Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds Says Linux IP Is Sound
An anonymous reader submits: "In an interview with CRN, Linus Torvalds says he's confident there won't be any IP problems discovered in Linux. In fact, Torvalds, says he was extra careful with issues like the IBM Read Copy Update code."
On a serious note, it is good to know he was thinking of these issues for some time.
Anyway, even though this interview is really short, Linus has good points. The kernel submission system is very open, unlike propriatary systems, and if there is a problem, it can be traced.
Linus seems to be getting more and more annoyed with each one of these interviews. Why don't all these various online news sites take a hint? ;) at least ask him about -something- other than SCO SCO SCO.
Give the poor man a break.
There are lives at stake here!
All I got to say is...
"..."
'Nuff said... back to some kernel hacking!
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
Linus has never tried to go commercial with Linux. He avoids this side of things. I think this is a strength. Commercial OSs are driven by the desire to sell and as a ressult suffer technically.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The fact that not only Linus himself uses Linux can already be considered a success...
To succeed in the mass market, it has to be put in the market first... Something that Linus did not do!
Don't confuse Linux (the kernel) with Linux Distributions such as RedHat, Mandrake, Slackware, etc. They distro companies are the ones usually marketing Linux and facing the customers... not Linus himself.
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
-- everyones not everybody and neither is everybody like everyone.
The one thing SCO has mentioned has been the Read Copy Update code that IBM gave us, and that wasn't accepted for the longest time into the kernel exactly because we knew the patents were owned by IBM. [But] we said we couldn't take it until you [IBM] said very explicitly that you also license the patents.
Does this mean there is patented code in the Linux kernel? How does that not conflict with the GPL?
The worst case senario (which I think is EXTREMELY unlikely) is that the courts find SCO right on all points, this means linux will become a "dark" OS, you'll have to find obscure sites and download the latest kernel before it gets locked down.
More likely is that SCO gets chucked out on it's arse for having such lame evidence (last I heard it was 80 lines that were copied word 4 word) and linux comes out fine.
But my biggest worry is that whatever the outcome whenever a big campany is looking to migrate, the issue of the "stolen" code will come out.
Some conversation like this will happen.
IT guy: We should switch to linux it's cheaper, faster and more stable.
Manager: But what about the stolen code?
(conversation on how it wasn't stolen etc.)
The biggest problem is our reputation will be tainted and that's whats bugging me.
Give a man a fire, he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
Profit motive is the worst and most inefficient way to develop any complex system. What's required is a true interest in what you do. Why do you think so many of those paper MCSEs were completely worthless? They did it because they wanted the money and didn't care about the technology. That's never going to get anyone anywhere. You do it because you love it, otherwise you find something else to do otherwise you'll always be second rate.
Un-news
Are you so naive that you actually think successful "mass market" companies "like" the consumer?
NEWS FLASH!
They don't give a F$#K either!
As long as you're still grabbing the latest and greatest, slightly modified w/ new icons version, they're happy.
They don't need to like you to succeed; they just need to have you by the balls. When was the last time someone who "liked" you asked for money, every year, to continue seeing them?
"...or force Linux users to pay damages as well, depending on the wording of the licensing agreements in the distros being used."
Linux users are not party to the contract between IBM and SCO, so nothing in that contract can compell Linux users to do anything.
The most the courts can do to Linux is force them to remove code IF (and I just can't see how it could, but if) SCO does in fact own the rights to code submitted to Linux by IBM. Linux will live on no matter what and SCO can't touch users or developers.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
It is built by developers...for developers.
I think that's rather unfair, but actually, this is *exactly* why I use Linux. Microsoft has always seemed to follow the philosophy of "Shut up, we know what's good for you", which is fine for most users but drives me up the fucking wall. I spent months learning to use Linux, but I can now finally set my computer up exactly the way I want it which I never could with Windows.
This is the main reason I like the open-source movement, not the philosophy or supposed superiority of the code.
Well, I think he said that, but it was already out of the bag at that point that RCU was code that IBM needed to make sure it had the rights to distribute.
.. whereas with more physical laws, ignorance of a law does NOT make one innocent...
So, he doesn't want to know in the future where things come from, as in this type of law, ignorance DOES make one innocent
But, at this point, he already knew.
Kind of like where I'm at, we sell a lot of radio transmitters. If someone tells me they are going to take some stuff that's licensed for use only in the U.S., and ship it out to Iran, they sure as hell aren't buying it from me. But, if they don't tell me they are going to send it there, it's none of my business to ask. (ie, I can't say to the guy with the Indian accent, "hey, i notice your accent.. you aren't going to be using these radios outside of the U.S. are you?")
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Such as when he wrote this:
From: Linus Torvalds
To: Daniel Phillips
Subject: Re: large page patch (fwd) (fwd)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Alan Cox , , , David Mosberger , "David S. Miller" , , , ,
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> It goes on in this vein. I suggest all vm hackers have a close look at
> this. Yes, it's stupid, but we can't just ignore it.
Actually, we can, and I will.
