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.
You are aware that NDA stands for "Non-Disclosure Agreement", right?
It doesn't stand for "Now Divulge All".
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
...to "It's funny,laugh"?
I 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.
Wail, Interesting narrative, definitely appears to confirm the speculation we have read, now we just wait till SCO presses charges against you for violating the NDA, and we'll know its true SCO has no case...
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
In a discussion I was reading that mentioned this article, it was mentioned that there was a misspelled word in the comments of some allegedly copied code. If true, then one could just strip the comments from the Linux source, and do a spell check in the appropriate language. I forgot where I was this. Can somebody verify?
:)
Or better yet, Ian Taylor can just tell us the name of the file.
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).
I've wondered this ever since SCO started saying they'd let people look at the code under an NDA. Perhaps you can give us some light as to what the NDA swore you to?
NDAs are held to be invalid if the information that you agree not to disclose is already public information, or is revealed to the general public through someone elses doing at a later time.
If the claim is that certain lines of code belonging to SCO are now being distributed in the public domain then it would seem that you couldn't NDA that away - the cat's already out of the bag so to speak. Assuming their claims are 100% valid, everyone who signed the NDAs is perfectly free to tell you exactly what lines of code are infringing, yet nobody has done this. Suppose because they can't find anything that's conclusively out in the open already (the basis of SCO's claims)
"and say Solaris is free and clear"h tml)
(http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1018669.
Gosh !!!
*SUN GPLed SOLARIS*
lol 8p
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint
Eric Raymond
Revision 1.16 2003-06-03 esr
Japanese translation available.
At first, residents of Oahu and Maui idly dismissed the SCO rumors as nonsense.
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
Even if IBM buy SCO, they probably couldn't make Unix open-source because SCO, as they claim, doesn't own all the copyright on Unix, but the right "to defend them".
Montreal - Best city to live in!
It makes one think that SCO might not have a case.
As opposed to anything else mentioned here?
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
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.
There's some new stuff in there. Apparantly, they insinuated that even Microsoft and Apple are not immune to being sued, though they have not taken action yet. Perhaps if they get money from IBM, they'll snowball down the chain of OS's, using the previous court cases, gaining billions as they go to fund the lawyers? We'll see
Also, it seems they've been searching for this sort of IP infringement for a year now. Was it in an earlier article that I saw that the CIO or something of SCO has a history of using IP to extort money in this fashion? If so, he's been planning this attack for a while, and i'd be surprised if he didn't have series of plans if things go/don't go his way. Very scary, for everyeone.
And, I want to say, even though you may be a huge corporation, serving your own ends, please help fight SCO. They are not simply attacking IP, but humanity's well-being. The future of computing could be as bleak as the Matrix's blackened sky if SCO has its way.
So... This SCO, no - Caldera... it must be... A DOPPELGANGER! Listen not to it's LIES! It was PRETENDING to help people, oh yes, and it's PRETENDING to give away it's software, but all the while, it was really laughing - hahaha! - but I know where they really came from!
*The sealab suddenly explodes, when it's Unixware license unexpectedly expires*
Ryan Fenton
Will they be going after Professor Tanenbaum as well?
I asked the SCO director here in the Netherlands and although he said they had no plans to sue Tanenbaum, he didn't want to rule it out either...
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
Theoretically, under this model, the descendents of Johann Gutenberg now get to sue every book publisher in the world for not paying them royalties on the IP of printable-format books. Wow. Time to hit the family tree records!
IAALS.
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?
Conan O'Brien, "In The Year 2000"
"In the year 2003, SCO will claim that Linux kernel developers have copied fragments of SCO's own IP into the Linux kernel. Amazon.com will follow suit by claiming that the Linux kernel also implements proprietary One-click shopping code derived from cookies found in a web client's Stored Cookie Folder. True story. Yeah. *nods big head*"
Two things stuck out for me, after reading.
The biggie: SCO basically is arguing that any code developed on top of Unix is a derivative work of Unix.
If you developed on Unix, and then went to Linux and did something similiar a few years down the line, with the benefit of hindsight yet with the same goals in mind, you probably did one of two things: recoded the section from memory, or, recoded a part of it using what you remembered plus possibly a better method that you had learned through sheer experience. SCO wants to claim rights to that experience. So no matter where you go from this day forward, if you happen to code the same thing in a *nix-like operating system, and they see the same algorithm (because, for example, the one you came up with couldn't be improved on), they should get a chunk of that.
