Slashdot Mirror
How SCO Helped Linux Go Enterprise
An anonymous reader submits: "SCO may now have filed for UNIX copyrights and made various allegations about code-copying, but the actual complaint against IBM still seems to be focused around allegations UNIX-based enterprise technologies (such as RCU, JFS and SMP) being improperly added to Linux. Yet, reviewing the Linux kernel archives reveals some interesting and surprising background on just who helped put these technologies into Linux. PJ's GROKLAW blog has uncovered that 'Caldera Employee Was Key Linux Kernel Contributor,' including what looks like
a lot of work on the early stages of JFS.
The same employee's name also crops up when we look at RCU. When
IBM posts RCU improvements, did he complain? No, he requests further improvements even helpfully providing a link to inspire the IBMer!"
"Lastly, definitely worth reading, Alan Cox on Linux SMP. He says that got he ideas from a book (which presumably can't be somebody's trade secret), invented his own implementation, and did this using hardware provided by Caldera (SCO themselves do acknowledge providing hardware to the Linux SMP team)." The article points out of Christof Hellwig (the Caldera-employed kernel contributor) that "He's likely a great guy, and he's undoubtedly been a trusted Linux contributor, so this is nothing against him. It's about SCO and their position in the lawsuit, and it's about IBM's affirmative defenses."
What thing I've learned from all this malarky surrounding SCO, and I'm by no means an expert, is that to find reason and logic behind it is pointless. Many people have tried to analyse and investigate SCO's claims, most have failed. Even watching the cnet interview, McBride comes over as a babbling idiot; no one is convinced.
In the end however, it all boils down to this: SCO cannot really do anything. Okay, they paint a nice picture, blag a good story, but nothing -nothing- stands up to the evidence. Sure they could sue over copyright, patents (or what ever they've decided upon that day); but, linux is an international collaboration, and although it may have hit a hitch in the USA, it hasn't anywhere else. Linux will continue to move from strength to strength, SCO will die.
Steve.
I don't understand how a small company can be this inconsistent.
Also, with regard to their recent announcement of a "binary run-time license":
How can _anyone_ distribute linux? If it contains code that requires a license from SCO, then it can't be licensed under the GPL (see clause 7 of the GPL).
Therefore no-one can distribute it, not even SCO, since they don't own all the copyright. Is this what SCO intend? Just to get rid of ~12 years of work?
On alt.os.development, we've been discussing this somewhat humorously. It will eventually not be a problem. Linux will be able to simply rewrite its SMP handling (and other things that have allegedly been taken from SCO). In fact, at the OS level, working with 32 processors is no different from working with 2 (which Linux could already do before the alleged copyright infringement). However, handling 32 processors very well is a completely different story.
And this is only in a worst case scenario.... Most likely linux won't have to be changed in any way....
In any case, this is a big inconvenience for many people using Linux in their companies. I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux. And why should I? Linux is supposed to be free. (All the more reason to use BSD, which I like more than Linux, but anyway...)
Linux is free (ok, it depends on your definition of free...) but remember that about a decade ago you would had to stop development on BSD related projects due to some lawsuit......
At the moment the only one who is being sued is IBM, everybody else is safe.
Even if IBM did something wrong it doesn't mean anything for linux, IBM would simply pay some billions to SCO and live for linux would go on...
And that is a very unlikely worst case.....
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
SCO is screaming to be bought out by IBM
.NET
This is something which doesn't seem to be mentioned as often as it should.
SCO are losing money big time. IBM have put significant $$$s into Linux and will be in trouble if SCO win.
MS bet the firm on
Sun bet the firm on Java
IBM bet the firm on Linux
SCO bet the firm on Lawyers.
--
This sig is inoffensive.
WinNT 4.0 end of support date is June 30 2003 according to microsoft.com. This SCO thing couldn't just be a load of FUD to make people migrate NT4.0 to Win2K instead of Linux could it?
I can't be the only one frustrated that there isn't an effective way I can fight back at SCO at the moment.
Could there be grounds for a class action suit here? There are lots of developers that make their living in some way from linux. SCOs actions could well be a genuine threat to their livelihoods.
