with Unix code that you own, but you have not produced any evidence of that. Will you? We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to various industry analysts, respected press people and other industry leaders so that they don't have to take our word for it or wait until we show some of that evidence in court.
u ading some of the idiots^H^H^H^H^H analysts who we know to be suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H respected individuals in their fields to understand our position and undertake all steps that Microsoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H we oblige them to do to ensure our market position.
We will actually be lying^H^H^H^Hpaying^H^H^H^H^Hinducing^H^H^H^Hpers
Every word to come out of Chris Sontag's mouth is a fucking boldfaced lie, and every word out of Darl's mouth is completely clueless.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Let's see, so that would make you a "Anti-commerce Net-terrorist brownshirt Nazi karma whore", right?
:)
Oops.. can you answer that, I may have invoked Godwin on that one
(besides, it would never fit on a T-shirt!!!)
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
I think the key words here are "generate a coherent document trail". Everyone's bleating on about getting SCO to put out their detailed evidence .. but really, why SHOULD they ?
Assume, just for a moment, that SCO's claims are valid. If they were, is their behavior unreasonable ? No.
Lets just try a little thought experiment here.
Imagine a tribe (lets call them the Linusites) of thousands of fanatical devotees. Amongst these devotees, personal status is acquired not by displays of wealth (and certainly not by prowess with the opposite sex or by achievements in personal hygiene), but instead purely by peer recognition of their craftmanship. For most of the devotees, this provides an exciting framework on which to base their personal philosophies and indeed their lives, which by financial necessity are spent in their parent's basements - indeed, it spurs them on to new heights of creativity.
For a few, sad members of the tribe, however, such attainments are beyond them. They turn....to the dark side. One day the temptation becomes too much for them, and, knowing their actions are unaudited, and reasoning "its only a few lines of code anyway", they simply borrow the craftsmanship of someone from another tribe. Because the owner of this craft was a member of a different, more secretive tribe, the theft goes unnoticed - until many months or years later.
Now try, for a moment, to forget that you are (as a slashdot contributor) a member of the Linusites. Imagine, instead, that you are a member of the secretive tribe. This makes you no less a human being with certain unalienable rights.
So what do you do ? By this time, the other members of the Linusites have crafted layer upon layer of their own magic over your original work, until only vestiges remain. Even you have trouble identifying what was yours and what has been added by the Linusites. So do you confront the Linusites and demand their papertrails, their documentary evidence?
Of course not ! You know that the Linusites are (or at least many of them are) fanatics ! If you pointed out to them the 53 cases of exact theft that you have painstakingly uncovered, then as sure as eggs the next day a complete (electronic) paper trail of evidence would be produced by the Linusites proving that THEY, not you, authrored the offending passages. Because thats what fanatics do, they rewrite history.
</thought experiment>
So, summarizing this rather tenuous rant, of COURSE it is not reasonable for SCO to document each and every case of theft.
Thats not to say that SCO has a valid case - but if they do, they are handling it correctly but only leaking information gradually.
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
How do we know it wasn't the other way around? How do we know if SCO didn't copy Linux code into their products...?
SCO had access to the Linux kernel as much as anyone else. How do we know that THEY didn't set this whole thing up from the beginning? To me, this stinks of RAMBUS!
Precisely why we need to kill off about 85% of the trial lawyers in this country. Maybe book them a convention in Totonto or Washigton D.C.
As a side benefit we might just get our republic back and have some civility and depth in our political discourse.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
The rule of thumb is, "if you're guilty, get a jury, sometimes they do stupid things and let guilty people free. If you're innocent, demand a trial by judge alone".
This is why Microsoft decided to not demand a trial by jury when they were sued by the Justice Department -- they felt they were innocent, and that a trial by judge would more likely find them such than a trial by jury. Similarly, IBM is most likely to decide to be tried by a judge, not by a jury. Juries are just too, uhm, haphazard.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
I'll take, "Things an undergrad CS instructor would NEVER say" for $200, Alex.
This FUD is pissing me off. Anybody for a class action counter-suit? It's possible to apply to the Court for a declaration that the use of the Linux kernel will not infringe SCO's copyrights. This would bind SCO and prevent them fron suing any Linux user. This could be done on an expedited basis based on the amount of damage that could be done to existing users of SCO.
This presumes a "named plaintiff" (any Linux user) and a legal attack fund. There are millions of registered users on SlashDot - if each only donated a dollar there'd be enough in the kitty to do this.
Everyone is saying that there is no point in trying to protect code that is already out there, while this is certainly true, in order for the analysts to ascertain if the code is indeed copied, it may need to be viewed in context with the surrounding code. They are trying to protect further aspects of the UNIX code from being disclosed to the public.
I am not siding with them, I just wanted to point out that it may not be as clear cut as we might imagine.
This could be done on an expedited basis based on the amount of damage that could be done to existing users of SCO.
Obviously I meand "existing users of Linux" - was in too much of a hurry to preview
Teddy Roosevelt winning the Nobel Peace Prize is like Idi Amin winning the Nobel Peace Prize. But of course, Filipinos were "darkies", and thus didn't really count as people back in that imperial era.
Hmm.... does this mean that George W. Bush qualifies for a Nobel Peace Prize too, for his excellence in bringing peace to Afghanistan and Iraq?!
