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."
It's trying to help itself from Enterprises that went Linux.
Big difference.
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
For better or worse, this battle is based as much on the court of public opinion as anything else. The repeated accusations, the repeated lies on SCO's part, will do their damage, even though all of it may well prove to be baseless.
As Deep Throat (of Watergate fame) said: "Follow the money."
Soli Deo Gloria
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.
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...)
SCO is screaming to be bought out by IBM, even though they say in a press release that this is highly unlikely. It seems obvious to me, in any case -- SCO's not had a very successful product in a very long time.
Here's hoping that the case goes to a court where there are people who know what they're talking about are presiding on the jury.
And somebody please fill me in, but is the SCO hotshot lawyer who lost the Gore case against Florida and worked against Microsoft such a hotshot? It seems to me that he's more of a loser.
My 2 cents.
Kind regards, Devon H. O'Dell
> 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.
Yeah, but the actual complaint doesn't have any FUD value, and certainly isn't going to raise share prices enough to finance a set of golden parachutes, so you can expect to keep hear them harping on all that other stuff.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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?
here's some actual donations from the SCO folks as well. http://www.caldera.com/developers/community/contri b/
is this the code??
How long do we have to wait for the total excommunication of SCO from the tech industry?
IBM, HP, Dell and friends could easily drop support for SCO Unix on their hardware, all OSS should refuse to compile on SCO unix (print an URL to a website explaining why). A lot could be done by adjusting autoconf or whatever.
Their representatives would not be allowed to enter premises of any company, their IP packages would be silently scrapped by routers on the internet.
Darl and Sontag would be kicked out of their yacht clubs.
Essentially, they would be told that everybody hates them. Money matters, but let's not underestimate industry recognition.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
... see NYT and c|net
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?
The whole SCO business just seems unbelievable. Maybe I've missed something somewhere but the basic story seems to be:
1. SCO helps out Linux development in a few small ways -- some hardware here, a few lines of code there
2. SCO turns around and says it owns the other 99% of Linux it had nothing to do with because of the 1% that it did
3. SCO is now trying to extort licensing fees from end users because it "owns" Linux
4. This is somewhat akin to Bob's Auto Parts Factory saying that, because the wholesaler from which my mechanic purchased a very small part he used in repairing my car part didn't pay them for the part, I now must pay Bob rent on my car -- and furthermore, they won't tell either my mechanic or me which part it was, because it's a "trade secret". Hell, they won't even tell my mechanic which wholesaler he supposedly bought the part from!
Am I wrong? Did I miss something somewhere? Please feel free to correct me if I have.
-----
(*I Am Not A Kernel Developer)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
Ingo, Linus: Any chance to see that in 2.5 soon?
Christoph
Now we just need to get rid of SCO and make Unix even simpler.
Oh, this is wonderful.
It became apparent in yesterday's new that SCO was going after the Sequent SMP code that IBM donated to Linux.
Why the Sequent code? I'm guessing that Boies finally realized that the IBM sideletter gave IBM all rights to its own derivative work, which would burst most of SCO's claims. But the Sequent code would not have been protected from ATT's derivative works clause since Sequent didn't appear to have a side agreement like IBM's.
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.
Forget about whether they donated the code through "inadvertently" GPL'ing it. This proves they donated the SMP code knowingly, and even helped modify it for use with Linux. That's a much stronger case than relying on any of GPL's so-called viral qualities.
There has been nothing of substance to this lawsuit from the beginning. If there actually is any matters of substance, SCO has carefully and maliciously opti mized its strategy to cause the greatest harm and distress to people that were seeking to perform a public service.
That Caldera/SCO should be responsible for the complaints of the suit should come as no surprise. Mr. McBride has a history of manipulating the legal system, and The Canopy groups previous history has certainly involved legal manipulation as a profit center.
At this point its not enough that SCO lose the lawsuit. SCO needs to be completely destroyed, and at the very least McBride need to be held personally accountable. Its the only way to discourage future land grabs by avaricious jackasses.
If SCO MCBRIDE et al, aren't put down soundly it may very well stall or destroy Open source development permanently.
Look at Rambus, SCO's strategy is no different. now can you imagine if a company with clear intelectual rights to a technology, an algorythm, or a "business method" arranges to have it placed in the kernel, or Glibc, or X. If they wait a few years removing the code might still be possible but the collateral damage from dependant programs breaking might be insurmountable.
If we enter a regime where all OSS submission have to be checked against unpublished undistributed works OSS will be dead.
