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"?
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)
> 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"
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.)
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."
"[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.
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 doubt it. People are still happily buying Linux. People are still happily buying AIX, even though there is supposedly no valid license.
SCO: 60M in revenue last year, lost 25M.
IBM: 80B in revenue last year, GP of 30B.
IBM: Some of the *best* IP lawyers in the world (given their patent database, they've got good people to defend it).
Sorry, if Linux sales are threatened, they're at the tuppenny, ha'penny levels. Not on an enterprise scale.
49 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6F 6F 20 6D 75 63 68 20 66 72 65 65 20 74 69 6D 65 2E
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.
------------
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.
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
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.
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...