Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the to-an-independant-analyst dept.
cheesybagel writes "In this EETimes article SCO claims to have shown their evidence to our independent analyst friends from the Aberdeen Group. The evidence, all 80 lines of it, allegedly even has identical comments."
Re:Has anybody considered
by
WeiszNet
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
True, but one cannot deny the fact that SCO does act very weird. Usually when some company "steals" GPL code, the copyright holder gives the company a chance to correct his mistake (and shows proove immediatly).
SCO does not do all this, which does not make it look honest.
Re:Has anybody considered
by
dfeist
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Not only that, but they contradict themselves every few days. Sometimes it's copyright, sometimes patents, sometimes trade secrets.
And umm, how can the Linux users be guilty if IBM put their code into the kernel source? They can't. If it was about proprietary software, noone would say all the licensees are guilty. But it isn't really another case then this - IBM gave it to the community under GPL. Some proprietary company gave it to the users under a proprietary license. Where's the difference? It's not the source, but I don't think that is important since the binary is generated from the copyrighted code, so it is copyrighted, too.
-- Unix makes easy tasks hard and hard tasks possible. Windows makes easy tasks easy and hard tasks $29.95.
Many observers believe SCO's case is bolstered by the fact that it is represented by high-powered attorney David Boies, who prosecuted the Microsoft antitrust case and represented Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election vote-counting scandal.
Wait a minute. Didn't the Microsoft case collapse? And didn't Al Gore loose his case? So why is SCO's case being "bolstered" by using David Boies. Isn't Mr. Boies just a loser?
(Nothing personal against David, just looking at the quoted record.)
Didn't the Microsoft case collapse? And didn't Al Gore loose his case?
If you look at the part of the Microsoft case that Boies was involved in, Boies clearly won. Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, and have acted illegally. The judge in the case went so far as to recommend that Microsoft be broken up. Even more telling he clearly embarrassed Microsoft's attorneys a number of times during the trial. Of course, the settlement turned out to be far less than a breakup, but that was more due to the DofJ caving during negotiations with MS than anything Boies did. And that finding of MS being a monopoly is going to affect MS for a long time in a variety of ways in other litigation.
In the case of Al Gore's electiion challenge, Boies did lose. While I am not at all a fan of Dubya I think that in retrospect it was a reasonable outcome to a very difficult situation. Certainly post-mortem investigations showed that Bush probably did actually win the plurality of votes in Florida. Of course the fact that justice seems to have been served is purely accidental, and should be a warning that election processes are not robust enough in these close races.
To me the disappointing result was the Napster result. I would have thought that things like the Betamax case would have provided a good base to win this one. I do not at all agree with the idea that a particular technology should be blamed for the way it is used.
The other area of criticism of Boies that bears some scrutiny is that he was unethical during the Gore matter. This to me is the most severe issue of all. Of ourse I am sure SCO doesn't care about this.
The choice of lawyer for SCO may well have come down to the fact that they need someone to handle a very high profile technology/IP case on a contingency basis. It may have boiled down to Boies being the best available.
Does Linus et al keep track of code submitters
by
swb
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Do they?
Is it possible to submit a patch to some backwater part of the kernel that improves upon something rather mundane, the kind of thing that doesn't get your picture on the "Top 10 Kernel Gurus" list and then have the identity of the submitter slowly slip away into the ether?
Or are the kernel submitters kept in some kind of list someplace along with the stuff they submitted?
Don't forget to consider the fact that "UNIX" is full of BSD code (remember the BSD lawsuit), and linux has a lot (well some) BSD code in it as well, more or less modified. How do we know it wasn't this code they showed?
-- "GNU's not Unix....it's Linux" / Kami "kokamomi" Petersen
And now.. read again SCO claims
by
MrNop
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
âoePrior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.â (Paragraph 84) 80 LINES of code !
âoeOver time, IBM made a very substantial financing commitment to improperly put SCO's confidential and proprietary information into Linux, the free operating system.â (Paragraph 94) 80 LINES of code !
âoeThe only way that the pathway is an âeight-lane highwayâ(TM) for Linux to achieve the scalability, SMP support, fail-over capabilities and reliability of UNIX is by the improper extraction, use, and dissemination of the proprietary and confidential UNIX Software Code and libraries. Indeed, UNIX was able to achieve its status as the premiere operating system only after decades of hard work, beginning with the finest computer scientists at AT&T Bell Laboratories, plaintiff's predecessor in interest. â (Paragraph 99) 80 LINES of code !
