Slashdot Mirror
Law Professor Examines SCO Case
An anonymous submitter writes "This law professor from the University of California points out weakness in SCO's legal bluster, and further takes a poke at closed software, for those hungry for more SCO scraps. At the end, he references Slashdot for more info ('itself a demonstration of the power of dispersed individuals working together')."
It could be that they've got a solid case. It could be that they're working out some great shenanigans. Irregardless, I'm starting to wonder if Linux should be open to the average user to contribute, or if perhaps it should be restricted to a core group of companies and Linus who can afford lawyers to vet the code. Things are getting pretty scary in the open source world, particularly with the lawyers getting involved...
GPL or not
The second principle is that a party's rights can be affected by its later conduct - which can constitute a "waiver," giving away rights. Until recently, SCO was a willing player in the Linux movement, releasing code under the open source ("copyleft") license. Everything that happened to Linux was in the open. Yet SCO delayed in suing.
SCO had made their bed in deciding to take advantage of the open source movement. Now they want to retroactively change the decision.
I just reloaded to see a Reginald Charles selling $55,450 worth of his SCO stock. At $55,450 that's the largest insider trade listed since this thing started.
06/20/03 BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES Sold 5,000 $11.09 $55,450
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Is is well known that SCO relies heavially on BSD code. But the BSD license, while it allows forking, strictly forbids suing over derived code. Since linux and BSD share alot of code - I could envision SCO loosing controll over all of their 'intellectual property'
I wasn't aware of the timing, but according to the article, SCO's McBride said:
Let's see. He's saying that IBM quit working on Project Monterey before Caldera bought Santa Cruz Operation's UNIX rights. That Santa Cruz Operation sold the rights precisely because they weren't as worth much at that point.
But part of SCO's lawsuit against IBM is SCO's claim that because IBM quit working on Project Monterey, IBM is conducting anti-competitive behavior.
Since SCO knew about this at the time they bought it, then surely, the price SCO paid for those rights was already discounted because IBM was no longer pursuing Project Monterey.
It's kind of like buying a junked car that had been damaged in a collision and then suing the driver of the other vehicle for wrecking your car. It was already wrecked when you bought the car! At best, the seller might have had a claim against the other driver, but not the seller.
If SCO wins, maybe we should buy the salvage rights to a World War II navy vessel sunk in a World War II battle. Then we can sue Japan for the full cost of the ship plus interest and penalties because they sunk our boat.
But I'd love to hear the Professor's views on the evidence that has emerged thus far. As far as I can see, SCO's case revolves around developments at IBM and Sequent (now owned by IBM). They have talked about RCU and NUMA and JFS and something else I have forgotten. It seems that what SCO have shown so far is equivalent to this: IBM devise a new scheme for (eg) scheduling in the kernel. They implement this new scheme in AIX, sell it to some customers and everyone (including SCO) is happy. Later on, IBM conceives its Linux strategy. They then port their new XYZ scheduling scheme to Linux, offer it to Linus and eventually it gets merged into the Kernel. Now SCO comes along and says that IBM has no right to incorporate it into Linux because it belongs to SCO. The fact that the original technology licensed to IBM has got nothing like XYZ scheduling in it doesn't matter to SCO; as far as they're concerned, since IBM incorporated it into AIX first, the technology belongs to SCO.
All of this begs the question as to what SCO have been showing to their independent experts. Suppose they grab the code for XYZ scheduling, as seen in AIX. Then they grab the code for XYZ scheduling, as seen in Linux. Obviously, these two pieces of code, are going to be a pretty good match, even down to the comments. They tell the independent consultants that the former is System V code (because SCO claims that everything that was ever added to AIX belongs to them). And they tell the consultants that the latter is from kernel 2.4.XX. So the independent consultants, in all good faith, report that there is a match between "SCO code" and Linux code. My bet is that this is what SCO have been doing. I believe that this is the reason for SCO wanting people to sign NDAs. They can't risk anyone who knows anything about the kernel saying exactly what the code represents. It is in their interests to fudge the issue of where the code has come from. If some random hacker has grabbed the original SVR4 code and slipped some of it into a patch that has found its way into the Kernel, that could occasion some sympathy for SCO (not $3bn or even $1bn worth of sympathy). If that is the case, it looks like code that SCO originally paid for is being used without SCO being compensated. On the other hand, if it's IBM's implementation of XYZ for AIX, which they have ported to XYZ for Linux, then SCO's case is dead in the water, and SCO knows it.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
SCO alleges that "as long as the Linux development process remained uncoordinated and random, it posed little or no threat to SCO...." But in truth, Linux was always coordinated - just by many different hands.
In the final years of the 1930s the german army raced across Europe trashing all opposition in their path. At the time of their greatest military successes the German army was running a field command structure called "mission based" command.
Mission based command placed the authority to act in the hands of the soldiers on front line, the idea being that those closest to the front would undoubtably be best positioned to make fast assessments of a situation. Should an opportunity present itself they were free to exploit it to their advantage without having to check with the beaurocracy above. The overall target was known - to win, and as long as your actions fitted the target it was up to you.
This system worked so well that all fell in their path 'til they hit the English channel and turned on Russia (at the instruction of their one leader).
Contrast this to the latter half of the war. The more centralised command became around the leader and his sycophantic entourage, the worse things got until eventually the leaders own incapability to understand the demands of those at the front line led to the collapse of the whole system.
The first example was Hitlers order to Rommel to stand fast to the last man at El-Almain. The same mistake was made again at Stalingrad and in several other situations.
The distributed, "module based" development of Linux allows developers to react in the same way as the soldiers on the front line, patching and adding features on the fly without having to discuss it with their manager, product manager, product devlopment manager, product development management manager etc. leading to events like the KDE team patching the SSL flaw in konqueror while the MS FUD machine was still denying it was a problem.
NO! before you start saying it their are no insinuated similaraties between OSS community developers and certain historical characters of an evil nature it's the model that's similar. Ironically the intent in the case of Linux is freedom not enslavement.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
There are 70 lawyers in my firm.
At least one has come into my office asking if we use Linux and expressed concern about the lawsuit when informed that we do. (Samba, CUPS, etc.)
I explained the lgeal reasons why they should not be concerned but since I am just the IT manager my words have little credence.
This is the kind of article I can forward to all the lawyers who ask as it's from the kind of source they will listen to, speaking a language they understand.
As other posters have pointed out, it's not what he says (which we all already knew), it's who is saying it.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.