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Apperently there were traces in the water of the Tigris river of just such a thing. Of course you can choose to ignore the rape, torture and murder of the Batth party and it's leader and all the rest of the stuff that has turned up as being any kind of reason to justify anything. Like the huge Fort Ord sized state of the art terrorist training camp for non-Iraqis. The billions being siphoned off from feeding the citizens of that counrty by the UN and their terrorist loving cronies. But I have no doubt Bush or Rumsfield haven't done a decent or good thing in their entire lives as far as you are concerned. This is part of the war on Terror, Iraq was a state sponsor of terror just like the former Afghan government. I hope they keep going after state sponsors of terror. There are still a few of them left. Oh I forgot I am personally to blame for all acts of terrorism in the world because I was born in the USA and deserve to die let alone us any GNU or any open source products. The US government is soley responsible for the fucked up state of the whole planet and deserves to be over thrown and the UN should govern all the USA every last inch of it too I suppose. The US has no right to proactivly defend it's self (JFK's idea)
ever we just have to set here and wait to be attacked before we do anything.
Find another way to justify you thoughts about SCO with something more relevant.
SCO is totally fucked. You don't have to compare that with anything. SCO's logic and reasoning are all over the place. 98% of the people in these SCO threads agree with you. Just because you apperent hate your president, Rumsfield and the government and I guess your fellow citizens is no reason to compare them with SCO's total fuckedness. Most US citizen done't give a fuck about WMD's, The UN, internationl law or Linux.
Shit man. Fuck the WMD's Saddam sure as shit had the stuff to make them. He prolly did. He prolly dumped them or exported them too. to bad some of them didn't end up in SCO's managements drinking water.
Mod it to -1 as flamebait or politically incorrect. I don't give a shit.
SCO sucks but Terrorists and their state sponsors do too. Find some one beside the US government to blame your fucking unhappness on.
Linux. Live Free or Die remember?
"Yea duo Rev jumped off a cliff and is foaming at the mouth now. HMMM foam? Wonder if I still have any Guinness in the fridg? HMMM? A beer so good it's a meal unto it's self."
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
What I find interesting is IBM's lack of comment. I checked their press releases and they haven't even acknowledged their claim.
I have a feeling that we won't here from them until June 13th. I hope they are planning something special for SCO.
" and that party redistributes it further, not realizing that their code made its way into the kernel improperly, doesn't mean that they have made the conscious decision to license their copyrighted works under the GPL. "
But think about it...its an attempt to have their cake and eat it too. This is a company that makes its living programming Unix OS's. They released source to another GPL OS they're working on.
What's to say the SCO themselves didn't put this mystery code into Linux, get it into the kernel, sit back for 18 months and then cry foul?
Nothing.
Because of the GPL, they had a responsibility to be sure they weren't distributing their own IP (as it turns out, they don't own any IP) under the GPL. To simply claim incompetence doesn't wash, BECAUSE THEIR PRIMARY BUSINESS IS CODING UNIX OPERATING SYSTEMS!!!
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
"If they distributed their IP in GPL'd code without their knowledge, the GPL does not apply to that code, as it was licensed by someone who did not have the authority to license it."
As an OS vendor, and a Unix specialist, how can they have it both ways....
"your honor, we know Unix better than anyone on the planet. And oh, by the way, we released a Linux distro under GPL without knowing what was in it".
So their defense is stupidity?
I'm not trying to be clever here.
Its like Mario Andretti getting arrested for reckless driving and then him claiming the car was too hard to drive. Huh?
What's more interesting to me is after they "discovered" code in Linux they believe was causing a problem, >they continued to sell it.
Seems to me at that point, they *did* agree to distribute under GPL. How else can you interpret it?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
http://slashdot.org/bsd/01/09/24/1432223.shtml
Take a look at the files in question in that case.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
"How many lines of code in the Linux kernel are a direct copyright violation?" "It's very extensive," says C. Sontag. By "very extensive" it is normally meant something in proximity of say 40-50%. In patent court, however, less than that is required to prove the case. For example, I know of case where only 10-20% of IP was judged as copying and IP infringement. To that effect, SCO would have to prove that at least 10-20% of Linux kernel code was copied from their UNIX of which there's doubt they are owners. In other words in millions of lines of code in Linux kernel, say it is 3million, they would have to show at least 300,000 lines as copied to make the case for 10%.
Now, C. Sontag talks about "code ranging from five to 10 to 15 lines of code in multiple places", how many places he doesn't specify. But if you take say 15 lines of code and multiply by 100 then you get only 1,500 lines, which is miniscule 0.05%, so it's not even 1%, which should rise the eyebrows of any sane judge. Also, if the claimed code lines are in "multiple places" and not logically connected as subroutines then the case is even weaker, because there's no coherence of the copied code as to suggest that there was a premeditated effort to copy their code.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
One sentence for SCO:
Show us the fucking code in question already damn it.
Its that fucking simple. I think the entire open source community would agree with me on this.
Brielle
In Linux, you're most likely to use printk, which (I would guess) would not be in Unix Sys V source. Then the kernel data structures are going to be different between the two OSes. Getting 15 lines as an *exact* match seems reasonably unlikely in the first place... finding 15 lines of SCO source which *could* be pasted into Linux without breaking the compile would be a real achievement, I am sure.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
I don't understand why there is all the fuss about this within the community. If there ARE these IP violations as SCO claims (which I doubt there are) then wouldn't it be a simple matter of the Linux teams to rewrite the code that is in dispute and make it their own? Or maybe just do things slightly differently than the way SCO does it. Anthony
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
When are you people going to learn??!!?!