Re:Has anybody considered
by
Your+Anus
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It shouldn't be all that hard to prove where the code came from. Anything that gets into the linux kernel is posted on the linux-kernel mailing list. I would think one could simply grep the archives, given the lines of code/comments in question.
--
In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
Could someone that seen the code tell you the comments so we could get it out of the Linux Kernel. I somewhat read the NDA and all I saw was stuff about code. It would be cool if that was a loophole SCO didn't think about.
Mike
-- I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
Re:Has anybody considered
by
dnoyeb
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Its irrelevent. I am sure if SCO opened their code to full inspection, they would have numerous GPL violations. Thats just how business goes these days. Thats why you see big companies settling out of court. And thats one of the major reasons for the patent frenzy. So, so what if their is 80 lines of stolen code. Lets see how much GPL/LGPL/other license code is hidden in the SCO code....
What did you say they wanted?
by
Lumpish+Scholar
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"SCO is not trying to destroy Linux," said [Laura] DiDio of the Yankee Group. "That's silly. This is about paying royalties."
We don't want to destroy privacy; we just want to be able to track terrorists.
We don't want to destroy fair use; we just want to make sure the artists get paid for their work.
We don't want to destroy free software; we just want to be paid every time someone uses it.
<sarcasm>Yeah, right.</sarcasm>
-- Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Re:Has anybody considered
by
cookd
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I sincerely hope that all of this blows over. I'm very suspect of SCO's claims, especially since they won't let the evidence out, which means that they're going to charge royalties for everyone using their code without telling us exactly what we need to remove their code from Linux. Withholding the evidence is making everyone mad, and preventing us from "coming clean" by removing "their" code or even by licensing "their" Linux if we feel so inclined.
However, let's assume that there are right -- they own Unix, and there are segments of code, up to 80 lines in length, that match between Linux and Unix. What does that show? Still nothing in itself. The code could also be in BSD, in which case it would be free and clear from any SCO claims (although if it lacks the appropriate copyright label, the Berkeley regents might have to send their agents over to rough Linus up a bit (grin)). Or something like that. The code might well be public domain stuff (from an academic paper, from some code library, etc.), so nothing to see.
But assume SCO does own the code. We just rewrite those sections and call it good, right? Wrong. The sections are evidence of contamination, and it will be difficult to determine exactly how far the contamination goes. If someone could copy and paste SCO code, he/she was also probably doing other things -- opening the Unix code in one window, and writing a similar Linux routine in another window, referring back to the Unix code for a "how-to". This is also illegal, as such things need to be done via clean room reverse engineering procedures.
SCO will then argue that the contamination is very deep. IBM and the Open Source people in general will argue that the contamination is insignificant. It might be hard to tell in some cases. SCO will argue that the design patterns in use in Linux were stolen from Unix, and that those design patterns are crucial IP. Everything built around that design will have to be rewritten, probably with a different design to prove that we aren't continuing to steal their precious design. And then everything that depends on that design will also have to be rewritten. Etc. Depending on how deep the problem goes (according to what the courts decide), it may or may not be feasible to rewrite the affected portions and send out patches. The problem is that lawyers may have to get involved, certifying that the portions rewritten comply with all necessary laws and no longer intrude on SCO's IP. It may be necessary to abandon portions of Linux entirely, perhaps importing replacement code from BSD or the like.
In the meantime, all of the big fish who have been using Linux will be sued for royalties. I'm sure that many suits will be dismissed, but some will be upheld.
Whether or not SCO wins, this will be a wakeup call. Before accepting GNU tools for use in the business, managers are now going to be asking, "how can we be certain that this code is legit?" It is a very valid question. All source has pedigree -- are there any portions of this code that might be discovered to belong to someone else? If so, what protects us from having that code yanked out from under us? Somebody could sue us for damages, refuse to license the code to us, and shut down our entire operation.
If SCO wins, beyond the damage to Linux itself, a lot of people are going to get very nervous about using open source products in general in the business world. Even if they lose, things are still going to get a bit more tense, as you may have to prove the code's purebred pedigree before you can use it to run your IT department.
-- Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
As soon as they know what code is "dirty", if it even is, it is going to be removed.
