Slashdot Mirror
IBM Points Out SCO's GPL Software Distribution
An anonymous reader writes "Cnet is reporting that IBM has launched a counterstrike against SCO Group's attack on Linux users, arguing that SCO's demands for Unix license payments are undermined by its earlier shipment of an open-source Linux product." JayJay.br points out a similar but more colorful article on The Register "in which SCO says that 'SCO-Caldera does not own the copyrights to JFS (Journaling File System), RCU (Read, Copy, and Update), NUMA (Non-uniform Memory Access) software, and other IBM-developed AIX code that IBM contributed to the Linux kernel.' Gee, now that I was almost buying their license ..."
So does this mean that as long as you use Caldera or SCO or whoever's distro of Linux, you have the Top-Secret Stolen Code under a Proper License and you're safe from the supposedly Harsh Penalties Of Law for using Top-Secret Stolen Code?
I swear, this is getting more and more like threatening to sue the readers of a newspaper because it contained an AP story that wasn't properly credited.
"IBM really took their time to get things done."
A wise decision on their part.
Rather than leap into the fray, FUD cannons firing full effect, they likely took the time to research things a bit.
The end result?
IBM doesn't end up looking the fool, as SCO has.
It's what Slashdot pundits have been saying all along: SCO's shipment of a Linux distribution undermines its demands for Unix license payments. Nothing new here for the well-informed Slashdot reader.
SCO counters with the expected: they didn't contribute the code knowingly, and thus the code was never officially released under the GPL.
20 mil and I will! Learn Esperanto with 20M others.
That's essentially where SCO started this whole thing from -- before certain executives started shooting their mouths.
The core issues is still a big hissy fit over the failed Monterey AIX-UnixWare unification project, and you're right that nobody here has the details.
SCO can not distribute their proprietary code linked with GPL code, because it would be illegal under the GPL. So if they claim they can, SCO, and by the SCOian logic, all SCOs customers are liable for a class action lawsuit from everybody that has ever contributed to those OSS projects. Sounds like cannon fodder for some counter-FUD, not to mention a countersuit to me.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
A few weeks back, I honestly expected the following to happen:...- new code gets quietly released for functions A, F, H and Z in the kernel, gets exhaustively tested by several key Linux people and very quickly appears in the next kernel release
i am amazed at the number of folk who simply assume the claims of sco are accurate, that there is unlawful code in the linux kernel. could it be that the above has not happened precisely because there is no offending code to replace?!
Life is short; think quickly.
Meanwhile, SCO says that the GPL is barely viral at all, not even worthy of a runny nose. That's because they linked their code to a bunch of GPL'd software, but they say that they can ignore the license because "hey, we didn't really mean it". In fact, the GPL must be so unviral that SCO can still distribute this code from their FTP site.
It will be interesting to see if any court buys both of these arguments at the same time.
If you have a business where you essentially own System V; where in fact, the only thing you have of value is System V, and you release Unix-like code under GPL, it seems to me you'd better understand what you're releasing!
What I mean is that the GPL in this case had the possibility of unique harm to SCO (a 1st year legal student could see that), and yet they (a) encouraged their own employees to work on a GPL project (b) released a version of the GPL OS themselves.
It seems a bit disingenuous to say "I am an operating system company, but I didn't know what I was releasing".
They're either stupid or lying. In either case, it appears to be that they lost their unique ability to distribute the moment they distributed Linux.
How can an Operating System company claim ignorance of the copyright within an operating system they sold? Its inexplicable. It goes beyond the boundary of veracity. Or, like I said earlier, they're a bunch of yahoo's that have no idea of what they're doing.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
IANAL ... whee ... so this is my own opinion, only.
SCO's defense with regard to GPL provisions applying to their distribution is the Linux community's defense. SCO is claiming that there is a distinction between merely distributing a copy of Linux versus actually incorporating their own code into it. In theory, I presume, this means they were unaware that code they claim is their intellectual property was already in the Linux kernel. So, by being unaware of it, they were not actually performing the act of contribution. If it can be shown that they were aware, that argument could vaporize. But left to stand, it could be valid (presuming it is also proven that code in Linux is in fact their property).
By basing their defense on being unaware of the existance of (supposedly their own) property in the Linux source, they are also handing the Linux community the same defense. If in fact there is SCO property in Linux, then everyone who was unaware of it can also claim like innocence on that same basis. Only those who knowingly or negligently placed any SCO property in Linux (if this did in fact happen) would be unable to use SCO's own defense.
To whatever extent SCO claims that anyone who was unaware of the existance of the property they claim is in Linux is liable, then SCO itself is liable for the GPL provisions despite their own lack of awareness. So watch the cards they play and follow suit.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
SCO will be forced to choose between:
1. Claiming that there's SCO copyrighted code in the Linux kernel that they say they don't consent to be licensed under the GPL, which means: a) they're committing fraudulent and deceptive behavior by misrepresenting that the code they're distributing is completely under the GPL when it isn't, and b) they're infringing on the rights of the copyright owners of the kernel code since they're knowingly mixing in non-GPL code, a direct violation of the GPL.
and
2. The only way they can avoid committing fraud and violating copyright law is to distribute ALL the code in the kernel under the GPL, which means they forfeit any ability to collect royalties.
SCO should be deathly afraid of being sued if they choose #1 because they don't even have the money to stay alive for all the years it will take to fight the IBM lawsuit, so I don't see that they have any choice except #2, unless they don't care about the destruction of their company.
Either way, SCO is almost certainly screwed.
It's their apparent inaction that makes me think they're really serious about kicking SCO's ass.
Think about it. SCO, who's full of shit, is whining loudly and spreading as much FUD as it can, trying to scare Linux users and IBM's customers. IBM is sitting back, smug, waiting for its day in court, and quietly reassuring its customers. They're walking softly, which makes me think they're the ones with the big stick.
Now if IBM lowered itself to SCO's level, trying to win in the court of public opinion, then I'd be worried.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Derive is definitely the word here, according to my dictionary it is "to draw or be drawn (from) in source or origin".
Linux in its self is probably safe here as the Santa Cruz Organisation never seeked to use litigation against Linux.
JFS, NUMA and RCU from a technical point of view are just add-on's to a system. JFS itself coming from OS/2 (OS/2 derived from Sytem V?). NUMA was obtained when IBM purchased Sequent and RCU is just a method of multual exclusion that speeds up locking for systems with lots of CPU's. None of these are derived from System V, they are just "features" bolted onto AIX/Linux/Kitchen sink OS.
Regardless of JFS, NUMA and RCU, AIX may be a derivative of System V but that does n't mean that any new technology they add is automatically owned by SCO unless there is some kind of contract that states that(Project Monterey?). When contributing to Linux IBM where very careful not to contribute anything directly from AIX hence JFS code was from OS/2 and not AIX.
To use derive in this sense would be like me saying two totally different cars can be a derivitive of another by sharing the same spoiler.
And when the IBM lawyers finally do get around to doing something, you can bet they know exactly where they stand legally, and exactly how to crush a little pipsqueek like SCO.
Grab some popcorn, this should be fun to watch!
-- Will program for bandwidth