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
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!
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 think SCO cares if anyone believes them or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not a judge finds their legal argument sound enough to award them a judgement. Anything else they say is just smoke and mirrors, a nod in the general direction of Publik Opeenion.
The only way the price will go down and stay down is if someone leaks the so-called evidence (or some juicy internal memos...) and the Emperor is discovered to be wanderin' around buck nekkid, so to speak.
I'm just wondering why it hasn't happened yet.
Searching for Truth, Justice, and the Guy Who Boosted My Wallet a Few Weeks Back....
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
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
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
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,
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.
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.
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
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
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!
"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.
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.
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
eh? If they own some of the IP that's used in linux as they claim, then it's not illegal for THEM to use it.
You CAN audit Free Software.
You can NOT audit proprietary source code.
We should repeat this frequently and loudly.
Should the IT pundits come to this realization, all of this gibberish about Open Source "accountability" will backfire horribly.
Even if what this SCO monkey claims is true is true, that still leaves the question of ultimate ownership of the offending code. Linux is "out there". The code and development process is publically documented and mirrored.
If SCO claims ownership to 15 lines of the kernel, how do they independently verify that claim? There are simply no 3rd parties with possession of all the relevant evidence.
It's not just the source itself but also the entire change history.
Merely pointing out common code between the two codebases simply isn't enough to base a conclusion on.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
No, but THEY distributed the code. If some of their IP was in the kernel, they should have never distributed it under the GPL.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
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.
"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!
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.
Ummm, according to the GPL, it's not theirs if they distributed it under the GPL (which they did).
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
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?
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.
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?
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
Huh, why would you donate your shares that you spent money on to other corporations?
Maybe donate 'em to the FSF - now that'd be highly amusing.
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.
You are getting a little mixed up here. A trade secret is something that is NOT patented for any of a variety of reasons. For example, a company could decide that a patent if granted would be unenforceable because it covered a process step that another company could practice in secret making it impossible for the patent holder to determine if infringement was occurring.
The kicker in all of this is the contract with IBM. We don't know what the terms are, and it may well be that it included terms protecting things beyond what is considered trade secret.
I have been involved in some of these things, and I will say that SCO's claims that developers who worked on the SCO project with IBM then later moved on to work on Linux will be dangerous in a court of law. It is very common to claim that knowledge obtained in the first case will inevetably leak into the second project, and courts can and do believe it.
In my case I was privy under NDA to a technology that my employer was considering purchasing from another company - after the decision was made not to go ahead with the purchase I was not allowed by my employer to ever do work in the technology area covered by the NDA for fear of exactly this problem. I also had to destroy all documents involved, and wasn't able to even tell my boss (the VP R&D) the technical reasons behind my decision to recommend against the purchase.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
Yes, but consider the damage such an injunction could do to things that are more important than SCO. Like national security. With Linux's huge installed base, not allowing distribution of security fixes could mean a death blow to much more than Linux. And installing SCO or Windows Server 2003 is not an option. I'm sure no judge would be that stupid.
The GROSS FALACY with your point has been stated repeatedly.
SCO made threats against other Linux distributors and Linux end users while still distributing Linux. This is a clear "smoking gun" that SCO continued to distribute their code under the GPL after they became aware of the situation.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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. They accepted the kernal as a package, under good faith that all contributions to it were legitimately licensed by the contributing parties.
Caldera has numerous kernel patches, which would lead one to believe that they did have a consistent review and familiarity of the kernel code long before this became an issue.
There are 3 things to prove:
1. They did not willfully and knowingly distribute "tainted" code through the Linux kernel (in the form of the Caldera kernel patches.)
2. They do in fact own the property rights to the code in question, and not Novell. As said in the article that is under interpretation. Novell has a lot more money than SCO, so Novell wins.
3. Tainted code actually exists in the Linux kernel. 5-15 lines, as stated, in multiple occurances can merely be a coincidence. The large blocks of code spoken of mysteriously is going to be the meat and potatoes.
IANAL...
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
I'm not arguing the point that they should have immediately stopped distribution once the alleged violation was discovered. That delay could be a case of the left foot not knowing what the right foot is doing. Or the order to bring a lawsuit being handled before the order to stop their own distribution. You'll find that the courts tend to give a bit of leeway when it comes to timing issues like that. Hence my statement:
Whether they stopped their distribution soon enough after discovery of the violation is a matter for the courts to rule on.
You'll notice that I didn't mention the timing of the withdrawal of their distro in my recap of the fallacy. I think we both agree that,
IF their IP claim is valid, and
IF someone leaked that IP into the kernel source tree, and
IF they were unaware of it,
THEN the source tree contributer was not authorized to license the code, and
THEREFORE the GPL is not valid for that portion.
Elsewhere there are indications that they should have known of the alleged violations for some time. They themselves were contributors..
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
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)
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
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.
How does anyone know that the code in question was not first in Linux, then integrated into System V, thus violating the GPL?
