Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

USL vs BSDI Documents

Posted by timothy on from the shades-of-christmas-past dept.

Dibyendu Majumdar writes "Dennis Ritchie has posted some court papers from the lawsuit by USL against BSDI about UNIX intellectual property. Some of the SCO claims, such as identical comments in the code, etc. also occur in the claims made by USL. Interesting read in the context of SCO vs IBM case."

19 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Relevant Details by grennis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From reading this story you might get the impression this case was ongoing or perhaps recent. But actually, this case was settled over 10 years ago (February 4, 1994). BSDI agreed to substitute a port of the University of California's in a release which became known as 4.4 BSD(Lite) for BSD/386.

    Interestingly, this settlement also contained this ominous clause : "Additionally, engineers will be completing the SCO binary emulation mode and completing the port of BSDI's operating system to the SPARC architecture." (Emphasis mine)

  2. Huh? by digitaltraveller · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It must be a slow news day because I submitted this story 2 months ago and it was rejected. So I wrote a comment about it here.
    The most interesting thing recently in this case is the Daryl McBride approaching CELF consortium, who haven't even distributed any code yet. I wonder how long this pr blitz will last until Microsoft is required to license another ancient unix patent.

    1. Re:Huh? by ray-auch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think this is what is being referred to:

      # COPYRIGHTS AND OTHER DELUSIONS
      #
      # The BSD ancestor of this file had a standard Regents of the University of
      # California copyright with dates from 1980 to 1993.
      #
      # Some information has been merged in from a terminfo file SCO distributes.
      # It has an obnoxious boilerplate copyright which I'm ignoring because they
      # took so much of the content from the ancestral BSD versions of this file
      # and didn't attribute it, thereby violating the BSD Regents' copyright.
      #
      # Not that anyone should care. However many valid functions copyrights may
      # serve, putting one on a termcap/terminfo file with hundreds of anonymous
      # contributors makes about as much sense as copyrighting a wall-full of
      # graffiti -- it's legally dubious, ethically bogus, and patently ridiculous.
      #
      # This file deliberately has no copyright. It belongs to no one and everyone.
      # If you claim you own it, you will merely succeed in looking like a fool.
      # Use it as you like. Use it at your own risk. Copy and redistribute freely.
      # There are no guarantees anywhere. Svaha!

  3. And The Interesting Part? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I feel the SCO vs IBM suit will end up the same as the AT&T vs BSD one: Duplicate code will be found, IBM will pay no damages but the duplicate code will be removed and everyone will move on. Assuming SCO's evidence is true, this will more than likely be the case since the UNIX concepts are widely known and no truly secret IP was "stolen".

    The major downside is if IBM found guilty Linux could to the way of *BSD: Small scale adoption with a large hobbyist following.

    Only time will tell.

    1. Re:And The Interesting Part? by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Even if IBM loses, and loses big, the rest of us won't notice

      You're joking right? If SCO wins this by bamboozling a court with smoke and mirrors, they'll emerge rampant and engorged with IBM cash. Want to bet that they won't go after Red Hat and SuSE next? How about anyone manufacturing an embedded linux product? How about cease-and-desisting all sites hosting linux distros, and suing a few just to make the point? Once the big guys are gone and the precedents have been set, they can switch from throwing teams of lawyers against one target to throwing groups of victims to each lawyer they have. And they have a lot of lawyers.

      In fact, as far as I can determine SCO is a firm of lawyers. Suing people is what they do. It's all that they do. If IBM can't crush them, god help the rest of us.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:And The Interesting Part? by putaro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The really weird part is SCO trying to claim rights over code THEY DIDN'T WRITE! JFS is original code from IBM - the Linux version is supposedly descended from the OS/2 version of the FS.

  4. So like some folks are saying... by AltGrendel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...this has happened before and it will happen again. They (BSDI, SCO, et al) are thinking "free as in beer", I would guess, and are trying to grab the keg so they can charge everyone a Euro a glass.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  5. Ummm... by mikeophile · · Score: 4, Funny

    IANAL, but is USL SOL if SCO says BFD about IBM's IP?

  6. Re:MOD PARENT UP!!! by Trigun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It was fun at first, but the whole SCO/IBM thing is turning into a three ring circus here. One article blends into another, no new insight is made.

