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."

Comments

This

[stephenry]

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.

Re:Where it will all go

[perly-king-69]

SCO is screaming to be bought out by IBM

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 .NET
Sun bet the firm on Java
IBM bet the firm on Linux
SCO bet the firm on Lawyers.

Fighting back.

[pubjames]

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.

Copyright notice in the RCU patch

[richie2000]

* Read-Copy Update mechanism for mutual exclusion
*
* (GPL boilerplate)
*
* Copyright (c) International Business Machines Corp., 2001
* Copyright (C) Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> SuSE, 2001
*
* Author: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>,
* Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
*
* Based on the original work by Paul McKenney <paul.mckenney@us.ibm.com>
* and inputs from Andrea Arcangeli, Rusty Russell, Andi Kleen etc.
* Papers:
* http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/paper/rclockpdc sproof.pdf
* http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rclock_OLS.2001 .05.01c.sc.pdf (OLS2001)
*
* For detailed explanation of Read-Copy Update mechanism see -
* http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rcupdate.html
*
*/

Let me run that one by SCO again: Based on the original work by Paul McKenney (paul.mckenney@us.ibm.com)

Red Hat's take on SCO:

[dd]

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."

Re:Where it will all go

[Lonath]

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.

Re:SCO goes after Sequent Code

[jodo]

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.