SCO is basically using the legal system as a weapon. Perhaps we used be using it back on them? I propose a campaign whereby:
1) Everyone that SCO thinks should pay for Linux should instead be encoraged to donate a sum to a legal fund.
2) Developers who work with Linux should find a lawer who would be willing to represent them in a class action against SCO.
Just an idea.
Money for nothing, pix for free
Of course, if Caldera/SCO had a programmer actually working on the code, as this article suggests, then Caldera/SCO is an equal partner in donating and modifying the SMP code for Linux.
Any bets on how long it will take for SCO to come out and say that the programmer in question was workign without the authority or knowledge of his supervisors?
My journal has hot
http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_rhletter2.html
From the article:"Below, we've provided answers to questions that may help clarify Red Hat's position. If you have additional questions that aren't answered below, please email us at legal@redhat.com."
Has anyone found an article on the SCO debacle where an interviewer has point-blank asked McBride (or whoever) why SCO has been (and continues) to offer their Linux distro with full source under the GPL on their own FTP site?
/pub/updates/$whatever directories. In fact, it appears an update to OL 3.1.1, based on the 2.4.13 kernel, was posted on May 9. As well, the OpenLinux distributions are still on SCO's ftp server, just without kernels.
Not quite, but close.
On May 16, 2003, someone went through the available OpenLinux distributions based on the 2.4 kernel, and removed the binaries and source.
However, the person(s) who did this forgot to remove the binary and source kernel packages contained in the
Although McBride, et al have occasionally claimed that code outside of the kernel proper is infringing, SCO's claims outside of court are a moving target, and thus only worth noting for the purpose of countering the FUD. Watch what claims they actually make in court, and keep an eye on where they get smacked down. Look at what happened to SCO in Germany, and what is about to happen in Poland.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux.
You can't pay SCO money to keep using linux.
Look at it this way: Let's suppose that SCO loses. Then you don't owe SCO money.
Let's suppose that SCO wins:
SCO says that the 2.2 kernel is ok.
In that case, if they win, all that they have done is show that 2.4 = 2.2 + SCO + other stuff.
Combining terms,
2.4 = GPL + SCO
If SCO wins and puts the 2.4 kernel under GPL, you don't owe them any money. Everything goes on as normal.
If SCO wins and they say 2.4 can't be under the GPL, then 2.4 is illegal. That's because 2.4 would be a derivative work of BOTH 2.2 and SCO, and any license on 2.4 must work with the 2.2 license and the SCO license. Since the only license that will work with the 2.2 code is the GPL, 2.4 is illegal if they choose not to put it under that license and can't exist. I also don't think they can temporarily remove 2.4 from the GPL and add it back in, because the moment they remove it, all derivatives up to the first "tainted point" become illegal...so SCO can't later on "donate" the code back to Linux because they don't own all of it.
And they can't "gain control" of all of Linux by doing this either. It would be like MS putting some little utility in Windows illegally, then having the company that made the utility win a court case where they get control of all of Windows. Not gonna happen.
I never realized how cool those clauses saying that you can't extend or alter the GPL were until this came up.
So, to make it simpler, either everyone can use 2.4 for free, or nobody can use 2.4 at all.
OTOH, if you intend to stop using Linux anyway, and you still don't want them to sue you, then you might pay them off. But realize that if you feel you have to pay them off, then you're admitting that you can't use 2.4 Linux.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
So SCO may get attention from media, but not from the judge, and at the same time they keep on blabbering, giving interview after interview, releasing statement after statement that all give IBMs lawyers plenty of information about SCOs strategy, and also give SCO plenty of opportunity to let slip unfortunate statements that might hurt their case if introduced into evidence (which IBM without doubt will attempt)
IBM on the other hand have given SCO nothing.
SCO is doing all this because they have to - they know they don't have a case, and their only hope is dragging this out and making it so painful that someone decides the best way is to write them a fat check. But at the same time they are increasing the risk that they will give IBM too much ammunition.
Personally I don't think IBM will budge. Sure, it might be safer to just pay off SCO, but if they do they'll be targetted by every failing tech company out there.
IBM on the other hand have given SCO nothing.