Next: SCO said it has no current program [for Linux Licensing]. It hopes to come up with something in which noncommercial use and educational use would be free, but for commercial use it wants some remuneration. SCO said it hadn't come up with a plan because it still is trying to figure out the scale of the problem.
Did anyone else cringe as soon as they read the term "Linux Licensing", which preceded that paragraph?
"the scale of the problem" is an easy way of saying "finding every corporate customer on Redhat, Lindows, SUSE, and every other distro's books and sending them OUR Linux Licensing agreement."
This is so painful to watch. The company wants to say that anyone with a good idea cannot port that idea years later. That they own it. That even if that programmer kept a chunk of the code they once wrote, because they knew they couldn't remember it line-per-line, and copied it into a kernel module, that they own the rights to it.
More or less, if you've ever worked for Company A, coded something for them, found a very unique and exceptional way of, say, saving a compressed binary file, and you save that chunk of code for later use, and use it in free, GPL'd, software, then Company A has the right to sue you for violating their Intellectual Property. That, to me, is wrong. Even if the comments are the same. Even if the algorithm is the same.
Welcome to the grey area of black and white operating systems. What a terrible place to be.
Seeking to invalidate SCO's claims, ESR managed to round up 60 users who had access to SysV code. Is it going to be enough? BSD could claim that thousands of users had access to that code. If what ESR claims is true (SCO licencinc SysV to universities) than the whole case looks more and more like BSD (+Univ. of California) vs. USL case. Read IT
It's been over 24 hours since the last SCO article. I was starting to freak.
This is not my sandwich.
Do a few bad apples spoil the bunch?
Assume for a second that some copyrighted Unix source code is in Linux (I find this plausable). Also assume that copyright protection is necessary for lots of innovation (I also find this plausable, and most economists agree). And, anyway, assume that we are society based on laws, and those laws must be enforced for the greater good.
Is Linux now "tainted"? What happens if they find and remove all the offending code, is that good enough? What if a steal a car and then return it, does it negate the crime? I am in the software industry, and I can tell you, if someone steals software, simply removing it later does not end their libility.
On the other hand, just because a few wanna-bee coders couldn't figure out how to write something themselves and copied it from somewhere else, should we declare the work of the vast majority of Linux contributers to be tainted? (I am assuming that the vast majority of Linux code is an original work, which I believe it is, but, of course, who knows until it all comes out). It would seem unfare to allow the bad actions of a few to kill the work of hundreds, but it also seems unfair to let theft go unpunished.
I don't know the answer. This seems like one of those ethical situations where both sides are right (except the third side, the theives, but I think most agree they are in the wrong). This will all probably come down to some legal technicality or out-of-court settlement, but I think the ethical question is interesting.
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
Then all the problems would be solved. RIAA getting you down? Whap! Don't like SCO? Splat! Microsoft is unfair? ...Bwannng! Think CowboyNeal should be president? Biff! (Yes, the OCS would always make a comical noise when it acts.)
Litigious bastards
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."
Buy from Apple. They have no such nonsense with OS X. No serial numbers, no activation, no spying, no treating you like a criminal, no slimy EULAs giving them access to your drive and all data on it.
Just an operating system on a couple of CDs that works, installs easily and still makes Apple money. Imagine that.
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?
KhyronSorry, but I'm a firm believer in the "Single Lawsuit Theory" and that Lee Harvey Scowald acted alone.
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
I suppose I can post this here, even though the days are a bit wrong... It was written on 28-May, the day Novell first shot holes in SCO's argument. Still as true as ever.
Lady Caldera
(to the tune of the Beatles' "Lady Madonna")
Lady Caldera, stock price at your feet.
Wonder how you'll manage to make ends meet.
Who has the money? How you pay the rent?
Did you think that UNIX trademark was heaven sent?
Wednesday morning news just like a bombshell.
We all watch their stock drop like a rock.
Caldera has learned kiss its arsecheeks goodbye.
See how they run.
Lady Caldera, IP fakes confess!
Wonder how you'll manage to keep up this jest.
See how they run.
Lady Caldera, lying in the press,
Blackmailing the righteous ones, in your duress.
Wednesday afternoon is never ending.
Thursday morning news will be as bad.