You may not have noticed, but IBM is not in the habit of spiting out its dummy and engaging in public spats with people who are suing them. IBM is like the Monolith. Its big, silent and just sits there while you do all kinds of shit to it. Then when you least expect it, it swallows you up and transports you to another dimension (Where lawyers can bend time, space and reality)
If one of SCO's employee's (and by that I mean a company owned by SCO) is giving this technology away just how much do they value it? It's a good case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. "No one's buying our Unix software anymore, WAIT let's change our business model to SUE other companies for stealing our stuff...." (Meanwhile someone on the inside is GIVING it away willingly)
Caldera Employee Was Key Linux Kernel Contributor
Christoph Hellwig has been, according to this web page, "in the top-ten list of commits to both the Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 tree". The page also mentions another fascinating piece of news, that he worked for Caldera for at least part of the time he was making those kernel contributions:
"After a number of smaller network administration and programming contracts he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution."
In 2002, he offered a paper on "Linux-ABI: Support for Non-native Applications" which is described like this:
"The Linux-ABI project is a modification to the Linux 2.4 kernel that allows Linux to support binaries compiled for non-Linux operating systems such as SCO OpenServer or Sun Solaris."
Back in 2002, he was described, in connection with his appearance at the Ottawa 2002 Linux Symposium, like this:
"Christoph Hellwig
"Reverse engineering an advanced filesystem
"Christoph Hellwig is employed by Caldera, working on the Linux-ABI binary emulation modules. In his spare time he cares for other parts of the kernel, often involving filesystem-related activities."
So, in short, he was contributing to the kernel and working for Caldera on Linux/UNIX integration at the same time. His work for Caldera was on the Linux kernel ("he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution"), and he also did work on his own on the kernel. Did Caldera know about his freelance contributions, in addition to knowing about his work for them? What do you think? He used his hch at caldera.de email address when doing it. All contributions to the kernel are publicly available anyway. They certainly could have known. As for his job, his signature on his emails back in 2001 was:
"Christoph Hellwig
Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration
Caldera Deutschland GmbH".
He used the email address hch at bsdonline.org sometimes too, and here you can see some of his Linux-abi contributions. Here are some of his contributions to JFS, Journaled File System. Yes, that JFS. Here he is credited as sysvfs maintainer, and he confirms it in this email, writing, "I've run native sysvfs tools under linux, but as now that I'm Linux sysvfs maintainer I'm looking into implementing free versions of it."
Here is a list of the operating systems that use or can handle the file system sysvfs:
"sysvfs: UNIX System V; SCO, Xenix, Coherent e21
"operating systems that can handle sysvfs: FreeBSD (rw), LINUX (R), SCO (NRWF)"
Here's a page listing by author (alphabetically by first name), with his emails to linux-kernel in June 2003, so he is still contributing.
Here he is listed on the Change log for patch v2.4.17. Here he tells Andrew Morton in 2002 that he will
Complexity is a measure of our ignorance...
Money for nothing, pix for free
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?
You know and I know that it's there and available for the downloading, but have any of the "journalists" brought this (and its implications) to SCO's attention in an interview?
I'd *love* to hear SCO's answer to that one!
Microsoft has copied some of my code, and put it in Windows. Every Windows user must pay me a $700 licensing fee or I will sue them.
What? I'm sorry, I can't show you the code -- it's a trade secret. Just trust me and sign that check.
--Insert catchy
http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_rhletter2.html
From the article:"Below, we've provided answers to questions that may help clarify Red Hat's position. If you have additional questions that aren't answered below, please email us at legal@redhat.com."
Everybody complains about SCO, but nobody actually does anything.
Say what you may, it seem like SCO is leading this game. They claims may be complete bull$%* but nobody is really facing them.
First of all, there is IBM. Remember the way Intel responded when DEC sued them over patent infrigement? They responded quickly by sueing DEC. I would expect IBM to do the same. The fact IBM is so quiest about it is very irritating.
However, it's not just about IBM anymore. It is about the open-source/free(as in speech)-software world in general, and SCO is already making real damage. I think it's time the free-software world would stop being passive here and take the lead from the hands of SCO both by taking legal actions against them and by doing some real protest.
IBM's quiet. Too quiet.
Probably because there is no case. SCO have a big mouth but nothing else. Everything SCO says apears not to bother IBM. IBM just do business as usual. Now if just the media would have ignored SCO the way IBM does. But if this ever goes to court IBM will defend themselves.... What will be left of SCO when that happens?
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Seriously, I can't beleive this got modded +5 Insightful. This story does indeed have a bearing to "Your Rights Online", if you use or distribute Linux in any way shape or form.
And please, if you're not interested in the story, do not respond to it!