IT'S LUDACRIS.. for christ's sake.. LUDAC...
oh
I gave up on my dreams of being a pimpled neck-bearded UNIX coder with no life. Karma whore is perhaps attainable.
This website has an excellent summary of the SCO vs. Linux lawsuit. Arie Rubenstein does a masterful job of explaining the entire situation so everyone can understand. I tried explaining this whole mess to my wife over dinner and her eyes glazed over. I showed her this website and it really helped clarify the situation. This is worth checking out.
SCO vs. Linux Summary Page.
- If SCO didn't buy the patents and copyrights associated with UNIX then what exactly did they buy?
- If they did buy the patents and copyrights and Novell is refusing to transfer them then why isn't SCO suing Novell for breach of contract? That would seem to be a necessary first step before suing IBM and threatening world+dog.
- Do we need to start a Linus Torvalds Legal Defense Fund? (as this slashdot article suggests)
- Can't Linus claim that by sending him a patch on the very public LKML that it is no longer secret. The suit alleges trade secret misappropriation not patent or copyright infringement.
- Is there any chance that we, the Linux community, can file a class action suit against SCO for all of this crap that they are putting us through? If we sue for damages we could tally all of the time that the community has spent investigating this situation.
- If we, the community, all started to sell SCO short (and buy some puts and sell some calls) wouldn't that give Darl something to think about as the market capitalization of SCO went shooting through the floor? I wonder if his salary/bonus is related to the performance of SCO's stock.
- How many simultaneous legal battles could SCO fight before going bankrupt? It would seem that every Linux vendor, support service provider, user of Linux, and especially the 1500 large companies that received a threatening letter from SCO now have a claim against SCO. And if everyone of those claimants filed in their own jurisdiction SCO would have to deploy more lawyers worldwide than Mico$haft!
- Shouldn't John 'KGB' Ashcroft be weighing in on the issue considering the massive deployment of GNU/Linux throughout the US government? The DOD, NSA, NASA, and many other parts of the government are heavily invested in Linux.
- If SCO were to go bankrupt then what would happen to whatever (see question #1) they did buy from Novell?
- Assuming they were to be sold through a bankruptcy court, would it be advantagous for the FSF, Linux International, or another Liberated software advocate to buy them?
- How adversely would SCO's bottom line be affected if all of its customers (mostly the fast food chains) were to receive a letter indicating the likelihood of SCO staying in business for another year if some of the counter claims that I have mentioned come to fruition? We shouldn't forget to include a blurb about the ease of moving over to Linux and the amount of money that they could save. Basically some of our own FUD!
- Using the same legal theories that the RIAA is using against Bertlesman for supporting Napster, is it possible to go after M$ for their obvious legal action by proxy?
- Since the SCO lawsuit is alleging breach of contract with IBM, is there any possibility that IBM could post the contract that it had with SCO for the development of the now defunct True64 version of UNIX?
- On that same note, is there any possibility that Novell would post their contract selling UNIX to Caldera (now SCO)?
- The media seems to suggest that SCO is trying to put pressure on IBM or some other company to acquire it. Who in their right mind would want to buy into this nightmare?
Any thoughts?Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
1. coders involved in the process would write out the specs and then get clear. The IO specs would go to...
2. Newbies who haven't seen either code base! Rewrite the functions then take their code pages to a notary public for signoff. Then snail-mail the code directly to Linus! That would be difficult to write highlevel code for mear newbies, but it would ensure that the code was free from future litigation.
remember too that Linus' view of software patents is one of unreasonableness. Current practice is for "black-box" style patents, so generic that they wouldn't actually hold up in court, when every other field requires documentation of specific prints and implementations. It's common in other businesses to change just one implementation device to comply, yet software patents are mysteriously lacking this ability at the PTO.
The only real way to get the issue under control is to have a newbie coder sit in-court and rewrite something from scratch from just a vague description while the judge is watching. It may very well be such a Linux case that finally pushes this to happen!
So I don't see how SCO can claim that they own SYS V, it would seem they could only claim a sub-license disput with licenses..
Also of note they released there SP2 service pack for there Linux, supposely this has the IP removed from there Linux distro. Someone should compare the before and after and see if we can find out what they removed..
Yes, but your being able to export NFS isn't a reason to link to an article where is somehow was labeled interop application of the year, or some such. Why would you advocate for something that is inferior, and you even seemingly agree that this is the case. The old "Services for Unix" is merely implementing things that should be intrinsic to anything labeled an "OS," Its amusing how RHLinux/FreeBSD/et al all have intrinsic support for say, SMB, and then Microsoft implements something older (and arguably better) - NFS, in an ad hoc manner, and then for Version 3.0, welding in Interix which is a sub par implementation OS BSD/SYSV on a no-standards-compliant operating system.
Interoperability isn't just about successfully implementing or reverse engineering a standards for such basic things and "sharing files." Interoperability is far more than that. Does vendor's implementation of BSD sockets qualify as not broken? In my estimation, the Windows platform is not a clean implementation of any API but what gets branded as win32. Then this win32 is somewhat incoherent from Windows version to version, win32s, win9x, winnt, and now with ADS changes in Windows 2003 (Can I have Exchange with that?), yet another broken standard. Incoherent with BSD. Incoherent with SYSV. Incoherent within itself. They seem to have DirectX right, so MSFT knows how to make a programming interface for video games, chalk a win up for them! I knew I'd think of something useful.
