Slashdot Mirror
No Business Like SCO Business
The SCO must go on. Informationweek has a roundup. News.com has some analysis of the legal case. SCO reiterates their threat to revoke IBM's license. Reader hobsonchoice sends a blurb: "Also more from analysts who saw SCO/Linux code comparisons under NDA. Bill Claybrook, of Aberdeen Group Inc., says SCO changed their story to him about whether they had any "direct evidence" that IBM copied any System V code into Linux.
Laura Didio of Yankee Group has answered some detailed questions about her code review process. Lastly Fujitsu Siemens have joined in the debate: they don't think SCO's case is going anywhere." One observer of the SCO case has compiled some notes about Caldera's active participation in the IA-64 project. And look on the bright side: if you follow the school of thought that all publicity is good publicity, at least this suit has gotten Linux mentioned in many places where it normally wouldn't be.
Ok. We all know what SCO is doing, or at least trying to do.
I hate to sound like a troll, but do we really need this ammount of press time about it? How aobut one giant wrap-up post once this whole business is overwith and SCO is nothing but a faded memeory?
Could we try that? Please?
I think this summs it up better
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
seams to me that SCO has ask IBM about the dirty knife!
Then IBM says to SCO:
YOU BASTARDS! YOU VICIOUS, HEARTLESS BASTARDS! lOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE TO HIM (Linus)
HE'S WORKED HIS FINGERS TO THE BONE, TO MAKE THIS GNU/LINUX WHAT IT IS
AND YOU COME IN WITH YOUR PETTY, FEEBLE QUIBBLING AND YOU GRIND HIM INTO THE DIRT!
this fine, honorable man, whose boots you are not worthy to kiss!
Oh, it makes me mad, MAD
how the end always is
that SCO is thinking they'll file an injunction with a judge on Monday. So, what it seems like to me is they are talking like North Korea.
"You...you...play nice IBM or we'll revoke your AIX license on Friday... err...hm, it's Friday now...um, err...play nice or we'll revoke it on Monday, punks!"
Duno. I know like, nothing about law so maybe this is standard practice.
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
[WEDNESDAY] We are going to revoke IBM's UNIX license if they don't pay up by friday!
[THURSDAY] We have it all planned out. We have this very well calculated. On friday, if IBM does not do what we say, we will revoke their UNIX license and they will be hurting badly.
[FRIDAY] Um.. yeah. We are SO going to revoke IBM's UNIX license if they don't do what we say. Uh, i mean, it's still friday. If they don't do what we say by midnight. Yeah.
[SATURDAY] Well, our deadline has come and gone. We are now free to revoke IBM's UNIX license. Um, at a time of our choosing. Yup. And we will be doing this to IBM. Um.. next week. Unless they do what we say by then. It wil be horrible for them.
There's no business like SCO business
Like no business I know
Everything about it is appealing (the verdict!)
Everything that justice will allow!
Nowhere could you get that happy feeling... when you are stealing... that sacred cow!
There's no people like SCO people
They smile when dealing their blows
Even with a comp'ny that you know will fold, you may be stranded out in the cold
Still you wouldn't change it for a sack of gold, let's go on with the SCO!
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
It's 967AD and the restless SCO Villagers find a witch and are keen to burn her!
A secret meeting with Microsoft takes place to see if they can...
SCO: SCO Code! SCO Code! SCO Code! We've found SCO Code in Linux!
SCO LACKEY #1: We have found some SCO Code in Linux! May we burn it?
SCO: Burn the users! Burn! Burn it! Burn its users!
MICROSOFT: How do you know it is SCO Code?
SCO LACKEY #2: It looks like it.
SCO: Right! Yeah! Yeah!
MICROSOFT: Bring it forward.
GPL'd CODE: I'm not SCO Code. I'm not!
MICROSOFT: Uh, but you are dressed as such.
GPL'd CODE: They dressed me up like this.
SCO: Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
GPL'd CODE: And these aren't my comments. They're false ones.
MICROSOFT: Well?
SCO LACKEY #1: Well, we did do the comments.
MICROSOFT: The comments?
SCO LACKEY #1: And the copyright lines, but it is SCO Code!
SCO LACKEY #2: Yeah!
SCO: We burn it! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!
MICROSOFT: Did you dress it up like this?
SCO: No! No. No. No. No. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah, a bit. A bit. It does look like UNIX though.
MICROSOFT: What makes you think it is SCO Code?
SCO LACKEY #3: Well, it turned me into Windows!
MICROSOFT: Windows?
SCO LACKEY #3: I got better.
SCO LACKEY #2: Burn it anyway!
SCO LACKEY #1: Burn!
SCO: Burn it! Burn! Burn it!...
MICROSOFT: Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether it is SCO Code.
SCO LACKEY #1: Are there?