Thereby depriving SCO of their revenue stream. They are trying to cast a cloud of FUD over the entire Linux and GNU codebase, to establish de facto ownership of the whole enchilada.
Yes, it's like slapping a lien on your house over a couple of stolen teacups. What remains to be seen is whether the court will allow it. Can any lawyers comment? (Lawyers, please, not the zillions of IANALs that inhabit these parts.)
--
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL
by
NZheretic
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
SCO's evidence of origin and Function dictates form
What proof did SCO present for the origin of both fragments of source code?
What proof did SCO present to show the SCO code did not originally from old BSD,Linux or public domain publications?
Who put the SCO source into Linux? - Was put there by Old Novell/SCO/Caldera in the first place?
What proof did SCO provide to show that the person had access to SCO's Unix sources?
The latter question raises another issue. The similarity is just as likely to be due to both operating systems performing the same role. Form is often directed by the function it performs. Function and variable names are often dictated by the API and common terminology.
Both the current Linux and Unix kernel developers have attended the similar university courses and read the same publicly available documentation. The works of W. Richard Stevens are very influential as a reference toward modern Unix and Linux and have dictated the implentation of APIs and TCP/IP stacks in both.
SCO held another telephone conference today, but you had to be on time. I tried to call in later, when I was free, to hear the recording, but although the operator told me it had been recorded, it wasn't being made available. She suggested I contact SCO and ask to hear it. Meanwhile, someone who did listen posted on Slashdot as "mec" and he or she heard this question and answer:
[question #3] Stephen Shankland, CNET --
"Q: Copyright office does not have an assignment on file [for the Unix copyrights from Novell]. 'Is it your understanding that the copyrights have not been registered yet?' A: 'Stephen is correct... [if we need] we will change the assignment of copyright...' [we can do that at any time]."
If this is true, that they failed to register, it puts another interesting twist on this story. (Novell put a twist of its own, by posting a press release on its site saying that while the Amendment that SCO sent them seemed to support their claim "that ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX did transfer to SCO in 1996", Novell doesn't seem to have the amendment in its own files, and patents for sure didn't transfer.)
It's true you can register a copyright any time, but you can't sue for infringement until you have registered and you can't get certain damages for infringement that occured prior to registration: "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is
necessary for works of U. S. origin." Section 411 says it precisely like this:
" 411. Registration and infringement actions10
(a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the
author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of subsection
(b), no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work
shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made
in accordance with this title...."
You are limited as to remedies without registration, as Section 412 sets forth:
" 412. Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement11
In any action under this title, other than an action brought for a
violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a) or an action
instituted under section 411(b), no award of statutory damages or of
attorney'
Re:Has anybody considered
by
SnowZero
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
And I still don't buy it either. It's not like any other IP enforcement we've ever seen. Not even the RIAA/MPAA act like this:
Imagine the RIAA comes and tells you that one of the CDs in your collection is a pirated copy, but they won't tell you which, and you must start immediately paying them royalties, along with fees for past damages.
Doesn't sound very ethical now does it? "Fair" would be indicated the infringing code so that it could be removed, and charging for damages of the use up to the point in time which it was removed. Making someone pay while not giving the opportunity to fix the problem is simply extortion.
SCO has no leg to stand on here. Even if all of their absurd claims are true, no-one is liable beyond the point at which SCO could have provided them with information to correct the matter. Assuming SCO's right, they could tell IBM and the community exactly what lines of code are identical, and provide real evidence to prove that the code was copies from SCO => Linux. The offending code would then be immediately removed and replaced, ending further continuation of the problem. SCO has not done that, so they cannot collect on any damages past the point at which they could have done such.
Heritage of that code?
by
Catiline
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Personally, I question the origins and heritage of those 80 lines. There are three ways that Linux and SCO UnixWare[1] software might contain identical code:
Linux steals code from SCO. (This is what SCO is claiming -- theft of IP via IBM's developers.)
Linux gives code to SCO. (In my mind a likely possibility, given that SCO-- once Caldera Linux-- sold a Linux distrobution.)
Linux and SCO both borrow the same code from a third, public doman or BSD-style licensed source.