I'd like to ask the people at SFU who had to write the NFS code to work for Windows - its probably hairy, inefficient and was difficult to even get done. I really, really doubt that they use the Interix tool kit and a port of nfsd. I would also venture to guess that Microsoft NFS is hardly suitable for use in a production environment - I've seen problems with it on very trivial usage.
And still, no real shell or Perl in Windows, for that matter. Interoperability to the maxxxx, man, to the maxxx. The shells included with SFU are coherent with shells from a decade ago.
Man, if I was a programmer producing "garbage" code, as most do these days, it is good to be in the world of Windows. It's an endless supply of work. Meanwhile, many fortune 500 companies and various government entities have used a program for decades. For example, the last MULTICS machine was taken offline in September of 2000 after 25+ years of use.
Chances are that the program that they shut off could probably be very easily ported to a modern *nix, or simple run in a virtual machine somewhere else.
There isn't one program that doesn't self deprecate in Windows land [attrition by time], and Microsoft makes sure of that.
I simply wouldn't pay programmers in a company I ran for "garbage" code. I would probably lump Java and most anything targeted at win32 in as garbage [75% of every in-house application I've seen developed was very wasteful in terms of time to a useable program and of limited use]. If you sign up for win32, you sign up for shrink wrap software. Referring to windows as a development platform for non-garbage code is fairly amusing to me - it seems so lose-lose, like leasing a car (you lose the money and the car).
So what does SCO have to prove to make their point?
Even if there are pieces of code in Linux that resemble Unix source code, isn't it possible that programmer faced with similar problems arrive at similar code to solve the problem. After all there is a common train of thought here. I bet if a hundred programmers are given a programming challenge, there'll be many very similar, if not identical, results.
I think this will result in a unique challenge to OpenSource projects as a whole. Who came up with what. In the world of closed source prorietary software, one can steal from the other and noone will likely find out for a very long time. After all, the sources are a well guarded secret.
In the OpenSource world, who's to say what code came from where? There's the whole aspect of prior art, just like in patents. How can a closed source project prove that its code existed prior to the OpenSource projects? If the date of the conception was close, whose to say the closed source people didn't glimpse ideas of the OpenSource project?
Even if there this is code similar to what SCO conceived in Linux, there needs to be some wrong doing before there can be any liability or damage. There's got to be positively theft, a well established trail of evidence how the code made it from SCO to IBM to Linux. The only party I can see being liable would be the person(s) lifting the code from SCO.
I wonder if there's a legal precedence to this type of situation. After all, who can verify that the sources of an OpenSource product are genuine and haven't been lifted from someone other then the party that has been infringed on. For the 'user' (be it personal or commercial) there is no way to determine any of this since there is no access to the closed sources.
I hope that the down mod's get met-moderated accordingly.
Your letter to 1,500 end-user companies outlining your claim was vague. What is it that you want from these companies? The one thing that we specifically want from those 1,500 companies that we directly sent those letters to is for them to not take our word on the warning that we sent ... but to seek an opinion of their legal counsel as to the issues that we raised.
Hmm, could this be a bid to make more money for lawyers who have been hit by hard times? "Go see your lawyer so he can protect you from ours!"
How is it that Microsoft can get a license, and essentially get rid of its worry, and the other users cannot? Microsoft is not using Linux. So the scope of any issues they may have are not as related to the specific Unix intellectual property they were using in their product or wanted to be able to use in their product in the future. It's a very well-defined set of intellectual property they were interested in licensing.
This is an outright lie. It is fairly well known that Microsoft uses Linux and BSD internally as well as Solaris, sometimes for testing (perhaps for interoperability, which is considered a bug by Microsoft) and sometimes for tasks which cannot be accomplished by Windows.
Why didn't you act earlier? This move seems to arise with SCO's declining fortunes. We just announced our second quarter, and our financials are in very good position. The company is profitable. It is the first time in the history of the company, in almost seven years of existence, that it has been profitable. The point is we're really only recently seeing significant moves by many players, specifically IBM, to come out and state that they are moving wholesale to Linux.
IBM made the announcement in 1999-2000 that it was moving to Linux. Even before that it was patently obvious. The clue hammer fell hard in 2000 with the "Peace, Love, Linux" campaign. So this guy is saying he just noticed now? Or is he saying "well, now that Microsoft paid us money, we have a profit and can pay our lawyers." After all, the settlement was at least $120 million and then there were licensing fees. We could easily be talking about hundreds of millions of dollars here.
The claim that Microsoft needed to pay SCO because of Services for Unix is ridiculous as well. They got all that from BSD which is unencumbered. Or are SCO saying (and Microsoft admitting) that they stole code from Linux or Unix for that piece of NT/2000?
They are saying that if you can't distribute the source, then you can't distribute the binaries either.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
ftp.sco.com/pub
.rpm's are still available.
at least the source
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
A couple of thoughts:
I doubt that the government would like the courts finding for SCO... it would create too many awkward moments for what is such a small pie (and for the benefit of such a small company)...
An example: If the courts come back and say that Linux is "illegal," will China, with its fairly extensive Linux rollouts care? Hmmm... probably not. Will the US then sanction China over that? When we need solidarity with them for bigger things like North Korea, trade agreements, etc? For a lousy billion or two for one company in Utah? Not to mention all the other governments who are unlikely to switch away at this point?
And here are a couple of ideas for responding in marginally (actually hardly) mature kind to SCO's tactics:
1. Create a "pledge" for IT professionals to sign that they will not work with any SCO products for any reason other than to immediately migrate away from them, including break-fixing. Make sure the signatories are well verified and valid, and once you have a few thousand, then drop THAT as a snail mail to the CIO and CEO's of the Fortune 1000.
2. Create another pledge by potential hiring decision makers at a wide variety of companies stating that any work experience at SCO by a potential hire after date X (in the future) will be seen as a black mark/detriment towards ethics and qualification for the job they are applying for. Then distribute that to SCO's employee directory and principal stock holders. Bonus points if this pledge is by more than just IT companies or divisions, but includes sales, marketing, and legal division hirers.
3. A third pledge by business owners, professionals, and individuals that they will avoid doing business, engagin in tourism, etc in Orem, Utah because of the unsavory practises of some of the businesses that are allowed to operate from there. Distribute this to the Chamber of Commerce and city government there. This one's perhaps playing a little TOO hardball.
Urgh! That smirk! And his clean-shaven little face! I just had to thwick him. And now there's a finger mark on my freshly-cleaned monitor.
Let's see, a conflict where 4200 US soldiers died.
Sounds like the "500,000" dead were starved or died as a result of the hardship of the war, not in direct action or collateral damage. I think that a more thorough investigation of the subject is warranted before you accuse Roosevelt of murdering 500,000 individuals. Typical alarmist propagandist trash - baseless uninformed first hit on Google that "supports" with bibliography with primary or periodical sources.
Note also that the country is independent as of 1946. Ask Tibetans if they would rather be under "American imperialism" or Chinese imperialism. Ask even a French guy if he has a desire for speaking German.
Check out Britain, France, Russia, Ottomans, Persians, Romans: "fuckers" carte blanche. Everyone got fucked by someone at some point or another every tick you turn back the clock. But whose cultures were erased? Who retains their national identifies after conquest? Whose religions were forcibly changed? The US is a relative lightweight. Unilateralism and fiscal superiority aren't imperialist automatically. Not to RoW: stop borrowing U.S. money, stop buying U.S. shit, stop emigrating here too if it is such an Evil Empire shit dump. Cut off its food supply. Well, no one would do that. It would lower their standard of living. Real imperialists...
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Once they milk the press enough and actually declare what lines of the kernel and/or other software includes "lines" of their code, wouldn't a quick CVS blame type report show exactly who put the code in and when? Determining if it's IBM should be easy.
I'm curious if a comparison was done between BSD, Hurd and Linux how much "common" code exists between them and how it got there. Operating systems have similar functions to accomplish and hardware standards and it seems likely that at least a small number of sections could be similar or identical as pointed out by the QuickSort comment.
Now, Assuming the code exists and is found and identified, what level of change is required to make it not be in violation of their IP?
Change "if ( x == y )" to "if ( x - y == 0 )" ? Rename the variables?
Split or merge functions?
Does anyone have experience with anything similar?
Hmm... guys
Can't we all live together...OK no.
Breaking News:
Minix creator sues Linux Torvalds for IP theft.
Alan Cox renounces Linux, moves to FreeBSD where he's said to be a commiter.
McBride, played by Arnold Schwarzengger, comes back from the future to kill Linux O'Connor, the only hope for mankind.
Strike that: *NO* primary or periodical sources. Just other people's books. Typical alarmist propagandist stuff - crude and baseless yet effective. If you were to read the internet with the proper filters turned on you could prove aliens exist too.
And what of the people who died at the hands of corrupt regimes and leaders? I guess everyone who dies while engaging the enemy is the enemies fault - or more likely, it's an easy way for a government to kill and suppress the citizens while blaming the other side.
And the fact that they haven't released any evidence of there code being released into Linux. Would be further proof that IBM didn't copy SCO's code, but rather used there knowledge of SCO's code to create new code for Linux.
Once you read thru all the marketing/history crap they put in the court filing you can get the meat of the complaint. So it's nothing more than a contract dispute with IBM over there license with SCO/Novell. It's still possible that even though IBM used there knowledge of SCO's code in creating new code for Linux, that IBM is the only one liable for damages. As well that SCO was just pissed that they put alot of money into Monetery with IBM and then IBM turned around and said screw you we are going to go with Linux instead..
When a lot of people start selling off a stock, its price goes down. What happens when a lot of people go short on a stock? Anything?
a set of outdated and poorly implemented tools that dont work. you advocate for something you have never written against or ported to. i dont know why or what motivated you to defend everything MSFT does, but you have been identified as someone who is extemely biased with no technical insights in any of your comments.
Well gee - I remember demoing products on the SCO booth at UNIX Expo in Washington in the mid 80's. I have the t-shirt and button to prove it. It snowed very heavily and the airport was closed for about three days.... fun anyway!
Kinda makes you wonder how accurate the rest of the answers were if this guy is completely wrong about the age of the company.
Bring back Doug and Larry Michaels I say
Rich people are eccentric. Poor people are strange. Me, I'd be happy with odd.
It may also mean that, because SCO doesn't own the copyrights, they don't have standing in court to sue anybody who doesn't obtain a license. Presumably only Novell could do that, and they obviously don't want to.
A couple years ago I agreed to do a telephone survey and received a $25 check in the mail two weeks later--it took about 20 minutes. At the end of the survey I asked the woman on whose behalf it was being conducted. She wouldn't tell me, but she said, "I think you can guess."