SCO LACKEY #2: Ah?
SCO LACKEY #1: What are they?
SCO: Tell us! Tell us!...
MICROSOFT: Tell me. What do you do with SCO Code?
SCO: Compile it! Compile it! Compile! Complie!...
MICROSOFT: And what do you compile apart from SCO Code?
SCO LACKEY #1: More SCO Code!
SCO LACKEY #3: Shh!
SCO LACKEY #2: BSD Code!
MICROSOFT: So, why does SCO Code compile?
[pause]
SCO LACKEY #3: B--... 'cause its copied from... BSD?
MICROSOFT: Good! Heh heh.
SCO: Oh, yeah. Oh.
MICROSOFT: So, how do we tell whether it is copied from BSD?
SCO LACKEY #1: See if it builds with gcc?
MICROSOFT: Ah, but can you not also build Linux with gcc?
SCO LACKEY #1: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
MICROSOFT: Does BSD come under the GPL license?
SCO LACKEY #1: No. No.
SCO LACKEY #2: No, its free! We can do what we want with it commercially!
MICROSOFT: And what else are you free to use commercially?
SCO: Bread! Apples! Uh, very small rocks! Cider! Uh, gra-- gravy! Cherries! Mud! Uh, churches! Churches! Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR: Your Own Code!
SCO: Oooh.
MICROSOFT: Exactly. So, logically...
SCO LACKEY #1: If... it... has... been released by us commerically,... it's made of SCO Code.
MICROSOFT: Yes, and have you released it commercially?
SCO LACKEY #2: Yes! In our Linux Distribution!
SCO LACKEY #1: SCO Code! SCO Code! SCO Code! SCO Code! SCO Code! Burn it! Burn the users!
My university's backbone mainframe is run on AIX the way I see it as soon as SCO revokes IBM's license my shitty grades are but a memory on some inaccessible backup tape. Hello med school.
IBM: Trouble with Linux.
...' ... our chief weapons are surprise...blah blah blah. Cardinal, read the charges.
Linux Users: Oh no - what kind of trouble?
IBM: One on't shared codes gone owt askew on base code.
Linux Users: Pardon?
IBM: One on't shared codes gone owt askew on base code.
Linux Users: I don't understand what you're saying.
IBM: [slightly irritated and with exaggerated clear accent] One of the shared codes has gone out askew on the base code.
Linux Users: Well what on earth does that mean?
IBM: *I* don't know - Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble with Linux, that's all - I didn't expect a kind of SCO Inquisition.
[JARRING CHORD]
[The door flies open and CEO Darl McBride of Santa Cruz enters, flanked by two junior members. Chris Sontag has goggles pushed over his forehead. Cardinal Fang is just Cardinal Fang]
Darl McBride: NOBODY expects the SCO Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to money.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
[The Inquisition exits]
IBM: I didn't expect a kind of SCO Inquisition.
[JARRING CHORD]
[The SCO Group burst in]
Darl McBride: NOBODY expects the SCO Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to money, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!
[To Chris Sontag] I can't say it - you'll have to say it.
Chris Sontag: What?
Darl McBride: You'll have to say the bit about 'Our chief weapons are
Chris Sontag: [rather horrified]: I couldn't do that...
[Darl McBride bundles them outside again]
IBM: I didn't expect a kind of SCO Inquisition.
[JARRING CHORD]
[The SCO Group enter]
Chris Sontag: Er.... Nobody...um....
Darl McBride: Expects...
Chris Sontag: Expects... Nobody expects the...um...the SCO...um...
Darl McBride: Inquisition.
Chris Sontag: I know, I know! Nobody expects the SCO Inquisition. In fact, those who do expect -
Darl McBride: Our chief weapons are...
Chris Sontag: Our chief weapons are...um...er...
Darl McBride: Surprise...
Chris Sontag: Surprise and --
Darl McBride: Okay, stop. Stop. Stop there - stop there. Stop. Phew! Ah!
Fang: You are hereby charged that you did on diverse dates commit copyright infringement against the SCO Group. 'My old man said follow the--'
Chris Sontag: That's enough.
[To Linux Users] Now, how do you plead?
Linux Users: We're innocent.
Darl McBride: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
[DIABOLICAL LAUGHTER]
Chris Sontag: We'll soon change your mind about that!
[DIABOLICAL ACTING]
Darl McBride: Fear, surprise, and a most ruthless-- [controls himself with a supreme effort] Ooooh! Now, Chris -- the rack!
[Chris Sontag produces a plastic-coated dish-drying rack. Darl McBride looks at it and clenches his teeth in an effort not to lose control. He hums heavily to cover his anger]
Darl McBride: You....Right! Tie them down.
[Fang and Chris Sontag make a pathetic attempt to tie them on to the drying rack]
Darl McBride:Right! How do you plead?
Linux Users: Innocent.
Darl McBride: Ha! Right! Chris, give the rack [oh dear] give the rack a turn.
[Chris Sontag stands their awkwardly and shrugs his shoulders]
Chris Sontag: I....
Darl McBride: [gritting his teeth] I *know*, I know you can't. I didn't want to say anything. I just wanted to try and ignore your crass mistake.
Chris Sontag: I...
Darl McBride: It makes it all seem so stupid.
Chris Sontag: Shall I...?
Darl McBride: No, just pretend for God's sake. Ha! Ha! Ha!
[Chris Sontag turns an imaginary handle on the side of the dish-rack]
[Cut to them torturing a man, Linus Torvalds]
Darl McBride: Now, Li
Ok, who else is imagining the fully-functional death star?
t
I would guess that the 80-line piece of code that she saw was not related to any of the "enterprise" functionality that she mentions. The pieces just aren't fitting together well, and it is confirming to me that SCO is making a mountain out of a molehill (that may not even exist.)
Encouraging people to waste SCO's bandwidth because they're being stupid is petty and immoral.
:)
On the other hand, it's perfectly fine and moral for you to "vote" by preparing statements for any court case that will result, warning any of your friends in IT who have just returned from a 6 month spelunking adventure that SCO's management can't be sane if they think they can revoke pre-existing licenses, and therefore you don't think they should ever risk future business with SCO, and selling short their stock (assuming you still can).
You don't complain about someone not playing nice by playing naughty yourself. You do it by being scrupulously decent. The resulting contrast makes it all the more obvious how wrong they are to anyone watching, by the way.
p.s. if you don't believe the morality argument, that's fine. Think of this, however: would you rather that SCO lose all its money to hosting companies, ISPs, and telecoms, or to a Linux-and-open-source-promoting vendor like IBM? And I ask that as someone who misses his ISP job, even
Get off my launchpad!
Laura Didio at least identified some of the code areas: "The claims are not limited to just one area of the Unix System V kernel. SCO claims there are multiple instances of copyright violations. SCO said these include: NUMA (Non Uniform Memory access) a mechanism for enabling large multiprocessing systems, RCU (Read Copy Update) (and) SMP."
As far as NUMA goes, this is clearly aimed at the Monterey project. For a good laugh read the SCO Press Release on Industry Support for Project Monterey
I don't see how SCO can make it's "mutual mistake" (aka the pregnant cow) argument for NUMA. Their SCO Linux 4 datasheet advertises NUMA functionality as a feature of the GPL'd "Linux kernel 2.4.19" and trumps up SCO's Linux expertise and support for this kernel. I really don't see how they can win a trade secret case when they ADVERTISE and SUPPORT the open source release of the secret.
Didio: "Check the GPL and look at Section 0. It reads that the legal copyright holder of the source code has to explicitly put an assignment and copyright transfer notice into the beginning of the GPL. There is no concept of accidentally giving away the code to the GPL."
That's not what my copy of the GPL says. It says "This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."
Further copying and modification are separate. The original author of the program placed the program under the GPL, and it and all distributed derivative works are likewise under the GPL.
If someone modifies and distributes the code, they don't in any way have to reaffirm the GPL notice. They certainly are not required to add additional copyright notices.
Didio's comment about the GPL is a complete misrepresentation, and she reveals herself here as an SCO pawn. I have no reason to believe anything else she said.
SOOooo I looked around on their website....nope...can'e download an entire package of OpenLinux....and then I thought....wait a second..support! shouldn't ceasing support of a product that they sold a few weeks ago put them under some kinda liability?? so i dug around on the ftp site....and it didn't take to long to find exactly what i was looking for. ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Work station/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/.
The Linux kernel packed in source RPM format! yes, they ARE still distributing the source code for very thing which they believe contains their own proprietary code!
Please keep in my that my ADHD keeps me a little scatter brained and I sometimes can't focus long enough to
I don't think that case has much applicability here for lots and lots of reasons:
1) SCO advertises its linux expertise and supports linux. They can't really claim they didn't know the cow was pregnant here. For example, in the case of NUMA, SCO's datasheets advertise NUMA support in Linux
2) If you read the case, the court found that because of the mutual mistake of thinking the cow was barren, Walker had a "right to rescind, and to refuse to deliver" the prgenant cow. SCO already delivered the pregnant cow. It had babies and grandbabies. Is SCO ready to rescind all the profits they made selling the mistake?
3) The case cited is a Michigan state common law contract case. The GPL issues make this a federal copyright case. State of mind and knowledge of infringement (ie mistakes) are NOT an element of copyright infringement. (see below) They're going to have to do a lot better than state contract law citations to make this argument. Unless they have federal copyright caselaw to cite, I don't think they'll get very far with this argument.