Thursday night your stocks, they will need mending.
See how they run.
Lady Caldera, stock price at your feet.
Wonder how you'll manage to make ends meet.
I'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.
Great point. Also, weren't they GIVING their ancient linux away until very recently? It's hard to give something away then claim trade secret. Although I'm not sure that covers all their claims, as they tend to jump around a lot.
Similarly, I would bring up the old "If linux copied SMP from you, how come they're so much better at it?" routine. OpenLinux flat sucks, and that's all there is to it.
It's also fun to hear them interpret the GPL. They seem to think that, since IBM put their code into the GPL, that this prevents their code from actually BEING GPL'd...even if THEY release linux too! Something must be in the water in Utah.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
If the answer is "nothing," then quit complaining about the color of the giftwrap. Otherwise, lead by example.
I can't help thinking that as of this writing SCO has a market cap of around $130 million and Red Hat has nearly $300 million in cash and investments. Even at an inflated price, Red Hat could afford to buy SCO and free up Unix once and for all. Live the dream.
And IBM could afford to do it and might even still have enough money to buy a G8 country. OK, that's an exaggeration, but if Red Hat could afford it, IBM certainly could. Apple could. And Microsoft could.
And this leads one to ask: why haven't they? If MS really thought SCO had a smoking gun to put straight through Linux's heart, don't you think they'd do it in a second? They're willing to dump millions on software licensing and lobbying not to lose to Linux in the public sector and large coroporate installations. A cool $130 Million that could knock Linux development flat for 5-10 years would be an easy investment for them.
But they don't do it. Very curious. So how compelling is that case again?
Tweet, tweet.
As a finale, they settle out of court with SCO for the counter-damages. IBM gets SCO. Make Sontag and McBride sign 3 year employment agreements. Maybe they assign them as security guards to the building where all of the Linux work is done. So that every day, all of the Linux people can snicker at them as they come into the building. You know, take their hat and play keep-away, put kick me signs on their backs, etc. Or perhaps they make them walk around town in Penguin suits handing out IBM Linux promo material. Make them attend Open Source conventions in a dunk tank. The possibilities are endless!
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
But let's be objective. It is a fact that Linux contributors have taken BSD code and header files, sometimes without attribution, sometimes stripping the BSD copyright notices.
Is it really impossible to believe that a Linux contributor didn't copy in a function or two from Unix (tm) source code? But then again, this is slashdot, where unfounded accusations that MS is using GPL code warrants a +5 informative.
SCO will need to shit or get off the pot, spit or swallow. But they could be right.
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.
But this is just the part of SCO's argument that doesn't make any sense. IBM's original license from AT&T contains an amendment to the effect that any derivative works developed by IBM belong to IBM. This is a direct quote from the letter of amendment (Exhibit C in SCO's complaint filed with the court):
Regarding Section 2.01, we [AT&T] agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you [IBM] are owned by you.
The later agreement between IBM, SCO, and Novell specifies that, after a one-time payment from IBM to SCO, IBM has a fully paid-up, permanent, and irrevocable license.
Here's my take on what's going on here. I had a look at SCO's 10-Q filing with the SEC. It seems they are being sued over alleged securities fraud in connection with their IPO. I also noted from the Form 4 filings (insider transactions) that several of the senior people have been selling the stock in the last couple of months. I think this "litigation by press release" is all about trying to pump up the stock so the rats can get off the sinking ship.
(BTW, if you want to look at the agreements, they're on SCO's Web site.)
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.
Without selling hardware, you'd have to give Unix away for FREE??? Damn! Microsoft better not hear about this.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
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
"[SCO] said that until the parties go to court, it doesn't want the Linux community to remove the code in question. SCO thinks it's more than changing a few lines of code."
I'd bet a all the money I have that if that "offending" code was revealed tonight we'd have it all rewritten by Monday morning. The Linux community is more angry about this than anything that has ever touched it. All that anger would be unleached in an orgy of coding the likes of which even God has not seen.
SCO is afraid the reason for thier lawsuit will vanish is they reveal their hand.
"[SCO] feels large chunks are derivative. It argued that even a full replacement would be in part based on the prior effort, and thus would itself be derivative, at least under the terms of the IBM contract."
Sorry. no. It'd be easy to get around this. You tell me what code infriges and I'll post the input and expected output from that code (without even revealing where the code is). Any programmer who independently writes code that meets those requirements has NOT infringed SCO's licences.