The questions in Halloween 7 sound familiar, although they also seemed interested in knowing how I felt about the antitrust lawsuit.
Huh.
[standard IANAL disclaimer]
It seems to me that there are two things that SCO can gain by this campaign: 1) FUDding Linux in the hopes of gaining *NIX market share and 2) getting money from lawsuits.
If they were to disclose the "stolen source code" then either their claims would be dismissed (because the similarities could be shown to be trivial or the code in question could be traced to a non-SCO source) or if their claims actually had merrit, then the problem code could simply be replaced . In either case, the game is over for SCO - the best they could do is sue whoever violated their CDA.
OTOH, by keeping the code in question secret, they can continue to propagate a FUD campaign against Linux. By allowing a select group to review the code, they can increase the likelihood that this group will advocate in their favor, thus strengthening the FUD attack.
In the worst case scenario, if SCO is successful in suing IBM and is able to keep the code from being publicly disclosed during the course of the trial (not sure if this is possible), then they have a powerful weapon. They could then proceed to sue every Linux distributor and there's nothing anyone could do about it - since no one knows what the "stolen code" is, no one would know what to remove and the only way to find out is to go through the lawsuit.
The latter scenario seems pretty unlikely - it seems far more likely that the only thing SCO will gain is the ability to cast FUD up until the conclusion of the trial. Unfortunately, this could take years, and could end up having a fairly significant effect on the adoption of Linux.
I'd like to see a very public legal counter-attack by the open-source community. Something like an FSF lawsuit on the grounds that by their own claims, SCO has implicitly violated the GPL. I can see where it might be hard to launch such an attack - hard to fight vapor, although SCO seems to be doing a pretty good job of fighting with vapor.
So it seems SCO probably gets to keep all the money it collects from now on. None of that, of course, says anything about who owns the IP rights.
1. They pay the cost when you dial 1-800-GOLINUX.
2. And it gets more expensive when you request a free prospectus mailed to you.
3. If you engage their sales, technical, investor relations, etc. staff in endless conversation their time for real customers will be diluted.
I'm sure people can think of other creative ideas.
Apparently Lindows has entered an agreement with SCO sometime ago, This coupled with the GPL may get the Linux kernel in the clear even if some of SCO's allegations are correct. Read details here
Help fight continental drift.
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
Lindows is apparantly in the clear due to contract entered between SCO and Lindows sometime ago. Couple this with the GPL and the Kernel is cleared for ALL even if the SCO allegations is correct.
Who would havwe thunk it. Lindows of all distributins.
Help fight continental drift.
Or are they trying to co-opt it, to take it over?
At minimum, SCO is posturing to try to capture a revenue stream from Linux, something which they have been unable to do by providing the kind of value-add that Red Hat does. So rather than add value, perhaps they are merely trying to leech from the value others provide.
Linux is turning into big business. SCO still sells linux products and advertises them on their web page. But surely the value of SCO's core "UnixWare" products is minimal at this point. So why not trump up a claim that SCO owns a big chunk of "linux".
They can't sue Linus for anything. They can't sue individual end-users. When I say this, I mean: they -could- sue, but they couldn't make Big Bucks from it, it wouldn't be worth the effort. But if they can sue IBM, Red Hat, Fortune 500's, etc, and collect royalties, then they have de-facto taken ownership of the system. The ability to make others pay you for a piece of IP implies ownership of that IP.
Even though the IP under claim may be only small parts, if true, they can name their price. And that's what it means to own something.
The code can then be fixed by Linux hackers. And then SCO can do this again, and again, and it won't take much of this so that the issue will become so muddled in the minds of big potential customers, and so impossible for laymen to figure out, that they won't risk getting sued. They'll just pay SCO for Linux.
SCO then owns Linux.
This David Boies attorney is a snake. The fact that he pursued an anti-trust trial against Microsoft is all the proof I need of that. I believe anti-trust is the most evil kind of law, ambiguous so that any action undertaken in business can be anti-trust. If you charge too much, you're gouging -- anti-trust. If you charge too little you're dumping -- anti-trust. If you charge the same as others you're colluding -- anti-trust. So how can a company know when it's within this law or outside it? It can't. All it takes is a clever enough lawyer, and what was yesterday just shrewd business, is today's "anti-trust" case.
Boies is exactly the kind of lawyer who can twist a situation until it is unrecognizable, and make something mean anything. He can call a spade a tree, and pass it off in court.
Boies was also involved in the Farce the Democratic party tried (unsuccessfully) to pull off in Florida in the 2000 election.
In a strange irony, the fact that he is the one involved in this is probably the biggest fact pointing to the complete emptiness of SCO's claims.
SCO's comments are sleazy from another standpoint. They say, effectively, "Our extorting a couple billion from major players won't raise the cost of Linux for other people". I think that's a very strange comment. It's almost apologetic. What it i s is a rationalization that we're supposed to accept. SCO wants the end-user to believe that billion-dollar lawsuits won't hurt our use of linux, that it will be "someone else" who has to foot the bill.
The history of politics in this country the whole past century, has been getting the government to screw segments of the population, for the benefit of vocal political pressure groups. This is the same sort of game, and the comment about it not costing "us" anything is supposed to make us feel good about that rich IBM being the one that has to foot the bill.
Some games never change.