*rolls eyes at the idioacy*
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Read about The Trillian project and Ransom Love's LW 2000 Keynote speech.
Don't mix up press release and actual claims. SCO continues to distribute 2.2.x kernels, which means that the agree to the GPL as it applies to that code revision.
SCO's accussations are realy that code was contributed to the 2.4.x kernel which is infringing. That is why the UnixWare license that they are selling specifically applies to Linux 2.4 and later.
If you can stay at 2.2.x, you are home free.
You're not reffering to this article titled "SCO's Other Investor: Sun Microsystems" now are you?
SCO Trademarks Penguin Mascot, Offers Licensing Program to Linux Users
There's more, but I didn't want to post the whole thing.
When I read this article, the ad banner at the top of the page was for Windows Server 2003.
The tag line read "do more with less".
I am glad that Microsoft is finally admitting that Windows is "less".
There is no reason Linux users and developers should worry about having to pay one penny to SCO. Consider that after years of battling Sears in court, the patent holder for the adjustable wrench got a huge settlement from Sears for the theft of his patented invention, but the many owners of Sears Craftsman wrenches never had to pay him royalties. Even though many of the owners of wrenches may have been businesses that used the wrenches to make their own products. Sort of the way you are using Linux to develop a project.
Think about how Paramount had to pay the copyright holder, Art Buchwald, for the copyrighted material they took and put in the Eddy Murphy movie 'Coming to America', but movie goers didn't have to each send Mr. Buchwald a check. None of the theater companies that made money showing the film paid Mr. Buchwald, even though they 'trafficked' in tainted goods!
Now, before they even prove they own it. Before they even show anyone what they own. The SCO group want Linux users to pay up front. This is totally unprecedented.
Overturning years of precedent and setting a new example like SCO wants to do would have a chilling effect on the software industry in America. The software giants in the industry will not let this become standard operating procedure.
IBM is very good at the IP law end of the software business. I am sure they did 'due diligence', and made sure the code they put in Linux was their code and not stolen. I think it is highly unlikely that the SCO group will be able to prove otherwise, especially because SysV UNIX is so tainted with other open source code.
But even if SCO wins a settlement from IBM, just like Sears and Paramount, the users of the 'tainted' product will not have to pay a single penny.
It is easy for us geeks to poke holes in SCO's arguments about code origin. Don't any of these Wall street analysts have enough business sense, and experience in past cases to call SCO's bluff?
I now that all these costs eventually get passed down to the consumer level, so software users will pay for the extra legal work needed in the future to develop software. But this just adds to the cost of developing software within the USA. SCO is bad for the economy. Free market oriented software development like Linux and Apache are much better for helping to create a robust competitive economy.
Support freedom of choice.
Support free enterprise.
Support free software.
I also found that SCO donated Unixware and System V code to IBM's AIX 5L project. This was the successor to Project Monterey. See evidence on this page. The SCO page has disappeared from their site, but I was able to retrieve it elsewhere.
I see all these people talking about how 2.4 is what SCO is complaining about.
What about 2.5 or 2.6? Have these bits of code been re-engineered out, or are they also "infringing"?
The previous sig has been removed due to
It is odd to see a company who is to pursue correction of IP infringements, demanding end users to obtain license in order to become immune from potential litigation, that the company will bring up otherwise. If you have common sense, you may wonder that the distributors of the product in alleged IP violation (RH, SuSE, and SCO itself) are the ones to be tried before end users. Even RIAA tried Napster, the distribution means of legal and personal files, before it began to pursue endusers in violation.
Moreover, legitimacy of SCO's claim is yet to be proven by the court. McB claims that Linux is covered with a big cloud, but SCO is the one that keeps producing thick yellow smoke to keep the truth unrevealed. It is such an irony that SCO.com's current tag line reads: "relax: Worry Free Software." They are now officially and shamelessly using FUD for their marketing. How could one "relax" in using products of the company who extorts end users for their own profit?
Approaching endusers before correcting distributors' violation suggests that 1. SCO knows it doesn't have a strong case to stand, and 2. It is more profitable for SCO to keep the truth in the mist and play games with big corporations heavily relying on Linux. In news.com.com.com's interview, McB states that Linus can take alleged SCO source out of Linux kernel to be "clean" --which he claims is impossible without losing enterprise capability-- OR SCO should be compensated for the loss. Having given Linus skewed options (w/NDA) to examine the alleged code, McB and Boies' intention is clear: SCO does not want Linux to be fixed. SCO et al wants the state of infringing code to remain unclear and the future of Linux to be uncertain, and wants current Linux users to continue using Linux so that SCO can charge license fees.