Personally, I place the first option as the least possible for two reasons: first, that I doubt any decently-skilled programmer would believe that (improperly donated) proprientary code would remain undetected in a open source program. (The "many eyes" principle doesn't make just bugs shallow!) Secondly, SCO "damning evidence" chart of UNIX history shows two arrows going FROM Linux to UnixWare around August 2000 (on either side of UnixWare 7.1.1+LKP), one coming from the Linux 2.2 branch and the other from the Linux 2.4 branch. This chart also shows one (and only one) arrow leading into Linux... from BSD 4.4 around the end of 1994 (Linux 1.1.52).
I'm laughing my head of at this whole brouhaha. SCO can't keep their story straight (one day it's trade secrets, then copyright, then patents, then...) nor can they even lie convincingly on their webpage. Somebody please start a class action lawsuit positing fraud against these folks.
[1: Even without seeing an exact statement from SCO about what part of their proprietary code is in question, I know it must be in UnixWare and not OpenServer because they complain IBM violated their IP with Monterrey... and the arrow on the history chart to Monterrey leads from UnixWare.]
Are things really that bad?
by
sbaker
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If there are indeed 80 contiguous lines of near identical code with identical comments - then I think we have to accept that the UNIX and Linux code came from the same place. That's too much to have come about by chance or parallel evolution. However, that doesn't make it an open-and-shut case for SCO:
1) Did the code indeed come from UNIX to Linux and not from some other common source such as BSD - or from Linux to UNIX. Given the lack of version control in early versions of UNIX, it's going to be hard to show *where* it came from.
2) Where is this code? If it's in the heart of the kernel then that's one thing - but if it's in some obscure utility or in a device driver, then it's quite possible that hardly anyone is using this code anyway.
3) You can bet that within an hour of SCO revealing the location of this code, there will be a replacement for it out there. So they'd only be able to claim royalties for past use...not off into the future.
4) Novell claim to own the copyrights and patents to UNIX. If that's true - then who cares about SCO's claims? Now, if Novell were to sue - that would be a completely different matter.
5) It's hard to see how SCO could claim to have been materially damaged by this. It's pretty darned obvious that if the Linux community had not had access to those 80 lines, we'd have written them ourselves...it's not like "Oh no, we don't know how to write that function - so we'll have to steal it from UNIX." Linux's and SCO's sales would not have been different in the slightest whether that code was copied or written from scratch.
We *NEED* more facts. What file and what range of line numbers are we talking about here? Why are SCO keeping that so secret?
-- www.sjbaker.org
Re:Has anybody considered
by
ReconRich
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The thing you miss ( and I HATE defending SCO here) is that if the code is there --- It constitutes IP theft, which is the actionable part of the whole thing.
Not true. A very likely source for that code is that it came from Unix code which was covered by the BSDi/UC Berkeley lawsuit and has been entered into the public domain. Loads of code in Linux has come from BSD, which in turn came from UNIX, just like SCO's code. But a judge has already taken care of that code - it's known to be good. But so long as noone can check (because of the NDA), noone will know. Or it could have been copied the other way, and now SCO's code is GPL'ed;-)
-- Rich
-- Free your mind and your Ass will follow
-- George Clinton
Re:Has anybody considered
by
timmyf2371
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It's also been said here before, many times in fact, that SCO's Linux product was released and wasn't even pulled when they first announced that their IP was in the Linux code.
It's no excuse that their code verification process didn't pick up this fact - IANAL, but doesn't this mean SCO have released their IP under GPL?
--
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Re:Has anybody considered
by
kubrick
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
However, SCO aren't (currently) suing for breach of copyright. They are suing IBM for breaking their SCO Unix license by revealing trade secrets.
They've muddied the waters by sending out their C&D to Linux customers, but they would have to prove the copyright breach pretty convincingly in the IBM case to get settlements from other companies -- and judges are normally very reluctant to decide issues outside the merits of the case at hand (although, of course, IANAL).
There's always the chance that, if they manage to win this case, they'd be feeling pretty pumped, and take on IBM or another company in a wider-ranging suit which could cause the sorts of contamination problems you describe.
Before accepting GNU tools for use in the business, managers are now going to be asking, "how can we be certain that this code is legit?"
This is a question that all business users of code (open and closed) should be asking -- as MSSQL users found out when their use of the product was considered contributory infringement in the patent case Microsoft lost a little while ago. If the company selling you the product/service can't indemnify you from things like this, you need to be prepared for that contingency yourself.
-- deus does not exist but if he does
What was not said
by
diakka
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I think many people here are implying things that may not be true. First, the article states:
"The two blocks of software, they said, contained as many as 80 lines of identical code, along with identical developers' comments."
Notice that it NEVER STATED that the 80 lines were a sequential unbroken segment. I believe that if it was, they would have said that to strengthen their claim. For all we know, they may have simply taken files and tried to see how many lines were identical. If they found a particularly large file, they could have just found random lines completely out of order that just happen to match up.
You may also be assuming that the 'identical comments' are on the same lines as code. They could be simply on a seprate line. They may also be very short and virtually meaningless comments.
We also don't know their definition of identical. Most of you are probably assuming that they mean the lines match up exactly, character by character. Perhaps SCO's definition is that they simply serve the same function, or that the comments have the same meaning. Even if the lines matched up byte by byte, this may not be as big of a coincidence as it seems since it is very common for people to use code beautifiers such as 'indent' that could easily produce the same spacing results even if the 2 original lines came from completely different sources.
What constitutes a 'line'? perhaps they are also counting single character lines such as an open and close curly bracket. What one coder writes as a single line in C may be broken up in to several lines by another coder.
All in all, 80 lines out of millions is an extremely insignificant amount. And what's more, I find it highly unlikely that those 80 lines contain any information worthy of trade secret protection. I feel fairly confident that your average linux kernel hacker could whip out 80 lines of code in less than a day.
-- --
Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
Redhat, Mandrake, Debian et al. have legal teams, I believe.
GNU, and FSF, should care what is going on with this case.
OSI has something to say too.
In reaction to posts like this one linux distributors should sue SCO, asking for the following: A. Injunction against scaring potential and existing customers away from linux, using threatening letters. B. Disclosure of offending lines of code. C. Bar SCO from legally threatening ANY Linux user under the grounds of copyright infringment, since SCO has already released all the code under the GPL (and continues to do so, by disseminating linux-kernel-source from their website).
It seems to me that this should be a simple process. Indeed, if I wasn't dead broke, I might decide to file a case like this myself.
In addition, why not fork SCO's Caldera kernel-> Isn't their custom kernel usuable as 'linux'? Just take their kernel, strip out the SCO bits, add our own, and call in the SCO-lawsuit-protected kernel--after all, you got it from SCO, and they have agreed not to prosecute people using their code.
Infact, this last option seems to be an ace in the hole for us. Unless I'm wrong, in which case someone should explain why to me.
-- WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I think I found it.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Let's see, headers count, right? (A non-programmer wouldn't understand headers are not code)
Which header would be exactly the same between two Unix versions, down to the comments?
Slashdot Mirror
True, but one cannot deny the fact that SCO does act very weird. Usually when some company "steals" GPL code, the copyright holder gives the company a chance to correct his mistake (and shows proove immediatly).
SCO does not do all this, which does not make it look honest.
Not only that, but they contradict themselves every few days. Sometimes it's copyright, sometimes patents, sometimes trade secrets.
And umm, how can the Linux users be guilty if IBM put their code into the kernel source? They can't. If it was about proprietary software, noone would say all the licensees are guilty. But it isn't really another case then this - IBM gave it to the community under GPL. Some proprietary company gave it to the users under a proprietary license. Where's the difference? It's not the source, but I don't think that is important since the binary is generated from the copyrighted code, so it is copyrighted, too.
Unix makes easy tasks hard and hard tasks possible. Windows makes easy tasks easy and hard tasks $29.95.
Wait a minute. Didn't the Microsoft case collapse? And didn't Al Gore loose his case? So why is SCO's case being "bolstered" by using David Boies. Isn't Mr. Boies just a loser?
(Nothing personal against David, just looking at the quoted record.)
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
Do they?
Is it possible to submit a patch to some backwater part of the kernel that improves upon something rather mundane, the kind of thing that doesn't get your picture on the "Top 10 Kernel Gurus" list and then have the identity of the submitter slowly slip away into the ether?
Or are the kernel submitters kept in some kind of list someplace along with the stuff they submitted?
Don't forget to consider the fact that "UNIX" is full of BSD code (remember the BSD lawsuit), and linux has a lot (well some) BSD code in it as well, more or less modified. How do we know it wasn't this code they showed?
