Slashdot Mirror
My Visit to SCO
Ian Lance Taylor writes "I signed the SCO NDA and visited them to discuss their claims against Linux. My essay about it is on the Linux Journal web site. The short version is that SCO's claims are unproven, as indeed I expected would be the case before I went. The amount of information they were willing to show me was extremely limited, and
did not by itself prove that their claims were true, nor that their claims were false." Other SCO-bits: Sun is doing their usual foot-in-mouth routine, thinking that two FUDs makes a Solaris purchase, or something like that. IBM is now joining the contact the customers bandwagon. Eric Raymond has been keeping himself busy - here's a story about him. SCO hates BSD, too, but they're not taking it lying down. And of course Cringley has his two cents.
I really have only a basic idea of what the whole SCO/IBM case is here, but in my impression SCO is at blame here. I did notice at work (Safeway) that on a terminal screen there was a login prompt then below it lines and lines of "this material is copyrighted etc etc, please call to validate" and all sorts of other warnings. When will the software industry learn that making its legal users feel like pirates isn't the way to go. Compatatively we have the whole WinXP activation fiasco, and I say that because it makes it near impossible for pirate users, but increidbly unfair and awkward for legal users, for example if you upgrade your motherboard and reinstall windows, you have to call them again and they make you feel guilty for reinstalling windows, asking you questions thinking you are trying to steal windows... seems that they concentrated on the bad people rather than the paying customers (who outweigh the bad ones).
> really wish that IBM would just buy these whiney babies out and open source Unix. Well, first IBM collects some payments from Microsoft for the "Unix license" that they "bought" from SCO, and then IBM makes it open source.
I think that is the worse thing IBM could possibly do. First, that is exactly what SCO wants (to be purchased to save the sinking ship). Second, that would (in some ways) admit guilt on IBM's part, making them look bad, and justifying further retarded lawsuits. Third, it's the principal of the matter. SCO *SHOULD* take this to court so they can loose, and IBM can counter sue for damages. Now that would be a win win.
My 2 Paseo's
"The Wright brothers were the first to fly with a heavier-than-air machine, but boy did they have a lousy plane"
I think that's exactly what SCO wants:
... whatever
:-(
1: SCO approaches IBM to get bought
2: IBM refuses
3: SCO sues IBM for
4: IBM complains but does not want to pay
5: SCO targets more and more Linux, which is a good way to pressure IBM
6: IBM still refuses, people ask where is the evidence
7: SCO does not want to show obvious evidence
It is in SCO's best interest to not say what's supposedly copied in Linux, because they want to get bought by IBM; they hope that:
8: IBM seeing its Linux business threatened buys SCO, because it's going to cost them less than a lawsuit (that they might loose) and a few quarters worth of sales.
The longer this story lasts, the best for SCO
If you RTFA (I know, I know...) you'll see that he does a good job of tiptoeing around the NDA. As a result, of course, there isn't a ton of fresh news here, but it is interesting stuff.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
That was one of the most informative things I've ever read on Slashdot. Thanks, Ian.
However, there's a large discrepancy in some of SCO's claims. There are two scenarios here, which are not mutually exclusive:
1. Linux source code incorporated original SysV code, due to formerly wide distribution of this code (e.g. in Solaris), textbook examples, or sloppiness of contributors from large vendors. This would be theft of code that SCO legally owns the copyright to.
2. Technologies developed by other companies as add-ons to SysV were incorporated into Linux. This is not copyright infringement at all, but violates contracts signed by the original parties.
SCO is clearly claiming (2), and if the contract holds up they may be partially correct (in the sense that IBM fucked up, but not in their wild accusations against the Linux community). I didn't get a clear impression from the article if they're seriously claiming (1) as well. They've stated as much in the past, but the only specific basis for the lawsuit that they've mentioned so far is the incorporation of novel technologies that were not developed by AT&T/SCO.
