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.
#!/
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
SCO stock today. Down 25% yesterday, and an additional 12% today, Thursday, May 29, 2003.
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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:
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!)).
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.
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.
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:
}
}
}
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.
"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 ]
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.
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?
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
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
* 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]
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
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
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
Why not use their stock symbol $COX?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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.
"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!
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.
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!!!
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.
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
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)
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
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.
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
--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
See here
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
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.
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".
... you insensitive clod !
Hopefully, a karma whore will have posted the full-text of the article.
:wq
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...
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
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.
Just one minute!
"...what they did is lift 5 to 10 to 15 lines of code from multiple parts of linux and place it into SCO owned code and then simply claim that it was stolen from them..."
I just created this theory, (see down below a ways..) and you haven't gotten in touch with my attorney, Bernie, for rights to reproduction.
Expect a call from him, right quick!
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
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
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.
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?
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".
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
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
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
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?
"...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?
But to state that Linux incorporates Unix code in any large way is ridiculous. The Unix kernel is structured entirely differently from the Linux kernel, if I'm reading my Bach book correctly while reading my LInux source. And any similarities in certain algorithms can be easily explained by the fact that some of us *did* read the Bach book. I honestly can't see any place where any Unix code would be useful in kernel-land, aside from possibly some of the UFS code for dealing with the Unix Sys V.3/SysV.4 filesystem. The kernels are just structured too differently.
Finally: I haven't looked at Unix source code since 1987. Frankly, it was pretty damned ugly back then (you should have seen the code for 'sed', for example, what a hack, and not a comment to be found anywhere!), and I haven't seen anything in the Linux kernel that looks ugly enough to be Unix source code. But what the hell, let's just toss out unfounded allegations and try to hold up people for royalties on Linux. Beats working for a living, I guess.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
It wouldn't make good business sense for IBM to engage in PR war with SCO before the trial begins. It's just the way IBM works, their stern wording in court fillings, however, indicates that they know exactly what they're doing. It's like saying to SCO "you boys have no standing in this case..."
- group_complaint_on_april30_2003.pdf
That IBM's filling is at: http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/ibm_response_to_sco
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
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?
This lawsuit has being scheduled as OJT for freshmen in IBM :-)
Since they are inexperienced, there are too few press releases.
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 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.