4) This is also a trade secret case. It is settled law that revealing your own trade secret destroys it, mistake or otherwise. You can't "rescind" the destruction of a secret. Moreover, copyright issues aside, Linus has no duty to keep the secret. Even if IBM did screw up and violate their NDA, that doesn't taint Linux. Only copyright issues can taint Linux.
5) Even if the GPL as pertains to SCO is declared void, SCO still needs some licence to distribute the kernel.org owned IP in Linux. SCO can't make up some other licence for Linux, that is not their right. They must choose to accept the GPL or admit infringing the legitimate parts of Linux via their distribution, modification, and copying thereof. Again state of mind (intent) and knowledge of infringement (ie mistakes) are NOT an element of copyright infringement. This is firmly established law, the best examples of which are the "Dance Hall" cases, where vicarious liability was found when dance hall owners allowed the unauthorized public performance of musical works by the bands they hired, even when the owners had no knowledge of the infringements and had even expressly warned the bands not to perform copyrighted works without a license from the copyright owners. [see Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H.L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304, 307 (2d Cir. 1963) (citing some 10 cases)].
6) Finally, suppose the GPL is deemed breached. Whenever a contract is breached (and this would be especially true if the GPL here was breached by mutual mistake) there is a duty to mitigate damage to the other party. It is important to realize that the alleged wrong-doing here is by IBM, not Linus Torvalds who did little more than commit the same mistake SCO itself claims to have made but without the opportunity SCO had to know it. SCO has steadfastly refused to inform kernel.org of the technical details of the mistake which would allow it to be fixed. Their insistence on an NDA obviously precludes an open source release to fix the problem. Moreover, the actions such as the threat letter sent by SCO to all those companies seem coldly calculated to maximize damage to kernel.org. I think it is inarguable that the damage caused (intentionally) by SCO to Linux is far more substantial than any damage to SCO's IP, which could be easily fixed by simply distentangling the two code bases.
Today I had the opportunity to look at the [incriminating?] code snippets.
Through a mistake of the representing Law firm, my colleague and I did not have to sign an NDA, unlike the other 7 representatives that also were viewing the code today. This is in stark contrast to the Microsoft representatives who apparently even had to maintain silence with their own supervisors, and were only allowed to report back to their internal [Legal?] department.
Now to the code itself:
46 pages each containing one half Linux code (largely printed posts out of the linux-kernel lists) and one half listings from SCO were presented under legal supervision. It is therefore not possible to tell whether this actually comes from SysV-Sources, as they are taken out of context. Also interisting is that all dates are taken out of both parts, even out of the comments.
The comments are in fact identical in places. Even some of the jokes are the same on both sides. What is apparent, though, is that in the most similar places the preceding source code is quite different. The basic structure of the affected functions are similar, but the concrete implementation is quite different. Variables and function names are different, loops are structured differently, conditions run on chained conditionals or bitmaps. All in all only one thing is sure: the functions presented in the code-snippets were often the same, which was to be expected, though.
In the concrete implementation there are so many differences, however, that a proof of the same origin will be hard to construct, albeit not impossible.
However one function of the scheduler presents a [breaking point?], as except for minor differences it is identical. In this case there are also a whole row of matching comments.
Only one routine of the Memory Management offers comparable similarity. In this case, however, only the linux version has comments.
Only a lawyer could safely judge whether these two similarities alone provide proof enough for a verdict. The vague similarties in other parts are, in my opinion, insufficient, since a certain similarity is to be expected as both pieces are based on the same standards. On the other hand, I have no clue where the identical comments in different code could come from. In any case, this should be researched more closely, especially with the dates restored. Only with these would a copyright infringement be provable.
As to the discussion of the piece of Linux sold by SCO/Caldera itself under the GPL, one has to take into account that no Court has commented on the enforcability of the GPL yet...
[Sorry ran out of time. I will try to get to the rest later. Perhaps someone else can translate the rest.]
Here you will find the pdf of the Linux Kernel Internals, authored by Tigran Aivazian (tigran@veritas.com). Now, he has been submitting patches to the kernel for a long time.
He submitted patches for (among others)
Microcode updates
...)
iBCS patches
kgdb patches
Linux Implementation of SCO UnixWare BFS
and I'm sure a lot more, across a wide range of kernel versions (2.2/2.3/2.4
Why does this matter? Well his email used to be tigran@ocston.org. odd domain name, try reversing it.search and look at the first two results, then look here for more info about the first entry.
Before that his email was tigran@sco.org, but he
got a little paranoid
about it.
Searching google brings up patches supplied by him throughout the whole development cycle of 2.3/2.4 and more. He is directly connected to the author of the LKP on SCO Unix, draw your own conclusions here.