I say the FSF should team up with Redhat and SUSE, and make a hostile buyout of the company, then sue the CEOs.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Yes, and as long as the author of the article abides by the specific restrictions of the NDA he is doing *nothing* wrong. NDA doesn't mean No Discussion Anytime. It just means that certain specifc things may not be disclosed. From other postings/articles, the SCO NDA seems to only cover divulging the exact code that is supposedly covered by their copyright and the supposedly infringing Linux code. So the author is free to publish his assessment of the infringement claim, he just can't support it by publishing snippets of code.
Rather than post a separate comment...
There is a rather blatant contradiction in SCO's case. SCO claims that incorporation of licensed System V source code in Linux has diminished the value of "Unixware" or whatever they are now calling their semi-unsupported/unmaintained version of Unix that they are no longer able to sell at a profit. However, they have had to mount a FUD campaign against IBM's supported and maintained version of System V Unix that is based on the same licensed code and that IBM continues to sell at a profit. It would seem that the ability to sell a proprietary System V Unix operating system has more to do with keeping it maintained, current, and supported and less on the possible inclusion of some snippet of code in Linux. Otherwise, why is it that IBM can still make money selling AIX? If the infringement were really the reason why a proprietar Linux can't be sold, how is it that AIX (and Solaris, too, for that matter) aren't affected by it but SCO's is?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Its not like Sun is saying "Dont use Linux/BSD/OSS"
/. editors have something against Sun....
You havent seen Sun say "We arent doing Madhatter anymore" or "We're not going to be reselling Redhat anymore"
They are saying, "Use Solaris instead of AIX because we have all the rights to Solaris" What, you think IBM wouldnt be doing the same thing if SCO came after Sun? Jeez, nearly makes you think that
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Why is the author worried about IBM pulling out its patent portfolio and beating down SCO? As I understand patents, you don't have to enforce them with all parties. IBM has a current interest, and investment, in Linux so why would anyone by worried that IBM beating SCO to death with patents would mean IBM would then turn the patents on Linux?
KhyronI'm amazed when I see comments from people who are sick of reading about the SCO lawsuit. I would say that Slashdot is the best Linux advocacy site there is, and the outcome of this lawsuit will have profound implications for all Linux users. I work in the IT industry, as I'm sure do most of the readers here, and I prefer to be well-informed on topics that have a direct bearing on my profession.
From Cringely's article:
IBM has the largest legal department of any company in the world. They are INCREDIBLY sensitive about IP ownership, which produces for them more than $1.5 billion per year in license fees. They have embraced the GPL very carefully for their Linux work. The very fact that this code was released under the GPL indicates it was vetted and found acceptable by the IBM legal department. It's not like sometimes they don't bother to go through this procedure.
Sometimes, stickup artists like SCO pick the wrong victim...
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Otherwise, why is it that IBM can still make money selling AIX? If the infringement were really the reason why a proprietar Linux can't be sold, how is it that AIX (and Solaris, too, for that matter) aren't affected by it but SCO's is?
Simple, SCO does not sell hardware. IBM wouldn't sell 10 copies of AIX a year if it wasn't for the RS/6000's they run on. Similar situation for Solaris. After all, WHO has a successful Unix that doesn't sell it as part of an integral system?
If the answer is "nothing," then quit complaining about the color of the giftwrap. Otherwise, lead by example.
it was amusing for a while, but now this story is just a plain annoyance. IANAL, but SCO doesn't have a case and they know they don't. they can't even bring this to prelim to stop IBM shipping products in "violation" of their IP.
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/06/16.html
stupid media should realize this case is lion vs. fly, and media is being used by SCO the fly as a vehicle to spread FUD. IBM and Linux have already suffered substantial damages from this baseless accusation. someone should do something to stop this nonsense.
I'm just hoping that the sleeping lion will soon stand up and smash the obnoxious fly into ditch. then I will applaud.
Bingo. As a Linux distributor, SCO was looking at Linux source code. SCO was also developing UnixWare. Now SCO's argument is that because you have access to the Unix source, anything you write into Linux is necessarily a derivative of Unix. So likewise, because SCO had access to the Linux source, anything they develop in UnixWare is a derivative of Linux. Oh, dear, I guess UnixWare is GPL now.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
When is someone going to anonymously reveal the alleged code? This is getting ridiculous. For crying out loud, already, tell us what it is so we can see it. At least tell us where.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Right now, loading a dynamic library (but probably not loading an executable), and perhaps running on an OS (unless the licence allows this, as Linux's does), and statically linking, may all constitute creating a derivative work (IANAL). This uncertainty is a bad thing, and I think it would be better if the only way you could make a derivative work would by making a work that includes the original source code, not object code, output, etc.