Problem with that, is until this is settled one way or another, the pointy-haired-bosses who approve my technology architecture decisions, are likely to be put of from appropriate solutions due to the FUD.
I'm not sure giving SCO lots of money to go away sends the right message, but until they go away, it's complicating my proposals. *BSD is a subject I've wanted to bring up for some time, looks like that may be our new direction, at least until SCO goes away. This annoys me mightily, again more for reasons of principle than for technical reasons.
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!
Source: frontwheeldrive.com interview, 14 April 2000
I've posted a message to Sun user group (usenet). Told what I think: what Sun was simply mean-spirited, not just 'opportunistic', and if this is the only business plan Sun has, I feel sorry for them.
The fact is that SCO is a mad dog biting everyone in site. What Sun is doing -- saying 'See, this dog hasn't bitten me yet! Good doggy!'.
Reaction on my posting was rather hilarious. Seems like all the responses came from Sun sockpuppets. The most intelligent response was 'Linux is for script kiddies'. In fact I even didn't mention LInux in my posting.
Funny, I have solid Sun experience, starting from Sun/OS 4.1.3 when it was BSD-based, before they move to Solaris 2.x (System V based), and I considered and still consider their product rather solid (Sun/OS 4.1.3 and 4.1.4, and SOlaris 2.5+), but frankly, I believe they've just lost the sense of directions, and unfortunately, taking advantage of current situation *is* the only business plan they apparently have. Sic transit gloria mundi.
You think Windows is an original product?
How about MacOS?
Was Photoshop the first computer painting program?
Is that Hyundai you drive the first wheeled vehicle ever invented?
Hmmm...
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Same thing here, SCO is taking a very loose and general definition of derivative works. I doubt that any version of AIX is much of a derivative of SysV, then to go above and beyond that and try to call deriviatives of AIX technology SysV derivatives is legally interesting. This is a company that has never shipped anything remotely close to the technologies they are calling derivative. I think the courts will rule as expected in this case and the matter will be clear. I could understand if SCO was shipping something kind of Solaris like and IBM was taking AIX code derived from that solaris like platform and adding it to Linux. At best SCO owns something not that much more advanced than the OS project I did in college; in all seriousness it's closer to Yalnix and NachOS than it is to AIX. There probably isn't even a common data structure in it anymore.
Let's take this a little further. NT/2000/XP has BSD code and SysV code in it, both in the networking stack and in the POSIX layer. It has been radically altered and shares very little in common with the initial code but those were the starting points. Does that mean IE and DirectX and derivative works that SCO could in turn prevent MS from doing something like porting to MacOSX which is a product that competes with UNIX.
This sure doesn't look good.
------------
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
Like many libertarians, ESR is probably torn between allowing individuals to homestead in the realm of ideas and the counter-view which states that any form of copyright is a restriction on the property rights one has in physical property. Or it could just be that he's not as careful or pedantic as others (RMS, for example). I should note that I stopped reading Lawrence Lessig's latest book when I got to a line that stated he considered copying an entire book "stealing".
To me the most interesting quote was from Ian's article regarding software patents: "The software industry today survives only through an unstated agreement not to stir things up too much." Pretty much what this says is that we are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike-- and that the darker it gets the more likely we are to be eaten by a grue.
Copyright/patent madness as it relates to the less cut and dried aspects of fields like software (and music and movies) has us spending more time "clearing rights" than writing software (or music or movies). The innovation that the temporary monopoly granted by a copyright or patent is supposed to foster is nowhere to be found, except in those areas where those copyrights and patents are least enforced. If there is truly an unstated agreement to let sleeping dogs lie in the software industry, the minute someone (like SCO?) sets off the alarm, those dogs will awaken and bite us all.
The obvious things needed are: an end to software patents, a stricter limit on copyrights (especially for works that are primarily non-fiction in nature-- news reporting, software, etc), and more Free Software.
I do not have a signature
Altogether, I'm not surprised at this action by Sun. What continually surprises me is that people view Sun as some kind of friend to open source software. The company is built on making open source software (Berkeley UNIX) proprietary, influential Sun employees like Gosling have a bad history with the open source movement, and Sun would like nothing more than to see Linux go away. One's enemy's enemy is not necessarily one's friend.
If the open source community isn't careful, what is happening with SCO and Linux now will happen with Sun and open source Java efforts in a few years. Sun will go down the drain, like SCO, they will get desparate, and they will almost certainly not disappear without lawsuits.
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.
Why doesn't the Linux community simply offer SCO some *better* source code. I think there is a "linux" thingy out there that is better than the source code they have, and more mature. If we give them a copy of the kernel, with complete source code, will they shut up and go away?
It's not smart. It's stupid. VERY stupid.
This SCO/IBM clash is not your garden variety corporate pissing contest, but the moment of truth for the Open Source movement, because even the validity of the GPL will be tested.
We all knew that the moment of truth was bound to arrive sooner or later, and it did with such egregious chutzpa (cortesy of Mc Bride) that the entire industry can't take its eyes from it.
I mean, people are noticing what side of the battlefield you choose to be in, and will remember for a long time. A longer time, I'd add, that SUN's probable remaining life.
SUN wasn't forced to choose sides, and could well have played the uninvolved bystander part.
But they couldn't resist the chance to take a childish jab to IBM, and put themselves in the side of bad guys.
Remember: they CHOOSE do do it.
I like SUN, but Mc Nealy is an immature moron. He's driving a great company down just to mantain his delusion of being in the MS/IBM league.
Scott, idiot, you are not, and will never be. You're a midget. Your only hope of survival is finding a niche, be good at it, and prey you don't piss off the big boys.
I'd hate to see SPARC go like Alpha.
Cheers,
The article on Linuxjournal has been about the clearest article on the whole debacle I've seen yet. It says a number of things to me:
1.It takes someone involved with OSS to finally paint a somewhat clear picture of what this whole issue is about.
2.SCO seems to have some knowledge from the Monterrey project that IBM developers that were working there later became involved in Linux. To me this is perhaps the only real case SCO has got. They would have known who was developing on the IBM side and by scanning the Linux kernel mailing list might have seen those same names turn up. Hence SCO's case. However for SCO to actually prove anything beyond conjecture -which isn't admissible in court- will prove extremely difficult, as the author says. The presented code that SCO has been showing the NDA signees is possibly taken form Unix (SysV) or AIX but is very likely to be some sort of common use code that exists in just about every OS known. If the code is a ubiquitous as the author feels, then it is likely that the court will not rule in SCO's favour. That would be the death knell for SCO because it would open the doors for just about everyone on the earth to sue SCO for issues ranging from code theft to harrasment.
3.SCO is mainly creating a fog of war in order to frighten people, just as IBM is claiming.
4.I am less worried know than I was before I read the article.
The worst possible outcome, is that, with the current US government using the fear of terrorism weapon as an excuse to invade countries, ruin the economy, support corrupt corporations, that the court would in fact rule in SCO's favour. The outcome of that would almost certainly be that IBM will use it's patents to sue SCO on hundreds of accounts and will certainly appeal the case until it gets to the supreme court. I am pretty sure that SCO would eventually lose, but the damage to OSS in the USA would be done. The court procedings will have minimal effect outside the the USA. I am pretty sure that no European court will give any chance to SCO of winning a case against an OS that was origionally developed in Finland and is a major source of income in Germany (SuSE). It would be interesting in this case to see if a software split would occur, with software developement in the USA totally encumbered by legal issues, leaving only Microsoft able to peddle it's wares with success there, and OSS taking over outside the USA . Of course this is only conjecture and speculation.
I was shown a little of the copied code. Admittedly, I can't tell you what I saw, but I did form the opinion that it was not in the kernel proper. In all probability, the code is more important to Silicon Graphics' Altix servers than to average x86 Linux users.
Ugh.. Altix is Itanium (AKA ia64.) This sounds very much like the code I pointed out yesterday. (ate_utils.c in Linux -vs- malloc.c in versions of Unix up to at least System3)
A couple of things people have pointed out about why the example I found should be legit:
(1) It's in BSD... No, I'm no expert on BSD history but from what I've read the settlement happened between BSD 4.3 and 4.4. Anything prior to 4.4 probably doesn't count since the whole reason BSD won is that they had rewritten all of the code. BSD3 contains pretty much an exact copy of malloc.c from Sys3, but the version in 4.2 looks newer than the version SGI used. I'd assume it's even more different in BSD 4.3 and 4.4.