"GNU's not Unix....it's Linux" / Kami "kokamomi" Petersen
âoePrior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.â (Paragraph 84)
80 LINES of code !
âoeOver time, IBM made a very substantial financing commitment to improperly put SCO's confidential and proprietary information into Linux, the free operating system.â (Paragraph 94)
80 LINES of code !
âoeThe only way that the pathway is an âeight-lane highwayâ(TM) for Linux to achieve the scalability, SMP support, fail-over capabilities and reliability of UNIX is by the improper extraction, use, and dissemination of the proprietary and confidential UNIX Software Code and libraries. Indeed, UNIX was able to achieve its status as the premiere operating system only after decades of hard work, beginning with the finest computer scientists at AT&T Bell Laboratories, plaintiff's predecessor in interest. â (Paragraph 99)
80 LINES of code !
It shouldn't be all that hard to prove where the code came from. Anything that gets into the linux kernel is posted on the linux-kernel mailing list. I would think one could simply grep the archives, given the lines of code/comments in question.
In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
Could someone that seen the code tell you the comments so we could get it out of the Linux Kernel. I somewhat read the NDA and all I saw was stuff about code. It would be cool if that was a loophole SCO didn't think about.
Mike
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
Its irrelevent. I am sure if SCO opened their code to full inspection, they would have numerous GPL violations. Thats just how business goes these days. Thats why you see big companies settling out of court. And thats one of the major reasons for the patent frenzy. So, so what if their is 80 lines of stolen code. Lets see how much GPL/LGPL/other license code is hidden in the SCO code....
We don't want to destroy fair use; we just want to make sure the artists get paid for their work.
We don't want to destroy free software; we just want to be paid every time someone uses it.
<sarcasm>Yeah, right.</sarcasm>
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
I sincerely hope that all of this blows over. I'm very suspect of SCO's claims, especially since they won't let the evidence out, which means that they're going to charge royalties for everyone using their code without telling us exactly what we need to remove their code from Linux. Withholding the evidence is making everyone mad, and preventing us from "coming clean" by removing "their" code or even by licensing "their" Linux if we feel so inclined.
However, let's assume that there are right -- they own Unix, and there are segments of code, up to 80 lines in length, that match between Linux and Unix. What does that show? Still nothing in itself. The code could also be in BSD, in which case it would be free and clear from any SCO claims (although if it lacks the appropriate copyright label, the Berkeley regents might have to send their agents over to rough Linus up a bit (grin)). Or something like that. The code might well be public domain stuff (from an academic paper, from some code library, etc.), so nothing to see.
But assume SCO does own the code. We just rewrite those sections and call it good, right? Wrong. The sections are evidence of contamination, and it will be difficult to determine exactly how far the contamination goes. If someone could copy and paste SCO code, he/she was also probably doing other things -- opening the Unix code in one window, and writing a similar Linux routine in another window, referring back to the Unix code for a "how-to". This is also illegal, as such things need to be done via clean room reverse engineering procedures.
SCO will then argue that the contamination is very deep. IBM and the Open Source people in general will argue that the contamination is insignificant. It might be hard to tell in some cases. SCO will argue that the design patterns in use in Linux were stolen from Unix, and that those design patterns are crucial IP. Everything built around that design will have to be rewritten, probably with a different design to prove that we aren't continuing to steal their precious design. And then everything that depends on that design will also have to be rewritten. Etc. Depending on how deep the problem goes (according to what the courts decide), it may or may not be feasible to rewrite the affected portions and send out patches. The problem is that lawyers may have to get involved, certifying that the portions rewritten comply with all necessary laws and no longer intrude on SCO's IP. It may be necessary to abandon portions of Linux entirely, perhaps importing replacement code from BSD or the like.
In the meantime, all of the big fish who have been using Linux will be sued for royalties. I'm sure that many suits will be dismissed, but some will be upheld.
Whether or not SCO wins, this will be a wakeup call. Before accepting GNU tools for use in the business, managers are now going to be asking, "how can we be certain that this code is legit?" It is a very valid question. All source has pedigree -- are there any portions of this code that might be discovered to belong to someone else? If so, what protects us from having that code yanked out from under us? Somebody could sue us for damages, refuse to license the code to us, and shut down our entire operation.
If SCO wins, beyond the damage to Linux itself, a lot of people are going to get very nervous about using open source products in general in the business world. Even if they lose, things are still going to get a bit more tense, as you may have to prove the code's purebred pedigree before you can use it to run your IT department.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Thereby depriving SCO of their revenue stream. They are trying to cast a cloud of FUD over the entire Linux and GNU codebase, to establish de facto ownership of the whole enchilada.