    We all know SCO is bad, IBM is less bad, the enemy of my enemy yadda yadda, so why keep bringing it up.
    I'm as interested in the lawsuit as the next guy (providing the next guy isn't Darl McBride), but I want new info, not a rehash of how much we hate SCO.

    Let me put on my Kreskin hat here. Three links to a huge PDF on SCO's site, three following comments on a wget/crontab combo to increase effectiveness, one righteous prick saying not to do it.

    Next thread. "I don't care anymore, let's buy all the SCO stock and shut them down". Here it forks, one saying it's SCOX, not SCO and one thread about shorting the stock.

    everything else is a rehash of old trolls, old comments, one guy searching caldera stories and cutting and pasting +5 comments, sprinkle with insight, set at 350 degrees, and bake until done. Serves 10,000.

  7. SCO sues USL for copying the suit file by Kosi · · Score: 4, Funny

    In this mad world, I'd not wonder much if SCO sues USL for using the same claims in their suit ...

  8. Interesting... by The+Mighty+Git · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "Moreover, the nonfunctional elements of the code, such as comments, cannot be trade secrets because these elements are minimal and confer no competitive advantage on Defendants"
    I realise that SCO is using the presence of identical comments as an indicator of copying rather than suing over the comments themselves, but it may mean that the comments cannot count towards the amount of code aparrently 'stolen'. But then this only matters if it comes down to a quantitative arguement (ie, 3% similarity is ok, but 5% means you're a thief).
    1. Re:Interesting... by schon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      OK, so here's why I think there's so much concern (especially from SCO) over code comments..

      <mode type="conspiracy theory">

      One of the main points is who had the alleged infringing code first? Linux is publically auditable, but there is no such guarantee from SCO, as everything is closed-source.

      It's known that SCO employees (and management) read /. - and it's been posted several times that the way to check if SCO is lying is to take a snapshot of one of their releases, compile the code, and see if it matches the binary they distributed. (Of course, you'd have to make sure that they're using the exact same compiler and options, etc..)

      So, what's the best way around that? The comments! SCO can take two sections of code that perform similar functions, copy and paste the comments from Linux, and viola! instant "evidence" that can be presented to "prove" that the code in Linux is stolen, which can be compiled to produce the same binary that SCO released in the past.
      </mode>

      This would go a long way to explain why SCO is acting the way it is - NDA's to view publically available material, showing the alleged code primarily to non-coders, etc..

      It's something to think about.

  9. From the ruling - Interesting parrellels by beacher · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think we can expect to see more of this -

    Indeed, ignoring header files and comments (see below), the overlap in the critical "kernel" region is but 56 lines out of 230,9995, and the overlap elsewhere is 130 lines out of 1.3 million. However, as both sides argue (but to different effect), the nature of the overlap is more significant than its size.

    Comments have no role whatsoever in software performance. In summary, Professor Carson has examined the traits shared by Net2, BSD/386, and 32V, and detected a common lineage. Defendants argue that virtually all of these traits reflect publicly available code, copied comments, or overlap dictated by compatibility with industry standards. Professor Carson disagrees, and has allegedly identified at least some overlapping files that are irrelevant to program interfacing. (Carson Reply Aff. at 6(d), 8-15.)

    Plaintiff points to several different activities by the University of California that give this court specific jurisdiction over the Regents' alleged misdeeds. The first of these activities was the negotiation and execution of licensing agreements between Plaintiff and the University: "the University `reached out beyond' California and knowingly contracted to obtain and use . . . software developed in New Jersey"

    Second, Plaintiff argues that "unlawful act" jurisdiction is proper because Defendants have misappropriated trade secrets and infringed Plaintiff's copyright by licensing Net2 to UUNET. This act inevitably and foreseeably led to the downloading of Net2 by tens of thousands of users, whose use of Net2 foreseeably eroded the value of Plaintiff's trade secrets.

    Reading on.....