When I tried to send feedback to SCO;
/home/www/www.caldera.com/html/company/feedback/th anks.html on line 46
"Now that I've seen your rat fuck face in a news article I want to print your picture and wipe my ass with it.
FUCK YOU.
I wish I had a Caldera box so my dog could SHIT in it and I could send it back to you for a rebate.
You fucking suck.
Please hurry up and go out of business and commit suicide so sorry assed, rat fuck mother fuckers..."
I get the following when I hit the send button;
http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/thanks.html
Warning: Wrong parameter count for mail() in
Sorry
Feedback is currently unavailable.
Please try again later or contact the administrator.
Ever think MS might have a hand in this? I mean, they would love to see windows on everything. and the fact they are trying to abolish linux? also keep in mind they could have looked this up years ago. it feels like SCO is trying to destroy linux. and that hurts, cause i enjoy open source. you would think SCO would just let it slide, but no.
SimonTek
I couldn't read the link.
But if what you say is true, the consequence is more likely to be that Lindows can no longer distribute, rather than "the kernel is cleared for all". Consider section 7 of the GPL:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
But I'm not worrying yet. SCO have still to show any evidence of their claims. Nor are they coming up with any convincing reasons why they haven't provided that evidence.
Could someone please explain entries 18, 19, 22, 31, 32 and 36 from parents first link to me?
Rank Site Average Max Latest OS Server
18 uk.zone.msn.com 87 233 13 FreeBSD Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Do I need a new pair of contact lenses here? IIS on FreeBSD?
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
die_if_kernel("Whee... Hello Mr. Penguin", current->thread.kregs);
;)
was
die_if_kernel("Whee... Hello Mr. McBride", current->thread.kregs);
hmmm
okay it's 04:30 AM.. gimme a chance!
I work at company that is a subsidiary of a fortune 500 company,
and yesterday we were told to develop a migration plan to move everything off of Linux on to Windows. I sh*t you not.
Before we were bought out, our company president would have scoffed at this obvious FUD campaign backed by MS (he still feels this way), but he doesn't set corporate policy now - it comes from our parent company. This may extend to any open source tools we use (linux, perl, apache).
One of the main reasons I took this job was the Linux friendly
environment. Now I guess I'll have to dust off the old resume.
Lawsuit reform is really needed in this country ( there should be a financial penalty if you file a lawsuit and lose - at least pay court costs).
My only chance at salvation is a very quick resolution to this.
really sucks.
Seems like it is a good thing that you're not running a software company, because if you were you'd just ignore the largest platform in the desktop market and the only industry-accepted middleware platform in the desktop market as platforms for "garbage code".
I love the leap you've made from correctly assessing the quality of Microsoft's Windows APIs, to assessing any programs which use those APIs as garbage.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030530/laf010_1.html
2003-05-30
1:00 pm EDT
800-289-0496
913-981-5519
#164628
SCO to Comment on UNIX Ownership and Other Intellectual Property Developments
* Comment on Novell's baseless UNIX ownership assertion
* Perspective on ongoing intellectual property issues and Linux
* Q&A
If you can't mod this up, feel free to repost it with your +2 karma account. I want to get the word out and have some people from our side on this call!
How about a response from IBM to all this SCO mud slinging? And if the Linux source is open why does SCO need non-disclosure? It's not like the source code could be changed in all the million plus copies of linux in the market place?
It seams to me the Code SCO would be claming in fact came to Linux from BSD.
The code in question is in part BSD property and in part SCO property. With the provision (Don't sue us and we won't sue you).
If SCO is suing for the code Linux got from BSD then SCO can be used.
Not so much for code theft but breach of contract or something along those lines.
I don't actually exist.
SCO will attempt to defend itself against Novell's
assertion regarding Unix IP rights. Listen in and
decide for yourself whether SCO has something new
to say.
The SCO Group Teleconference, Friday, May 30 1:00 p.m. EDT
US: 1-800-289-0496
International: 913-981-5519
Conference code #: 164628
signature pending slashdot approval
The article says that SCO will reveal the copied code to analysts who sign a non-disclosure agreement. Is this consistent with SEC regulations which prohibit a company from selectively disclosing material non-public information to investment advisors?
The regulations states that:
Since SCO's future financial success may hinge on whether it can establish its claims, proof of those claims would certainly seem to be material.
Looking up Regulation FD at www.sec.gov, it seems that it is legal to disclose such information selectively provided that:
So, it looks like SCO has #1 covered, but they'd better be careful about #2, or they could end up in really hot water.
Any lawyers out there want to comment?
It was a bloody war by any definition of the word, and was near continuous until 1946, when Douglas Macarthur handed the keys of the Phillipines to a democratically elected President. However, the democracy did not last out the night -- members of opposition parties were kicked out of the Congress, a bloody insurrection started against Manilla's rule, and the new government, dependent upon the United States for military aid, basically became a puppet of the United States, finally descending into outright military dictatorship after the election of Ferdinand Marcos as President. It was not until 1986, after close to 100 years of struggle, that the Phillipines achieved true independence.
Regarding the behavior of other countries, they were not posing as "the land of the free and the home of the brave". The British Empire had no problem with calling itself an Empire. The American Empire, alas, is not so honest. I suppose it is the lies, more than the actions, that irritate me. If we are going to have an empire, let's at least do it honestly, rather than pretend that we aren't one.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Wrong... The fact that the Linux kernel could be so quickly modified as to make their code superfluous would not void or diminish whatever amount that SCO had a legitimate claim to for their trade secrets becoming exposed in the first place. Really. I know this.