(2) The code is common knowledge. This same form of malloc has been around longer than the C language. This sounds good, but it's hard to believe the code was written independently. The comments, structure, and variable names seem a bit too much to be coincidence.
(3) Caldera released the code for all versions of Unix prior to and including Sys3 under a BSD-style license. This is definitely the best argument, but SGI didn't include a "(c)Caldera 2001" in the file. The dates in SGI's copyright statment in that file are also out of line with the date of the Caldera offer, and it's easy to show that ate_utils.c was around prior to 23 Jan 2002. (Check the 2.4.17 ia64 port on Kernel.org)
The real question is why would SGI use versions of malloc and free that trace their lineage all the way back to 1973 Bell Labs when there are untainted, free, and better written versions of these functions available.
The original poster wasn't spreading FUD, they were laughing at the catch 22 they've gotten themselves into.
Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
Fry: Four identical castles!
Bender: Each more identical than the last!!
-
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
SCO's "experts" have also found sections of code which SCO believes have been obfuscatedâ"where the order of code execution has been rearranged in a direct attempt to hide its SCO pedigree.
SCO has a pedigree? SCO is like one of those mule clones. Whichever way you look at it, it's an abomination.
Remember - this weeks version of SCOs complaint is a contract matter between SCO and IBM. Copyright is NOT the issue. The code is not the issue. Linux is not the issue. The code is a blind.
/usr/src/uts/uts for all to see.
What SCO want to do is invalidate all existing Unix licenses so that all Unix rights revert to SCO. By then arguing that ALL Unix-like code is a derivative work they will claim that all unix-like code, no matter who wrote it, is actually SCOs.
By this means SCO hopes to profit from the work of hundreds of thousands of coders who worked for no pay on the original AT&T Unix, BSD Unix, Linux etc as well as all the commercial developement done by IBM, HP, SGI etc etc.
But SCOs entire argument is based on the "trade secret" that is the Unix sources. If anyone can show that SCO and previous owners of the rights to Unix sources have NOT taken care of their trade secret, SCO has NO case whatsoever. This is what ESR is doing right now by gathering evidence that Unix source code was widely available to people who did not sign any NDA at the time.
Fortunately, it's almost trival to discover evidence that Unix code has been widely available during the 1990s. Many commercial releases of Unix back then included source. For example, Amdahls UTS was a Unix for the IBM390 including multiprocessor support that was distributed widely with the sources in
BTW I suspect that it was Fujitsu, not SUN, that was the other big unix company that recently bought a license from SCO...
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
This can be very damaging for IBM depending on how their contracts with SCO are worded.
... independently from a third party" who has "no obligation of confidentiality to SCO" (which makes ESR's 60 affidavits highly relevent).
Well, the SCO-IBM contract is posted on SCO's site as Exhibit D. The confidentiality clauses are section 3 on pages 11 and 12.
Specifically, 3.04(v) discounts confidentiality requirements for code which is "independently created" by IBM. Also 3.04(iii) discounts confidentiality when the information is "received
Moreover, 3.06 is a "no tainted worker" clause that allows people who have seen the code to use the ideas when they are "residual information mentally retained" provided they don't try to write it down or memorize it verbatim and don't otherwise infringe copyrights or patents.
SCO claims copyright infringement, not patent infringment.
Bullcrap. Pure and utter bullcrap.
As a member of the LDS Church living in Utah my entire 30 years of my life, I can say this is a load of hooey. And I am quite pissed that a Utah company is being this big of a horse's rear end.
> Utah is a Mormon theocracy.
Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Utah has a high percentage of members because we settled this hunk of desert when no else wanted to be out here. But now, it's a nice enough place, and plenty of room for all. And many non-LDS people live here and don't take orders from the High Command.
> Mormons live their lives (both personally and
> politically) according to the dictates of church leaders.
Well, damn, here I thought we had the ability to choose whether we follow the counsel of the church leaders. Guess not, time to start marching lockstep with the rest! Heil Hinckley!
> There is as much questioning of the leaders'
> decisions as there was in the former Soviet
> Union.
Oookay, buddy, you are just getting creepy at this point. I can see why you posted as AC, because you needed time to don your tinfoil hat before those bastard Mormons started stealing your thoughts!