IBM employ some extremely good IP lawyers. In a previous incarnation I knew one well, and he was a very sharp individual. Combined his day job with leading the Liberals/Lib Dems from one member on the city council to two-thirds majority in less than two decades.
Normally, when you sue someone for copyright infringment, they pay you fines (this is compensation for the units already sold), and then either pay you royalties from then on or stop selling thier product (which is really thier product, since they won :P). People who already bought your product aren't in any sort of danger - Queen can't sue you for owning a Vanilla Ice CD, and JK Rowling can't sue you for owning (or even reading) one of the Harry Potter knockoffs. Similarly, USERS of Linux don't have crap to fear from SCO. Now, if SCO wins, it'll mean that the affected Linux kernels will be illegal to sell or distribute (They're only offering binary only licensing for thier code, which would conflict with the GPL), but not to use. You don't need a license to use software, no matter what everyone claims.
I honestly think at this point, SCO is seeing the stock go up, and is just getting carried away in being ballsy. Normally only the really big fish, like governments and IBM can get away with just making blatantly unsupportable claims and daring anyone to take them on.
Time tables are very important here because if Caldera was not purchased by SCO when the donation happend then it coul be a real mess for the court to figure out. If Caldera did not have the same IP rights as SCO then they were contributing derrivitive works contolled under the original ATT licensing. If SCO was not aware of this when they bought Caldera or if SCO had purchased Caldera but were unaware that an employee of Caldera was violating SCO's IP then they are still free to seek remedy for the IP violations. This assumes Caldera tried to donate code to Linux which they did not own the IP or copyright to. This is all specutlation though (IANAL). The case does have some merrits in my opinion and I think will be a good test of the GPL if IBM decides to argue that point in court.
The truth suffers more from convictions than from lies.
If he's not doing it for Caldera/SCO, why is he posting from a caldera.de email address and identifying himself as a Caldera employee?
Why does his job title basically describe him as a Caldera employee working on Linux?
Even if Caldera were to say he were doing it freelance:
(1) why do they allow him to use company resource (like email) to do it?
(2) doesn't the fact he is using caldera.de etc., make him a representative of the company?
and (3) even if you think the answer to 2 is no, isn't it completely reasonable for others (like Linus, IBM, etc) to assume he is doing with authorization of his employer given his email address, job title, etc.
I talked with a former SCO employee (15 years - high rank) He told me they were well aware of the mixing of code. And that they (this is the previous regime) made the business decision to allow this. I assume they saw it as being in their interest at the time. This article indicates they even pushed it. Afterall, they expected to make money with Linux.
IANAL but I believe this will be decided as a poison tree - poison fruit case. SCO poisoned itself. And deserves to die a horrible death.
"Don't Follow Leaders." Bob Dylan
(taken from content here)
Legally Speaking
Eben Moglen, professor of law at Columbia University and general counsel to the Free Software Foundation (FSF), though says there is absolutely no reason for anyone to buy SCO's license. "Users don't need a license to use copyrighted programs anymore than they need to pay a copyright fee before reading Gone with the Wind. If you copy, distribute, or modify copyrighted material, then you can be in copyright violation."
But, he adds, if a distributor, such as Debian, were to agree to SCO's license, they would then be in violation of section 7 of the Gnu General Public License (GPL). This section specifies that if legal "conditions are imposed... that contradict the conditions of this License" you cannot distribute GPL protected free software.
"Even if SCO IP is in the Linux kernel, which has not been proved, an end-user could still not be held responsible for the copyright violation," Moglen argued.
Curiously, though, SCO is not, at this time, going after Linux distributors--nor did they suggest that they would be adding copyright infringement to their IBM lawsuit. Moglen thinks that "SCO is simply trying to scare people about using free software by making irresponsible comments." He notes that, until recently, SCO itself was distributing the code they now claim violated their own copyrights.
One reason why SCO may be hesitating about going after the Linux distributors, even though they would be the natural target for copyright violations since they've actively engaged in copying and distributing Linux source code may be because, SCO is still in the Linux distribution business.
And, speaking for himself (Moglen) and not the FSF, "I have renewed my offer to assist free software developers who may feel the need for legal assistance" because of SCO's recent actions.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org