You know what, I am relaly getting tired of this circular SCO logic. Everytime someone points out a hole in their argument, they claim the argument is about something else. And of course many slashdotters have been dragged into the same arguments.
What the hell is this lawsuit about? Trade Secrets? Copyrights? Licenses? Contracts? Patents? Trademarks? DMCA violations? Cracking? Butt Cheese? Crap! The slashdotters who pointed out SCO changes their story every day are absolutely right. In fact the only consistency I can see is that SCO vaguely claims "IP" is infringed and that it is not the kind of IP the reporter interviewing them points out could not be involved.
Someone awhile back on slashdot pointed out that the term "Intellectual Property" was being used to blur the very real distinctions between the various types of intellectual property, the way they work, the manner in which they are protected, etc. And it is leading to a very real crisis, especially in the computing world. I am beginning to agree, and this case may turn out to be the one which brings it to the world's attention by making it patently obvious (no pun intended ;) ).
I'm wondering if SCO's lawyers are for real or if they only play ones on TV.
My guess is they are laymen representing themselves. Perhaps slashdot trolls. Anyway you remember the old lawyer's axiom about that...
"Anyone who represents themselves in court has a fool for a client."
I didn't say a software company couldn't or shouldn't do it... What I was trying to say is a company that is trying to do something else (unrelated to generating revenue through the sale of software) should think before allowing win32 obsessed consultants come in and write them into a corner. The pure software companies generally do ok in managing this problem.
I have seen, for example, a company that sells vacations - and they were held prisoner by a in house database written crudely and improperly by a consultant. This also includes various crude front end applications. Point: don't do that. Clearly an application like Microsoft Word was written functionally and can do various things, this database and its front were not. I want my database and front-end to be platform and browser independent. This consultant doesn't know what that means, let alone how to implement platform independent things.
You see, I wasn't talking about a software company. I was thinking that I would be running something else, or maybe an appliance company that uses software to drive an appliance (think something like Tivo (Linux), or a BigIP or a Juniper Router (FreeBSD)), where I would avoid inferior or consumer strength stuff like the plague.
The point is that there is no magic application factory, and if the various tools, IDEs and SDKs for windows out today is best effort, we are going to have programmers who continue to know less and less about managing resources, cleaning up, and code which will never improve in quality. I think it makes it too easy to screw up.
Also, I always find it amusing that the people with the worst or least efficient code are the least willing to show the source to it. I have been privy to some proprietary source for windows applications at various times, and must say, this makes most open stuff look clean. Back to 75%. I'd say that's the breakdown between clean code and foul nasty code that barely works and will never be easily changes nor is extensible. 75% garbage, 25% reasonable. Does the platform or the development tools beget this inferior quality code? I think so. I can't think of a time when the Tivo, the BigIP or the Juniper did anything strange, unexpected or un desired. Can't say the same of Windows, even non-garbage applications.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
How fast the kernel developers could render their code irrellevant would not change the value of the code because SCO could reasonably argue that the kernel developers were highly motivated to quickly change it on account of the lawsuit, not because SCO's code itself was next to worthless.
[Bugs Bunny voice]Hold on a minute there, Pocahontas![/Bugs Bunny voice] If SCO's legal grievance is solely based on trade secrets, two things come into play. Firstly, a trade secret, once revealed, is not a secret anymore. People who use that knowlege are immune to suit. However, the person who reveals a secret is liable for their action and may be disciplined by the company they work for if that company is the one whose secrets they are revealing, and sued if they have signed a contract (which anyone getting access to trade secrets does nowadays). (As many posters have pointed out, the person who reveals the recipe for Coke has to answer to the Coca Cola Company, but no one else need worry about it).
Under no circumstances would the revelation of a trade secret in the code of Linux affect Linux itself or its users and distributors any more than the users and distributors of OpenCola would have to "answer to the Coca Cola Company."
Had SCO openly admitted to what their sections of code were in Linux, and had IBM indeed been shown to have been the source of genuine trade secret infringement, this scenario would be playing itself out very differently right now, and SCO's stock would likely be on the rise -- not plumetting as it has been recently. SCO would have still been able to sue for trade secret loss in the first place since they were not the ones to originally release it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Although the management and ownership has changed, the "SCO" entity has been around since the early 80's. It's disapointing to see a corportate exec ignore the history of his company - in it's day SCO was an industry trend setter. Shame that the more recent chumps have frittered it away.
Rich people are eccentric. Poor people are strange. Me, I'd be happy with odd.
So it seems SCO probably gets to keep all the money it collects from now on. None of that, of course, says anything about who owns the IP rights.
Hmm, no, you forgot to read the last sentence:
In addition, Novell will continue to receive revenue from existing licenses for older versions of UNIX System source code.
So why would SCO have to keep paying Novell for existing licenses for older versions of Unix System source code (e.g. SVRS) if it did own the copyright on it.
My interpretation is that Novell sold Unixware to SCO but kept the copyright to SVRS (so that SCO only owns recent changes to Unixware but not the original SVRS code apparently) and the terms of their agreement was that SCO would pay Novell royalties on Unixware until 2002 (a bit like a mortgage) and then stop to pay for Unixware but continue to pay Novell for the Unix licenses they sell to other companies, being the "administative agent" for those licenses.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,