Whatever link between members, SCO and the LDS Church is a coincidence. And I, as a God fearing, Linux loving, member of the human race, am pissed off that SCO is doing this. I hope they crash and burn so bad that they are a mere footnote of a footnote in the pages of history.
As from the article, SCO hates BSD too, if SCO wins, and they decide to go after BSD, they will also be taking on Microsoft, since the entire Microsoft TCP/IP stack is based off of BSD's implementation.
Apparently, SCO owns everything worthwhile in the last 20 years of computer technology, TCP/IP, and heck, probably even the OSI 7 layer model!
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
They seem to think that, since IBM put their code into the GPL, that this prevents their code from actually BEING GPL'd...even if THEY release linux too!
Look. There is an untainted kernel release, let's call it K. It's various parts are copyrighted by various contributors, and the whole thing is licensed under the GPL.
There are a few patches that went into the next version. Let's call those A, B and C. Their copyrights are held by private individuals and licensed to Linus under the GPL (when they sent the patches in).
There is also a contribution by IBM. Let's assume SCO are telling the truth, and IBM based part of this work on SCO's IP. Let's call this S.
Now, it's perfectly feasible that the contract between SCO and IBM allows IBM to incorporate S into their closed-source products.
By default, this would not allow IBM to incorporate S into a GPLed product, since the GPL covering the rest of the software would have to apply to the derivative work as a whole, and IBM can't just relicense S at will.
So, when IBM sends those patches off to Linus, they cannot offer the code freely.
When Linus releases the next version of the kernel, he has incorporated K, A, B, C and S into a derivative work. Let's call this K++.
K++ is distributed in the normal fashion. The GPL is slapped all over it, and all sorts of different vendors incorporate this into their products. SCO is one of these vendors.
Despite this, the GPL does not apply to K++. Linus has no right to release K++ under the GPL, nor even freely offer copies. He's not the sole copyright holder of K, and he doesn't hold the copyrights to A, B or C either. He has to abide by the GPL - which means that the derivative work as a whole is either under the GPL, or cannot be freely distributed (unless he works out licensing with every single kernel contributor, a logistical improbability).
Since IBM cannot offer S under the GPL, Linus cannot offer K++ under the GPL, and any license SCO had to offer K++ under the GPL is void. They are infringing on the copyrights of everybody who contributed to K++ when they distribute it.
Now, just because the original IP was theirs, it doesn't mean they can arbitrarily reinstate that license for K++. They have to go back to their original contract with IBM to set the whole chain up again. Otherwise, they would have to obtain all the changes (A B and C) between K and K++ to "branch" the kernel. Remember, they can't obtain them directly from K++, as that is not licensed under the GPL. They have to go around and pick up the pieces, many of which will have just gone straight to Linus' inbox and will not be available to them. Remember, they need valid licenses to these bits under the GPL. Just to make matters worse, they would have to do the same for each new version of the kernel (as, according to them, the subsequent derivative works, (K++)++ and ((K++)++)++, cannot be licensed under the GPL. We can basically assume that they cannot do this.
So, we have to ask which is the best option, in SCO's eyes? Cease production of their unprofitable Linux distribution, admit to copyright infringement against a bunch of kernel hackers who are unlikely to bring suit against them, and be able to sue IBM for billions of dollars? Or grant IBM the contract so they can keep the Linux distribution, sit back and watch their business fade away?
None of this is contrary to the GPL. However appalling it seems to us, remember that their board of directors have an obligation to their shareholders to maximise profits (or risk due diligence lawsuits). This is a massive get-out option for their Linux division that they are taking advantage of (and attempting to bail out the rest of the company with).
Of course, this all depends on the crucial axiom that IBM screwed up, which I think is unlikely, especially from SCO's actions regarding this lawsuit. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the GPL is not at all a problem for SCO here.
I think what this will boil down to is two things. 1) the definition of derived work. What is actually derived and what is add to or is extending something deriving from it? Also that derived work is more restrictive than patents. In a patent if I improve your patent I can file a patent on it and get it and I think owe you nothing if it was your thing I improved on. This is the case with all the various mice that are out there, displays, tv, etc. And 2) what is the actual UNIX source code and what does SCO actualy own the rights to.
If SCO wins, then they could basically OWN UNIX, Linux and possibly BSD, DEPENDING ON THE definintiion of derived. If SCO looses UNIX could become open and free. Of course there is room for somewhere in the middle to happen, and that SCO could get bought by some company like HP/Compaq, who decides to just get ride of UNIX.
