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).
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.
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.
"[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.
This sure doesn't look good.
------------
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.