Suppose IBM added something (b) to SCO's code(a), and SCO has a contract that they own derivative works (a+x). I think SCO then owns the derivative work (a+b), but if IBM wants to put it's code (b) in something else (c), SCO certainly doesn't own (c+b), because they had no part in it's creation, and (a) is not a part of it. Code can't be a derivative unless it includes what it derives from (in original or translated form).
Litigious bastards
Firstly, I am not a lawyer. Comments below are not advice, merely the ramblings of my mind. The analysis below assumes that SCO's allegations are limited to code such as JFS, NUMA, RCU and SMP all of which have clear non-SCO or open-source origins.
SCO is saying: any "modifications" or "derivative works" must be kept as part of the "SOFTWARE PRODUCT" (the SVR4 source code) in other words, kept confidential
IBM has taken the SVR4 code (the "SOFTWARE PRODUCT"), combined it with new, independently developed code and created a new work (let's call this "AIX"). That clearly makes "AIX" a derivative work, but does it also make the added code part of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT? In other words, if you start with "A" and "B" (which are independently developed items) combine them together to form "C", this makes "C" a derivative of both "A" and "B", but SCO's argument is that it also makes "B" a derivative of "A".
On the other hand, the amendment (exhibit C) clearly spells out that IBM owns code that it develops or is developed for it. The question is, does this cover code developed by Sequent? I think so, but IANAL.
I think SCO's argument is: "you own it, but we control it" In other words, although ownership is with IBM, the confidentiality requirements still apply.
So SCO has to convince a jury that:
1. Independently developed code is part of the "SOFTWARE PRODUCT".
2. Even though IBM "owns" the code, SCO controls it. Since we are talking about IP and the only benefit of ownership of IP is control, this is going to be a very difficult argument.
Now, as to the injunction against AIX -- exhibit D clearly states that IBM's license is irrevokable, but Novell and SCO that does not stop Novell and SCO from enforcing their rights against IBM. The way I read this is that SCO can now ONLY get an injuction to stop any specific infringing behaviour. In other words, they cannot get an injuction against AIX, but only a much narrower injunction. Even if IBM is somehow infringing on SCO's license agreement by distributing AIX, once IBM fixes the infringement, IBM can resume distributing AIX. If SCO can prove any infringing behaviour, they may also get damages.
SCO also has some other problems in their case. Notably that enforcement of their contracts has been lax over the years.
What does this mean for Linux? Well, as I see it, it means that, assuming the disputed code is code that is owned by IBM, there is no way SCO can come after third parties. IBM has copyright on the code and once released publically, is no longer a trade secret. In other words, even if SCO might get damages, they cannot exert any further control over the code.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The real reason, of course, as to why SCO isn't showing anyone the code (and will likely try to keep it under wraps as much as possible) is that Linus might well excorsize those portions of the kernel, and they would be patched within days.
Then the judge would look at SCO and say, "Ok, so what's the problem now?"
-Adam
IBM's aware of this. They have been ever since Phoenix Technologies broke the IBM monopoly on PC BIOSes way back when. They know exactly how to deal with it, and they've got lawyers who do nothing but make sure it's dealt with properly. I suspect that the work those programmers did was entirely new work not derived from SCO's work, which was then contributed to SCO's product. Any contamination there would be between IBM and Linux, not SCO and Linux. SCO might have a case against IBM if the contracts specifically said IBM would maintain confidentiality of the work, but I sincerely doubt IBM would have agreed to a contract that hamstrung them like that (and they wouldn't have contributed that code to Linux if they'd signed such a contract either).
If SCO's basing their case on the idea that they can extend rights upstream to code not derived from their code, IBM's going to hand them their heads on a platter.