My suspicion is that it is more likely that it is BSD code that has crept into both Linux and SCO. After all, it is well known that Linux and commercial OS vendors freely use BSD, and perfectly legally.
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".
Would it be ok to spell it $CO from now on, especially since they seem to be in bed with M$?
In bed with M$?? Let's look at what the article says:
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.
This is not in bed. This is in a dirty bathroom stall, in a seedy part of town, with one party on his or her knees.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
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.
... 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
If the code is in Linux, as they claim, then the code is available to the public, and they no reason I can think of to share the infomation about what code they are disputing.
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!
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.
If the code is in Linux, as they claim, then the code is available to the public, and they no reason I can think of to share the infomation about what code they are disputing.
This was my thought when I first heard them say this, too, but if what you're suggesting is that they don't have anything to offer, I don't think they'd be making the legal noises they are. They pretty plainly did some kind of research before they came out with this.
I find myself wondering if what they're afraid of is not exposing the code, but exposing the location of the code.
Think about what would happen if they did. I'm betting 400,000 programmers would rush to rewrite any of the offending sections and that by the time of the trial, SCO would dredge in the "offending code" and the happy band of defendants would plead: "But we changed all of that, so your citing all this old code is irrelevant. Moreover," the defense would continue, "as soon as you brought it to our attention, we fixed it. We had no way of knowing we were infringing because, after all, the code we were infringing is a secret."
Consequently, as odd as it sounds, I'm betting they want the offending code to keep getting used so that they can prosecute the use. I'm betting when they say "stop using it", they are being disingenuous, since it's the continued use that will bring a good judgment.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
This is a very good point.
... is the code sections relevant. One can look at music where theft of concept is rampant and effectively expected. Proving infringement is notoriously difficult to do as the simply tweaking the rythm or melody will result in a different work.
I would think that if someone has a well-defined coding style that the same stuff would crop up in more than one place. The same naming conventions, etc...
The question is
It's almost like trying to copyright a design pattern. It's more like a method or a strategy, a way of going about things. In some cases these could be absoluetly trivial problems that have trivial solutions. In such cases, it's no wonder that one would respond (code) in the same fashion.
If their truly is "infringing" code it really has to be LARGE CHUNKS. As we all know, code from two different (but similar) systems is about as interchangeable melted lego bricks. The idea that someone could intentionally chop out small pieces VERBATIM and expect it to work is pretty silly.
Copying large grained, well encapsulated, functional modules of code is the only software plagarism could possibly be effective. 5-10 lines wouldn't work correctly without major modification, it's not worth copying. It would have to be in the range of hundreds and thousands of contiguous lines which match in a functional fashion.
Anything below that threshold is effectively the same as putting a thousand (code) monkeys in a room with PCs and seeing if they randomly repeat AT&Ts greatest sonnets.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
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.
I don't think that preventing people from rewriting the code in dispute is the issue. After all, as other posters have mentioned, SCO can't recoup losses that they could've prevented, so regardless of the actual amount of time between the "You Copied Our Code!" allegation and the "Here's The Code You Copied" disclosure, that time is effectively zero.
;-)
So why hold back? Why not tell everyone exactly what code has been copied? Simply, surprise. In a criminal lawsuit in the US, the prosecution has to present their evidence to the defense before bringing it up at trial. But how long before? And are those rules different for civil cases? IANAL, but I'm sure SCO's going to delay as long as possible before they have to say "lines XXX-YYY of foo.c in kernel 2.q.r contain our code!"
But why? Here's what will happen when they finally do make such a disclosure (by "kernel maintainers" below I mean either people who actually maintain the kernel code or people who are acting based on the knowledge that these maintainers freely provide):
(1) The kernel maintainers will check to see if the offending code has ever existed in kernel code outside of SCO's distribution;
(2) The kernel maintainers will compare the dates of CVS archives of SCO's code and the Linux kernel to determine whether SCO's code was copied into Linux or vice-versa;
(3) The maintainers will check to see who introduced the code to the kernel, and what earlier versions of their code looked like - i.e., was the final code the result of a logical progression from a simpler starting point, or was the code truly introduced as a single chunk? If so, was it introduced by someone who had access to SCO's code?
Each of these steps is going to take time. If SCO presents the "offending" code now, then IBM will be able to answer these questions long before the trial begins, and prepare a better defense. Otherwise, they'll have to scramble for information at the last minute. In other words, even though SCO may be limiting the amount of damages they can collect by withholding information, they may be maximizing their chances of winning the suit. I don't find their actions surprising at all.
That being said, one of the best things IBM could do right now is build a relational database of kernel code, versions, maintainers, and contributors, so that when SCO says "lines XXX-YYY of file foo.c in kernel 2.q.r contain SCO code," the IBM lawyers can immediately respond with information about how many people wrote those lines of code, who they were, whether they had any association with SCO, when the code was introduced to the kernel, how it evolved from previous versions, etc.
Of course, it shouldn't require mentioning that this database should be open-sourced.
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.