SCO is no longer in Tech business. They sell worthless paper titled "EULA" now.
If a famous artist stole your work, would you send letters to endusers and ask them to buy your book so that you won't be prosecuted for copyright infringement? I don't think so. But SCO does.
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.
Here is how IBM could stop SCO from spreading all this FUD: offer anti-SCO legal liability insurance to linunx users, for some amount much less than SCO is attempting to extort. Say, 20 cents a copy. This would send a powerful signal to the market that SCO is unlikely to prevail.
This wouldn't cost IBM much, since they are footing the legal bill anyway. Any it would deprive SCO of the revenue stream which they would probably use to further the suit.
Currently the trial date is set for 2005. We don't want the FUD to continue that long.
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.
Timing is important here. If IBM did contribute SCO owned code, SCO would need to stop distributing versions containing infringing code as soon as practical after they identified the infringement. Anything that remains available on their sites after they've (internally) identified their claims is covered under GPL. Therefore the code in the 2.4.x kernel is all free from SCO claims.
Note that the versions available may be changing all the time, as their research uncovers other potential infringements.
Here is where it gets interesting. That kernel is probably a precompiled basic kernel. Are there any source modules for things like RCU and SMP that are not available from SCO's source trees but are available from other sites with the same patch level? That would tell us exactly what SCO believes is infringing.
- it is unfortunate that Linux is involved in SCO's machinations, but the company's behavior only serves to highlight the problems with the U.S. patent system (there are also problems with the copyright system as well)... - i also look at SCO's behavior as a prime example of what to expect in the software industry as open source forces a paradigm shift towards commoditization of the operating system... the next resort will be embedded solutions (which, as we've seen, may also be manipulated)... - wait until the software monopoly (Microsoft) starts experiencing the market effects of free software... unless the company has been given direction to 'reinvent' itself within the next six years, Microsoft will start lashing out - and it will have a much bigger stick... i'd be willing to bet that Microsoft is closely monitoring SCO's efforts (and of course, feeding monies as a client in licensing 'transactions')...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&k=c1&a=v&p=s &t=1y&l=off&z=m&q=l
Wow, looks like FUD sells! (Note that the first copyright suit was filed around the graph's turning point in March.)
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
It seems to me that SCO's actions must be making
it more difficult for IBM to sell Linux to their
enterprise customers. They are very quiet. When
will IBM stand up and silence SCO? It would seem
that they could do something similar to what
the group did in Germany. They have copyrights from
their contributions. They have the money and the
legal department. I wish someone would stand up
and shut them up. If not IBM, then FSF or
Linus. SCO shouldn't be allowed to profit from
the work of all the Linux developers.
Don't forget that, more than likely, IBM knows what they're doing with this suit. I would doubt they have their head in the sand as to what implications this could have on the Linux community.
IBM's lawyers are not to be messed with, from what I understand. If they take this suit seriously, they know exactly how and when they plan to crush SCO.
To clarify this, I'm "using" Linux in a sense that I'm developing it and distributing it for money. Only the SMP 2.4 version. I'm not an end-user in this circumstance. I am sure I can goof with the SMP stuff in 2.2 to handle more CPUs, but it will definitely not be as robust.
Kind regards, Devon H. O'Dell
This would amount to admitting that SCO has a case at all, and would probably hurt their defense. On the other hand, there's nothing to stop someone else from offering this insurance. Well, maybe some legal wrangling, but it would just be FUD vs FUD.
Whoa - Kramer vs. Kramer flashback. Maybe SCO will get some extra cash from selling the movie rights.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Microsoft is the big winner here. Not because some little IT shop is going to upgrade to Win2K instead of NT4.0.
The win for M$ will manifest itself in the form of some weenie company president reading the letter about how using Linux can get his company sued unless they pay up. He has his assistant tell the CIO that Linux is no longer allowed. Voila! More money for Bill.
The bigger win will come over the longer term as the M$ flacks can use this as yet another 'example' of how Open Source Is Bad For You(tm).
Of course this is IMHO...
I was just wondering if this SCO fiasco has anything to do with Linus deciding to work full time on the kernel. Maybe Linus is thinking that he could re-write the areas that SCO are concerned about and make this whole sordid affair go away?
Is a little company from Utah turning into the spoiler of the open-source software movement?
The SCO Group yesterday escalated its campaign to reap profits from corporate users of the Linux operating system, announcing that it wants companies to pay licensing fees. SCO is holding fast to its contention that Linux is "an unauthorized derivative of Unix," which it owns the code and copyright for. "SCO acknowledged it is seeking to bolster sagging sales by wringing revenue out of its rights to Unix, an older operating system from which Linux was derived," The Wall Street Journal reported.