Yes, it's like slapping a lien on your house over a couple of stolen teacups. What remains to be seen is whether the court will allow it. Can any lawyers comment? (Lawyers, please, not the zillions of IANALs that inhabit these parts.)
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
What proof did SCO present for the origin of both fragments of source code?
What proof did SCO present to show the SCO code did not originally from old BSD,Linux or public domain publications?
Who put the SCO source into Linux? - Was put there by Old Novell/SCO/Caldera in the first place?
What proof did SCO provide to show that the person had access to SCO's Unix sources?
The latter question raises another issue. The similarity is just as likely to be due to both operating systems performing the same role. Form is often directed by the function it performs. Function and variable names are often dictated by the API and common terminology.
Both the current Linux and Unix kernel developers have attended the similar university courses and read the same publicly available documentation. The works of W. Richard Stevens are very influential as a reference toward modern Unix and Linux and have dictated the implentation of APIs and TCP/IP stacks in both.
Copyright WHAT Copyright
From Groklaw.
And I still don't buy it either. It's not like any other IP enforcement we've ever seen. Not even the RIAA/MPAA act like this:
Imagine the RIAA comes and tells you that one of the CDs in your collection is a pirated copy, but they won't tell you which, and you must start immediately paying them royalties, along with fees for past damages.
Doesn't sound very ethical now does it? "Fair" would be indicated the infringing code so that it could be removed, and charging for damages of the use up to the point in time which it was removed. Making someone pay while not giving the opportunity to fix the problem is simply extortion.
SCO has no leg to stand on here. Even if all of their absurd claims are true, no-one is liable beyond the point at which SCO could have provided them with information to correct the matter. Assuming SCO's right, they could tell IBM and the community exactly what lines of code are identical, and provide real evidence to prove that the code was copies from SCO => Linux. The offending code would then be immediately removed and replaced, ending further continuation of the problem. SCO has not done that, so they cannot collect on any damages past the point at which they could have done such.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Personally, I place the first option as the least possible for two reasons: first, that I doubt any decently-skilled programmer would believe that (improperly donated) proprientary code would remain undetected in a open source program. (The "many eyes" principle doesn't make just bugs shallow!) Secondly, SCO "damning evidence" chart of UNIX history shows two arrows going FROM Linux to UnixWare around August 2000 (on either side of UnixWare 7.1.1+LKP), one coming from the Linux 2.2 branch and the other from the Linux 2.4 branch. This chart also shows one (and only one) arrow leading into Linux ... from BSD 4.4 around the end of 1994 (Linux 1.1.52).
I'm laughing my head of at this whole brouhaha. SCO can't keep their story straight (one day it's trade secrets, then copyright, then patents, then ...) nor can they even lie convincingly on their webpage. Somebody please start a class action lawsuit positing fraud against these folks.
[1: Even without seeing an exact statement from SCO about what part of their proprietary code is in question, I know it must be in UnixWare and not OpenServer because they complain IBM violated their IP with MonterreyDo you like Japanese imports?
If there are indeed 80 contiguous lines of near identical code with identical comments - then I think we have to accept that the UNIX and Linux code came from the same place. That's too much to have come about by chance or parallel evolution. However, that doesn't make it an open-and-shut case for SCO:
1) Did the code indeed come from UNIX to Linux and not from some other common source such as BSD - or from Linux to UNIX. Given the lack of version control in early versions of UNIX, it's going to be hard to show *where* it came from.
2) Where is this code? If it's in the heart of the kernel then that's one thing - but if it's in some obscure utility or in a device driver, then it's quite possible that hardly anyone is using this code anyway.
3) You can bet that within an hour of SCO revealing the location of this code, there will be a replacement for it out there. So they'd only be able to claim royalties for past use...not off into the future.
4) Novell claim to own the copyrights and patents to UNIX. If that's true - then who cares about SCO's claims? Now, if Novell were to sue - that would be a completely different matter.
5) It's hard to see how SCO could claim to have been materially damaged by this. It's pretty darned obvious that if the Linux community had not had access to those 80 lines, we'd have written them ourselves...it's not like "Oh no, we don't know how to write that function - so we'll have to steal it from UNIX."
Linux's and SCO's sales would not have been different in the slightest whether that code was copied or written from scratch.