    -b

  10. SCO owns C++ by walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Originally got this from yahoo message board:

    http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/m ai n/0,14179,2877578,00.html

    We get several dozen requests a month just to come in and see AIX
    or HP-UX code base. And C++ programming languages, we own those,
    have licensed them out multiple times, obviously. We have a lot of
    royalties coming to us from C++. It was interesting to see the
    depth of Caldera's intellectual capital.

    http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-02 _S tory03.html#C++_Issues

    C++ Issues

    MozillaQuest Magazine: C++ appears to be one of the properties
    that SCO acquired through Novell's acquisition of AT&T's UNIX
    Systems Laboratories and subsequent purchase of Novell's UNIX
    interests by SCO. At this time most Linux and/or GNU/Linux
    distributions include C++ compilers and editors. Is this
    something for which SCO currently charges? If so, just what
    are the current arrangements? If not, will C++ licensing and
    enforcement be added to SCO's licensing and enforcement program?

    Blake Stowell: C++ is one of the properties that SCO owns today
    and we frequently are approached by customers who wish to license
    C++ from us and we do charge for that. Those arrangements are
    done on a case-by-case basis with each customer and are not
    disclosed publicly. C++ licensing is currently part of SCO's
    SCOsource licensing program.

    MozillaQuest Magazine: How about GNU C++? Does GNU C++ use
    SCO IP? If so, could SCO license and/or charge for use of its
    IP in GNU C++?

    Blake Stowell: I honestly don't know.

    MozillaQuest Magazine: Does the C++ that currently is included
    in most if not all Linux distributions contain SCO IP?

    (a) If so, is that being done with or without SCO
    permissions/licensing?

    (b) If so, what impact/affect does this have on the ability
    of people to freely distribute and use copies of those
    Linux distributions? (Under GNU licensing, anyone may
    make as many copies of a GNU/Linux distribution as they
    please, freely distribute them for no charge and/or for
    a charge, and use a GNU/Linux on as many computes as they
    please -- at no charge. Etc.)

    Blake Stowell: Again, I don't know. That's something we would
    have to research.

    ``Be afraid. Be very afraid.''

    regards,
    alexander.

    P.S. Does anyone here know whether Microsoft was smart enough to include
    C++ (in addition to a rather mysterious "applications interface layer")
    in their recent license agreement with SCO ?

    http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt10557846 22 054/0616_marshall.html
    (SCO Owns Your Computer: "All Your Base Are Belong To Us", ...)

    --
    http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/AYB2 .swf

    1. Re:SCO owns C++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bzzt, sorry. C++ is an ANSI standard, and ANSI have some pretty tough rules regarding standards submissions. SCO might "own" C++, but they don't own the C++ ANSI standard.

  11. SCO Investors like rats leaving sinking ship by isn't+my+name · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to the S-3 filing at SEC

    Major investors are going to sell 305,274 shares of Common Stock. Some of them are obvious VC firms dumping all of their shares. (Besides Canopy, the largest single holding listed to be sold are two different firms selling 36,266 shares, which amounts to all of their holdings.)

    The Canopy Group itself will be unloading 174,340 of 5,492,834 shares.

    There are 13,334,886 total shares of common stock outstanding.

  12. Re:Current SCO stocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    C. IBM buys Sun Micro with Java and it's "unlimited" UNIX licence. Problem solved.

  13. They might own Cfront by reynaert · · Score: 4, Informative

    He's probably talking about Cfront. Never expect a suit to know the difference between a standard and an implementation :)

    Cfront was the first C++ implementation. It worked by translating C++ code to C (in fact, it started out as a simple preprocessor), and as a result it has all kinds of problems with fancier C++ constructs, such as exceptions, STL, and inline functions. According to Mozilla's portability guidelines, the SCO and HP C++ compilers are still based on it.

  14. Re:MOD PARENT UP!!! by CharterTerminal · · Score: 4, Funny

    everything else is a rehash of old trolls, old comments, one guy searching caldera stories and cutting and pasting +5 comments, sprinkle with insight, set at 350 degrees, and bake until done. Serves 10,000.

    Welcome to Slashdot. Enjoy your stay.

    I once complained to a buddy of mine that Slashdot was nothing but interesting articles trailing thousands of gibberish comments behind them like comet tails. "It's... chaos!" I said, waving my hand at the monitor in frustration.

    He grinned and said, "The chaos is the best part!"

    Know what? He was right.

    I love you, Slashdot. Don't ever change, baby.