I do not look up any patents on _principle_, because (a) it's a horrible
waste of time and (b) I don't want to know.
The fact is, technical people are better off not looking at patents. If
you don't know what they cover and where they are, you won't be knowingly
infringing on them. If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm or you
just hire a hit-man to whack the stupid git.
Linus
The court can only place an injunction on IBM. A different court, in a case in which Linux users or other companies shipping Linux are defendants, could place an injunction on them. It would be possible that the suit against IBM could prevent IBM from shipping Linux machines, of course.
Of course, it is possible that a win against IBM could lead to suits against others. But SCO could at most get IP they own removed, and are much more likely to get themselves countersued by Linux companies who have now been asking for months what they would have to do to avoid violating SCO's IP rights.
Personally, I think if SCO wins their contract suit against IBM, they'll go after MicroSoft next. After all, they have a contract with MicroSoft and they've gotten a settlement out of MicroSoft before.
Linux will be Fine no matter what the outcome and no Linux customer or vendor will be touched. Think of it this way. Toshiba and Sony are fighting over some new type of TV. Those TV's are used by customers and sold by stores like BestBuy. If Sony is found guilty, Sony will have to pay damages to Toshiba. No home user is going to be force to return the TV or pay money to Toshiba. Even BestBuy won't be fined. At most BestBuy will no longer be able to sell that model. To put this example into Linux terms, no Linux user will be touched and for any Linux vendor, the most that would happen to them is that they have to ship/use a different version of Linux without the infringing code. FUD, is FUD whether it is from MS or SCO. The sad thing about FUD is that it often confuses people into thinking as you have.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
That is not ignorance of the law, that is ignorance of the fact.
Not knowing that something is illegal is not an excuse.
Not knowing you DID something in the first place is a totally different matter.
Linus is not ignorant of the law, he knows taking someone elses stuff and putting it in his kernel without permission is illegal. The point is that, if you have no reason to suspect you don't have the rights, that should be the end of it as far as you are concerned, until someone points out otherwise.
To do things the other way would be incredibly expensive, and endless... how do you prove code is totally within your rights? Full patent search and public annoncement on each function and update?
Wrong. You don't invent an algorithm - you discover it. Algorithm has been exisiting forever as a part of the math. So, if you patent it then you just participate in a very wrong patent system of USA. If you want to protect your investment to that research you've made then you should implement it and then protect the code. When you implement the code - you invent it. Sort of. If you close your invented sources than it's a trade secret. Make sure to obfuscate it as much as even you stop uderstanding it - otherwise it will be reverse engineered. If you ope your invented source then you can copyright them.
But whatever you do the only way to protect your research investments is to keep researching and developing. In software industry every algorithm has an idea. If you got an idea - you don't need any freeking algorithm since you can re-implement it in no time. Examples: gzip vs zip, png vs gif, pgp vs rsa etc and so on. So, the real artifact of your invention is a combination of the source code *AND* the environment you've created to compile it, debug, test, and package. Again, the only way to proect investments to such combination is to keep being faster than your competitors.
Less is more !
Certainly a rogue court can tell anyone to do anything. Other than that, this claim of yours doesn't hold water. If I buy stolen property in good faith, I cannot be held liable for the crime. The most I can be made to do is to return the stolen property. I hope no one is daft enough to suggest that the billions and billions of Linux users out there all colluded with IBM to do SCO out of their hard-earned intellectual "property."
In this case, the analogue of "returning the stolen property" is to rip out the offending source code (80 lines of it or whatever they claim today -- if in fact they claim there was a violation of copyright, which is not clear) from the kernel and reimplement it -- perhaps a day's work.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Setting your computer up exactly the way you want *is* the philosophy. Read the GNU Manifesto. RMS started GNU precisely for the same reason you prefer Linux over Windows.
I don't think that a more expansive definition of derivitive works "helps" the GPL. If anything, it contributes to the perception that GPL has a "viral nature" as claimed by Microsoft. If I am a company with commercial interests and I also want to make use of GPL software, I want to be very clear about what constitutes a derivative work so that my commercial interests are not affected. If something that I do using GPL software is not currently considered a derivative work, and then suddenly someone like SCO comes along, wins a suit, and expands the definition of a derivative work to include the type of work I am doing, then my commercial interests can be severely impacted. That is why SCO CANNOT win this case if we ever want to see widespread use of GPL software by the business community.
How many times does RMS have to tell you. IT'S GNU/linux.
Watch Revolution OS. Linus clearly states that the idea of taking Linux and calling it GNU/Linux is "ridiculous".
Personally, I'm neutral on the subject. Yes, Stallman did a lot of work and deserves credit for GNU. On the other hand, 'linux' is simply the popular term used to describe a GNU system running the Linux kernel. Stallman wants to call it GNU/Linux, and Linus thinks is silly to waste time arguing about it. I sort of agree with both of them -- GNU/Linux is a good name, but convincing the entire world to stop calling it 'linux' is a waste of time.
And BTW, the kernel is just 'Linux', no matter what. RMS only insists on GNU/Linux when you're talking about the whole system, not just the kernel.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"