We *NEED* more facts. What file and what range of line numbers are we talking about here? Why are SCO keeping that so secret?
www.sjbaker.org
The thing you miss ( and I HATE defending SCO here) is that if the code is there --- It constitutes IP theft, which is the actionable part of the whole thing.
;-)
Not true. A very likely source for that code is that it came from Unix code which was covered by the BSDi/UC Berkeley lawsuit and has been entered into the public domain. Loads of code in Linux has come from BSD, which in turn came from UNIX, just like SCO's code. But a judge has already taken care of that code - it's known to be good. But so long as noone can check (because of the NDA), noone will know. Or it could have been copied the other way, and now SCO's code is GPL'ed
-- Rich
Free your mind and your Ass will follow -- George Clinton
It's no excuse that their code verification process didn't pick up this fact - IANAL, but doesn't this mean SCO have released their IP under GPL?
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
However, SCO aren't (currently) suing for breach of copyright. They are suing IBM for breaking their SCO Unix license by revealing trade secrets.
They've muddied the waters by sending out their C&D to Linux customers, but they would have to prove the copyright breach pretty convincingly in the IBM case to get settlements from other companies -- and judges are normally very reluctant to decide issues outside the merits of the case at hand (although, of course, IANAL).
There's always the chance that, if they manage to win this case, they'd be feeling pretty pumped, and take on IBM or another company in a wider-ranging suit which could cause the sorts of contamination problems you describe.
Before accepting GNU tools for use in the business, managers are now going to be asking, "how can we be certain that this code is legit?"
This is a question that all business users of code (open and closed) should be asking -- as MSSQL users found out when their use of the product was considered contributory infringement in the patent case Microsoft lost a little while ago. If the company selling you the product/service can't indemnify you from things like this, you need to be prepared for that contingency yourself.
deus does not exist but if he does
Notice that it NEVER STATED that the 80 lines were a sequential unbroken segment. I believe that if it was, they would have said that to strengthen their claim. For all we know, they may have simply taken files and tried to see how many lines were identical. If they found a particularly large file, they could have just found random lines completely out of order that just happen to match up.
You may also be assuming that the 'identical comments' are on the same lines as code. They could be simply on a seprate line. They may also be very short and virtually meaningless comments.
We also don't know their definition of identical. Most of you are probably assuming that they mean the lines match up exactly, character by character. Perhaps SCO's definition is that they simply serve the same function, or that the comments have the same meaning. Even if the lines matched up byte by byte, this may not be as big of a coincidence as it seems since it is very common for people to use code beautifiers such as 'indent' that could easily produce the same spacing results even if the 2 original lines came from completely different sources.
What constitutes a 'line'? perhaps they are also counting single character lines such as an open and close curly bracket. What one coder writes as a single line in C may be broken up in to several lines by another coder.
All in all, 80 lines out of millions is an extremely insignificant amount. And what's more, I find it highly unlikely that those 80 lines contain any information worthy of trade secret protection. I feel fairly confident that your average linux kernel hacker could whip out 80 lines of code in less than a day.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
Redhat, Mandrake, Debian et al. have legal teams, I believe.
GNU, and FSF, should care what is going on with this case.
OSI has something to say too.
In reaction to posts like this one linux distributors should sue SCO, asking for the following:
A. Injunction against scaring potential and existing customers away from linux, using threatening letters.
B. Disclosure of offending lines of code.
C. Bar SCO from legally threatening ANY Linux user under the grounds of copyright infringment, since SCO has already released all the code under the GPL (and continues to do so, by disseminating linux-kernel-source from their website).
It seems to me that this should be a simple process. Indeed, if I wasn't dead broke, I might decide to file a case like this myself.
In addition, why not fork SCO's Caldera kernel-> Isn't their custom kernel usuable as 'linux'? Just take their kernel, strip out the SCO bits, add our own, and call in the SCO-lawsuit-protected kernel--after all, you got it from SCO, and they have agreed not to prosecute people using their code.
Infact, this last option seems to be an ace in the hole for us. Unless I'm wrong, in which case someone should explain why to me.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Let's see, headers count, right? (A non-programmer wouldn't understand headers are not code)
Which header would be exactly the same between two Unix versions, down to the comments?
linux-2.5.70 # wc -l include/asm-generic/errno.h
100 include/asm-generic/errno.h
It's more than 80 lines.