Personally I think that their actual case is week, but what they are gambling on is either a settlement, or a lame judge, who defines 'derived' as vaguely as they do. It's time to look up stuff on the Honorable Judge Dale A. Kimball, who has been assigned the case.....
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
http://securityportal.com.ar
I guess I find this whole thing kinda scary, but for a different reason.
If any time you look at another peice of code, and then code something similar you are making a dirivative work - how much proprietary software should be covered by the GPL? This would mean that because I studied how Linux did scheduling, I couldn't ever work with any type of scheduling ever without GPLing it. It could even be taken to mean that anyone who has ever looked at GPL'd code could never develop proprietary software!
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that all of this has some scary consequences - not just for Linux. Sounds like I need to get a Law degree and work for the FSF, that's where the real money is going to be in the future :)
If you have a copy of the Lions Book, flip to line 2527. Then look at lines 87 through 205 of /usr/src/linux/arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c .
atefree and atealloc are verbatim copies of UNIX 6th Edition's malloc and free. The only changes are mapping the ancient C compilerism "=+" to "+=", some comment changes, some ASSERTs, and a spinlock. The code is undeniably copied.
After all, as the author points out, pretty much everything in current software is a derivative of what's gone earlier.
Using this argument, surely:
- Perl is derived from C, sed, awk, etc.
- Ada (design commissioned by US DoD, no less) is derived from Pascal, Algol and many others
- virtually every procedural language is derived from Algol
- MS Windows and the Mac UI are derived from X Windows and/or Xerox PARC's work (not 100% sure about the sequence of these, but the point still stands if the list has to be reordered)
- (add other examples till you get tired of it)
My point is that this is an entire industry built on "standing on the shoulders of giants". Nobody, *nobody* creates anything entirely from scratch.
Ridiculous derivations aside, I'd have thought that if SCO's (re-)definition of "derivative works" stands up, then surely all x86-based servers would be derived from IBM's original PC. After all, that's tangible hardware you can put your hands on such that a relative layman could see obvious derivations, not a bunch of lines of code where any proof of illegal copying is going to depend on accepting CVS-type logs as solid evidence. If the US legal system holds this to be true, then that could be used to kill off all non-IBM x86 hardware development since the early 1980s.
God forbid that Ada Lovelace's (frequently credited as "the first programmer") descendants read this rubbish and call their lawyers for a chat...
So, could SCO be saying that anything written in C or C++ or... wait, how about C#, is also a derivative work of Unix.
In that case, why stop there, you can pretty much sue everybody under that assumption.
I think, just like the author has mentioned, they cannot really get a decent case against Linux. All we have to do is a source compare on one of those old Caldera distros. And if it turns out there - well, SCO has distributed the source code themselves... Did people actually use caldera?
And since they are claiming that JFS and SMP and other components contributed to Linux by IBM are coming from AIX, that remains just an assumption. Do they have a source for AIX? Of course they don't, i hope they don't. Good luck proving that one, buddy!
Goot times!
Whatever the merits of the case, the Linux community should not take the SCO suits lightly.0 618linux.h tml
http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_
cheers- raga
So having said that, it makes Linux a 'drop in' Unix replacement, almost. From OUR point of view.
So is Linux UNIX? No more than wine is windows, IMHO.
What is derived? Well that is the whole point of my post. Most people think of derived as take A and come up with B from A. The thing is that you need A to derive B. For the actual definition see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=derived
In #5 it is used to produce or obtain from another substance. In this case it could be argued (weakly mind you) that Linux was derived from UNIX, even if Linux does not use UNIX code, if UNIX did not exists Linux would have not existed. Weak argument!
As far as the UNIX source code that they 'own'. In ATT vs BSD there were 3 BSD files that had to be rewritten.
Personally I think that SCO is looking to settle, and is loking for money and money only. In one of the articles that I read lately was that the people who are suing in SCO are not new to law suits. They have used these weak tactics to take advantage of the legal system to get money. That is it. I don't think they care about Linux or AIX, I think that this is just a ploy to use the legal system to try and extort money from IBM, and the Linux / UNIX community.
Personally I think Oracle should prove their interest in Linux and buy SCO instead of wasting their time trying to buy Peoplesoft.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?