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
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?
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.
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)
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
Microsoft has copied some of my code, and put it in Windows. Every Windows user must pay me a $700 licensing fee or I will sue them.
What? I'm sorry, I can't show you the code -- it's a trade secret. Just trust me and sign that check.
--Insert catchy
http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_rhletter2.html
From the article:"Below, we've provided answers to questions that may help clarify Red Hat's position. If you have additional questions that aren't answered below, please email us at legal@redhat.com."
IBM's quiet. Too quiet.
Probably because there is no case. SCO have a big mouth but nothing else. Everything SCO says apears not to bother IBM. IBM just do business as usual. Now if just the media would have ignored SCO the way IBM does. But if this ever goes to court IBM will defend themselves.... What will be left of SCO when that happens?
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Seriously, I can't beleive this got modded +5 Insightful. This story does indeed have a bearing to "Your Rights Online", if you use or distribute Linux in any way shape or form.
And please, if you're not interested in the story, do not respond to it!
*rolls eyes at the idioacy*
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Has anyone found an article on the SCO debacle where an interviewer has point-blank asked McBride (or whoever) why SCO has been (and continues) to offer their Linux distro with full source under the GPL on their own FTP site?
/pub/updates/$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.
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.
SCO Trademarks Penguin Mascot, Offers Licensing Program to Linux Users
There's more, but I didn't want to post the whole thing.
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
Acutally it runs more like this...
1. SCO helps out Linux development in a few small ways -- some hardware here, a few lines of code there
2. SCO enters into a contract with IBM to jointly develop proprietary UNIX code.
3. IBM contributes significant code to Linux 2.4 kernel.
4. SCO claims ownership on the IBM submissions, on the theory that they are derivative of the code they jointly developed.
4a. SCO makes wild PR claims that the own everything everywhere.
5. SCO attempts to collect license fees from users of the 2.4 kernel, consistent with their claim of owning the IBM submissions.
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.
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.
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
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.
(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