It doesn't sound like the many credible journalists are taking this threat seriously. The same post article quotes quite a few other news sources (including /.) that have less than supportive opinions of SCO.
While I agree (mostly) with what you have said... I don't see how the license SCO is touting to have with IBM is that much different than the GPL in terms of "viral" nature.
Aren't they laying claim to everything IBM implemented for AIX simply because AIX is a licensed UNIX?
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Before SCO started filing lawsuits and trying to impose fees for the use of Linux, Caldera was described as a parasite that took from Linux and never gave anything back. No amount of correction from me or anyone else seemed to sway you. In fact, all that I accomplished in this effort was shutting some folks up for a week or so, after which they'd jump right back in the ring, thrashing Caldera as brutally as ever.
Now that SCO's doing what it's doing, all of a sudden you people are SCOURING for Caldera contributions and are uncovering all kinds of interesting stuff. Gee, could it be that the stuff I've been saying here for years is true, that Caldera wasn't the parasite that you folks made them out to be??
Here's what really kills me: you folks may not have the power to kill a company, but I can't help but think that if Caldera got a bit more support from you people -- or even just a bit less of a thrashing -- the odds of SCO not being in the picture would have increased significantly. Ponder that for a moment. I'll wait...
Before you, RMS, whoever (you know who you are), pick out the next legitimate Linux company to make into a pariah, perhaps you'll do a similar amount of research and uncover the truth about the company first.
That SCO never conciously chose to distribute their IP inside of Linux.
Not quite true: they did continue to distribute kernels with the alleged offending code well after they made their allegations. In fact, you can still download the kernels from their ftp site.
In other words: even when the right hand found out what the left hand had done, they continued with business as usual. For all practical purposes, SCO has willfully and knowingly distributed the offending code (if there is any) under the GPL. They can still sue IBM, but it's of no concern to Linux developers and users at all.
Reminder: find a new sig
Were the judge to rule that way, the upshot would be that nobody had any right to distirbute the modified kernel under any conditions. There would be no legal way to do so.
That includes SCO as well as anyone else. This doesn't affect the right to use the software, only the right to distribute it.
(And this would put a pause to the distribution of Linux code until it was rectified...or possibly a temporary pull-back to a 2.2 kernel. Unless some of the truly wilder assertions that SCO has been making are upheld ["All of your code is derivitive of code that we have the rights to, so it's all ours, and you can't say anything about it. Nyah, nyah, nyah."]. If you're going to consider worst case scenarios, you need to consider that one. Even the BSDs have been threatened. It's silly, but not that much sillier than the rest of the threats. They haven't said anything about the Hurd yet, or about AtheOS, or.... So even then there are bolt-holes. But if the courts are that corrupt, then nothing's safe.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
IBM (and whoever is losing any money because of the SCO FUD), please consider donating to chillingeffects.org and get them to write up a nice Q&A on the case and a template response letter to SCO's letters.
IBM sales people being asked about SCO/Linux/AIX can then politely point companies to this Q&A. Something that will be clear for corporate counsels (for those that do not specialize in Copyright issues) and other legal advisors, plus a well prepared response letter could be pretty useful for assisting companies not caving in to SCO's extortion.
The fewer companies that cave in, the less money SCO will have to fuel this BS.
RTFA
1) A judge could rule the viral implications of the GPL to be invalid. Certainly copyright gives them exclusive rights over things and they can license it under terms, it's a grey area that their license can compel you to change the license of your software.
Nothing compelled them to change the license on that software, they did it knowingly and willingly, and payed someone to do the integration work. Notice the title in his email signatures:
"Christoph Hellwig
Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration
Caldera Deutschland GmbH"
2) The judge could rule that, though individuals at SCO contributed, that overall SCO is not liable for the actions of those individuals. Essentially this defense would be the "left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing" principle. That SCO never conciously chose to distribute their IP inside of Linux.
Caldera made a pretty big deal over how they now owned the origional Unix source code and they were going to release a bunch of it as Free Software. I find it very difficult to believe that they would be issuing press releases with all the fanfare they could muster without the higher-ups noticing. If that's truely what happened, though, they should lose just based on pure gross negligence.
Not only did they have an employee whose specific job it was to port Unix code to Linux, but they even advertised JFS and SMP as selling points for their Linux distro.
If I were a judge presented with this evidence, I would be insulted that they would expect me to believe such a ludicrous claim.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
(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