Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Did SCO 'Borrow' Linux Code?

Posted by timothy on from the selective-memory dept.

An Anonymous Reader writes "Apparently someone inside SCO has stated that SCO(actually Caldera) copied Linux code into System V. They did it to build what they now market as Linux Kernel Personality - the ability to run Linux software on their Unix. Now, the open source community(of course they don't mention who) is jumping on this, because they didn't return the changes to the OS community or give the community credit. Of course, SCO says it's a misunderstanding and, get this 'SCO also never used any of the Linux kernel code.'"

8 of 688 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Two Words by jasonsfa98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would really like to see documentation on this "offending code" to prove that it was theirs.

    Otherwise, how do we really know who added it and when? What if it was pre Sys V code? What if the code came from Linux in the first place?

    I have heard that the comments were the same, but who made the comments? Is there a name? Does he/she work for SCO?

    Lot's of questions ... no answers.

  2. In two weeks no one will care. by c0dedude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the last gurgle of a dying corperation. SCO produces, for all purposes, nothing. Why didn't they pursue these claims when they manufactured Caladra, a form of Linux? because they know they're groundless. There's no way that the Linux kernel isn't in public domain. To try to prevent distribution based on 80 lines of code of a program with thousands of lines is ridiculous. Not only that, but any 80 lines of code could be easily removed, thus SCO can't reveal it. When this goes to trial and they're forced to reveal the lines of code and the lines are promptly removed, no one will care and SCO will fade into obscurity. Good Riddance.

    --
    Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
    1. Re:In two weeks no one will care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually SCO claims Linux is in the public domain:

      Paragraphs 77 to 81 of SCO's complaint describe their view of "General Public License" [sic]. In Paragraph 80, read their claims on GPL copyrights (they say there aren't any). Paragraph 77 (and their general claims overall) seek to thus establish Linux is a combination of public domain and nefariously obtained proprietary SCO IP. If the court accepts this line of reasoning, we are left with the situation, where SCO will be able to claim exclusive copyright on the overall work of Linux.

      Chris Sonntag made it completely clear when he publcly said 'we hope to get our arms around all the Linux out there' and 'there is no legal use of Linux'?

  3. SELL SHORT.....SELL SHORT NOW.... by Dr_Marvin_Monroe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you belive the merits of this claim....If you belive them, now's your chance to cash out from the pot those greedy bastards at SCO have on the table...it's something like $9.50 / share now! ....grab it... .....SELL SHORT.....first thing when the market opens....

    Take all of that money before the greedy bastards grab it off the table!!!!....Monetary damages are the only thing the SCO mgmt. and the speculators funding this operation respect. Take their money before they figure out that the knife cuts both ways...

  4. Pathetic by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SCO sues IBM because they use Linux code that SCO says has SCO code in it. Novell says Unix isn't SCO's. SCO says Unix is theirs to exploit. Linux geeks angered by SCO says SCO copied Linux code into its products, ... etc etc ...

    When I was, oh what?, five years old, I remember that kind of talk in the courtyard at school during recess :

    - Hey, Johnny stole my yellow marble
    - No I DID NOT !
    - YES YOU DID !
    - It's not your marble anyway, it was mine, I just told you to borrow it, I didn't give it to you
    - I'll tell my Mom Bruce stole Robert's marble, and you'll be GROUNDED !
    - I DID NOT !
    - YES YOU DID ! ...

    Replace one of these kids by SCO, another by Novell, a third by IBM, a fourth by the Linux community, the one who tells Mom by Microsoft, the courtyard by the computer industry and Mom by the DOJ and there you have it.

    *sigh*

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  5. Re:Two Words by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No duh. How many people have been saying this? AND how many people are ignoring the fact that SCO group themselves released the "offending" code under Caldera? Everyone but IBM it seems, since they think this lawsuit is frivolous.

    The moderator who modded you "insightful" was on crack, because you completely failed to read the article. Timothy is suggesting that SCO may have copied (presumably GPLed) code from Linux into their proprietary Unix[tm]. If true, the repurcussions could be, erm, quite interesting.

    As lore would have it, the original USL suit against BSD and Berkely University broke up on the rocks for a similar reason.

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  6. Re:"Someone inside SCO" by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except you're wrong. SCO has evidence. This is a rumor.

    To be precise, SCO is spreading rumours that they have evidence.

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  7. 107 words, and 133 words by leonbrooks · · Score: 5, Insightful
    These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

    ...and...

    You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

    So... when they distributed their UNIX with the LKPM included (their "work") and that contained GPLed code, they accepted the terms of the GPL. But they have not distributed, or offered to distributed, the source to their (now GPLed, since the accepted the terms) "work".

    This means that either they violated the GPL after agreeing to it. The owners of the copied code will band together and sue them for $2G, I hope, and settle for costs plus distribution of the full source of UnixWare 7 distributed as per the licence agreement SCO acceded to. Just to labour the point, they have already distributed derivative code, so halting distribution does not undo their requirement to distribute full source.

    Do I need to make it simpler for you?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing